2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 มี.ค. 2013
- Watch the 2020 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate on Alien Life: • 2020 Isaac Asimov Memo...
The concept of nothing is as old as zero itself. How do we grapple with the concept of nothing? From the best laboratory vacuums on Earth to the vacuum of space to what lies beyond, the idea of nothing continues to intrigue professionals and the public alike.
Join moderator and Hayden Planetarium Director Neil deGrasse Tyson as he leads a spirited discussion with a group of physicists, philosophers and journalists about the existence of nothing. The event, which was streamed live to the web, took place at the American Museum of Natural History on March 20, 2013.
PANELISTS:
J. Richard Gott, professor of astrophysical sciences, Princeton University, and author of Sizing Up the Universe: The Cosmos in Perspective
Jim Holt, science journalist and author of Why Does the World Exist? An Existential Detective Story
Lawrence Krauss, professor of physics, Arizona State University and author of A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing
Charles Seife, professor of journalism, New York University, and author of Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea
Eve Silverstein, professor of physics, Stanford University, and co-editor of Strings, Branes and Gravity
The late Dr. Isaac Asimov, one of the most prolific and influential authors of our time, was a dear friend and supporter of the American Museum of Natural History. In his memory, the Hayden Planetarium is honored to host the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate - generously endowed by relatives, friends, and admirers of Isaac Asimov and his work - bringing the finest minds in the world to the Museum each year to debate pressing questions on the frontier of scientific discovery. Proceeds from ticket sales of the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debates benefit the scientific and educational programs of the Hayden Planetarium.
2017 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: De-Extinction
• 2017 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?
• 2016 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2015 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Water, Water
• 2015 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2014 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Selling Space
• 2014 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing
• 2013 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2012 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Faster Than the Speed of Light
• 2012 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2011 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Theory of Everything
• 2011 Isaac Asimov Memo...
Rose Center Anniversary Isaac Asimov Debate: Is Earth Unique?
• Rose Center Anniversar...
***
Subscribe to our channel:
th-cam.com/users/subscription_c...
Check out our full video catalog:
/ amnhorg
Facebook: naturalhistory
Twitter: / amnh
Tumblr: / amnhnyc
Instagram: / amnh - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
just spent 2 hours watching a group of physicists argue about the definition of Nothing. 10/10 would watch again.
All are experts for nothing. WTF.
I know a little about a great many things,
a great deal about very few things,
everything about nothing,
and nothing about everything else.
@@Dranok1
I know a little about a great many things;
and a lot about a very few things;
but I know absolutely nothing about nothing...
...for, by definition, there _is nothing to know._
@@TshaajThomas I think you meant: What The Nothing?
@@Dranok1 mm m ok
&800).. hours izgfuzfsuxigipig
M. M. Mm.
M
I watched all of this for nothing.
Glad you got the answer :)
xD
Nothing has the property of being nothing. So nothing is something. 0 is 1. Therefore every binary code must exist.
I know people that go around prefacing a lot of things with the words..."Not for nothing".
I should force them to watch this ten times.
Devilofdoom In a binary code 0 is equivalent to off/no/false and 1 is equivalent to on/yes/true so it's false that 0 is 1.
The discussion of 'nothing,' is really a discussion of how impossible it is to escape an idea once birthed.
7h7u77
Well.. They do say stupidity is contagious
@1:21:04 "Back up and say something else."
That was beautiful.
Thank you for posting these. I was wondering though if the 2001-2010 debates were taped as well, and if they will ever be available to view?
Ubicado buj
U 7ii7iuiiuuuiijuiiii7inn9
I can't believe the Higgs-Boson was discovered more than 8 years ago.
10 actualy ;)
It is said, that infinity is not just an unreachable quantity, It is also an entity that is by its very nature unattainable, no matter what happens or how long it takes.
*Thus, it should not occur in the real physical universe, nor in any hypothetical multiverse.*
Personally, I think that an objective state of nothing relative to our objective experience of a something, is as impossible as infinity.
Thus, *it should not occur inside or even outside of this, our physical universe, nor any hypothetical multiverse*
The question children ask relentlessly is 'Why?"
Not "How?"
I think that says a lot.
Shaun Graham I lost you there, what does it says, could you pls expose your thought? There are also children asking "how" FYI. When a child deconstructs things, strokes petals before tearing them off, etc., he's not asking "why" but "how".
HawkFest RoG Children are new to the experience of being alive and full of questions about existence. They are more apt to wonder 'why' things are than 'how' do things work. Evolution is extremely interesting but not as interesting as 'Why are we here?'.
Shaun Graham
that's a wishful thinking. The "why's" happen much later than the "how's". As having abstract ideas and thinking also comes later, that's another fact. In fact most of the time "why's" can be translated into "how's", advertisers don't show the reality don't forget this.. I won't repeat my example, read it again if you don't remember : what would you think of this? When you talk to a child about religion, you tell him/her about the How's (and magic) behind, not about the why's nor abstract philosophies : he/she will be interested by the how's. The only "why" is around 1-3 year old : is it bad or good? e.g. does it make him/her cry or smile? That's all, all the rest is about the how.
