Watching Dr Sabine debate topics like "is the sun conscious?" is one of my favorite forms of entertainment

@Thomas-gk42

7 ай бұрын

she talks the least, but says the most

@Joseph-fw6xx

7 ай бұрын

She's a smart little lady

@Thomas-gk42

6 ай бұрын

@@n.p.mackenzie Rupert is totally crazy my best, nothing is to verify about the claim, that the sun is conscious, it's a gigantic ball of hot plasma, constantly whirled, with very few structures and without any possibility to form complex ones. You also could claim, that your dirty underwear is conscious in the same way. Of course, you may believe it like the indian people, he talked about, but if you come with that in a scientific disguise, it's pseudoscience. And Sabine is not arrogant, she just says clearly what she thinks is right. Better than blabla.

@Thomas-gk42

6 ай бұрын

@@Joseph-fw6xx No doubt, she is!

@UAPrich

5 ай бұрын

I believe each galaxy is a form of conscious - too many very intelligent people seem to think so.

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” - Douglas Adams

@cookymonstr7918

8 ай бұрын

Anything that happens, happens.

@verfassungspatriot

8 ай бұрын

Sounds like a bold claim lol

@henrym.7858

8 ай бұрын

If only that could happen then it would be a result of Murphy's Law which says that anything that can happen will happen .

@VijayGupta-lw7qz

8 ай бұрын

PicoPhysics: In PicoPhysics Universe appears to be very simple. Amulgamated (or Free) Quants of Kenergy in Space.

@eugenecampbellutube

8 ай бұрын

There is a theory that what Douglas Adams says, makes no sense.

The quote "Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think“ is by Werner Heisenberg in his book 'Across the Frontiers' (1974), not by Niels Bohr, as the presenter says at the beginning and as is written in the description.

@VijayGupta-lw7qz

8 ай бұрын

PicoPhysics: In PicoPhysics Universe appears to be very simple. Amulgamated (or Free) Quants of Kenergy in Space.

@rodschmidt8952

8 ай бұрын

It's also attributed to J.B.S. Haldane "queerer than we can suppose"

@christopherellis2663

8 ай бұрын

Stating an opinion is not making an argument. Poor fellow needs a long holiday.

@user-hy9nh4yk3p

6 ай бұрын

What does this mean - never heard this puzzling - stuff before - it better make things - more understood.? Fare thee well.@@VijayGupta-lw7qz

@tim40gabby25

3 ай бұрын

'Owt as queer as folk'. I wonder if the Universe will simply prove inexplicable to us ?

Rupert Sheldrake: "as soon as things become in a structure--(like in the human body)-- the randomness is replace by an order...." Nobody notice that? And that is a truth as big as a cathedral, people. Greetings from Chile.

"Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think." -Werner Heisenberg

@kipponi

8 ай бұрын

Yes it is beyond our understand, but why?

@VaughanMcCue

8 ай бұрын

I am uncertain about that.

@VaughanMcCue

8 ай бұрын

@@kipponi Because my cat scratched at the flywire and wanted to go out. As soon as I opened the door, it changed its mind. That has to be as good as any other why question you can conjure up.

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

No, Nils Bohr, right? But anyway just nice words, no meaning

@TennesseeJed

8 ай бұрын

@@kipponi Haw!

I'm not sure that we will ever understand everything. But I feel that the persuit of understanding is a fundamental part of humanity. Humans love to learn, explore, and discover. I don't imagine humanity would be able to stop trying to understand things.

@ogi22

8 ай бұрын

And this is where i agree with Bjorn and Sabine. If the universe is infinite (or so big, that for our human minds can be treated as such), our small and finite brains will never be able to understand it all. Not in todays configuration. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try!!! This is exactly the same thing with free will and decision making. I'm all for those who say we don't have free will (just an illusion). But it doesn't mean we can't make decisions. And i as a human being, I decided I'd love to find out as much as i can before i pass away. I have no idea what will be in a few hundred, thousands or more years. Perheaps we will evolve into something much more capable than humans? Personally i really hope so. And i also hope that this one particular character trait - curiosity, will remain in our grand, grand, grand.... children.

@morphixnm

8 ай бұрын

Aristotle: “All men by nature desire knowledge.”

@MarsLonsen

8 ай бұрын

We will never understand everything.

@kuswanto6488

8 ай бұрын

This universe is the breath of God through his angel, he created and ended nature with three trumpet blasts. Humans as God's most perfect creation are given the highest gift, namely being able to speak and reason. There is only one weakness of the human mind, that is, the human mind cannot find the limits of its own mind. There are two most important parts of man, namely the spirit (spirit/consciousness) and his heart. The human spirit experiences seven phases ( 1. the eternal age 2. the mother's womb 3. birth into the world 4. life in the grave 5 in the plains of society (flat earth) 6. the day of judgment 7. Heaven or Hell. While the human heart is like a King for the Body man.

@kuswanto6488

8 ай бұрын

​@@MarsLonsenin our spirit realm there is no three-dimensional space yet or only in the form of writing, in our mother's womb we already exist in three dimensions but there is no time dimension yet, in the natural world we live in 4 dimensions, space and time, in the grave we live in five dimensions , time space and memory of our actions, in the realm of resurrection we live in six dimensions while in the afterlife we ​​live in seven dimensions. but mathematically those dimensions could be primes. 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17.

Absolutely love this juxtaposition of fine minds considering essential questions from different perspectives. Thanks so much!

Just started listening. So far so good!

Sabine's face when the whole conscious sun story was going on showed a struggle to not scream.

@apophisxo4480

8 ай бұрын

LOL!

@paulpinecone2464

8 ай бұрын

I screamed for her.

@DanielJones-wj7mm

8 ай бұрын

Because she thinks and behaves as if she is the only smart person in the room. Sad.

@apophisxo4480

8 ай бұрын

@@DanielJones-wj7mm She may well have been...Love her!

@TheBiggreenpig

8 ай бұрын

@@DanielJones-wj7mm Nah, besides Sabine, there was conscious sunlight there too.

Very entertaining and stimulating in the best of ways. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks so much for posting.

A wonderful discussion. Polite and deeply intellectual. Thank you for posting.

The universe is not incomprehensible, but Rupert Sheldrake's approach to science is.

@ihatespam2

8 ай бұрын

That’s how he keeps going, living off the mystery, and others ignorance and gullibility.

@Corteum

8 ай бұрын

Curious! What the single most incomprehensible thing you find about Sheldrake's approach to science?

@vaibhavsati538

8 ай бұрын

@@Corteum the sun

@Corteum

8 ай бұрын

@@vaibhavsati538 lol I dont think he should have started with the sun. He could have just talked about consciousness itself... since we havent even figured that out yet, ,let alone going straight to the sun. That's a huge leap for most scientists right now.

@DarkSkay

8 ай бұрын

Two approaches I'm not familiar with, but I'd very much enjoy reading your philosophy about the one you perceive as "not incomprehensible".

When I read the names Sheldrake and Hossenfelder, I knew the panel would not necessarily be fruitful, but it would very entertaining. As I expected, it was a true delight to see how Dr. Hossenfelder's bs-o-meter several times in the course of the discussion crossed the upper limit of the measuring range .

@Bob-of-Zoid

8 ай бұрын

She's going to have to have it serviced now from it having to go off so often!! Daaaaaaaang!

@johnarnold893

8 ай бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

Thanks for the funny comment. Is her bs-o-meter already available in her online-shop? Pay my monthly income for that.

@fragileomniscience7647

8 ай бұрын

If people stuck more to proper logic and less to ego driven word salad, that would be great.

@carefir

8 ай бұрын

My own bs-o-meter went off so many times I thought my house was on fire

This conversation reminds me how we are all trying to explain the same thing, just using different words.

@bicivelo

8 ай бұрын

No. The guy on the left is using claims and unfalsifiable methods to try and prove his quackery.

Kudos to Sabine for not bursting like a solar flare when the topic turned to if the Sun is conscious 😂😂😂

@patinho5589

8 ай бұрын

The Sun is conscious. Any scientist who will rightly call themselves a scientist, having now read my post will investigate the veracity (or not) of the Aetherius society recordings.

@timbeck6726

8 ай бұрын

Consciousness(the term) has,in modernity, been diluted,enhanced,manipulated,commodified to the point of loosing an agreed upon objective meaning...so sad.

@iphaze

8 ай бұрын

I studied her face carefully when that came up, I half expected her to laugh or stop that gentleman mid-way through his speech 😅

@danlindy9670

8 ай бұрын

Yes. Her expression is priceless.

@robr177

8 ай бұрын

And for not cringing when the presenter mispronounced her name at the beginning.

sabina's face when he's talking about talking to the sun. yes.

@bengeurden1272

8 ай бұрын

I am so glad he didn't get into Flat earth stuff He is already active in the pseudoscience area after all

@pythIV

8 ай бұрын

​@@bengeurden1272he is ? how come?

