I appreciate your capacity for letting the interviewee speak. So many interviewers these days can’t seem to shut up. I imagine it’s easier when you have guests like Roger Penrose. Good job.
I agree, Professor Carroll is a great interviewer. He talks just enough, guides the conversation with a light touch, and doesn't argue with his guests.
I had a tear come into my eye when I heard that RP had won the Nobel prize 55 years after his paper on gravitational collapse. Glad it wasn't too late.
I never feel tired in my mind, when I listen sir Penrose because he brings in so much clarity and simplicity to the discussions so normal people like me can follow even the complex subject.
Ш Ты чем занят как себя вести вести в Москве на работе в😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
As someone who recently found this channel, I’m enjoying exploring all these previous episodes. Thanks Sean your work is very deep and forever a trove of content on TH-cam.
Sean, I love your podcasts! Thank you so much for all this democratization of information. Your tone is so gentle, neutral, humble, patient and caring, it really comes through on your podcasts and talks. Thank you 🤍
When he casually said, 'I didn't know that much about neurobiology, so I thought I would just learn it,' I could just see Sir Roger plopping 6 or 8 grad level, neurobiology textbooks on his desk and getting cracking, speed reading them!
I still remember the moment I comprehended Gödel's incompleteness theorem as well. It was one of the most memorable moments I had at University, both wonderfully meta and terrifyingly nihilistic. Watching Sir Penrose on Joe Rogan's podcast left me wondering if his and Dr. Carroll's relationship would be adversarial. Corrigibly, Dr. Carroll once again renews my hope in humanity. Mindscape quickly became my favorite podcast. "Hello everyone" brightens my day every time.
I felt much the same when I discovered what Kurt Gödel had been up to in the 1930's! He upset a lot of people like Hilbert and Russell and the whole mathematical world really. Axioms, as exemplified in Russell's _Mathematica_ are abstracts which may work wonderfully well _within_ math and allied logic; but have problems outside that milieu. You mention Joe Rogan - who I never really felt to be very funny, is an 'all-American' muscular kind of guy - but too many muscles instead of brain matter :0)
More the moment than the theorem. The theorem is not actually nihilistic, but first interpretation brings that feeling, that even a buttoned up theory has inconsistencies baked in. It makes me doubt that a theory of everything is achievable. It's not a proof that it is not, but it adds to the doubt. I'd like to note that that feeling is subject to woo exploitation, similar to many quantum physics concepts being exploited. It is important to not let emotion cloud the rigorous structure of math. However, emotion is sometimes the spark of insight.
We are so looking forward to listening to this. Sir Roger, a knight of the realm in conversion with our favourite thinker. A great birthday treat for my hubby, we'll listen and eat cake. Perfect. Thanks
I love listening to all of you cosmologists and astrophysicists, even if I don't understand everything. What I do manage to get a glimpse of is full of wonder. Thanks for all you do.
I have been 'saving' this video since (JANUARY 7TH?) and it not only met by wildly exceeded (no blew away) my expectations. My two favorite Cosmologists ... Of course, I have the latest book. I think I have almost all popular books each as written. And folded in the back of Penrose's book is a print out ( version four) of his ArX iv paper. I have downloed many of their ArXiv papers and have read them. ONLY TWO THINGS TO SAY NOW: [1] Thank you Professor Carroll [2] Thank you Professor Penrose
Maybe I’m willing to get his book on cyclical cosmology now. - I’m not sure I understood how he gets to the “ring” seeds in the next aeon’s CMB: first he mentions mergers of supermassive BHs (implying that the messenger in the transition would be gravitational waves) that he somehow thinks as reappearing as DM in the new aeon, and for the smaller structure he mentions Hawking-Radiation as the origin. - I mean I do get the general idea from particle physics that energy can transform into all kind of new particles / waves in quantum fields can transform into other waves in other quantum fields, but I was under the impression, that there are clear pathways for everything, and that the probabilities for those pathways in the standard model are exceptionally well known (allowing the Higgs to be found by applying enough statistics etc.). - What I’m trying to say: fitting one gap in our understanding with another gap is not very convincing to me, especially in the case of consciousness, while the case for cyclical cosmology sounds less far fetched, it again sounds like using a gap / placeholder in our knowledge for another bold claim. - I am empathetic with his teleological impulses: when the end of our aeon has similarities with the beginning, you want to find a way to tie it together and make it cyclical. Or when he concludes that our mind would not work on a computational basis by combining the idea of Gödel’s paradox with the idea of solutions that are uncomputable on a Turing-Machine, and plugs it with the unsolved problem of the collapse of the wave function (- for which itself he makes an interesting proposal,) and tries to give it a biological location to happen (micro tubulars). - But the fact that the creative associative thought process in his mind decides to jump to the seemingly next free unoccupied niche in the topology of idea-space does not make it necessarily a “true” idea / the next best description of the world. Still it is an appropriate thing to do for a scientist who still wants to connect the dots in creative new ways, and can afford to do so. - When you think about it: after all this time and thinking and conversations he not only sees more dots than most people, he also knows how the lines of that big picture have been drawn in the past by large amounts of important people, and yet he is still able to see it differently - that seems like a rare gift. Granting accomplished scientists more artistic license still seems quite affordable to me in the grand scheme of things.
@@amyk6403 Because they are what's left, just before ignition, they leave a footprint in the form of circular patterns when ignition occurs. Scaled up, we see them in the cosmic microwave background like tossing a pebble onto the surface of a pond. Contact creates ripples that travel a ways outward from the points. I'm not talking about a brane bumping into the field, as that's an entirely different theory.
Prof Sir Roger Penrose and Prof Sean Carroll are my two favourite living physicists. I read "The Emperor's New Mind some 30 years ago and Prof Penrose seems to be as extraordinary as he was back then. Remarkably interesting podcast. Best I've watched for a long time.
Wow, just the episode notification (mentioning sir Penrose) had me excited to get home and listen! I'm finally diving in! Edit: Fantastic podcast! Sir Penrose is one of the coolest, smartest f(x)ers in the history of the science. He has the freshest cosmology, proposes the chillest theories and hangs out with the hottest physicists.
