Robert Laughlin is one of the clearest thinkers and most articulate scientists. I love listening to him.

@JSB2500

10 ай бұрын

Opinion not fact.

@David.C.Velasquez

10 ай бұрын

@@JSB2500 It's called speculation poindexter, and he said so himself in the interview... No need to point to the obvious in this comment section. When we want your opinion on playing piano, fine.

@JSB2500

10 ай бұрын

@@David.C.Velasquez Hi David. I think I was not clear. I was referring to the comment, not to what Robert Laughlin presented in the video. I apologise for my lack of clarity. Given that the comment was the top one and would likely be seen by many before they watched / listened to the video, I was concerned that the "X is the greatest scientist of our age" type comment would prime people to process the content in a skewed way. It seems to me that by omitting words like "In my opinion" "I reckon" "I think" and so on we can greatly influence the way people process information. If we say "X is the most popular person in the class", that starts to become true. We can even say it of our self successfully. I've studied this in various contexts, including religious ones. The human brain appears to me to have little defense against that sort of cognitive priming, which is why I wrote my comment - to try to defuse the cognitive priming effect. Curiously, the priming works even when the person making the statement doesn't intend to manipulate the minds of others. People with impaired theory of mind can make inadvertent statements of fact ("X is the best composer" "Y is the best violinist" "Z is the best scientist"), simply because they lack the awareness of other minds and the ability to simulate them in real time. Nevertheless, what they say / write can overly influence others, in a way that a subjective opinion would not. (It's so effective, I wonder whether impaired theory of mind evolved because it can have great power of persuasion). My scientific field is the underlying mechanism of the human brain and how it gives rise to intelligence, mind, self awareness, awareness of others, and consciousness. Peace.

@David.C.Velasquez

10 ай бұрын

@@JSB2500 You are very correct in your observation, and the fault is on me, for seeing unwarranted criticism where there was none. Please accept my apologies, for my overly aggressive response, and the poindexter comment. Many self styled "geniuses" with contrarian attitudes, have taken to posting anti-science rhetoric on this channel, and I've unwittingly become what I sought to defy. Take care :)

@rumidude

10 ай бұрын

@@JSB2500 Well I am glad you added the additional info, because I initially thought your statement was intended as a snide insult. One thing you did get wrong is that I did not write "X" is the greatest scientist of our age or anything close to that. That was exaggeration on your part. I think most people realize that comments to videos are the writers opinion and not a statement of objective truth. Comments like the one I made really don't need to be framed with disclaimers. But even if I did couch my comment with "in my opinion" it likely does not satisfy your stated objection to it as anchoring persuasion in the comment section.

Closer to Truth is such a great show. I’ve been watching it since it first started.

Compartmentalization & Physical Constants Are Essential For Emergence.

“Learning less” about a thing as you take it apart is an artifact of the limitations of our mind

Excellent! The most valuable and honest physicist.

Very interesting discussion!

Thanks for useful discussion Sir. Regards

Great talk!

GREAT interview!

That guy was great! Fun to listen too and made a lot of sense.

That was interesting, especially at the end..

Robert Laughlin, you are a confirmed wizard. Patience will do exactly what you explained in the first 90 seconds. Your analogy magnifies what magnets do, which is to attract. Your description of phasing is so seductive it can make people of these current generation to walk miles, even to the point of death.

This guy's voice sounds very similar to Tom Hanks' and I love it

I want more! Is the fine structure constant and time the ‘lens’ or the ‘well’ of a cyclic phase emergent from a precursor? Thanks

@inelhuayocan_aci

6 ай бұрын

Great question but therein lays the rub. If you return to what Laughlin said about the observable---in this case a source of known computation---getting more complicated and thereby seemingly uncalculable at the level of the supposed terminus, it folllows that the rest---at this juncture---becomes speculative. In other words, the "more" you're seeking simply isn't verifiable right now. One cannot verify the uncalculable. We can, perhaps, use a portion of the law---i.e., logic---to infer but nothing more. That's not to say, we may never, However, consider the failure of the empiricist movements to grant us verifiable knowledge beyond the gray area of the seemingly ever complex terminus, which, therefore is probably not the verifiable terminus after all. The speculative renders the logical probability of what you're seeking. In other words, its PROBABLY (maybe even VERY probably) the case more than not.

