This sort of "hardcore scientist" approach annoys me. Look, we all know that this topic is speculative and that it has nothing to do with science. But it's still fun, interesting and USEFUL to address these existential questions. It seems like a mindset that tends to limit imagination and reasoning and everything good/bad that comes with it.

@hencole

10 күн бұрын

The issue I think he has with it is that it wastes the efforts of great scientific minds who could be out there genuinely discovering new things things in science by proving/falsifying them.

@francisdebriey3609

10 күн бұрын

I completely agree

Professor Laughlin is correct that those fundamental questions cannot be addressed experimentally at the moment. However, we need to keep on addressing them because further advances might bring some of those questions within reach of experimentation.

I feel robert should spend time interviewing people outside the box thats had real experiences

@S3RAVA3LM

11 күн бұрын

Yup.

I like the way Robert sticks to his question. And, IMHO, he is indeed closer to truth than the fellow he's talking to.

@boydmccollum692

11 күн бұрын

Interesting take away. I found just the opposite - the more he stuck to his question, the more it seemed it was about his own individual psychological need to have it treated as an important and insightful question and for others to acknowledge how important and insightful the question was. He started coming off as a child who keeps asking the same question, hoping for/demanding a different answer. The guy gave him an incredibly insightful answer but Robert wasn't listening.

@LavouraPolitica

11 күн бұрын

Your comment is typically religious, fitting what the scientist says is "fun", after all, how can you know that poor Robert is "closer to the truth"?! Robert is lost and doesn't want to accept the limitations of science. Science is for those who want to work, not for those who merely want to daydream about what they don't understand.

@grijzekijker

11 күн бұрын

Yes, me too. It is a healthy approach to keep looking over the fence of your own field to consider other explanations that might be out there.

@LavouraPolitica

11 күн бұрын

@@grijzekijker There are no "other explanations". They are mere religious or metaphysical speculations, which add nothing to what really matters. Speculative theory anyone can invent. Looking at "another field" would be checking whether in chemistry or biology there is any explanation that could add something to physics -- but there isn't!!

He's not playing. Boom!

Just because we don’t have the science to answer certain question, logically thinking of the possibilities of an “unsolvable” problem is a form of science. Einstein did thought experiments before we had the science to verify.

Science is for those who want to work, not for those who merely want to daydream about what they don't understand -- That's the wonderful lesson of this interview.

@grijzekijker

11 күн бұрын

You are taking sides in a condescending manner. Thinking, meditating, praying and studying ideas may not fit in your definition of work, but they certainly require effort and dedication. Science develops out of theories and concepts and hypotheses.

@sujok-acupuncture9246

11 күн бұрын

Religion is hallucination. It takes one in to more daydreaming and confusion. Science is reality. It clears many confusions.

@sujok-acupuncture9246

11 күн бұрын

​@@grijzekijker which God asked humans to pray him. Why have we developed this practice. ,?

@pauldmann1166

11 күн бұрын

It’s the daydreams about the seemingly impossible answers that lead to the greatest discoveries.

@shoopinc

10 күн бұрын

@@sujok-acupuncture9246We need to pray to Allah, Allah does not need us. Our purpose is the worship of Allah.

it would have been better if the interview started with: Lets talk about philosophy

I totally agree with the argument that multi universes isn’t science , it is a philosophical thought only. It is no different in essence to have a theory that God exists , gods/ goddesses etc that of course also can not be measured .

Professor Laughlin is being perfectly consistent in his reasoning that physics has its definite realm of expertise and validity, and pressing beyond these leads physics into religion or philosophy, in which realms it can only stumble.

@francisdebriey3609

11 күн бұрын

This guy doesn't help at all..

@francisdebriey3609

11 күн бұрын

Answer to 1 unique question : why there "is" instead of nothing

@panmichael5271

11 күн бұрын

@@francisdebriey3609 That's for philosophy to answer, not empirical, experimental physics! That's the argument here!

@francisdebriey3609

11 күн бұрын

@panmichael5271 yes indeed, so this interview is pointless

@panmichael5271

11 күн бұрын

@@francisdebriey3609 Agreed! Alternatively, preparation would have revealed this outcome prior to the interview. We all live and learn!!!!

Yes, life & mind are part of a framework that co-exist with the atmospheric planetary framework. Humanoids probably exist all throughout the Universe.

“I don’t mean to be flip…” Well, Laughlin is indeed flippant. The universe enables life - it doesn’t just make things “congenial” for us with pretty flowers. Most life couldn’t give a damn about pretty flowers or congeniality. Aesthetics is a purely human preserve. And, in any case, “amusing” is not an answer. We are not amused.

