Sean: Thank you for the introductory thoughts. Needless to say, human beings like yourself help to give us purpose and hope and excitement in the world, the universe and science and philosophy .
I’m fairly convinced of panpsychism; I would definitely go with the option that phenomenal properties are identical to certain fundamental entities or structures in physics. We should constrain the theory to be perfectly consistent with physics.
I super appreciate the endeavor at clarity and common vocabulary which this paper puts forward. I think it’s significant that the paper is all about higher and lower level theories, in regard to the level of their complexity. At some points a human being is referenced as an example of a higher level “theory.” In common language and in very specific detail, I don’t think a human being is going to be encapsulated within a theory, no matter how complex that theory is. In principle I of course agree that all levels are consistent with more fundamental theories in physics, but I think some applications of emergence and also some applications of the use of “upward and downward causation” will be used to reference “things” and not just “theories.” Just thinking out loud, but a fantastic video and paper, thank you for your work.
I appreciate the words in the beginning of the episode about the election (still going through the rest). I'm an early career researcher and a trans person in the US, and recent events have given me a lot of anxiety about the future. But though things are dark today, I hope thoughtful people will never stop pursuing truth, beauty, goodness, and justice. I love you all
On the bright side, think of it as Libs lost rather than "Trumpism won". Now is the time to support third parties or strengthen the Greens. Maybe then we could have a chance to vote for non JennaSidal candidates.
maybe this has been mentioned but can you do your future episodes with facecam. i noticed that i can follow thought much better if i see the people articulating them. especially complicated thoughts.
I think the "in principle" notion is misleading in this context. In the counterfactual of "well, if I had unlimited computing resources..." one can immediately cut that branch of the possibility tree out of consideration, because it is impossible for any entity to exist while not having bounds to its existence, i.e. existing without a Markov blanket is an oxymoron. As such, when one examines the tree of possibilities after those branches which are impossible have been cut away, one will find that there are no possibilities where the "principle" which allows for reductionism to be universally applicable (in contrast to locally applicable) actually holds. I understand that is is counterintuitive, but that may be because our intuitions often extend into domains which don't correspond to reality without realizing it. For reference, I think the recent work of Chris Fields with regards to the necessary failure of commutivity for the joint probability distribution of any finite existing system (including, arguably, reality itself) may be good food for thought.
@Amethyst_Friend To be "bounded" is to have some part of reality over which your identity does not distribute. One can frame "bounds" in terms of Markov blankets if one wants to be technical. Any entity that exists must have a Markov blanket because without one, there is no distinction between what an entity is and what it is not. I'm going to go ahead and say that if there is no reference frame in which a so-called thing is distinct from what that thing is not, then that thing doesn't exist. Hopefully that's doesn't appear as too trivial of a claim.
@@TheTimecakewhat if something is only mostly isolated. Generally I'm a sort of thing with limited interaction with the world. My interface is large, what with mouth, ears, eyes, skin, etc, but my heart and brain are closed off from direct interaction with the rest of the world... But, that's only, most of the time, if someone hoes in for brain or heart surgery, well that puts a hole right in the ol'markov blanket, but somehow they keep on being who they are - an individual, identifiable from others.
@@TheTimecake sure, but my point was that we can think of the brain as being isolated from the world, where the rest of the body makes up the interface between the world and the brain. In this model the brain is only influenced directly by the body. This results in a view where i, my thought process, is contained or bounded. That's all i need to have a sense of being an entity. I don't need perfect isolation, just some degree of isolation.
Yes, I think a key definition is whether you’re talking about an entire level of theory across the universe or talking about limited systems, like a particle accelerator determining a lower complexity system. Key distinction and I think both ways of talking about these things are valid. Causality happens in many different ways, according to which system you isolate and are talking about.
Hi Sean, dunno if you read these! But your talk about "compressible" and "incompressible" map reminded me a lot about Stephen Wolfram's ideas about "computational reducibility/irreducibility". It made me wonder if you have stumbled over similar ideas, or whether there is something more fundamental here -- yet known -- that I am unaware of.
Could it be the case that you could have predicted the emergent properties but you couldn't KNOW that you predicted them correctly for a given environment? Something related to incompleteness theorem or even touring completeness.