I think the organization of information is key. I can write a bunch of words randomly down and it'd be gibberish. But I can organize those words in a way that a story emerges. That's what I think emergent properties are. Properties that emerge because of how something is organized. A bunch of quantum particles can be nothing or it can be organized in a way that a human being emerges.

@5piles

10 ай бұрын

stories are discrete objects produced in stages by causes. they are the opposite of emergent properties like a pattern on a shell or the sharpness of a knife.

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

@@5piles think the drama or humour of a story are emergent, the act structure if it has one, a story arc. Clearly when you look at informational structures like this, there are hierarchies of analysis and meaning.

@dannyglenfield105

10 ай бұрын

@@5piles True, a story wasn't meant to be a literal example of emergence. A pattern on a shell emerges from how the material is organized so I think that is a good example. The material emerges from quantum particles organized (or structured) in a way that atoms emerge which are organized in a way that molecules form (emerge), etc.

@5piles

10 ай бұрын

@@dannyglenfield105 just as napalm arises from production and does not emerge from some material whole upon the collection of said ingredients/causes, likewise molecules arise and are reproduced freshly each moment by atoms etc ie. they are not emergent properties of atoms.

@5piles

10 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 if the humour were in the story then anything observing the basis of emergence (ie. the story) would observe that humour which is its emergent property, but this is absurd.

Searching among the sequential differences of primes and their thresholds, I have uncovered a specific sequence of values similar to phi identifying such phases as could grade emergence consistently with respect to atoms. We need this.

Another good one! Please, would be good to know when this was first recorded. Is it possible to add such info, especially when maybe originally published some time ago? Would be very helpful, thanks!

This notion of "togetherness" is general and applies to all designs. If we start from bottom up then lowest modules have their own functions. As we go up in design the top modules have a completely different purpose while they depend on lower modules. So nothing fundamental here when applied to atoms.

Emergence is a real thing, and a useful way of thinking about things, but I’m not sure it has a lot of practical utility. There don’t seem to be any laws or generally applicable principles of emergence we can use to, for example, predict what high level properties will emerge without doing a causal analysis from low level properties. So to get a solid understanding of emergent behaviour you either have to simulate the system from the low level up, or just analyse the actual high level behaviour of the system and infer rules from the behaviour that way. There don’t seem to be any laws or principles, or theory of emergence that will help you.

@chyfields

10 ай бұрын

Closely related species probably co-mingle, which causes the emergence of new forms. In the same way, cross breeding dogs has led to the evolution of very different, distinctive breeds. Attributes can be accentuated or diminished.

@brothermine2292

10 ай бұрын

Yes, and it may be even worse than that. Laughlin pointed out near the beginning of the video that it's impractical to try to deduce emergent properties from the properties of the tiny components. I assume he meant we lack the computing power to model the behavior of large collections of particles. On the other hand, we ought to be able to deduce a lot by modeling small collections. I assume some people listening to him will believe he called emergent properties fundamental, but that's a self-contradictory interpretation. By definition, emergent properties aren't fundamental.

@David.C.Velasquez

10 ай бұрын

@@brothermine2292 Any simulation must be programmed with properties and behaviors based on a model, utilizing previous observations and assumptions, with no real correlation to actual physical systems. Possibly, if a universal quantum computer is ever created, accurate simulation with direct correlation will be reality, but as of now there are too many unknown unknowns, relegating this topic to the realm of philosophical conjecture. *BTW, nothing against philosophical conjecture.

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

@@brothermine2292 That’s true, although the number of emergent properties we can computationally model has gone up. We’ve had robust accounts of the emergence of temperature and pressure since the 19th century. The classic example of one we couldn’t account for a few decades ago was the wetness of water, but with advances in computer power that is now thoroughly explained by the properties of fundamental particles from the ground up.

@brothermine2292

10 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 : Right. What is computationally impractical today might not be tomorrow.

