sorry but this guy is really really bad at explaining the basics and even his few higher level observations are just the same thing restated over and over whatever you ask him. He is not even trying to answer your questions or thinking of a wider audience like you probed him about the seize of an LLMs and he steers the conversation to his narrow pet project and says 8B "is actually quite big" lol zero knowledge transfer. Please interview someone else on this important topic.
@MrFaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa3 сағат бұрын
I found his explanations about transformer model topology to be quite good.
@MaxPower-vg4vr6 сағат бұрын
Let me propose some initial theorems and proofs that could be explored in developing a mathematical framework that treats 0D as the fundamental reality: Theorem 1: The existence of a non-zero dimension implies the existence of a zero dimension. Proof sketch: If we consider a non-zero dimension, say 1D, it must be constructed from an underlying set of points or elements. These points or elements themselves can be considered as having zero spatial extent, i.e., they are 0D objects. Therefore, the existence of a 1D line or higher dimensions necessarily implies the existence of a more fundamental 0D reality from which they are built. Theorem 2: Higher dimensions are projections or manifestations of the 0D reality. Proof sketch: Building on Theorem 1, if 0D is the fundamental reality, then higher dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D, etc.) must emerge or be constructed from this 0D basis. One could explore mathematical frameworks that treat higher dimensions as projections, embeddings, or manifestations of the 0D reality, akin to how higher-dimensional objects can be represented or projected in lower dimensions (e.g., a 3D cube projected onto a 2D plane). Theorem 3: The properties and structure of the 0D reality determine the properties and structure of higher dimensions. Proof sketch: If higher dimensions are indeed projections or manifestations of the 0D reality, then the characteristics and laws governing the 0D realm should dictate the characteristics and laws observed in higher dimensions. This could potentially provide a unified framework for understanding the fundamental laws and constants of physics, as well as the nature of space, time, and other physical phenomena, as arising from the properties of the 0D reality. Theorem 4: Paradoxes and contradictions in higher dimensions can be resolved or reinterpreted in the context of the 0D reality. Proof sketch: Many paradoxes and contradictions in physics and mathematics arise from the assumptions and axioms associated with treating higher dimensions as fundamental. By grounding the framework in a 0D reality, these paradoxes and contradictions could potentially be resolved or reinterpreted in a consistent manner, as they may be artifacts of projecting the 0D reality into higher dimensions. These are just initial ideas and proof sketches, and developing a rigorous mathematical framework would require significant work and collaboration among experts in various fields. However, some potential avenues to explore could include: 1. Adapting and extending concepts from point-set topology, where points (0D objects) are used to construct higher-dimensional spaces and manifolds. 2. Drawing inspiration from algebraic geometry, where higher-dimensional objects can be studied through their projections onto lower dimensions. 3. Investigating connections with quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, where point particles and fields are treated as fundamental objects, and exploring how a 0D framework could provide a unified description. 4. Exploring parallels with number theory and arithmetic, where zero and non-zero numbers have distinct properties and roles, and how these could translate to the treatment of 0D and non-zero dimensions. Ultimately, developing a consistent and empirically supported mathematical framework that treats 0D as fundamental would require substantial theoretical and experimental work, but the potential payoff could be a deeper understanding of the nature of reality and a resolution of longstanding paradoxes and contradictions in our current physical theories.
@paulleddy31856 сағат бұрын
Wow, this robot, who’s been saying the same criticisms for 5 yrs, should get some creativity himself. Don’t laugh at his dumb jokes, and nod along with his oversimplified explanations.
@paulleddy31856 сағат бұрын
Btw, Ceras is a failure, replaced by PyTorch, etc. since yrs, but OK.
