Regarding the is-ought question that we get into around 49:00, I realized afterwards that Sean and I were using different definitions of "ought." He defines an "ought" as something that specifies how you should act, and rightly sides with Hume in saying that you can never derive an "ought" from an "is". I was thinking about "oughts" as specifying how you THINK you should act: Given that rational "oughts" aren't recoverable from the world of facts, what explains the strong correlations in what people BELIEVE "ought" to be done? I think a lot of it can be recovered from evolutionary psych. The human perception of an "ought" is a cognitive evolutionary tool that motivates us to act in ways that preserve ourselves and our descendants.That makes many "oughts" in principle derivable, not from "is", but from "was": A population predisposed to a certain "ought" was more successful than one that wasn't, and so we inherited that predisposition. That said, I don't know a lot about evolutionary psychology. I might be dead wrong.

@cyto3338

3 жыл бұрын

I agree with your point that the oughts used were different and values are kind of derived from evolution and think that Dr. Carroll kinda misunderstood and went into another sort of discussion

@MrCmon113

2 жыл бұрын

@@cyto3338 That's just nonsense on a grammatical level. For any "ought" there is an opposite "ought", they can't just both be derived from evolution.

The more I learn of Physics the less I understand of the universe. It is like climbing a mountain and when reaching the top, looking over the summit revealing a thousand higher peaks. So I decided to go back and shore up my math knowledge. I just finished propositional logic and basic set theory. I am now trying to learn topology --> manifolds --> bundles --tensor fields. I hope it will make things more clear.

@ryanmike9833

7 жыл бұрын

Sounds like you're following "lectures on the geometric anatomy of theoretical physics." That right? If not, I highly recommend - Schuller is an excellent expositor. If so, good luck, I got to about lecture 11 before things went over my head :P

@k_tell

6 жыл бұрын

You might be too advanced for this, but I found Peter Collier's "A Most Incomprehensible Thing" very useful in getting me to a basic understanding of the maths behind GR. See: www.amazon.com/Most-Incomprehensible-Thing-Introduction-Mathematics-ebook/dp/B008JRJ1VK

@YassoKuhl

6 жыл бұрын

James Tuvell It won't.

Great interview with great questions, thank you!

Very interesting and love the conclusion ! Keep it up

This was great! The quantum mechanics discussion cleared up some of the ideas for me. Very useful :)

You Rock! Can't wait on more videos from you!

I'm so excited that you got to talk to Sean Carroll. I got to meet him and ask him my ignorant questions on many worlds...etc when I went to the World Science Festival in NYC in 2014. I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation.

Interesting conversation. Loved it!

Very good questions!

This was a very thought-provoking conversation! I enjoy the way that you're both striving for an intuitive understanding of these complex topics, and a way of looking at these ideas from new perspectives. It's really valuable to think about these things deeply, for its own sake!

Great talk, thank you! Love listening to both of you.

Wow, Sean Carroll! Keep it up!

Cool video, man! Would be so cool to speak with Sean Carroll. Btw, I pretty much agree with him: we use the Schrodinger equation as essentially one of the QM axioms, and as such it also applies to fields (where it becomes a functional integro-differential mess) and when you restrict to certain conditions you get the usual fixed-particle-number stuff. The Dirac equation is a different thing as a classical equation of motion for spinors. Love your content, I always make my friends see your videos :) cheers!

*Please tell me what program use it to made the video?*

Now I'm exited for my theoretical chemistry course for the next semester.

This is quite fascinating stuff

Hi Tim! Love your songs and podcasts!

Great conversation Tim, and Sean, when the your next book (quantum´s book)

Yay!

Tim, now that this presentation has commercial breaks, is there any benefit or detriment to you if I skip the ad or sit through it? How does that work? Does anyone know the answer to this?

ROFLMAO! "That's a good question: So What?"

@acapellascience

7 жыл бұрын

Susan Livingston Haha that was such a flustering moment..

hi. whats is ice 7?

Wonderful! Please interview Lawrence Krauss.

Do you have another interview coming up? Any chance of interviewing "the other" Sean Carroll (Sean B. (B for biology?)) Your ScienceLife is great! As are all the books you recommend. Thank you.

57:24 Is there any way in the existence that can unclench the physicist minds from the "weakness of gravity"?

11:01 maybe more like a baby song, springing off and forming every increasing lyricism in this sort of multisong?

I just love science so much WHY DON'T ALL 7 BILLION OF US LOVE SCIENCE❤😭

You should interview Klee Irwin. From infomercial snake oil salesman to PHD physicist- that guy's a genius!

Are quantum singularities next?

