The Universe, Fixity and Flux | Sabine Hossenfelder, Paul Davies and Lee Smolin | IAI
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 พ.ค. 2024
- Sabine Hossenfelder, Paul Davies and Lee Smolin explore the laws of the universe and whether they are currently in flux.
Watch more content on the state of modern science at iai.tv/debates-and-talks?utm_...
00:00 Introduction
02:20 Paul Davies opening pitch
05:26 Sabine Hossenfelder opening pitch
08:05 Lee Smolin opening pitch
11:24 What is scientific law?
17:52 Are unchanging laws necessary?
28:50 If laws aren't fixed, what does this mean for understanding of science?
From the outset of Western thought and Heraclitus' claim that 'everything changes', thinkers have argued about whether the world is fundamentally static or in flux. This is no mere philosophical debate. The extraordinary success of science has been founded on the notion that unchanging universal laws underlie everything and the fabric of nature remains constant. Yet now, based on the investigation of ancient quasar light and the X-ray properties of distant galaxies, leading scientists are challenging this central idea and proposing that the very laws of the universe might change.
Are unchanging laws the only way to understand the universe or do we need a radically new framework to make sense of a universe in flux? And, if we were to accept changing universal laws, would we not require unchanging laws that explain those changes themselves?
#SabineHossenfelder #PaulDavies #LeeSmolin
Physics professor Lee Smolin, theoretical physicist and author Sabine Hossenfelder and cosmologist and author Paul Davies thrash out the big questions about the nature of the universe. Hosted by renowned science writer, Phillip Ball.
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
How would changing the laws of the universe impact our understanding of science? Let us know what you think in the comments below! To watch the full debate visit iai.tv/video/the-universe-fixity-and-flux?TH-cam&?TH-cam&+comment
What would it mean for the laws of physics to be constrained to be _incomplete_ in the sense that Kurt Gödel implied would necessarily have to happen for any axiomatic system trying to describe the properties of infinite sets.
Your question is answering itself, by introducing new laws you can compare the observations with data based on older laws, and the law that matches the data's predictions is the more accurate law. But until you allow for gravity to be a subspace, lower dimension attraction, as my video states, no laws of quantum mechanics will be accurate or sensible.
@@davidhunt7427 Interesting. You know that the Copenhagen Interpretation is does in fact rely on a set of axioms already. These axioms are not obvious; they are actually quite mystical in nature. It is an interesting parallel that you raise.
@@gristlevonraben "a subspace, lower dimension attraction" is a string of undefined buzzwords, so typical of pseudoscience. Also "as my video states" is typical of the ego of those who love pseudoscience. When we further say, "no laws will be accurate or sensible until people pay attention to me" this reveals the enormous ego that is able to make a series of claims based on each other, rather than based on experiment or observation. A true theory rapidly gathers adherents; a false theory must be trumpeted by ego since it has no enthusiasts other than the author of it.
@@david203 My understanding is that the original Copenhagen interpretation was very explicit in it's belief that nothing would cause the collapse of the quantum mechanical wave function except an encounter with a conscious mind. Which leads to Albert Einstein's quip about *_Do you really believe that the moon isn’t there when nobody looks?_*
What is your understanding of these axioms as they were understood originally,.. and today?
What I think it is the case in this discussion is that Sabine's exposition is the most clear and scientific of the three participants and does not succumb to the temptation of self-indulgence to authenticity and tangential hypotheses of little - if any - scientific basis.
Very well described. Some say the Academic system itself is fatally flawed as it's structure simply promotes people to self promote in the pursuit of funding etc, the real reason for academics in this case would be lost. If humanity can somehow shift from this paradigm and start valuing the things that actually matter ( knowledge and holistic progress) it would change the world. I wonder if we will ever grow up, in other words.
Sabine once again spot on.
Lee's transition into a trans-dimensional being appears to be going well. Nice of him to keep in touch with the rest of us on this side.
Ahhhh hahahaaaaa 🤣🙏
I see they were tuned into the Lee Smolin + streaming channel.
