What did you think fo this interview? Do you agree with Sabine Hossenfelder? Leave a comment below! For more science content visit iai.tv/player?TH-cam&
She looks like from the Jores-Tamayo geniuses side. She went to me in Dimasalang, MasbatePH and consulted me in the 1980s when I was still kinda prolific. Perhaps it was the last effort of the British Monarchy that time (bringing top scientists) to extract knowledge from the Jores-Tamayos relating to Physics, (our) Tokamak and ITER, and Star Trek technologies.
Since you asked what we think of the interview, I'll tell you: I think it would have been much better without all the background noise. That was very distracting, and made it harder to concentrate on what Dr. Hossenfelder was saying.
I agree a lot with Sabine here. I'm an engineer, but I also studied philosophy and psychology, and both have proven very helpful to me as an engineer. Philosophy essentially teaches you how to evaluate abstract concepts which have no yes/no right/wrong answer and apply logic to these situations, as well as establish a framework for what constitutes knowledge and how people approach problems based on their theory of knowledge. Psychology has similar benefits in terms of understanding others' viewpoints and why they do the things they do. Being aware of human frameworks and limitations, being taught to question the foundations of knowledge, and being taught to formalize complex, abstract problems are all useful for scientists and engineers.
@@vhawk1951kl knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject: Whose knowledge, or whether it's accurately informing decisions is another story altogether
Yes, we must understand that which(brain/mind) is doing the understanding of the world if we are to understand our world. Our brain/mind is structured making knowledge possible while the structure limits what we know.
@@bobs182 the world around us is structured also... So it has it's limitations, too... Biological/evolutionary requirements/constraints are physical ones at the basic level: we should develop a good understanding of the boundaries but also of the connections between living systems and other natural systems. Abandoning static pictures of processes, instead thinking of causes and effects (inputs/outputs...) as guiding principles of stable systems will leade us to reveal answers to one of the major questions: to what extent the deterministic nature of cognitive processes limits the area of possible knowledge...
Sabine is one of the smartest, bravest, most trustworthy and soulful scientists, humanity can count on currently. Thanks for this insight in her thinking.
Sabine is a very inspiring person and I am full of admiration about the way she arrives to transmit complicated stuff in a easy and simple way on her own channel. Thank you for this video
Yeah frankly she should just pursue her career in music, it’s clearly where her talents lie. That and her contributions to string theory are mind blowing; she’s just an all around rock star, it really is astounding.
@@cloroxbleach6344 Sabine Hossenfelder's talent lies in her ability to communicate complex issues such as theoretical physics to the person, such as myself, in a way that makes physics more understandable and interesting. Her music is a side note. 🎵
Would like to hear Dr. Hossenfelder have a discussion/debate with Dr. Sean Carroll. Both are brilliant. I understand they are friends, but they differ quite a bit on theory. Dr. Carroll will be teaching Philosophy of Physics soon on the faculty at Johns Hopkins.
I really respect Sabine for this! Just because she's very skeptical and down to earth doesn't mean she doesn't recognize the value of philosophy. Some people seem to outright dismiss any aspect of reality not discoverable by the scientific method as religious, simply unknowable, dishonest, etc
The more she learns the skill of getting complicated ideas across to those w/o the math background the more fascinating are the depths and reaches of her awesome universe of a mind to those less gifted and unschooled. Excited about the new book.
It is a mixed blessing because without the math the ideas never truly get across. I thought I understood so much as a fan of pop physics, until I took higher math and physics courses. Then realize I had only understood extremely simplified versions or analogizes.
@@vids595 My intuition is that is probably correct. Ideas whose comprehension perhaps surpasses what is available through ordinary spoken language-- which could say something maybe about math and realism. Thanks.
There is really no reason for a layman who is unable or unwilling to do the work to know these things, they’ll simply misuse it. See quantum mystics like Deepak Chopra.
@@peterader3073 Brian Greene did a funny bit (I think it was Prof. Greene) as do others on folk quantum whacko-ness. On that score, it is hard to disagree. It is sad if not often tragic how the laughing primate insists on finding ghosts in the machine.
Philosophy is not contemplation, reflection or communication - it's about continuous creation of concepts. Contemplation, reflection and communication ought to be already an inherent part of everything, be it science, art, society, politics, social media etc. but since they obviously are not, we need philosophers reflecting on things outside philosophy...
The philosopher Aristotle discovered the hierarchy of ideas, w/philosopht at the base. He also discovered scientific method and was the first scientist. Even the attempt to deny philosophy rests on philosophy. Leap Of Logic-David Harriman, physicist; science as inductive; a new theory of induction
I agree with Sabine, and find her TH-cam channel both approachable and informative. Especially impressed that in a challenging interview format like this, Dr. Hossenfelder manages to come back with eloquent, thought-provoking answers at the drop of a hat, that we can all appreciate.
I've recently read a book on AI from the 70s, written by mathematicians, and they criticize physicist for viewing "more accurate" as always strictly superior to "more understandable" (which is not necessarily the same as simpler). The discussion on how philosophy can impact physics reminded me of that, even though it's not the same point being made.
Thank you for your detail, Ms hossenfelder. My philosophy is that everything is the center of infinity. Your curiosity at the forces great and small that centers us here burning daylight is quite enlightening.
In case you like Sabines interview, you will probably like interviews with or presentations by Markus Gabriel, best selling philosopher from Germany. There are many German and several english videos here on youtube, e.g. "Making sense of thinking" , 7.September.2019 .
Such a great interview and a great woman. Also, I want to know everything Dr. Hossenfelder thinks about the measurement problem. And I want to know now! :-)
fascinating discussion, and to the extent that I can judge the picture of contemporary contributions from philosophy accurate, but this has to do a lot with the abandonment of metaphysics as an ambitious project and the idea that tends to dominate or at least represents the consensus of reasonableness is that metaphysics should be done in the broader context of physics. While there are lots of different ways this idea informs cont metaphysics one clear effect is the sociology of science feel to much phil sci. By contrast reading anything from 17th-18th c metaphysics (say Leibniz) the debates and ideas seem to me very relevant to cont physics - at least the big questions. I realised this listening to different theories of wave function collapse, when expressed in natural language rather than math, they seemed to be positions in a metaphysical landscape that 17th and 18th c metaphysicians and critical metaphysicians would definitely recognise. By contrast in the contemporary philosophical environment this sort of speculative thought does not flourish and there are interesting and important reasons for this I'm just putting this out as n observation.
The interviewer claims that many philosophers of time merely attempt to interpret the findings of theoretical physics. WHAT?? Does the interviewer have any real familiarity with the work done in philosophy of time?? Clearly not, if he's saying something as silly as that. It'd be nice if people, before making substantial judgements such as these, would actually read what they are criticising first.
