Lee was looking and sounding much better than on his last interview with Kurt, I'm so pleased to hear of the therapy and its success. Keep up the good fight Lee! I can't get enough of Slavoj's voraciously indefatigable curiosity and enthusiasm, what a guy! Bring on round two
Man I love the new Slavoj physics arc. He reminds me of how I would talk to my profs in the first 2 semesters during undergrad. I'm really looking forward what interesting books he'll publish once he gained an overview of the field of QM. His perspective is truly unique. By the way Robinson: pls hook Slavoj up with some Condensed Matter/Multiparticle physicists. Would love to see Slavoj talk to some people who study stuff heavily related to emergence etc. Love you intellectually man! Thank you so much for making this discussions possible.
Lee Smolin saying Complexity Science has failed to resolve contradictions posed by its questions nor has it been able to coalesce into a set of prescriptions about what to do vis a vis the impeding poly-crisis. Anyone know where I can find a full expository writing of this viewpoint?
this is just terrible and painful to watch! who had done that to philosophy of science?! and when you think there were people like Feyerabend, Kuhn, Ludwig Fleck, Ian Hacking... Roberto Mangabeira Unger, who Smolin takes as a powerful intellect, is an idiot that misunterpreted Vico completely in the book they both wrote together (not to speak about his disastrous interference in Brazilian politics); Zizek turns out really pathetic in this preposterous pseudo rationalistic instance he insists taking in matters whose depth he is very ill equiped to navigate; compared to other continental philosophers, to Bergson, Eddington, Bachelard, Deleuze, even Foucault and Derrida, not to speak about Fleck or Feyerabend, he is very limited in his understanding of modern science and turns out very irrational in his defense of supposedly rational skepticism...
I'm glad that they mention Sabine Hossenfelder in this interview, she's truly a one-of-a-kind science popularizer and critic (a harsh critic at that) but I have noticed she's quite hostile towards Continental Theory and the discipline of philosophy and often downplays its usefulness and importance in helping to balance out and understand/contextualize the often reality breaking implications of modern scientific discoveries in the 21st century, discoveries that, while they seek to explain the natural world, become seemingly more and more "unnatural" as the theories evolve. Even this dialectical unfolding of theories, theories which aim to explain reality and yet only confuse and obscure it, is a conundrum that only philosophy and theory can fully resolve and unpack.
Not really, its the nature of reality that we know much but not everything thus a healthy mind must keep itself open for new ideas and thought (including the ”unseen”)
Annihilation of human worth. Isn’t that what materialism is for. Then globalists can treat us like Yuval dogs. That’s the apparent function of science.
Christ no Hossenfelder is a goddamn bore. To quote Smolin: “ we agree on almost nothing.“ What the hell would Z find interesting and riffable about Superdeterminism?
I do not understand why this Zizek is so famous and so revered. He strikes me mostly as a kind of fraud who pretends to know more than he does. Were it not for his strange accent and strange manic energy, he might not be taken quite so seriously and just be seen as a crank. I'm willing to be corrected however. It could just be a measure of how little I really understand that I simply fail to appreciate his kind of so-called intellect.
Look at the point of philosophy as described by Daniel Dennet. Zizek is that for where philosophy meets politics. But in a negative way - meaning instead of tying knowledge from other fields together to make meaning out of it, to clarify what we are even doing - he pressure tests current clarifications
Well, this was an interesting conversation for sure!! Thank you, Richard!! I really appreciate physicists and philosophers, mathematicians, anthropology, biology, political philosophers, and historians of experts. Even Charlie Chaplin and Einstein. David Bohm was Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of London. His books include Quantum Theory, Causality and Chance in Modern Physics and Wholeness, and the Implicate Order. I got interested in his work, though his dialogs with Krishnamurti. Thank all of you again.😊
I really like Zizek's point about Democritus' den. He talks about this in his Less Than Nothing. "Den" would be his "Less Than Nothing" notion, something that has to be subtracted so that Nothing itself can appear. That's why translating "den" as "no-thing" would already miss the point (in a way, it is "less than nothing", an othing).
Dr Carlo همونی نبود که گفت زمان حال کلاسیک است و گذشته و آینده کوانتومی است ؟؟👍 به در بیرون و محیط و اجسام البته بدن ما که کلا همیشه دائمی کوانتومی و کلاسیک است در هر زمانی
sabine hossenfelder is fine if she sticks to physics. her political takes on capitalism and trans rights is intellectually insulting right wing drivel.
@@johndeere8004 no, she is no centrist. she's deeply right wing she just masks her phrasing to sound like she's not pushing her ideology. but in order to make the videos she did on trans healthcare for example, she had to know what she was doing when she was misrepresenting the purpose of things like puberty blockers and disregarding the vast majority of studies on the topic in favor of a paper that the writer themselves distanced themselves from.