👍 The brilliant and lovable Roger Penrose, thank you indeed Sean Carroll for interviewing the legend! I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve listened to this episode of yours via the Apple Podcast ❤️
This theory gives my heart huge relief.... I always thought a cyclic universe made more sense than everything springing from nothing in a single instant..... This is way more comforting, and I wish it had been around when I studied physics a decade ago. The insistence on the big bang (justifiably) along with acceleration of space expansion never felt like a very complete description. Anyway, love this podcast, I just wish it had video (I know that's way more work)! Thank you and keep up the variety of guests. Perfect for both my creative and analytic minds!
Penrose will be 88 in August. If you look at his family tree, his grandfather, father, uncle, brother and children are all singular. Between Dennis Sciama and Penrose, their graduate students at Oxford and student descendants dominate many areas. Sciama was the dissertation adviser to forty Ph.D. students including, Hawking, Martin Reese and David Deutsch. Penrose's thirty students and 164 descendants are likewise impressive. It's hard to calculate both Sciama and Penrose's long term impact ; one or both should be a Marvel character.
Like Penrose, how many times have I said, "this is a crazy idea that won't last a week" (referring to inflation) and; "Of course I need a theory for that" After that my similarity to Penrose ceases.
This is one of my favorite podcast channels. Penrose mentioned finding a possible mechanism for quantum coherence and consciousness when he was contacted by Stuart Hameroff (1:27:25). Perhaps you should bring on Hameroff for a chat.
Still looking for that AMA. Love your podcasts. Thank you for taking the time to do this! Also, if you have a website like with a monthly subscription fee I would support you there. I'd even build it for you! But seriously on the AMA, I've got theories and questions! Nevermind about the website. You mentioned it, I'll check it out!
I have a question about the "The end of the universe - everything's massless - conformal invariance - looks just like the Big Bang - so maybe it becomes a new Big Bang" hypothesis. How does the second law of thermodynamics work in this model? Entropy keeps increasing, then suddenly is vastly decreased (breaking the second law?) when all particles are massless, so things can start over again? How does that decrease come about? And a second question: the hypothesis assumes that all massive particles either eventually decay into massless ones, or they eventually get swallowed by a black hole. But there will be lots of massive particles floating around; will they be swallowed up much faster than the black holes evaporate? If not, then even if there's only a single stable massive particle left in the universe after all the black holes have evaporated, the model fails, right? Also: black hole radiation can also be massive (particle anti-particle pairs). So now these new particles have to meet their antiparticle, or decay into radiation, or get swallowed by a black hole again, in order for there to finally be no massive particles in the universe. This, in a universe that is still expanding exponentially fast, separating particles from each other. Why is this not a problem for the model?
I'll try point you in the right direction, Q1. Total entropy never decreases, but there's a change from high gravitational entropy to low, on the other hand low temperature/kinetic energy to high. Total combined same or never decreases. Q2. You have to broaden your mind to the time scales involved here 10^100000 years everything will be pulled together into one object through gravity. Hawking radiation is massless, it's very low energy light, long wave length..... Finally as black holes evaporate and become smaller they become hotter and evaporate faster exponentially untill they hit a critical point which would be the new big bang - cycle. Im a non physicist but read alot and in a brief answer, I think that's right.
Yes the background radiation would be far enough away or give the black hole less energy then they radiate at that age and size of the universe, they would be the hottest things, I don't see how that's hard to imagine. And now the data from wmap and the planck satalite show at least 5 hawking point hot spots , which puts inflation in big trouble , or they have to say this coincides with the exact moment inflation stopped "gracefull exit"....... Inflation is a dogma where all taught as true at school when it's bs, it's really really hard work to make the model even work
This podcast was fantastic! After watching Joe Rogan's feeble and lackluster attempt at interviewing Dr Penrose, this was a big breath of fresh air. I'll be revisiting it a lot as there is so much covered and so much to be studied. Thank you so much Dr Sean Carroll. Now back to Sean's Multiverse lecture.
Just think how many subscribers this channel would have if there was video or if it was live. It would blow up, there'd be hundreds of thousands if not millions of new subs.
Simply amazing ive been wanting this for a while two of my favorite people on earth ... now you both need to talk to Eric and his spinners to see how it holds
As a 'layman artist' (working with object design in 3D CAD software - 3D 'Euclidean space' - for 10+ yrs) ... To me 'intuitively' - Penrose's images or explanations of the 'space-time' geometry seems 'infinitely' more plausible (pardon the pun) than what comes from the somewhat 'mysterious' interpretations of QM. The 'superposition' statement of QM - that a thing can be in two "places" at once - is inherently 'geometrical' it seems to me. To talk of two "places" you must be able to distinguish them apart. They must be separated by 'space'. This is by definition what "geometry" is all about. So if QM is simply 'ignoring' the space-time "geometry" it seems paradoxical to me; like ignoring an inherent feature or aspect of the thing 'probed'. Or deliberately blindfolding yourself to some extent - which seems much like the 'Bohr approach'. - A little thought experiment: If everything in the Universe was in a state of "superposition" - how would you define "space"? If no 'position' can be distinguished from any other position - there is no notion of "space"... Or at least it could not be 'defined' or 'measured'. As soon as you introduce the notion of "two places" - you introduce the need for "geometry" - and thus the need to account for the preceding gravitational field or the history/evolution of the 'space-time-geometry'?... At the 'moment' (or 'interval of time' rather) of your "measurement"? Even if you imagine 'measuring' the very first pair of particles that emerged from the Big Bang... This would apply? Imagine 'the first' particle... a single one. How would a 'measurement' even take place? What is the particle 'relative' to? If there is only one 'measurable' thing in the Universe? Comparing the 'designing' of cosmological theory, to a 'creative' design-process. This would be equal to saying: Its OK to focus on the tiniest of details - and just forget about the overall design or 'shape' of things. Something that any artist will tell you - tends to yield bad or 'ugly' overall results. Yielding perhaps a number of sublime details... but not 'coherent' or 'beautiful' as a whole. In the creative design-process it is essential to keep 'zooming in and out'. You may zoom in on a detail and change it or 'refine' it... but always 'zoom' back out and review the whole 'shape' when you do so. Perhaps its time for QM to 'zoom out'? ... if only for a while... you can always zoom back in. :)
Space according Sean and QM is an emergent property, and all these fields that correlate to the "geometry" you're talking about are just due to localisation (think gravity) just bodies in relation with other bodies. Trying to explain this classically with many variables doesnt seem to be very helpful. So I've heard.
