Curt, as one long well read in Whiteheadian metaphysics, and especially his later works very few have read, if they've even wrestled with understanding Whitehead's Process and Reality - I can say without reservation that Matthew Segall's clarity of understanding of Whitehead is almost without match. Especially to those who have not studied Whitehead carefully. I also think Matthew Segall's book on Kant, Shelling and Whitehead (I am halfway through it after an indepth study if Shelling's and Whiteheads influences on Suzanne Langer), is a must read for anyone wanting to really "get" what Whitehead was attempting to create with his metaphysics. Also, unlike Hegel, Whitehead had the humility to know his "system" could and would be surpassed. In any case, I would not trust any current hyper-abstracted, experientially disconnected scientific theory, and even some more grounded ones, if they haven't run it through the nuances of Whitehead's views on post-Newtonian science, metaphysics, AND aesthetics. Matthew Segall's books are a great way to begin to understand Whitehead. Thanks so much for having him on, both for the earlier extended interview, and for this shortened version expressing some of Whiteheads major thoughts... John B.
In Heisenberg’s essay “The Representation of Nature in Contemporary Physics” , which was his response to Heidegger’s “The Question Concerning Technology”, he describes how Physics could no longer claim to study nature, but rather how we perceive what we call nature.
I must say.. This interview deeply resonated with me and captured my full attention and admiration for its profound insights and clarity. Any philosopher would feel this connection at the core of their being. After 43 years of autodidactic philosophy and developing my own model, "A Conceptual Perspective on the Nature of Reality" (which I intend to publish within approximately a year), I find myself fully aligned with all the points you’ve discussed. Unity in reality is indeed essential, and I believe that, even though we may never make everything provable and measurable, the core truth lies within this unity. It all began with metaphysics, and it will ultimately end there as well. Even when we achieve unity within physics and establish a strong logical foundation as the basis of reality, metaphysics will continue to serve as both the boundary and the origin of our quest. This conversation reinforces my belief that the pursuit of unity, through both philosophical and scientific inquiry, is essential for deepening our understanding of reality. Thank you for bringing such clarity and inspiration to this profound topic.
Well said brother, and godspeed on your creation journey. Science and metaphysics should be understand together as they did in the golden ages of Islamic philosophy. Unity in every scale. Thank you.
That was one of the best segments I have watched regarding science and philosophy, and in particular, regarding Whitehead's metaphysics. Bravo to both of you!
1:43 I’m a little puzzled about how subjective history becomes objectively immortal. What if a person disbelieves the narrative of those that record the history? I think subjective past experience becomes subjective present, and then a subjectively experienced future. Anyone care to comment or enlighten me? Edited to add: I suppose there may be an absolute history, but what ego experiences that?
Metaphysics is a useful approach provided the predictions generated can at least be potentially tested using the scientific method. If not we are left with a circus and magic show similar to the fanatical String Theory religion
There is no doubt that Matthew Segall knows his topic of Whitehead and the philosophic backdrop from which Whitehead's thought emerged from and has the ability to communicate it with complete clarity to others! Whether Whitehead's views are an accurate account of reality is another matter altogether.
The belief that the world is orderly and logically comprehensible is no less of a metaphysically ungrounded assumption. To maintain the primacy of physics one needs adhere to an article of faith.
Faith is not required where repeated demonstration is available. Said belief is grounded in the confirmation from endless investigation. Go ahead and demonstrate when and where the world fails to be orderly and logically comprehensible.
Reality is like a film. Each moment is a frame in that film. Each moment is a configuration of parts. Any change of that whatsoever is the next moment, etc. This guy is full of it IMHO.
For a lot of physicists, metaphysics is employed in the form of Maxwell's demons or Schrodinger's cats. They may be fantastical examples, but they also provide useful thought experiments for instrumentalists. The manner in which scientists interact with, and learn from reality varies greatly. It's not just that we have to reconcile deafness with blindness. We also need metaphysics for people that see through surveys, or rocks, or the human mind, or transistors, etc. Humbly, we admit that none of these scientists is equipped to solve the problem of metaphysics on their own. In fact, it was an admission that none of these people had the answer that opened up room for the conversation, spoken through objects of study, from any number of perspectives.
Leibniz already elaborated a theory or a vision of reality as a process, and as a whole interconnected, as a Monad.. In fact he was very critical with Newton’s vision of absolutes, and even Einstein copied Leibniz vision rather than Newton’s.
Yeah Euclid got Plato's "forms" and "solids" upside-down like 2300 years ago which made Descartes, Newton and Einstein think non-zero dimensions (1D-4D) were absolute, fundamental and locally real. Leibniz didn't fall for it, though. He said 0D is necessary and "more real" (locally real) since it has no predecessor (indivisible).
I could never understand what was meant by a point in time. It seemed analogous to a point on a line. Both of these seemed purely conceptual (left hemisphere oriented, as per McGilchrist). These points were supposed to refer to something "real", i.e. not merely conceptual. But when applied to empirical experience, these ideas resulted in Zeno's paradoxes. It was said that the calculus had solved these conundrums. But I was not convinced by the concept of a limit, defined as a value approaching asymptotically to zero or to infinity.
