Paul Davies - What Exists?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2023
- Watch more interviews on the mysteries of the cosmos: bit.ly/46dd7Dx
Lots of things exist. But what is so absolutely fundamental in that it cannot be further reduced into anything more fundamental, but other things that exist can be reduced to it? The challenge is to discern the minimum number of basic categories that can explain the entirety of existence.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Paul Davies is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Paul davies is the most brilliant thinker. Original but well founded. More of him please.
Excellent.. thanks 🙏.
excellent guest and interview! never ceases to amaze me how we as humans (including the best of minds) know absolutely nothing FOR SURE beyond the simple experience of "I exist at this instant of time" beyond which statement EVERYTHING else is mere speculation!
We know nothing for sure… While you’re holding up a smart phone…? Is there a shaking one’s head in amazement emoji?
Our brains make up a bunch of stuff to hide this!!! What a World in which we're ALL Present!
You can’t even know what is it like to sit or walk. Simply because they are blindly and naturally itself without any time and distance that woukd create a sense of self/knowing about them. No one sits or walks, they just seem to happen unexplainably…as well as absolutely everything else in this apparent universe 😂
Speak for yourself, there are thousand year old wise men living in the mountains of China and I myself know why I was put on earth, how long ago and where I will go when I leave.....................Falun Dafa
Funny enough, even Descartes' cogito can be defeated. It's possible to construct a system where even though you think you exist, you do not.
The first of these conversations that I've seen take place in a pub. And why not 8-)
Oh, how I envy Robert Kuhn ! Not only does he have the opportunity to have a chat with the world's greatest minds, but he gets unparalleled insight into the most fundamental themes in maths, physics, cosmology, philosophy, theology - and if he is really lucky he may even get a glimpse of God / The Creator / the eternally unknown force that caused all this to exists. The topics and debates in this increasingly voluminous series are of fundamental importance, and luckily Paul Kuhn shares all this with us, giving each and every one who watches food for thought and the opportunity to reflect how he / she views the world. It could not be better, hence a big "thank you" to Paul Kuhn and his guests for sharing their knowledge with us.
He has really good eye contact
Lol
KUHN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I spit at thee...
@@micronda .....how dare thou fling phlegm in my direction without permission
Apologise
Assuming anything is possible;... Everything that can exist does but we are in a unique universe, that intrinsically cannot be interfered with, by anything from the ID of the multiverses, unless our collective consciousness has initialized it.
The Principle of Least Action
Just information and energy exist.
My boy RLK!
Consciousness' take on itself is the so called reality and the law of nature.
6:34 Amazed there's no bong on the table.
the laws of physics emerge in the first few moments of the universe according to the principles of geometry as described by an essay online called "the quantum-semiotic kosmos" at integralworld.
How certain are they that the physics from that time have not changed-even if just by an infinitesimal unmeasurable amount?
I think he is making a mistake when he equates "everything that can exist does exist" with "everything that you can think of exists". These do not mean the same thing. The former is far more reasonable - our thoughts need not reflect reality at all. I can conceive of gravity working in reverse - does that mean that a portion of the cosmos must work in this way? No, of course not. Just because I can think of it does not mean it is physically possible.
"Everything that can exist does exist" means that everything that *can exist within the restraints of the laws of the universe* does exist, assuming an infinite and eternal universe.
One of the central points raised is the question of whether the laws of physics are independent entities that exist in some abstract sense or are merely human inventions. The idea that these laws might be real and fundamental aspects of the universe raises questions about their origin, nature, and necessity.
It is not gravity that holds us on this planet, it is karma.....................Falun Dafa
Define existence before talk.
"I think therefore I am", the only thing we can be really sure of after nearly four centuries since Descartes posited this, have we really advanced that much? 🤔
You might want to check up on that. The cogito was defeated, and even Descartes expected this because he realized there were ways to defeat it. For example, 'Cogito ergo sum' is actually logically invalid (for a number of reasons, including assuming the consequent, because 'Cogito' presupposes 'sum'). He eventually revised it to remove the argumentative form then even removed the cogito portion, replacing it with dubito ('I doubt').
It's been well known in philosophy for quite some time that an agent cannot absolutely establish their own existence even to themselves.
Sounds like he's on the case! Impeccably simplified discourse yet richly embedded with nuance that is both open-mindedly fare to contributers and austere to argument.
There are those things that exist in physical reality and which can be described by science and reduced to the level of the wave function, and then there are those things which we as humans invent as virtual models which have no representation in physical reality but exist as information models. Not everything that exist has a physical representation. We just have to make clear that those exist on different levels in reality. A lot of people dont understand that they live in an virtual model which our brain creates in combination with our language as representation of the world around us and that this model is enriched with abstract representations of real world phenomena, our own individual feelings, and tons of virtual models which we have created as part of our culture and own ideas. it is hard sometimes to distinguish what is real and what just exist on the virtual layer we lay over the world...especially in belief systems.
