Robert Laughlin was my grandfather's good childhood friend. I find it so inspiring that he came from my small hometown of Visalia, Ca! I thought this was the coolest thing as a teenager and it was one of the main reasons why I want to study physics.

@paxsreekantan3639

6 күн бұрын

Interesting tidbit. I actually stayed in Visalia while visiting Kings''s Canyon and Sequoia National Parks.

I respect such humble scholars. Knowing how limited we know in the grand scheme of things…. This is the peak of human intellect, humility and curiosity.

@wagfinpis

2 жыл бұрын

I like the sentiment of what you're suggesting. In my view the human intellect is limited from lack of integrating the superior knowledge and wisdom of spirit and mind, with... the intellect. Nikola Tesla is such an example. he developed his intellect to it's highest level, but... his greatest trick takes the intellect to even greater heights than you have suggested. Tesla deferred to spirit and mind to lead and put his intellect to good and fruitful work. Einstein famously was asked what it feels like to be the smartest man in the world And he famously replied I don't know why don't you ask Nikola Tesla. Einstein's famous thought experiments were responsible for the ultimate height's of his reputed intellect. Einstein did not solely rely on his mind; he used his intuition and imagination to light the way. pun intended. Tesla however did not simply imagine or guess at the designs of his inspiration. he would flat out receive or see, via mind and spirit, the designs his intellect would be put to labor at. this is the real order, in the grand scheme of things. there are of course more examples of like scheme's amongst scientific geniuses. for those who must solely rely on their intellect it is extremely important to vigilantly be humble; in this way they might be guided in a better direction without even being intellectually cognizant of the nature of their acting virtue.

Love listening to this guy. He’s your very best guest!

@mdwoods100

2 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure if I've ever seen him before, but I will be looking for more videos featuring him.

@wagfinpis

2 жыл бұрын

Via a spiritually based philosophy one can assume that the architect of space and time can work beyond space and beyond time, as well as prevading it. Another guest he had was discussing a criticizable big bang theory. Basically the universe exhausts all interactive potential through total entropy (gets spreads out thin, and really really big) - this ginormous potential kinda flips all the dark energy onto itself, making a membrane, full of a singularity potential - as ginormous as this membrane would be there is nothing else in existence for it to have a relative size too - it is now relatively a teeny tiny teeny tiny singularity - somehow or another you get an asymmetrical spark that can Genesis another big bang - rinse repeat - rinse repeat - now we would be assumed to be somewhere in the middle of these endless processions. Who could guess as to where the architect of such an origin could be found? Outside of time and space, with footprint's prevading time and space. Physicist's job would seem to be as difficult as discovering the likeness of the dance of Bigfoot, going about counting and measuring his footprints, all about the Planck scale, and the outer rims of the universe before the big bang. In Plato's republic we can learn some type of assumptions about what song might have been playing during the dance of Bigfoot, while physicists are left to the counting and measuring of shadows, like in the allegory of the cave.

@clemsonalum98

2 жыл бұрын

Agree he is one of my favorites.

Thank you for interviewing this person. The way he approaches and analyzes questions resonates with me so much. I will definitely look for and read/listen to everything he has produced.

@Aestiv

2 жыл бұрын

Try “A Different Universe” - really cool book and very entertaining.

Wow. Never heard of Robert Laughlin until now. Thank you, Robert K., for posting the video. I'm hopeful of finding more information about Laughlin.

Another great video. I always look forward to them. Thank you .

Most of the videos in this channel are brilliant, this was one of the best...

I enjoyed this one a lot. It gives a different approach at the "normal" view of systems. No wonder why this sir is a Nobel laureate .

@wagfinpis

2 жыл бұрын

ya, he is a little ahead of his time, for sure. there have been era's in music where a lot of the talented one's were characterized as "crossing over". it sounds like you're suggesting that he is crossing over.

I think any conversation about 'what is fundamental' needs to start with defining what we mean by 'fundamental'. I have heard many definitions, all very reasonable. But a lot of disagreement between scientists comes from differences in definition/meaning.

@yeezythabest

2 жыл бұрын

What is fundamental is what doesn't proceed or emerge from something else

@wagfinpis

2 жыл бұрын

Well that is the obvious Crux of the clickbait of the title of the video. They provided definition for entertainment of the language in this video. You always have to establish a great myriad of definitions before any conversation can be had. But if you can not agree on definitions ahead of a conversation there will be no conversation only argument. These arguments are aimed at conclusions like the great tradition of Chinese kung fu. Instead of fighting to come to conclusions they will postulate theories for the literature. The scientific literatures are full of theories with emboldened use of terms that can always be shot full of holes, if you are not careful about applying these assumed definitions of terms anywhere outside of the template or models in which they are proven. There are always exceptions in greater detail and there are always more comprehensive integration in the biggER picture.

@audiodead7302

2 жыл бұрын

@@yeezythabest That is probably the most common/intuitive definition. But for example, most (not all) physicists believe in a 'block universe' where time itself emerges from the structure of 4D spacetime. i.e. the past, present and future all exist contemporaneously. The past doesn't cause the future, anymore than the future causes the past. Causality goes out the window. My own personal view is that (maybe) everything is equally fundamental. Everything is a brute fact. In a timeless universe, everything has always existed. Emergence is an illusion, born out of the human mind which looks for patterns in things.

@yeezythabest

2 жыл бұрын

@@audiodead7302 agreed. My comment was really about "what makes something fundamental" or what do we say about something when we say it's fundamental. It's an ontological point of view. That's a different from "what is fundamental in relation to something/everything else".

@qwertychat

Жыл бұрын

@@yeezythabest That would make emergence itself fundamental 'by definition'. Not to say it might not be - perhaps that some things emerge from other things is a fundamental law

very interesting insights

Excellent

In my view, the subject is of an immense importance. A lot is already known in the area, but very few physicists mention or work on this.

