Podcasts about Anthropic principle

Michael Sanders is the Co-founder & Chief Storyteller at Horizon, creators of Sequence, the leading development platform for integrating web3 into games. Sequence is on a mission to make web3 easy, fun, and accessible for everyone. Michael is also the author of the best-selling book Ayahuasca: An Executive's Enlightenment. ___Get your copy of Personal Socrates: Better Questions, Better Life Connect with Marc >>> Website | LinkedIn | Instagram | Twitter Drop a review and let me know what resonates with you about the show!Thanks as always for listening and have the best day yet!*A special thanks to MONOS, our official travel partner for Behind the Human! Use MONOSBTH10 at check-out for savings on your next purchase. ✈️*Special props

 Philosophical Conversations on the Meaning of Life with JoelBouchard | Dead America Podcast     Join Ed Watters in an enlightening discussion with JoelBouchard, a doctoral student in psychology and host of the podcast 'FromNowhere to Nothing'. They dive deep into philosophical and psychologicalquestions surrounding the meaning of life, the relationship between humans andtheir environment, and how modern technology impacts our cognitive abilities.Joel explores various theories, including Stephen Hawking's viewpoint on theuniverse and the concept of intelligent design, while also discussing theimplications of new technologies on our mental health and societal structures.Tune in to this thought-provoking conversation that challenges current understandingsand encourages a deeper exploration of life's big questions.     00:00 Introduction: The Power of Education  00:54 Meet Joel Bouchard: A Multifaceted Scholar  01:48 Exploring Psychology and Philosophy  02:03 The Big Questions: Why Are We Here?  04:50 The Anthropic Principle and Multiverse Theory  25:02 The Hedonic Treadmill and Technology's Impact  27:18 Cultural Differences and In-Group Identification  34:03 The Beginning of Everything: Big Bang vs. IntelligentDesign  47:00 The Cyclical Nature of the Universe  52:13 The Importance of Open-Minded Conversations  56:57 Conclusion: Embracing the Journey of Understanding     https://jbouchard.podbean.com/     https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/from-nowhere-to-nothing/id1444343951?uo=4     https://podmatch.com/guestdetail/jbouchard  

"Easy Physics" is a podcast that delves into the bizarre and fascinating world of this amazing science. Join us as we use humor and plain language to explore many foundamental principles, and learn about each one of them in a few minutes. From particles that exist in multiple places at once to the immensity of the cosmos, we'll take a lighthearted look at the most mind-bending concepts in physics.If you like this podcast, please consider buying me a coffee at https://ko-fi.com/jccrvn! Your donations allow me to continue this amazing project!Note: This podcast is generated and spoken by AI. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Episode: 1952 The only-possible constants of nature: The only-possible us.  Today, guest scientist Andrew Boyd looks at the grandest machine of all.

In this re-posted podcast, J. Warner begins to examine the case for God's existence from the Laws of Logic (the Transcendental Argument). Jim also responds to email concerning objections to the Anthropic Principle and talks about the sometimes 'hidden' nature of God as he interacts with his children today.

Neden bokböcekleri hakkında, insanlığın yokoluşu hakkında olduğundan çok daha fazla makale var?Selam Fularsızlar, bugün Varoluşsal riskleri anlamakta zorlanıyoruz. Psikolojimiz, edebiyatımız, kısa vadeli ekonomik ve politik çıkarlarımız, bizi bu konularda gerçekçi olmaktan alıkoyuyor. Peki profesyoneller ne düşünüyorlar, Elf gözleriyle ufukta hangi tehditleri görüyorlar?.Konular:(00:04) Varoluşsal risklere bakışımız.(03:10) Riskin 3 boyutu: ölçek, zarar, olasılık.(06:06) Anthropic Principle.(09:10) Keşke yok olsak diyenler.(12:13) Doğal tehditler.(13:08) Asteroidler.(17:13) Gama ışını patlamaları.(18:35) Süpervolkanlar.(19:20) İklim değişikliği, dysgenics, uzaylılar.(21:45) 6'da 1 ihtimalle yok oluş mu?(23:00) Özet ve Patreon Teşekkürleri..Kaynaklar:Kitap: The Forge of God (1987)Makale (pdf): Existential Risks (Bostrom, 2002)Podcast: Dr Umut Yıldız ile Felaketin AstrofiziğiKitap: The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity (2020).------- Podbee Sunar -------Bu podcast, Enerjisa hakkında reklam içerir.Bu podcast, Meditopia hakkında reklam içerir.Meditopia hakkında detaylı bilgi almak için bu linke. tıklayarak Meditopia'yı telefonuna indir, yeni yıla özel %60 indirimle huzurlu bir hayata adım at.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

More information about Brain Lenses at brainlenses.com.BL supporters receive an additional episode of the show each week. Info about becoming a supporter at the above address, or at Understandary.com.Read the written version of this episode: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brainlenses.substack.com/subscribe

Geraint F. Lewis is Professor of Astrophysics at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy in the University of Sydney's School of Physics. While the focus of his research is on dark matter and energy, Geraint has written about and worked on many topics in cosmology and astrophysics more generally. In this episode, Robinson and Geraint discuss the question of fine-tuning: Our universe seems extremely well-suited for life, and with just the slightest variations in physics life as we know it would not exist. In what ways does the universe appear finely tuned, and how should we account for this? Geraint's Website: https://www.geraintflewis.com A Fortunate Universe: https://a.co/d/aLKIcG5 OUTLINE 00:00 In This Episode… 00:34 Introduction 2:59 The Bigger Questions 05:40 Was the Earth Designed for Humans? 10:33 Fine-Tuning and the Standard Model of Particle Physics 18:40 What Is the Anthropic Principle? 28:46 Is the Weak Nuclear Force Necessary For Life? 36:36 Are The Strong and Electromagnetic Forces Necessary for Life? 52:52 The Higgs Boson and Fine-Tuning 59:23 Is Gravity Necessary for Life? 01:03:10 Fine-Tuning and the Multiverse 01:14:03 Entropy and Fine-Tuning 01:37:54 Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Fine-Tuning Robinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.com Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

Shawn and James are back to put to rest the debate for or against a Creator. Did you know that Cristians believe in the Big Bang Theory? What can you answer someone who tells you there is no way to prove God's existence through science? How can we talk about the Anthropic Principle in the Walmart aisle? These and more questions are pondered in our episode that is rapidly becoming a series. What are your thoughts? Send us your feedback. Email: lookingoverlife@gmail.com  Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lookingoverlife.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Patreon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/lookingoverlife⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Invisible Things Blog⁠⁠⁠⁠ Wikipedia - The Anthropic Principle Why Creation Makes Sense - Invisible Things Blog Scientists look for space dust on cathedrals How far is the earth from the sun?

ScottFrazer.comScottRFrazer@gmail.com

No matter our claims to the contrary, we are all biased in our perceptions and beliefs. But bias is not random and its directions relate to our evolutionary history and culture, especially to how these interface with human sociality. With us to decipher bias is Jim Zimring. Jim is the author of What Science is and How it Really Works, published by Cambridge University Press in 2019, and Partial Truths: How Fractions Distort Our Thinking, published by Columbia University Press in 2022. Today we discuss flawed thinking about fractions, the No True Scotsman Fallacy, what we see when we read, heuristics, stories vs. statistics, confirmation bias, the prosecutor's fallacy, cherry picking, tautology, hindsight bias, the Bible code, the fine-tuning argument, armor on WWII bombers and the Anthropic Principle, and the reproducibility crisis.

Do you believe in the Anthropic Principle? In this episode, we look at MIT’s Anthropology degree program, hating everything and social media for anthropologists. Also, EV car shows and food stuff (including the proper pronunciation of “potato”). Anthropology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collegefactual.com) Arcimoto OHV (US Forest Service) Meat Cute Charcuterie (DC Fandom) Food … Continue reading "Episode 10100001: Anthropic"

The 200th episode of Mindscape! Thanks to everyone for sticking around for this long. To celebrate, a solo episode discussing a set of issues naturally arising at the intersection of philosophy and physics: how to think about probabilities and expectations in a multiverse. Here I am more about explaining the issues than offering correct answers, although I try to do a bit of that as well.Support Mindscape on Patreon.References:Guth, “Inflation and Eternal Inflation“Weinberg, “Living In the Multiverse“Susskind, “The Anthropic Landscape of String Theory“Carroll, Johnson, and Randall, “Dynamical Compactification from De Sitter Space“Sebens and Carroll, “Self-Locating Uncertainty and the Origin of Probability in Everettian Quantum Mechanics“Wald, “Asymptotic behavior of homogeneous cosmological models in the presence of a positive cosmological constant“Gibbons and Hawking, “Cosmological Event Horizons, Thermodynamics, and Particle Creation“Carroll and Chatwin-Davies, “Cosmic Equilibration: A Holographic No-Hair Theorem from the Generalized Second Law“Dyson, Kleban, and Susskind, “Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant“Albrecht and Sorbo, “Can the Universe Afford Inflation?“Boddy, Carroll, and Pollack, “De Sitter Space Without Dynamical Quantum Fluctuations“Carroll, “Why Boltzmann Brains Are Bad“Aguirre, Carroll, and Johnson, “Out of Equilibrium: Understanding Cosmological Evolution to Lower-Entropy States“Carroll, “Beyond Falsifiabiliy: Normal Science in a Multiverse“Carter and McCrea, “The Anthropic Principle and its Implications for Biological Evolution“Leslie, “Doomsday Revisited“Gott, “Implications of the Copernican Principle for Our Future Prospects“Bostrom, Anthropic BiasVilenkin, “The Principle of Mediocrity“Olum, “Conflict Between Anthropic Reasoning and Observation“Elga, “Self-Locating Belief and the Sleeping Beauty Problem“Lewis, “Sleeping Beauty: Reply to Elga“Hartle and Srednicki, “Are We Typical?“Hartle and Srednicki, “Science in a Very Large Universe“Neal, “Puzzles of Anthropic Reasoning Resolved Using Fully Non-Indexical Conditioning“See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What does it mean for something to be finely-tuned? Does fine-tuning extend beyond our own man-made systems and into biology and the universe itself? If so, what or who has done the fine-tuning? Robert J. Marks, Ola Hössjer, and Daniel Diaz discuss the concept of fine-tuning. Show Notes 00:02:17 | Introducing Ola Hössjer and Daniel Diaz 00:04:39 | No Free… Source