We need to embrace Philosophy Psychology Physics Mathematics Art Music to trend towards a better understanding of Existence. One discipline is not enough.
Good interview and discussion. I like the way Sabine Hossenfelder phrases most of the stuff she says. My take on the title question is that there's a necessary philosophical component to physics which necessarily impacts physics. Then there's the philosophy of science, which is a separate field, and which is not necessarily, or very often, impactful. The idea that time is an illusion is one of the least interesting philosophical views, imho. Good channel. Thanks
Sabine Hossenfelder is so brilliant. I am fascinated by the nexus of philosophy and physics. I recently published an article that looks at time with regard to illness, Holographic Universe: Implications for Cancer, Parkinson's, ALS, Autism, and ME/CFS in the peer-review journal Science & Philosophy.
I would add it also needs psychology and history. We need to see patterns of human behavior, especially deviant and destructive tendencies, and look forward in time to the end products and stages that COULD be acheived...for better or worse.
The role of mathematics in modern physical science is undeniable, making measurements of objects in the natural world, and the ability to make predictions require skills in mathematics and a method to communicate limits.
V. Voevodsky: *_“Material reality is the absolute judge of truth.”_* A.N. Whitehead: *_"A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge."_* Today, the "problem No. 1 of the millennium" is the ONTOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION of mathematics (ONTOLOGICAL BASIFICATION), and therefore knowledge in general, the construction of the New Extended Ideality - the ontological basis of knowledge and cognition for the New information age: ontological frame, carcass, foundation.
@@vladimirrogozhin7797 there is a book in all your questions, lol. I got a lot out of a book called “Feemat’s” Enigma “ by Simon Singh. The field of mathematics is in an understandable way a pleasure of its own, and somewhat akin to puzzles, you just have that question only math can solve, or see a pattern worth meditating on, but Whitehead may have been joking a little because we are never going to have a complete understanding.😜 We’re going to try anyway. The proof is in the predictions, do you like math?
Deniel Dennett says that the purpose of philosophy is to refine the question but that where it goes astray is when people try to use it to provide "answers". Answers require empirical input.
Even if philosophy of science spent its time exclusively on what emerges from science and then tries to make sense of it and asks what it might mean (which it doesn't) this would hardly be 'useless'. Asking what something might mean or what sense it might make is a crucial activity.
I have noticed that physicists who deride philosophy engage in poor philosophical constructs. I think of Larry Krauss and his extreme spite of philosophy in any way. Or Stephen Hawking writing that "philosophy is dead." in his book, The Grand Design, it is a self stultifying statement and cannot be true. Hawking's book like Krauss' was full of philosophy, poor philosophy. As for does the Past or Future exist? It does if there is more than one dimension of Time such as a plane of time. It would certainly answer a lot of mysteries like how electrons can be in two places at the same time or why quantum particles cannot be measured in more than one way. I mean we can measure its speed, but then lose its position or measure its position, but not its speed. It would explain how quantum particles pop in and out of existence. To say they come from not anything nowhere is not science, it's just ignorance.
So help me out here: With the question at 9:09 she goes on to answer, that this is “that happened to be a topic that I’m not very familiar with”. But she goes on to say @ 15:30 that she has a book coming out that deals with “time” “is time an illusion”. What gives ? What did I miss…or misunderstand??
The topic she isn't familiar with is how philosophers speak about the "illusion of time." The topic she is familiar with is how physicists speak about time. No contradiction.
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself Okay, that’s fair enough, yet very peculiar, especially considering (in her own words) her gravitation towards philosophy of late. However I suppose, not even a scientist/aspiring philosopher can be abreast of all discourse emanating from the two disciplines, even though the interviewer seems to be appraised.
Yep, definitely. For instance many scientists don't distinguish between causal determinism and predictive determinism. And many are being influenced by their views on free will.
Watching a tree grow and a bonfire tell you a lot about the forces in nature. Also watching how humans create societies, fight wars and fall in love, gives you information on the same forces. Our modern science tells us a lot about individual forces and makes us able to create all kind of tools. In my view, our old knowledge made us able to understand complex systems of life and create wisdom in our minds.
Curiosity and compassion with all their is rather than "old knowledge". What you are pointing at is that we lost the awe in which open questions pend and the courage to bear with it. We ran from complexity towards detail as it's easier, even when challenging. We define all by what we know and boast about it, looking down on less knowledgeable previous generations which did exactly the same with their predecessors. This arrogance is our down fall as we miss to see the space and the natural limitedness of gathered knowledge. Unless we correct this initial mistake, all scientific and technological endeavours will continue to be a very risky business for human kind. It's ignorant of us not to see how we are driving a dangerous zickzack and call it progress. It's repetitive clouded by inevitable findings, but our view of life and ourselves remains...."old" and underdeveloped. After more than one shove close to full disaster in the 20th century, we should come to our senses and see that technological findings are a great pastime and sometimes quite practical, but yet kid's play compared to really unfolding our intelligence beyond just explorimg every grain of sand in the box we played in so far.
The philosophers Popper, Kuhn & Feyerabend offer quite useful epistemological guide lines about what science is all about, because the fundamental foundation of all sciences is DOUBT!
Those who made real impact on Physics always had profound knowledge of and engaged in philosophical discussions. Aristotle, Descartes, Galileu, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, you name it. When this stopped, Physics pretty much stopped as well. It's common knowledge that we have not made any great leap in Physics after Einstein and the quantum guys. And, mark my words, we won't until physicists start paying attention to Philosophy again.
on the contrary, Aristotle effectively put back science 1500 years, as everybody assumed that because Aristotle had decided something, that was settled, and and disagreement was heresy. It was not until Bacon and Newton that science took off again, as science rather than "natural philosophy"
It seems to me a great failing of our time is hyper-specialisation. It seems like great thinkers / scientists of the past were much more well-rounded in general. A simple example being that John Adams was deeply interested in mathematics, the arts, law etc., nowadays he would have done 4 years at The Diplomatic School for Diplomats. It seems trivial to say that now we have experts who spend their whole time thinking in one paradigm, when say mathematics itself takes its greatest leaps forwards when the links from seemingly disconnected areas reveal a deeper truth. I've found in my own life my mind feels more barren when it is focused on one thing. There are obvious counter-examples where someone specialises in a real niche place and does amazing work without reference to anything else, but my sense is that the ones who make the greatest leaps are consciously or subconsciously influenced by (and crucially are interested in) a much wider array of things.