Anthropic principle works regardless if there are multiple universes or not. If it is the only set of constants (unlikely) that can create observers, then it's the only set of constants that can be observed, period. If we got it from the first try or from the many, doesn't matter. It's not religion or philosophy, it's just logical conclusion.

@ianwaltham1854

8 күн бұрын

If we got it from the first try then it looks like intelligent design.

@XOPOIIIO

8 күн бұрын

@@ianwaltham1854 No reason to believe that. Objectively any other configuration of the universe is just as valid. If it wouldn't generate life, so it wouldn't, objectively there is nothing special about life. We treat it as a special phenomenon, because we are part of it. It's just our biased perception.

@ianwaltham1854

8 күн бұрын

​@@XOPOIIIONo, if only ever one universe then the chances of getting correct constants of physics for planets with life were so infinitesimally small that it looks like intelligent design. I suspect main stream science just can't handle the implications of that so pushes for multiple universes.

@XOPOIIIO

7 күн бұрын

@@ianwaltham1854 You ignored what I just said, there is no right or wrong constants, all constants are equally valid.

@ianwaltham1854

7 күн бұрын

@@XOPOIIIO I agree all sets of constants are equally valid but so few are capable of creating life on planets. So how can it not look like intelligent design unless you're going to claim multiple universes and/or multiple tries?

Let’s say you have two colours that exist on one side of the tennis court, and the other side of the net you have two colours that don’t exist. Each colour one side of the net could each be part of two systems. Each colour that exists could also be a colour that was originally a colour that never existed that has has already crossed over the net from the other side to become a colour that does exist. So the two colours that exist could be part of two systems. The two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net could also be part of two systems. If we look at the two colours that exist from above the court with our head pointing away from the other side of the court, we may see red on the left and blue on the right. But we don’t see the spaces they take up because the spaces don’t contain any colour. What if the space the red colour was in on the left was the blue colour on the right, and the space the blue colour on the right was in was the red colour on the left. And what if the empty spaces thought they were the colours and the colours were the empty spaces they were filling up. Their is on point to make here. Both the empty spaces and colours that are filling them up are both from two systems, the empty space originating from the other side of the net as a colour that does not exist to cross over the net to become a colour that does exist, and the colour that is filling the spaces up is part of the system that is home on the side of the net it’s on. There is also two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net that is also part of the same two systems. The reason the empty space the red colour on the left is in could be the blue colour on the right, is because a colour can’t fill up a space that is the same colour as it is. So we are looking down at the two colours that exist with the top of our head Pointing away from the other side of the net, and we see a red square on the left and blue square on the right. Now if we look at the two colours that exist from underneath the tennis court still with the top of our head pointing the same direction, could we now see a blue square on the original left and red square on the original right, now seeing the empty spaces being the actual visible colours. Now when the two colours switch spaces with each other, in a way the spaces are moving to because they are now entering different colours thinking they are different spaces. A way we can see the two colours one side of the net and spaces they fill all move together without seeing the spaces still, is if the two colours move over the net in a straight direction, and the two spaces they leave move diagonally over the net to the other side of the court. But shouldn’t the two colours now be two colours that don’t exist? If the two colours and new spaces they are in turn into each other once they cross the net, the colours now being spaces will have to change colours because a colour can’t fill an empty space that is the same colour. The side of the net the colours and spaces have crossed over to becoming each other in the process are meant to be for colours that don’t exist, but now becomes the side of the net for colours that do exist. The original two colours that don’t exist and the spaces they fill, and the two colours that do exist along with the spaces they fill, have all crossed the the net to opposite sides, thus the opposite becoming original sides. So if we look down on the court and see red on the left and blue on the right, then we look from underneath the court and see blue on the original left and red on the original right because we are now focusing on the empty spaces as being the colours, is that because by actually observing from underneath the court we are causing the colours and spaces to cross the net turning into themselves. When we see some thing cross the net we observe the outcome. But by observing the two colours from underneath the court and seeing the outcome (if) the two colours cross over the net, could we be actually causing the two colours to cross over the net. Therefore by looking underneath the court, we are actually looking across the net to other side of the court. The structure of the theory is an empty space can’t be the same colour as the colour that fills it up. If we look at the two colours from above the court, could the reason that we can’t see the empty spaces be that we are looking at the future where the other side of the net is on, and where the two colours that don’t exist are located. which are two colours that don’t exist that are at the other side of the net as the two colours that do exist are on their side of the net. They say particle physics is based on symmetry. What kind of symmetry? If you have 10 different things, what makes them the same thing is that they are all in the same category as being a different thing. All numbers are really just a digit one a certain way up the number line. But the gaps or boundaries in between the numbers look like a truly different thing altogether. Logic is based on numbers, but can we create a new kind of logic based on gaps and boundaries in between numbers.

