Friday evening, a cold IPA beer, and then see that you just released your latest AMA. This is what I call a good start of a nice weekend. Thank you so much Sean. You're gold. 👍
Haha. IPA, lager, Tesla, Truck, black, white, physics, chemistry. Pick your choices. Our divercity makes us great and highly interesting. 👍 Btw, I also like regular lager, especially Staropramen. Yummy. 🙂👍Take care.
Dr. Carroll, I have listened to you defend your intellectual beliefs where you argued what you believed was the correct way was to interpret probabilities. Your piers were very adept at making you defend your position. I can understand that you strive to keep your explanations based upon of some aspect of reality that shy away from too much edginess or too much of a political agenda. Kudos to you!!!
@Sean Carroll Thank you, for sharing your knowledge!! 54:58 The actual sound of some Greek letters that are often being used in physics and mathematics: π = sounds almost like 'pea', not like 'pie' ξ = sounds like the 'xi' in 'taxi' τ = sounds almost like the word 'tough', not like 'tau' as in 'taurus' φ = sounds like the 'fea' in 'feature', not like 'fi' as in 'fire' ψ = sounds like the 'psi' in 'pepsi', not as 'psy'
Huh, walking and listening, some 15 kilometers later, I made it to the end. I liked the part about search for truth and intellectual endeavour. But often hear this Mach principle just shortly overlooked and no one explains what was it in details, why Einstein discarded it and what if other competitive theory of gravity could be based in Mach's principle.
Mach's principle asserts that all motion including acceleration is relative. This includes the rotation of any object. In special relativity however, acceleration must be construed as "absolute", so that, for example, it seems possible to answer the Twin Paradox by claiming that one twin "really" accelerates in order to return home.(e.g. See Brian Greene 's discussion on TH-cam). Einstein was sceptical of this interpretation to begin with, but was forced reluctantly to accept it in order to expedite the development of his gravitational theory, (a generalisation of the spacetime of the special theory). With wry humour, Einstein's friend, Kurt Godel, subsequently presented him with a paper showing that the entire universe might rotate, relative to nothing.This was a birthday gift! In my own view, the term "absolute" is unintelligible, making a nonsense of the theory from a mathematical standpoint. But then I am not an Einstein, Minkowski, (or Carroll!). I am not even a good mathematician, although I do agree with Ernst Mach, that acceleration and rotation in particular must be defined relationally, if we are to understand them at all.
Your AMA's are the best thanks, still reeling that you gave Reza Aslan a chance to spout his non-answer jibberish on your channel but hey watcha gonna do :)
Just because you didn't get anything from his answer, and you have criticism on his responses doesn't mean it's fair to discredit Aslan by not being worthy of joining a podcast about different avenues of thought in the world. I understood where he was coming from just fine, even though my thoughts lie in a very different sphere. He's clearer than Sam Harris to me who has to unpack every argument he has for hours and hours yet he's worth having on the podcast to. Diversity in ideas makes this podcast stronger I reckon.
Outgoing 20th Century fossil fuels-powered Physics is not pending today new Physics but rather a new Social Contract. "Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
"There are people I can reach [that] I think want a little bit more... I think my people appreciate what I am doing". Yes, we do! Keep it coming, and don't be afraid to get into the weeds!
There is the Rocco's Basilisk argument that is similar. Both of the questions leads to a conclusion that infinite existence leads to infinite pain. Infinite pleasure sounds like a painful experience in the end. I don't want to live in a static environment like that for thousands, millions, or billions of years, and infinity is much longer. This is one of the reasons that helped me overcome the fear of death. Infinity is not sustainable or pleasant. Edit: I'd rather be an observer, a fly on the wall, like the Christian concept of "God" or something. And I'd do exactly what "He" is doing: absolutely nothing.
Professor, I've watched Mindscape 124 about time travel. Time travel must be only a Hollywood thing because if you manage to travel in time, time at your present reality, where everyone you know exists, will not stop and wait for you to come back. Life will go on, and if say, you travel back in time for a year, when you return, you can only return to the moment in time that you left, i.e. you will be 1 year behind everybody else's reality because life will not have a description of what happened to you from the day you left until the day you returned. Within that 1 year period, had you not traveled, you might have had an accident and passed, and you would not have existed 1 year later anyways. So, your reality will always be in the past by about 1 year. Only Hollywood can fool life. Does that make sense ?
