Improbability Redux: Impossibility of The Universe

[tnafguy1]

u should debate thunderfoot and make him look like the noob that he is lol

[mdppearce]

Probability of the universe being the way it is is 1 (100%).

The idea that those fundemental constances can be anything other than they are is pure speculation. They are what they are and we have no evidence that they could vary.

Playing with those numbers may be fun but is meaningless unless you can show where they are different and thus can have a rang of values with our universe having been 'tweaked' as you imply to be as it is.

[Rizzy55]

HERE'S THE REAL ABSURDITY...

That anyone who even have to calculate the odds. This is so obvious by just walking outside, looking at your beautiful children, and gazing at the wonder of the universe. Thats why the vast majority of humans that ever lived..geniuses and idiots.. believe the world has a Creator. The only reason these odds are being calculated is because for some psychological reason, not scientific reason, a small minority of people who think so highly of themselves went flaming mad

[quitchiboo]

@Rizzy55 i completely agree! and while i look around me it is obvious beyond doubt that this creator can only be one true *insert your particular deity* and no other;)

[rosepetalaysha]

Ty :)

[iDeist]

@rosepetalaysha yvw =)

[rosepetalaysha]

Can you tell me the name of the book you got the quote from? :-) thx

[iDeist]

@rosepetalaysha it's in the description.

[fivethirty]

nice video!! i could do without the cussing tho...the facts speak for themselves!!

[HerrLeicher]

ah, well that would make sense. i had a funny feeling i was way off.

but, even though i respect your opinion (as a person who knows stuff) more than mine (as a person who assumes stuff), it might help me if you could send me a link to some sciencey stuff that supports your statement.

please

[iDeist]

@HerrLeicher read the video description. there are links and resources there.

[HerrLeicher]

1 time is, as far as we know, infinite.

2 if time is infinite then every eventuality can and WILL  happen regardless of probability.

3 life is an eventuality

if there is a flaw in my logic please point it out, i don't want to seem like an idiot. otherwise i don't see what the argument here is.

[iDeist]

@HerrLeicher yeah, time isn't infinite.

[qifasuineg]

@iDeist wikipedia wrote he's an atheist

[iDeist]

@qifasuineg ? go on

[qifasuineg]

@iDeist no i've no particular argument to point out except I read from wikipedia he's an atheist while in the video you said he's not.

I enjoyed your video though if you excuse me, I hope you'd avoid using vulgar words which I think would despise your intellects.

Great videos ^^

[iDeist]

@qifasuineg how cute.

[HerrLeicher]

time is, as far as we can see, infinite.

therefore every eventuality can and WILL happen.

life is an eventually. if there is a flaw in my logic please inform me, otherwise i cannot see how probability of anything existing can be low.

[athywren]

(Btw, it doesn't matter who says what, who they've worked with or how many times they've been right (or have been seen to be right) in the past, what matters, in every case, is whether or not they're right about the idea in question. If Stephen Hawking told me that god exists and he had personally experienced the evidence of this, I would remain convinced of his scientific theories and I would remain unconvinced of his claim for god until I saw the evidence that had swayed him.)

[athywren]

It may be a zero probability to make the cosmic dice roll with trillions of trillions of dice and expect to score a universe fit for humans, but every other possible result has a zero probability too, so the only logical conclusion is that no universe at all is possible, which, god or not, is nonsense. It is only when the dichotomy of fit for humans or not fit for humans is introduced that the odds appear stacked against us rather than simply bleak.

[christo930]

It is absolutely impossible to map out the statistical likelihood of the universe, because we have only 1 universe that we know of. Either way it doesn't matter, because nobody can know or guess how many times the universe expanded and then contracted before this one time that we exist in. It could have been going on for trillions of billions of centuries..

[nathanielselby]

1. How does a low probability logically entail the existence of god? If you can't tell us that then the entire argument is logically invalid.

2. Impossibility in formal logic is defined as x is impossible if x entails a contradiction.

3. 10^50 does not equal 0 no matter how many theists say so. The probability of any random order of a deck of 52 card is 8*10^67. Are you telling me a randomly ordered deck of cards is impossible.