Excellent answers from Robert Laughlin.

A nice and candid discussion. Prof. Laughlin says a good question is one that can be answered by the methods of science. Robert rightly insists that physics must have or at least seek answers to the big questions. Perhaps one should rephrase the big questions in ways that can be understood and handled by science. Consciousness and mind are things not yet defined clearly in the realm of physics. Perhaps one should think in terms of better understood concepts such as information, entropy, entanglement, etc.

I appreciate Robert Laughlin for his clarity and great understanding. People are free to come up with all sorts of things that are not testable. I think fine-tuning sounds amazing but it is just a consequence of the way the universe works. If it wasn't the way it is, we would not be here to ponder it. We can leave it at that. To me fine-tuning is a form of "intelligent design" which is surely not scientific. I do thank Closer To Truth for this interview and many others.

@richardatkinson4710

6 күн бұрын

Then we need to go to step 2: we need to explain why and how a vastly unlikely universe happened - that is a different question from why we require such a universe.

You can’t see what space is made of because the blocks or material the make space would not contain space. Imagine a nut and jellybean made one. You can’t see what the jellybean and nut are made from because the stuff that makes the jellybean doesn’t make the nut, and the stuff that makes the nut doesn’t make the jellybean. What if the jellybean and nut was overall space, not mattering them both being next to each other, or miles or light years apart. Just as the building blocks that make space wouldn’t contain space (making you blind towards them), you can’t see what both the jellybean and nut are made from, because the stuff that makes the jellybean doesn’t make the nut and the stuff that makes the nut doesn’t make the jellybean. Think of a tank filled with jellybeans and nuts. The jellybeans and nuts would be the cause of the stuff inside the tank to exist, at the same time the jellybeans and nuts (being overall space) could be outside the tank, each ones existence being caused by what ever they are made out of. So if time stops, and every thing freezes, the cause of something doesn’t stop because the existence of things is caused by whatever they are made out of.

We could be part of one zero dimensional point where one second seems like one second. A physical system like a hurricane or falling line of dominos could be an intelligent being and be another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second. The two zero dimensional points we are part of and the physical system are part of can be two zero dimensional universes separated by time, but both still existing simultaneously. If we are a zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, and another intelligence is part of another zero dimensional point separated by time, where one week feels like one second, it makes sense for both points to be separated by time but still both exist simultaneously.

Philosophy is a support system designed to help the mind understand a little about the unknown which can be useful to some scientists who are tired of going around in circles and getting nowhere. Because of philosophy scientists have a better understanding of dark matter and dark energy which these two sources combined are opening doors to electric magnetic proportion and electric magnetic fusion. Going so deep into the unknown and coming up with feasible ideas will help scientists better understand our existence and open new doors to getting out from earth and among the Stars.

Having thought about the fine-tuning argument, as an atheist, I'm left with this argumentative gambit: If one can be persuaded (by any argument one can possibly think of) that God is a necessary being for "good universal constants", shouldn't one always be more persuaded by the argument that the "good universal constants" are, de facto, God. Isn't thinking of God as an extra attribute of the universal constants something like a Ryle-esque "category" error (e.g., "I've seen all the buildings and faculty of the university, but where's the university?)? The naturalist/atheist perspectives would seem to say stuff like this; i.e., they have the option of conceding the constants as the only needed "necessary being", or EXPLANATION (as far as they know now), which means they've "operationalized" God within a naturalistic theory. Scientists seem to believe in ONE LESS explanation than "theists" (sound familiar?); however, they do have to believe in AT LEAST ONE EXPLANATION (e.g., felicitous universal constants, and this actually does sound less familiar).

A humble physicist! Now I've heard of everything.

@ianwaltham1854

10 күн бұрын

He seemed more condescending than humble.

beneath physical and even mental space is an abstract space where mathematics can produce different designs or structures?

1. Universe is derived from the Sanskrit word Yuni which means Womb of Creation. 2. Womb of Creation is One. 3. Since it is not good to be alone (Genesis 2 18) one is different in life. End conclusion? It's all about love. We are all brothers here. We should have more beers together and more laughs and rejoice in the truth.

@tomjackson7755

8 күн бұрын

Why do you keep telling all of these obvious lies?

@sven888

8 күн бұрын

@@tomjackson7755 I love you brother. Wishing you a happy weekend. In appreciation.

