"We must leave because we have the Russians, Americans, Chinese and Iranians under ridiculous leadership"... okay but who would be leaving the planet should this theory come to fruition? The Russians, Americans, Chinese. Ever heard the saying "I keep going somewhere new and ending up somewhere I've already been.." What makes him think that abandoning our planet will make these deep rooted tribalistic tendencies disappear? Our baggage comes with us. The theory is cool though.
Isn't his point that we will forever argue and never cooperate so destroying our own planet will be inevitable, be it through climate change, nuclear war or some other reason. It will be good to expand to other places in the universe. Because of the ability of conscious creation, we are similar to a God and could create life in other places.
@@WestsideRipper I'm definitely an advocate for interstellar exploration, but it seemed to me like Weinstein was including a pessimistic prediction/opinion as opposed to a fact whilst laying out the fundamentals of his theory, I was nit-picking I admit
@@donventura2116 Right.. and I'm saying that no matter where we go, we will take our primative minds with us. Unless we can erase tribalism from our emotional rolodex using NeuralLink or some mind altering technology, our baggage will come with us. Sure it may not be America vs Russia way out in the Proxima star system, but other factions and enclaves certainly. My argument was that, just because we can fly to new planets using this man's theory does not mean that we won't destroy those planets just as fast or faster. Something fundamental must change at HOME. We must leave Earth because we are unified not because we are divided.
@@donventura2116 I see what you're saying, and I agree with you. I didn't necessarily mean that we had to fix ALL of our problems before interstellar travel and colonization could take place. But if you think about it.. most of our current global problems would need to be solved before we could even consider leaving the planet. I don't believe we could build a fleet of star-going vessels using the energy that fossil fuels provide. I feel like we would have to already be using sustainable, renewable, plentiful energy to create something so massive, intricate, and energy consuming. Energy in this form would most likely be clean and non-polluting, "solving" our problem of global warming (maybe, I'm just guessing here). Not only that, but in order to build such massive and intricate starships you'd certainly need resources from every corner of the planet and maybe even from neighboring celestial bodies.. which would most likely promote global cooperation and coordination between nation's. So by the time were getting ready to leave, 2020's problems may be a thing of the past.. simply because solving those problems is what allows us to leave the Earth in the first place.
@@NickJC117 Human "nature" is very malleable. We are the best animal problem solvers because our thinking is so flexible. From stoicists recommending saying we should moderate our emotional desires, to religions preaching various ideals, people have shown a remarkable ability to rally around and follow ideas that aren't inherently natural, and often conflict with some of our tendencies.
@@MF-LXRD Shove a comb up your rear dumbass, if my words offend. Humans believing in magical sky daddies doesn't in any way dismiss that people are flexible in their thinking. People believe all kinds of shit, which proves my point.
@ungratefulmetalpansy In our lifetimes? Yeah. In the long run though? I don't think all or even most humans should leave this planet, but the idea of gradually establishing infrastructure and habitats in space and on other planets makes a lot of sense if you want to increase the long-term resiliency of our species. Especially if you can get a real resource economy/market going up there. We've survived this long. I think it's a worthwhile goal, so long as you value humanity, to prepare for a future where the Earth is uninhabitable due to forces beyond (or within) our control. At the very least, Earth will eventually be baked by the Sun as it grows in diameter. Even if that's hundreds of millions or over a billion years from now.
the layman explanation is that he thinks we are already the ai. he had to explain the complexity first. he could have said, watch westworld, it's a documentary.
Media Box300 if we are the Ai then there is no threat to ourselves. The whole point of Ai concern is that it makes us (the original inhabitants) slaves or at odds with a new more powerful life form that we have no control over. So If we are the Ai, where is the threat?
I have an uncle that is smart like this. You can actually see him struggle to 'dumb things down' when he's speaking to the rest of the family. When I first realized he was doing that, is the dumbest I ever felt.
I want to think that basically we currently don't have the ability to perceive what is really going on around us and he is developing a theory to possibly unlock the ability to do that. It's like we currently have our eyes open in the dark. We can see somethings but not everything and he is trying to turn on the lights. I believe there is another receptor that we have that is being blocked for some reason. Like when one person believes in ghosts and another person doesn't. Who is to say that they don't. If you haven't perceived it then our first reaction for some reason is to out right dis believe because people will think you're insane. For some reason we as humans limit ourselves. Whether that is a built in thing or not....so we don't discover reality as it really is. If we are being controlled by something beyond our comprehension would that thing allow us to find the true code to our being or is there a terminate program built in. When we get to that point It would be like when Peter Griffin on an episode of family guy woke up and was suddenly a real human being. 😆 We are limiting ourselves to our 5 senses. We have more senses some are just turned off at the moment.....
@@tonykari5124 believing someone who says "we should leave the planet" while that person can't explain how, when or why in any comprehensible manners, using purposefully heavy concepts to distract you from pushing his fantasy to a point of failure, well, its called a cult.
@@JuBerryLive 1. This planet will die (either through our own means, supernatural, asteroid, etc.) ergo, it is of importance, for the continuation of the human race, to establish colonies outside it's own mother planet. 2. He is trying to communicate (albeit poorly) to someone who barely understands 4 dimensions, that Physicists are constraining all of science to the known dimensions. Therefore, results at higher dimensions may implicate that readings may incorrect, due to the base assumptions of physicists (i.e. our perspective) may be incorrect. 3. Regardless of whether or not, he is pursing a fantasy or not, the failure of such a feat would mean that the path he is pursuing could be wrong. Yet, IN the PURSUIT of his path, he may find a correct path, a new field of science for generations after to follow (I.E. we wouldn't have light bulbs, AC power, or flight with that kind of static "He be a heretic" thinking.) 4. Science is a hard path, understanding science is even harder, understanding that everything we know about science could be wrong? that is the hardest.
The crazy shit is that it can legitimately make history as the place where an actual breakthrough in physics was first shown. What a fucking world we live in.
just don't say anything so true that makes someone uncomfortable or they might threaten to ban you, it is through discomfort that we grow but everyone wants to be kept comfortable
I love Jamie for switching to the panorama camera in that moment where Weinstein was explaining a lot of hardcore theoretical astro physics and you then saw Joe starring at him like that, while really hard trying to understand what he talks about. I remember when I saw this back then and laughed to tears
smart dude with severe Trump Derangement Syndrome is now in his Nirvana of a Biden regime, and now we have the worst inflation in over 50 years, on-going mass layoffs, a banking crisis that kerps spreading, a conflct in Ukraine caused by the Biden admin pushing to bring Ukraine into NATO and then put missiles there with 10 minutes trajectory to Moscow (the regime acts outraged that Putin didn't roll over and accept that scenario - just as JFK didn't accept nukes in Cuba), a regine that had Boris Johnson scuttle a peace treaty negotiation and since then the Ukraine has lost somewhere between 200,000 to 300,000 war dead (Russia somewhere around 30,000 to 60,000), where said Biden regime imposed sanctions on Russia and now has destroyed the economies of Europe and with the sabatoge of the German/Russian gas pipeline has set Germany for permanent de-industrialization, where said Biden Regime has intentionally provoked China to now go and tightly align with Russia in a BRICS nations power axis, where said Biden regime engages in WW3 brinksmanship with this power axis that could rapidly spiral into a nuclear war This is what the smart guy regards as the sane alternative to the Trump administration, which had fostered a prosperous economy benifiting all demographic groups, kept the nation out of war and even with trade issues with China per increased tarrifs kept cordial relations with Xi. The problem here is that smart guy severely undercuts himself in respect to what he considers a "sanely" run world. He got his wish in respect to his preferred political leadership for running the West and now the nuclear armaggedon clock is just a smidgeon of seconds away from midnight - with the general state of the West in a debt-ridden fiasco of calamities that is the worse conditions for the collective West since the outbreak of WW2 (and we don't even have the manufacturing capacity to fight any war anywhere as the Biden Ukraine proxy war has depleted stockpiles that will take months and years to replinish - while Russia rains down 40,000 artillery shell bombardments without breaking a sweat, doing so for many months now, no sign of depletion in sight - lowly Russia is able to deliver more ongoing firepower than the entirety of NATO, demonstrating it could in reality defeat all of NATO in Europe if it took the gloves off and took out Western satellites and fought all of NATO WW1 style as its done to the Ukraine)
Classic example of someone who’s too wrapped up in their own intelligence to be of any use to society at large. There’s an epidemic of that disease these days. But his iconoclasm resonates nonetheless. He just needs to prove it.
no published paper, no equations to back up what he's said, refuted by every physicist that has heard what he has to say. Pseudo-intellectual eric weinstein. www.newscientist.com/article/dn23595-weinsteins-theory-of-everything-is-probably-nothing/ he's not saying anything. he wouldn't speak about it if there were a physicist in the room.
@@psyience3213 Lol leave it to TH-cam comments to give you a good laugh. You just called a Doctor of mathematics a pseudo-intellectual. That's rich. Maybe if you pause after every sentence you'll comprehend what he's saying.
@@Jschmuck8987 Thats why atmospheric generators will be in order first before any colonization. Once life-sustaining gases are released en masse, by strategically placed generating plants that produce oxygen and hydrogen as well as carbon dioxide (for plant life), and we make sure the proportions are identical to earth, then we have a viable planet. However, the lower gravity and further distance from the sun will need to be taken into account and an artificial greenhouse effect will need to be manifest and maintained. This will require energy and it will be difficult as the larger distance from the sun means solar power is less effective. We will need nuclear power plants all over mars for this to work.
Spurius Tadius true. Once you know what all the jargon means..it’s VERY easy to spot bullshit. I’ll be entirely honest..not a single damn thing Weinstein has ever said that is true. He works entirely in a realm called “his own head”
@@justinguerrero8941 Yep, one characteristic of smart and productive people who do real stuff is that they adjust their language to accommodate their audience and introduce difficult new concepts with care-- often making use of the Socratic method by asking questions of the audience (with Rogan as a proxy for us). But instead this guy launches into an almost unbroken stream of consciousness monologue dragging in a convoluted analogy with rulers and protractors that unwittingly crossed into self-parody. Either he's deliberately trying to obfuscate or he profoundly lacks awareness and empathy for the people he's talking to.
His theory is of higher dimensions projecting into four dimensions, it has some analog to the dmt experience. It seems he seeks us to peer into these world generative dimensions.
I was a physics major in college.. I had a theory similar to this that I worked on for close to 10 years.. I talked to everyone I could to try to publish and get the idea out there and I finally got in front of a world class physicist who just completely dismantled it in about 45 seconds. He was right. He knew a lot more than I did and I wasted so much time and effort. Eric is in that Same Boat.
@@AyleidCraft basically said, yes good idea, very similar to what XXX was saying in the 60s before the XXX experiment the clearly showed that XXX and XXX are not antiparticles of each-other but instead is its own antiparticle... if what you were saying is correct then yes there would be evidence there but it would also show up here in the cPT symmetry of XXX particle creation.
If we can’t steward this planet, what makes him think we can steward another planet. We won’t see success here, until we can find a way to divorce our humanity from our inhumanity. Unfortunately, it’s baked into the cake.
To be fair I think that's kind of his point. Like, not only can we not steward a planet, this nor another, but we have failed at stewarding this one to the point that we have less chance of figuring out how to steward it and reverse the damage done in time than letting the aggregate knowledge of physics take us to achieving galactic occupation thus giving us the lifespan of our new planet to figure things out, plus we don't have to repair and rebuild, only build. In other words I think he knows we might fail another planet as well. But I think he's convinced this one is too doomed, and we may have to get used to the idea that we may make barren a world or two before we figure things out (/leave all the crazy people behind...? I dunno, he's loosing me a bit) Personally though, I don't know why he thinks a novel understanding in physics will coincide with a novel understanding in ecology..... Figuring out space travel doesn't mean we also know how to take the system which gives us not only oxygen but also microflora etc etc, and any drastic change in sun exposure will coincide with our insufficient or waaaayyy overdosed vitamin d levels, etc etc etc on into "we're literally all one system" oblivion. The problem isn't us 'stewarding' another planet, it's us pulling off the eco-transplant in the first place. Never mind how long of a shelf life we can give it. I don't even know why we think we're ready to build a whole new closed system.