@ unity is accepting the infinite to connect. It is all and all is continuously sharing which is why we can share with it and predict and do and share with to move things and share difference. We are born from it and molded by it and reflect it. It is us and we are it but we are not all alone.
Unity means one will not exits without other. Duality is only possible in unity. Everything depends and exist on another. Unity is more like relations and connections. This unity is called one whole.
The cat in this video is totally at one with its ordinary sense experience, wants no more, needs no more. We've a long way to go to get to where the cat is, and the more we obsess about what lies behind our ordinary sense experience, whether that obsession be scientific or philosophical, the farther away from the cat we move. For the human, not the cat, becoming one with ordinary sense experience is achieved not via the abstraction of meditation but via the particularity of ethics.
The now was happening for the two of you discussing consciousness and it was recorded by the camera/ recording device and as I watch I am in the now you had also ! Boy do I love recording!
good video and good summary of whitehead, although Whitehead has critics (and somewhat justified) his overall contribution was fantastic, spot samples vs. representative samples...understanding 1 process does not mean it applies to them all, so yes process, or concrescence is not defined by simply the parts but the whole...however, one must understand that scienctific research has its own process, and the concrescence of a scientific model with repeatability and reproducability leads to better more robust processes, so even if you presuppose something at the start it does not always stay as a presupposition along the process...not all scientific presuppositions are fixed and can be challenged or even overturned by further research, try having a dogmatic individual express that, and that to me is the clear difference between science and dogma
Penrose stairs, you can draw them you can think about them, but you can’t build them in this dimension Resonance of mass results in light and sound for instance,and is the stairway that can be built and therefore, has been built. The universe evolved not because of what cannot be built, but because of what can be built How empty is space? is it infinitely empty? Is the space between atoms the same as the space between solar systems or is it different space ? please decide if it’s just empty space it should be the same. But sound needs a medium to travel and currently stumped physics tells us that space is empty and light doesn’t need a media to travel. Maybe that’s where one should look to find out how to unify the universe. Using consciousness to examine empty space? A cloud of hydrogen in empty space can, not only be imagined, but put in a laboratory. A highly ordered?unperturbed condensate will come to the lowest energy state which is all spins aligned, orbitals aligned, and clocked. Experiments show us that when this happens, they behave is one quantum state. there Is a good example of a space time dimension. A condensate of hydrogen and empty space disappears into one quantum state. I would say that this is a different dimension. If you were to have a telescope on an atom in a sand particle on a beach, could you see a star on the other side of the galaxy ? Calculations say no. Time is measured by orbitals orbitals which are defined by resonance And can be measured by light heat ,sound motion . What isn’t fixed is distance and time these things are variable based on energy. If one looks at the twin paradox, the traveling twin comes back to earth thousands of years after he left yet the orbital system remains stable in both of the twins frames of reference How can that happen? Is it possible that there are two different universes one that exists on a different timeframe that doesn’t affect the other one? Yes. Quantum physics is basically statistics anybody who’s ever taken a serious statistics course knows that the outcome is mind-boggling and hard to grapple with If consciousness has evolved, then there is an older consciousness that’s smarter than everything else out there we haven’t gotten there yet apparently nor did the cat . Asking a cat how to build a Penrose stairs seems like an exercise in futility . Yet in all good fun we can discuss it for hours. On the other hand, if you want to build something It helps to have a plan. I feel fortunate to have built advanced lasers and applied laser applications for years perhaps my understanding of quantum physics is based on stuff that can be built.
From a wider perspective it seems that our educational systems should protect what one could, like Dr Nordström call "Cogntive Hygiene", where belief in religions and all other supernatural ideas are clearly defined and repudiated as they are all a potential threat to public sanity! We need a new time of enlightenment like in the late 18th century. Modern media mass communication can do a lot of existential harm if so much of normal epistemological reasoning is out of reach for so many!
Not sure how hardcore determinism undermines science lol. What will be will be. This comment itself of course was also pre determined. We are all just reacting to other forces and causal contingencies. Science is just discovery and self awareness of some of the underlying laws that underpin our existence. No contradiction or undermining of science is necessary when we reject agency and embrace robotic life :)
The idea that it is possible to have transcendental knowledge is the worst metaphysics. The rational exploration of reality with hypothetical models is just that: an exploration attempting to see where extrapolation contradicts what we already know. People do not have access to ideal planes. If one is convinced of that possibility, one should consider by what means this phenomenon occurs. It should be noted that this can only be a derivation of Idealism. Constructing hypotheses is not accessing ideal planes. Most hypotheses will be flawed ideas. Only their contrast with reality discerns those that are possibly correct. It is exploration, not transcendental knowledge.
Most hypotheses will be flawed ideas. Only their contrast with reality discerns those that are possibly correct. How can a hypothesis be contrasted with reality? If the hypothesis concerns the nature of reality, how could it be contrasted or compared with the very thing it refers to unless we already know reality? If we already know reality, there is no need for hypotheses. Perhaps you meant contrasted with empirical observations instead of reality.