What we know is that the Observable Universe exists as it is. Whether that is fine tuned or not is an unanswerable question, because to answer it we would need to know a great deal about what it beyond the Observable Universe. Therefore the "Fine Tuning" hypothesis is something that can never be more than a hypothesis. Now, within our Observable Universe it was 100% certain that life like us would evolve and I hypothesize that back when only elementary particles existed prior to forming any protons or neutrons that those elementary particles following the relatively unchanging Laws of Nature form a swarm intelligence, thus our Observable Universe is a living developing intelligent life form of which we are part. This I believe we will eventually scientifically prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's funny how this exchange elicits anger and indignation in both Robert Kuhn and many commenters. He gave his answer which is perfectly consistent with all his work. Bravo to Robert Laughlin for sticking to his original answer.

@ianwaltham1854

10 күн бұрын

Robert Kuhn didn't get angry. You made that up.

Only inevitable in every universe we have scanned.

If a number of people were zero dimensional points that were mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point, every one would agree with what number they are looking at because every one would be all one zero dimensional point. No one could have a different opinion. Imagine if you keep mixing an infinite number of pinballs that are the same size forever, and you still end up with one pinball that is the same size. That’s what it would be like if you kept mixing zero dimensional points together, you would still end up with one zero dimensional point without any dimensions. These zero dimensional points may not be in any space, or separated by any space, but be separated by time. One way to leave the point that you and the other points are part of and enter the other multi point point would be to disagree with the other points you’re mixed with on what number you are looking at. Or another way would be to just forget the number. If one individual point mixed in with another point composed of a number of points, it would still be like two individual points mixing together, so this individual point would make the multi point point its mixing into half as different then the individual point would become meaningless because it would now be part of one point. Or could this individual point completely take over the multi point point so the multi point point becomes as meaningless as one point mixed in with a multi point point, following by the individual point that is taking over (as it to is now part of a multi point point). If you imagine 20 scattered individual points, you yourself are an individual point with a consciousness of 20. You could be part of a zero dimensional multi point point composed of 90 other individual points. The other 90 individual points mixed in with you could also think they each are the ones theorising 20 scattered individual points, thereby giving the multi point point you are mixed with a consciousness of 20.

This gray haired man captured my attention tightly. He is…a type of scientist that I’d admire.

What’s weird for me is that all the folks that reject God because of reasons of lack of data, lack of test-ability, and lack of false-ability, are the same folks that should be rejecting the speculation of infinite varied universes. But all too often folks somehow see the latter as more justifiable than the former and yet really it is just another religious/philosophical position (not scientific). You might as well establish the “Church of multiverse”. Odd.

One billionth of a second is to fast for us to have a sense of being, so I guess it’s fair to say that in that amount of time time we don’t have a sense of being. Matter and atoms move a distance that is so small, that we are not conscious while they are covering that tiny distance. The time frame we are conscious of is made up of time frames where we are not conscious, so how can we be conscious at all. Now let’s imagine that we are forever looking at a screen that never change’s colour. That screen would continuously be in the present, or would it. You see, our consciousness involves time, like a moving environment or clock. We get a personal sense of how long we’ve been staring at this unchanging screen, and our thoughts are changing. So now this is the opposite as mentioned above. Our consciousness is moving forward in time, but the screen we are staring at is unchanging, nonetheless the screen has to be moving forward in time because our consciousness is. We also need to visualise a colour to be a conscious being, whether we look at or imagine it. Now let’s say this screen we are looking at is what we are imagining and there’s no physical thing we are looking at. If so, then this screen we are imagining becomes the physical thing we are looking at. If for the whole time we are looking at this unchanging screen we were not conscious, it would seem to us that the screen would change to another colour in the blink of an eye, because we don’t have any memory of being unconscious (such as in a billionth of a second).

Just because one cannot conceive of a question to be tested does not mean there are not answers to be discovered in relation to it. This guy is suffering typical establishment academic bias and he doesn’t even know it. The truth exists even if it cannot be tested for.

Yes.

Perhaps there have been billions of other universes that failed or were short lived, relatively speaking because the constants were different. We may never know how or why anything exists but it's fun trying to find out.

@ianwaltham1854

9 күн бұрын

What creates all the universes?

What if we invent a unit of measure, would we then be able to call it science?

I'm sure this guy means well but how does physical measurement explain how a piece of say Beethoven music can reduce someone to tears? Or explain the love one feels for your children, partner whatever. I can't explain it either but there must be something beneath our everyday "reality".