Mister Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Sir, If ever, you are to travel to Romania and if the need is there, with the risk that some resources and time might be wasted on your side, I will accept contact, and I will respond to questions as best as I can in the best way possible to my nature. Thank you! I love what you are doing!

*“Modern science is based on the principle ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”* - TERENCE MCKENNA. So, yeah, just give us that one tiny little initial *"miracle"* and - voila - "emergence" can be used to explain the unfathomable order of the universe.

@peweegangloku6428

10 ай бұрын

I couldn't agree with you more. You are million times correct!

@mikel4879

10 ай бұрын

TheUltimateS • In this matter you have only two options: Nothing and Something Real. Since you can observe and understand that there's Something Real, then you should understand that Something Real can not ever come from nothing. This real Something can not "evolve" dynamically if it is not highly causal. The real and dynamic "cause and effect" continuous process is fundamentally "emergent". Forget Terence and his stupidities.

@peweegangloku6428

10 ай бұрын

@@mikel4879 It is all too clear that something real exists as opposed to there being nothingness. However, that something real is the things we see around us including us, conscious beings. This is not the same as emergence being that 'something real.' Emergence is a process, a concept, not a tangible object. So you are wrong to say, 'that something real is emergence.' Even the process of 'weak emergence' as they call it, cannot exist, talk less of 'strong emergence,' if there is no energy or particle of some kind already in existence. What we see as evidence of emergence works entirely within the framework of the laws of physics, not outside of it as the moderator conjectures.

@TheUltimateSeeds

10 ай бұрын

​@@peweegangloku6428 Thank you, peweegangloku6428. Indeed, the same principle applies to evolution. Just grant science the initial miracle of an unimaginably stable setting of a solar "system" that consists of a DNA powering energy source that shines on a planet that has been miraculously equipped with every possible ingredient necessary to awaken us into existence, then - voila - "evolution" (as opposed to design) can be used to explain why we are here.

@peweegangloku6428

10 ай бұрын

@@TheUltimateSeeds But you keep talking about initial miracle, miraculous, DNA, energy source. If all these are miraculously provided, why rule out design? Why can't they all pop up through the almighty, ever wise EVOLUTION?

Wow, just had a flashback to 'that' famous 'flow like water' Bruce Lee interview. Robert was so similar in his delivery at the start of his plane analogy ! ...bit OT...but anyway !

smaller is the oxygen compressed bubble sediment molten or overlay is needed to perform

Every now and then, someone comes along that renews my faith... Hopefully, others will follow. The nonsense chasers have been running things for too long. 🤞🤞

I assert the PI author's claim that what makes the constants constant and therefore law isn't emergence but rather ontological mathematics itself. Actualization doesn't emerge from possibility but rather from my understanding of their material I argue that possibility is contained within actuality for example all numbers, number combinations, configurations, ratios and relationships are contained that is to say implied by every number imaginable in a grand fractal of possibility from which actuality is derived. This is all coordinated by Euler's formula and actualized through Fourier transforms. For a deeper dive read: "The God Series" by Mike Hockney.

I believe in emergence based on my personal 1-2-3 logic. 1 is one. All decision is from within the one. 2 is like one. They can agree or disagree but their view evens out. Now, 3 is interesting because they can all agree still but if one disagree then you have the emergence of "majority" which does not exist and cannot exist if you regress back to 2. Emergence changes everything. Now the majority has the say but not always. Even though, at this point, majority has little effect, in the overall schemes of things it plays a major role in everything. It is not a physical thing yet it rules the world has if it was. I would also suggest that 3 represents a group because of the decision making aspect. So we have the existence of something that does not exist physically but does change the world. I want to believe that i was also an emergence. I have no physical proof but ever since i was aware I always used my body as an extension of me. Not the other way around.