Like the man but he gers weirder each year
I wonder if it even crossed your mind that he may have health issues. No doubt they may present themselves in strange ways but imagine getting out of bed every day to continue to work while suffering through it.
@@danielbarrett6380 I think it's his webcam that has health issues, actually.
👍Great people here on stage, on a fundamental question.
Dr. Sabine, queen and rockstar of physics, such a beautiful, clear and straight thinking mind. Her statements about the double slit here refer to her ideas to solve the measurement problem, that's exciting (not crazy, as she said) and should be taken seriously.
It is cool to see Ms Sabine here, a brilliant person!
Sabine is everywhere ☺️
Dr.Hossenfelder is brilliant
I am a huge fan of Sabina. Her explanations are always SIMPLE and that denotes a SOLID understanding of what she discusses. Everyone else seems to puff themselves up with concepts that are speculative nonsense.
I am a fan of Sabina too . Thinking she would be great fun in a tempestuous relationship !
I hope the ‘puffing themselves up’ is not a reference to this particular panel…I’m gonna assume ur relating that to M.Kaku lol
It is not an understanding, but (like all science) a description.
New data is so hard to come by in theoretical physics nowadays that it's becoming harder and harder to do more than speculate. Sometimes I think Sabine is being a bit unfair toward her pairs. Also there ARE deep philosophical / mathematical / scientific questions in this universe that just cannot be formulated and answered simply in the form of a 15 minutes youtube video - something Sabine specializes in. That doesn't mean people who dare to face those deep questions "puff themselves up". It probably means you're not willing to put in the effort to understand their issues. When one does more than scratching the surface, everything in this universe has a tendency to cease being simple and clear and easily understandable.
@@MKTElM Such great fans you can't even spell her name properly! - Sabine not Sabina
Sabine! Love her work! 🙌
Excellent ideas, especially from Lee Smolin. It's inspiring how he's evolved over his career.
@USA TAMONDOMUNI Bow wow. Woof! Woof!
A lot of this reminds me of the philosophy of Henri Bergson, who wrote about the nature of time as an evolutionary process producing irreducible complexity.
Yoooo, spot on! I read Bergson (and some Heidegger) in tandem w Smolin’s Time Reborn and it was mind-bending. Appreciate the comment & connection. Cheers.
Probably my two favorite Physicists on the same panel. ❤🤟❤Sabine and Lee.
Great video, wonderful to hear from a panel of brilliant minds! 🙌🙌
Such smart people, thanks for uploading!
Kudos to Sabine.
hossenfelder is just great. Thanks for the video.
Sabine's suggestion is awesome!
there is an a priori assumption from which each answer proceeds
One of the most enjoyable pass times on a Sunday afternoon, with chilled beer in hand is to lay back and listen to Smolin nonsense
Smolin nonsense!? Really? Hmm. I like all 3 speakers. I've read many of Paul's books, seen many of Sabina's video's, and I happen to like the way Lee is incredibly open-minded and thinks outside the box, but still has his feet well ground in science. Maybe you're just trying to be funny. I don't know.
🤣
You call it as such because you have read and analysed it deeply through decades?
@@innosanto I don't know if you're talking to me, but yes, I've been reading books on Cosmology and Astrophysics and many other subjects for decades. I'm a science nerd.
the idea that the laws of the universe change overtime sounds like a law that doesn't change. there you go
18:08
nice interview of sabine and lee
That deserves hundreds of thousands of likes
Love these three physicists!
Fantastic
Because the limited precision of our knowledge we can't know if it's changes or not, we can only have a limit how much it can change maximum to be still compatible with our experiences.
The law of identity and the law of causality are my favourite laws.
Can anyone do the favor and make an 1min abstract of what they were 40 min talking about?
Sabine 👍
I chuffing love ❤ Lee Smolin.
If a law changes, then it is not fundamental and is itself subject to a deeper law. There must be something unchanging at the base of reality. Tim Palmer's invariant set perhaps?
I doubt that Palmer’s invariant nonsense will save us from the putrid ravages of our innate ignorance and foul arrogance
Why must there be something unchanging at the base of reality?
