Professor Carroll has a unique ability to explain the most complex science without turning my brain to mush, lol. Beautiful orator as usual. Can't wait to read the book

As a big Sean Carroll fan but a first time listener of this podcast, Michael Shermer was a great interviewer.

35:00 abstract the vision of the world 36:18 duality 38:00 atom model cartoon and mental pictures 39:20 pauli-X 41:15 QF & other fields 42:35 la place explained sun gv field 43:30 unification of classic and q physics (macro and micro) 46:40 rubber sheet analogy 48:00 atoms smashing are changes in fields 49:15 what’s below atoms and particles (fiends and energy - set of fields) 51:00 when things gets unnatural in standard model 52:15 strings theory 53:15 Dark M & E 53:38 cosmological constant 55:17 neutrinos not DM 55:40 Higgs&Boson 57:45 nothing can’t come trom nothing? 58:40 we don’t know about universe beginning 59:39 causes and effects (causality) 1:01:35 nothing and then 1:02:30 God 1:03:20 free will and determinism 1:05:35 compatibilism 1:06:40 self reference 1:07:20 you are not god or LPD 1:09:20 individual humans 1:11:45 Einstein and time condolences letter (block universe) 1:14:00 end, 3rd book and so on 16:50 how do you know

@rajeevgangal542

Ай бұрын

Thx

@SamoaVsEverybody814

20 күн бұрын

Thank you for this 😎

@216Clevelander

2 күн бұрын

❤

Sean is an unbelievable science communicator. As a Baltimore native, I am proud Sean teaches here at JHU.

Michael Shermer is one of the best, most honest, active listener interviewers out there.

Thank you. Excellent interview with Sean. You asked everything I’ve wanted him to explain

This is the highest compliment I can bestow. I love how you eviscerated fine tuning. First you steel manned their argument. Then you utterly destroyed it so well. Yours is still the best refutation of fine tuning I've ever heard.

Great discussion. Carroll has a way of cutting through the misconceptions that have clouded our ability to correctly understand physics.

Wait, two of my favourite skeptics in conversation with each other?! I must watch this. Okay, I did watch it. Really good conversation! Michael Shermer & Sean Carroll are actually two of the people on my list of people I'd like to meet in person while I'm alive. I recently met Richard Dawkins, and that was a huge moment for me. If I ever get a chance to go to an event, where either Michael Shermer, or Sean Carroll are speakers, I will certainly be there. There are so many wonderful people out there in the world, and to meet them in person is surely an honour. Great video!

Thanks for the good questions! Sean was very eloquent in his speech as always. P.S. One of his best interviews, actually. I learned a lot from it.

Sean is my anchor to reality, not insofar as his reality is my reality, but he’s great at being hard nosed in a way that is actually conducive to progress. It’s fun to have provocative and exciting ideas, but if they are scientific ideas, they need to be rigorous and plausible. He’s also great with regards to guru’s, conspiracy theories and divisive politics, always giving advice about how to think about a problem so as I can solve it myself, rather than explicitly telling me what to believe. He’s careful and serious and fun, and is taking the foundations of quantum mechanics, as well as the interplay of philosophy and science, very seriously. Sean is so far from “shut up and calculate”, in his approach to the big questions. Thank you!

@michaelkahama3459

Ай бұрын

I follow all his interviews, read his books, listen to his podcasts and follow him on Blue Sky. The knowledge I get is bliss.

Sean is a great physicist explains things well

great questions! you were asking the (simple) questions i was having whilst listening SC.

Sean is at his best here. Thank you for the interview.

Sean have enjoyed many of your podcasts especially those concerning quantum field theory will look for the book quanta fields at the book store. Thanks for your wonderful explanation of science to the layman.

My first cat developed the theory of everything. She was frustrated because we could not understand what she was telling us. Unfortunately she died before she could tell us the theory.

New adjective : “mathy” I like that. And I’m not mathy

@FigmentHF

Ай бұрын

Same. Handling mathematics in my brain is like trying to arrange water into stable cubes, it all just slips through my fingers. But Professor Carol often hands me a frozen cube of tangible mathematical concept that I can wield using my type of brain, and so i get to appreciate and understand mathematics, without being able to do it, in the same way many of use understand and appreciate music, while not being able to play, or read sheet music.

sean carroll is so eloquent with explaining these complex ideas that makes me want to learn even more🥰😀

Mind-blowing and mind expanding

awesome discussion. lovely

So many things i learned just from this discussion. 😊

I'm a big fan of both you guys. Keep making more vids together.

Difficult subjects very practically and well explained. Congratulations for the program.

Great interview!!

Love both you guys.

Some great questions addressed here

i love listening to sean carroll

Just curious...how does indeterminacy/quantum mechanics change how we perceive dimensions/block universe/4th dimension? If QM is indeterministic then what does that say about dimensions?

Question for Dr. Carroll is that the concept of solid like behavior of atoms, i.e. the electron clouds does not fit with the Rutherford gold foil experimental data. Alpha particles being larger and positively charged were thought to act like bullets going through the gold atoms unless they happen to encounter a nucleus in which case they get scattered. The apparent solidness of say a table can stem from electron repulsion at close range between atoms of one surface against another leading to the feeling of rigidness or solidity. In this case, could we view the electron as localized but executing a Brownian motion around the nucleus, perhaps due to the action of virtual particles around it?

Wonderful episode!

Wow, how did you get this interview? Sean Carroll is the goat. 🐐

@rod6189

Ай бұрын

The goat of bs

@Booogieman

27 күн бұрын

​@@rod6189why? Because of the multiverse?

@Joe-ym6bw

25 күн бұрын

He's there because he's selling his book. Nothing wrong with that

@rod6189

24 күн бұрын

@@Booogieman biggest charlatan in today's scientism

I think that the 'world' is fully deterministic yet not at all predetermined because it is fundamentally chaotic. Chaotic systems are deterministic, just not predictable in detail. I do not think this imbues us with any sort of 'free will', we are still nothing more than complex chemical systems doing complex chemical processes.

