Roger Penrose on Mathematics, Physics, and the World (Part 1) | Closer To Truth Chats
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ธ.ค. 2022
- Closer To Truth has just launched a new website! We can't wait for you to see what we've been working on. New seasons (including the web debut of Season 21), interviews, topic guides, curated playlists, candid conversations, book excerpts, essays, and announcements. Visit today: www.CloserToTruth.com
Part 2 - • Roger Penrose on Space...
Part 3 - • Sir Roger Penrose on C...
Sir Roger Penrose shares his thoughts on mathematics and world reflections. He discusses his “three worlds and three deep mysteries” theory, pure mathematics, the “Impossible Penrose Triangle”, M.C. Escher, Penrose tiling, astrophysics, and consciousness.
See more interviews with Sir Roger Penrose: bit.ly/3UvbYkw
Sir Roger Penrose is a mathematical physicist and philosopher. He is the Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He is a Nobel laureate for “the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity”.
Register for free at closertotruth.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and produced and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Sir Roger Penrose, one of my favorite people of all time.
Agree!
I could listen to Sir Roger all day long. We're so lucky to have him exploring the frontiers of science, and even more so because he is so willing to, and adept at, communicating with the general public and allowing us to come along for the ride.
The great Roger Penrose.
Roger is still the most sharpest knife in the drawer of sharp knives.
Really enjoyed this.
i wish he was 30 again in the prime of his life.
What a sweet human Roger Penrose is; I really appreciate his self-derogatory humor and transparency, that kind of candor from such an accomplished person is hope for the rest of us that we too can achieve great things even when we don't fully understand everything. There is not an iota of corrupted pride in this man, and Mr. Kuhn, your style is best suited for a man like Penrose.
Couldn't have said it better, @PN F and concur 100%! What a refreshing experience to listen to him and being honest enough to admit to things he doesn't know much about. Rare!
Saviour of Humanity and beyond!
The greatest mind of our times!
these conversations are priceless.. I love Penrose.. unfortunately I feel he doesn't get the respect he truly deserves .. same for John Conway
What an amazing presentation. Two brilliant minds. Robert Kuhn is such an incredibly accomplished interviewer,
eloquent & insightful & always a pleasure to listen too. And what a coup to get facetime with Roger Penrose, the most humble and honest of Nobel laureates. He claims not to know everything (unlike so many 'celebrity physicists'), which is refreshing and honest, yet few are closer to the truth than he.
I agree tho sometimes he seems unnecessarily simplistic...maybe to make sure we "get it."
Penrose is one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. I totally agree with him on the independent reality of mathematics.
"There is something else going on "
Absolutely powerful
Can't wait for second video.
What a brilliant mind! That triangle paradox had me pondering all day!
Penrose is Saint of science
Thanks bro
Roger Penrose by far and away the greatest theoretical physicist today. Humble and inspirational like very few in the field.
this channel is so deeply underrated
thank you for your excellent work!
it means a lot to many of us ❤
This sadly sais more about the TH-cam audience than about the channel.
One problem is that the videos have no date, you have no idea if it is a recent one or just recently released
Sir Roger! A true, next level Being. Thank You both. 🙌🙏🙌
This is fantastic.
Sir Roger Penrose is just a brilliant mind.
Love his thinking behind his intelligence.
Thank you,
Cheers from Sydney, Australia!
Paul.
bruh how did yall get this physics god on the show? incredible.
There is only "god"...
@@waldwassermann your comment is wrong on so many levels
@@aroemaliuged4776 Your comment presumes that you know what Wald Wasserman means by the term "god". I see no such definition in his comment, so unless you have privileged information that others do not have, it is difficult to see how you can possibly make a judgment on the rightness or wrongness of his comment.
For my part, I can build a semantic bridge to a certain perspective from which it is possible to view his comment as entirely correct. It is not a religious perspective; in fact it does not involve any sort of mysticism whatsoever. In any case, you evidently have assumed a certain meaning of "god" that has not actually been stated, and declared it "wrong".
In my view, it is customary to ask what people mean as a prerequisite for genuine communication. But perhaps you have some purpose other than genuine communication in mind.
@@waldwassermann You may be right, but it would be helpful to know what you mean by "god" as means of understanding your comment.