Isn’t change what allowed Nothing to turn into Something? So perhaps change IS the only thing that doesn’t change 🙃 😜
@@EverythingCameFromNothing I don't think something from nothing is possible. But proving that...
@@maxwelldillon4805If something can’t come from Nothing, then going back in time there must ALWAYS be something, so time must be travelling backwards as well as forwards, which is fine, but if you rewind both, there must be a point in time at which they meet, which would require an explanation of its existence if it is not nothing
Your conclusion is really just your initial assumption, just stated as if it's a fact.
Perhaps, there's no laws but long-term interactions whose effects seem to be fundamental rules. Or perhaps, there's no laws but there's instead aspects of the universe that look like laws but in fact are really more vague and subject to variation than what appears to be.
I think people get too hung up the word "law." It implies the universe is guided by platonic structures instead of the universe is shaped by its relationship to itself.
The discussion of how Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is relevant to initial conditions strangely ignores the simplification provided by David Bohm: that treating the Schrödinger equation as a force and the position of an electron wrt an edge of a slit allows the trajectory of the electron to be predicted as a deterministic path. In addition, Bohm treats the measuring device as part of the quantum experiment, meaning that no collapse occurs during measurement. Such insights dramatically simplify QM and remove much of the mystery introduced by the Copenhagen Interpretation.
There are quite a few issues with Bo’s interpretation, making it a fairly fringe idea (I believe including non-locality and similar problems). That is presumably why it’s not touched on here.
@@benjwils I've actually read some of David Bohm's writings, as well as some of the papers written to investigate his theory. Non-locality is not a problem of Bohm. It is part of quantum mechanics itself, and also part of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Watch some TH-cam videos about quantum entanglement, or the double-slit experiment to see how important nonlocality is to physics today. Bohm is a fringe area for historical reasons, not because it has any particular problem.
I'm not a scientist but I find these discussions fascinating, mostly because of the concepts, subjective and objective. No one ever says, this is "our" interpretation, description , measurement of quantum, or of laws of the universe. What is a light year, a common measurement: the distance light travels in a year: and what is a year ? The time it takes Earth to make one revolution around the sun. Do we imagine other beings in the universe use this measurement? We don't even know what time is, objectively: to us it is simply what our clocks measure,.and a relationship in space between our sun and our planet. But it seems in a broad sense to be a force impacting objects and perhaps laws.
Whether you measure it in yards or millimetres, the distance between your house and your neighbour is the same. That distinction applies to our use of "light-year". Other species would have units of differing magnitude, but the speed of light - and thus the distance travelled over x amount of time - would be the same. The speed of light is the speed of light, whether it's 186,000 miles per second or 300,000 km per second or 1 million zargs per floogle.
What unit is used has no impact whatever on the concepts. It's just convenient to measure galactic type distances in light years, just as kilometers - or miles - is convenient to measure how far a car has gone.
Causality is up for grabs using Sabine's framework. Not a completely crazy idea. We are creatures that experience time a point at a time, flowing in one direction. This conceit frames our physical laws. The universe need not be viewed this way
And for photons, everything happens in one instant. Thank goodness we're not living at the speed of light.
She has exciting ideas, that should be taken seriously.
So, what about the rules of logic? Are they time dependent? Can they vary across the multiverse?
They answered that: no one knows as yet. All that can be done at the moment is to speculate.
The law of noncontradiction should remain true but it's likely impossible to prove that. Though most of of what we think of as logic isn't defined by laws. They're rigorous frameworks built on a few laws that are either necessarily true or seem almost certainly true. These frameworks help us determine the truth about things they apply to. Though these systems become less reliable the further removed they become from underlying laws.
With that said, there's many competing systems of logic, some even reject laws, like the excluded middle.
With crack yes...
My cyclic cosmology headcanon. Science fiction.
The big bang seems to have been extremely uniform. If the universe can become old enough and all particles and constituent waves can eventually decay then the universe would become extremely uniform. Maybe when enough waves have decayed in a certain area the vacuum energy becomes the most influential source of energy. In these areas vacuum energy may positively interfere and begin to shake the fabric of spacetime like a bell. The structure of the last remaining waves, or black holes, could be imprinted in the next universe as the CMB.