+Shaun Graham
I have a bit of an issue with that. The "Why?" that young children ask isn't much different than "How?", "How?" is just a little more sophisticated. That is, it's not a matter of intelligence but a matter of knowledge. They see something that happened, and ask why that happened. They're told not to do something and ask why not. It's a very important question to ask, in my opinion. I've said many times that children are generally among the smartest people (and by correlation that stupid is a learned behavior) because they ask "Why?", and sitting within that little word is the recognition of not knowing, and recognizing that you don't know something is the first step toward leaning. I think it's a bit further to go from the "Why?" that children ask to "Why are we here?" than to "How?".
+Matt W It is the natural progression of humans, as children, to move from 'why' to 'how'. Why is the question that must be ask first - before comprehension - of principles and integrated systems, etc. - 'why' is the natural state of the young mind prior to knowledge. How can not be asked, except as a parrot, by someone unfamiliar with mathematical and scientific processes, even rudimentary ones. It is only as people 'mature' that they are interested in such things as being, as you put it "...a little more sophisticated." The problem of the modern scientific mind in a nutshell. Thanks for playing.
I read alot of comments knocking how obnoxious Tyson was in this video, But in his defense he always does his best to keep everyone in the loop who may not pick up on something or whom needs a guide. Yes for more advanced minds it can ne annoying but educating amateurs about science does alot more for science. Tyson is always teaching that's makes him unique and sympathetic towards all listeners for the better of science moving foward.
I think his a great host tbh at least he knows deply about what is debating about versus 90% of podcasts hosts nowadays...
I came into this world with nothing...and I still have most of it left
I think this discussion is the one of the best ever in any science channels
Eve was literally the most brilliant person on the stage. Her description of the problem was incredible.
Agreed.
I agree with you, The problem is they go so fast on their explanations and interpretations
that they're extremely confusing to most people, Get it? Welcome to the
circus publishing blend of religion, metaphysics, philosophy, and
science,, all trying to make scientific sense out of nothing which is
something. This is Infinite propoganda, and/or infinite confusion, and
infinite money from all this mass confusion!!!!! ......+picklesnorf101
She said that geometries like a simple energy line, or a sting basically become non geometric and non dimensional at a small enough size, so it's relationship to our reality and a zero geometric reality is entirely different that our finite perception of reality . Energy still exists there but in a different form because this form is non geometric and super syymetrically infinite, and this super syymetrically infinite system must always exist if any finite to infinite equation is to succeed rationally and explain the infinite.... That was your Mr. Spock quote for today
CRAZY INSANE VIDEOS What's odd in this whole chit-chat about nothingness, is that they try to put the Universe at our level of comprehension, while also trying to be scientifically rational: it just can't happen without confusing contradictions. Simple: if we should consider very very small stuff as "nothing" so that we understand whatever, than why try to rationalize some constitutive nature of such nothingness? The fact of trying to insinuate nothingness while it's actually not true, that's what's utterly confusing, it doesn't help at all in understanding whatever they babble between each others. I prefer to try grasping the very small (or huge) or uncertain nature of things instead of this.
BTW, that journalist is again trying to reinterpret the Bible scriptures so that it fits current science. It's ridiculous (now "nothing" = "chaos".. But what is chaos? Some level of misunderstanding? lol). If one wants to look at science seriously, he should get rid of the Bible while doing so. If believing in God only involves filling some intellectual/scientific gaps and nothing else, then such weak God would mean nothing, if not to be against human evolution since he would only thrive upon our ignorance and intellectual weaknesses.
its is on the level of anyone's comprehension if the proper words are chosen to understand it in a physical sense without geometry. It is a piece of cake to understand it!!! Give me $500 and I'll send you my masterpiece paper on it, far better than richard gott and his time travel stunt, or krauss and his half baked explanations, or eve and her intellectual (I'm a genius and your not) showmanship, or Holt on his endless religious denials. NO GODS REQUIRED!!!! What a comedy of confusing errors life is for the fallen elites and their borg counterparts. Q from star trek must be eternally laughing his arse off.
51:00 i just want to go back to the guy talking about the glass universe XD
Reminds me of one of my favorite riddles:
What is greater than God,
more evil than the devil,
the rich need it,
the poor have it,
and if you eat it you will die?
If you ask me for the answer, I will tell you nothing!
Good one. If that doesn't describe it nothing will.
@The Ardent Chef The answer is "nothing". He gave the answer in the question.
tyson is a low IQ moron, he couldn't even answer your riddle! @ 54:55 thru 59:18 neil degrasse tyson asks her to explain 'so and so', which she does, then tyson says but what about the "so and so, tell us about that". seemingly baffled at how he didn't understand what she just said, she says "i just _did_ ". buahaha, tyson is so dense. astrophysicist he is not, classic example of Affirmative Action fail.
Ketchup. It's Ketchup, isn't it?
😁👍🏿
"Nothing is the absence of both anything and anywhere." -T. Franks ©TM
This channel should have WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than 64k subscribers. LEARN SOMETHING, PEOPLE!!!!!
+TheLivingfreekshow No one is as good as you, son.
It's unfortunate the cats get more views
I learned about nothing
lol
I learned nothing
possibly the one event that I find myself applauding in the privacy of my own home.