https://stephengpost.com/https://unlimitedloveinstitute.org/PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/minddogtvSponsors:KOA Coffee https://koacoffee.com/?sscid=21k6_79g17TRUE FIRE GUITAR MASTERY: http://prf.hn/click/camref:1101lkzyk/pubref:minddog

This episode is sort of "fan fiction" conversation with a dead man who will cast a shadow over physics, philosophy, and theology for decades to come: Steven Weinberg, co-recipient of the 1979 Nobel Prize. Long before audiobooks and podcasts were a thing, in 1992 I took a night train from Cleveland to Buffalo to Binghamton to meet my girlfriend. To while away the hours, I brought with me Weingberg's epochal popular science book, "The First Three Minutes". A few months later, as a graduation present, I received from Lawrence Krauss, CWRU's incoming physics department chairman, "Dreams of a Final Theory". “Weinberg” is the most mentioned name in my The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast notebook where I keep thoughts on possible/upcoming guests. I never got to host him on my show. I did try, most recently in February 2021. For a long time, I held off, insecure in my ability to bring anything new to the table. Weinberg was a brilliant scientist but as I show, had overly simplistic thoughts on religion and practitioners. Often he claimed science, at its best, SHOULD make religion less plausible. Using quotes drawn from his many interviews and lectures, including one in his own voice, I bring you this slightly combative interview with a very complex individual. For the record, Stephen Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, and Abdus Salam shared the 1979 Nobel Prize for his work on Electroweak Symmetry Breaking or the, so-called, ‘Standard Model for particle physics'. He also made many contributions to both particle physics and cosmology. With respect to the latter, the question addressed is whether or why our universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Past guest, Lenny Susskind explained that Weinberg calculated that if the cosmological constant was just a little different, our universe would cease to exist. This paper is behind a paywall, but see a public lecture (with advanced math): https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Weinberg/Weinberg3.html. Weinberg believed the Anthropic Principle may be appropriated by cosmologists committed to nontheism, and refers to that Principle as a "turning point" in modern science because applying it to the string landscape "may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator".  I cover some of Steven's ‘greatest hits' including: "I can hope that this long sad story, this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas, will come to an end. I hope this is something to which science can contribute … it may be the most important contribution that we can make."  "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." "In our universe we are tuned into the frequency that corresponds to physical reality. But there are an infinite number of parallel realities coexisting with us in the same room, although we cannot tune into them."  And my personal ‘favorite':"It seems a bit unfair to my relatives to be murdered in order to provide an opportunity for free will for Germans, but even putting that aside, how does free will account for cancer? Is it an opportunity of free will for tumors?" So, let me know what you think of this episode. Should I do more solo episodes like this, or make this my one and only

This episode is sort of "fan fiction" conversation with a dead man who will cast a shadow over physics, philosophy, and theology for decades to come: Steven Weinberg, co-recipient of the 1979 Nobel Prize. Long before audiobooks and podcasts were a thing, in 1992 I took a night train from Cleveland to Buffalo to Binghamton to meet my girlfriend. To while away the hours, I brought with me Weingberg's epochal popular science book, "The First Three Minutes". A few months later, as a graduation present, I received from Lawrence Krauss, CWRU's incoming physics department chairman, "Dreams of a Final Theory". “Weinberg” is the most mentioned name in my The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast notebook where I keep thoughts on possible/upcoming guests. I never got to host him on my show. I did try, most recently in February 2021. For a long time, I held off, insecure in my ability to bring anything new to the table. Weinberg was a brilliant scientist but as I show, had overly simplistic thoughts on religion and practitioners. Often he claimed science, at its best, SHOULD make religion less plausible. Using quotes drawn from his many interviews and lectures, including one in his own voice, I bring you this slightly combative interview with a very complex individual. For the record, Stephen Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, and Abdus Salam shared the 1979 Nobel Prize for his work on Electroweak Symmetry Breaking or the, so-called, ‘Standard Model for particle physics'. He also made many contributions to both particle physics and cosmology. With respect to the latter, the question addressed is whether or why our universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Past guest, Lenny Susskind explained that Weinberg calculated that if the cosmological constant was just a little different, our universe would cease to exist. This paper is behind a paywall, but see a public lecture (with advanced math): https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Weinberg/Weinberg3.html. Weinberg believed the Anthropic Principle may be appropriated by cosmologists committed to nontheism, and refers to that Principle as a "turning point" in modern science because applying it to the string landscape "may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator".  I cover some of Steven's ‘greatest hits' including: "I can hope that this long sad story, this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas, will come to an end. I hope this is something to which science can contribute … it may be the most important contribution that we can make."  "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." "In our universe we are tuned into the frequency that corresponds to physical reality. But there are an infinite number of parallel realities coexisting with us in the same room, although we cannot tune into them."  And my personal ‘favorite':"It seems a bit unfair to my relatives to be murdered in order to provide an opportunity for free will for Germans, but even putting that aside, how does free will account for cancer? Is it an opportunity of free will for tumors?" So, let me know what you think of this episode. Should I do more solo episodes like this, or make this my one and only

In this blast from the past, Jim introduces the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God, responds to email concerning objections to the Anthropic Principle and talks about the sometimes 'hidden' nature of God as he interacts with his children today.

Larry, Ty, and guests

Has anyone ever given you some useless information? What does it even mean for information to be meaningful? This week, on Mind Matters News, guest host Dr. Michael Egnor interviews our own Robert J. Marks about information, as well as the creative limits of artificial intelligence, and why evolutionary algorithms aren’t the magic bullet they’re often presented to be. Show… Source

Responding to the Puddle Analogy Does Quantum Mechanics Explain the Universe?

When order by evolution and order by creation are placed side-by-side, our belief in creationism is a much better story of God's goodness and perfect plan. In this study of God's goodness in creation, we will marvel at the Principle of Causality; the Anthropic Principle; and the Origin of First Life because ultimately, WE are the goodness of His creation.

Robert J. Marks, Dr. Ola Hössjer and Daniel Díaz discuss the various theories proposed to explain the fine-tuning of the universe. Show Notes 00:33 | Introducing Dr. Daniel Díaz and Dr. Ola Hössjer 01:53 | Panspermia 04:59 | The Sims Theory 10:40 | Anthropic Principle 18:53 | Multiverse 26:03 | The Creator Interpretation 29:11 | Personal Beliefs 36:24 | Final… Source

When someone begins to study the evolution of the universe and the laws of physics, one easily comes to wonder how strange it is that humans and life exist, and we are able to observe the universe. If the laws and constants of nature were just a little bit different, the occurrence of life is unthinkable. However, we can state that we are here, and this raises a number of other issues, such as: Has the universe always been able to sustain life? Will the universe continue to sustain the existence of life in the future ? Are we just one of many universes that exist in parallel? Science Journalist Jens Degett from Science Stories talks to Professor Niels Obers, Director of the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics (NORDITA) and professor at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, to try and get to the bottom of the matter. This podcast is a continuation of their conversation in a former story "Big Bang challenged by Conformal Cyclic Cosmology".

