Bryan Guilford You have been brain-washed by “Star Trek”! There is Not enough fuel/energy on earth to transport billions of humans interstellar. Space = Death!
This is but a lukewarm soap water in comparison to Jeffrey Mishlove's(New Thimking Allowed)channel. My opinion,I could be wrong,you be the judge(Paul Harrel:)...
It´s not "Beyond Physics", it´s "Beyond current concepts" ;) Btw. Thank you for the undogmatic content from a scientific perspective! Instant subscribe
There isn't enough good things to say about this program. It's genuine, none biased and it hits to the deepest questions of reality. Keep up the great work Robert.
Dear Robert, thanks again for those very high quality interviews. Let me try to show some perspective from science philosophy. Please excuse me if it is something that you are already familiar with. Our idea that scientific progress would probably reach an end (a final theory) is biased because of our imprisonment within some paradigm. Paradigms do reach a limit of understanding, and when we are on the edge of the paradigm, we really think we are very close to an end, still very far. So we feel some anguish. But the paradigm is only a set of fundamental axioms and postulates, that will allow lots of development in its beggining and face a tough time in its end. Thomas Kuhn stated that, when acquiring a paradigm, the scientific and intellectual community also acquires a criterion for choosing problems that, as long as the paradigm is accepted, will be considered as having a possible solution. If we are on the edge of a paradigm, we are not on the edge of proper knowledge about reality, bot only on the edge of the paradigm's limits. When we could adhere to a new paradigm, we feel relief, but it is only because of the possibilities of another newbie set of axioms and postulates. It is not easy for us to recognize that our questions are conditioned by their own possible answers in a non causal relationship. Questions do only exist because we know how to ask. Best regards and thanks again. Best YT science channel ever.
@@simesaid Your not making any sense. I believe in God and science. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact God invented science. Man is the free moral agent which needs to be checked. See a man can look at something like a giraffe and say it must be related to a horse. Then over time the evidence comes in and we find out these two creatures are not close to similar. Their DNA is very different , bones are different, circular system is different, brains are different. Even the parts that look the same are different. In fact the whole common ancestry theory falls apart. Today it is rejected by science. This is why evolutionists have had to change their stories. Facts will ruin a good story.
@@solonkazos1379 another person who has no idea what the Theory of Evolution means or how it works. A fucking pandemic causing virus has literally evolved into multiple variants before our eyes but waahh I didn't come from monkeys 😢😢😢. Jfc. 😒
What's very interesting too is that these theories seem to form in the imagination first and then materializes. Not just through what observed almost like something is calling us to discover it on a timeline. Like we are the universe discovering it's own consciousness.
is not actually like that, is not imagination isolated, is imagination applied to try to explain something that is not explained, at the end nature is the input and the final judge. and the other part yes, someone say, we are just the universe looking at itself.
I think your the universe and man are waiting to be discovered. Science is pointing to God creating everything. We need to stop with evolutionary stories that have no evidence.
Yes, anyone who spends time thinking about QM and GR ends up realizing we’re just the universe looking at itself, information reflecting itself. After all, what are we but ‘part’ of the universe? I think Penrose is right that gravity is linked somehow to how things become one thing or the other, that there are base universal constants revealing the frequency of reality we see.
Closer to truth. I so appreciate your digging in and grinding through our science, religion...and whatever it is that makes us conscious human beings.The Truth of All Things...my mission statement.
Isaac Asimov said he believed knowledge was "fractal in nature." I would infer from that, it is (exponentially) new questions all the way down. Philosophers and scientists will have job security till the end of time.
Science is measuring the Universe... it's not blah blah blah.. unless you don't mind ideas like a universe that fits in one of my dots... in which case.. it's not science.. it's magic
Certainly.y one of the best episodes because it brings together a number of leading conceptual ideas outside the norm. FYI. Lawrence Krause is now shunned by his peers, book publishers and other cancel culture sensitive institutions and enterprises. Seems he had a slight problem when interacting with one of his female students. Even Sean Carroll made a snide remark about Krause. I’m not making a commentary, other than he was/is, one of the brightest in his field.
Well,he could be an diabolicus advocati,or he just may be familiar with entheogeongens: Manifesting The Mind,Vice Ibogaine,MAPS,Erowid,etc... Or he may know about"altered states of consciousnesses"like;mediation (binaural beats),tummo(Wim Hoff,Allan Watkins),.tulpa,yoga & yoga nidra,lucid dreaming(Robert Waggoner,Stephen La Berge,...),past lives regression(Bruce Greyspn,Brian Weiss,IAND's,...),seeing without eyes(Frank Elaridi,To. Canpbell,...),remote viewing(Jeffrey Mishlove,Russel Targ,Edgar Cayce,...) Who knows?
21:21 I don't know about his understanding of Quantum Mechanics. The whole conscious observer thing is kinda pop science at this point isn't it? You do not need a living thing to collapse a wave function. Any measurement device, or really any macroscopic thing capable of being entangled with a quantum system can collapse a wave function. A camera with no human looking at the camera can collect it. A detector with no human there can collapse it. You would have to suggest that the camera or detector device also has consciousness however you define it, and by extension yield that inanimate objects have whatever your definition of consciousness is. But I would say that that definition would ultimately boil down to being the ability to be entangled with a quantum system, which if that's the definition, then yeah sure everything has consciousness to some degree at least because everything obeys quantum mechanics. But what is special about that? I really don't quite subscribe to the whole consciousness theory stuff. It's interesting, but it's not quite there. I don't think it's the right direction and is overly glorifying this idea of consciousness because we have it and asserting that it must be special because we have it and it's so amazing, and even more boldly, trying to assert that a Physicalist model can never explain or understand or account for consciousness.
I believe that if this camera would store it's information in a quantum state object itself (so a Schrodingers cat-esque device that would delete the information on certain states), the initial wave function wouldn't have collapsed yet.
No Pls I agree. The devices are consciously built so perhaps that’s enough, but whether or not they’ll be analyzed at some point is the real question. If yes, did the universe know? If no, then is the information even captured? -We know information has a way of going backward through time to change data during the delayed choice experiments. But I dunno. My guess is there’s more to the role of consciousness in the overall experience of reality, more than science is willing to play with just yet, and since all we experience is what we can see and what our devices can pick up, perhaps that’s where the intimacy between consciousness and fine-tuning lay? And if somehow we’d ere able to build devices that could pick up higher dimensions would we begin to collapse higher and higher wave functions and gain access...? Again, I dunno.