@natanaellizama6559

8 ай бұрын

Yeah. She is limited by her own unchallenged and limited conceptions.

@rlustemberg

8 ай бұрын

@@natanaellizama6559just an exponent of naive materialism

Sabine looks like someone who mistakenly walked into the Furries convention and is trying to figure out wtf is going on... 😂

@cliveadams7629

8 ай бұрын

Now that is a pretty damned good analogy.

@AsifBooks

8 ай бұрын

@@cliveadams7629 Agreed, She's great when speaking, but when anyone else is speaking, she shuts down and just sits there looking slightly uncomfortable.

@user-sl6gn1ss8p

8 ай бұрын

@@AsifBooks I mean, I don't know how much she knew beforehand about the other panelists, but I could see the whole conscious sun angle being hard to interact with on the spot

@Corteum

8 ай бұрын

@@AsifBooks That's her couping mechanism for the discomfort she feels at having her assumptions challenged and being unable to respond in a raitonal manner 😂lol

@robertthiesen2687

8 ай бұрын

@@AsifBooks She seemed to appreciate Bjorn's perspective. She even looked at him when he was talking 😂😂

As someone who's worked with a few famous actors and musicians, I can tell you that, the bigger the star, the less likely they are to be conscious.

Three of my favorite thinkers. Just a fantastic conversation

Diverse panel, and interesting discussion. Much better than I expected, as the panelists did not get bogged down by their own disciplines and personal views. They were still able to present their perspectives and recognize their limitations.

@ebog4841

8 ай бұрын

Sheldrake has no perspective. Not even within his own ... uh.... "discipline"

@Phariseehunter

8 ай бұрын

​@@ebog4841could argue that 'discipline' is a large part of the problem of early conditioned reactivity to causal naivety that brings forth the protectively self-centric individualised mind that, neccesarily, forms psuedo-protective, stubborn thinking patterns and consequent behavioural loops.

@babiekoala7643

8 ай бұрын

Why not argue respectfully with a Delusional patient in Asylum, as to why he believes Unicorns will eat all humans next Monday... because the process of mind believing something purely based on assumptions rather than full knowledge/complete observations... is literally called Delusion... Please stop baby sitting these God believers because they can cut your head if they have done that in the past, for literally not believing in a delusion... Christianity like any other religion is Delusion... Delusion have two components: one that is practical (like human extinction) + one that is impractical (Unicorn made human extinct)... understand that your mind can make impractical blend in with Practical and make whole thing believable... But you should always keep questioning things... and that's only Science's capability... neither religion, nor philosophy have capabilities of accepting that they are taking a huge Risky leap of faith in the middle to connect Impractical to Practical world...

@josephgrace4725

8 ай бұрын

​@@ebog4841some of Rupert's work on plant biology is school-coursebook standard worldwide...

@firstal3799

5 ай бұрын

Agrees

"plenty of strangeness here on earth if you think about it" . Agreed.

@proto-geek248

8 ай бұрын

Yea, like Hollywood 🙄

@srobertweiser

8 ай бұрын

''People are strange, when you're a stranger.''

@DarkSkay

8 ай бұрын

Plenty of marvel as well. At the source of this marvel, many see the generosity of the Gods.

@liamhickey359

8 ай бұрын

@@DarkSkay generosity , gods. What is the opposite of generosity and what is the opposite of gods.

@DarkSkay

8 ай бұрын

@@liamhickey359 At the opposite side of a mirror, sometimes another mirror. Opposite a lush forest nourished by rivers, clouds travelling with the wind; casting shadows traced by distant stars.

Great to hear this open and more expansive discussion.

@MattWhatsGoinOn

8 ай бұрын

Good thing, too, because the universe is expanding.

@amihart9269

8 ай бұрын

I don't think I gained much listening to a guy talking about conscious suns that can fire jets to move around and that humans can apparently communicate with it lmao

This is good conversation!👏👏

Entertaining discussion, thank you.

Loved the discussion, thank ya'll.

I love the idea that we may never know, but we will keep asking questions and trying to find out. It's perfectly OK to not know things, and exercising one's imagination and solving puzzles is wonderful. I cherish all three speakers. BIG FAN

How about the white feather rising from lower left of screen up above Rupert and out of sight, 30 mins 10 secs onwards

Sabine Hossenfelder, I love that woman she has one my favorite channel's very informative.

On the last question, there are two different kinds of understanding when it comes to the universe: 1 getting deeper into the fabric, down to an understanding of aether or quantum foam. 2 finding useful laws that describe chaotic behaviour at all levels of physics, from quantum foam up. Including complex chemical reactions and interactions, aerodynamics at hypersonic speeds, weather, plasma fields etc… The former can have a finite depth of understanding. That is the foam is made of discrete particles and forces that can be mapped mathematically. The latter is infinitely complex as chaos is what it is. After all we can easily map the trajectory of a cannon ball as it falls through the air but it is incredibly hard to predict the path of a feather doing the same thing, in the same conditions, under the same laws of physics. If it is worth finding useful rules that describe the probabilistic oath of the feather, then it is worth exploring.

@rogerjohnson2562

8 ай бұрын

When physics laws explain chaos, it wont be chaos anymore.

@denysvlasenko1865

8 ай бұрын

@@rogerjohnson2562 > When physics laws explain chaos, it wont be chaos anymore. "Chaos" in physics does not mean "behavior which follows no rules and thus can't be predicted by any theory". "Chaotic system" merely means a system where even tiny changes of initial conditions lead to significantly divergent later states.

@____uncompetative

8 ай бұрын

@@denysvlasenko1865 > tiny changes of initial conditions How do meterologists keep track of where all the butterflies are?

@Elrog3

8 ай бұрын

"The former can have a finite depth of understanding." - It could, but there's also no reason to think that that is the case.

@coreyleander7911

8 ай бұрын

*buzzwords* *buzzwords* *buzzwords*

Wow this is such a treat for me. I am more than interested in Rupert Sheldrake especially his ideas on consciousness and I so enjoy Sabine Hossenfelder in every way. This was a great experience for me. Thank you. 🙏🤓✨

interesting.. thanks!

Not sure if everybody caught that there was general agreement that mathematics requires an agreement on axioms. Theoretical physics is really about what is the simplest set of axioms that would explain what we observe. The mathematics is just computing what would happen if we start from a hypothetical set of axioms so we can then compare that to observations.

@stevengordon3271

8 ай бұрын

In my mind "understanding" is justifying a choice of axioms beyond "hey, they give us the right results".

@carlosgaspar8447

8 ай бұрын

in physics, the axioms can be hypothetical. in mathematics and philosophy of logic, axioms just are. they are a set which combined with logical operators lead to another set of statements.

@____uncompetative

8 ай бұрын

I would be happier to have physics without a multiverse (it seems like a cop out), physics without the odd notion of the 'many worlds hypothesis' (again, dubious), physics without a swampland of 10²⁷²·²⁰⁰ initial conditions (Cumrun Vafa's _F-theory_ which can F-off as far as I am concerned). Maybe something can be "smuggled in" underneath spacetime using various forms and combinations of Imaginary Numbers. Maybe it is as simple as everything we perceive as having mass in what we comprehend as spacetime (which may well not exist in the way we assume as it could be something wildly transformed yet still be mathematically consistent: such as a single electron/positron weaving forward/backward throughout what we think of as spacetime ~ with our sampling of reality being turned inside out so that the distant entanglements were proximal and our Free Will was neurologically coupled with it, so that in a relatable sense, but from an atheistic perspective, we are a part of a God which constitutes the cosmos who has a Disassociative Identity Disorder and rarely experiences an awareness of oneness except when the brain chemistry changes due to some hallucinogens and hypomanic psychosis ~ all this is speculative and is not even a worthy hypothesis for scientific enquiry as there would be no experiment that can be devised to determine whether one person is a fragment of the divine, yes, you might fool around with some cards with squiggly lines and try to see if one person can read the mind of God that is trapped within another person's brain, but ESP is about as discredited as staring at goats these days), is representable by Real Numbers, and everything that we perceive as quantised energy waves is represented by various forms of Imaginary Numbers, which is so tempting in its simplicity given that a Spinor is a square root of a Vector and a square root has +ve and -ve solutions, which is why Paul Dirac came up with antimatter in the form of the positron and the rest of _Quantum Field Theory_ can be seen as an elaboration of his ocean of Spinors that are the host to phenomena within our psuedo-Riemannian manifold, but it could be that the inability to tie a persistent knot in anything other than a Lorentzian (1, 3) Metric is a mathematical reason which recovers our 4-dimensional spacetime, not as some arbitrary parameterisation of a set of physical multiverses where other exouniverses of different combinations of dimensions exist, or a number lazily pasted in from our solipsistic observations which lack the introspection to accept these are tainted by a privileged quasi-"God's children" mindset, but one which could be proven through _Knot Theory_ to be the only tenable topology given the alternatives are either lacking in sufficient spatial dimensions to have the knot pass over and under itself as it is (1, 2) or (1, 1) or (1, 0), or no time in which to tie the knot (0, n), or too many spatial dimensions allowing the (1, 4) knot to slip past its own bounds through an adjacent hyperspace, which is the same for any (1, m) where m > 3. Why knots? Well Lord Kelvin once put forward _Vortex Theory_ to explain atoms as knots in the aether, but at a level of a _Theory of Everything_ it will move beneath physical observations to mathematical consistency which synthetically generates reality a sample of which we experience ~ to ask the question: "What happened before the Big Bang?" ceases to be about physics and increasingly becomes one of meta mathematics (the mathematics where axioms are not taken for granted as there are multiple foundational choices for mathematical systems based on different axioms). Consequently, I was pleased to see Cohl Furey's video entitled as being fresh thinking: _Summary (Video 13/14)._

@karlbarlow8040

4 ай бұрын

Well summed up, thanks.