Sean I super appreciate hearing your opinions on everything, so sensible. I'd love to hear you had some more time to come back to fighting evangelists in the USA your debate with Craig was legen - wait for it.... - dary. To best support science we need to correct religion's influence in policies and schools. Very much looking forward some new theory or explanation from you that proves/disproves string theory :)
It's de Sitter space... therefore there is no irony! Do you think it's ironic every time someone says sit down. Or nice hit. Why don't you go to a baseball game and count the number of times people fail to see your brilliant sense of irony.
@seanmcarroll so do you think that the table only has it’s physical form when its being observed? So if nobody is in the room the table turns back into wave probabilities?
the problem with pascal's wager is it only assumes a good god, and only one, it may be that god prefers atheists and the religious types go to hell, in order for the wager to be worth the paper it's written on you have to know the nature of god before you start and despite "for the bible tells me so" no one has ANY idea of what god is, even if one exists. you have said as much yourself i believe.
I would liken your hypothesis on the reasoning behind our 1 iin a thousand chance of sending our praise to a place outside of vanity as supposing we somehow on the verge 9f solving some wonderful equation...our praise as you see it its the algorithms of our hope that there is a logical answer to the problem and we focus our essence on that hope and loose ourselves in the math
On authorities; one additional pointer is that there may be contradictions in what people say or have said. That's a bad sign. At best, you don't understand / they communicate poorly, at worst they are incompetent or dishonest.
So, it's not that you disagree, it's sometimes that it doesn't make sense. I feel bad about the fact that people are willing to listen to things that doesn't make sense only because they agree with the conclusion or punchline.
This ties into post-truth, I think. While physicists or physicalists may be a bit unimpressed by post-modern relativisation (?) I think there actually exists a kind of abject discounting of truth and facts and "sense-making". Post-truth is maybe a suitable label, if truth doesn't ultimately matter as much. If not a school of thought (with proclaimed proponents) it is a practice of non-thought, to be spicy.
"I'm constantly amazed by the depth of knowledge and expertise you share through your videos. Thank you for being a constant source of enlightenment. "
3:01:20 Hi Sean, I think you misinterpreted this question about the moral implications of the multiverse. It isn't about your decision creating a new branch, but rather about pre-existing branches where diferent events happened in the past and you never had to make the decision in the first place. So even if everyone on your branch dies, humanity isn't 'really' wiped out because there are still people living on those other branches. And I agree that you need some kind of non-linear function in your morality, but I think the extinction of humanity is a good example of that. Completely wiping out humanity is more than twice as bad as killing 50% of the population, because you also prevent any more people from being born in the future. So if you believe in the multiverse, you still have to count the harm done to each individual person but you don't necessarily have the additional penalty from the total destruction of humanity.
I can't timestamp it but he's talked about it before. I think in his most recent AMA somewhere twords the middle. Short answer: no. Long answer: The question itself is a semantic misunderstanding of the problem related to the word "observe" -- which in english implies agency but it not quite correct for the context. It's just as close as you get, a word has to be repurposed. If you mean what I think you mean. If you haven't listened to episode 25 it might touch on that question and be easier to find than five minute answer in a two hundred minute AMA. Or maybe not and this reply is utterly unhelpful. You never know!
3:01:24 isn´t that a bit of a cop out ? that doesn´t work ? how doesn´t it work ? you go on to state an example from your book instead and then go on to answer that. but it isn´t the example in the question, which is clearly stated. why not adress that instead? wasn´t the question if many worlds has philsophical implications? i mean of course it has, absoluely anything can have philosophical/moral/etical implications, to almost anyone.
Thanks Sean for discussing the 76ers and Ben Simmons. Ben is a great player and you are right he can’t just be dealt for a couple less talented players just to make a trade. Dame time or no time.
silly question, maybe. how big can a black hole get? as i say silly question but could a black hole become big enough to swallow all of the universe? i'm thinking this is how we get a cyclic universe. silly, but also genuine question, is there a limit to how big a black hole could get?
We don't know. We can only observe the largest ones that the universe has made, so far. Experimentally it's kind of expensive to keep feeding them to become larger. :-)
2:42:47 this was an extremely micro plastic and terminally American take. I’m actually disappointed that you would imply that Democrats are not also the party of business. They have done little to nothing in the past it’s all an aesthetic with no substance
The spinning light bulb is likely B-Roll as much as they have no idea what you talked about. You can never film exactly what you envisioned. B-roll lets you do fixes/improvements in the edit as reshoots are bad. It's the same with taking pictures, a pro would never take one, they will take a bunch of them to pick out the best. You don't publish your first draft either. It's still funny.