I like this channel partly because of the mostly mature and relative comments.Some you agree some you don't however-apart from individuals with irrelative and non-scientific political agenda's -all worth reading...
It all depends on the tool used to figure out how it works, which is our brain. Complexity is all relative. What is the universe to an ant? The human brain may be at the top level of complexity, fully capable to figure out things that are of similar complexity, like the universe. But that doesn't mean that it's simple, just that we're in the end game so to speak.
@@charlieboy2587 When you think about it first it had to take 3.5 billion years for the mind to evolve that could maybe answer the question in 400 years.
@@charlieboy2587 No no just saying that if 400 years of discoveries would be sufficient it wouldn't actually be 400 years because there is more than that.
We have a million radical ideas of how things could really be, we have mathematicians who given a reason to do the math on it would crank out everything needed for it to be scientific. But to really move into any direction we would first need experimental proof for anything beyond the standard model. And physicists performed all kinds of experiments and see nothing particularly weird. Yet todays physics is hopelessly unable to give insight on conciousness, free will, memory, why big bang, purpose, multiverse, dark matter. So what to do? Unless aliens land and explain stuff to us there really is not much hope left. Like, what if humans just aren't supposed to achieve anything and our purpose here is just some stupid spirituality nonsense. That would suck... We cant even figure out how to make use of nuclear fusion, the standard way of making energy in the universe...
Excellent point! But, to realize that our own capacity to understand that which goes beyond our own limits, our own “truths”, go myself anyway, it escapes the defined perimeters that what we call science have “supposedly” proven true or false.
Kuhn on Sheldrake: "conjuring up organising principles that almost certainly do not exist". The term "almost certainly" is the standard put down in the absence of a better theory.
@@all_is_1485 I find the premise of the series less than honest. It often seems like a desperate attempt to shore up a bankrupt materialist model, or at least frame materialism as a gold standard against which other philosophies are judged. There is no attempt to address why Sheldrake's model is flawed, it's an easy scalp to add to the narration of wholesale doubt. The series is about materialist metaphysics, not true scepticism. It reminds me of Dawkins' claim that "God almost certainly does not exist", without any attempt at statistical likelihood or philosophical rigour.
@@mikemoore9694 It would only be easy if it functioned within the limitations of reductionist materialism. I don't believe Sheldrake is suggesting it works in that billiard ball paradigm. You have to believe matter exhausts reality in its entirety to adopt that approach.
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ― Nikola Tesla
Only way science can go beyond it's hierarchical structure of experimental knowledge is with same scientific methodology, every day some project come to projected conclusions and something new is discovered on very edge of what is known. We can see islands of new knowledge our there, but our sphere of known facts can't build bridges over darkness, must grow from all sides at same time and one day it will became so big those islands in a distance will be enveloped in it's structure.
Tesla grew up with the idea that some guy made our Universe in 6 seconds or less.... unfortunately, it skews the math so much A Einstein and R Feynman both started from the wrong place, a finite universe, with infities at all the other relative properties.. the faster we travel the more mass we have.. the slower Time passes.. at 300Mm/sec Time stops.. and mass becomes infinite.. infinite mass requires infinite energy to move... and zero Time is ==>> clearly impossible A Einstein told us that god does not play dice with the Universe.. he was a believer.. in magic.. and he also failed to include the passage of light in all directions from any source of light, other than a collimated laser light... which travels in a straight line.... when a point source of light emits a photon, it's hydrogen atoms going up one quantum step, and if it can stay up in that orbit, it allows light to pass through.. if it drops back to the base state immediately, it gives off a photon at the same wavelength as the light that excites it.. this is the fundamentals of R Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics.. QED.. and the parent atom is going round and round really really fast, and the photon is actually attached to it and travels round and round right with the parent atom.. it travels a spiral path, like a satellite in a geodesic orbit that covers the entire spherical vortex..because that's what quraks and atoms are.. with a space filling spiral that led R Feynman to say all particles are spheres... that's what they look like, sure enough.. but it doesn't explain why they do what they do.. jiggling he called it. Einstein spent a lot of time looking at Brownian motion.. seen in dust particles in a glass of water.. the atoms of water are not attached to each other.. and this space filling spiral creates the absolutely random motion of atoms in water, air.. vacuum.. and everything else.. ☆☆☆ the area of the surface of a sphere is 2 pi r³.. cubed.. but to any observer the light observed in one direction also has the opposite direction to account for.. the speed of light should be squared.. as in ==>> E = Mc².. second per second acceleration does not stop the first second.. we have been measuring the radius
science is not really blah blah blah and theory.. even theory requires mathematics... if you don't see the math It's not science.. and, as far as measuring ideas instilled by religion and other methods of getting people to think alike.. it's like proving the existence of god.. it's impossible to measure something that is not really there... we are stuck measuring the Universe as it really is
Great video and great topic. I have often thought about this myself. What major discoveries do we not know that future scientists will discover. What do we believe now that is totally wrong. Will we ever know everything? Personally I don't think we ever will.
I believe that consciousness is the missing link between nothingness and creation. In a looping Darwinian evolutionary circle which is also including space and time in its intermediate steps.
I'm with Rupert. Physics evolves. Like, the speed of light is, in a way, faster now than it was a billion years ago. I think this because of expansion. Light doesn't travel a mile any faster than it ever did but, a mile is now longer than it was in the beginning. Everything is expanding together so we don't see it. There's no way to gain perspective. We'll need a way to disconnect from the universe and see what it does without us. From the outside looking in. I think as the universe gets bigger, new smaller things are added. Maybe by a designer, a programmer and yes, maybe a creator. When we finally get close to finding the smallest thing in the universe, the building block of everything, a new and invisible smallest thing will be added. Something for us to continue to look for.
Wonderful presentation. Complex matters dealt in simple understandable language. Loved it. I tend to agree with the proposed idea of consciousness which will make the universe a living entity and not a slave to physical laws. This has to be approached with an open mind with a realisation that complete truth is yet to be revealed. Maybe a little less of rigidity and a little more of humility might help. I also tend to agree that the universal laws which govern the working of our universe would be simp,e rather than complex. Great presentation.