Larry, Ty, and guests

 * PART II -- Real Science Radio on the Big Bang with Lawrence Krauss: (Hear also Krauss part I but for our written evidence against the big bang, keep reading here.) Creationist co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present Bob's wide-ranging discussion with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss. These RSR programs air on America's most powerful Christian radio station, Denver's 50,000-watt AM 670 KLTT. Over time this web page will grow as we add the work of countless secular scientists who document widely accepted observational data, which facts taken individually and together challenge the atheistic big bang origins claim made by Krauss. * Krauss: "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang": Mentioning some of the obvious studies and massive quantities of data (see list below) that at least apparently seems to strongly contradict fundamental big bang predictions, Bob offered Krauss a chance to dial back his written claim that "all evidence now overwhelmingly supports" the big bang (p. 6 in his book, and 3:45 into today's program, beginning with Krauss' question, "You're not a young earther, are you?"). Instead, Krauss dug in deeper. There is nothing objective about Lawrence Krauss. He comes across more like the high priest of a cult than a scientist willing to acknowledge and follow the data. Each of the major observations below require secondary assumptions and rescue devices, some of which have not even been invented yet, to keep these enormous quantities of scientific data from apparently falsifying the big bang and its standard claims for the age of the universe and for star and planetary formation (this list will grow including with additional references over the next months): RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang: For the latest version of this list which includes links to dozens of peer-reviewed journal papers where even proponents themselves admit their major discoveries go against the predictions of their own big bang theory, see rsr.org/evidence-against-the-big-bang. Here's a summary: * Mature galaxies exist far, far away where the big bang predicts that only infant galaxies should exist. * Hundreds of galaxies are clustered out at tremendous distances where the big bang predicts that such clusters should not exist. * Spiral galaxies look “too perfect” because they are missing millions of years of their predicted collisions. * The surface brightness of the furthest galaxies is identical to that of the nearest galaxies, contradicting a central prediction of the big bang. * Nine billion years of synthesized heavy elements are missing from a trillion stars. That’s a lot. This study failed to confirm the fundamental expectation of the big bang’s theory of nuclear synthesis. * Not even one of the millions of stars ever analyzed is a supposed “first generation” star (aka Population III), contrary to big bang expectations. * The discovery of exoplanets, including hot Jupiters and one with a retrograde orbit, has completely falsified the big bang’s nebular hypothesis of solar system formation, as openly admitted by Mike Brown, the exoplanet database manager for NASA. * It is not a scientific statement but merely a philosophical one to claim that the universe has no center, and thus, the big bang’s central Copernican principle is not based on science but on philosophical bias, as widely acknowledged including by Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman.* The most advanced three-dimensional map of more than a million galaxies seems to imply that the universe has a center. * Our sun is missing nearly 100% of the angular momentum (i.e., spin) that the big bang theories of stellar evolution and solar system formation predict that it should have. * There is an entire universe worth of missing antimatter if the big bang theory were true. * The big bang’s theory of chemical evolution is in crisis as inherently admitted with the National Academy of Sciences report titled, 11 Science Questions for the New Century which asks “How were the heavy elements from iron to uranium made?” with the journal Nature recently publishing a paper also admitting that even supernovae cannot produce our earth’s heavy elements. Today's Resource: For today's program we recommend RSR's Evidence Against the Big Bang video. * If our solar system’s heavy elements were produced in supernovae, then the sun and the earth are expected to have the same isotopes (versions) of elements like nitrogen and oxygen. But the sun has “40 percent less nitrogen-15 (compared to nitrogen-14)” than does the earth, and we have 7 percent less oxygen-16 relative to other isotopes, than does the sun. * The spiral galaxy’s beautiful arms are missing millions of years of expected deformation which lead proponents to assert the existence of the first of the hypothetical entities, dark matter, to prop up the big bang theory. * Superclusters of millions of galaxies exist yet the big bang predicts that gravity could not form them even in the supposed great age of the cosmos. * The astounding uniform temperature of the universe challenges the claim that the early universe would have been clumpy enough for galaxies to form. * While materialists have spent a century objecting to “catastrophism” here on earth where continent-wide evidence for such catastrophe exists, out in space, there are so many planetary “anomalies”, like Venus rotating backwards, Uranus rolling, and the highly elongated and even retrograde orbits of exoplanets, that despite the enormous distances between astronomical bodies, cosmologists today have become catastrophists. * The Sun rotates seven degrees off the ecliptic, and is missing 99% of its expected spin, with both observations providing powerful evidence against the big bang’s nebular hypothesis sub-model. * The infrared light that was supposed to be left over from star formation appears to not exist. * Hundreds of advanced-degreed scientists have publicly rejected the big bang. * The so-called “Axis of Evil”, confirmed most recently by the Planck satellite, appears to falsify the big bang’s Copernican principle of isotropy by displaying a preferred direction in the CMB. * Quasars typically have high redshifts (implying great distance) but they statistically cluster with low redshift galaxies (implying near distance), undermining confidence in the big bang’s foundational claim that redshift reliably indicates distance. * Contrary to any expectation of naturalism, the cosmos has astounding fine-tuning, which has led many big bang proponents to effectively admit the big bang’s inability to explain our existence. An increasing number of mainstream cosmologists therefore are resorting to a belief in the existence of countless trillions of universes, in hopes that, by mere chance, such a multiverse might explain the many wildly unlikely fortuitous circumstances that combine to enable our existence. * All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang? The world’s most popular scientists, like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, at best stay silent and at worst abet their own side’s misrepresentation of the literature. The multinational multi-billion dollar science industry tolerates individual discoveries here and there which may require tweaking fundamental dogma. But what is not tolerated is the summarizing of widespread and diverse evidence that may question the very validity of such dogma. * Michael Crichton on Consensus: When the physician and writer Dr. Crichton asked, “When did ‘skeptic’ become a dirty word in science?” he answered his own question. When evidence is weak, the status quo appeals to “the consensus” with the aid of “the decline of the media [think Ira Flatow as in NPR's Science Friday] as an independent assessor of fact.” Taking advantage of all that, Krauss appeals to that consensus, as he alleged to us, “All scientists are Darwinists” (apparently, except for the thousands documented at rsr.org/doubters), and as he dismissed the hundreds of scientists who reject the big bang by implying that their expertise was in unrelated disciplines. Please consider, though, that when those who believe in the big bang claim consensus, consensus, there just might be evidence that disproves that consensus. * Krauss' Anthropic Circular Reasoning: Regarding the many fine-tuned parameters of the universe, like Krauss said to Enyart and atheists are content to trust, the Anthropic Principle explains all this, for otherwise, we wouldn't be here to notice. In response, Bob said to Lawrence, quoting Walter ReMine (1993, p. 61), that this is as satisfying as a doctor saying, "The reason that your father is deaf is because he can't hear." * Scientists Questioning or Rejecting the Big Bang: See rsr.org/scientists-doubting-darwin-and-the-big-bang. * Krauss on Credentials: Within ten seconds Lawrence Krauss contradicted himself, claiming at six minutes into today's program that, "Scientists don't argue on credentials", but only ten seconds earlier he had asked, "What department?" as a way of discrediting the hundreds of scientists who argue that much evidence contradicts the Big Bang. (And countering Krauss' claim that, "All scientists are Darwinists," for the hundreds of thousands of Ph.D.s and Masters in the sciences, including in the applied and biological sciences, see also rsr.org/scholars-doubting-darwin.) * Krauss Admits Misleading Title to Sell Books: An atheist Professor at City University of New York, Massimo Pigliucci (whom we've quoted recently when pointing out that PZ Myers is filthy), is glad that folks are "pressing Krauss on several of his non sequiturs." He quotes Columbia's David Albert, who holds a PhD in theoretical physics and who in the New York Times made the same argument, brilliantly though, that I gave to Krauss today, that the “physical stuff of the world" and "quantum field theories" "have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from... or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period.” And Pigliucci shows the "intellectual dishonesty" from Krauss' own words in The Atlantic, when challenged that his book has a misleading title, because his topic actually is "a quantum vacuum" which "has properties," which properties objectively are not nothing, as in Krauss' title, A Universe from Nothing. Lawrence replied, “I don’t think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing... if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that." But when the Atlantic interviewer, Ross Andersen presses, "when I read the title of your book, I read it as 'questions about origins are over.'" To which Krauss responds: “Well, if that hook gets you into the book that’s great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim. ... If I’d just titled the book ‘A Marvelous Universe,’ not as many people would have been attracted to [i.e., bought] it." Pigliucci too points out the dishonesty and chastises Krauss: "Claim what you wish to claim, not what you think is going to sell more copies of your book, essentially playing a bait and switch with your readers." Not learning from Krauss' earlier mistitled book, Richard Dawkins was also taken in by his friend's ruse, for he wrote the Afterword, clearly without having read the manuscript itself, because Dawkins stated that the book title "means exactly what it says." Not. * Missing Uniform Distribution of Radioactivity: The materialist theory on the origin of the elements in the periodic table claims that all of our radioactive elements were created in the explosion of stars (no longer supernovas, but now neutron stars and even black holes), but that would predict a relatively uniform distribution on Earth, at least throughout the crust, and possibly the mantle too. So in today's otherwise contentious interview, Krauss agreed with Enyart's statement that 90% of Earth's radioactivity (uranium, thorium, etc.) is located in the continental crust, and Krauss added, a mystery for him, that it tends to concentrate around granite! That is, that 90% is not in the mantle nor in the enormous amount of the crust which lies under the oceans, but our planet's radioactivity is concentrated in 1/3rd of 1% of the Earth's mass, in the continental crust. (Further, the release of it's heat has not yet reached a steady state.) Krauss offered a partial explanation: that uranium was originally evenly distributed throughout (an alleged) molten earth but being a large atom, it floated toward the surface. This the bias of this physicist led him to forget, apparently, that it is density, and not size, that causes things to float. Even denser than gold, uranium is one of the most dense elements (excluding atheists and other manmade phenomena). Further, for argument's sake, that would only explain the relative absence of radioactivity deep in the Earth, but would not explain uranium's distancing itself from the mantle and from the oceanic crust, nor its affinity for the continents and even, of all things, for granite. Further, under Krauss' belief in the widespread falsehood that the planet was once molten, if so, then the gold in the crust should have sunk to the core! The creationists, on the other hand, have a theory based on observational science as to why radioactivity is concentrated around granite. * Absurd Consistency of Uranium Isotopes IF Formed in Space: Google: origin of Earth's radioactivity. The top-ranked result is Walt Brown's hydroplate theory. See this also at rsr.org/radioactivity. Brown earned his Ph.D. from MIT. He writes: The isotopes of each chemical element have almost constant ratios with each other. ... Why is the ratio of 235U to 238U in uranium ore deposits so constant almost everywhere on Earth? One very precise study showed that the ratio is 0.0072842, with a standard deviation of only 0.000017. Obviously, the more time that elapses between the formation of the various isotopes (such as 235U and 238U) and the farther they are transported to their current resting places, the more varied those ratios should be. The belief that these isotopes formed in a supernova explosion millions of light-years away and billions of years before the Earth formed and somehow collected in small ore bodies in a fixed ratio is absurd. Powerful explosions would have separated the lighter isotopes from the heavier isotopes. Some radioisotopes simultaneously produce two or more daughters. When that happens, the daughters have very precise ratios to each other, called branching ratios or branching fractions. Uranium isotopes are an example, because they are daughter products of some even heavier element. Recall that the Proton-21 Laboratory has produced superheavy elements that instantly decayed. Also, the global flux of neutrons during the flood provided nuclei with enough neutrons to reach their maximum stability. Therefore, isotope ratios for a given element are fixed. Had the flux of neutrons originated in outer space, we would not see these constant ratios worldwide. Because these neutrons originated at many specific points in the globe-encircling crust, these fixed ratios are global. "Walt Brown is the Isaac Newton of our day." -Bob Enyart 