Really love this

The standard reply re the aether from mainstream science is that light is its own propagating system and does not require a medium. What would you say to that? It makes sense to me that “the speed of light” is actually the rate of inductance for energy in a medium/in aether. Just as sound has a fixed speed in air at a particular temp/presssure. How do photons manage to speed up when they leave a glass/air interface?

i love this guy. spot on

Wow . . . fascinating

I like you'r view/knowledge, the way you put the thing's, truly I like it, 100Nu.

"Turn out to be all mythological"...The trap seems to be that science itself has a whiff of the "myth" built into it. Namely we are all captive of language, thought and story telling narratives.

@wagfinpis

2 жыл бұрын

That's what's going on. The Newtonian paradigm will never be able to account for the fullness of reality, not in language or measurement not ever. That's why M theory is criticized for sounding more like a philosophy than a science. It's like trying to jump in a pool without getting wet, how would you do it?

@mikel4879

2 жыл бұрын

Reverend D T / There's no such things as "external" things like in your 1st point. The 2 and 3 are simple BS.

@moogzoliver

2 жыл бұрын

@@ReverendDr.Thomas The external and perceiver might be one, in my theory, all connected by one exact something.

@ezramelchor8421

8 ай бұрын

I think I agree. At best, we can speak analogically. I'm not sure what the difference is between the two alternatives he offers if that is the case.

superb

Fantastic

It was only due to this man's brilliance they all made it safely to Gilligan's Island.

@David.C.Velasquez

2 жыл бұрын

If not for the courage of the fearless crew... the Minnow would be lost.

@kallianpublico7517

2 жыл бұрын

Good one😇🤭

@wagfinpis

2 жыл бұрын

lol!

yo. . . Killing it my friends!

I like the beginning of this conversation, where Laughlin tries to explain what happens with measurements of electric charge in some lump of matter. We think of electricity as fundamental, because we can see lightning strikes, and we're using electrical appliances, these things are obviously very real and common. In matter of fact, if we can see something, it's because that stuff is submerged in electrons. Light makes electrons move, causing more light waves we can see with our eyes, this is how we know stuff exist and constantly interacts with environment. So scientists are like, OK, let's take a small lump of stuff, place it inside a small box, covered with detectors and shine a lot of very intensive light to it, to see how many electrons will jump around. But then an interesting thing happens, more energy they radiate, even more electrons pop out around the molecules. So they shine even more light into an object, trying to see how many electrons can there be. And when a stream of energy became dense and powerful enough, they don't see electrons no more but some other tinny stuff. It's like electricity, but it's not the same, those particles don't make lightnings but bind atoms together in molecules. So it's not about electromagnetic force anymore, it's a strong force, that is completely different stuff. Electrons are not particle like to begin with, they are something, can't be described because they can't be seen like normal larger objects, and they don't behave like something existing on their own. Electrons seem to originate from another kind of energetic source, made from completely different stuff. We have a problem in this procedure, there is no nothing, so searching ever deeper doesn't lead us to something solid in the middle of an empty space. That concept became meaningless, empty space doesn't exist. There is even more energy down there, what we see as nothing is actually an infinitely dense field of strange energies. Energies we are not aware of in our daily life. When scientists experiment with various contraptions, those machines produce all sorts of strange behavior. Many phenomena are constant, but sometimes weird things happen, like there was something else inside nobody has seen before. And when they try to repeat those effects, sometimes new patterns emerge from that activity, possible only under exact conditions. So scientists are trying to figure out how a new phenomenon fits in the known theoretical picture. If somebody can find a precise mathematical rule, they give him a Nobel Prize in physics for his work. New discovery became a part of scientific structure of knowledge and future scientists can use those rules to make even more complicated machinery, utilizing effects to probe something else. Change one small thing and the entire contraption starts to produce strange anomalies, some make sense, others are only chaos and noise. Or are they, nobody knows, it can be nothing important, but it can also be a hint about some new property of nature nobody knew exists. There is no nothing, so all that exist is emergent somehow. Nothing can stand perfectly still, isolated from everything else, so something will always emerge from a motion. That's only the beginning of a story, things get really complicated once we realize there's an eternity of time out there, and we can't even imagine how to deal with all that natural complexity. Worst of them all is the very fact we're alive and aware of the process we call physics. Physics is everything. Or is it?

@Velodan1

2 жыл бұрын

I was watching the video while you were typing a clarification. I was scanning the comments thinking I have to watch this video again to comprehend what Dr Laughlin was saying and here you are. Thank you. I believe I need to read your comment a few times too. Its quite illuminating.

@nyworker

2 жыл бұрын

We are bound to live on a planet which is dominated by the gravitational force and we are biological creatures. Habitable planets and evolved biological creatures, two of the biggest anomalies in the universe attempting to use physics to simulate the most non-anomalies with total fascination. As if Galileo thought if he looked through the other end of the telescope he would see true reality.

@wagfinpis

2 жыл бұрын

Holy truly good physicist ultimately performs is an eloquent description of his ignorance as he is aware of it. That work is extremely austere. There are an endless number of ways to approach the nature of their misunderstandings. The real trick is in pending it down, which no one can do, an approvable way. My personal preference is to begin looking at time. But you can begin running into innumerable fallacies any old way you choose.

@mikel4879

2 жыл бұрын

Xspot box / Yes. I've told them for a long time that the "cause and effect" can not be stopped no matter how deep or wide you go, and nobody pays attention to this fundamental reality.

@Samsara_is_dukkha

2 жыл бұрын

"In matter of fact, if we can see something, it's because that stuff is submerged in electrons. Light makes electrons move, causing more light waves we can see with our eyes, this is how we know stuff exist and constantly interacts with environment." "Knowing that stuff exists" implies a conscious experience that is not "caused" by the motion of electrons. "Knowing" implies a relationship between information and consciousness. Information is meaningless without consciousness and information is not reducible to knowledge. As a matter of fact, knowledge prevents consciousness to perceive information as it is since it imposes a reference frame upon the experience... I.E.: The "myths" Robert Laughlin talks about here.

Is there an emergence principle, where once something reaches a level of organization, a new paradigm, or whatever called, emerges?