Big Sean carroll 👏🏽👏🏽

A good question for Sean is whether or not he believes (by defaulting to common GR narratives) that a traveler orbiting a fixed point observer at 'C' experiences time dilation? (I already know his answer, nevertheless I'd like to hear his explanation)

Sean for president!

@HarryNicNicholas

Ай бұрын

the idea behind voting for people was the people you voted for didn't really want the job, but they were the best people for the job. i think it's time (in the UK) that we retired the house of lords and had a house of scientists, people who don't really want the job but are best qualified.

@karagi101

Ай бұрын

@@HarryNicNicholas We’d need to first have a well educated population before the majority of people would agree to that. I don’t foresee that ever happening.

@ekkemoo

28 күн бұрын

education can flourish when mindless competition and envy goes away. “by standing on the shoulders of giants” … Newton was explaining that his ideas didn't come from him alone. i guess, he was nice!

It's true that over the last century or so the vast majority of physicists "haven't tried very hard" to understand / interpret QM - the "shut up and calculate" attitude has dominated - but many have and the "quantum foundations" field is certainly thriving now. But even before it was thriving some key advances were made in our understanding of the theory which advocates of the MWI (and other fringe _proto-interpretations_) seem either unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge. Even without going into all that it's hard to understand how anyone familiar with the conceptual and mathematical basics of QM could make the "rookie mistake" that Sean makes in his description of entanglement. It's crucial to any discussion of entanglement - to showing, if nothing else, that it does in fact differ from mundane classical correlation! - that the necessity of the involvement of (pairs of) incompatible observable quantities isn't overlooked. As Ray Streater put it: "For example, if Alice measures J(3), and sees the result, it would be wrong for her to claim that Bob's particle has the opposite value of J(3) from hers. She does NOT know that there is a classical pointer showing the opposite result from her pointer; the experiment might not have been done. Indeed, for all she knows, Bob has already measured his J(2), and has a pointer to prove it, before she did her measurement. Thus, the only safe claim for Alice is that Bob would find, or would have found, the opposite value of J(3) if he were to make, or has made, the measurement of his J(3)."

1:11:16 Economics has everything to do with economics. I found QM through economics and my investigations into the fractal. I have since published in the International Journal of Quantum Foundations and have (not in that paper) posited the de Broglie wave function is the demand curve, and that goes for labour markets too.

Thank you...

I wish Sean would explain how if the block theory is true that it wouldn't defeat his compatibilitism?

LMK what it costs for signed HB copies. All of them, total cost...plz & ty.

quantum mechanics however does not posit these influences, it simply predicts the stats of outcomes contain them. not accepting them as real is simply an aesthetic choice, quantum mechanics is a theory that simply does not go into those details or tries to, so it is a matter for extensions for the variables deciding the outcomes we see in applied quantum mechanics but not a prediction or result of quantum mechanics itself, the correlations are the prediction these kinds of theories that account for the correlations through such influences try to explain.

@HarryNicNicholas

Ай бұрын

should i care?

One of the best books ever - philosophy made simple

If consciousness is fundamental and mind emerges with quantum events and there are more than two types of electricity and magnetism will be understood we will be smart. In the meantime Sean Carroll and those like him are the best.

Margaret Mead famously quipped, "Wars are not like earthquakes," i.e., wars are unnatural and unpredictable. John Mearsheimer disagrees, claiming that wars are natural and predictable. Who is right?

yes, but there is also the unfortunate fact that what is called entanglement applies equally to two different kinds of situations, one where the correlation does not require some dependence on another outcome somewhere else, and soem situations that seemingly do. first lets step back and look at what quantum mechanics entails about probabilities, we have a situation where the theory produces a probability map for observable outcomes, this means we can reasonably simulate any experiment as a table of outcomes of any measurment we make, by some kind of dice with n sides equally providing the probability of each outcome weighted by the likleyhood of whatever outcome coming up, we can then simulate it with something akin to normal statistical mechanics, we have some probability density for each outcome at each detector or device, in an experiment with entanglement we end up with either two independent dice, or a situation in which the outcome of some dice somewhere effects the weights on some dice in some other place, what we call entanglement today encompasses both situations in a sense, the example einstein originally chose in the EPR paper, relating the momentum of one particle to the momentum of the other does not necessarily entail a connection between the weights on one side as a result of the other, only that they where "rolled" together at the start and that they came out oppsite in outcome in some sense, while the example that bell used relating to spin, the outcome on one side effects the dice you would roll to simulate the outcome of the other particle in a different way, namely the probability changes in a way that depends on the choice of measurment axis on the other side, there is not a single given outcome, but a new distribution over new choices of measurement, which is not the case with a simple momentum measurement, which does not have the same kind of basis of measurment, at least not in all kinds of ways of measuring. the difference is simply that if we wanted to accurately simulate the bell case of spins, we could not just have equally weighted dice that always start out opposite, that would not reflect the real outcomes in terms of the combined distribution of outcomes, because when not measured in the same basis the outcomes are not always opposite in outcome, but have correlations relation to the cos squared of the angle between the basis of the two, to simulate this kind of relationship with dice or something like it, we would necessarily have to look at one outcome and then and only then adjust the weights of the dice for predicting the statistics of the other outcome, for the results to correspond with the statistics we find in nature relating to spin, this means that if we want to think about it as some local stochastic process resulting from additional variables in addition to the wavefunction, there necessarily has to be some influence from one outcome on the other, but this is not the case for every kind of correlation we call entanglement, i think we should really separate the kinds of interactions that require such an influence and those that do not when we think about entanglement as some actual influence. i think there has to be an influence as causal as two rocks bumping into each other to produce such a correlation, and it has not by any means been shown to be impossible or even unlikley, we simply do not have any realistic and penetrable theories that provide a mechanism or description of that kind for process yet, so i think it is premature to say it does not exist nobody has any convincing arguments that it cannot be the case.