@missh17748 сағат бұрын
Thank goodness the AI scores only as low as 0% ... Can't imagine what it means if it went below that 😏
@TheReferrer7213 сағат бұрын
While I agree with some of François Chollet's criticisms of LLM, I think he is wrong on a few details. 1. LLM's have not in any form exhausted the data, they trained on text from the Internet and books, but most of the data we produce is in the form of images and sound. 2. To say they have peeked is a bad call we have only had 18 months since the original ChatGPT, training runs take time. 3. They are not an off ramp even if they don't reach AGI (which I think they won't by themselves), the amount of compute and interest from people in AI because of these LLM's means that machine learning as a whole is going to be in much better shape than if they still stayed the curiosity of the giant Tech labs. Good to see him doing the rounds.
@SandipChitale16 сағат бұрын
I think there is some misunderstanding about the existential threat part of the discussion at 1:28:30. The existential threat may not be from AGI because there is no AGI today or in short term near future. The issue is that current LLMs may convince someone, (and all of us have had that uncanny experience with LLMs, lets be honest) to the extent that they may actually employ an LLMs in a critical decision making loop to decide on a critical task based on how convinced they were of it's abilities. That is the issue. Of course if the real AGI is invented then the odds get potentially that much worse.
@SandipChitale17 сағат бұрын
Excellent episode. Thanks Sean and Francois! About the discussion at 29:00, if you want a very technical understanding of how LLMs work I highly recommend: The following two videos on the 3Blue1Brown channel on YT: But what is a GPT? Visual intro to transformers | Chapter 5, Deep Learning Attention in transformers, visually explained | Chapter 6, Deep Learning It is very very very good explanation that is also relatively easy to understand. You will thanks me for this pointer. You are welcome!
@ronkrate60918 сағат бұрын
his audio bad
@davidcampos146321 сағат бұрын
What Francois needs is a greeting for everyone. I propose :Please state the nature of the AGI and or the emergency.
@davegrundgeiger906323 сағат бұрын
This is so good! Thank you for this!
@larryboulware6483Күн бұрын
Excellent !
@Eric-vy1uxКүн бұрын
Is there something about being embodied that make human general intelligence difficult to achieve in AI? Any work being on this front?
@yuvalfrommer5905Күн бұрын
Can you imagine a colour outside the visible spectrum? In what sense are the questions in the ark challenge not themselves some high dimension interpolation of Francois' past experience. Thats the one question that should have been asked. Listening was frustrating
@ferggill9461Күн бұрын
My experience of physics through a screen - Sean Carroll (TV), Walter Lewin (YT) and Leonard Susskind (YT)
@alejandroa518Күн бұрын
The gest refusing to provide or cite any kind of proof to her "research" makes difficult to trust in what she is saying.
@zack_120Күн бұрын
AI is at 100% error rate now. Can it ever reach 0.0001%?
@alexanderg9670Күн бұрын
The most plausible hypothesis for me is that LLMs contain world models. Likely primitive, frozen-errored and alien in some ways, but communicable and useful nonetheless. Bigger = better so far Looking forward to multimodal AI models very much, especially embodied with movement tokens
@jonathanbyrdmusicКүн бұрын
If you don’t care about quality, accuracy, or anything else, they’re great!
@zxbc1Күн бұрын
LLMs are more accurate at finding a lot of information than the average human at a fraction of the speed. You can criticize it for not having true human intelligence but quality and accuracy is the reason why millions of people use it.
@joshnicholson6194Күн бұрын
Clearly a musician, aha.
@generichuman_Күн бұрын
It's amazing to me the number of people that clearly have no knowledge in this space that speak with such confidence. They hear headlines like "Hallucinations!" and immediately think they understand the problem.