@@Pippins666 In Western Europe, maybe, but the Islamic world made decent progress in mathematics and astronomy after Aristotle, because they didn't take his metaphysics as dogma. Surely the blame shouldn't be on philosophy, but on the repression by the Catholic Church, right?
@@vauchomarx6733 partly, but not entirely. It is certainly true that Aristotle had the deadening effect I mentioned, but equally true that the Vatican destroyed science in southern Europe. After the inquisition of Galileo the centre of scientific knowledge moved to northern Europe, away from the dead hand and even deader brain of the Catholic hierarchy. Coincidentally this was about the time the Islamic scholarship and enlightenment was at its peak.
All science does is create provisional models for the purpose of prediction and control. As soon as a model better at prediction and control come along, the old models are set aside in favour of the one that woks better. Models are tools created for a purpose - a human all too human purpose, a human all too human creation, a human all too human hope We never get to a final, exclusive, complete "truth". All we get is abstractions, man-made abstractions. The greatest mystery in the universe is the consciousness doing the questioning, the abstracting/ model building/ predicting and the observing/ measuring - the one who cares, the centre of care, the origin of care. Consciousness cannot "know" itself, model itself, because when consciousness tries to look at itself, it enters into an infinite regress. We never get to the "bottom" of it. We never "wrap it up". And that brings us to the philosophical/ spiritual/ religious realm. It's a never-ending process of generating more questions, modelling wider contexts, more subtle observations, finer measurements, more precise provisional "conclusions". But I wouldn't worry about it. Just enjoy the ride. And appreciate the awe and wonder of it all. Keep an open mind. Find out what works to accomplish what. Creator. Creation. Creativity. Consciousness is an irreducible part of the cosmos. A sine quo non. As far as we know, eternal.
IMO, Quantum Mechanics is doing the same for advancement of understanding of the physical world as Roman Numerals did for the advancement of understanding of arithmetic.
You asked Sabine about the transcendentals of beauty and truth... but not about the transcendentals of feeling, being, and identity. Science and our very existence derives from the transcendentals and yet Science cannot measure the transcendentals at all. For example, we all have the feeling of free choice, but Science cannot measure feelings like free choice. Even if you do not believe you have the feeling of free choice, you do have it. Sabine is rightly critical of the doldrums of unification of gravity and quantum charge and far too many in Science have no escape from the doldrums. It is clear that not much can really move forward until Science shows that the quantum bond of matter to the universe is a form of the quantum bond of charge.
good that shes moving more toward philosophy- physics is narrow in the end- solve how to get beyond human centric measurement problem - is not spacetime not doomed?
I’m confused. @15:30 she says her new book addresses philosophical intersections and questions like: Is time an illusion? But earlier in the interview she said that topic wasn’t something she studied deeply and therefore couldn’t comment on @9:16
Yes, as I see it, the interviewer was interested in the topic and threw out some statements, she's not in agreement with. Think she didn't want to discuss it in that interview, and therefore tried to bypass the issue
I like the pursuit of “truth” to be the leading principle of science. Nature as it really is, as far as we humans can know and understand it. Knowing about this truth will help us make better decisions, better predictions. In that pursuit there is some leeway, like trying things out, learning by mistakes: trial and error. Subjects for that leeway are, for instance, beauty and philosophy: walk that path for a while and see what it brings you. But every now and then the question should be asked: how about the truth, are we making progress in its pursuit, or should we step back for a moment and ponder what we have done so far? Is the way promising, or should we look at different angles? Asking and answering these questions should be done explicitly like, once every 1 to 4 years. And the answers to these questions should lead to explicit actions that have to be monitored well, along with the existing actions that may go on for a while until some reasonable end point has been reached. This way, losing sight on what science should be all about is prevented, even if this is an unpleasant mirror to look at for some, sometimes.
The reason a lot of scientists despise philosophers is simple. Many scientists want to believe their work can tell us some "truth" about "objective" reality. Philosophers have completely destroyed that project.
The question I ask my philosopher friend is how to distinguish correlation from causation and I never get a good answer and sometimes no answer at all.
If one adds to much sugar is it to sweet .. philosophy or science ? Can water be frozen. Philisoohy or science ? How do airplanes fly ..philosophy or science ? Duality ..phi...or ..sci...? What is or are the issue ?
Did Sabine explain to you how to comply with Betteridge's Law of Headlines, and how to give away the answer in your stupid, closed question, title? You saved me from wasting 18 minutes of my life! Thank you!
Isaac Newton: "I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
Here's the problem I see with quantum physics today. We are not past the point of describing what it is, let alone why it is the way it is. For example, we can't describe the effect of gravity at the quantum level. We need to be able to describe it before understanding how it works. Another example would be quantum entanglement. We need to describe the process before understanding the how. There's still a debate over particle or wave. But since matter is just energy compressed to what appears to us to be a solid and thus a particle it seems to me that any discrete packet of energy, like a photon, could look like both. The problem comes in when physicists speculate as if they actually know how these things work. Sabine is one of the few who never seems to do this. She says what she knows and also what she doesn't know.
The beauty of listening to Sabine is that even for those of use who have little understanding of the many issues she discusses, her ability to navigate that ocean in a way that even I can follow and grasp the essence of what she is saying is a marvel. As to philosophy and science, there seems to be a struggle for primacy that should not exist. Science is an outgrowth of philosophy. Science is limited to considering questions that involve empirical evidence. If you it can't be weighed, counted or otherwise measured, you can't apply the mathematics to form a testable hypothesis. Therefore, science has nothing to say. For instance, science has nothing important to say about the existence of God. Therefore, if science and religion are at odds, the conflict comes from religion not science. Unfortunately, too many scientists now choose to present their personal opinions as scientific opinions and this is greatly damaging science. About 50 years ago, CalTech Professor of physics David Goodstein created a multi-part series for PBS called "The Mechanical Universe". It covered the history of science covering the most important scientific discoveries. I have used what I learned from that series as a guide ever since. In his final comments at the conclusion of the series, he addressed the question of whether we will ever know how the universe works. He predicted "no". Because in order to understand the universe, we would have to build a model of it and we already have a universe. Why would we need two? So our pursuit of science is limited to time and funding and the laws of physics themselves. Most money spent in science is targeted to developing more efficient technologies, not answers for philosophical questions. We will never find the final answers to how large the universe is, nor what the smallest component of matter is nor how it all works because we can't afford it, don't have time for it, and it is far from necessary. We need science to focus on doing things more efficiently to improve or lives today. Let the philosophers worry about the meaning of life. We must not allow scientists to become substitutes for the wizards of old. The value of science depends on the quality of the decisions philosophers make regarding what is best for humanity. Nazi philosophy was evil but was based on their "science" and there is a lot of that going on today at the highest levels. I find it comforting to listen to Sabine discuss this is in her own way. I think that is what she is saying about the need for more philosophy in science. I am tired of listening to "scientists" give their "scientific" opinions about everything. I've lived a couple of blocks away from CalTech for over 30 years now have learned to take pleasure in irritating arrogant scientists who insist on conflating their scientific vs personal opinions. It's a plague that is ruining the credibility of science.
