Those of you watching this for the first time, carry on watching the rest as the conversation gets more interesting as it goes on. Part 5 is fascinating.

OMG, how have I never seen this! Heroes!

RIP Steven Weinberg. Thanks for the unification achievement of weak and em force. Very enlightening.

Videos like these sustain me.

Thumbs up to this conversation, from a dedicated Protestant Christian. MUCH prefer this kind of conversation between atheists (in contrast to say, the ones Dawkins has had with Krauss or comedian Ricky Gervais), where they broach their criticisms of religion (Weinberg cautiously settles on describing his view of religion (in a later "Part") as one of "bemusement") both only occasionally and in a relatively respectful tone. Lots of great insight and perspectives delivered in a tone that seems fueled much more by fascination and a healthy, informed caution than any serious antagonism. Loved listening to both of these guys express their perspectives (even when they differed from mine) and knowledge, not only individually, but through the great, comfortable rapport they had with each other. Easily viewable multiple times.

SUCH a marvelous interview. A very peaceful conversation between two brilliant men, kudos.

I have this DVD and my two favorite parts are this one and the opening one with Lawrence Krauss. Great DVD.

God love him, he's with the Lord now.

Fantastic conversation covering a lot of ground!

Haha, the thunder was so funny~!

I love the sound of lightning at 9:13 ! I've never seen anything like that. How thrilling!

You should make playlists of the videos for easier browsing.

the thunder kills me lol

AS SOMEONE WHO KNOWS A CREATOR EXISTS!!!!! I LIKE THIS VIDEO AND IT GETS TO THE POINT PROPERLY..

@mrloop1530

6 ай бұрын

All caps obviously make up for the lack of argumentation for your theory

great video!

Dawkins really does everything he can do educate the population. I admire his courage because GOD knows that the population is stupid!

Great post. Steve Weinberg is just fantastic.

To explain a supernatural being that created the universe is extremely more complicated than explaining the origin of the Universe.

Sounds like Thor is not pleased. Thank you for posting, this is great.

No habrá alguien que pueda traducir éste estupendo video?, yo se inglés pero aspiro a que haya alguien que lo traduzca mejor que lo que yo lo haría.

I love that opening because it's also the way I think of science: Physics is the most fundamental of all sciences, but biology is the most complex (or emergent) of all sciences. I would add that cognitive science shares that title with biology as well.

A lot of physicists DO study an approach to quantum gravity called quantum loop gravity. There are just a lot of problems developing a theory for quantum mechanics that involves a dynamical spacetime instead of having spacetime as a background. The LHC could strike out large classes of theories that are currently being pursued theoretically. Different theories predict different collision cross sections involving gravitons. Let's hope we get gravitons in TeV range.

Dear Dr. Steven Weinberg should be able to answer this question: "WHAT DOES 'PRODUCTION OF LIFE IN LAB' MEAN FOR THE SYMMETRY OF LAWS IN NATURE? "The laws of nature take the same form wherever out laboratories are located."......"Life too has been demystified. J. von Liebig in the early 19th century demonstrated that there were no barrier to the lab synthesis of chemicals like uric acid associated with life." (In the great book "Dreams of a final theory" - Steven Weinberg)

And Dawkins will be 69 the week after next. Ahh, the best year of one's life I hear...

this missing link tactic works a bit, because you can always demand in between species within those in between species, you know? and somehow one can get a notion, like there is somehow a fundamental mystery to it, where there isn't really one actually.

The thunder! LOL!

Weinberg is epic... everyone should read his QFT book... this guy is absolutely awesome...

Another authority on fascism, Laqueuer says: "Fascism did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either." Goes on to say, "But historical fascism was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right."

Very stimulating. Thank you. Refreshing to listen to a respectful, adult debate on these subjects.

That's funny what Mr. Weinberg said at the end about being struck with lightning. I was thinking the same, (If their building gets struck with lightning, then the converted have some sort of a point)

What a nice fireplace.

In response to those who keep saying that physics is theoretical or evolution is just a theory: There are little theories that make modern life possible. Like quantum mechanics. Optics. Electromagnetism. Relativity. And those are just the four theories that come to mind when using a computer.