Philosophy leads science, not the other way around. Questioning leads to experimentation leads to answers (eventually). Without asking “unanswerable”questions, how do we know to pursue anything yet undiscovered? I found Laughlin difficult to listen to, personally.

We all start out in life as a single cell. With luck, we end up with a brain that thinks. I think that eventually my brain will die and stop thinking.

how might mathematics produce constants and laws of nature?

this question always reminds of scientology

What does A.I. say? Each creation has a set of molecules that causes various DNA structures that may, or may not occur due to environmental factors.

I dont think its proper to think of this guy as someone lacking imagination or being excessively rigid in their remarkably biased views, sooo, I'm trying VERY hard to not feel that way..

Why's greed exist in our human behaviour..??

@willrose5424

11 күн бұрын

Power

@S3RAVA3LM

11 күн бұрын

I acknowledge survival, a default system of all organisms, to be of body; love to be of soul. The platonists acknowledge matter to be like a shadow; a shadow isn't something it's a lack of something - light. Matter lacks 'goodness' or the essence of Allah. Moderation being an act of discipline and will. Persons who identify more with the body tend to be more materialistic driven and selfish. People who are of soul to be more spiritual or alike to Allah, thus pleased by the spirit alone not needing any material things. We have a divine nature and too and animal impulse. The Buddha really gets to the core of all huma psychology. Check out Buddha Nikayas: Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, Digha, and Suttanipata. And 'The Dhammapada'.

Laughlin is right to sit pat as a scientist with operationalizable answers and questions. He is wrong to sit pat with the false dichotomy that either we deal with issues scientifically or we're left with religion, imagination, speculations about which anybody's answer is as good as anybody else's. To fail to make further distinctions in that latter zone (e.g. between relying on conceptual analysis and logic, making distinctions and drawing inferences, rather than relying on faith and authority or imagination and myth, and between informed and trained thought rather than off-the-cuffery) it itself a failure of thought.

@simonhibbs887

11 күн бұрын

Drawing inferences from what, and informed by what though? Evidence, surely.

I'm surprised you posted this, a guy who refuses to attempt to answer the question that here is no answer for.

@D_D4411

11 күн бұрын

I was surprised at first too, but then it's good to hear why some people refuse to budge and think outside the box even IF they only adhere to a strict discipline.

Interview Neil Sinhababu about that, Khun.

If you want answers you have to consider all posibilities. If you deni that posibility. You are abordin the problem the wrong way

@simonhibbs887

11 күн бұрын

He’s not denying the possibility, he explicitly acknowledged it, he’s just saying it’s not knowable. I’m not sure he’s right about that, maybe, but it’s a valid opinion.

Let's not agree to not agree 😮😅

Robert is worried because Jaweh lurks in his mental landscape, but not for the other guy. 😂

@vicpalushaj

11 күн бұрын

Definitely not as enlightened as yourself….. hold on almost forgot the laughing emoji 😂 wow I feel smarter now!!!!

Humans on this planet in this universe have absolutely no idea of what kind of intelligent life, perhaps much more intelligent than ourselves, live in another universe that would be totally inhospitable to ourselves. Perhaps they think their universe is fine-tuned just for their own sake, just like we believe our universe is fine-tuned for our life. It is rather amusing. It just doesn't get us anywhere from a scientific perspective.

Science can only get you this far. We need philosophy to go forward and then work our way backward

This was great, finally someone ready to point out how religious the clearly irrational notion of a "fine tuned" universe. On another level it is seriously damaging. Somehow it seems "science" believes mankind can "fine tune" natural changes in the environment so that conditions remain ideal for humans, absurd and again religious.

@Nouvellecosse

11 күн бұрын

I've never heard scientists say humans can fine tune natural changes in the environment. What would that even mean? When talking about the environment, the term natural refers to states of affairs that occur without human involvement. If humans were "tuning" changes they would no longer be natural. Currently the main discourse around changes in the environment is climate change. Most of the scientific discussion I've heard on that is about changes we've observed our behaviour causing to the environment and how we can stop or reduce such behaviours. But that involves neither fine tuning (as it's basically down to "do the best we can") nor natural changes (as it pertains to human behaviour). I have heard futurists and sci-fi writers suggest it might someday be possible for humans to control Earth's environment, but sci-fi speculation is different from science.