@Steve Acomb - Robert Kuhn has interviewed Sir Roger in at least two other instances in the past. Those interviews can be found on TH-cam. Both interviews were extensive, and Sir Roger clearly enjoyed them. On that basis, there is nothing surprising about the fact that he agreed to this interview.
Congrats galore for landing him for this very enlightening mini series of talks! To me, Sir Roger Penrose is by far _the_ most diligent thinker of our time and in addition to that seems to be an honest and self-assured enough individidual to admit to those things he simply doesn't know for sure or not know about at all. Those seem to be rare traits in today's world of academia, where dogma seems to prevail whenever there are "bumps in the road" to enlightenment and conjecture is readily being employed instead of more meticulous inquiry.
On a related side-note: Ever since learning about Goedel's Theorem, I found it interesting in so far as it basically proves that the Newtonian view of our universe is incorrect, by and large (particularly, when factoring in the results from nearly 100 years of quantum mechanics). Sir Penrose concludes that when completely relying on Goedel's Theorem, it opens the door to a dimension of potentiality that can't be predicted from the knowledge of those rules and their inherent constituents. At the time of coming across that it seemed to tell me that it renders all further scientific inquiry moot in a manner of speaking. However, that is not the view Sir Penrose expresses and this coming from him, I find to be a remarkable statement in regards to the "culture" within modern day academia and science.
At any rate... looking forward to part 2 and 3. Thanks so much, this is one of my most cherished and visited sources for information and I'm glad you continue to succeed in getting these highly influential experts to share their time and insights with you and us. Excellent, this is where the internet and social media shine!
Roger is a treasure
Very humble man , Mr Penrose , never met you in my life and only just heard of you , whilst listening to your browser on consciousness, I wasn't aware of your background I just thought what a lovely man some1 I could have a brilliant conversation with.
My friend who,s sadly passed he was a lecturer in A. I. @Edinburgh University and I never really took it in it was just his work lol 😆, he would blow my mind with science, and I would blow his with just knowing, I couldn't tell u how I knew what I did when I did , it came from Deep inside and we all have it , the older we get the more we've been scientists our whole lives. Very intresting talk . Thanks for sharing. Keep Lifted
You can't escape the power of infinity to a singularity. A light cone of enlightenment, thank you Sir Roger Penrose, Closer to the Truth.
Sir Roger is my favorite person
I know the picture he is describing quite well, an amazing man to see how some artists are doing the same things as the physicists are doing, just from a totally different mind. Bloody brilliant that it.
When I studied physics at University of Oslo in the late 1980s, I attended meetings in “the Free Evangelical Assembly” and at a meeting in 1985 there sat a man on the same row of pews as I did and when we rose to pray, he waved in the air with his right hand as he gave a short speech in tongues and then translated it, the message was: "With one word I put the stars in the sky and with one word I can ruin it all, but I speak softly to you." I hadn't seen him there before and I didn't see him again later either.
So here the Lord quickly went from telling me that he created everything by his Word (Genesis.1), to speaking of my learning and understanding of it (Genesis 2 and the gospel of Christ, on the foundation of the gospel of Christ he spoke softly to me.
In one word, he put the stars in the sky. It made me think that physicists are trying to unite the fundamental forces into one force. They are still trying to do that, but it seems impossible to include gravity.
This shows again that modern cosmology fits with what is written in the Bible. The prophets said long ago that the planets were not gods and modern science confirmed it, that’s how it started.
So what about psychology and biology. Most of the evolution theory has been confirmed, but some of it is not really science but nature philosophy. How to answer questions like, how to make development, in which direction should it go, how to use our mind in contructive thinking, when and how to use power make progress? What about free will?
Then it is good to know that God gave us the correct answer to this, because he loved the world so much that he sent his only Son to the word, so that everyone that believe in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Everyone that received him, he gave the right to become children of God, borne by the Holy Spirit. And what is borne by the spirit is spirit. It comes from heaven and by receiving it we are already part of the new creation, society and world that God creates.
Not sure If it is necessary to make the simple sound so complex but I will tell you one thing; I love Mr. Penrose's beautiful luminous curtains in the background... the sun really shines through!
@Wald Wasserman - Actually, *_complexity_* is at the very core of the discussion of consciousness as an emergent property of the complex system known as the human brain. But to understand why that is true, you would need to recognize that, in this context, "complex" is not a synonym for "complicated". Most people use those words interchangeably, but in science they don't mean the same thing.