He's talking about dispersing humans around the universe so our light is never extinguished. He's not after utopia somewhere else, we're too scum for that.
slipknot95maggot we’re not ready to build our own system. We still have limited, and yet vast understanding of the human body. I think he believes that life itself, is enormously adaptive, and given the right settings, it can thrive anywhere. Now, that maybe true for bacteria, but, certainly not with more complex organisms. Basically, we’d have to find a sterile planet, that we can then introduce life to it slowly. I still think our biggest struggle will be divorcing ourselves from our human nature. At least those flaws, that lead us to become selfish, and warring. Not sure how’d you go about that. Eventually, as a population grows, tribes would almost certainly begin to form. I really don’t know. Sounds nice in theory, but, it’s way more complicated than I think we can imagine. Doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying, though.
What i got from what he was saying was something more like 'as long as humans can out run the destructive capacity of humanity for long enough there is some chance that a less destructive future may be acheived'. Might not be exactly what he meant but that's how i understood it anyway
He's drunk with intellectualism, thinking the only life worth anything is that with a high cognitive function. He forgets the basic intuition most people have; the divine principle of rebirth. It's not up to one individual or even a group to reach ultimate sentience. His own idea is a logical fallacy. He understands that we're projected onto a simplified canvas but fails to ask why.
Intuitive Mode if we get to another planet hopefully we set up strict rules on not completely shitting where you eat. Not to mention.....I’m not sure if it’s possible to mess up the atmosphere of Mars? 🤔
Joe and Eric all live in highly dense populated areas , elitist. Even joe can't survive without the TRT shop nearby. Eric probably couldn't even find clean water on his won
I’ve heard it couched in terms of “diversifying our planetary portfolio” to counteract the eggs in one basket / great filter answer to the Fermi paradox. So it’s less about trying to escape or correct our flawed nature and more about recognizing our collective mortality. “Humanity: leaving the longest possible shitstain down the entropic slide.”
@Timo F Isn't that how the new world was colonised? "Fuck this old world shit, you dudes are the worst, we're going there and making a better world." *a few centuries later* "Fuck this planet shit, you dudes are the worst, we're going out there and making a better world."
Classic conspiracy theory, woo nonsense excuse. "My idea is just too powerful. I have to release it piece by piece, and it has to make sense to no one but me." Sure, buddy.
What bothers me about his theory is that it apperently has been partially completed for many years. While at the same time he has not published a single thing about it and says that he will not do it because physicists will not accept/are not ready for it. This just seems like a major red flag and would indicate that we are dealing with a fragile ego and a lot of bs.
Sorry I'm a bystander nobody's side just listen to this person,but in one of the interviews he said he wrote a book,he said to Joe you can get it in a bookstore.
Like all of you, I've figured this obvious shit out years ago. It just sucks Eric hasn't realized yet the Fallacy Of the 37th Dimensional Proto-Bundle that de-obversifies the protractionsphere. Put some effort in, Eric.
Wow, I had watched a fair amount of Eric Weinstein, beginning with my introduction from Lex Fridman, but this video by Joe Rogan really exposed him for the angry elitist, who hates on everyone cause he's not the most popular kid.
Creation and destruction is a cyclic process bro. You need to have both. And the most beautiful places in the universe are also where you find plenty of that going on. 😊👍
@@zeroneutral That would be true if the planet was 100% full. It's not. That's superficial level 'deep' thought, think more. The whole idea of you have to destroy to create is backwards. Who's to say when you hit a point where you have to destroy you arent, as a species, building outward by that point? or inward with virtual reality?
@@cmpbl92 Converting energy from one form or another requires destruction of some kind to occur. Any time something is built, something else is destroyed in its current form to make a new form.
To be completely honest, we all know Sean Carroll would kind of hand Eric his ass to him. Weinstein is a very intelligent person, definitely smarter than most people anyone will ever meet. But once you get into the world of regularly talking to PhD physicists and mathematicians, you realize that Weinstein is a smart guy who is obviously intimidated by the scientific community and so he uses his popularity to start a platform and pursue his dream hypothesis outside of the reasonable scrutiny of other people who are as smart as he is.
Allen Pierre-Louis but history constantly repeats itself, the mass doubts, the individual perseveres. I mean he said himself it’s a hypothesis. It’s a damn good one.
@@Twizzzums ok, but there is something called peer review. This has become standard practice in the scientific community so that research is refined and errors and uncertainties or biases are all ironed out. This is important to do before proceeding to make grand claims about the science. We don't operate in the same way as Galileo, there are groups of scientists who are knowledgeable about subjects and have the duty to sharpen eachother and make sure we aren't putting out bad papers. Weinstein's avoidance is kind of telling. It points to either arrogance or unhealthy fear. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying he's afraid of criticism.
@rvidal0001 yeah, by his attempt to dumb things down, he mad it for more complex. He simply wants to go back to physics before Einstein and try drawing up a new rout.
Lmao! I think he's one long red light or a soda machine out of his favorite drink after he's inserted his dollar away from losing his shit and being thrown in a padded cell.
Zackaria De La Serna DEactive l what are we but an amalgam of predecessors words and ideas. Do you think your quote "do you feel smart quoting someone else's words" hasn't been uttered in the history of language? Even everything that I've written comes from building upon everything I've heard. You know, "monkey see, monkey do." Do you know how difficult it is to have an original thought? Try it, you can't can you. "There is nothing new under the sun." It all has been said, all we can do is rearrange the words so it applies to our present world. "The sincerest form of flattery is imitation."
Or you can ingest the information and come to your own conclusion of its authenticity instead of being being tethered to an organization to tell you what’s true or not. Think for yourself.
@@Cutsman562 that's not how it works bud. To "ingest the information yourself" means reading the raw work, absent of any analogies. To properly critique it, one has to read the paper
I like Eric but sometimes he seems a bit crackpot. I know he's super intelligent but he seems so self-satisfied at identifying as a "maverick" - a scientist out of left-field. Almost like that is the goal rather than just pure enquiry. He prides himself on his ideas being rejected like that in itself validates them... seems a bit circular to me. Before you accuse me of anything I do listen to his podcast a lot - i have a pretty good idea of who he is.
Solid and fair analysis. Maybe he resists from speaking to the ideas that he conforms to, but essentially anything of importance or big, this rings true to a possible fault. Either way, it’s a gateway to new ideas, for better or worse
@@socratesa2536 its total horseshit. Time isnt considered a dimension in physics it's just used as one to force certain equations to work. This guys a fraud all the way. Hes a bob Lazar wannabe
The unfortunate thing is that he is using “rulers and protractors” as placeholders for dimensions in an attempt to simplify, but it seems to do the opposite and make people more confused. Basically, he is trying to describe the dimensions as being interconnected in a certain way and observers being positioned in a way that makes understanding the dimensions difficult or impossible.
@@creativebeetle I'm not scientifically minded at all but I enjoy posts like this. I had no problem in following what he was saying and I thought it was very well explained. I simply think that people that don't understand it simply don't have enough basic knowledge of science. Imagine trying to explain how a single component of car engine operates in order to make combustion work but the person you were talking to has no idea of what the other parts of the engine are.
@@tomspud3980 That's certainly part of it, yeah. I do still think the string of analogies and tangents didn't aid in the communication of his ideas though. I'd like to see this model explained succinctly and clearly once he gets it all written out.
Micha 139381 that’s because carrol believes in the checks and balances that have allowed the science community to produce what we see today and Eric believes science should be like twitter and youtube comments
I see a lot of guests on here that speak like 2 sentences and I'm stunned at how clearly brilliant they are and this guy spews 3 dictionaries worth of words and I'm doubting he could make a decent grilled cheese sandwich.
I’m sure this guy is a genius, but he is clearly a narcissist. After watching him quote himself and say he’s afraid of his own theory, I have trouble believing that he, a non-physicist by himself, is right and the entire physics community is wrong.
It runs in the family. The Weinstein brothers have made several claims to original ideas with absolutely no publications. I started to put this together after watching the Portal episode where Eric brought his brother Bret on as a guest. They tout Bret as potentially the world's leading Biologist, but with nothing documented on paper. Eric's public disdain for the academic system seems to just be a cover for the fact that he has nothing concerning his theory on paper. All he has is that video of the talk he did at Oxford at Du Sautoy's invitation, but Eric conveniently edited out the portion of the video where they opened the floor up for questions.
I think Elon Musk on here also talked in a similar manner, so why this guy only ? Theres a clear context that he does NOT like the physics community and they don't get along. Its hard for anyone to talk down on their own points to make others' points
You don't have to be an expert in quantum physics to see that he's being convoluted. Like bro just say you're afraid of new discoveries in physics because the last time we discovered something new, we got nuclear energy. Just say 'radioactive boy scout' the book about the kid who made a nuclear reactor from Americium. He's probably right that a full understanding of physics would yield a quantum (perhaps literal) leap in tech. I'm no expert in quantum physics, but he doesn't seem to use terminology consistent with physics. I don't know if he's just trying to describe concepts like super-symmetry without saying it, but it's just kind of weird.
and ideas like super symmetry and string theory cannot be proven nor disproven as we at our current understanding of the universe, can’t make experiments that would back them up or discard them
@Exec Utize Ah yeah that was a pretty weird thing to drop in there. Lot of roundabout language that didn't need to be there. It'd be good to hear his thoughts more cleanly and concisely laid out.
@@creativebeetle Even if he actually used accurate terminology, most people wouldn't be able to appreciate his ideas. Him talking about how Einstein and Minkowski made some bold assumptions about the geometry of spacetime (its metric) was too advanced for anyone who hasn't learned about the concepts of Riemannian geometry.
Joe does a really good job of stopping him and questioning him on certain things and he doesn't seem to like it, just wants to be able to get away with dropping little clever sounding sentences but doesn't want to explain what he means and when he does he goes on a tangent about something else
Eric is intelligent enough to the point that his narcissism goes unnoticed. for example, he is saying things that very few people can grasp so that when he is catastrophizing the current situation and hinting that his way is better, we cant really be sure if its justified or not.
You are only saying that because you can't comprehend what he described. If you took time to research each component and try to visualize it... you might consider that he has never tried to monetize any of this when he easily could have.
@@kurt2612 Brett talks in a completely nonsensical way and jumps between topics like an 8 year old on crack, no shit almost no one understand him. Watching actual physicists with relevancy to Brett's work talk in longform conversation about their criticisms of him and his big theory was actually very enlightening to how disingenuous he really is.
@@JakeRaymond7 open your mind a little. Could it not simply be that he is trying to expand past where the "accepted boundaries" reside... set by those who call new ideas names like children? There was a time not long ago when those same people would have had the same thing said about them as you just said about Eric. I followed easily because I waited to judge until after he finished. It appears that you made up your mind before comprehending the correlation of components being suggested. Do you really believe that JRE is a setting that is conducive to a technically sound delivery of information that only a few people in the audience will comprehend? He is trying to get his point across to people with near zero education at the level required to follow along.
@@kurt2612 Science content is 90% of what I consume and he is the only one of saying this about. I can link you a 2 hour break down by physicists with relevancy to Brett's paper that shows why his "theory of everything" falls flat on itself in many ways. And if you have very qualified physicists struggling even read between the lines on what the fuck your paper is trying to say then yes its a problem. You people treat him like Einstein despite not being a psychists and having a life's work that is a croc of shit. These people are even having conversations with Brett in private where he is incapable of explaining even the fundamentals of subjects he pretends to have expertise on. Even the scientist in the conversation playing devils advocate for Brett struggled profusely to find any defense for him. It was a very enlightening discussion on how full of shit Brett is. I'm pretty sure you use a thesaurus because anyone pretending to be smart like you should've researched criticisms of him and found out that there's a plethora of holes in the things he says. Whether its because he's wrong or because no one understands him its a fucking awful place to promote his theories given either. Maybe YOU should open your mind and listen to the feedback from scientists Brett gets instead of having only one side of the story and calling others close minded. It makes you sound like an idiot.