A really interesting perspective. I find the notion of science being an outgrowth of philosophy very familiar. The framework of philosophy I need to ask without boundary, to take every configuration of myself and my experience into account. The framework of science is essentially a method that is strongly utilitarian, but in a way more disconnected from the human mind, and in that, uniquely powerful. In its neutrality, it has brought us wealth and power beyond comparison, but to fulfill our human need to bridge the gap between the rationale and our affections, ourselves, the universe, objective knowledge and subjective experience, we will always need something more all-encompassing.
Do you notice how the green plants agree with Sabine by signs of their movements as if nodding from time to time but sunflowers are completely still thereby signifying a complete disagreement with Sabine because she did not forward the definition of time.
I like the part about the constraints to creativity imposed by mathematics. What comes to mind is the taboo of divide by zero. There is a binary divide algorithm that does not check for zero in the denominator and if then produces zero as a result in that case. Since the algorithm works for all other numbers, why not just say that for binary numbers (integers) divide by zero results in zero. Of course this is a totally different way at looking at the number zero as opposed to the quantity of zero. There are many useful cases where divide by zero results in zero without bringing the entire world to a halt and bursting into flames.
Interesting point. I like the "bursting into flames" comment. If we can have the set of imaginary numbers, why not divide by zero numbers? If it's perfectly OK to multiply by zero, ...
Every math model is simplification and approximation of reality, that is source of mathematical "beauty". Reality is much more complex, messy, hence less "beautiful".
In fact, what is science? Problem is everyone defines science individually. I would like to stick with etymological meaning of Science or Scientia or Knowledge. Tell physics if you want to specialize but knowledge does not come only from Physics. In fact, Physics does not teach only physical things, for example, Space, time, measurement, temperature, color, light, force many things are not Matter or Physical things. For me any systematic knowledge is science.
Calling the Standard Model "simple" is a bit bizarre. When physicists look at the Standard Model, they see a triumph of modern physics. When I look at the Standard Model, all I see are epicycles. For instance, just look at the Standard Model Lagrangian. It's clearly _much_ too complex than it should be.
Nobody who understands the standard models sees a triumph in it. Most people see an effective field theory that works below the 1TeV scale. Beyond that it's lacking. It is a lot more precise than epicycles, of course. Your judgement based on complexity is complete bullshit, of course. The standard 1/r Newtonian potential is completely unsolvable for more than two particles and so are almost all classical potentials. You are simply not used to looking beyond high school physics.
and also history (of science) which seems totally neglected by contemporary scientists ! e.g. everytime that new physics came there was a new from of energy , when quantum mechancis no... complementary physics, collapse, etc.. were introduced.. is some other form of energy relevant into Schr. equation??? something relevant only macroscopically??? (in some sense the kinetic terms is new since related to diffusion of matter not trajectories momentum... is a macroscopic counterbalance to this diffusion missing?)
Want the Truth? This is the only possible, truly unifying and conclusive ‘theory of everything’ in existence! The questions of what the universe is, where it came from, what it evolves towards, and how intimately it relates to human existence-are revealingly answered in terms of morphology, as they begin to arise from Plato’s forms and Sheldrake’s work on morphogenetics, but mostly by genetics itself.
Indeed, most of what passes for philosophy is not much use to those hunting the fundamental. Advaita, though, being the most fundamental philosophy can show up common misleading assumptions in physics. It can also fairly easily explain how the QM&GR maths emerge from the fundamental. Much as heliocentric orbital mechanics gives rise to the apparent movements of planets and explains why those apparent movements are predictable with the geocentric epicyclic model.
What did you think fo this interview? Do you agree with Sabine Hossenfelder? Leave a comment below!
For more science content visit iai.tv/player?TH-cam&
She looks like from the Jores-Tamayo geniuses side. She went to me in Dimasalang, MasbatePH and consulted me in the 1980s when I was still kinda prolific. Perhaps it was the last effort of the British Monarchy that time (bringing top scientists) to extract knowledge from the Jores-Tamayos relating to Physics, (our) Tokamak and ITER, and Star Trek technologies.
Philosophy is the LOGIC of science.
Since you asked what we think of the interview, I'll tell you: I think it would have been much better without all the background noise. That was very distracting, and made it harder to concentrate on what Dr. Hossenfelder was saying.
@@SteveDeHaven -- Whew, I thought it must just be me, that noise was annoying and distracting.
You need philosophy to form coherent ideas and its hard to do science without coherent ideas.
I agree a lot with Sabine here. I'm an engineer, but I also studied philosophy and psychology, and both have proven very helpful to me as an engineer. Philosophy essentially teaches you how to evaluate abstract concepts which have no yes/no right/wrong answer and apply logic to these situations, as well as establish a framework for what constitutes knowledge and how people approach problems based on their theory of knowledge. Psychology has similar benefits in terms of understanding others' viewpoints and why they do the things they do. Being aware of human frameworks and limitations, being taught to question the foundations of knowledge, and being taught to formalize complex, abstract problems are all useful for scientists and engineers.
Define knowledge and consider *whose* knowledge.
At least engineers are useful
@@vhawk1951kl knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject:
Whose knowledge, or whether it's accurately informing decisions is another story altogether
@@vhawk1951kl Define useful.
Yes, we must understand that which(brain/mind) is doing the understanding of the world if we are to understand our world. Our brain/mind is structured making knowledge possible while the structure limits what we know.
@@bobs182 the world around us is structured also... So it has it's limitations, too...
Biological/evolutionary requirements/constraints are physical ones at the basic level:
we should develop a good understanding of the boundaries but also of the connections between living systems and other natural systems.
Abandoning static pictures of processes, instead thinking of causes and effects (inputs/outputs...) as guiding principles of stable systems will leade us to reveal answers to one of the major questions:
to what extent the deterministic nature of cognitive processes limits the area of possible knowledge...
Sabine is one of the smartest, bravest, most trustworthy and soulful scientists, humanity can count on currently. Thanks for this insight in her thinking.
Sabine is a very inspiring person and I am full of admiration about the way she arrives to transmit complicated stuff in a easy and simple way on her own channel. Thank you for this video
I enterely agree!