@takyon24Күн бұрын
I mean it's basically as good as a database for common tasks/queries. That's fairly useful, not exactly earth shattering but still
@zxbc1Күн бұрын
@@takyon24 It's far more than a database for queries. Go try chatGPT 4o right now, and give it some complex task. Yesterday I asked it to look up the standing of the teams in the Euro 2024 and give me a rough estimate of the chances Hungary has in qualifying as one of the best third-placed teams (actual prompt slightly more detailed, but not by much). ChatGPT went on the web, searched for the group standings and the remaining matchups, did *individual* win-draw-loss chance estimate on each of the matches, and used math to calculate the probability of Hungary advancing. It gave me a 5 page analysis detailing its math so I could check that it was correct, all within about 20 seconds. This is just a small application. The other day I posted a detailed lab test result including a bone marrow test image of my aunt, it correctly and accurately diagnosed the disease exactly like the hospital doctor did (and gave more explanation than the doctor, too), suggested the exact medication that the doctor prescribed her. And when briefly prompted, it also gave a very detailed weekly meal plan that supplement the treatment. I don't think most people realize the degree of autonomous agency "simple" AIs like LLMs already achieved. They're not close to anything we've had before.
@johnnymartinARTISTКүн бұрын
get off my feed please!
@kroyheviaКүн бұрын
Watch the whole thing and then react.. starting off another great episode as mindscape does
@andybandybКүн бұрын
Large language models just read the test
@2CSST2Күн бұрын
How surprising, all the AI related guests you bring just serve as an echo to your already held opinion... Many, many many AI forefront leaders do not agree *at all* that LLMs are just some sort of stochastic parrot
@yeezythabestКүн бұрын
Any recommendations on that front?
@alexanderg9670Күн бұрын
@@yeezythabestLeahy vs Hotz debate
@2CSST2Күн бұрын
@@yeezythabest Really the obvious one is the best one: Geoffrey Hinton, one of the godfathers of AI. Most of his talks and interviews are insightful, and he argues quite well why LLMs don't just reproduce statistics but do gain understanding.
@jonathanbyrdmusicКүн бұрын
Follow the money.
@zxbc1Күн бұрын
To hold the strong opinion that LLMs with a neural network architecture cannot achieve intelligence similar to human's is to proclaim that you understand exactly how human intelligence works beyond being a very complex neural network. It's the ultimate form of hubris. I'm actually surprised that a skeptic like Sean does not challenge this opinion from this angle, especially on someone who is very far from an expert in human intelligence such as a computer scientist like François Chollet.
@DirtmopAZКүн бұрын
Exciting!
@wizzelhoartКүн бұрын
She’s right! Mindfulness cured my full blown bird AIDS
@wizzelhoartКүн бұрын
How does she pay attention to ANYTHING when she interrupts people that constantly?
@ericschambion68382 күн бұрын
Disappointing to see you, Sean, promoting the arrogant and intellectual fraud that Elen Langer is. Sadly, we live in a world where an increasing number of scientists and philosophers fall prey to audience capture only to end up promoting all sort of quackery, arrogance and nonsense.
@psyopswitch2 күн бұрын
you are insane. theres nothing wrong with beef , you need to look into restorative agriculture, the problem with beef is factory farming. ppl around the world need that protein. especially those that have little access to other forms of protein. and dont tell me to eat bugs. they may be a source of protein but the outer shells chemical make up causes cancer. going on yt and selling the elites game to enslave humanity, its important for brain development. I bet you one of those ppl that think giving a baby water is a bad idea, even tho formula is up to 85% water. and thats another pace where ppl need beef pregnant and lactating moms, restorative agriculture, if done properly helps, replenish soil of microbes that will draw down co2 into the soil. the original study that everyone quotes was wrong because it only tested the 1st few inches of soil to say it want enough. plants need co2 to grow. nasa just released a study that the earth is greening. why any other time in the earths history when the climate was warmer, civilization flourished, but now the so called educated or should I say indoctrinated as trying to sell ppl these lies that it will cause famine. what a joke, it so sad that everyone is falling for it. we as human beings dont have k nine teeth for no reason. why dont you tell the gov to stop hiding patents that could get us off oil or at least minize it with the patent secrecy's act of 52.
@alan736382 күн бұрын
@terrencehoward
@HGALAXIES2 күн бұрын
Very "uncertain"! Very vague! Very "all over the place"! Worse is that she herself doesn't show any improvement as a professor who has studied this and has come up with "clear obvious results"! She was way far from any such achievement. Very contradictory. Sean has to get a hold of her students and check and see what they say and show both by passing or failing her class! That would be interesting.
