Physics and the meaning of life PART 1 | Sabine Hossenfelder
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 มิ.ย. 2024
- This is the first part of a two-part course from the Institute of Art and Ideas.
Many have argued that science can provide data but can't answer the real mysteries of the universe, yet Sabine Hossenfelder opposes this position. She asserts that through physics, we can make progress on the existential issues which have gripped philosophers for centuries.
Part one: Introduction to existential physics
Was the universe made for us? What is consciousness? And is it possible that the universe is conscious? Does the universe think?
Join Sabine Hossenfelder as she reveals what physics can teach us about existential issues.
#Sabine #Physics #GeneralRelativity
Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist, author and musician who researches quantum gravity. She is a research fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray (2018) and Existential Physics: A Scientist’s Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions (2022) and a regular contributor to Forbes. She is known for her popular TH-cam channel Science Without The Gobbledygook.
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! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
Read Sabine's full views on the boundary between religion and science on IAI TV iai.tv/articles/physics-alone-cant-answer-the-big-questions-auid-2237?+screen&
EXISTENTIAL PHYSICS: (Current Analysis): (copy and paste from my files):
Regardless of how we exist, the future condenses down to a singular outcome: All life (real and artificial) eventually dies and goes extinct, at least those on and from this Earth.
(Subject to revision as new information might dictate).
Meaning is ascribed.
Nature, is the objective reality.
There is no boundary between so-called "religion" and so-called "physics", and if you believe otherwise, you have conflated meaning with nature or vice versa.
Physicists are just as capable of being blindly dogmatic as theologians, and each are equally as capable of being insightful and understanding.
😮
a question, does corollas effect apply to light coming from the sun IE LIGHT SP;INS OFF in waves. so light from the sun does not travel in straight lines but geometric wave pulses from the sun,.you can see it in your mind.
What about paranormal activity ? I have experienced poltergeists phenomenon at three occasions ! Each time I was sad or/and depressed or homesick.
Bonjour de France les amis ✌😉👍🇫🇷
clicked on this channel out of bordem and then I see Sabine Hossenfelder was uploaded an hour ago! hell yeah!
A skillful communicator with a brilliant brain.
Excellent presentation from Sabine, as usual. It is comforting to observe how her TH-cam following has grown over time. Unlike some scientists, I am not particularly bothered by "we may never know". I think it is pretty clear that we will never know exactly what conditions and events on this planet led to the formation of life. I do believe we will be able to take a well informed guess (a probability), but that is the best we will be able to achieve. This is part of what is referred to as "the human condition". I think it means we humans need to find the meaning of life and existence within ourselves. Based on the current state of humanity, we have some work to do. This kind of content helps the process.
You're a scientist?
Listening and watching Sabine is always refreshing, her perspective is truly appreciated!!! The upfront acknowledgment of “what we currently know” is a major reason for the respect and high esteem which I have for her.
PEACE
Every time I try to get out, Hossenfelder pulls me back in!
Sabine I love your TH-cam! Thanks for all !
Physics is on a collision course with metaphysics where a new branch will emerge fostering a greater understanding of existence.
no metaphysics has been debunked
Great talk of Dr Hossenfelder again. Just finished the book, an exciting, entertaining and surprising look on the borders of our existence.
This lady has a good way of breaking complex issues down to bite size pieces 👍
Sabine is such a great Lecturer always as Entertaining as she is Educating.
With changes in the economy leading to instability in the stock market, some individuals may face a decrease in their investments in an effort to benefit from the current market conditions, I am considering liquidating my $725k portfolio consisting of bonds and stocks. Someone else in the same situation? Please tell me in the comments!..
would suggest you thoroughly evaluate the companies you have invested in and their estimated future performance, as we may expect to see the market decline further. To minimize stress and improve efficiency, it might be wise to seek the assistance of an investment advisor to help restructure your portfolio and identify any underperforming investments to offset. This approach has been successful for me and has reduced my stress levels.
I have been exploring the possibility of utilizing advisors to help navigate the stock market during these uncertain times. However, I am still evaluating their potential effectiveness in providing the support I need.