Excellent.... thanks 🙏.

Interesting discussions.

Einstein " The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is , that it's comprehensible " 😵‍💫

Ooh my lucky day! I just rewatched the one with Hossenfelder, Penrose, and Kaku and still couldn’t get enough of Sabine keeping things grounded in reality. This is just what I needed today! 😁

@theprasun

8 ай бұрын

You mean it was way past Sabine's league

@Farmfield

8 ай бұрын

I love it when Sabine says "I know string theorists, ehm, serious string theorists..." 😂

@Bob-of-Zoid

8 ай бұрын

I used to like Kaku, but now he's getting ever more KooKoo, and just breeding more of the same!

@Bob-of-Zoid

8 ай бұрын

@@theprasun Not even close! She's truly brilliant, and a true scientist who will not cater to absurd beliefs like religion! I myself will challenge anyone too in that regard, I don't care how much science thy have studied and worked with: If you can't show it, you don't know it, and faith is not a viable nor working method to derive knowledge, and has always and will only fail miserably!

@andrewr311

8 ай бұрын

Yes 'reality.'

Sabine did well to keep a straight face

@DrDeuteron

8 ай бұрын

I’m just glad the sun kept cool and shined on.

@Phariseehunter

8 ай бұрын

Her face is most often straight that's the hyper-rationalists issue.

I love Sheldrake's ability to be science-minded while retaining the open-mindedness to understand the deeper nature of Science- Science is never settled as the universe is no static.

@billbaggins1688

8 ай бұрын

open mindedness .. lol ... you mean open to ideas that make no sense. This is not something to be admired.

@summerclubs9064

8 ай бұрын

Those who spend time in the Sciences and lack exposure to less rigourous thinking processes often find "right-brained" divergent thinking to be flaky. Those who spend no time in the Sciences sometimes are. The balanced Renaissance mind uses both adeptly. Sheldrake is such a person.

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

you mean pseudoscience?

@bodeeangus9957

7 ай бұрын

Sheldrake is a proponent of pseudoscientific ideas, I wouldn’t even say that his arguments make any kind of sense in philosophy either.

@firstal3799

5 ай бұрын

He is very open

Rupert Sheldrake and Sabine Hossenfelder both did very well! A great discussion!!

@RWin-fp5jn

8 ай бұрын

I agree! Educated like Sabine, I yet like Sheldrake's argumentation of things. Sheldrake may not have the math skills of Sabine, but at least he is deeply committed to understanding the REAL phenomenon of consciousness, whilst Sabine is committed to understanding a purely IMAGINARY phenomenon of Quantum Gravity (which even Penrose has to admit is nonsensical). Yes I get the raised eye-brows when suggesting the Sun may be conscious. But think it through please. Take the example of cockroaches; They are successful in survival, quite aware of their surroundings and relative smart in their strategies. By any standards that qualifies as some level of consciousness. The fact they can't communicate with us is due to what we consider to be an 'inferior' level of consciousness. Well ok. All Sheldrake says is that this may apply in reverse as well; that there might be higher fractal levels of consciousness our Sun is part of, that likewise we can't recognize or communicate with due to our own relative inferior consciousness level. That is a very reasonable line of thought. As for Sheldrakes' suggestions of the existence of a medium through which consciousness may be 'uploaded and downloaded' manifesting in living organisms; We may again laugh and hold the view our consciousness is confined to only the working of neurons in brain activity. Ok. laugh all we want. But then take a look at KZread at the very tenacious tiny creature called 'lacrymaria'. Watch it being aware and conscious of its surroundings, hunt for food, avoid enemies. And next realize you are looking at a single cell creature. Not having a single neuron. How on Earth is this intricate behavior coming from the suggested confinement of its limited biology? Until anyone can explain that to me, I don't exclude Sheldrake again has a very valid point. Sabine needs to open her mind a bit. She should be intelligent enough to yet see the merit of what Sheldrake is proposing.

@coreyleander7911

8 ай бұрын

@@RWin-fp5jn yes the “imaginary” phenomenon of QG, which you emphasize in capital letters confidently. This gets 3 likes. Incredible stuff. The world is in so much trouble.

@coreyleander7911

8 ай бұрын

@@RWin-fp5jn I also saw elsewhere in these comments that you’ve stuck in there for psychological effect that Penrose called quantum gravity nonsensical. Just a complete lie. You’re quite the propagandist and liar, huh?

@suecondon1685

8 ай бұрын

@@RWin-fp5jn I like this, great comment. I've followed Sheldrake for ages, his concepts make a lot of sense to me. Your analogy of the Lacrymaria is the way I feel about a lot of things, including viruses. A virus is not considered to be alive, but it will somehow adapt as a 'species/strain' to suit its needs, mutate without communicating. The mechanism for this seems to be a riddle. I think there's something in this pansychism theory. I just feel there's an inherent reason behind every action of a system that is 'non-living' which could be explained if that entity had some kind of awareness. If an alien observed a bunch of humans going about their daily business it would all seem like we were all a shower of brainless nutters. 😏

@suecondon1685

8 ай бұрын

@@coreyleander7911 I've also seen Sir Penrose say it is nonsensical.

As an Indian, I would be mortified if someone took rituals of prayers to sun as actual communication in any way! I am with Dr. Hossenfelder on certain aspects of science not easily explained by analogy. She is a treasure! 😊

@PrashantParikh

8 ай бұрын

Hindus, when relating to Surya deva, are not referring to merely the solar orb.

@Bob-of-Zoid

8 ай бұрын

Thanks for that sir! I was scared at first when I read "As an Indian" 🤭 To me Sheldrake shouldn't be allowed near science, as he would waste everyone's time, as everyone who took that rout always have, only for nothing but more people believing the absurd with zero evidence to back it up has ever come of it!

@johnarnold893

8 ай бұрын

@@Bob-of-Zoid You should rethink that statement. I've never considered stars to have consciousness until now but if you think about it the sun has been around for 4.5 billion years and it very well might have developed some kind of consciousness that is beyond anything we can fathom. After all, our form of consciousness is nothing more than a bunch of electro-chemical reactions.

@carlosgaspar8447

8 ай бұрын

@@Bob-of-Zoid at least what sheldrake proposed is very much testable and it would not cost billions like a large hydron collider. sabine said that dark matter does not interact with "light" which is basically a tautology unless she actually meant the electromagnetic spectrum.

@HereWeGo0o0

8 ай бұрын

Sheldrake was just talking about shared human consciousness being concentrated on a single message. He could have used a sports analogy, like a stadium praying for the winning field goal of a football game. But then everyone would have been arguing about football vs. futbol, and then chaos. And then a silence like the vacuum of space.

Much respect to Sabine Hossenfelder for resisting the urge to facepalm during Rigbert Shelduck's wibblings.

@beerman204

8 ай бұрын

shall we now all praise the rationalists among us.....they are positively inspiring

@viktordoe1636

8 ай бұрын

Gosh, this pathetic circlejerk is out of this world...

I once asked Ed Witten the following question: “If there was no life in the universe - none; no animal, plant or other life including bacteria, viruses, etc. NONE - would it make any sense to speak of the universe existing at all.” Dr. Witten shrugged, and said words to the effect: ‘…that is a meaningless question.’ I was trying to engage him in a discussion of bishop Berkeley’s “esse es percipi,” but he was not having any of it……

@pn2543

8 ай бұрын

haha, nice try, 'I refute it thus!' - Dr Johnson

@surfingonmars8979

8 ай бұрын

@@pn2543 can’t argue with the man…..

the first things we see and touch become the basis for our comfortable metaphors. when i say, "i cannot understand this." it is that i can't apply the comfortable metaphors of my childhood. but, as sabine alludes to, there are other types of understanding that we can learn and apply. still, i expect that there are limits to how much i can cram into a container the size of the human head.

Hossenfelder always looks like she's about to enter a boxing match. Love it!