@@sheepwshotguns42 i'll defer to you on that front, i don't know enough about it. i do think centrism is often reactionary because it misses the point and looks for complexity between opposing views rather than within them - key case here sabine missing the point on autism speaks ignoring the context of criticisms against them in her video on autism.
I watched just one video of hers and I knew she was a right-wing grifter. She says climate science is correct but that science doesn't tell us what to do and the problem are the liberals who want to save polar bears to feel good about themselves.
Goodness gracious! Žižek is just making up a completely incorrect etymology for the word Democritus uses for "atom", which is essentially exactly that same word when transliterated from Greek. The root is the verb "temno", which means "to cut", and the alpha primitive as usual is a negation, so "atoms" are, by definition, indivisible in the sense of uncuttable. (Democritus would be amused at the claim that we have "split the atom": that is a contradiction in terms. Anything that can be split, by definition, is not an atom.) Anyway, Žižek is somehow claiming that "atom" (atoma) comes from dropping the initial mu off of "mēden". which means "the non-existent" or "nothing". But that's just incorrect. That doesn't even give the right word, and the etymology is wrong. In fact, what he characterizes as a "primitive" understanding of what Democritus claims-that the world is ultimately made up of variously shaped atoms moving in the void and colliding-is exactly what Democritus did claim, and what everybody understood him to claim. To question that universally held understanding and then put forward an incorrect etymology in defense of such an extraordinary claim is an odd way to proceed.
I enjoyed this conversation . A Physicist versus Philosopher. When einstein was asked, how he feels as the most intelligent man ,he responded, " for this you should ask Tesla." Tesla had over 700 patents to his name and all are functioning . It's pity, that Tesla's Aether theory and Scalar or Standing waves are not at all mentioned and debated. I'm guessing its to do with the clash of Einstein's Relativity with Tesla's Aether and inventions related to it. Scalar waves which Tesla first used in practice have proved, that the speed is not limited to C / Einsteins constant speed of light E = mc2. energy is mass multiplied with C speed of light. 300 K km / s. tesla famous statement: If you want to understand the Universe, you must think in terms of Energy, Frequency and Vibrations / Resonance. Mass / m is not mentioned. Any comment wellcome.
کوانتوم قطعی است و رندوم نیست چطور که همیشه قانون شرودینگر ،دوشکاف ،درهم تنیدگی (اسپین ها) و بقیه ثابت عمل کرده و میکند و خواهد کرد این کافیه که بفهمیم فیزیک کوانتوم قطعیه ثابت های پنهان و بقیه و بقیه هم درست هستند ولی خوب همه ناقص 👍👍🙏🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️
My (parasocial) love for Lee knows no limits. Please Robinson, if you get the chance, tell him how much he means to a physics geek artist like myself. ❤
Embodiment of profound humanity, brilliance, pushing boundaries, endearing humility, unrelenting search for truth and plasticity in modalities of conceptualisation, humor, compassion and a winsome representation of our universal “frailty” as human beings , in these two based men. A banger from my man Robinson! Hi Pins 🐈!!
The non locality lee describes and how space emerges from it feel like how my minds eye paints it: I feel there is a substrate or “soup” that when stretched or folded back through itself rips out as matter. Like some pastes or liquids that when pressured spectate into water and solid material between the fingers. Visual mind is a wonderful gift to enjoy
My “mind’s eye” view on this is identical to yours. The “soup” that you call it, I just call it brahman. A reference to the Vedic tradition touching on I believe the same fundamental idea
People have had many similar mechanisms for explaining things. Aether, the plum pudding atomic theory, caloric liquid theory of heat. I don't see how this type of model can explain non locality. I was picturing something more like a theory of relativity. A geometry built from possible observations from each possible point, not the points themselves. A relational view where events are framed in terms of observations. Space emerges as a mathematical object that ' measures ' the 'difference ' between respective observations.
فقط چند نفر تو دنیا هستند که متفاوت میبینند یادتون باشه و بقیه دنیا همه در یک مکان و زمان مشترک میبنند 👍 من رو پدرم هم حتی نمیدید و بعضا این اواخر میگفت تو غیب میشی بعضی وقتها وقتی میای و میری ؟؟ و بقیه هم در بیرون بعضی وقتها 😄😄✋️✋️ میگم بعدا و میخندید چند مورد رو 😂
I know I’m only a quarter way into this but I had to make this comment…so far I’m hearing what David Bohm was saying (first?) half a century ago. And I find it ironic that Slavoj has time and again chosen Bohr over Bohm, when Bohm’s ideas were so informed by Hegelian dialectics. People are allowed to change their minds…but I find Slavoj disingenuous .