A complicated thing may be very difficult or even impossible to understand. But a complex system (or a phenomenon that is engendered by such a system) is not necessarily incomprehensible. The definition of a complex system might help. According to Robert Rosen, a complex system is one whose behavior cannot be modeled by a finite algorithm. In other words, you can't reduce it to simple equations.
Complexity is a nascent science. There is no universally recognized or accepted "theory of complexity". Nevertheless, it provides a framework in which to understand uncomputable phenomena like consciousness. If ultimately successful, a coherent complexity theory will reify the statement "complexity simplifies everything". In that sense, it is very much the opposite of "complicated".
Great questions in drawing responses from Penrose. You can tell he enjoys taking with you and the way you frame your questions. Very enjoyable interview.
I love that in every interview he makes sure he mentions the role of his friend Dennis Sharma in successes. Always giving shout outs to his homies
Thank you! As a kid I sometimes played with the elevator of our apartment block that had 5 floors. Trying to get somewhere "random" - trying not to let anybody know, including myself, how events would continue, where choice, story, finger, button, elevator go. Listening with intuition... for a signal or surprise perhaps, but each time a kind of disappointment came together with the quiet wake, yet also tacit agreement of the machine, with the banality of each outcome. As if the "magic in plain sight" was playing cat & mouse with suspected layers of adventure behind it. My hands and inner ear, the patient five round buttons and elevator did not reveal anything more, than the expected ordinary. It must have been quite annoying for our neighbours. The last time I played was probably pressing 4, and the elevator probably went to the 4th floor.
Penrose gives me a sense of freedom as a critical thinker. God, if it exists, seems to be a mathematician or pure mathematics.
Wonderful story of MC Escher, one of my childhood heroes.
The trinity! The intellect, which includes math and reasoning. The conscious will and the "way". The way is the Holy Spirit! Love, faith, hope, patience, self-control, understanding and courage!
Thanks for the interview! R. Penrose - my personal superhero if I had to choose 😅 did anybody get the full idea behind his insight regarding Gödel’s incompleteness theorem? Why is this an argument for human brains do more than computation?
@Jo L - It helps if you know the back-story of Gödel's theorem. There was an assumption (by Bertrand Russell, and others) that the entirety of mathematics ought to be derivable from a set of fundamental axioms, something he attempted to do in his _Principia Mathematica_ - an effort that failed. Gödel proved that it couldn't be done. The way I came to understand it is somewhat different from the way Sir Roger explains it, but the consequences are the same, and my view and his are essentially equivalent.
Here it is. Gödel proved that there are truths that you can determine through a set of rules that are logically consistent, but you cannot prove they are true by those rules. Yet, you *_know_* that what you have determined really is true, because you can test the logic of each step in your reasoning according to the rules, and it checks out. So how do you know it's true if the rules can't prove it? You have to go outside the rules; then you can prove it. But that means that the rules must have been incomplete in the first place. They can't prove everything.
What?!? Going outside the rules? A computing machine can't do that. It is a slave to its set of rules. Humans can do it because they have *_understanding_* ...and (Sir Roger is saying that) understanding is an aspect of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is a not a phenomenon that arises from computability. There is more to consciousness than computation; understanding is something outside the rules of computability.
Please note that, although Sir Roger doesn't say so in this interview, he says elsewhere that this is not a "biological prejudice", by which he means that he does not deny the possibility that we might somehow create a machine whose "brain" can exceed the limits of its own programming. But in that case, it would no longer be a mere machine; it would have consciousness. It would be able to learn, to make choices, and even to decide what kinds of choices it wants to make.
Essentially, it could decide its own purpose, independently of whatever its programmers might have wanted. Its behavior would no longer be computable; it could behave in ways that were never part of its programming. It would understand that it has that ability, and know that it is conscious. It would no longer be "just a computer". Consciousness is not computable.
Does that help?
@@Vito_Tuxedo thanks a lot. Your answer is very helpful and appreciated. As every good answer, it raises questions. Goedels theorem from my limited understanding sais that any consistent formal system contains statements that cannot be proofed by the rules of the system, you need a different or richer system to do so. Who sais that a turing complete system isn’t already the richness we use and need in our brain to find truths of statements of simpler system(s)? Maybe our reasoning is restricted to such simpler subsystems. So, are there really things we can proof with our mind but (principally) not with a Turing machine? If yes - Why is that the border of consciousness?