@@Kurt5Dobson
Christy Vallen D'souza is an esteemed coach known for her proficiency in her area of expertise. You probably might have come across her. I found her on a CNBC interview where she was featured and i reached out to her afterwards. She has since provided entry and exit points on the securities I focus on. You can carry out a quick internet research on her name for more info. I basically follow her market moves and haven’t regretted doing so...
@@AllisonSherman7
The few a corrently know is because I red your two first books. Now I'm eager to read your next one. Thanks Sabine
Thank you for the video.
Sabine is superb!
Thank you. Excellent video presentation Sabine :)
Great talk, enjoyed following this through 👍 Off to part2
That she references Roxy Music & Bryan Ferry! Amazing!🎉
We may not never know. Brilliant finish.
EXISTENTIAL PHYSICS: (Current Analysis): (copy and paste from my files):
Regardless of how we exist, the future condenses down to a singular outcome: All life (real and artificial) eventually dies and goes extinct, at least those on and from this Earth.
(Subject to revision as new information might dictate).
Sabine rocks 🙌🏽🤙🏽
Very interesting. I want to share with you something about space-time and black holes. We can assume that space-time is a very thick and wide sheet like an ocean with zero viscosity, extreamly transparent and non- interactive. Things can exist inside it and move freely. It has certain characteristics like mu not, and epsilon not due to which speed of light is restricted to a certain value. All things existing inside space-time can' t move out of it untill they attain certain escape velocity or energy. Anybody having mass can bend space-time around it and produce a voide (region of nothingness) if it exist lonely somewhere in space-time, as big as can be, depending on the mass of the body. That is why a black hole produce a bigger voide
brilliant
Sabine i love you ! In a scientific way :) .
I just love her
I am coming away from this presentation encouraged to read Sabine's book. And ever since internet came into being I don't remember having read any from cover to cover, so that's quite a resolve for me.
It is what it is, it’s as clear as mud, but Sabine always covers the subject making about as much sense as possible, all things considered…
I love her teachings!
Thank you. That was true humility. To admit that everyone fraim of reference is accurat to tge one seing it.
You even broke the 4th wall between you and the spectator. By just being real.
Look, Ma! Somebody is in love with Sabine. ;-)
The reason that I don't buy the Special Relativity argument is because I don't think that you can EVER isolate any observer from the greater context of the universe in which we exist.
You can suss out some incremental variances between two observers traveling at different velocities, but both are grounded in the context of the universe as a whole.
No man is an island, and no body exists with zero referent to the universe in which it resides.
So instantaneous change from collapse...quantum mechanics....or instantaneous change from creation. Big Bang
Put another way, QM usually assumes that the break point between classical mechanics and QM occurs around the Casimr length. However, this length must be close to the interval between events themselves. How to account for this?
All life is a shared life. We are a small colony on a remote planet. No matter how hard we try to discover the consistency of all, we find we can’t. But what we do find is a magical world that stretches our imagination and gives us joy of endless wonder.
My question would be - to what degree do the laws of psychology, particularly as applied to imagination or the subjective modeling of reality (emphatically minus the laws of physics as exemplified by the dream state) approach congruity with the laws of physics? In other words, do our minds accurately render the physical world? Or, more importantly, to what degree do our minds render the physical world, and if that rendering is not so accurate, what are the factors that inhibit that accuracy? Can we answer the real mysteries of the universe with a tool that is entirely too difficult, or most likely intrinsically impossible, to calibrate? Or more to the point, should we even bother when the answers are going to be wrong rigorously? Basically, what physics attempts is to force subjectivity into being objective by hoping that a rather accurate perceptual uptake can circumvent the filtering and distortion of subjective interpretation. Why should we even need to "interpret"? I have managed to teach myself that the need to interpret mental intake is a symptom of neurosis bordering, in many cases, on psychosis. Until we know how our minds work, how the ding dong hell are we going to figure out how the universe works? My way of saying that AI is not insane.
"Understanding" Life via Science is more or less a process of storytelling based on observations and imaginations. And remember according to Werner Heisenberg: Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.
"For all we currently know, Dont forget to remember."
