Theoretical Toxic OBLITERATES Agent on fine-tuning argument.

Added: 2026-05-11

[00:00:00]I don't know.

[00:00:06]>> Like are you saying that the you prefer arguments where the premises are more like metaphysical claims?

[00:00:13]>> Yeah. not like probability claims because I I don't know like bro how do you even like how do y'all even get like the fine tuning argument across like especially when you have like have to do with things like quantum indeterminacy and like uh the strangeness of quantum phenomena on top of that the incompleteness of quantum theory in general with respect tology and metaphysics >> uh yeah I don't know what Batman.

[00:00:45]>> Yeah. I mean, like, how how do you argue that like the universe particularly is fine-tuned when like quantum theory and like contemporary science is just ontologically incomplete?

[00:00:56]>> Oh [ __ ] Uh, hold on. I'm getting haunted in Fasmophobia. One second.

[00:01:08]>> Okay. Uh, >> genuinely music. Dude, Eric just got bitched.

[00:01:14]>> [ __ ] said you got a scant server, man.

[00:01:20]>> I'm a theme for that stuff, bro.

[00:01:22]>> Yeah, bro. You can just get all the stuff off of the Imperial library.

[00:01:25]>> Me and my gonna make the greatest Elder Scrolls scan server.

[00:01:29]>> N you have to like get in the games and read it properly, [ __ ] >> Yeah. I mean uh >> like the reason why >> the reason why the universe is fine-tuned is because they're phys like it's in reference to physical constants.

[00:01:44]>> Yeah, but like okay what do you mean physical constants?

[00:01:50]>> Uh like there's powers bond like there's constants of the universe that are used in physical equations. Like the cosmological constant is how quick the universe expands.

[00:02:04]Oh, like so you just referencing those, but like um how would that like relate to like the point that I was asking? like >> the question I was asking >> well no I don't know what your your question is >> the I I've not even checked like the compatibility of like cosmological constant and like quantum phenomena but the question was just that how would you argue for fine-tuning if like quantum theory which obviously like has more fundamental aspects of reality is something that's onlogically incomplete stuff like cosmological constants they just like come after like quantum phenomena which as of now I'm pretty sure like scientists have no rigid account of what that is how it functions besides maybe quantum field theory >> but a that is also complete >> like maybe you're so well first I want to make sure that you understand what the finally tuned constants are So >> there's like 50 or more constants that uh you know if they're like a little bit less in value the universe wouldn't be permissive of life. And then if they were a little bit greater the universe wouldn't be permissive of life.

[00:03:28]And then the order of so how likely that would be is 1 and 10 to the 136th power.

[00:03:39]>> Oh yeah. I don't know. It makes it looks even shittier honestly.

[00:03:46]>> What makes it look What do you mean? I mean like are feeling like um you actually believe like the the inflationary cosmology is somewhat relevant to 0 point energy then obviously like in in in in a vacuum state you can theoretically argue that there's like a a a gazillion of like a bubble or small mini universes that just keep popping up but at the same time also like get destroyed every time they pop up. But yeah, even with that you can say it's improbable. It's statistically improbable for our universe to come to be. But that's just how naturally reality is. It's not something like oh well like this universe in particular is special. It's just that at fundamental scales like you can have like those statistically improbable things occurring but even outside of that like at at some point it can come to be like a reality. So in the same sense as when the universe like before it expands it's still within that vacuum state and zero point energy over time it can come to expand if even if it's like statistically like improbable like it can come to expand either way without like having to invoke like the idea that oh well we under these special circumstances and it's because God exists for example.

[00:05:09]>> Yeah. So sorry if I'm understanding you right. You're saying that a cyclical model of the universe is right and if a cyclical model of the universe is right uh it's just very >> it's not a physology >> at least not in the sense that the universe keeps contra contracting then expanding contracting then expanding.

