Anthropic Principle

[LeeRoy3535]

What do you mean by "get one right?" Typical egocentrical Christian to think that we are the goal of nature or evolution. And I bet he thinks non believers are the arrogant ones.

[NevilleRhysBarnes]

The "fine tuning" created a universe every cubic inch of which will, with the miniscule exception of the skin of this one tiny planet, kill you stone dead in seconds.

Anywhere in space, anywhere on another planet, anywhere in a star--it is all lethal to humans.

A universe made for us? I don't think so.

Not by a competent God, anyway.

[Biblehastheanswer]

All cells come from pre-existing cells. That's science. Observational, tested, and true. A "simple cell" with a symbiotic relationship of DNA and protein being created out of chemical compounds has not been. It is speculated to have happened. Therefore Evolution is a religion not a science. Observable science, the real stuff, supports intelligent design and God as the creator.

[Airmanf7]

Wow. I can't tell whether or not this guy is serious or making fun. Is he on the side of a naturalistic view or creationism? Someone please enlighten me.

[thebarbaricwelshman]

The Anthropic Principle is a philosophical approach and NOT based on evidence since we don't have the ability to test it. $100 says this Niles guy doesn't know the origin of this idea. If he had done his research, scientists are NEVER sound on any "qualitative" science. Don't explain things that you do not understand.

[rkyeun]

Oh for the love of--

Comment Pending Approval? Really?

[SandBarAndYou]

@rkyeun Any video that says Comment Pending Approval is against a free thinking society.

[whitenightf3]

Good clip in fact this argument is put forward by Royal Astronomer Sir Martin Rees in his excellent book Just Six Numbers and also by British Physicist Paul Davies in his book The Goldilocks Enigma.

[gespilk]

50 years ago we did not know with certainty that 1)Big Bang Happened and created Time and Space as we know it. 2) When that happened.

Today we dare to speak of Multiple Universes without a shred of evidence. So here is my theory about us: The Matter in the Universe was created in a similar process as the Complex chemical elements in the SuperNova. SOMETHING happen and SIDE EFFECT of it was the Universe.

The big question of WHY there is SOMEthing rather than NOthing is still out there.

[itzahazylife]

@gespilk

"The big question of WHY there is SOMEthing rather than NOthing is still out there."

watch the video by the user "10thdim" called "rob interviews author gevin giorbran"

[Gnomefro]

@gespilk "The big question of WHY there is SOMEthing rather than NOthing is still out there."

It's probably a nonsense question. "Why" in the sense you use it here presupposes causality, which presupposes time, which is part of the universe you're looking for an explanation for. In reality, causality probably isn't a universal principle and in such a reality your question simply doesn't have an answer. Much like "Where's the end of the earth?" doesn't have one.

[gammafreak]

@gespilk Mankind comes up with the darndest things. Chance, or Aliens are what are collective wisdom has come to, anything to explain away creation and responsibility!

Turn away from profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called 1 Tim. 6:20

[TheWordsNotSpoken]

Even if this universe was fine tuned, who knows if it could ever be a different way?  What if these laws of physics are set fact? How would we know? We wouldn't, we have a sample size of 1 we cannot know.

[Achilles9924]

What is the probability that at exactly 0:59 seconds into your video your body was at that particular region of space with all the atoms in your body at that particular order?? It seems almost impossible that it would happen. But it did happen and you were there with all the atoms in your body exactly at those points. Things that are very unlikely to happen do happen. And happen a lot. Our mind can only think at a scale to which we learned to think based on our observation of this world.

[sabertooth1980]

Now now I laugh at you. Comment pending approval.

[LostGuyification]

The universe obviously didn't get things right because I just had to listen to your video, and well the whole hitler thing.

[ivanmikhailov]

I smell christian

[paolo27th]

This is ridiculous. Anything that could have happened would have been just as unlikely as what did happen. It`s so unlikely that humans should have existed just as it would be totally unlikely that life never formed anywhere in the universe.