Im obsessed with this channel thank you a lot🫡
effective resonance of a specified bell curve also has no sonic cancelling wave pulse reciprocal until you find it 1/137 null point in any sonic as a wave? or is it implied the reciprocal in wave action is often a true function as well even as synchronicity processed extended time over data set
Where’s part two?
Looking forward to the book release!
It is, this talk is from the last year😊
A physicist who likes Roxy music too. I love her !
Now aka "simultaneity" and Observer dependency: An event involving hundreds of thousands of observers -in the course of taking place- can, in theory (as yet), be observed as "now" for any observer even though not one participant was present at the same "time" as any other. Chew on that one for a while.
IF {we can describe in detail the state of a system at t=0} AND {we have laws that tell us how said system should change over time},
THEN {we can predict the state of the system at t=T>0}. But, if we are given the laws, and the state at t=T, we can NOT always infer
the state of the system at t=0. For example: we might calculate the level of water in a tank that is emptying, but, once the tank is empty,
*there is no further change,* so, if we are merely told that the tank is now empty, we do NOT have enough information that we can calculate
the level of water at some point in the past. In order to work backwards, successfully, the system must have been changing continuously since t=0.
Occam's Razor , universal elegance and self-similarity
You're rocking the hairdo!
Ancient Art friends. That’s how we learn about our existence. As you can see on the avatar, the first photo albums were made of Stone. ❤
If we presume to know is to extend this through light. That is something is to something else pronounced as the light between. The fact that continuum exists is to say that for instantaneous change there must be to where that change must go to. So far the only mechanism we have an excuse for this is in "collapse". With the point being made that to head into a direction with instantaneous change is to know unto what that heading of change is for. So far we only know this for a reason of collapse. Unless the big bang does really speak for instantaneous change into creation.
Second time watching. Should only be a few more views before l can begin to grasp all this a little bit.
Better, to read the book, illuminating and hopeful
I am listening to Sabine and I think that a conclusion of this can be that physics precludes reincarnation being possible.
Yes hopful, isn't it.😊
The measurement problem (or measurement update) is significant, but I think Hossenfelder mischaracterises it at about min 20 of the video. Quantum mechanics does of course describe what a detector (a measuring device) does, after all QM describes what each elementary particle in that detector does. So it's reasonable to assume that it's not the detector that collapses the wave function, but our conscious observation of the detector's output. After all, before *our* observation, QM describes the detector as a superposition of all possible output states. If we were also nothing but a collection of elementary particles, then we would also be described as a superposition of possible observations - but we know that this is not so: we always observe only one measurement. Fortunately, QM does not need to describe our conscious observation if one assumes that consciousness is not a physical process and thus outside the realm of physical description. My point is that Hossenfelder's argument as to why QM might not be a complete theory rests not on physics but on metaphysics, namely on her metaphysical assumption that conscious observation is also a physical process.
It has proved unwise to bet against QM being a complete descriptive mechanism. If our consciousness is physical, then QM is probably not complete, so the best bet is that QM is complete and our consciousness is not physical. There is one idea that avoids this dilemma, namely the metaphysics of the so-called many-worlds interpretation of QM, but it is too absurd to be seriously considered.
"Sabine is divine."
"Everything obeys the laws of nature. Everything lives in space and time."
Taken at face value these statements are very controversial. There are scientists who believe in the existence of randomness (i.e. entities not governed by rules, legislators or laws).
Many believe that logic and mathematics "live" or have a form of existence independent of space, time and wheter humans have found access to this mathematical reality/truth (thereby making it "alive" within our minds).
More remote, the assumption that there must exist 'divine entities', parameters and mechanisms given to the universe or its superstructure(s), so that it can start working, advancing and evoloving (a bit like maths need axioms).
More remote still, worlds that evolve in circumstances that wouldn't fit the word-intuitions expressed as "space" and "time". Sure "everything" often paradoxically-only and only means "everything we currently see" - but it suffices to go back just a blink of an eye on an astronomical time scale, in the ancient view of the world, the "everything" was tiny compared e.g. to the solar system - "everything" always turned out to be much much much larger than "everything"! After surprises always came more surprises - how large and deep the world now suddenly "is", after taking into account the new, current chapter of scientific knowledge.
The "theory of everything" is for theologians.
