https://youtube.com/watch?v=V45ABEM-7m0&feature=shareb

Physicists and author of Existential Physics, Sabine Hossenfelder

We exist
So it must be possible for stars to create carbon, and thus life exists.
The Cosmological Constant makes the universe expand, but not rip apart. It is perfectly tuned to allow stars to form, if the value was large and negative the universe would have collapsed back into a singularity soon after the Big Bang. But since it is very small and positive, the universe is expanding.
The same is true for all 26 fundamental constants.
Adjust the fine structure constant from something less or more than 1/137 and atoms don’t form. You and I don’t exist.
And neither does anything else in the universe.
Can this possibly be a coincidence?

Well, no. It is mathematically impossible for the Universe to randomly exist. Of course, we are only here to observe the goldilocks constants because the Universe exists. The infinite number of non-viable Universes in a multiverse don't count. Who is there to observe the non-existent?

Tommy Chong said the Universe exists just for us. I'd take his word over that of any Mormon prophet.

My hypothesis is that the best of all possible futures is the strongest attractor in time. Albert North Whitehead's future pole. It looks to us like a chaotic attractor, inexorably pulling the past toward it in a swirl of chaos that would look orderly from a higher dimension.

The present happens because it is supposed to. Even if it is a multidimensional present, arranged for multiple redundancy in case one present doesn't come to fruition so that everything is fine in the end.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2023 12:34AM by bradley.

>Well, no. It is mathematically impossible for the Universe to randomly exist.

Do tell.
This sounds exactly like the anti-Darwinian argument that a functioning eyeball could never arise through random mutations.

Individual mutations used to be random prior to sexual reproduction, As far as I know, algae never did develop eyeballs through random mutations, so there's that. Mutations happening may be random, but their propagation is not random. The mutation had to at least be neutral, and preferably confer a survival advantage for it to propagate.

Once sexual reproduction arose, the important genetic variations were no longer at the single letter level in the DNA chains. If single letters changed, the odds of getting a better set of DNA instructions for a new organism were quite small. With sexual reproduction, it was entire paragraphs and chapters that were being swapped in the genetic instructions. The odds were much better of getting a set of instructions that still would create a functional organism.

We were stuck with the single letter version of genetic change for 3 billion years plus. The world was by and large covered in green slime. Green slime is still doing pretty good. Successful, but not all that interesting. Once mother nature stumbled upon sexual reproduction, the diversity of organisms really took off with a bang (the Cambrian explosion). That's been the last half billion years or so, for everything more complex than green slime to develop, including eyeballs.

But I digress.

So what does it mean for the universe to randomly exist? I don't see it as random at all, in the same sense that genetic variation is not random. And I suspect the physical constants of the universe are interconnected - perhaps all of them, perhaps groups of constants. Perhaps you will call that faith on my part. I prefer to think of it as an intuitive guess. I could be wrong, and I doubt I (or any of us) will live long enough to find out, but I am pretty confident that there is in fact an answer.

Anyway, IMO, the universe doesn't randomly exist anymore that eyeballs randomly came into existence.

Second question: what does "mathematically impossible" mean? If you are talking about an infinitely small probability, very highly improbable is not the same as impossible.

Further, I don't know how we can actually prove the universe is very highly improbable. Perhaps it is not even possible for it to be anything other than what we find. I don't know that is the case, but I certainly don't see solid evidence that alternate universes with different physical constants exist.

We don't even have our own universe figured out all that well. First things first, and all that.

Hossenfelder agrees with you. She says the question is "completely meaningless . . . because we can't quantify this probability." And yet here we are.

I would go further and say that the structure of the question predisposes us towards the answer "yes." For that which was "made" logically had a "maker." The passive tense just conceals the conclusion that is being insinuated.

It's a fool's game to reach probabilistic conclusions from a data set of one. Find a point and draw a line, I guess.

I suppose you prefer "it is impossible for the Universe to exist unguided by nonlocal consciousness."

Mathematical impossibility is an oxymoron bacause math allows probability to drop to zero and an event to occur. Like you hitting two lottery jackpots on the same day. It is not mathematically impossible. It is not something I would believe if you told me it happened, however.

