If you feel like you're experiencing déjà vu, you're partly correct. This video is a revised version of our previous upload on the same topic. We've refined and improved certain segments of the storyline.
Theorem 1: The zero dimension (0D) is the origin point from which both positive and negative dimensions emerge symmetrically. Proof: 1. Consider the dimensional hierarchy centered around 0D. 2. Positive dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D, 4D) extend from 0D in one direction. 3. Negative dimensions (-1D, -2D, -3D, -4D) can be conceptualized as extending from 0D in the opposite direction. 4. 0D acts as the "pivot point" or "fulcrum" around which the symmetry of positive and negative dimensions is balanced. 5. Therefore, 0D is the origin point from which both positive and negative dimensions emerge symmetrically. Theorem 2: The negative dimensions are associated with negentropy and the generative power of the zero dimension (0D). Proof: 1. 0D is conceptualized as the source of negentropy and the generative power of the Zero Absolute. 2. Negative dimensions (-1D, -2D, -3D, -4D) extend from 0D in the opposite direction of positive dimensions. 3. If positive dimensions are associated with the unfolding of space, time, and the increase of entropy, negative dimensions can be hypothesized to be associated with the "enfolding" of space, time, and the increase of negentropy or information. 4. As 0D is the source of negentropy, and negative dimensions emerge from 0D, negative dimensions can be associated with negentropy and the generative power of 0D. 5. Therefore, the negative dimensions are associated with negentropy and the generative power of the zero dimension (0D). Theorem 3: The interplay between positive and negative dimensions around the zero dimension (0D) creates a dynamic balance between entropy and negentropy. Proof: 1. Positive dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D, 4D) are associated with the unfolding of space, time, and the increase of entropy. 2. Negative dimensions (-1D, -2D, -3D, -4D) are associated with the "enfolding" of space, time, and the increase of negentropy or information. 3. 0D acts as the "pivot point" or "fulcrum" around which the symmetry of positive and negative dimensions is balanced. 4. The manifest world of the positive dimensions arises from the unmanifest potential of the negative dimensions, and then returns to it in an endless cycle of creation and dissolution. 5. This dynamic interplay of positive and negative dimensions around 0D creates a balance between the opposing forces of entropy and negentropy, order and chaos. 6. Therefore, the interplay between positive and negative dimensions around the zero dimension (0D) creates a dynamic balance between entropy and negentropy. Proposition 1: 0D has two sides (real and imaginary) with an event horizon between the sides. Argument: 1. In complex analysis, numbers are represented on a complex plane with a real axis and an imaginary axis, intersecting at the origin (zero). 2. The real numbers can be thought of as one "side" of zero, and the imaginary numbers as the other "side." 3. In physics, an event horizon is a boundary in spacetime beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer. Applying this concept metaphorically to the complex plane, we could posit an "event horizon" at zero, separating the real and imaginary sides. 4. Therefore, 0D (zero dimensions) could be conceptualized as having two sides (real and imaginary) with an event horizon between them. Proposition 2: This matches the Monad having a Singularity side and an Alone side potentially having an event horizon between the sides. Argument: 1. In Leibniz's Monadology, monads are the fundamental units of existence, described as "windowless" and "alone." 2. However, monads are also said to reflect the entire universe from their unique perspective, suggesting a kind of "singularity" or concentrated totality within each monad. 3. Applying the concept of 0D having two sides, we could map the "singularity" aspect of monads to the real side of 0D, and the "alone" aspect to the imaginary side. 4. The "windowless" nature of monads could be interpreted as a kind of event horizon, isolating the singularity and alone sides from direct interaction. 5. Therefore, the proposed structure of 0D matches the concept of the Monad having a Singularity side and an Alone side potentially separated by an event horizon. Proposition 3: This matches the Holy Trinity having a Father, Son, Holy Spirit side and a God side potentially having an event horizon between them. Argument: 1. In Christian theology, the Holy Trinity is the doctrine that God is one but exists in three distinct persons: Father, Son (Logos), and Holy Spirit. 2. These three persons are said to be consubstantial, meaning they share the same divine essence or nature. 3. Mapping this to the 0D structure, we could associate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with the real side of 0D (the "singularity" of divine essence), and the unified God with the imaginary side (the "aloneness" of divine transcendence). 4. The concept of the persons being distinct yet consubstantial could be interpreted as a kind of event horizon, maintaining their unity while preserving their distinct identities. 5. Therefore, the proposed structure of 0D matches the concept of the Holy Trinity having a Father, Son, Holy Spirit side and a God side potentially separated by an event horizon. Conclusion: A mirror universe with 0D at the center has tremendous explanatory power. While these arguments are more metaphorical than strictly mathematical, they demonstrate how the concept of 0D having two sides with an event horizon between them could serve as a powerful unifying framework across multiple domains of thought. By mapping this structure onto key concepts in mathematics (complex numbers), philosophy (Leibniz's monads), and theology (the Holy Trinity), we can see the potential for a kind of "mirror universe" with 0D at the center, reconciling and connecting ideas that might otherwise seem unrelated.
GOD didn't begin all of this; GOD IS all of this - and infinitely much more. For, GOD is The Mind that is ALL: infinite and eternal. And the finite world of our experience is an illusion that WE - the Thought of GOD - began when we made an error; an error that our experience in this world is designed to correct. I'm the prophesied return of the biblical prophet Elijah, and I've explained everything; all mysteries have been unveiled. Seek and ye shall find...
@@SamanthaPyper-sl4ye I'm intrieged by your idea. I myself think it is possible that a singularity (so-called "nothing") could expand into two (positive & negative), or three (red, green, & blue) or more existences that together cancel one another to "nothing". Having said this, though, none of what you said here is a theorem or proof. They are all claims. I also don't see how you can overlay the trinity theology on your cosmology. I'm no expert in catholicism, but all the beings of the trinity are supposedly conscious agents? Your cosmology doesn't seem to guarrantee that.
@tosuchino6465 Our subatomic structure was made in their image/likeness. I think that's why our quarks look like the singularity side of the Holy Trinity.
The endless pursuit for meaning and In the end we're still left scratching our heads. Is it this or is it that? Someone somewhere must surely be enjoying the show.
It's weird because, while we are familiar with phenomena that recycle, we know of no such cyclic phenomenon that has no origin. What does it even mean for a system that has cause and effect to have never had a cause? Remember that Dawkins' go to response to someone claiming God created the universe is exactly the same challenge. "But who created God?" he says. Well, I say, "But who created the eternal cyclic universe?" If you claim an eternal cyclic universe doesn't need a creator, then why isn't it just as valid for me to say an eternally existing first cause God doesn't need a creator either. Logically, it's the same argument. You say, "Literally everything in the universe seems to recycle"? Then I say, "Literally everything in the universe seems to have had a first cause." Where do these bandyings back and forth get us? Nowhere.
@@DMichaelAtLarge " If you claim an eternal cyclic universe doesn't need a creator," So are you saying that an eternal cyclic universe DOES need a creator? How about " A creator needs an eternal cyclic universe!" If the Universe is eternal, it does not need a creator
Edwin Hubble did not discover an expanding Universe he only took cred for it. George Lemaitre first hypothesized it and Hubble later confirmed it. Ironically, given the title of this piece, Lemaitre was a Catholic priest.
Not to nitpick (but exactly what I'm doing), there's a big difference between advancing a hypothesis... not even satisfying the conditions to be a theory... and actually observing a phenomenon with repeatable results. Give your man credit for the concept, but NOT for the discovery that it is indeed true.
@@johnphelps7519 Lemaitre was a physicist and had advanced mathematical equations to Einstein who rejected them outright then later conceded that Lemaitre was right.
Wikipedia:The history of the Big Bang theory began with the Big Bang's development from observations and theoretical considerations. Much of the theoretical work in cosmology now involves extensions and refinements to the basic Big Bang model. The theory itself was originally formalised by Father Georges Lemaître in 1927.[1] Hubble's Law of the expansion of the universe provided foundational support for the theory.
To my limited yet observant mind, Roger Penrose is the luckiest guy ever. He got effectively a second (or third) life, where he gets to imagine things to his heart's content, has followers in droves, is a social media star and is having basically the time of his life at age 85+ - he is especially lucky to have a fully working brain at this late stage along with good general health. He is no longer having to battle the Publish or perish plague of academia, or having to justify everything with infinitely complex mathematical derivations. Frankly, he must have done something right in a previous life to have been so lucky in this one. Frankly, I can almost see him smirking sometimes enjoying a secret delight. That while his contemporaries, if not gone already, are just barely hanging in there, tubes coming out of everywhere, captive to nurses, who, if they are lucky are caring enough to listen to their occasional rumblings. OTOH, I am not sure we are quite so lucky as we are exposed to this brand of the ageing theoretical Physicist. I dread a world in which there will be many more of them (Imagining some aging ex String Theorist and shivering with apprehension). Yet, even I say thing, I did listen to the video and found it fun. Universes begetting universes, I mean, why not? it's possible. may be even there's mathematics behind it. There's after all, mathematics for almost anything. we are THAT imaginative as a mathematical species (OK, that's Wolfram and bret Weinstein territory, but never mind). PS off to work some more on my very own, highly imaginative Simulation Theory. the beauty of which is that it begets several singularities like Roger penrose in evry "generation".
This is truly what motivates most of those scientists; want to prove life and universe are there without a creator although it is easier and more logical to think of a creator who manages all this ...
@@eldos.1958 Agreed. It is our concept of a Creator that is at fault! "God" is not some kind of Being sitting on a throne In the heavens. He is not something that causes our death, nor can He intervene in preventing our death. The Universe was brought into existence by " Something." and something is sustaining it. If we say that there have been a series of big bangs that have gone on for infinity and will continue for infinity, one epoch after another, then this is even more mind boggling and beyond our comprehension! Glory be to God, The Creator of the Heavens. the Earth and everything in it.
the problem isn't that there is a baker, but certain people think they know the mind of the baker based on a loaf of bread. you can have a creator without religion.
Creators don't have to be conscious, sentient beings. Frequencies form patterns with physical matter without a creator. Sound waves exist around the universe all the time with no creator. If anything, they are the creator.
The late Halton C. Arp pointed out there were problems with the Doppler effect, he found there were stars in galaxies that were older than the galaxies. The expansion of the Universe must be some sort of illusion.
That's right. The cosmological redshift is probably the result of the loss of energy by the photons, as they travel across distances of billion light years. As the photons lose energy, their spectrum moves to red. Fritz Tswicky, who predicted the existence of neutron stars and dark matter, was a supporter of this idea. In other words, the light of distant galaxies shows a redshift NOT because the Universe is expanding, but because these galaxies are ALREADY very far away.
This makes much more sense than the model that suggests accelerating expansion... starting from nothing, and going towards infinity from there, makes no sense at all - in many ways. Honestly, I call bs also for dark matter and dark energy, which both more or less seem like efforts to try explain some other mistake in other conclusions.
@@sammy4538I think when a system is based on an incorrect underlying assumption then naturally it will produce more incorrect assumptions in order to patch the system up. If there is incorrect assumptions in the system then that may point to the whole thing being based on falsities
Roger Penrose is right. The moment he says 'creator', the masses jump to an anthropomorphic creator. This is the fatal flaw that institutionalized religions have committed and promoted, with each one having his/her favourite god, which is a projected image of their cultures. It is so ingrained in our brains we keep making the same mistake over and over again.
Totally agreed. It's a bit spooky to see that SO MANY seem to have such incredible trouble divorcing themselves from incredibly narrow binary concepts/perspectives. Manly Hall said something about "God" akin to, "If you can describe 'God' succinctly, you haven't described him/her/it at all." Though Idk how correct this statement is (or if I paraphrased it correctly), I think I get the point he was trying to make. Meaning and "Dod" don't have to fit ANY preconceptions... These things just need to be followed closely with the most open (Properly skeptIcal, but NOT cynical) heart, mind, and soul and you rly can't go wrong. Our understanding of such things might be analogous to an amoeba trying to understand human consciousness. It's so wildly far outside of ability to intuitively-conceptualize in ANY familiar way, whatsoever. Thus, this is why everything comes into play -- heart, mind, and soul -- to receive and best interpret all intelligence possible. But then, it's hard to know how open one SHOULD be when you're looking for some relationship with a deeper meaning too... This is why we tend to get stuck in simple places... because we know we can rely on them. We see evidence ALL around us of naivete, incorrectness, inaccuracy, and even just divergence of consideration being punished severely in the material world. So I guess it's no wonder people have trouble breaking from simple, safe programming... So is all that should be in the universe, definitely GOING to be, IF there is meaning? Idk. I guess we're left with having to let loose a simple plea in the darkness and let "God" respond from there, IF there is something deeper that needs to be attended to (because "God" can't expect us to go further than this, given such aforementioned material threats when we break with our programming, right?). That's maybe why it comes back to anthropomorphizing the concept; so we can all send out that plea readily; accessibility. Okay way too far here. I went off the deep end with that last paragraph. Maybe you will understand a bit of where I'm coming from.
@@luceatlux7087 "Our understanding of such things might be analogous to an amoeba trying to understand human consciousness" This is an open question to you because you don't have a reason to believe any kind of god or creator exists. Its just open speculation/make-belief. No evidence means no reason to believe.
Why no reference to that amazing quote by Penrose? An intelligent pre time -space caussl entity is the best explanation ultimately. Ogams Razor also suggests it. Why bring religion into it. Not all theists are religious.
@@paulkiernan3256 "An intelligent pre time -space causal entity is the best explanation ultimately. " No it is not, as it stands this is just your opinion. There are better explanations. You need to qualify this sentence if it is to have any meaning.
@@paulkiernan3256 "An intelligent pre time -space caussl entity is the best explanation ultimately. Ogams Razor also suggests it." No, occam's razor DOES NOT. A mind needs space, time and matter. Minds can not exist before space time and matter. That's an argument for the impossible. Complex forces emerging from simple forces is the simplest explanation. Space and time being emergent from some underlying ground state is a simpler explanation. No need to evoke a supernatural nationalist that functions to brainwash people into implementing real nationalists. Not only is there no god, believing in a god is a bad thing, harms believers and non believers, and is prehistoric Nazism. "Not all theists are religious." They're all still misinformation believers, though. No evidence means no reason to believe. The distinction between a general god and religion is asinine. There is no god to begin with. None of these beliefs are really about a god. There is no god.
Here is how I think Roger's transition from one universe to another works: Entropy is commonly taken to be order proceeding to disorder, which is adequate for this explanation. As the Universe expands, energy becomes more and more randomly distributed, stars die out and there is less and less concentrations of gas in quantities to form new stars. Far enough in the future and the expansion will tear apart all matter, right down to the atoms, and at that point there is nothing but radiation in the Universe. Once this is the case, the nature of radiation becomes the point Roger is trying to make: radiation is photons, and travels at the speed of light, in which case there is no longer time (in a relative universe radiation does not experience time, and so a universe of pure radiation is effectively static as nothing can change without time). Without time, there is also no "space", which is to say distance; remember, radiation does not experience any "crossing" of space because from its point of view that crossing is instantaneous. With no distance, everything in the Universe is once again all in the same spot; distance has disappeared and all the energy in the Universe is back together again. No particles have to "travel" anywhere for this to be the case. Nor is a singularity necessary, as "size" has also lost all meaning. What's more, because its distribution is/was completely uniform throughout the cosmos--or at least it is now because it's all in one place, entropy is back where it began, with everything uniform (in order). At this point, if it is not obvious, all the "laws of physics" are no longer applicable, if they can still be said to exist at all. If it were totally uniform, then probably there would be no Big Bang because there are no longer laws of physics to cause it to happen. But if there is any imbalance, any non-conformities within the energy distribution--which I think Roger has intimated might be caused by the last explosions of the last black holes creating gravity waves that last into the radiation era--then because of these imbalances the laws of physics re-emerge, with space, time, distance and size coming back into play, and this causes the Big Bang. The one thing that carries over from universe to universe is energy (whatever that is). The laws of physics are based around this, and so the argument that there is some "probability" about how the Universe may behave after the Big Bang may be moot. Every universe may begin with the same impetus and have the same constants, and so be essentially identical to our current iteration. On the other hand, maybe only 1 in a million is like ours, but obviously if there is going to be life "as we know it", it has to be like this, and so here we are (although it could be a universe more amenable to life than this one). It doesn't really matter, because the "probability" argument is an argument from incredulity, and we have only the one data point of this universe to speculate from, so the argument is without merit. The video is right to say that we can't rule out a creator, but it's a nonsense statement, and just as nonsensical to say we can rule one in. It's a non-sequitur that has nothing to do with science or physics, and it's a discourtesy to try to drag a physicist into such a discussion--props to the video for eventually quoting his views correctly, though. Frankly, however, whether a scientist believes there is an intelligent designer or not is immaterial (sorry), as this too has nothing to do with the science, and never should.