I think I agree with Robert Laughlin despite the fact that this is the first time I saw him on video. As a science enthusiast, I believe Laughlin's concept of emergence agreeable with quantum mechanics. This is to say that there is no such thing as wave function collapse, but there is a wave function emergence. I believe that all electrons occupying the same atom obey the classical laws of physics, but their angular momentum is not allowed to go lower than the reduced Planck's constant. But when the atom is in the act of being observed, all electrons involved in the process immediately or spontaneously reorganize themselves in order to quantize the change in the energy state of the atom. This immediate reorganization of the entire electron cloud is the reason why a wave function should emerge spontaneously and momentarily. And by virtue of which, it appears to me that the transient emergence of a wave function is just a natural way the atom would like to communicate with the outside world. So, at the conclusion of the emission of radiation, the said wave function immediately disappears, and subsequently the entire electron cloud resumes their obedience to the classical laws of physics.

Yeah it can. I actually just covered this.

@5piles

10 ай бұрын

no the majority of actions occurring in the world are causal not emergent. eg. the sharpness of a knife emerges from the knife but getting stabbed by it is just standard mechanics.

@anxious_robot

10 ай бұрын

@@5piles i think cause and effect are flaws in the monkey brain. the 11th dimensional being that created this place we live in is most likely out of time entirely with no concept of cause and effect, and that is probably the objective reality, not our monkey brain subjective reality.

Consciousness

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

@tookie36

9 ай бұрын

They will get there eventually haha

I always wonder about how the standard model seems to make things more complicated and ugly. Whereas a relational/systems paradigm often makes things more beautiful- stuff like self-similarity at different levels, patterns repeating. I wonder if a synthetic rather than an analytic lens is needed and if the scientific process, although powerful, is fundamentally flawed.

Babies are perfect example of emergence in everyday life. A new cosmos as it were w each new birth.

Emergent means the process of coming into being or becoming prominent. Now, when it comes to the beginning of the Observable Universe which includes everything we can observe including matter, energy, and the Laws of Nature... we simply do not know how it came into existence, why it came into existence, if it even came into existence when we think it did, etc. There are things we don't know and will almost certainly never know. What we can reasonably know is most likely true is that at some time in the past, we think around 13.7 billion years, but this may or may not be correct and when do we really define the beginning anyway, considering the Universe may be infinitely old? Just as another comment on this, Rajendra Gupta, a physics professor at the University of Ottawa, their newly-devised model indicates that the Observable Universe is 26.7 billion years old, so our estimated age of the Observable Universe is not really very certain. We also think, but like the age of the Observable Universe we are in fact not that certain, that around what we call the beginning of of the Observable Universe everything was elementary particles obeying the Laws of Nature and no atoms had formed yet. Prior to that we can't say what came first, the elementary particles or the Laws of Nature, or if you can even separate them. But, beginning from that believed soup of elementary particles we have a path of evolution from which we then get many things which emerge, like atoms. Now, assuming the beginning of the soup of elementary particles which is the size of the Observable Universe that has no atoms, there are two things I can think of which we can say about this. (1) The whole of the Observable Universe must be under some constraint(s) which prevents any atoms from forming and whatever that constraint(s) it must be removed over time such that it allows atoms to form. This would be some kind of Observable Universe scale event but the process of changing would not be happening everywhere at once. (2) Some atoms would form first and because of the speed of causality the effects of those first atoms forming would not be instantly felt by anything else, but take time to be felt depending upon the distance from the forming atom. Now, what do we call emergent in this? I would certainly think it is the atoms we would say are emergent from the changing conditions and these changing conditions are certainly occurring across a cosmic scale, the whole Observable Universe, but it is when those conditions change specifically right around where the first atom forms that cause it to form, which is a very tiny localized spot. Can we really separate these two things though, because they are connected, the whole of the Observable Universe and the tiniest element within it. When we get to stars forming from heavier atoms more complex atoms, the conditions across the Observable Universe can be, as a whole, relatively unchanging. But, the conditions around the star forming and the creating of heavier elements within the star is still a large scale event. However, that large scale event only takes place because of the small scale events taking place, yet the small scale events only happen because the large scale event is happening. This is like the chicken and egg question of which came first. Both are required for that formation of heavier elements and if you remove either then you don't have the required system anymore. Thus, maybe you can't separate these two any more than you can separate the mass of an object from the volume of an object and still have that object. So to say volume emergent from mass or mass is emergent from volume is just not logical or reasonable to say, because they are both intrinsic properties of the object. Thus to say the tiniest elements of the Observable Universe are emergent from the largest elements of the Observable Universe is not a logical and reasonable thing to say. Nor is the reverse, because to say the largest elements of the Observable Universe are emergent from the smallest elements of the Observable Universe is not a logical and reasonable thing to say. This is because we can't separate these two things which are both intrinsic to the Observable Universe.