@gettingyounger2 күн бұрын
I absolutely loved this interview. I knew of Ellen Langer's Counter clockwise study and have been totally fascinated with it. It was so interesting to hear her speak about her life and other studies and she is instantly engaging. I'll now be scaling the Internet to discover more from her and check out her book. These kinds of people open eyes and show us what our true potential is. Thank you Sean Carroll for this brilliant podcast
@josephi10472 күн бұрын
As soon as someone interjects their political leanings I sign off.
@3dlabs992 күн бұрын
100 emails every day ... wow.. We need a message assistant based on large language models to at least group the mails a bit.
@TiagoJRToledo2 күн бұрын
Wow, for such an accomplished physicist, the argument that we're not looking at the past in the night sky is woefully poor. Yes, the light that's hitting my eyes is hitting them now, but it was emitted thousands, hundreds of thousands of years ago. The object that emitted it might not even exist anymore. So your argument doesn't really hold water.
@larryboulware64832 күн бұрын
He clearly enjoys teaching and is great at it
@earlworley-bd6zy2 күн бұрын
Sites that do not let comments might have agenda's & can not let anything that shows "them" to be wrong & that might cause lose of power or money or both.
@earlworley-bd6zy2 күн бұрын
Unless your dealing with close minded people.
@davegrundgeiger90633 күн бұрын
2:14:25 "When we say, 'one second after the big bang,' we mean 'time as measured by clocks that are in the rest frame of the plasma of the early universe.'" I've wondered this for years!
@tereziazoric49683 күн бұрын
Derek’s fantastic. So thoughtful and generous about giving people the benefit of the doubt. But I think he gives too much of that benefit to John Fetterman who pretends to be a progressive but takes loads of money from and serves elite interests. When he wears sweats and sneakers in the Senate, it seems clear Fetterman is cosplaying “working class hero” in a populist move to distract voters who wanted an anti-establishment figure but got a sell-out instead.
@NalitaQubit3 күн бұрын
You are the best, Dr. Carroll.
@larryboulware64833 күн бұрын
This is very well done 🎉
@ryanrutledge9223 күн бұрын
♥️from🇨🇦 . Thank u sincerely for your hard work . The episode is great . ( Far from a colossal letdown . Lol sheesh, some people's children , eh ? )
@HANECart19603 күн бұрын
maybe have that as a new standard ending?? A couple of poems?? i absolutely loved it!!
@Gardenia9263 күн бұрын
You should invite Thây Mãn Tûe from plum village about mindfulness! I would've loved hearing you get nerdy about physics with Thich Nhat Hanh 🥹🥰
@user-gj7vp6wk3e4 күн бұрын
SPACETIME AND GEOMETRY IS EXCELLANT!❤
@cchang27714 күн бұрын
Totally biased view on the possibility of God. He does not know that he does not know.
Пікірлер
sorry but this guy is really really bad at explaining the basics and even his few higher level observations are just the same thing restated over and over whatever you ask him. He is not even trying to answer your questions or thinking of a wider audience like you probed him about the seize of an LLMs and he steers the conversation to his narrow pet project and says 8B "is actually quite big" lol zero knowledge transfer. Please interview someone else on this important topic.
I found his explanations about transformer model topology to be quite good.