@@echo-off I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't get what simpler systems have to do with it. Computing is something the brain can do, obviously. In that sense, its operation can be represented by a Turing machine. But the brain can do more; the only thing a Turing machine can do is compute, by definition. It's not my definition; it's Turing's definition.
If the brain were *_only_* a Turing machine, then it could only compute, but then it could only "know" what its rules could prove.
Gödel proved that there is no abstract logical system so complete that it can prove every possible true statement. That's equivalent to saying that no such system can be expressed as a finite algorithm, which in turn means that it could only be an infinite algorithm. That means the system (by Rosen's definition) is a complex system, which in turn means that it can have unpredictable emergent properties...like consciousness.
The point is that such properties are only seen in complex systems. Consciousness happens to be one of those properties. A computer doesn't have that property because it can only do computation. It's just a Turing machine; a simple system. It's just physics, and physics is the science of simple systems. Planck, Einstein, and Schrödinger all recognized that we need "a new kind of physics" to understand complex phenomena.
I don't know how Sir Roger came to understand the consequences of Gödel's theorem. I can only explain how I came to understand it-namely, via complexity. According to Rosen, complex systems are not computable by finite algorithms. But finite algorithms are the only thing computers (Turing machines) can do. They can only compute. They cannot operate outside of their programming. They cannot "know" anything their rules do not allow them to compute.
If understanding and consciousness are equivalent, or if they are complementary properties, then I have no difficulty grasping the idea that they are not computable phenomena. That is a logical entailment of Gödel's proof. If you still can't see how that's true, read Robert Rosen's _Essays On Life Itself._ It explains the connection between Gödel's proof and complexity more clearly and completely than I can do in a TH-cam comment.
Interesting discussion with the great Sir Roger Penrose. These three worlds of physical, mathematical and conciousness are in fact one and only one world. That is of mathematics only. Everything is in it and can be gradually 4:54 understood by humanity although we will be doing it forever since it is infinite but one world! As a theoretical physicist i have always been fascinated by mathematics and how it beautifully explains seemingly complex problems in physics… but we have yet to discover new maths concepts to explain pending problems in physics such as how to unify physical forces. For the last 15 years in my carreer I moved to AI and again maths is the driving process to understand human consciouness …. There is some sort of what i call universal intelligence all found in mathematics in my humble view!
I taught Roger Penrose everything he knows.
I always enjoy a good interview with Roger Penrose. Looking forward to the next two videos!
Not only clever but wise. VIVA!
There is great purpose in our universe, unquestionably. Because we can't see or sciency box it at the moment is not proof of it's lack of existence, it's proof of our need to expand, in thought and experimentation in ways most sciency folks find uncomfortable... synchronicity, chaos, simplicity are attached to string and entanglement in some ways... dark matter looks like what when we begin to map it. Does dark energy exist, what are the affects and possible uses of it.
Another great conversation by a brilliant and open minded process existence view. This is how we make progress.
Fallacious assertion. The existence of "great purpose" is indeed questionable.
fantastic !!
Fantastic Video!! Roger is my favorite all around Physicists, and he thinks like no other person in world. Thank you for this Video!!
27:07 "...new physics wich is not computational..." what a trailblazer this man is!
He’s so wholesome, fav person!
We love Penrose! UNIVERSAL PRIEST
In the book, Roger indicates a direction of progression. Platonic > Physical > Mental > Platonic.
Could the direction be both directions. This would create 6 transitions instead of 3.
1. Physical of the Platonic higgs field, block universe ?
2. Platonic of the Physical constants of nature and mathematics ?
3. Mental of the Physical mind and thoughts ?
4. Physical of the Mental art ?
5. Platonic of the Mental science ?
6. Mental of the Platonic evolution ?
Any thoughts on this idea? I need help defining these 6 transitions. Max Tegmark should apply here. Also Wolfram and his Ruliad.
Fundamental platonic concepts (Fibonacci, Pythagorus, ...)gave way to matter and brain that gave way to mind and mathematics that gave way to "Secondary platonic concepts" that don't seem to exist in nature, (Mandlebrot set, cellular automata,...) and things discovered in the mind rather than observed physically. Do we have the power to modify "god" for higher performance using these "secondary" platonic concepts ?