[00:05:30]>> Yeah I don't understand. Are you just saying that there's infinite time or >> No, like like at at at fundamental scales like there can be like many universes that just like pop up and you know pop in and pop out of existence but only within a vacuum state, right? This argument has been like or this theory has been parsed by a few scientists and like even with that you can argue that sure the universe is statistically improbable but not because like um without it um sorry without God it cannot possibly come to be or it's more likely that it came to be because it's statistically improbable without God then like um I'm not sure how is that going to like require invoking a supernatural entity when things like that just like happen naturally like within quantum theory whereby you have like these particles and these universes that just fluctuate and they can come into existence and out of existence but even then at times they slip into reality and similarly with the inflationary cosmology at a certain time like our universe was also part of those fluctuations but over time it just was capable of like expanding and becoming a real universe rather than something that exists in a virtual state or 0 point energy or vacuum state like what it sorry is this like a multiverse kind of thing or >> I mean it can be arguable that maybe like some universes will turn out to be like um other branches of like universes.

[00:07:11]So it can be like a multiverse theory but like not necessarily.

[00:07:17]Okay. So, okay. So, is the idea is that there's just enough repetitions of other universes that like it's guaranteed that we get a life permitting one.

[00:07:28]>> Uh yeah, like I I I think yeah, sure.

[00:07:32]Because like the issue that I have is like this thing occurs like without end. It's like a reoccurring thing whereby like these particles and similarly in this case it would be like many universes that just keep on arising but like at the same time getting destroyed immediately over and over again. But at some point our universe in particular was capable of expanding properly and becoming a real universe >> like in this like breaking state.

[00:08:02]>> Couldn't you just do this with any evidence for God? So like imagine that the the stars in the sky just wrote out, "Hi, I'm God. I love you and like every molecule had that exact same sentence written on it." Every single item, sorry. Like couldn't you just use the same reasoning to say that uh like that's guaranteed. There was just enough universes in the past that just eventually we get something like this.

[00:08:25]We get the stars to arrange that way.

[00:08:28]Oh, you saying like you can say that even like you can say like yeah sure it's God even in spite of all of that.

[00:08:38]>> Sorry.

[00:08:40]>> Like are you asking me like if you can say yeah you can just still cash it out to be God that's responsible for making the universe like come to be a real universe and like no longer >> exist. I'm asking you if you'd have evidence for God if the stars wrote out, "Hi, I'm God and I love you." And it said that on every single item.

[00:08:59]>> Oh, you ask me like if that will be any like I would take it to be like evidence for God.

[00:09:05]>> Like strong evidence. Yeah.

[00:09:08]>> Uh [laughter] >> I mean come on. Like this is like an obvious like Yes. Right.

[00:09:18]>> Like the the hypothetical is just so weird. Like I don't know, bro. Like >> maybe I could be dreaming. like the the only way that I could see like like this occurring like and be like like somewhat thinking about this or maybe like uh contemplating on this. It's just me thinking that I'm delusional and that that's not actually what's happening. So I don't know like how I believe in God over something so ridiculous.

[00:09:46]>> Wait, what? Wait, okay, I'm sorry. So, in a world where I want to make sure that >> in a world where the stars wrote out, "Hi, I'm God, I love you," and every single Adam said, "Hi, I'm God. I love you." You're saying that you you >> The first thing I assume is that I'm schizophrenic, honestly.

[00:10:04]>> Like, I'm I'm not [laughter] >> Well, hold on. I just stipulate that out. You're not schizophrenic.

[00:10:12]I don't Okay, but like if I'm not schizophrenic then yeah, I'll probably accept that God exists, but >> that would not be like >> what's the difference between that and then finetune it?

[00:10:26]>> I mean like there I understand the correlation. So >> like your response to finetuning so if I'm if I'm understanding it right, your response to finetuning was like there's just been enough repetitions of universes where we just eventually get a life permitting one. But that's true of star writing and molecule writing as well. So the star writing and molecule writing like so long as there was enough repetitions of universes eventually you'd get one like that. So like what is the difference? Why are you convinced in one and not in the other?

[00:10:58]>> Uh I'm not convinced in the other like because the other seems like oddly supernatural. But like with regards to the example that I was giving and the argument that I was cashing out, I was just explaining this is just like a natural occurrence and obviously if these universes just keep on popping up like like in and out of existence at some point like I would expect that the universe would expand. Uh yeah, I don't understand the correlation between the second argument and the first argument or the second example and like the first argument that you made.