OK I just clicked into this but I have to say this is the most insane, amazing combination of people to put together. I love Lee Smolin almost nobody outside of physics gives a shit but I think he’s just so incredibly deep. And then you throw in the court jester of European philosophy? Dude what a wild combo how the hell did you come up with that?!
Friend opening with his desire to find physicists willing to discuss more than exactly & only what the math & experiments directly show, but who aren’t wacko pseudo science pushers, already has me psyched for this podcast. that’s exactly what I’m looking for “ philosophy without losing science”
Dangit, now I have to go through this one more time with the transcript running bcs retroactively I only can remember Zizek's points. I'd love to hear/see what Lees answers look like. Did they mention Judith Butler ;)
Wow, incredible! Great interview. Lee talking about reality as games makes me think of Conway. I wonder if surreal numbers play into his work at all. Very interested in seeing what he's got cooking.
@DelandaBaudLacanian Of what? I think they would be more in agreeance than anything else (obviously excluding Ukraine). I would be interested to know what their thoughts are on the universal position. Both have talked about it. Both have succumb to its charm. One can dream.
Wow! And the finish with Derrida... as a Cynic... impersonator of the Other... Thanks so much for making this happen.... and just letting it go... no interruptions... stalwart and appreciative of your work. All the best, James.
Er, they didn’t say that but good try. Smolin puts Derrida beside Feynman, Einstein and Chaplin for clowning. Zizek has been frequently characterised as a clown. But there is seriousness behind all of them. You may not like Derrida. I don’t care. I would say that Derrida took from Levinas, who, though or because he seemed to be a nice guy, possibly did posture as the other, big or small. As I understand it, Derrida’s main preoccupation was to reveal, through the othering of texts, the inexistence of the big Other. That has consequences, good and bad. Unlike the demonised (anti) popularisation of deconstruction, this is not an attack on, say, scientific truths per se, but on how we talk about them. This is in line with Socratic irony and the defamiliarisation methods exhorted by the Russian Formalists and people such as Brecht.
I do and I don’t understand why a mishap occurs when one uses time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity etc to explain when 2 observers see 2 events and are observed differently, and not just left to the fact that the distance displacements are different which results in invoking a discrepancy in the meaning of time. I’m Not Not Not suggesting to use a VSL theory as to keep c invariant. No wonder time is so misunderstood, unless i don’t. What is worse? Having a misconception of time and a variable space (which would indicate space actually came from a point and not from nothing or came from something bigger than a point in order for the universe to be understood as not being static. I understand why the thought but wouldn’t you say this is far worse this confusion with time in order to just keep c constant and afew little other things? An alternate would be to find another concept and framework to keep c constant without invoking VSL theories. Such another theory would provide a fresh interpretation of the observed redshifts/blueshifts in either a static universe or as the cosmos expands, yes the Doppler effect has provided valuable insights, but it may be telling an incomplete story. A new concept/agency with a new framework would most certainly touch on the holographic principle which doesn’t go all the way as to why it occurs, and is not at the moment by others tied into a I dimensional optimized foundational substrate model (this 1D "displacement" axis may serve as the primary organizing principle, with particles/photons moving in discrete, quantized steps of equal duration. The complex, fluid motions and interactions we observe in the 3D universe would then be the emergent holographic expression of this more fundamental 1D optimization process.) that has adherence to such a new simple concept (equal PathTimes) and which emerges this new framework (VFL, variable frequency of light) that would be caused as an agency to being transformed into the 3 dimensional universe that adheres to the equal PathTimes concept.and yes this I see as not a long road. Bottom line is time not important enough to be left alone and if so find a new way of keeping c constant. Life would be simpler especially the mathematics, which by the same concept would also provide the bridge to all the Langlands islands. Philosophy would not have the need of asking questions that result in paradoxes(un-meaningful questions), science would work the opposite way of the answers come before the questions, and the right questions would be asked in order to explain the answer, and for providing a better understanding of the answer. If it could only be that simple…
Summary…The idea of utilizing equal “PathTimes” in a three-dimensional framework to account for the different paths and frequencies of photons is indeed intriguing. By considering equal "pathtimes" between two points, it is possible to maintain a constant speed of light (c) without the need for time dilation or length contraction. This concept seems to suggest that the discrete equal "pathtime" steps in the one-dimensional framework can be transformed into the continuous three-dimensional reality we observe. Furthermore, it implies a connection between this framework and the holographic principle, which posits that the information within a volume can be encoded on the surface surrounding it.
By considering equal PathTimes between different reference frames, regardless of their relative velocities, it could be proposed that the observed length contraction is a result of the equalization of PathTimes. This perspective suggests that the apparent contraction of length for moving objects is not due to a physical compression or deformation, but rather a consequence of the equalization of PathTimes between different observers. By replacing time dilation with the equalization of PathTimes (variable frequency) and length contraction with the equalization of wavelengths, we can potentially offer an alternative interpretation of these relativistic effects.