40:00 This is funny. I just heard Eric Weinstein on Lex Fridmans podcast and he is really interesting and smart. But something put me of about how he always framed his answers in a non-conventional way. I couldn't reallt put my finger on it what it was, but it is exactly what you said about heretics here. Thanks!
It could become so cold that it rains out and forms lakes of liquid nitrogen and oxygen. That is probably the most realistic scenario for the terraforming of Venus, by shielding the planet from solar radiation for approx. 1000 years. During that time the carbon dioxide would rain/snow out and solidify at the lowest points of the planet. It could then be buried with a thick layer of rock. Sounds expensive, yes, but it's the only realistic way to get rid of the atmosphere. Since there is no way to speed up the planet's rotation, one would need an actively moving solar shield/mirror, anyway, to create a day-night cycle.
47:20 An important question and there's lots of good advice in the answer. Mistrust of scientists must be partly due to all the charlatans out there muddying the waters and even some highly qualified people like Luc Montagnier have done the cause a disservice. When in doubt, a quick background check often helps.
@Reckless Abandon Really? Apart from seeing his appearances in the occasional documentary, I haven't paid much attention to him although I vaguely remember finding him annoying for some reason. So what has he done to undermine the credibility of science?
At 34:00 you're speaking about intellectuals saying they care about the truth..and some are public some are private.. That's just your definitions.. Some intellectuals are not academic and are not interested in the truth. You're talking more about scientists.
sad to see how many views some of those "edgy" podcasts get. especially when they feature the edgiest of the edgy guests. it's basically pseudoscience entertainment in the same vein as ancient aliens. conspiracyfotainment. there's enough places peddling interviews with the weinstein bros circus. don't go to the dark side for clicks - keep mindscape beautiful
I was a Patreon supporter of his, followed him on twitter, and one time I simply said thank you for the content and he blocked me. So I stopped supporting it. Still love his content though.
Can we let go of really stupid ideas about what the word "God" means? Obviously there is no creator being. But that doesn't mean there is no "God." The challenge is to find something sacred. If I say, "Nothing is sacred," then that is a limitation in me, not in the Universe. That's like an ant yawning at the Grand Canyon. What is "Life"? Can anyone prove the existence of Life? If you disect a person, you will never find Life. You cannot prove the existence of Life. It is not an observable, however much one may see "signs of Life." What is the fundamental difference between a rock and a tree? Is there not a "dimension" in the latter not found in the former? But where is that dimension? Can it be touched, tasted, seen, heard? Does it have a location in space? Riddle me this!
You're missing the point by removing the context or treating the statement as an absolute, as if you found some "Gotcha" moment. I would gander to say that you have no interest in what Sean said, rather your intent is to use it as a platform to rail against journalism and as these things go "Main Stream Media" while unironically taking whatever youtuber or facebook post or sound bite with far too much credence. Seen this far too often. To boil it down, your ideology is what you really care about not facts or truths. Makes me wonder why you are here in the first place or actually listened, otherwise you wouldn't make that statement.
@@oohhboy-funhouse It was a parenthetical statement in his definition of intellectuals so I don't see how the context makes any difference. If Sean had been giving an appraisal of journalism, I'm sure it would have been a much more sophisticated one. There are journalists who will tell the truth no matter what but they tend to get marginalised and persecuted (John Pilger springs to mind) but judging by the general output of the profession, I can't believe they are representative. You've read an awful lot into my short comment and all of it is wrong. It should be taken at face value. I have absolutely no interest in finding a "gotcha" moment and i listen to Sean Carroll only because I think he has interesting things to say and I like his attitude to just about everything. So save your rants for someone who deserves them.
I despise those with an agenda posing as educators or intellectuals, sadly some of most most popular & charismatic types out there are exactly that. In politics, which today is mostly evil types, at least you expect it, but to have knowledge perverted this way is tragic.
QM: The observer changes the observed system
Art: The observed system changes the observer
That’s a good one. Who is Art?
@@Sirach-pv5xv Art! That imaginary friend everyone appreciates 😜
The observation itself changes the whole universe, but neither the observer nor the observed notices.