Weinberg is crazy smart. Just blown away at that man's wisdom. If you have not read any of his books, please do your brain a favor and hit up your local library soon.

The answer is love. The Mystery of existence and of the WHY you're here is Him. That is why you'll always have it in the open. I'm not sure why this is too hard to understand... Life is all about relationships, everything else is just something we work with to help each other and give glory to Him. That is the point about life.

@Letranger Theism is a very general idea. It *can* be used to talk about the very specific idea of God which you described, but can also be used in a general sense to describe the belief in a divinity. From the context in which I was using the term, the latter was the obvious definition I was using for Bohm's beliefs. I've described Spinoza and Einstein (a number of times now) as pantheists, which is what the described themselves to be.

Wow! Steven Weinberg talking to Richard Dawkins! My nerdy dreams have come true! I wish Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman were around to be interviewed by Dawkins; how interesting that would be. When is he going to land Stephen Hawking? :D

Brilliant

SE alguém puder Legendar em Português.....serei eternamente grato....

I think Dawkins dresses to match his hair color. I love that Professor.

RIP, you magnificent gentleman.

@SuperSharko I still am not sure if you are saying the universe is contingent.

@Roper122 I just gave an argument to show that the universe is contingent. Do you agree or disagree that the universe is contingent? Do you think that the universe exists contingently, or necessarily?

How come there is no living evidence of alot of inbetween species so that we can see a clearer picture of how we evolved? e.g the species inbetween ape and human, species inbetween fish and amphibian etc. There should be clear species today that if you lined them up would almost be a poster for the evolution process. Im interested and im not putting down the theory of evolution. Please respond. Thanks

@Jugglable it is contingent on gravity being unstable nothing else. It's complicated I have trouble understanding too. Read Why Does E= MC2 By Brian Cox.

@Jugglable ... Oh and that's 5 times you've said the same thing. Try for 6... it somehow might work this time.

did you read my reply above? I think we are in basic agreement, just not in the use of the words.

@Roper122 A necessary existence is not an invention, but follows logically and deductively from the contingency we're so familiar with.

it's to force people with more to say to post several times and in order to annoy people who think they're understanding of rules and regulations around them is the only way to understand them. :)

@alexdrudigmail You are completely right. I misread your comment. My apologies.

Fascinating discussion; I like Weinberg's sense of humor. I'm glad God (if he exists) didn't strike them down.

One of the most excellent interviews on the internet, but sadly buried under myriads of empty youtube videos with no merit what so ever. Oh, Google, thy mighty algorithm, shall show this video at everyone's suggested videos and thus deliver the wisdom and knowledge to poor mortals.

Thunder, LOL !!!!!

I wasn't sure during 0:08 - 0:29 if Weinberg was alive, dead, made of wax, or just furious at Dawkins. His stare was that of a lioness'.

I just realized that I need to punctuate. But then, I was trying to answer a very frustrating question. You ought to try finding the answer through research before saying that there is no evidence.Internet is supposed to have changed everything for good.

@alexdrudigmail I disagree. I think there's something far more beautiful in trying to find out what is true and what isn't, other than just finding out what comforts my brain the most.

Where should we lay our hopes for teleportation?

"Not many distinguished physicists believe in god." Galileo (Catholic)--he fought against doctrine, but still believed there was a God. Newton (Anglican) Einstein (Jewish) Pauli (Catholic) Schrodinger (Catholic) Heisenberg (Lutheran) Max Born (Jewish born, Lutheran by faith) And there's much more. There are atheists in physics too, such as Richard Feynman and Weinberg here, but to say what Dawkins said is blatantly incorrect (what a shock). There's a spectrum of beliefs.

RIP Steven Weinberg. Hook 'em in that non-existent afterlife, brother.

@Jugglable " I didn't invent contingency. " If you'll notice, I did say that I'm well aware that you didn't personally invent the term, at the time I thought I was being pedantic, because I didn't imagine that you actually thought I was implying that you invented it... but ... there you go.

9:13 hahaha THOR is angry XD hahaha

@SuperSharko It doesn't make sense to talk about the universe being contingent on gravity because gravity is part of the universe.