By considering equal PathTimes between regions of the universe, regardless of the need for additional unseen matter, it could be proposed that the observed clustering and structure formation arise from the equalization of PathTimes in the primordial density fluctuations. This perspective suggests that the gravitational interactions and the resulting large-scale structures can be explained without the need for dark matter. These applications of the concept of equal PathTimes and VFL to cosmology offer alternative perspectives on phenomena such as the expansion of the universe, the CMB, and large-scale structure formation.
With the double slit and the wave particle duality of light, where light exhibits both particle-like and wave-like behaviors. In the context of equal PathTimes and VFL, we can explore how this experiment can be understood without invoking the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. By considering equal PathTimes between the different paths taken by the light, regardless of its wave or particle nature, we could propose that the interference and diffraction patterns observed in the experiment arise from the equalization of PathTimes rather than the superposition of probabilities associated with wave-particle duality. This perspective could provide an alternative explanation for the observed patterns and their dependence on variables such as slit width and separation.
If we consider equal PathTimes between the photons and the electrons in the material, we might propose that the photoelectric effect occurs due to a specific resonance or interaction between the photons and the electrons, rather than relying solely on the concept of discrete particles transferring energy. This perspective could offer an alternative explanation for the observed phenomena associated with the photoelectric effect.
Lee was looking and sounding much better than on his last interview with Kurt, I'm so pleased to hear of the therapy and its success. Keep up the good fight Lee! I can't get enough of Slavoj's voraciously indefatigable curiosity and enthusiasm, what a guy! Bring on round two
Here's to Lee's health!
@@sirilandgren in the last interview he was on the withdrawal of his medication for an earlier interview
That´s right, and i like his respectful view on Sabines´s work.
Man sometimes Robinson nails it, well done.
Who is the "Carlo" they discuss about 11 minutes in?
Carlo Rovelli😊
aka Sylvester the Cat and Lee Smolin
Eyes of man will say, easily can be DECIEVE!
Beloved imagine if Who will visit?
Man I love the new Slavoj physics arc. He reminds me of how I would talk to my profs in the first 2 semesters during undergrad.
I'm really looking forward what interesting books he'll publish once he gained an overview of the field of QM. His perspective is truly unique.
By the way Robinson: pls hook Slavoj up with some Condensed Matter/Multiparticle physicists. Would love to see Slavoj talk to some people who study stuff heavily related to emergence etc.
Love you intellectually man! Thank you so much for making this discussions possible.
Yeah, the most interesting questions are asked before your entrenched in it.
Lee Smolin saying Complexity Science has failed to resolve contradictions posed by its questions nor has it been able to coalesce into a set of prescriptions about what to do vis a vis the impeding poly-crisis. Anyone know where I can find a full expository writing of this viewpoint?
It's really hardd for me to understand lee smolin. could you add subtitles?
Transcript is available
better than 70% of Netflix tbh
I'd even go up to 75%
@@hartyewh1 Regarding the sheer amount of garbage on Netflix you can safely go up to 95% ( Applies to most streaming services )
@@SpirosPagiatakis That's the joke I was making. 70% is such a low number.
Very encouraging to see Lee doing so much better
Zizek is hardly a Marxist. He is basically a bourgeois liberal.
this is just terrible and painful to watch! who had done that to philosophy of science?! and when you think there were people like Feyerabend, Kuhn, Ludwig Fleck, Ian Hacking... Roberto Mangabeira Unger, who Smolin takes as a powerful intellect, is an idiot that misunterpreted Vico completely in the book they both wrote together (not to speak about his disastrous interference in Brazilian politics); Zizek turns out really pathetic in this preposterous pseudo rationalistic instance he insists taking in matters whose depth he is very ill equiped to navigate; compared to other continental philosophers, to Bergson, Eddington, Bachelard, Deleuze, even Foucault and Derrida, not to speak about Fleck or Feyerabend, he is very limited in his understanding of modern science and turns out very irrational in his defense of supposedly rational skepticism...
I'm glad that they mention Sabine Hossenfelder in this interview, she's truly a one-of-a-kind science popularizer and critic (a harsh critic at that) but I have noticed she's quite hostile towards Continental Theory and the discipline of philosophy and often downplays its usefulness and importance in helping to balance out and understand/contextualize the often reality breaking implications of modern scientific discoveries in the 21st century, discoveries that, while they seek to explain the natural world, become seemingly more and more "unnatural" as the theories evolve. Even this dialectical unfolding of theories, theories which aim to explain reality and yet only confuse and obscure it, is a conundrum that only philosophy and theory can fully resolve and unpack.