@babyl-on9761

11 күн бұрын

@@Nouvellecosse So then, humans are not natural or part of nature and what we do to the environment is un-natural and bad for nature. But if we behave ourselves nature ill forgive us. Curious

@babyl-on9761

10 күн бұрын

@@Nouvellecosse So then humans are not part of nature. Environmental mitigation, reducing carbon dioxide, reducing ocean temps is global environmental engineering by humans who could care less about anything but their own superior to nature well being. Nature is beneath the status of human beings and human consciousness is more powerful than all the elements of nature. Humans are both the destroyers of nature and the saviors of nature. Very peculiar ideas.

he is playing the world a little bit upside-down here since without constantly knocking our heads against the unknown or what we shouldnt ask we wouldnt enjoy any high-tech at all ergo this conversation included...

He said "to logically array the possibilities is a scientific way of thinking"...sounds nice but is a fallacy. It is not science, it is philosophy. There is no way to know what all the possibilities are, we can only list the possibilities we can conceive of. There could be much more than that which we can imagine. For example, before we knew of nuclear fusion, we had no way of imaging why the sun was giving off heat. Fusion was not a possibility we could ever put on our list of logical possibilities.

1:08 When you say "seeguay" instead of segway, you really are the type of person who believes your own hype.

To all the Fine Tuners here is a question: when God set about creating the human species did God start out by designing the human and work backwards in creating a Universe compatible with humans (as implied by Genesis 2) or did God start out creating the Universe and in the process of creation realize that he could create humans and therefore did so (as implied by Genesis 1)?

@LavouraPolitica

11 күн бұрын

This is an off-topic question; A rude question indeed. After all, there is no reason to assume "god"; much less that the species was created by him (read Darwin, please!). The Bible is an outdated book - nowadays, trying to understand the universe and the questions it raises within it is like wanting to understand the functioning of the international orbital station and the rockets that travel to it by reading the manual of instructions for a plane employed in insecticide spraying.

@cajones9330

8 күн бұрын

if its infinite what if its happening all at once

@LavouraPolitica

7 күн бұрын

Genesis or anything else in the Bible is not a safe source for ANYTHING. These are nonsense invented and speculated a long time ago, when the level of information among humans was even lower than it is now. So whoever takes the Bible seriously shows double ignorance: 1. They ignore that the book is an expression of ancient ignorance, and is outdated even in terms of ignorance; 2. Ignore everything we know that contradicts this outdated book.

I never knew TV's Frank was so erudite.

If we don't start thinking outside the box, and we always stick to what is tangible and in front of our noses, then we will never evolve, imo.

This was hilarious

The interviewer was getting closer to truth, and it seemed to have a bitter taste. 👀

Not sure he answered your question 😂

Scientists speculate!

Body and mind or you can say body or management 🧠 are physically one realms ,you can realise humanbeing have facilities of twosome qualities inseparable from one another when taking birth and after died down in world 🌎or universe. But body is ,We can pronounce it body or animate object or subject with having it's super power part brain 🧠 here placing another portion of mind having consciousness super energy product of body and mind spirit of life and that's all live humanbeings staying great energetic people working greatest wonders in social life or it's branches to know about curiously nature world 🌎 and it's productions animate and inanimate creatures having godsome energetic spirit today to change ,improve make and prepare to theirs wishes and making ideals for equalitis for all people

What if Einstein didn’t dream

How unfortunate to interview someone who doesn't understand what science is. Falsification has long ceased to be what demarcates science from what it is not. This is in the category of "a scientific theory is just a theory."

He stuck to his guns, which didn't make for an interesting exchange but whatever.

Yes. No universe exists without God, even in the multiverse, least it all collapses.

Trying to understand fine tuning isn't science?! lol

Everything “scientific” today started with a question. I think he’s just trying to be politically correct

If the answer is god. You won,t find it. becouse you dont even consider that. This is sciense

He found an NPC 😂

Sounds like he is admitting the universe goes beyond physics. That is called religion.

@AtheistCook

11 күн бұрын

if we start talking without verifiable mensurable effects, the conversation could degradate into pink unicorns, chupacabras, big foot, log nest monster, etc.

@simonhibbs887

11 күн бұрын

He’s saying there are some phenomena which may exist but are in principle unobservable, and that therefore they cannot be studied scientifically. That’s all.

@S3RAVA3LM

7 күн бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887 that's false. You and pseudo scientists are merely mathematician. Science has never been defined as mathematics.

Ha, what bullshitx2 I will only do experiments where I can get results...shut up and calculate to the max.

@simonhibbs887

11 күн бұрын

How much funding do you think we should devote to experiments the results of which, in principle, can never be observed?

@EROSNERdesign

11 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 In 1890 the Head of the US patent office wanted to close it down because he thought that everything that had been invented, had been. If you don't look, you won't find. We used to think that the Milky Way was all that there was.