Ringing would converge on stray waves causing disturbances as it propagates and gains energy. eventually shaking itself apart into the next universe.
Or the energetic ringing from the empty portions of the universe could reach the last remaining black holes and interact. Maybe the new universe is this ringing spacetime falling into the black holes and twisting the universe into itself?
Another thought. Lee Smolin suggests that the universe seeks increasing complexity. Variety seems to be maximized. New laws that govern biology could come from this tendency of the universe when applied to a certain scale.
Planck length/time does imply that rounding errors must occur at quantum scale.
When it comes to the inverse square law the causality creates a self consistent relationship.
@@schmetterling4477 So I guess you disagree. Light doesn't spread out?
professor poual davis is great and amazing man so I hope to meet him
Gentle, kind and brilliant
Did Paul Davies say that Nature could have made a rounding error? With big brains like that on the forefront of physics, it's no wonder we are not making any progress.
Lol. Im sure you could do much better, and are absolutely qualified to pass judgement on their ideas, as if you actually knew that the universe had never made a rounding error..
Ps. For things to operate at the planck lengths of space and time, it is almost necessarily true that rounding errors are made..
the universe can't divide pie into 100, without a rounding error anymore than your calculator can..
why would the Universe attempt to divide pi into 100..?
If you begin by explaining the universe as a computer/machine, strange statements like that are likely to follow. I took it to be just a silly metaphor, but that _is_ how phycisists see nature. Wasn't he trying to bring biology and evolution into physics?
Conservation holds everywhere all times. On the other side of temporal membrane is that inverted charge. This is why electron half spin. One orbit on this side as electron and one on other side as positron. 2 full rotations.
Wouldnt that make half spin electrons electrically neutral if you avarge their charge over time?
@@AttiliusRex imagine that an electron has a position at it's core. The expressed surface is negative because equal and opposite on inside. And vice versa for positions.
I have a video.
Mystery lies in the requirement for balance throughout nature.
Hotboxing the zoom like a boss
It seems to me the laws only apply specfic to our galaxy and change in each galaxy and this is causing some confusion
Has the double slit experiment been done in a vapor chamber? It would allow tracking electron pathways without measuring at the slit. Ps measurements do not change or affect the initial state. It’s misleading to say so.
I think technically that when the electron interacts with the vapor, that counts as a "measurement". In most situations you can think of any interaction as a measurement. I would be interested to see if it would still produce an interference pattern in this case though.
I agree sabine about superdeterminism
Of course, this is a totally underrated approach, that should be taken much more seriously. Sabine is a brilliant thinker.
This is a goodie :-)
When did Truman Capote grow a beard, and get into physics? (sorry, I'll see myself out... after the video) Very interesting talk!
The practices of our predecessors require adaptation of us, but the results of trial and error aren’t welcome, so even if it is possible to provide, many of us are caught up with a point of view that can’t be provided for by proof at this time. However, by moving my discussion here, I may be able to show that the increasing charge that results is propelled by inquiry into that which must expand in order to prove it occurs for good reason at a tolerant location.
That there are multiple universes makes more sense than that there is only one. I would vote for there being multiple universes and more than one dimension, a minimum of three dimensions, one for each expression manifest in the human microcosm, namely: a causal universe, an astral universe, and the physical universe which we are aware of and inhabit currently.
Those who claim for system structure (state) dependent laws would have to admit that under similar structure or state, the laws would have to be the same; and this stability would be the non changing law, otherwise they Will be dismissing the idea of Science altogether
Shes also a super famous youtuber :) they forgot that
Sabine, from the perspective of Superdeterminism and free will please comment on: The TH-cam video, Murray Gell Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar.
Superdeterminism doesn't contradict 'free will', it's classical determinism of standard physics.
Si se demuestra que el primer principio de termodinámica puede cambiar, entonces toda la física puede cambiar porque el universo se comportaría en modo contrario al primer principio. Lo que aquí se discute si teorías pueden cambiar. Y la respuesta es obvia: si, porque son teorías.