Furthermore the two statements at the beginning also draw a paradox or 'stack of turtles': assuming everything lives in space and time, the laws of nature that govern space and time would also live in space and time, therefore govern & obey themselves.
There may be an absolute time, which is the time since the beginning of the Universe, estimated to be about fourteen billion years, and would be the same for all observers. The increase in this duration of the Universe would be the same for all observers. We could also measure time by the increase in entropy of the Universe, which would be the same for all observers.
Another excellent presentation from Dr. Hossenfelder. I am a longtime subscriber to her channel, and always eagerly antibiotics each new video.
I'm thinking that the shaman story missed the co-passenger's meaning. I believe he meant that according to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, for every possible divergence of events, there exists some parallel universe in which each possibility occurs. Since, at any given moment, there is a non-zero chance that it will not be the moment of grandma's death, then there exists some universe in which she has not yet died. And because the consciousness of a person in one universe cannot be distinguished from their consciousness in another, it is the same consciousness experiencing all possible realities but only remembering the events that occurred in their own universe. As such, we are all immortal, because our consciousness will continue on in the reality where we haven't died yet, and we won't know the difference. Yet, we do not see any immortals, because it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be in a universe which has one, as the chances of living another moment asymptotically approach zero.
The theory of relativity involving light breaks down if we turn off the light.
Sabine, I heard of this experiment where scientist fly for hours in an airplane with an atomic clock. When they land, their atomic clock has lost an Epsilon of time when compared to the atomic clock on earth. My question is: how can they come back to the present moment? Shouldn’t they come back to an Epsilon of time behind?
Nobody comes "back" to anything in time. We all keep moving forward.
Physics and the meaning of life PART 1 | Sabine Hossenfelder
I enjoyed Sabine Hossenfelder presentation and learned some good stuff but she did not address the meaning of life question. Sabine tap danced around the topic which was good because it was helpful for the construction of context. The question of the meaning of life involves mind and mind involves nine energies and four dimension's. Equalling a sum of thirteen components. Thirteen components can be link via number pattern to the dark energy number via the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field 246 GeV. Via this number pattern model the collapse of the wave function problem can be simply understood as being like a mini black hole if the thirteen dimensions model is understood as having n omni locational potential. The collapse potential location is simply a point of the absolute. were the dark energy number is at a critical density between two or more measurement point parameters within the spectrum field of the measurement. A black hole could simply be a larger model a concentration of dark energy if all matter at the fundamental level below the plank constant is made of Strings and Strings are simply ripples in the the space time fabric of a 4-dimensional membrane with a pressurized volume of Dark energy. You can find my ascientific model in several TH-cam comments if you wise to view it.
I will need to draft my thirteen point model model to describe the Omni Sheet Brane Vacuum of Space Time.
But my difficulty is scaling a visual of a one dimensional cross section of the scaling of one divided by ten 121 times and then to explain it visually in a three dimensions + one for time picture with out drawing a black cube that may look like a black hole in space.
If it new the language of pure math perhaps it could be viewed but I have no complex understanding of pure math, knowledge.
But it is important because mind relies on nine energies and it cant operate with out 4 dimensions three of space and one of time.
And then there is the two spring theory model 10 and 11 dimensions. That is simple if they operate within thirteen dimensions and involve the laws of Three and Severn.
1. 3 + 6 = 9 + 4 = 13
2. 6 + 1 = 7 + 1 = 10 -Ten dimensions plus three directional vector dimensions = 13
3. Nine energies plus four one for up-size, down-size left, right, = 13
4. 10 dimensions plus two directions plus one for The Absolute = 13
Note to self
-273.15 - Absolute Zero
-274.15
-275.15
-276.15
is like
1. -273.15 - Absolute Zero
2. -274.15
3. -275.15
4. -276.15
The order maybe inter changeable. Its an idea. The link too, is an idea.
Special relativity plus the nine energies found in the enneagram model 4+9= 13
The author Russell A. Smith and his Book Gurdjieff: COSMIC SECRETS.
Lets go to page: 109
DO
TI
LA DO
..... TI .....
SO ..... .....
..... LA DO
FA ..... ..... DO
..... ..... TI .....