There is no bottom. Everything loops on itself. You know, the idea of the expanding universe popped out automatically from Einstein's theory of general relativity as he considered a 4D spacetime containing matter, would actually appear to be expanding 3D spatial coordinates. This was the first theoretical hint of an expanding universe. Also note that for some reason the Poincare conjecture in 4D space is unknown. Why should this be the case? Is there a relation that points out the reason as to why we tend to find ourselves living in a 3D world? Plus there are reasons why you cannot expect reality to have a fundamental theory and these are very precise logical reasons. For any theory is nothing but a prescription of evolution of entities in some space, and every mathematical theory relies on the truth value of its axioms, and moreover, if such a formal mathematical system does exist, it would never be able to determine the validity of its axioms itself. Who or what is the final arbiter for the axioms of reality? If indeed such a set of axioms do exist, then why are they there and why not some other axioms? A cyclical theory however makes much more logical sense than a one shot clockwork Universe, obeying stringent laws of action. Quantum theory might be incomplete, but in one way it is pointing us towards this case, that you cannot have determinate laws. It might be chaos in the bottom, out of which self-organization happens every so often that somehow reality like this Universe, emerges. Afterall, if life is indeed observed in our Universe, we must, as physicists, consider the serious possibility that any fundamental theory of the Universe must ultimately describe how it creates self-organizing, self-reflecting entities. Why is it that this Universe must contain sentient life at all and not just dumb, entropic forms of complex systems. As to what reality is made out of, I think consciousness is a safe bet. We don't know the ontological status of consciousness, but that it is present in abundance in the Universe. Nothing about physics screams consciousness. There is motion, charge attraction, inertia, but not consciousness. Nothing about the neurons firing behind my eyeballs tell me that there is a youtube video playing in front of me. Why should photons hitting on a random retina connected to a random brain, have to mean or feel like something? The only way to understand consciousness would be through consciousness, and that is circular in itself.
So Your saying that your hypothesis for the origins of the universe is a cyclic cosmic theory that will result in gravity becoming the dominant force of the universe which means that dark energy is underestimated. Galaxies will combine, chaos will be widespread throughout the universe and black holes will be be the only things that will exist. Black holes consume each other, eventually a black hole will have the mass of the entire universe( kind of like a game of agario) and then the universe will collapse. Then it will turn inside out and Big Bang itself again. There is a flaw in that argument. Now for the time being, dark energy and dark matter is everywhere in the universe and is repulsive that is why the universe is expanding ever so rapidly that gravity cannot keep up with the expansion rate of the universe. The universe will die in a cold death where energy will be so low that it will be at its resting point or the zero point energy. However, given enough time the universe will begin to create quantum tunneling which can create a new Big Bang but this is very unprobable and happened very rarely. I would like to ask a question to you, do you believe that their is sort of metaphysical play into your idea of how the universe began and how it is going to die or is it just physics to you? I believe there is something powerful than the multiverse hypothesis kind of an eternal trans dimensional entity that can create universe/realities and is not understable to us because of our limited knowledge and language to describe this entity.
@Dd S well maybe what i believe is moot, after all i'm just a high school senior kid with honors physics and Ap chemistry but is the cyclic cosmos theory and the multiverse theory moot because it is irrelevant and untestable? Many physcists believe in a 11 dimensional eternal hyperspace known as a bulk yet it is by your standards "moot" because we cant test it. Come on bro its a theory and people are inclined to believe their theory of everything. Doenst make much difference. Its absurd
Dd S smh speaculation has the similar definition of “up in the air”. It seems that your definition of fiction is subjective and while I am allowed to speculate on what created the universe, you say it is fiction because it is untestable in our universe(root word for one reality in Greek). You shut down any possibility for a theory of everything and because what I say conflicts with your view of how the universe is created, you call it fiction. I think you think I’m talking about a creator god, and by definition it may be god, I mean if it walks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck. To be honest, I don’t care what it is, it’s a theory. I mean Jesus, who made you the Hitler to differentiate what is fact and what is fiction.
It might all come down to the sensitivity and complexity of our measuring instruments. And we have just begun our trip up the steep learning curve of ever-evolving computing power.
As much as finding “answers” is pleasurable, personally playing with the the questions to be more so. Guess that sentiment is simply a reformulation of “ooh, shiny!”
Physics itself may be considered to be a very general term, referring to all of science. However, it has been suggested by many philosophers and scientists alike that there are certain physical limitations on our universe. Of course, this depends entirely on reality being consistent in its own laws which we have not yet discovered. If these limitations exist then they most likely do so at an extremely small scale level - probably too small for us to ever measure or experiment with as humans. One example which has been proposed by a great number of people is the idea that there are limitations to our universe due to it being located within a black hole. This would place an upper limit on the size and age of our universe - although it could be argued that an infinite amount of universes may exist within each black hole, writing off any limitation. Another possibility is that there are limitations to our universe due to symmetry breaking. This could be what caused the Big Bang, and perhaps we live within a bubble of spacetime which contains our entire universe (although I am uncertain as to how this may be possible). If so then it would mean that outside of these bubbles there may exist many other universes with completely different laws from ours. Of course, there are many other possibilities of what may be 'beyond physics' or the 'end of our universe'. If we were to live in a multiverse then perhaps there could exist beings which can manipulate spacetime and matter at will - these would most likely be extremely alien from us. We might also exist within an artificial simulation (although this is unlikely due to the extreme amount of energy required). Maybe even God himself exists outside these laws. Of course, there is no real evidence for any of this and it may all be complete nonsense. However, these ideas get us thinking about the nature of our universe in an abstract way which we humans find fascinating.
Compelling Point Hmm? Picture Unlimited...not infinity but Unlimited Large sphere, and Unlimited Small sphere meeting! What is there But two Flat spheres and Two flat culminating in “T” !
“Morphic Resonance’ at 13:00 seems an interesting concept with some validity to it. So are the holographic universe at 18:00 and in/outside the universe law views of Paul Davies and at 21:00 David Chalmers thoughts of consciousness. I am glad Robert is willing to concede there’s more than this physical world to explore.
I suspect all we will find is stranger physics. It still has the first cause problem. How far can the layers go. And will technology advance far enough to confirm the models.
@@jackieswan422 Funny !! Since we can't cross paths. This reality is all we have. Or is another reality all we have. I think we are making it seem way more complicated than it is.
A superb programme. The intro, about two minutes gave me goosebumps, absolutely brilliant. Kuhn himself is a treasure and has such a wonderful knowledge of all the Closer To The Truth programmes. Laurence Krauss is a diamond in our society. Absolutely a wonderful programme in a wonderful collection. A tribute to humanity.
There is so much beyond physics. So much that we have no idea how much there is beyond it. We already know that metaphysics is beyond physics, but that is just the start.