Part 2 Understanding this, allows you to begin to seperate the difference between the journey towards (as reflective matter) and the eternal reflective existence (of all accumulated experience) that accents all resulted experiences, as well that experience always being added to as it is rightfully sewn and essentially supported. Studies related to Pyramid religion, psychics, quantum reality’s etc usually end up suggesting, that they themselves present existence as not being a psychical reality. Even though equating infinity is an aspect that is largely incomprehensible to mankind, because it struggles to detach its own nature from its capacity to learn. For example, due to the certified awe, the continued path of riddled failure uses time signatures on it’s simulators, processors, equations and theory’s, that are all formed from a localised perceived time that is based off an ecliptic equation, that misrepresents Universal spacetime. If a Universal cycle is a 360’ cycle then a Earth day is noted from the time at which a particular star passes the celestial meridian (i.e. directly overhead) on two sucessive nights, which marks a sidereal day of 23 hours 56 minutes & 4.091 seconds, which is not at all aligned to Hipparchus’s equation of time. Meaning that a severe miscalculation has already occurred (in this time) at the most basic level of each of the equators of reality that were used to equate forms of - Pyramid religions, psychics, quantum theories and mathematical reality’s, if the basic division is unbalanced, as the riddle is, the load failure can only ever increase, how could it ever equate Universal balances and differences? This is why the riddles script always uses its inability to understand difference against its own scripted environment. Realising this means that you should be able to at least recognise that a theory of a simulated reality has already been broadcast across your time lines future paths. Suggesting that the beings responsible for the promotion of this structured mistake, do indeed place themselves as successors of direction (control) at the cost of all others that could ever be correct. Whats also interesting is that often alternate realities are mentioned, but usually limited to X amount of numbers, because of the human reflective process of thought, that could only structure these off the measurements they equate of their understanding (or lack of) related to the distance and time of their times Universal Mass. This is a common mistake, because mankind fails to recognise that time, distance and reflection are irrelevant as soon as you are able to understand the actual meaning of’ what an infinite existence is, including the removal of biological function that is enacted as a corrective restrictor. If you are able to do this, you can understand why the reality of all existence is the functionality of all eternal growth. For mass the experience of’ reflects as its interaction (inclusive of others mass based) not their reaction (singular to them) as choice, keeping in mind what I said about Hipparchus, and understanding that infinity as being ‘time is all at once’ of which masses interactions reflect off. The only reason Mass believes in a disconnection from the totality is because of its reflective biological limitations. When sub atomic cycles and other associated conscious layers are falsely introduced to a species that reflects on time as being linear, they would find it extremely difficult to understand how expansive time could be cycled into their past’ because of their reflective biology. It’s significantly easier if one tries to establish, if the paths for all failure and success can still exist with or without its mass, perhaps you can try grabbing your left hand and without letting go’ try grabbing it again, obviously you can not’ knowing that cycle has already reflectively occurred, even if you simply thought it through’ you were aware that the reflective cycle would have already past once you enacted it, so the cycle exists reflectively as you enacted it but without the mass you used to reflect it, from here your current mass of reflection would be understood as it being your centre (and that prior actions centre) because your pinnacled to your form that only changed in the moment because of that cycle, meaning that the possibility that your reflective pinnacled center can be moved by changing your reflective memories of your past can easily change the perception of your centred reflection, I.e as in Slaves built the Pyramids to Company process built the Pyramids….meaning that your reflective center is also relative to the past that’s reflected of it, which also includes, if this changed state was broadcast to you (even deceitfully) then your center was changed by a broadcast created for you, in your future, from any point prior to your change (but for you, only understood in that moment as your experience) At this point It’s extremely important that you understand the nature of reflective thought’ as masses production of time, that reveals itself relative to the speed of the mind the processes it, that actually contains many precursor layers well before the slower mind recognises them as a thought. It’s readily understood (or it should be) that your actions mostly occur prior to your conscious mind perceiving them, and if they don’t for you then you’re not paying close enough attention, to yourself and the environment that constantly try’s to control your surroundings. Knowing that all balance is achieved from opposites is the key indicator of masses reflective “sleeping form” It can be used to identify mass as an equated form to the infinite existence of all. When a manipulation of a masses future occurs (as a mimicked form) it will always present itself “as a forced tyrannical center” whilst ironically also proving, that its past paths of existence (attempted cycles) have always been “failure” or have been failed. From this stand point you should address the mindset of the cavemen to fire as it is to you, because the caveman also thought of itself as it’s times pinnacle. The false mimic/s is the reason that religion was formed here on Earth as a search for the truth, and it exists because of the corrections made by the (bloodline) anchor between times, which was a predetermined necessity - corrective balance, due to the failures created by “typed mistakes” here on Earth, mistakes made by those that reversed live. Unknowingly to them though, they played an essential part in the balancing of all of masses infinity, as the ever failing and diminishing opposite. Keeping it simple, If you still struggle to grasp the separation between eternal cycles (the super consciousness) and reflective mass, then Imagine multiple people grabbing their left hand, following that simple instruction of “grab your left hand and don’t let it go” but now across time and distance. Ask anyone of them to grab their hand again without them letting go and again none of them are able to, each of them completing the cycle as the cycle (to them) continues remain the same. Each of them believes that it happened because they can reflect on the result of that cycle passing through them, and experienced it as the result of that cycle, without noticing that the cycle started the same way before it finished and knew the result of its experience because that cycle is that experience. Additionally as it includes each individual it’s cycle grew, as it gained experience of all other correct differences, that were individually but additionally cycled to it along it’s way (again without the cycle requiring mass) The successful result of each individual grabbing their left hand, continued its cycle as a succession of its cumulative perfection, and still each person involved exists in that same individually centred reflective state and only believes they did this because they restrictively reflected as it. As an opposite failure wouldn’t be able to do so, as it fails to reflect truthfully in all cycles, because of its corruptive make up. Which is why every single state of tyranny relies on false advertisements and podiums of its markers of short term relevance, but always later incudes them in it’s displacement of its own blame in the false cycling of failure. Exposed to the point where each individual through fear of their individual knowledge of it’s scripted failure, are forced to knowingly push its way of mandated cancer further. Often this is achieved by failure stereotyping the poverty it causes, as a disease bought about by the instability it created for itself to profit from. Obviously there’s a whole lot more……but that’s another time. ORION The Hunter (time is all at once)