[gamutman]

You kind of miss the point of the anthropic principle. Your characterization pre-supposes that the purpose of the universe was to arrive at us. Other than that, you did a reasonable job of describing how unlikely it would be for a universe with us to form were the universe trying to do so. But since the universe was not trying to make us, the fact that we exist is no more or less likely than any of the other infinite number of possible and potential outcomes.

[albanaeon]

Yeah, that horrible thing of only being able to use what is demonstrably provable and not adding magic fairies sure limits scientists understanding. Please.

[goneutt]

The only reliable tools are inside "The Box"

The second point... If you check with the quantum theorist you'll find that about a 30% shift in most of the constants lead to a universe a lot like this one. You could even drop the weak force and get the same mess.

Now, when you get as far as giving credit to a god for what is the apparent nature of the universe you are giving him credit for being more advanced that the bible restricts him to being. Which seems better than cuffing god to the bibl

[bitterlilraccoon]

And your counterpoint is..?

[heiyoulianglaohu]

"It happened" is not evidence, nor do scientists try to use it as 'evidence.' I'd be surprised to find to learn that you went to college...

[seeingglass86]

oh, and it seems that he censors his comments. Typical from faith heads. No respect for free speech in a public medium.

[curiosityversusfaith]

Niles,

1. You are mis-interpreting the anthropic principle as shown by keggerous.

2. Your loud and unmistakeable MMH ? at the end of video as an expression of scepticism suits better the creationist's or ID's belief system, which is characterized best by

a flea, who believes that the dog was designed just for him.

[michalchik]

Another way of explaining the anthropic principle is by asking the question how many people do you know that were born at the bottom of the ocean? None, That is weird if you think about the fact that 2/3rds of the globe is water. If you have 1000 friends, the probability that all your friends would be born on land is (1/3)^1000 or 7.57x10^-478 absolutely astronomical but that does not matter since the alternative is impossible. Creationist probability estimates include impossible situations.

[keggerous]

this guy is misrepresenting the anthropic principle....actually its just a fancy way of saying: we are here, therefore the universe must in at least some way be consistent with the existence of life. it doesnt say anything about the unlikelyness of life, or the fine tuning of anything. it acknowledges the idea that a universe with different physical laws would not necessarily produce life.

[TheScienceFoundation]

The anthropic principle basically says 'if things were different, then they would be different'

[manu191357]

If the universe is so finely-tuned for us, why can't we live in most of it?

[fatfist]

nice brainwashing

[b1gr1g]

I encourage anyone watching this video should so research on the Many Worlds Explanation (improbable that a planet WOULDN'T hold an Earthly planet)

[teaboyaudio]

Also, there is a misuse of probability here.

If we were to drop a pebble on the ground and calculate the chances of it landing in that exact spot down to the atom, then the probability would be just as high as it would that our universe ended up exactly like it has. Yet there the pebble lies. Using the argument of this video, we can conclude that everything is impossible.

[teaboyaudio]

The narrator is making a bold assumption that the universe could have existed in all those different ways. So he is required first to demonstrate and prove how the universe could exist in all of those vastly different constants.

Furthermore he needs to provide positive evidence for his claim instead of saying "I don't believe it could have happened this way" and then claiming that is a scientific argument.

[5avan10]

You keep saying that the anthropic principle states that this universe got it "right." By what do you measure what is right? By the reality you live in. Whales floating in the sky isn't right, because in this reality it doesn't happen. What if we evolved as cephalopods instead? Would that be "wrong?" According to what? You fail to grasp the principle entirely. The universe is what it is, because it is what it is- not because it is what is "right."

[madiovich]

the universe is right because we are here

[TheLegendarySkeptic]

@5avan10 I know this is an old comment, but it reminded me of Michael Frayn when he said

"It's this simple paradox: the Universe is very old and very large. Humankind by comparison, is only a tiny disturbance in one small corner of it - and a very recent one. Yet the Universe is very large and very old because we are here to say it is. And yet, of course, we all know perfectly well that it is what it is whether we are here or not."