What I like about this conversation is that it is a true talk about the thinking of a scientist vs the thinking of a philosopher. Kuhn's problem, in my opinion, is that he starts many of these talks and many of his statements with assumptions, almost putting words in the other guys mouth. So many of his guests politely accept Kuhn's words and then simply answer the question he tagged on the end. Laughlin calls out and corrects Kuhn's assumption before answering his question. I especially like where Laughlin says "I'm amused by people who believe...". He's really insulting Kuhn to his face. Kuhn's view of the world seems to be solely based on his own thinking of how the world should work. Especially the idea that the smaller something is then the more fundamental it must be. Laughlin is the scientist and says the more precise the experimental data is, then the more important and fundamental something is. I'd have to agree with Laughlin. Nature reveals her reality thru experiments and data. Nature does not reveal itself to people who sit in arm chairs and just think about nature without doing real experiments and collecting real data.

@kallianpublico7517

2 жыл бұрын

You have impugned RLK and philosophy. Both imputations Mr. Laughlin would reject I suspect. The Nature that science discovers is useful but it's methods are horrendously destructive. Experiments are not "True" they are meaningful. He got that part wrong. Any armchair thinker could have told him that, from a philosophical point of view, Truth is contingent on meaning. From a Religious point of view meaning is contingent on truth. From a scientific point of view measurement is meaning. I would caution you on the emphasis of your assertions. Your aggrandizement of Mr. Laughlin shows a particular bent in your way of thinking. For you, i suspect, meaning is contingent upon Truth. You are more Religious than you would have us know: than you think you are.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

2 жыл бұрын

*"Kuhn's view of the world seems to be solely based on his own thinking of how the world should work."* ...Isn't a *subjective viewpoint* the best place to start? Would evaluating everything in existence by way of one's own perspective be considered emergent or reductive?

@xspotbox4400

2 жыл бұрын

Mr. Kuhn is asking questions i would also ask. In my opinion, he embodies what is best in philosophy, by exposing the most important and popular minds in the world, making them describe how deep the rabbit hole of reality really is.

@dreyestud123

2 жыл бұрын

@@kallianpublico7517 I am biased towards sciences description of nature and turned off by what I see as the hubris of philosophers who say "Let's start with what we know for sure...". From a scientific POV we never say things like "we know for sure". Scientists know that any discoveries made are merely the best explanation at the time, and that we don't know anything for sure. Also, RLK seems to diminish the NOBEL that Laughlin won. Seemed petty to me. And "Truth" may be a virtue of philosophy but final truths are a long way off and I've seen many philosophers claim to find "the truth" based solely on their definitions and reasoning...mere words. Scientists says "this is the best explanation we have according to data" based on real experiments. The claim of the scientist seems more fundamentally honest.

@kallianpublico7517

2 жыл бұрын

@@dreyestud123 Honesty is the best policy, in science, philosophy and all other disciplines of knowledge. I agree. But you seem to disregard the fact that RLK is a neuroscientist. I think his questions have one aim: to flesh out the intellectual underpinnings of his guest's work and thoughts. Because he has years of experience talking with the most intellectually gifted people his take on things is refined. He knows where most of his guests fall in their opinions but his questions give us, the viewers, a rhetorical tour of of their arguments. Mr. Laughlin is very convincing in his arguments, but let us not pretend; the nature of reality doesn't just involve the measurement it also involves the measurer. Telescopes, microscopes, cyclotrons are very convincing. Is LIGO convincing? Quantum entanglement? At the frontiers of discovery a revolution in thinking may make more progress than any measuring apparatus. When those measuring devices prove far too remote from the claims which they are used to assert.

I approve this at 89% which is human perfection. When my book is published all things will be answered.

Quasiparticles: Anyons and phonons act like particles, but are also emerging from the organization of matter. I think his experiment demonstrates that electrons are quasiparticles of something else than matter.

Is energy changing as emergence happens, such as from gravity to electromagnetism to weak force to strong force?

Which came first the particle or the Principle (of Organization)?

@evaadam3635

2 жыл бұрын

The Almighty Organizer.

@B.S...

2 жыл бұрын

@@evaadam3635 The organizer is emergent, therefore contingent on the particle.

@evaadam3635

2 жыл бұрын

@@B.S... The Almighty Organizer has no beginning and no end... always was, always is, and always will be...

@B.S...

2 жыл бұрын

@@evaadam3635 It has no beginning because it never began. That makes you half right.

@mikel4879

2 жыл бұрын

B S / None. The real particle doesn't exist and the principle is still in the process of organizing and reorganizing itself at any deepest fractional movement that "you" can "observe".

I also did not understand, just have a kind of feeling. Could there be a more detailed explanation of what you are talking about? )))

could emergence happen with acceleration? acceleration uses up energy which can change the character of particle or something small, leaving entropy in the whole?

I see Strong Emergence as the following (my understanding of it could be flawed). This is simply the theory that certain levels of reality emerge(Strongly emerge vs weak emerge) that can no longer be predicted (determined) by "fundamental" laws of physics. Ok, I am an atheist materialist, and I totally can agree with that. All it takes for me to agree with that, is that the boundary between , say, fundamental physics and biology is a "singularity event", which is a major event in "time" that is similar to a black hole , which then on the other side creates a whole new baby universe. So, once inert matter was able to become Living matter...that was a singularity, once living matter evolved to create what we call Mind or Consciousness, that was another singularity. It just simply means , or is stating that events in our current universe are not deterministic as some people believe, as I used to believe. Quantum mechanics is trying to tell us that, so I listened. Therefore, the concept of free will follows, do we have it? or do we not? Well, I believe we have a weak form of free will, that is , we can choose minor things within the realm of our possibilities, but there is a much more vast set of things we cannot choose due to our constraints (our biology, parents, childhood upbringing, education, religion, accidents, etc). For example I do not have the Free will to flap my arms and fly like a bird or to travel to another galaxy...I have the will to do it , but not the free will (too many constraints on my reality). Strong emergence, to me , just simply states, what I believe now is true, that after these singularity events, we can no longer explain or predict/calculate the rules that have emerged after the singularity by just calculating from the bottom up. In essence....what emerges after a Strong Emergence is a brand new "baby universe", so to speak, with new sets of macro-rules, even though the underlying rules still apply. I apologize for the fact that my use of language is not a good enough tool to convey my thinking...so what I wrote will probably seem scattered and convoluted.