What are some good alternatives for Inflation Theory? I'm with Penrose with this: It seems like such a band aid to make the Big Bang Theory plausible and explain the smoothness of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.
As massive objects (e.g. massive subatomic particles to massive bits of space dust, through comets, planets, stars, galaxies to black holes, to colliding black holes...) "evaporate", is their mass converted to entropic energy (e.g. scattered massless photons), (massless? gravitational wave radiation in an acceleratingly expanding space, ending up in a massless, gravityless universe of infinite rarifaction, infinite entropy? That is essentially "conformally" identical to a pre- Big Bang universe of infinite entropy, infinite gravity, infinite density? Am I getting this right?
Your comments in the prelude made me wonder about who will be the greatest scientists of my generation (current masters student). I look forward to seeing them start to show up in popular science.
im a grad student as well and i deeply worry... everyone these days seems way 'academic' and there's a lack of genuine love and playfulness in the subject
This was a top quality show. Sir Roger retains his considerable marbles and we are the richer for it. Kudos. The interplay between the 2nd law, gravity and the evolution of the universe is mighty fascinating. I had to replay parts of that talk to get a handle on it. He truly is an original thinker. His "infinite cyclic spacetime" model is aesthetically pleasing. But what if (I thought) we take this idea of sticking infinite future boundaries onto big bangs - which results in a spacetime tube or "block universe" of infinite length - and bend it so that we get a torus? With even one more extra dimension, we could tie a frickin' knot in it! Hang on. Is this recursive (fractal?) string theory?
This is a response and elaboration on the ideas proposed by Sir Roger Penrose in the lecture ‘The Problem of Modelling the Mathematical Mind’ given at the Alan Turing Centenary Conference in Manchester, 2012. Here he clearly demonstrates what mathematical understanding is by combining his own understandings with the good work of both Alan Turing and Kurt Gödel. He also goes on to describe Consciousness as having something to do with this particular type of Mathematical Understanding G(R) in combination with intelligence and awareness. He states that this usage of words seems natural and integral to consciousness, yet to him the words intelligence and awareness remained undefined and not yet directly correlated with mathematical understanding. Here in this paper I hope to provide an elaboration and definition of both intelligence and awareness but also a unifying framework for the utility of both the Universe and Human Beings. Please take the time to first familiarize yourself with the following information put forth by Sir Roger Penrose in these two short clips: Mathematical Understanding Vs Calculation th-cam.com/video/M_D8744u8YY/w-d-xo.html Mathematical Understanding, Intelligence and Awareness th-cam.com/video/uDzHb4Y06i8/w-d-xo.html There is also a relationship that should be further explored between Dr. Robin Carhart-Harris's research on Brain Entropy, the Feedforward vs. Integrated phsycial systems of Integrated Information Theory, The Fixed vs. Growth Mindset research of Dr. Carol Dweck, the Empathy research by Dr. Dacher Keltner, Mathematical Understanding in the context of Alan Turing, Kurt Gödel, Oka Kiyoshi, Roger Penrose, Love 2.0, a General theory of Love, and what is presented here. For now I would like to focus on three forces of our intrinsic nature: Mathematical Understanding, Physical Intelligence and Biological Empathetic Awareness. drive.google.com/file/d/0B6EZh8Iqx5npRlRBMkxjX1B3ZFk/view?usp=sharing Please keep in mind this paper hasn't really been updated since 2016, so it's a wee bit outdated and slightly stupid but i think a descent lil picture is painted...
Hi guys,, great podcast Sean,great guest Sir Roger Penrose .Would be nice to have video too,so we all could watch ! Who is for a video podcast listeners ? Lets ask for it please !?
When I 7cked out ro be rourtured7c5skeo get a course by Mr. Robotsidtorwdiztorted skulld skull Dirac hesolving his f7nction for molecular wlectr9n irbital shapesshapes and nergiesblnwries of dlectr9n orbital he gave 8mpressi9nmpr3ssi9n it was bot so much suoepos8ti9n here ther as was popping inout if existence not as wa pop8ngs 8n out of existence 8n8n differ8ng places or 7nnique quntum dield number states .s. So was not the dame particles her or but new different things.ugh!
Here is something I have wondered about lately. Where does the "Space" go that was a part of the Atoms of Matter that falls into a blackhole. If The Singularity is a theoretical point of Infinite density the there has to be a lot of Space that moved somewhere else. Could it be connected to the observed rise in the amount of DE. If Spacetime itself is "something" and that something is a conglomerate of Space and Time then when matter is compressed by the Gravity of a blackhole or even something like a Neutron Star the the Space portion of the Matter has to either move or be destroyed.
@45:30 'its damn hard to bore a photon'. That Photons exist in a literal timelessness where the beginning and end of the universe are literally simultaneous is a good analogy to the religious experience of eternity as timeless, 'eternity is not a long time, eternity is not in time' - Joseph Campbell, and Eckhart Tolle. That humans have devised various traditions and practices to access this timelessness via meditation and ritual is fascinating to me. Quite an interesting historical review, and by an actual participant, on the observations and theories leading up to the black hole idea, and the resistance to accepting the idea, classic example of 'equations are smarter than physicists'.
'A model of the universe' in which early entropy, will get properly explained, if the universe is considered as a QC according to Maldacena ( but it will take a long time to get a proper theory accommodating self-error correcting mechanism of QC, leading to fine tuning the parameter space) which will explain the entropy puzzle, but the true interpretation of MBR. Mathematics of QC not only gives us insight into superposition of the state 0 and 1 but all intermediate states, an insight to multi-dimensionality. We damage 50-70 billion cells daily, which are repaired/regenerated at 99.99% efficiency and at lightning speed, implying that life is a self-error correcting QC. The second revolution of QM goes deeper, revealing the mysteries of consciousness, ID and much more. Feynman's QFT implies that he field can self-simulate intelligent conscious 'observer', collapsing the field into particles (matter) and the universe, with probability ONE and with perfection, eliminating randomness and chance, implying a possible theory to prove the Anthropic Principle.