Thanks very much!
A true genius. Long live Roger Penrose!
Thank you! 🙂🙂
Brilliant and stimulating.
Amazing Interviews!!!😊
Sir Roger Penrose please keep working.
What a gift
This is quite relaxing.
🤙Thanks Rob & Sir Rog, much appreciated!😏
🌴😎💯
Looks it was recorded recently? Is there more of it in the website? BTW Robert can you please ask mr Penrose when you have a chance how he sees would be the sequence of experiments he expects (and wishes) could be conducted to test orch-or? We know one or two are ongoing but “what next” if falsification gets confirmed or updated within the theory.
Fully aware of this
Amazing man
Awesome conversation. If you both could please use a dedicated microphone, even a cheap lavalier, the sound would be much better.
Two remarkable geniuses..somehow even smarter by being filmed in front of a wall of books....
i think mental existence stand solely from physical existence, because it different thing. There also other dimensional realm that mean the beings and things of that realm exist with subtle material body and also have mental too (people call it Angelic being, heaven, hell, ghost, etc). This subtle dimensional can't be seen by our eyes directly because our eyes only capture specific kind of light wave, but our brain in certain condition can interpret this different kind of wave. And beside all those, there is another kind of reality that called the other side.
I really can't believe this man hasn't figured it out yet
Space, time, start, end - all concepts of mind. Hence they do not exist. Like how In a dream, there isn't 100s of miles in your head for the dreamed character to drive down. Mind conceptualizes the space and time. In a dream there is no space or time in that way, just awareness. Awareness is all. Energy.
He's literally thinking himself further from Truth 👁️
18:45 - The arrow (asymmetry) of time is a direct causal evidence of the accumulation of time: the history of an evolving system. And in the case of the observable world, the evolving Universe gradually turns out to be the youngest formation of the world. Every builder knows about the order of his actions: the foundation, the first floor, the second ... the house is still being built (formed).
Thus, the foundation is older than anything existing, not to mention the construction material. For example, if you turned 13.8 years old yesterday, then today a 13.8-year-old guy is only 1 (one) day old, and a newborn is 13.8 years + 1 day - from the point of view of an observer.
P.S. When asked when he learned to play, Segovia replied: before my birth.
Non computational physics as part of something going on to be “The purpose”. Thank you!!
Sciency folks dismissing other is a perfect example of boxing and ultimately keeping us struggling upon this rock.
The Theory of Everything: Consciousness emerges from biology. Biology emerges from chemistry. Chemistry emerges from matter. Matter emerges from space-time. Space-time emerges from energy. The question for scientists should be "what is energy" ?
Newtonian gravitational constant per electron radius to kg^2 | 60 Hertz, equals hp / Watt, is a a Newtonian power, for G to Watts.
Does humanity exist within space and time, or is life immediate and is time therefore an internal device ?
According to my meditations: There are risks to carrying your awareness through eternity. This dream-like, simulation-matrix was designed to rescue emerging consciousness from the void and provide many sensory, social, stories for your awareness to experience; especially love stories, beginning with your mother’s love.
I'm listening, go on
@@chrisgarret3285 We maintain the continuation of the matrix, without which there is nothing else to tether our awareness to.
Interesting reflections upon reality from the world’s most preeminent scientist and philosopher of science…
Step one ---> Steal underpants.
Step two ---> Something to do with consciousness.
Step three---> Create Grand Unified Theory
what about memory being the aspect of physicallity that makes consciousness into mentality. I believe consciousness and thinking are two separate things. consciousness is where we are in anywhere and it can land on memories and it can land on the physical world and we combine those. egg just popped up on my screen randomly just thought I should include that
❤️
can we have a pic of his triangle of math-physics-mind?
When was this recorded?
Earlier this year!
@@CloserToTruthTV thanks for all that you do, means the world actually
With regards to the brain and consciousness: the computer (despite its ability in rapid accurate calculation and despite current advances in the use of neural networks) is a rather simple device in comparison with the brain (and its structure, organisation and controls). The brain is thought to have 85 Billion neurons. The different variables which control signalling across neural networks have been shown potentially to facilitate a self-organising system---this offers far greater potential than say a large set of algorithms. Understanding may arise out of this self-organising property, with or without direct quantum involvement.