25:12 distinction: emergence over time as an evolutionary concept has nothing to do with the question of the relation between a higher level description and a lower level description: the relation between two descriptions exists independent of the passing of time. 30:02 strong emergence comes in two branches / flavors: the lower level description being false vs just incomplete, but with wiggle room. 32:00 weak emergence considerations 34:01 How to go about it? As physicists: state transitions / mapping, but many-to-one („throwing away information“) 39:50 (information is discernible difference (Joscha Bach): of course the information that is preserved must be discernible from the macro level, else it would be noise - the moment you decide to keep higher resolution information to integrate into your higher level theory (of volcanoes), it becomes part of the emergent theory / its no longer part of the discarded „noise“ of the lower level. What’s not obvious about that?) 41:44 The setup is done. What can we do with it?
Consciousness manifests at higher degrees in strongly emergent physical/condensed systems, that implies consciousness emerges as in the case of the emergent mind manifesting through the brain.
You seldom make me lol. But "attributing the 76er's performance to the initial state of the universe and the laws of physics" made me completely lose it. Diving through explanatory domains can be funny! Or is it that Type 2 Emergence is funny?
I know right. Imagine being worried about a fox news host running the Pentagon and a vaccine denier running health and human services. Not to mention the human trafficking ped0 put forward to be the nation's top cop. These libs must love the establishment to not be excited like we are.
@@vogarnerit’s the same methodology and propaganda globally. They can’t see the rise of the conservatives or right due to these over exaggerated comments trivialising serious issues like race and religion.
Wouldn't temperature be a filter function? I mean, having an environment at one or another temperature/pressure does affect the quantum properties of particles right?
It depends on the course graining being applied. If your model has temperature as a causal "entity" then, yes. But what is temperature but the movement of molecules which are themselves the true carriers of the causal power in the system. You can say the container exploded because the temperature raised resulted in higher pressure that exceeded the container strength. This will predict when the container will fail. But it won't tell you where it will fail. To know not just when but where it's useful to think not of "a container with a pressure rating" and "a gas with a temperature/pressure" but rather as the material that makes up the container and the topology, including stresses and weak points and in terms of a gas that can have different temperatures at different locations in the container resulting in different interactions with different parts of the container.
@@cliffordbohm I've been thinking about this. For an electron to behave differently in a different "medium" there must be an interaction between the electron and the medium right? And what is the medium if not fields and the transferr of energy between parts of it.
@DamianReloaded well, thats a good question. I work in evolutionary theory, not fundamental physics, so take what i say with a grain (a coarse grain, perhaps) of salt. My intuition is that we are nowhere near understanding the fundamental nature of nature. I expect (but also fully expect to be proven wrong) that electrons are not just particles, but excitations in fields made of some more fundamental matter, and that matter will be found to be itself made if more fundamental stuff, and so on. But that's not important, what i think is important is that at this time, we just don't know. Personally, i think we should base our theory of emergence on what we do know - I'm not worried if emergence can't account for quantum effects, we can't account for quantum effects. We can always update our emergence theory. But if we insist that emergence theory must account for the currently unaccountable, i think we are likely to get a very fuzzy emergence theory.
I’ve often thought about emergence and I think the “emergentists” drive themselves bonkers by ignoring the environment the phenomena are emerging into.
Why no discussion about the mathematical problems of quantum gravity that imply there is something in accurate about the micro theories ? that gives emergence the possibility of replacing the micro theory, flipping the metaphysics ?
It's admittedly a bit sketchy, but I wonder whether the following reasoning might not be an argument for strong emergence. The universe computes outcomes (future states of the universe) using the laws of physics. These computations seem to encompass arithmetic. After all, the universe gave us calculators, and they can do arithmetic. Thus, following Goedel, there are outcomes (true statements) floating around in the universe that can nevertheless not be derived from earlier states of the universe. (And who knows, consciousness is such an outcome.)
It's a crude analogy but if a straight railway is deformed into a curve, then a train following that railway would experience a force as it navigated the curve.
In classical mechanics a firmness to pi is assumed. In quantum mechanics it seem the universe dose a pi dance to keep a hole from appearing in many places, like on a sphere. But then I'm guessing with both fists.
I was using emergence in my weird art almost 40 years ago, back when computers in the home were a novelty. At least the physical primitive ink jet prints that remain are provably old, old enough to carbon date. I couldn't explain to arty farties what they were about. And to be fair the process was more interesting than the result. Maybe they'll be valuable one day. The possibility only occurred to me when the NFT racket started. After all these days pigs frequently fly.😀
The phrase "in principle" is doing a lot of philosophical work in the claim that the core theory predicts the location of a hydro-carbon molecule in the gas tank of your neighbor's car given the initial conditions of the universe. To start the claim would have to include the prediction of the meanings of the description of the items in question as applied to the items...location of the items...their causal relation to all the other items and events...and so forth. But if so that would not be possible in principle under the computable definition of complexity you favor.