You are able to describe "nothing" and here is my description: Nothing is the only thing whose only property is that it does not have another property. With this description, it should not be hard to determine if something is nothing. As to how the universe came into being, and whether it came from nothing, that is a different question.
This is a great way to describe it. The thing is, once you are able to attribute a property to it, it never WAS nothing, so it's easy to discount anything you find as 'not nothing' and be correct. Very good way to describe it.
Thank you all for such an amazing talk and sharing with us..I am a student of physics and do study philosophy.I was stumbled at this question nothingness is sth so big and out of thought if you think and you keep God out of this question ..it was so amazing
Amazing conversation!
"It's a show about nothing"
"nothing?"
"nothing"
"well it must be about something"
"no, it's about nothing"
Seinfeld, lol. I watched this whole thing and was interested in all of their opinions on what nothing is but if you just skip around, you hear the word "nothing" every time you skip almost, it's ridiculous how much time they spent arguing what nothing is, but I understand why
@@CapitalJ2 He should have said "yes, it is about nothing" as nothing is the subject, the 'something' "
Seinfeld is love
Yeah I understand way too it's because they're a bunch of professional bullshitters hosted by the grandmaster bullshitter of all time douche bag and charlatan Tyson
@@alexanderkarl4025 - man, what is your problem ? and what, in your mind, makes tyson a "douche bag" and "charlatan" ?
Like Salsa..
Hilarious at 39:57 Professor Gott _"is there a big black thing back here?"_ and Neil deGrasse Tyson standing behind him flexing..lol
Such an intriguing philosophical topic! Is there a transcript for this panel discussion?
You-said-it, Janet!😛😊😎😬
How can I edit Closed Captioning? At 74:24 he says "positing" and the subtitle has it as "propositing." I can see whoever put that in was unsure, rightly so, hence enclosing it in brackets with a timestamp.
This debate is great! But also I think they would have benefited from having a mathematician (particularly a logician or a set theorist) on the panel as well as a neuroscientist. A mathematician would have been concern of the formal definitions of zero and nothingness as they play a fundamental role in set theory (and in mathematics in general) and a neuroscientist might stir the debate to consciousness, the possibility of emptiness of thought and how we create those concepts in our brains. It seems to me that nowadays the fields of science have grown apart from each other so much that there is not enough interdisciplinary talk between the different ramifications of science. It seems very important to me to bring them back together as much as we can because in the end all of the different fields are trying to discover the mysteries of nature. I understand there is a vast knowledge in each field and the language each field uses is only understood by experts on that field, but we have to keep open the possibility for a connection between them because nature is a whole interconnected system and not separate individual parts that don't influence each other. The brain is influenced by electrochemical reactions as well as thermal energy and somehow this creates consciousness. Consciousness is the only way by which we can create ideas, concepts and formal mathematical definitions which are bound by the language that we use to express them (which actually vary between different languages and cultures). From the concepts we create (particularly mathematical) physics is developed which of course at a greater scale gives rise to chemistry, then biology, then organisms, societies of organisms all the way up to galaxies and the universe itself. And trying to understand the universe brings us back to the concepts we use to define it which again are tied to how we think those concepts.
I think they would have benefited from having about half the number of people they had. three of the guys were chomping at the bit to speak anytime anyone else was speaking, and two of them would not speak until invited. I couldn't help but spend the whole time with a countdown in the background on who was currently excluded the longest
Neil’s amazing. His enthusiasm and love for others shines like a beacon. Love that man.
He's an actor, he's not even a scientist.
He spent more time interupting than contributing.
He's the host who's supposed to simplify everything. I think that came with the job - oversimplification
I would have liked it if Charles Seife got the chance to speak without being interrupted. Was still an awesome discussion though : )
could we say that there's nothing in our mind and yet we get to have thoughts out of nothing?
Very stimulating conversation on the simulation ! Very bright people pondering the nature of the reality we find ourselves experiencing ! This is no doubt creating interest in the minds of young people to persue the sciences as an exciting career !
people talking about nothing stimulates you?
43:17 "It's not heavy, they're my universes." lol that deserved a bigger laugh. (He's not heavy, he's my brother.)
A few interesting points to think about, but not a satisfying talk.
The philosophical question is the interesting one. Krauss should have expanded on why it is necessarily a physical question.
There are many uncertainties. And yet, one thing may be certain... The youtube trolls are quite happy when you feed them. Aside from that, thank you to AMNH for uploading and sharing this exceptional and enlightening discourse.
why are the Sound Quality is very Low ? To make the ads sound nice & Loud ?
I watched the religious version of this debate. They announced 5 different theists. The first guy gave his opening remark. He said, "Why are we here? God." Everyone agreed and the talk was over. It was magical. Total time, about 1.5 minutes.
+brigham2250 I wanna see that shit:)))
+ovidiu dans I will pay for it:)))
Lol
+brigham2250 PISH TOSH.
Lol
I love neil's polite answer to that person suggesting a theological perspective on what made the multiverse.
Love these debates!
Learning is an absolute constant
"Nothing and infinity are two sides of the same coin" :)
I respectfully disagree. Nothing is the absence of something less than zero not even a vacuum(sort of); where as infinity is something up to no one knows where it ends.