>Well, no. It is mathematically impossible for the Universe to randomly exist.

Do tell.

COMMENT: The statement is correct. Randomness requires an underlying context from which randomness emerges and is measurable. The random result of coin-flipping cannot exist without coins and flipping. To get a random universe you need either (1) a random collection of meta-laws potentially governing the creation of the universe, or a multiverse. Neither are apparent.
_______________________________________

This sounds exactly like the anti-Darwinian argument that a functioning eyeball could never arise through random mutations.

COMMENT: I am tempted to respond to all of this biology, but will restrain myself, except as to what follows.
_______________________________________

So what does it mean for the universe to randomly exist? I don't see it as random at all, in the same sense that genetic variation is not random.

COMMENT: Genetic variation among a population of organisms is not random, it arises from several mechanisms including sexual reproduction, genetic drift, and natural selection. However, genetic variation in an individual organism as deviant from its progenitors, *is* random under Darwinian principles, and based upon genetic mutations. A single universe cannot exist randomly, because there is nothing from which to generate such randomness. Just as you need coins and flipping to generate random results, you need something to generate randomness for the universe. So the analogy with genetics breaks down.
________________________________________

And I suspect the physical constants of the universe are interconnected - perhaps all of them, perhaps groups of constants. Perhaps you will call that faith on my part. I prefer to think of it as an intuitive guess. I could be wrong, and I doubt I (or any of us) will live long enough to find out, but I am pretty confident that there is in fact an answer.

COMMENT: You are right to note that the constants relevant to life are interconnected. But that is beside the point. Even assuming that the interrelationship of the constants is importantly relevant, there still are arrangements that are life-promoting, and some that are not. The 'fine-tuning' encompasses such relationships.
_____________________________________________

Anyway, IMO, the universe doesn't randomly exist anymore that eyeballs randomly came into existence.

COMMENT: Again, the analogy is misplaced. Let's assume that eyeballs are not random. (Nobody thinks they are by the way.) The universe is only random if within the context of a multiverse. So, if not a multiverse, how do you explain the fine-tuning? That is the question. There is no hypothetical evolutionary story here to help you, as there is with the eyeball.
______________________________________________

Second question: what does "mathematically impossible" mean? If you are talking about an infinitely small probability, very highly improbable is not the same as impossible.

COMMENT: I would say the randomness of the (singular) universe is mathematically incoherent. The reason is that there is nothing from which to gage such randomness. There is nothing for the mathematics to apply to. Absent a postulated multiverse, or postulated meta-laws, there is nothing from which to bring randomness about. Randomness from what?
_____________________________________

Further, I don't know how we can actually prove the universe is very highly improbable. Perhaps it is not even possible for it to be anything other than what we find. I don't know that is the case, but I certainly don't see solid evidence that alternate universes with different physical constants exist.

COMMENT: Right, I agree, no multiverse. But then, you are left to explain the parameters of the constants. Clearly, they emerge causally from some source. And since there is no randomness out of nothing, and no multiverse, what is the source of such laws? What are the meta-laws? Turtles all the way down, or a designer?
________________________________________

We don't even have our own universe figured out all that well. First things first, and all that.

COMMENT: Right.

The odds of the universe existing are 100% apparently.

Black hole singularities are where math goes to die, or where geodesic incompleteness exists. IOW, Spacetime ceases to exist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems

“Space-like singularities are a feature of non-rotating uncharged black holes as described by the Schwarzschild metric, while time-like singularities are those that occur in charged or rotating black hole exact solutions. Both of them have the property of geodesic incompleteness, in which either some light-path or some particle-path cannot be extended beyond a certain proper time or affine parameter (affine parameter being the null analog of proper time).”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2023 11:26AM by schrodingerscat.

This topic sounds like something that would be a spring board for a Dr.Seuss nonsense story and nothing else. He could probably come up with some very cute little furry blue carbons for his illustrations with that Seuss face he gave his creations.

Otherwise, I'm with the others: "completely meaningless . . . because we can't quantify this probability."

I will not with a fox.
I will not in a black hole.