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

She looks marvelous, and she´s funny

@enigma7791

8 ай бұрын

People always get aggressive when they have reached the end of their knowledge and it no longer explains what is taking place

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

@@enigma7791 what do you mean, no one was aggressive in this talk?

@enigma7791

8 ай бұрын

@@Thomas-gk42 The original post was "Hossenfelder always looks like she's about to enter a boxing match." Are people who look such a way not aggressive? Are they not ready for a fight because they feel threatened?

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

@@enigma7791 you might be a great psychologist than.

It is possible that we may harmonize our understanding to our perceptions - though it may depend on each's view of what we understand or how total it's domain.

Personally I believe we could eventually be able to understand the basic makeup of the universe through science, however, there will always be further questions and concerns to understand (e.g., how to better integrate ourselves into fragile, complex ecosystems). I also think philosophy causes more trouble than it helps and consciousness in the sense that it is normally defined is due to the unique configurations of the systems in the human brain that give rise to the formation of transitive relationships (in research referred to as transitive inference). It is, in my opinion, transitive relationships that make it possible to do the things that are considered human like language, theory of mind, self-reflection, etc. I recently watched a video by Sabine Hassenfelder describing her grad student’s work on dark matter. This as well as all the other videos on gravity out there I have seen and the books/research papers I have read gives me hope that something like what I describe here has a potential to reconcile general relativity and the standard model via a hybrid classical-quantum theory of physics to describe the universe. My only regret is that it is quite boring when it comes to the fantastical possibilities offered by the existing models. I love my sci-fi books, movies, and series. From Sabine’s video above, she describes a phase transition to super fluid dark matter within a black hole and I suggest while under increasing pressure, diffuses or undergoes another phase transition to dark solid (dark energy) accounting for information loss. So here is a descriptive view of the universe with no need for something from nothing, time travel, worm holes, or any other fantastical mathematical artifacts and I believe could satisfy both the standard model as well as general relativity although there is still the hard work of reconciling both. I prefer a view that doesn’t have all of the magical conclusions from the existing models. So if someone could come up with the mathematics for the following or show that it is not possible, or at least could come up with a cogent argument why this or something similar couldn’t be the case, I would appreciate it. What if the universe’s zero point energy (dark energy) were an elastic solid with a viscoelastic liquid suspended in it due to ripping energy apart from the underlying solid and coalescing into quanta from a Planck scale event (a big bang) - similar to an elastic solid/viscous liquid colloidal suspension with gravity being the relationship between the analog energy of the elastic solid and the quantized viscoelastic liquid? Could then gravity be just a matter of conservation of energy at the analog scale appearing to be quantized due to the influence of the relative energies of the quantized liquid? Could that not make space-time the superfluid (with respect to viscosity of the viscoelastic liquid [i.e., viscosity comes between the quanta within the liquid]) and superconducting elastic solid (dark energy) and the source for quantum fields, possibly account for the energies attributed to anti-particles, account for the randomness of black hole evaporation as energy dissipates back into the solid, account for effects attributed to dark matter, account for wave-particle duality, account for the expansion of the universe accounting for the redshift as well as potentially be the source of another big bang as quanta become unstable and then critical due to energy dissipation? One can imagine the elastic solid loosely as a perfectly smooth sponge (not a foam or any bubbles or anything ‘in-between’). When you pinch a portion of the sponge to simulate taking energy away from this sponge, you create negative pressure through contraction and the source of gravity as well as the symmetry necessary for the other forces. I can’t see why this descriptive view couldn’t accommodate the standard model as (mainly) applied to the viscoelastic liquid and general relativity (mainly) applying to the relationship between the elastic solid and the viscoelastic liquid. I've seen papers using "elastic solid" as a model and papers using "viscoelastic liquid", but not both at the same time in a hybrid classical-quantum theory. So how could we put this into a mathematical framework? For general relativity, I think we would need to translate the “curvature” of space-time to “contraction” of spacetime. I’m not sure how or whether that would actually be necessary or not (I think it would have to take place in order to translate to a conservation of energy framework). I have no idea what this would do to quantum theory; however, I do believe it could account for many of the unknowns. Any formulation would of course have to satisfy both theoretical predictions. What a beautifully elegant and consistent picture where conservation of energy (Emmy Noether) and dissipative structures (Ilya Prigogine) define everything at every scale including evolution and maintenance of life itself (Jeremy England).

@jimgraham6722

8 ай бұрын

Spacetime does have some elemental characteristics we can measure, so there is progress to be had in finding more of these.

tuning in

Excellent discussion. An excellent exchange of scientific ideas and views. Superbly conducted and only a pity that it was so short. But how succinct!

@rogerjohnson2562

8 ай бұрын

'excellent' chat about intelligent stars... really...

@auturgicflosculator2183

8 ай бұрын

@@rogerjohnson2562 I for one quite enjoy speculative fiction, and I think that funny questions provide interesting answers, and infinite more questions. About people, about our environment, about everything we can conceive of.

@Phariseehunter

8 ай бұрын

Find it interesting if they had the same meeting again, but changed the seating arrangement.

@wicekwickowski3798

8 ай бұрын

@@Phariseehunter -The fact that this discussion was very good does not mean that we agree with all theses, eg Dr. Hossenfelder! One can have many reservations about her way of seeing and understanding the world. I could immediately put forward completely different assumptions, equally logical. In general, discussions of this type show how these scientists have limited scientific horizons and are stuck in errors learned from elementary schools.

@Phariseehunter

8 ай бұрын

@@wicekwickowski3798 Yes totally, early reactions in being naive of causality and becoming conditioned, naturally, in wanting to feel safe so being appropriated by and attached to culture. Here there can be the multiple comfort associations, two by example, status and tenure with scientific cult'ure.

Brilliant. Deep Respect for all of these Thinkers.

@Bob-of-Zoid

8 ай бұрын

Ruben Sheldrake deserves no respect.

@VaughanMcCue

8 ай бұрын

Two speakers!

@ximono

8 ай бұрын

@@Bob-of-Zoid That attitude says a lot about the current state of the science community. Paradoxically unscientific.

@Bob-of-Zoid

8 ай бұрын

@@ximono Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse Meeeeeeeeee! Sheldrake is a philosopher, not a scientist! Besides that since when has serious science ever followed no evidence whatsoever as vigorously as religion? Not fo r long at all, and then only under the threat of death by religious zealots! But please explain to me what the F you mean by that exactly and where doing so has ever brought facts to light, good evidence worth following, let alone irrefutable proof for anything: Give it your best shot!

@coreyleander7911

8 ай бұрын

@@ximono It's exactly the opposite: when someone provides evidence through their false claims that they are not credible, one should increase your credence like a good Bayesian that said someone is likely generally not credible, right? It's like you Sheldrake's universe of demonstrated false claims over the years gets to be forgotten to you.

Will we ever understand the universe? My guess is that when we do it will be game over; humanity will have passed the ultimate test and everything will begin again. But one thing a lot of people will agree with and that is Sabine Hossenfelder and Rupert Sheldrake and Bjorn Ekeberg among a host of other great thinkers have helped us understand many, many things about our world because of your wonderful minds. A student of mine---a few years ago I was an English teacher as a side-job to being an artist---was surprised when I asked him what was the purpose of life. "You always ask me the most complex questions," he mused. But then he blurted "The purpose of life is to enjoy my life." Here I was for decades trying to cobble together a fantastic trail of high-brow adjectives to describe what I have been doing since I got here. I thanked him profusely, because for me boys and girls, he hit it right on the nose. You don't have to invent the light bulb as your purpose on life, you have to find the key to enjoying your life all the way through to the end.

@lfvett725

8 ай бұрын

I think science can never answer the question "why?".

@patricksee10

8 ай бұрын

Are you enjoying it at the end? When there is no more? I think probably not. Or what about a life of stress and strife. No enjoyment there. So avoid stress and strife? I don’t think so, not much to do there. All round the enjoy life philosophy needs to be filled out, perhaps abandoned

@tekannon7803

8 ай бұрын

@@patricksee10 GGGGGGGGGGGGreat to hear from you. What is the one thing that makes you or me or anyone for that matter, unique in the universe? Have you ever noticed that even if you wanted to, you can't give away your point of view? It's because it's what you have accumulated from your experience in life and it's why your point of view is unique to you and only you. You have just read mine and it has nothing to do with yours, because it's from my experience and distilled down into my philosophy of life.

@patricksee10

8 ай бұрын

@@tekannon7803 of course not friend. You and I are humans. We share 5 senses, moral values and the same needs. You can know a lot about me or anyone else. My truth is yours and everyone else’s

@ximono

8 ай бұрын

I always though it an absurd question. Not because I'm a nihilist, but because I think it's merely a symptom of a psychological issue. Only someone who feels life is meaningless would have the need to ask it. I think it's a symptom of being uprooted. If I had to answer it, I'd say: To love. (I actually hit the wrong key when trying to type "live" and was surprised to see "love" appear on the screen. Divine intervention? Serendipity? Freudian slip of the finger? Whatever the cause, I'm keeping it.)