[00:11:34]>> Uh yeah, I don't Okay. Well, so so I just want to make sure I'm clear on this first. Yes. In the world where uh there's star writing and molecule writing, you do have good evidence for God. You're saying you agree with that?

[00:11:56]What?

[00:12:02]>> Yeah.

[00:12:04]>> Yeah. Yeah. In so in the world with starring >> in the world with starring molecule writing, right?

[00:12:11]>> Okay. Yeah, sure. Go ahead.

[00:12:14]in the world with star writing and molecule writing ink. Uh you're saying that you would get an update in favor of theism.

[00:12:21]>> Uh yeah, but like at the same time like the first thing I'd still assume is that I'm schizophrenic. But like that's because that's the point.

[00:12:28]>> Well, you're not the correlation between that and like the >> Yeah, but like what's the correlation between that and the argument that I was given?

[00:12:39]So the argument they were giving against fine-tuning was that there's been enough repetitions of universes where eventually you get a finely tuned one, right?

[00:12:47]>> Uh no, like this is like an oversimplification. Like I just think like all of those like fine-tune constants like seem to be less special if it's already a natural occurrence that reality itself configures like these certain universes like infinitely up until a point where like it can finally come to be like an actual universe.

[00:13:09]>> Okay. So they configure universes infinitely. Okay. So then it would just be so in fact it's not >> it's not even likely that you get a finely tuned universe. It's guaranteed that you could find right there in the universe. Is that right?

[00:13:22]>> Yeah, I would reckon that since like there can be infinite quantum states. I would reckon that at some point, yeah, you could get like a real universe from those infinite states.

[00:13:30]>> Okay. But just imagine in in the star writing and molecule writing world uh like a theist is arguing with an atheist and the atheist just used the exact same like look, okay sir, there may be star writing and molecule writing but there's just an infinite amount of universes.

[00:13:45]There's been an infinite amount of configurations of universes, we're just guaranteed to get a world with star uh writing and molecule writing.

[00:13:54]>> Oh yeah. If you if you talk about like that in the context of like I don't know like there being like also infinite universes, then yeah, I would not believe in God.

[00:14:06]>> Hold on. So you're saying that in the world where there's star writing? Sorry, I'm not even It's not guaranteed that there's an infinite amount of universes.

[00:14:16]>> Like I'm saying, oh, are you like I thought you were assuming that for like your count of factual. Are you not assuming that?

[00:14:22]>> I mean like all that's true. So I mean I'm sure that maybe you have reasons to think that there's an infinite amount of universes. Just say that the like those same reasons hold in this world.

[00:14:33]>> Okay. So are you saying that you wouldn't get an update in favor of theism?

[00:14:37]Bro, like I I'm not I'm still not sure I'm supposed to be responding to the argument that just like makes a hypothetical about me seeing stars talking about like, hey, like look, I am God. I exist. Like I'm I'm really not sure like I'm supposed to be like arguing against that. No, like um like theorizing about myself, like how I'd probably react to that. Like I don't know, bro.

[00:15:04]You don't know whether or not you update in favor of theism after looking at the stars and it's saying, "Hi, I'm God. I love you." And every molecule has that written on it.

[00:15:15]>> Intuitive example. That's why I said like I don't know like how it reacts to that. Like that's like the first thing that I said, "Oh, maybe."

[00:15:21]>> What do you mean it's unintuitive?

[00:15:25]like >> like it's difficult to understand or it would be unintuitive to update in favor of theism.

[00:15:49]>> Yeah, I got to go into bed. You said what?

[00:15:52]Like you're saying it's unintuitive because it's difficult to understand or it's unintuitive to update in favor of atheism.

[00:15:58]>> Oh, it's just unintuitive for me to like think of myself seeing stars like just saying like, "Hey, look, God exists."

[00:16:05]Not like either of those two.

[00:16:11]>> I I don't know what I don't know what you mean, >> bro. Like Okay, bro.

[00:16:18]I'm not used to stars like saying like, "Hey, look, uh, I'm God." Like, "See, I exist." That's why I think like it's like an unintuitive example. So, I don't know how I would react to that given that I I personally it looks like a a a a counterfactual.