It is a pity that the subtitles do not agree with the voice. For those os us who are not mother tongue, it is a great effort to understand what is said in the video (dialogues) I hope you consider this. Thank you
Physics is a man made tool for analyzing the physical world. Using that tool we are constantly learning new things associated with the physical world. Our tool is always being improved, and our concepts often changed based on new understanding. For all practical purposes, the universe (with or without anything that may exist beyond), is infinite to us. In other words, our field of discovery is endless and it seems highly likely physics will stick with us till the last physical mystery is unraveled.
Has Paul Davies ever considered that the physical Universe we occupy is just the theoretical opposite of what's outside of it? What's outside of our physical universe likely turned inside out at the time of the big bang.
Reality has more to it than just physical elements, it has to have spiritual non-physical elements as well, which ofcourse cannot be comprehended by physicists in its entirety.
I am sure we will make progress on these questions. I wonder though whether it will be in the near future, or whether on the comtrary we can expect a fallow period in our progress comparable to that between Classical Greece and the Scientific Revolution!
Something like this........😁. The rules of quantum mechanics are fundamental. They assert that the state space of a system is a Hilbert space (crucially, that the space has an inner product) and that observables of the system are Hermitian operators acting on vectors in that space - although they do not tell us which Hilbert space or which operators. These can be chosen appropriately in order to obtain a quantitative description of a quantum system. An important guide for making these choices is the correspondence principle, which states that the predictions of quantum mechanics reduce to those of classical mechanics when a system moves to higher energies or, equivalently, larger quantum numbers, i.e. whereas a single particle exhibits a degree of randomness, in systems incorporating millions of particles averaging takes over and, at the high energy limit, the statistical probability of random behaviour approaches zero. In other words, classical mechanics is simply a quantum mechanics of large systems. This "high energy" limit is known as the classical or correspondence limit. One can even start from an established classical model of a particular system, then try to guess the underlying quantum model that would give rise to the classical model in the correspondence limit
Don't worry, most people have the greatest trouble dealing with ambiguity, let alone differentiating between the point where subjectivity ends and objectivity begins.
30 minutes of this channel gives me more motivation than 3 weeky of my studies at university.
Why aren't there millions subscribed to this channel? Love every episode, so glad I found it.
Most people are glued to the TV or social media and the drama it brings. They don't want to search for truth.
yup
)Llllll)lpl)l
)Llllll)lpl)l
Because intelligent life is rare
I agree with Dr. Krauss. There is way more that we do not understand than things we do understand. It's a great time for discovery and invention.
That may be so....
...but there just is Not enough fuel/resources on Earth to sustain humans long enough to find out (most) of those
questions!
Creepy kraus
@@oskarngo9138 Thats why humans will leave earth.
Bryan Guilford
You have been brain-washed by “Star Trek”!
There is Not enough fuel/energy on earth to transport billions of humans interstellar.
Space = Death!
@@oskarngo9138 No, we just need new technology. The same tech the aliens have..
Amazing series, all the heavy hitting questions. Thanks for making these
This is but a lukewarm soap water in comparison to Jeffrey Mishlove's(New Thimking Allowed)channel.
My opinion,I could be wrong,you be the judge(Paul Harrel:)...
@@stlkngyomom Thank you for the recommendation, will check it out as well. It's like an itch that just won't go away
I agree. Great questions, and answers to some of those impossible answers.....
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
@@mikaelblomberg8614 My pleasure,I've left more related info on another thread,look for"narrator's sense of humor".
It´s not "Beyond Physics", it´s "Beyond current concepts" ;)
Btw. Thank you for the undogmatic content from a scientific perspective!
Instant subscribe
Absolutely trur
Correct.
i like how every interview takes place in different places
Robert Lawrence Kuhn is the best. Closer to Truth is close to my heart.
When it comes to the truth, the answer is just another question.
The key is to not ask the question. Just take very powerful psychadelics and stfu.
Absurd
@@ericwoodson717 is that a joke about hippies or something?
@@hyperduality2838 except there is a problem. And that's that we find Asymmetry in nature. So its possible a duality is not need at every point.
@@hyperduality2838 why is there regular matter? We suspect they was an equal amount of anti matter....so how can we be here?
Excellent.... especially the analysis & conclusion by Distinguished Dr Robert L Kuhn... thanks 🙏.
There is no conclusion, only more questions for which there are no answers yet because suppressing obvious evidence leads to ignorance.
Good episode just watched on Beyond Physics, Robert Kuhn!
I think dr. Krauss is getting it. Compare to the other opinions.
There isn't enough good things to say about this program. It's genuine, none biased and it hits to the deepest questions of reality. Keep up the great work Robert.
Dear Robert, thanks again for those very high quality interviews.
Let me try to show some perspective from science philosophy. Please excuse me if it is something that you are already familiar with.
Our idea that scientific progress would probably reach an end (a final theory) is biased because of our imprisonment within some paradigm.
Paradigms do reach a limit of understanding, and when we are on the edge of the paradigm, we really think we are very close to an end, still very far. So we feel some anguish.
But the paradigm is only a set of fundamental axioms and postulates, that will allow lots of development in its beggining and face a tough time in its end. Thomas Kuhn stated that, when acquiring a paradigm, the scientific and intellectual
community also acquires a criterion for choosing problems that, as long as the paradigm is accepted, will be considered as having a possible solution.
If we are on the edge of a paradigm, we are not on the edge of proper knowledge about reality, bot only on the edge of the paradigm's limits.
When we could adhere to a new paradigm, we feel relief, but it is only because of the possibilities of another newbie set of axioms and postulates.
It is not easy for us to recognize that our questions are conditioned by their own possible answers in a non causal relationship. Questions do only exist because we know how to ask.
Best regards and thanks again. Best YT science channel ever.
we will never reach limit of understanding.
You are just adding more story to an evolutionary story. Neither one has any evidence.
@@ivanleon6164 You're _certain_ about that?
@@simesaid Your not making any sense.
I believe in God and science. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact God invented science. Man is the free moral agent which needs to be checked. See a man can look at something like a giraffe and say it must be related to a horse. Then over time the evidence comes in and we find out these two creatures are not close to similar. Their DNA is very different , bones are different, circular system is different, brains are different.
Even the parts that look the same are different. In fact the whole common ancestry theory falls apart. Today it is rejected by science. This is why evolutionists have had to change their stories. Facts will ruin a good story.