Too much Star Trek. Too much idealism, not enough realpolitik. To be good scientists, they must live in a world of ideals; to be good politicians, they'd need to abandon ideals.
I haven't done this crap in a very long time, as in twenty years, and then specialized in what would now be called nano-tech and entanglement, and theoretical aspects of that a few years after Eric did his PhD. I still have the books of the standard model and general relativity in my bookshelf, and from there it is about two years of learning quite some mathematical stuff, which it looks like from the title of Eric's PhD is done. What has always bothered me a lot more than the inability of unifying gravity and quantum mechanics is that the equipment necessary to distinguish between theories is the size of solar systems, and if we continue the investment in ever larger colliders would only be available at the end of the twenty second century. So I moved on to other stuff. I have normally found the string theorists, and the cosmology crowd to be quite approachable, so it should not be too hard to learn the lingo. What is much harder is the amount of effort required to learn a theory in detail that does not come framed in the standard ways of looking at the problems. There has to be a compelling reason. I have done that a few times, and there is some brilliant, but ultimately wrong stuff out there. The most fun I encountered was a book allegedly removed from all libraries in the world by the Illuminati, who had taken Tesla's work forward. It described the construction of portals and the warping of space and time using electromagnetic equipment. Whoever had written this had a solid conceptual grasp of general relativity and of electromagnetism. The coupling constants were wrong, which meant the equipment needed to be the size of solar systems, not rooms. I think what I am trying to say is that the devil is really in the detail, as I am sure Eric is aware of. So it is really for him to look at the low energy aspects of his theory in the energy realm of the large hadron collider and to see if his theory spits out some particles that should have been covered there. It is not entirely implausible that something might have been missed, that can be found in the data. Again, it is my understanding that this data, although HUGE, is reasonably publicly accessible. There is some extreme black magic done on that data with statistics, and perhaps something was missed because people did not know what to look for. Wouldn't that be something ...
@@austinroth9730 Not much. It was a photocopy (I was told the original had disappeared from our library some years back. Did not take that too seriously ... the friend knew strange people). A lot of conspiracy in the first few chapters. The coursework was pretty intense. I don't know what possessed me to look at it in detail at the time. I always enjoyed arguing with people that thought differently to me. We were pretty intense, discussing time loop contradictions etc. We had one chap inventing factional derivatives. Never really understood him. One chap could build anything. Good times! Always great to touch base with the old bunch, but they are all over the world now.
3:20 lol "Few physicists attended and no preprint, paper, or equations were published.[8] Weinstein's ideas were not widely debated. The few that did engage expressed skepticism.[7][9] They were unable to debate more intensely due to the fact that there was no published paper.[10]"
@@FlamingFretboard A PhD in mathematical physics from the *mathematics* department at Harvard *is* a PhD in mathematics. A mathematical physicist is essentially a mathematician that studies the mathematics coming from theoretical physics.
Published an actual peer reviewed paper: No Presented the ramblings to an actual physicist: Joe is the antithesis of a physicist Explaining it clearly and succinctly: Not even close, but that makes him sound clever so no need Sounding like a conspiracy theorist: Now and then Smelling his own farts: All the time and you can tell they're delicious
You could open one of Einstein's own books to a random page and quote that same dull maxim as a retort. It doesn't hold when discussing the cutting edge of anything, much less theoretical physics.
@SC Fulmer, you are right. Feynman would briskly bitch-slap this obfuscator. The more I hear him talk about geometric unity, the more it smells like garbage.
suckablowfish it is a comment on humans seemingly have the power of a god but we don’t have the wisdom to use it responsibly. I get what he means but it’s very arrogant to say and it plays into the whole people suck trope which I hate.
5 months late and dont have any credentials but from the bit that i understood basically the universe is a basketball game and we're the fans. quantum mechanics is the on court stuff, and conventional physics is the stands. when we make a loud reaction it can make difference on court, but the court has a much bigger impact on the stands. string theory is trying to fit the rules of the court in the rules of the stand, while eric is speculating that theyre two different but related phenomenons, like a basketball game and how interactions with fans affect it. additionally, he argues that the universe is made up of 14 dimensions, with 4 defining boundaries, 4 rulers to measure those boundaries, and 6 protractors to measure the relationships of those boundaries and rulers. (i really dont know anything about this next part so this is just a guestimate at this point lol) another thing is the idea that regular matter can't interact with the other type of matter and the attempt to resolve the interactions between those generations may be negligible/unimportant, even though right now those interactions are being seen as new generations, these generations might be imposters. the idea of the hand has been talked about before so looking up a chrality video should explain that pary.
Don't let this hopeless fuck pull you away from your humanity. This is the kind of ass hole who has relinquished his hope, you'd be smart to ignore all the negative rhetoric he spews.
Dark matter is something that they had to "make up" because the current model is missing mass. It was deduced that there "must" be some type of matter that we cannot detect to make up for the missing mass in our universe... hence dark matter. His model actually balances the universe and accounts for all the mass without having to invent an unknown particle by posing that it's "classic" matter but in a different dimension that is symmetrical to the dimension we live in/perceive.
So I’ve heard him talk about this unification theory before, now can i please get a mathematician or physicist to explain and or debunk this? Like why are we pretending we understand the fundamentals of what he’s talking about just because we understand his parables. I’d really like to know if Bret is fucking crazy or not
The Coward Liberius not just in different units but using a new tool, just as a protractor is completely different from a ruler and defines a separate piece if information. Like a ruler defines distance and a protractor defines direction/angle of distance. Just like we can’t find an angle between something by directly using a ruler. So instead of changing the ruler we can keep that the same and instead try to find a new tool of measurement, which in this analogy is a protractor or degrees. Same goes for anything else we have discovered. Like temperature and weight, they can’t be found using a ruler so we invented new tools.
That's because what he's talking about doesn't have a layman equivalent. You really need to learn Riemannian geometry to understand his ideas because they're based on a lot of abstract geometry concepts most people aren't even aware of. Spinors are a good example of something Eric will never be able to explain in layman terms.
So from what I've read if his theory was true they would've already discovered new particles he predicted at the LHC in Cern and they didn't, also he never published a paper on it so they can't really check his math or design experiments to prove his theory.
@@thepcguy007 i think his theory does states that due to our rudimentary senses it is plausible that there are other particles, which we do not detect, but are required for what I guess the fundamental forces of the universe(maybe?). This is just from what I understood regarding the symmetry bit near the end, so I might be wayyyy off.
@@chinyioh8822 You might be right, it's not like I can follow all of it either. But I also think dismissing it all on the basis of "we would have discovered it already" without ever having looked for them or even having a model where they can exist is somewhat dumb. I'm not qualified to dismiss him... and I don't think anyone else here is either.
@@thepcguy007 i was referring to Weinstein actually and i think it's odd that Joe didn't mention Lisi's work given that it's almost the same thing they both talk about and they have a somewhat similar narrative about academy
If he lumps the leaderships of Russia, China, Iran and USA under the same label of "ridiculous", he seems to have some intellectual deficits. While he could mean for different reasons, his selection of countries is a further prompt for furled eyebrows, and of course promoting a catchy title/thesis like we have to leave this planet. By such a broad standard set, how is *he* not utterly ridiculous? (He used it as justification for his thesis that we have to leave the planet, and eventually he used the term "Putin's b----" and seems to also be a TDSer, so that explains a lot about his mindset, agenda, character psychology.) Right after that, Joe should have asked him who he imagines as a grown-up for president. (If his standards are so pseudo-high and arguably detached from reality that he considers even Putin not qualifying.) 1:35 Who says gods are known for their outstanding wisdom?? Also, what an insane thesis that in this state we have to leave the planet to "diversify", as if that has any track record of solving the problem. Just more insane escapism. Mental people is what is plaguing us. Taking responsibility, confronting our issues and opening the heart is what resolves things. Of course that tends to be a path towards perceived boredom, and so the mind imagines it can solve the problem through controlling it, but that *is* the problem mindset. (Remember what Einstein said about mindset/approach.) 16:02 Dude, all this *is* the universe contemplating itself. (And that cringy self-aware concept again, used by a theoretical physicist instead of a theologian or spiritual theorist.) An imperfect subgroup - a creation - of a superior entity - creator - cannot fully comprehend itself. His "what if" amounts to what if you die. Big deal! /s 19:35 Wow, more inane reasoning there. So he thinks Genghis Khan would not have been excited about attaining 'limitless' (ugh) power? - You can see the hubris, the arrogance, the self-love of the ego there. Spiritually that man is a wreck. (Or a joke.)
"We're not wise enough to stay on this planet. We're too powerful." And just where are we going to go? Earth grows humans, mister. Good luck finding a place we can thrive.
We must adapt - with this new theory we can develope faster than light speed and travel to another terrestrial planet!!! THEN, we terraform the planet, and produce a new atmosphere of oxygen
@@Saternoc To be honest sending a colony to Mars maybe are only hope. Imagine the rulers of earth like Russia China USA and others wouldn't be able to sustain power over that colony. It would have to rule over its' self and have different priorities. Making a new social and ecological base society I would think...... but I am Canadian and 5 whiskeys in so what do I know? Lol
Pyramid Pink I think that’s the point. He makes it so convoluted and complicated that you can’t pick apart even a specific thing he says. “When one approaches the human waste receptacle to begin the release of excrement, they have to consider the deeper implications and unforeseen complications when proceeding to choose 4ply tissue or a moistened woven cotton tissue. It’s really quite the quandary.”
"it's too easy to destroy things relative to building them" some day the amount of destruction one human can cause will become greater than the probability of him not doing so at which point humanity will cease to be
@@levihuerta9393 idk, felt like a pretty profound thought at the time (late at night)... but i think there might actually be some truth to it. just imagine a world with commercially available molecular 3d printers (or whatever it's called). everyone could make their own hydrogen bombs and stuff... needs just a few crazy people to wipe us all out...
In physics, this destructive force is known as 'entropy'. This isn't just human nature, this is the nature of the Universe itself. That's why a giant redwood takes hundreds of years to grow incredibly tall, but a redwood forest burns down in days.
He has been called out as one of the minds who have generatered most new ideas and concepts in resent times, by some of the smartest people on the planet. Eric is wicked smart. Everything he speaks about here is new to the puplic, he just started sharing it, ofcause theres going to be alot to go though. I however believe that the duts he are connecting are relavent on so many levels that we would do ourselfs and future generations a disserves if we do not listen carefully. The coming months and years will likely be a trial and I will listen to Eric every step of the way.
@@creativebeetle You have a point, but I do counter with how this is something he has just started sharing. And! He is building a network of people from all works of life to do explain it. His portal podcast does this.
He has a PhD from Harvard, I love retards in the TH-cam comments trying to say he's not as smart as he thinks he is lmao. Who the fuck are you guy? Dropped out of high school no doubt
@@Agnes135 He doesn't release any papers in fear of peer reviews. Look him up he has NOTHING to back his claims. The only thing he does is trying to sound smart in front of people who don't know anything about this topic. Sure, he has a PhD.. that doesn't mean shit.
@@xXWorldgamefunXx He has done a 2-hour long lecture at Oxford on the subject. You really think he would be invited to give a science talk at Oxford by the Simonyi Professorship Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, if he was some moron like you're suggesting? Is he correct? I don't know. Do you know? No. You're saying he's trying to sound smart, I guarantee you've never studied maths past high school. You're some nobody on the TH-cam comment section
@@Agnes135 A 2-hour lecture and a published document are two very, very different things. Most physicists consider him a fraud. Hell, his only published paper has been cited exactly once in the scientific literature.