@@wesb8159 The absence of something is a simplistic view of zero.....I’d suggest reading “The Book of Nothing” by John D. Barrow. It’s really a great read
@@wesb8159 a blackhole appears to be nothing and infinite things
Zero means everything. Nothing doesn't exist .
“Nothing. Such a useful word, isn’t it? It can mean anything and everything.” - Mary Poppins
thermo
Mary Poppins. Popped it right in'er.
What if nothing can only be paradoxical? To have nothing always leaves you with the potential for everything. We just exist in one strand or state of the infinite possibilities. Yet we don't.
The problem I have with his piece of glass, is that the emergences are parallel, side by side. Instead of nested within each other, as we see in the universe.
Love these discussions. My wish is that that audio could be adjusted to the different speakers, especially for Neil, his volume is way too high. No disrespect to him or what he has to say, brilliant man. For 2014 I hope the audio is tested before recording that way we can hear what everyone has to say.
agreed, they need a more experienced live audio mixer, and a better trained cameraman as well while we are at it.... :))
@@mathiasmoser4102 mmmmmmmmmmm
@@mathiasmoser4102 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
@@mathiasmoser4102 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmm
@@mathiasmoser4102 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm MLK mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmommmmmmmmmomommmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I don't know if this is a stupid question or not but I have to ask. If there ever was absolutely nothing wouldn't that have meant that there was absolutely no potential for anything all? I have seen various physicists trying to get around that part of a theory like the Big Bang, you know, where did the initial quantum singularity come from and the response is usually in a question, this one, why did it have to come from anywhere?
So back to my question, it has me wondering if there's such a thing as negative potential or something else that could explain absolute nothingness producing a Universe or a singularity.....I'm under the impression that there has to be potential in order for anything to happen.
trytip x.
no man, that's not what I mean. "Nothing" can't be described as something which came from anywhere. But, I enjoyed your word picture painting and understand.
I used to read theories and hear scientists say, that before the big bang is a nonsensical question as there was no "before" and there was no "where" because all space and time were created after the big bang event.
now there's brane theory and multiverse and an oscillating bang/crunch theory and now a recent new twist on that which proposes that in an ever expanding Universe the end is like the beginning, such a low entropy state that somehow another big bang happens and it begins again.
there's a lot of theories these days. I think it might be helpful to start a process of elimination.
so, with that in mind, the original Big Bang theory is either valid and worth further consideration or its not.
which is why I ask, without referencing another dimension or any force or fluctuation, in a state devoid of any source, force, quality, quantity, area,volume, in other words, without description by comparison, absolute Nothingness.
could it have Potential?
My pea brain tells me no.
without any potential,
can anything happen?
again, pea brain says no.
if that is true, the Big Bang as I understand it never happened because it couldn't have.
But, if there is something called Negative Potential which I don't know about, then "Nothing" would have an infinite amount of it.
I'm trying to remember my math from almost fifty years ago, there are imaginary numbers which are real useful, negative numbers add up.
but I left school at fifteen years old almost fifty years ago and so, all I really have is my imagination which exists devoid of an education....like the initial quantum singularity in its void and if I can gain some input somewhere somehow, that one brain cell is going to bang and I could reach enlightenment.
So tell me please, is there Negative Potential which could in some convoluted mind bending way produce a change in state?
Peter K. Yes you have assumed correctly. However, The thing before The BIg Bang is known as the "Primordial Fireball". All the matter in the Universe crushed down into the size smaller than an atom. Than in an instant EXPLODES! How and Why? It was and is GOD's "intellectual design" and His creation of the Heavens and Earth. HE is the Alpha and Omega. HE is the something from which it all began. HE is the one in control and HE is the giver of Eternal Life after death. We are living the final days before the Thousand Years as prophesied in the book of Revelations. Only through HIM!! NOTHING creates NOTHING! GOD will destroy the Earth and all Evil afterwards, re-create Earth for HIS kingdom, Heaven on Earth, the third Earth age to come. Amen.
"If there ever was absolutely nothing wouldn't that have meant that there was absolutely no potential for anything all?"
The answer to that is, evidently, no. Because we definitely have "something". Even appealing to a god doesn't stop the fact that something will have had to have come from nothing at some point.
@@paulnash3747 I find cleaning your keyboard regularly solves that silly caps problem. Unfortunately, it doesn't fix the more fundamental one.
@@paulnash3747 WHY? Oh why did He make the earth, mankind then promise to destroy them? Why?
I really enjoy these debates, but the thing I wonder about is why Dr.Tyson doesn't have a mic like everyone else?
What I find most interesting about this debate/discussion is viewing it almost 10 years later. With the recent advances in both 'black holes' and new quantum theory, the definition of 'nothing' is certainly changing. It gives new dimension [no pun intended] to the universe in general, and life in particular.
j 9
j
o j
j jo bjj b
j
My question is if nothingness also means no laws, what is there to prevent something coming from nothing?
That's a clever point.
It's not a clever point, you're essentially saying "Well what is stopping this balloon from floating? Nothing is holding it down" What's stopping the balloon from floating is the balloons own non-existence.