[hippo11222]

3. True, but its so improbable that no one would even consider the idea on those factors alone; theists and atheists.

[acidgawd999]

Why should we not treat the Penrose figure as describing the improbability of our universe? Because any calculation of any probability requires a knowledge of the relevant probability densities. So, the calculation of our particular universe existing would require expressions for the probability densities for various universe scenarios. (Hurben)

[acidgawd999]

Although one may not doubt that Penrose's figure of 1:10^10^123 is a good stab at the relative volumes in phase space (that is, the collection of all possible universes), this value, in and of itself does not give us the probability that, given a random selection of points in phase space, ours would be chosen. Nor has it ever been demonstrated that the origin of the universe would include some sort of random processes whereby the values of the fundamental constants were determined. (Hurben)

[jatherobot]

I would suggest that penrose is saying that the absurd probability is the result of our "lack of an adequate theory" i.e. our understanding. Since surely the probability put forward is entirely conditional on the idea that our current knowledge is such that the probability can actually be calculated. We have no knowledge of universe creation so in what way can the conditional prob. of the universe be realistically given a value?

[drdalet]

If we argue about the mathematical (im)possibility of the universe, then we have 2 options: either the universe does NOT exist, or we suck at maths.

To reason "a deity must have done it" does not bring us anywhere near an answer, only an extra question of what the mathematical possibility of ITS existence is.

So there are only the 2 options. Because we are here, it is fair to say that our maths and understanding of the universe are not adequat. Untill science find answers we just don't know.

[iDeist]

Science only studies the natural universe, so by that logic it will never find the answer. You also used the logical fallacy of argumentum ad futurum, which presupposes that science will eventually or ever find the answer.

[drdalet]

Well, I call everything that happens in nature, natural. If we regard something as NOT natural because we don't understand it to be natural AT THIS TIME, it means we have too little understanding and is not part of science YET.

Science is expanding, so things we may not regard as natural NOW, may be natural later when we understand it. So science as you see it might never find the answer - but eventually it will as long as people are willing to study.

[iDeist]

science of the gaps lol ;]

[PsycheSurfer]

I just caught that...ahahahahaahahahahah

[iDeist]

lol ;]

[TodaysThought]

So, what about consciousness? Natural?

[drdalet]

What is consciousness and how deep does it go? This is a question for which we have no answer. Of course you can make one up. First we have to establish what it is and where it comes from. Lik: what is the consciousness of an animal, a worm, a plant, etc. You can also go the other way, because people don't seem to have a sconsciousness for higher dimensions. Consciousness could be natural. Why not?

[iDeist]

id still like your anser on where information comes from. havent really gotten one from you, and no, it isnt natural.

[drdalet]

Why not?

If you say it is not natural we don't use the same definition. Just yesterday I found an old dictionary (1858) on the internet (DBNL, dutch literature site) where it even says: universe, everything that has been created; being of things; (fig.) God; sensual world, etc. Isn't that interesting.

For me Natural contains everything in Nature. Supernatural is subjective, from our own point of view. So if God exists, he is a natural being. If not, well ...

[drdalet]

I am at work (lunchtime), so don't really have anymore time. I am still working on my own view on this whole matter. But I want you to know that I am not against ID at all. I am an atheist if it is about God, but agnostic if it is about ID. I know there are questions that need to be answered, but any conclusion should be supported by evidence. The questions are there, but there is no evidence for or even against it. It remains an open question - that is why I am agnostic about ID.

[TodaysThought]

Perhaps consciousness is the ground of all being. Not matter. If this were true, would it be natural or supernatural.

[drdalet]

Matter is not the ground of all being, energy is. The question of the existence of the universe is by what way energy turned into matter and the reason for this to happen. The invention of the word God, does not explain anything about HOW and WHY it was done. I don't like the word God for a number of reasons, instead I expend the definition of Nature. (does Elohim mean "the powers of nature"?). so supernatural does not exist.

In my opinion supernatural does not exist.

[TodaysThought]

Well, nothing is actually what we call it. God is only a word (nature, energy etc,). If our thoughts (counsciouness) exist in the natural world as you call it, so would the idea of the supernatural. And it is what it is regardless of what we chose to call it. So the supernatural world does exist just like the natural world.

[drdalet]

God is not just a word if used by christians. So if they talk to me about (their !) God, I react accordingly. As most people use the word God like that, I choose to not use that word. Like the "God Theory" should talk about A god or A deity, or whatever, rather than God. WL Craig plays the same trick to make an intelligence creating the universe equal to the God of the Bible.

I don't know where you draw the line between natural and supernatural. Is quantum physics supernatural for you?