@@harryc.beaver4893 Most physicists consider him a fraud? So why has Roger Penrose been on his podcast? Arguably the most reputable living physicist? Who is calling him a fraud?
7:57 I fail to see how rulers and protractors, whose values are completely determined by the existing four free variables, can themselves be degrees of freedom.
@@waify2678 The point of physics is to predict reality. It doesn't matter what units calculations are done in, so long as the calculations align with experiment within certain tolerances.
@@waify2678 A degree of freedom, as defined in physics, is ability to change a value without changing others. Changing units of measurement does not change the value - it's the same number of hydrogen radii, for instance. A degree of freedom is ability to make something that was 2 meters 3 meters, not 200 centimeters.
Joe, all he is saying is that he believes there’s no way this planet can be the only planet inhabit for all of human existence. He may not say that in the most specific way, but that’s what he’s saying in a nutshell. And he’s right. For human beings to survive indefinitely, we *have* to find other planets to inhabit.
Hmm, earth was a barrren molten rock in space until as soon as it cooled down life immediately sprang up, but we have no evidence of life in the entire known galaxy seems like this universe was created for us aonly
@@evanw2195 We also haven't ever visited any other solar system in the galaxy so obviously we have no evidence. If you had never left your home and you didn't have windows would you have any evidence that there is life in other homes? No. Does that mean that the world was made just for you? No.
Does anyone know which episode this clip is from and the exact timestamp? It’s hard to find where they talk about specific topics in these long conversations
His hand symmetry analogy was so good. I’ve always felt similar with our universe. Space and a bunch of random planets with nothing on it, doesn’t seem to make sense unless there’s a whole other half we don’t comprehend
I've always believed that scientists are wrong about dark matter and dark energy. I believe they're are intrinsic parts of the universe that we haven't figured out, not some exotic new material. Sort of like how scientists invented aether to explain light traveling through space because a wave can't "possibly move through nothing". Well they (photons being both a wave and a particle) do and aether turned out to be made up bullshit.
Joe's guests are getting way too comfortable with asking Jamie to pull stuff up
I wonder if it makes Joe uncomfortable, like how when a house guest reaches out and starts handling something expensive without asking.
I agree. Joe needs to piss around Jamie's area and the area in between Jamie and the guest. That'll stop that shit.
Maybe just piss on Jamie?
Joey diaz does it all the time.
I thought the same thing.
Jamie: your not my boss, ask joe to tell me.
joe was not high enough for this talk. he needs to be NASA suite high
The ones with vacuum proof zippers?
LMAOOOOOOOOOO
@@ChuckBeefOG it's a actual spacesuit
the ones shielded to protect against the radiation of outer space? 🤣
I'm not high enough to watch this..
Wonder what Ja Rule has to say about this.
Would somebody PLEASE find ja rule so he can make sense of this
we need da wIzDom of da jAh!
You guys i think he's over here, behind this couch!
Where's JA!
Where is Ja!!!
"We must leave because we have the Russians, Americans, Chinese and Iranians under ridiculous leadership"... okay but who would be leaving the planet should this theory come to fruition? The Russians, Americans, Chinese. Ever heard the saying "I keep going somewhere new and ending up somewhere I've already been.." What makes him think that abandoning our planet will make these deep rooted tribalistic tendencies disappear? Our baggage comes with us. The theory is cool though.
That’s what I was thinking, well put
Isn't his point that we will forever argue and never cooperate so destroying our own planet will be inevitable, be it through climate change, nuclear war or some other reason. It will be good to expand to other places in the universe. Because of the ability of conscious creation, we are similar to a God and could create life in other places.
@@WestsideRipper I'm definitely an advocate for interstellar exploration, but it seemed to me like Weinstein was including a pessimistic prediction/opinion as opposed to a fact whilst laying out the fundamentals of his theory, I was nit-picking I admit
@@donventura2116 Right.. and I'm saying that no matter where we go, we will take our primative minds with us. Unless we can erase tribalism from our emotional rolodex using NeuralLink or some mind altering technology, our baggage will come with us. Sure it may not be America vs Russia way out in the Proxima star system, but other factions and enclaves certainly. My argument was that, just because we can fly to new planets using this man's theory does not mean that we won't destroy those planets just as fast or faster. Something fundamental must change at HOME. We must leave Earth because we are unified not because we are divided.
@@donventura2116 I see what you're saying, and I agree with you. I didn't necessarily mean that we had to fix ALL of our problems before interstellar travel and colonization could take place. But if you think about it.. most of our current global problems would need to be solved before we could even consider leaving the planet. I don't believe we could build a fleet of star-going vessels using the energy that fossil fuels provide. I feel like we would have to already be using sustainable, renewable, plentiful energy to create something so massive, intricate, and energy consuming. Energy in this form would most likely be clean and non-polluting, "solving" our problem of global warming (maybe, I'm just guessing here). Not only that, but in order to build such massive and intricate starships you'd certainly need resources from every corner of the planet and maybe even from neighboring celestial bodies.. which would most likely promote global cooperation and coordination between nation's. So by the time were getting ready to leave, 2020's problems may be a thing of the past.. simply because solving those problems is what allows us to leave the Earth in the first place.
"We need to get off this planet."
"Way ahead of you."
*bong noises*
I can't see this man as a genius if he believes we can run away from human nature.
@@NickJC117 Human "nature" is very malleable. We are the best animal problem solvers because our thinking is so flexible. From stoicists recommending saying we should moderate our emotional desires, to religions preaching various ideals, people have shown a remarkable ability to rally around and follow ideas that aren't inherently natural, and often conflict with some of our tendencies.
@@david0aloha we've been worshipping fairy tales since the dawn of time itself you fuking idiot.
@@MF-LXRD Shove a comb up your rear dumbass, if my words offend. Humans believing in magical sky daddies doesn't in any way dismiss that people are flexible in their thinking. People believe all kinds of shit, which proves my point.
@ungratefulmetalpansy In our lifetimes? Yeah.
In the long run though? I don't think all or even most humans should leave this planet, but the idea of gradually establishing infrastructure and habitats in space and on other planets makes a lot of sense if you want to increase the long-term resiliency of our species. Especially if you can get a real resource economy/market going up there.
We've survived this long. I think it's a worthwhile goal, so long as you value humanity, to prepare for a future where the Earth is uninhabitable due to forces beyond (or within) our control. At the very least, Earth will eventually be baked by the Sun as it grows in diameter. Even if that's hundreds of millions or over a billion years from now.
If that’s the layman explanation I must be a DUMBASS.
the layman explanation is that he thinks we are already the ai. he had to explain the complexity first. he could have said, watch westworld, it's a documentary.
Na, This guy makes absolutely no sense at fking all when he speaks, but it's very fun trying to piece it together. LOL.
Media Box300 if we are the Ai then there is no threat to ourselves. The whole point of Ai concern is that it makes us (the original inhabitants) slaves or at odds with a new more powerful life form that we have no control over. So If we are the Ai, where is the threat?
I have an uncle that is smart like this. You can actually see him struggle to 'dumb things down' when he's speaking to the rest of the family. When I first realized he was doing that, is the dumbest I ever felt.
I want to think that basically we currently don't have the ability to perceive what is really going on around us and he is developing a theory to possibly unlock the ability to do that. It's like we currently have our eyes open in the dark. We can see somethings but not everything and he is trying to turn on the lights. I believe there is another receptor that we have that is being blocked for some reason. Like when one person believes in ghosts and another person doesn't. Who is to say that they don't. If you haven't perceived it then our first reaction for some reason is to out right dis believe because people will think you're insane. For some reason we as humans limit ourselves. Whether that is a built in thing or not....so we don't discover reality as it really is. If we are being controlled by something beyond our comprehension would that thing allow us to find the true code to our being or is there a terminate program built in. When we get to that point It would be like when Peter Griffin on an episode of family guy woke up and was suddenly a real human being. 😆 We are limiting ourselves to our 5 senses. We have more senses some are just turned off at the moment.....
Joe: “explain it in Laymen’s terms” Eric: “lemme start with every scientific word I know first.”
So you want him to explain it without using the proper terminology?
he's a nutjob... mental disease and autism I think.
@@JuBerryLive yeah. He's at another level of thinking. And to you he's mentally ill. Now you see the problem there ?
@@tonykari5124 believing someone who says "we should leave the planet" while that person can't explain how, when or why in any comprehensible manners, using purposefully heavy concepts to distract you from pushing his fantasy to a point of failure, well, its called a cult.
@@JuBerryLive 1. This planet will die (either through our own means, supernatural, asteroid, etc.) ergo, it is of importance, for the continuation of the human race, to establish colonies outside it's own mother planet.
2. He is trying to communicate (albeit poorly) to someone who barely understands 4 dimensions, that Physicists are constraining all of science to the known dimensions. Therefore, results at higher dimensions may implicate that readings may incorrect, due to the base assumptions of physicists (i.e. our perspective) may be incorrect.
3. Regardless of whether or not, he is pursing a fantasy or not, the failure of such a feat would mean that the path he is pursuing could be wrong. Yet, IN the PURSUIT of his path, he may find a correct path, a new field of science for generations after to follow (I.E. we wouldn't have light bulbs, AC power, or flight with that kind of static "He be a heretic" thinking.)
4. Science is a hard path, understanding science is even harder, understanding that everything we know about science could be wrong? that is the hardest.
first thing einstein did after developing his theory of relativity was go to a roiding UFC meathead and get his feedback
maybe he should have :D
Muhd Ali was a wise man.
Ah yes, the premier source for theoretical physics research: The Joe Rogan Podcast
The crazy shit is that it can legitimately make history as the place where an actual breakthrough in physics was first shown. What a fucking world we live in.
IMAO with that. Truth is stranger.
@@mikhailmikhailov8781 Strange times brother strange times.
Almost all progress originates in "outlaw territories".
@@raydavison4288 makes sense
Joe “This planet has the best beaches” Rogan
lolll sendgod tiktok
And bikini babes, dont forget the bikini babes
And within this planet, Australia has the best beaches.
I've traveled everywhere. Fight me.
Tahiti 🏝
Grubby bum well you are a grubby bum, I got a pretty good shot
So desperate for human interaction that I’m resorting to TH-cam comments
just don't say anything so true that makes someone uncomfortable or they might threaten to ban you, it is through discomfort that we grow but everyone wants to be kept comfortable
feel u
@@nathankayhan4358 I've been one since November 2016
Hello Gustavo !!
Flip da Whip lol
I love Jamie for switching to the panorama camera in that moment where Weinstein was explaining a lot of hardcore theoretical astro physics and you then saw Joe starring at him like that, while really hard trying to understand what he talks about. I remember when I saw this back then and laughed to tears
smart dude with severe Trump Derangement Syndrome is now in his Nirvana of a Biden regime, and now we have the worst inflation in over 50 years, on-going mass layoffs, a banking crisis that kerps spreading, a conflct in Ukraine caused by the Biden admin pushing to bring Ukraine into NATO and then put missiles there with 10 minutes trajectory to Moscow (the regime acts outraged that Putin didn't roll over and accept that scenario - just as JFK didn't accept nukes in Cuba), a regine that had Boris Johnson scuttle a peace treaty negotiation and since then the Ukraine has lost somewhere between 200,000 to 300,000 war dead (Russia somewhere around 30,000 to 60,000), where said Biden regime imposed sanctions on Russia and now has destroyed the economies of Europe and with the sabatoge of the German/Russian gas pipeline has set Germany for permanent de-industrialization, where said Biden Regime has intentionally provoked China to now go and tightly align with Russia in a BRICS nations power axis, where said Biden regime engages in WW3 brinksmanship with this power axis that could rapidly spiral into a nuclear war
This is what the smart guy regards as the sane alternative to the Trump administration, which had fostered a prosperous economy benifiting all demographic groups, kept the nation out of war and even with trade issues with China per increased tarrifs kept cordial relations with Xi.