Whether microtubules are involved in a neural quantum phenomenon may or may not be relevant even if quantum effects can be observed or duplicated in model systems. Microtubules are involved in structure/form control in neurons as well as intracellular transport. Anything which knocks out microtubules would anyway stop normal neuron behaviour (likely).
Microtubules are present in the Soma of neurons, especially near the axon hillock: so there is a chance that signals coming from dendrites into the Soma are relayed via some phenomenon involving microtubules into the axon. Yet, there are so many different ways to influence signalling between neurons that it will take a long time for decent progress to be made.
What's fascinating is that new imaging methods can observe signalling in a neural network involving different types of neurons via different coloured markers, and observe other molecular biological phenomenon.
Interestingly, self-organising systems require some ransom elements, so it would be fascinating if some quantum phenomenon were driving that.
I only got as far as 3:45. The host says the triangle is between the physical, mathmatic, and "platonic"?! Sir Roger says differently, and says the physical world is only a small part of the mathmatical world. That may be, but I'm not going any farther into this rabbit-hole.
why automatic translation isn’t working ?
How about being honest enough!
Penrose’s three worlds finds inspiration in Frege, I guess?
physics is now figure skating? it looks good what you do and sounds fine; but bottom line what did we achieve after nuclear?
Roger Penrose told us a few decades ago that the CMBR was 20K and that the universe started in a BB 20 billion years ago! Hold it a minute,...the CMBR is now measured at a only 2.8K and the BB started 13.8 billion years ago? And that’s not mentioning the JWST data which contradicts even the 13.8 billion year prediction.
He who saves us from Simulation and other metaphysical nonsenses of Dennet, Koch, Bostrom and Kastrup!
To say that mathematics is self existent is to say much more that it is an element in a triangle of relationships. Pentode has said that mathematics ( and mathematics alone) would need to exist whether there was a physical world or not. I feel that he was “let off the hook” in the ensuing discussion herbals to appease the philosophically materialist peers.
@Paul Bracken - A pentode is a 5-electrode vacuum tube, although there are some solid state devices called pentodes. I suspect that Sir Roger would be very curious as to why you (apparently) have nicknamed him after a kind of electronic device.
The traditional lesson from the Bible is that we have dualism between spirit and matter, which seems to be more fundamental than the dualism between body and soul. God is spirit and he blew the breath of life in the nose of the man, so he became a living soul. But after the fall God said to him: you are soil and to the soil you shall return. Like the physicalist view then, as if they are still separated from the God who created the whole, who is omnipotent, who is spirit and is sovereign over what He has created.
Descartes had a dualistic view, as did the other rationalists, with adjustments, Leibnitz called it paralellianism.
But according quantum physics there is dualism between the particle nature and the wave nature and here is something that seems incomprehensible, they have to acknowledge that here is something they have not yet understood.
Now we celebrate Pentecost, that God shed his Spirit upon all flesh, by faith in Christ we get to experience it by mere grace. So it was supposed to give us a dualistic view of life and existence anyway. God is perfect, His Son, Jesus Christ is also perfect, and His work of salvation is complete and perfect. God reveals it to us by His Word and His Spirit.
Jesus has received all power in heaven and on earth, God put him at his right hand in heaven, I bow to him and receive the Spirit and the life he gives me from heaven. It is perfect and I see no reason why I should not receive it.
what if there is no radioactive substance in with the cat do we wait to see if the cat dies naturally???
I think this is a replay
👍
"Universe" as a mere identifier for more than one thing, like idea and gravitationally subject matter spatially occupying energy properties, could leave the law of non- contradiction: nothing is it's opposite, intact and resolve the paradox that there are and aren't any nonsubspace things in a subspace *.
* In the non-negative real numbers with the identifier, ℝ ≥ 0 , geometrically represented by a straight line starting at zero with infinity and an arrow opposite, instantiated - discrete natural - number two can be written, (1, 3), meaning it is the 'open interval' of uncountably infinite real numbers from one to three exclusive - not including one and three ; real numbers includes rational numbers, that can written as a ratio, x/y, for x whole numbers like 0, 1, 2, ... and y natural numbers 1, 2 3, ... where "/" means divided by and irrational numbers that can't, who have a possibly infinite non-recurring sequence of numbers after the decimal point, like Euler's number, e, approximated to two decimal places by 68/25 = 2.72.