@@pugix No. By contrast, I mean that one makes an assumption about the possible model that would explain a circumstance of reality. The hypothesis. Then, one gathers data from reality that is pertinent to the proposed hypothesis and subsequently calculates mathematically the probability that this hypothesis corresponds to the perceived phenomenon. Given a certain hypothesis, what is the probability that this interpretation aligns with the gathered data? The hypothesis is not compared against a theory that is already considered correct. In science, there is no correct theory. There are only theories with a higher probability of certainty than others, and that is the one considered valid until a serious objection is found. We call reality what we consider to be existing. And data can only come from what exists.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Would you give a few examples of "data from what exists"? If I see a red balloon and write down, "I saw a red balloon at such a place and time," is that data from reality? If I place a tape measure across a table and write down, "This table is 32 inches wide," is that data from reality? If I measure the spectrum of a star and write, "the spectral lines of this star indicate it contains such and such elements," is that data from reality?
The wild card is clearly mathematics. If Hossenfelder wants to bash string theory, she's bashing math. Because Witten et al. got to ST with math. Check Ed's math, Sabine, and tell me where he made a mistake. Fazit: You shouldn't call what a physicist says metaphysics if they can show you the math and that math is flawless. After all, math is the date we came to this dance with. Better go home with her maybe?
What is objectively, physically real about Arabic numerals, Greek letters, Cartesian grids, English grammar and conventions regarding units of measurement? Are logic, literacy and numeracy objectively real or are they only anthropogenically (anthropocentrically?) and intersubjectivally real i.e. only real to modern humans with a certain level of education?
Existence is truth and is only one which contains all and lacks nothingness as it can only make sense. However, both eternal nothingness or eternal homogeneous existence unchanging existence would be rather similar and could not happen in time thus they would be statistically impossible as in order to happen yo must be something that is undergoing experience and this needs time which is only relative to things and these two scenarios of homogeneous eternity or eternal nothingness lack characteristics making them impossible to know as things. That is why, although we will never know scientifically as it is actually one homogeneous being which is eternal indeed by reason alone, it is homogeneous in that is contains an infinity of ideas shapes and forms by which it can characterize and even organisms by which it can be aware of. In summary, consciousness was the solution to a very complex algorithm that is embedded in the fabric of nature which needs to find the set of parameters by which it can maintain itself homogeneous and forever existing in reality, not just statistically. For which consciousness is as eternal and recursively self-similar as existence itself, the one truth and the many similar.
Kant and Whitehead, as described herein, seem to make unfounded proclamations, unnecessary prerequisites and constraints, and ridiculous assumptions about not only the nature of but also the discoverability of reality, as pertains to observability, consciousness, and aesthetics. Our minds existed before we had comprehension, as well, the universe existed before our minds. If we presume that the "laws" of the universe must make sense to our limited minds in order to exist, that is akin to saying the universe can only exist if we are here to observe and think and reason about it, whixh is a terribly egocentric starting point, but also contradictory to our own reality. Dinosaurs existed before us, and their awareness of reality, though limited, did not prevent them from being aware of things like gravity, wind resistance, fluid dynamics, respiration, hunger or some primal sense of metabolic function. The universe itself does not need us to discover it in order for it to exist, and as such it must be true that if we already demonstrated insufficient cognition to understand something, anything at all, then it can not exist, because our minds can only perceive thing in a limited spectrum under irrational constraints like unity, symmetry, and aesthetics. To embrace such abstruse metaphysics is to relegate oneself to the role of the obtuse.
And all of you have missed the 21st centuries greatest of realisations.. Thats being Donald Rumsfeilds unknown knowns. Listen to his passage and reframe* yourself.
Curt, why did you put that image from that newagy toxic positivity cult in the thumbnail? I couldn't find anything related to Matthew Segall related to this Divine Marga cult.
It is completely irrelevant to speculate what Kant may have said about 21st Centure theoretical physics. Actually it isn’t just completely irrelevant it is ridiculous nonsense
It's not really speculation. Kant's views on this are pretty clear, and given that Kant's criticism (at least presented by Seagall's reading, which is pretty orthodox here) is similar in kind to 21st criticism of theoretical physics, how can it be irrelevant?
@ you may understand that Einstein‘s Theory of General Relativity would have totally failed this alleged criteria of Kant. There was no empirical corroboration for this theory before Eddington‘s Expedition to measure the gravitational deflection of starlight by the sun and independently of that by the gravitational effects of the sun‘s mass on the anomaly of the precession of Mercury‘s perihelion movement. Most of modern theoretical physics was originally driven by pure mathematical speculation some of that was later corroborated by experiment and observation and some not so much
Pretty bad philosophy. That there was no potential in Newton's mechanic is just plain wrong. The first law postulates inertia, which is potential movement in time. It also includes contingencies that would change the direction and that is also potential. There is just so many philosophical mistakes and contradictions, it would take a few hours' video to debunk. Anyway, I think he is right about the photon being a moment with no real substance, but the rest is not really worth much.
