Phillip Goff

Yeah, I think it's hard to get it because these are so abstract. It's hard to connect. This is why it's good to have these concrete examples that I'd forgotten I'd given in my book. Thank you. I mean, suppose like suppose let's say because I do find people often say, oh, it's just chance. But suppose, you know.

robbers break into a bank and there's a 20-digit combination and they get it right first time. And now we're considering two hypotheses, right? Hypothesis one, they guessed it. They just got it right. 20 digits, got it right. Lucky lads. Yeah, lucky, lucky young guys. Hypothesis two, they had inside information. Now, which one are you going to go for?

robbers break into a bank and there's a 20-digit combination and they get it right first time. And now we're considering two hypotheses, right? Hypothesis one, they guessed it. They just got it right. 20 digits, got it right. Lucky lads. Yeah, lucky, lucky young guys. Hypothesis two, they had inside information. Now, which one are you going to go for?

robbers break into a bank and there's a 20-digit combination and they get it right first time. And now we're considering two hypotheses, right? Hypothesis one, they guessed it. They just got it right. 20 digits, got it right. Lucky lads. Yeah, lucky, lucky young guys. Hypothesis two, they had inside information. Now, which one are you going to go for?

Nobody is going to say, oh, they just guessed. It's just too improbable. But if you think that's improbable, it is nothing compared to the more than astronomical improbabilities of these numbers being right by chance. So if there is another explanation...

Nobody is going to say, oh, they just guessed. It's just too improbable. But if you think that's improbable, it is nothing compared to the more than astronomical improbabilities of these numbers being right by chance. So if there is another explanation...

Nobody is going to say, oh, they just guessed. It's just too improbable. But if you think that's improbable, it is nothing compared to the more than astronomical improbabilities of these numbers being right by chance. So if there is another explanation...

analogous to the robbers having inside information, another explanation that removes the improbability, then you've got serious evidential support for the eyeballs. That's just how evidence works. We know how evidence works with a little bit of mathematics called Bayes' theorem. And, you know, that is how evidence works.

analogous to the robbers having inside information, another explanation that removes the improbability, then you've got serious evidential support for the eyeballs. That's just how evidence works. We know how evidence works with a little bit of mathematics called Bayes' theorem. And, you know, that is how evidence works.

analogous to the robbers having inside information, another explanation that removes the improbability, then you've got serious evidential support for the eyeballs. That's just how evidence works. We know how evidence works with a little bit of mathematics called Bayes' theorem. And, you know, that is how evidence works.

And I'm inclined to think really there's cultural bias going on here that we don't want to touch the other explanation because it feels a bit goddish. I don't think it doesn't have to be the traditional god, but it feels too goddish. And it's like, no, science has ruled that out. I mean, I talked to loads of physicists about this. And Generally, they don't say, oh, this isn't true.

And I'm inclined to think really there's cultural bias going on here that we don't want to touch the other explanation because it feels a bit goddish. I don't think it doesn't have to be the traditional god, but it feels too goddish. And it's like, no, science has ruled that out. I mean, I talked to loads of physicists about this. And Generally, they don't say, oh, this isn't true.

And I'm inclined to think really there's cultural bias going on here that we don't want to touch the other explanation because it feels a bit goddish. I don't think it doesn't have to be the traditional god, but it feels too goddish. And it's like, no, science has ruled that out. I mean, I talked to loads of physicists about this. And Generally, they don't say, oh, this isn't true.

This is not controversial physics. I'm not a physicist. I wouldn't be defending fringe physics. What they say to me is, I think the evidence will change. Yes, current physics is fine-tuned for life, but that will go away. And of course, It might go away, right? Future physics, when we bring quantum mechanics and general relativity together, maybe there won't be any fine tuning.

This is not controversial physics. I'm not a physicist. I wouldn't be defending fringe physics. What they say to me is, I think the evidence will change. Yes, current physics is fine-tuned for life, but that will go away. And of course, It might go away, right? Future physics, when we bring quantum mechanics and general relativity together, maybe there won't be any fine tuning.

This is not controversial physics. I'm not a physicist. I wouldn't be defending fringe physics. What they say to me is, I think the evidence will change. Yes, current physics is fine-tuned for life, but that will go away. And of course, It might go away, right? Future physics, when we bring quantum mechanics and general relativity together, maybe there won't be any fine tuning.

But maybe there'll be more fine tuning, correct? All you can ever do is work with the evidence you currently have. And I think it's the definition of a bias. to just say, well, I'm going to wait until we get evidence that fits the view I feel more comfortable with. So I think there's a sort of secular bias going on here. We're well trained to be alert to religious biases, aren't we?

But maybe there'll be more fine tuning, correct? All you can ever do is work with the evidence you currently have. And I think it's the definition of a bias. to just say, well, I'm going to wait until we get evidence that fits the view I feel more comfortable with. So I think there's a sort of secular bias going on here. We're well trained to be alert to religious biases, aren't we?

But maybe there'll be more fine tuning, correct? All you can ever do is work with the evidence you currently have. And I think it's the definition of a bias. to just say, well, I'm going to wait until we get evidence that fits the view I feel more comfortable with. So I think there's a sort of secular bias going on here. We're well trained to be alert to religious biases, aren't we?

You just want to believe that. Every generation absorbs a worldview it can't quite see beyond. And I think future historians looking back will think, Why did they just ignore this fine-tuning stuff for so long?