@clivewells1736

2 күн бұрын

PHEW! Glad i F>> F>> thru that!

@jasonwilliams9922

2 күн бұрын

@@clivewells1736 that’s what Pavlov’s fish do, Faith in Christos buddy 🐠 the skip and delete Goat fiddler

1:08:12 on the futility of determinism

Isnt Seans podcast "Mindscape"? Not everything everywhere.

@bryandraughn9830

Ай бұрын

He was talking about Gary arndt podcast that he was just watching.

@isitme1234

Ай бұрын

@@bryandraughn9830 ohhh sry

Re. the concept of something from ‘nothing’, some scientific theories (e.g. Quantum Tunnelling from Nothing) say that the hypothesised Big Bang singularity - and hence the Universe - was created out of nothing in the form of quantum fluctuations in a pre-existing quantum vacuum. In Buddhism, consciousness in its ultimate sense is similarly likened to an empty clearing - a ‘vacuum’ - in the middle of a forest. Within this *mental* space, manifestations - things, processes, events, and systems - arise or appear. It is a no-thing (as distinct from nothing) in which ‘something’ can arise. It is the ‘Yin’ state of being limitless and formless (a no-thing that is something) from which the ‘Yang’ state of forms that have boundary limits emerge - a something that is ‘nothing’ (as distinct from no-thing).

@danielpaulson8838

16 күн бұрын

“All that we are is due to our thoughts. It is founded on and based in our thoughts.” The Buddha, verse 1 of the Dhammapada.

Part 1 I’ve heard so many quote different dimensions, realities, simulations, species etc like they have been there, well “I AM” To put this into perspective you need to imagine if reality could be called a digitised reality in 1000 years. Obviously you know it will not. A basic scope of that perception tells you that your digital association would be as relevant as a caveman to fire is to you. When one scopes for meaning of his own existence he/she does so based from human understandings (learnt from their environment/experience) Existing as reflective matter they base the measurement of their perception from their limitation of understanding. Mostly not realising that they are scoping their reflection of, not the delivery of. In recent day many people have given examples of simulations etc using labels NPC’s and PC’s as examples in their scenarios, but usually without addressing the nature of it’s programming. In that scenario the typical objective is for the gamer to succeed at the ‘game’ that’s exclusively designed to assist the PC’s in their journey, only made relevant because the difference in time, effort and programming used to present the scripted illusion of choice thats inherited by the PC as being far superior to script given to remaining NPC’s. Keeping this in mind, presents as a major issue in the simulation reality theory that feeds off physical collection as the failure or stunting of its actual equal others (without the lie of the script) This would mean that by design some labels were pre-chosen as the controllers of others (perhaps like a Royalty) Meaning that they could only succeed at cost to the players their script disadvantages. If one was to assume this as its design, then what would be its point and how could this simulation ever evolve, when it’s design leads to conclusive failure through stupidity? Would it not still be reliant on the singularity layered above it? Why does the landscape of this design still fail to address and understand the singularity? Is it because its always defined from and as a form of falsely pinnacled positioned reflective Mass? When you speak of a singularity that increases exponentially shouldn’t you scope that existence as being part of everything that has and will ever exist? and from an understanding that it already has the capacity to include everything (in this time) including everything perceptional to it’s environment? Would it not be able to prove that the importance of existence is balanced by the eternal growth of existence? that obviously could only be achieved successively from a production of freedom from the cumulative experience of all interactions that are right. Understanding this allows you to begin to seperate the difference between the journey towards (as reflective matter) and the reflective eternal existence that accents every resulted experience. As well that experience being added to and essentially supported. When religion, psychics, quantum reality’s are studied it’s usually suggested that they themselves eventually present as there being no psychical basis for reality, however one could also conclude that this is because these are all formations of the same faulty mimicked design (looped by failure) that till now existed as a riddle that sat right in front of the “Worlds greatest minds” That riddle exists time and time again as ‘It’s own Failure’ even when it’s failure is detected, it usually gets promoted again and goes unnoticed, as the cause of failure, because of the prior certifications attached to its relative forms. It then instead is presented as a possible new direction for yet another overlay (by its minds mimicked) to discover because of it’s certified awe associated to them. Really, to simplify that riddle all should concentrate more on the influence Cerns LHC had on the flower of life and all other ancient awe attached to it. Including why their energy signatures match their presentation and the Company riddle, that also fails mankind as a lesser product. The line of ‘enchanted fools’ is very long and truth be known, well not a very distinguished one either. When a conclusion is formed, it should always be factual and not shrouded in the flowers awe. If forms must be equated dimensionally, they MUST be equated from the perspective consciousness that lays above that times conscious state, as it’s infinite existence, as though its the Source of “?” that’s anchored between all forms - NOT SIMPLY ANCHORED TO ONE. For example, the basis and understanding of all wasted calculations, theorising and man made principles becomes ABSOLUTE when it’s riddle is known to be its ever conclusive failures, that are bound in its attachment to the mistakes of its enslaved servers - AT THE TIME OF CREATION (in the 2ks) As is the understanding of measurement that’s achieved by those certified in its dimensionally riddled and time stumped environment. All of which is based on the belly crawlers attempts to enslave life, with the fantasy of one day eventually harnessing technology that enables them to escape the Hell they deserve (nope that’s what you get for MAPPING kids) When a singularity that increases exponentially in an instant is studied, you must scope that existence as being part of everything that has and will ever exist, from the understanding,,that it already has the capacity to include life (in this time) and everything perceptional to its environment, understanding that the absolute importance of existence is above all the eternal growth of all existence.,This can obviously only ever be achieved successively from an infinite dimension of freedom thats survived by the cumulative resulted experience of all interactions that are were and could be ever correct.