This is gold, I'm so pissed i haven't found it sooner
If you have not seen it, this one is a real treat with Neil, Krauss, Brian Greene, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins and others.
/watch?v=9mLMxWhGSbs
{:o:o:}
Edit: actually, I think that's a copy or a mirror. Here is part 1 and 2 of the original:
/watch?v=_J4QPz52Sfo
/watch?v=40YIIaF1qiw
1:41:35 Can we teleport specially prepared quantum mechanical states faster then the speed of light?
Conference like this are great but I would like some efforts put into updating and putting out new editions of books like : Intelligent man's guide to science, The universe, The human body, The human brain, etc.... They are quite unique books and updated versions would be great. Just update for new discoveries and correction to measurements and possibly a few additional chapters in the proper style.
My own personal experience of nothing was under the effect of general aenesthetics. Everything just went boom! to nothing in an instant and suddenly any concousness of time, space or whatever just ceased to be, until I woke up and then everythng came back into existence. To be aware of that gap in the perception of self was both reasuring and scary at the same time. Of course this is an account from the point of view of the observer. Where was my conciousness gone? To me it raised personal questions as if this concept of nothingness is what our destiny, then this moment of somethingness is quite more relevant. Sorry, I know this is far from being a scientific view of what nothing is. Just an account from a normal human being that slept.
I understand. It is so easy to believe that we come from nothing and that we go into nothing if you think that when we sleep for most of our sleep we are not self aware at all. It is actually comforting to think that.
now all you need to define is that Biblical chapter in Genesis !
Ii7i8iiiii88😮😮9o9óo99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999😊⁹ ook ook i 1:53:59 nu 6h
An unpopular view, but it almost seems as if consciousness itself, as we define it, may be an operative function of cellular activity.
Or at the very least neurological activity that's codependent, theoretically, on the body's anatomic structural integrity. --- Just a whimsical thought.
@@Tar-Von Consciousness is not a physical phenomenon. Particles can't become self-aware. A physical mechanism is a physical mechanism is a physical mechanism - there's nothing physical about the colors you see, the sounds you hear, or the flavors you taste. You can't magic up stuff that doesn't exist in the universe from stuff that does.
who is still watching 2019
2020 after the plague during the riots
There should be a reality television show featuring scientists disputing
over what are the most immediate and important problems for humanity to
solve and how to go about solving them. The winning candidate would be
granted a huge sum of money for conducting research in his/her fields of
interest(all the money could be crowd-funded).
It would also be nice to have the Freudians and Jungians as the show's commentators.
I watch every minute of this and got nothing, thank you for the great discussion.
In my opinion this was a perfect panel. Everyone seemed to mesh so well, not in terms of agreement but in terms of stimulating fantastic debate and theory.
For me, nothingness equates to a form of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. You can either know the exact location of a particle or the exact velocity of it. As you approach one, the other becomes more and more uncertain.
Similarly, as you approach nothingness, it doesn't remain nothingness, it becomes something! And then you aren't really discussing nothing!
Sagar Wadhwa is this a stolen idea/definition or did u come up with it years and years ago? because if not stolen, that's a great way to put it.
A particle is something and how can a “you” which is something approach nothingness ? You’re a genius
Problem with "nothing" is that it's impossible to visualize. Even when trying to visualize nothing, you embed it in something to visualize it.
And there is the solution to the riddle. Not every word makes sense. "Nothing" is one of those that do not, at least not if used as a negation to the totality of existence.
I think it’s fitting that the journalist who is an expert on zero has his microphone volume set to zero😂
The lack of attention on Eastern philosophy, which has plenty to say on Nothingness, is quite irritating. What Seife mentioned about nothingness and infinity being quite similar actually has some merit. Kurt Vonnegut once said, "Everything is nothing with a twist" and Western philosophers such as Alan Watts have elaborated on this notion (using his knowledge of both science and Eastern philosophy). In Eastern philosophy, there is this notion that there can't be something without nothingness because a Something is only known and differentiated by Nothingness. There is a symbiotic relationship between something and nothing that cannot be conceived if one or the other did not "exist". Science and philosophy are very complementary fields and it's this one-track minded fascination that one or the other must be the correct description of reality really limits philosophers and scientists alike. This discussion would have been a lot more fruitful if there wasn't constant bickering over whether philosophy or science is better. Unfortunately,this panel seemed more about ego than a love for knowledge. Both fields intellectually observe the same set of questions in different ways. Different does not mean wrong.
There was brief mention of the idea the sum of energies in the universe is zero. I'd say: The universe is just really complicated nothing..
Wow, you said exactly what I was thinking about them omitting Eastern philosophy which dates earlier than their philosophers. "The DAO that can be expressed
is not the eternal DAO.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal name.
“Non-existence” I call the beginning of Heaven and Earth.
“Existence” I call the mother of individual beings.
Therefore does the direction towards non-existence
lead to the sight of the miraculous essence,
the direction towards existence
to the sight of spatial limitations.
Both are one in origin
and different only in name.
In its unity it is called the secret.
The secret’s still deeper secret
is the gateway through which all miracles emerge."