Such a fascinating topic. Everything is made of something smaller. We're made of atoms, atoms are made of smaller particles, those are made of even smaller particles, and so on. So why should it stop here? We already know we live on a subatomic particle relative to the size of just our galaxy. So what emerges out of all these cosmic webs and great walls and attractors?

@tookie36

9 ай бұрын

Science will eventually become Buddhism and then make the leap into Vedanta :)

Physicists are always about nuclear forces, quantum mechanics, string theory and relativity, however, non equilibrium statistical mechanics is a thing to study about experiments and nature... I am a chemist and sometimes I feel that thermodynamics is so neglected by the physicists

What is emergent vs what is fundamental is pointless to ponder because they are interrelated and one cannot exist without the other.

So emergence is basically causality + information? Can we distinguish between strong and weak emergence very clearly, please?

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

If you mean the idea of dualism, where some things are not physical, then that is clearly wrong. If you mean emergence that affects lower level physical systems, that happens every time you use your hand to type a letter to post on YT.

@David.C.Velasquez

10 ай бұрын

@@reason2463 I'm not a proponent of any particular worldview, but how is dualism clearly wrong? Just by your proclamation?

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

@@David.C.Velasquez There is no proof that dualism is correct. There is every reason to believe that the physical is correct. Name one fact that proves dualism and I will shut up.

@David.C.Velasquez

10 ай бұрын

@@reason2463 Like I said, I don't necessarily subscribe to any rigid paradigm, but I'm assuming you are arguing for materialist reductionism, and you know as well as I do, that there is no "one fact that proves dualism". How about you provide your reasoning against the realm of platonic forms. You made the statement, you have the burden of proof. Your other comments contain a flicker of insight, but I must gauge whether the time highlighting your intellectual stagnation will be wasted, to continue further. My night is nearly over.

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

@@David.C.Velasquez Go to bed. It's far too intellectually demanding. Platonic forms are human constructions that have nothing to do with the universe.

Can wetness explain water?

Jun 30, i933 📺

Consciousness is the missing ingredient. Upon observation the wave function collapses causing objects to emerge into existence within our conscious minds.

Is human society and culture an emergent property of individuals? Is the internet becoming a new layer of intelligence and communication on Earth like the Noosphere of Teilhard Dechardin?

It’s obvious that energy determines emergent behaviour.

Started to sound like a future marvel villain at the end 😂

hang on.... he said in ancient Greek the words for “god”, “logic” and “nature” are all the same word? The word for "god" is "theos" (θεός) The word for "logic" is "logos" (λόγος) The word for "nature" is "physis" (φύσις) Did I misunderstand?

@mikerodent3164

9 ай бұрын

Hahahaha! He probably had in mind φύσις, and probably someone told him it means "god/God, the universe and everything". And he probably never looked it up. Which tends to suggest a pronounced tendency to bullshittery, aka βόλιτος, on the part of your man. To be fair (should we be try to be fair? why should we try to be fair?) φύσις does kind of cover all that territory, as long as "God" is understood in a deist rather than theist sense.

If you can’t walk on water, freeze it. 😂 Safety in numbers, strength in numbers, who said that?

Rigidity of titanium comes because of molecular bonds. Sure, rigidity only occurs when there are many atoms of titanium that form the crystal. Question: will titanium rod have the rigidity if the underlying atoms did not have the properties they have. And by definition the rigidity we are talking about here is a property at the level of collection of atoms. Emergence can be still bottom up in the sense that it emerges because the constituents have the microscopic properties they have all the way down. The question that is being indirectly asked is does he think reductionism is still true or not? Can one flying bird form a flock. Of course not. Flock is a property if a lots of birds flying together. So by definition the flockness occurs when a lot of birds fly together.