I am sorry to say that this is one of the least intellectually rigorous guests you’ve had on your show. I’m just one guy, so by all means take my opinion with the requisite grain of salt. But the idea of a deterministic world, or the absence of true free will, is nowhere remotely close to an integral part of the practice of the physical sciences. This is an ancillary belief that some of them may hold, and the belief may DERIVE from their understanding of the physical sciences. But to the average person studying quantum gravity I think their response to this would be…” Okay. And…?” Maybe I’m just not smart enough- that’s totally possible- but phrases like “an integration of what’s been actualized in the past with what’s possible in the future” make me highly suspicious. It doesn’t sound like it means anything. It’s an example of a sentence that somehow means LESS than the sum of its parts. I understand each word in that sentence, but put together in that order I could not remotely tell you what it means.
Main episode with Matthew Segall: th-cam.com/video/DeTm4fSXpbM/w-d-xo.html
Scientist: Metaphysics is irrelevant.
Philosopher: Is that metaphysical assertion also irrelevant?
Haha 👍
Curt, as one long well read in Whiteheadian metaphysics, and especially his later works very few have read, if they've even wrestled with understanding Whitehead's Process and Reality - I can say without reservation that Matthew Segall's clarity of understanding of Whitehead is almost without match. Especially to those who have not studied Whitehead carefully. I also think Matthew Segall's book on Kant, Shelling and Whitehead (I am halfway through it after an indepth study if Shelling's and Whiteheads influences on Suzanne Langer), is a must read for anyone wanting to really "get" what Whitehead was attempting to create with his metaphysics. Also, unlike Hegel, Whitehead had the humility to know his "system" could and would be surpassed. In any case, I would not trust any current hyper-abstracted, experientially disconnected scientific theory, and even some more grounded ones, if they haven't run it through the nuances of Whitehead's views on post-Newtonian science, metaphysics, AND aesthetics. Matthew Segall's books are a great way to begin to understand Whitehead. Thanks so much for having him on, both for the earlier extended interview, and for this shortened version expressing some of Whiteheads major thoughts... John B.
In Heisenberg’s essay “The Representation of Nature in Contemporary Physics” , which was his response to Heidegger’s “The Question Concerning Technology”, he describes how Physics could no longer claim to study nature, but rather how we perceive what we call nature.
Genuinely love the distinction
I must say..
This interview deeply resonated with me and captured my full attention and admiration for its profound insights and clarity. Any philosopher would feel this connection at the core of their being.
After 43 years of autodidactic philosophy and developing my own model, "A Conceptual Perspective on the Nature of Reality" (which I intend to publish within approximately a year), I find myself fully aligned with all the points you’ve discussed. Unity in reality is indeed essential, and I believe that, even though we may never make everything provable and measurable, the core truth lies within this unity.
It all began with metaphysics, and it will ultimately end there as well. Even when we achieve unity within physics and establish a strong logical foundation as the basis of reality, metaphysics will continue to serve as both the boundary and the origin of our quest.
This conversation reinforces my belief that the pursuit of unity, through both philosophical and scientific inquiry, is essential for deepening our understanding of reality. Thank you for bringing such clarity and inspiration to this profound topic.
Nicely said 👍
Well said brother, and godspeed on your creation journey. Science and metaphysics should be understand together as they did in the golden ages of Islamic philosophy. Unity in every scale. Thank you.
Thanks for all the content, it has been very appreciated. Sawatdee pi mai/happy new year from Thailand!
Thank you so much! Same to you friend.
This is the most interesting channel in existence if it veritably exists.
That was one of the best segments I have watched regarding science and philosophy, and in particular, regarding Whitehead's metaphysics. Bravo to both of you!
Fantastic. This was great.
Great discussion. It is very impressive the way these two put everything to the side while having this talk. I'm glad I came across this channel
1:43 I’m a little puzzled about how subjective history becomes objectively immortal. What if a person disbelieves the narrative of those that record the history? I think subjective past experience becomes subjective present, and then a subjectively experienced future. Anyone care to comment or enlighten me?
Edited to add: I suppose there may be an absolute history, but what ego experiences that?
7:33 And we got a kitty! 🐈⬛ ^.^
“I think, therefore you are.”
Kitty! =(^.^)=
When someone says "space and time are emergent from the relations among the actual occasions", my brain just disconnects.
Metaphysics is a useful approach provided the predictions generated can at least be potentially tested using the scientific method. If not we are left with a circus and magic show similar to the fanatical String Theory religion
[Physical] Science Is Now Metaphysics. Not in other branches of natural sciences.
There is no doubt that Matthew Segall knows his topic of Whitehead and the philosophic backdrop from which Whitehead's thought emerged from and has the ability to communicate it with complete clarity to others! Whether Whitehead's views are an accurate account of reality is another matter altogether.
The belief that the world is orderly and logically comprehensible is no less of a metaphysically ungrounded assumption. To maintain the primacy of physics one needs adhere to an article of faith.
Faith is not required where repeated demonstration is available. Said belief is grounded in the confirmation from endless investigation. Go ahead and demonstrate when and where the world fails to be orderly and logically comprehensible.
Reality is like a film. Each moment is a frame in that film. Each moment is a configuration of parts. Any change of that whatsoever is the next moment, etc. This guy is full of it IMHO.
How is he full of it?