[TodaysThought]

"quantum physics supernatural for you?"

No, but I don' think anything is supernatural.

[drdalet]

Well neither do I, so why did you say in your previous post "So the supernatural world does exist just like the natural world"?

[TodaysThought]

Because I think the term supernatural is a distraction. You call resurrection supernatural, i call it physics yet to be understood.

[drdalet]

? I don't call resurrection supernatural - where did you get that idea? Don't put words in my mouth, please.

[Sinuev1]

Also, it seems in-congruent that so many scientists would support these findings of a mathematical impossibility, yet absolutely denounce and shake their heads at simpletons such as Casey Luskin or VFX's bastardization of his work.

They don't correct... they debunk. I rarely see the fine tuning argument even given consideration by those at the NSF or NCSE.

Personally, I think the universe is fine tuned, as I think a god created it... but not quite for human life. I think we're a byproduct.

[iDeist]

Christians totally bastardized to use your term, Intelligent Design. They hijacked it from what is was originally mean to be and gave it a black eye. I fucking cant stand most Christians to be honest, or Muslims. I dont KNOW if there is a God or Nothing, but I do know it's not one of those man made ones.

[Sinuev1]

I like how Pat Condell framed it. Wherein, "It's a bit like dressing the invisible man. Once there's clothes on him, you can see him. But of course you don't see him, you see the clothes."

I actually tend to even deny such attributes as omnipotence and omniscience to god as definitive innate properties. It would sure clear up a LOT of logical pitfalls.

I've always been a bit of a fan of the "Simulation" concept... since at least, we have practical (primitive) correlation.

[iDeist]

I tend to not attribute anything but intelligence and information to it. The creator could be a group of aliens for all I know. I dont even like the term Deist, or any labels at all for that matter, but like ive stated in my previous vids, its the one that closest resembles my point of view. No one knows anything as far as I'm concerned. None of the real answers anyway.

[Sinuev1]

Information definitely, and intelligence? I'm... not so sure about that. I personally do, but I wouldn't defend the point since it is possible that god, whatever god is, is merely the result of some emergent phenomena in... whatever may be beyond the Universe.

Mainly, also, because (though while I was atheist as a child) - I sometimes get the feeling that my mental construct of "god" is rooted in my families religion.

I will say "god" exists outside of our reality, otherwise.. it's not god.

[iDeist]

I can agree with that. Ive been reading a lot into Information Theory from Perry Marshall lately, and a lot of his points make a lot of sense.

[Sinuev1]

I haven't read it yet, but I might look into that. It'll be a while before I can get to it though, I've got some back reading to catch up on since I fell into a glancing passion with the rethinking of behavioral sciences and psychology lately due to the data finally mounting too much to ignore or sidestep. The scrapping of the Blank Slate, as Pinker puts it, which is bound to piss a lot of people off.

Mmm... Drama.

[Sinuev1]

You know... I've never really had any opposition from Atheists or Agnostics for my identification as Deism, but then, I tend to see the argument side of Atheism as more likely. So my belief in god is, I admit, irrational. But that belief is steadfast, so I suppose Deism is the best fit.

Anyhow, I never saw the argument for fine tuning as particularly compelling. Mainly because we don't know the events at or before the Big Bang, so the supposition still hangs on an unknown.

[iDeist]

Your belief in a creator is not "irrational" by any means, that is one of the staples of being a Deist. And no one knows anything. If they did, there wouldnt be any debate. You either believe in a Personal God that you know through different bronze age texts, you believe the Universe is God, You believe a Creator made the Universe, or you believe everything came from nothing. If anyone knew the answer there would be no debate, you use reason and logiv and come to your own conclusion.

[iDeist]

and you probably never have any opposition because youn never debate them on In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Try it, see how many are still your buddies.

[agnostaxian]

ideist, great vid. Do you know how Penrose came to that figure of 10 to the 10 to the 123?

[iDeist]

Thanks Agno! If you look in the info bar to the right of the video. The book he describes it in is there, and other info. Hope thats what you were looking for.

[klondjke]

moreover, as many pointed out, there are an awful lot of things that are mathematically to consider impossible... take the sun eclypse...what are the odds of the moon being the exact right size, at the exact right distance from earth, etc? possibly even lower than 10^10^123.