You're right, it has nothing to do with the actual science but rather the question of whether or not a Supreme Being utilized means that we are struggling, and perhaps close to, understanding.... and THAT is a religious (or philosophical) matter.
@@johnphelps7519 Yes, and it is fertile grounds for discussion; just whatever stand is taken regarding such a being, it can't be supported by science one way or the other. Unfortunately, many who are convinced of the existence of a supernatural realm believe it helps them to drag science (the study of the natural realm) into it, and I think they should understand that such an approach is doomed from the start.
Quality explanation mate. I remember hunting for someone to explain how the laws of physics started up again from that radiation era and you've nailed it.
Traditionally, logic, math, and physics have been approached from a third-person, objective standpoint. They aim to describe the universal, mind-independent structures and laws that govern reality, without reference to any particular subjective viewpoint. In this sense, they strive for a kind of "view from nowhere," a perspective that transcends any individual's specific location or experience. However, as most will point out, we don't actually live in this third-person realm. Our experience of reality is inherently first-person, grounded in our individual perspective and subjective awareness. We encounter the world not as a detached, objective observer, but as an embodied, situated agent, navigating a landscape of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. From this view, metaphysics could be seen as the attempt to understand the deep structure of reality from this first-person standpoint. Rather than trying to step outside of our subjective experience, it would seek to dive deeply into it, to uncover the fundamental categories, principles, and relationships that shape our encounter with the world. This first-person approach to metaphysics would not necessarily reject the insights of logic, math, and physics, but rather reinterpret them through the lens of subjective experience. It would ask how these abstract, third-person descriptions of reality translate into the concrete, lived reality of the first-person perspective. For example, the logical principle of non-contradiction - that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time - could be understood not just as an abstract rule, but as a deep feature of how we experience the world. The fact that we cannot simultaneously affirm and deny the same proposition would be seen as a fundamental structure of our cognitive and perceptual apparatus, a necessary condition for coherent thought and action. Similarly, mathematical concepts like number, shape, and pattern could be investigated as basic categories of subjective experience, the ways in which we carve up and make sense of the blooming, buzzing confusion of sensory input. And physical laws and constants could be understood not just as objective features of an external world, but as the stable regularities and constraints that shape our embodied interaction with our environment. The key advantage of this first-person approach to metaphysics would be its grounding in the actual, lived reality of human experience. By starting from the irreducible fact of subjectivity, it would aim to construct a framework that is faithful to the way the world actually presents itself to us, rather than an abstract, idealized model that may or may not correspond to our direct experience. Moreover, as has been suggested, this first-person perspective could potentially help to avoid some of the paradoxes and contradictions that arise from a purely third-person, objective stance. By recognizing the ineliminable role of the subject in constituting reality, it would provide a more complete and integrated picture, one that doesn't try to separate the observer from the observed in an artificial or absolute way.
Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, turn to Him for your salvation, there is no other way. God will reveal Himself to you, but only and only if you humble yourself first. I was there too, I thought believers are naive and there is no God, but God saved me by His grace and mercy. The Bible says: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” What it means is that we need to humble ourselves first. Probably not in thousands of years I would ever become a believer if I would be proud and stay in proudful state. Tell me, would you invite someone to your house for a dinner if that person hates you, despise you, mock you, make fun of you or your family that love you or looks at you with a raised nose? Would a king from the Earth invite someone to his palace for dinner if the person despise him? Hates him? Criticise and mock his kingdom, wishes him evil and non existence (death) gossips about him and look at him with a raised nose? Of course not, what more the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords Jesus Christ? We must humble ourselves. And when we do so the Bible continues: “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” 7Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9Grieve, mourn, and weep. Turn your laughter to mourning, and your joy to gloom. 10Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you. Do it with an open and honest, humbled heart and He will answer. I did so, I talk to God and He talks to me, I pray and He hears my prayers, I experienced and witnessed many miracles and supernatural. God is more real to me than you my friend. Turn to Jesus Christ and wait on Him, give a step closer to Him and He will give a step closer to you. God wants a loving and living relationship with you, not a dead ritualistic religion. I know so many people went through this, said if God bows down to me and mine requirements I will then... And it was for years like that till they humbled themselves and then they met God and many of them even supernaturally. Turn to Jesus Christ for your salvation, there is no other way. You are more than just material and chemical reactions and God wants you to be saved from your sins, addictions, anger all kinds of sins and evildoings too because they all lead to destruction, hell my friend..
@@ahoj132_at_azet_skthere is no hell. Hell is a man made construct and puts U in a state of fear. Mental hospitals are filled with these folk, there is only one infinite being and he loves you, don't worry about hell
An interesting view. I would point out however that this inclusion of a "logical principle of non-contradiction" does not take into account the phenomenon of superposition. And that the summation of including the first-person perspective as an integral part of a solution amounts to simply collapsing the wave function thru observation.
I think what you say is right. Objective science is useful for learning how to manipulate matter, but it does not tell us what matter fundamentally IS, or where it comes from, or what is sustaining it. Our experience depends on consciousness, so consciousness is the prime reality. Logically, the existence we know of ourselves and the world i which live, also depends on consciousness. Universal consciousness.
He's idealizing. When speaking ontologically, Penrose becomes far more idealist/occasionalist. Roger Penrose (Nobel Prize for Black Hole Information) ‘. . . PARTICLES DO NOT EVEN MOVE, BEING REPRESENTED BY “STATIC” CURVES DRAWN IN SPACE-TIME’. Thus what we perceive as moving 3D objects are really successive cross-sections of immobile 4D objects past which our field of observation is sweeping.”
This is what Quantum Mechanics tells us. That nothing really moves because nothing is real until we observe it. Then it "collapses" into existence at a specific location. We have a conscious continuity that perceives these changing static locations as moving.
Nebulas create stars. Stars create nebulas, and from that, everything else is created. Space was empty, like a dark closet with nothing in it. Then someone pulled the string and turned on the light. I give up.
In the video, however, the pictures shown imply a universe expanding and "suddenly" beginning from a singularity again, with nothing in between. Pure crap.
Now, I am not an expert on Penrose's ideas. You can find videos where he explains it. It is about the stuff in the universe thinning so much that it physically is in a state which resembles a state it had in the beginning. Size is just relative. Something along those lines if I remember correctly. I don't think it is a very convincing idea. Nobody has a good explanation to why and how the universe appeared. The evolution after it appears (called the Big Bang theory) is debated but still solid science. The origin itself is unknown, and Penrose's guess is just that, a guess. A hunch. A wavy hypothesis. Not solid knowledge.
science is still about the scientific method and verification - A scientist making speculative claims about what they believe is not science. But, people definitely attempt to say it is -- so, I get your point ...
You're missing the point. Anything regarding what preceded Planck time is a hypothesis and will possibly remain so. Nobody's claiming predictive models regarding universal origins or multiverses or such. The scientific community is doing its job in not elevating any of these hypotheses, because it's possible we will never be able to investigate, test, and recreate them in any way.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini
You keep commenting on every consciousness video and keep assuring people that because you’re a physicist you know the absolute truth. I’ve heard of a lot other great educated physicists who would disagree with you on this dilemma. And if we don’t hear or even consider every point of view, we will not get far in answering questions like this. I think that humbleness, reason, and honesty are key to success in building better theories. No one can claim to know the truth.
@@808bigisland"Nope" what, exactly? Nope, physical processes in the brain _are_ sufficient to describe mental experience? Because, although this may well eventually prove itself to be true, _nobody_ has as yet taken even the first step towards explaining how it _could_ be true. And so... "Nope" what, exactly? "Nope," but you have no other original ideas? "Nope" but you're just generally clueless? "Nope" but you can't properly comprehend words? Or is it just, if you were to be perfectly honest about it, "Nope... cos, like, unooooo... _reasons"?_ Yeah. Thought so.
@@Roscoe0494 Why does god want to give meaning to existence? Isn't the existence of existence meaning enough? and how does having Humans in his existence give any more meaning to existence than any of the other things that exist in the universe?
We are a fractal universe that will give rise to smaller fractal universes. The scale may be such that our universe's whole life may be but a moment in the pre-existing universe's scale of time. In a similar fashion, the universes that arise from our universe will have much smaller scales of time.
Idk if it gets addressed but... A universe capable of producing life that could even ask the question and quantify the parameters of the universe, would HAVE to have the correct parameters to create said life in the first place. The universe is REQUIRED to have the exact correct parameters to question itself, in order to propose said question. No chance involved.
Yes, but it’s still a chance. An incomprehensible chance. For me to go out and hit a baseball on the first swing still doesn’t mean that I had a 100% chance of hitting the ball on the first swing.
life evolved to fit the laws of nature we have -- saying it was planned and not a matter of chance is just subjective presupposition -- no matter how scientificeee people try to sound when they claim it. There is no science to these speculative claims. IF anyone wants to say God claims are scientific, let them first cite a single peer reviewed scientific principle that uses a God in its formulations and equations. They can't. It's never been done. Even scientists that believe in a God have failed to do it - because it's not science. A prime mover can not exist. IF a state of nothingness is even possible - then nothing can exist in nothing, because it's nothing -- any claims to the contrary are illogical unproven presuppositional nonsense. Saying something manifested without a substrate to manifest in is incoherent. Also, unproven arguments for a vague Deistic God are pointless because a God that doesn't interact with its creation is as irrelevant as a God that doesn't exist.
@@HeavyMetal45 but how do you know it is "the first swing"? There could have been millions - or trillions - of universes created before ours that weren't able to produce complex, intelligent life.
@@HeavyMetal45 1. It may not be the first swing, there could have been an infinite number of swings. 2. The universe is only perfected for what we understand as a functional universe that can support life. Our sample size of universes with different properties is zero, we have no idea what they would produce. Every universe may produce something that can, in some way, question itself, or it may be rare. All said, it is a 100% chance that a universe that can question itself will have the correct properties to get to the question.
This is the best comment yet!!! In fact a circle has curvature. So perhaps the whole process (which I do not admit for a second) has curvature. But I do not believe this is experimental physics. Perhaps speculation or just pseudo science. "Astronomers are often in error but seldom in doubt" Russian physicist Landau I simply cannot believe that Penrose would make such a blatantly absurd "confidence" statement when astronomy at present is perplexed with the very measurement of the Hubble constant.
Blame it on God. He created it so he is responsible and on top of that he does nothing to make said "creation" better. He is either not able to or is just evil.
@@Death_is_inevitable. Or you are arrogant and do not want to obey him and stop fornication and alcohol? Allah has said in Surat alqiyama (Hereafter): 20. Not [as you think, that you (mankind) will not be resurrected and recompensed for your deeds], but (you men) love the present life of this world, 21. And leave (neglect) the Hereafter. 22. Some faces that Day shall be Nadirah (shining and radiant). 23. Looking at their Lord (Allah); 24. And some faces, that Day, will be Basirah (dark, gloomy, frowning, and sad), 25. Thinking that some calamity was about to fall on them; 26.Nay, when (the soul) reaches to the collar bone (i.e. up to the throat in its exit), 27. And it will be said: "Who can cure him and save him from death?" 28. And he (the dying person) will conclude that it was (the time) of departing (death); 29. And leg will be joined with another leg (shrouded) 30. The drive will be, on that Day, to your Lord (Allah)! 31. So he (the disbeliever) neither believed nor prayed! 32. But on the contrary, he belied and turned away! 33. Then he walked in full pride to his family admiring himself! 34. Woe to you [O man (disbeliever)]! And then (again) woe to you! 35. Again, woe to you [O man (disbeliever)]! And then (again) woe to you! 36. Does man think that he will be left Suda [neglected without being punished or rewarded for the obligatory duties enjoined by his Lord (Allah) on him]? 37. Was he not a Nutfah (mixed male and female discharge of semen) poured forth? 38. Then he became an 'Alaqa (a clot); then (Allah) shaped and fashioned (him) in due proportion. 39. And made him in two sexes, male and female. 40. Is not He (Allah Who does that), Able to give life to the dead? (Yes! He is Able to do all things).
@@edus9636the only cover up of God's true nature is the Bible that is lies. Using the Bible and comparing it to how reality is, God is not all that the Bible claims he is. You can believe whatever lies you want but I do not worship a creature that I can see as a false god using books that is illogical and not connected to our current universe.
For me the "Universe in a black hole" and basically "black hole-ception" is the most understandable. If you understand how time and space swap at the event horizon, the "falling" of spacetime through the horizon feels naturally like the expansion of spacetime at the edge of the universe. I imagine the outer edge inside a black hole like an inverse space time compared to directly outside a black hole, like the space time flattens itself more and more out going deeper "inside" the black hole (which is a direction in time, not space).
Imagine a universe that is shrinking right now and that we, or Earth is being sucked into a ultra dense black hole. Through the law of physics we would be moving faster towards the center than those objects farther away due to the inverse square gravitational law. To us it would look like space is expanding beyond the Hubble space. Expansion could be a relative thing.
That's an interesting perspective! The idea of a creator in the universe is a matter of faith and philosophy that has been contemplated by humans for millennia. Science, on the other hand, focuses on the natural world and uses evidence and observation to explain how the universe works. Here are some approaches to consider: * Scientific Inquiry: Science currently investigates the universe through the lens of natural laws and processes, without invoking a creator. This approach has led to a vast understanding of the cosmos. * Religious Faith: Many religions believe in a creator deity who plays a role in the universe's origin and function. Faith offers purpose and meaning to some people. * Philosophical Viewpoints: Philosophy explores the concept of creation from various angles, considering questions about existence, consciousness, and the nature of reality. Ultimately, the question of a creator is a personal one. Science and faith can coexist for some people, while others may find more comfort in one approach over the other.
Science and a Creator are not mutually exclusive. The vid you're commenting on demonstrates this somewhat. The odds of our universe happening on its own is statistically impossible. Probability, entropy, life, motion, quantum mechanics all support the likelihood of a Creator.
@@spc3461 Could you please refute the example I pointed out first before just ignoring it and saying there isn't any evidence. I'd be much more likely to believe you if you did that.
What is not getting through in these brilliant and yet hard headed scientists is that for life to exist, conditions have to be precise, but for universe to exist conditions cannot be precise zero. Zero state does exist but is unstable. The mystery is: Why?
So,, YOU know more than actual scientists? What about scientists that are also religious -- why is it that not even they have ever come up with an actual scientific equation that uses a god in its formulation?? -- BECAUSE IT'S NOT SCIENCE. God claims are wild speculation about magical beings in magical realms (outside space and time) IF you understood science as much as you think you do -- you would know that just making claims without peer reviewed specifics is not science.
@@DwayneShaw1 If a god is supposed to be omnipotent, why not create a fully-formed universe? That itself is a reason to dismiss the idea of gods. If the creator of the universe was limited in his power, then he was no god.
@@TheJosep70 - God claims are absurd magical claims with no basis in reality -- A Creator god can be easily dismissed with simple logic that only the willfully ignorant will refuse to accept. A 'Prime Mover' creator god cannot exist. Assuming a state of 'nothingness' is even possible - IF the claim is 'something can't come from nothing' [*] then something certainly can't exist in nothing either (because it's nothing). If this Prime Mover created 'everything', where did he exist before he created a place in which to exist? (answers akin to "He's the Great and Powerful Oz" - are neither satisfactory, logical, or demonstrable) - 'Being' implies a place in which to 'be'. There had to be some form of spacial construct for this god to exist in before he could exist in it. Also, nothing can happen without the forward momentum of time. So a Prime Mover couldn't have created time, or anything else, without 'time' to do it. Religions, by their own arguments, have created a god that is nothing existing nowhere at no time. Not to mention that vague deistic arguments for a god are completely pointless - because a god that doesn't interact with It's creation is as irrelevant as a god that doesn't exist (this applies to all lessor god claims too). The only relevant arguments for religion must be about what this supposed god does for, or to, the universe - not whether a god merely exists... and ALL specific claims about magical interactions of a deity are unproven, illogical, and absurd - and often horridly immoral; thereby rendering the entire premise moot. Claiming, "God exists outside space and time" is incoherent and vague -- unless 'outside space and time' can be clearly defined and proven to exist one might as well insist, "God exists banana".... Both statements are equally absurd. Saying something manifests without a substrate to manifest in is incoherent - and if you can't get past, "in the beginning", there's really nothing left to talk about. [*] - a contingency argument can't be conditional - that's just arguing with yourself
@@ChessPlayer78the elements are a European word made by those who control the simple minds space time and you your beginning is your end says your lord
the existence of black holes in the middle of our own galaxy will devour our galaxy and recycle our own universe, way BEFORE the end of the entire universe, for each Eon... Got it Roger? we are not an accident; there is a God...