A great discussion and I enjoyed all the viewpoints immensely. Thanks.

Wow, loved this! More, please! There will be something we won't understand, let alone be unable to measure. We will understand the origin of the universe because we are an infinitesimal byproduct of it. We carry only of the characteristics that make it up for a specific reason that is a part of the truly fundamental rules and mechanics of what actually drives the universe. Randomness needs to be parsed out to take into account the levels of the universe's infinite activities. What happens "randomly" is always within some pretty tight bounds, only happening in within a broader, but context. That randomness is an integral driving force of the overall path/lifecycle of any entity; without it we wouldn't see the structured systems (plants, animals, planets, solar systems, and all the way further and back infinitely) all around us. We are coded to be only what we are and that determines what we need and what we don't: We can only see a very small part of the light spectrum because the no-doubt-infinite other spectra would only get in the way of our existence. And will never see a man with fire for an arm or a body of water suddenly morph into an apple: randomness clearly has limits, and rules. Even if we marry-up to human-developed computers that expand our understandings (or at least provide more and better access to the entire repository of what we know) the next limit is certainly how much more within our self-and uniquely human-developed measuring system technologies we tightly-defined humans can provide that AI, imbuing it with the ability to go outside of the universe they were taught exists through the only language they truly understand: math. The limits of understanding will always be there because we are able to use tools of our making. Our conscious mind is - if anyone hasn't noticed - uniquely human, but clearly not uniquely animal; but when you necessarily stretch way out the definition of conscious, it is not at all probable conscious to us is what conscious is, and how it acts and communicates in, say, a rock or the sun. Talking to the sun would clearly not be the same kind of task an English speaker has in learning Japanese. A Brit could get really close to becoming Japanese (we all share a whack of DNA), but a human or one of it's machines will forever be simply unable to even "hear" the sun trying to communicate, never mind have some kind of connection with it because it was not in the cosmic rules for us to exist. If we could communicate with the sun, we should've already been able to communicate with gourds, dandelions, water, ants, the moon, and everything else. In the context of these thoughts, there is a lot (relatively speaking) we can perceive and measure that at least show us a glimpse of how everything is connected. Our atmosphere does for us what we see space does for the bodies and activities in it. Same idea, same blueprint, but at an insignificant scale and with obviously different attributes. Dark matter for the infinite number of heavenly bodies could be as oxygen is for us; "allows" stars to do their radiation thing. But if we hope to have discussions like this for the next few thousand years, progress really needs to be redefined. What we like to call progress created what could actually be our significantly premature demise. As boring as it would be, maybe the best thing we can do for humanity is to hit the progress brakes, take stock, and redetermine what it will take for us to progress and survive a while longer.

@srobertweiser

8 ай бұрын

Pretty interesting AWD. I don't think we should slam on the brakes, like a Mennonite, but we oughta pump the brakes a little, ''take stock, and re-determine what it will take for us to progress and survive a while longer''.

@TheWorldTeacher

8 ай бұрын

🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe that can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (i.e. the observer of all phenomena) - is unknowingly to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of Ultimate Reality as being the Perfect Person, and “God” is a personal epithet of the Impersonal Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Monad is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every fully-enlightened sage in the history of this planet, Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, consubstantially and simultaneously, Absolutely NOTHING and Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “(Param) Brahman”, “Cosmic Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “Unconditioned Truth”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Universal Self”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). Subsequent chapters expand on this axiom. In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself, or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! This understanding can be factually-realized by studying a systematic method of introspection, called “gnosticism” (“jñāna yogaḥ”, in Sanskrit). Because the Unmanifested Absolute (i.e. NO-THING) is infinite creative potentiality, “It” perpetually actualizes as the manifest creation (i.e. EVERY-THING), in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes/multiverses. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, and because phenomenal existence is dualistic, there cannot be a single object without at least one subject. Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person’s sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. PURPORTEDLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created from the initial event (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of immeasurably-dense light, which in turn, was ultimately instigated by Extra-Temporal Supra-Conscious Bliss. From that primal event, every motion or action that has ever occurred, has been a direct or indirect result of that expansion. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are, essentially, this Eternally-Aware-Bliss, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn’t normally mistake the reflected image to be one’s real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating forms. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything that can presently be perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of the primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every subsequent action has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit”, is largely a fallacious belief. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they desire. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of but two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic sequence). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. Cont...

Sabine is the garanty for an interesting and pointed debate. Thanks

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

​@@terreschill461 don't know much about him so I'm looking forward to this. Love Sabine's critical and brave sight on the world. Ekberg is a nice guy too

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

@@terreschill461 thank you. Ekberg is a science philosopher. Sabine discusses in her book 'existential physics' the possibility of a "thinking universe". Though she doesn't see much chance in it, I got the feeling by reading that chapter, she simpathisizes with that. Perhaps here is a common point to Sheldrake. Let's see...

@ShonMardani

8 ай бұрын

Soon we will know everything in the world at its atomic level, so fake scientists out there get ready to go down.

I needed this.

This is exactly why I like to describe math as a language, you recognize that there are limits to language, that it can evolve and change over time, and there are multiple ways to come to the same conclusion. The power and weakness of scientific thought is rigid definition, this rigidity also exists within western philosophy. Eastern philosophy on the other had embraces and encouraged fluid thinking, a core tenant of Buddhism is accepting that you cannot understand everything.

A wonderful panel. We all want definitive answers to alleviate our existential angst. The reality is that we are we are very early in our journey, but eventually, after several millennia, the atomist approach should bear fruit and we will know. It’s not until we have reached the truly indivisible that we can start to understand the hows and the whys become irrelevant. Although it is almost certain we will have destroyed ourselves before reaching that point.

@daarom3472

8 ай бұрын

it's also not certain that we will ever get there as it might be that the level at which human brains are entangled with the universe will yield an efficiently computable theory of the ultra microscopic, that is if we can even measure it.

@yp77738yp77739

8 ай бұрын

@@daarom3472 I suppose anything is possible until you can verify it’s not. If you compare and contrast an ant to a human, at a functional level we are largely identical, I don’t foresee the ant ever moving towards a full understanding of metaphysics, so it’s quite possible neither will we.

@jimgraham6722

8 ай бұрын

The average duration of a mammalian species is about 3.8m years. So one day humans will be gone. But let's hope this is due to genetic exhaustion rather than by destroying ourselves.

@yp77738yp77739

8 ай бұрын

@@jimgraham6722 I’m probably a few decades out of date, but wasn’t aware of any documented evidence that could be described as genetic exhaustion. With global movement, Heterosis has become more frequent in humans than previously, so that reshuffling of genes should assure the vigour of the species, even the inbred royalty now understands this is important to their survival.

@ximono

8 ай бұрын

When we find the bottom-most subatomic particle and crack it open, it will read: 42

I feel like the "observer effect" needs to be looked at more closely. The "observer effect" doesn't necessarily imply a subjective entity to trigger its effect but, rather it's the process of extracting information, which I think confuses a lot of people when it comes to this phenomenon. This mechanism coupled with quantum information theory could imply a theoretical observer at work within the system. The one place I can immediately think of as to where to apply this principle would be during the Planck era, a small mass of condensed energy would be perfect for quantum phenomena to occur.

@timhaldane7588

8 ай бұрын

I like to call it nature's internal consistency-checking mechanism: it only commits to a particular detail about reality once it's sure it's not contradicting itself.

@Bob-of-Zoid

8 ай бұрын

Not only not necessarily, but not at all, and it never implied an entity, or conscious, agency..! That is and always was a deliberate misreprisentation of science by freaking religious apologist creationists! The observer refers to the equipment, and the fact that it too has effects and influences the outcome of the experiments, and we have no way of observing the quantum realm, without influencing it! Hence "The observer effect"!

@Bob-of-Zoid

8 ай бұрын

@@timhaldane7588 Sounds cute, but it's really just Nonsense!

@melgross

8 ай бұрын

Early on in physics the wording of “observer” was misconstrued. It wasn’t meant to be a conscious entity, but just anything that “measured” something. By measure, it’s meant that anything that impinges on something else, such as a particle that hits another particle has taken a “measurement” and therefore is an “observer”. It doesn’t require anything conscious.

@amihart9269

8 ай бұрын

I think most physicists probably already implicit assume the observer effect is the cause of the wave function collapse. It's already orthodoxy that decoherence occurs through the observer effect, so it's not really a stretch to assume a similar process is what causes the wave function to collapse. Although the exact way this happens is not known, a popular idea is that it's caused by gravity, if you get a lot of energy into a single location the curvature of spacetime collapse the wave function, Roger Penrose talks a lot about that.

💐❤ for Rupert Sheldrake 😊, love it . Beautiful speach, and hopefull arguments, thank you Sir. 💝 Thank you very much.

