English is not my native language, and each time I listen to something as wise, deep and well informed like this, I really believe the journey of learning is paying off, so Thank you very much for that :)

REALLY GREAT THAT THESE EPISODES ARE NOW ON SPOTIFY, THANK YOU

I would really love timestamps on these Q&As

Instead of AMA, Sean ought to title this type of show, "You are not Laplace's demon W/ Sean Carroll."

@aaronc270

2 жыл бұрын

Take a shot every time he says Leplace's demon or Bayesian reasoning. It would be a dangerous drinking game.

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

Title it, See how stooo-pid Sean is. "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html

@dylanstares9261

Жыл бұрын

@@2fast2block if life comes from life where did the first life (god) come from?

Lol " There are no bad bagels , only bad bagel eaters " quote from Sean Carroll famous physicist . ? Thnk u for the laugh , surely a true sign of intelligence is self deprecating humor . ❤ from 🇨🇦

5:45 - to develop your skill set, do not watch legacy media first. Put in effort doing your own research listening to varying opinions from independant sources. Then apply your new understanding with legacy media. Legacy media is truly the worst way to receive information and should never be your only source. We live in a world of information, some of it good and a lot of it bad. It is imperative one applies cumulative opinion and raw gut feeling on what to actually digest. "Be careful of the thought-seeds you plant in the garden of your mind..."

Regarding Igor's (don't know if I'm spelling that right) question about voting. Scale helps. There's nothing saying that if you vote, you have to vote on everything possible to vote on. You can choose say one local measure that will effect you personally and voice yourself of which way you want that to go. And if you feel like ticking a few more bubbles while you're at it, ballot information packets have arguments, rebuttals, and responses to those rebuttals that tend to cut through a lot of the bs and actually provide a rather balanced scale of information on which to make a decision on the spot.

Did you see the goosebump-inducing images of the EHT?

Sean, I recently read the "Nominalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics" SEP entry. Chapter 5 is called "Deflationary Nominalism" and I thought you might be interested in it: "Despite the fact that quantification over mathematical objects and relations is indispensable to our best theories of the world, this fact offers no reason to believe in the existence of the corresponding entities. This is because, as Jody Azzouni points out, two kinds of commitment should be distinguished: quantifier commitment and ontological commitment. We incur a quantifier commitment whenever our theories imply existentially quantified statements. But existential quantification, Azzouni insists, is not sufficient for ontological commitment. After all, we often quantify over objects we have no reason to believe exist, such as fictional entities. To incur an ontological commitment-that is, to be committed to the existence of a given object-a criterion for what exists needs to be satisfied. There are, of course, various possible criteria for what exists (such as causal efficacy, observability, possibility of detection, and so on). But the criterion Azzouni favors, and he takes it to be the one that has been collectively adopted, is ontological independence. What exist are the things that are ontologically independent of our linguistic practices and psychological processes. The point is that if we have just made something up through our linguistic practices or psychological processes, there's no need for us to be committed to the existence of the corresponding object. And typically, we would resist any such commitment." The author covers some good points that you might be able to fire back at Justin Clarke-Doane. I also think the entry in general is really well-written - it has chapters on fictionalism and modal structuralism - but it's long as shit.

What do to make of Dr. Wubbo J. Ockels TED talk of Time created by Humans in Earth Gravity?

Did you see the EHP images?

1:13:19 "quantum state of the universe is a vector, and the different worlds are components of that vector" 1:17:57 "given an amount of thickness that is given by the Born rule" Thank you so much Dr. Carroll, those two statements were a gigantic leap to understand the many worlds theory. I am currently watching Dr. Susskind's "modern physics quantum mechanics (stanford)" and those two statemsnts made all the difference in the world!!

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

Carroll and Susskind are dolts. "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html

I’m so happy hearing Sean Carrol talk about Moral Constructivism given I just finished a 28 page research paper on the Constructivism of Hume and Sharon Street, focusing on part on Street’s Darwinian Dilemma for Realism. Really awesome stuff

@frasert8779

2 жыл бұрын

@@jackalterman “Then why are you here?” - Kurt Cobain

@frasert8779

2 жыл бұрын

@@jackalterman Horrible attempt at ignoring such a glaring question but okay, to be honest I was getting concerned. If you keep sleeping through your Hooked on Phonics sessions you won’t ever be able to have a meaningful or comprehensive conversation on an adult level. Keep trying bud, don’t give up!