If atoms, galaxies, quantum particles are real, and with them build structures, quantum space-time can exist, also, at The planck scale that made fotons, histories of reality, enthengeled particles, gravity, distortion of space Time, elementar particles. . Antimater îs în oposition of phase to matter. Statistics can made conection between planck scale and microscopic scale of elementar particles. Theory of discret groups May play a role. Fotons implied only 4 microspaces conected by a mathematical low of interraction between them. There are 4 tipe of fotons în qed. Temporal, longitudinal, and 2 others. Charge îs some integral over cinetical moment of vortexes AT planck scale. În qed, charge operator îs like. Quantum waves are real, propagate on this space-time quanta. But another tipe of wave that by corespondence became normal waves.Fotons simplest structures, infinit velocity to enthengeled 2 space-time quanta, neutrino some more complex structure, mass depends on number of enthengeled space-time quanta and frecvencies of internal oscilation.Our mind is conected by resonance, from conception to this reality. To see past, must mentaly resonate to other reality so Time îs complex and discret.
So.. tldr you're the new Aris! Just kidding, you explained it well. Congratulations, well deserved. Also, can't wait for the 1.6 update for automobilista. I've owned that game for a year, but the lack of a proper easy multiplayer like lfm does hinder the experience. I've only clocked something like 15-20 hours in the last year.
I'd love for you to say more on this. I'm a huge Sean M. Carroll fan, but many of his remarks over the years about Free Will, and those of Daniel Dennet, someone who Sean seems to take guidance from on this matter, don't seem to add up. When it comes to Free Will I'm much more on the side of those like Robert Sapolsky (former Mindscape guest) and Sam Harris, who debated Sean on this topic.
@@A_M_Bobb He didn't say the word "evil", he was just being judgemental. You know, the sort of thing scientists are supposed not to be. By being judgemental towards something, we imply that it is morally wrong. i.e., evil. Other than that, great talk.
As far as I can tell, the remarks were about the people who just got voted in, who are undeniably not nice people. Trump has basically been running to keep himself out of prison, and has gone all in on the fascist playbook to help his cause. JD Vance, Elon Musk and whoever else all seemed happy to take that approach as well (Sean noted Vance’s “universities are the enemy” remark, for example). Surely it’s a moral duty to speak out against fascism wherever it makes an appearance. If not against that, then what?
People who believe in, and vote for, policies that cause direct and measurable harm, can reasonably be described as immoral or even evil. Whether that’s the totality of their being or not, it does sort of eclipse any potentially positive traits or behaviors. And personally, I don’t think compromising with people who want to cause harm to me and my loved ones is a rational action on my part.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
Sean: Thank you for the introductory thoughts. Needless to say, human beings like yourself help to give us purpose and hope and excitement in the world, the universe and science and philosophy .
Thanks Sean love this episode! I’m going to have to listen to this and map it out as I was driving and couldn’t free build in my thoughts as usual.
Wonderful, Amazing, Lovely precise and clear, Thank You!
I believe consciousness arises out of many many layers of organization. It doesn't jump up directly from physics.
OBTW, "International order" is an oxymoron. Read any honestly written history book. You'll see what I mean.
And reverse racism doesn't cure racism. It merely drags it out and increases the hate.
I’m fairly convinced of panpsychism; I would definitely go with the option that phenomenal properties are identical to certain fundamental entities or structures in physics. We should constrain the theory to be perfectly consistent with physics.
Pésimo análisis de situación respecto de la elección en USA.
I super appreciate the endeavor at clarity and common vocabulary which this paper puts forward. I think it’s significant that the paper is all about higher and lower level theories, in regard to the level of their complexity. At some points a human being is referenced as an example of a higher level “theory.” In common language and in very specific detail, I don’t think a human being is going to be encapsulated within a theory, no matter how complex that theory is. In principle I of course agree that all levels are consistent with more fundamental theories in physics, but I think some applications of emergence and also some applications of the use of “upward and downward causation” will be used to reference “things” and not just “theories.” Just thinking out loud, but a fantastic video and paper, thank you for your work.
AMA and solo episode babe wake up it’s Christmas morning
I appreciate the words in the beginning of the episode about the election (still going through the rest). I'm an early career researcher and a trans person in the US, and recent events have given me a lot of anxiety about the future. But though things are dark today, I hope thoughtful people will never stop pursuing truth, beauty, goodness, and justice. I love you all
Gross, hopefully you don't make it
Too late, I'm afraid.