Meaning vs Truth. Truth is the hidden context, and the context evades conceptual definition through meaning. Meaning is the emergence of new conceptual definitions: through mind. Emergence is the changing of mind through meaning. For scientists measurement is meaning.

Thank you for the materialization of this conversation

@wagfinpis

2 жыл бұрын

Did you finish the entire video? This was in no way definable as a materialization of anything.

Fractal emergence from logical atomic state quantization. Selfsimilarity, replacation,mirroring,bisection at all scales.

Exact, perfectly, always, true, law... I have hard time conjugating this lexicon with physics.

@nostromo68100

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting comment. Why are these concepts incongruent with the study of physics? I see these words typically used in statement of goals vs. Principles.

@halnineooo136

2 жыл бұрын

@@nostromo68100 It sounds to me more mathematics than physics. More realist than empiricist

@nostromo68100

2 жыл бұрын

@@halnineooo136 Got it. Understandable.

“All of space may be filled with something like a super conductor” Is the aether back ??????????????

@edimbukvarevic90

2 жыл бұрын

Aether never went anywhere. As Einstein said, "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."

@seabud6408

2 жыл бұрын

@@edimbukvarevic90 The standard reply re the aether from mainstream science is that light is its own propagating system and does not require a medium. What would you say to that? It makes sense to me that “the speed of light” is actually the rate of inductance for energy in a medium/in aether. Just as sound has a fixed speed in air at a particular temp/presssure. How do photons manage to speed up when they leave a glass/air interface?

so, in other words, everything is under review!! like an NFL game!

I wish everyone making long interesting comments make and upload a video!

He is awesome. Blessings and love from Jacova born March 11th in a Bethlehem. Everything competes. Name something in the Universe that is not a double edged sword. There is nothing in the Universe that is not a double edged sword. It takes 11 days for the black hole in the center of the milky way to rotate once.

@frankkockritz5441

Жыл бұрын

What are you trying to convey in your nonsensical comment? It’s incoherent. So perhaps you would like to make an attempt to clarify?

If all we ever see directly and immediately are psychic images, since the mind has a priori structures to assist understanding the world, then when you get clues from the external world, aren't they reflections of those inner images and at the same time mostly a faithfull representation of the real world? in other words it's a 2 part process of both inner process and outer object. if science really is reductionist then it's basic reduction is to the mind's structures. 'A law is a law' because the mind allows it to be a law for us.

Til the particles get of the same size. It's Kara puts me in the mind of until the fullness of the Gentiles. For the fact of how it keeps growing and growing. Seems like the flock of sheep is growing and also the flock of goats is growing.

.“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don’t know the answer.”

It’s good to know Elvis went into physics.

I understood every spoken word but still have no idea as to what was actually spoken about.

I’m still waiting for a 10 minute montage of RLK b roll footage pondering the universe

@wagfinpis

2 жыл бұрын

I imagine a comprehensive summary could basically just be like 10 minutes of ahhh... Ummm... Ahhh... Now... Ummm... Wait a second... Ahhh... Ok.... Ok.... Ahh... Ummm... Ahhh... Oh... Ok.... Ummm... With a Catholic priest playing rock paper scissors with him in the end.

1/3rd exactly- geometric ?

as humans we are confused because we live in a multiverse that is fractal in nature...which means that even an electron is an emergent property of much smaller components and those very small components are also emergent phenomenon of smaller parts.......where it ends ....who knows....its turtles all the way down! and all the way up!!!

🌴😎💯

@willnzsurf

2 жыл бұрын

🤙Emergence: it's complicated.😹

Remember my friends Believe in yourself and believe in your dreams. Follow them, never give up, that's the most important thing. If you believe you can get there, then one day you will. Love from a small youtuber

Nothing is my favorite non thing. I suspect it will prove to be the only idea that is fundamental

"Fundamental law may be a myth" as in only a small sample of the whole law! No, it's not a myth, it's just part of the law.

Lost in the woods... 🤕🥺

It is unclear what he means by his last sentence. Is he doubtful that fundamental laws via experiment are a myth, or does he think it may be a myth?

Or is that the fundamental is emergent?

with respect, why can't there be more than one miracle?

@AceOfSpadesX

2 жыл бұрын

It's not a matter of possibility, but rather a matter of probability

@suatustel746

2 жыл бұрын

Why can't there be more than one God since he's not accountable his existence

If myth - we are living only in our consciousness.

@frankkockritz5441

Жыл бұрын

Huh?

Did I understand correctly that by the 'fundamental law' that could turn out to be a 'myth', he means the origin of laws as something that 'just is' (the religious idea)?

@Anarchy421

2 жыл бұрын

That's how I understood him. He believes laws come about from principles of organization, not from a creator.

@mikel4879

2 жыл бұрын

Anarchy RC / No. He thinks ( = his suspicion ) that the structure called "fundamental law" ( like emergence, principle of organizations, etc ) in science is a myth because what it is "called" ( = "observed", "measured" ) a "constant" is just a temporary local phenomena and not an absolutely fundamental one.

A weird and interesting question! Is emergence fundamental... or emergent!? 🤕

@SamoaVsEverybody814

Жыл бұрын

Yea exactly cus if emergence is fundamental it doesn't "emerge" lol

His last statement, "Fundamental laws are mythological", I don't follow that logic.

@surrogatemarker

2 жыл бұрын

Experimentalists don’t project ahead of what may “appear” to be true.. that’s for the theorists to do. Experimentalists are prepared for the experiments to show that what we think to be true, is really a myth.. He represents almost perfectly what a experimental physicist should aspire to..”There is no law if it’s can’t be measured or if it’s predictions can’t be proven to a miraculous degree of precision”. He is and should be a “theory killer” as a experimental physicist.