MI SO ..... TI
..... ..... LA .....
RE ..... ..... ..... .....
..... FA ..... LA ..... DO
..... ..... ..... ..... TI .....
..... MI SO ..... ..... TI .7. .8. .9.10 .11.12. .13. .14. .15.16.17 .18 .19.
DO ..... ..... SO ..... .....
..... ..... ..... ..... LA ..... DO
TI RE ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... TI .....
..... ..... ..... FA ..... ..... ..... ..... DO
..... ..... MI ..... SO ...... ...... TI .....
LA DO ..... MI ..... SO ..... ..... TI
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... LA ..... ..... DO
..... TI RE ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... ..... FA ..... ..... LA ..... ..... DO
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... TI .....
SO ..... ..... RE ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... FA ..... ..... LA ...... ..... DO
..... ..... ..... ..... MI ..... SO ..... ..... ..... TI .....
..... LA DO ..... ..... MI ..... SO ..... ..... ..... TI
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... LA ..... ..... DO
FA ..... ..... DO ..... ..... ..... ..... SO ..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... TI ..... RE ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... .....
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... FA ..... ..... ..... LA ..... ..... DO
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... TI .....
MI SO ..... TI ..... RE ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... FA ..... ..... ..... LA ..... ..... DO
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... MI ..... ..... SO ..... ..... ..... TI .....
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... FA ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... DO
..... ..... LA ..... DO ..... ..... MI ...... ...... SO ..... ..... ..... TI .....
RE ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... LA ..... ..... ..... DO
..... FA ..... LA ..... DO ..... ..... MI ..... ..... SO ..... ..... ..... TI .....
..... ..... ..... ..... TI ..... RE ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... FA ..... ..... ..... LA ..... ..... ..... DO
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... TI .....
..... MI SO ..... ..... TI ..... RE ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... FA ..... ..... ..... LA ..... ..... ..... DO
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... MI ..... SO ..... ..... ..... ..... .... TI .....
DO ..... ..... SO ..... ..... ..... RE ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
That do you note?
If you count all the DO RE MI FA SO LA TI
The count is 121 one short of 122 the one hundred and twenty two count of zeros in the dark energy number. What remains is one zero and a one three eight. If we continue our lateral think process we can think of the 0 1 3 8 as thirteen zeros and now we can view two patterns of zeros a thirteen pattern and and a pattern of 121 zeros.
My thinking is. Because we live in a three dimensional world the thirteen maybe linked to a Cartesian plane with an X ,Y, Z three dimensional lattice. This thirteen point model with a zero at the centre and two points each side of the zero in the X plain and Y plane and the Z plane evenly spaced apart could be thought of as like a latus like a quantum mechanical lates.
Another possibility is the 1, 3, 8 component of the thirteen zeros that adds to twelve maybe the Higgs field. The vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field 246 GeV and following the lateral thinking process I have worked via, 2 + 4 + 6 = 12 twelve zeros.
The thirteenth is the central point of the thirteen point structure and maybe linked to the Absolute the Absolute maybe any zero within the linier vector of the Dark energy number.
Note to self, remember in a 4-dimentional space time end A and end B start with .0 and the sum of two parts in one is a potential volume that volume would be a sum of all omni locational potential absolute locations. The third implicate concept may be linked to each and every potential zero location within the volume void each zero could be linked to the concept of Creation and all Creation potential points could be link to the makeup of mass and energy into matter. Dark energy could be host and the Membrane could be Host hosting a living universe or a living universe of universes.
Maybe those who read this post will see the big picture of my model with me trying to draw a picture to represent the impression.
- Dark energy could be a condense composite of vectors so tightly packed that it is impossible to observe. Each vector could be like a Chameleon it could one of thirteen dimensions all at once. And all thirteen dimensions could host the structures of String Theory and M- Theory and the structure underpinning the 24 fields and 54 building blocks, the Fifty-four elemental parts are said to make up the standard model of particle physics.
I wasn't sure where to ask this question. What's the largest number that is actually useful to us? e.g. is it the quantity of subatomic particles in the universe or something else?