 * PART II -- Real Science Radio on the Big Bang with Lawrence Krauss: (Hear also Krauss part I but for our written evidence against the big bang, keep reading here.) Creationist co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present Bob's wide-ranging discussion with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss. These RSR programs air on America's most powerful Christian radio station, Denver's 50,000-watt AM 670 KLTT. Over time this web page will grow as we add the work of countless secular scientists who document widely accepted observational data, which facts taken individually and together challenge the atheistic big bang origins claim made by Krauss. * Krauss: "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang": Mentioning some of the obvious studies and massive quantities of data (see list below) that at least apparently seems to strongly contradict fundamental big bang predictions, Bob offered Krauss a chance to dial back his written claim that "all evidence now overwhelmingly supports" the big bang (p. 6 in his book, and 3:45 into today's program, beginning with Krauss' question, "You're not a young earther, are you?"). Instead, Krauss dug in deeper. There is nothing objective about Lawrence Krauss. He comes across more like the high priest of a cult than a scientist willing to acknowledge and follow the data. Each of the major observations below require secondary assumptions and rescue devices, some of which have not even been invented yet, to keep these enormous quantities of scientific data from apparently falsifying the big bang and its standard claims for the age of the universe and for star and planetary formation (this list will grow including with additional references over the next months): RSR's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang: For the latest version of this list which includes links to dozens of peer-reviewed journal papers where even proponents themselves admit their major discoveries go against the predictions of their own big bang theory, see rsr.org/evidence-against-the-big-bang. Here's a summary: * Mature galaxies exist far, far away where the big bang predicts that only infant galaxies should exist. * Hundreds of galaxies are clustered out at tremendous distances where the big bang predicts that such clusters should not exist. * Spiral galaxies look “too perfect” because they are missing millions of years of their predicted collisions. * The surface brightness of the furthest galaxies is identical to that of the nearest galaxies, contradicting a central prediction of the big bang. * Nine billion years of synthesized heavy elements are missing from a trillion stars. That’s a lot. This study failed to confirm the fundamental expectation of the big bang’s theory of nuclear synthesis. * Not even one of the millions of stars ever analyzed is a supposed “first generation” star (aka Population III), contrary to big bang expectations. * The discovery of exoplanets, including hot Jupiters and one with a retrograde orbit, has completely falsified the big bang’s nebular hypothesis of solar system formation, as openly admitted by Mike Brown, the exoplanet database manager for NASA. * It is not a scientific statement but merely a philosophical one to claim that the universe has no center, and thus, the big bang’s central Copernican principle is not based on science but on philosophical bias, as widely acknowledged including by Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman.* The most advanced three-dimensional map of more than a million galaxies seems to imply that the universe has a center. * Our sun is missing nearly 100% of the angular momentum (i.e., spin) that the big bang theories of stellar evolution and solar system formation predict that it should have. * There is an entire universe worth of missing antimatter if the big bang theory were true. * The big bang’s theory of chemical evolution is in crisis as inherently admitted with the National Academy of Sciences report titled, 11 Science Questions for the New Century which asks “How were the heavy elements from iron to uranium made?” with the journal Nature recently publishing a paper also admitting that even supernovae cannot produce our earth’s heavy elements. Today's Resource: For today's program we recommend RSR's Evidence Against the Big Bang video. * If our solar system’s heavy elements were produced in supernovae, then the sun and the earth are expected to have the same isotopes (versions) of elements like nitrogen and oxygen. But the sun has “40 percent less nitrogen-15 (compared to nitrogen-14)” than does the earth, and we have 7 percent less oxygen-16 relative to other isotopes, than does the sun. * The spiral galaxy’s beautiful arms are missing millions of years of expected deformation which lead proponents to assert the existence of the first of the hypothetical entities, dark matter, to prop up the big bang theory. * Superclusters of millions of galaxies exist yet the big bang predicts that gravity could not form them even in the supposed great age of the cosmos. * The astounding uniform temperature of the universe challenges the claim that the early universe would have been clumpy enough for galaxies to form. * While materialists have spent a century objecting to “catastrophism” here on earth where continent-wide evidence for such catastrophe exists, out in space, there are so many planetary “anomalies”, like Venus rotating backwards, Uranus rolling, and the highly elongated and even retrograde orbits of exoplanets, that despite the enormous distances between astronomical bodies, cosmologists today have become catastrophists. * The Sun rotates seven degrees off the ecliptic, and is missing 99% of its expected spin, with both observations providing powerful evidence against the big bang’s nebular hypothesis sub-model. * The infrared light that was supposed to be left over from star formation appears to not exist. * Hundreds of advanced-degreed scientists have publicly rejected the big bang. * The so-called “Axis of Evil”, confirmed most recently by the Planck satellite, appears to falsify the big bang’s Copernican principle of isotropy by displaying a preferred direction in the CMB. * Quasars typically have high redshifts (implying great distance) but they statistically cluster with low redshift galaxies (implying near distance), undermining confidence in the big bang’s foundational claim that redshift reliably indicates distance. * Contrary to any expectation of naturalism, the cosmos has astounding fine-tuning, which has led many big bang proponents to effectively admit the big bang’s inability to explain our existence. An increasing number of mainstream cosmologists therefore are resorting to a belief in the existence of countless trillions of universes, in hopes that, by mere chance, such a multiverse might explain the many wildly unlikely fortuitous circumstances that combine to enable our existence. * All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang? The world’s most popular scientists, like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, at best stay silent and at worst abet their own side’s misrepresentation of the literature. The multinational multi-billion dollar science industry tolerates individual discoveries here and there which may require tweaking fundamental dogma. But what is not tolerated is the summarizing of widespread and diverse evidence that may question the very validity of such dogma. * Michael Crichton on Consensus: When the physician and writer Dr. Crichton asked, “When did ‘skeptic’ become a dirty word in science?” he answered his own question. When evidence is weak, the status quo appeals to “the consensus” with the aid of “the decline of the media [think Ira Flatow as in NPR's Science Friday] as an independent assessor of fact.” Taking advantage of all that, Krauss appeals to that consensus, as he alleged to us, “All scientists are Darwinists” (apparently, except for the thousands documented at rsr.org/doubters), and as he dismissed the hundreds of scientists who reject the big bang by implying that their expertise was in unrelated disciplines. Please consider, though, that when those who believe in the big bang claim consensus, consensus, there just might be evidence that disproves that consensus. * Krauss' Anthropic Circular Reasoning: Regarding the many fine-tuned parameters of the universe, like Krauss said to Enyart and atheists are content to trust, the Anthropic Principle explains all this, for otherwise, we wouldn't be here to notice. In response, Bob said to Lawrence, quoting Walter ReMine (1993, p. 61), that this is as satisfying as a doctor saying, "The reason that your father is deaf is because he can't hear." * Scientists Questioning or Rejecting the Big Bang: See rsr.org/scientists-doubting-darwin-and-the-big-bang. * Krauss on Credentials: Within ten seconds Lawrence Krauss contradicted himself, claiming at six minutes into today's program that, "Scientists don't argue on credentials", but only ten seconds earlier he had asked, "What department?" as a way of discrediting the hundreds of scientists who argue that much evidence contradicts the Big Bang. (And countering Krauss' claim that, "All scientists are Darwinists," for the hundreds of thousands of Ph.D.s and Masters in the sciences, including in the applied and biological sciences, see also rsr.org/scholars-doubting-darwin.) * Krauss Admits Misleading Title to Sell Books: An atheist Professor at City University of New York, Massimo Pigliucci (whom we've quoted recently when pointing out that PZ Myers is filthy), is glad that folks are "pressing Krauss on several of his non sequiturs." He quotes Columbia's David Albert, who holds a PhD in theoretical physics and who in the New York Times made the same argument, brilliantly though, that I gave to Krauss today, that the “physical stuff of the world" and "quantum field theories" "have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from... or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period.” And Pigliucci shows the "intellectual dishonesty" from Krauss' own words in The Atlantic, when challenged that his book has a misleading title, because his topic actually is "a quantum vacuum" which "has properties," which properties objectively are not nothing, as in Krauss' title, A Universe from Nothing. Lawrence replied, “I don’t think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing... if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that." But when the Atlantic interviewer, Ross Andersen presses, "when I read the title of your book, I read it as 'questions about origins are over.'" To which Krauss responds: “Well, if that hook gets you into the book that’s great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim. ... If I’d just titled the book ‘A Marvelous Universe,’ not as many people would have been attracted to [i.e., bought] it." Pigliucci too points out the dishonesty and chastises Krauss: "Claim what you wish to claim, not what you think is going to sell more copies of your book, essentially playing a bait and switch with your readers." Not learning from Krauss' earlier mistitled book, Richard Dawkins was also taken in by his friend's ruse, for he wrote the Afterword, clearly without having read the manuscript itself, because Dawkins stated that the book title "means exactly what it says." Not. * Missing Uniform Distribution of Radioactivity: The materialist theory on the origin of the elements in the periodic table claims that all of our radioactive elements were created in the explosion of stars (no longer supernovas, but now neutron stars and even black holes), but that would predict a relatively uniform distribution on Earth, at least throughout the crust, and possibly the mantle too. So in today's otherwise contentious interview, Krauss agreed with Enyart's statement that 90% of Earth's radioactivity (uranium, thorium, etc.) is located in the continental crust, and Krauss added, a mystery for him, that it tends to concentrate around granite! That is, that 90% is not in the mantle nor in the enormous amount of the crust which lies under the oceans, but our planet's radioactivity is concentrated in 1/3rd of 1% of the Earth's mass, in the continental crust. (Further, the release of it's heat has not yet reached a steady state.) Krauss offered a partial explanation: that uranium was originally evenly distributed throughout (an alleged) molten earth but being a large atom, it floated toward the surface. This the bias of this physicist led him to forget, apparently, that it is density, and not size, that causes things to float. Even denser than gold, uranium is one of the most dense elements (excluding atheists and other manmade phenomena). Further, for argument's sake, that would only explain the relative absence of radioactivity deep in the Earth, but would not explain uranium's distancing itself from the mantle and from the oceanic crust, nor its affinity for the continents and even, of all things, for granite. Further, under Krauss' belief in the widespread falsehood that the planet was once molten, if so, then the gold in the crust should have sunk to the core! The creationists, on the other hand, have a theory based on observational science as to why radioactivity is concentrated around granite. * Absurd Consistency of Uranium Isotopes IF Formed in Space: Google: origin of Earth's radioactivity. The top-ranked result is Walt Brown's hydroplate theory. See this also at rsr.org/radioactivity. Brown earned his Ph.D. from MIT. He writes: The isotopes of each chemical element have almost constant ratios with each other. ... Why is the ratio of 235U to 238U in uranium ore deposits so constant almost everywhere on Earth? One very precise study showed that the ratio is 0.0072842, with a standard deviation of only 0.000017. Obviously, the more time that elapses between the formation of the various isotopes (such as 235U and 238U) and the farther they are transported to their current resting places, the more varied those ratios should be. The belief that these isotopes formed in a supernova explosion millions of light-years away and billions of years before the Earth formed and somehow collected in small ore bodies in a fixed ratio is absurd. Powerful explosions would have separated the lighter isotopes from the heavier isotopes. Some radioisotopes simultaneously produce two or more daughters. When that happens, the daughters have very precise ratios to each other, called branching ratios or branching fractions. Uranium isotopes are an example, because they are daughter products of some even heavier element. Recall that the Proton-21 Laboratory has produced superheavy elements that instantly decayed. Also, the global flux of neutrons during the flood provided nuclei with enough neutrons to reach their maximum stability. Therefore, isotope ratios for a given element are fixed. Had the flux of neutrons originated in outer space, we would not see these constant ratios worldwide. Because these neutrons originated at many specific points in the globe-encircling crust, these fixed ratios are global. "Walt Brown is the Isaac Newton of our day." -Bob Enyart 

