Marcelo Gleiser on Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience | Closer To Truth Chats
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2024
- Theoretical physicist and astronomer Marcelo Glesier offers compelling argument for including the human perspective within science, and for how human experience makes science possible. He discusses his new book, "The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience," which urges us to create a new scientific culture that views ourselves both as an expression of nature and as a source of nature's self-understanding, so that humanity can flourish in the new millennium.
The Blind Spot is available for purchase now: shorturl.at/ghu34
Marcelo Gleiser is the Appleton Professor of Natural Philosophy at Dartmouth, the 2019 Templeton Prize laureate, and author of seven widely translated books.
Watch more Closer To Truth Chats: t.ly/jJI7e
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Chapters
00:00 - Introduction
01:00 - James Webb Space Telescope discoveries
02:22 - Galaxy formation
03:43 - Standard model of cosmology may need revision
08:05 - Crisis in cosmological models
09:24 - Gleiser's research and awards
14:57 - Asymmetry in particle physics
20:06 - Philosophers' limits on knowledge
22:58 - The Big Bang
24:19 - The dawn of a mindful universe and manifesto for humanity's future
26:50 - The blind spot in sciences conceptualization
28:57 - A sensorial connection between experience and knowledge
34:56 - Bifurcation, reductionism, and emergence
37:53 - Discussing the importance of physicalism
45:08 - Two different social constructivist views on science
51:34 - Importance of the observer
53:26 - Interpreting quantum mechanics
57:44 - Function splits universe into parallel universes
01:05:13 - Supernatural creator, multiverse, anthropic principle
01:07:23 - Creation myths and origin of universe
![🔴 [TRỰC TIẾP] U20 Thái Lan VS LPBank Ninh Bình | Cúp VTV9 - Bình Điền 2024 | JET STUDIO](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3wRNdAy3DXs/mqdefault.jpg)
Two great minds discussing great topics. It's such a pleasure to hear this!
without human experience, there is NO meaning -- without meaning, life will soon seize to exist
Great guest
Just brilliant incredible talk......
It's nice hearing people speak my language
Same! It's really awesome.
An absolute great discussion! Definitely a must watch by everyone! 💯
Can't wait really like Marcelo way of thinking, if you can ask him to explain a little about Oscillatons, if I understand he theorized about that kind of Stars.
Wow! This is really a huge mind blow! Janes Webb is apparently doing it's job and extremely well at that. 🤙💕
Currently i am on Proclus commentary on Plato's first alcibiades - long known as the introduction to Platonics. Imploring the ancient old adage: Know thyself. This is Wisdom. Is not most logical to best try and u derstand ourselves before anything else - of course.
I like to think about the universe as a colloid. Dark matter and energy being the medium in which matter is suspended. But I can't quite wrap my brain around the ability of matter to attract matter in the universe based on size and distance. It seems to be absent in colloids, otherwise my answer would have been nearer.
I think we are looking too much at the things we see and what they are made of and their processes and are missing something to do with the space between or spacetime or what we can’t see.
I got you all, anyway have a wonderful day
Is there a topic to discuss about what bachelor degree will be good for humans after the AGI arrives to our life.
learning how to construct mental qualities and methods of rigorously observing it...but it doesn't exist quite yet
@benny-schmidt - I appreciate your challenge of what I wrote, that “objective (concepts) are (should be) invariant”. You say, ‘nope, not even implied’ (paraphrasing you). But I think you would agree that ‘most widely agreed upon’ does infer: extensively approved by any assessor … of close to (if not absolutely exact {always} .. a specific information or data. Now, explain to me if you think I am wrong about it … but ‘being exactly the same every time, no matter who is testing and generating a result, or conditions which also generate one and only one … repeated result, measurement or outcome set of relations … such resulting information is correctly .,, asymptotic on: INVARIANT. (counter to your open claim opinion aka -your- definition of ‘objective’). -- “Reliable every time” is the essence of “objective”. … every time … invariably. :-).
Mic drop ...
I'm all for human flourishing but anthropomorphic thinking is holding us back, not advancing us. All to often our experience is telling us wrong things.
I think maybe the universe has been evolving and the way things form now may be different than the past. Maybe the way it forms now is smaller or slower but more efficient towards longevity or some other process in which solar cycles undergo. Or maybe it’s less evolutionary and more the fact that everything is getting colder and further apart. Maybe quantum fluctuations are pushing things apart, causing the expansion.
CTT Kuhn~Gleiser interview 03/08/24 -- The Kuhn-Gleiser conversation, though agreeably thorough, did not really cover ‘new ground’, or venture Closer to Truth. [noting with a wry smile, that the only analysis of Gleiser’s I agree with is, that Multi-verse models are the most preposterous ones, requiring too many untenable conditions. - such as: not just the “amount” of dimensions needed to allow for all the hyper generated ‘mini-verses’, but a perfect universal ‘boundary condition’ is required, for all situations where an incompatible mini-verse buds off and co-destroying properties abutt one another.(!)] - Generally though, Gleiser missed being explicit about Experience. … to wit .. the conventional notions of Subjective vs. Objective are no longer correct. Obj is not the best ‘peer review’ of Subj. New Rationale: If ‘objective’ infers perfect and invariant, then it -must- never ‘change’ or be affected. Therefore, -everything- including experiences, are by default Subjective (being tangible). The only ‘things’ invariant must be INTANGIBLE (never vulnerable to variance). So the only aspects which are Objective in a universe, are the intangible but effable Laws / Rules of Nature. (which are within all subjective instantiations). -. THAT is a Closer to Truth … property of existence. 🌈👏💯😄💫💯. jnrose2 - 03/08/24.
You can have an objective science of subjective phenomena (Searle). Secondly, objective doesn't imply invariant nor does it imply unchanging. Like the guest here, you invoke a false premise then argue from that, that's not closer to truth either.
The objective truth of the development of Cosmology, the Universe and galaxies exists and our knowledge of it like all scientific knowledge will always be incomplete, fallible, provisional, and subject to change due to future evidence. And if we ever do come to a more specific conclusion or Theory of Everything then what or how would that change humanity?
Among others, Whitehead already made that point (the main point of "The Blind Spot") in "Science and The Modern World" about a century ago. Still, good to see there are contemporary scientists that are aware of and outspoken about this.
Don't worry, mathematics and reductive materialism will figure it all out. *smh*