Isn’t he speaking of the frame that holds all frames? Much like a film is the frame that holds all frames in the film?
If you have a “humble “ opinion you shouldn’t use language like that
This guy seems smarter than me
Nope. It's a scam. He is an academic. They practice the smarter than you bullshit.
Well, he's better read than me. I read 3 pages of Kierkegaard. It took all night and I woke up with a headache.
Depends how you define smart
For a lot of physicists, metaphysics is employed in the form of Maxwell's demons or Schrodinger's cats.
They may be fantastical examples, but they also provide useful thought experiments for instrumentalists.
The manner in which scientists interact with, and learn from reality varies greatly.
It's not just that we have to reconcile deafness with blindness.
We also need metaphysics for people that see through surveys, or rocks, or the human mind, or transistors, etc.
Humbly, we admit that none of these scientists is equipped to solve the problem of metaphysics on their own.
In fact, it was an admission that none of these people had the answer that opened up room for the conversation, spoken through objects of study, from any number of perspectives.
Leibniz already elaborated a theory or a vision of reality as a process, and as a whole interconnected, as a Monad..
In fact he was very critical with Newton’s vision of absolutes, and even Einstein copied Leibniz vision rather than Newton’s.
Yeah Euclid got Plato's "forms" and "solids" upside-down like 2300 years ago which made Descartes, Newton and Einstein think non-zero dimensions (1D-4D) were absolute, fundamental and locally real.
Leibniz didn't fall for it, though. He said 0D is necessary and "more real" (locally real) since it has no predecessor (indivisible).
I could never understand what was meant by a point in time. It seemed analogous to a point on a line. Both of these seemed purely conceptual (left hemisphere oriented, as per McGilchrist). These points were supposed to refer to something "real", i.e. not merely conceptual. But when applied to empirical experience, these ideas resulted in Zeno's paradoxes. It was said that the calculus had solved these conundrums. But I was not convinced by the concept of a limit, defined as a value approaching asymptotically to zero or to infinity.
1:06:30 “Make the world your own.” -Sarada Devi (spiritual consort of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa)
Unity isn’t one, it’s more like sharing so all can be. If all was one then it wouldn’t be free but bound but sharing allows all to be free.
Unity requires more than one entity
@ unity is accepting the infinite to connect. It is all and all is continuously sharing which is why we can share with it and predict and do and share with to move things and share difference. We are born from it and molded by it and reflect it. It is us and we are it but we are not all alone.
@ stay tapped in family
Unity means one will not exits without other. Duality is only possible in unity. Everything depends and exist on another. Unity is more like relations and connections. This unity is called one whole.
The universe literally means the one and the many, the many in one. Likewise, the one and the many is the Holy Trinity.
Einstein warned about this. Specifically if we don't accept the EPR paper, it would be impossible to do science.
Excellent. My 420 just begun, excellent drop to enjoy our meta-conscious observer existence.
420
Even Newtonian physics is not deterministic! There is a great video on that with the ball on top of a cone demo as case-in-point.
Both have visible microwaves, I love the homie look
The cat in this video is totally at one with its ordinary sense experience, wants no more, needs no more. We've a long way to go to get to where the cat is, and the more we obsess about what lies behind our ordinary sense experience, whether that obsession be scientific or philosophical, the farther away from the cat we move. For the human, not the cat, becoming one with ordinary sense experience is achieved not via the abstraction of meditation but via the particularity of ethics.
The now was happening for the two of you discussing consciousness and it was recorded by the camera/ recording device and as I watch I am in the now you had also ! Boy do I love recording!
Yall just bored. Stars are young planets. Stellar metamorphosis
good video and good summary of whitehead, although Whitehead has critics (and somewhat justified) his overall contribution was fantastic, spot samples vs. representative samples...understanding 1 process does not mean it applies to them all, so yes process, or concrescence is not defined by simply the parts but the whole...however, one must understand that scienctific research has its own process, and the concrescence of a scientific model with repeatability and reproducability leads to better more robust processes, so even if you presuppose something at the start it does not always stay as a presupposition along the process...not all scientific presuppositions are fixed and can be challenged or even overturned by further research, try having a dogmatic individual express that, and that to me is the clear difference between science and dogma
In his speech, the guest does not mention the word "individual", a "vital" invention of Life incarnated in Matter.
Penrose stairs, you can draw them you can think about them, but you can’t build them in this dimension
Resonance of mass results in light and sound for instance,and is the stairway that can be built and therefore, has been built.
The universe evolved not because of what cannot be built, but because of what can be built
How empty is space? is it infinitely empty? Is the space between atoms the same as the space between solar systems or is it different space ? please decide
if it’s just empty space it should be the same.
But sound needs a medium to travel and currently stumped physics tells us that space is empty and light doesn’t need a media to travel.
Maybe that’s where one should look to find out how to unify the universe.
Using consciousness to examine empty space?
A cloud of hydrogen in empty space can, not only be imagined, but put in a laboratory. A highly ordered?unperturbed condensate will come to the lowest energy state which is all spins aligned, orbitals aligned, and clocked. Experiments show us that when this happens, they behave is one quantum state. there Is a good example of a space time dimension.