[1spiders1]

@5avan10 it looks like you have no idea what it is.

[manu191357]

'If there were no fine-tuning we would not exist - since we exist the universe is fine-tuned and thus must be designed'. This is nothing but trivial and a non conclusive argument. A conclusion about the physical world can only be made on the basis of empirical evidence. Thus, 'fine-tuning' is an unfounded assumption! Since an assumption needs to be proven and unless the designer can be presented or some physical evidence for it, the design-argument ends in a circular statement.

[cagefite007]

How are the discoveries of a finely-tuned universe not empirical evdience? That's exactly what they are.

Also, if the tuning becomes so phenomenally improbable, it works like all science, concluding a theory to fit observed facts. The assumption is proven statistically. Until a better theoretical view is presented, the premise is logically accurate.

[manu191357]

The fact that many things in this world APPEAR to be fine-tuned is no evidence for someone who actually did the fine-tuning. This is an argument, not evidence. Besides - this 'someone' could be some kind of extra-terrestial super beeing and doesn't have to be a supernatural beeing (God).

Unless the designer can be presented or some physical evidence for it, the design-argument ends in a circular statement.

[Rundvelt]

From your video description:

Seriously, how can we logically explain the random and gradual development of these complex systems?

This sentence tells me more than you may have wanted. Anyone who is familiar with evolution understands it's not a random process, this is because while random mutations do occur, they only are "validated" by the environment, which is a non-random process. I'll give you an example in my next post, as I'm hitting the text limit.

[ConorRyan22]

Thanks Randall.

That helps.

[AnimeAndMusicLover]

Thats very different than the first explanation I got of the anthropic principle. Of course it was form an anime, but that one made more sense to me. i actually like the idea of the univers being the way it is because we view it that way. that the laws of physics are real because we say they are. At least, i think its something along those lines

[YouDontKnowMike]

Just because discoveries and theoretical analysis of cosmic events take thousands of years to unveil and process doesn't mean "not going outside the box" is the wrong answer. Science is just taking its time in solving the universe's unanswered questions.

Please respect your scientific minority. Without it you would be cold, starving and suffering from ailments no longer of concern.

[ramzoor]

The Antropic principle is valid because talks of ANSWERED questions.

Has been proved that

the universe early "Phase transitions" occur probabilistically rather than deterministically.

We got fate, that was not a forced process ...

So we got "fate" having the cosmological constant at 10^-120, a so small number, a so small modify would have destroyed our universe.

[p1ut0nium]

Um - it doesn't take a scientist to make fire. Nor to make a sandwich. And its not like they've cured the common cold, or cancer, or AIDs, or diabetes, or take your pick of any number of other terrible diseases! Don't get me wrong. I study physics and cosmology myself, but life would go on just fine without scientists my friend.

[8vian]

No, mainstream science doesn't acknowledge any "design" in nature. Everything is improbable, but with a large enough number of Universes, and a large enough number of galaxies and planets in this one, we're bound to arrive with the right conditions for life at some point in time.

The entire point of science is to look from within this "box" as you put it, of rational thought. That's not a disadvantage.

[ATLpirate]

"Everything is improbable, but with a large enough number of Universes"

Whoa, hold on there, 8vian. Multiple universes? Where is the evidence for this? There is none. The idea of universes other than our own is nothing but speculation by atheistic scientists who can't mesh their materialistic worldview with the immense complexity of our world. But there is no evidence for such alternate universes.

[ogirv101]

"but with a large enough number of Universes, and a large enough number of galaxies and planets in this one, we're bound to arrive with the right conditions for life at some point in time. "

I want:

1.Emprical Evidence ( Scientific method)

2. No fallacies ( gambler's fallacy, Bare assertion fallacy, naturalistic fallacy

3. Thinking outside of the box.

Living inside the box is not rational ask Eisntein.

" Imagination is stronger thank knowledge" -Albert Einstein.

