Open science education project, launched in 2013 by Ivar Maksutov. Our mission is to promote scientific thinking. We engage leading academics in creating educational content and distributing it across different social platforms and media sources.
We have already collaborated with more than 370 researchers from MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, LSE, UCL, King’s College and other academic institutions. Among them are 8 Nobel Prize laureates, such as Harold Walter Kroto, Roy J. Glauber, Richard Henderson and Didier Queloz.
We are a team of creatives passionate about knowledge, and, as well as our experts, we live in different corners of the world: from Yerevan to London.
promo & ads: [email protected]
write us: [email protected]
support our cause: www.patreon.com/SeriousScience
Пікірлер
Black holes are the birthplaces of Dark Matter.
Are you Milton Friedman’s son?
100 billion neurons in the brain with 60 trillion connections + the fact we don’t have a full understanding of the chem/biology in a perfect way and yet people think that the brain can’t possibly produce a conscious experience?
Rousseau is a nutter. Hence France. Great line in his famous essay, but man is not born free and everywhere in chains. Man's born savage and only civilised by parents, hence institution of marriage, then culture and institutions. Rousseau is a recipe for tearing everything down, seems to me. So many bad ideas come from France!
Our ancestors won it, defended it, and we lost it. Like cowards.
Want to know the story of how Harvard professor David Sinclair's mistakes earned him $720 million, and is using the same strategy to do it again, today? kzread.info/dash/bejne/iqJkp6yKgNzem6Q.htmlsi=EELlI03Y_6Z4rCmC
it's called the Jewish way for thousands of years
thank you for such an exemplary mini lecture. so informative
He is a crank. The finite element method was around long before Strang. kzread.info/dash/bejne/mK2BqMqboMWTpJs.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/ooWBzqWAaJCYf8o.html
Great work, impressively unconstrained thinking, fascinating implications. And hints of the one superfluid object in which all apparent phenomena arise.
My option is to ride the trolley and make it levitate
I LOVE "the Moon is made of the Green cheese"!
Is a Professor who Broadcasts a preprint advocating for Vitamin D & against sunscreen without any warning whatsoever unhealthy???
It was predicted by Satyendra nath Bose. Einstein was just a supplementary Scientist. Thats why it didn't get noble bcz Bose was a third world countryman
Jordan Peterson brought me here
I really like this format where the scientist talks intimately about their past work experience without interruption. It's very informative.
Lo increíble es que su teoría sobre las mitocondrias fue reemplazada por un nuevo descubrimiento, el de la epigenética y ahí empezó el boom de los experimentos.
Doesn’t get to any kind of point until 5minutes in.
그리고 해본거 같은데 하이퍼디맨션에 사는 존재가 쫒아다녀요.
앞으로 나아가고 무언가 제한되있고 이미 충분히 강하게 인식되는 주변을 경험적 느낌을 배제하고 사고하는건 너무 하기 힘들어요.
휴리스틱 사고를 하고 잘하는 사람도 있고 못하는 사람도 있다고 대략적인 편견없이 그냥 느끼면 그나마 편견이 적은 것같아요.
상식적으로 생각하면 우리는 우리가 태어나고 우리가 태어나기전 모든 정보를 바탕으로 모든 것으로부터 합리적으로 생각하는 것은 느낌상 안될거같기도 합니다.
They also eat what's grown locally....if other countries take it up it means we have to import it all and that's crap
If God does not exist and people kill in the name of God - we have lost a lot Pascal lol
The problem might have something to do with basic human tendency of not wanting to know in the first place. As curious as we are, and as hungry for knowledge, we are more prone to avoiding facts than facing them. That's because facing facts is not really an intellectual, abstract encounter, but a question of the everyday life & death. In reality, every bit of knowledge have to be paid for with living, loving and suffering. Otherwise it's half-baked and half-true.
Aristotle is one of the most influential and at the same time underrated scientists of all time. I wish I could travel back in time and communicate with him.
This is an explanation on the mechanics of awareness...but not the why? ....he doesnt know
Thank you very much professor walter LEWIN for all your Lectures.
So exactly what Nietzsche said in the 19th century.......
I have a question pertaining to the combination problem that arises when you try to put the idea of panpsychism into practice. If a grand mass of particles are necessary in order to create an “observably” conscious being, then why aren’t mountains or bodies of water living things in the same way we are? They’re a grand mass of particles in the same way we are, right? What makes the difference in who or what gets to “move about freely”, essentially? Why do we-or dogs, or flies-get to be animate things over these inanimate things? Why us and not them?
Isn't it obvious?
@@ricliu4538 lmao god?
what happens to the nucleus of atoms inside the BEC? can you have a BEC of just Neutrons? if you reintroduce a very specifically tuned energy into a BEC system is it possible for the elements to restructure into alternate elements?
One Love.