@simonhibbs887

11 күн бұрын

@@EROSNERdesign As it happens au think he’s overly pessimistic, I think there are things we can look at to find evidence for or against various multiverse hypotheses, such as characteristics of the CMB. However he may well be right in that such evidence may never be conclusive. I agree we should look, and I don’t think he’s genuinely saying we should not look at what evidence is available to us.

@EROSNERdesign

11 күн бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 the old story of opening your front door and waiting for a lobster to come in and jump on your table must conclude that there are no lobsters in the world when a lobster doesn't walk through your front door... he sorta says "we can't figure it out so don't worry about it. " seems defeatist to me.. we can study the CMB because they were looking for weird stuff....not knowing that they would find the CMB.

"Concern yourself with things you can falsify and really know" This is a perfect example of twofold ignorance that is discussed in the 1st Alcibiades and Proclus commentary on the discourse between Socrates and Alcibiades. You think you know what things are in themselves - to what degree?

Ha, what bullshit... " don't ask about the hard questions, just eat a sandwich and shut up."

Science today isn't science; philosophy today isn't philosophy - because these men are negligent in owning up to this fact alone voids them of any prestige. Science has become mathematics; philosophy that in epistemology. Meaning of science: Knowledge. Who dares tell me that science and particular methods are strictly to be circumscribed to the sense perception instruments alone, as if they're criterion, now displacing intellect and reason, and for all enquiries concerning knowledge? Do you dare superimpose your beliefs upon my true scientific inquiry in Reason? Because you persons today are hardcover atheists/nihlists you feel you have the right to say what is and what isn't science, is this right? I'm currently studying Proclus, learning about transcedental science, and none of you here could ever dream in a hundred lives, exercising the scientific dialectic to the degree that this god had done so, in Proclus. Is true: the 4 pillars of science: observation, measurement, testing, replication. What these persons of today fail to understand is what exactly observation entails; and this includes vision, insight, demonstration, reason, and the intellect. You might say such demonstrations as Proclus makes is the measurement of the transcedental type. And this is most wonderfully the case and a demonstrable fact. The enemies of wisdom and Spirit, i.e. the materialists, nihilists who have hijacked science today, seek to render everything as either a mental property or quantity and objectify everything. There are no universals or principles to these sophist men. They want you to believe that intellect and reason are just properties of the brain and neurons - easily proven not to be the case when one looks either up towards the heavens acknowledging the beauty, form, harmony, procession, revolutions, majesty and cyclical nature; too, acknowledging the cyclical nature and procession and form of plants and all organisms. Intellect and reason doesn't only exist in one's head. You can't touch this. You can't take it into a lab. The more subtle something is, all the more pure, powerful, and higher is it.

@BooksForever

11 күн бұрын

Nope.

@simonhibbs887

11 күн бұрын

Sure. Often when we discuss science and people here criticise ‘science’ they mean the empirical, physical sciences, but you’re quite right that science in its historic sense is a perfectly valid meaning.

@S3RAVA3LM

10 күн бұрын

​​@@simonhibbs887Simon, buddy! People don't critize the 'empirical physical sciences' like you mistakenly here believe. They critize the folly of the man utilizing science as a guise for his beliefs and dogma; not because he dissembles either. Persons who are lesser evolved mentally or Spiritually - they're the same thing - thus haven't empathy or intuition, haven't that awareness and realization, in knowing or longing, therefore no desire for wisdom but rather episteme because it's physical, is what they cleave to. Often the case with materialists whom claim science, and reprehensibly so, and due to quiddity, yet deep inside of them, there's nothing there, they haven't an inner compass, and so by default such conducts and measures, unwittingly, are made to give them a sense or notion of a foundation or notion of reality - these persons like to feel neat & tiddy, and anything that's a mystery they do without. They can't deal with a mystery, it makes their entire world cave in. They don't want to understand Dark Matter if they cannot quantify it, or manipulate it, or control it, or exploit it. Science limited to the transistory is what's known as pseudo science. They're not after knowledge, they're after information, looking for results, and how to further manipulate things in a manner that can perhaps be useful down the road - it's not all bad, but because they lost sight of Truth, it isn't good. Science rendered to results is how they define it. Science use to be about adventure, discovery, expeditions, curiosity, life, beauty, and not rendered to merely lab results alone. I can go on and on.... the fact is, not merely learning of, but realization of Source, and what Wisdom is, and how Soul is, and what it means if the soul is denied, these are transcedental scientific inquiries. Learning about how this all works in Spirit, is far more important than your lab results - spirit is photon so you know.. The earth is a living being, the grocery stores are a pet cemetery, the society today is mere business, life is a body farm - and mere episteme, or your version of "science", there's no recourse there. But yet, you and your boyfriends cleave to it, pretending to be "Men of Science", the intellectual class of the 21st century, 'just look at what they've achieved', more in 100 years than humanity had in the last 5000 years, isn't that like what Robert says? What I do is the real version. Not your little lab results of exploitation, manipulation and control - not saying it's wrong, only when you lose sight of the Divine and Wisdom, is it rendered not good. Any science that occludes, excludes, precludes, impedes the Divine, is a potiential of great evil. Listening to CTT for like 5-6 years now, and religiously, everyday, every title question i discern and take a swing at as if it's a pinata, i can't say i'm ever really impressed. These men here will talk about it all day long, but none of them are serious in Heart about it. Everyday it's "is there a God, I want there to be a God, "...... and followed by a bunch of degenerate clowns in the comments all making fun of their own insolence without knowing it. Where's the leaders? Because they get mocked even. Only until you get yourself lost, and have nobody else to call out for help, is it in that moment, you find yourself. The consensus are clowns. Who are you fooling? You and your kin are nothing compared to the men of antiquity.