I think of Mobius Strip when I listen to Sir Penrose speak of stretching infinite infinitely, outside of time itself allows the light to escape infinite gravity and the Aeon. Proto consciousness? Need to learn more about that : ) That was amazing!
I was disappointed that Sean just listened politely to the description of CCC without providing any real critique even though it seems obvious he doesn't agree with it.
I have a different comment. With every person learning different information and making different associations, assumptions and valuations, it's inevitable that experts will disagree. Rather than interrupting and criticising, one is interested to know how someone perceives things: to study their values until you understand why they think what they do. Sometimes, only after unravelling the slinky spring of someone's mind does one observe a) any new way of seeing the world you'd not considered b) how to bring about constructive questions in a way that doesn't lead to clam-shell reactions. So I was hoping for more probing into Roger's mathematical ideas and assumptions in order to develop a further understanding beyond other Roger Penrose talks. You know that if a bunch of these guys got together round a bar and spent hours sharing ideas, then a hidden camera would see how they interact without worrying how they'd come across. That would be worth watching.
I feel like penrose's theroy is compatible with russellian panpsychism. You would just add some quantum dynamics to it. It would describe the behaviour of consciousness no consciousness itself
It's a PodCast my old love. Meant and created originally for that medium and simply released here for convenience for anyone wanting to listen, without buggering about finding the original Podcast.
I like the visitants being unannounced; Sir Penrose was a great surprise & is an uberfantastic guest. 🥳🥳🥳 Tops on my wish list would be neuroendocrinologist/primatologist Robert Sapolsky.
Sean thx! this was a great one, Penrose is a brilliant mind with original ideas and pls have Dr. Joscha Bach (MIT Media Lab) for a diff prospective on the universe, consciousness and AI.
Hey, so one question comes to mind. As a black hole evaporates, I see a point at which the density no longer keeps the mass below the Schwartzchild radius. Is that a reasonable line of logic? And if that happens, does what was once the black hole then begin a period of further expansion, perhaps even rapid? I'm wondering at what happens to the weirdness of the event horizon once the mass is no longer capable of sustaining it, if that ever happens. Or would the mass simply whimper into a neutron star? And if so... I better stop. I got questions :-)
the Law of Intelligence states that any individual's IQ score increases directly proportional to the amount of time spent listening to product of Penrose and Carroll conversing.
I appreciate your capacity for letting the interviewee speak. So many interviewers these days can’t seem to shut up. I imagine it’s easier when you have guests like Roger Penrose. Good job.
I agree, Professor Carroll is a great interviewer. He talks just enough, guides the conversation with a light touch, and doesn't argue with his guests.
So incredible to see Professor Penrose win the Nobel Prize.
One of the greatest minds.
@Pisstake ?
@Pisstake How did he disprove the idea?
@Pisstake haha slow on the draw there! Yeah Frank just epouses sophistry
I had a tear come into my eye when I heard that RP had won the Nobel prize 55 years after his paper on gravitational collapse. Glad it wasn't too late.
Same. You summed it up well 😌
nobel prize needs two things apart from excellence.
observational confirmation amd a living author. compounded by competition.
q11222❤m.m😊
❤❤❤
And he's still kicking. Good for him.
This is the first time I've wished a podcast came with an overhead projector and some transparencies.
#teampenrose
Oh my God. This ^ Exactly.
I agree but I think most of what they projected would very much be over-my-head.
Me, every single time I stumble on one.
hahaha 🤣🤣
I never feel tired in my mind, when I listen sir Penrose because he brings in so much clarity and simplicity to the discussions so normal people like me can follow even the complex subject.
He reminds me of Richard Feynman in his interesting clarity of complex ideas
Sir Penrose just won Nobel Prize in physics. Congratulations! 🏆
Ш
Ты чем занят как себя вести вести в Москве на работе в😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
As someone who recently found this channel, I’m enjoying exploring all these previous episodes. Thanks Sean your work is very deep and forever a trove of content on TH-cam.
28 Episodes Later: good show, Dr. Carroll. Mindscape has become one of my favorite corners of the internet.
It’s not a corner now it’s the whole block!
Sean, I love your podcasts! Thank you so much for all this democratization of information. Your tone is so gentle, neutral, humble, patient and caring, it really comes through on your podcasts and talks. Thank you 🤍
It's so true, Sean sounds like a very caring medical doctor. Well done!
Given his genius, a remarkably humble human being.
Contemplating unending aeons does that.
when you are infinately smart you don't even have to show off.
When he casually said, 'I didn't know that much about neurobiology, so I thought I would just learn it,' I could just see Sir Roger plopping 6 or 8 grad level, neurobiology textbooks on his desk and getting cracking, speed reading them!
If anyone ever tells you their IQ unprompted, you can be sure theyre actually an idiot.
Incredible. What a privilege to be able to hear this discussion. Thank you.
I still remember the moment I comprehended Gödel's incompleteness theorem as well. It was one of the most memorable moments I had at University, both wonderfully meta and terrifyingly nihilistic.
Watching Sir Penrose on Joe Rogan's podcast left me wondering if his and Dr. Carroll's relationship would be adversarial. Corrigibly, Dr. Carroll once again renews my hope in humanity.
Mindscape quickly became my favorite podcast. "Hello everyone" brightens my day every time.
I felt much the same when I discovered what Kurt Gödel had been up to in the 1930's! He upset a lot of people like Hilbert and Russell and the whole mathematical world really. Axioms, as exemplified in Russell's _Mathematica_ are abstracts which may work wonderfully well _within_ math and allied logic; but have problems outside that milieu. You mention Joe Rogan - who I never really felt to be very funny, is an 'all-American' muscular kind of guy - but too many muscles instead of brain matter :0)
Why nihilistic? If anything, Gödel theorems tell us there are infinite reserves of creativity
More the moment than the theorem. The theorem is not actually nihilistic, but first interpretation brings that feeling, that even a buttoned up theory has inconsistencies baked in. It makes me doubt that a theory of everything is achievable. It's not a proof that it is not, but it adds to the doubt. I'd like to note that that feeling is subject to woo exploitation, similar to many quantum physics concepts being exploited. It is important to not let emotion cloud the rigorous structure of math. However, emotion is sometimes the spark of insight.