Professor Geraint Lewis is an astrophysicist focused on dark energy, gravitational lensing and galactic merger. He has recently published a paper that that investigates the nature of the anthropic principle, how the Universe needs observers. https://www.geraintflewis.com/

In this episode, I’m speaking with early universe cosmologist Islam Khan. We talk about inflation theory, the multiverse, dark matter, and so much more! Is there such a thing as a parallel universe? Do we know why the universe has stretched? What does a cosmologist do for fun?  (0:00:50) What does a Cosmologist do?  (0:01:48) Islam Khan's journey into studying cosmology (0:04:50) The Infinite Universe vs The Observable Universe  (0:06:30) The Milky Way in the cosmic web (0:07:50) The scale of the Observable Universe (0:09:30) Are we alone out here? The possibility of alien life (0:11:50) The Inflation Theory - our stretchy Universe (0:12:45) How do we know it stretched? (0:13:30) The painting analogy  (0:14:35) How the Inflation Theory explains these problems (0:15:52) Multiverses: a consequence of inflation. What are they? (0:16:32) Max Tegmark - defining the four levels (0:17:55) Level 1: Inflation fields, Quantum Fields and the Higgs Boson (0:19:24) Level 2: Bubbles of Universes  (0:20:02) Level 3: The Many Worlds Theory (0:22:10) Level 4: An Abstract view: Changing the laws of physics (0:23:30) Do doppelgangers actually exist?  (0:24:20) Wave Function Collapse - Schrödinger's cat and Hugh Everett's theory  (0:26:03) Are we just a simulation?  (0:27:25) What caused the inflation? The ball and the hill  (0:29:10) Reheating the Universe  (0:30:25) Unifying Inflation Theory and dark energy/dark matter (0:31:45) The Theory of Everything (0:32:45) The real world applications - answering the big questions (0:34:46) The second stretching phase - what's happening now (0:35:50) Einstein's Cosmological Constant (0:37:35) Accelerated Expansion and Earth (0:40:00) Particle Cosmology - not just math (0:41:15) The Philosophical side (0:42:38) The Anthropic Principle (0:43:25) Evidence over opinion - why we can't all get along  (0:44:45) Working together - you need more than Theorists to make a theory (0:46:25) Exciting advances in research today! Stepping on Mars! New particles and more! (0:49:15) Islam Khan's interests; soccer, guitar and travel (0:52:25) Science and the arts - is there a link? (0:54:15) Conversations and discussions - other fields of interest  (0:56:20) Research is the dream Follow Islam Khan on Twitter: https://twitter.com/KhanCosmologist Islam Khan on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/islam-khan-001915/ Visit Planet B612 on the web: http://planetb612.fm/ Follow Planet B612 on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PlanetB612fm Support Planet B612 on Patreon: https://patreon.com/juliesworld

Can artificial intelligence algorithms prove Darwinian evolution? Why won’t some scientists admit the design inherent in evolutionary computing? Do random processes disprove intelligent design? Dr. Michael Egnor discusses evolutionary computing, the no free lunch theorem, and the role of purpose in chance with Dr. Robert J. Marks. Show Notes 00:41 | Introducing Dr. Robert J. Marks 01:10 | The role… Source

Can artificial intelligence algorithms prove Darwinian evolution? Why won’t some scientists admit the design inherent in evolutionary computing? Do random processes disprove intelligent design? Dr. Michael Egnor discusses evolutionary computing, the no free lunch theorem, and the role of purpose in chance with Dr. Robert J. Marks. Show Notes 00:41 | Introducing Dr. Robert J. Marks 01:10 | The role… Source

DMT? Aliens? Anthropic Principle? All stuff I love talking about and all stuff discussed on the Tim Pool podcast this weekend. Here is my review.