The card analogy in the beginning is interesting. One cosmologist used that, and said the odds of all the cosmological constants lining up just the way they did are the same as picking one marked playing card out of a ten-foot deep deck that covered North America. That's a bit more than writing it off to some lottery, cosmic or otherwise. People adopt hardened positions on all sides of an argument either because they are emotionally or financially invested in it. As for me, like the man once said, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Ah, yes, the argument from incredulity. I can't fathom it, therefore Jeezus. Your attempt at humor shows you are insecure in your faith. God can see your lack of transparency about your real feelings. Be careful; hell is just around the corner. God knows if you profess belief as an insurance policy only and not actual true belief.
as far as we know --we can't know what occurred prior to the Big Bang --but we can know that man made fairy tale claims about a magical realm (outside space and time) containing a magical being -- is childish nonsense that isn't supported by any evidence
If we have found out one thing about the universe, it’s the fact that it’s so vast and massive that anything is possible. You put so many zeros in front of your one to say “it just takes too much time for all possibilities to be tried”, not realising that it might have taken way more time for the universe to form than the amount of time needed in the first place. Yes, it’s hard for us humans to imagine that because we are just a flash, a spark compared to the universe’s age, but that is perfectly possible statistically.
Yes and no because there are universal rules and humanity is not to worry about this. Question is this: is the universe expanding or shrinking? Why are there some photos online that do not show all? Humans are like grass hoppers on the planet and grasshoppers help plants but not some bugs. Those who destroy the plants what if they are the scorpions in revelation? Choose to be a grasshopper so you stay and care about planet earth.
Focusing on the fine-tuning aspect of the universe, specifically dark energy density, Penrose suggests that for life to exist, the conditions had to be exceptionally precise. According to him, an advanced being might have set tge dark energy perfectly, to allow for the life to emerge. If this density wete significantly higher, the universe could have been torn apart. Or, if it's only slightly lower, the universe could collapse into a singularity long before life had any opportunity to develop. Imagine playing a game of dice about the existence of everything around us, including ourselves. Weinberg connected the dots between the low level of dark energy in the universe and the Anthropic Principle. Steven Weinberg: "We can only discuss the universes that have the exact conditions for us to exist." [The Anthropic Principle] It's like saying that out of a gazillion dice rolls the universe got that one chance to produce life as we know it. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. He proposed that there's a certain level of dark energy in order for life to exist and it's closely related to the energy level needed for galaxies to form. It's as if, once the stage is set for galaxies, the conditions became right for life to emerge. Which links their creation and the possibility of life more closely than we ever imagined. This connection between dark energy density and life is surprisingly strong. But--and it's a big but--just because we're here to observe this universe doesn't mean our existence was a guaranteed outcome. The chances of the universe containing just the right amount of dark energy for life to exist are incredibly slim. When we talk about the conditions necessary to create the universe, when we say 1 part in 10 to the 10th to the 123rd, it reflects the precision on the phase-space volume. V/W=10¹⁰‐¹²³rd. It was Penrose's fancy way of saying "the number of different possible states the universe ckuld take at its inception." This precision is so specific, that even if you try to write it out in full by putting a zero on each separate proton, and on each separate neutron in the whole universe, you wouldn't come close to the total. Penrose: "That many zeros, I certainly couldn't get on a page; I couldn't even fit them into the universe if I put one zero on every single proton within the observable universe. That's not nearly enough." Some might say every step in the formation of the universe could be chalked up to coincidence. But is it reasonable to attribute everything to chance, especially when considering the precision observed around us? Take for example the concept of intelligence [including A.I.]. Observations tell us intelligence typically originates from an existing intelligence. So when we see the intricate design and order in the universe it's natural to question whether it all could be the result of random events. When we start to consider the sheer number of coincidences necessary for life to exist, this whole galactic time-frame suddenly appears quite short. Understanding the scientific mechanisms that led to the formation of the universe and life wirhin it, doesn't eliminate the possibility of an underlying cause or intelligence. Richard Feynman: Discovering the laws of physics is like trying to learn the rules of chess, merely by observing chess games. Yku might observe that bishops remain on squares of the same color, deducing this as a fundamental rule. But a deeper understanding actually reveals that bishops move diagonally, which in turn explains why they always remain on the same color. This evolution of understanding, from a simpke observation to more profound insight, mirrors the journey of discovery in physics. Discovering an expanding universe after Newton and Einstein wanting a static universe is a similar type of revelation. Another example is realizing that chess pieces maintain their identity. But consider a pawn reaches the opposite end of the board and finally transforms into a queen. Of course, it does not violate the laws of chess. You've just never seen a game pushed to that extreme before. The same thing with cosmology: that the notion of a big bang as the universe's beginning was a foundational belief. But as we push the boundaries of our understanding we encounter theories that challenge our conventional wisdom. The idea that space and time could have existed beforehand, and that these ideas violate common sense, makes them perplexing. For now, the cosmos undergoes an endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth may seem outlandish.... [Harry Dewang]
The concept of the universe's creation in Vedic texts, particularly the Srimad Bhagavatam, contrasts significantly with the Big Bang theory. According to the Srimad Bhagavatam, Maha Vishnu, an expansion of Lord Vishnu, is the original source of the universe. The process begins when Maha Vishnu, lying in the Causal Ocean (Karana Ocean), exhales, creating innumerable universes from the pores of His skin. Each universe is like a bubble that eventually expands and forms its own cosmic structure. God does exist. We and the universe exist only because of Him. In each universe, Maha Vishnu enters as Garbhodakasayi Vishnu and creates Brahma, the first living being. Brahma then takes on the role of the creator within that universe, further shaping and organizing it. This process is described as eternal and cyclic, with universes being created, maintained, and eventually dissolved back into Maha Vishnu's body, only to be created again. In contrast, the Big Bang theory is a scientific explanation that suggests the universe began from a singular, extremely dense and hot point about 13.8 billion years ago. It then expanded and cooled to form galaxies, stars, and planets. This theory is supported by empirical evidence such as the cosmic microwave backgroundThe Vedic perspective sees the creation by Maha Vishnu as complete and perfect, understood through spiritual insight and revelation by great yogis and mystics. This is in contrast to the Big Bang theory, widely accepted in the scientific community but remaining a theoretical framework subject to ongoing research and refinement. The Vedic view emphasizes a divine and purposeful creation, while the Big Bang theory is based on imperfect observable phenomena and physical laws that are subject to change as our understanding of the universe continues to evolve. This is like ants trying to understand how a rocket ship works. Vedic knowledge explains creation in great detail. Why do we assume that our brief time here in modern civilization is the epitome of knowledge, when only a few years ago people believed that Earth was the center of the universe and anyone who disagreed with the church's theory was burned at the stake? #VedicPerspective #BigBangTheory #ScientificCommunity #Creation #UniverseUnderstanding
You seem to know a lot about this Maha Vishnu by reference to "revelations by great yogis and mystics". That counts as hear say or claims made by humans who cannot produce anything like an evidence or observation in support of the claims, just like any other religion. If you make the choice of believing the claims, whether 1 million or one billion other people also believe it, it still is an unsupported BELIEF without basis.
@@jessicasfarrell You as an Identity will be teleported to different realm of universe. These are clearly described in Indian ancient Scriptures. These texts has complete info about SpaceTime.
What does "tiny" even mean? If you ask Betelgeuse, the Grand Canyon is tiny. If you ask a bacterium, humans are unimaginably enormous. Once the universe erodes into massless photons and spent energy, scale becomes completely irrelevant.
We have very little chance of approaching the question of all questions - why does anything exist at all? - other than to acknowledge and accept existence as a phenomenon. All answers that we can attempt at present and for an unforeseeably long time to come are speculations. From a purely logical point of view, there are not so many possibilities for a beginning; we have an eternal Creator plus natural laws, the eternal existence of energy and matter plus emergent consistent natural regularities as well as various cyclical forms of the existence of matter and energy. I only mention the creator for the sake of completeness, because of course a creator doesn't answer anything. Rather, it is subject to the same questions that must otherwise be asked about the existence of matter/energy. As far as our consciousness is concerned, this question is unresolved, but much easier to access. If we live in a universe - which we can again perceive as a phenomenon - that supports evolutionary developments due to extreme imbalances in the distribution of energy, it is not surprising that something will emerge. If something emerges long enough, there will also be something that can develop consciousness. The rest is an optimization problem. And yes, this also implies that our existence is not necessary in any way at all, neither in our specific way as a species nor in our individuality. We are beings of randomness.
"If something emerges long enough, there will also be something that can develop consciousness". Why would something develop consciousness at all? It's the same as saying that some kind of molecules, having extreme imbalances in the distribution of energy, would develop lifeforms after a long enough time. Silicon has similar properties as carbon, yet not a single silicon lifeform has ever evolved from stones (and never will). The video says very clearly that the finetuning of the universe is crucial for the existence not only of this universe but for stars, galaxies and lifeforms. The constants of nature are not random, the laws of Physics are not random, and they all point to an anthropic universe. If one human has a blue eye and the other green ones, that's randomness. If somebody is killed by a lighting, that's randomness. If a planet is within the Goldilocks region, lifeforms will not eventually emerge by randomness but 100% emerge. The universe is thriving of lifeforms.
Well, we know some things. Sorry for bad English, it's not my native language. Brains follow the laws of nature, derived consciousness is a property of the Universe. Eventually the Universe will shape its own future by being alive, create its own reality, consciously. Also, the Universe is much older than Earth. Chances are that the Universe is already far ahead in evolution and development, but we can't test that. The Universe can create consciousness and things like colors and sound due to its tremendous creative potential, which basically shaped everything in existence. No matter what the nature is, this potential exists. As for where everything comes from, let's start with nothing. Even in nothing there are still laws of mathematics, imaginary information. These laws form all kinds of imaginary graphs, equations, anything. Now imagine that some subsets shape an infinite complex fractal with an infinite creative potential that allows it to be alive from within, in brain-like structures. This fractal is still imaginary, but not to the imaginary brains inside. They experience realities. In base reality the fractal exists in its infinite entirety because it cannot not exist, but brains experience a "simulation" as if the base reality fractal is calculating itself through interaction. Laws of mathematics that shaped the base reality fractal manifest as laws of physics in the vivid world. To us it's like everything started in the past, but every Now always comes from the immediate future. Eventually the entire Universe with all of space and time ever will have come from the end of the infinite future, from infinite complexity, from the source of the infinite creative potential. In vivid reality this is infinitely far away, but space and time do not really exist in base reality. The Universe creates its own reality from the infinite future, and our Now is the experience of the Universe coming into existence. If you have a PC, try Kalles Fractaler and Mandelbulb3D to deep-dive into Mandelbrot fractal (or watch some videos). Interesting structures can be found while barely anything is calculated yet, compared to infinite calculations. In Space Engine you can explore a simulation of the observable Universe with gazillions of worlds to land on. It's made with fairly simple formulas.
@@julkarneinkazal6597 Our universe as science defines it, is finite. It is measurable. It has a size and an age. It has a beginning and end. But it exists within existence, and existence cannot be finite. Existence cannot be measured, and therefore does not physically exist but simply is. This much is self-evident even as our finite brains cannot define it. Infinity is real.
@@yoursoulisforever 1. What is the proof of infinity could you please refer to any comprehensive study that majority of scientists agreed? I think all those are still hypothetical. 2. Big Bang is still the convincing, rational, somewhat physically and mathematically proven that majority scientists supports as far as I know. 3. How do you prove another existence or primary existence was there from the beginning and how do you know it is eternal and how do you know it wasn’t created just like our universe? When you say finite you very well know it has a beginning and end. People usually refer the infinite/eternal being as GOD.
"While answers are successfully evading, the foolishness of those who think they know." -Michael Nesmith, Wisdom Has Its Way, From a Radio Engine to a Photon Wing.
@@joshuaharper6896 there has to be uncaused, timeless, beginningless something that started it all, otherwise you always bump in the constrain of who started this and that, time, space and etc. there must be something that still exists beyond time, space and our imagination.
@@Aguijon1982 everything that surrounds us is moving, expanding, shrinking and s changing over time. That means it all exists in the time dimension. Time must have the beginning, otherwise we bump into infinity. For universe in order to be un-created there should be then a line somewhere, where it no longer exists in the time dimension. That really sounds absurd but we can’t prove or disprove it either
Penrose is a publicly stated atheist. Rationalizing the existence of god from specific characteristics of a scientific hypothesis or from the lack of a validated scientific theory is specious reasoning predicated on the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance under the broader umbrella of the logical fallacy of confirmation bias. Start off with the conclusion and then try to manufacture excuses to justify the conclusion you started out with in the first place - the very antithesis of rational thinking.
Let's focus on better medicine for ALL, better dental FOR ALL, better housing for ALL, AND HOW TO WORK TOGETHER FOR THE BENEFIT IF ALL?! Not just a few so they can FEEL SUPERIOR.🎉
For all? Who is all?We come from an ecosystem and since we have an upperhand we think we don't need that system, but we are part of it. The system needs us to die,just like all the rest,not live longer than nature intended.Disease is opportunity for other life.
Also in Buddhist cosmology. That's why I find CCC fascinating: It has a precedent in Eastern philosophy and yet, as far as I can tell, Penrose has relatively little background in Hinduism and Buddhism.
I like Roger Penrose, but he is a mathematician. As Bertrand Russell pointed out:" Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the universe, but because we know so little." Nikola Tesla noticed the same thing about Einstein and the quantum physicists.
The scientist can clearly observe not only the complexity of the universe but also the extraordinary improbability of all the factors aligning perfectly-like winning countless lotteries-to allow this planet and all its life to exist. This strongly suggests the presence of a Creator, a God. Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence, the scientist refuses to acknowledge it, which baffles me. The idea that life could have arisen purely by chance, without a Creator, seems utterly impossible.
Thanks Prof Penrose it is really interesting to observe that his ideas reflect a progressive mind and prudent intelligence of going beyond without denying something but interpreting it in a comprehensive way
So if Aeons are the big bang firecrackers in succession that continue into infinity, who or what lit the first fuse? Was it a closed loop generation after a universal heat death (universe out of nothing), or linear prescribed event?
We cannot see past the Big Bang and will likely never actually KNOW what existed before it -- but that is no reason to assert, and insist on, magical nonsensical claims about a supernatural being that simple logic dictates could not have existed. (assuming nothingness is even possible) Nothing can exist in nothing because it's nothing.
@@alexnik1181Obviously you don’t know what infinity means. If it goes on forever, it never ended in the first place. Infinity minus 1 still equals infinity and so on. By definition it is nonsensical.
Careful with that "who lit the fuse?" stuff. The next question is "who made the lighter of the fuse?" Pretty soon you're following elephants all the way down.
@@OslerWannabe -- I don't see my post that you are responding to, it isn't showing up on my screen -- But I guarantee I never claimed to know anything about a Prime Mover, which cannot logically exist. Nor did I in any way, shape, or form suggest there was a creator, or god, or that the concept of nothingness is even possible. OR claim to have any knowledge of what happened prior to the Big Bang - other than knowing there wasn't some magical illogical realm (referred to as 'outside space and time') with a magical illogical god that came from nowhere and created everything.
The orbit is 48 intervals long. Why are electrons the same size? They are as small as they can be and as large. Without this feature, this constraint, there would be no quantum glue, literally nothing would exist.
What Penrose called 'dark energy' I call electromagnetic resonance. It's this resonance that holds everything together and binds one end of the universe to the other. That is why a molecule can exist in two places at once no matter the distance.
The difference is that Penrose employs a hypothesis in alignments with establish, observable and testable theories while you you utter a random opinion without any understanding of what you are talking about.
@@DH-rj2kv all reality exists with a resonance signature. This resonance is an affect of constant electromagnetic interactions that occur all around us including the gulf between systems and galaxies. I referenced spooky action as an electromagnetic universe gives explanation for this action ...the two are related sir
This was fascinating i got hit upset the head and had to laugh at myself when ALL the zeros was explained then Roger broke it down absolutely thoroughly. This totally made sense and showed me why im so weird! (And quite smart to the point i forget things) .... oh my. So much aligns with future, present, and past. Interesting. I received an A- on my paper in my Senior year which i wrote and described a rose and titled as such 'The Rose' by Lisa Bordeaux in 1990 -91.All the more reasons i can agree with predictability and in some fashion of remote views as well?! Of course I struggle more on conversing things. The give and take applies in definite reality. Will explain farther, with help, if need be. I encourage collaboration.