@B.S...

2 жыл бұрын

Anything that is fundamental by definition has no explanation (mythological)... A brute fact. Compare that to the idea of emergence where a law emerges from the 'organization' of 'particles'.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

2 жыл бұрын

His argument is that when you reduce everything down to its most basic participate, whatever you find is governed by no laws. There can't be any laws governing whatever it may be, because it is axiomatic (or self-existing). *Examples:* For theists, God can be considered a fundamental property because it is self-existing, self-sustaining, and bound / orchestrated by no laws. For a physicist, a quark is the base-level fundamental particle. There are no laws that orchestrate the unexplainable appearance of quarks like there are for the atoms they end up forming. Some may argue that quarks are as small as you get and therefore governed by no laws. String theorists argue there are even smaller elements of existence, therefore quarks could be subject to laws. The *TRUTH* is that everything in "Existence" is governed by laws. There are 5 Laws of Existence that determine what can or cannot exist. Everything in existence, from foundational elements all the way up to the highest order of complexity, is governed by these five laws. ....and these laws are *NOT* grounded in metaphysicality or mythology.

the laws did not come collectively

Completely mythological??? But myths could give results on labs?...and amaze science... myths...or better said...we don't know what we don't know

0:13 (fundamental constants) are "necessary in environmental context" ... ? no comprendo That's a recurring problem, using summary sentences to summarize deep concepts. They only make sense if we know and understand that deep concept.

@wagfinpis

2 жыл бұрын

They only make sense if we assume some narrative about those deep concepts. It's all a big Disney story. What else can we base it on but our experience. We can measure things in a Newtonian paradigm and we can correlate all those things with measurement. We can give all those things names in an assumed story. We cannot integrate consciousness or subjective experience in this story so all of that is left out, and you get a partial reality, trying to account for reality itself. It is a guaranteed fallacy, you are correct. This is what every good physicist is faced with they know they're wrong they're just trying to discover the best way to describe their ignorance.

@mikel4879

2 жыл бұрын

wagfinpis / Correct. They just try to artificially define the "I don't know" the best they can.

@wagfinpis

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikel4879 lol

@wagfinpis

2 жыл бұрын

Why would Einstein say God doesn't play dice? Obviously God does play dice, but since "he" know how the dice will land and can also change the way they will land, the most challenging thing for God to do is not know how the dice will land and not manipulate the landing of the dice. Einstein can't scientifically define God playing dice. Therefore he can not prove anything relating to this made up concept. You have to be talking about the same thing in order to have a rational argument. If the argument is that God plays dice, all Einstein is left with is the most eloquent way to present his own ignorance in argument with another's ignorance. When Einstein says God does not play dice he is admitting that he does not know what he is saying just as much as he knows the arguing party does not know what they're saying.

I listened to the whole thing but I have no idea wtf they are talking about

@wrathofgrothendieck

8 ай бұрын

One of the hardest KZread videos to understand

"And probably there's something even more fundamental beneath it" I agree, and underneath that and underneath that ad infinitum.

Please stop the cameraperson from zooming and scrolling. These aren't wedding videos. Just keep the subjects in a steady frame and let them talk.

"fundamental law in the sense of experimental science maybe mythological" ... Il take that as a win for indeginous native sciences and scholary works. 😊 Whao duck! ☁️🤜🤪 @Dawkins ouch

At a higher level or a lower level let's see you got the servent that got five talents the servant that got two talents and then the servant that got one talent. The first servant went and got five more for a total of 10 the second servant got two more for a total of four and then the last servant Doug buried and did nothing with his talent. The one that did nothing with this talent got cast into a place where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth.

"There is a GOD...." THIS MAN IS BRILLIANT 👏 BROTHER JAMES 🙏

Liquid, vapor, gas.......... He forgot plasma!

It's turtles all the way down

Wtf was that about . That doesn't help at all .felt like they used a lot of words but without really explaining anything

Science is the art of cutting things into pieces and not knowing how to put them back together.

@frankkockritz5441

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps you can explain how your comment pertains to the fact of evolution. A fairly good analog to counter your puzzle quandary, if only a quandary for you. BTW, evolution is a fact

@Samsara_is_dukkha

Жыл бұрын

​@@frankkockritz5441 To define Evolution, you must also define the Universe, Life and Consciousness, the latter being essential to the act of defining anything. Since we do not have a valid method to define the Universe, Life or Consciousness, Evolution can only remain equally undefined or at best only partially defined.

@frankkockritz5441

Жыл бұрын

@@Samsara_is_dukkha your statement is simply not true. The only thing we don’t know is what happened less than a second at beginning of the big bang. Let me simplify it for you. We understand physics from that moment in time (less than a second) forward. We know how the laws of physics evolved to chemistry. We know how chemistry evolved into biology. Finally, we know how evolution, random mutations and natural selection resulted in our intelligent primate species. What we don’t yet understand is subjective consciousness but that has nothing to do with I argued to counter your position on evolution. Finally, you can choose to approach subjective consciousness from either a materialist worldview or from a metaphysical worldview. Regardless of your position on subjective consciousness, it has nothing to do with your statement, which is a false statement. You cannot deny the emergent properties, physics, chemistry, biology, intelligent primates. And although this is my opinion and the far majority of the smartest scientists & philosophers in the world, subjective consciousness will be proven to be an emergent property and driven by the fittest during the past and current process of evolution. Well? What say you? Crickets