While the species between fish and amphibian is widely studied and researched on, fossil evidence often proved to be uncertain. However, the evidence scientists have is a zillion times more fair than 'Intelligent design', put forth by the religious groups. Because water is everywhere and the variation in species is intensely diverse,several orders have been proposed.Read orders 'Urodela','Anura','Gymnophiona'.If you narrow it to Devonian seas, it's easy to find a less complex explanation.

8:04 "What explains why God is the way God is?" If God exists necessarily, that question answers itself.

also, although that goes beyond it, if you think of the development of frogs. in the beginning they have gills and much later on they build legs and lungs. this illustrates in detail the evolving process from fish to amphibian for instance. but you know, there are many ways evolution goes. i mean snakes for instance. there are water-snakes and land-snakes, right?

"How did life happen then??" This is a valid point that didn't deserve so many thumbs down. The answer is: scientists don't exactly know (just yet.) They have some pretty good ideas on it though. But, as is stated in the video, then proclaiming that God or 'a designer' did it, doesn't help at all. "Well God did it!" is not an answer, it's a smokescreen which prevents thinking any further about it. How did he do it? Where did he/she come from?

@Letranger Correct. That's (kind of) what pantheism (the Spinoza/Einstein view) is. It is not atheism or even practical atheism however. You don't have to belief in a western conception of God to be a theist. And conversely, if you don't believe in a western God, you are not necessarily an atheist. Einstein (not to mention any of the others on my list) cannot be said to be an atheist. Another good theist is David Bohm, who had a very Eastern conception of God in a very western century.

@Jugglable .. oh I grasp it... I just grasp it a little too well for your liking. There is nothing about the parts that allow you to infer anything about the whole when it comes to the universe. Nowhere is it written that because the constant changing of matter and energy within this universe is contingent, that therefore the creation of this matter and energy in the first place is contingent... you just infer it.. because it suits you. And you make it sound as impressive as possible.

@Roper122 "Nowhere is it written that because the constant changing of matter and energy within this universe is contingent," It's hard to have a conversation with you because you don't know your basic terms. I'm not even sure what you mean by referring to changing of energy as contingent.

I think these two are really getting Zeus Angry.

@tunneling123 I did use modern greats: namely the founders of QM, who were some of the greatest physicists ever. If you want someone alive right now, Ed Witten (who you incorrectly said was an atheist) is Jewish by birth, and now is a member of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and Rodger Penrose, while not a part of any organized religion, has theistic beliefs. But I don't want it to be a competition. Science does not and cannot rule either way.

@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 First of all, the Sun is made of hydrogen ions, not atoms (among other types of nuclei). Secondly, I'm not sure what you by the charge of an electron and proton canceling out. The electron's speed and distance from the proton have exactly the right values in order to make the system stable. This turns out beautifully by solving the Schrödinger equation with proper boundary conditions.

if you want to understand more about it, look at the tree of life in biology, there you can see the diversion of the species.. by the way, do you know how exactly evolution works?

@Roper122 The necessarily existing ground of contingency is the intersection of existence and essence. Its essence is existence itself. So, no existing limitation can be placed upon its nature, and it possesses every ontological perfection.

@suatustel746

2 жыл бұрын

I will slightly disagree with you, as Sarte put in nicely'existence preceed essence no matter what you are... You cannot conflate them in one unity you acquire essence afterwards and choose to become who you are.. Even Deity can not have cake and eat it... If his existence Ex-Gratia then why culminated into single unity, stumbling block for contingency is infinite regress why can't we stretch necessary existence to infinity for the sake of its own category so to speak.

Excellent discussion and great points raised. Yes please, scientists in the public light, do be careful not to use "God" and other keywords poetically. As plenty of comments below will surely show, it will be turned against you. Sorry, you have to use technical terminology only, as the opposition is happy to misuse your words. Take care.

@Jugglable " Do you explain your own existence, or do you have parents, and drink water and eat food? " " I " am not the universe... But please.. that's 3 times you've said the same thing... Go for 4 if it makes you happy... You seem to think it makes a difference

I am definitely biased towards religion and existence of God but I think I almost sensed a note of subtle fear in Weinberg when a thunder roared outside while he was giving his views about g_o_d (see to the last 2 minutes or so)

@Roper122 Actually, change within the universe does have something to do with the creation of the universe itself. Here is my argument: There is change within the universe. So the nature of the universe changes from second to second, and its nature now is not what it was ten seconds ago or 13 billion years ago. Therefore, there is nothing necessary about the nature of the universe. Therefore, its nature is contingent. Therefore, it has a cause external to itself.