Physics doesn't have properties. Physics is a discipline of study. Elements have properties. We shouldn't anthropomorphize physical elements. Mythologizing is one of many abilities of a mind. The mind has the ability to comprehend the material universe and manipulate the elements within it. It is the mind (the sometimes author of mythology) which comprehends the universe (which includes the properties of the elements). The preeminence of mind over material (to include time and space) is the default position that we are all working and living from; not the other way around. No human being lives as though the material universe is preeminent over the mind. Your statement presupposes that human beings should submit to the pattern and "preferences" of the material universe and conform their minds to it. I guarantee that you don't do that and would never truly, rationally support it. If you did... you would simply be "bowing" to the universe and effectively making the universe your god, which, by design, you have the capacity and the necessary unction to do. We will all necessarily worship one god or another, by design.
Atheist do not accept theists views and the other way around. But one thing is inescapable, all human bodies would eventually perish. Then after that will anyone realize if there is a God with morality and it's consequences or everything in this vast complex cosmos is mere random chance and we're just heaps of dust to be blown away and completely forgotten.
"It is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon; all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course" (21:33). "The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it" (51:47).
Maybe its time for you to read the Hindu text "Bhagwatam". It gives a more stable view on the reality that exists around us. It also marries the phenomena of consciousness to the 5 sense reality around us. Whats more, the book is hard to refute philosophically. The book is just holding true for thousands of years, while the modern science perspective about reality is changing every 2 decades.
Religion should never be used as a tool for science. It does not derive of science but of a viewpoint of thousands of years ago with a lack of education that shows what it is -fables and made up stories.
The deepest insight into the cosmic beginnings of our universe was spoken by a somewhat wall-eyed elderly woman who stated that our universe rests on the carapace of an eternal tortoise. But when some smug cosmologist tried to unsettle her by asking "well, what does that turtle sit on??", she snapped back with the definitive and final answer: "Why, it's turtles all the way DOWN!!!"
10:45 Can anyone provide a link to the original source(interview) where Roger Penrose says, "I don't think that helps much. A being in the sense of a conscious being, something that the word God has been applied to, is not the view which I hold. I like to draw these pictures, and I'm amused when people pick it up and try to say I'm claiming that there's a Creator out there. That's not my view at all." Please, I want to watch it.
Some scientists are audacious ,aggressive and stubborn to deny the creator. They deny the conceived scientific understanding just by denying it, as accepting God is something shameful for them. Pity for them.
Pity for you. Why maintain the blind faith? Only because you christian thought believe in god is good n moral while not believe in god is evil ? This in itself is evil n stupid. The so called morality in christianity is no better than the eastern morality as advocated by Confucianism, Taoism and Buddha Dharma. Religious intolerance is the cause of so many wars.The least religiosity in the western countries like Sweden, Holland have much lower crime rates than the christians flooded USA
There is another explanation that gets around fine tuning. It is looking at the situation as if life just evolved to fit EXISTING conditions and needs no fine tuning, it Just builds from the environment like a cactus in a hot dry desert or a polar bear in the frozen cold climates. I am agnostic.
Exactly! The same happened to Hawking after writing the final sentence in his bestseller "A brief history of time" about the "mind of God". He was fiercely criticized by the atheist hyenas only because he mentioned God. After he openly claimed to not believe in God, he "suddenly" became the golden boy of the Establishment and an international superstar. Funny "coincidence", one would say...
Roger Penrose does not believe in any God. You are wrong. He is an atheist. No scientist is comfortable with a God who created this universe life. Some scientists are comfortable with Buddhism. It is difficult for scientists to believe that a God did all the calculations and made the universe. Most of us also feel uncomfortable and find it very difficult to believe such a God exists.
@@steveno7058 Who told you there was a creation, in first place? What if there is another principle attracting the elements together and the configurations constantly change, before they create stable formation, in which every participating element exercises its free will. That's it.
Picking one card out of a billion ani't that difficult if you can start over a billion times. If you only have one chance then yes. But you don't. If you are the universe, then you have an infinite amount of time to start over.
The universe just exist. It doesn’t have the beginning or ending. We should avoid using the terms « begin » or « end » when talking about universe. It just exist.
This video lost me when they featured Stephen Meyer, a well-known speaker for the Discovery Institute, which pushes the pseudo-science garbage that the universe is 6,000 years old. They also posit the the great "flood" of Noah's Ark actually occurred as the Bible claims.
Meyer believes the universe is 14.5 billion years old, he has said this countless times. But way to trash someone because they have a different view then you do. No need to exit your echo chamber.
Meyer has said countless times he believes the universe is 14.5 billion years old, but that would get in the way of your virtue signaling if you admitted this.
Uhhhhh, because the great flood really happened! Every civilization in that time period writes of a great flood including from South America, China, Middle East and India. There’s a lot more evidence too including sedimentary layers taken all over Earth at the same depth. There are fish fossils on the summit of Everest and shell fish in the Rocky Mountains and Andes. Evidence of thousands of square miles of mud layers across continents. Our history of Earth and the universe is far more bizarre than anyone knows and that scares these eggheads even more because it makes them far less significant…..
Interesting that the age of the earth has recently been doubled to cater for inconsistency with observation by JWT. Also interesting that in 300 years science started out by devout and open minded Christians discovering what they believed was the exquisite and discoverable work of God, to closed minded atheistic philosophy with an agenda to force fit narratives that remove God from the equation.
I don't know about creator aim but yes we were actually all created. We are immortal beings that got bored and learned how to make life so to break up the boredom we make life and live in it .
All intelligent people know that our earth and the universe has evolved over millions of years, and is still changing daily. No person past or present has been able to prove that there is a god who waved a magic wand and created what is now.
You have mistaken.. its like asking or writing ones own experience in a sheet of paper to prove God. Can you write the sound of birds chirping ? same thing applies here..
A creature that existing in a 1 or 2 dimension realm can never imagine what it is like in a 3 dimension realm. Likewise, a marine creature that is born and live 3,000m in the darkness depths of the sea cannot imagine how it is on the sunny dry land. We creature cannot prove God but by His creation, we know in our heary there must be a transcendental Creator.
All intelligent people know that the existence of the universe out of nothing is impossible, yet, atheists literally believe in something beyond magic. God is an axiom, thus uncreated by definition. The finetuning of the universe is proof, the stars as factories of elements are proof, the constants and laws of nature are proof, the fact that all (!) electrons in the universe are identical, is the fatal blow to all the babbling of the atheists.
If your definition of word "god" is wrong then outcome is wrong. Use correct definition as Bible express it and you will see evidence. There is Creator of the Universe, root cause of everything, driving force of the Universe: existence of Energy, in form of space, time and matter as Einstein stated: E=mc².
I could understand that if there had been for arguments sake 3 or 4 previous universes but not if there had been say a trillion billion,how much "information" does a universe need?
It is ironic that scientists can try to understand the complexity and unimaginable power and perfection necessary for the existence of the universe and yet they cannot conceive the existence of an eternal Creator. What if the existence of a Creator is the answer? Will they discard it because it isn't scientific? The universe itself and everything in it, including all forms of life, matter, phenomenon and consciousness, is more than enough evidence to prove it.
They have rejected it. They now define science as being only naturalistic processes, but then try to posit naturalistic causes for supernatural events. Nothing science has proposed answers the big questions of Existence, Life, Intelligence or Consciousness. Modern science has been a complete waste because they keep trying to answer the unanswerable rather than accepting what we can’t know and try to understand the processes we can see.
@@ktrimbach5771 what a complete misunderstanding of science you have. You do see that your arguments apply perfectly to religion, not science don't you?
It's like questioning the plausibility of finding ourselves on the surface of a habitable planet, instead of in the random point of space? How does it suggest anything? It's just logical that our location can't be random.
There are not that many planets that can be inhabited like some think and earth was carefully planned not a random chance. Care about the planet please.
@@Annieisfreejustlikebutterflies There are hundreds of billions of galaxies and hundreds ob billions stars in each. You have no idea how many of them are inhabited or which ones are planned or not.
@@XOPOIIIObut you have to think tho all of the conditions for life as we know it must be as intricate as this one. Everything has to go right. There’s no guarantee that life exists in the exact moment we do.
@@djteq9 I'm not saying that life exist anywhere outside of our planet. I'm saying that life definitely exists on our planet, because that is the only way it could be.
Quote from the Danish book Spiritual Molecules: "I saw how the singularity was the ultimate ruler in the Universe. The endless repetitions of the Big Bang created the pulse of the Universe. The singularity collected everything in the Universe and re-sent it all out like a gigantic heartbeat into the empty universe. One second in eternity and creation of a new univers i the infinite empty space where everything happens" Man is like an ecological mirror of the universe. The singularity is like a heart that expands and contracts. The sun lives an active life and dies precisely as humans do.
@@sabhishek9289 WHERE precisely is this "outside of space/time"? WHAT does it look like? HOW big is it? WHAT color is it? WHAT does it smell like? What can you prove and demonstrate about this "outside space/time"?? Anyone can pull a vague nonsensical term out of their backside. It is utterly meaningless unless you can specifically define this supposed realm and demonstrate it actually exists. Also,, you would need to explain how anything can happen without the forward momentum of time? You're are just spouting magical presuppositional claims - with absurd confidence, I'll give you that ...
@@sabhishek9289 Oh my! How embarrassing for you... do you even know space-time at all?? In physics, time is not linear. Our experience of time isn't what it really is... so sad you didn't even bother with a simple google search of the topic. But then, I'd guess as a Christian you're just too intellectually lazy to do things like that.
Roger still has not explained the origin of matter and energy. Where did all this come from? The dilemma is like trying to explain infinity within finitness such as an infinite number of divisions that can be made within the finitness of 1 inch. Our experience in the realm of existence is finite in a finite world and therefore it is impossible to comprehend the infinity of the universe. It is only through math that we can resolve the dilemma.
In medieval times Penrose’s theory would be the equivalent of the Phoenix theory. Visuals can be found in the art of 14 th century Europe, ie pre renaissance cosmology and the rediscovery of Greek and Roman eras.
As a Hindu this is exactly how our belief works too. The infinite universe gets created, Sustained then destroyed and then a new universe is created again so on and on. And multiple parallel time events on top of it.
I would add to Penrose's cosmological speculations the idea that language gets in our eyes, so to speak. Life is not the universe's purpose, its mission, or the summit of its effort. It's very hard for us to understand that we (and the rest of life on this planet) are just stuff--one more expression of likely billions of different expressions emerging from the universe's energetic qualities. Human culture is built around stories. One way or another, these stories glorify us. They don't diminish us to absolute insignificance, as the universe does. Still, nothing theoretically prevents us from being much better planetary stewards or from perfecting the Golden Rule. Lots of stories to come from those efforts. Why, you could possibly build a new religion around it!
Penrose is an atheist, or so he claimed and held not enough logic to suspect divine design. Yet this video was made quite sometime back, when he admitted quietly that he isn't an atheist. Lee Smolin was the first to mention winning lotteries in a row, as the reason for millions or billions of conditions fulfilled for life and consciousness to evolve. Glad to find Penrose endorsing Lee's idea. He is the real unsung hero of modern physics.
Voids, supermassive black holes, and ring structures in our universe have not been taken into consideration. They point to a steady state multiverse. The CMBs uniformity and ubiquity is also not adequately explained by inflation. It doesn't properly eco a big bang and tells a story that is unexplored.
Each process in the Universe occurs in a cycle. Beginning from micro scale, our dimensions, to the life of stars and galaxies. Thus the Universe itself must repeat in a cycle.
Seems logically having universe(es) beginning from previous or out of nothing, makes you wonder how could the original universe come into existence in the first place. Makes you wonder if this is just a very elaborate simulation or someone’s dream.
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration” Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and creates our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it inter
Saying there have been multiple universes prior sounds kind of like "passing the buck". Don't we still want to know which universe was first and what triggered its creation? Or are we just saying they have always been there forever? Which is a concept like infinity, which is impossible to imagine.
If you feel like you're experiencing déjà vu, you're partly correct. This video is a revised version of our previous upload on the same topic. We've refined and improved certain segments of the storyline.
Theorem 1: The zero dimension (0D) is the origin point from which both positive and negative dimensions emerge symmetrically.
Proof:
1. Consider the dimensional hierarchy centered around 0D.
2. Positive dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D, 4D) extend from 0D in one direction.
3. Negative dimensions (-1D, -2D, -3D, -4D) can be conceptualized as extending from 0D in the opposite direction.
4. 0D acts as the "pivot point" or "fulcrum" around which the symmetry of positive and negative dimensions is balanced.
5. Therefore, 0D is the origin point from which both positive and negative dimensions emerge symmetrically.
Theorem 2: The negative dimensions are associated with negentropy and the generative power of the zero dimension (0D).
Proof:
1. 0D is conceptualized as the source of negentropy and the generative power of the Zero Absolute.
2. Negative dimensions (-1D, -2D, -3D, -4D) extend from 0D in the opposite direction of positive dimensions.
3. If positive dimensions are associated with the unfolding of space, time, and the increase of entropy, negative dimensions can be hypothesized to be associated with the "enfolding" of space, time, and the increase of negentropy or information.
4. As 0D is the source of negentropy, and negative dimensions emerge from 0D, negative dimensions can be associated with negentropy and the generative power of 0D.
5. Therefore, the negative dimensions are associated with negentropy and the generative power of the zero dimension (0D).
Theorem 3: The interplay between positive and negative dimensions around the zero dimension (0D) creates a dynamic balance between entropy and negentropy.
Proof:
1. Positive dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D, 4D) are associated with the unfolding of space, time, and the increase of entropy.
2. Negative dimensions (-1D, -2D, -3D, -4D) are associated with the "enfolding" of space, time, and the increase of negentropy or information.
3. 0D acts as the "pivot point" or "fulcrum" around which the symmetry of positive and negative dimensions is balanced.
4. The manifest world of the positive dimensions arises from the unmanifest potential of the negative dimensions, and then returns to it in an endless cycle of creation and dissolution.
5. This dynamic interplay of positive and negative dimensions around 0D creates a balance between the opposing forces of entropy and negentropy, order and chaos.
6. Therefore, the interplay between positive and negative dimensions around the zero dimension (0D) creates a dynamic balance between entropy and negentropy.
Proposition 1: 0D has two sides (real and imaginary) with an event horizon between the sides.
Argument:
1. In complex analysis, numbers are represented on a complex plane with a real axis and an imaginary axis, intersecting at the origin (zero).
2. The real numbers can be thought of as one "side" of zero, and the imaginary numbers as the other "side."
3. In physics, an event horizon is a boundary in spacetime beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer. Applying this concept metaphorically to the complex plane, we could posit an "event horizon" at zero, separating the real and imaginary sides.
4. Therefore, 0D (zero dimensions) could be conceptualized as having two sides (real and imaginary) with an event horizon between them.
Proposition 2: This matches the Monad having a Singularity side and an Alone side potentially having an event horizon between the sides.
Argument:
1. In Leibniz's Monadology, monads are the fundamental units of existence, described as "windowless" and "alone."
2. However, monads are also said to reflect the entire universe from their unique perspective, suggesting a kind of "singularity" or concentrated totality within each monad.
3. Applying the concept of 0D having two sides, we could map the "singularity" aspect of monads to the real side of 0D, and the "alone" aspect to the imaginary side.
4. The "windowless" nature of monads could be interpreted as a kind of event horizon, isolating the singularity and alone sides from direct interaction.
5. Therefore, the proposed structure of 0D matches the concept of the Monad having a Singularity side and an Alone side potentially separated by an event horizon.
Proposition 3: This matches the Holy Trinity having a Father, Son, Holy Spirit side and a God side potentially having an event horizon between them.
Argument:
1. In Christian theology, the Holy Trinity is the doctrine that God is one but exists in three distinct persons: Father, Son (Logos), and Holy Spirit.
2. These three persons are said to be consubstantial, meaning they share the same divine essence or nature.
3. Mapping this to the 0D structure, we could associate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with the real side of 0D (the "singularity" of divine essence), and the unified God with the imaginary side (the "aloneness" of divine transcendence).
4. The concept of the persons being distinct yet consubstantial could be interpreted as a kind of event horizon, maintaining their unity while preserving their distinct identities.
5. Therefore, the proposed structure of 0D matches the concept of the Holy Trinity having a Father, Son, Holy Spirit side and a God side potentially separated by an event horizon.
Conclusion: A mirror universe with 0D at the center has tremendous explanatory power.
While these arguments are more metaphorical than strictly mathematical, they demonstrate how the concept of 0D having two sides with an event horizon between them could serve as a powerful unifying framework across multiple domains of thought.