@Samsara_is_dukkha

Жыл бұрын

@@frankkockritz5441 What you claim "we know" only applies to 4% of matter and energy in the known Universe which means that we know sweet FA about the remaining 96% of stuff (aka Dark Matter and Dark Energy) we can infer but cannot detect. Meanwhile, we have no idea what happens beyond the Planck Time/Length and even less how or why the Universe came into being. My statement is correct: The word "science" comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *skei- "to cut, split;" source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate". Effectively, science cuts phenomena into chunks that it attempts to understands -- sometimes quite well -- although it is totally unable to relate the chunks to the whole that consequently remains a mystery. The four solid scientific physical theories we have are not only full of holes but two of them (Relativity and Quantum Physics) contradict each other in major ways. As Karl Popper noted, the "Theory of Evolution" is not scientific since it cannot be properly tested although he conceded that it has some merit and I agree with him. Meanwhile, what you call "subjective consciousness" is exactly the phenomenon that creates such concepts as "physics", "chemistry", "biology", "evolution" or any other concept and we have no understanding of how it arises. If we don't understand the very source of conceptualisation, it logically follows that concepts can only provide relative meanings (I.E.; context-dependent) and not absolute truths. That being the case, we are living in a Universe we do not understand and, as a result, we invent all sorts of mostly very dodgy existential justifications -- such as accumulating possessions, accumulating knowledge, inventing fake relationships with imaginary gods, endlessly pursuing pleasure or inventing better and better ways to kill each other in wars (humankind has been at war for 90% of its "civilised existence"; 93% for the exceptional USA) -- to rationalise our existence. We are also engaged in a war without mercy against nature that has become particularly intense since the dawn of Industrial Civilisation as evidenced by the spectacular ongoing mass extinction of species that biologists and ecologists call a "biological annihilation" which can only imply our own extinction in the not too distant future. So much then for Humankind's alleged outstanding knowledge and intelligence.

@frankkockritz5441

Жыл бұрын

@@Samsara_is_dukkha …and your further pontification, grasping at isolated topics in physics, actually goes even further this time to show how much more you truly don’t understand. But I wouldn’t let it discourage you. . Most laypersons such as yourself who go off on these long tangents, fail to have a clue about what is known. You stated that evolution is not proven. WRONG. My counter argument to you proved it so, yet you never bothered to counter, question, now did you? Your new statement about dark energy and dark matter don’t change the laws of physics as we know them. How do we know this? Because of MEASUREMENT! You are so far off base. My reply to you was not that there are things we don’t know, rather it was that the laws we do know are proven, well tested experimentally and….here’s the important word…MEASURED. I suggest you do some more reading to further your misguided interpretations. Read Max Tagmark, Lawrence Krauss, Alan Guth, Paul Davies, etc. One final recommendation based on your diatribe. I would pause using GPS when driving for you might end up crashing into someone’s front door. Why? Because who can know that Special Relativity is correct due to the unknowns of dark matter & dark energy? Anyway, good luck with your explorations. Try to stay focused on science itself rather than Ancient Greek language.

*Emergence and Reductionism:* ... Everything found in existence has a directly related counterpart that forms a minimalistic spectrum (i.e., black and white, quark and antiquark, matter and antimatter, life and death, good and evil). This is a mandatory requirement based on the 3rd Law of Existence. I challenge you to state anything in existence that doesn't have an opposing property, structure, action, or definition. *Example:* The "Emergence" concept cannot exist without the existence of the "Reductionism" concept. Both concepts deal with the same, already existing substance, but approach it from opposite ends of its own, self-created spectrum. So, did this Emergence-Reductionist spectrum _emerge_ ... or was it always in play and needs to be evaluated from the top down? In the end, it doesn't matter if you support the Emergent or Reductionist perspective as neither will get you where you want to be. Instead, theoretical science needs to target concepts that can logically exist without any need for dimensions, fields, or physical structure. ... That's where _truth_ is discovered! One of these concepts is *Mathematics.* An *Reductionist* viewpoint would argue that mathematics is a greatly enhanced and emergent property of basic, foundational numbers, which are all that are necessary. The *Emergent* viewpoint would be that mathematics is the greater structure and that numbers are merely fundamental pawns exploited by mathematics to get the job done. In regard to *Numbers:* An *Emergent* viewpoint would argue that numbers started with *0* (or *1* ) and evolved all the way up to a far more important construct called "infinity." The *Reductionist* viewpoint would be that numbers are the precursors to infinity, and you must work your way down to *0* (or *1* ) to find a foundation. Strip away all of the matter, energy, space, structure, emergence, reduction, and anything else you can think of, and everything reverts back to *0* and *1.* Yes, *0* and *1* represent the mathematical origin of the spectrum of *Nonexistence* and *Existence.* *Translation: 0* = Nonexistence and *1* = Existence. ...Work your way up from there!

@mikel4879

2 жыл бұрын

O-by-Nothing Publishing LLC / Sorry, but you don't understand what you're talking about. You artificially create the theoretical notion of "0=non-existence". Forget for a moment the theoretical notion called "non-existence", and, in your understanding, define "0", please! Do you understand that there's no material upper limit or lower limit from which you can start anything in the real Universe?

@brandursimonsen4427

2 жыл бұрын

All electrons are 1 in something more fundamental. 0 is a myth.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

2 жыл бұрын

​@@brandursimonsen4427 *"All electrons are 1 in something more fundamental. 0 is a myth."* ...Protons contain two up quarks and one down quark.+2/3 +2/3 -1/3 = *1* Neutrons contain one up quark and two down quarks. +2/3 -1/3 -1/3 = *0* Electrons are fundamental particles with a mass that's only 1/1,836 the mass of a proton and are not "made" of anything. They, like neutrons, belong to to the symbolic realm of *0.* *0* = Nonexistence *1* = Existence *0* = Singularity *1* = Big Bang *0* = Space *1* = Matter *0* = Electron, Neutron, *1* = Proton. *0* = Polymer Shell (Prokaryote) *1* = Nucleoid (Prokaryote) *0* = Death *1* = Life *0* = Binary for "Off" *1* = Binary for "On." ...Everything goes back to *0* and *1*.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikel4879 *" Sorry, but you don't understand what you're talking about."* ... Existence always knows what it is talking about. If not, then what else would? *"You artificially create the theoretical notion of "0=non-existence"."* ...What is the numerical value for *Nonexistence* based on mathematical logic? Then, what is the numerical value for *Existence* based on that same logic? *"Forget for a moment the theoretical notion called "non-existence", and, in your understanding, define "0", please!"* ... *0:* "the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity." (Marriam-Webster) ... This is the first sentence written in my book titled *"0"* which can be found on my "about" page. *"Do you understand that there's no material upper limit or lower limit from which you can start anything in the real Universe?"* ...I have never claimed that the universe came from nothing (or zero, "0"). *1* (Existence) has always been and so has *0* (Nonexistence). Everything from this point represents "evolution." *Note:* It is better allow the validity of your argument to make your case rather than to claim _"you don't understand what you're talking about."_

@brandursimonsen4427

2 жыл бұрын

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Yes, all in physics is described and simulated on computers that work with the two symbols 1 and 0. Then all physics consists of 1 and 0. The question is. Is there something we can not simulate on a computer ? Consciousness ? If there is, then what does 1 and 0 consist of ?