Godel is. A bit bla bla
@@hubrisbliss6810 Emotion always has something to do with that. Without it, what is the point in anything?
We are so looking forward to listening to this. Sir Roger, a knight of the realm in conversion with our favourite thinker. A great birthday treat for my hubby, we'll listen and eat cake. Perfect. Thanks
Conversation*
Also, how funny that this was my most anticipated podcast guest yet and my bday was the 5th.. Co inky dink
Freakin love both these geniuses. They are both so brilliant and grounded, humble, yet all powerful simultaneously.
I could listen to Sir Penrose all day long. Thank you Dr. Carroll
This conversation was enlightening and inspiring. Thanks to both gentleman for recording it.
Thank you. This is some very high quality content you put out here for free. Excellent interview, don’t think it could have been done any better.
I love listening to all of you cosmologists and astrophysicists, even if I don't understand everything. What I do manage to get a glimpse of is full of wonder. Thanks for all you do.
Thank you Sean Carroll
Enter the Braggn' no clue what you mean bud
it's ok the got more thinking to do
Literally the top person on my list for people i'd want to hear talk to you.
#MeToo
Dyson.
To me?
me too!
This man is an absolute treasure.
1:18:25 Consciousness
I have been 'saving' this video since (JANUARY 7TH?) and it not only met by wildly exceeded (no blew away) my expectations.
My two favorite Cosmologists ...
Of course, I have the latest book. I think I have almost all popular books each as written.
And folded in the back of Penrose's book is a print out ( version four) of his ArX iv paper.
I have downloed many of their ArXiv papers and have read them.
ONLY TWO THINGS TO SAY NOW:
[1] Thank you Professor Carroll
[2] Thank you Professor Penrose
Maybe I’m willing to get his book on cyclical cosmology now. - I’m not sure I understood how he gets to the “ring” seeds in the next aeon’s CMB: first he mentions mergers of supermassive BHs (implying that the messenger in the transition would be gravitational waves) that he somehow thinks as reappearing as DM in the new aeon, and for the smaller structure he mentions Hawking-Radiation as the origin. - I mean I do get the general idea from particle physics that energy can transform into all kind of new particles / waves in quantum fields can transform into other waves in other quantum fields, but I was under the impression, that there are clear pathways for everything, and that the probabilities for those pathways in the standard model are exceptionally well known (allowing the Higgs to be found by applying enough statistics etc.). - What I’m trying to say: fitting one gap in our understanding with another gap is not very convincing to me, especially in the case of consciousness, while the case for cyclical cosmology sounds less far fetched, it again sounds like using a gap / placeholder in our knowledge for another bold claim. - I am empathetic with his teleological impulses: when the end of our aeon has similarities with the beginning, you want to find a way to tie it together and make it cyclical. Or when he concludes that our mind would not work on a computational basis by combining the idea of Gödel’s paradox with the idea of solutions that are uncomputable on a Turing-Machine, and plugs it with the unsolved problem of the collapse of the wave function (- for which itself he makes an interesting proposal,) and tries to give it a biological location to happen (micro tubulars). - But the fact that the creative associative thought process in his mind decides to jump to the seemingly next free unoccupied niche in the topology of idea-space does not make it necessarily a “true” idea / the next best description of the world. Still it is an appropriate thing to do for a scientist who still wants to connect the dots in creative new ways, and can afford to do so. - When you think about it: after all this time and thinking and conversations he not only sees more dots than most people, he also knows how the lines of that big picture have been drawn in the past by large amounts of important people, and yet he is still able to see it differently - that seems like a rare gift. Granting accomplished scientists more artistic license still seems quite affordable to me in the grand scheme of things.
Maybe the ring "seeds" are the remnants of Hawking points? But why do they persist into the next aeon?
@@amyk6403 Because they are what's left, just before ignition, they leave a footprint in the form of circular patterns when ignition occurs. Scaled up, we see them in the cosmic microwave background like tossing a pebble onto the surface of a pond. Contact creates ripples that travel a ways outward from the points. I'm not talking about a brane bumping into the field, as that's an entirely different theory.
Just read the book mate
Prof Sir Roger Penrose and Prof Sean Carroll are my two favourite living physicists. I read "The Emperor's New Mind some 30 years ago and Prof Penrose seems to be as extraordinary as he was back then. Remarkably interesting podcast. Best I've watched for a long time.
Wow, just the episode notification (mentioning sir Penrose) had me excited to get home and listen! I'm finally diving in!
Edit: Fantastic podcast! Sir Penrose is one of the coolest, smartest f(x)ers in the history of the science. He has the freshest cosmology, proposes the chillest theories and hangs out with the hottest physicists.
I dig his Orch Or theory w/Dr Stuart Hameroff....and the AI fanboys hate it, which makes it even better!
👍 The brilliant and lovable Roger Penrose, thank you indeed Sean Carroll for interviewing the legend! I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve listened to this episode of yours via the Apple Podcast ❤️
This theory gives my heart huge relief.... I always thought a cyclic universe made more sense than everything springing from nothing in a single instant.....
This is way more comforting, and I wish it had been around when I studied physics a decade ago.
The insistence on the big bang (justifiably) along with acceleration of space expansion never felt like a very complete description.
Anyway, love this podcast, I just wish it had video (I know that's way more work)!
Thank you and keep up the variety of guests. Perfect for both my creative and analytic minds!
In return for giving up Steady State, you get steady cycling, not a bad trade off.
Just listened. Best mindscape ever. Thank you.