55:06

you can interview David albert he is very good like sean carroll

Tim, you're a physicist venturing into metaphysics & metalogic. As an artist (too) I empathise. Apart from the 'fact' that we observe; you could ask: What does it take to actually be an observer embedded in an observable universe? Well... if we have a toy universe with self similar subsets; that universe is 'observable' by those subsets who can, by dint of self-similarity, model the universe in which they're embedded. Hey! You've just gotten physicists! When you look at it a bit more closely, an observer really constructs a universe based on the observer's structure. The universe is 'naturally' comprehensible. Uncle Albert, we're so sorry. The observer simply 'filters' physicality out of a welter of what it can model and what it cannot model. Hmm... that sounds like a useful definition of 'Everything': All that I can experience AND All that I cannot experience. Wow! If I call the negation of Everything, 'Nothing'; it sure looks like Everything is identical with Nothing. Why there should be Something rather than Nothing becomes more tractable. Something is gotten from Everything by the filtration done by observers. The first principles of filtration would be the three principles of of logic: Identity; Contradiction; and Excluded Middle. Without these, we're stuck with Everything. Persnickety physicists might want to tuck in Sufficient Reason and Identity of Indiscernibles. Probably because theoretical physicists are overly fastidious sorts. I think these last two aren't worth the trouble. The Hard Question: Why is it 'our' Something that we observe? ...and not any or all of the other Somethings that we can experience when we let our imaginations loose? And why should the filtering out of Physicalism yield a Quantum Universe? Where the primitives of our empirical experience are encoded in a wavefunction; that's choc-a-block with Potentiality. This stripped down generalised quantum nature is, I suspect, exquisitely necessary to any filtration-by-observers, in the sense we've employed the term. It explains the broad applicability of quantisation. As you've asked, Tim. Let's now look at a really silly toy universe; consisting of white noise fed into identical bandpass filters who are of the especially rare ilk that, like Khayyam's pots, can articulate, ponder and discuss their experiences of their world. They'll have an empirical consonance of their own. And they might well ask: Why is it this pattern of frequencies we see and not some other? Let's go back now, to the day of your conception: The laws of the universe allowed Tim Blais; but certainly didn't demand him as a theorem. Go further back: The laws allowed a Canada, but did not demand it. Even further. The laws allowed an Earth, but did not... Go again Tim, our Galaxy.... Get back, Get back... the pre-galactic energy configuration in the observable universe. Now, Tim, down into Planck Scale. The Physical Laws... Hey! What Laws??? Where did Physics go? I'll stop here. Tapping out all this on a $14 Chinese phone gave me a cramp. You're a great musician, Tim!! You're fantastic!!!

@thierry-alainh5501

7 жыл бұрын

...So, Tim, to continue, we've gotten a 'Potentiality Space' generated by by the observer's structure. We can consider sequences of members of this space to be 'paths'. Some paths would be quite preposterous. Others, eg, those that follow similarity rules of adjacency, would be friendlier. Why does this sound so deja vu to me? Consider a weighting of paths founded on their computational complexity. A fundamentally quantum nature of empirical experience by sets of similar observers; this experience being of background-independent fields in emergent spacetime; could arise in this state-of-affairs. Tim, since Newton, physics has followed a rather coherent path: the seeds of Special Relativity take first root in Maxwell's Equations. The buds of General Relativity emerge from the congruence of Newton's inertial & gravitational masses. The emergence of Planck's Quantum of Action saves classical electromagnetic radiation from embarrassment. Physics has come spectacularly far by burrowing deeply into the successes of its mathematical formalisms. But each advance seems to bury physics in these same formalisms; further preempting options of gaining revolutionary perspective on the deep meaning of what we have learned since Newton. One way to dig ourselves out of the rubble is to forcibly pull back and ask really deep questions. It's not likely to bolster any careers! In the context of what I've written here, some questions that I've oft asked myself are: What could happen to my physics if the observer sitting next to me is a posthuman with 10^30 times my mental computing power? What could happen to my perception of that super-observer? And are these questions relevant to any 'explanation' of the Fermi Paradox?

Please make a you don't own me parody!

The first people who started this video are still on.. not bad!!!

I am in 9th grade and have interest in astrophysics .... What should I go for ???

@dougkough5378

6 жыл бұрын

Rohan Ghosh Dastidar Drive toward Math and Physics. I took Astronomy in college and it was really an interesting physics class. Math is the language the scientists speak.

@rohanghoshdastidar1047

6 жыл бұрын

WELL THANK YOU FOR THAT ....... :) :) :) Btw Where are you from and what are you doing now ?? Studying or working ??

@YassoKuhl

6 жыл бұрын

Rohan Ghosh Dastidar Your perception of astrophysics now in 9th grade has only little to do with what astrophysics is really about. But, if you're interested, this interest stays with you until graduation, and you don't suck at maths and physics in school, I recommend going for a university education in physics. As to what you can do riggt now: Isn't it obvious? If you really like astrophysics, go and get a telescope! ^^

Ok i need to stop watching you or im going to fall in love.