The red pill about consciousness: (My English is not good. I am sharing an article I wrote in my native language with chatgpt translation.) Here is my theory about consciousness. Could there be life after death? I think there could be life after death. I wasn't there before I was born and I existed. At least I had the potential to exist in the universe before being born, so I existed. I think there could be a possibility of existing again after death. So, "If I existed once, why wouldn't I exist again?" 0-1-0-? Which number do you think goes in place of the question mark? Before birth-life-death-after death. To find the answer to what happens after death, we first need to find out who we are. For that, we need to define the concept of 'I' first. Let's eliminate the characteristics that could change depending on where we were born. Our name, profession, hobbies, character... We don't need to carry these characteristics again when we exist again. Religions claim that these characteristics are preserved and there is resurrection. So, the life after death that I'm talking about is not like having an exact copy of ourselves as in religions. Imagine being born again as a mouse after death. You have lost all the characteristics you had in human life. But with the phrase "being born again as a mouse", we define the thing called 'I' in both human and mouse. So, what is 'I'? My answer is that 'I' is the observer, roughly we can call it consciousness. The one who experiences pain and pleasure. In the case of a mouse, it can experience pain and pleasure. When we burn an ant, the ant writhes in pain. So, there is someone inside the ant who can experience pain or pleasure like me. (Even if we see living things as biochemical robots, it doesn't change the fact that something experiences pain.) In short, the thing experiencing-observing-watching inside me is what I call 'I'. I need to learn where it goes, where it comes from, or more scientifically, how it is formed/works to speculate about what happens after death. In short, my questions are: 1.) What is consciousness (the concept of observer in the text), how is it formed, how does it work? Why am I not another person? Is my consciousness personal to me? Then what is the source of this subjectivity? What makes me, distinguishes me from other people? 2.) According to the concept of 'I', after death, do I have a chance to observe-experience something again? Now, I'll narrow down the circle by writing down some possibilities to find the answer we are looking for. a) What I refer to as "I" is a non-material entity like a soul. b) What I refer to as "I" is a unique part of the matter that belongs to me. c) There is no such thing as "I". Other than these three possibilities, I couldn't come up with an additional one. By selecting one of these options, I can reach the correct answer with a 33% probability. :) Now let's reason about these options one by one. a) I am a non-material entity. If we accept the first option, the soul, I cannot reason further from here. Even if this is the correct answer, it seems impossible to prove it. Therefore, there is no need to dwell on this possibility for now. At most, we can try to prove that this possibility is high by falsifying the other two options. b) Being a special part of matter. If I saw my brain in a jar, I could say, "Ah, this is mine." By narrowing down this option further, if we accept that consciousness is electrical signals, etc., we can distinguish most of the brain from the concept of "I". So, the brain is necessary for my emergence, but the real "I" emerges as a result of the functioning of this brain. It's like the spark that comes out when you hit a stone. The stone or the surface it hits is not what makes the spark a spark. When I wonder why I'm not another person, silly questions come to my mind. For example, looking at two identical model glasses and asking why one glass is not the other... Because the atoms that make up this glass are not the same as the atoms that make up the other glass. The reason each glass is unique is because they have their own special atoms. If glasses had a function like the brain, they could produce their own observers. Since we were born, the atoms in our bodies have been constantly changing. As far as I know, every five years, all the atoms that make us up change. Despite this, the observer still doesn't change. Could it be changing after all? Actually, even if the observer changes, I wouldn't know. If you were to add your observer to my brain, you wouldn't notice anything. Because it can't bring along memories, personality, character, or anything else. c) There is no such thing as "I". We cannot say there is no such thing as "I", but we can say there is nothing special that makes me, distinguishes me from other people. Do you know what this means? If persons A and B say they don't have their own observer, the following conclusion can be drawn: A = B. If this possibility is correct, then all the observers inside all people are actually one observer. We can even include all living beings, as well as all observers who have lived in the past and will live in the future. The conclusion drawn from this is that you are all the observers in the world. You are all the people in the world, all the fish in the sea, all the ants in the world, all the cats and dogs on the street... If there are any other beings living outside the world, they are also you. If we answer the question of what happens after death according to this option; you continue to experience because you are the observer in other existing observers after death. Every baby born in the future will be you again. To truly die, the total number of conscious living beings in the universe must be zero. There is one observer, but there are infinite minds that reveal it. Think of it like parallel universes. Every living thing you see is a parallel life of yours. Many people don't understand this, but everyone understands reincarnation. When I say you were a Viking warrior in your past life, no one gets confused, but when I say you are currently an ISIS militant in Syria, people say, "That's impossible." What causes this confusion is the concept of time, but we shouldn't dwell too much on the concept of time here. The fact that electrons can be in two places at the same time is a separate discussion. I mentioned reincarnation here to show that the subject is actually as understandable as reincarnation. According to reincarnation, the person has a part that belongs to them, so they must choose option a or b. Theoretically, an infinite number of living beings can exist. If the conditions are right, we can fill the universe with as many living beings as it can accommodate. So theoretically, an infinite observer living in the same time frame is possible. This, in turn, leads to the need for an infinite number of special parts. So, those who choose option A need infinite souls, those who choose option B need an infinite number of special particle matter. But for those who choose option C, there is no such requirement. Option C can divide the number 1 indefinitely. Since the beginning of the world, the total number of all living beings that have ever lived, are living, and will live is very large. Each living being requires a special particle or soul. Those who choose options A and B need to find a source for the inner observer of each of these living beings. :) But for those who choose option C, there is no such requirement.
You answered your own question. Stop drinking coffee after 10pm.
before the human came to this earthe they had language's spoken .
❤❤. Where is your nobility? Where is the honor? Where is the support? Where is the scientific interest and curiosity? BIG ERROR in measuring the Universe, black holes, dark energy,... Let me judge all this by the result of a direct experiment, gentlemen of physics Let's do the Michelson-Morley experiment on a school bus and determine the speed in a straight line - this is exactly the experiment Einstein dreamed of. Perhaps we will see the postulates: “Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and Dominant gravitational fields control the speed of light in a vacuum.” There is a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, two coils with optical fiber, where the light in each arm travels 16,000 meters, without exceeding the parameters of 0.4/0.4/0.4 meters and mass - 4 kg.
The stronger the accent the more genius the scientist.
such wonderful explanation about complex mechanisms 👍
how modern science fools us we are living longer, we used to live 30, now living 75 science takes the credit but here that person is saying evolution of human longevity
Roughly 70 to 80 percent
Typical doctors. Exacerbating a smaller problem by creating a bigger one. 😅
Chalmers uses a logical trick. He divides consciousness arbitrarily to create his "hard problem," then demands that the solution must put consciousness back together.