Penrose will be 88 in August. If you look at his family tree, his grandfather, father, uncle, brother and children are all singular. Between Dennis Sciama and Penrose, their graduate students at Oxford and student descendants dominate many areas. Sciama was the dissertation adviser to forty Ph.D. students including, Hawking, Martin Reese and David Deutsch. Penrose's thirty students and 164 descendants are likewise impressive. It's hard to calculate both Sciama and Penrose's long term impact ; one or both should be a Marvel character.
Like Penrose, how many times have I said, "this is a crazy idea that won't last a week" (referring to inflation) and; "Of course I need a theory for that" After that my similarity to Penrose ceases.
This is one of my favorite podcast channels. Penrose mentioned finding a possible mechanism for quantum coherence and consciousness when he was contacted by Stuart Hameroff (1:27:25). Perhaps you should bring on Hameroff for a chat.
"It's damn hard to bore a photon" - Roger Penrose
@fynes leigh you underestimate my power to bore Wednesday 😁
It's true! Photons don't experience time, so can't get bored.
Thank you Mr. Carroll for the knowledge you bring to us.
Another wonderful podcast. Thanks Sean!...It's hard to understand why anyone would give this a thumbs down.
Fascinating convo!!! Never realized how Universally talented Roger is! ..... unlike H. Everett.
'I think I'll just learn neurobiology.' Classic!
The best episode so far!!!!
Best episode yet.
this was one of your best shows.
I concur
Still looking for that AMA. Love your podcasts. Thank you for taking the time to do this! Also, if you have a website like with a monthly subscription fee I would support you there. I'd even build it for you! But seriously on the AMA, I've got theories and questions!
Nevermind about the website. You mentioned it, I'll check it out!
I have a question about the "The end of the universe - everything's massless - conformal invariance - looks just like the Big Bang - so maybe it becomes a new Big Bang" hypothesis. How does the second law of thermodynamics work in this model? Entropy keeps increasing, then suddenly is vastly decreased (breaking the second law?) when all particles are massless, so things can start over again? How does that decrease come about?
And a second question: the hypothesis assumes that all massive particles either eventually decay into massless ones, or they eventually get swallowed by a black hole. But there will be lots of massive particles floating around; will they be swallowed up much faster than the black holes evaporate? If not, then even if there's only a single stable massive particle left in the universe after all the black holes have evaporated, the model fails, right? Also: black hole radiation can also be massive (particle anti-particle pairs). So now these new particles have to meet their antiparticle, or decay into radiation, or get swallowed by a black hole again, in order for there to finally be no massive particles in the universe. This, in a universe that is still expanding exponentially fast, separating particles from each other. Why is this not a problem for the model?
I'll try point you in the right direction, Q1. Total entropy never decreases, but there's a change from high gravitational entropy to low, on the other hand low temperature/kinetic energy to high. Total combined same or never decreases. Q2. You have to broaden your mind to the time scales involved here 10^100000 years everything will be pulled together into one object through gravity. Hawking radiation is massless, it's very low energy light, long wave length..... Finally as black holes evaporate and become smaller they become hotter and evaporate faster exponentially untill they hit a critical point which would be the new big bang - cycle. Im a non physicist but read alot and in a brief answer, I think that's right.
2nd law of thermodynamics/the Black Holes would be the only hot spot in a very cold universe....and entropy is off to the races!
Yes the background radiation would be far enough away or give the black hole less energy then they radiate at that age and size of the universe, they would be the hottest things, I don't see how that's hard to imagine. And now the data from wmap and the planck satalite show at least 5 hawking point hot spots , which puts inflation in big trouble , or they have to say this coincides with the exact moment inflation stopped "gracefull exit"....... Inflation is a dogma where all taught as true at school when it's bs, it's really really hard work to make the model even work
@@pauldavidhaynes8243 I've never been a fan of inflation....a bit too much like magic for my taste
@@schmeegil2240 Redshift is a merely a feature of the light spectrum...a visual indicator of the Doppler effect
who else want to hear leonard susskind?
Susskind is my favourite plumber.
Yes or Juan Maldecena or Nima Arkani-Hamed! Thanks for the podcasts Sean. I love them.
Love Lennie! :=D
I love Susskind-he is awesome
Yes. Maybe on the possible role of quantum entanglement in quantum gravity -- if that's still cobsidered a viable area of enquiry
Sir Roger is my hero. Great podcast! Thank you, Professor Carroll.
This podcast was fantastic! After watching Joe Rogan's feeble and lackluster attempt at interviewing Dr Penrose, this was a big breath of fresh air. I'll be revisiting it a lot as there is so much covered and so much to be studied. Thank you so much Dr Sean Carroll. Now back to Sean's Multiverse lecture.
@@robbie_ it was the definition of feeble and lackluster. Rogan didn't have a clue what was being said. It takes two to tango baby.
Fascinating! Thanks, professors!
Sir Penrose for Nobel Prize!
This channel is so underrated
Just think how many subscribers this channel would have if there was video or if it was live. It would blow up, there'd be hundreds of thousands if not millions of new subs.
Great podcast, If you had video and a few slides to help explain, that would take it to the next level.
Great listening! Thank you!
one of my favorite speakers and I just found your channel :)
Shortest hour and a half of my life. I feel like could’ve listened to another 3 hours between these two
Amazing Podcast!
Simply amazing ive been wanting this for a while two of my favorite people on earth ... now you both need to talk to Eric and his spinners to see how it holds
It would be nice if Sean Carroll posted premium courses here on applied math and quantum physics.
Would have loved a video to go along with the audio.
As a 'layman artist' (working with object design in 3D CAD software - 3D 'Euclidean space' - for 10+ yrs) ... To me 'intuitively' - Penrose's images or explanations of the 'space-time' geometry seems 'infinitely' more plausible (pardon the pun) than what comes from the somewhat 'mysterious' interpretations of QM.
The 'superposition' statement of QM - that a thing can be in two "places" at once - is inherently 'geometrical' it seems to me. To talk of two "places" you must be able to distinguish them apart. They must be separated by 'space'. This is by definition what "geometry" is all about. So if QM is simply 'ignoring' the space-time "geometry" it seems paradoxical to me; like ignoring an inherent feature or aspect of the thing 'probed'. Or deliberately blindfolding yourself to some extent - which seems much like the 'Bohr approach'.