And for some reason I also thought of the wisdom of Kurt Vonnegut while watching this.
So glad to see Watts and eastern philosophy mentioned here. Watts’s lecture on nothingness makes more sense to me than any of these guys. The best explanation here was that nothing and infinity are two sides of the same coin, an analogy that Watts himself probably would have used.
Nonwestern Nothingness is based on Noncommutative Phase logic as Eddie Oshins realized. He was a quantum physicists working at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and he also taught Wing Chun Neigong (internal martial arts).
@@anyariv Where did you get your rendering of the Tao Te Ching? Is it your own or some on else's? It is a very interesting take.
Thanks Neil. Eva (especially) and then J. Richard and Charles were superb! Especially Eva who, it seems, talked exclusively about what she was asked about in an intriguing vernacular. I got a peek into her world! Jim and Lawrence were less interesting as they seem to color their intellectual arguments by arguing. Geez.
Possibly the greatest scientist alive open minded pragmatic
Heidi's poem (4:07):
Nothing speaks volumes
Imprisoned dreams jailed for ever
Forgiveness weeps
No tears are released
Silence begs for ease
Anger has no hope
Indifference rejoices
While Nothing holds court with the jesters of Time
Nothing waits, and waits.
This was one of the best Isaac Asimov debates 👍
To me nothing is an incredibly unstable force that holds together everything that is about to be created
thats something not nothing
@@zachariahtuttle3543 true but I can’t see that nothing could ever be truly nothing
All that amassed knowledge and some of them don't have enough sense to hold the mic at an optimum distance.
Yup... SUPER ANNOYING!
Not only that, most of the people dont have the ability to think if croud can hear them well. I would also want to add another thing to this topic, most of the time we have no interaction with the microphone and most of them have different specifications, some work perfectly when they are close some work perfectly when they are little further. Imho we should not complain about that and just enjoy the ride gathering all that awsome knowledge they give us.
So is this what you say when you are watching people smarter than you? Don't be mad bro.
lol
G
That is why we should all run from this utube.
After watching the debate about the universe being a simulation (maybe), this makes more sense all of a sudden. The Big Bang is, when they started the computer program (simulation), and a nano second later everything just existed.
Ever wonder if miracles were actually Cheat Codes?
Where to download one of these Brains?
The existence of nothing is a contradiction, nothing is non-existence. I think maybe a better way to say this is does the idea of 'nothing' make sense in a physical universe. This might have allowed the discussion to be a bit more fruitful. At the end I must say I did not feel that there was any real progress towards answering the question.
Kjţ0
Ğ
Ň
I agree with you. Nothing is not consistent therm that could be explored and discussed with eventual material outcome and conclusion,
Agreed, the discussion went off-topic several times, but as Gott asserted (paraphrasing), "Nothing does not exist, so there's 'nothing' to talk about." In all fairness, there's really no way to have an argument for nothingness without discussing what is. It cannot be measured but only assumed by "gaps" in the physical world.
Funny thing about this is that if you think about it "nothing" exists by not existing. When you ask why is there something rather than nothing, you're agreeing that something exists, and nothing doesn't exist, but by it's own definition nothingness is non-existent, so for nothing "to be" it would have to not be.
@@LilyoProductionsfinally. I finally found someone saying what Ive been saying.
WHY WOULD there be NOTHING rather than something?
reality,we see through our senses... ie.. w see reality as PER our senses.as to what reality is, remains a mystery. . existence of anything ,is phenomenal... inherent existence ,is a fiction. nothing exists INHERENTLY.. all is interlinked and interconnected,nothing can or do exist apart and alone.. (Buddha and also Einstein)
This is an interesting comment & I try to expain exactly this to people & I'm suprised at those who can't grasp it. It's nothing more than an expansion of the "tree falling in the woods". The sound is produced by our senses.So with that I ask, if life wasn't arround to observe the universe, would it exsist?
A good way to consider the question. Maybe there is no difference, infinity and zero have many common properties. According to Lawrence you need 'nothing' to get the 'something' really it seems to be the classic chicken and egg question, which came first. And remember we don't actually know which way 'time' goes!!
CircularLogic The sound is not produced by our senses but by vibrations of the atmosphere given off by the tree falling. The noise we here is a subjective experience but the sound waves would exist were we there or not, in short the tree doe make a sound when it falls even if no one hears it
Victor Higgins "Sound" is humans short way of saying " My ear drums are vibrating". The falling tree may vibrate the air when it falls,but those vibrations will only be called a sound if those vibrations vibrate a human ear drum.
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥
Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Purnnam-Udacyate
Puurnnasya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate ||
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||
Meaning:
1: Om, That (Outer World) is Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); This (Inner World) is also Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); From Purna comes Purna (From the Fullness of Divine Consciousness the World is manifested) ,
2: Taking Purna from Purna, Purna Indeed Remains (Because Divine Consciousness is Non-Dual and Infinite).
3: Om Peace, Peace, Peace.
And that is the answer to nothingness..and the answer to the God
Gott got me. I would love to have him as a professor...I could learn so much from him: He speaks my language.
Nothing by definition doesn't exist so that's why there's something. Done.
+Mat Lord If nothing doesn't exist then something doesn't exist either. And that's a paradox, as is your sentence.