YES! Almost 4 hours of AMA goodness!
I am so grateful for Mindscape.. It's my Netflix
My parents aren't home. Want to Mindscape and chill?
@@eliastandel Romance of the nerds!!
Friday evening, a cold IPA beer, and then see that you just released your latest AMA. This is what I call a good start of a nice weekend. Thank you so much Sean. You're gold. 👍
IPA... 🤮 Just a regular for me 🤣❤
Haha. IPA, lager, Tesla, Truck, black, white, physics, chemistry. Pick your choices. Our divercity makes us great and highly interesting. 👍 Btw, I also like regular lager, especially Staropramen. Yummy. 🙂👍Take care.
@@tommygrandefors9691 Svensk?
Tog ett en staropramen för mycket igår 🤣
@@Twobarpsi Skål på dig också. Ha en underbar helg! 👍🤘
Bbe ipns good bee bpb b nope Phoeepppjbepe
I love these AMA's. I listen to them when I go walking. Good times.
Same here!
Snap, me too. Best walks ever.
Dr. Carroll, I have listened to you defend your intellectual beliefs where you argued what you believed was the correct way was to interpret probabilities. Your piers were very adept at making you defend your position. I can understand that you strive to keep your explanations based upon of some aspect of reality that shy away from too much edginess or too much of a political agenda. Kudos to you!!!
woke up to this on at 4am. this gave me some WEIRD dreams
Same dude
Woke up at 3:55 am with weird dreams
.
😂
@Sean Carroll Thank you, for sharing your knowledge!!
54:58 The actual sound of some Greek letters that are often being used in physics and mathematics:
π = sounds almost like 'pea', not like 'pie'
ξ = sounds like the 'xi' in 'taxi'
τ = sounds almost like the word 'tough', not like 'tau' as in 'taurus'
φ = sounds like the 'fea' in 'feature', not like 'fi' as in 'fire'
ψ = sounds like the 'psi' in 'pepsi', not as 'psy'
I like that you don’t mix politics in. Thankyou! I appreciate you as well
He does somewhat, he just doesn't do it every episode or rub it in your face. But he has stated his political positions in the past.
@@Rattus-Norvegicus I feel like I am the only far right mathematician in the world
A goldmine of information
Ah the mind bendiness that is sean carroll's wisdom
Huh, walking and listening, some 15 kilometers later, I made it to the end. I liked the part about search for truth and intellectual endeavour. But often hear this Mach principle just shortly overlooked and no one explains what was it in details, why Einstein discarded it and what if other competitive theory of gravity could be based in Mach's principle.
Mach's principle asserts that all motion including acceleration is relative. This includes the rotation of any object. In special relativity however, acceleration must be construed as "absolute", so that, for example, it seems possible to answer the Twin Paradox by claiming that one twin "really" accelerates in order to return home.(e.g. See Brian Greene 's discussion on TH-cam). Einstein was sceptical of this interpretation to begin with, but was forced reluctantly to accept it in order to expedite the development of his gravitational theory, (a generalisation of the spacetime of the special theory). With wry humour, Einstein's friend, Kurt Godel, subsequently presented him with a paper showing that the entire universe might rotate, relative to nothing.This was a birthday gift! In my own view, the term "absolute" is unintelligible, making a nonsense of the theory from a mathematical standpoint. But then I am not an Einstein, Minkowski, (or Carroll!). I am not even a good mathematician, although I do agree with Ernst Mach, that acceleration and rotation in particular must be defined relationally, if we are to understand them at all.
Your AMA's are the best thanks, still reeling that you gave Reza Aslan a chance to spout his non-answer jibberish on your channel but hey watcha gonna do :)
Just because you didn't get anything from his answer, and you have criticism on his responses doesn't mean it's fair to discredit Aslan by not being worthy of joining a podcast about different avenues of thought in the world. I understood where he was coming from just fine, even though my thoughts lie in a very different sphere. He's clearer than Sam Harris to me who has to unpack every argument he has for hours and hours yet he's worth having on the podcast to. Diversity in ideas makes this podcast stronger I reckon.
So rational, thoughtful, genuine, & gentle at the very same time. Sean Carroll, you are class All the Way
Always enjoy these Sean! Thank you
I want to see Sean spinning a lightbulb now
Thank you so much for permitting me to not be a patreon supporter! What a generous overlord you are.