Let me propose some initial theorems and proofs that could be explored in developing a mathematical framework that treats 0D as the fundamental reality: Theorem 1: The existence of a non-zero dimension implies the existence of a zero dimension. Proof sketch: If we consider a non-zero dimension, say 1D, it must be constructed from an underlying set of points or elements. These points or elements themselves can be considered as having zero spatial extent, i.e., they are 0D objects. Therefore, the existence of a 1D line or higher dimensions necessarily implies the existence of a more fundamental 0D reality from which they are built. Theorem 2: Higher dimensions are projections or manifestations of the 0D reality. Proof sketch: Building on Theorem 1, if 0D is the fundamental reality, then higher dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D, etc.) must emerge or be constructed from this 0D basis. One could explore mathematical frameworks that treat higher dimensions as projections, embeddings, or manifestations of the 0D reality, akin to how higher-dimensional objects can be represented or projected in lower dimensions (e.g., a 3D cube projected onto a 2D plane). Theorem 3: The properties and structure of the 0D reality determine the properties and structure of higher dimensions. Proof sketch: If higher dimensions are indeed projections or manifestations of the 0D reality, then the characteristics and laws governing the 0D realm should dictate the characteristics and laws observed in higher dimensions. This could potentially provide a unified framework for understanding the fundamental laws and constants of physics, as well as the nature of space, time, and other physical phenomena, as arising from the properties of the 0D reality. Theorem 4: Paradoxes and contradictions in higher dimensions can be resolved or reinterpreted in the context of the 0D reality. Proof sketch: Many paradoxes and contradictions in physics and mathematics arise from the assumptions and axioms associated with treating higher dimensions as fundamental. By grounding the framework in a 0D reality, these paradoxes and contradictions could potentially be resolved or reinterpreted in a consistent manner, as they may be artifacts of projecting the 0D reality into higher dimensions. These are just initial ideas and proof sketches, and developing a rigorous mathematical framework would require significant work and collaboration among experts in various fields. However, some potential avenues to explore could include: 1. Adapting and extending concepts from point-set topology, where points (0D objects) are used to construct higher-dimensional spaces and manifolds. 2. Drawing inspiration from algebraic geometry, where higher-dimensional objects can be studied through their projections onto lower dimensions. 3. Investigating connections with quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, where point particles and fields are treated as fundamental objects, and exploring how a 0D framework could provide a unified description. 4. Exploring parallels with number theory and arithmetic, where zero and non-zero numbers have distinct properties and roles, and how these could translate to the treatment of 0D and non-zero dimensions. Ultimately, developing a consistent and empirically supported mathematical framework that treats 0D as fundamental would require substantial theoretical and experimental work, but the potential payoff could be a deeper understanding of the nature of reality and a resolution of longstanding paradoxes and contradictions in our current physical theories.
Wow, this robot, who’s been saying the same criticisms for 5 yrs, should get some creativity himself. Don’t laugh at his dumb jokes, and nod along with his oversimplified explanations.
Btw, Ceras is a failure, replaced by PyTorch, etc. since yrs, but OK.
Thank goodness the AI scores only as low as 0% ... Can't imagine what it means if it went below that 😏
While I agree with some of François Chollet's criticisms of LLM, I think he is wrong on a few details. 1. LLM's have not in any form exhausted the data, they trained on text from the Internet and books, but most of the data we produce is in the form of images and sound. 2. To say they have peeked is a bad call we have only had 18 months since the original ChatGPT, training runs take time. 3. They are not an off ramp even if they don't reach AGI (which I think they won't by themselves), the amount of compute and interest from people in AI because of these LLM's means that machine learning as a whole is going to be in much better shape than if they still stayed the curiosity of the giant Tech labs. Good to see him doing the rounds.
I think there is some misunderstanding about the existential threat part of the discussion at 1:28:30. The existential threat may not be from AGI because there is no AGI today or in short term near future. The issue is that current LLMs may convince someone, (and all of us have had that uncanny experience with LLMs, lets be honest) to the extent that they may actually employ an LLMs in a critical decision making loop to decide on a critical task based on how convinced they were of it's abilities. That is the issue. Of course if the real AGI is invented then the odds get potentially that much worse.
Excellent episode. Thanks Sean and Francois! About the discussion at 29:00, if you want a very technical understanding of how LLMs work I highly recommend: The following two videos on the 3Blue1Brown channel on YT: But what is a GPT? Visual intro to transformers | Chapter 5, Deep Learning Attention in transformers, visually explained | Chapter 6, Deep Learning It is very very very good explanation that is also relatively easy to understand. You will thanks me for this pointer. You are welcome!
his audio bad
What Francois needs is a greeting for everyone. I propose :Please state the nature of the AGI and or the emergency.