On the bright side, think of it as Libs lost rather than "Trumpism won".
Now is the time to support third parties or strengthen the Greens. Maybe then we could have a chance to vote for non JennaSidal candidates.
@heartonmysleeves4668 That is easy to say when your neighbors aren't being empowered to humiliate and dehumanize you.
You are not "trans" because no such thing exists.
You might apply some of this reasoning to the rational that some people use in developing string theory.
maybe this has been mentioned but can you do your future episodes with facecam. i noticed that i can follow thought much better if i see the people articulating them. especially complicated thoughts.
I think the "in principle" notion is misleading in this context.
In the counterfactual of "well, if I had unlimited computing resources..." one can immediately cut that branch of the possibility tree out of consideration, because it is impossible for any entity to exist while not having bounds to its existence, i.e. existing without a Markov blanket is an oxymoron.
As such, when one examines the tree of possibilities after those branches which are impossible have been cut away, one will find that there are no possibilities where the "principle" which allows for reductionism to be universally applicable (in contrast to locally applicable) actually holds.
I understand that is is counterintuitive, but that may be because our intuitions often extend into domains which don't correspond to reality without realizing it.
For reference, I think the recent work of Chris Fields with regards to the necessary failure of commutivity for the joint probability distribution of any finite existing system (including, arguably, reality itself) may be good food for thought.
Why must every entity be bounded and what do you mean by bounds?
@Amethyst_Friend To be "bounded" is to have some part of reality over which your identity does not distribute. One can frame "bounds" in terms of Markov blankets if one wants to be technical.
Any entity that exists must have a Markov blanket because without one, there is no distinction between what an entity is and what it is not. I'm going to go ahead and say that if there is no reference frame in which a so-called thing is distinct from what that thing is not, then that thing doesn't exist. Hopefully that's doesn't appear as too trivial of a claim.
@@TheTimecakewhat if something is only mostly isolated. Generally I'm a sort of thing with limited interaction with the world. My interface is large, what with mouth, ears, eyes, skin, etc, but my heart and brain are closed off from direct interaction with the rest of the world... But, that's only, most of the time, if someone hoes in for brain or heart surgery, well that puts a hole right in the ol'markov blanket, but somehow they keep on being who they are - an individual, identifiable from others.
@@cliffordbohm The Markov blanket is a statistical boundary. It isn't necessarily an impermeable physical boundary.
@@TheTimecake sure, but my point was that we can think of the brain as being isolated from the world, where the rest of the body makes up the interface between the world and the brain. In this model the brain is only influenced directly by the body. This results in a view where i, my thought process, is contained or bounded. That's all i need to have a sense of being an entity. I don't need perfect isolation, just some degree of isolation.
Sean, isn't the existence of a particle accelerator proof of downward causation?
Yes, I think a key definition is whether you’re talking about an entire level of theory across the universe or talking about limited systems, like a particle accelerator determining a lower complexity system. Key distinction and I think both ways of talking about these things are valid. Causality happens in many different ways, according to which system you isolate and are talking about.
Hi Sean, dunno if you read these! But your talk about "compressible" and "incompressible" map reminded me a lot about Stephen Wolfram's ideas about "computational reducibility/irreducibility". It made me wonder if you have stumbled over similar ideas, or whether there is something more fundamental here -- yet known -- that I am unaware of.
Yay solo! Office work day again 🎉
11:31
… I knew you were going to say that, Mr Carroll
So emergence is modeled like the different layers of the OSI Model for network communication?
Could it be the case that you could have predicted the emergent properties but you couldn't KNOW that you predicted them correctly for a given environment? Something related to incompleteness theorem or even touring completeness.
25:12 distinction: emergence over time as an evolutionary concept has nothing to do with the question of the relation between a higher level description and a lower level description: the relation between two descriptions exists independent of the passing of time.
30:02 strong emergence comes in two branches / flavors: the lower level description being false vs just incomplete, but with wiggle room.
32:00 weak emergence considerations
34:01 How to go about it? As physicists: state transitions / mapping, but many-to-one („throwing away information“)
39:50 (information is discernible difference (Joscha Bach): of course the information that is preserved must be discernible from the macro level, else it would be noise - the moment you decide to keep higher resolution information to integrate into your higher level theory (of volcanoes), it becomes part of the emergent theory / its no longer part of the discarded „noise“ of the lower level. What’s not obvious about that?)
41:44 The setup is done. What can we do with it?