By mapping this structure onto key concepts in mathematics (complex numbers), philosophy (Leibniz's monads), and theology (the Holy Trinity), we can see the potential for a kind of "mirror universe" with 0D at the center, reconciling and connecting ideas that might otherwise seem unrelated.
GOD didn't begin all of this; GOD IS all of this - and infinitely much more. For, GOD is The Mind that is ALL: infinite and eternal. And the finite world of our experience is an illusion that WE - the Thought of GOD - began when we made an error; an error that our experience in this world is designed to correct. I'm the prophesied return of the biblical prophet Elijah, and I've explained everything; all mysteries have been unveiled. Seek and ye shall find...
@@SamanthaPyper-sl4ye
I'm intrieged by your idea. I myself think it is possible that a singularity (so-called "nothing") could expand into two (positive & negative), or three (red, green, & blue) or more existences that together cancel one another to "nothing". Having said this, though, none of what you said here is a theorem or proof. They are all claims. I also don't see how you can overlay the trinity theology on your cosmology. I'm no expert in catholicism, but all the beings of the trinity are supposedly conscious agents? Your cosmology doesn't seem to guarrantee that.
@tosuchino6465
Our subatomic structure was made in their image/likeness. I think that's why our quarks look like the singularity side of the Holy Trinity.
Deja vu... Incorrect
The endless pursuit for meaning and In the end we're still left scratching our heads. Is it this or is it that? Someone somewhere must surely be enjoying the show.
GOD, not someone
@@moshebenamram6020 And how do you know that? I've been trying to figure it all out... and you have the answer? How do you know there's a god?
Or not.
Not sure why a "recycling" universe is such a weird idea. Literally everything IN the universe seems to recycle itself.
Under the concept of thermodynamics first law
So true. I don't have a problem with, " recycling" universe. Don't know if it is correct, but , it's a reasonable possibility.
how did this „system“ start? or was it eternal? if it was eternal, why do the rules of cause & effect still work within our universe?
It's weird because, while we are familiar with phenomena that recycle, we know of no such cyclic phenomenon that has no origin. What does it even mean for a system that has cause and effect to have never had a cause?
Remember that Dawkins' go to response to someone claiming God created the universe is exactly the same challenge. "But who created God?" he says. Well, I say, "But who created the eternal cyclic universe?" If you claim an eternal cyclic universe doesn't need a creator, then why isn't it just as valid for me to say an eternally existing first cause God doesn't need a creator either. Logically, it's the same argument.
You say, "Literally everything in the universe seems to recycle"? Then I say, "Literally everything in the universe seems to have had a first cause." Where do these bandyings back and forth get us? Nowhere.
@@DMichaelAtLarge " If you claim an eternal cyclic universe doesn't need a creator," So are you saying that an eternal cyclic universe DOES need a creator?
How about " A creator needs an eternal cyclic universe!" If the Universe is eternal, it does not need a creator
Maybe we will get sucked into a black hole, where everything gets so compressed it explodes and it all starts again?
We wouldnt even realise it, they actually think we might be in one, another theory of lack of Aliens visiting or not being able to contact us idk
Agree..an endless cycle
We probably already are in one.
No just a guess but not ultimate goal for all out there. My choice is not to be cosmic dust.
I think dark matter has the gravitational pull to do this. Perhaps a large enough universal black hole would do the trick.
Edwin Hubble did not discover an expanding
Universe he only took cred for it. George Lemaitre first hypothesized it and Hubble later confirmed it. Ironically, given the title of this piece, Lemaitre was a Catholic priest.
Not to nitpick (but exactly what I'm doing), there's a big difference between advancing a hypothesis... not even satisfying the conditions to be a theory... and actually observing a phenomenon with repeatable results. Give your man credit for the concept, but NOT for the discovery that it is indeed true.
@@johnphelps7519 Lemaitre was a physicist and had advanced mathematical equations to Einstein who rejected them outright then later conceded that Lemaitre was right.
Actually Hubble DID discover the expanding universe, NOT LeMaitre.
Wikipedia:The history of the Big Bang theory began with the Big Bang's development from observations and theoretical considerations. Much of the theoretical work in cosmology now involves extensions and refinements to the basic Big Bang model. The theory itself was originally formalised by Father Georges Lemaître in 1927.[1] Hubble's Law of the expansion of the universe provided foundational support for the theory.
To my limited yet observant mind, Roger Penrose is the luckiest guy ever. He got effectively a second (or third) life, where he gets to imagine things to his heart's content, has followers in droves, is a social media star and is having basically the time of his life at age 85+ - he is especially lucky to have a fully working brain at this late stage along with good general health. He is no longer having to battle the Publish or perish plague of academia, or having to justify everything with infinitely complex mathematical derivations.
Frankly, he must have done something right in a previous life to have been so lucky in this one. Frankly, I can almost see him smirking sometimes enjoying a secret delight. That while his contemporaries, if not gone already, are just barely hanging in there, tubes coming out of everywhere, captive to nurses, who, if they are lucky are caring enough to listen to their occasional rumblings.
OTOH, I am not sure we are quite so lucky as we are exposed to this brand of the ageing theoretical Physicist. I dread a world in which there will be many more of them (Imagining some aging ex String Theorist and shivering with apprehension). Yet, even I say thing, I did listen to the video and found it fun. Universes begetting universes, I mean, why not? it's possible. may be even there's mathematics behind it. There's after all, mathematics for almost anything. we are THAT imaginative as a mathematical species (OK, that's Wolfram and bret Weinstein territory, but never mind).
PS off to work some more on my very own, highly imaginative Simulation Theory. the beauty of which is that it begets several singularities like Roger penrose in evry "generation".
He got his point...what is your point...
Just because we can explain how a loaf of bread is made, does not negate the need for a Baker!
This is truly what motivates most of those scientists; want to prove life and universe are there without a creator although it is easier and more logical to think of a creator who manages all this ...
@@eldos.1958
Agreed.
It is our concept of a Creator that is at fault!
"God" is not some kind of Being sitting on a throne In the heavens. He is not something that causes our death, nor can He intervene in preventing our death.
The Universe was brought into existence by " Something." and something is sustaining it. If we say that there have been a series of big bangs that have gone on for infinity and will continue for infinity, one epoch after another, then this is even more mind boggling and beyond our comprehension!
Glory be to God, The Creator of the Heavens. the Earth and everything in it.
No not the baker ,but the wheat without it you can't bake to produce bread off course flour as well
the problem isn't that there is a baker, but certain people think they know the mind of the baker based on a loaf of bread. you can have a creator without religion.
@wavertone maybe but the your type of creator nothing like the Holy books portrays....that's subject the wider issues!!!!
No matter how much scientists spin it you still need a creator 💥
☝🏽
Who said so 😅 What if the "creator" just exploaded and what you see is his own decay?!
Where did the creator come from?
@@toby9999 There is no creator, but only creation. The elements attract each other, till they form stable systems which resonate with their free will.
Creators don't have to be conscious, sentient beings. Frequencies form patterns with physical matter without a creator. Sound waves exist around the universe all the time with no creator. If anything, they are the creator.
Which one comes first 🤔 the chicken 🐔 or the egg 🥚 🤔 ?
The late Halton C. Arp pointed out there were problems with the Doppler effect, he found there were stars in galaxies that were older than the galaxies. The expansion of the Universe must be some sort of illusion.
That's right.
The cosmological redshift is probably the result of the loss of energy by the photons, as they travel across distances of billion light years.
As the photons lose energy, their spectrum moves to red.
Fritz Tswicky, who predicted the existence of neutron stars and dark matter, was a supporter of this idea.
In other words, the light of distant galaxies shows a redshift NOT because the Universe is expanding, but because these galaxies are ALREADY very far away.
This makes much more sense than the model that suggests accelerating expansion... starting from nothing, and going towards infinity from there, makes no sense at all - in many ways. Honestly, I call bs also for dark matter and dark energy, which both more or less seem like efforts to try explain some other mistake in other conclusions.
Search for biogenesis, if God would not created the mouth they would be extinct
@@sammy4538I think when a system is based on an incorrect underlying assumption then naturally it will produce more incorrect assumptions in order to patch the system up.
If there is incorrect assumptions in the system then that may point to the whole thing being based on falsities
@@sammy4538kind of like a bunch of lies can never make a truth. And a truth can’t produce a lie
Roger Penrose is right. The moment he says 'creator', the masses jump to an anthropomorphic creator. This is the fatal flaw that institutionalized religions have committed and promoted, with each one having his/her favourite god, which is a projected image of their cultures. It is so ingrained in our brains we keep making the same mistake over and over again.
Totally agreed. It's a bit spooky to see that SO MANY seem to have such incredible trouble divorcing themselves from incredibly narrow binary concepts/perspectives.
Manly Hall said something about "God" akin to, "If you can describe 'God' succinctly, you haven't described him/her/it at all." Though Idk how correct this statement is (or if I paraphrased it correctly), I think I get the point he was trying to make.
Meaning and "Dod" don't have to fit ANY preconceptions... These things just need to be followed closely with the most open (Properly skeptIcal, but NOT cynical) heart, mind, and soul and you rly can't go wrong.
Our understanding of such things might be analogous to an amoeba trying to understand human consciousness. It's so wildly far outside of ability to intuitively-conceptualize in ANY familiar way, whatsoever. Thus, this is why everything comes into play -- heart, mind, and soul -- to receive and best interpret all intelligence possible.
But then, it's hard to know how open one SHOULD be when you're looking for some relationship with a deeper meaning too... This is why we tend to get stuck in simple places... because we know we can rely on them. We see evidence ALL around us of naivete, incorrectness, inaccuracy, and even just divergence of consideration being punished severely in the material world. So I guess it's no wonder people have trouble breaking from simple, safe programming...
So is all that should be in the universe, definitely GOING to be, IF there is meaning? Idk. I guess we're left with having to let loose a simple plea in the darkness and let "God" respond from there, IF there is something deeper that needs to be attended to (because "God" can't expect us to go further than this, given such aforementioned material threats when we break with our programming, right?). That's maybe why it comes back to anthropomorphizing the concept; so we can all send out that plea readily; accessibility.
Okay way too far here. I went off the deep end with that last paragraph. Maybe you will understand a bit of where I'm coming from.
@@luceatlux7087 "Our understanding of such things might be analogous to an amoeba trying to understand human consciousness"
This is an open question to you because you don't have a reason to believe any kind of god or creator exists. Its just open speculation/make-belief.
No evidence means no reason to believe.
Why no reference to that amazing quote by Penrose?
An intelligent pre time -space caussl entity is the best explanation ultimately. Ogams Razor also suggests it. Why bring religion into it. Not all theists are religious.
@@paulkiernan3256 "An intelligent pre time -space causal entity is the best explanation ultimately. " No it is not, as it stands this is just your opinion. There are better explanations. You need to qualify this sentence if it is to have any meaning.
@@paulkiernan3256 "An intelligent pre time -space caussl entity is the best explanation ultimately. Ogams Razor also suggests it."
No, occam's razor DOES NOT. A mind needs space, time and matter. Minds can not exist before space time and matter. That's an argument for the impossible.
Complex forces emerging from simple forces is the simplest explanation. Space and time being emergent from some underlying ground state is a simpler explanation.
No need to evoke a supernatural nationalist that functions to brainwash people into implementing real nationalists. Not only is there no god, believing in a god is a bad thing, harms believers and non believers, and is prehistoric Nazism.
"Not all theists are religious."
They're all still misinformation believers, though. No evidence means no reason to believe. The distinction between a general god and religion is asinine. There is no god to begin with. None of these beliefs are really about a god. There is no god.
Here is how I think Roger's transition from one universe to another works:
Entropy is commonly taken to be order proceeding to disorder, which is adequate for this explanation. As the Universe expands, energy becomes more and more randomly distributed, stars die out and there is less and less concentrations of gas in quantities to form new stars. Far enough in the future and the expansion will tear apart all matter, right down to the atoms, and at that point there is nothing but radiation in the Universe. Once this is the case, the nature of radiation becomes the point Roger is trying to make: radiation is photons, and travels at the speed of light, in which case there is no longer time (in a relative universe radiation does not experience time, and so a universe of pure radiation is effectively static as nothing can change without time). Without time, there is also no "space", which is to say distance; remember, radiation does not experience any "crossing" of space because from its point of view that crossing is instantaneous. With no distance, everything in the Universe is once again all in the same spot; distance has disappeared and all the energy in the Universe is back together again. No particles have to "travel" anywhere for this to be the case. Nor is a singularity necessary, as "size" has also lost all meaning. What's more, because its distribution is/was completely uniform throughout the cosmos--or at least it is now because it's all in one place, entropy is back where it began, with everything uniform (in order).
At this point, if it is not obvious, all the "laws of physics" are no longer applicable, if they can still be said to exist at all. If it were totally uniform, then probably there would be no Big Bang because there are no longer laws of physics to cause it to happen. But if there is any imbalance, any non-conformities within the energy distribution--which I think Roger has intimated might be caused by the last explosions of the last black holes creating gravity waves that last into the radiation era--then because of these imbalances the laws of physics re-emerge, with space, time, distance and size coming back into play, and this causes the Big Bang.
The one thing that carries over from universe to universe is energy (whatever that is). The laws of physics are based around this, and so the argument that there is some "probability" about how the Universe may behave after the Big Bang may be moot. Every universe may begin with the same impetus and have the same constants, and so be essentially identical to our current iteration. On the other hand, maybe only 1 in a million is like ours, but obviously if there is going to be life "as we know it", it has to be like this, and so here we are (although it could be a universe more amenable to life than this one). It doesn't really matter, because the "probability" argument is an argument from incredulity, and we have only the one data point of this universe to speculate from, so the argument is without merit.
The video is right to say that we can't rule out a creator, but it's a nonsense statement, and just as nonsensical to say we can rule one in. It's a non-sequitur that has nothing to do with science or physics, and it's a discourtesy to try to drag a physicist into such a discussion--props to the video for eventually quoting his views correctly, though. Frankly, however, whether a scientist believes there is an intelligent designer or not is immaterial (sorry), as this too has nothing to do with the science, and never should.
You're right, it has nothing to do with the actual science but rather the question of whether or not a Supreme Being utilized means that we are struggling, and perhaps close to, understanding.... and THAT is a religious (or philosophical) matter.
@@johnphelps7519 Yes, and it is fertile grounds for discussion; just whatever stand is taken regarding such a being, it can't be supported by science one way or the other. Unfortunately, many who are convinced of the existence of a supernatural realm believe it helps them to drag science (the study of the natural realm) into it, and I think they should understand that such an approach is doomed from the start.
I really liked your explanation
Sassy!
Quality explanation mate. I remember hunting for someone to explain how the laws of physics started up again from that radiation era and you've nailed it.
Traditionally, logic, math, and physics have been approached from a third-person, objective standpoint. They aim to describe the universal, mind-independent structures and laws that govern reality, without reference to any particular subjective viewpoint. In this sense, they strive for a kind of "view from nowhere," a perspective that transcends any individual's specific location or experience.
However, as most will point out, we don't actually live in this third-person realm. Our experience of reality is inherently first-person, grounded in our individual perspective and subjective awareness. We encounter the world not as a detached, objective observer, but as an embodied, situated agent, navigating a landscape of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings.
From this view, metaphysics could be seen as the attempt to understand the deep structure of reality from this first-person standpoint. Rather than trying to step outside of our subjective experience, it would seek to dive deeply into it, to uncover the fundamental categories, principles, and relationships that shape our encounter with the world.
This first-person approach to metaphysics would not necessarily reject the insights of logic, math, and physics, but rather reinterpret them through the lens of subjective experience. It would ask how these abstract, third-person descriptions of reality translate into the concrete, lived reality of the first-person perspective.
For example, the logical principle of non-contradiction - that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time - could be understood not just as an abstract rule, but as a deep feature of how we experience the world. The fact that we cannot simultaneously affirm and deny the same proposition would be seen as a fundamental structure of our cognitive and perceptual apparatus, a necessary condition for coherent thought and action.
Similarly, mathematical concepts like number, shape, and pattern could be investigated as basic categories of subjective experience, the ways in which we carve up and make sense of the blooming, buzzing confusion of sensory input. And physical laws and constants could be understood not just as objective features of an external world, but as the stable regularities and constraints that shape our embodied interaction with our environment.
The key advantage of this first-person approach to metaphysics would be its grounding in the actual, lived reality of human experience. By starting from the irreducible fact of subjectivity, it would aim to construct a framework that is faithful to the way the world actually presents itself to us, rather than an abstract, idealized model that may or may not correspond to our direct experience.