@frasert8779

2 жыл бұрын

@@jackalterman I apologize for responding the way I did then. It’s incredibly difficult to convey tone through YT comments and I unfortunately didn’t think you were playfully joking. Finals week must be making me combative, my mistake. All the best

@frasert8779

2 жыл бұрын

@@jackalterman Thanks! It’s basically taking about the realism/anti-realism debate about morality (“Realism” about “x” just means the belief that “x” exists. Anti-Realism about “x” claims “x” does not exist.) So moral realists believe there exists objective, mind-independent moral facts that we discover (some think moral facts are natural facts like everything else, others think they are non-natural like numbers or logic). Anti-Realists don’t believe there are any objective moral facts. There are many different varieties of both realists and anti-realists that each disagree with one another. Personally, I find Moral Constructivism the most compelling (albeit not perfect), and it accurately describes what we see in the world and how we handle morality. Humean Constructivism is like what Sean is talking about, but Street’s is slightly different. The philosopher Sharon Street famously presented the “Darwinian Dilemma” as an evolutionary debunking argument against realism. In short, it points out how evolution selected for traits that increased for survival and fitness, NOT moral truth. This means that even if moral realism is correct, and these moral facts do exist, then our moral beliefs are almost certainly incorrect, and we should be skeptical about them for this reason. I can get into what her proposed philosophy does to handle this dilemma if you are interested. That is a ton of information though and I apologize if it is not clear enough 😂

@frasert8779

2 жыл бұрын

@@jackalterman It’s a tough question, after my own research I’m more inclined to be anti-realist in the sense that I don’t believe morality exists independently from ourselves, I think it is entirely dependent on rational minds to create it. Constructivism is a view that allows for moral truth to be determined based on our evaluative attitudes as long as they are in “reflective equilibrium” (which basically means all of your beliefs are logically coherent). Your hypothesis about human being’s importance in reality could be true, but I just haven’t seen much convincing evidence as of yet. There could be objective independent moral facts, but if there are then we certainly haven’t found them. There seem to be other explanations that can account for how we evaluate morality that don’t necessitate them. We can still confidently judge other behavior as moral or immoral without necessitating an objective or logical basis for it.

THANK YOU DR. CARROLL...!!!

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

For what? He's a dolt. "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html

How can i contact with you,Sir?

And watch the stream?

. It ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it, and the context in which you say it. Words are how you use them.

wow this is awesome 😎

To the question oh how to be convinced about to vote given miss information is rampant, while is true you can triangulate information sources and make a semi informed decision I still pretty much agree is nowhere near good enough to make a good solid decision even if you dig around. There are hellish details that could make me completely change my mind on whom to vote...and I will give an example the War in Ukraine has brutal miss information on both sides!

Laplace’s demon knowing everything fixes the demon as disconnected from the system. If the demon can act on the information about the system, then he is part of the system and those actions are already fully known and accounted for to the demon OR the actions of the demon are unaccounted for and any action will invalidate the completeness of the demon’s knowledge and thus the premise of the thought experiment. Either way, any debate of a demon with the ability to act on the system would reduce the nature of causality as you’re solely talking about what exactly the demon sees.

"Let a thousand flowers bloom" You have a dark appreciation for cause and effect, it's poetic history and I relate to how you think, Sean. It's a phrase that should be used and live on until it becomes true.

Sean, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. I came across your book “Something Deeply Hidden” and I must say that you blew my mind. I love how you think of time and entropy… i also enjoy listening to you delve into quantum entanglement. Makes me wonder if humans can experience entanglement in the same manner as electrons!