[00:16:35]It's just not really relevant to like naturalistic means. So, I don't really like know how to react to that if my intuition is switched to like naturalistic means.

[00:16:50]>> Okay. Just like it's guaranteed that you're not schizophrenic and you have like an accurate account of reality and like your perception is reliable.

[00:16:59]Uh >> I don't know that that assumes that it's even possible. So, even by naturalistic means.

[00:17:08]You think it's impossible to have what?

[00:17:11]A reliable perception.

[00:17:14]>> No, not that. Like a a reliable perception. I think it's impossible to prove like you have a reliable perception >> within that example, especially when you're taking like only naturalistic means existing, >> not a supernatural thing like God for example. Just making that as like a miracle to like reveal himself to like his creation or some [ __ ] like that.

[00:17:35]>> Okay. right now. Do you feel like your perception is reliable?

[00:17:40]>> Uh yeah, absolutely.

[00:17:42]>> Okay. You just feel that exact same way in this world. And it's true regardless of whether or not you know it or not.

[00:17:49]Okay. Regardless of your justification, it's just true that you have a reliable perception. And the stars write, "Hi, I'm God and I love you." And every molecule has the exact same thing on it.

[00:18:03]You're you're not you're you're not updating in favor of theism in that world.

[00:18:09]>> Bro, why you still asking me about that hypothetical? Like I I cannot conceive of myself within that hypothetical because my intuitions are accustomed to naturalistic things. That's just like my issue with this. Like I I just can cannot conceive of myself just like reacting to like these stars just like saying, "Hey, look, I'm God. I exist."

[00:18:30]And I cannot think how I I cannot imagine how I think personally like in that regard placed in that situation especially like about like the universe what I think about that. So I I really don't know how to answer that.

[00:18:45]>> Okay.

[00:18:46]>> Maybe maybe you should imagine that it's not you but it's someone else like call him John. Do you think that John's justified in believing in God?

[00:18:55]Um I mean I guess in the context of that universe. Sure.

[00:19:01]>> Okay. So imagine we move John over to our universe. Okay. We can call him twin John. Ton. Okay. Do you think Ton is justified in our universe by in believing in God >> in our universe? Like assuming that like it's not like a universe that has stars telling us that God exists. Is that it?

[00:19:21]>> Yeah. like the evidence swaps from star in molecule writing to fine-tuning.

[00:19:27]>> Yeah, I don't think like Yeah, I don't think she'd be justified.

[00:19:33]>> Okay. What's So, okay, before you told me that there's just enough universes where it just wouldn't be that unlikely that you get life from contents, but that's also true of the starring case.

[00:19:44]So, now like just name the trait between the two cases. Why is John in one and not the other?

[00:19:51]Yeah, like the reason why like that guy is probably not justified in this context is because in this context you have to take into account like the uniqueness of quantumlogy and also it's fundament it's it's its nature has just been fundamental. So I think you just have to like take that into consideration because there's there's obvious discrepancies between like like relativity or the world just in in larger scales and like the world at fundamental scales. So I think you also have to take into account that since you're swapping between this subject existing in that world and the subject existing in this world and it's also like a a difference in context here since you're arguing for physical constants instead of like the world as it appears to us just telling us hey look God exists and I am God. Haha. So I still think like there's like some somewhat of a relevant distinction between those two examples that you're giving.

[00:20:49]Sorry, the distinction is is it is it facts about quantum mechanics? Is that the difference?

[00:20:56]>> Yeah. Like also the fact that I think that the only way that I accept a fine-tuned argument is if it somehow also proves that with respect to quantum phenomena like it was especially fine-tuned to allow for the universe to exist.

[00:21:16]But since you already know that quantum phenomena can also facilitate the non-existence of the universe, then obviously the existence of the universe is also not fundamental. And if it's not fundamental, honestly, how you can invoke a supernatural entity on a basis that our universe just exists even though our universe existing is also not fundamental.

[00:21:35]It's not something that's as special or unique whatsoever.

[00:21:39]>> Yeah. I don't sorry when you said the universe is fundamental. Do you mean it's necessary?