@@solonkazos1379 another person who has no idea what the Theory of Evolution means or how it works. A fucking pandemic causing virus has literally evolved into multiple variants before our eyes but waahh I didn't come from monkeys 😢😢😢. Jfc. 😒
What's very interesting too is that these theories seem to form in the imagination first and then materializes. Not just through what observed almost like something is calling us to discover it on a timeline. Like we are the universe discovering it's own consciousness.
If you do this at School they throw a (hardback) book at you for day dreaming 🤣
is not actually like that, is not imagination isolated, is imagination applied to try to explain something that is not explained, at the end nature is the input and the final judge. and the other part yes, someone say, we are just the universe looking at itself.
I think your the universe and man are waiting to be discovered.
Science is pointing to God creating everything. We need to stop with evolutionary stories that have no evidence.
@@solonkazos1379 says who? To the contrary. Pointing to God is a regressive argument, ie, who or what created God. God-of-the-gaps is a cop out
Yes, anyone who spends time thinking about QM and GR ends up realizing we’re just the universe looking at itself, information reflecting itself. After all, what are we but ‘part’ of the universe? I think Penrose is right that gravity is linked somehow to how things become one thing or the other, that there are base universal constants revealing the frequency of reality we see.
"if you asked that question a hundred years ago you'd have been put in a lunatic asylum."
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
What question is that? Sorry, I don't enough time to watch the whole video
@@nvmffs does the universe exist in many different states at the same time
Exactly
Closer to truth. I so appreciate your digging in and grinding through our science, religion...and whatever it is that makes us conscious human beings.The Truth of All Things...my mission statement.
I would really like to see a whole show with you interviewing Dr. Jordan Peterson. That would be a very good show.
Isaac Asimov said he believed knowledge was "fractal in nature."
I would infer from that, it is (exponentially) new questions all the way down.
Philosophers and scientists will have job security till the end of time.
Or at least until Multivac goes online.
I agree
There will always be gaps for science and our imaginations to fill.
Science is measuring the Universe... it's not blah blah blah.. unless you don't mind ideas like a universe that fits in one of my dots... in which case.. it's not science.. it's magic
@@John-ir4id does one get paid for philosophizing?
13:50 he's describing a fractal.
Wow, he just blew my mind with morphic resonance. It aligns and expands on my own intuitions.
Best episode yet! Lawrence Krauss is brilliant!
Certainly.y one of the best episodes because it brings together a number of leading conceptual ideas outside the norm. FYI. Lawrence Krause is now shunned by his peers, book publishers and other cancel culture sensitive institutions and enterprises. Seems he had a slight problem when interacting with one of his female students. Even Sean Carroll made a snide remark about Krause. I’m not making a commentary, other than he was/is, one of the brightest in his field.
Krauss won a lot of respect from me here.
What made ya say that?
Usually a straight faced production, but I like your editor's sense of humor at 3:33.
🤭🤭🤭
Nice! Well spotted! :)
The guy standing there?
Well,he could be an diabolicus advocati,or he just may be familiar with entheogeongens: Manifesting The Mind,Vice Ibogaine,MAPS,Erowid,etc...
Or he may know about"altered states of consciousnesses"like;mediation (binaural beats),tummo(Wim Hoff,Allan Watkins),.tulpa,yoga & yoga nidra,lucid dreaming(Robert Waggoner,Stephen La Berge,...),past lives regression(Bruce Greyspn,Brian Weiss,IAND's,...),seeing without eyes(Frank Elaridi,To. Canpbell,...),remote viewing(Jeffrey Mishlove,Russel Targ,Edgar Cayce,...)
Who knows?
Well spotted- hand over face 😂
21:21 I don't know about his understanding of Quantum Mechanics. The whole conscious observer thing is kinda pop science at this point isn't it? You do not need a living thing to collapse a wave function. Any measurement device, or really any macroscopic thing capable of being entangled with a quantum system can collapse a wave function. A camera with no human looking at the camera can collect it. A detector with no human there can collapse it.
You would have to suggest that the camera or detector device also has consciousness however you define it, and by extension yield that inanimate objects have whatever your definition of consciousness is.
But I would say that that definition would ultimately boil down to being the ability to be entangled with a quantum system, which if that's the definition, then yeah sure everything has consciousness to some degree at least because everything obeys quantum mechanics. But what is special about that?
I really don't quite subscribe to the whole consciousness theory stuff. It's interesting, but it's not quite there. I don't think it's the right direction and is overly glorifying this idea of consciousness because we have it and asserting that it must be special because we have it and it's so amazing, and even more boldly, trying to assert that a Physicalist model can never explain or understand or account for consciousness.
I believe that if this camera would store it's information in a quantum state object itself (so a Schrodingers cat-esque device that would delete the information on certain states), the initial wave function wouldn't have collapsed yet.
No Pls I agree. The devices are consciously built so perhaps that’s enough, but whether or not they’ll be analyzed at some point is the real question. If yes, did the universe know? If no, then is the information even captured? -We know information has a way of going backward through time to change data during the delayed choice experiments. But I dunno. My guess is there’s more to the role of consciousness in the overall experience of reality, more than science is willing to play with just yet, and since all we experience is what we can see and what our devices can pick up, perhaps that’s where the intimacy between consciousness and fine-tuning lay? And if somehow we’d ere able to build devices that could pick up higher dimensions would we begin to collapse higher and higher wave functions and gain access...? Again, I dunno.
This is one of those channels that I love to break away from this reality & ponder other possibilities. Thanx for such a different series, my friend!
I love that he brings up conciousness. Suprise. The soul is fact not faith. The soul is quantum mechanical in nature.
Love this channel...thanks for taking us with you in this journey
Morphic resonance, what a beautiful concept, beautifully explained.
I enjoy this series, the appearances of characters like Lawrence Kraut and the bottomless pit discussions about religion notwithstanding
"What's beyond Physics?" The part of physics we haven't uncovered, yet.
Thank you. You might as well ask "what don't we know yet?"
@@chunkycornbread4773 Even what I do know is fading away due to chemo-brain. Then I won't know what I do know.
The name of this video and the intro made me think it was a pseudoscience video.
Well said! My answer would be "new physics".
my father used to say==>> the more I know, the more I know that I don't know
I found this to be true..
11:50 😂👏 One of the most brilliant things I've ever heard. Instead of "Laws" "Habbits"...that have evolved over a very long time.
Wonderful episode🙂 Rupert Sheldrake’s Morphic Fields hypothesis is brilliant👍
wow. Paul Davies blew my mind. haven't heard that idea before but I think he's completely right.