Consciousness manifests at higher degrees in strongly emergent physical/condensed systems, that implies consciousness emerges as in the case of the emergent mind manifesting through the brain.
You seldom make me lol. But "attributing the 76er's performance to the initial state of the universe and the laws of physics" made me completely lose it. Diving through explanatory domains can be funny! Or is it that Type 2 Emergence is funny?
Video really starts at 7:20
Bro these liberals im telling ya, thx.
I know right. Imagine being worried about a fox news host running the Pentagon and a vaccine denier running health and human services. Not to mention the human trafficking ped0 put forward to be the nation's top cop. These libs must love the establishment to not be excited like we are.
@@vogarnerit’s the same methodology and propaganda globally. They can’t see the rise of the conservatives or right due to these over exaggerated comments trivialising serious issues like race and religion.
Wouldn't temperature be a filter function? I mean, having an environment at one or another temperature/pressure does affect the quantum properties of particles right?
It depends on the course graining being applied. If your model has temperature as a causal "entity" then, yes. But what is temperature but the movement of molecules which are themselves the true carriers of the causal power in the system. You can say the container exploded because the temperature raised resulted in higher pressure that exceeded the container strength. This will predict when the container will fail. But it won't tell you where it will fail. To know not just when but where it's useful to think not of "a container with a pressure rating" and "a gas with a temperature/pressure" but rather as the material that makes up the container and the topology, including stresses and weak points and in terms of a gas that can have different temperatures at different locations in the container resulting in different interactions with different parts of the container.
@@cliffordbohm I've been thinking about this. For an electron to behave differently in a different "medium" there must be an interaction between the electron and the medium right? And what is the medium if not fields and the transferr of energy between parts of it.
@DamianReloaded well, thats a good question. I work in evolutionary theory, not fundamental physics, so take what i say with a grain (a coarse grain, perhaps) of salt. My intuition is that we are nowhere near understanding the fundamental nature of nature. I expect (but also fully expect to be proven wrong) that electrons are not just particles, but excitations in fields made of some more fundamental matter, and that matter will be found to be itself made if more fundamental stuff, and so on. But that's not important, what i think is important is that at this time, we just don't know. Personally, i think we should base our theory of emergence on what we do know - I'm not worried if emergence can't account for quantum effects, we can't account for quantum effects. We can always update our emergence theory. But if we insist that emergence theory must account for the currently unaccountable, i think we are likely to get a very fuzzy emergence theory.
I’ve often thought about emergence and I think the “emergentists” drive themselves bonkers by ignoring the environment the phenomena are emerging into.
@ A fundamental particle can exist anywhere in the universe. Complex molecules like RNA only evolve and exist under certain conditions.
The environment plays many key roles in the emergence of complex systems, including humans.
‘the whole is more than the sum of its parts’ I consider a truism.
how does phase transition and power laws relate to emergence?
Have Jacob Barandes on.
Yes!
Why no discussion about the mathematical problems of quantum gravity that imply there is something in accurate about the micro theories ? that gives emergence the possibility of replacing the micro theory, flipping the metaphysics ?
It's admittedly a bit sketchy, but I wonder whether the following reasoning might not be an argument for strong emergence. The universe computes outcomes (future states of the universe) using the laws of physics. These computations seem to encompass arithmetic. After all, the universe gave us calculators, and they can do arithmetic. Thus, following Goedel, there are outcomes (true statements) floating around in the universe that can nevertheless not be derived from earlier states of the universe. (And who knows, consciousness is such an outcome.)
I thought gravity was not a force but a deformation of the space-time fabric?
Depends on how we used the word force
I think it's a bit of a semantic argument. Others here will probably have a more enlightening answer than I do.
It's a crude analogy but if a straight railway is deformed into a curve, then a train following that railway would experience a force as it navigated the curve.
I have not watched to the point on this video yet that gravity is a force I thought also gravity is curvature of space and time
Prof Brian Cox has a more catchy name for level 3: woo-woo 😂
very honest.
In classical mechanics a firmness to pi is assumed. In quantum mechanics it seem the universe dose a pi dance to keep a hole from appearing in many places, like on a sphere. But then I'm guessing with both fists.
I was using emergence in my weird art almost 40 years ago, back when computers in the home were a novelty.
At least the physical primitive ink jet prints that remain are provably old, old enough to carbon date.
I couldn't explain to arty farties what they were about.
And to be fair the process was more interesting than the result.
Maybe they'll be valuable one day.
The possibility only occurred to me when the NFT racket started.