Is your "admiration" your only "inspiration"? lol
@@radupopescu9977 And me. Thank you for the video.🌱
Yeah frankly she should just pursue her career in music, it’s clearly where her talents lie. That and her contributions to string theory are mind blowing; she’s just an all around rock star, it really is astounding.
@@cloroxbleach6344 Sabine Hossenfelder's talent lies in her ability to communicate complex issues such as theoretical physics to the person, such as myself, in a way that makes physics more understandable and interesting. Her music is a side note. 🎵
I love Sabine! I hope to see more and more of her.
So I am in the company of Sabine again ... and she is clear, distinct and to me she shines like the sunflowers of the decor.❤
Definitely admire Sabine. It's great to see someone that can make science legible and have a decent amount of people listen. It gives me hope.
Would like to hear Dr. Hossenfelder have a discussion/debate with Dr. Sean Carroll. Both are brilliant. I understand they are friends, but they differ quite a bit on theory. Dr. Carroll will be teaching Philosophy of Physics soon on the faculty at Johns Hopkins.
Sabine Hossenfelder, you've just become my home of ontological security. Thanks for this interview
Nice interview. Sabine is one of the most interesting educators on TH-cam. I always enjoy watching her. She's always got something interesting to say.
Have been subscribed to SH for quite a while. Love how she pokes at the holes in the various hypotheses.
I really respect Sabine for this! Just because she's very skeptical and down to earth doesn't mean she doesn't recognize the value of philosophy.
Some people seem to outright dismiss any aspect of reality not discoverable by the scientific method as religious, simply unknowable, dishonest, etc
Honestly, I am in love with this amazing woman and my wife of 39 years completely understands :)
The more she learns the skill of getting complicated ideas across to those w/o the math background the more fascinating are the depths and reaches of her awesome universe of a mind to those less gifted and unschooled. Excited about the new book.
It is a mixed blessing because without the math the ideas never truly get across. I thought I understood so much as a fan of pop physics, until I took higher math and physics courses. Then realize I had only understood extremely simplified versions or analogizes.
@@vids595 My intuition is that is probably correct. Ideas whose comprehension perhaps surpasses what is available through ordinary spoken language-- which could say something maybe about math and realism. Thanks.
There is really no reason for a layman who is unable or unwilling to do the work to know these things, they’ll simply misuse it. See quantum mystics like Deepak Chopra.
@@peterader3073 Brian Greene did a funny bit (I think it was Prof. Greene) as do others on folk quantum whacko-ness. On that score, it is hard to disagree. It is sad if not often tragic how the laughing primate insists on finding ghosts in the machine.
The book is excellent. I swallowed it up pretty quick. Tackling great questions. Common sense to the nth.
Philosophy is not contemplation, reflection or communication - it's about continuous creation of concepts. Contemplation, reflection and communication ought to be already an inherent part of everything, be it science, art, society, politics, social media etc. but since they obviously are not, we need philosophers reflecting on things outside philosophy...
Sabine just ROCKS!!!
excellent questions thankyou, I have followed sabine for a few years
The philosopher Aristotle discovered the hierarchy of ideas, w/philosopht at the base. He also discovered scientific method and was the first scientist. Even the attempt to deny philosophy rests on philosophy.
Leap Of Logic-David Harriman, physicist; science as inductive; a new theory of induction
I agree with Sabine, and find her TH-cam channel both approachable and informative. Especially impressed that in a challenging interview format like this, Dr. Hossenfelder manages to come back with eloquent, thought-provoking answers at the drop of a hat, that we can all appreciate.
I've recently read a book on AI from the 70s, written by mathematicians, and they criticize physicist for viewing "more accurate" as always strictly superior to "more understandable" (which is not necessarily the same as simpler). The discussion on how philosophy can impact physics reminded me of that, even though it's not the same point being made.
Could you tell me the name of the book please?
I am a fan of Sabine's honesty, great content, thanks!
Thank you for your detail, Ms hossenfelder. My philosophy is that everything is the center of infinity. Your curiosity at the forces great and small that centers us here burning daylight is quite enlightening.
In case you like Sabines interview, you will probably like interviews with or presentations by Markus Gabriel, best selling philosopher from Germany. There are many German and several english videos here on youtube, e.g. "Making sense of thinking" , 7.September.2019 .
Such a great interview and a great woman. Also, I want to know everything Dr. Hossenfelder thinks about the measurement problem. And I want to know now! :-)
fascinating discussion, and to the extent that I can judge the picture of contemporary contributions from philosophy accurate, but this has to do a lot with the abandonment of metaphysics as an ambitious project and the idea that tends to dominate or at least represents the consensus of reasonableness is that metaphysics should be done in the broader context of physics. While there are lots of different ways this idea informs cont metaphysics one clear effect is the sociology of science feel to much phil sci. By contrast reading anything from 17th-18th c metaphysics (say Leibniz) the debates and ideas seem to me very relevant to cont physics - at least the big questions. I realised this listening to different theories of wave function collapse, when expressed in natural language rather than math, they seemed to be positions in a metaphysical landscape that 17th and 18th c metaphysicians and critical metaphysicians would definitely recognise. By contrast in the contemporary philosophical environment this sort of speculative thought does not flourish and there are interesting and important reasons for this I'm just putting this out as n observation.
The whole of Mathematics (& its yet to emerge branches) is but a tool to explain the Physical reality of Nature around us.
The interviewer claims that many philosophers of time merely attempt to interpret the findings of theoretical physics. WHAT?? Does the interviewer have any real familiarity with the work done in philosophy of time?? Clearly not, if he's saying something as silly as that. It'd be nice if people, before making substantial judgements such as these, would actually read what they are criticising first.
I wish I could think like Sabine, but unfortunately I often times get too caught up in wonder to question things.
I love her way!
I hope Sabine does more talks about superdeterminism.
have a look at gerard t’hooft lectures if you want to learn more about it
Thanks Sabine!
We need to embrace Philosophy Psychology Physics Mathematics Art Music to trend towards a better understanding of Existence. One discipline is not enough.
Science requires scientists who are honest and ethical. Philosophy is profoundly important to our future progress.
Good interview and discussion. I like the way Sabine Hossenfelder phrases most of the stuff she says. My take on the title question is that there's a necessary philosophical component to physics which necessarily impacts physics. Then there's the philosophy of science, which is a separate field, and which is not necessarily, or very often, impactful. The idea that time is an illusion is one of the least interesting philosophical views, imho. Good channel. Thanks
Sabine Hossenfelder is so brilliant. I am fascinated by the nexus of philosophy and physics. I recently published an article that looks at time with regard to illness, Holographic Universe: Implications for Cancer, Parkinson's, ALS, Autism, and ME/CFS in the peer-review journal Science & Philosophy.