He is the Anthony Bourdain of science. I love his spirit of inquiry and his accompanying narrative.
I like this channel partly because of the mostly mature and relative comments.Some you agree some you don't however-apart from individuals with irrelative and non-scientific political agenda's -all worth reading...
If 400 years of discoveries would be sufficient to know how this world works it would mean that creator of this world was rather simple being.
We are just a Petri dish evolving whilst the creator is sitting back watching and eating popcorn and laughing.
It all depends on the tool used to figure out how it works, which is our brain. Complexity is all relative. What is the universe to an ant? The human brain may be at the top level of complexity, fully capable to figure out things that are of similar complexity, like the universe. But that doesn't mean that it's simple, just that we're in the end game so to speak.
@@charlieboy2587 When you think about it first it had to take 3.5 billion years for the mind to evolve that could maybe answer the question in 400 years.
@@charlieboy2587 No no just saying that if 400 years of discoveries would be sufficient it wouldn't actually be 400 years because there is more than that.
Brave man getting in a pool with Krause.
This Channel is too good to be real. Love the quality and content
If we are until now don't know the right questions you can only imagine how far we are from the answers.
Thanks for the share. This is most definitely one of the best pieces on youtube.
But do these "best pieces" solve the puzzle?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Yes if you relate to the optimal performance of your brainpower. lmao
Definitely one of my favorite STEM etc. channels. It really should have more subscribers.
thank you for interviewing Sheldrake.
We have a million radical ideas of how things could really be, we have mathematicians who given a reason to do the math on it would crank out everything needed for it to be scientific. But to really move into any direction we would first need experimental proof for anything beyond the standard model. And physicists performed all kinds of experiments and see nothing particularly weird. Yet todays physics is hopelessly unable to give insight on conciousness, free will, memory, why big bang, purpose, multiverse, dark matter. So what to do? Unless aliens land and explain stuff to us there really is not much hope left. Like, what if humans just aren't supposed to achieve anything and our purpose here is just some stupid spirituality nonsense. That would suck... We cant even figure out how to make use of nuclear fusion, the standard way of making energy in the universe...
Excellent point! But, to realize that our own capacity to understand that which goes beyond our own limits, our own “truths”, go myself anyway, it escapes the defined perimeters that what we call science have “supposedly” proven true or false.
Kuhn on Sheldrake: "conjuring up organising principles that almost certainly do not exist". The term "almost certainly" is the standard put down in the absence of a better theory.
Borderlands the sheer pomposity and arrogance of his statement. I wonder if he feels the same way about quantum entanglement!
@@all_is_1485 I find the premise of the series less than honest. It often seems like a desperate attempt to shore up a bankrupt materialist model, or at least frame materialism as a gold standard against which other philosophies are judged. There is no attempt to address why Sheldrake's model is flawed, it's an easy scalp to add to the narration of wholesale doubt. The series is about materialist metaphysics, not true scepticism. It reminds me of Dawkins' claim that "God almost certainly does not exist", without any attempt at statistical likelihood or philosophical rigour.
Borderlands couldn’t have said it better. Thanks
It should be easy to design an experiment to prove ‘morphic resonance’ exists. Sheldrake hasn’t published as far as I know. I wonder why?
@@mikemoore9694 It would only be easy if it functioned within the limitations of reductionist materialism. I don't believe Sheldrake is suggesting it works in that billiard ball paradigm. You have to believe matter exhausts reality in its entirety to adopt that approach.
Whats beyond physics? Life and biology. Its all right here - right in front of us. Life is the answer. Life breaks the cycle of determinism.
The more we understand what exists beyond our current understanding, the more we will discover about the paranormal and supernatural
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
― Nikola Tesla
Only way science can go beyond it's hierarchical structure of experimental knowledge is with same scientific methodology, every day some project come to projected conclusions and something new is discovered on very edge of what is known. We can see islands of new knowledge our there, but our sphere of known facts can't build bridges over darkness, must grow from all sides at same time and one day it will became so big those islands in a distance will be enveloped in it's structure.
Hey Frank... thanks for sharing that quote by Tesla. I really like it.
That's what i believe to
Tesla grew up with the idea that some guy made our Universe in 6 seconds or less.... unfortunately, it skews the math so much A Einstein and R Feynman both started from the wrong place, a finite universe, with infities at all the other relative properties.. the faster we travel the more mass we have.. the slower Time passes.. at 300Mm/sec Time stops.. and mass becomes infinite.. infinite mass requires infinite energy to move... and zero Time is ==>> clearly impossible
A Einstein told us that god does not play dice with the Universe.. he was a believer.. in magic.. and he also failed to include the passage of light in all directions from any source of light, other than a collimated laser light... which travels in a straight line.... when a point source of light emits a photon, it's hydrogen atoms going up one quantum step, and if it can stay up in that orbit, it allows light to pass through.. if it drops back to the base state immediately, it gives off a photon at the same wavelength as the light that excites it.. this is the fundamentals of R Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics.. QED.. and the parent atom is going round and round really really fast, and the photon is actually attached to it and travels round and round right with the parent atom.. it travels a spiral path, like a satellite in a geodesic orbit that covers the entire spherical vortex..because that's what quraks and atoms are.. with a space filling spiral that led R Feynman to say all particles are spheres... that's what they look like, sure enough.. but it doesn't explain why they do what they do.. jiggling he called it. Einstein spent a lot of time looking at Brownian motion.. seen in dust particles in a glass of water.. the atoms of water are not attached to each other.. and this space filling spiral creates the absolutely random motion of atoms in water, air.. vacuum.. and everything else.. ☆☆☆
the area of the surface of a sphere is 2 pi r³.. cubed.. but to any observer the light observed in one direction also has the opposite direction to account for.. the speed of light should be squared.. as in ==>> E = Mc².. second per second acceleration does not stop the first second.. we have been measuring the radius
science is not really blah blah blah and theory.. even theory requires mathematics... if you don't see the math It's not science.. and, as far as measuring ideas instilled by religion and other methods of getting people to think alike.. it's like proving the existence of god.. it's impossible to measure something that is not really there... we are stuck measuring the Universe as it really is
Great video and great topic. I have often thought about this myself. What major discoveries do we not know that future scientists will discover. What do we believe now that is totally wrong. Will we ever know everything? Personally I don't think we ever will.
We never will, because nature is infinitely magnificent
Impossible, we never can.