People with money are not better than people with no money. Your intro music utilizes amazing recording of the drums.
Always learning something from you!! For a long time now too lol:)
Outgoing 20th Century fossil fuels-powered Physics is not pending today new Physics but rather a new Social Contract.
"Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
I'm genuinely considering being a patreon after this video, I appreciate your time and the video
Great 👍 Please overnight funds to me asap so I can check for contraband.
"There are people I can reach [that] I think want a little bit more... I think my people appreciate what I am doing".
Yes, we do! Keep it coming, and don't be afraid to get into the weeds!
There is the Rocco's Basilisk argument that is similar. Both of the questions leads to a conclusion that infinite existence leads to infinite pain. Infinite pleasure sounds like a painful experience in the end. I don't want to live in a static environment like that for thousands, millions, or billions of years, and infinity is much longer. This is one of the reasons that helped me overcome the fear of death. Infinity is not sustainable or pleasant.
Edit: I'd rather be an observer, a fly on the wall, like the Christian concept of "God" or something. And I'd do exactly what "He" is doing: absolutely nothing.
Professor, I've watched Mindscape 124 about time travel. Time travel must be only a Hollywood thing because if you manage to travel in time, time at your present reality, where everyone you know exists, will not stop and wait for you to come back. Life will go on, and if say, you travel back in time for a year, when you return, you can only return to the moment in time that you left, i.e. you will be 1 year behind everybody else's reality because life will not have a description of what happened to you from the day you left until the day you returned. Within that 1 year period, had you not traveled, you might have had an accident and passed, and you would not have existed 1 year later anyways. So, your reality will always be in the past by about 1 year. Only Hollywood can fool life. Does that make sense ?
Sean I super appreciate hearing your opinions on everything, so sensible. I'd love to hear you had some more time to come back to fighting evangelists in the USA your debate with Craig was legen - wait for it.... - dary. To best support science we need to correct religion's influence in policies and schools. Very much looking forward some new theory or explanation from you that proves/disproves string theory :)
That was an honest sounding best answer.
38:22 - This may explain a lot.
Hearing Sean say "anti de-shitter space" without a hint of irony in his voice made my day
It's de Sitter space... therefore there is no irony! Do you think it's ironic every time someone says sit down. Or nice hit. Why don't you go to a baseball game and count the number of times people fail to see your brilliant sense of irony.
Any chance you can separate the "fan club" type questions (what music do you like etc) from the science/philosophy questions?
It is "Ask Me ANYTHING."
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself That's why I asked
38:46 - 39:22 Dear Sean,
Please explain this to your good friend Joe Rogan.
Thank you.
this is the treat for getting that reza aslan podcast
Sean , any chance of mapping port impedances of Zobel's vortex amplifier?
He told me to tell you, Fhook Yhew...
@seanmcarroll so do you think that the table only has it’s physical form when its being observed? So if nobody is in the room the table turns back into wave probabilities?
Good work
the problem with pascal's wager is it only assumes a good god, and only one, it may be that god prefers atheists and the religious types go to hell, in order for the wager to be worth the paper it's written on you have to know the nature of god before you start and despite "for the bible tells me so" no one has ANY idea of what god is, even if one exists. you have said as much yourself i believe.
The thing I have trouble getting is, are there actual physical other worlds where the the other results happened? Or is this a mathematical construct?
I don't know what I'd do without Sean Carroll in my life.
You would learn better physics.
Pascal's Wager is like taking a bet with billion-to-one odds. Not a good bet. It's utter nonsense.
I would liken your hypothesis on the reasoning behind our 1 iin a thousand chance of sending our praise to a place outside of vanity as supposing we somehow on the verge 9f solving some wonderful equation...our praise as you see it its the algorithms of our hope that there is a logical answer to the problem and we focus our essence on that hope and loose ourselves in the math
Where can we ask the questions?
Awesome.
Welcome to the Mindscape podcast, where the question of what happens to Neutron Stars colliding with Black Holes is considered too down to earth.
If you decide to do the podcast thing, video is 50% and audio is 50%
On authorities; one additional pointer is that there may be contradictions in what people say or have said. That's a bad sign. At best, you don't understand / they communicate poorly, at worst they are incompetent or dishonest.