Feynman did exactly what Sabine argues for when he developed the Feynman diagrams.
I would add it also needs psychology and history. We need to see patterns of human behavior, especially deviant and destructive tendencies, and look forward in time to the end products and stages that COULD be acheived...for better or worse.
The role of mathematics in modern physical science is undeniable, making measurements of objects in the natural world, and the ability to make predictions require skills in mathematics and a method to communicate limits.
V. Voevodsky: *_“Material reality is the absolute judge of truth.”_*
A.N. Whitehead: *_"A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge."_*
Today, the "problem No. 1 of the millennium" is the ONTOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION of mathematics (ONTOLOGICAL BASIFICATION), and therefore knowledge in general, the construction of the New Extended Ideality - the ontological basis of knowledge and cognition for the New information age: ontological frame, carcass, foundation.
@@vladimirrogozhin7797 there is a book in all your questions, lol. I got a lot out of a book called “Feemat’s” Enigma “ by Simon Singh. The field of mathematics is in an understandable way a pleasure of its own, and somewhat akin to puzzles, you just have that question only math can solve, or see a pattern worth meditating on, but Whitehead may have been joking a little because we are never going to have a complete understanding.😜 We’re going to try anyway. The proof is in the predictions, do you like math?
Deniel Dennett says that the purpose of philosophy is to refine the question but that where it goes astray is when people try to use it to provide "answers". Answers require empirical input.
Even if philosophy of science spent its time exclusively on what emerges from science and then tries to make sense of it and asks what it might mean (which it doesn't) this would hardly be 'useless'. Asking what something might mean or what sense it might make is a crucial activity.
I have noticed that physicists who deride philosophy engage in poor philosophical constructs. I think of Larry Krauss and his extreme spite of philosophy in any way. Or Stephen Hawking writing that "philosophy is dead." in his book, The Grand Design, it is a self stultifying statement and cannot be true. Hawking's book like Krauss' was full of philosophy, poor philosophy.
As for does the Past or Future exist? It does if there is more than one dimension of Time such as a plane of time. It would certainly answer a lot of mysteries like how electrons can be in two places at the same time or why quantum particles cannot be measured in more than one way. I mean we can measure its speed, but then lose its position or measure its position, but not its speed. It would explain how quantum particles pop in and out of existence. To say they come from not anything nowhere is not science, it's just ignorance.
Not to mention, a large portion of philsophers of science/physics actually have degrees in physics.
@@handzar6402 George Ellis comes to mind.
@@MountainFisher Yes, and many others.
So help me out here:
With the question at 9:09 she goes on to answer, that this is “that happened to be a topic that I’m not very familiar with”.
But she goes on to say @ 15:30 that she has a book coming out that deals with “time” “is time an illusion”.
What gives ? What did I miss…or misunderstand??
Yeah, that is an odd contradiction.
The topic she isn't familiar with is how philosophers speak about the "illusion of time."
The topic she is familiar with is how physicists speak about time.
No contradiction.
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself Okay, that’s fair enough, yet very peculiar, especially considering (in her own words) her gravitation towards philosophy of late.
However I suppose, not even a scientist/aspiring philosopher can be abreast of all discourse emanating from the two disciplines, even though the interviewer seems to be appraised.
Philosophy is not ideology. Don’t mix or confuse the two. Ideology is the opposite of science
For ideology read religion?
@@vhawk1951kl or politics
Or any "idea" based system where the idea comes first and is defended without regard for reality.
I love her brain! Also, the interviewer was very good, but his identity was not disclosed.
I want to be as exact as possible, but it gives me the abdabs!
As usual, Sabine is correct 😘
Yep, definitely. For instance many scientists don't distinguish between causal determinism and predictive determinism. And many are being influenced by their views on free will.
The issue is that none of that matters. My views on free will have nothing to do with writing down a number produced by a machine.
@@cougar2013 compatibilist?
Watching a tree grow and a bonfire tell you a lot about the forces in nature. Also watching how humans create societies, fight wars and fall in love, gives you information on the same forces. Our modern science tells us a lot about individual forces and makes us able to create all kind of tools. In my view, our old knowledge made us able to understand complex systems of life and create wisdom in our minds.
well said.
Curiosity and compassion with all their is rather than "old knowledge". What you are pointing at is that we lost the awe in which open questions pend and the courage to bear with it. We ran from complexity towards detail as it's easier, even when challenging. We define all by what we know and boast about it, looking down on less knowledgeable previous generations which did exactly the same with their predecessors. This arrogance is our down fall as we miss to see the space and the natural limitedness of gathered knowledge.
Unless we correct this initial mistake, all scientific and technological endeavours will continue to be a very risky business for human kind. It's ignorant of us not to see how we are driving a dangerous zickzack and call it progress. It's repetitive clouded by inevitable findings, but our view of life and ourselves remains...."old" and underdeveloped. After more than one shove close to full disaster in the 20th century, we should come to our senses and see that technological findings are a great pastime and sometimes quite practical, but yet kid's play compared to really unfolding our intelligence beyond just explorimg every grain of sand in the box we played in so far.
A theory in itself is never right nor wrong it is at best fitting to explain observations
The philosophers Popper, Kuhn & Feyerabend offer quite useful epistemological guide lines about what science is all about, because the fundamental foundation of all sciences is DOUBT!
Science is just knowledge. And every branch of science may have different parameters or methodology.
Those who made real impact on Physics always had profound knowledge of and engaged in philosophical discussions. Aristotle, Descartes, Galileu, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, you name it. When this stopped, Physics pretty much stopped as well. It's common knowledge that we have not made any great leap in Physics after Einstein and the quantum guys. And, mark my words, we won't until physicists start paying attention to Philosophy again.
on the contrary, Aristotle effectively put back science 1500 years, as everybody assumed that because Aristotle had decided something, that was settled, and and disagreement was heresy. It was not until Bacon and Newton that science took off again, as science rather than "natural philosophy"
It seems to me a great failing of our time is hyper-specialisation. It seems like great thinkers / scientists of the past were much more well-rounded in general. A simple example being that John Adams was deeply interested in mathematics, the arts, law etc., nowadays he would have done 4 years at The Diplomatic School for Diplomats.
It seems trivial to say that now we have experts who spend their whole time thinking in one paradigm, when say mathematics itself takes its greatest leaps forwards when the links from seemingly disconnected areas reveal a deeper truth.