The problem here is that smart guy severely undercuts himself in respect to what he considers a "sanely" run world.
He got his wish in respect to his preferred political leadership for running the West and now the nuclear armaggedon clock is just a smidgeon of seconds away from midnight - with the general state of the West in a debt-ridden fiasco of calamities that is the worse conditions for the collective West since the outbreak of WW2 (and we don't even have the manufacturing capacity to fight any war anywhere as the Biden Ukraine proxy war has depleted stockpiles that will take months and years to replinish - while Russia rains down 40,000 artillery shell bombardments without breaking a sweat, doing so for many months now, no sign of depletion in sight - lowly Russia is able to deliver more ongoing firepower than the entirety of NATO, demonstrating it could in reality defeat all of NATO in Europe if it took the gloves off and took out Western satellites and fought all of NATO WW1 style as its done to the Ukraine)
Classic example of someone who’s too wrapped up in their own intelligence to be of any use to society at large. There’s an epidemic of that disease these days. But his iconoclasm resonates nonetheless. He just needs to prove it.
Give me a thumbs up if you want a really badass artist to animate this clip so the rest of us can have some idea what he's talking about.
If u need an animator lmk
Madebybronson.com
If someone's makes this lmk
@@madebybronson4648 how do i connect with you?
@@Hollowsmith www madebybronson.com
Or
@madebybronson on IG
Interested
At first I though Joe was cutting him off too much , until I realized Eric would continue talking for the whole 3 hours if joe doesn’t cut him off .
I’m either too stupid to understand what he’s saying or smart enough to know he’s not saying anything substantial at all. Time will tell.
no published paper, no equations to back up what he's said, refuted by every physicist that has heard what he has to say. Pseudo-intellectual eric weinstein.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn23595-weinsteins-theory-of-everything-is-probably-nothing/
he's not saying anything. he wouldn't speak about it if there were a physicist in the room.
@@psyience3213 hater
@@ACircadianRhythm No i'm just not stupid and gullible like you
@@psyience3213 Lol leave it to TH-cam comments to give you a good laugh. You just called a Doctor of mathematics a pseudo-intellectual. That's rich. Maybe if you pause after every sentence you'll comprehend what he's saying.
Protractors will tell
"Mars sucks, can we fix here" - Joe, 2020
Mars doesn’t even have an electromagnetic field. We’d have to live in underground bunkers surrounded by ten feet thick lead walls.
I would go live in Mars. Start fresh with out all the crap we have going on this planet. Eventually earth will die
@@Jschmuck8987 Thats why atmospheric generators will be in order first before any colonization. Once life-sustaining gases are released en masse, by strategically placed generating plants that produce oxygen and hydrogen as well as carbon dioxide (for plant life), and we make sure the proportions are identical to earth, then we have a viable planet. However, the lower gravity and further distance from the sun will need to be taken into account and an artificial greenhouse effect will need to be manifest and maintained. This will require energy and it will be difficult as the larger distance from the sun means solar power is less effective. We will need nuclear power plants all over mars for this to work.
Yes! So few people ever pick up in that one
True ape
Eric sounds like he’s spent way too much time inside lately
Has the hair to prove it.
😆😆😆
No I don’t
@Jay i bet eric did ton of research on Ashley's work.
Most smort people are mildly on the spectrum
I think I'm having a stroke
You've just become another ruler in the protractor-verse.
You're not having a stroke. This guy is just to impress "the laymen" by overloading them with a firehose of jargon.
Spurius Tadius true. Once you know what all the jargon means..it’s VERY easy to spot bullshit. I’ll be entirely honest..not a single damn thing Weinstein has ever said that is true. He works entirely in a realm called “his own head”
@@justinguerrero8941 Yep, one characteristic of smart and productive people who do real stuff is that they adjust their language to accommodate their audience and introduce difficult new concepts with care-- often making use of the Socratic method by asking questions of the audience (with Rogan as a proxy for us). But instead this guy launches into an almost unbroken stream of consciousness monologue dragging in a convoluted analogy with rulers and protractors that unwittingly crossed into self-parody. Either he's deliberately trying to obfuscate or he profoundly lacks awareness and empathy for the people he's talking to.
Spurius Tadius I couldn’t agree more
We ain't going no where.. unless it's in a DMT powered rocket
His theory is of higher dimensions projecting into four dimensions, it has some analog to the dmt experience. It seems he seeks us to peer into these world generative dimensions.
LKRaider I like that concept.
@XY ZW I think he means like a mentaly DMT powered rocket or somethin lol
This guest continues to impress, primarily himself.
bahahaha i’m happy to see so many people realize this. sad for the ones who don’t.
I agree
He's delusional
This is the guy they made the movie A Beautiful Mind about
Wow I dead!!!! spot on!
“We have to have get off this planet”
Christopher Nolan watching at home: (murmurs) “I know..”
thecharacte.r. I was going to make a TENET comment. Guess I just did. Ohh shit
Main issue with his argument is why would humans be any better off world than on?
@@prophetic0311 two chances not to be dead
thecharacte.r. While it may not be possible, it is necessary.
Chris Kibb Elon Musk is the antichrist.
How high did you get him Joe?
"*giggle* it's hard to stay on focus" high
Imagine him actually high
Black Science Man dreams of being that high.
Jay Klaxton he is actually high
Light years may be
I can’t tell if if they’re super high, or I am.
Daniel Martin
.
Plot twist: You are super high and they are too.
Yes.
I think it is both
Same
I was a physics major in college.. I had a theory similar to this that I worked on for close to 10 years.. I talked to everyone I could to try to publish and get the idea out there and I finally got in front of a world class physicist who just completely dismantled it in about 45 seconds. He was right. He knew a lot more than I did and I wasted so much time and effort. Eric is in that Same Boat.
What did he do to dismantle it
@@AyleidCraft basically said, yes good idea, very similar to what XXX was saying in the 60s before the XXX experiment the clearly showed that XXX and XXX are not antiparticles of each-other but instead is its own antiparticle... if what you were saying is correct then yes there would be evidence there but it would also show up here in the cPT symmetry of XXX particle creation.
Alex Leach Sounds like a load of shite Alex
@@AyleidCraft my theory? yeah i guess so. why do you say that?
@@alexleach4002 You need to become a more convincing liar.
I’ve been saying this for years.
Not going to happen.
Irony I hope
LightUpNancy lol I love it.
made my day
69 likes. Nice
If we can’t steward this planet, what makes him think we can steward another planet. We won’t see success here, until we can find a way to divorce our humanity from our inhumanity. Unfortunately, it’s baked into the cake.
To be fair I think that's kind of his point. Like, not only can we not steward a planet, this nor another, but we have failed at stewarding this one to the point that we have less chance of figuring out how to steward it and reverse the damage done in time than letting the aggregate knowledge of physics take us to achieving galactic occupation thus giving us the lifespan of our new planet to figure things out, plus we don't have to repair and rebuild, only build.
In other words I think he knows we might fail another planet as well. But I think he's convinced this one is too doomed, and we may have to get used to the idea that we may make barren a world or two before we figure things out (/leave all the crazy people behind...? I dunno, he's loosing me a bit)
Personally though, I don't know why he thinks a novel understanding in physics will coincide with a novel understanding in ecology..... Figuring out space travel doesn't mean we also know how to take the system which gives us not only oxygen but also microflora etc etc, and any drastic change in sun exposure will coincide with our insufficient or waaaayyy overdosed vitamin d levels, etc etc etc on into "we're literally all one system" oblivion.
The problem isn't us 'stewarding' another planet, it's us pulling off the eco-transplant in the first place. Never mind how long of a shelf life we can give it. I don't even know why we think we're ready to build a whole new closed system.
He's talking about dispersing humans around the universe so our light is never extinguished. He's not after utopia somewhere else, we're too scum for that.
slipknot95maggot we’re not ready to build our own system. We still have limited, and yet vast understanding of the human body. I think he believes that life itself, is enormously adaptive, and given the right settings, it can thrive anywhere. Now, that maybe true for bacteria, but, certainly not with more complex organisms. Basically, we’d have to find a sterile planet, that we can then introduce life to it slowly. I still think our biggest struggle will be divorcing ourselves from our human nature. At least those flaws, that lead us to become selfish, and warring. Not sure how’d you go about that. Eventually, as a population grows, tribes would almost certainly begin to form. I really don’t know. Sounds nice in theory, but, it’s way more complicated than I think we can imagine. Doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying, though.
What i got from what he was saying was something more like 'as long as humans can out run the destructive capacity of humanity for long enough there is some chance that a less destructive future may be acheived'. Might not be exactly what he meant but that's how i understood it anyway
He's drunk with intellectualism, thinking the only life worth anything is that with a high cognitive function. He forgets the basic intuition most people have; the divine principle of rebirth. It's not up to one individual or even a group to reach ultimate sentience. His own idea is a logical fallacy. He understands that we're projected onto a simplified canvas but fails to ask why.
Isn’t this just like packing up our bags, moving to that other coast, and hoping our problems don’t follow us.
Intuitive Mode if we get to another planet hopefully we set up strict rules on not completely shitting where you eat. Not to mention.....I’m not sure if it’s possible to mess up the atmosphere of Mars? 🤔
Agreed!
Joe and Eric all live in highly dense populated areas , elitist. Even joe can't survive without the TRT shop nearby. Eric probably couldn't even find clean water on his won
I’ve heard it couched in terms of “diversifying our planetary portfolio” to counteract the eggs in one basket / great filter answer to the Fermi paradox. So it’s less about trying to escape or correct our flawed nature and more about recognizing our collective mortality. “Humanity: leaving the longest possible shitstain down the entropic slide.”
@Timo F
Isn't that how the new world was colonised?
"Fuck this old world shit, you dudes are the worst, we're going there and making a better world."
*a few centuries later*
"Fuck this planet shit, you dudes are the worst, we're going out there and making a better world."
The hubris to think that he’s beaten Einstein is the funniest thing ever
If he solved the Vacuum Catastrophe in a reasonable way then yes he is, but that hasn't happened yet.
What if someone did theoretically?
Eric "I was holding this back because I was afraid of what it unlocks" Weinstein
I say this to myself before I let out a big fart!
Hash T do you try to smell your shit
This was the most ridiculous part. I could not stop laughing.
Do you know what would get Eric off this planet? Space Force!
Classic conspiracy theory, woo nonsense excuse. "My idea is just too powerful. I have to release it piece by piece, and it has to make sense to no one but me."
Sure, buddy.
What bothers me about his theory is that it apperently has been partially completed for many years. While at the same time he has not published a single thing about it and says that he will not do it because physicists will not accept/are not ready for it. This just seems like a major red flag and would indicate that we are dealing with a fragile ego and a lot of bs.
Sorry I'm a bystander nobody's side just listen to this person,but in one of the interviews he said he wrote a book,he said to Joe you can get it in a bookstore.
Like all of you, I've figured this obvious shit out years ago. It just sucks Eric hasn't realized yet the Fallacy Of the 37th Dimensional Proto-Bundle that de-obversifies the protractionsphere. Put some effort in, Eric.
Lol
Right? Jeeez...
Equmi?
Seriously
Finally someone said it
Wow, I had watched a fair amount of Eric Weinstein, beginning with my introduction from Lex Fridman, but this video by Joe Rogan really exposed him for the angry elitist, who hates on everyone cause he's not the most popular kid.
he’s a crack pot trying to sell himself as a maverick. it’s really embarrassing.
“It’s too easy to destroy things rather than building them.” So true, and so sad.
Paradoxically, you cannot build something new without tearing something down to make room for it first.
sometimes, you need to break a few eggs, to make a chickensalad sammich!