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

Laughlin's point is that you cannot understand rigidity based on the individual constituents, namely atoms. Rigidity is an emergent property of the underlying physical system.

@SandipChitale

10 ай бұрын

@reason2463 Yes, but that is because rigidity is the property of collection of atoms/molecules. So, by definition, it emerges at that level, but it emerges in the sense of what is called weak emergence, and reductionism still applies. The pressure of a gas arises because of the average kinetic energy of atoms and molecules of the gas.

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

@@SandipChitale I think we agree that the pressure of a gas is an emergent property of a collection of atoms. The point is that more complexity emerges from lower level physical systems. It's this particular characteristic of the universe that Laughlin is pointing to. I agree with him. Until we understand how emergence works, we will not understand the universe.

@SandipChitale

10 ай бұрын

@reason2463 Agree. People talk about strong emergence, whereby they insist that higher level have phenomenon that start only there and do not have explanation at lower level, e.g. George Ellis. That I do not agree with.

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

@@SandipChitale Dualism is false. It's a cop out to "magic". It results from not knowing.

No

When science dispenses with religion, science becomes the religion. It's not what it is that makes it religion; it's our relationship to it.

Wow... now science looks like science fiction. 😮 Everyday physics gets closer to science fiction. Amazing. 👌

@jacksonvaldez5911

10 ай бұрын

The truth is stranger than fiction

So... [the emergence of] consciousness is fundamental?

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

Emergent properties are inherently contingent. If you don’t assemble the constituents in the relevant way, there’s nothing there for the properties to emerge from. Therefore emergent properties cannot be fundamental.

@quantumkath

10 ай бұрын

@simonhibbs887 so you're refuting everything the video says?

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

@@quantumkath I like the take Craig Callender gave, the interviewee on the previous clip on Emergence on CTT a few days ago. kzread.info/dash/bejne/mWiAprmLqaqcgZs.html

@quantumkath

10 ай бұрын

@simonhibbs887 Me too! This is what I was going to comment (let me get my Closer To Truth notebook). "This is one of the Best descriptions of emergence." Not posted.

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 I don't think you and I agree on emergence, Simon. Nor do you agree with Laughlin. Physics has been stuck, unable to make any progress for 50 years. Time to think about it in different ways.

the airplane is continuously coming apart and reforming on time scales irrelevant to the process of eating peanuts

confusion with Complexity...

ONE WORLD RULER JESUS CHRIST

Emergence like everything else is a concept that was created by human beings to make sense of certain types of behavior. "Emergence" is not a thing it's a human description of a thing.

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

You must be talking about mathematics. Emergence is what the universe actually does. If you want to know the universe, you need to understand how higher level organization emerges from lower level physical systems.

@rickwyant

10 ай бұрын

@@reason2463 emergence is a description of what the universe does. The universe just IS. Humans can make sense out of things and give them whatever names they want. It's what we do. The universe does it's thing and we give those things names. Call it whatever you want. We'll never know what it is.

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

@@rickwyant Well we will certainly never know if we never think about it.

@rickwyant

10 ай бұрын

@@reason2463 and even then we won't know.

@David.C.Velasquez

10 ай бұрын

@@rickwyant You are almost certainly correct, but we will continue to think, and get closer to truth, which as with infinity, may be eternally approached but never reached.

I grasp Laughlin's direction but it's extremely shallowly explored in 12 minutes. I rarely hear much about the application of theoretical scale so I am at least encouraged. Standard Model theory has literally become tunnel-visioned, with ever-more expensive atom-smashers to come, no doubt. I do not subscribe. If nothing else it appears to be profit-driven which is the destroyer of science. It is as if theoretical physicists have a think-block on scale. Yes, it might be turtles all the way, in all dimensions - why would there be a fundamental end to anything if we've so far found none in any direction? Physicists can't break out of the mathematics & machinery, like an extension to the manner of their schooling. It takes a polymath, a genius, an ususual maverick, to pierce the theoretical bubble we're trapped within. What does that tell you? The educated mind becomes timid with training, limited with iteration. I hope Laughlin is onto something.