I cannot believe this person is a scientist to become based on the intro.

@geekjokes8458

7 жыл бұрын

tim? oh sure, he just has a master's degree on physics

@acapellascience

7 жыл бұрын

atharv agarwal Haha I'm not. I'm a former scientist-in-training embracing KZreadry.

Ponle subtitulos en español

To get over the gap in understanding between Tim's and Sean's understanding of morality, I think it would move the conversation forward for Tim to have a conversation with someone who is a misanthropist and ask them Socratic Questions. Or try to think of the world from their point of view: there's a way to do so without risk losing one's own morality. We could grant that misanthropism is not evolutionary fit, but that could be lumped with other things that are evolutionary byproducts like male nipples. I think it would be selected against eventually if such opinions became mainstream.

@acapellascience

7 жыл бұрын

Thinking about it from an evolutionary standpoint, it seems to me that there's a bell curve of faith in humanity and misanthropists just find themselves on the far end. You would expect there to be some of them in a large enough population, but you wouldn't expect that they ever become a dominant POV.

Show me the equations!

I understood the bird-dino episode better but I thought this was quite interesting too. I would love if there was an episode explaining quarks and stuff better. I still don’t get what exactly is a quark but I really really want to know. If I’m getting it right then all I’ve learnt in o’level science is a lie as particles don’t exist. My life is a lie. It’s soo hard to think about my particle based studies.

Idk why I don't get notifications but since I'm already on yt I don't need it.

@AlexKnauth

7 жыл бұрын

I still need notifications, because (one, I'm not on yt all the time, but also) I usually get the email before the youtube site updates and tells me about the new video.

can you make an "Alexander Hamilton" parody about maths?

@thismianeptunis

6 жыл бұрын

Check out his song "William Rowan Hamilton" - I think it's exactly what you're looking for :)

12:47 Does that not contradict the Law of Conservation of Energy? When a Bubble Universe is created, it should have taken energy from our Universe, right? And then, there's the question of accessibility. Can the Bubble Universe be accessed from our Universe? If it can be, then the Law of Conservation of Energy is not violated. But if it can't be, then it is violated. Basically, how is all of this explained?

@acapellascience

7 жыл бұрын

I don't think a bubble universe would in general be accessible from its parent... but also, energy conservation is broken by General Relativity.

@geekjokes8458

7 жыл бұрын

wait, what? how?

@VedanthB9

7 жыл бұрын

GeekJokes What exactly are you referring to? 😅

@VedanthB9

7 жыл бұрын

+acapellascience Oh! I never knew about that. Thank you! :D Is there any web resource where I can learn more about this? Thanks!

@geekjokes8458

7 жыл бұрын

tim's reply to you, i had no idea GR broke conservation of energy

Hello wonderful that will probably have to scroll all the way down because sea of comments

@acapellascience

7 жыл бұрын

Haha not so far xD

Hey timm

@acapellascience

7 жыл бұрын

Oh hi notification squad!

@kanishkghonge7686

7 жыл бұрын

This made my day! By the way huge fan of your work.

at the 51 minute mark you can not derive an "aught" from an "is"

@acapellascience

7 жыл бұрын

cyto lpagtr Yeah Sean refers to Hume explicitly later on. I think I've been playing around with some very strange definitions of "oughts" that might be derivable from "ises", but I didn't articulate them very well in this conversation.

Hail Eris!

On 55:18 I disagree with comment that you can not show that they are wrong on a topic. You can show proof logically by showing the negative consequences of such choice and show an experiment to prove such thing such as global warming; if a person believes that global warming doesn't exist, does this mean that it will not cause problems to our planet if ignored. The answer is no it would still be getting worse and cause harm to humanity. Another issue with that statement if a ginormous amount of humans believed something for example, the Flat Earth theory that the earth is flat doesn't make it true. For morality it shouldn't be based on if it fits the human pleasure and desire, if that were the case slavery would still be rampant and not be in change; slavery and segregation, would not be abolished if humans had just gone with the crowd belief. This doesn't mean the person doesn't have a right to their opinion, just means the idea is not correct in this dimension or field.

Hmmm. Not convinced by his reply to your moral questions around 52min in to the discussion. The "is" to "ought" problem may have been articulated by Hume, but it is by no means a settled discussion in philosophy on the nature of morality. Hume says we cannot derive an "ought" from an "is", and Carrol suggest that this is what you do by drawing an "ought" on killing from an "is" on evolution (in his own words, these are two separate questions!). But Carrol doesn't really explain why he believes Hume's line of thinking is accurate, he basically just takes it as being obviously true. But is it? Is it actually the case that we cannot derive an "ought" from an "is"? Take a basic example: a mother has two children. Ought she be required to do something by nature of the fact that she is a mother? What about feeding the offspring? The “ought” here seems to follow, and we would think it morally abhorrent to think of mothers that don’t feed children. In other words, it is by nature of the fact that she IS a mother that we derive our moral observation. Now this may only work in one direction, and perhaps here is where Hume may be right. I cannot derive an “is” from an “ought”, in the same way I can derive an “ought” from an “is”. For example, a mother ought to feed her children, therefore all mothers are good people. This seems to be plainly false, and somewhat unreasonable. So, to wrap this up with a nice little bow. The “is” to “ought” fallacy may be directional (like the arrows of time you fellows like to discuss). We cannot derive an “is” from an “ought”, but we can, in some cases, derive an “ought” from an “is”.