After all these days pigs frequently fly.😀
I love this concept. Carbon dating our old tech. :)
Super duper clarity! ❤
1:15:13 Should've called them Dark Functions, they'd be all over it by now, hah.
Dark humor.
Energy times pi dance is equal to a first attempted spherical mass.
Bot
The phrase "in principle" is doing a lot of philosophical work in the claim that the core theory predicts the location of a hydro-carbon molecule in the gas tank of your neighbor's car given the initial conditions of the universe. To start the claim would have to include the prediction of the meanings of the description of the items in question as applied to the items...location of the items...their causal relation to all the other items and events...and so forth. But if so that would not be possible in principle under the computable definition of complexity you favor.
This would need little bangs not a big bang.
Thank you Sean. Especially your words about the election. By the way, love your q&f book, absolutely the best layman introduction to the field (pun).
Spherical failures may come back at a latter time.
If atoms, galaxies, quantum particles are real, and with them build structures, quantum space-time can exist, also, at The planck scale that made fotons, histories of reality, enthengeled particles, gravity, distortion of space Time, elementar particles. . Antimater îs în oposition of phase to matter. Statistics can made conection between planck scale and microscopic scale of elementar particles. Theory of discret groups May play a role. Fotons implied only 4 microspaces conected by a mathematical low of interraction between them. There are 4 tipe of fotons în qed. Temporal, longitudinal, and 2 others. Charge îs some integral over cinetical moment of vortexes AT planck scale. În qed, charge operator îs like. Quantum waves are real, propagate on this space-time quanta. But another tipe of wave that by corespondence became normal waves.Fotons simplest structures, infinit velocity to enthengeled 2 space-time quanta, neutrino some more complex structure, mass depends on number of enthengeled space-time quanta and frecvencies of internal oscilation.Our mind is conected by resonance, from conception to this reality. To see past, must mentaly resonate to other reality so Time îs complex and discret.
Someone else already came up with this minus string theory 😂 don’t stomp your feet to hard I WANT CALRITY 😢
I strongly believe in weak heuristics.
Yay! More content from Sean Carroll. 🌍 Hello from globe!
We'll never have a true democracy until our representatives are legally obligated to represent their districts..
.....and legally obligated to not lie. The Freedom of Speech in your Constitution needs some firm parameters. As it is, it only serves liars.
When 100k people in a district of 130k people vote for a candidate and somehow our representative supports the other candidate ... This is a problem..
So.. tldr you're the new Aris! Just kidding, you explained it well. Congratulations, well deserved. Also, can't wait for the 1.6 update for automobilista. I've owned that game for a year, but the lack of a proper easy multiplayer like lfm does hinder the experience. I've only clocked something like 15-20 hours in the last year.
atlas detector?//
sean.
the expression "Supa Duppa" is ill-defined... my opinion ;-)
❤
Entities and objects? This is people’s lives you guys are sick
woo hoo
Funny how he doesnt apply it to freewill though
I'd love for you to say more on this. I'm a huge Sean M. Carroll fan, but many of his remarks over the years about Free Will, and those of Daniel Dennet, someone who Sean seems to take guidance from on this matter, don't seem to add up. When it comes to Free Will I'm much more on the side of those like Robert Sapolsky (former Mindscape guest) and Sam Harris, who debated Sean on this topic.
Really disappointed by the opening remarks. Writing off one's neighbors as evil is easy, listening and learning is the more difficult but better way.
He's not coping very well at all, poor thing.
Did he say evil? Maybe he did I just didn't hear that.
I thought his points were obvious and true. What did you find controversial?
@@A_M_Bobb He didn't say the word "evil", he was just being judgemental. You know, the sort of thing scientists are supposed not to be. By being judgemental towards something, we imply that it is morally wrong. i.e., evil.
Other than that, great talk.
As far as I can tell, the remarks were about the people who just got voted in, who are undeniably not nice people. Trump has basically been running to keep himself out of prison, and has gone all in on the fascist playbook to help his cause. JD Vance, Elon Musk and whoever else all seemed happy to take that approach as well (Sean noted Vance’s “universities are the enemy” remark, for example).
Surely it’s a moral duty to speak out against fascism wherever it makes an appearance. If not against that, then what?
People who believe in, and vote for, policies that cause direct and measurable harm, can reasonably be described as immoral or even evil. Whether that’s the totality of their being or not, it does sort of eclipse any potentially positive traits or behaviors. And personally, I don’t think compromising with people who want to cause harm to me and my loved ones is a rational action on my part.