The estimate of the number of subatomic particles that I generally run across is 10^80, but prime numbers of the order of 10^200 are actually used as cryptographic keys.
I'll go with infinity. As counter intuitive as it sounds it is one of the most useful values we use, as well as being a curse to logic lol
Think of an irrational number like PI which can be anywhere between 0 and 3.14... to ∞ places. yet we rely so much on it :)
In some mathematical proofs, numbers much larger than those that can be practically written with normal notation are used, like Graham's number, whose size is unimaginable
Do we grow through time or move through it?
Thank for presenting physics with sense.
I noticed back in middle school in the early 70's that the word nowhere can be split into now and here now/here . Coincidence or synchronicity ?
I would agree with all of this if it weren't for those pesky neutrinos hitting the back of my brain every time I turn around or even look anywhere else ....
"No matter where you go, that's where you are..." - The Beatles (I think)
"No matter where you look, that's what you see... "
"No matter what you touch, that's what you feel... "
The block universe is just a model, for all observers conserned the past is gone. Theoretical observers could see our past or future, but they just don't exist.
Science says we are made of matter and when we die our matter transforms into some other collection of matter.
I want that butterfly cover in the paperback edition !!!
Do it Dr. !!
That's the order of the Lord Of The Multiverse and your channel's subscriber.
If because science is the business of making testable predictions, (Disproof Methodology), and all predictions will be wrong probabilisticly, the process of science is to continue to be less wrong in Perspective?
On topic, attempting Disproof by critique of the predictions and failing graciously, of perceived existence, is how metastability is sustained.
Can't hurt to read this book and review-reiterate the discussion.
Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Absolute time (Galileo, Newton) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time duality!
Time is a dual concept.
The future is dual to the past -- time duality.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Positive curvature (synchronic lines) is dual to negative curvature (enchronic lines) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry.
Curvature or gravitation is dual.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
Sine is dual to cosine -- the word "co" means mutual and implies duality.
Sinh is dual to cosh -- hyperbolic functions.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity.
Space is dual time -- Einstein.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The stuff about the past still "existing" I find a bit disingenuous.. just because a past event could still be observed somewhere in the universe (i.e the death of our common shared ancestor) doesn't prove that the past event still "exists". It only proves to the observer that the past event occurred however long ago it has taken that information to reach the observer. Is she saying that because information takes time to propogate that its source continues to "exists" because thats like saying a fish that that makes a ripple in the atlantic ocean will continue to exist for as long as it's ripples can be observed. If the fish is eaten but a ripple it created is still travelling somewhere accross the Atlantic - then Sabine is saying the fish still "exists"?
Because that's what it means for something to exist - to be causally connected to it such that you can physically have information about its existence.
Quantum relativity was about to be completed as last his years.
Is is a tautology to say: nothing travels faster than light (energy); if everything is made of energy?
No, two marble statues are made of marble, it does not mean one cannot go faster than the other. i.e you can't assume all energy moves the same.
"Everything is made of energy" is misleading. It can be destroyed and turned into energy, but it is a different type of energy than the one that gives movement. It's potential, not actual. So a "thing" that moves, does not use that potential energy, otherwise it would not be and could not travel as that thing either. It will have actual energy in the form of momentum, which will be never faster than the speed of light, which is pure momentum.
What is the limit to organising ?
The equation of the Time Dilation equation"
(ct')^2 =(ct)^2 + (vt')^2 t' = tG, G = 1/sqr(1^2 -b^2), b = v/c
does NOT mean the speed of light is a constant, since it is scaled by t' if related to a second "inertial frame" (whatever THAT means). It is roughly the same on any given Sunday in Central Park, NY at 12:00 AM provided there is no serious (and I mean SERIOUS) wind blowing.
Note that there is no specification of mass in the Time Dilation equation. (Einstein eliminates the specification x = p(m) = vt from the Lorentz equations by setting x = ct iff x' = ct' as a condition
Therein lies the problem
So what exactly is the point you were trying to make?
@@axle.australian.patriot Your equations employ or assume a non-endomorphic concept of motion and cannot intrinsically explain the creation of the spacetime manifold itself.