Creation and destruction is a cyclic process bro. You need to have both. And the most beautiful places in the universe are also where you find plenty of that going on. 😊👍
@@zeroneutral That would be true if the planet was 100% full. It's not. That's superficial level 'deep' thought, think more.
The whole idea of you have to destroy to create is backwards. Who's to say when you hit a point where you have to destroy you arent, as a species, building outward by that point? or inward with virtual reality?
@@cmpbl92 Converting energy from one form or another requires destruction of some kind to occur. Any time something is built, something else is destroyed in its current form to make a new form.
I'd love it if they had a physicist on to discuss this with him
My astrophysicist friend rolled his eyes through this.
To be completely honest, we all know Sean Carroll would kind of hand Eric his ass to him. Weinstein is a very intelligent person, definitely smarter than most people anyone will ever meet. But once you get into the world of regularly talking to PhD physicists and mathematicians, you realize that Weinstein is a smart guy who is obviously intimidated by the scientific community and so he uses his popularity to start a platform and pursue his dream hypothesis outside of the reasonable scrutiny of other people who are as smart as he is.
Allen Pierre-Louis but history constantly repeats itself, the mass doubts, the individual perseveres. I mean he said himself it’s a hypothesis. It’s a damn good one.
@@JohnnyZenith He's making fun of all the academia pawns and yes mans.
@@Twizzzums ok, but there is something called peer review. This has become standard practice in the scientific community so that research is refined and errors and uncertainties or biases are all ironed out. This is important to do before proceeding to make grand claims about the science. We don't operate in the same way as Galileo, there are groups of scientists who are knowledgeable about subjects and have the duty to sharpen eachother and make sure we aren't putting out bad papers. Weinstein's avoidance is kind of telling. It points to either arrogance or unhealthy fear. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying he's afraid of criticism.
honestly he lost me at protractors
A dimension of measurement.
Angles.
@rvidal0001 yeah, by his attempt to dumb things down, he mad it for more complex.
He simply wants to go back to physics before Einstein and try drawing up a new rout.
I just shit a protractor, lmao, thank you
@rvidal0001 then again Newton was HORRIBLE at communicating while he was "teaching".
@rvidal0001 Agreed, like I sorta get what he means but some of these comments have been more helpful than his analogies were
Engineers everywhere: do not dance on my rulers and protractors
Engineers use "scales"
This theory should have been kept a secret for another 37 years
Eduardo Leroy he’s definitely no dummy but celebrity has gotten to him. He’s convinced himself he’s the brilliant mind to save humanity
Martin Dahl shut up nerd
Lmao! I think he's one long red light or a soda machine out of his favorite drink after he's inserted his dollar away from losing his shit and being thrown in a padded cell.
@@Cuplex1 this is the most sane comment ive read
This sounds a whole lot like nonsense.
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. - Carl Sagan
@@rorye4963 do you feel smart quoting someone else's words?😂 you're pathetic
"do you feel smart quoting someone else's words? you're pathetic"
This dude couldn't be more full of shit.
Zackaria De La Serna DEactive l what are we but an amalgam of predecessors words and ideas. Do you think your quote "do you feel smart quoting someone else's words" hasn't been uttered in the history of language? Even everything that I've written comes from building upon everything I've heard. You know, "monkey see, monkey do." Do you know how difficult it is to have an original thought? Try it, you can't can you. "There is nothing new under the sun." It all has been said, all we can do is rearrange the words so it applies to our present world. "The sincerest form of flattery is imitation."
As long as he doesn't publish (even just an upload to some website) a detailed and exact description of this theory, I don't believe him anything.
He did publish a detailed description, as Harvard lecture 6 days ago, check his Eric's TH-cam
A 70-minute talk isn’t nearly enough information. I hope he gets his act together and produce a paper.
@@michaelqiu9722 i wish so too
Or you can ingest the information and come to your own conclusion of its authenticity instead of being being tethered to an organization to tell you what’s true or not. Think for yourself.
@@Cutsman562 that's not how it works bud. To "ingest the information yourself" means reading the raw work, absent of any analogies. To properly critique it, one has to read the paper
I like Eric but sometimes he seems a bit crackpot. I know he's super intelligent but he seems so self-satisfied at identifying as a "maverick" - a scientist out of left-field. Almost like that is the goal rather than just pure enquiry. He prides himself on his ideas being rejected like that in itself validates them... seems a bit circular to me. Before you accuse me of anything I do listen to his podcast a lot - i have a pretty good idea of who he is.
Fair.
Solid and fair analysis. Maybe he resists from speaking to the ideas that he conforms to, but essentially anything of importance or big, this rings true to a possible fault. Either way, it’s a gateway to new ideas, for better or worse
I’ve read one time someone saying that Eric is like an autistic guy who analytically figured out how to be socially the cool kid.
Me too. Hes a clown
@@socratesa2536 its total horseshit. Time isnt considered a dimension in physics it's just used as one to force certain equations to work. This guys a fraud all the way. Hes a bob Lazar wannabe
The unfortunate thing is that he is using “rulers and protractors” as placeholders for dimensions in an attempt to simplify, but it seems to do the opposite and make people more confused. Basically, he is trying to describe the dimensions as being interconnected in a certain way and observers being positioned in a way that makes understanding the dimensions difficult or impossible.
Thank you for this comment, his communication is pretty terrible and it makes everybody think he's a moron.
@@creativebeetle I'm not scientifically minded at all but I enjoy posts like this. I had no problem in following what he was saying and I thought it was very well explained. I simply think that people that don't understand it simply don't have enough basic knowledge of science. Imagine trying to explain how a single component of car engine operates in order to make combustion work but the person you were talking to has no idea of what the other parts of the engine are.
I'm gonna pretend I understood this video, and this comment, and say *_"Ah yes, I concur."_* with a posh British accent.
@@tomspud3980 That's certainly part of it, yeah. I do still think the string of analogies and tangents didn't aid in the communication of his ideas though. I'd like to see this model explained succinctly and clearly once he gets it all written out.
I think he did just fine.
"we're now gods, but for the wisdom"
Tony Ferguson.(1945 bc)
Can't wait til the 18th
Tony Ferguson the kind of guy that's now a god, but for the wisdom
@Geno why don't you just Google it
"We're all frowning while living in an upside down world." Me, (Just now-ad)
@Geno I'm sorry, not sure of the question, what's the question?
a link for what?
Someone get Sean Carroll on the phone please.
Kevin Prendergast or Ed Witten
Carroll and Weinstein don‘t really like each other I think. Would be fun to listen to them talk, although I wouldn‘t understand one sentence.
Micha 139381 that’s because carrol believes in the checks and balances that have allowed the science community to produce what we see today and Eric believes science should be like twitter and youtube comments
@@patjohn775 peer review wasn’t around in the period that theoretical physics made more progress
Whenever someone starts an explanation with Escher you know we're going in circles.
@Robert Hunt correct. more so a charlatan pretending he’s a maverick.
hv to agree
I see a lot of guests on here that speak like 2 sentences and I'm stunned at how clearly brilliant they are and this guy spews 3 dictionaries worth of words and I'm doubting he could
make a decent grilled cheese sandwich.
What's your point.
@@holyworrier in time you will realize that not all things have a point, some things are just round.
@@poopooface3484 - Yeah, well, in the case of the above in question, some things are just a puddle of piss.
So the guy loses you after a few words of a complicated explanation, therefore "he" must be the idiot?
@@poopooface3484 Just like Eric Weinstein's "ideas"
His analogies are so bad that they mask the brilliance of what he's saying.
EJ 🙄🙄🙄
You misspelled crazy
More like this theories are so bad there aren't analogies to explain them properly.
Oh thank god I'm not the only one. He thinks he's on complexity 1 but hes on complexity 5.
Could you give an analogy that makes sense?
I’m sure this guy is a genius, but he is clearly a narcissist. After watching him quote himself and say he’s afraid of his own theory, I have trouble believing that he, a non-physicist by himself, is right and the entire physics community is wrong.
exactly, the guy is a nut
It runs in the family. The Weinstein brothers have made several claims to original ideas with absolutely no publications. I started to put this together after watching the Portal episode where Eric brought his brother Bret on as a guest. They tout Bret as potentially the world's leading Biologist, but with nothing documented on paper. Eric's public disdain for the academic system seems to just be a cover for the fact that he has nothing concerning his theory on paper. All he has is that video of the talk he did at Oxford at Du Sautoy's invitation, but Eric conveniently edited out the portion of the video where they opened the floor up for questions.
@@jlopez47 They're tribals, so be careful of who takes your hand and walks you around the cliffs.
I think Elon Musk on here also talked in a similar manner, so why this guy only ? Theres a clear context that he does NOT like the physics community and they don't get along. Its hard for anyone to talk down on their own points to make others' points
People said the same about Einstein.
Jamie, please pull up humility?
You don't have to be an expert in quantum physics to see that he's being convoluted.
Like bro just say you're afraid of new discoveries in physics because the last time we discovered something new, we got nuclear energy. Just say 'radioactive boy scout' the book about the kid who made a nuclear reactor from Americium.
He's probably right that a full understanding of physics would yield a quantum (perhaps literal) leap in tech.
I'm no expert in quantum physics, but he doesn't seem to use terminology consistent with physics. I don't know if he's just trying to describe concepts like super-symmetry without saying it, but it's just kind of weird.
@Exec Utize I disagree, I reckon it's impossible to fake those ideas but he's just lousy at explaining them with analogies.
and ideas like super symmetry and string theory cannot be proven nor disproven as we at our current understanding of the universe, can’t make experiments that would back them up or discard them
Interested in faster than light travel LOL. He’s not a complete moron.. i think. Dudes trying to be provocative with pseudo intellectual nonsense.
@Exec Utize Ah yeah that was a pretty weird thing to drop in there. Lot of roundabout language that didn't need to be there. It'd be good to hear his thoughts more cleanly and concisely laid out.
@@creativebeetle Even if he actually used accurate terminology, most people wouldn't be able to appreciate his ideas. Him talking about how Einstein and Minkowski made some bold assumptions about the geometry of spacetime (its metric) was too advanced for anyone who hasn't learned about the concepts of Riemannian geometry.
Joe does a really good job of stopping him and questioning him on certain things and he doesn't seem to like it, just wants to be able to get away with dropping little clever sounding sentences but doesn't want to explain what he means and when he does he goes on a tangent about something else
Reasonable observation. He does this a lot in his interviews (Weinstein)
getting off the planet ... only moves the problem to another planet
It allows us to have hope. If we fuck up on 1 planet, humans end. 10 planets: now you're thinking colonies.
it to escape the mad men who gonna try to kill everyone
If true I think it would give us access to more than just another planet.
@@willie417 we ARE the mad men. why impose that on anyone else ?
@@ToastySloth To replicate the problems WE don't adress here on Earth - Multiple times ???
Eric is intelligent enough to the point that his narcissism goes unnoticed.
for example, he is saying things that very few people can grasp so that when he is catastrophizing the current situation and hinting that his way is better, we cant really be sure if its justified or not.
There’s a lot of small tells to the narcissism everywhere
You are only saying that because you can't comprehend what he described. If you took time to research each component and try to visualize it... you might consider that he has never tried to monetize any of this when he easily could have.
@@kurt2612 Brett talks in a completely nonsensical way and jumps between topics like an 8 year old on crack, no shit almost no one understand him. Watching actual physicists with relevancy to Brett's work talk in longform conversation about their criticisms of him and his big theory was actually very enlightening to how disingenuous he really is.
@@JakeRaymond7 open your mind a little. Could it not simply be that he is trying to expand past where the "accepted boundaries" reside... set by those who call new ideas names like children? There was a time not long ago when those same people would have had the same thing said about them as you just said about Eric. I followed easily because I waited to judge until after he finished. It appears that you made up your mind before comprehending the correlation of components being suggested. Do you really believe that JRE is a setting that is conducive to a technically sound delivery of information that only a few people in the audience will comprehend? He is trying to get his point across to people with near zero education at the level required to follow along.