[Eating003]

Oh, no mr. i'm sure its more likely somebody who isn't restrained by the laws of reality, an imaginary freind if you will, created the universe, THAT seems more likely.

[SnakeyEyesIsGOD]

Saying 'God did it' explains absolutely nothing in science, because then you have to ask by what mechanisms did god do it. Miracle is not enough, you need to know exactly how that miracle occured and what processes were used, only then, can 'god did it' come anywhere near science.

[ogirv101]

"Saying 'God did it' explains absolutely nothing in science"

brinign up fallacies, no emprical evidence, and stupidity and arrogance isn't Science either. We claim God did it as a belief, the same way you sayeven more stupid beliefs such as M theory.

nature did it is not the scientific way.

"Small amounts of philosophy lead to atheism, but larger amounts bring us back to God. "

-Francis Bacon

Yeah this guy was the one who started the modern scientific method we use today, ironic.

[timetravelexperiment]

M theory is an idea.... why would you call it a belief in the same way that someone has a belief in God?

I think there is a clear distinction between the two and to compare then like that belittles peoples faith. As does dishonesty of presenting people with questions that have no answer, due to the fact you apply conditions to the types of answers they are allowed to give. Attempting to trap someone by using deductive logic is a really shameful tactic and embarrassing. You're not 13 yrs old.

[jesuriah]

This guy is a total hack, no scientists that I've met has EVER said the universe is "fine tuned" for life. Less than 1% of the entire universe can support life. The Anthropic principle has never stood up seriously on its' own merits. The reason science never comments on the supernatural is because using supernatural answers doesn't gain us any new information.

[reflect7]

Hey Jesuriah --

I'd love to have a conversation, but you use respectful words/tones in some posts/emails and then call me a "hack," etc. in others -- Come on, bro -- I'm not the one wearing a goofy hat in my videos and claiming to know virtually all scientists... What's your point -- This video doesn't support the Anthropic Principle -- It questions it.

[jesuriah]

I wear a goofy hat to support a sense of satire(I obviously don't take myself that seriously). If you can find a video, or a text post of mine that states I know virtually all scientists, I'd love to see it.

Your video at no point questions the anthropic principle, it uses it(wrongly) to try to find (intelligent) design.

I think a bigger problem is that you don't understand what the anthropic principle is. The Anthropic principle states the universe was created for our life.

[reflect7]

Above, you indicate that you've never met a scientist that says the universe is fine tuned. Below, you say, "No scientists have said the universe if fine tuned." Read together, that implies none -- I've met a number of scientists that say the cosmos and its fundamental forces/physical constants are perfectly tuned to support life on our planet. Indeed, only a very tiny zone is habitable for life -- That's my point. It's as if the 99.9999% supports the 00.0001% (see below).

[lashknife01]

@reflect7 I think you have it the wrong way around. The universe is not fine tuned to us, we're fine tuned tune to survive in our tiny little corner of existence.

[mickalene]

a lot a maybes...

[dragoonthief]

Ummm dont forget about evolution and how we EVOLVED TO OUR PLANET FOR SURVIVAL!

[bigduggieface]

Not a bad summation of the anthropic principle. I'm glad the video didn't harp on the 'fine tuning' issue.

Sure, it's improbable that we find ourselves on a life-sustaining planet. One doesn't need to invoke supernatural intervention to explain this. Improbable things happen every day.

Think of the chances of your grandparents meeting.  And their grand parents, and so on. Eventually you came about. Unlikely, yet completely natural. Think how lucky you are to be reading this.

[benalissa284632]

okay you dont know what the anthropic principle is your making a strawman basically on a planet level there are billions and billions of planets a few on them have to be just right for life.

[benalissa284632]

the absurd notion is u think everything came into being all at once which is a lie we started not so complex but gradually to complexity

[braino2000]

The anthropic principle is a pathetic attempt by atheists. In fact, one of its leading proposers has rejected it already.