Los científicos se han convertido en expertos en formular silogismos, para mantener sus privilegios.
Pero la ley de la naturaleza no ha cambiado. Ella es más fiel que nosotros mismos.
When was the last mathematic formulation / description of a pattern in Nature was named a ‘Law’?
5 minutes ago.
I invented the law that humans like to invent laws.
The Hegelian Dialectic will be useful I think! The Vail hides only that there is nothing behind it, we are alone!
Funny we have to say "Hegelian" because if we talked about Marxian dialectics everyone's heads would explode. It seems like basic ideas we've understood for a century and a half are only now being "rediscovered" by physicists that were purged from universities purely for ideological reasons. Luckily at least in China, basic philosophy is still taught and people don't have to rediscover such simple ideas we've known about since the 19th century.
Slowly humanity edges toward truth.. because truth is ‘that which exists’, and there is nothing ‘else’ to edge toward!
The real question is whether we will move fast enough to avoid self destruction from falsity and corruption?
The opportunity to understand exists, but where is the will?
spaceandmotion
As roger rabbit responded when asked why he didn't do that thing that breaks the laws of physics before, "... because it wasn't funny."
---
The physical laws of our universe adapt from emergence of life towards stable life evolution.
---
I'm not sure I understand why this is a question. It is my undertanding that at some brief time after the Big Bang, the strong nuclear force split off from the weak nuclear force. It seems to me that this split would have had to have some effect on the laws of physics which obtained prior to that split.
I believe they are positing that the strong force didnt "break off" from the weak force, but that both forces may have evolved from a common force.
Its more like one law evolved into multiple laws. Picture physical laws sharing common descent with each, but that dont "unify"..
Unification takes place in us in our command center. Soul or if you prefer consciousness. They say this math works
Could the observable universe be an open system in a stream of energy.
Not clear, what open should be, as it is not clear what the distance to the center of a black hole should be.
Why would one prefer time dependency of a law over local dependency?
I don't think anyone proposed that these were two alternatives. Some laws of physics spring from local observations, and one can imagine a time-dependent or space-dependent law. They are just two different aspects of the philosophy of physics.
The universe is in flux: It would be worthwhile to consider also an entirely new approach in "Novel quantitative push gravity/electricity theory poised for verification"
I would say a law is definitional, so schrödinger's equation follows from the laws of quantum mechanics. Whereas Hook's law and ohms law define an ideal spring and an ideal resistor respectively.
“… Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize winner.
Laws of the Universe exist Independent of anyone's personal beliefs in the existence of the Laws of the Universe. Just as man-made laws govern society globally, Universal Laws govern the entire Universe. Un-directed random material natural processes have never been observed or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing any form of laws. As scientifically confirmed, non-material laws are the product of only Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence.
I like to think of two existing domains of laws that govern the universe-the humanly thinkable and the unthinkable ones. Laws that presume an initial state of a system) are the results of our “human” way of thinking which has the progression of time wired into it. I would like to bet on future AI (or swarm of AIs) that would be able, unbiased by its (their) existence and self-awareness in time, to come up with (for humans) “unthinkable” or “unimaginable” laws that would affect (vs. describe) reality as they are being formulated by the AI. It would be something like a man made (initiated :) “dei ex machina.”
Oin
Except AI only really operates inside the models the humans invent.
There is no something like THE AI. All machine learning models operate, at the basic level, as bunch of if-statements, loops and mathematical expressions (because that's what processors are capable of doing).
Therefore, you don't just throw the data at THE AI (because it doesn't exist). You need to create a specific mathematical model first, then train it using the data available.
So... All this AI talk is just science-fiction bullshit.
No es posible que una máquina pueda escapar de la variable temporal porque la información tiene que ser retenida, memorizada. La presencia de memoria impone la variable tiempo. Y esas hipotéticas máquinas que usted imagina no pueden hechar de menos que a la memoria para retener información y convertirlas en leyes. Este simple hecho demuestra que las leyes son relativas al sujeto. Así pues lo que nosotros describimos el es universo humano, no al UNIVERSO, que escapa a nuestra comprensión, como escapa a nuestra comprensión el universo que percibe un perro por ejemplo...