This is so good! Thank you for this!
Excellent !
Is there something about being embodied that make human general intelligence difficult to achieve in AI? Any work being on this front?
Can you imagine a colour outside the visible spectrum? In what sense are the questions in the ark challenge not themselves some high dimension interpolation of Francois' past experience. Thats the one question that should have been asked. Listening was frustrating
My experience of physics through a screen - Sean Carroll (TV), Walter Lewin (YT) and Leonard Susskind (YT)
The gest refusing to provide or cite any kind of proof to her "research" makes difficult to trust in what she is saying.
AI is at 100% error rate now. Can it ever reach 0.0001%?
The most plausible hypothesis for me is that LLMs contain world models. Likely primitive, frozen-errored and alien in some ways, but communicable and useful nonetheless. Bigger = better so far Looking forward to multimodal AI models very much, especially embodied with movement tokens
If you don’t care about quality, accuracy, or anything else, they’re great!
LLMs are more accurate at finding a lot of information than the average human at a fraction of the speed. You can criticize it for not having true human intelligence but quality and accuracy is the reason why millions of people use it.
Clearly a musician, aha.
It's amazing to me the number of people that clearly have no knowledge in this space that speak with such confidence. They hear headlines like "Hallucinations!" and immediately think they understand the problem.
I mean it's basically as good as a database for common tasks/queries. That's fairly useful, not exactly earth shattering but still
@@takyon24 It's far more than a database for queries. Go try chatGPT 4o right now, and give it some complex task. Yesterday I asked it to look up the standing of the teams in the Euro 2024 and give me a rough estimate of the chances Hungary has in qualifying as one of the best third-placed teams (actual prompt slightly more detailed, but not by much). ChatGPT went on the web, searched for the group standings and the remaining matchups, did *individual* win-draw-loss chance estimate on each of the matches, and used math to calculate the probability of Hungary advancing. It gave me a 5 page analysis detailing its math so I could check that it was correct, all within about 20 seconds. This is just a small application. The other day I posted a detailed lab test result including a bone marrow test image of my aunt, it correctly and accurately diagnosed the disease exactly like the hospital doctor did (and gave more explanation than the doctor, too), suggested the exact medication that the doctor prescribed her. And when briefly prompted, it also gave a very detailed weekly meal plan that supplement the treatment. I don't think most people realize the degree of autonomous agency "simple" AIs like LLMs already achieved. They're not close to anything we've had before.
get off my feed please!
Watch the whole thing and then react.. starting off another great episode as mindscape does
Large language models just read the test
How surprising, all the AI related guests you bring just serve as an echo to your already held opinion... Many, many many AI forefront leaders do not agree *at all* that LLMs are just some sort of stochastic parrot
Any recommendations on that front?
@@yeezythabestLeahy vs Hotz debate
@@yeezythabest Really the obvious one is the best one: Geoffrey Hinton, one of the godfathers of AI. Most of his talks and interviews are insightful, and he argues quite well why LLMs don't just reproduce statistics but do gain understanding.
Follow the money.
To hold the strong opinion that LLMs with a neural network architecture cannot achieve intelligence similar to human's is to proclaim that you understand exactly how human intelligence works beyond being a very complex neural network. It's the ultimate form of hubris. I'm actually surprised that a skeptic like Sean does not challenge this opinion from this angle, especially on someone who is very far from an expert in human intelligence such as a computer scientist like François Chollet.
Exciting!
She’s right! Mindfulness cured my full blown bird AIDS
How does she pay attention to ANYTHING when she interrupts people that constantly?