- A little thought experiment: If everything in the Universe was in a state of "superposition" - how would you define "space"? If no 'position' can be distinguished from any other position - there is no notion of "space"... Or at least it could not be 'defined' or 'measured'. As soon as you introduce the notion of "two places" - you introduce the need for "geometry" - and thus the need to account for the preceding gravitational field or the history/evolution of the 'space-time-geometry'?... At the 'moment' (or 'interval of time' rather) of your "measurement"? Even if you imagine 'measuring' the very first pair of particles that emerged from the Big Bang... This would apply? Imagine 'the first' particle... a single one. How would a 'measurement' even take place? What is the particle 'relative' to? If there is only one 'measurable' thing in the Universe?
Comparing the 'designing' of cosmological theory, to a 'creative' design-process. This would be equal to saying: Its OK to focus on the tiniest of details - and just forget about the overall design or 'shape' of things. Something that any artist will tell you - tends to yield bad or 'ugly' overall results. Yielding perhaps a number of sublime details... but not 'coherent' or 'beautiful' as a whole. In the creative design-process it is essential to keep 'zooming in and out'. You may zoom in on a detail and change it or 'refine' it... but always 'zoom' back out and review the whole 'shape' when you do so. Perhaps its time for QM to 'zoom out'? ... if only for a while... you can always zoom back in. :)
Interesting!
Space according Sean and QM is an emergent property, and all these fields that correlate to the "geometry" you're talking about are just due to localisation (think gravity) just bodies in relation with other bodies. Trying to explain this classically with many variables doesnt seem to be very helpful. So I've heard.
Starts at 4:05
mvp
Thanx!
Very interesting! Especially the part about consciousness. Maybe you can get Stuart Hameroff on the podcast as well :)
Such an enlightening talk! It confirms to my hypothesis that the Eon is INFINITE!
4:15 "hello, quiet peasant" ?
Didn't know sean carroll did quiet farm work on the side.
What are some good alternatives for Inflation Theory? I'm with Penrose with this: It seems like such a band aid to make the Big Bang Theory plausible and explain the smoothness of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.
Hey, so Stuart Hammerof is in the same room?? Where's the podcast with him!!??
too short.
For certain.. I could listen to these 2 for hours and then still want to hear more!
Amazing interview!
As massive objects (e.g. massive subatomic particles to massive bits of space dust, through comets, planets, stars, galaxies to black holes, to colliding black holes...) "evaporate", is their mass converted to entropic energy (e.g. scattered massless photons), (massless? gravitational wave radiation in an acceleratingly expanding space, ending up in a massless, gravityless universe of infinite rarifaction, infinite entropy? That is essentially "conformally" identical to a pre- Big Bang universe of infinite entropy, infinite gravity, infinite density? Am I getting this right?
It's somehow so interesting to listen to a brilliant mind even if you're only understanding the general ideas and almost none of the details
You're not alone.
wow how did i miss this one? ty @sean
Your comments in the prelude made me wonder about who will be the greatest scientists of my generation (current masters student). I look forward to seeing them start to show up in popular science.
im a grad student as well and i deeply worry... everyone these days seems way 'academic' and there's a lack of genuine love and playfulness in the subject
This was a top quality show. Sir Roger retains his considerable marbles and we are the richer for it. Kudos.
The interplay between the 2nd law, gravity and the evolution of the universe is mighty fascinating. I had to replay parts of that talk to get a handle on it. He truly is an original thinker.
His "infinite cyclic spacetime" model is aesthetically pleasing. But what if (I thought) we take this idea of sticking infinite future boundaries onto big bangs - which results in a spacetime tube or "block universe" of infinite length - and bend it so that we get a torus?
With even one more extra dimension, we could tie a frickin' knot in it!
Hang on. Is this recursive (fractal?) string theory?
This is a response and elaboration on the ideas proposed by Sir Roger Penrose in the lecture ‘The Problem of Modelling the Mathematical Mind’ given at the Alan Turing Centenary Conference in Manchester, 2012. Here he clearly demonstrates what mathematical understanding is by combining his own understandings with the good work of both Alan Turing and Kurt Gödel. He also goes on to describe Consciousness as having something to do with this particular type of Mathematical Understanding G(R) in combination with intelligence and awareness. He states that this usage of words seems natural and integral to consciousness, yet to him the words intelligence and awareness remained undefined and not yet directly correlated with mathematical understanding. Here in this paper I hope to provide an elaboration and definition of both intelligence and awareness but also a unifying framework for the utility of both the Universe and Human Beings. Please take the time to first familiarize yourself with the following information put forth by Sir Roger Penrose in these two short clips:
Mathematical Understanding Vs Calculation th-cam.com/video/M_D8744u8YY/w-d-xo.html Mathematical Understanding, Intelligence and Awareness th-cam.com/video/uDzHb4Y06i8/w-d-xo.html
There is also a relationship that should be further explored between Dr. Robin Carhart-Harris's research on Brain Entropy, the Feedforward vs. Integrated phsycial systems of Integrated Information Theory, The Fixed vs. Growth Mindset research of Dr. Carol Dweck, the Empathy research by Dr. Dacher Keltner, Mathematical Understanding in the context of Alan Turing, Kurt Gödel, Oka Kiyoshi, Roger Penrose, Love 2.0, a General theory of Love, and what is presented here. For now I would like to focus on three forces of our intrinsic nature: Mathematical Understanding, Physical Intelligence and Biological Empathetic Awareness.
drive.google.com/file/d/0B6EZh8Iqx5npRlRBMkxjX1B3ZFk/view?usp=sharing
Please keep in mind this paper hasn't really been updated since 2016, so it's a wee bit outdated and slightly stupid but i think a descent lil picture is painted...
Hi guys,, great podcast Sean,great guest Sir Roger Penrose .Would be nice to have video too,so we all could watch ! Who is for a video podcast listeners ? Lets ask for it please !?
Really great interview, thanks.