La arrogancia que caracteriza a nuestra especie nos nubla el pensamiento.
Solo se que no se nada, decía socrates, y tenía razón.
La física debe ser una actividad práctica, no un juego lúdico y económico para los privilegiados que viven de subvenciones estatales mientras hay problemas realmente tangibles al estómago de las gentes. Estos físicos se parecen ya a políticos.
any system able to recognise patterns and relations must be biased in some way, including AI. Blank slates do not exist as far as information processing is concerned.
Physics has frequently had breakthroughs when we find ways to think about regimes that we do not live it. Much of recent technology depends on understanding what happens at very tiny scales, very low temperatures, very fast speeds, etc. We might at first reject Everett's Multiverse or other theories of multiple universes because they are obviously nontestable and nonfalsifiable. But, when you think about it, there is not that much different about considering different universes when we have no objection to theorizing about the very tiny scale of the Planck length.
The tiny regime was once impossible to observe even with the best of microscopes and other lab equipment, not unlike how it is today seemingly impossible to observe other universes. Just as we can imagine the Big Bang and use complex numbers to explore very different regimes from our own, perhaps someday our equipment and mathematics will catch up to radical theories that admit of other universes with possibly different physical laws and constants.
Your comment is like me asking “How old am I if I travelled in a straight line” Rather than calculating it by traveling in a circle around the sun. lol. Could that be done?
@@dallinsprogis4363 Huh? You know your age. It has nothing to do with traveling around the Sun, since Earth does not move with relativistic speed. Could what be done?
@@david203 It’s not that I know my age. Can my age be calculated at the rate of cellular division rather than the imperfect orbit around the sun.
@@david203 You understand that all life on the planet does not age at the same rate.
Some life only lasts a few to a dozen rotations. And other life last 10s of 1000s and more rotations as we orbit the sun. We have evolved based on the astrophysical characteristics of the changing planet. However does it not seem that the orbit and rotation of the planet is in-fact an error of judgment to calculate the any age of a life form.
Time as a creative force is a stunning concept. I always saw time as an underlying vibration of the fabric of strings space fabric. Knowing that time is a localized phenomena, I assumed that time was all vibration that was impeded by density and chaos of the area in general. Time as a creative force gives me much to consider.
Sounds like pseudoscience, just stringing buzzwords together to form sentences that don't actually have meaning in physics.
Try to understand that the concept of time only exists in the consciousness that creates it, because of being aware of changes.
@@david203 could be. But at the beginning of the moment of existence becoming tangible, wouldn't time have to exist first? If so, could it not also be a creative force? Personaly, I just currently see time as moving fields or clouds of super tiny subparticles that move at a set speed unless inhibited by gravity's pull. Kind of like a sub-aether, as subspace is to space.
@@dallinsprogis4363 my watch tics whether I sense it or not. That is the kind of time I am contemplating. However, I do understand that there are people who would like time to be malleable by the power of their thoughts, which I am not against, I just do not see it as time itself, but instead a field of time manipulated by thought, much like telekinesis is not material created by a mind, but moved by a mind.
Is it not true that time is an invention created in the imagination of the consciousness and can be what ever you imagine it in order to dynamically quantify change.
There is not any time dependennces. Time is grasbed or punched glued to matter
"We must explain how the laws came to be and why there are these laws rather than other laws." is a category mistake. The laws of physics are descriptive, and there is only How, not Why in the sense of "from what intent".
How and why are the same question in this context.
Thay are fundamentally asking how the laws of nature came to be. How these laws and not others, how did we get this value as a constant and not another.
12:05 ah the beauty of realizing I was poor young I requested to go from the gifted and talented class to the step above special education because I didn’t want the hard questions with a real grade for a fake opportunity
📍28:50
What does "changing law" even mean? A law with time in it? Like v = a*t?
It means more complicated math when trying to describe anything affected by these laws. Though physics will never throw out much simpler approximations for limited cases.
why does the universe exist does it have a boundary or is it infinte
All the Known Laws are a glimpse of big universal Law. Based on the known laws, we can assume that the universal Law is also fixed and can not be changed.