Unlikely doesn't mean impossible

[iDeist]

all of the things you have mentioned are included in the equation given by Penrose. As I've stated before, according to mathematicians, there is zero probability of it occurring by there definitions. These arent my definitions, they are the standard in statistical probabilities.

[klondjke]

I'm sorry, youtube must have lost one of my replyes.

Anyway, that is not a rule, but an aproximation. Aproximation are things that enourmosly simplify our life when dealing with math, but you have to be careful: they are valid only under certain circumstances. For a car moving at 5mph, air friciton is so low that is to be considered zero. But if the context changes, i.e. 200mph, that aproximation is not valid anymore.

[klondjke]

the exact same way, mathematics tell us that 10^-50 can be reasonably considered equal to zero.. in most of application. But just saying "maths says 10^-50 is equal to zero" is just an aberration

[PsycheSurfer]

I think its actually ok and healthy to be skeptic about things until you have enough evidence unto yourself to have a "faith" in something. I choose to have faith in math. The numbers have the same effect in all their variations and equal out the same through every test. Math is secure. The mathematical layout of things, even dead planets axis' speak volumes to there being unwritten rules and laws that things obey down to the science. Even in explosions math is present. I love Math.

[cyxgun]

I think my problem with the fine tuning argument is that the whole thing rests on how unlikely it is to be the way it is. This notion is however meaningless unless we can somehow show that it COULD have been another way. We don't know why the constants are what they are, but we also don't know if they must be precisely what they are. If some natural mechanism causes all the constants to be as they are, then the 'probability' of them being so is 1:1.

[ReverendAtomSmasher]

Multiverses are not routinely touted as fact. Its widely beheld as a theory. It's still on the fringes of physics.

I do respect Penrose's work. Neat stuff.

Either it happened coicncidentally OR something created it. Fair enough. We still are no closer to knowing what that something could be. And until that time comes, its Atheism for me. But it's a neat possibilty for sure! ;-)

Compelling stuff. Great video. Be cool!

[iDeist]

Thank you very much for the nice words, and i agree with what you said.

It's nice to see an open mind!

[ReverendAtomSmasher]

iDeist, I had a thought this evening. What are the chances that the trillions upon trillions of atoms arranging themselves in the stone in my driveway? Astronomical right? Incalcuable even. But it happened.

Maybe how we percieve probability or odds is all wrong.

[iDeist]

I understand your thought, and I see what youre getting at. The thing about the rock is, they are bi-products of the whole point. What are the odds the BIG rock we are on, is positioned in such a way, in such a vast Universe, to permit self replicating molecules, capable of thought, that are self-aware, with a conscience, etc. etc. etc.

[ReverendAtomSmasher]

Yeah, I'm not arguing against you. But there are so many things with incalcuable odds that occur in our universe, that maybe a trillion to one isn't such a big deal......anyway.

Back to my cave from whence I came. ;-)

[TodaysThought]

ReverendAtomSmasher- what do you mean by coincidentally?

This is a word we use to explain something (relationshipr) we don't understand. Within the physical world, its unlikely that anything is a true coincidence (true in the way we define that word). As far as the beginning (how don't it start), what is the coincidence. Are you relating two events? Knowing is a relative term.

[TodaysThought]

IMO, You can not know GOD exist or that GOD created you (maybe we can, maybe ID has something)), you can only have faith in your existence. Here is where I like your word; either everything is a coincidence or it is not. If it is, than life has no inherent meaning or purpose, if it is not, that it does. How we live our lives may effect the evolution of our meaning or purpose. how we view life through consciousness may create the life we live and the death we experience.

[TodaysThought]

Wow, another great video. I wish I completely understood all that. How does or would the multiverse idea change what your saying.

I put you on my channel, you deserve more views.

[iDeist]

Thanks so much!

[iDeist]

Thanks Matthew!

[drdalet]

Unfortunately I have not been able to find any scientific report about the estimates from Roger Primrose you are giving here. Where did you get the numbers?

[iDeist]

Hi Dr. I added tbe book referenced in the information section on the side bar. I also gave a link to the exact pages and passage for context. You tube wont let me link it here in the comments. Thanks

[drdalet]

Thanks for your answer - For some reason the bottom link slipped my attention. It is not really a scientific paper, but even if it was, I don't think it is relevant, but interesting nevertheless.

[captainimij]

heavy stuff

[ModernDeism]

I would love to know the probability number for events in the bible. great vid

[iDeist]

lol, No idea for those numbers, and thank you!