I've found in my own life my mind feels more barren when it is focused on one thing. There are obvious counter-examples where someone specialises in a real niche place and does amazing work without reference to anything else, but my sense is that the ones who make the greatest leaps are consciously or subconsciously influenced by (and crucially are interested in) a much wider array of things.
@@Pippins666 In Western Europe, maybe, but the Islamic world made decent progress in mathematics and astronomy after Aristotle, because they didn't take his metaphysics as dogma. Surely the blame shouldn't be on philosophy, but on the repression by the Catholic Church, right?
@@vauchomarx6733 partly, but not entirely. It is certainly true that Aristotle had the deadening effect I mentioned, but equally true that the Vatican destroyed science in southern Europe. After the inquisition of Galileo the centre of scientific knowledge moved to northern Europe, away from the dead hand and even deader brain of the Catholic hierarchy. Coincidentally this was about the time the Islamic scholarship and enlightenment was at its peak.
All science does is create provisional models for the purpose of prediction and control.
As soon as a model better at prediction and control come along, the old models are set aside in favour of the one that woks better.
Models are tools created for a purpose - a human all too human purpose, a human all too human creation, a human all too human hope
We never get to a final, exclusive, complete "truth".
All we get is abstractions, man-made abstractions.
The greatest mystery in the universe is the consciousness doing the questioning, the abstracting/ model building/ predicting and the observing/ measuring - the one who cares, the centre of care, the origin of care.
Consciousness cannot "know" itself, model itself, because when consciousness tries to look at itself, it enters into an infinite regress. We never get to the "bottom" of it. We never "wrap it up".
And that brings us to the philosophical/ spiritual/ religious realm.
It's a never-ending process of generating more questions, modelling wider contexts, more subtle observations, finer measurements, more precise provisional "conclusions".
But I wouldn't worry about it. Just enjoy the ride. And appreciate the awe and wonder of it all.
Keep an open mind.
Find out what works to accomplish what.
Creator. Creation. Creativity.
Consciousness is an irreducible part of the cosmos. A sine quo non. As far as we know, eternal.
15:38 Now THAT seems to be a great book to read!
I think that Objectivism is can fix the mysticism and formalism in physics.
IMO, Quantum Mechanics is doing the same for advancement of understanding of the physical world as Roman Numerals did for the advancement of understanding of arithmetic.
OBTW, great interview...
Bravo!!!
¡¡¡SABINE!!!
Excellent.... thanks.
❤️
All our interprétations about cosmology are based on the postulate physics has to be the same everywhere...
You asked Sabine about the transcendentals of beauty and truth... but not about the transcendentals of feeling, being, and identity. Science and our very existence derives from the transcendentals and yet Science cannot measure the transcendentals at all. For example, we all have the feeling of free choice, but Science cannot measure feelings like free choice. Even if you do not believe you have the feeling of free choice, you do have it.
Sabine is rightly critical of the doldrums of unification of gravity and quantum charge and far too many in Science have no escape from the doldrums. It is clear that not much can really move forward until Science shows that the quantum bond of matter to the universe is a form of the quantum bond of charge.
good that shes moving more toward philosophy- physics is narrow in the end- solve how to get beyond human centric measurement problem - is not spacetime not doomed?
Time reversals, evolution law, space time, quantum entanglement,...can be seen in bhagavad githa
Skip ciphers of any sufficiently large text always reveal interesting statements.
I’m confused. @15:30 she says her new book addresses philosophical intersections and questions like: Is time an illusion? But earlier in the interview she said that topic wasn’t something she studied deeply and therefore couldn’t comment on @9:16
Yes, as I see it, the interviewer was interested in the topic and threw out some statements, she's not in agreement with. Think she didn't want to discuss it in that interview, and therefore tried to bypass the issue
Everyone needs to philosophize when screw ups inevitably happen.
This lady
I like the pursuit of “truth” to be the leading principle of science. Nature as it really is, as far as we humans can know and understand it. Knowing about this truth will help us make better decisions, better predictions. In that pursuit there is some leeway, like trying things out, learning by mistakes: trial and error. Subjects for that leeway are, for instance, beauty and philosophy: walk that path for a while and see what it brings you. But every now and then the question should be asked: how about the truth, are we making progress in its pursuit, or should we step back for a moment and ponder what we have done so far? Is the way promising, or should we look at different angles? Asking and answering these questions should be done explicitly like, once every 1 to 4 years. And the answers to these questions should lead to explicit actions that have to be monitored well, along with the existing actions that may go on for a while until some reasonable end point has been reached. This way, losing sight on what science should be all about is prevented, even if this is an unpleasant mirror to look at for some, sometimes.
And that's what she talked about today.
What kind of philosophy are we talking about exactly?
The majority of the notable philosophers were also brilliant mathematicians -- Descartes, Whitehead, Pascal, Aristotle, etc., etc.
Could add Sabine Hossenfelder on your list
I think it's important Sabine, that you have a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) in physics.
The reason a lot of scientists despise philosophers is simple. Many scientists want to believe their work can tell us some "truth" about "objective" reality. Philosophers have completely destroyed that project.
What science needs is to not have an agenda.
I'm just wondering what th result would be if Sabine cooperated on a book with Randall Munroe (xkcd)?
The question I ask my philosopher friend is how to distinguish correlation from causation and I never get a good answer and sometimes no answer at all.
You do it again and again and again. :-)
New book on the way? Sign me up!
Sabine
What is the significance of the white wrist-band on your right hand ?
If one adds to much sugar is it to sweet .. philosophy or science ?
Can water be frozen. Philisoohy or science ?
How do airplanes fly ..philosophy or science ?
Duality ..phi...or ..sci...?
What is or are the issue ?
Isnt science already a philosophy?
Did Sabine explain to you how to comply with Betteridge's Law of Headlines, and how to give away the answer in your stupid, closed question, title? You saved me from wasting 18 minutes of my life! Thank you!
Isaac Newton: "I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
Here's the problem I see with quantum physics today. We are not past the point of describing what it is, let alone why it is the way it is. For example, we can't describe the effect of gravity at the quantum level. We need to be able to describe it before understanding how it works. Another example would be quantum entanglement. We need to describe the process before understanding the how. There's still a debate over particle or wave. But since matter is just energy compressed to what appears to us to be a solid and thus a particle it seems to me that any discrete packet of energy, like a photon, could look like both.
The problem comes in when physicists speculate as if they actually know how these things work. Sabine is one of the few who never seems to do this. She says what she knows and also what she doesn't know.