If at the smallest state that we can test, i.e. the Quantum State, we believe that there is no sign of a fixed Reality, over Time that is, does this not infer that Spacetime it self has no fixed state and that the expansion of Spacetime that we measure is just a result of the Positive Creation of Space over Time by the emergence of A Positive amount Space emerging from the creation of an excess Virtual Particles popping into existence and if so does this not infer the existence of a still deeper state than what we perceive as the fabric of our Reality?

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

"Space emerging from the creation of an excess Virtual Particles popping into existence and if so does this not infer the existence of a still deeper state than what we perceive as the fabric of our Reality?" Sean cares nothing about reality. Do you? "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html

Nice podcast. Video would be a cool addition imo.

A lot of teachers these days seem to think it’s fine to indoctrinate their charges with their own pet politics…a lot more than when I was at school. Schools should be teaching pupils how to think, not what to think.

@aaronc270

2 жыл бұрын

This isn't school it's an edutainment podcast

@terrypussypower

2 жыл бұрын

@@aaronc270 No sh*t, Sherlock!

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

Sean never learned how to think. "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html

@chiphill4856

Жыл бұрын

@@terrypussypower Teachers have always taught politics in schools from grade school on up.

What percentage of priority questions would Sean Carroll answer even if they were not prioritized?

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

Who cares, he's just a F00L anyway. "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html

How do we know proton synthesis isn’t simply when particle pairs produced in quantum foam do not always re-annihilate❓

@terrypussypower

2 жыл бұрын

“Quantum foam”? I had a lot of that in my bath this morning!

@yaserthe1

2 жыл бұрын

@@terrypussypower 😂😂

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

How does Sean know anything being so stooo-pid? "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html

Philosopher professor fits you, congrats.

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

No, F00L fits Sean best. "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html

What about Switzerland? Democratic since 1300's even if the structure was different, and with direct democracy.

I’m not sure how Sean is not your favorite public personality. The views and ideas he expresses are vastly superior to those shared by your politicians, entertainers, religious leaders and other bullshitters

@schmetterling4477

21 күн бұрын

Right until he tells you about MWI, and then you know that he also boils his eggs with water. ;-)

Every time I watch an AMA I end up spending the next week doing research. How in the world does that disprove quantum field theory? Sigh. See u next time. Thanks Dr. Sean.

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

Sean is just a dolt. "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html

Ukraine is fighting for their freedom, just like the American colonists did back in the 1770s. We have no business trying to take that away from them. And I agree we should help them win that fight, just like several countries helped the Americans win their freedom from the British Empire.

From SoCal to Baltimore? Oh boy are YOU in for some culture shock! Don't get me wrong, it has it's probs, but I like Baltimore, but the contrast will definitely subconsciously reinforce any notion of "alternate universes" ;-)

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

How did we get our universe? "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html

I’m curious if the many neutrinos constantly streaming from our sun ☀️, outbound in all directions from our vantage point here on earth 🌎, are what’s actually causing #redshift of inbound distant galaxy starlight… NOT necessarily because the universe is expanding…

@Hal_McKinney

2 жыл бұрын

A similar analogy would be to imagine a stationary bell 🔔 rung downwind from an observer… The more the wind blows, the more Doppler shifted the bell sounds. If outbound neutrinos from our sun have any affect on inbound starlight, seems like it must be to redshift the starlight.

@iainduncan722

2 жыл бұрын

So, not Sean and haven't watched the video yet so I'm not sure if there's something prompting this, but there are problems with this. Firstly, neutrinos don't interact via the EM force, so don't interact with photons (the EM force carrier). However, we can dismiss this proposal another way very easily: we do not see blue shift of light from the sun. The flux between us and the sun should be higher than between us and a distant star (inverse square law) yet the spectrum of the sun is basically where we expect it to be. Also, the aforementioned inverse square law means that the redshift vs distance plot would not look the way it does.

@iainduncan722

2 жыл бұрын

This effect is also not real. Redshift relies only on the relative motion of source and observer, not the rate at which they move through a medium. (at least using the naive model for the derivation of the redshift formula)

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

I curious how anyone takes dolt Sean seriously. "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html

I have a logically (and morally) congruent framework showing that advocating inequality is, in fact, a mistake. I'd love for it to be critiqued, if you're interested. I think it might also be a transformer...in the AI sense.