* A Fun RSR List Show: For this Thanksgiving weekend, a special rebroadcast. In  our List of the Fine-Tuned Features of the Universe, Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart quotes leading scientists and their astounding admission of the uncanny and seemingly never-ending list of the just-perfect finely-tuned parameters of the physical features of the Earth, the solar system, and the entire cosmos. This program is brought to you by God, maker of heaven and earth and other fine products! * The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Universe: Barrow & Tipler, in their standard treatment, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, admit that "there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent; moreover, these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers in the Universe." Examples include the wildly unlikely combination of: - there is the same number of electrons as protons to a standard deviation of one in ten to the thirty-seventh power, that is, 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (37 zeros) - the 1-to-1 electron to proton ratio throughout the universe yields our electrically neutral universe - all fundamental particles of the same kind are identical (including protons, electrons, down quarks, etc., even, in QED, photons!) - energy exactly equals mass (times the conversion factor of c²) - the electron and the massively greater proton have exactly equivalent opposite charges - the electron to proton mass ratio (1 to 1,836) is perfect for forming molecules - the baryon (protons, neutrons, etc.) that decays must conserve the number of baryons - the free neutron decays in minutes whereas it is stable within the nuclei of all the non-radioactive elements (otherwise eventually only hydrogen would exist because the strong nuclear force needs neutrons to overcome proton repulsion) - the proton can't decay because it is the lightest baryon (otherwise all elements would be unstable) - the electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned for the stability of stars - the gravitational and inertial mass equivalency - the electromagnetic force constant is perfect for holding electrons to nuclei - the electromagnetic force is in the right ratio to the nuclear force - the strong force if changed by 1% would destroy all carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and heavier elements - the precise speed of light, the square root of the inverse of the product of space's permeability and permittivity (i.e., its magnetic field resistance, 4π * 10-7 Weber/Amps * meter, multiplied by its electric field resistance, or 8.8542 * 10-12 Coulomb2 /Newton * meter2), or 186,282 MPS, is integral for life - etc., etc., etc. (including the shocking apparent alignment of the universe with the orbit of the Earth) Leading atheist physicist and biologist admit* The Most Famous Scientist Atheists Agree: The world's most famous scientist atheists in physics and biology have fully admitted half the question as to fine tuning, that the world APPEARS to have been fine tuned. Richard Dawkins: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Stephen Hawking: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted..." * An Atheist's Index to Replies: Here's an index to (failed) attempts to rebut the fine-tuning argument for God's existence.  * Omitting the Cosmological Constant: We have omitted from this list the commonly reported fine-tuning of the cosmological constant to one part in 10 to the 120th. This is so very precise that if the entire universe had as much additional mass as exists in a single grain of sand, it would all collapse upon itself. That is, if a big bang actually formed our universe, and if it created a miniscule additional amount of mass than it is claimed to have created, then no planets, stars, or galaxies could exist. Conversely, if the universe had less mass, by that same quantity, matter never would have coalesced to become planets, stars, and galaxies, and again, we would not exist. So, why doesn't Real Science Radio include this astoundingly fine-tuned parameter in our list? Well, as physicist John Hartnett points out, the cosmological constant is only a fine-tuning problem for the big bang theory, so it is an argument only against a big bang universe, whereas in our actual universe, it is not a fine tuning issue. So, the cosmological constant problem, also known as the vacuum catastrophe, does refute big bang cosmology, at least, for anyone who is objective, has common sense, and is not desperately trying to ignore the evidence for the Creator. (By the way, since NASA says that the confirmed predictions of the big bang theory are what validates it, you might want to Google: big bang predictions, and you'll find our article ranked #1 out of half-a-million, at rsr.org/bbp, presenting the actual track record of the predictions of the theory. Also, if you Google: evidence against the big bang, you'll find our article on that topic near the top of the first page of Google results!) * The Whopping Physics Coincidence: NewScientist reports about gravity and acceleration that, "a large chunk of modern physics is precariously balanced on a whopping coincidence" for, regarding gravitational and inertial mass, "these two masses are always numerically exactly the same. The consequences of this coincidence are profound..." * The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Solar System include: - Our Sun is positioned far from the Milky Way's center in a galactic Goldilocks zone of low radiation - Our Sun placed in an arm of the Milky Way puts it where we can discover a vast swath of the entire universe - Our Sun is in the unusual Local Bubble, 300 light years of extremely diffuse gas, 1/500th of the average - Earth's orbit is nearly circular (eccentricity ~ 0.02) around the Sun providing a stability in a range of vital factors - Earth's orbit has a low inclination keeping its temperatures within a range permitting diverse ecosystems - Earth's axial tilt is within a range that helps to stabilize our planet's climate - the Moon's mass helps stabilize the Earth's tilt on its axis, which provides for the diversity of alternating seasons - the Moon's distance from the Earth provides tides to keep life thriving in our oceans, and thus, worldwide - the Moon's nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.05) makes its influence extraordinarily reliable - the Moon is 1/400th the size of the Sun, and at 1/400th its distance, enables educational perfect eclipses - the Earth's distance from the Sun provides for great quantities of life and climate-sustaining liquid water - the Sun's extraordinary stable output of the energy - the Sun's mass and size are just right for Earth's biosystem - the Sun's luminosity and temperature are just right to provide for Earth's extraordinary range of ecosystems - the color of the Sun's light is tuned for maximum benefit for photosynthesis - the Sun's low "metallicity" prevents the destruction of life on Earth -

* A Fun RSR List Show: For this Thanksgiving weekend, a special rebroadcast. In  our List of the Fine-Tuned Features of the Universe, Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart quotes leading scientists and their astounding admission of the uncanny and seemingly never-ending list of the just-perfect finely-tuned parameters of the physical features of the Earth, the solar system, and the entire cosmos. This program is brought to you by God, maker of heaven and earth and other fine products! * The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Universe: Barrow & Tipler, in their standard treatment, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, admit that "there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent; moreover, these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers in the Universe." Examples include the wildly unlikely combination of: - there is the same number of electrons as protons to a standard deviation of one in ten to the thirty-seventh power, that is, 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (37 zeros) - the 1-to-1 electron to proton ratio throughout the universe yields our electrically neutral universe - all fundamental particles of the same kind are identical (including protons, electrons, down quarks, etc., even, in QED, photons!) - energy exactly equals mass (times the conversion factor of c²) - the electron and the massively greater proton have exactly equivalent opposite charges - the electron to proton mass ratio (1 to 1,836) is perfect for forming molecules - the baryon (protons, neutrons, etc.) that decays must conserve the number of baryons - the free neutron decays in minutes whereas it is stable within the nuclei of all the non-radioactive elements (otherwise eventually only hydrogen would exist because the strong nuclear force needs neutrons to overcome proton repulsion) - the proton can't decay because it is the lightest baryon (otherwise all elements would be unstable) - the electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned for the stability of stars - the gravitational and inertial mass equivalency - the electromagnetic force constant is perfect for holding electrons to nuclei - the electromagnetic force is in the right ratio to the nuclear force - the strong force if changed by 1% would destroy all carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and heavier elements - the precise speed of light, the square root of the inverse of the product of space's permeability and permittivity (i.e., its magnetic field resistance, 4π * 10-7 Weber/Amps * meter, multiplied by its electric field resistance, or 8.8542 * 10-12 Coulomb2 /Newton * meter2), or 186,282 MPS, is integral for life - etc., etc., etc. (including the shocking apparent alignment of the universe with the orbit of the Earth) Leading atheist physicist and biologist admit* The Most Famous Scientist Atheists Agree: The world's most famous scientist atheists in physics and biology have fully admitted half the question as to fine tuning, that the world APPEARS to have been fine tuned. Richard Dawkins: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Stephen Hawking: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted..." * An Atheist's Index to Replies: Here's an index to (failed) attempts to rebut the fine-tuning argument for God's existence.  * Omitting the Cosmological Constant: We have omitted from this list the commonly reported fine-tuning of the cosmological constant to one part in 10 to the 120th. This is so very precise that if the entire universe had as much additional mass as exists in a single grain of sand, it would all collapse upon itself. That is, if a big bang actually formed our universe, and if it created a miniscule additional amount of mass than it is claimed to have created, then no planets, stars, or galaxies could exist. Conversely, if the universe had less mass, by that same quantity, matter never would have coalesced to become planets, stars, and galaxies, and again, we would not exist. So, why doesn't Real Science Radio include this astoundingly fine-tuned parameter in our list? Well, as physicist John Hartnett points out, the cosmological constant is only a fine-tuning problem for the big bang theory, so it is an argument only against a big bang universe, whereas in our actual universe, it is not a fine tuning issue. So, the cosmological constant problem, also known as the vacuum catastrophe, does refute big bang cosmology, at least, for anyone who is objective, has common sense, and is not desperately trying to ignore the evidence for the Creator. (By the way, since NASA says that the confirmed predictions of the big bang theory are what validates it, you might want to Google: big bang predictions, and you'll find our article ranked #1 out of half-a-million, at rsr.org/bbp, presenting the actual track record of the predictions of the theory. Also, if you Google: evidence against the big bang, you'll find our article on that topic near the top of the first page of Google results!) * The Whopping Physics Coincidence: NewScientist reports about gravity and acceleration that, "a large chunk of modern physics is precariously balanced on a whopping coincidence" for, regarding gravitational and inertial mass, "these two masses are always numerically exactly the same. The consequences of this coincidence are profound..." * The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Solar System include: - Our Sun is positioned far from the Milky Way's center in a galactic Goldilocks zone of low radiation - Our Sun placed in an arm of the Milky Way puts it where we can discover a vast swath of the entire universe - Our Sun is in the unusual Local Bubble, 300 light years of extremely diffuse gas, 1/500th of the average - Earth's orbit is nearly circular (eccentricity ~ 0.02) around the Sun providing a stability in a range of vital factors - Earth's orbit has a low inclination keeping its temperatures within a range permitting diverse ecosystems - Earth's axial tilt is within a range that helps to stabilize our planet's climate - the Moon's mass helps stabilize the Earth's tilt on its axis, which provides for the diversity of alternating seasons - the Moon's distance from the Earth provides tides to keep life thriving in our oceans, and thus, worldwide - the Moon's nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.05) makes its influence extraordinarily reliable - the Moon is 1/400th the size of the Sun, and at 1/400th its distance, enables educational perfect eclipses - the Earth's distance from the Sun provides for great quantities of life and climate-sustaining liquid water - the Sun's extraordinary stable output of the energy - the Sun's mass and size are just right for Earth's biosystem - the Sun's luminosity and temperature are just right to provide for Earth's extraordinary range of ecosystems - the color of the Sun's light is tuned for maximum benefit for photosynthesis - the Sun's low "metallicity" prevents the destruction of life on Earth -