[Unclesamslair]

Non, theists use the anthropic principle to try and prove God exists. Atheists think the anthropic principle is crap. We either acknowledge that we don't have enough evidence to posit the probability of life permitting universes to any certainty and universes with entirely different mechanics are still speculative and it can't be shown that the basic laws of the universe can be changed or they point to the way life is able to adapt and that life is more probable than originally thought.

[agtpony]

You must be kidding me right.

No matter how improbable the random creation of the universe is, it only had to happen once. Let's not forget that space and time are both endless, so in an infinite universe there is an infinite amount of possibilities.

[braino2000]

"Let's not forget that space and time are both endless"

And you know this how?

[jesuriah]

Basic high school astronomy?

[JonathanMcLatchie]

agtpony - i would like to suggest that you replace the word "improbable" for "impossible". Have you ever heard of the law of "causation"? Everything which has a beginning MUST have a first cause.

Furthermore, it the probability is absolute 0 when it comes to creating organic life from inorganic matter. Every attempt to produce an explanation of such has been relentlessly refuted time and time again.

[2cabs2toucan]

Does that mean God needs a first cause also?

[witnessChrist]

no, because then whatever created God would be called God, because the first God was created.

God is the creator of everything including time and space.

[jesuriah]

No, because according to your logic EVERY cause has causation.

[kyleotto44]

God created creation. God created cause. God caused creation. There is no cause or creator of God.

Does the Creator of logic have to follow it? Is it possible for the Creator of creation to have been previously created? How?

Other than God, is anything truly infinite? I may be wrong, but I thought infinite has no beginning or end. So, the universe, though big, isn't infinite. It did have a beginning.

[Hxcoresmilies]

witnessChrist, prove that god was not created by god, why can't it be a paradox?.

[jesuriah]

Can you please show me one modern study that has tried to turn inorganic matter into organic matter? I've never even heard of one of these. That's probably because abiogenesis doesn't say that's what happened. You're confusing one theory with another theory that you don't even understand.

[reflect7]

Again, what's your point -- I never said science has conducted this experiment -- My point is that organic life sprung into existence at some distant, unseen time in the past -- Based on what we now know about the complex nature of this first life, this "springing-into" existence wasn't just the product of a lightning spark in an ancient sea -- Can't I ask, what was the source of this anceint first life, without being labeled a "hack"? By the way, what does the theory of abiogenesis say?

[jesuriah]

I call you a hack because the opening lines of your video is a weakly founded straw man argument.  No scientists have said the universe is "fine tuned". What would it be fine tuned for, seeing as only 1% is habitable? The anthropic principle is the only hypothesis in science that I can think of that has absolutely no application, that meaning, it's bad science. It has no use.

[reflect7]

I understand you on the Anthropic Principle argument -- It's not science -- It's philosophical conjecture -- It's a faith statement -- For many, it's the philosophical capstone on the pyramid of observational science. Since we can't get to the origins piece through the scientific process, we'll just say, "we're here, so it must have happened." For many (not you), the Anthropic Principle is still the final faith statement to fill the so-called origins gap (as you know, I fill that gap with God).

[pokermaster54]

Anthropic principle:

"Originally proposed as a rule of reasoning, the term has since been extended to cover supposed "superlaws" that in various ways require the universe to support intelligent life, usually assumed to be carbon-based, and occasionally to be specifically human beings."

If the universe was different and we were three headed toads with IQ of 100 you would be arguing that the universe is too finely tuned and if it were different we wouldn't exist.

[pokermaster54]

"Based on what we now know about the complex nature of this first life"

That is only in your head sir. Modern cells are extremely complex. Every biologist would agree with you that such a complex system could not have just magically appear into existence. That is called spontaneous generation and it was disproved hundreds of years ago. Try to keep up.

All you can say is that first precursor of life wasn't as complex as modern cells. From there things started to get complex. Retard.

[dovad16]

Additionally, that principle does not explain why there should have been or was a striving to finally achieve....anything in particular.