[00:21:45]>> Like no like in the context of like um science let's just say like like uh physical laws just strictly physical laws like the the existence of the universe is not something that's like fundamental nor necessary. Yes.

[00:22:02]>> Okay.

[00:22:04]So yeah, I mean I might be like in John's world with star writing and molecule writing the quantum facts remain the same as our world excluding atomic >> I [clears throat] don't think that's possible.

[00:22:22]>> Okay. What what do you think uh is there something about star writing and molecule writing that you think means that quantum mechanics changes?

[00:22:31]I mean, yeah, like you know, like I don't think like you can argue like quantum phenomena to exist like in a manner that's unchanged, but at the same time in a manner that stars can also come to write within themselves that hey, I'm God and I exist.

[00:22:50]>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I have no idea what you're saying.

[00:22:54]>> Yeah. Like there's there's no way you can say like the quantum phenomena remains unchanged, but you can also accept the existence of like these stars that just like they just write that within themselves like >> like okay maybe you're saying like there's a a trivial difference in quantum effects like there's qu like there's particles where the stars are arranged that's not true of our case but is is the evidential difference between the two like the position of the atoms composed osing stars. Is that really really the thing?

[00:23:26]>> I think >> I think you're just unjustified in holding that this would be compatible with quantum phenomena.

[00:23:36]>> Okay.

[00:23:39]Well, yeah. I mean, I literally know.

[00:23:42]>> Okay. [laughter] Are you saying Okay, here here's maybe another guess at what you're trying to say. It's like maybe our universe is sort of undertuned. Like if there was a god, uh maybe it would predict finely tuned finely tuned contents, but it would also predict a stable like quantum mechanic that uh you know controls the universe or something or accurately describes the universe.

[00:24:07]>> I knew that I was looking at >> is it supposed to be that is it supposed to be that the universe is undertuned?

[00:24:13]Uh so like our universe the the physical contents of the universe allow for life but if a god existed uh you know we'd expect like a consistent not uh always changing quantum science that describes the universe.

[00:24:32]>> Oh no.

[00:24:35]Okay.

[00:24:37]No, you you said like um you said you can conceive of I'm pretty sure unless I misinterpreted you. You said you can conceive of that being the case like the stars just riding within themselves that yeah, hey, I'm God. I exist. And you can also assume the fact that in this counterfactual, the quantum phenomena would also remain unchanged. But I said you're unjust unjustified in holding that the quantum phenomena would remain unchanged. But at the same time, you also hold to the fact that these stars would also be capable of being written written upon like that also expressing that sentiment that well, hey, look, I'm God and I exist.

[00:25:14]>> No, I mean, I was just saying that there's no like there's no true facts about uh quantum phenomena that, you know, are different now except for trivial ones like the position of the stars.

[00:25:30]There's no true fact. What what would the economic be an example of a true fact in quantum phenomena that could remain unchanged but also facilitate stars expressing that within themselves like okay so here's a true fact about a quantum phenomena okay uh there is at least one electron in my room okay and then here's one of the trivial facts that might change uh there is a set of particles composing stars that write out, "Hi, I'm God. I love you." Okay.

[00:26:06]So, in our world, that's false. In this world, that's true.

[00:26:12]You're still unjustified. Like, what do you mean that particles like an electron exist? Like, how can an electron exist in a manner that allows for an arrangement of electrons that also allow for a star to express that sentiment?

[00:26:26]Like, positions.

[00:26:30]>> You said those are different propositions.

[00:26:33]>> Yeah. Like here, so here's an example of a true proposition that remains uh steady in both worlds. There's at least one electron in my room.

[00:26:44]>> Yeah. But like I'm asking you like in what manner can you conceive of strictly through naturalistic means of quantum phenomena like facilitating for stars expressing that sentiment within themselves?

[00:26:58]Yeah. I don't know. That's why I said Okay. Okay. Like I think we're getting a bit off track here. Like what is Do you think that you could give exactly what uh the proposition is that's changing across the world where you're justified in one and not the other? Because it's certainly not. And just to be clear, what I'm asking for is an objection to fine-tuning that wouldn't apply to starring because the other objection he gave applied to both, which meant it proved too much. It would mean that John wouldn't be justified in believing in God if molecules and the stars wrote, "Hi, I'm God and I love you."