Once upon a time there was a fruit-fly named Wiggy whose brain, like his eyes, was composed of hexagonal pixels. So it always saw the Universe in terms of hexagons. One day Wiggy took a PhD in Physics at the local human university, and wrote a paper about the amazing effectiveness of hexamath, that forecasts the entire behavior of the universe. But his thesis advisor said, that's a foolish paper. The universe is not forecastable by hexamath, but by features-math, aka categories math, that is: the universe can be forecasted via variables, because the human cortex converts all signals into categories (via the Vernon Mountcastle algorithm), to which it then gives names, and represents by ink (or chalk) squiggles, which we humans manipulate, to forecast the universe's behavior by a resulting squiggle (aka "solution."). Well, said Wiggy, that's what I do. But, said his thesis advisor, don't you see that you can only grasp the hexa part of the universe? Well, said Wiggy, what about you? You can only grasp the categorizable parts of the universe, which is really one big shmoo, on parts of which you put categories, and I put hexa pixels. Well, what other parts are there? said the professor. I can't tell you, said Wiggy, because your brain doesn't have hexa-pixels. After a while, they both tried to find some middle ground, by studying Quantum Mechanics, where there are no categories (until the probability function goes pfffft, that is) and no hexa-pixels either (ditto), but were stumped, until an Alien EBE came down in a flying saucer and said he could explain it all, but his explanation used neither hexamath nor categories math, but something else based on his (EBE's) brain, so he couldn't and didn't, and the problem stayed unresolved. Or did it?

At 37:26 Seansays something like "that is the miracle of quantum mechanics". And to be fair we have to use the English words, but that statement is sufficient for people like Rupert Sheldrake, Deepka Chopra and Philip Goff to run with it an quote Sean as saying that quantum mechanics has miracles in it. At other time Sean says something like "that is the subtlety of QM" (paraphrasing). But that comes across as a science apologetics to lay people. It sounds like scientists are contradicting themselves even contemporarily. I cannot emphasize enough how Scientists should get together and come up with consistent scientific language when describing the theories to prevent further deterioration of anti-scientific or pseudo-scientific state of affairs. For example, Roger Penrose along with Stuart Hameroff have the theory of Orch-OR in which they claim the collapse of wave function in microtubules in neurons causes the wave function which is a completely Physicalist theory. But that does not stop people like Deepka Chopra and Philip Goff to take it to mean exactly the opposite that consciousness causes the collapse of wave function in the microtubules and then run with woo theories and panpsychism etc. They love that Roger's name is associated with the original Orch-OR theory. I partly do blame Roger for he speaks about it in some places. Brain works on ectro-chemistry. QM is integral part of chemistry. So what is the big deal about chemistry in microtubules. Brain will not work if not for the chemistry does not work which depends on QM. So there is nothing of a mystery between QM based chemistry in the brain and processes which we call consciousness.

If you want a deeper, richer and coherent understanding of ontological physicalism, there is no better teacher (or resource) more qualified than Sean Carroll. Dr. Carroll distinguishes himself in taking abstruse ideas and making them more reachable to both the general public and those schooled in the natural sciences.

@francesco5581

Ай бұрын

seems to me that he is slowing refining his point of view... from few years ago at last.

I enjoy Sean’s work but don’t understand how he serves on the board for Nautilus Magazine, which is a shiny front for the gross Templeton Foundation.

@origins7298

Ай бұрын

Googling this brings up information from 11 years ago... He said he will never take money directly from Templeton and urges all the companies he works with not to, but Templeton supports a lot of different events and organizations that work directly in this field so it's almost a given that their will be some overlap.... I mean he was a scientific advisor for science magazine, seems a little much to hold him responsibility for their support system... As long as the magazine itself is doing good work

@Paine137

Ай бұрын

@@origins7298 Templeton buys associations, from BigThink to Jane Goodall. Any business-savvy scientist or communicator can weed out partnerships with those associations, given how disingenuous Templeton’s attempts to usurp science really are. Nautilus is not independent, it’s a limb.

Quantum mechanics and relaitivity didn't 'prove' older views were wrong in the sense of to be scapped. They extended the range of explanation to encompass new ways of understanding - but we got to the moon using Newtonian mechanics, even if we also now had a deeper explanation of the range of applicability of older theories. Which, within their domains, remained correct - and usable.

@tommyheron464

Ай бұрын

New theories build apon older theories but do not overturn them. Simply put.

@zak2659

Ай бұрын

@@tommyheron464 they overturn them in the metaphysical sense though. Sure they're still useful theories but as a model of the universe they are wrong.

We are and forever will be, falling into a series of never ending blackholes, infinitum. We just haven't realized it yet, just as the distant stars don't look anything like they actually do AT PRESENT TIME. This effect DOES NOT have an escape route, nor does anyone even see it.

I've been listening to Sean for a a number of years now. Funny, I'm beginning to understand what the hell he's talking about. It's kind of cool and scary at the same time.

It bothered me that Sean described gravity as a force. Einstein described it as a consequence of spacetime being distorted by mass (or energy). No one has ever found a graviton ... so what is a 'gravitational field'? All in all though, an interesting interview.