@optimismodis4853

2 жыл бұрын

@Matthias Heh heh, well, I certainly didn't come at it from a traditional direction. And I claim my framework is congruent because it is spatial, so words map to grid coordinates, and relative position allows for new perspectives, and relative perspectives. As I see it, the space should be modeled separately from the content. But modeling the space requires dealing with fractals, i.e. for paradox and irreducible complexities.

MOAR CATS!

I'm sorry you are leaving CalTech. (PhD. EE - 1975)

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

Who cares about that dolt? "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html

see 2000 mules for more on the failure of democracy

Ibanez is Japanese, not Spanish, and they pronounce it “EYE-bun-ezz.” -former music store manager 😉

@ahad2k11

Жыл бұрын

That doesn't sound Japanese at all

debate bernardo kastrup RIGHT NOW

At 17:00 Sean talks about umbrellas against rain and that when it is sunny, umbrellas are not used. I would like to point out that in Asia, many Asian women actually use an umbrella against the sun as they want to have their skin be as light as possible. A tan is often associated to the farmers which is sometimes considered as a lower class. I personally disagree as farming is an honorable profession in providing food. But the point is that this example is about umbrellas against rain where it is important to recognize that sometimes it is actually the exact opposite.

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

Been to Asia many times and seen the umbrellas used by women. About Sean, I don't see why people take that dolt seriously. "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html

Man you use alot of those 10 dollar words.

I said this before but Sean’s thoughts on aliens are alarmingly off: - billions of stars in our galaxy - if even 1/1000 is earth-like that’s 1 MILLION planets in one of billions of galaxies. Maybe he is trying to quietly say don’t worry about it because of the crazy distances between stars. But that’s like saying shut up and calculate. There is an effectively zero percent chance there is not other intelligent life in our universe. Why Sean won’t address it is very interesting.

@CraigMCox

2 жыл бұрын

I didn’t sign up for the Patreon because that website is a mess and I also know I’m right.

@davidb9114

2 жыл бұрын

Because there is no way to establish probability for that question. There could have been a trillion things that had to happen at just the right time for life to occur. I could name many of those things but it would take too long. Any aliens though would be too far away of us to ever know of them because of the rate of the expansion of the universe and the speed of light.

@etzie1728

2 жыл бұрын

We don't know the criteria for life. An Earth like planet doesnt imply there will be life either. Can you reference the time you disagree with?

@CraigMCox

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidb9114 that’s a common, overused fallacy: “there could have been a trillion things…” - yet here we are, intelligent life. You’re effectively saying the odds we are the only intelligent life are 1 in a trillion. So the odds that we aren’t are 999.9B out of 1T.

@CraigMCox

2 жыл бұрын

@@etzie1728 in several podcasts Sean has summarily dismissed the possibility of other intelligent life, without ever going into his usual detail. In this episode, it was the first question.

2.04 hr mark. Sean doesn't often miss but, wow, this time he misses spectacularly what the questioner was actually asking/saying. Surprising as he is so into philosophy.

@origins7298

2 жыл бұрын

Why do you think he misses? What would be your answer? I think he nailed it by saying we are just physical processes and there is no duality that "I" could be something "else" .... I am just the end result of previous biological evolution, and it makes no sense to say why wasn't I born another species... Anyway it's just a flawed way of thinking about reality that stems from our inclination to think dualistically. But in the end the question makes no sense and it is really a meaningless bunch of words the questioner is just throwing out. And according to the science Shawn nails the answer so what do you think?

@2fast2block

Жыл бұрын

He's into being stooo-pid. "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzread.info/dash/bejne/fJ2B09yHj7y5iLg.html The odds are NOT there. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4ttycOwqr2yo84.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/lpiV07WupNebkdo.html

I hated this political podcast

voting record is really useful, too many politicians pretend to have concerns on issues but in fact have voted against those issues, the voting record tells you exactly who is credible. wormholes. i just listened to brian cox saying that if there were no fre wil at all, ie history was mapped out including time travel, then time travel could be possible in both directions.