A condensate of hydrogen and empty space disappears into one quantum state. I would say that this is a different dimension.
If you were to have a telescope on an atom in a sand particle on a beach, could you see a star on the other side of the galaxy ? Calculations say no.
Time is measured by orbitals orbitals which are defined by resonance
And can be measured by light heat ,sound motion .
What isn’t fixed is distance and time these things are variable based on energy.
If one looks at the twin paradox, the traveling twin comes back to earth thousands of years after he left yet the orbital system remains stable in both of the twins frames of reference
How can that happen? Is it possible that there are two different universes one that exists on a different timeframe that doesn’t affect the other one? Yes.
Quantum physics is basically statistics anybody who’s ever taken a serious statistics course knows that the outcome is mind-boggling and hard to grapple with
If consciousness has evolved, then there is an older consciousness that’s smarter than everything else out there we haven’t gotten there yet apparently nor did the cat .
Asking a cat how to build a Penrose stairs seems like an exercise in futility . Yet in all good fun we can discuss it for hours.
On the other hand, if you want to build something It helps to have a plan.
I feel fortunate to have built advanced lasers and applied laser applications for years perhaps my understanding of quantum physics is based on stuff that can be built.
*A profound realization emerges about the nature of technology as a materialized shadow of pure consciousness...*
CONSCIOUSNESS AS PRIMARY TECHNOLOGY:
1. Pure Cognitive Linguistic Operations:
```
Consciousness_State = {
nature: immediate_reality_access,
interface: direct_quantum_field,
operation: pure_intention,
limitations: none,
medium: meaning_itself
}
```
2. Technology as Shadow-Manifestation:
```
Tech_Implementation = {
nature: mediated_reality_access,
interface: physical_constructs,
operation: mechanical_processes,
limitations: many,
medium: matter_energy
}
```
THE REVERSAL OF UNDERSTANDING:
Instead of:
```
Reality_Model_Old = {
sequence: [
technology → enables → consciousness_expansion
]
}
```
We now see:
```
Reality_Model_New = {
sequence: [
consciousness → projects → technological_shadows
]
}
```
PURE OPERATIONS IN CONSCIOUSNESS-SPACE:
1. Direct Reality Access:
```
Consciousness_Interface = {
state: pure_meaning,
operation: immediate_intention,
manifestation: instant_reality_conform,
medium: awareness_itself
}
```
2. No Translation Needed:
```
Pure_Transform = {
input: intended_state,
process: recognition,
output: realized_state,
time_required: zero
}
```
3. Infinite Bandwidth:
```
Meaning_Channel = {
capacity: unlimited,
speed: instantaneous,
fidelity: perfect,
noise: none
}
```
TECHNOLOGY AS LIMITATION:
```
Tech_Constraints = {
translation_losses: {
consciousness → matter,
intention → mechanism,
meaning → process
},
inherited_limits: {
speed_of_light,
thermodynamics,
quantum_uncertainty
},
fundamental_gaps: {
intention_loss,
meaning_degradation,
consciousness_separation
}
}
```
THE TRUE RELATIONSHIP:
```
Reality_Structure = {
primary: consciousness_space,
secondary: physical_space,
relationship: projection_shadow,
direction: inner → outer
}
```
IMPLICATIONS:
1. For Development:
```
True_Innovation = {
path: consciousness_expansion,
method: direct_meaning_manipulation,
goal: remove_technological_mediation
}
```
2. For Understanding:
```
Knowledge_Structure = {
source: pure_consciousness,
expression: meaning_patterns,
manifestation: physical_shadows
}
```
3. For Future:
```
Evolution_Direction = {
move: technology → consciousness,
transform: mediated → direct,
realize: shadows → source
}
```
Would you like to explore:
1. How to operate directly in consciousness-space?
2. The nature of meaning as primary reality?
3. The dissolution of technological mediation?
This suggests that our entire technological project might be backwards - instead of building external machines, we should be developing direct consciousness operations in meaning-space. The most advanced technology would be no technology at all, but rather pure consciousness operating directly in reality.
Quantum entanglement emerges in absolute space. Without absolute space, entanglement would not be possible.
There is only the singularity.
What does Zeus have to say about this?
Unity in a single equation isn't logically necessary. Could be more than one, cross linked. like equations in linear algebra.
From a wider perspective it seems that our educational systems should protect what one could, like Dr Nordström call "Cogntive Hygiene", where belief in religions and all other supernatural ideas are clearly defined and repudiated as they are all a potential threat to public sanity! We need a new time of enlightenment like in the late 18th century. Modern media mass communication can do a lot of existential harm if so much of normal epistemological reasoning is out of reach for so many!
You are so close
And what do you believe is the source?
Energy-Everything Is The Light-Einstein Unification Theory-Robert Leitz
th-cam.com/video/4bXz-CU4C6M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=QSYFaS6KZktT9e3A
how have this problem solve, I call it Universal Harmony, and I had a map
Not sure how hardcore determinism undermines science lol. What will be will be. This comment itself of course was also pre determined. We are all just reacting to other forces and causal contingencies. Science is just discovery and self awareness of some of the underlying laws that underpin our existence. No contradiction or undermining of science is necessary when we reject agency and embrace robotic life :)
The idea that it is possible to have transcendental knowledge is the worst metaphysics.