Moreover, as has been suggested, this first-person perspective could potentially help to avoid some of the paradoxes and contradictions that arise from a purely third-person, objective stance. By recognizing the ineliminable role of the subject in constituting reality, it would provide a more complete and integrated picture, one that doesn't try to separate the observer from the observed in an artificial or absolute way.
Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, turn to Him for your salvation, there is no other way. God will reveal Himself to you, but only and only if you humble yourself first. I was there too, I thought believers are naive and there is no God, but God saved me by His grace and mercy. The Bible says:
“God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
What it means is that we need to humble ourselves first. Probably not in thousands of years I would ever become a believer if I would be proud and stay in proudful state. Tell me, would you invite someone to your house for a dinner if that person hates you, despise you, mock you, make fun of you or your family that love you or looks at you with a raised nose? Would a king from the Earth invite someone to his palace for dinner if the person despise him? Hates him? Criticise and mock his kingdom, wishes him evil and non existence (death) gossips about him and look at him with a raised nose? Of course not, what more the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords Jesus Christ? We must humble ourselves. And when we do so the Bible continues:
“God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” 7Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9Grieve, mourn, and weep. Turn your laughter to mourning, and your joy to gloom. 10Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you.
Do it with an open and honest, humbled heart and He will answer. I did so, I talk to God and He talks to me, I pray and He hears my prayers, I experienced and witnessed many miracles and supernatural. God is more real to me than you my friend. Turn to Jesus Christ and wait on Him, give a step closer to Him and He will give a step closer to you. God wants a loving and living relationship with you, not a dead ritualistic religion. I know so many people went through this, said if God bows down to me and mine requirements I will then... And it was for years like that till they humbled themselves and then they met God and many of them even supernaturally. Turn to Jesus Christ for your salvation, there is no other way. You are more than just material and chemical reactions and God wants you to be saved from your sins, addictions, anger all kinds of sins and evildoings too because they all lead to destruction, hell my friend..
@@ahoj132_at_azet_skthere is no hell. Hell is a man made construct and puts U in a state of fear. Mental hospitals are filled with these folk, there is only one infinite being and he loves you, don't worry about hell
An interesting view. I would point out however that this inclusion of a "logical principle of non-contradiction" does not take into account the phenomenon of superposition. And that the summation of including the first-person perspective as an integral part of a solution amounts to simply collapsing the wave function thru observation.
Your comment is intriguing but it also raises an interesting question, what is an “objective” stance?
I think what you say is right. Objective science is useful for learning how to manipulate matter, but it does not tell us what matter fundamentally IS, or where it comes from, or what is sustaining it. Our experience depends on consciousness, so consciousness is the prime reality. Logically, the existence we know of ourselves and the world i which live, also depends on consciousness. Universal consciousness.
He's idealizing. When speaking ontologically, Penrose becomes far more idealist/occasionalist.
Roger Penrose (Nobel Prize for Black Hole Information)
‘. . . PARTICLES DO NOT EVEN MOVE, BEING REPRESENTED BY “STATIC” CURVES DRAWN IN SPACE-TIME’. Thus what we perceive as moving 3D objects are really successive cross-sections of immobile 4D objects past which our field of observation is sweeping.”
the spelunker moving about incrementally with a flashlight rather than a floodlight
This is what Quantum Mechanics tells us. That nothing really moves because nothing is real until we observe it. Then it "collapses" into existence at a specific location. We have a conscious continuity that perceives these changing static locations as moving.
@@flyyynt Even then, nothing ontologically moves. It's just encoded into a location which represents movement.
Nebulas create stars. Stars create nebulas, and from that, everything else is created. Space was empty, like a dark closet with nothing in it. Then someone pulled the string and turned on the light. I give up.
How a expanding universe becomes so densely packed again for another big bang to occur?
Very important question, the answer lies in Indian ancient spritual scriptures.
@@prashanths9813 sure lol that's where the answer lies
In the video, however, the pictures shown imply a universe expanding and "suddenly" beginning from a singularity again, with nothing in between. Pure crap.
Now, I am not an expert on Penrose's ideas. You can find videos where he explains it. It is about the stuff in the universe thinning so much that it physically is in a state which resembles a state it had in the beginning. Size is just relative. Something along those lines if I remember correctly. I don't think it is a very convincing idea. Nobody has a good explanation to why and how the universe appeared. The evolution after it appears (called the Big Bang theory) is debated but still solid science. The origin itself is unknown, and Penrose's guess is just that, a guess. A hunch. A wavy hypothesis. Not solid knowledge.
@@edus9636 man its not crap, its only for visual representation and illustration, what if there is a cycle reset in between. Please think big.
I appreciate this a lot. Being critical is no small thing in holding companies like this accountable
Remeber when "science" was about things that could be verified? The good old days.
science is still about the scientific method and verification - A scientist making speculative claims about what they believe is not science. But, people definitely attempt to say it is -- so, I get your point ...
before Heisenberg and Godol
You're missing the point. Anything regarding what preceded Planck time is a hypothesis and will possibly remain so. Nobody's claiming predictive models regarding universal origins or multiverses or such. The scientific community is doing its job in not elevating any of these hypotheses, because it's possible we will never be able to investigate, test, and recreate them in any way.
It is always fascinating to hear from Roger Penrose and his theories which really sound very sensible.
But he kept changing his mind constantly!!!
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Some clarifications.
The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.
Marco Biagini
th-cam.com/video/9n6NvDpcwLM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=WIY4QQchd7chlzIY
Nope
You keep commenting on every consciousness video and keep assuring people that because you’re a physicist you know the absolute truth. I’ve heard of a lot other great educated physicists who would disagree with you on this dilemma. And if we don’t hear or even consider every point of view, we will not get far in answering questions like this. I think that humbleness, reason, and honesty are key to success in building better theories. No one can claim to know the truth.
@@808bigisland"Nope" what, exactly?
Nope, physical processes in the brain _are_ sufficient to describe mental experience? Because, although this may well eventually prove itself to be true, _nobody_ has as yet taken even the first step towards explaining how it _could_ be true. And so...
"Nope" what, exactly? "Nope," but you have no other original ideas? "Nope" but you're just generally clueless? "Nope" but you can't properly comprehend words?
Or is it just, if you were to be perfectly honest about it, "Nope... cos, like, unooooo... _reasons"?_
Yeah. Thought so.
@@simesaid input=output and most people possess no - or only rudimentary sentience or consciousness. The pre-poster is an esoteric looney🤣
@Beeyond Ideas This is such a great video, thanks for the enormous work put in.
Glad you enjoyed it!
If God did all this. The next question is 'why'?
the next question would be who did God?
Why do you create? Because it gives meaning to existence.
@@Roscoe0494 Why does god want to give meaning to existence? Isn't the existence of existence meaning enough? and how does having Humans in his existence give any more meaning to existence than any of the other things that exist in the universe?
I think the answer is for nothing.
sharing is caring
We are a fractal universe that will give rise to smaller fractal universes. The scale may be such that our universe's whole life may be but a moment in the pre-existing universe's scale of time. In a similar fashion, the universes that arise from our universe will have much smaller scales of time.
Idk if it gets addressed but... A universe capable of producing life that could even ask the question and quantify the parameters of the universe, would HAVE to have the correct parameters to create said life in the first place.
The universe is REQUIRED to have the exact correct parameters to question itself, in order to propose said question. No chance involved.
Yes, but it’s still a chance. An incomprehensible chance. For me to go out and hit a baseball on the first swing still doesn’t mean that I had a 100% chance of hitting the ball on the first swing.
life evolved to fit the laws of nature we have -- saying it was planned and not a matter of chance is just subjective presupposition -- no matter how scientificeee people try to sound when they claim it. There is no science to these speculative claims. IF anyone wants to say God claims are scientific, let them first cite a single peer reviewed scientific principle that uses a God in its formulations and equations. They can't. It's never been done. Even scientists that believe in a God have failed to do it - because it's not science. A prime mover can not exist. IF a state of nothingness is even possible - then nothing can exist in nothing, because it's nothing -- any claims to the contrary are illogical unproven presuppositional nonsense. Saying something manifested without a substrate to manifest in is incoherent. Also, unproven arguments for a vague Deistic God are pointless because a God that doesn't interact with its creation is as irrelevant as a God that doesn't exist.
@@HeavyMetal45 but how do you know it is "the first swing"? There could have been millions - or trillions - of universes created before ours that weren't able to produce complex, intelligent life.
@@HeavyMetal45 1. It may not be the first swing, there could have been an infinite number of swings.
2. The universe is only perfected for what we understand as a functional universe that can support life.
Our sample size of universes with different properties is zero, we have no idea what they would produce.
Every universe may produce something that can, in some way, question itself, or it may be rare.
All said, it is a 100% chance that a universe that can question itself will have the correct properties to get to the question.
All other versions failed to sprout self-replicating entropy mills, i.e. life.
When sir roger penrose speaks the science community listens 👌💯
It is entirely possible that the Penrose CCC is a single aeon that loops!
Or that those aeons which produce structure and life are rare yet inevitable.
This is the best comment yet!!! In fact a circle has curvature. So perhaps the whole process (which I do not admit for a second) has curvature. But I do not believe this is experimental physics. Perhaps speculation or just pseudo science.
"Astronomers are often in error but seldom in doubt" Russian physicist Landau I simply cannot believe that Penrose would make such a blatantly absurd "confidence" statement when astronomy at present is perplexed with the very measurement of the Hubble constant.
Somewhere within an infinite space time, “picking the right card out of a billion” would be an inevitability…
The universe isn't a loving peaceful place its total madness
It is what it is.
Blame it on God. He created it so he is responsible and on top of that he does nothing to make said "creation" better. He is either not able to or is just evil.
@@Death_is_inevitable. Or you are arrogant and do not want to obey him and stop fornication and alcohol? Allah has said in Surat alqiyama (Hereafter):
20. Not [as you think, that you (mankind) will not be resurrected and recompensed for your deeds], but (you men) love the present life of this world,
21. And leave (neglect) the Hereafter.
22. Some faces that Day shall be Nadirah (shining and radiant).
23. Looking at their Lord (Allah);
24. And some faces, that Day, will be Basirah (dark, gloomy, frowning, and sad),
25. Thinking that some calamity was about to fall on them;
26.Nay, when (the soul) reaches to the collar bone (i.e. up to the throat in its exit),
27. And it will be said: "Who can cure him and save him from death?"
28. And he (the dying person) will conclude that it was (the time) of departing (death);
29. And leg will be joined with another leg (shrouded)
30. The drive will be, on that Day, to your Lord (Allah)!
31. So he (the disbeliever) neither believed nor prayed!
32. But on the contrary, he belied and turned away!
33. Then he walked in full pride to his family admiring himself!
34. Woe to you [O man (disbeliever)]! And then (again) woe to you!
35. Again, woe to you [O man (disbeliever)]! And then (again) woe to you!
36. Does man think that he will be left Suda [neglected without being punished or rewarded for the obligatory duties enjoined by his Lord (Allah) on him]?
37. Was he not a Nutfah (mixed male and female discharge of semen) poured forth?
38. Then he became an 'Alaqa (a clot); then (Allah) shaped and fashioned (him) in due proportion.
39. And made him in two sexes, male and female.
40. Is not He (Allah Who does that), Able to give life to the dead? (Yes! He is Able to do all things).
@@Death_is_inevitable. Ooh, only blaming "others" to cover up self deficiencies and doing nothing against them. Next try.
@@edus9636the only cover up of God's true nature is the Bible that is lies. Using the Bible and comparing it to how reality is, God is not all that the Bible claims he is. You can believe whatever lies you want but I do not worship a creature that I can see as a false god using books that is illogical and not connected to our current universe.
For me the "Universe in a black hole" and basically "black hole-ception" is the most understandable. If you understand how time and space swap at the event horizon, the "falling" of spacetime through the horizon feels naturally like the expansion of spacetime at the edge of the universe. I imagine the outer edge inside a black hole like an inverse space time compared to directly outside a black hole, like the space time flattens itself more and more out going deeper "inside" the black hole (which is a direction in time, not space).
Imagine a universe that is shrinking right now and that we, or Earth is being sucked into a ultra dense black hole. Through the law of physics we would be moving faster towards the center than those objects farther away due to the inverse square gravitational law. To us it would look like space is expanding beyond the Hubble space. Expansion could be a relative thing.
And assuming the boundary of the observable universe to be the event horizon? Interesting thought experiment.
That's an interesting perspective! The idea of a creator in the universe is a matter of faith and philosophy that has been contemplated by humans for millennia. Science, on the other hand, focuses on the natural world and uses evidence and observation to explain how the universe works.
Here are some approaches to consider:
* Scientific Inquiry: Science currently investigates the universe through the lens of natural laws and processes, without invoking a creator. This approach has led to a vast understanding of the cosmos.
* Religious Faith: Many religions believe in a creator deity who plays a role in the universe's origin and function. Faith offers purpose and meaning to some people.
* Philosophical Viewpoints: Philosophy explores the concept of creation from various angles, considering questions about existence, consciousness, and the nature of reality.
Ultimately, the question of a creator is a personal one. Science and faith can coexist for some people, while others may find more comfort in one approach over the other.
Science and a Creator are not mutually exclusive. The vid you're commenting on demonstrates this somewhat. The odds of our universe happening on its own is statistically impossible. Probability, entropy, life, motion, quantum mechanics all support the likelihood of a Creator.
@@flyyynt but there's so scientific evidence but philosophical perception can vary.
@@spc3461 Could you please refute the example I pointed out first before just ignoring it and saying there isn't any evidence. I'd be much more likely to believe you if you did that.
What is not getting through in these brilliant and yet hard headed scientists is that for life to exist, conditions have to be precise, but for universe to exist conditions cannot be precise zero. Zero state does exist but is unstable. The mystery is: Why?
So,, YOU know more than actual scientists? What about scientists that are also religious -- why is it that not even they have ever come up with an actual scientific equation that uses a god in its formulation?? -- BECAUSE IT'S NOT SCIENCE. God claims are wild speculation about magical beings in magical realms (outside space and time)
IF you understood science as much as you think you do -- you would know that just making claims without peer reviewed specifics is not science.
@@DwayneShaw1 If a god is supposed to be omnipotent, why not create a fully-formed universe? That itself is a reason to dismiss the idea of gods. If the creator of the universe was limited in his power, then he was no god.
@@TheJosep70 - God claims are absurd magical claims with no basis in reality -- A Creator god can be easily dismissed with simple logic that only the willfully ignorant will refuse to accept.
A 'Prime Mover' creator god cannot exist. Assuming a state of 'nothingness' is even possible - IF the claim is 'something can't come from nothing' [*] then something certainly can't exist in nothing either (because it's nothing). If this Prime Mover created 'everything', where did he exist before he created a place in which to exist? (answers akin to "He's the Great and Powerful Oz" - are neither satisfactory, logical, or demonstrable) - 'Being' implies a place in which to 'be'. There had to be some form of spacial construct for this god to exist in before he could exist in it. Also, nothing can happen without the forward momentum of time. So a Prime Mover couldn't have created time, or anything else, without 'time' to do it. Religions, by their own arguments, have created a god that is nothing existing nowhere at no time.
Not to mention that vague deistic arguments for a god are completely pointless - because a god that doesn't interact with It's creation is as irrelevant as a god that doesn't exist (this applies to all lessor god claims too). The only relevant arguments for religion must be about what this supposed god does for, or to, the universe - not whether a god merely exists... and ALL specific claims about magical interactions of a deity are unproven, illogical, and absurd - and often horridly immoral; thereby rendering the entire premise moot.
Claiming, "God exists outside space and time" is incoherent and vague -- unless 'outside space and time' can be clearly defined and proven to exist one might as well insist, "God exists banana".... Both statements are equally absurd. Saying something manifests without a substrate to manifest in is incoherent - and if you can't get past, "in the beginning", there's really nothing left to talk about.
[*] - a contingency argument can't be conditional - that's just arguing with yourself
I feels like I'm sooo at ease and peace and so... very calming...
Question is where did did this entity come from 🤔natures mother the being that is human
fyi, none of the elements mentioned in the periodic table were even created on earth.
@@ChessPlayer78the elements are a European word made by those who control the simple minds space time and you your beginning is your end says your lord
@@ChessPlayer78 so were if not earth my friend
@@ChessPlayer78 who’s worthy of Gods image you or everyone
@@ChessPlayer78 individuals like you ghost comments so called intelligent
the existence of black holes in the middle of our own galaxy will devour our galaxy and recycle our own universe, way BEFORE the end of the entire universe, for each Eon...
Got it Roger? we are not an accident; there is a God...