So, it's not that you disagree, it's sometimes that it doesn't make sense. I feel bad about the fact that people are willing to listen to things that doesn't make sense only because they agree with the conclusion or punchline.
This ties into post-truth, I think. While physicists or physicalists may be a bit unimpressed by post-modern relativisation (?) I think there actually exists a kind of abject discounting of truth and facts and "sense-making". Post-truth is maybe a suitable label, if truth doesn't ultimately matter as much. If not a school of thought (with proclaimed proponents) it is a practice of non-thought, to be spicy.
"I'm constantly amazed by the depth of knowledge and expertise you share through your videos. Thank you for being a constant source of enlightenment.
"
3:01:20 Hi Sean,
I think you misinterpreted this question about the moral implications of the multiverse. It isn't about your decision creating a new branch, but rather about pre-existing branches where diferent events happened in the past and you never had to make the decision in the first place. So even if everyone on your branch dies, humanity isn't 'really' wiped out because there are still people living on those other branches.
And I agree that you need some kind of non-linear function in your morality, but I think the extinction of humanity is a good example of that. Completely wiping out humanity is more than twice as bad as killing 50% of the population, because you also prevent any more people from being born in the future. So if you believe in the multiverse, you still have to count the harm done to each individual person but you don't necessarily have the additional penalty from the total destruction of humanity.
Morality is about choices that you make. It's not about choices that the universe has made for you.
*Dr. Carrol* Is there any evidence to account for consciousness in the Quantum measurement problem?
I can't timestamp it but he's talked about it before. I think in his most recent AMA somewhere twords the middle. Short answer: no. Long answer: The question itself is a semantic misunderstanding of the problem related to the word "observe" -- which in english implies agency but it not quite correct for the context. It's just as close as you get, a word has to be repurposed. If you mean what I think you mean.
If you haven't listened to episode 25 it might touch on that question and be easier to find than five minute answer in a two hundred minute AMA. Or maybe not and this reply is utterly unhelpful. You never know!
Wow, this really *is* "anything"!
1:10:58 Sean weights in on Ben Simmons debacle.
Oops, 3.49 hours! You naughty boy Sean. Putting all the eggs in the same basket. 😮 I'll enjoy every minute. 😀👍
4 hours yess.
3:01:24 isn´t that a bit of a cop out ? that doesn´t work ? how doesn´t it work ? you go on to state an example from your book instead and then go on to answer that. but it isn´t the example in the question, which is clearly stated. why not adress that instead? wasn´t the question if many worlds has philsophical implications? i mean of course it has, absoluely anything can have philosophical/moral/etical implications, to almost anyone.
Thanks Sean for discussing the 76ers and Ben Simmons. Ben is a great player and you are right he can’t just be dealt for a couple less talented players just to make a trade. Dame time or no time.
27:00 wouldn't dna collapse into a black hole before acheiving arbitrary complexity?
Yes, the truth!🙂👍
silly question, maybe. how big can a black hole get? as i say silly question but could a black hole become big enough to swallow all of the universe? i'm thinking this is how we get a cyclic universe. silly, but also genuine question, is there a limit to how big a black hole could get?
We don't know. We can only observe the largest ones that the universe has made, so far. Experimentally it's kind of expensive to keep feeding them to become larger. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 buying it dinner s one thing, taking it to a show too, maybe not.
"sorry about that," Sean said, not sorry at all
2:42:47 this was an extremely micro plastic and terminally American take. I’m actually disappointed that you would imply that Democrats are not also the party of business. They have done little to nothing in the past it’s all an aesthetic with no substance
The spinning light bulb is likely B-Roll as much as they have no idea what you talked about. You can never film exactly what you envisioned. B-roll lets you do fixes/improvements in the edit as reshoots are bad. It's the same with taking pictures, a pro would never take one, they will take a bunch of them to pick out the best. You don't publish your first draft either. It's still funny.
I would totally join the Patreon if you guys had a discord server!
40:00 This is funny. I just heard Eric Weinstein on Lex Fridmans podcast and he is really interesting and smart. But something put me of about how he always framed his answers in a non-conventional way. I couldn't reallt put my finger on it what it was, but it is exactly what you said about heretics here. Thanks!
3:05:35 "there's no quantum in there." Sean missed the point. There are still all these other branches that won't be affected.
... something sounds... fishy...
What can happen to the earth’s atmosphere that would make human live underground ?