The lottery was made for the winner.
For everyone else, it is a black hole.

Must save that. Too good.

"If one could conclude as to
the nature of the Creator from
a study of his creations, it
would appear that God has a
special fondness for stars and
beetles.
              --J.B.S. Haldane



"It is my supposition that the
Universe is not only stranger
than we imagine, it is stranger
than we CAN imagine."
              --J.B.S. Haldane



"When being dumb and/or being
'big-chested' is considered to
be worth celebrating, evolution
is going to be miffed and will
probably mete out punishment."
              --A.B.C. Defgh

Stars, beetles, and, blooming selfish idiots. Not a poetic but more on the money.

Can this possibly be a coincidence?

COMMENT: Of course. Suppose you toss a fair coin a hundred times and you get all heads. What can you *logically* or mathematically infer? From such an ordered improbability alone you cannot conclude that such result is other than a coincidence, because every other alternative outcome was equally improbable. (Every other assumption, for example fraud, or God, incorporates human expectations based upon underlying probability laws.) Same here. The parameters of the constants are what they are, and we are here to measure them, that's it. How it might have been otherwise is unknown because there is no known method to establish the underlying reality that would govern such probabilities.

But notice we can still ask, "Why are the parameters of these constants what they are, individually and jointly?" That is NOT a stupid, or unscientific, question, but only metaphysically complicated. Maybe there are underlying meta-laws of nature that dictated such result. But then, what is the source of such laws. If the laws themselves are random, from where does this randomness arise? There must be an underlying physical context in order for randomness to apply. (Note: you might say that the randomness arose from mathematics alone, but then you are committed to the fundamental reality of numbers, and their causal efficacy in bringing about the physical world. Theories that postulate "information" as the underlying source of the universe (Wheeler's "It from Bit.") are similarly situated; taking a non-physical, abstract concept and giving it magical powers to create something physical.)

From big bang cosmology, it is claimed that the universe arose "out of nothing." If that is literally true, then its laws and parameters could not be random, for reasons just stated. Otherwise, it would be like saying that your coin-flipping ratio appeared out of nowhere; no coins or flipping needed.

Given the above, the source of any physical laws in the universe, and the constants and parameters associated therewith, is a complete mystery. Filling in that mystery is where the "anthropic principle" (The scientific name given for this discussion) arguably holds sway. Given that the universe is orderly, and governed by law, there must be some non-random sufficient reason why it is what it is. The argument that the universe is 'fine-tuned' for life fills this void. The fact that the universe *is* 'fine-tuned' for life is indisputable. On this view, life provides the why, but not in a context of a non-randomness argument. For theists, God provides the ultimate source.

This is where cosmologists bring in the argument for a multiverse, with what is called the "weak anthropic principle." The fine-tuned parameters of nature for life are acknowledged, but now are indeed deemed random, because now we have multiple universes from which to draw such randomness. Hossenfelder cites Stuart Kauffman favorably when discussing complexity, but she should add this quote as specifically related to the anthropic principle:

"The weak anthropic principle, with its possibility of multiple universes, raises troubling questions about how well our scientists are adhering to the fundamentals of science. If we are to postulate multiple universes yet can have no access to them and cannot confirm their existence, have we actually explained anything at all? Perhaps someday we will manage to find evidence of multiple universes. Until then, the weak anthropic principle seems to stand on shaky evidentiary grounds." (Stuart Kauffman, Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, p. 30)

Now, watch the Hossenfelder video again with the above in mind. She misunderstands the nature of the strong anthropic argument.

(For a readable account of all this, see Paul Davies, *The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the universe just right for life?* (2006)

just like testimony meeting.

" universe arose "out of nothing"

Define "nothing".

> From big bang cosmology, it is claimed that the
> universe arose "out of nothing."

There it is again. Note the passive tense, which enables Henry to make a claim without any evidence or attribution and then to use it as a straw man.

The fact is that a very large number of astrophysicists and cosmologists believe that the big bang arose from "something," whether it was a point of infinite mass or a collapsing pre-existing universe or something else. That much a google search would readily have demonstrated. But Henry doesn't do google searches. We thus see a dubious conclusion presented as an axiom on which he builds an even more audacious conclusion.