The Anthropic Principle (AP), in its many forms, attempts to explain why our observations of the physical universe are compatible with the life observed in it. From the Weak AP (WAP), which in one form states that "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist", to the Strong AP (SAP) which in one version states that: “The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage,” they all try to answer the question of why there is life in the universe, or why the fundamental constants are the way they are. But, do any of these principles add anything to our understanding of the ultimate question of life and the universe? Perhaps the best answer is embedded in Martin Gardner's sarcastic proposal of the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP): “At the instant the Omega Point is reached, life will have gained control of all matter and forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which could logically exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information, including all bits of knowledge which it is logically possible to know. And this is the end.” Sped up the speakers by [1.0, 1.0023674075121018]

Was the universe made for life? In other words, were physical laws and constants of nature somehow chosen to allow for complex life?Over the last century, physicists and cosmologists made a series of disturbing discoveries: cosmic coincidences. They found that parameters of nature and physical law seen specially crafted to make life possible. What are the implications?Are we just very lucky? Was the universe designed for us. Or, might it imply the existence of other unseen universes. In this episode we review the latest data and theories to find answers to these questions.Original article: https://alwaysasking.com/was-the-universe-made-for-life/Youtube episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOmdVVgtLLsSupport the show (https://alwaysasking.com/member-content/)

https://www.howardbloom.net/SPONSOR: https://apply.fundwise.com/minddog

30:47 clean Rev. Walt Marcum full info@hpumc.org (Highland Park United Methodist Church)

What are the chances the universe just popped into being? Even given the supposed millions of years? It's mathematically impossible and that doesn't even take into account there actually being life on Earth. Listen in for John Clayton's lesson 6 as we dis

Human civilization is only a few thousand years old (depending on how we count). So if civilization will ultimately last for millions of years, it could be considered surprising that we’ve found ourselves so early in history. Should we therefore predict that human civilization will probably disappear within a few thousand years? This “Doomsday Argument” shares a family resemblance to ideas used by many professional cosmologists to judge whether a model of the universe is natural or not. Philosopher Nick Bostrom is the world’s expert on these kinds of anthropic arguments. We talk through them, leading to the biggest doozy of them all: the idea that our perceived reality might be a computer simulation being run by enormously more powerful beings.Support Mindscape on Patreon.Nick Bostrom received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the London School of Economics. He also has bachelor’s degrees in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and artificial intelligence from the University of Gothenburg, an M.A. in philosophy and physics from the University of Stockholm, and an M.Sc. in computational neuroscience from King’s College London. He is currently a Professor of Applied Ethics at the University of Oxford, Director of the Oxford Future of Humanity Institute, and Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology. He is the author of Anthropic Bias: Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy and Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies.Web siteOxford web pageWikipediaAmazon author pageTalk on the Simulation Argument

Listen to learn more...

Listen to learn more...

Làm sao ta dám chắc rằng cuộc đời mình là thật chứ không phải ảo ảnh do kẻ khác tạo ra? Có phải chỉ có một thế giới biết mơ về những thế giới khác hay không? Show note: https://tinyurl.com/yxlchlsd

Host Chris Wright starts out with some news about Elon Musk's new son, X Æ A-12. He talks about the fact that so many presidential candidates have their own podcasts. He also gives some good advice as far a staying safe during the Covid-19 pandemic, especially after Governor Tim Walz's recent announcement. He also tells a riveting story about the 3 years, 3 months, 3 weeks, and 3 days. Join the Point Counterpoint Community: https://pointcounterpoint.locals.com/ Shop all things Point Counterpoint: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/PointCounterpointPodcast/ Follow Point Counterpoint on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pointcounterpointpodcast/ Check out Chris' lates musical release on Bandcamp: https://lordfleming.bandcamp.com/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/pointcounterpoint/support

Does a higher being exist that created the Universe, or is this all just some random, meaningless, luck that sent us spiraling through space? In this episode, Drew and Trey discuss subjects like the Cosmological Argument and the Anthropic Principle, as well as talk about the importance of apologetics in the Christian's life. This is part 1 of a 2 part, back to back, series answering the questions "Does God exist?" and "Did the resurrection of Jesus actually occur?"

Hope everyone is staying safe in these chaotic times. We are planning on releasing some bonus episodes now that we have some time on our hands due to quarantine. We are exploring some more alternate reality thoughts based off the video game trilogy mentioned in our episode, Alternate Reality Nosebleed. Where does our consciousness go when/if we shift into a different reality? And a mind boggling multiverse theory that makes you question how many different universes could there be that we, as humans, could never experience! Recorded Remotely to Social Distance. Recorded and Edit by Meghan Pavlovsky and Allison Varca. Music Credit to Michael Vontas. Contact us @outoftheaveragepod on Instagram and email us at outoftheaveragepod@gmail.com Some Information: https://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Anthropic-Principle-and-the-Multiverse-131965.shtml https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Escape

What conclusions can you draw from the fact that you’re here? The Anthropic Principle – 5 short examples Anthropics and Biased Models – “we can’t use anthropic reasoning on a single side of a model” An Anthropic Principle Fairy Tale … Continue reading →

In this episode we review what has been covered in the previous episodes, pointing out that the world is as it is in order that we may reflect upon it. Then we ask two questions, “can we know more about God from this?” And “so what, what does this mean to me?” It is in answering these questions that I hope the listener develops a yearning to know his Lord.

Is the universe life-friendly, and why did every bullet miss? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Ben explains the anthropic principle to Pat.

Ben explains the anthropic principle to Pat.

We return from our hiatus to discuss the Anthropic Principle and its applications to statistical reasoning. How should we think about probability when our own existence is correlated with an events occurrence?

I read from anthologist to anthropic principle. The word of the episode is "anthropic principle". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle dictionarypod@gmail.com https://www.facebook.com/thedictionarypod/ https://twitter.com/dictionarypod https://www.patreon.com/spejampar 917-727-5757

We continue our discussion of the Boltzmann Brain - a hypothetical randomly assembled mind rather than an evolved one - by looking at the Anthropic Principle and the Fine-Tuned Universe Theory, alternative ways of viewing the probability of our existence than the classic Copernican Principle. Watch the video versions: Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UfQb_-XAuY Part 2: https://youtu.be/GrK9EaQRp2I Visit our sponsor, Brilliant: https://brilliant.org/IsaacArthur/ Visit our Website: http://www.isaacarthur.net Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/IsaacArthur SFIA Merchandise available: https://www.signil.com/sfia/ Social Media: Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1583992725237264/ Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/IsaacArthur/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Isaac_A_Arthur on Twitter and RT our future content. SFIA Discord Server: https://discord.gg/53GAShE Credits: Boltzmann Brains, Part 2: The Anthropic Principle Episode 195b, Season 5 E30b Written by: Isaac Arthur Jade Tan-Holmes Script Editor: Olly Epsom Produced & Narrated by: Isaac Arthur Jade Tan-Holmes Music: Markus Junnikkala, "Plotting a Course" & "We Roam the Stars" https://www.markusjunnikkala.com

Proving God’s existence or the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, will never be proven in a manner we are all familiar with from watching TV legal dramas – beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I have found Frank Turek and Norman Geisler’s approach to apologetics most helpful. Specifically their approach in their best seller I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. In today’s episode, I am going to present three arguments for the existence of God: (1) The Cosmological Argument, which argues that since the universe had a beginning something had to be the cause. The most logical explanation is that that "something" is God. (2) The Anthropic Principle which is the idea that the complexity of the universe proves the God exists and; (3) The Teleological Argument which reasons that the best explanation for the complex fine-tuning of the universe and life on Earth is an Intelligent Designer (or God). Show Notes: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist - Frank Turek and Norman Geisler CrossExamined.org Over 1,000 Scientists Sign Dissent Darwinism Statement The Truth Quest Podcast Patron Page Join the conversation at The Truth Quest Facebook Fan Page Order a copy of Shawn's books - Pritical Thinking, The Proverbs Project, The Termite Effect. The video of this episode is available at YouTube, Thinkspot, and on BitChute.com.

COSMOS - Here’s the claim: conditions of the universe relate to the presence of observers. Does the Anthropic Principle convey deep insights? Or thwart science? For sure, it’s often misunderstood and controversial.

Is the universe life-friendly? And while we're at it, why did every bullet miss? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What was Inflation, the event that may have kickstarted the Big Bang we know today? What was it that caused the universe to expand, matter to appear, antimatter to vanish, helium to form, and the Cosmic Microwave Background to be released? And how responsible was the Anthropic Principle?

What is an observer? In the fifth and final part of their discussion, Jim Hartle and Bernard Carr discuss the nature of observers. Should we think of all complex structures as observers, or is there something else--such as consciousness--that makes a system an observer? This discussion was conducted at the Denys Wilkinson Building, Oxford, on October 18, 2016.

Where is the observer in the universe? In the fourth part of their discussion, Jim Hartle and Bernard Carr discuss Jim Hartle's no-boundary proposal. They explain how the proposal accounts for the quantum state of the universe as a whole, and how we find observers like us in a wholly quantum world. This discussion was conducted at the Denys Wilkinson Building, Oxford, on October 18, 2016.