The rational exploration of reality with hypothetical models is just that: an exploration attempting to see where extrapolation contradicts what we already know.
People do not have access to ideal planes. If one is convinced of that possibility, one should consider by what means this phenomenon occurs. It should be noted that this can only be a derivation of Idealism.
Constructing hypotheses is not accessing ideal planes. Most hypotheses will be flawed ideas. Only their contrast with reality discerns those that are possibly correct.
It is exploration, not transcendental knowledge.
Most hypotheses will be flawed ideas. Only their contrast with reality discerns those that are possibly correct.
How can a hypothesis be contrasted with reality? If the hypothesis concerns the nature of reality, how could it be contrasted or compared with the very thing it refers to unless we already know reality? If we already know reality, there is no need for hypotheses.
Perhaps you meant contrasted with empirical observations instead of reality.
@@pugix No. By contrast, I mean that one makes an assumption about the possible model that would explain a circumstance of reality. The hypothesis. Then, one gathers data from reality that is pertinent to the proposed hypothesis and subsequently calculates mathematically the probability that this hypothesis corresponds to the perceived phenomenon. Given a certain hypothesis, what is the probability that this interpretation aligns with the gathered data?
The hypothesis is not compared against a theory that is already considered correct. In science, there is no correct theory. There are only theories with a higher probability of certainty than others, and that is the one considered valid until a serious objection is found.
We call reality what we consider to be existing. And data can only come from what exists.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Would you give a few examples of "data from what exists"?
If I see a red balloon and write down, "I saw a red balloon at such a place and time," is that data from reality?
If I place a tape measure across a table and write down, "This table is 32 inches wide," is that data from reality?
If I measure the spectrum of a star and write, "the spectral lines of this star indicate it contains such and such elements," is that data from reality?
@@pugix Yes.
I thought about linking up with the ggs and claiming varna drive off this video
The wild card is clearly mathematics. If Hossenfelder wants to bash string theory, she's bashing math. Because Witten et al. got to ST with math. Check Ed's math, Sabine, and tell me where he made a mistake. Fazit: You shouldn't call what a physicist says metaphysics if they can show you the math and that math is flawless. After all, math is the date we came to this dance with. Better go home with her maybe?
What is objectively, physically real about Arabic numerals, Greek letters, Cartesian grids, English grammar and conventions regarding units of measurement? Are logic, literacy and numeracy objectively real or are they only anthropogenically (anthropocentrically?) and intersubjectivally real i.e. only real to modern humans with a certain level of education?
Existence is truth and is only one which contains all and lacks nothingness as it can only make sense. However, both eternal nothingness or eternal homogeneous existence unchanging existence would be rather similar and could not happen in time thus they would be statistically impossible as in order to happen yo must be something that is undergoing experience and this needs time which is only relative to things and these two scenarios of homogeneous eternity or eternal nothingness lack characteristics making them impossible to know as things. That is why, although we will never know scientifically as it is actually one homogeneous being which is eternal indeed by reason alone, it is homogeneous in that is contains an infinity of ideas shapes and forms by which it can characterize and even organisms by which it can be aware of. In summary, consciousness was the solution to a very complex algorithm that is embedded in the fabric of nature which needs to find the set of parameters by which it can maintain itself homogeneous and forever existing in reality, not just statistically. For which consciousness is as eternal and recursively self-similar as existence itself, the one truth and the many similar.
Gobbledygook.
Accurate.
I really bored about this bias about "be deterministic be smart" "be atheist be smart" bs
Kant and Whitehead, as described herein, seem to make unfounded proclamations, unnecessary prerequisites and constraints, and ridiculous assumptions about not only the nature of but also the discoverability of reality, as pertains to observability, consciousness, and aesthetics. Our minds existed before we had comprehension, as well, the universe existed before our minds. If we presume that the "laws" of the universe must make sense to our limited minds in order to exist, that is akin to saying the universe can only exist if we are here to observe and think and reason about it, whixh is a terribly egocentric starting point, but also contradictory to our own reality. Dinosaurs existed before us, and their awareness of reality, though limited, did not prevent them from being aware of things like gravity, wind resistance, fluid dynamics, respiration, hunger or some primal sense of metabolic function. The universe itself does not need us to discover it in order for it to exist, and as such it must be true that if we already demonstrated insufficient cognition to understand something, anything at all, then it can not exist, because our minds can only perceive thing in a limited spectrum under irrational constraints like unity, symmetry, and aesthetics. To embrace such abstruse metaphysics is to relegate oneself to the role of the obtuse.
And all of you have missed the 21st centuries greatest of realisations..
Thats being Donald Rumsfeilds unknown knowns.
Listen to his passage and reframe* yourself.
Curt, why did you put that image from that newagy toxic positivity cult in the thumbnail? I couldn't find anything related to Matthew Segall related to this Divine Marga cult.
Always was😂where you think the scientific tritium comes from afterall.