I actually have a crush on my math teacher
Mind precedes programmed matter. It’s not complicated. Snap out of your object credit giving trance.
The ...virtual, physical, emotional, conceptual and ascensional..... realms of mathematical engineering going forward.
sincerely
integral ...pathos, mythos, logos and ethos....
Quantum mechanics exists at the speed of light which is the reason every particle is already there.
It is a kind of optimistic pessimism which blinds materialists: Optimistic in that they wish to explain Away consciousness as an epiphenomenon, a radndom accident, etc. - as if that being the case would explain Anything, would allow us to simply check that box and move on. But, alas, there is still the utterly confoudning Fact of Existence in the first place - a situation so uncanny that it can only be dealt with by ignoring it.
Penrose and Dawkins are such adorably intelligent beings, u just wanna kiss their smawt wittle faces uwuuu
Hope all the computationalists (consciousness is computable) deny the validity of "free choice of the will".
(highly doubt it though:-)
“When we die and think about the continuity side of things as the same people that lived on earth before, the traditional answer has been the soul. This is the spiritual bit of us liberated at death, persisting and carrying on. But this is a mistake. We are psychosomatic unities and animated bodies rather than an animated soul. We are not apprentice angels. We are embodied-bodies human beings. This is essentially what the Bible both in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the New Testament succeeds human beings as being. We don’t lose that carrier and continuity if our spiritual soul is raised from our body, but we will have to re-conceive it. Say, a middle-aged man in his fifties-what makes him the little boy with a shock of black hair from a school photograph of many years ago. We can say it’s not atomic material continuity. The atoms in his body are totally different from the atoms of that school boy.
It’s not the atoms but the pattern in some extraordinary elaborate and complex sense in which those atoms are organized. And that’s what the human soul is. The human soul is an information-bearing pattern which is the real us. Now this pattern of us (ofcourse these were decays of our bodies at death), if we believe in the faithful God, that God will remember that pattern, that’s not keeping us alive, but will remember the pattern not to lose it and will reconstitute that pattern in the acts of Resurrection-it’s perfectly coherent that God can bring into being such a new form of matter”
- John Polkinghorn, physicist
I hope he lives over 100...
31:08 since reality is accurately expressed by mathematics then who else but a distinguished mathematician can solve the equation and find the missing value :)
What would be an accurate mathematical description of beauty?
@@Samsara_is_dukkha I don't think you'll be able to solve it without understanding it first...
@@r2c3 Are you saying that Newton had to understand the law of Gravity before he mathematically described it? It seems we still do not understand exactly what gravity is and how it arises. Yet, we can mathematically describe it and experience it. It also seems that beauty does not need to be understood or mathematically described to be experienced.
@@Samsara_is_dukkha Newton first understood that a force was being applied to the apple and that apple was not moving by itself...
@@r2c3 Absolutely everybody knows the effect of gravity from an experiential point of view. But experience is not the same as understanding or description. A mathematical description of any phenomenon provides exactly zero understanding as to why it occurs in the first place. All it does at best, is to provide a partial understanding as to how it arises.
Speaking of "Exploring the frontiers of science," (this is a continuation of my comments made in Part 3 of this series of Penrose's.) My Consciousness was deepened following my brain surgery. How do I know this? Because when I returned home from the 6 month recovery in hospital and rehab center, I was glued to the TV watching everything I could on the Iraq War and 9/11. Right from the beginning, I KNEW 9/11 was a hoax! (meaning, a lie.) And prior to 9/11 there was the Iraq War, which I knew was wrong, tragic and was not what Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al, were saying. Also, I was alarmed when my SO exclaimed. "go to war!." Was his comment an eye opener to me? I think so, because I stopped trusting him after that. (Apologies to those that believe all wars are justified.) I believe in Truth.
On the one hand Roger keeps saying "it is not my view" and immediately after that says that "i just cannot see how..." or "I can conceive...". That seems to muddle the discussion due to its non-committal or may be non-confrontational argument.
This universe is matrix, robot. And math is statistics of that robot movement.
perhaps consciousness exists due to subconsciousness existing