Louis’s “meduso-anthropic” theory and the meaning of life ... Creating new universes (literally) ... Using black holes to power starships ... How black-hole starships could unite humanity ... Reality as a simulation and the wise alien scenario ...

This week Chris and Christopher bring back everyone's favorite segment: "This Month on Pot" where they talk about Michigan's current legalization efforts. Then they had a few drinks while interviewing the wonderful hosts of Unbuckling the Bible Belt podcast, Sharon and Kate. After that, Chris was given the go ahead for a full on philosophical take of the fine tuning argument with the Anthropic Principle. And finally, the two hosts emptied their glasses raging against the Pope and his horrific and seemingly fatal endorsement of modern day exorcisms. Segments ------ 00:00 This Month in Pot "The Presidential Candidate's Opinions" 22:41 Unbuckling the Bible Belt "Get to Know Us" Pt 1 41:20 Unbuckling the Bible Belt "Who They Vote For" Pt2 65:19 Science Segment "The Anthropic/Mediocrity Principle" 90:55 The Pope and the Demon Inside You: Exorcism Deaths Episode: http://www.spreaker.com/user/cellardoorskeptics/16-unbuckling-the-bible-belt-rage-agains Subscribe: http://www.spreaker.com/user/cellardoorskeptics Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CellarDoorSkeptics RSS Feed: https://www.spreaker.com/user/8326690/episodes/feed iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cellar-door-skeptics/id1044088575?mt=2&ign-mpt=uo%3D4 Website: http://cellardoorskeptics.com Links ------ http://www.marijuana.com/blog/news/2016/01/where-do-presidential-candidates-stand-on-marijuana-14/ ------ https://utbbpodcast.wordpress.com https://twitter.com/SeethinHeathen https://www.facebook.com/utbbpodcast https://twitter.com/SharonBushUTBB https://twitter.com/bluegrassskep http://bluegrassskeptic.com/ https://www.facebook.com/thebluegrassskeptic ------ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/11/on_fermis_parad091001.html http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244 ------ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/29/pope-francis-gives-blessing-to-exorcist-conference.html http://www.ibtimes.com/pope-francis-exorcism-how-hes-brought-practice-back-modern-catholic-church-1884000 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/exorcism-what-does-the-boom-in-demand-tell-us-about-pope-franciss-catholic-church-10176776.html http://www.livescience.com/37274-toddler-exorcism-death.html

John and myself(Chris) have an excellent discussion with Jason Colavito(http://www.jasoncolavito.com), an author and editor based in Albany, NY, whose books include The Cult of Alien Gods: H.P. Lovecraft and Extraterrestrial Pop Culture (Prometheus Books, 2005); Knowing Fear (McFarland, 2008); and more. His newest book is Jason and the Argonauts through the Ages (McFarland, 2014). Colavito is internationally recognized by scholars, literary theorists, and scientists for his pioneering work exploring the connections between science, pseudoscience, and speculative fiction. His investigations, which have appeared on the History Channel and were cited in publications like The Atlantic and The Huffington Post, examine the way human beings create and employ the supernatural to alter and understand our reality and our world.Topics explored include ancient aliens, Theosophy, H.P. Lovecraft, The Annunaki, The Nephalim,Zecharia Sitchin,Erich von Daniken, The Vril Society, Baalbek, Ancient Rome, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Kraus, Multiverse Theory, Anthropic Principle, Darwinism, Evolution Theory, etc...hoaxbusterscall.com

36:49 no Science and Faith: Understand the Issues info@hpumc.org (Highland Park United Methodist Church)

In this reposted podcast, J. Warner begins to examine the case for God’s existence from the Laws of Logic (the Transcendental Argument). Jim also responds to email concerning objections to the Anthropic Principle and talks about the sometimes 'hidden' nature of God as he interacts with his children today.

A class first on what it means to argue against the best version of an argument, including Darwin's approval of Plato's idea of pre-existence (as monkeys), then on to Pascal which leads to a discussion of the anthropic principle and of the sublime, in Kant but mainly in Burke: grasping in thought what could annihilate you in fact.

Axions are particles associated with the Peccei-Quinn mechanism for solving the strong CP problem. They are also interesting candidates for the dark matter. axions with very large decay constant f, say around the GUT scale. Such axions only make sense in an inflationary universe, and then only by having extremely small misalignment between the axion field in the early universe, and the value preferred by QCD. This fine-tuning can be explained invoking the anthropic principle --- it is actually the only case I know of where the anthropic principle really makes sense: one knows the a priori distribution of initial axion field values (a/f being a random angle), and one knows that a Universe without a particularly small range of values for a/f would not support habitable galaxies. With inflation all initial values for a/f occur somewhere, and we live in the only part of the Universe where we could live: where the galaxies are! In my paper with Ann we discuss how there might be observable consequences in this scenario (if we are lucky): the fine tuning of a/f makes us extremely sensitive to spatial variations in a/f, and it turns out the existence of a cosmic axion string as much as 1,000,000 time farther away than our cosmic horizon could be seen as a difference between our peculiar velocities relative to the CMB, and relative to distant type I supernovas. Seeing this effect would be a stunning window into the pre-inflationary Universe! His lecture was given on November 4, 2011.

Professor Bailyn begins the class with a discussion of a recent New York Times article about the discovery of a new, earth-like planet. He then discusses concepts such as epicycles, dark energy and dark matter; imaginary ideas invented to explain 96% of the universe. The Anthropic Principle is introduced and the possibility of the multiverse is addressed. Finally, biological arguments are put forth for how complexity occurs on a cosmological scale. The lecture and course conclude with a discussion on the fine differences between science and philosophy.

Transcript: The anthropic principle has been and can be criticized on purely logical grounds. Obviously one of the grounds is the fact that it doesn’t necessarily make predictions. It just seeks to retroactively explain why the universe has properties that would allow life to exist. It’s subject to a more fundamental fallacy as well called the observer’s fallacy. The first point, people should not be surprised that they do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with their own existence, and the second point that people should not be surprised that they do observe features of the universe which are compatible with their own existence. The first statement is obviously true, but logically the second does not follow from it.

Transcript: The cosmological anthropic principle connects the existence of life in the universe to the global geometry of the universe. The universe we live in has a spatial geometry very close to flat, and has a matter density within a factor of three of the critical density at which the cosmic expansion is slowly decelerated over cosmic time. The universe could have any value of the mass density. For hypothetical universes with much larger values of the matter density, these universes would have closed and re-collapsed a long time ago. In most of these hypothetical universes, there would not have been time for stars to form, evolve, and create carbon; they would have re-collapsed after millions of years. So, these would have been universes without biological life. In another set of hypothetical universes with much lower values of the mass density than the universe we live in, the early expansion would have been so rapid that stars and galaxies could not have formed out of the rapidly expanding material. Once again, with no stars, no carbon could have been created, and so no biological life would have been possible. Thus, out of the vast range of possible and physically plausible universes, only those with matter density in a particular narrow life could have biological life as we understand it. This is a fine-tuning argument on a cosmological scale.

Transcript: The anthropic principle is an extraordinary idea that is somewhat controversial even amongst scientists. It’s possible that the existence of life in the universe is not an accident, that the role of life in the universe is more central than we might imagine. The anthropic principle postulates that the presence of life in the universe is intimately connected with the properties and structure of the universe itself. There are several forms of the principle. The weak form of the principle is almost a tautology, saying only that we must observe properties of the universe that are consistent with the presence of life. The strong form is far more dramatic, saying essentially that the universe is built for life and must have had life because it contains us. Notice that this idea, the anthropic principle, completely subversed the Copernican principle of mediocrity where there is nothing special about us, our star, our planet, our galaxy, or our biology. It says that we are central to creation and existence. The primary criticism against the anthropic principle is that it’s not predictive in a standard scientific way, but it’s provocative enough to have stirred up debate amongst philosophers, scientists, and even theologians.

What is the Anthropic Principle? Does the universe and life show signs of being intentionally designed? Is the planet earth perfectly designed to sustain life?

The Anthropic Principle (AP), in its many forms, attempts to explain why our observations of the physical universe are compatible with the life observed in it. From the Weak AP (WAP), which in one form states that "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist", to the Strong AP (SAP) which in one version states that: “The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage,” they all try to answer the question of why there is life in the universe, or why the fundamental constants are the way they are. But, do any of these principles add anything to our understanding of the ultimate question of life and the universe? Perhaps the best answer is embedded in Martin Gardner’s sarcastic proposal of the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP): “At the instant the Omega Point is reached, life will have gained control of all matter and forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which could logically exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information, including all bits of knowledge which it is logically possible to know. And this is the end.”

Professor Bailyn begins the class with a discussion of a recent New York Times article about the discovery of a new, earth-like planet. He then discusses concepts such as epicycles, dark energy and dark matter; imaginary ideas invented to explain 96% of the universe. The Anthropic Principle is introduced and the possibility of the multiverse is addressed. Finally, biological arguments are put forth for how complexity occurs on a cosmological scale. The lecture and course conclude with a discussion on the fine differences between science and philosophy.

Listen to learn more...

Listen to learn more...

Listen to learn more...