When I 7cked out ro be rourtured7c5skeo get a course by Mr. Robotsidtorwdiztorted skulld skull Dirac hesolving his f7nction for molecular wlectr9n irbital shapesshapes and nergiesblnwries of dlectr9n orbital he gave 8mpressi9nmpr3ssi9n it was bot so much suoepos8ti9n here ther as was popping inout if existence not as wa pop8ngs 8n out of existence 8n8n differ8ng places or 7nnique quntum dield number states .s. So was not the dame particles her or but new different things.ugh!
It's crazy when you see that his Joe Rogan interview got 2 million views, while this gets 150k.
That's because Carroll is a repulsive being. His whiny voice makes me cringe and his belief in many worlds makes me question his sanity
So awesome! What an amazing person.
Infinity in a finite place, Schelling’s definition of art.
I wrecked my Infinity and had to get a new one.
thank you prof. Carroll!
Here is something I have wondered about lately. Where does the "Space" go that was a part of the Atoms of Matter that falls into a blackhole. If The Singularity is a theoretical point of Infinite density the there has to be a lot of Space that moved somewhere else. Could it be connected to the observed rise in the amount of DE. If Spacetime itself is "something" and that something is a conglomerate of Space and Time then when matter is compressed by the Gravity of a blackhole or even something like a Neutron Star the the Space portion of the Matter has to either move or be destroyed.
I am about to hear it, this is just amazing to of the greatest reunited.
@45:30 'its damn hard to bore a photon'. That Photons exist in a literal timelessness where the beginning and end of the universe are literally simultaneous is a good analogy to the religious experience of eternity as timeless, 'eternity is not a long time, eternity is not in time' - Joseph Campbell, and Eckhart Tolle. That humans have devised various traditions and practices to access this timelessness via meditation and ritual is fascinating to me. Quite an interesting historical review, and by an actual participant, on the observations and theories leading up to the black hole idea, and the resistance to accepting the idea, classic example of 'equations are smarter than physicists'.
Superb Content !
Thank you for this
what's the song that they play at 3:57? Sounds cool
'A model of the universe' in which early entropy, will get properly explained, if the universe is considered as a QC according to Maldacena ( but it will take a long time to get a proper theory accommodating self-error correcting mechanism of QC, leading to fine tuning the parameter space) which will explain the entropy puzzle, but the true interpretation of MBR. Mathematics of QC not only gives us insight into superposition of the state 0 and 1 but all intermediate states, an insight to multi-dimensionality.
We damage 50-70 billion cells daily, which are repaired/regenerated at 99.99% efficiency and at lightning speed, implying that life is a self-error correcting QC. The second revolution of QM goes deeper, revealing the mysteries of consciousness, ID and much more. Feynman's QFT implies that he field can self-simulate intelligent conscious 'observer', collapsing the field into particles (matter) and the universe, with probability ONE and with perfection, eliminating randomness and chance, implying a possible theory to prove the Anthropic Principle.
The Penrose Institute (PI) is located everywhere. It's a wave, not a particle.
Of course, I should wait before commenting, as the next sentence was a form of the same joke 🤣
23:15 "I can tell you exactly what happened... eheh... I think... no, wait..."
I can totally relate to that :)
YOUR VOICE IS AS ICONIC AS MORGAN FREEMAN
I think of Mobius Strip when I listen to Sir Penrose speak of stretching infinite infinitely, outside of time itself allows the light to escape infinite gravity and the Aeon.
Proto consciousness? Need to learn more about that : ) That was amazing!
Small thing, there is nothing called time.
Excellent. As usual.
Every word is like gold dust, incredible.
I was disappointed that Sean just listened politely to the description of CCC without providing any real critique even though it seems obvious he doesn't agree with it.
There is no critique!!!.....its right, or its on the right lines. Either way , its an alternative to inflation.
I have a different comment. With every person learning different information and making different associations, assumptions and valuations, it's inevitable that experts will disagree.
Rather than interrupting and criticising, one is interested to know how someone perceives things: to study their values until you understand why they think what they do.
Sometimes, only after unravelling the slinky spring of someone's mind does one observe a) any new way of seeing the world you'd not considered b) how to bring about constructive questions in a way that doesn't lead to clam-shell reactions.
So I was hoping for more probing into Roger's mathematical ideas and assumptions in order to develop a further understanding beyond other Roger Penrose talks.
You know that if a bunch of these guys got together round a bar and spent hours sharing ideas, then a hidden camera would see how they interact without worrying how they'd come across. That would be worth watching.
Please do Juan Maldacena!!
Always great to hear sir Roger without his crutch: the overhead projector
No way! Penrose without an overhead is like Superman without a cape.
I feel like penrose's theroy is compatible with russellian panpsychism. You would just add some quantum dynamics to it. It would describe the behaviour of consciousness no consciousness itself
A dislike? Haha somebody couldn't follow the brilliant conversation presented
Sean maybe you could add a few pictures here and there for better understanding
still its really cool
It's a PodCast my old love. Meant and created originally for that medium and simply released here for convenience for anyone wanting to listen, without buggering about finding the original Podcast.
@@martingrundy5475 one Martin to the other. thanks, mate
I like the visitants being unannounced; Sir Penrose was a great surprise & is an uberfantastic guest. 🥳🥳🥳
Tops on my wish list would be neuroendocrinologist/primatologist Robert Sapolsky.
Sean thx! this was a great one, Penrose is a brilliant mind with original ideas and pls have Dr. Joscha Bach (MIT Media Lab) for a diff prospective on the universe, consciousness and AI.
Hey, so one question comes to mind. As a black hole evaporates, I see a point at which the density no longer keeps the mass below the Schwartzchild radius. Is that a reasonable line of logic? And if that happens, does what was once the black hole then begin a period of further expansion, perhaps even rapid? I'm wondering at what happens to the weirdness of the event horizon once the mass is no longer capable of sustaining it, if that ever happens. Or would the mass simply whimper into a neutron star? And if so... I better stop. I got questions :-)
Consider Terrence Deacon, David Pierce or Giulio Tononi for a conversation over consciousness, self and moral implications.
the Law of Intelligence states that any individual's IQ score increases directly proportional to the amount of time spent listening to product of Penrose and Carroll conversing.