That is a speculation. Your speculation, your belief, yet stated as fact. There is a big difference between belief and fact, as these three physicists demonstrated. It would be refreshing if these comments didn't state opinions as facts quite so often.
The scientific way to explain metaphysics is basic math and basic geometry:
[Exhibit A]:
We have ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D.
0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D are:
1) whole ✅
2) rational ✅
3) not-natural ✅
4) necessary ✅
1-9 and their geometric counterparts 1D-9D are:
1) whole ✅
2) rational ✅
3) natural ✅
4) contingent ✅
Newton says since 0 and 0D are
"not-natural" ✅
then they are also
"not-necessary" 🚫.
Newton also says since 1-9 and 1D-9D are "natural" ✅
then they are also
"necessary" 🚫.
This is called "conflating" (similar words but different definitions) and is repeated throughout Newton's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic.
Leibniz does not make these fundamental mistakes.
Leibniz's "Monadology" 📚 is 0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D.
The Egyptians, Syrians, Greeks, Mathematicians, Plato (the Good on 0D-3D pyramid) and don't forget Jesus and John all speak of the Monad (number 0, geometry 0D, quantum SNF).
0D Monad (SNF)
1D Line (WNF)
2D Plane (EMF)
3D Volume (GF)
We should all be learning Leibniz's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic.
Fibonacci sequence starts with 0 for a reason. The Fibonacci triangle is 0, 1, 2
(Not 1, 2, 3).
Newton's 1D-4D "natural ✅ =
necessary 🚫" universe is a contradiction.
Before we're here is necessary.
This is contingent.
Most likely "imaginary" in the same way 'time' is "illusory".
There's no 3D anybody without their 0D Monad/Soul. No Higgs Boson without Quarks.
Natural does not mean necessary. Similar, yet different.
Not-natural just means no spatial extension; zero size; exact location only. Necessary.
Newtonian nonsense will never provide a Theory of Everything.
Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason should be required reading 📚....
I don't think there could be a reliable way to measure the change in our laws of physics from within the system as the tools would be subjected to those changing laws.
To know for certain you would need a frame of reference outside where the tools would be free from any changes within the system.
Its like having a tailwind. Your speed compared to the air around you and compared to the ground are inconsistent. The air around you is impacted by pressure changes between masses of air but the ground is not.
I also do not think there is a good way to determine if the laws of physics would propagate change everywhere instantaneously or be bound by the speed of causality.
Yes, this is exactly why this discussion wasn't scientific; it was speculation about physics. This speculation will not become part of physics until much more work is done to find testable predictions and other ways to prove assertions about the speculations.
There are no “laws“ of the universe that we have determined with any certainty.
What we propose from time to time is a set of assumptions that is more or less helpful and accurate in predicting future occurrences as tested. These “laws“ which aren’t laws get updated periodically as new technology and information become available.
For example, the “big bang“ has come down from the highest scientific circles into the public discourse. Most children believe that there are “laws of the universe“ people often talk about “the big bang“ as if it were settled science as opposed to the most advanced science at the moment.
We as scientist have to change our terminology around the assumptions used in our models. I think we are selves got get caught up in the feeling that we know the laws of nature. And the universe. We don’t.
the missing word appears to be invariance and the definition thereof
Physical law is statistics of mater movement
Science journalism annoyance: when they pick the highest number in the paper and put that in the title of the article, when that's the top of the confidence interval of a hypothetical worst-case scenario.
As you point out it's often an institution itself which does this exaggeration.
Poor Lee, hope he's doing ok.
"if you can't figure it out, then blame the laws themselves" REALLY?
The answer is universal consciousness; mind, in which we share through our individual minds. There is no answer other than this. It can be called universal mind or God or any word of choice, but its non-existence leaves no answer that makes sense. Multiple universes does not mean multiply gods anymore than multiple people means multiple laws of nature to engender each person.
“G” calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. All atoms and atomic objects expand at 1/770,000th it’s size every second per second constant acceleration. Applied to earth size object equals 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration: gravity.