@clivewells1736

2 күн бұрын

A G-Field is a deviation in space-time. Gravitons sound like rubbish and could only work backwards in time like a tractor beam.

1:09 "This group of people under these conditions are likely to be more successful or have higher GPAs or make more money, and these are less because of whatever the conditions are, but if I point to one person, what about that guy right there what's his outcome going to be... no idea" I think we can tell alot about the outcomes of people just by their appearance and context. If someone is sitting in lecture, in nice clothes, well then it's a safe bet to assume they have a decent amount of money and their outcome is/will be financially lucrative. I’ve heard this before, that patterns in demography don't apply to individuals… but that data is gathered from, well, many individuals. If you mean there's exceptions to social tendencies, well sure, but that doesn't equal mystery, if you investigate those exceptions you will find discrete reasons why those people fell lower or rose higher than their social demographic.

one of the reasons i never really bought it, that is that there is no real influence responsible for the correlations is essentially the same as that of a kid that sees a magic trick and thinks there has to be some ace up the sleeve or some string moving the missing card, i don't think stuff just happens, i think there is always an explaination that can to some degree be penetrated and be understood, and after having spend years working on the subject seriously, my conviction that started out as a suspicion that people were just taking magic for granted has only gotten stronger, i see no compelling theoretical reason what so ever to favor mystical causelessness explaining the correlation rather than an actual down to earth theory, where states of the world constitute the reasons why things happen, an actual description of what happens that includes outcomes where correlations that reflect dependent random variables have their dependence explained properly in a way no more mystical than why glasses don't fall through the table. we would never accept a theory like the minimalist quantum explaination of copenhagen for example that this is just how the world is, magic just happens and that is that.

Free will seems to be interested in Sean's head.

I need to start saying ‘super-duper’ more

It's very interesting, Carroll is always well understandable BUT a lot of maybes/ive-no-idea, and of course cannot be any different. I think there was never another age in history in which we had really no idea regarding the "what is all about ?" question. PS are we seeing a more "open" Sean Carroll ?

@RicardoMarlowFlamenco

Ай бұрын

Issue is simple. We all have child like “why” questions that never end spiraling down to infinity. The answer to each of them turns out to be a “how things work” answer. So learning how best to frame a question gives more satisfying and complete answers. So everyone with genuine curiosity needs to curb their why questions.

@francesco5581

Ай бұрын

@@RicardoMarlowFlamenco who is interested in the "why" (that is the fuel of all philosophy) will never be satisfied by a simplistic "how". Asking to Curb the "why" questions seems a plea to become more shallow.

@nihlify

Ай бұрын

@@francesco5581 That's not true at all, you just have to use some common sense of when you're just hitting your head into a wall for no reason. Also we're living in an age where we know more about the why than every before, so not sure what you are rambling about.

@francesco5581

Ай бұрын

@@nihlify when basically every top scientist have a different philosophical approach on the most important issues (free will, consciousness, fine tuning etc) thats mean that we live in an age of doubts. "The larger the island of knowledge the longer the shoreline of wonder"

@bryandraughn9830

Ай бұрын

If you don't know, you say you don't know. That's just honesty.

I agree that some people explain very badly and make things more complicated than they really are

32:12 -- All possible states of Reality would still exist (let's call it the Reality power set), and the Demon/God would still perceive that power set and all of its subsets, it's just that the Demon/God wouldn't be perceiving any conscious beings engaged in constantly winnowing/'drilling down' into the subsets of that Reality that are causally connected and consistent with their own choices/observations/experiences. Note that the Demon/God would still perceive all of the same collections of matter doing all of the same things regardless of whether there were any conscious beings 'playing the game' (for example, my human body exists in both versions, it's just that in one version my body is purely a 'philosophical zombie', and in the other version there is some sort of conscious being that is experiencing 'what it is like' to inhabit that body. From the perspective of the Demon/God, the machine (all of Reality) is the same both ways, one version just has ghosts in it. Those ghosts don't have any ability to causally influence the machine, they just get to experience what it's like to inhabit a body, and to exert free will to steer their own paths through the winnowing/drilling down of the subsets of Reality that are continuously causally connected and consistent with that body's history. For example, if I (the ghost 'I') choose to clap my hands right now, what that really means is that as a ghost I've chosen to steer myself into experiencing the subset of Reality in which my body performed that action; by doing such things I continually carve out a smaller and more specific subset of Reality. My intuition tells me that this is very deeply connected to entropy. Low entropy = many choices/subsets to choose from; high entropy = few choices/subsets. In this view, entropy is the refining/restricting/winnowing down of the options that can be jumped to (options = subsets of the Reality power set that are continuously connected and consistent with the current subset).

Yes things like God and Free Will belong in the same bin. That js correct.

Dig that cat!

I came here for the free will. I certainly hope they talk about it.

I am surprised that even today there are physicists who think that the theory of everything is just around the corner. When will they ever know how to win thousands or millions of lotteries in a row, even then will be just a little closer to divine design.

Their is a deeper meaning.. a more consistent theory A James Clark maxwell insight that sadly the hasn’t been realized

It's for everybody!!!! (i.e. It's for no one).

@bryandraughn9830

Ай бұрын

It's for everybody who is willing to read a book, which narrows it way down.

If we knew what quantum was telling us we would be shouting it from the rooftops But we don’t and humility is not something scientists and engineers want too admit

@karagi101

Ай бұрын

We know what quantum theory is telling us. We can use it to make predictions that are accurate to 11 decimal places.

@aroemaliuged4776

Ай бұрын

@@karagi101 shut up and use a calculator A great theory of everything

@karagi101

Ай бұрын

@@aroemaliuged4776 Sorry you don’t like how the universe works. Tell me… what does the theory of relativity tell you?