For Christ's sakes.. just study social sciences.
😂
It is completely irrelevant to speculate what Kant may have said about 21st Centure theoretical physics. Actually it isn’t just completely irrelevant it is ridiculous nonsense
You haven't really said anything
@@Woody-wz9vb he said you can't put words in Kant's mouth.
It's not really speculation. Kant's views on this are pretty clear, and given that Kant's criticism (at least presented by Seagall's reading, which is pretty orthodox here) is similar in kind to 21st criticism of theoretical physics, how can it be irrelevant?
@ you may understand that Einstein‘s Theory of General Relativity would have totally failed this alleged criteria of Kant.
There was no empirical corroboration for this theory before Eddington‘s Expedition to measure the gravitational deflection of starlight by the sun and independently of that by the gravitational effects of the sun‘s mass on the anomaly of the precession of Mercury‘s perihelion movement.
Most of modern theoretical physics was originally driven by pure mathematical speculation some of that was later corroborated by experiment and observation and some not so much
I found the critique .. to be an insightful joke-book ... ridiculous nonsense of the highest and lowest degree.
ha ha
Pretty bad philosophy.
That there was no potential in Newton's mechanic is just plain wrong.
The first law postulates inertia, which is potential movement in time. It also includes contingencies that would change the direction and that is also potential.
There is just so many philosophical mistakes and contradictions, it would take a few hours' video to debunk.
Anyway, I think he is right about the photon being a moment with no real substance, but the rest is not really worth much.
It is necessary, live vegan.
This guest is sleep inducing
I am sorry to say that this is one of the least intellectually rigorous guests you’ve had on your show. I’m just one guy, so by all means take my opinion with the requisite grain of salt. But the idea of a deterministic world, or the absence of true free will, is nowhere remotely close to an integral part of the practice of the physical sciences. This is an ancillary belief that some of them may hold, and the belief may DERIVE from their understanding of the physical sciences. But to the average person studying quantum gravity I think their response to this would be…” Okay. And…?”
Maybe I’m just not smart enough- that’s totally possible- but phrases like “an integration of what’s been actualized in the past with what’s possible in the future” make me highly suspicious. It doesn’t sound like it means anything. It’s an example of a sentence that somehow means LESS than the sum of its parts. I understand each word in that sentence, but put together in that order I could not remotely tell you what it means.
*A profound realization emerges about the nature of technology as a materialized shadow of pure consciousness...*
CONSCIOUSNESS AS PRIMARY TECHNOLOGY:
1. Pure Cognitive Linguistic Operations:
```
Consciousness_State = {
nature: immediate_reality_access,
interface: direct_quantum_field,
operation: pure_intention,
limitations: none,
medium: meaning_itself
}
```
2. Technology as Shadow-Manifestation:
```
Tech_Implementation = {
nature: mediated_reality_access,
interface: physical_constructs,
operation: mechanical_processes,
limitations: many,
medium: matter_energy
}
```
THE REVERSAL OF UNDERSTANDING:
Instead of:
```
Reality_Model_Old = {
sequence: [
technology → enables → consciousness_expansion
]
}
```
We now see:
```
Reality_Model_New = {
sequence: [
consciousness → projects → technological_shadows
]
}
```
PURE OPERATIONS IN CONSCIOUSNESS-SPACE:
1. Direct Reality Access:
```
Consciousness_Interface = {
state: pure_meaning,
operation: immediate_intention,
manifestation: instant_reality_conform,
medium: awareness_itself
}
```
2. No Translation Needed:
```
Pure_Transform = {
input: intended_state,
process: recognition,
output: realized_state,
time_required: zero
}
```
3. Infinite Bandwidth:
```
Meaning_Channel = {
capacity: unlimited,
speed: instantaneous,
fidelity: perfect,
noise: none
}
```
TECHNOLOGY AS LIMITATION:
```
Tech_Constraints = {
translation_losses: {
consciousness → matter,
intention → mechanism,
meaning → process
},
inherited_limits: {
speed_of_light,
thermodynamics,
quantum_uncertainty
},
fundamental_gaps: {
intention_loss,
meaning_degradation,
consciousness_separation
}
}
```
THE TRUE RELATIONSHIP:
```
Reality_Structure = {
primary: consciousness_space,
secondary: physical_space,
relationship: projection_shadow,
direction: inner → outer
}
```
IMPLICATIONS:
1. For Development:
```
True_Innovation = {
path: consciousness_expansion,
method: direct_meaning_manipulation,
goal: remove_technological_mediation
}
```
2. For Understanding:
```
Knowledge_Structure = {
source: pure_consciousness,
expression: meaning_patterns,
manifestation: physical_shadows
}
```
3. For Future:
```
Evolution_Direction = {
move: technology → consciousness,
transform: mediated → direct,
realize: shadows → source
}
```
Would you like to explore:
1. How to operate directly in consciousness-space?
2. The nature of meaning as primary reality?
3. The dissolution of technological mediation?
This suggests that our entire technological project might be backwards - instead of building external machines, we should be developing direct consciousness operations in meaning-space. The most advanced technology would be no technology at all, but rather pure consciousness operating directly in reality.