This is heavy stuff...

Life is art...not business. We chip away our darkness and negative spaces (greed) and a positive image of good (god) emerges.

And the builders rejected the Chief cornerstone where does science even come from, besides the foundation of Jesus Christ the Chief cornerstone.

8:18 Yeah, mister! Things that exist on a composite level (Mona Lisa or Michelangelo's David) are more fundamental than the paint da Vinci worked with, or the marble Michelangelo worked with, to create the original. It can be painted with different types of paint, it can be arranged by a live model and a make up artist, it can be reproduced, or photoraphed with a digital camera, and shown on the screen. These are 4-5 different ways to "represent" Mona Lisa, the image, i.e. the visual IDEA of her. Thus, the IDEA is more fundamental than the means to express it. Thus, Consciousness and Intelligence, and Mind, and the Spiritual become more fundamental, than the Physical and the Materis. Also points directly to what people refer to as God, as an Omiscient Super-Consciousness, and Creator: the deistic idea, that the Universe didn't come out of Nothing. It was probably ARRANGED, and DESIGNED. Intelligently Designed, including the physical laws (which, in their own, are mathematical and geometrical, stereometrical laws).

@dfhfdgfgdfshdfhe8257

2 жыл бұрын

bro i want what you're smoking

All the external energy emerges from the internal energy, which is far more vast and complicated.

To put simply; Yes. Think of the Prime Universe as requiring consciousness in order to allow for the quantum ripple, this allowing for the creation of a multiverse. What if the Universe is able to speak? Dreams, the past, and possible futures, laid out for those connected to it. The reality of existence (#rotaercmai #Kismet,) is to share the gift of life. God doesn't know where she came from, she simply has always been. The purpose of God is to continue Life, regardless of Universal Decay. God NEVER leaves the, "Throne Plane." The War of The Gods, found in human myth, is the result of a multiverse war to find, "the strongest God." The ending result, our present universe, emerging like a phoenix after everything died. Which based off of Law of Prime, Alpha must become Optimal(Peaceful,) before ascension (interplanetary colonization.) #Qnonymous #rotaercmai

"Mythology", that Laughlin talks about here, refers to fundamental processes that exist beyond the physical world. However, because physics geniuses have limited science to material inquiry, mythological answers that could possibly be the truth are being trashed. Here is a mythological answer that makes a lot of sense, as follows : In the beginning is the "WORD" that does NOT refer to man's vocal chords, but simply means the spiritual vibrations of a tiny portion of God's infinite Spiritual World that had FUSED to form the Physical Universe. God the Holy Spirit had designed the natural physical laws, governing this Physical World, through the arrangement and organization of these fundamental spiritual particles. Knowledge of this fundamental spiritual processes IS A FORBIDDEN FRUIT.

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

What does beyond the physical world even mean. The phrase beyond the physical world is an example of a sentence being grammatically correct but devoid of meaning. Design and natural does not belong in the same sentence. Something cannot be both designed and natural. Something either just happens naturally or it occurs through unnatural means. God is just a symbol of human arrogance and weakness. We people do not know the answer to a question they invoke God to give them self an illusion of knowledge. When people have a moment of weakness they invoke God to give them strength. God does the answer anything it explains away things.

@evaadam3635

2 жыл бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 "Beyond the physical" refers to the supernatural existence that can not be reached by human physical senses even with the use of instruments of detection... and the natural laws was supernaturally designed by God to govern the physical Universe. So, the design is still natural but only SUPER.

@moonzestate

2 жыл бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 Designed and natural go hand in hand. In fact, nature is the greatest artist of all. And most of designers derive their inspiration from nature. Just look at the patterns of the snowflakes, flowers, leaves, etc. “What I see in Nature is a grand design that we can understand only imperfectly, one with which a responsible person must look at with humility.” - Albert Einstein

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

@@evaadam3635 The supernatural has not been confirmed or measured so it does not mean anything. Something that is can not be reached by human physical senses or instruments of detection are unproven. God is not real it is just a human concept.

@wagfinpis

2 жыл бұрын

@@moonzestate what you have said is more reasonable than the words that you are responding to, but you have also altered the definition's that were clumsily reasoned around. I can accept the opening statement of design versus nature, but the follow-up rhetoric was very clumsy. You however have turned around the definition of design and nature and that is fine too I don't have a problem with either. But the two of you are not arguing, when you change definitions. You were just making separate observations.

A collective order of principles that gives rise to a law. God collected stuff together and gave life and life gives us a law or a rod or a way ,like Jesus Christ said he is the way. Also the Bible says it is written in our hearts. 🎤💧

@frankkockritz5441

Жыл бұрын

Are you referring g to the Bible written by man? That Bible?

@jeremycrofutt7322

Жыл бұрын

@@frankkockritz5441 over 40 different men, through different time periods, being inspired by the Holy Spirit, the one of three parts of the trinity. Where did men come from?

@frankkockritz5441

Жыл бұрын

@@jeremycrofutt7322 so how do you take your “quantum” leap from that was inspired by a complex neural network organ, (the human brain) to being the word of God?

@jeremycrofutt7322

Жыл бұрын

@Frank Kockritz For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Romans 1:20‭-‬24 KJV For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Romans 2:14‭-‬16 KJV Moses even spent 40 days on a mountain, talking with God.