The card analogy in the beginning is interesting. One cosmologist used that, and said the odds of all the cosmological constants lining up just the way they did are the same as picking one marked playing card out of a ten-foot deep deck that covered North America. That's a bit more than writing it off to some lottery, cosmic or otherwise. People adopt hardened positions on all sides of an argument either because they are emotionally or financially invested in it. As for me, like the man once said, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Ah, yes, the argument from incredulity. I can't fathom it, therefore Jeezus. Your attempt at humor shows you are insecure in your faith. God can see your lack of transparency about your real feelings. Be careful; hell is just around the corner. God knows if you profess belief as an insurance policy only and not actual true belief.
Another possibility is Lee Smolin’s Cosmological Natural Selection. It would be a good conversation to get Dr Smolin on your show
Infinite intelligence existing within the so-called first intelligence existing as far as we know🤔 simultaneously evolving‼️👀 co-evolution🙏🏿
as far as we know --we can't know what occurred prior to the Big Bang --but we can know that man made fairy tale claims about a magical realm (outside space and time) containing a magical being -- is childish nonsense that isn't supported by any evidence
Wrong. READ THE COSMIC PUZZLE BY HAROLD GANS
@@moshebenamram6020 the way to grow is to come up with your own way of thinking. The narrative is yours.
@@moshebenamram6020 Read Timontio Jackson life’s emotions thoughts of a poet
I really like this kinda stuff, so much more thought provoking than a Sunday Sermon which just rehashes the same old tired stories.
If we have found out one thing about the universe, it’s the fact that it’s so vast and massive that anything is possible. You put so many zeros in front of your one to say “it just takes too much time for all possibilities to be tried”, not realising that it might have taken way more time for the universe to form than the amount of time needed in the first place. Yes, it’s hard for us humans to imagine that because we are just a flash, a spark compared to the universe’s age, but that is perfectly possible statistically.
Yes and no because there are universal rules and humanity is not to worry about this. Question is this: is the universe expanding or shrinking? Why are there some photos online that do not show all? Humans are like grass hoppers on the planet and grasshoppers help plants but not some bugs. Those who destroy the plants what if they are the scorpions in revelation? Choose to be a grasshopper so you stay and care about planet earth.
@@Annieisfreejustlikebutterflies 😴
@@Annieisfreejustlikebutterflies
God yes; puny humans, no.
Focusing on the fine-tuning aspect of the universe, specifically dark energy density, Penrose suggests that for life to exist, the conditions had to be exceptionally precise. According to him, an advanced being might have set tge dark energy perfectly, to allow for the life to emerge. If this density wete significantly higher, the universe could have been torn apart. Or, if it's only slightly lower, the universe could collapse into a singularity long before life had any opportunity to develop.
Imagine playing a game of dice about the existence of everything around us, including ourselves. Weinberg connected the dots between the low level of dark energy in the universe and the Anthropic Principle. Steven Weinberg: "We can only discuss the universes that have the exact conditions for us to exist." [The Anthropic Principle] It's like saying that out of a gazillion dice rolls the universe got that one chance to produce life as we know it. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. He proposed that there's a certain level of dark energy in order for life to exist and it's closely related to the energy level needed for galaxies to form. It's as if, once the stage is set for galaxies, the conditions became right for life to emerge. Which links their creation and the possibility of life more closely than we ever imagined. This connection between dark energy density and life is surprisingly strong.
But--and it's a big but--just because we're here to observe this universe doesn't mean our existence was a guaranteed outcome. The chances of the universe containing just the right amount of dark energy for life to exist are incredibly slim.
When we talk about the conditions necessary to create the universe, when we say 1 part in 10 to the 10th to the 123rd, it reflects the precision on the phase-space volume.
V/W=10¹⁰‐¹²³rd. It was Penrose's fancy way of saying "the number of different possible states the universe ckuld take at its inception."
This precision is so specific, that even if you try to write it out in full by putting a zero on each separate proton, and on each separate neutron in the whole universe, you wouldn't come close to the total. Penrose: "That many zeros, I certainly couldn't get on a page; I couldn't even fit them into the universe if I put one zero on every single proton within the observable universe. That's not nearly enough."
Some might say every step in the formation of the universe could be chalked up to coincidence. But is it reasonable to attribute everything to chance, especially when considering the precision observed around us? Take for example the concept of intelligence [including A.I.]. Observations tell us intelligence typically originates from an existing intelligence. So when we see the intricate design and order in the universe it's natural to question whether it all could be the result of random events. When we start to consider the sheer number of coincidences necessary for life to exist, this whole galactic time-frame suddenly appears quite short.
Understanding the scientific mechanisms that led to the formation of the universe and life wirhin it, doesn't eliminate the possibility of an underlying cause or intelligence.
Richard Feynman: Discovering the laws of physics is like trying to learn the rules of chess, merely by observing chess games. Yku might observe that bishops remain on squares of the same color, deducing this as a fundamental rule. But a deeper understanding actually reveals that bishops move diagonally, which in turn explains why they always remain on the same color. This evolution of understanding, from a simpke observation to more profound insight, mirrors the journey of discovery in physics. Discovering an expanding universe after Newton and Einstein wanting a static universe is a similar type of revelation. Another example is realizing that chess pieces maintain their identity. But consider a pawn reaches the opposite end of the board and finally transforms into a queen. Of course, it does not violate the laws of chess. You've just never seen a game pushed to that extreme before. The same thing with cosmology: that the notion of a big bang as the universe's beginning was a foundational belief. But as we push the boundaries of our understanding we encounter theories that challenge our conventional wisdom. The idea that space and time could have existed beforehand, and that these ideas violate common sense, makes them perplexing. For now, the cosmos undergoes an endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth may seem outlandish.... [Harry Dewang]
The concept of the universe's creation in Vedic texts, particularly the Srimad Bhagavatam, contrasts significantly with the Big Bang theory. According to the Srimad Bhagavatam, Maha Vishnu, an expansion of Lord Vishnu, is the original source of the universe. The process begins when Maha Vishnu, lying in the Causal Ocean (Karana Ocean), exhales, creating innumerable universes from the pores of His skin. Each universe is like a bubble that eventually expands and forms its own cosmic structure. God does exist. We and the universe exist only because of Him.
In each universe, Maha Vishnu enters as Garbhodakasayi Vishnu and creates Brahma, the first living being. Brahma then takes on the role of the creator within that universe, further shaping and organizing it. This process is described as eternal and cyclic, with universes being created, maintained, and eventually dissolved back into Maha Vishnu's body, only to be created again.
In contrast, the Big Bang theory is a scientific explanation that suggests the universe began from a singular, extremely dense and hot point about 13.8 billion years ago. It then expanded and cooled to form galaxies, stars, and planets. This theory is supported by empirical evidence such as the cosmic microwave backgroundThe Vedic perspective sees the creation by Maha Vishnu as complete and perfect, understood through spiritual insight and revelation by great yogis and mystics. This is in contrast to the Big Bang theory, widely accepted in the scientific community but remaining a theoretical framework subject to ongoing research and refinement. The Vedic view emphasizes a divine and purposeful creation, while the Big Bang theory is based on imperfect observable phenomena and physical laws that are subject to change as our understanding of the universe continues to evolve. This is like ants trying to understand how a rocket ship works. Vedic knowledge explains creation in great detail. Why do we assume that our brief time here in modern civilization is the epitome of knowledge, when only a few years ago people believed that Earth was the center of the universe and anyone who disagreed with the church's theory was burned at the stake? #VedicPerspective #BigBangTheory #ScientificCommunity #Creation #UniverseUnderstanding
Very interesting. May I ask then what happens to us after death?
You seem to know a lot about this Maha Vishnu by reference to "revelations by great yogis and mystics". That counts as hear say or claims made by humans who cannot produce anything like an evidence or observation in support of the claims, just like any other religion. If you make the choice of believing the claims, whether 1 million or one billion other people also believe it, it still is an unsupported BELIEF without basis.
@@jessicasfarrell You as an Identity will be teleported to different realm of universe. These are clearly described in Indian ancient Scriptures. These texts has complete info about SpaceTime.
@markbradley8198, agree with you mate. I firmly believe in Vedas and Upanishaths.
What does "tiny" even mean? If you ask Betelgeuse, the Grand Canyon is tiny. If you ask a bacterium, humans are unimaginably enormous. Once the universe erodes into massless photons and spent energy, scale becomes completely irrelevant.
We have very little chance of approaching the question of all questions - why does anything exist at all? - other than to acknowledge and accept existence as a phenomenon. All answers that we can attempt at present and for an unforeseeably long time to come are speculations. From a purely logical point of view, there are not so many possibilities for a beginning; we have an eternal Creator plus natural laws, the eternal existence of energy and matter plus emergent consistent natural regularities as well as various cyclical forms of the existence of matter and energy. I only mention the creator for the sake of completeness, because of course a creator doesn't answer anything. Rather, it is subject to the same questions that must otherwise be asked about the existence of matter/energy.
As far as our consciousness is concerned, this question is unresolved, but much easier to access. If we live in a universe - which we can again perceive as a phenomenon - that supports evolutionary developments due to extreme imbalances in the distribution of energy, it is not surprising that something will emerge. If something emerges long enough, there will also be something that can develop consciousness. The rest is an optimization problem.
And yes, this also implies that our existence is not necessary in any way at all, neither in our specific way as a species nor in our individuality. We are beings of randomness.
"If something emerges long enough, there will also be something that can develop consciousness". Why would something develop consciousness at all? It's the same as saying that some kind of molecules, having extreme imbalances in the distribution of energy, would develop lifeforms after a long enough time. Silicon has similar properties as carbon, yet not a single silicon lifeform has ever evolved from stones (and never will). The video says very clearly that the finetuning of the universe is crucial for the existence not only of this universe but for stars, galaxies and lifeforms. The constants of nature are not random, the laws of Physics are not random, and they all point to an anthropic universe. If one human has a blue eye and the other green ones, that's randomness. If somebody is killed by a lighting, that's randomness. If a planet is within the Goldilocks region, lifeforms will not eventually emerge by randomness but 100% emerge. The universe is thriving of lifeforms.
Well, we know some things. Sorry for bad English, it's not my native language.
Brains follow the laws of nature, derived consciousness is a property of the Universe. Eventually the Universe will shape its own future by being alive, create its own reality, consciously. Also, the Universe is much older than Earth. Chances are that the Universe is already far ahead in evolution and development, but we can't test that.
The Universe can create consciousness and things like colors and sound due to its tremendous creative potential, which basically shaped everything in existence. No matter what the nature is, this potential exists.
As for where everything comes from, let's start with nothing. Even in nothing there are still laws of mathematics, imaginary information. These laws form all kinds of imaginary graphs, equations, anything. Now imagine that some subsets shape an infinite complex fractal with an infinite creative potential that allows it to be alive from within, in brain-like structures. This fractal is still imaginary, but not to the imaginary brains inside. They experience realities. In base reality the fractal exists in its infinite entirety because it cannot not exist, but brains experience a "simulation" as if the base reality fractal is calculating itself through interaction. Laws of mathematics that shaped the base reality fractal manifest as laws of physics in the vivid world.
To us it's like everything started in the past, but every Now always comes from the immediate future. Eventually the entire Universe with all of space and time ever will have come from the end of the infinite future, from infinite complexity, from the source of the infinite creative potential. In vivid reality this is infinitely far away, but space and time do not really exist in base reality. The Universe creates its own reality from the infinite future, and our Now is the experience of the Universe coming into existence.
If you have a PC, try Kalles Fractaler and Mandelbulb3D to deep-dive into Mandelbrot fractal (or watch some videos). Interesting structures can be found while barely anything is calculated yet, compared to infinite calculations. In Space Engine you can explore a simulation of the observable Universe with gazillions of worlds to land on. It's made with fairly simple formulas.
1:59 a finite universe can exist within existence but existence can have no beginning or end. This is self-evident.
?
Bro what did you just say?
Finite things can exist without the beginning or end? Do you know what finite means?
@@julkarneinkazal6597 Our universe as science defines it, is finite. It is measurable. It has a size and an age. It has a beginning and end. But it exists within existence, and existence cannot be finite. Existence cannot be measured, and therefore does not physically exist but simply is. This much is self-evident even as our finite brains cannot define it. Infinity is real.
@@yoursoulisforever 1. What is the proof of infinity could you please refer to any comprehensive study that majority of scientists agreed? I think all those are still hypothetical.
2. Big Bang is still the convincing, rational, somewhat physically and mathematically proven that majority scientists supports as far as I know.
3. How do you prove another existence or primary existence was there from the beginning and how do you know it is eternal and how do you know it wasn’t created just like our universe?
When you say finite you very well know it has a beginning and end. People usually refer the infinite/eternal being as GOD.
True true
"While answers are successfully evading, the foolishness of those who think they know."
-Michael Nesmith, Wisdom Has Its Way, From a Radio Engine to a Photon Wing.
Who started the first Aeon then?
GOD!
Who started god then?
@@joshuaharper6896 there has to be uncaused, timeless, beginningless something that started it all, otherwise you always bump in the constrain of who started this and that, time, space and etc. there must be something that still exists beyond time, space and our imagination.
If the invisible man in the sky doesn't need a beginning then why does the universe?
Always the same special pleading fallacy eh?
@@Aguijon1982 everything that surrounds us is moving, expanding, shrinking and s changing over time. That means it all exists in the time dimension. Time must have the beginning, otherwise we bump into infinity. For universe in order to be un-created there should be then a line somewhere, where it no longer exists in the time dimension. That really sounds absurd but we can’t prove or disprove it either
Some people crochet, some grow roses, and some scratch their heads about unknowables :)
Penrose is a publicly stated atheist. Rationalizing the existence of god from specific characteristics of a scientific hypothesis or from the lack of a validated scientific theory is specious reasoning predicated on the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance under the broader umbrella of the logical fallacy of confirmation bias. Start off with the conclusion and then try to manufacture excuses to justify the conclusion you started out with in the first place - the very antithesis of rational thinking.
Blablabla
Funny how fundamentalists have to steal others ideas,, organisations etc
Quite sure he's agnostic, which is slightly different. He thinks all the major religions are not helpful when it comes to this issue.
You need to learn how to write simply.
@@mrretired2715 Maybe it's you who is simple?
I have compassion for the human mind. Its craziness is at all levels.
Let's focus on better medicine for ALL, better dental FOR ALL, better housing for ALL, AND HOW TO WORK TOGETHER FOR THE BENEFIT IF ALL?! Not just a few so they can FEEL SUPERIOR.🎉
For all? Who is all?We come from an ecosystem and since we have an upperhand we think we don't need that system, but we are part of it. The system needs us to die,just like all the rest,not live longer than nature intended.Disease is opportunity for other life.
Are you sure you're in the right video? Was this a response to a video down the hall?
OMG. Roger Penrose now resembles Grandpa from "The Munster's" TV show.
This idea about a cyclical universe is also detailed in mythological form in the vedanta.
agree with you mate. I believe in Vedas and Upanishaths.
Also in Buddhist cosmology. That's why I find CCC fascinating: It has a precedent in Eastern philosophy and yet, as far as I can tell, Penrose has relatively little background in Hinduism and Buddhism.
I like Roger Penrose, but he is a mathematician. As Bertrand Russell pointed out:" Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the universe, but because we know so little."
Nikola Tesla noticed the same thing about Einstein and the quantum physicists.
I am a simple man: see name Penrose in titles hit like button automatically.
Btw, fairly good video 👍
The scientist can clearly observe not only the complexity of the universe but also the extraordinary improbability of all the factors aligning perfectly-like winning countless lotteries-to allow this planet and all its life to exist. This strongly suggests the presence of a Creator, a God. Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence, the scientist refuses to acknowledge it, which baffles me. The idea that life could have arisen purely by chance, without a Creator, seems utterly impossible.
how can a shotgun blast point blank my head be converted into theory of make-believe
thanks for the brain injury too btw
Thanks Prof Penrose it is really interesting to observe that his ideas reflect a progressive mind and prudent intelligence of going beyond without denying something but interpreting it in a comprehensive way
So if Aeons are the big bang firecrackers in succession that continue into infinity, who or what lit the first fuse? Was it a closed loop generation after a universal heat death (universe out of nothing), or linear prescribed event?
They continue from infinity into infinity, there wasn't a "first fuse" to be lit.
We cannot see past the Big Bang and will likely never actually KNOW what existed before it -- but that is no reason to assert, and insist on, magical nonsensical claims about a supernatural being that simple logic dictates could not have existed. (assuming nothingness is even possible) Nothing can exist in nothing because it's nothing.
@@alexnik1181Obviously you don’t know what infinity means. If it goes on forever, it never ended in the first place. Infinity minus 1 still equals infinity and so on. By definition it is nonsensical.