The beauty of listening to Sabine is that even for those of use who have little understanding of the many issues she discusses, her ability to navigate that ocean in a way that even I can follow and grasp the essence of what she is saying is a marvel. As to philosophy and science, there seems to be a struggle for primacy that should not exist. Science is an outgrowth of philosophy. Science is limited to considering questions that involve empirical evidence. If you it can't be weighed, counted or otherwise measured, you can't apply the mathematics to form a testable hypothesis. Therefore, science has nothing to say. For instance, science has nothing important to say about the existence of God. Therefore, if science and religion are at odds, the conflict comes from religion not science. Unfortunately, too many scientists now choose to present their personal opinions as scientific opinions and this is greatly damaging science.
About 50 years ago, CalTech Professor of physics David Goodstein created a multi-part series for PBS called "The Mechanical Universe". It covered the history of science covering the most important scientific discoveries. I have used what I learned from that series as a guide ever since. In his final comments at the conclusion of the series, he addressed the question of whether we will ever know how the universe works. He predicted "no". Because in order to understand the universe, we would have to build a model of it and we already have a universe. Why would we need two?
So our pursuit of science is limited to time and funding and the laws of physics themselves. Most money spent in science is targeted to developing more efficient technologies, not answers for philosophical questions. We will never find the final answers to how large the universe is, nor what the smallest component of matter is nor how it all works because we can't afford it, don't have time for it, and it is far from necessary. We need science to focus on doing things more efficiently to improve or lives today. Let the philosophers worry about the meaning of life. We must not allow scientists to become substitutes for the wizards of old. The value of science depends on the quality of the decisions philosophers make regarding what is best for humanity. Nazi philosophy was evil but was based on their "science" and there is a lot of that going on today at the highest levels.
I find it comforting to listen to Sabine discuss this is in her own way. I think that is what she is saying about the need for more philosophy in science. I am tired of listening to "scientists" give their "scientific" opinions about everything. I've lived a couple of blocks away from CalTech for over 30 years now have learned to take pleasure in irritating arrogant scientists who insist on conflating their scientific vs personal opinions. It's a plague that is ruining the credibility of science.
A really interesting perspective. I find the notion of science being an outgrowth of philosophy very familiar. The framework of philosophy I need to ask without boundary, to take every configuration of myself and my experience into account. The framework of science is essentially a method that is strongly utilitarian, but in a way more disconnected from the human mind, and in that, uniquely powerful. In its neutrality, it has brought us wealth and power beyond comparison, but to fulfill our human need to bridge the gap between the rationale and our affections, ourselves, the universe, objective knowledge and subjective experience, we will always need something more all-encompassing.
Could the missing dark matter be made of zero point Planck quantum fluctuations ?
Do you notice how the green plants agree with Sabine by signs of their movements as if nodding from time to time but sunflowers are completely still thereby signifying a complete disagreement with Sabine because she did not forward the definition of time.
Why is there weird music playing?, it's annoying.
If it happens it will eventuly be measurable
All I write is free.✍️✨
can someone ask Sabine a question without pretending to fully understand the answer right away?
I like the part about the constraints to creativity imposed by mathematics. What comes to mind is the taboo of divide by zero. There is a binary divide algorithm that does not check for zero in the denominator and if then produces zero as a result in that case. Since the algorithm works for all other numbers, why not just say that for binary numbers (integers) divide by zero results in zero. Of course this is a totally different way at looking at the number zero as opposed to the quantity of zero. There are many useful cases where divide by zero results in zero without bringing the entire world to a halt and bursting into flames.
Interesting point. I like the "bursting into flames" comment. If we can have the set of imaginary numbers, why not divide by zero numbers? If it's perfectly OK to multiply by zero, ...
It’s not taboo lol. Dividing by zero and getting zero introduces logical contradictions.
@@cougar2013 So you say. Add zero. Subtract zero. Multiply by zero. Divide by zero. Where's the contradiction?
@@l.m.892 there are contradictions, just not the ones you’re thinking.
@@cougar2013 You're saying plural and not giving one good example. Looks like you're trying to read minds. Quite a feat.
Every math model is simplification and approximation of reality, that is source of mathematical "beauty". Reality is much more complex, messy, hence less "beautiful".
In fact, what is science? Problem is everyone defines science individually. I would like to stick with etymological meaning of Science or Scientia or Knowledge. Tell physics if you want to specialize but knowledge does not come only from Physics. In fact, Physics does not teach only physical things, for example, Space, time, measurement, temperature, color, light, force many things are not Matter or Physical things. For me any systematic knowledge is science.
dark matter and dark energy is really part of metaphysics not pure science
Lovely interview. The choice of sunflowers are a subtle statement also, in these trying times.
I way preferred this interview to her you-tube channel which is a pretty hammy and pretty dumbed down.
Calling the Standard Model "simple" is a bit bizarre. When physicists look at the Standard Model, they see a triumph of modern physics. When I look at the Standard Model, all I see are epicycles. For instance, just look at the Standard Model Lagrangian. It's clearly _much_ too complex than it should be.
Nobody who understands the standard models sees a triumph in it. Most people see an effective field theory that works below the 1TeV scale. Beyond that it's lacking. It is a lot more precise than epicycles, of course. Your judgement based on complexity is complete bullshit, of course. The standard 1/r Newtonian potential is completely unsolvable for more than two particles and so are almost all classical potentials. You are simply not used to looking beyond high school physics.
and also history (of science) which seems totally neglected by contemporary scientists !
e.g. everytime that new physics came there was a new from of energy , when quantum mechancis no... complementary physics, collapse, etc.. were introduced.. is some other form of energy relevant into Schr. equation??? something relevant only macroscopically??? (in some sense the kinetic terms is new since related to diffusion of matter not trajectories momentum... is a macroscopic counterbalance to this diffusion missing?)
That didn’t seem to be her attitude when she was debating philosopher Bernardo Kastrup
the actual collection of the simultaneous mysteries....
Science is a particular type of Philosophy, it's called Empiricism!
Want the Truth? This is the only possible, truly unifying and conclusive ‘theory of everything’ in existence! The questions of what the universe is, where it came from, what it evolves towards, and how intimately it relates to human existence-are revealingly answered in terms of morphology, as they begin to arise from Plato’s forms and Sheldrake’s work on morphogenetics, but mostly by genetics itself.
Why are you telling us that you don't understand physics? We already knew that. ;-)
Engineering allows
Beauty (Steve Jobs) in human design of products but science is what is….beauty is a human preference and see it in life
Indeed, most of what passes for philosophy is not much use to those hunting the fundamental.
Advaita, though, being the most fundamental philosophy can show up common misleading assumptions in physics.
It can also fairly easily explain how the QM&GR maths emerge from the fundamental.
Much as heliocentric orbital mechanics gives rise to the apparent movements of planets and explains why those apparent movements are predictable with the geocentric epicyclic model.