@Nepalimetalhead they work in different fields of Science though.

Nah, I meant his actual text book. I'm finding it really really helpful and interesting. You dont need that much math, only an understanding of tensors and some basic calculus.. I guess group theory helps .. but is not vital. But then I'm one of those people who dream of a day when people discuss Quantum Mechanics like we discuss which actor slept with which other one, today... oh well... maybe its too unrealistic. :(

I prefer it when he's inexplicably standing in front of his conversation partner while being abused by the camera.

A theory of quantum gravity doesn't currently exist, as gravity cannot yet be explained using quantum theory. It is hope that string theory or M-theory may lead to a quantum gravity from the perspective of a further 6-7 dimensions.

which came first, the chicken or the egg?

fish and amphibian, that is also very easy. actually, i don't know if you watch biology-channels, but haven't you seen those living intermediates, they look like fishes, that jump in the mud on their front flosses and kind of snap after air. those would be it.

How complex is God as a Trinity of Love? I think all of this connects nicely with a Christian worldview.

@Roper122 "The universe" is just a name we give to the nexus of contingent causes. Contingency cannot support its own existence by definition; it requires a ground. And this ground is nowhere to be found within the radical contingency of the universe, or the radical contingency of space and time themselves.

I doubt they have much knowledge about the breeding habits of Unicorns either.

@drillsargentadog Sorry, but you're confused. Theism is a specific kind of belief about the referent of the word 'God'. To be a theist is in part believe in a creator-God. Spinoza and Einstein rejected that. To be a theist is also to believe that the deity is an object of reverence or worship. Both also rejected that. Bohm may have as well. Schopenhauer once said that Spinoza would have been at home on the banks of the Ganges (though it's debatable how well he understood Spinoza).

@Jugglable Relativity is contigent on a cosmolgical constant a "Zero Point Field" This "force" operates on a quantum level of photon vibrations that precedes and supercedes the strict bio-chemical mentality of current science. dark matter exists without a frequency of any sort in a state of constant zero degree phase...But then the question becomes, why doesn't it interact with matter? And how can we call it "matter" if it has no frequency and will not obtain one interacting with matter.

@Jugglable " If God exists necessarily, that question answers itself. " Well, if there was such a thing as a necessary being then you might have a point... but I've never seen an example of one....ever. Basically what you're saying is ...anything you want god to be... it's " necessary " that he is that.

@Roper122 "There is nothing about the parts that allow you to infer anything about the whole when it comes to the universe." Oh, there certainly is. Look at a tree. The tree is growing and changing. Because the tree is part of the universe, and it's changing, that means the universe is changing. QED

Why waste the time we all know the argument.

I really only said it because I heard someone say it once... I guess I shouldn't say it anymore... 8D

or if you look for other types of various related species, not only the primates, but the family of the cats (lions, tigers, pumas, panthers and so on) or gnus and cows, horses and zebras. it's clear, that they are somehow connected with each other, don't you agree?

@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 Remember that the electron is attracted to the proton, but the fields do cancel out beyond the atom

Thor is pissed because he's lost all his followers.

If scientific truth disproves religious faith, how can the two be compatible? Kepler and Newton were Christians because they lived in a time where 99.9% of people were, and to not be had serious social (and sometimes legal) repercussions.

REDUNDANTLY - THAT´S COMMON IN GENERAL META-SCIENCE - THEY DON´T KNOW WHAT IS THE MATTER!! See, please, Eugene Wigner´s saying on the invention of concepts... (role of Mathematics)

@Jugglable The four forces of nature being electromagnetic the strong weak nuclear and gravity. The odd ball that we currently don't understand is gravity, its the wild card so to speak. The fundamental constants of nature which include the speed of light the constant that sets the value of the gravitational interaction and Planck's constant H give us a clear picture that we can't separate the cause from the effect they are the same entity just not fully understood yet.

True, but you need to consider that Kepler and Newton were alive when you could be burned at the stake for heresy.

Thunder thunder, yes Lord drown the voices out ... Enough is enough