@Jorbz150

8 ай бұрын

I think it's more likely that they can't get funding for completely new and unheard of experiments. The people wanting to toss particles around quickly and find more of the same are the ones moving up the ladder in the universities. If you're interested in other people like Laughlin, check out Carver Mead.

The Philosophy of Samuel Alexander and Roy Wood Sellars emphasizes the importance of emergent properties and being a Naturalist. Systems philosophy is also very interesting.

Almost as if Existence itself has a working brain! 😮

@David.C.Velasquez

10 ай бұрын

The entity referred to as god, is nothing less than the eternally infinite omniverse itself.

Yeah, that's right- you are really speculating here.😮

Well apparently I have finally found a scientist who agrees with me about emergence. Thing is, I'm not a physicist. I'm just a guy who thinks about things. I've been saying very similar things for many years. Just look back through my comments on CTT episodes. Emergence is fundamental. We need to stop spending our time crashing things together and start asking about how things emerge from lower level physical systems. Maybe the physicist will finally make some real progress.

@brothermine2292

10 ай бұрын

By definition, emergent properties aren't fundamental.

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

@@brothermine2292 Time to change the definition. The fact is that higher level physical organization emerges from lower level physical processes. If we never acknowledge this, physics will continue to be stuck in 1973.

@brothermine2292

10 ай бұрын

@@reason2463 : We agree that higher level properties emerge from the arrangement of smaller components. It's nutty to call those emergent properties fundamental, and no understanding would be gained by mangling the definition.

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

@@brothermine2292 All there is is energy and emergence. Nothing is more fundamental.

@Jorbz150

8 ай бұрын

@@brothermine2292 What on earth would you then describe as fundamental? And what justification would you have for even guessing that it doesn't emerge from something else?

The emergence of reality connects the quantum to the Neutonian. Entanglements collapse in the phase change to mass.

Welcome to hermeticism

I understand the appeal of building an apparatus to peak into the fabric of reality… but don’t 😂 literally in every movie it’s a disaster

Robert has a decent understanding, but still not a correct one. Any natural succesive emergent process is a highly causal one and it is done by absolutely the same universal and natural dynamical process. It can be called a natural and universal "law", but it is not a "law". It is just the natural flow of everything in its dynamic and simple opportunistic way. The many so-called "laws" of Physics, thermodynamic, etc, are just local "laws" of temporary reversed entropic phenomena, and all of them are just effects of the same, simple, and natural universal dynamic. Yes, the sub-sub atomic dynamic structures, the atomic nuclei, the "atoms", the molecules, the biologic life, the planets, the stars, galaxies, clusters of them and beyond, all the micro and macro "realms", at any level, follow the same simple natural universal dynamic, existing continuously and causally iteratively in a continuous emergent dynamic by itself, with itself, through itself.

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

If you mean that higher level organization is a natural process from lower level physical systems, I agree with you. Here's what science has been looking for for 100 years: Consciousness emerges from biology. Biology emerges from chemistry. Chemistry emerges from matter. Matter emerges from space-time. Space-time emerges from energy. The farther we go into the future, the more correct this view will become.

@Jorbz150

8 ай бұрын

Define "the universal dynamic".

My brothers read this book and be transformed now Amazon book title:Awakening The Inner Light by Viivik

Emergence is not a magic word; it doesn't explain anything.

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

The emergence of higher level functions like consciousness is the reason you can post here.

@brothermine2292

10 ай бұрын

​@@reason2463: You could instead have simply written, "Consciousness is the reason you can post comments here." You didn't explain consciousness or posting by calling consciousness emergent. I think this is the point of the initial comment that "emergence doesn't explain."

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

@@brothermine2292 Emergence simply IS. It's a brute fact about the universe. If we want to understand the universe, we need to understand emergence.

@reason2463

10 ай бұрын

@@brothermine2292 BTW, consciousness emerges from biology. Nothing that is conscious is not biological. Biology is the lower level system that gives rise to consciousness.

@brothermine2292

10 ай бұрын

@@reason2463 : Although we also need to understand emergent properties to fully understand the universe, that's not the same thing as understanding "emergence." Knowing that a property is emergent doesn't explain the property.