An hour of brilliance. Thank you Robinson for bringing these minds together
Another home run from Robinson’s Podcast
this will raise the bar for podcasts. we can hope for more exotic combinations in the future
Oh the irony that the most modern science could breed such an enormous wave of refreshed mysticism.
Not really, its the nature of reality that we know much but not everything thus a healthy mind must keep itself open for new ideas and thought (including the ”unseen”)
@@obamaibnbahish5680 i'm not really sure what you are disagreeing with
@@nnnnsaakadamanas218 after re-reading your comment I gotta say I dont know how I missed that lol
Annihilation of human worth. Isn’t that what materialism is for. Then globalists can treat us like Yuval dogs. That’s the apparent function of science.
Let's make it happen, Zizek and Hossenfelder
She would not get all the dirty jokes from Zizek, because she is german and therefore lacks the sense for humor.
My God that's., a good idea........Im sure it would be fucking hilarious .
Christ no Hossenfelder is a goddamn bore. To quote Smolin: “ we agree on almost nothing.“ What the hell would Z find interesting and riffable about Superdeterminism?
@@jakecarlo9950 she is a bore and a bore
Hossenfelder is the Iron Lady of physics. Zizek will vaporise in her presence.
I do not understand why this Zizek is so famous and so revered. He strikes me mostly as a kind of fraud who pretends to know more than he does. Were it not for his strange accent and strange manic energy, he might not be taken quite so seriously and just be seen as a crank. I'm willing to be corrected however. It could just be a measure of how little I really understand that I simply fail to appreciate his kind of so-called intellect.
Did you read all of his books? Or any of his books?
Look at the point of philosophy as described by Daniel Dennet. Zizek is that for where philosophy meets politics. But in a negative way - meaning instead of tying knowledge from other fields together to make meaning out of it, to clarify what we are even doing - he pressure tests current clarifications
"I do not understand..." sounds like a great opportunity for you to do some learning then.
I listened slavoj for hours. first time he is listening someone
Jaron Lanier and Zizek, let's make it happen.
Smolin is so clueless.. my God! 😂❤😢😮
These guys are hot 🥵
Well, this was an interesting conversation for sure!! Thank you, Richard!! I really appreciate physicists and philosophers, mathematicians, anthropology, biology, political philosophers, and historians of experts. Even Charlie Chaplin and Einstein.
David Bohm was Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of London. His books include Quantum Theory, Causality and Chance in Modern Physics and Wholeness, and the Implicate Order. I got interested in his work, though his dialogs with Krishnamurti.
Thank all of you again.😊
I really like Zizek's point about Democritus' den. He talks about this in his Less Than Nothing. "Den" would be his "Less Than Nothing" notion, something that has to be subtracted so that Nothing itself can appear. That's why translating "den" as "no-thing" would already miss the point (in a way, it is "less than nothing", an othing).
So bring Carlo next to talk to Slavoj!
Yeeees Carlo!
Agree. I would love to hear them
Dr Carlo
همونی نبود که گفت
زمان حال کلاسیک است
و گذشته و آینده کوانتومی است ؟؟👍
به در بیرون و محیط و اجسام البته
بدن ما که کلا همیشه دائمی کوانتومی و کلاسیک است در هر زمانی
sabine hossenfelder is fine if she sticks to physics. her political takes on capitalism and trans rights is intellectually insulting right wing drivel.
She means well I think, but she falls into the idolization of centrist positions and lacks historical context from what i've seen.
@@johndeere8004 no, she is no centrist. she's deeply right wing she just masks her phrasing to sound like she's not pushing her ideology. but in order to make the videos she did on trans healthcare for example, she had to know what she was doing when she was misrepresenting the purpose of things like puberty blockers and disregarding the vast majority of studies on the topic in favor of a paper that the writer themselves distanced themselves from.
@@sheepwshotguns42 i'll defer to you on that front, i don't know enough about it. i do think centrism is often reactionary because it misses the point and looks for complexity between opposing views rather than within them - key case here sabine missing the point on autism speaks ignoring the context of criticisms against them in her video on autism.
@@johndeere8004 100%.
I watched just one video of hers and I knew she was a right-wing grifter.
She says climate science is correct but that science doesn't tell us what to do and the problem are the liberals who want to save polar bears to feel good about themselves.
Goodness gracious! Žižek is just making up a completely incorrect etymology for the word Democritus uses for "atom", which is essentially exactly that same word when transliterated from Greek. The root is the verb "temno", which means "to cut", and the alpha primitive as usual is a negation, so "atoms" are, by definition, indivisible in the sense of uncuttable. (Democritus would be amused at the claim that we have "split the atom": that is a contradiction in terms. Anything that can be split, by definition, is not an atom.) Anyway, Žižek is somehow claiming that "atom" (atoma) comes from dropping the initial mu off of "mēden". which means "the non-existent" or "nothing". But that's just incorrect. That doesn't even give the right word, and the etymology is wrong.