@aroemaliuged4776

Ай бұрын

@@karagi101 Heavier than air flying machines are impossible..

@aroemaliuged4776

Ай бұрын

@@karagi101 it’s like your child scoring 4 on a possible 100 table The adult thinks the table goes too 5

Thanks for your interesting video. Your viewers might enjoy this video showing under the right conditions, the quantization of a field is easily produced. The ground state energy is induced via Euler’s contain column analysis. Contain column m must come in to play before over buckling or the effect will not work. The system response in a quantized manor when force is applied in the perpendicular direction. Bonding at the points of highest probabilities and maximum duration( peeks and troughs) of the fields/sheet produced a stable structure out of three fields People say I am just plucked guitar strings. I said you can not make structures with vibrating guitar strings or harmonic oscillators. kzread.info/dash/bejne/qaZ21dOidZPcd5c.htmlsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3 At this time I’m my research, I have been trying to describe the “U” shape formed. In the model, “U” shape waves are produced as the loading increases and just before the wave-like function shifts to the next higher energy level. Over-lapping all the waves frequencies together using Fournier Transforms, I understand makes a “U” shape or square wave form. Wondering if Feynman Path Integrals for all possible wave functions could be applicable here? If this model has merit, seeing the sawtooth load verse deflection graph produced could give some real insight in what happened during the quantum jumps. The mechanical description and white paper that goes with the video can be found on my KZread page. You can reproduce my results using a sheet of Mylar* ( the clear plastic found in school folders. Seeing it first hand is worth the effort!

Too compare Neil degrass Tyson with Dan Dennet is Mixing your wash with the clothes that washed , ironed and perfectly placed

Obviously the human mind can justify anything, which should be included in the final Theory of Everything 😅

Max Planck (Nobel Prize winning physicist and originator of quantum theory): “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Erwin Schrödinger (Nobel Prize winning physicist and developer of a number of fundamental results in quantum theory): “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Prize winning physicist, a key pioneer of quantum mechanics): “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” But, hey-ho, Sean Carroll thinks he knows better ...

I prefer to think of “god” as nature, rather than the laws of nature. The laws are ours, the nature belongs to itself. I think this is what many ancient people meant throughout history, and it’s a fine idea. Certainly something to embrace in the name of unity and cooperation.

on another youtube channel sean said other parallel universes exist in something called "Hilbert Space". I'm dying to know what or where that is, but PLEASE NO EQUATIONS.⚛😀

@frun

Ай бұрын

No, they don't. Only in imagination. This is Many Worlds interpretation. It appears if you were to consider all possible initial conditions simultaneously, in superposition.

@RicardoMarlowFlamenco

Ай бұрын

The Egyptians created perfectly symmetric king tut type faces using a geometry trick. Draw half a face then flip it and trace the first half only backwards or inside out. That abstract thinking allows us to step outside of the box of reality in order to visualize physical problems from an imaginary vantage point, gaining new perspectives and insights. In math imaginary numbers seem like a cheat until you realize their geometric symmetry can help you (like the perfect pharaoh face). Hilbert space is analogous to that type of fake space that can help you get out of the box of reality and solve its problems from a new perspective

@frun

Ай бұрын

@@RicardoMarlowFlamenco Hilbert space is only half of the way, because you can't predict the outcome of an experiment.

@FrankOdonnell-ej3hd

Ай бұрын

@@frun thanks but my understanding is people like carrol and deutsch are saying it's NOT just imagination⚛😀

@FrankOdonnell-ej3hd

Ай бұрын

@@RicardoMarlowFlamenco thanks still confused but got the part it's just fake⚛😀

I think Heisenberg steered the entire physics into the abyss. Now physicists are drowning in the formalism.

@bryandraughn9830

Ай бұрын

"I think" the universal doorway to wishful thinking.

@b.7944

Ай бұрын

@@bryandraughn9830 I think you are a very clever person

Phd is a doctor of philosophy, it's literally in the title .

It's impossible that absolutely everything came from absolutely nothing. Therefore, there has always been something. Question is: What is that something ? It's what everything (collidable fermions and go-thru-each-other bosons) are fundamentally physically made of: resonating vibrations within the eternal continuum 'liquid' of forces. The Big Bang event was 'simply' a state change event when pre-particle fluctuating force fields hit on particle replication, and a particle replication explosion happened. All the same energy before and after, conservation of energy fully intact. The causal universe is just running. Enjoy the ride and try to have a good life. 😎

@danielpaulson8838

16 күн бұрын

Sounds like religion. Prove it.

@observerone6727

16 күн бұрын

​@@danielpaulson8838​Prove that it's not true (that conservation of energy is false). But, if you might have noticed, hardly anything is provable with just language anymore. People either can't or don't understand, or don't want to hear what they don't want to hear.

@danielpaulson8838

16 күн бұрын

@@observerone6727 A true seeker doesn’t know how it started or even if this vast universe we see is all there is to it. You simply make a claim without evidence, stated with a tone of authority, which we know is arrogance. Again, sounds like theism, mind slammed shut with an answer that cannot be demonstrated. You just use terms from science, but not as a scientist would. Again, theism. You may simply lack the god part.

The many-worlds interpretation just seems ridiculous to me. How is that explanation considered any better that the explanation that human consciousness can impact reality? There is absolutely no evidence for MWI - it seems to just be a way to grasp at outdated metaphysical materialist axioms.

Michael Shermer. Why don't you become the very first individual to perform a Baseian stastical analysis of all the reports from the current "eyewitness testimony phenomenon"? Nobody has done this and i can assure you that you will find out a lot about the validity of these reports. The categorization involving localization, repetition, and the supposed "integrity" of these eyewitnesses will be exposed in ways that you don't expect. Personally, i define "alien" as something that has never been reported or even imagined. There's plenty of studies about eyewitness testimony concerning the court of law, but nothing has been analyzed as applied to the current phenomenon. Even by the hundreds of people who claim to be "very interested". I don't have the resources or the experience but you are the expert on scepticism. Why not just settle this thing? Nobody else is going to.