[00:27:32]>> Yeah. But like in regards to like the example that you gave with like John and like um these stars there like in the other world like just writing like hey look I'm God and I exist like there was no like strict no rigid account of like how like um the world would be nor what would constitute the world in such a manner that it can allow for God to reveal himself in in a peculiar way right that peculiar way. And like if you swap John from existing in that possible world and existing in the actual world, I don't know how you would also come to map that example into the naturalistic world so as to say that sure John even existing in this world if we were to experience that he would go about like um believing in God because like the stars like revealed God in that manner unless like with in the context of electron existing in this well you're not assuming that example and it's just saying in this case right this just like the universe is fine-tuned and it's fine tuned with respect to like the physical constants yeah I mean I okay so are you trying to say that the the twin world was starring long are you saying that's impossible >> um no I'm not saying that's impossible I'm just like wondering like how would you be justified in assuming such a world was naturally possible to begin Not logically.

[00:29:00]>> Why am I justified in thinking that it's possible?

[00:29:04]>> Yeah. Naturalistic in terms of like naturalistic means, how would you be justified in saying like yeah, this world is like naturally possible?

[00:29:13]>> Like why does this world not violate laws of nature? Is that is that what you're asking?

[00:29:20]>> Yeah.

[00:29:22]>> Uh yeah. I mean I like I can conceive of it perfect like there's no uh there's no like a priority truth that it's contravening with >> I mean yeah it sounds like you you're conceiving of it as like a logical possibility not like in terms of like naturalistic means. So >> yeah but what is that okay so maybe it's physically impossible. Uh, I don't I don't think that's right. But like suppose it was what what does that do for you?

[00:29:53]>> Like supposing it being like physically possible.

[00:29:59]>> Yeah.

[00:30:01]>> Oh yeah. it would have to be physically possible since like my argument entirely hinges on the fact that it's possible for the universe to like be statistically improbable but at the same time also like be fine-tuned while not invoking that uh the existence of a supernatural entity like this could just be the case like naturally speaking. So like in this case like it would have to be like naturalistically possible because if it's not then it's not going to be relevant to my argument because if you're going to just argue like from metaphysics standpoint is saying well uh this is also metaphysically possible then I don't think like that modality in particular is going to be like relevant to the conversation at hand.

[00:30:45]>> Okay. So, so now the idea is that in the starriting case, your objection wouldn't apply because the starring case isn't naturally possible and your objection is about the net like the natural facts. Is that is that it? Yeah. Like that that was the reason why I was like how how would I I find this example to be extremely uh unintuitive because how would I conceive of myself existing in that world and having a distinctive belief system if my intuitions are accustomed to the natural world and that does not seem like something that would occur within the natural world.

[00:31:21]>> Okay. Yeah. I mean that so now that sounds like something different but uh let's see if I can figure out first point. Like okay so the objection is that so okay first there's a statistical improbability which is that the physical constants of the universe are life permitting okay that's one two is that okay here's a hypothesis that predicts that data there's an infinite amount of configurations of universes okay so then it's just guaranteed that you get a finely tuned universe now the question is in a world where there's starring okay that same hypothesis would predict the data that there's starring because everything would have a probability of one for obtaining because there's an infinite amount of trials. Okay, so that's step three. So one uh there is a you know like a set of finely tuned physical contents. Two uh there's a hypothesis that predicts the data. Hold on.

[00:32:14]>> Said hold on.

[00:32:16]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:32:18]>> Yeah. Well, he he said it in text, so you're not going to hear that jackass.

[00:32:25]>> Yo, wait. It was repeat one point >> so much from you.

[00:32:31]>> That's fair.

[00:32:33]Oh, my name is John.

[00:32:35]>> Yeah, my name's John and I have a twin named Tuan and he's like in some other world.

[00:32:41]>> Oh, no, no, no, no, no.

[00:32:46]He says he gots to go, bro.

[00:32:49]>> Dude, okay.

[00:32:53]>> I love you, Toxic.