Robert says "Nature Law " he saying nothing in phiscs. He mind hasnt keep going experiment in phiscs. Certainly he Mind not picture exact things in phisch because he has mysticism rehoric in phisch. Back reality. phiscs.

Now the law vanishes into nothing. Revelation 21 the first heaven and the first Earth has passed away and then you get down to verse 5 and Jesus says ,behold I make all things new.

@frankkockritz5441

Жыл бұрын

Obvious, you’re oblivious to what constitutes a circular argument, yes? BTW, that’s all you need to understand. To do otherwise is a waste of your time. NEXT.

@jeremycrofutt7322

Жыл бұрын

@@frankkockritz5441 life cycles.

God is the designer of our universe and He is eternal. The proof is in the math. Here is that proof. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1. This equation says a number, any number is a set-in space that change with space. In physics this equation reads: Gravity is matter changing with space. It combines Relativity or fractured space with Quantum mechanics or spatial expansion. How dose God fit into this equation? This equation is God's mathematical name. God's name in this equation reads: God's Mind Is Man Changed With God. Breakdown: God's mind is infinite. In math this measure out as the set of infinity In math (1/x) represents a fraction of a whole. Any child is a fraction of a parent and man according to the Bible is God's child. Therefore, man is a fraction of God Change in math is represented by the Greek letter (delta) and it denotes a difference of some kind. Plus (+) in math means to combine or add something with something. There is only one God. In math the number 1 means something or someone is complete and individual from all the rest. Spelled out: God's Mind (Infinity) is (=) Man (1/x) Changed (delta) With (+) God (1). Scientific Method Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always = 4 Step 2 Question: Do math and Divinity share a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exist, He should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: God's Mind Is Man Change With God is an equation Step 5 Test: Any number (Infinity) is (=) a set-in space (1/x) that change (x^2) with (+) space (1)) Note: "X" describes any set, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise This equation tells us why 2 feet is not the same as 2 inches. Both distances are measured out as 2 units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each sets in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: New look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of 3 domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion a.k.a time and energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real therefore the value in enumeration demand God exists otherwise the domain for enumeration would be incomplete. We know the domain for enumeration is complete because we can count. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. Cantor's Mistake George Cantor known as the father of set theory was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. Example. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! A correct set correspondence method Here is a better way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say 2. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of 100 divided by the square root of 25. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality but they also describe our existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Numbers like truths don't lie. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is in many ways our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discovery comes about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based in math or science but in faith. We have been blessed but I also believe we should be concerned for what is coming. Very highly speculative: Infinite gravity suggest we maybe living inside a black hole that is internally expanding. 1/x(delta) may explain why inflation happened. The case maybe that inside a black hole space is cracked and stretched due to the compression and pulling of space by the difference in layer spatial collapsing. Outside space coexisting with points of space already consumed into an infinitesimal boundary create symmetry and this symmetry get to spread evenly as matter. Our universe becomes virtual and expanding. Zero in this context equals the difference in symmetry. That is to say a zero field is a field of opposites. One field is collapsing while its opposite is expanding. This speculation do not rule out God. If it is how our universe happen and is evolving it is best understood as a tool used to do the work needed to fashion existence and life. We should not be afraid of knowing God's working regardless as to how He choose to do those works. Whether it be evolution or any other methodology in His works the truth is we are here to learn and practice those learnings. If doubt still remain then please answer this question. What is a number? Google it if you need help. Infinity says a number is both qualitatively and quantitatively a set-in space that change with space. Isn't this what we do when we count or measure anything at all. Yes this is exactly what we do when we measure or count anything. In counting we take a memory or a something we name and put that something into an order of some kind in the space of our mind. We can arrange that something into least to greatest or whatever meets our satisfaction but the fact that we put anything into an ordered sequence is in effect making a change happen. So, there we have it. A set in the space of our mind changes with the mind. At one moment the set is 1 and at the next moment it is 2 then 3, 4, 5 and so on. Conclusion why would God give us his love scientifically and mathematically if he did not want us to know HIM? Fighting over whether Creationism or Evolution is the right answer as to why we are here is the wrong picture both have a place with God. william.mabon@yahoo.com

@frankkockritz5441

Жыл бұрын

Do you really think any one person read your nonsensical, incoherent pontification? Here is a great philosophical question for you to address. Why is scrolling so popular that Google incudes it in its analytic data set as a KPI? Hint. Don’t take longer than say 10 seconds to ponder the correct answer. Clue, I read your first and last sentence. The latter only as a means to get to the next person’s comment.

@williammabon6430

Жыл бұрын

@@frankkockritz5441 First and foremost any serious investigator would know lambasting information you know nothing about is grade A foolishness. Next and just as something that is important for you to know. Debate the research and not your ignorant hate for what you consider to be untrue. Put your argument against the research that is based in fact on the table otherwise stay in your nonsensical lane.

@frankkockritz5441

Жыл бұрын

@@williammabon6430 Ah, just the ad hominem response I would expect from a delusional, close minded wish thinker. Why? Because you can’t and don’t present an argument such as mine. You’re the one making the extraordinary claims, not me. Where’s your extraordinary evidence as the late Carl Sagan demanded? You have none. Here’s the deal. Believe what you want, but play with your toys at home because no rational person wants to hear your nonsensical spew. As I stated before, do you really believe anyone read more than the first few words of your nonsensical pontification? Answer the question! Here’s some advice. The attention Ye seek, Ye shall not find. Now, run along child. I have better things, as do Nobel Laureates.

@williammabon6430

Жыл бұрын

@@frankkockritz5441 Listen slow using unnecessary terms like "ad hominem" and other seldom used words you have used in a chat where simple is enough tells me you like using words to help you feel confident in the things you pretend to know. However, you are seriously in error if you believe you can dismiss a conclusion based in scientific evidence. At this point I have nothing else to chat with you about. So, go your own way into the world of I don't want to know God. And honestly I'm not here to bring any kind of indoctrination of religion to you. I'm a scientist not a clergyman. Good bye.