My book Holomovimento :Espelho d’Alma …or… in franch : La Chair de L’UNIVERS
since 2001
Time is dimensions. And more
Time is quantum dimension
Similar to Einstein, Sabine discuss physiology of perception rather than physics, which is independent from perception.
... step back and look at what you know ... are you more able now ... happy
Yes. The deeper you look, the more mysterious it becomes. The Universe and Life at its most fundamental level in incomprehensible. Tthe human brain has only abot 10 B neurons. and it is only that much it can work with.
there is no separating of dimensions, apart from thought experiments and maths.
so in reality, position and volume is a single dimension, as cartesian geometry is not a fundamental of nature. if i used a co-ordinate system based on two perpendiculars on a sphere, i would only need two angles and length of projection from sphere centre, to specify any point in space.
Can you make a video explaining how bigginers can make huge a profit within a short period of time?
I was at a seminar and the host spoke about making well over $880,000 within 4 months of investing $150,000. I just need to know how
Wow theory is theory ^ my basic understanding, we came the consciousness and return to consciousness because no perfect theory. Time is a tool of explanation = we can't travel without energy, we can travel without time.
A virtual particle falls in and make the black hole bigger.
A virtual particle falls out and make Hawking radiation.
That unzipping of nothingness is why some say the earth is expanding and space time is falling.
At a quantum level virtual particles can recombine not to there pair but to an other neighbor one. That motion is like when atoms under stress have an "edg dislocation". They rip against each other. Like an infinite row of people get up to make room to one more person on the infinite row of chair. That scooting over or riping is a gravitational wave.
If it was a metal, it would be now bent, like space time bends.
Please see in your mind.
Words are just to guide.
So yeah. That motion can form a ring and at higher dimension a tunnel, wich appears to us as a sphere.
So it is a sphere a tunnel and a universe depending on where you stand.
From the inside, the space is being pulled away from you. Or you could think that you are falling on your self.
That explains why there is zero gravity in space. All the mass of the black hole/big bang is around you.
The meaning of life. To make know the unknown.
Well, the Dali Llama told ME that, upon my death, I would have complete and total consciousness, so I've got that going for me...
That Roxy Music album, Avalon, kicks ass, btw.
THE MEANING OF LIFE
IS TO GIVE LIFE MEANING .
A life that's worth living, a world worth living in, the purpose is to learn and evolve the intelligence, to understand all of it.
We are just infants at understanding and we are infants at creating new human beings.
Later, god, (all of us, all the human beings who will ever live ,,,we will grow up and get better at it.
@@tracemiller9924 Yes..that's what I said.
I was hoping to see a definition of “exists”, since so much seems to depend on it .....
An point observer can be in the same place at different times (the origin (0,t) but not in different places at the same time
(x-x, t) = (0.t) iff (x=x, t) = (0,t)
Unless one introduces imaginary time... where (Theme from the Twilight Zone) ..
c = sqr(x) + i(sqr(1/t)
cc* =x + 1/t
(cc*)*2 = [x^2 + (1/t)^2] + 2(x/t) (Binomial expansion, Fermat's theorem for case n = 2)
2(x/t) = 2v. v=x/t
But if i = sqr(-1) then i^2 = sqr(-1)sqr(-1) = sqr[(-1)(-1)] = sqr[1^2 ] = 1 -1
since (-1)(-1) = (1)(1) = 1^2
(There are no negative numbers since
-c = a-b, b > a iff b-c = a
a-a = 0 , a = a
If there are no negative numbers, there are no square roots of negative numbers.
Much more to this story, but I don't have the space-time to discuss it here....
😎
Again, what is the point you are attempting to make? Not being rude, just genuinely curious.
@@axle.australian.patriot Investigation into the shaky foundation of mathematical physics.
@@axle.australian.patriot Investigation into ethe shaky foundation of mathematical physics
@@BuleriaChk Ok, got it. Yes, we know the math has a multitude of flaws. Good luck on your hunt :)
22:20 Why is the muion more magnetic then predicted as far as we know?