Consciousness is the elephant in the room that the mainstream thinkers are ignoring.
really great
most reasonable minded person to me in all the programmes
I believe that consciousness is the missing link between nothingness and creation. In a looping Darwinian evolutionary circle which is also including space and time in its intermediate steps.
You don't know what the hell you are talking about!!! Pure and utter rubbish!
I also but without Darwin in the present understanding of thought of Darwin.
@zempath Rubbish!
@@GeoCoppens Good evening my flatten-er...
@@thoel1 Too dumb for words!
Wow, you crank out videos like every day it seems. A lot of work has to go into these between travel, shooting, editing, etc.. How do you do it?!
I'm with Rupert. Physics evolves. Like, the speed of light is, in a way, faster now than it was a billion years ago. I think this because of expansion. Light doesn't travel a mile any faster than it ever did but, a mile is now longer than it was in the beginning. Everything is expanding together so we don't see it. There's no way to gain perspective. We'll need a way to disconnect from the universe and see what it does without us. From the outside looking in. I think as the universe gets bigger, new smaller things are added. Maybe by a designer, a programmer and yes, maybe a creator. When we finally get close to finding the smallest thing in the universe, the building block of everything, a new and invisible smallest thing will be added. Something for us to continue to look for.
Wonderful presentation. Complex matters dealt in simple understandable language. Loved it.
I tend to agree with the proposed idea of consciousness which will make the universe a living entity and not a slave to physical laws. This has to be approached with an open mind with a realisation that complete truth is yet to be revealed. Maybe a little less of rigidity and a little more of humility might help. I also tend to agree that the universal laws which govern the working of our universe would be simp,e rather than complex. Great presentation.
There is no bottom. Everything loops on itself. You know, the idea of the expanding universe popped out automatically from Einstein's theory of general relativity as he considered a 4D spacetime containing matter, would actually appear to be expanding 3D spatial coordinates. This was the first theoretical hint of an expanding universe.
Also note that for some reason the Poincare conjecture in 4D space is unknown. Why should this be the case? Is there a relation that points out the reason as to why we tend to find ourselves living in a 3D world?
Plus there are reasons why you cannot expect reality to have a fundamental theory and these are very precise logical reasons. For any theory is nothing but a prescription of evolution of entities in some space, and every mathematical theory relies on the truth value of its axioms, and moreover, if such a formal mathematical system does exist, it would never be able to determine the validity of its axioms itself. Who or what is the final arbiter for the axioms of reality? If indeed such a set of axioms do exist, then why are they there and why not some other axioms?
A cyclical theory however makes much more logical sense than a one shot clockwork Universe, obeying stringent laws of action. Quantum theory might be incomplete, but in one way it is pointing us towards this case, that you cannot have determinate laws. It might be chaos in the bottom, out of which self-organization happens every so often that somehow reality like this Universe, emerges.
Afterall, if life is indeed observed in our Universe, we must, as physicists, consider the serious possibility that any fundamental theory of the Universe must ultimately describe how it creates self-organizing, self-reflecting entities. Why is it that this Universe must contain sentient life at all and not just dumb, entropic forms of complex systems.
As to what reality is made out of, I think consciousness is a safe bet. We don't know the ontological status of consciousness, but that it is present in abundance in the Universe. Nothing about physics screams consciousness. There is motion, charge attraction, inertia, but not consciousness. Nothing about the neurons firing behind my eyeballs tell me that there is a youtube video playing in front of me. Why should photons hitting on a random retina connected to a random brain, have to mean or feel like something?
The only way to understand consciousness would be through consciousness, and that is circular in itself.
Blah, blah, blah.
So Your saying that your hypothesis for the origins of the universe is a cyclic cosmic theory that will result in gravity becoming the dominant force of the universe which means that dark energy is underestimated. Galaxies will combine, chaos will be widespread throughout the universe and black holes will be be the only things that will exist. Black holes consume each other, eventually a black hole will have the mass of the entire universe( kind of like a game of agario) and then the universe will collapse. Then it will turn inside out and Big Bang itself again. There is a flaw in that argument. Now for the time being, dark energy and dark matter is everywhere in the universe and is repulsive that is why the universe is expanding ever so rapidly that gravity cannot keep up with the expansion rate of the universe. The universe will die in a cold death where energy will be so low that it will be at its resting point or the zero point energy. However, given enough time the universe will begin to create quantum tunneling which can create a new Big Bang but this is very unprobable and happened very rarely. I would like to ask a question to you, do you believe that their is sort of metaphysical play into your idea of how the universe began and how it is going to die or is it just physics to you? I believe there is something powerful than the multiverse hypothesis kind of an eternal trans dimensional entity that can create universe/realities and is not understable to us because of our limited knowledge and language to describe this entity.
@Dd S well maybe what i believe is moot, after all i'm just a high school senior kid with honors physics and Ap chemistry but is the cyclic cosmos theory and the multiverse theory moot because it is irrelevant and untestable? Many physcists believe in a 11 dimensional eternal hyperspace known as a bulk yet it is by your standards "moot" because we cant test it. Come on bro its a theory and people are inclined to believe their theory of everything. Doenst make much difference. Its absurd
Dd S smh speaculation has the similar definition of “up in the air”. It seems that your definition of fiction is subjective and while I am allowed to speculate on what created the universe, you say it is fiction because it is untestable in our universe(root word for one reality in Greek). You shut down any possibility for a theory of everything and because what I say conflicts with your view of how the universe is created, you call it fiction. I think you think I’m talking about a creator god, and by definition it may be god, I mean if it walks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck. To be honest, I don’t care what it is, it’s a theory. I mean Jesus, who made you the Hitler to differentiate what is fact and what is fiction.
Daulton Horton true. Food for thought
No better place to talk of physics than iceland
than
@@bartholomewtott3812cool. Sorry for my spelling
It might all come down to the sensitivity and complexity of our measuring instruments. And we have just begun our trip up the steep learning curve of ever-evolving computing power.
CG Jung would like the morphic resonance idea...excellent description of the Collective Unconscious and its effect on our minds.
As much as finding “answers” is pleasurable, personally playing with the the questions to be more so.
Guess that sentiment is simply a reformulation of “ooh, shiny!”
Physics itself may be considered to be a very general term, referring to all of science. However, it has been suggested by many philosophers and scientists alike that there are certain physical limitations on our universe. Of course, this depends entirely on reality being consistent in its own laws which we have not yet discovered. If these limitations exist then they most likely do so at an extremely small scale level - probably too small for us to ever measure or experiment with as humans.
