Leonard Mlodinow - Why Fine-tuning Seems Designed

If all is random and our universe is the only universe, the chance existence of human awareness would seem incredible. Because the laws of physics would have to be so carefully calibrated to enable stars and planets to form and life to emerge, it would seem to require some kind of design. But there are other explanations.



Leonard Mlodinow is a theoretical physicist and author, recognized for groundbreaking discoveries in physics, and as the author of five best-selling books.


Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[mauriceDur]

Nothing like man. He can’t entertain the idea of a creator, but as we observe fine tuning, he can then creat the idea of a multi-verse to explain that fine tuning. Man knows only an immeasurably fraction of what there is to know about any of it.

[richardfynn]

However, Roger Penrose notes that the fine tuning of the entropy of the early universe is such an enormous number (10 to the 10 to the 123) that one cannot use the multiverse argument that Leonard is using here. See his interview on fine tuning on this channel

[michaeljburt]

Absolutely brilliant interview. It's a service to the public to be doing these videos

[EveryHappening]

The title should be “Why the naturally emerging and obvious observations of fine tuning do not convince me of the obvious”. It’s a longer title but one I think suits it just fine.

[bretnetherton]

"Awareness is known by awareness alone, " is the sole irreducible axiom of reality.

[stevenfroman]

Multiverse is an overkill and not necessary to explain fine tuning. It is sufficient for the one and only universe to recycle itself with different parameters ("random mutation") until the "finely tuned" version comes out and life and intelligence take advantage of this rare opportunity.

[KokoRicky]

I love the clumsiness of conversations like this. They're being candid and honest about a very difficult subject and I think the conclusion that a testable explanation is satisfying even if it points to god, is a smart way to look at it.

[shahidmiah]

Fully agree with Leonard, only believe in what can be verified or atleast calculated. A lot scientists want to imagine up stuff then call it science.

[johnbrzykcy]

I like his scientific explanations but also his acceptance of whatever we find that seems to be true. His approach to the subject is better than what I've heard from other scientists.

[KrwiomoczBogurodzicy]

[11:17] “No, I’m ‘happy’ with whatever gives us predictions that we can verify. You know, that’s funny cause when I first came to CalTech, I was in the same floor with Feynman, and I remember he was _volciferously_ against this idea of wanting nature to appear one way. And that time was very much people were talking about _the theory of everything, _ _the unified field theory_ that Einstein was looking for, and he [Feynman] was very much against that _desire, _ cause he just said: “Well, maybe nature is this way, maybe there’s support theories. Why do you need _the theory of everything?”._ And mathematically speaking, people would go: “Oh, it’s more beautiful!”, but he was very much rooted in what really is. I’m not for or against the multiverse, I’m just for whatever we find that seems to be true, and then that will guide me in terms of what I believe.”
#IntellectualHonesty

[thai]

Could it be said that the idea of "infinite multi-universes" is really no different than the idea of "the god of the gaps"?

So scientist who give God the credit for the design of the universe are accused of simply using "the god of the gaps" argument. But scientist who reject "the god of the gaps" argument are happy to embrace "infinite multi-universes". What is the difference?

[mountainhobo]

9:20 [Mlodinow] "If there is no multiverse, than there is a huge coincidence that everything is so fine tuned to give life" — I think this is where the whole problem with this discussion lies, anthropocentrism. Who said universe is fine tuned to give life? We might as well spend decades trying to figure out why the whole universe was designed to allow moss to grow on trees. This is a false premise.

[christianjimenez]

Great conversation keep up the great work Robert Lawrence Kuhn!!!!

[lesliecunliffe]

Is the multiverse conjecture able to be falsified? If not why does the scientific community believe it gives a causal explanation for why fine-tuning exists in our universe? Also, if multiverses exist surely each one will be fine-tuned and therefore, by definition, validate the fine-tuning argument.

[videosbymathew]

They keep ignoring the idea that the values may not be changeable at all and the idea of changing them simply doesn't make sense perhaps. Just because we assign a number to something, a value, doesn't mean other arbitrary numbers are suddenly a consideration. In otherwords, the mystery may be of our own creation.

[sorlag]

Why does fine-tuning assume life is so special? Aren't we ascribing it that specialness? What _if_ the universe was different in its numbers; there'd be phenomena that would exist there that doesn't exist in our version. Maybe not life, or stars, but interactions and things unfamiliar to us. But to "them", life and stars would be unfamiliar concepts. So why is it remarkable our universe allows for life, when there's possibly an infinite amount of things it doesn't allow for?

[kallianpublico]

There is a sense that the story science is telling itself (and us) is confined by its own rules. Can it be that self-consistency is designed? Logic is logical?
Which is more valid the needle in the groove of a turning record, or the music that can be heard? There is a sense that science is stuck in the story of the needle in the groove.

[UltimateBargains]

If one can use faith to justify any belief, then no belief can be justified by faith.
If nothing in reality can change your belief, then your belief is based on nothing in reality.

[bruinflight]

Doesn't Penrose's conformal cosmology proposition or Everet's many-worlds concept preclude the notion of 'variable constants' and the kind of multiverse the hand-waving of inflationary cosmology suggests? Also, why is it that inflationary cosmology must ultimately imply 'variable constants'? That seems like a tacked-on hack to solve a totally different problem.

[Dion_Mustard]

I am not religious but I have to argue that even if multi-verses do exist with their own laws, this doesn't instantly dismiss intelligent design..it may be each universe has been intelligently designed by one or several "designers"..I would not call this "god"..I would say the "intelligence" could be a higher consciousness. HOWEVER the bigger question then becomes who designed that grander "consciousness" ..it can't just have popped into existence, just as the universe(s) couldn't just pop into existence..
I suppose the consciousness or "designer" may have always existed..there may never have been a beginning, but with an expanding universe, I suppose there has to be a starting point.
Very deep questions which are intriguing and mystifying, but you never get anywhere except asking more questions..
I know there have been people who had Near Death Experiences and say they communicated with a "higher loving being" who is usually in the form of energy or light..very interesting indeed.