+Mat Lord I agree, but would reword: Something exists, therefore an existence of nothing is an impossibility.
Since something exists, then you might say that nothing doesn't exist since something is filling the nothingness. But to say that it is an impossibility is wrong.
+Norman The fact something exists does not imply nothing does. Ok, it just doesn't follow. Saying the universe is expanding into nothing is totally meaningless, nothing can't be expanded into because it's not there... In every case you attempt to posit the existence of nothing, you find you can't do it, because the word is defined as something that doesn't exist. So it's impossible to ever talk meaningfully about an existent nothingness, it would be like asking "how heavy does purple smell like?" It's just nonsense.
I just said how the fact that something exists implies that nothing does. You can't have something unless there was nothing first, therefore it has existed and therefore it can exist. Saying that the universe is expanding into nothing is not meaningless, since its taking up the space that nothing occupied, and is filling it with something, in this case the somethingness of our universe.
Because we invent the universe based on perceptions, language, mathematics, and technology we invent therefore reflecting our limitations.
Exactly... But most Academics are too dense in there ego driven narcissism to even realize it. lol
@@jahhah6719 not really lol ur so special. so deep LOOOL
@@DankBucketYT Ha! 😁
tal cual. la capacidad de conocer esta limitada por los instrumentos con los que se percibe. continúan digitalizando la realidad que es continua, solo porque el instrumento para percibirla lo es ( la mente ) wtf? es como pixelar un circulo o una esfera....
@Jonathan Wheeler science is way underfunded on an non-institutional level. What do you expect? If the big tech companies where into pure science, they'd all have their individual LHC.
Interesting program. Nothing would have been preferable to the intro poem, lol!
"In the void is only virtue. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness."
-Miyamoto Musashi-
How can Jim Holt, with a straight face, deny to Lawrence Krauss that using the word "Why" implies intentionality, when it absolutely does? "How" is a much better question to ask of something that may not have had a reason to exist. It's ironic that Holt makes a jab at Krauss earlier in the program that scientists should keep philosophers around to show them how to use words properly.
Perhaps Holt feels threatened by the superior relevance of "How in there something rather than nothing?" instead of "Why?" because the title of his book utilizes the latter.
I agree. I believe Holt shouldn't ask WHY he should nail me, but HOW he should nail me. Followed by WHEN.
The Love in Neil's eyes when talking about his parents is beautiful.
Do you think we would ever get to meet him? I really want to eat spanish tapas with him
No in Iraq nin initially Iowa ja nin jin we nya nnnnnninkinininininninnknknknnknnnknknnknknknnknnknninnnninnnninnknnnknnninnninnninnnbbbib
Binb nights I nikniiiinnniiibjibibiiniiiiiiinininibbibb
Carlos S bnibbibñ
Ñbnbnni
1:18:14 that awkward moment you get cut off in conversation but the cameraman doesn't cut away
With reference to the second question from the audience, the lack of a definite article in Hebrew is not the same thing as in English when we have an indefinite article. One might say that in Hebrew there is a "nothing" state with neither definite article, which Hebrew has, nor indefinite article, which it does not have but is not necessarily implied by the lack of the definite article. So the lack of a definite article, with which we would translate "the beginning", does not directly point to inserting an indefinite article in English; and further, the lack of a Hebrew definite article can actually indicate a stronger definiteness than having a definite article in English. Thus "nothing" can be more definite than something, in terms of Hebrew grammar translating into English.
For truth nothing is impossible!
Why is there something rather than nothing? Because, in the philosophical sense, nothing does not exist. That is to say, everything exists and nothing does not. So, if there is something, there isn't nothing. Any other answer requires presuppositions or redefining meanings (i.e. semantics). This question is meaningless and the real meaningful question is, like Krauss said, "How is there something".
I watched all the Asimov debates. This is the Best. !~!!!
I do love that both men and women are part of the panel, I loved that you could tell who was nervous and who wasn't and all these beautiful humans are exceptionally clever people. I will forever Love Neil degrease Tyson, such a lovely topic as I do have problems myself with the thought of there being nothing, its inconceivable, but my brain is created from something, so I suppose it is hard for a being to believe there could be nothing, if we our programming isn't designed to do that and yet here we all are debating it.
Their has to be something how else does this universe exist theoretically their has to be a way the universe came to be
Richard Gott is super impressive!
He rambles though and wastes floor time. :/
Live from Crazytown USA 2020! I sleep with youtube autoplay on. Every time I wake up there is a different Tyson -Degrassi vid. I am getting educated in Astrophysics by default! lol :)
What is that symbol / logo of the man in the circle ? Is it just for these debates ? Should be on a cap and T shirt.
Nothing = Everything. There is no beginning, infinity is always there. One cannot say `When did infinity begin`? There`s always something before something, and always something after anything. Everything = nothing. Infinity and all it contains is forever!
Lawrence's idea of nothing is more like the idea of everything. So in his representation of the birth of the universe is more like a universe out of everything than a universe out of nothing.