Disappointing to see you, Sean, promoting the arrogant and intellectual fraud that Elen Langer is. Sadly, we live in a world where an increasing number of scientists and philosophers fall prey to audience capture only to end up promoting all sort of quackery, arrogance and nonsense.
you are insane. theres nothing wrong with beef , you need to look into restorative agriculture, the problem with beef is factory farming. ppl around the world need that protein. especially those that have little access to other forms of protein. and dont tell me to eat bugs. they may be a source of protein but the outer shells chemical make up causes cancer. going on yt and selling the elites game to enslave humanity, its important for brain development. I bet you one of those ppl that think giving a baby water is a bad idea, even tho formula is up to 85% water. and thats another pace where ppl need beef pregnant and lactating moms, restorative agriculture, if done properly helps, replenish soil of microbes that will draw down co2 into the soil. the original study that everyone quotes was wrong because it only tested the 1st few inches of soil to say it want enough. plants need co2 to grow. nasa just released a study that the earth is greening. why any other time in the earths history when the climate was warmer, civilization flourished, but now the so called educated or should I say indoctrinated as trying to sell ppl these lies that it will cause famine. what a joke, it so sad that everyone is falling for it. we as human beings dont have k nine teeth for no reason. why dont you tell the gov to stop hiding patents that could get us off oil or at least minize it with the patent secrecy's act of 52.
@terrencehoward
Very "uncertain"! Very vague! Very "all over the place"! Worse is that she herself doesn't show any improvement as a professor who has studied this and has come up with "clear obvious results"! She was way far from any such achievement. Very contradictory. Sean has to get a hold of her students and check and see what they say and show both by passing or failing her class! That would be interesting.
I absolutely loved this interview. I knew of Ellen Langer's Counter clockwise study and have been totally fascinated with it. It was so interesting to hear her speak about her life and other studies and she is instantly engaging. I'll now be scaling the Internet to discover more from her and check out her book. These kinds of people open eyes and show us what our true potential is. Thank you Sean Carroll for this brilliant podcast
As soon as someone interjects their political leanings I sign off.
100 emails every day ... wow.. We need a message assistant based on large language models to at least group the mails a bit.
Wow, for such an accomplished physicist, the argument that we're not looking at the past in the night sky is woefully poor. Yes, the light that's hitting my eyes is hitting them now, but it was emitted thousands, hundreds of thousands of years ago. The object that emitted it might not even exist anymore. So your argument doesn't really hold water.
He clearly enjoys teaching and is great at it
Sites that do not let comments might have agenda's & can not let anything that shows "them" to be wrong & that might cause lose of power or money or both.
Unless your dealing with close minded people.
2:14:25 "When we say, 'one second after the big bang,' we mean 'time as measured by clocks that are in the rest frame of the plasma of the early universe.'" I've wondered this for years!
Derek’s fantastic. So thoughtful and generous about giving people the benefit of the doubt. But I think he gives too much of that benefit to John Fetterman who pretends to be a progressive but takes loads of money from and serves elite interests. When he wears sweats and sneakers in the Senate, it seems clear Fetterman is cosplaying “working class hero” in a populist move to distract voters who wanted an anti-establishment figure but got a sell-out instead.
You are the best, Dr. Carroll.
This is very well done 🎉
♥️from🇨🇦 . Thank u sincerely for your hard work . The episode is great . ( Far from a colossal letdown . Lol sheesh, some people's children , eh ? )
maybe have that as a new standard ending?? A couple of poems?? i absolutely loved it!!
You should invite Thây Mãn Tûe from plum village about mindfulness! I would've loved hearing you get nerdy about physics with Thich Nhat Hanh 🥹🥰
SPACETIME AND GEOMETRY IS EXCELLANT!❤
Totally biased view on the possibility of God. He does not know that he does not know.
12:35 Lenguaje 22:34 Maps entre teorías. 38:30 Universality! 46:55 Ehrenfest Decoherencia 1:03:00 ! 1:14:15 Ads/CFT correspondence
Sadly she doesn’t sound like a scientist at all.
10 months later and Twitter never died. It's doing just fine with a new owner and a different name.
+1
Time is up now I say less and more!!!
All man made energy, technology that is destroying creations that all innocent lives are in harms way!!!...