We don't know. It could be that we are missing something on the theoretical side or we are missing real physics. If we are missing real physics, then it means that we need a bigger accelerator... which Sabine in her infinite wisdom will deny. ;-)
hmm ... the scientist reaches the summit of the mountain and over yonder is the yogi/shaman/mystic sitting/waiting who asks 'what took you so long, shall we compare notes?' (similar to discussions between the Dalai Lama and David Bohm)
Hm..., don't think that the Dalai Lama would agree. He's in harmony with science and nature, as far as I know
Hi there. Could the Universe came about similarly as carbonated water, in which the bubble is the Universe and the water is the dark matter. The Big Bang is when the moment of bubble formation; as the bubble rises due to density gradient, the Universe expands. 😌
I prefer the cheese model. I am just not sure whether we are the cheese or the holes. ;-)
📍26:22
I am not sure how someone can say physics can tell us the meaning of life and come up "we don't know" and may never know. Sounds like it can't tell anything, nor should it.
I like the theory that says it's about reaching a higher entropy. So while life itself is low entropy, it creates a lot more high entropy than without it overall. Plants use energy to put minerals in a low entropy state, and animals eat the plant to make it high entropy again. It disperses the Sun's energy more effectively than some other ways like weathering, wind, radiation and so on. Other systems like evaporation and rain do something similar. So we are cooling the Earth, in a way. Still, we use it to transform things into more complex things that can be destroyed easily, so it works out. It's more of a chemistry reason I suppose. The more heat we produce the more the Earth cools and become high entropy, that's the basic idea. Humans are the best at it quite clearly.
May 8, 1023
Even if a simple "one inch long equation" explained a theory of everything it will have ultimately solved nothing since even it could not be mathematically or observationally questioned the question would still arise what reality did it describe to which it would never have an unanswerable or ultimate answer.
And in advanced quantum relativity . Last years of enestain:
Time was dimensional dimenention.
First we will have to reconnect with nature and not against it or am I wrong ?
Universe did not wait for us to exist
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 (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (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).
1) 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 and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties.
Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property.
The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence.
2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that 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 (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). 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, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property.
Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements.
On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon.
Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property.
The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain).
Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. 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 is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity.
For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness.
As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness.
My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong.
Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only 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 corresponds to 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. Marco Biagini
The Prime Directive... *(Grand)Mother Music must be given the honor and respect that is Her due* .
And the Prime Directive applies to everywhere across the board in all the universes, hyper-dimensions, and whatnot. No exceptions, no exemptions, no waivers, no excuses.
Rock the cosmos! Make the musicverse shake, shake, rattle and roll.
Make your Granny proud of you.
So let it be written. So let it be done.
In the beginning, there was The Word. And The Word was (and still is)... Music...
Music is the soundtrack of Eternity.
The Day The Earth Stood... on stage, rocking the cosmos.
"If this planet is a rockin', then come a knockin'..."
That this universe is a sim is irrelevant. A sim universe has still just as much obligation to abide by the Prime Directive as any other universe.
Make your Granny proud of you.
"Once you go full thunderbird, you never go back."
---Albert Einstein 🐼
"Thunderbird to live. Live to thunderbird."
---Albert Einstein 🐼
"Music is hyper-dimensional thunder. Music is the thunder that reverberates across all the universes."
---Albert Einstein 🐼
Couldn't be the process of the measurement be simply just a causality expanding from the interaction of the measurement apparatus and the measured object like in the Causal Set Theory. What if everything is just the junction of the causally bound events.
No. ;-)
"The Universe is a nauseating void." - New Yorker cartoon of two beatnik poets ca. 1950's
It is a tough life when one is both an initial and a final state but somebody's got to do it... :)
... But why me? 😎
The observer is the observed.
So Grannie's ghost is a quantum event?
EXISTENTIAL PHYSICS: (Current Analysis): (copy and paste from my files):
Regardless of how we exist, the future condenses down to a singular outcome: All life (real and artificial) eventually dies and goes extinct, at least those on and from this Earth.
(Subject to revision as new information might dictate).
The wave function collapses! Functions don’t collapse by definition. The mathematical definition that is. If the wave function is actually real, it would be helpful if it was named differently.
Could you argue that measurement is time reversible, because if you recreated a wave function over and over again, measuring it, you would eventually be able to determine to a high accuracy the probability curve?