Careful with that "who lit the fuse?" stuff. The next question is "who made the lighter of the fuse?" Pretty soon you're following elephants all the way down.
@@OslerWannabe -- I don't see my post that you are responding to, it isn't showing up on my screen -- But I guarantee I never claimed to know anything about a Prime Mover, which cannot logically exist. Nor did I in any way, shape, or form suggest there was a creator, or god, or that the concept of nothingness is even possible. OR claim to have any knowledge of what happened prior to the Big Bang - other than knowing there wasn't some magical illogical realm (referred to as 'outside space and time') with a magical illogical god that came from nowhere and created everything.
The compensating offset to expansion is known as the orbit where new expansions are continuously reborn in every subatomic particle.
The orbit is 48 intervals long. Why are electrons the same size? They are as small as they can be and as large. Without this feature, this constraint, there would be no quantum glue, literally nothing would exist.
What Penrose called 'dark energy' I call electromagnetic resonance. It's this resonance that holds everything together and binds one end of the universe to the other. That is why a molecule can exist in two places at once no matter the distance.
Space is a sea of ether...ancient guys told us since the begining...universes are just bubbles in the ocean...
The difference is that Penrose employs a hypothesis in alignments with establish, observable and testable theories while you you utter a random opinion without any understanding of what you are talking about.
@@DH-rj2kv and who is to say I don't?
@@rogerpaquette109
The fact that you arbitrarily mix concepts and terms and assign random properties to them does give it away.
@@DH-rj2kv all reality exists with a resonance signature. This resonance is an affect of constant electromagnetic interactions that occur all around us including the gulf between systems and galaxies. I referenced spooky action as an electromagnetic universe gives explanation for this action ...the two are related sir
This was fascinating i got hit upset the head and had to laugh at myself when ALL the zeros was explained then Roger broke it down absolutely thoroughly. This totally made sense and showed me why im so weird! (And quite smart to the point i forget things) .... oh my. So much aligns with future, present, and past. Interesting. I received an A- on my paper in my Senior year which i wrote and described a rose and titled as such 'The Rose' by Lisa Bordeaux in 1990 -91.All the more reasons i can agree with predictability and in some fashion of remote views as well?! Of course I struggle more on conversing things. The give and take applies in definite reality. Will explain farther, with help, if need be. I encourage collaboration.
Great to hear that! Would love to connect via email. Please reach out to video@beeyond.media
The properties of physics don't care about mythology...
Who's saying anything about mythology???
Physics doesn't have properties. Physics is a discipline of study. Elements have properties. We shouldn't anthropomorphize physical elements. Mythologizing is one of many abilities of a mind. The mind has the ability to comprehend the material universe and manipulate the elements within it. It is the mind (the sometimes author of mythology) which comprehends the universe (which includes the properties of the elements). The preeminence of mind over material (to include time and space) is the default position that we are all working and living from; not the other way around.
No human being lives as though the material universe is preeminent over the mind. Your statement presupposes that human beings should submit to the pattern and "preferences" of the material universe and conform their minds to it. I guarantee that you don't do that and would never truly, rationally support it. If you did... you would simply be "bowing" to the universe and effectively making the universe your god, which, by design, you have the capacity and the necessary unction to do. We will all necessarily worship one god or another, by design.
Another way of saying it: Ignorance of Facts is not evidence of mythology.
@@ricomajestic 8:54 coining a term for “black mater.”
Some so called myths are more.
I am in the process of hand writing out the Penrose number. I am on page 73 and should be done in another week.
Atheist do not accept theists views and the other way around. But one thing is inescapable, all human bodies would eventually perish. Then after that will anyone realize if there is a God with morality and it's consequences or everything in this vast complex cosmos is mere random chance and we're just heaps of dust to be blown away and completely forgotten.
....does make sense to me👍👍
This is untrue. People convert or deconvert all the time. Agreed on the cosmic nihilism, tho.
"It is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon; all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course" (21:33). "The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it" (51:47).
Maybe its time for you to read the Hindu text "Bhagwatam". It gives a more stable view on the reality that exists around us. It also marries the phenomena of consciousness to the 5 sense reality around us. Whats more, the book is hard to refute philosophically. The book is just holding true for thousands of years, while the modern science perspective about reality is changing every 2 decades.
Religion should never be used as a tool for science. It does not derive of science but of a viewpoint of thousands of years ago with a lack of education that shows what it is -fables and made up stories.
*"The cosmic Puzzle" by Harold gans*
The deepest insight into the cosmic beginnings of our universe was spoken by a somewhat wall-eyed elderly woman who stated that our universe rests on the carapace of an eternal tortoise. But when some smug cosmologist tried to unsettle her by asking "well, what does that turtle sit on??", she snapped back with the definitive and final answer: "Why, it's turtles all the way DOWN!!!"
10:45
Can anyone provide a link to the original source(interview) where Roger Penrose says, "I don't think that helps much. A being in the sense of a conscious being, something that the word God has been applied to, is not the view which I hold. I like to draw these pictures, and I'm amused when people pick it up and try to say I'm claiming that there's a Creator out there. That's not my view at all."
Please, I want to watch it.
Some scientists are audacious ,aggressive and stubborn to deny the creator. They deny the conceived scientific understanding just by denying it, as accepting God is something shameful for them. Pity for them.
At least this proves that the CHRISTIAN God is a Bullshit. Maybe it was Allah, or Zeus, but definitely NOT the evil Christian God.
Pity for you. Why maintain the blind faith? Only because you christian thought believe in god is good n moral while not believe in god is evil ? This in itself is evil n stupid. The so called morality in christianity is no better than the eastern morality as advocated by Confucianism, Taoism and Buddha Dharma. Religious intolerance is the cause of so many wars.The least religiosity in the western countries like Sweden, Holland have much lower crime rates than the christians flooded USA
If you forget the time, which is a human invention, everything is natural. An Eternal cycle of birth and destruction.
There is another explanation that gets around fine tuning. It is looking at the situation as if life just evolved to fit EXISTING conditions and needs no fine tuning, it Just builds from the environment like a cactus in a hot dry desert or a polar bear in the frozen cold climates. I am agnostic.
The anthropics strike back 🤣🤣🤣. Sad.
I remember hearing that you can't put a probability in this case... because we simply don't know.
I agree with u. It's sad this argument persists.
@@stevegovea1 Is the best argument available. Else, we wouldn't exist.
There must be a Creator's aim so that our feet touch the ground precisely ! Imagine the world if that wasn’t the case !
I think that Roger Penrose actually believes in God, but he does not admit it openly because the scientific establishment would outcry at him.
Exactly! The same happened to Hawking after writing the final sentence in his bestseller "A brief history of time" about the "mind of God". He was fiercely criticized by the atheist hyenas only because he mentioned God. After he openly claimed to not believe in God, he "suddenly" became the golden boy of the Establishment and an international superstar. Funny "coincidence", one would say...
Roger Penrose does not believe in any God. You are wrong. He is an atheist. No scientist is comfortable with a God who created this universe life. Some scientists are comfortable with Buddhism. It is difficult for scientists to believe that a God did all the calculations and made the universe. Most of us also feel uncomfortable and find it very difficult to believe such a God exists.
If God created this endless food chain, what should we think about God's intelligence?
So it’s easier to believe nothing created everything instead of someone created everything? So you god is nothing
@@steveno7058 Who told you there was a creation, in first place? What if there is another principle attracting the elements together and the configurations constantly change, before they create stable formation, in which every participating element exercises its free will. That's it.
@@steveno7058"No - thing" does not mean "nothing".
You are absolutely right & correct.
Picking one card out of a billion ani't that difficult if you can start over a billion times.
If you only have one chance then yes. But you don't. If you are the universe, then you have an infinite amount of time to start over.
the whole creation shows its makers hand
The universe just exist. It doesn’t have the beginning or ending. We should avoid using the terms « begin » or « end » when talking about universe. It just exist.
This video lost me when they featured Stephen Meyer, a well-known speaker for the Discovery Institute, which pushes the pseudo-science garbage that the universe is 6,000 years old. They also posit the the great "flood" of Noah's Ark actually occurred as the Bible claims.
Meyer believes the universe is 14.5 billion years old, he has said this countless times.
But way to trash someone because they have a different view then you do. No need to exit your echo chamber.
Meyer has said countless times he believes the universe is 14.5 billion years old, but that would get in the way of your virtue signaling if you admitted this.
Uhhhhh, because the great flood really happened! Every civilization in that time period writes of a great flood including from South America, China, Middle East and India. There’s a lot more evidence too including sedimentary layers taken all over Earth at the same depth. There are fish fossils on the summit of Everest and shell fish in the Rocky Mountains and Andes. Evidence of thousands of square miles of mud layers across continents. Our history of Earth and the universe is far more bizarre than anyone knows and that scares these eggheads even more because it makes them far less significant…..
Interesting that the age of the earth has recently been doubled to cater for inconsistency with observation by JWT. Also interesting that in 300 years science started out by devout and open minded Christians discovering what they believed was the exquisite and discoverable work of God, to closed minded atheistic philosophy with an agenda to force fit narratives that remove God from the equation.
I don't know about creator aim but yes we were actually all created. We are immortal beings that got bored and learned how to make life so to break up the boredom we make life and live in it .
This is pure sophistry
For ignorants like Atheists 😂 everything for their room temperature iq everything is sophistry , rather come up with an argument poor butt hurt 😂
All intelligent people know that our earth and the universe has evolved over millions of years, and is still changing daily. No person past or present has been able to prove that there is a god who waved a magic wand and created what is now.
You have mistaken.. its like asking or writing ones own experience in a sheet of paper to prove God. Can you write the sound of birds chirping ? same thing applies here..
A creature that existing in a 1 or 2 dimension realm can never imagine what it is like in a 3 dimension realm. Likewise, a marine creature that is born and live 3,000m in the darkness depths of the sea cannot imagine how it is on the sunny dry land. We creature cannot prove God but by His creation, we know in our heary there must be a transcendental Creator.
All intelligent people know that the existence of the universe out of nothing is impossible, yet, atheists literally believe in something beyond magic.
God is an axiom, thus uncreated by definition. The finetuning of the universe is proof, the stars as factories of elements are proof, the constants and laws of nature are proof, the fact that all (!) electrons in the universe are identical, is the fatal blow to all the babbling of the atheists.
If your definition of word "god" is wrong then outcome is wrong. Use correct definition as Bible express it and you will see evidence. There is Creator of the Universe, root cause of everything, driving force of the Universe: existence of Energy, in form of space, time and matter as Einstein stated: E=mc².
Endless cycles means the right conditions will arise at least once every huge section of occurrence.
Are these previous universes exactly the same as ours ,if not maybe the "architects" are just doing this until they get it right.
All previous universes had less information that the later ones.
I could understand that if there had been for arguments sake 3 or 4 previous universes but not if there had been say a trillion billion,how much "information" does a universe need?
It is ironic that scientists can try to understand the complexity and unimaginable power and perfection necessary for the existence of the universe and yet they cannot conceive the existence of an eternal Creator. What if the existence of a Creator is the answer? Will they discard it because it isn't scientific? The universe itself and everything in it, including all forms of life, matter, phenomenon and consciousness, is more than enough evidence to prove it.
They have rejected it. They now define science as being only naturalistic processes, but then try to posit naturalistic causes for supernatural events. Nothing science has proposed answers the big questions of Existence, Life, Intelligence or Consciousness. Modern science has been a complete waste because they keep trying to answer the unanswerable rather than accepting what we can’t know and try to understand the processes we can see.
@@ktrimbach5771 what a complete misunderstanding of science you have. You do see that your arguments apply perfectly to religion, not science don't you?
It's like questioning the plausibility of finding ourselves on the surface of a habitable planet, instead of in the random point of space? How does it suggest anything? It's just logical that our location can't be random.
There are not that many planets that can be inhabited like some think and earth was carefully planned not a random chance. Care about the planet please.
@@Annieisfreejustlikebutterflies There are hundreds of billions of galaxies and hundreds ob billions stars in each. You have no idea how many of them are inhabited or which ones are planned or not.
@@XOPOIIIObut you have to think tho all of the conditions for life as we know it must be as intricate as this one. Everything has to go right. There’s no guarantee that life exists in the exact moment we do.
@@djteq9 I'm not saying that life exist anywhere outside of our planet. I'm saying that life definitely exists on our planet, because that is the only way it could be.
Quote from the Danish book Spiritual Molecules:
"I saw how the singularity was the ultimate ruler in the Universe. The endless repetitions of the Big Bang created the pulse of the Universe. The singularity collected everything in the Universe and re-sent it all out like a gigantic heartbeat into the empty universe. One second in eternity and creation of a new univers i the infinite empty space where everything happens" Man is like an ecological mirror of the universe. The singularity is like a heart that expands and contracts. The sun lives an active life and dies precisely as humans do.
Who began eternal god?
Nobody. God is eternal. God exists outside of time.
@@sabhishek9289 Everything does because our experience of time as something that flows is an illusion. Try again with some other type of nonsense.
@@nsbd90now How is it an illusion? You are committing the alleged certainty fallacy here.
@@sabhishek9289 WHERE precisely is this "outside of space/time"? WHAT does it look like? HOW big is it? WHAT color is it? WHAT does it smell like? What can you prove and demonstrate about this "outside space/time"?? Anyone can pull a vague nonsensical term out of their backside. It is utterly meaningless unless you can specifically define this supposed realm and demonstrate it actually exists. Also,, you would need to explain how anything can happen without the forward momentum of time? You're are just spouting magical presuppositional claims - with absurd confidence, I'll give you that ...
@@sabhishek9289 Oh my! How embarrassing for you... do you even know space-time at all?? In physics, time is not linear. Our experience of time isn't what it really is... so sad you didn't even bother with a simple google search of the topic. But then, I'd guess as a Christian you're just too intellectually lazy to do things like that.
Roger still has not explained the origin of matter and energy. Where did all this come from? The dilemma is like trying to explain infinity within finitness such as an infinite number of divisions that can be made within the finitness of 1 inch. Our experience in the realm of existence is finite in a finite world and therefore it is impossible to comprehend the infinity of the universe. It is only through math that we can resolve the dilemma.
Some excessively creative problem solving to get around a much simpler solution: God.
God is not a solution at all !
God is the answer to the deluded
In medieval times Penrose’s theory would be the equivalent of the Phoenix theory. Visuals can be found in the art of 14 th century Europe, ie pre renaissance cosmology and the rediscovery of Greek and Roman eras.
As a Hindu this is exactly how our belief works too.
The infinite universe gets created, Sustained then destroyed and then a new universe is created again so on and on.
And multiple parallel time events on top of it.
The further out(or in)you zoom, the more “non-zero sum/chance” becomes a likelihood.
I would add to Penrose's cosmological speculations the idea that language gets in our eyes, so to speak. Life is not the universe's purpose, its mission, or the summit of its effort. It's very hard for us to understand that we (and the rest of life on this planet) are just stuff--one more expression of likely billions of different expressions emerging from the universe's energetic qualities.
Human culture is built around stories. One way or another, these stories glorify us. They don't diminish us to absolute insignificance, as the universe does. Still, nothing theoretically prevents us from being much better planetary stewards or from perfecting the Golden Rule. Lots of stories to come from those efforts. Why, you could possibly build a new religion around it!
Penrose is an atheist, or so he claimed and held not enough logic to suspect divine design. Yet this video was made quite sometime back, when he admitted quietly that he isn't an atheist. Lee Smolin was the first to mention winning lotteries in a row, as the reason for millions or billions of conditions fulfilled for life and consciousness to evolve. Glad to find Penrose endorsing Lee's idea. He is the real unsung hero of modern physics.
Your thumbnail ought to read ‘There exists an eternal creator’ not existed…. Which implies not eternal ..
Voids, supermassive black holes, and ring structures in our universe have not been taken into consideration. They point to a steady state multiverse. The CMBs uniformity and ubiquity is also not adequately explained by inflation. It doesn't properly eco a big bang and tells a story that is unexplored.
Each process in the Universe occurs in a cycle. Beginning from micro scale, our dimensions, to the life of stars and galaxies. Thus the Universe itself must repeat in a cycle.
Seems logically having universe(es) beginning from previous or out of nothing, makes you wonder how could the original universe come into existence in the first place. Makes you wonder if this is just a very elaborate simulation or someone’s dream.
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave!
Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe,
think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration”
Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles,
and creates our experience-able Universe.
Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness".
Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment.
Our job is to make it inter
Saying there have been multiple universes prior sounds kind of like "passing the buck". Don't we still want to know which universe was first and what triggered its creation? Or are we just saying they have always been there forever? Which is a concept like infinity, which is impossible to imagine.