One example which has been proposed by a great number of people is the idea that there are limitations to our universe due to it being located within a black hole. This would place an upper limit on the size and age of our universe - although it could be argued that an infinite amount of universes may exist within each black hole, writing off any limitation.
Another possibility is that there are limitations to our universe due to symmetry breaking. This could be what caused the Big Bang, and perhaps we live within a bubble of spacetime which contains our entire universe (although I am uncertain as to how this may be possible). If so then it would mean that outside of these bubbles there may exist many other universes with completely different laws from ours.
Of course, there are many other possibilities of what may be 'beyond physics' or the 'end of our universe'. If we were to live in a multiverse then perhaps there could exist beings which can manipulate spacetime and matter at will - these would most likely be extremely alien from us. We might also exist within an artificial simulation (although this is unlikely due to the extreme amount of energy required). Maybe even God himself exists outside these laws.
Of course, there is no real evidence for any of this and it may all be complete nonsense. However, these ideas get us thinking about the nature of our universe in an abstract way which we humans find fascinating.
Several compelling points there..;-j
This is wow-material. Thanks for the read!
Compelling Point Hmm? Picture Unlimited...not infinity but Unlimited Large sphere, and Unlimited Small sphere meeting! What is there But two Flat spheres and Two flat culminating in “T” !
@@grattata4364 Thanks!
@@Scribe13013 Thanks!
“Morphic Resonance’ at 13:00 seems an interesting concept with some validity to it. So are the holographic universe at 18:00 and in/outside the universe law views of Paul Davies and at 21:00 David Chalmers thoughts of consciousness. I am glad Robert is willing to concede there’s more than this physical world to explore.
"Morphic resonance" is BS... that has been discredited for the last 40 years.
the only reason i listen to mr. kuhn is because he has a hypnotic voice and it puts me to sleep.
This channel is GOLD.⚱️
Through the entirety of this video, I was expecting it to devolve into an infomercial for some new religion.
There is no law it is a misnomer. Nor is there a need to believe any of what was said. That is science.
@@Brad-il9mw when's the last time that you had a coherent thought?
I suspect all we will find is stranger physics.
It still has the first cause problem. How far can the layers go. And will technology advance far enough to confirm the models.
Probably not in this life maybe the other one.....
@@jackieswan422
Funny !!
Since we can't cross paths. This reality is all we have. Or is another reality all we have.
I think we are making it seem way more complicated than it is.
More “physics” is probably beyond “physics”
A superb programme. The intro, about two minutes gave me goosebumps, absolutely brilliant. Kuhn himself is a treasure and has such a wonderful knowledge of all the Closer To The Truth programmes. Laurence Krauss is a diamond in our society. Absolutely a wonderful programme in a wonderful collection. A tribute to humanity.
Turning Physics into astrology....
LOL, severely underrated comment, this one should have thousands of likes...
Sadhguru will explain all your doubts regarding to the universe 🙌🏻
I have loads of these and I am still none the wiser however at least Rupert Sheldrake does sound poetic even if I have no idea what he is on about.
brilliant series
There is so much beyond physics. So much that we have no idea how much there is beyond it. We already know that metaphysics is beyond physics, but that is just the start.
Thanks for this episode, only for the mention, Roger Penrose and David Deutsch could have added more here.
Very Good discussion.
You may understand how the world WORKS, but you have know clue what it IS.
Michio Kaku is a very good actor!! He has convinced everyone that he is a scientist. He has spent 90% of his time in front of a camera!
Robert truely is truth seeker with golden voice.
Very informative! 👍❤
I'm watching again tomorrow.
Reality is that we are only going to learn as much as God will let us learn!
Physics is everything.
It is a pity that the subtitles do not agree with the voice. For those os us who are not mother tongue, it is a great effort to understand what is said in the video (dialogues) I hope you consider this. Thank you
Best episode for me in the moment!! No boundaries..
Just surprises..
This is quickly becoming my favourite show
Consciousness is everything , physics are inside mind , not outside 💓
Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic ressonance" sounds like it came straight out of ancient Greek philosophy.
We are barely aware of how much we still have to learn
You guys are legend.
Why can't we just appreciate that all that exist is infinity and everything can, and exist in infinity?
Physics is a man made tool for analyzing the physical world. Using that tool we are constantly learning new things associated with the physical world. Our tool is always being improved, and our concepts often changed based on new understanding. For all practical purposes, the universe (with or without anything that may exist beyond), is infinite to us. In other words, our field of discovery is endless and it seems highly likely physics will stick with us till the last physical mystery is unraveled.
Has Paul Davies ever considered that the physical Universe we occupy is just the theoretical opposite of what's outside of it? What's outside of our physical universe likely turned inside out at the time of the big bang.
because world need intelligent people
You think you are getting closer to truth, but the truth keeps receding from you as you progress.
Reality has more to it than just physical elements, it has to have spiritual non-physical elements as well, which ofcourse cannot be comprehended by physicists in its entirety.
I am sure we will make progress on these questions. I wonder though whether it will be in the near future, or whether on the comtrary we can expect a fallow period in our progress comparable to that between Classical Greece and the Scientific Revolution!
Excellent..... thanks 🙏.
David Chalmers' ideas go up to eleven!!
Iam obcessed with this series
Sheldrake is a legend.
Consciousness is Fundamental.
Matter is derivative.
Something like this........😁. The rules of quantum mechanics are fundamental. They assert that the state space of a system is a Hilbert space (crucially, that the space has an inner product) and that observables of the system are Hermitian operators acting on vectors in that space - although they do not tell us which Hilbert space or which operators. These can be chosen appropriately in order to obtain a quantitative description of a quantum system. An important guide for making these choices is the correspondence principle, which states that the predictions of quantum mechanics reduce to those of classical mechanics when a system moves to higher energies or, equivalently, larger quantum numbers, i.e. whereas a single particle exhibits a degree of randomness, in systems incorporating millions of particles averaging takes over and, at the high energy limit, the statistical probability of random behaviour approaches zero. In other words, classical mechanics is simply a quantum mechanics of large systems. This "high energy" limit is known as the classical or correspondence limit. One can even start from an established classical model of a particular system, then try to guess the underlying quantum model that would give rise to the classical model in the correspondence limit
Don't worry, most people have the greatest trouble dealing with ambiguity, let alone differentiating between the point where subjectivity ends and objectivity begins.
Spirituality, Universal Consciousness.