I find observing a singular phenomenon and using it to justify a wild theory very confusing, especially if the speaker is trying to appear scientific, and not looking at a crystal ball for answers. From the many music videos I see and like, there is a prevailing question as to the origin of the software and hardware that builds our networked universe which includes our lives and the organ we use to analyse. If there is an origin, call it what you want, isn't it/him/her/they the copyright owner of the technology that constitutes our universe and life. There are many "revelations", both religious and scientific, that, in striking resemblance to each other, challenge our former "knowledge" and are often rejected until accepted as fundamental. I wonder is this "revelations" are not something like a response to a customer query by the system admin. Whoever that is. The big question remaining as to the right of ownership. If atheistic scientists are right, there is no reason behind the universe and life but if religious people are right there is a reason, cause and a plan and our updates /revelations, mutations/ are given as part of the purpose for which everything is created.

Biblical teaching is about what is so, if you can prove mindless unguided objects made you, be my guest. It is much more logical and rational to say what we observe that ordered programmable matter is programmed inside of you. We observe that energy/matter and biology go from order to disorder so energy and biology were ordered with intent by a Maker not made of ordered energy. Energy can't order itself and energy has no intent so energy cannot account for any of the order and intent that we see. It simply makes no sense to say that no mind made a mind or that no order made order. The most rational position is still that we have a Maker. Infinite regress requires a perfect, all knowing, all powerful Maker of everything there is.

@GeorgeStar

6 жыл бұрын

And why is that useful to believe? So you can perform rituals and chant incantations to get Superman in the sky to grant you favors?

@JungleJargon

6 жыл бұрын

George Stone , it's useful because only your Maker can cover for you Himself and remake you again from the inside out by the power of His true word. No one else can.

@YassoKuhl

6 жыл бұрын

Jungle Jargon Soo... Do you have any experimental proof for what you're saying, or does your theory have any consequences, that might be experimentally verified in the future?

@JungleJargon

6 жыл бұрын

YassoKuhl, you have to be more specific..I base what I say on observations and logic.

@YassoKuhl

6 жыл бұрын

Jungle Jargon Ok, my bad, sorry. Let's elaborate. Firstly your understanding of Entropy as a measure of order is a bit faulty. I suggest you doing some read up on that. Now: The observation you base your theory (which is the existence of an omnipotent being with intentions, that created the whole thing) on, is that Entropy increases, right? Aside from judging if this is a rationally justifiable conclusion: Is that the simplest possible explanation for the observation? (After all you are proposing a concept, that is fundamentally outside everything we have described with science so far, namely God.) And (more importantly): What implications does this theory have? Is there any further observation we can make, where your theory makes different predictions, than every other theory, so it can be verified or falsified? If one of the answers is no, it's just not a very useful theory... Also I don't understand your resentment against no mind creating a mind. To me, that's the most mind-boggling thing of all! Just imagine: Mindless molecules getting together to form a mind! And why? Because those who did, reproduced faster. Besides: God doesn't solve this problem. Because: How did God's mind come to be? (Yes, he was always there, I can here you say. That's no explanation, that's like saying I'm right, shut up!) There's one additional question, that I'd like you to ask yourself: If those people (not just the two in the video, ask any cosmologist) have a much better understanding of the proposed observations, why do they all come to a different conclusion than I. I know, that proves nothing. But it hopefully makes you think.

Don't read my channel name.

@XiaosChannel

7 жыл бұрын

hey! it's not the REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY MAN!

@Jedi1MK

7 жыл бұрын

i dont ... i promis

Cringiest intro / outro I have ever come along.

I S M A T H R E L A T E D T O S C I E N C E ?

@YassoKuhl

6 жыл бұрын

Kristopher Kohlmeier I S C A P S L O C K A N D S P A C I N G A S E N S I B L E W A Y T O W R I T E C O M M E N T S ? ?

@MrsShawtyLG

6 жыл бұрын

Considering a lot of mathematical equations are used in all sciences I would say yes.

The assumption that Big Bang is assumed to be true is the reason for all of your cosmology errors....

@YassoKuhl

6 жыл бұрын

Peter Trast Yes! And you in your almighty wisdom definitely know better!