@Essential4Life

8 ай бұрын

Just found this video, Rubert has a unique speculation on the consciousness, even the lady held her own. But a wonderful discussion all around

@aoliveira_

7 ай бұрын

He's a quack.

I wouldn’t have watched this without Dr. Sabine

This is wonderful! Sabine is a treasure of humanity and i hope to get to know Rupert's and Bjorn's work more!

@rogerphelps9939

8 ай бұрын

Don't bother with Sheldrake.

@runePV

8 ай бұрын

😄@@rogerphelps9939 true: i wonder if it is testable that you can see in one's eyes that he/she is not able to create a certain truth out of some known and proven truths without wondering of in fantasy and religion

@jgunther3398

8 ай бұрын

@@runePV fantasy and religion are your reminder that on a cosmic scale all your knowledge might as well be produced by the brain of an ant. which i think you need reminding of

@Phariseehunter

8 ай бұрын

​@@runePVtry some kykeon worked wonders for the Greek Philosophers to shake to your core that cult-urally conditioned, pseudo-protective mind veil of causally naive reactivity that began in late infancy.

@jflaplaylistchannelunoffic3951

8 ай бұрын

Sheldrake is a true (i.e. undogmatic) scientist, comparable with e.g. Michael Faraday. Sabine and Bjorn I found also undogmatic, as it should be.

Very interesting discussion. Thank you :) [edit] Everyone here makes very valid points even if they appear to be a little conflicting. Can we understand the universe? I think words like Knowledge or understand are the wrong words and question. Can we experience the universe? Yes, in every way even if we cant understand it or offer explanation of it. > My 20 cents worth. I still think we are excessively prone to subjectively superimposing our own creative idea of knowledge and language over the reality of the universe. The universe is what it is and we just haven't yet found the best language to describe the reality of it... When I say language I also include math as we currently use it. All our tools of description are made/created by man, not the universe :)

@user-yu8cg7lz2h

8 ай бұрын

mathematics has been waiting to be discovered and is primely needed to find out dimenmsions and reltive constructions

@TheWorldTeacher

8 ай бұрын

The Aussie government is a violent CRIMINAL organization. 🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe that can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (i.e. the observer of all phenomena) - is unknowingly to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of Ultimate Reality as being the Perfect Person, and “God” is a personal epithet of the Impersonal Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Monad is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every fully-enlightened sage in the history of this planet, Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, consubstantially and simultaneously, Absolutely NOTHING and Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “(Param) Brahman”, “Cosmic Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “Unconditioned Truth”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Universal Self”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). Subsequent chapters expand on this axiom. In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself, or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! This understanding can be factually-realized by studying a systematic method of introspection, called “gnosticism” (“jñāna yogaḥ”, in Sanskrit). Because the Unmanifested Absolute (i.e. NO-THING) is infinite creative potentiality, “It” perpetually actualizes as the manifest creation (i.e. EVERY-THING), in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes/multiverses. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, and because phenomenal existence is dualistic, there cannot be a single object without at least one subject. Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person’s sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. PURPORTEDLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created from the initial event (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of immeasurably-dense light, which in turn, was ultimately instigated by Extra-Temporal Supra-Conscious Bliss. From that primal event, every motion or action that has ever occurred, has been a direct or indirect result of that expansion. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are, essentially, this Eternally-Aware-Bliss, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn’t normally mistake the reflected image to be one’s real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating forms. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything that can presently be perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of the primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every subsequent action has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit”, is largely a fallacious belief. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they desire. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of but two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic sequence). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. Cont...

@eugenecampbellutube

8 ай бұрын

"Everyone here makes very valid points even if they appear to be a little conflicting." I agree, although underlying everything in this debate is more than a little disagreement between Sabina and Rupert regarding mechanistic determinism. I drink up her no-gobbledygook reports and almost everything she has published online, though don't buy her deterministic take on the way things are. I loved her astute point about fantasy literature's being based to some degree on knowledge derived through science, and hope it wasn't a dig against that which she doesn't agree. But @axle.australian.patriot -- I wonder what you mean by "experience the universe...in every way" if there exist aspects of it we are completely unaware of. Could you unpack that somewhat?

@axle.australian.patriot

8 ай бұрын

@@eugenecampbellutube ""experience the universe...in every way" I struggle myself to offer an easy explanation of that. Experience in the sense of being the raw observer without concepts of knowledge, belief or prejudice. This is a philosophical or even Metaphysical expression. Like the unborn child experiencing the stimuli that it is subjected to without knowledge of what it is and without a need to describe it. Maybe thinking as "Raw Awareness or consciousness". > Can we experience the full extent of the universe like that in a natural human way? Metaphysasists and theolagists may argue yes, mechanical physics would likely argue no, mathematical physics and theoretical physics boarders at times upon metaphysics. Can we experience the universe in full (as a raw awareness) with our human made extension of our senses. Through cautious reason quite possibly. But many would argue that it is impossible to be a truly objective observer having been born a subject human being and a lifetime of reinforcing our subject instinct. > See the universe as it is and let it form it's own description of itself rather than imposing our neat subjective human rules over it. We can explain it in our own terms after we see it for what it really is.. > Yeah, I know I'm a bit out there lol

I am grateful, that people which can discuss with good manners were guests on this panel, not some of people from this comment section. I would like this debate be much longer and let those smart people get dirty with some nitty gritties...

I love Sabine's face! She's so expressive!

@tinkletink1403

8 ай бұрын

she has arrested emotional development i think

I love Sabine. She's so committed to science and doesn't put unscientific ideas on a pedestal just because it sounds cool. If you want to make a claim, science can tell you how well your claim matches measurements of reality and that's it. She doesn't claim or want to know what reality "actually" is because it's impossible to know if you've got the right answer. Stars *could* be self-propelling and arranging themselves in some intelligent way that looks like it's caused by dark matter, but why propose such a thing? Stars could also be little fairies that look and behave exactly like giant balls of gas. Or maybe they're just giant balls of gas and there's no need to make claims about things that make no difference...

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

haha, exactly

@deltalima6703

8 ай бұрын

Dark matter does not just explain rotation curves, it explains other things, like cosmic background phase attenuation, that are ignored by popular science presentations, and are thus unknown to biologists and such that are not exposed to it.

@ebog4841

8 ай бұрын

EXACTLY why. is. Sheldrake. even. here. bruh. he probably paid to sit next to Sabine XD

@Bob-of-Zoid

8 ай бұрын

@@ebog4841 He's be much better off as a preacher in the church of Jordan "cry baby" Peterson and Deepockets Chopra! 🤣

@radscorpion8

8 ай бұрын

@@Bob-of-Zoid haha i didn't know he had that nickname. cry baby indeed XDD. And peddler of pseudoscience to boot lol

I agree with Hossenfelder we won't know until we know. Our lives have changed so much but as we opened our fields of vision we see more. I do find the question of consciousness appropriate as we do not know what an alien being is and at this point we seem to be stuck in a terracentric opinion. As far as the big bang - this cycle.

@gerardmoloney433

8 ай бұрын

Sorry, the more we know, the more we know we don't know. That's because nobody knows the mind of God. Atheists by their own admission are not intelligently designed. Enough said about atheism. The Bible is the truth and it is undeniable. It is filled with prophesies that came to pass exactly as prophesied. Only God knows the end from the beginning. Maranatha

@xodarap

8 ай бұрын

With respect, I recommend probing the following idea: that your consciousness (C) is what it is like to be the updating of the model of self in the world (UMSITW) which your brain creates and maintains all the while that you are awake. What this means is that your brain, which exists in order to make your muscles move in the right way at the right time, needs a model of the world with you in it in order for you to be able to navigate your physical and social environments. The model is always a set of predictions created out of memories appropriate to current location and circumstances. This must be so otherwise it would be impossible for you to make any plans or have any useful expectations. The world is always changing however so we need to be updating relevant parts of our model of the world, and/or self, wherever a significant change has occurred. This entails the creation of new memories, and our emotional response to the _novelty each time_ determines the degree of significance. The beauty, and the power, of this description is that it provides a coherent explanation of C, which I like to characterise as _rememberable awareness_, which is not contradicted by any discoveries of neuroscience or psychology that I have read about *and* allows us to understand to what extent other animals may be experiencing awareness similar to our own. Extraterrestrial animals will be endowed in analogous, even if not very similar, manner because the underlying logical requirements of autonomous navigation through variable environments will always apply. 😉

@firstal3799

5 ай бұрын

Very interesting

The discussion is a gem in the annals of many such discussion on philosophy of science or rather Philosophy and Science, coz it's so grounded for mere mortals like me❤...I still feel we are still far way from understanding the concept of consciousness from traditional physics aspect and would probably be solved or understood partially by Quantum physics

@VijayGupta-lw7qz

8 ай бұрын

PicoPhysics; We believe in deterministic universe. Presence or absence of observation does not alter reality / but observation itself being part of reality which impacts the result. Universe appears to be very simple. Amulgamated (or Free) Quants of Kenergy in Space.