@@kurt2612 Science content is 90% of what I consume and he is the only one of saying this about. I can link you a 2 hour break down by physicists with relevancy to Brett's paper that shows why his "theory of everything" falls flat on itself in many ways. And if you have very qualified physicists struggling even read between the lines on what the fuck your paper is trying to say then yes its a problem. You people treat him like Einstein despite not being a psychists and having a life's work that is a croc of shit. These people are even having conversations with Brett in private where he is incapable of explaining even the fundamentals of subjects he pretends to have expertise on. Even the scientist in the conversation playing devils advocate for Brett struggled profusely to find any defense for him. It was a very enlightening discussion on how full of shit Brett is. I'm pretty sure you use a thesaurus because anyone pretending to be smart like you should've researched criticisms of him and found out that there's a plethora of holes in the things he says. Whether its because he's wrong or because no one understands him its a fucking awful place to promote his theories given either. Maybe YOU should open your mind and listen to the feedback from scientists Brett gets instead of having only one side of the story and calling others close minded. It makes you sound like an idiot.
Why do brilliant scientists so often sound naive when they make reference to geo-politics ?
Must be because they study science and not politics?
Because you are just so much smarter about geo-politics bro lmao
Too much Star Trek. Too much idealism, not enough realpolitik. To be good scientists, they must live in a world of ideals; to be good politicians, they'd need to abandon ideals.
golden oriole silver birch because geo politics is a product of argument, not science
I haven't done this crap in a very long time, as in twenty years, and then specialized in what would now be called nano-tech and entanglement, and theoretical aspects of that a few years after Eric did his PhD. I still have the books of the standard model and general relativity in my bookshelf, and from there it is about two years of learning quite some mathematical stuff, which it looks like from the title of Eric's PhD is done.
What has always bothered me a lot more than the inability of unifying gravity and quantum mechanics is that the equipment necessary to distinguish between theories is the size of solar systems, and if we continue the investment in ever larger colliders would only be available at the end of the twenty second century. So I moved on to other stuff.
I have normally found the string theorists, and the cosmology crowd to be quite approachable, so it should not be too hard to learn the lingo. What is much harder is the amount of effort required to learn a theory in detail that does not come framed in the standard ways of looking at the problems. There has to be a compelling reason.
I have done that a few times, and there is some brilliant, but ultimately wrong stuff out there. The most fun I encountered was a book allegedly removed from all libraries in the world by the Illuminati, who had taken Tesla's work forward. It described the construction of portals and the warping of space and time using electromagnetic equipment. Whoever had written this had a solid conceptual grasp of general relativity and of electromagnetism. The coupling constants were wrong, which meant the equipment needed to be the size of solar systems, not rooms.
I think what I am trying to say is that the devil is really in the detail, as I am sure Eric is aware of. So it is really for him to look at the low energy aspects of his theory in the energy realm of the large hadron collider and to see if his theory spits out some particles that should have been covered there. It is not entirely implausible that something might have been missed, that can be found in the data. Again, it is my understanding that this data, although HUGE, is reasonably publicly accessible. There is some extreme black magic done on that data with statistics, and perhaps something was missed because people did not know what to look for.
Wouldn't that be something ...
thanks for taking the time to post an actually insightful comment
@@glifosfato agreed
Thanks for a long, thought-through comment. I come to the comments for stuff like this.
Do you recall the book that was trying to move Tesla's work forward?
@@austinroth9730 Not much. It was a photocopy (I was told the original had disappeared from our library some years back. Did not take that too seriously ... the friend knew strange people).
A lot of conspiracy in the first few chapters.
The coursework was pretty intense. I don't know what possessed me to look at it in detail at the time. I always enjoyed arguing with people that thought differently to me. We were pretty intense, discussing time loop contradictions etc. We had one chap inventing factional derivatives. Never really understood him. One chap could build anything. Good times! Always great to touch base with the old bunch, but they are all over the world now.
3:20
lol
"Few physicists attended and no preprint, paper, or equations were published.[8] Weinstein's ideas were not widely debated. The few that did engage expressed skepticism.[7][9] They were unable to debate more intensely due to the fact that there was no published paper.[10]"
lol
@@personanongrata6981 "bro trust me ftl travel he has Dawkins old job"
When Eric stated he wasn't a physicist, everything suddenly made perfect sense.
Weinstein received his Ph.D. in *mathematical physics* from the Mathematics Department at Harvard University in 1992.
Bro he’s a mathematician but also a physicist
@@tophan5146 He's stated in interviews that his Wikipedia page gets several things wrong. I believe his PhD is actually in mathematics.
@@FlamingFretboard A PhD in mathematical physics from the *mathematics* department at Harvard *is* a PhD in mathematics. A mathematical physicist is essentially a mathematician that studies the mathematics coming from theoretical physics.
I would've kept responding like, "That's crazy."
Ed Delgado hahahahahaha so true
I’d probably resorted to an Owen Wilson ”wow”
@@sweetnesisbeast 😂😂😂😂
"And in their wisdom they became foolish..." - The Source of the Source Code
Kevin Cobb
Interestong.
This guy is making quantum leaps with each analogy that he brings up to try to prove his point.
@jay where can i see that
That's how he works. A bit of a bullshitter.
jay
You mean his 1 times 1 equals more than 1? 🤣
Or, the square root of 2 is a rational number?
It’s people like him who give flat Earthers the belief they can understand everything, without believing in actual science.
Published an actual peer reviewed paper: No
Presented the ramblings to an actual physicist: Joe is the antithesis of a physicist
Explaining it clearly and succinctly: Not even close, but that makes him sound clever so no need
Sounding like a conspiracy theorist: Now and then
Smelling his own farts: All the time and you can tell they're delicious
LOL, Eric’s a good dude but you ain’t wrong.
“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”
Maybe Mr. Weinstein should focus more on that bit of, Albert Einstein, wisdom.
You could open one of Einstein's own books to a random page and quote that same dull maxim as a retort. It doesn't hold when discussing the cutting edge of anything, much less theoretical physics.
He says he’s been afraid to talk about it since he’s never talked about this out loud.
@@llamzrt Einstein understood the complexities and was able to explain it simply. The textbook is not the simple explanation.
@@llamzrt true that, He's doing the exploring in his mind rn
@SC Fulmer, you are right. Feynman would briskly bitch-slap this obfuscator. The more I hear him talk about geometric unity, the more it smells like garbage.
"We are now gods but for the wisdom"
That needs to be put on a shirt.
And a coffee mug.
Is this even grammatically correct?
can someone explain?
I don’t get it
suckablowfish it is a comment on humans seemingly have the power of a god but we don’t have the wisdom to use it responsibly. I get what he means but it’s very arrogant to say and it plays into the whole people suck trope which I hate.
Evan Wollerson it seems like joe agrees with the quote way more than Eric
If you play guitar, a pinky is not a lame thumb. It's the magic at the end of the scale you're playing.
Lee Buck h
Can anyone give me the laymans version of erics layman version.
5 months late and dont have any credentials but from the bit that i understood basically the universe is a basketball game and we're the fans. quantum mechanics is the on court stuff, and conventional physics is the stands. when we make a loud reaction it can make difference on court, but the court has a much bigger impact on the stands. string theory is trying to fit the rules of the court in the rules of the stand, while eric is speculating that theyre two different but related phenomenons, like a basketball game and how interactions with fans affect it. additionally, he argues that the universe is made up of 14 dimensions, with 4 defining boundaries, 4 rulers to measure those boundaries, and 6 protractors to measure the relationships of those boundaries and rulers. (i really dont know anything about this next part so this is just a guestimate at this point lol) another thing is the idea that regular matter can't interact with the other type of matter and the attempt to resolve the interactions between those generations may be negligible/unimportant, even though right now those interactions are being seen as new generations, these generations might be imposters. the idea of the hand has been talked about before so looking up a chrality video should explain that pary.
no. because he doesn’t understand what he’s saying. he’s a crackpot posing as a maverick.
🧡💛💚💙 geometric unity lets you smoke lsd with john mcafee on a blue water island while you have prostitutes take a shit on your lap
The other podcasts with Eric were enjoyable. This one seems like he's an undiagnosed schizophrenic on the verge of a break.
haha, i'm a physicist and I understand what he is saying, it's not complete rubbish
Those with a High IQ are more likely to have psychological and physiological “disorders”
That’s just what it sounds like when you’re 10 steps ahead of everyone else, but I highly recommend his podcast, most episodes are really good.
I do also agree though with what you're saying
Hi
This validates something I've been thinking for a few days now. I'm going to go nuts in isolation.
😂😂😹 we got this, hang in there!
Don't let this hopeless fuck pull you away from your humanity. This is the kind of ass hole who has relinquished his hope, you'd be smart to ignore all the negative rhetoric he spews.
Lol shut the fuck up
So he's implying that the universe is symmetrical, we just can't see the other half? Sounds like the explanation for dark matter.
sandplasma that’s what I took from it too
@XY ZW YES!
Dark matter is something that they had to "make up" because the current model is missing mass. It was deduced that there "must" be some type of matter that we cannot detect to make up for the missing mass in our universe... hence dark matter.
His model actually balances the universe and accounts for all the mass without having to invent an unknown particle by posing that it's "classic" matter but in a different dimension that is symmetrical to the dimension we live in/perceive.
@@thepcguy007 Supersymmetry?
Eric and bandana Bret are going full out bro science lately.
-Give me a laymen's explanation. -Let's start with Escher's drawing. Come off it! That's not a way to explain things!
I'm betting this guy has to say "no relation" 300x a day lmao
Very interesting topic
DamTheKid violated him💀💀
Principal vagina, no relation
@@DamTheKid calm down tough guy
@@DamTheKid but how do you really feel?
@@DamTheKid god damn you gotta have a micropenis to be raging like that
So I’ve heard him talk about this unification theory before, now can i please get a mathematician or physicist to explain and or debunk this? Like why are we pretending we understand the fundamentals of what he’s talking about just because we understand his parables. I’d really like to know if Bret is fucking crazy or not
He said he doesn't trust physicists. Mean he so smart nobody can understand his theory, or he is wrong and wont admit it.
They have their set of skills in their very own fields, but when it comes to politics like Sam, him and his brother all got TDS.
@@AstroPatel He actually describes himself as a "B" math student in his earlier appearance here, though I'm sure he's grading himself pretty harshly.
Eric Weinstein doesn’t understand what “layman terms” means... 😖😖😖
The Coward Liberius not just in different units but using a new tool, just as a protractor is completely different from a ruler and defines a separate piece if information. Like a ruler defines distance and a protractor defines direction/angle of distance. Just like we can’t find an angle between something by directly using a ruler. So instead of changing the ruler we can keep that the same and instead try to find a new tool of measurement, which in this analogy is a protractor or degrees. Same goes for anything else we have discovered. Like temperature and weight, they can’t be found using a ruler so we invented new tools.
The Coward Liberius I wish I’m not completely sure what he mean either but my response was just my takeaway
That's because what he's talking about doesn't have a layman equivalent. You really need to learn Riemannian geometry to understand his ideas because they're based on a lot of abstract geometry concepts most people aren't even aware of. Spinors are a good example of something Eric will never be able to explain in layman terms.
Because he doesn't want to understand, if you get what I mean..
Still waiting for a paper since 2013, even a manuscript would be great
maybe he realised it was all BS 😐
He said he’ll have a paper out by April 1st or soon after
@@stellamaxwell777 LOL
Hard to publish when you’ve been black balled has happened before with many scientists.
Can’t blame him for taking a swing at the big questions... but his brief answers don’t make a lot of sense..
So from what I've read if his theory was true they would've already discovered new particles he predicted at the LHC in Cern and they didn't, also he never published a paper on it so they can't really check his math or design experiments to prove his theory.
What in his theory has anything to do with predicting new particles?