Very interesting debate.
Now, what do you think when I say “I don’t see myself as 47 years old” Instead, I know I have travelled around the sun in circles on this planet 47 times.
I imagine “How old am I, if I am travelling in a straight line?”
Doesn’t this seem like a question that Albert Einstein would ask or did he? I don’t know.
I know my age is based on imperfect knowledge. But I do go with the established rule that 365 rotations/days “which is not a perfect 365 rotations/days” as a year.
I think it’s good to have these kinds of debates and yet understand simultaneously that the technology just doesn’t exist yet to understand the truth.
For the knowledge I understand. I know that we are, is because of the current state of the contents/physical matter within the universe.
I think age is based on cell cycle and cell division of the organisms regardless of the revolution of the earth
0D Monad is the singularity.
Yes, the physical law have change through geological time.
there is zero evidence supporting that claim
We speak in the language of those we are trying to communicate with. If those controllable masses are enamoured with magic tricks.. Algebracadabra!
We can only know a tiny bit of world.
. Lee Smolin is like... EXTREEEEME CLOSEEE UPPP !!!!(Waynes World)
There are no laws of nature, except for zero-one ~ Infinite Potentials
Self proclaims the Men & Women is to the Shepard's, the lambs and above the super-incredible Alien Universe ✔
Multi-verse (multiple universes) is a clear contradiction.
Universe = "everything"
"the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos;"
🎨 Could these laws be based on the geometry of a geometrical process, flux!
If you are referring to divergence, it is only one of many fundamental operators in physics. Physics is inherently complex, because Nature is complex.
the current laws can not explain our observation about the past. We try black matter and more. We may need a set of time dependent laws of physics. or state-dependent laws. good idea of sabine ..et al e.g. what will alpha be at the horizon of BH? how will feynman diagrams look like at the horizon? they may change.
Here for Lee.
He is very impressive.
The premise of this conversation is silly. The very entry point offered by the facilitator at about 15:30 "What are the Laws supposed to be governing ?" (and this AFTER Sabine rightly defined (described ?) "Laws" as mathematical representations of an observation about the universe... ) is backwards. Laws of Physics do not 'Govern' anything, they 'Describe' the Universe. And perhaps more correctly, they describe our current understanding of the Universe, and as we have no full unifying theory, describe only some subset of the universe.
The reference to Ohm's Law is telling. The question was 'Did Ohms Law apply at the Big Bang/Formation of the Universe ? Ohm's Law is simply a method of calculating effects of changes in voltage or current in an electrical circuit... There were no electrical circuits (that we know about) so its not testable, but why should we postulate that the physics Ohm's Law describe were different ?
I hope all would agree than None of our "laws of physics are complete - were they to be, we would have our 'Unified Theory' and that T-Shirt referenced in the video.
I could go on about the idea of state dependent laws or time dependent laws but the questions are equally silly. It is a gross extrapolation, but consider the complex multi-variate equation - Surely there are some systems where some (Many?) of the variables in this complex multi-variate equation are null or too small to have measurable effect on the result. When, in different cases, these variables do have some measurable effect, do we say that 'The Law' has changed ?
Similarly, consider an improvement to our understanding of this system or our ability to measure something about this system such that we add or change its form. Our expression of the law has changed based on our improved measurement or understanding, but have the underlying physics changed ?
Perhaps this was all intended to be some show, or entertainment, but the content diverged too far into philosophy or meta-physics to be seriously thought provoking.
42 is the answer.
"We reached an impasse ,so we change the laws(or allow for their change) dynamically "...
Sabine looked as if she was thinking"why am i sitting here listening to these "ideas "....
I ve been shouting to my screen since the 1st minute that guy started talking about fundamental laws that can change,evolve dynamically.
Exactly 💯
It is not that strange what they say.
They may be saying that the universe is following evolution similarly to biology.
There are theories that purpose of universe is evolution, evolution of itself.
You have no way of knowing that the laws are constant, and have always been so.
Imagine yelling at a Phd who has forgotten more than you will ever know, through a screen, convinced that you are correct about a question you actually dont have an answer for..