It could become so cold that it rains out and forms lakes of liquid nitrogen and oxygen. That is probably the most realistic scenario for the terraforming of Venus, by shielding the planet from solar radiation for approx. 1000 years. During that time the carbon dioxide would rain/snow out and solidify at the lowest points of the planet. It could then be buried with a thick layer of rock. Sounds expensive, yes, but it's the only realistic way to get rid of the atmosphere. Since there is no way to speed up the planet's rotation, one would need an actively moving solar shield/mirror, anyway, to create a day-night cycle.
47:20 An important question and there's lots of good advice in the answer. Mistrust of scientists must be partly due to all the charlatans out there muddying the waters and even some highly qualified people like Luc Montagnier have done the cause a disservice. When in doubt, a quick background check often helps.
@Reckless Abandon Really? Apart from seeing his appearances in the occasional documentary, I haven't paid much attention to him although I vaguely remember finding him annoying for some reason. So what has he done to undermine the credibility of science?
It's three forty eight in the A M.
What was before the big bang?
That which is north of the north pole.
Quantum fields
Timestamps, please.
Hi!
👍🏻
At 34:00 you're speaking about intellectuals saying they care about the truth..and some are public some are private.. That's just your definitions.. Some intellectuals are not academic and are not interested in the truth. You're talking more about scientists.
Earliest I’ve ever been
no nose?
No you're not
28:14 Man, I have listened a lot to you, Sean. I both remember the quote from the talk and your story about Robert from somewhere else.
Loolooll is lp I’ll ll
Ll I’ll l
Polo
People
Not to business as ask me anything .
Under
Stand .
While is who.
sad to see how many views some of those "edgy" podcasts get. especially when they feature the edgiest of the edgy guests. it's basically pseudoscience entertainment in the same vein as ancient aliens. conspiracyfotainment. there's enough places peddling interviews with the weinstein bros circus. don't go to the dark side for clicks - keep mindscape beautiful
😂
I was a Patreon supporter of his, followed him on twitter, and one time I simply said thank you for the content and he blocked me. So I stopped supporting it. Still love his content though.
Hahaha, that's hilarious...
🎉😂😮
するサカササ坂笹
Can we let go of really stupid ideas about what the word "God" means? Obviously there is no creator being. But that doesn't mean there is no "God." The challenge is to find something sacred. If I say, "Nothing is sacred," then that is a limitation in me, not in the Universe. That's like an ant yawning at the Grand Canyon.
What is "Life"? Can anyone prove the existence of Life? If you disect a person, you will never find Life. You cannot prove the existence of Life. It is not an observable, however much one may see "signs of Life."
What is the fundamental difference between a rock and a tree? Is there not a "dimension" in the latter not found in the former? But where is that dimension? Can it be touched, tasted, seen, heard? Does it have a location in space?
Riddle me this!
If only journalism was all about telling the truth. 35:25 I guess Sean didn't think too much about that statement before making it
You're missing the point by removing the context or treating the statement as an absolute, as if you found some "Gotcha" moment. I would gander to say that you have no interest in what Sean said, rather your intent is to use it as a platform to rail against journalism and as these things go "Main Stream Media" while unironically taking whatever youtuber or facebook post or sound bite with far too much credence. Seen this far too often.
To boil it down, your ideology is what you really care about not facts or truths. Makes me wonder why you are here in the first place or actually listened, otherwise you wouldn't make that statement.
@@oohhboy-funhouse ..
@@oohhboy-funhouse It was a parenthetical statement in his definition of intellectuals so I don't see how the context makes any difference. If Sean had been giving an appraisal of journalism, I'm sure it would have been a much more sophisticated one. There are journalists who will tell the truth no matter what but they tend to get marginalised and persecuted (John Pilger springs to mind) but judging by the general output of the profession, I can't believe they are representative.
You've read an awful lot into my short comment and all of it is wrong. It should be taken at face value. I have absolutely no interest in finding a "gotcha" moment and i listen to Sean Carroll only because I think he has interesting things to say and I like his attitude to just about everything. So save your rants for someone who deserves them.
Blah, blah, blah, science stuff, & dirka, dirka, dirka.
I despise those with an agenda posing as educators or intellectuals, sadly some of most most popular & charismatic types out there are exactly that. In politics, which today is mostly evil types, at least you expect it, but to have knowledge perverted this way is tragic.
😂