When Krauss says "nothing," he means nothing, not an “all” that is somehow equivalent to nothing. I suspect that you're describing what DeGrasse allowed you to hear. His approach to "moderating" was both heavy-handed and clearly favoured the journalists and "science writers" on the panels over the three actual physicists. If I were Krauss, Gott or Silverstein, I'd start refusing DeGrasse's calls after manipulative non-sense like this.
You have to love NGT for adding so much energy to what would normally be a very boring conversation. He has an ability to notice the discussion is getting too complicated and is able to explain what they are talking about in simple terms.
😂 that’s all he has to offer and his job as a shill
* NdGT
So I just want to know.Has anyone took the concept that in the multiple Universe theory,that the energy for the big bang came fro the collision of 2 other Universes in a sort of hyper space?
I am no math major by no means,But I do spend a lot of time thinking about the infinitely big and small.I do have thoughts that I have yet to come across in all of these debates.
It seems like Lawrence is describing a situation where things aren't physically measurable, but can potentially manifest measurable traits due to natural laws. Others seem to be describing a situation that isn't physically measurable AND there are no natural laws either. But both are using the same word, which may be the source of the debate.
"I hope we're all wrong. Let's keep learning"
-- The Scientist
"Our two thousand year old book is the truth, despite its contradictions. And always will be."
-- The Religious Person
You wish it was that simple
***** Eh, I think the scholarly method could give science a run for its money, but that doesn't really have to do with anything. Anyways, I pretty much stopped at "religion adapts" and humbly agree to it. :)
I do not believe all scientists want their ideas to be wrong, they just believe so because most are humble people incapable of believing they know all of existence. They should run the world, not the politicians.
!!!!
"You better hope you're right or I'll stop funding you."
- The Scientist's Investor
1:22:02 😂 Haha, I love Neil.
Does "I thought a lot about nothing ?" mean that I spent a lot of time not thinking, or does it mean that there is something denoted by the term 'nothing' that I thought a lot about ?
But how shall we resolve any ambiguity except in terms of context ?
The most absolutely genius ways of saying "not a clue"
Depends on how you define Nothing. Zero is nothing but it is something. Is nothing between the gaps? Nope that's space. Is space nothing? Sure. I learned its not nothing enough. So what is further than space time (our known universe). Nothing is just escaping our expanding universe. It is a concept. Someday we will define a nothing that we need to make sense of the universe just like when we defined zero. Since we are in 4D, TXYZ, we cant go back in T due to thermodynamics, I can define reverse T travel as going to nothing. Also gong to T too far forward also delivers, nothing. Escaping the universe. Ripping through the universe is just that. And you need the tools of outside the universe to do this.
Will Neil deGrasse and Lawrence Krauss let others talk uninterrupted . Would have been a good discussion if they had just shut up when the rest of the panelists were talking.
Nothing being debated is actually something... in great minds.
I was hoping for reference to some great book on the subject exhaustively about all the various interpretations of the word nothing.
This discussion would be a fruitful exercise had some person or persons written such books, delving exhaustively into all the definitions or interpretations of the word nothing, helpfully.
51:00 English is not the correct language to speak when talking about physics. No human language (English, Spanish, Greek, Aramaic) are precise enough for these topics.
You can describe physics with language, so long as you understand that the description is not precise.
Only mathematics can describe physics precisely, and even then, we aren't really sure exactly HOW precise we are being.
No one could precisely describe an orbit until the Calculus was invented. I think that there is another, as yet to be invented mathematics which will help us more precisely describe the world, especially quantum effects.
TheGodEmperorofMankind
I didn't say language was useless. I said it is not precise.
When teaching math. you don't need to be that precise.
TheGodEmperorofMankind
Okay, I think you misunderstand. I am saying that these things they describe sound crazy to us laymen because we can't precisely understand what they are describing.
People become confused when they hear these things because they think that what is being described is exactly what is happening.
I am saying it isn't true. They laymen (like you and me) need to understand what the physicists describe in English isn't EXACTLY what is taking place.
I provided a time stamp with my comment to provide the context for which my comment is meant. Go and watch at about 51:00. Just click the time stamp, it will take you right there.
It is also important to note that many of these ideas still only exist as math. We have mathematical models and predictions, but observation of things, like inflation fields, are impossible with our current limitations.
Andrew Price
But those limitations are being expanded every day.
We can do things today that blow the minds of people from just 5 years ago. Imagine what someone from 50 years ago (1966) would think. What will we be doing 50 years from now?
but wuns I get to the end of my twelve flingers and ateteen toes my math skills varnish witch leafs me ownlie my inglish wif witch too solvent the great miniseries of the Univers.
The question at 1:29:30, is there evidence of nothing. I think what she meant is there evidence of the 'real' nothing, the actual nothing that is likely only a thought construct of our minds. Of that, of course there is no evidence. Its just an abstraction.
It's hard to find evidence for something that doesn't exist. Nothing in that sense doesn't exist. I think our usage of the word in our vocabulary has polluted its original meaning a little bit.
Nothing can't be defined. It's not a thing or a place. It's not there, anywhere.
Graceful blessings. 🔥🔥
I love the big goofy nut-ball, Dr. Tyson. I think he’s the only scientist around putting so much warmth and humor into such profound awe-inspiring views of the Cosmos!