@@thepcguy007 i think his theory does states that due to our rudimentary senses it is plausible that there are other particles, which we do not detect, but are required for what I guess the fundamental forces of the universe(maybe?). This is just from what I understood regarding the symmetry bit near the end, so I might be wayyyy off.
@@chinyioh8822 You might be right, it's not like I can follow all of it either. But I also think dismissing it all on the basis of "we would have discovered it already" without ever having looked for them or even having a model where they can exist is somewhat dumb. I'm not qualified to dismiss him... and I don't think anyone else here is either.
@@andrespkpasion Actually, he's had Garrett Lisi as a guest on his podcast... they're friends. Even though they call eachother nemesis.
@@thepcguy007 i was referring to Weinstein actually and i think it's odd that Joe didn't mention Lisi's work given that it's almost the same thing they both talk about and they have a somewhat similar narrative about academy
Amazing that Joe bring this quality of people to the public. Thanks for this video a lot.
Hope you are being sarcastic
@@untitled6391lmao
What was your takeaway from what Eric said?
If he lumps the leaderships of Russia, China, Iran and USA under the same label of "ridiculous", he seems to have some intellectual deficits. While he could mean for different reasons, his selection of countries is a further prompt for furled eyebrows, and of course promoting a catchy title/thesis like we have to leave this planet.
By such a broad standard set, how is *he* not utterly ridiculous? (He used it as justification for his thesis that we have to leave the planet, and eventually he used the term "Putin's b----" and seems to also be a TDSer, so that explains a lot about his mindset, agenda, character psychology.)
Right after that, Joe should have asked him who he imagines as a grown-up for president. (If his standards are so pseudo-high and arguably detached from reality that he considers even Putin not qualifying.)
1:35 Who says gods are known for their outstanding wisdom??
Also, what an insane thesis that in this state we have to leave the planet to "diversify", as if that has any track record of solving the problem. Just more insane escapism.
Mental people is what is plaguing us. Taking responsibility, confronting our issues and opening the heart is what resolves things. Of course that tends to be a path towards perceived boredom, and so the mind imagines it can solve the problem through controlling it, but that *is* the problem mindset. (Remember what Einstein said about mindset/approach.)
16:02 Dude, all this *is* the universe contemplating itself. (And that cringy self-aware concept again, used by a theoretical physicist instead of a theologian or spiritual theorist.)
An imperfect subgroup - a creation - of a superior entity - creator - cannot fully comprehend itself. His "what if" amounts to what if you die. Big deal! /s
19:35 Wow, more inane reasoning there. So he thinks Genghis Khan would not have been excited about attaining 'limitless' (ugh) power? - You can see the hubris, the arrogance, the self-love of the ego there. Spiritually that man is a wreck. (Or a joke.)
I will pay to see Eric and Alex Jones have a discussion.
Haha
Alex never listens so what's it matter?
that would be terrible
I dismissed Eric Weinstein years ago because he does not publish. He must show the world his math, it's the only way forward in this game.
But dammit, how?? Isn't there a place where the math makes sense but we still don't know what it means?
@@croplaya Yes, high school.
@@schrodingerscat7218 yeaaaa. 👍
19:30 "Do you watch the news?" Yeah, why would I voluntarily sacrifice brain cells?
The key to universe's all setcrets is hidden under Weinstein's wig.
"We're not wise enough to stay on this planet. We're too powerful." And just where are we going to go? Earth grows humans, mister. Good luck finding a place we can thrive.
We must adapt - with this new theory we can develope faster than light speed and travel to another terrestrial planet!!! THEN, we terraform the planet, and produce a new atmosphere of oxygen
@R0cK GoD lol, ^^^ such a random ass comment
Eric Weinstein is a brilliant man and yet he can’t figure out that sending humans to mars isn’t going to change our exploitative ways.
@@Saternoc To be honest sending a colony to Mars maybe are only hope. Imagine the rulers of earth like Russia China USA and others wouldn't be able to sustain power over that colony. It would have to rule over its' self and have different priorities. Making a new social and ecological base society I would think...... but I am Canadian and 5 whiskeys in so what do I know? Lol
There's other planets - we just need warp drive.
Just so we’re all clear, he’s saying nothing.
TH-camModerationTaskForce He’s trying to. He might be onto something. Just kept going back to irrelevant points he’d already made.
Pyramid Pink Yeah, he’s really pedantic. He overly complicates even just basic shit.
Pyramid Pink I think that’s the point. He makes it so convoluted and complicated that you can’t pick apart even a specific thing he says.
“When one approaches the human waste receptacle to begin the release of excrement, they have to consider the deeper implications and unforeseen complications when proceeding to choose 4ply tissue or a moistened woven cotton tissue. It’s really quite the quandary.”
I agree with you. He's talking out of his ass 70% of this conversation.
@@Naforbe I'm relieved to see that at least in this little subthread there are other people who get this. Agree fully.
He's gonna kill us all or save us all. Or he's just trippin
Most likely trippin, but it would be pretty cool if he’s right
"it's too easy to destroy things relative to building them"
some day the amount of destruction one human can cause will become greater than the probability of him not doing so at which point humanity will cease to be
Daniel der Wertvolle To an extent this makes little sense.
@@levihuerta9393 idk, felt like a pretty profound thought at the time (late at night)... but i think there might actually be some truth to it. just imagine a world with commercially available molecular 3d printers (or whatever it's called). everyone could make their own hydrogen bombs and stuff... needs just a few crazy people to wipe us all out...
Daniel der Wertvolle Huh. I doubt anyone would have the materials to make a hydrogen bomb with a 3D printer thingy. I see your point though.
In physics, this destructive force is known as 'entropy'. This isn't just human nature, this is the nature of the Universe itself. That's why a giant redwood takes hundreds of years to grow incredibly tall, but a redwood forest burns down in days.
Not sure if Eric is really smart or just pretending, however he is a good talker, and financially successful which sets off my b.s. detector.
He has been called out as one of the minds who have generatered most new ideas and concepts in resent times, by some of the smartest people on the planet. Eric is wicked smart.
Everything he speaks about here is new to the puplic, he just started sharing it, ofcause theres going to be alot to go though. I however believe that the duts he are connecting are relavent on so many levels that we would do ourselfs and future generations a disserves if we do not listen carefully.
The coming months and years will likely be a trial and I will listen to Eric every step of the way.
Mathematical physics @ Harvard ; managing director for one of the largest capital firms; PhD under Raoul Bott, he’s a bright dude
You think strong oratory skills correlate with low IQ? I’ve got to hear your reasoning on this.
@@blochstep349 Yeah I agree, but this is why communication is important, nobody can interface with his ideas if they're poorly explained
@@creativebeetle You have a point, but I do counter with how this is something he has just started sharing.
And! He is building a network of people from all works of life to do explain it. His portal podcast does this.
Joe : laymans terms
ERIC : hold my beer while i confuse you beyond the realms of sanity
“Controversial”...havent even heard it mentioned outside of this clip
Bruh you aren't the one in academic circles
And we all know how much time you spend hobknobbing in the academic circles.
When did layman get so smart
I play this video for my kids when I want them to fall asleep fast
😹😹😹
I wish Eric Weinstein was half as smart as he thinks he is.
He has a PhD from Harvard, I love retards in the TH-cam comments trying to say he's not as smart as he thinks he is lmao. Who the fuck are you guy? Dropped out of high school no doubt
@@Agnes135 He doesn't release any papers in fear of peer reviews. Look him up he has NOTHING to back his claims.
The only thing he does is trying to sound smart in front of people who don't know anything about this topic.
Sure, he has a PhD.. that doesn't mean shit.
@@xXWorldgamefunXx He has done a 2-hour long lecture at Oxford on the subject. You really think he would be invited to give a science talk at Oxford by the Simonyi Professorship Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, if he was some moron like you're suggesting? Is he correct? I don't know. Do you know? No. You're saying he's trying to sound smart, I guarantee you've never studied maths past high school. You're some nobody on the TH-cam comment section
@@Agnes135 A 2-hour lecture and a published document are two very, very different things. Most physicists consider him a fraud. Hell, his only published paper has been cited exactly once in the scientific literature.
@@harryc.beaver4893 Most physicists consider him a fraud? So why has Roger Penrose been on his podcast? Arguably the most reputable living physicist? Who is calling him a fraud?
7:57 I fail to see how rulers and protractors, whose values are completely determined by the existing four free variables, can themselves be degrees of freedom.
I don't see how that's relevant. 2 meters is 2 meters, when measured by a tape, stick, laser, sonic, etc.
@@waify2678 How is a change of units meaningful at all? I don't recall Weinstein stating that.
@@waify2678 The point of physics is to predict reality. It doesn't matter what units calculations are done in, so long as the calculations align with experiment within certain tolerances.
@@waify2678 Theorists don't even use units except as (GENERIC MASS) (GENERIC LENGTH) (...) to check their calculations.
@@waify2678 A degree of freedom, as defined in physics, is ability to change a value without changing others. Changing units of measurement does not change the value - it's the same number of hydrogen radii, for instance. A degree of freedom is ability to make something that was 2 meters 3 meters, not 200 centimeters.
Joe, all he is saying is that he believes there’s no way this planet can be the only planet inhabit for all of human existence. He may not say that in the most specific way, but that’s what he’s saying in a nutshell. And he’s right. For human beings to survive indefinitely, we *have* to find other planets to inhabit.
And we’ll be able to manage that one much better!?
Astrologist have found over a dozen planets that are suitable for human beings... It's just they're thousands of light years away lol...
Hmm, earth was a barrren molten rock in space until as soon as it cooled down life immediately sprang up, but we have no evidence of life in the entire known galaxy seems like this universe was created for us aonly
@@slotwhisperers2742 No they haven't. Astrologists are the idiots that talk about horoscope. Astronomers are the scientists that have found planets.
@@evanw2195 We also haven't ever visited any other solar system in the galaxy so obviously we have no evidence. If you had never left your home and you didn't have windows would you have any evidence that there is life in other homes? No. Does that mean that the world was made just for you? No.
I need to hear more. I want to know the rest of what he’s thinking.
Justin Akers look for his TH-cam channel. He said he posted the lecture about it
@@iNREEk This is the podcast he talks about at the beginning, where he begins to explain the theory th-cam.com/video/Z7rd04KzLcg/w-d-xo.html
Same I just subscribed
Einstein had the book “the world as will and representation” by Schopenhauer by his bedside. Maybe we should be reading that book.
A bunch of us had
The best philosophy book ever, but what does that have to do with 14 dimensional reality?
Does anyone know which episode this clip is from and the exact timestamp? It’s hard to find where they talk about specific topics in these long conversations
Weinstein .... with a name like that you were destined for greatness.
Take us with you when you escape.
D P destined to subvert the population for malevolent purposes
@@LiMitZplus and do tell, why is that?
Wendigo With WiFi because he’s Jewish obviously. Not saying he does that. I think he’s an awesome thinker.
oof how about harvey weinstein and jeffrey epstein?
@@pl3459 or Albert Einstein
His hand symmetry analogy was so good. I’ve always felt similar with our universe. Space and a bunch of random planets with nothing on it, doesn’t seem to make sense unless there’s a whole other half we don’t comprehend
I've always believed that scientists are wrong about dark matter and dark energy. I believe they're are intrinsic parts of the universe that we haven't figured out, not some exotic new material. Sort of like how scientists invented aether to explain light traveling through space because a wave can't "possibly move through nothing". Well they (photons being both a wave and a particle) do and aether turned out to be made up bullshit.
easy answer is that God made the Universe.
I think, personally, simulation theory fits the best/most when you take basically everything we think we know about our reality, into account.
Yeah -- his only good analogy, lmao
Random Character particles physics will die soon
I actually understood a little more this time
Is the audio slightly earlier than the video? Love the content and the show, good stuff as always. Favourite.
i will love to see Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Greene at the same time on the show to answer this