I like the explanation of Stephen Wolfram related to randomness (entropy). It also illustrates our limitation. He would have been a perfect addition to this panel.

@rajeevgangal542

8 ай бұрын

Nope. He will just go on about hypergraphs, simple rules and complexity and principle of computational equivalence.

So good to have Hossenfelder as the anchor for reason and facts. Especially with Sheldrake wandering off.

@eccoweaver

8 ай бұрын

She is fantastic, yes. What did you think about Sheldrake elaborating on the nature of randomness?

@deltalima6703

8 ай бұрын

Coincides with what denis noble said. Might be something to it.

@Corteum

8 ай бұрын

There are many examples of scientists in the past who storngly believed they were the epitome of reason and facts but who were subsequently shown to be wrong. lol

@glenncurry3041

8 ай бұрын

@@Corteum "There are many examples of" ... PEOPLE. Regardless of what they might claim of themselves or be misrepresented. So what? Science is self correcting and has no preference for human names.

@glenncurry3041

8 ай бұрын

@@eccoweaver I lost interest in Sheldrake's mindless babble when he (6:40) started using lies to build his case. I'd love to see him PROVE his claim with a list of all the "mechanistic materialists" that outright reject the possible existence of consciousness in the entire universe "except in a tiny tiny mass in the human brain and possibly animal brains as well." Just because he is laughed at when trying to assign proactive conscious action to the Sun! His desperation is to build in a defense in the lacking proposition, argumentum ad ignorantiam causing petitio principii. I loved Sabine's smack down of not being able to understand why anyone would say stars are conscious.

Sabine H. seems satisfied with a mere functional understanding of QM and not the understanding of what it is and how it fits into a larger understanding of the Universe.

This is one of the best discussions I've heard in a long time. All of the participants are motivated by the deep desire to understand the nature of things. Hossenfelder and Sheldrake are both free range, omnivorous minds engaged in the pursuit of fundamental understanding. They are both exceptionally clear communicators and careful thinkers, each in their own ways. Moreover, each can probably recognize and honor this in the other, even though each thinks the other is probably mistaken about many things.

@vKarl71

8 ай бұрын

Agree. Very well put. If you're not familiar with the Sheldrakes (Rupert & his son Merlin) you might enjoy their books. I've watched a lot of Sabine Hossenfelder's video & I have to say this one increased my respect for her.

@RWin-fp5jn

8 ай бұрын

@@vKarl71 Sheldrake and Hossenfelder, a remarkable pairing. With Sheldrake we have a person deeply committed to understand the REAL phenomon of consciousness in ways not pleasing the academia. And with Sabine we have someone deeply committed to a purely IMAGINARY phenomenon of 'quantum gravity ' (which even Penrose says is nonsensical) and does so in ways highly approved by academia. So if you have to pick one of both, then surely Sheldrake has the more promising story? How is it, academia have reality into fiction. How is it we worship the mathematics of something in stead of the subject it self? Sheldrake is much more down to Earth if you think it through...

@DistinctiveBlend

8 ай бұрын

@@RWin-fp5jn I'd have to ask the sun what it thinks about this

@RWin-fp5jn

8 ай бұрын

@@DistinctiveBlend well, you ignt also ask that question to a cockroach. You wont get an answer back. Does that mean a cockroach is not conscious? No it just means their level of consciousness is at a too far distant level for the, to contact us. Likewise Penrose suggest the are forms of consciousness whxi the Sun could be part of that we are not able to communicate with, simply because we are at an inferior fractal level. The idea is interesting and a valid one. If you dont get that reasoning, you are slightly hinging to the cockroach - side of things. Simple

@DistinctiveBlend

8 ай бұрын

@@RWin-fp5jn It is neither interesting or valid (that requires evidence) unless you're higher than jesus. But if you enjoy asserting 'inferior fractal levels' of humans compared to a star then have fun! Oh and another great point for ya is that proof and evidence aren't really required for faith based stuff right?

I really liked Sabine and Bjorn!

@B_Ruphe

8 ай бұрын

My sister really liked Sabine and Rupert. She said her mum didn't like anyone.

What a wonderful discussion! Consciousness is what you’re doing, be aware first and then be able to make decisions. Both come from your conscious efforts.

I first saw Rupert Sheldrake when he was a young man. He was talking to Jiddu krishnamurti and David Bohm. There’s a video on here of that talk back in like 70s or 80s I believe it was. God I loved Bohm and Krishnamurti

@richardchapman1592

3 ай бұрын

They did fall out as friends when it came to living pantheism

@transformlikeaphoenix

3 ай бұрын

And talks with Terence McKenna

@richardchapman1592

3 ай бұрын

Never did understand those exceptionals too well. Was busy getting the necessaries for me and my lady. Glad to talk about the granular nature of matter at Planck length now tho.

@richardchapman1592

3 ай бұрын

Well if I must, at Planck length there are vibrations that seem random at the tiny local scale causing the unmeasurable. These happen such that pressures of eg gravity can be transmitted between the resulting granules to give spacetime it's shapes. The granules also transmit quanta of light in a way that looks similar to Feynman's electro dynamics due to a random nature of interior's of the granules. This would be caused by unknown influences acting from all directions giving a pseudo randomness for our macro observations. Thus we would have transmission of light and gravity in different ways through the granules giving overall different seemingly wavelike propagation on the cosmic scale. Hardly testable until more data re light and gravitational propagation comparison gathered but conceptually graspable.

Hossenfelder always adds a fresh perspective to things

@Thomas-gk42

7 ай бұрын

and she´s a poet here too: "...and in that case, there will be some strangeness left for us forever."

@Joseph-fw6xx

7 ай бұрын

I like her also

@dianablackman4528

2 ай бұрын

She may be a competent scientist but she is a fanatical "climate change crisis" promoter.

I am of the belief that if the Turing test was taken to a certain degree of sophistication, that humans would also fail the Turing test

@HarryNicNicholas

8 ай бұрын

i would.

@absstevens7464

8 ай бұрын

@@HarryNicNicholas It is my belief that you wouldn't but it is academic as they will never get that sophisticated, or more likely humans are too arrogant to try it!

@BanjoPixelSnack

8 ай бұрын

Well maybe humans fail the test because we are in a simulation and are therefore all programmes that just think they are human…

@____uncompetative

8 ай бұрын

Bot

@amihart9269

8 ай бұрын

They already are, given how prevalent AI is these days, sometimes when I talk to people online I second-guess myself because some people sound like ChatGPT how they talk.

I wonder if Sabine knew in advance how crazy Sheldrake's theories are?

@cliveadams7629

8 ай бұрын

Good old Rup, he's a very smart and articulate man but crazy as a box of frogs.

@AndrewRobinson-ee7um

8 ай бұрын

Yeah. Quantum theory’s not crazy at all. Duh !

@cliveadams7629

8 ай бұрын

@@AndrewRobinson-ee7um No, it's not. Duh!

@AndrewRobinson-ee7um

8 ай бұрын

@@cliveadams7629 it would of course have to make total sense in your own projected reality. Otherwise you might not be real. PMSL !

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

@@AndrewRobinson-ee7um Did you notice, that when the moderator asked Rup. about QM, he switched to DarkMatter, perhaps he doesn´t know anything about QM. If superdeterminism is right, what Sabine assumes, its not so crazy anymore.

Very entertaining. Thank you. The dilemma of “knowledge/facts” being potentially an enhancement and a block to learning is clear and awareness of this should form part of our education. Otherwise, an interesting but pointless discussion, given the priorities in the World but far better to be doing this than creating the mayhem which many people are actively involved in, despite us having the resources, knowledge, skills and technology to be able to support a decent quality of life for everyone on the planet - notwithstanding sociopaths, psychopaths and consume-addiction.

@xodarap

8 ай бұрын

I think that is a rather gratuitous judgement to make. Everything you say is spot on IMO. My point is that this kind of discussion is an essential part of human life on Earth - however much I might roll my eyes and start tearing at what little remains of my head hair when R Shelldrake starts holding forth [ :-( ] My vote of course is for Sabine H although I think Bjorn.... had some useful things to say.

@firstal3799

5 ай бұрын

True

Dear Rupert Sheldrake, if you are ever looking for volunteers to take part in a 'talking to the sun' experiment, I'm in!!

Rationalist says: "I do not know what consciousness is. Planets are not conscious- that I do know!"

@rlustemberg

8 ай бұрын

That’s the one tautology they can’t escape from

@rlustemberg

8 ай бұрын

More that rationalism, it’s naive materialism

@DistinctiveBlend

8 ай бұрын

@@rlustemberg Damage the brain damage the consciousness. Isn't really as deep as you might want it to be.

@marcux83

8 ай бұрын

it's just silly 🤷

Rupert has such amazing mind and creativity, science really needs more people like him who project and extend ideas further then anyone thought possible.