Let’s say you have two colours that exist on one side of the tennis court, and the other side of the net you have two colours that don’t exist. Each colour one side of the net could each be part of two systems. Each colour that exists could also be a colour that was originally a colour that never existed that has has already crossed over the net from the other side to become a colour that does exist. So the two colours that exist could be part of two systems. The two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net could also be part of two systems. If we look at the two colours that exist from above the court with our head pointing away from the other side of the court, we may see red on the left and blue on the right. But we don’t see the spaces they take up because the spaces don’t contain any colour. What if the space the red colour was in on the left was the blue colour on the right, and the space the blue colour on the right was in was the red colour on the left. And what if the empty spaces thought they were the colours and the colours were the empty spaces they were filling up. Their is on point to make here. Both the empty spaces and colours that are filling them up are both from two systems, the empty space originating from the other side of the net as a colour that does not exist to cross over the net to become a colour that does exist, and the colour that is filling the spaces up is part of the system that is home on the side of the net it’s on. There is also two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net that is also part of the same two systems. The reason the empty space the red colour on the left is in could be the blue colour on the right, is because a colour can’t fill up a space that is the same colour as it is. So we are looking down at the two colours that exist with the top of our head Pointing away from the other side of the net, and we see a red square on the left and blue square on the right. Now if we look at the two colours that exist from underneath the tennis court still with the top of our head pointing the same direction, could we now see a blue square on the original left and red square on the original right, now seeing the empty spaces being the actual visible colours. Now when the two colours switch spaces with each other, in a way the spaces are moving to because they are now entering different colours thinking they are different spaces. A way we can see the two colours one side of the net and spaces they fill all move together without seeing the spaces still, is if the two colours move over the net in a straight direction, and the two spaces they leave move diagonally over the net to the other side of the court. But shouldn’t the two colours now be two colours that don’t exist? If the two colours and new spaces they are in turn into each other once they cross the net, the colours now being spaces will have to change colours because a colour can’t fill an empty space that is the same colour. The side of the net the colours and spaces have crossed over to becoming each other in the process are meant to be for colours that don’t exist, but now becomes the side of the net for colours that do exist. The original two colours that don’t exist and the spaces they fill, and the two colours that do exist along with the spaces they fill, have all crossed the the net to opposite sides, thus the opposite becoming original sides. So if we look down on the court and see red on the left and blue on the right, then we look from underneath the court and see blue on the original left and red on the original right because we are now focusing on the empty spaces as being the colours, is that because by actually observing from underneath the court we are causing the colours and spaces to cross the net turning into themselves. When we see some thing cross the net we observe the outcome. But by observing the two colours from underneath the court and seeing the outcome (if) the two colours cross over the net, could we be actually causing the two colours to cross over the net. Therefore by looking underneath the court, we are actually looking across the net to other side of the court. The structure of the theory is an empty space can’t be the same colour as the colour that fills it up. If we look at the two colours from above the court, could the reason that we can’t see the empty spaces be that we are looking at the future where the other side of the net is on, and where the two colours that don’t exist are located. which are two colours that don’t exist that are at the other side of the net as the two colours that do exist are on their side of the net. They say particle physics is based on symmetry. What kind of symmetry? If you have 10 different things, what makes them the same thing is that they are all in the same category as being a different thing. All numbers are really just a digit one a certain way up the number line. But the gaps or boundaries in between the numbers look like a truly different thing altogether. Logic is based on numbers, but can we create a new kind of logic based on gaps and boundaries in between numbers.