"Just like testimony meeting" indeed.

I suggest we compare it to all the other universes. So.. Oh wait.. we only have access to one universe. This one. And since we don't have anything to compare our universe to, drawing such conclusions is nonsensical. In fact, even hypothesizing is just question begging.


HH =)

Yep. If you don't have two points, you have to adopt the consultant's strategy of finding a single point and drawing a line.

Not terribly useful.

It seems delusional to me to believe the Universe was made just for ‘us’, as if we humans are THE, be all, end all, of the universe and the pinnacle of creation, when the universe existed for 13.7 billion years without us, humans.
Yet, despite all of the chaotic, destructive forces in the universe, life has not only emerged and survived, it has thrived and evolved on this planet alone for 3.7 billion years, so about 3/4 of the age of the Earth (4.6 billion years).
What we do know is that here, in this Goldilocks Zone Earth occupies in the universe, where all the forces combine to maintain the perfect balance and temperature for water to exist in liquid form, the cosmos tends towards evolution, because life exists and has evolved continuously over billions of years w/o interruption.
Not only does life exist, the genetic instructions for life, DNA and RNA, exist in non-life, in viruses. They have existed as long as life has existed and perhaps even longer. Scientists theorize that they evolved from our Last Common Ancestor, a now extinct quasi - life form that preceded both viruses and bacteria. We know that quasi-life forms still exist in the form of virocells, bacteria infected with viruses, that occupy the red line between life and non-life. Once a bacteria cell is infected with a virus, it’s life is effectively over. It’s DNA is transformed by the virus to reprogram the DNA’s purpose, from reproducing bacteria, to reproducing hundreds of exact copies of the infecting virus, whereupon it explodes, sending hundreds of viruses in a hundred different directions, to go repeat the process over and over again. For every human cell in your body you have 10 bacteria. For every bacteria in your body, there are 10 viruses. Meaning there is 110x’s more foreign DNA in you than human DNA.
Only 4% of your DNA is unique to humans.
8% of your DNA came from those billions of years of gene transfer from viral and bacterial infections.
So perhaps we are just here for the benefit of the microbiomes fighting an invisible war inside of us.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2023 08:31PM by schrodingerscat.

Life finds a way. If that is a war for you I understand. You seem to want something dark to be in your beliefs to be something more. Like Dawkins you want to simplify by imputing intention to non thinking things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2023 08:24PM by Elder Berry.

I see it as maintaining a balance, with nature and fortunately we are winning the war with bacteria who far outnumber human cells in our bodies, because their greatest killers, bacteriaPhages, far outnumber bacteria.

“Another possibility is to enlist bacteriophages, a kind of virus, to hunt down and kill harmful bacteria for us. Bacteriophages-often shortened to just phages-are not well known to must of us, but they are the most abundant bioparticles on Earth. Virtually every surface on the planet, including us, is covered in them. They do one thing supremely well: each one targets a particular bacterium. That means clinicians would have to identify the offending pathogen and select the right phage to kill it, a more costly and time-consuming process, but it would make it much harder for bacteria to evolve resistance.
What is certain is that something must be done. "We tend to refer to the antibiotics crisis as a looming one" Kinch says, "but it is not that at all. It's a current crisis. As my son showed, these problems are with us now-and it is going to get much worse.
Or as a doctor put it to me, "We are looking at a possibility where we can't do hip replacements or other routine procedures because the risk of infection is too high."
The day when people die once again from the scratch of a rose thorn may not be far away.” Bill Bryerson, The Body, A Guide For Occupants

So the universe may not ‘want’ anything, but somehow, the god (nature) may play dice with the universe at a quantum level, but the dice are loaded in favor of life, fortunately for us.

But we’ve only existed for 5 seconds on the cosmological clock, if the age of the cosmos were compressed into 12hrs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2023 03:56PM by schrodingerscat.

As you point out, we are a glitch.

The universe made us, so of course we fit in.

Close, the universe was made for U.S.

The universe was made for plural wife reproduction duh!

is Russ a mutant?