@101Mant

5 ай бұрын

Have ideas is nice, but if you are doing science you need more. If you are propsing the sun is conscious how do you test that? Simply having creative speculative ideas isn't science.

@gr8sparty

5 ай бұрын

@@101Mant , dark matter is as speculative as the sun being conscious, was the only point Rupert made - he was smiling and joking all along... dark matter , makes the equations correct - was Sabine's response, but remember that Newton's equations were also correct at one point in time (They still are - but only at the scale of this tiny planet)

@makeadifference4all

4 ай бұрын

@@101Mant I am skeptical of his proposal, which he surely would acknowledge is speculative, as is the theory of dark matter. However, he proposed an experimental test of the "conscious sun" hypothesis. Then the question becomes whether such a test is worth the time and expense.

@Thomas-gk42

4 ай бұрын

What he does, is absolutely not scientific.

@desireco

4 ай бұрын

@@Thomas-gk42 there should be room for his views as well

If all sub atomic particles are in fact waves of energy at different frequencies then the question is what is the mechanism that waves can be particles.? Three wave/ particles exist to produce everything in the Universe apparently?.... The Electron + The Up Quark + The Down Quark. The wave/particle duality is fundamental and everything in existence depends on it. How a packet of energy in the form of a wave becomes a particle. The electron is a good place to start because it exhibits this phonomenon clearly. One moment it is a wave and the next it is a particle and it exists everywhere. Light is the same, one moment it is a wave and has a frequency or frequencies and the next it is a photon. Take a magnifying glass and focus the light from the sun which consists of many frequencies (waves) and focus that light on one spot.....All that energy with different frequencies on one spot and what do we detect....Nothing!...We know that the concentration of frequencies exist at that spot...could be an infinite number of frequencies...but nothing is evident...Until a peice of paper iks placed at the spot and then the obvious....a reaction and a burnt hole in the sheet of paper.....Only at the focus point of light concentration does the waves exhibit particles. So we know for sure that light is both a wave which can be at a single frequence as in a laser (or a spectrum of light as in a rainbow) or a particle or particles as in when it hits a piece of paper or in nature as in photosynthesis.....Energy transfer from a light wave. It is really frustrating to not being able to understand the duality of waves and particles. Waves can exist everywhere and at one spot simultaneously apparently.....how.? So frustrating.....I have not heard any clear explanaion of why or how this is. The whole universe as we see it exists because of this one single fact that nobody understands.

This is very interesting to listen to even though I don’t understand anything they are talking about.

We need to consider the geometrical relevance of the platonic forms.

I'm so glad that Sabina exists and has a voice!

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

Had you any doubt? She's a great and soulful human

Wow, the third speaker during the opening remarks! It’s like the story of the man or woman who “falls in love with the Moon”, this guys spends time wondering if the Sun is conscious! I love people like that!

@B_Ruphe

8 ай бұрын

Never mind. Try harder next time.

@ximono

8 ай бұрын

@@B_RupheTry harder to narrow your mind?

We do as well to ask if we ourselves and as sentient minds are unintelligible because in the end I suspect that this particular enigma will never be resolved.

Sabine....something is missing.....hmmmm......where is the red phone and bobblehead? Heading over for your latest upload next........Bjorn is 66?!👌 This was incredible. Thanks to the four of you👍👍👍👍👍

0:33: 🌌 The universe's strangeness is a source of inspiration for science and philosophy, and they should continue to explore it. 6:40: 🌌 The speaker discusses the existence of consciousness in the universe and suggests that the sun and other celestial bodies may have conscious interfaces. 12:59: 🌟 There are limits to what humans can understand, but the connection between human minds and the universe is deep. 17:59: 🌍 There are limits to human understanding, particularly in managing complex ecosystems, but we can extend our minds through technology. 23:24: 🌟 The discussion explores the possibility of dark matter and the alternative theory of stars having autonomy in galaxy structure. 28:38: 🔬 Physics is full of improbable and untestable speculations, but some aspects like randomness in quantum mechanics may have a deeper explanation. 34:04: 📚 Science is a highly creative force that constructs reality and solves problems, rather than revealing a total view of the universe. 39:33: 🧮 The panel discusses the need to explain mathematics and its relationship to the universe. Recap by Tammy AI

EM = Consciousness = Magic

@marcux83

8 ай бұрын

🎉

Yes the number one thing to realise is that size doesn't matter if you are a a spec of a galaxy in a multi galaxy environment. Maybe there is places that are microscopicgalaxies in a separate part of this one until we search for those hypothesis and then we come up with a shrink ray's or enlarging ray of atomic numerator the spaces between atoms of densities are entanglement to the rules of many different quantum

@firstal3799

5 ай бұрын

Good point

Sabine is an angel for not punching Rupert in the face. Rupert has a fundamental lack of understanding of scientific thinking.

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

the supergirl of patience here.

This seems like the same argument or discussion they would have before alchemy was converted into chemistry.

Does superposition of // universe explain dark matter? how much coupling would there be? What magnitude of // universes are possible given a given coupling that explains dark mater dark energy or both.

Guru Vasishta tells Sri Rama swami "seeking from outside the secret of the existence of the universe will never be found because the universe never really came into existence." It is exclusively a consciousness activity about itself.

All of what we know now was once strange. At least once we started paying attention.

Sabine is a saint for participating

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

...and the supergirl of patience here.

@Corteum

8 ай бұрын

How did she get on with Kastrurp?

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

@@Corteum Much better than Kastrup with her.

@Corteum

8 ай бұрын

@@Thomas-gk42 Yes, Kastrup was t oo strrong for her.

@Thomas-gk42

8 ай бұрын

@@Corteum Haha, Kastrup is really a great babbler and preacher, and that's fine, but if he begins to talk about physics, you better escape.

As long as they can debate each other respectfully, it's fascinating to listen to people with vastly different perspectives.

It seems to me that each of the speakers could agree to the statement that marveling at the universe under all circumstances will never end. Maybe we then could agree that marveling in itself is an intrinsic part of "knowing" the world...

I would argue we have made zero progress on the ultimate "strangeness" question and probably never will. "Why is there something rather than nothing at all?"

@leggoentertainment2947

8 ай бұрын

Maybe the question itself is useless. The difference in being and not being might be arbitrary in the greater scheme of things. Everything is and is not all at once and all that jazz. Then again, I might have no idea what I'm saying. I'm just some guy on the internet after all.

@leggoentertainment2947

8 ай бұрын

I mean the initial state of the human condition is: there is therefore I think, which is only followed by: I think therefore I am. So in a sense you posing that question; "why is there something rather than nothing at all?" = the reason of something being there by virtue of posing that question. Again on larger scales the question becomes irrelevant. Looking at the universe as a whole it doesn't seem to matter any ant deciding to follow any scent. But from the microbiomes inside the ant the question becomes so much relevant that some organisms spend their entire lifespan to make the ant express certain behavior's. I'm not saying were ants i'm saying; posing the question is just following a scent. And the purpose of meaning is within the meaning itself. Whatever that meaning may be. But some guidelines have higher values than others. Like increase complexity or atrophy. You may feel like murdering the person in front of you blocking your way to get to your destination quicker. But in that process, you calculate the damage you do to those around you and yourself what that would mean. This rule becomes hardwired in your brain, and you stop running over people to get to your destination quicker, mainly because you know (hope) there will be another destination after that. Because there are things, there is meaning. If there where no things there would be no meaning. Yes, things also constitute your thoughts, because without the material world we would not come to be as thinking beings. So the question remains is the thought a function of the things or are things a function of thoughts. Both are correct and incorrect at the same time. The universe or universes might truly be infinite, or might not exist at all. Their is no difference.

@londen3547

8 ай бұрын

@@leggoentertainment2947 It does make sense. If you're not persuaded by the 'religious' idea that we were created by a greater Being that desires to have a relationship with us, then your life has no purpose and you have no answer to the question 'why are we here?'

@leggoentertainment2947

8 ай бұрын

@@londen3547 I hear you, however I must insist that the believe in god is just as useful/useless as the believe that live doesn't have a purpose. The purpose is in the act of living itself. With the first breath you take till the last breath you breath you're fulfilling your purpose. Even us having this otherwise meaningless KZread conversation is defining purpose. I am no fan of the sky daddy concept especially one that looks at your genitals. But at the same time, saying that life is meaningless is forgoing the part that every day you iterate on behavior that is meaningful to you. If that isn't purpose I don''t understand the notion of meaning. Mind you: It wouldn't be the first time I completely missed the obvious... And definitely won't be the last. If I make it through this day. Alhamdulilah

@jimgraham6722

8 ай бұрын

I would ask instead "why should there be nothing at all?" The answer to that is self evident. While nothing at all might be possible, it is an unstable state of affairs that inevitably gives rise to 'something'. Hence the tangible universe we see about us. This is really no more mysterious than nuclear decay. It just happens.