In fact, what he characterizes as a "primitive" understanding of what Democritus claims-that the world is ultimately made up of variously shaped atoms moving in the void and colliding-is exactly what Democritus did claim, and what everybody understood him to claim. To question that universally held understanding and then put forward an incorrect etymology in defense of such an extraordinary claim is an odd way to proceed.
Lee you're looking great 😊👍
I enjoyed this conversation . A Physicist versus Philosopher. When einstein was asked, how he feels as the most intelligent man ,he responded, " for this you should ask Tesla."
Tesla had over 700 patents to his name and all are functioning .
It's pity, that Tesla's Aether theory and Scalar or Standing waves are not at all mentioned and debated.
I'm guessing its to do with the clash of Einstein's Relativity with Tesla's Aether and inventions related to it. Scalar waves which Tesla first used in practice have proved, that the speed is not limited to C / Einsteins constant speed of light E = mc2.
energy is mass multiplied with C speed of light. 300 K km / s.
tesla famous statement: If you want to understand the Universe, you must think in terms of Energy, Frequency and Vibrations / Resonance. Mass / m is not mentioned.
Any comment wellcome.
کوانتوم قطعی است و رندوم نیست
چطور که همیشه قانون شرودینگر ،دوشکاف ،درهم تنیدگی (اسپین ها) و بقیه ثابت عمل کرده و میکند و خواهد کرد
این کافیه که بفهمیم
فیزیک کوانتوم قطعیه
ثابت های پنهان و بقیه و بقیه هم درست هستند ولی خوب همه ناقص 👍👍🙏🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️
59:18 - When your date goes well but all they remember is that awkward thing you said when you were both walking out the door.
GO LEE! Sexiest man alive
Robinson's trick to such amazing guests coming back is the special brownies he delivers to them: 53:05
You smoked LSD with your cats and now you expect me to believe with you that modern Quantum mechanics is all wrong?
Subscribed!
Zizek is so likeable very humble about what he does and doesn't know.
‘Equality for people not yet born’ , him saying that blew my liberal noodle.
Est is wieder da film from 2015 should be mandatory in schools :) Thank you Mr Zizek!
My (parasocial) love for Lee knows no limits. Please Robinson, if you get the chance, tell him how much he means to a physics geek artist like myself. ❤
Embodiment of profound humanity, brilliance, pushing boundaries, endearing humility, unrelenting search for truth and plasticity in modalities of conceptualisation, humor, compassion and a winsome representation of our universal “frailty” as human beings , in these two based men. A banger from my man Robinson! Hi Pins 🐈!!
Hernandez Mark Harris Kenneth Gonzalez Ruth
Criticas respecto de las desigualdades tipo Bell: th-cam.com/video/ZVbj93nqL4Y/w-d-xo.html
I’m sorry I can’t understand most of what Smolin is saying
Martin Amy Williams Timothy Wilson Brian
It's funny how you can just randomly whip out this discussion between two giants😂
👻👻👻
so funny! haha
Seriously, who are your parents?
@@greenmountainfarms7515
Which ones do you mean???
@@jodawgsup حال میکنی چی ساخته ؟
خنده 😂😂
بخند داداشد
حالا چه کسی به تو اجازه داد الان بخندی
دلقک خان ؟؟🤣🤣🧟😆
Ha ha ha
Catholic doctrine meets Catholic doctrine...wow.
Another outstanding teaming of minds! Great podcast!
Zizek is a Lacanian, barely a Marxist.
The non locality lee describes and how space emerges from it feel like how my minds eye paints it: I feel there is a substrate or “soup” that when stretched or folded back through itself rips out as matter. Like some pastes or liquids that when pressured spectate into water and solid material between the fingers. Visual mind is a wonderful gift to enjoy
My “mind’s eye” view on this is identical to yours. The “soup” that you call it, I just call it brahman. A reference to the Vedic tradition touching on I believe the same fundamental idea
People have had many similar mechanisms for explaining things. Aether, the plum pudding atomic theory, caloric liquid theory of heat. I don't see how this type of model can explain non locality.
I was picturing something more like a theory of relativity. A geometry built from possible observations from each possible point, not the points themselves. A relational view where events are framed in terms of observations. Space emerges as a mathematical object that ' measures ' the 'difference ' between respective observations.