@no_idea_is_above_scrutiny

Ай бұрын

Perhaps due to the high false positive rate of eye-witness testimony. Memory is easily contaminated.

i've never liked michael shermer, and i have no idea why, he's smart, he argues sensibly, he asks the right questions and has a great attitude. just something ... it must be me. always liked sean, no doubt.

When you're not looking, it's a wave, when you look it's a particle ... but hey, consciousness has nothing to do with it. Unfortunately for Sean Carroll's beliefs, however, the latter claim is not compatible with the prior statement of fact.

@danielpaulson8838

16 күн бұрын

He’s not talking about matter. Shine a light into darkness and do not look at the light. You will see only darkness. The wave is there, but it isn’t interacting with anything till we look at it or see it bounce off of something.

He speaks well but when he mentions “multiverse” as an “explanation”, I find it a little hard to swallow. It makes me reach for a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word, “explain”.

@temmaxtemma9570

Ай бұрын

I believe Big Think channel has a video of him explaining multiverse with rather fun visuals

In the beginning there was only darkness in Hilbert space. The Wave Function (evolving in time/space) “said” let there be light and light came into being… Come on man ! Pending the discovery of a realistic model where the mathematics leads to an axiomatization of quantum field theory, I find limited reason to trust these speculations apply to the universe. Granted, the Standard Model makes incredibly accurate predictions, but the theoretical framework is not mathematically robust at present. This guy is engaged in metaphysics, not physics! For Sean C, God is a wave function that gives rise to all we empirically observe. Actually not so different from the impersonal abstraction of ParaBrahman put forward by Indian mystics. They claim this is the root and basis of all existence.

Quantum mechanics says determinism can't tell us what will happen next, yet, what happens next can't violate quantum mechanics which, is, determinism...

@karagi101

Ай бұрын

That’s like saying dice rolling can’t tell us what number we’ll get but what number we’ll get can’t violate the process of dice rolling which is deterministic. A deterministic process can yield random results.

@TheBoomsmith

27 күн бұрын

Is dice rolling giving random results, or it's just hard to calculate the outcome taking in account all the variables which lead to a certain result?

@karagi101

27 күн бұрын

@@TheBoomsmith It’s not just hard. It’s literally impossible. To consistently know what number will come up we need to know all the position and forces acting on each atom of the dice. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle tells us that we can never precisely know both position and momentum.

Explain a theory? 🤣 Love that blue pill!

Randomly pops up my two fav atheists

All of reality is experienced within.an in flight movie.there is no physical universe out there

Amazing healing happens with a hydrated ecs after 12 years? " it is not a death sentance to laugh about ?"

The problem of thinking that determinism is not applicable on the quantum level is unfounded. Whatever physics is in play at the quantum level are unknown. Whatever those properties are, we STILL have determinism on the macro level. It's here that everything seems to be resolved. There's nothing undeterministic about this. There's no such thing as randomness in physics, only ignorance of causal connections.

Gotta laugh when someone wonders if the moon would exist if moon observers didn't exist. Kinda like a child thinking that his being born and becoming aware of any object makes that object exist, ignoring that people saw the moon before he was even conceived. It's a good thing that things exist whether we are aware of them or not, or we would all be the center of the universe. 😅

How nice would it be if I could teach two classes, probably less than two hours a day, get my summers off (100+ days), get paid federal and state holidays, and get vacation with sick time on top of that, all while getting compensated in the high six-figure range? Sign me up bro!... Of course, this comes at the expense of the taxpayer. I say teachers shouldn't whine and beech so much.

@danielpaulson8838

16 күн бұрын

Then do it.

@pappaflammyboi5799

16 күн бұрын

@@danielpaulson8838 I'm not a government shill, or I definitely would. I've always liked the idea of others paying for my pet projects, unfortunately my moral compass kicks in and nags me into believing that's not fair to others.

@danielpaulson8838

16 күн бұрын

@@pappaflammyboi5799 We get paid what we’re worth. He’s a civilian. You got an attitude against success. How’s that working out for the general state of happiness? You know, living angry at the lives of others who teach the truth. Ignorant theism smells close by.

@pappaflammyboi5799

16 күн бұрын

@@danielpaulson8838 The only problem I have with institutions of "higher education" is the unholy alliance with government subsidies. Be a billionaire all day long as a trust baby heir, I could care less. Nonamybizness.

@danielpaulson8838

16 күн бұрын

@@pappaflammyboi5799 My moral compass comes from people like Jesus. And according to him as well as others, we're all known by our fruits. And weeds. I suspect he means the way we act out is the kind of person we are. Professor Carrol teaches these lectures for free to anyone who seeks and knocks for righteousness sake. Millions of us. And your wish is to deny that. Yah, you got something sneaky going on in the background.

Talking?

What a strange photo A cat with his paw on Sean I know you can manipulate photos And even the meaning of a cat with its paw in Sean doesn’t make sense Ok.. another podcast that tells us we don’t understand quantum physics Ok……..

@Dr_LK

Ай бұрын

Maybe is Sean’s photo? He has two cats! Also, the cat could symbolise shrodingers cat?

@no_idea_is_above_scrutiny

Ай бұрын

Carroll is very fond of his cats and talks about them often.

I used my free will to NOT watch this. Even though I wanted to.

Thank you anyway I will stick with the Bible

@danielpaulson8838

16 күн бұрын

Ironic, science seeks and knocks for righteousness. Theists refuse. How bizarre.

Sean doesn’t know how to better explain physics because he really doesn’t know physics. I need to find time to explain it to him. 😂

@TronSAHeroXYZ

8 күн бұрын

Pfft, sure..... make sure to point it out to him as well...