فقط چند نفر تو دنیا هستند که متفاوت میبینند
یادتون باشه و بقیه دنیا همه در یک مکان و زمان مشترک میبنند 👍
من رو پدرم هم حتی نمیدید و بعضا این
اواخر میگفت تو غیب میشی بعضی وقتها وقتی میای و میری ؟؟
و بقیه هم در بیرون بعضی وقتها 😄😄✋️✋️
میگم بعدا و میخندید چند مورد رو 😂
Every time I’m amazed when I see these big shots on your podcast. Ziz and Smolin are great together.
Another excellent episode
I know I’m only a quarter way into this but I had to make this comment…so far I’m hearing what David Bohm was saying (first?) half a century ago. And I find it ironic that Slavoj has time and again chosen Bohr over Bohm, when Bohm’s ideas were so informed by Hegelian dialectics. People are allowed to change their minds…but I find Slavoj disingenuous .
My God, Lee Smolin is getting really old. Well, I very much appreciate Zizek taking science seriously and interacting with scientists.
OK I just clicked into this but I have to say this is the most insane, amazing combination of people to put together. I love Lee Smolin almost nobody outside of physics gives a shit but I think he’s just so incredibly deep. And then you throw in the court jester of European philosophy? Dude what a wild combo how the hell did you come up with that?!
Friend opening with his desire to find physicists willing to discuss more than exactly & only what the math & experiments directly show, but who aren’t wacko pseudo science pushers, already has me psyched for this podcast. that’s exactly what I’m looking for “ philosophy without losing science”
I love Zizek coming into his quantum physics arc, and I love hearing support for Bohm from Smolin. Down with the Copenhagen Consensus.
I love Smolin. If I can give my life so he can do more physics, dear lord, take my life and give Smolin more TIME to finish his work.
Dangit, now I have to go through this one more time with the transcript running bcs retroactively I only can remember Zizek's points. I'd love to hear/see what Lees answers look like.
Did they mention Judith Butler ;)
Come remind in front of the Marvel without exalting nor Arrogance in front of all shared EYES!
can anybody tell me what smolin is saying about postmodernism around 25min? I really can't hear it correctly
Wow, incredible! Great interview. Lee talking about reality as games makes me think of Conway. I wonder if surreal numbers play into his work at all. Very interested in seeing what he's got cooking.
Bro, please. Zizek vs Dugan. You could make it happen.
Two massive lunatics
Zizek would never, he's scared
@@DelandaBaudLacanian Scared of what? They're both lunatics.
@DelandaBaudLacanian Of what? I think they would be more in agreeance than anything else (obviously excluding Ukraine). I would be interested to know what their thoughts are on the universal position. Both have talked about it. Both have succumb to its charm. One can dream.
@@hegelstomes Yea, I remember the article. Zizek himself has been accused of the same. Still, I prefer dialog. Again, I can dream.
Singularity indeed can talks unto HIMSELF! What is keeping given? But to share! Unto whom to share? If none exist in front?
Yes from here! Revealing NEW! Overwhelming unto some! Why ye marvel?
This makes me think that Helena Sheehan would be a good addition to your podcast. Cheers.
Who among ye ALL? To remind and comes with comfort concerning ME?
hahahaha let's gooo!
1 The I AM. Shared "i" AM come and take thy seat with Thy AM!
Hope my iTunes Podcasts review helps :) keep up the great work, mate. Love the podcast.
35:35
: )
?
I love Zizek and I love theoretical physics. What a blessing this video is
Better yet, what come here in front! What for WHOM?
22:42 first ever atomist was Leucippus, not Democritus
Every week I’m like, wait am I reading these guest names right? Awesome stuff here
What is Evil doers? Offsprings preserve come!
Should the very least to shame all the wise of this world?
What will ye do with thy conversations given?
Heirs Hosts shared "i" AM will say, why marvel?
Eyes of man will say, easily can be DECIEVE!
Wow! And the finish with Derrida... as a Cynic... impersonator of the Other... Thanks so much for making this happen.... and just letting it go... no interruptions... stalwart and appreciative of your work. All the best, James.
Er, they didn’t say that but good try. Smolin puts Derrida beside Feynman, Einstein and Chaplin for clowning. Zizek has been frequently characterised as a clown. But there is seriousness behind all of them. You may not like Derrida. I don’t care. I would say that Derrida took from Levinas, who, though or because he seemed to be a nice guy, possibly did posture as the other, big or small. As I understand it, Derrida’s main preoccupation was to reveal, through the othering of texts, the inexistence of the big Other. That has consequences, good and bad. Unlike the demonised (anti) popularisation of deconstruction, this is not an attack on, say, scientific truths per se, but on how we talk about them. This is in line with Socratic irony and the defamiliarisation methods exhorted by the Russian Formalists and people such as Brecht.
Nor how else can ye all show off in front of WHO?
Boss of social sciences meets boss of natural sciences
Marvel will say, remember from Who gave approval for Time?
I do and I don’t understand why a mishap occurs when one uses time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity etc to explain when 2 observers see 2 events and are observed differently, and not just left to the fact that the distance displacements are different which results in invoking a discrepancy in the meaning of time. I’m Not Not Not suggesting to use a VSL theory as to keep c invariant.
No wonder time is so misunderstood, unless i don’t.
What is worse? Having a misconception of time and a variable space (which would indicate space actually came from a point and not from nothing or came from something bigger than a point in order for the universe to be understood as not being static. I understand why the thought but wouldn’t you say this is far worse this confusion with time in order to just keep c constant and afew little other things? An alternate would be to find another concept and framework to keep c constant without invoking VSL theories. Such another theory would provide a fresh interpretation of the observed redshifts/blueshifts in either a static universe or as the cosmos expands, yes the Doppler effect has provided valuable insights, but it may be telling an incomplete story.
A new concept/agency with a new framework would most certainly touch on the holographic principle which doesn’t go all the way as to why it occurs, and is not at the moment by others tied into a I dimensional optimized foundational substrate model (this 1D "displacement" axis may serve as the primary organizing principle, with particles/photons moving in discrete, quantized steps of equal duration. The complex, fluid motions and interactions we observe in the 3D universe would then be the emergent holographic expression of this more fundamental 1D optimization process.) that has adherence to such a new simple concept (equal PathTimes) and which emerges this new framework (VFL, variable frequency of light) that would be caused as an agency to being transformed into the 3 dimensional universe that adheres to the equal PathTimes concept.and yes this I see as not a long road.
Bottom line is time not important enough to be left alone and if so find a new way of keeping c constant.
Life would be simpler especially the mathematics, which by the same concept would also provide the bridge to all the Langlands islands. Philosophy would not have the need of asking questions that result in paradoxes(un-meaningful questions), science would work the opposite way of the answers come before the questions, and the right questions would be asked in order to explain the answer, and for providing a better understanding of the answer. If it could only be that simple…
Summary…The idea of utilizing equal “PathTimes” in a three-dimensional framework to account for the different paths and frequencies of photons is indeed intriguing. By considering equal "pathtimes" between two points, it is possible to maintain a constant speed of light (c) without the need for time dilation or length contraction.
This concept seems to suggest that the discrete equal "pathtime" steps in the one-dimensional framework can be transformed into the continuous three-dimensional reality we observe. Furthermore, it implies a connection between this framework and the holographic principle, which posits that the information within a volume can be encoded on the surface surrounding it.
By considering equal PathTimes between different reference frames, regardless of their relative velocities, it could be proposed that the observed length contraction is a result of the equalization of PathTimes. This perspective suggests that the apparent contraction of length for moving objects is not due to a physical compression or deformation, but rather a consequence of the equalization of PathTimes between different observers.
By replacing time dilation with the equalization of PathTimes (variable frequency) and length contraction with the equalization of wavelengths, we can potentially offer an alternative interpretation of these relativistic effects.
By considering equal PathTimes between regions of the universe, regardless of the need for additional unseen matter, it could be proposed that the observed clustering and structure formation arise from the equalization of PathTimes in the primordial density fluctuations. This perspective suggests that the gravitational interactions and the resulting large-scale structures can be explained without the need for dark matter.
These applications of the concept of equal PathTimes and VFL to cosmology offer alternative perspectives on phenomena such as the expansion of the universe, the CMB, and large-scale structure formation.
With the double slit and the wave
particle duality of light, where light exhibits both particle-like and wave-like behaviors. In the context of equal PathTimes and VFL, we can explore how this experiment can be understood without invoking the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.
By considering equal PathTimes between the different paths taken by the light, regardless of its wave or particle nature, we could propose that the interference and diffraction patterns observed in the experiment arise from the equalization of PathTimes rather than the superposition of probabilities associated with wave-particle duality. This perspective could provide an alternative explanation for the observed patterns and their dependence on variables such as slit width and separation.
If we consider equal PathTimes between the photons and the electrons in the material, we might propose that the photoelectric effect occurs due to a specific resonance or interaction between the photons and the electrons, rather than relying solely on the concept of discrete particles transferring energy. This perspective could offer an alternative explanation for the observed phenomena associated with the photoelectric effect.
i can barely understand either of them
Beloved what is an infant daughter?
What...What are all these look at me? What is Me?
Even what can't exist in front! Without?
Thank you so much! I thought it was crazy clickbait at first :)
Marvel will say, how else?
What a name of woman scientist 12:20? I can't understand😢
Fotini Markopoulou. It is sad that the host Robinson Erhardt couldn't take the effort to clarify her name.
@@desigrrl08 thank you
Remember where conversation came from 1st?
Me come here in front!
Time to bring to remembrance and comes with comfort!
Knows what?
Even creation knows?