"What exists?" What we can see, hear, taste, smell, and feel. What is beyond the horizon, does not exist, until it is discovered by said "senses". Once the determination through those senses that "it" does exist, then you can extrapolate through theory, etc., how and to what extent "it" exists. The rest is just imagination, fairytales, fear, and ignorance. As for death/religion - When you die, you will not know, therefore you will not know that you ever lived...and no one to save you from that predicament.
How far has anyone gotten with Ontology? Formulating models has helped us to develop much of the systems and technology that we use every day, and we need to speculate very little about what anything _actually_ is to achieve this. Maybe you're just trying to satisfy your own curiosity, but I'll bet that there are many other ways to better understand things and actually making significant progress.
Based upon his own comments...there should be an infinite variation on the "Law of Physics". The alternative is that we're living in a second-derivation of reality and are at the whims of those (it/they/them/et. al...?) at the base layer.
Great post (liked).
/et. al...?
7:33 laws of nature seem to be very consistent and can care less for our interpretations... you either follow on their tracks or get lost down a dead end...
Fascinating. Just one thing- why does the camera filming these two keep moving? Why can’t we just see these guys from one or two static angles without the camera sloshing to the left and to the right? Yeah, it’s moving really slow. But it’s still SO noticeable. I’m a little seasick. 🤢
Maybe try just listening. Are you able to watch movies? Is this a new problem?
I agree. Unnecessary complicated editing which doesn't make for a pleasant viewing experience.
maybe laws of physics / nature from abstract mathematical development of energy into mental space?
First you have to accept that our awareness of existence is what exists. God designed the universe! 🙏🙏
Nonsense on both accounts.
@LifesInsight So we can have consciousness problems just like we can have digestive problems 🙂
Do we need a quantifiability bias in determining what exists?? Can what cannot be quantified and does not contain information exist?? Can nothing exist, does the sum of -1 + 1 exist?? -1 and + 1 do seem quantifiable but if they are considered existent and -1 + 1 = 0, then shouldn’t the right side of the equation exist as well, as they are equivalent the left being the iteration of the right??
At 1 min in.. physics is a domain of knowledge, and physicists often just apply knowledge from within that domain. If you ask them where the fundamental laws of physics come from (which is the basis of that domain), ofcourse they can't answer or explain that. However that doesn't mean their isn't an explaination. Whatever the explaination is for how the laws of physics arose, can't depend on those laws. It also must be a logical explaination - if it isn't logical then we will never recognise it as an explaination and thus it will be forever out of reach. Therefore my hypothesis is that there is some other domain of knowledge that will explain "physics" in terms of being a logical explaination for how the laws of physics arose. Because this other domain will also correspond to reality in the sense that it us used in the explaination for how our laws of physics arose, I would qualify this domain as being one of "science" but not being "physics" because "physics" is about what happens once you have some fundamental laws of physics and everything they explain. The domain of knowledge that embodies how such laws could arise and presumably other such laws, would in essence be more fundamental than our current laws of physics, similar to how physics is more fundamental to chemistry. The domains of knowledge would be operating at different levels of abstraction / emergence.
The way we have explained complex beings arising in our universe has been a story of evolution - i.e a mechanism of variation and selection which is a constructive process, leading to replication of genes for example which embody more and more knowledge about how to better replicate. So my personal philosophy is that the thing that gave rise to our laws of physics, was also a process that creates immense variation and selection. For example if our laws of physics is just one set, but infinitely many others also "exist" then the ones that allow for computation and brains to evolve would allow for "physicists" to exist within them that eventually ask the question "how did our laws of physics arise".
For me, the requirement for things to "exist" is that the realm they exist within, and the laws that govern that realm, must allow for computation. Things could exist in a realm where information cannot be processed but due to absence of logic, we couldnt have observers reasoning about the realm existing in that realm - this means no gods, guardians, animals, suffering etc. However if you have a realm with information processing then that constrains the set of possible existences worth thinking about.
It seems that the answer to what exists is destined to evolve and change as long as there are living beings capable of asking the question. There would seem to be one thing we can say for sure exists and will remain unchanged as long as there are living beings to ask the question. That would be life exists that we can be sure of. We really don't know much about the forms of life that exist with the exception of the complicated unintuitive cell based life we see on our own planet. But for sure, life exists.
And Nature or the Cosmos exists and precedes our existence by billions of years. You left that part out.
What is life?
@@CMVMic You don't know what life is? All living organisms around you every day and you don't know what life is?
@@Resmith18SR I know how I define it, I just dont know how you define it
@@CMVMic Living organisms are physically chemically based objects that possess DNA.
Easy Question Meet Easy Answer. There is only one substance that exists.
Possibility
My take is:
In sum total, nothing exists.
But we experience structure due to our limited ability of perception. Thus, the universe is "nothingness, inspected from the inside" [quote from unknown source].
Does anyone agree? 🤓
Everything that can exist in the way that it can exist, does exist in the way that it can exist.
@@Francis0206 the prime mover would be outside of time, think "atemporal causation"
@@Francis0206 you misunderstand me. I'm an atheist. Allow me to clear it up. When we think of causation, we immediately assume time to exist. But what is time? I think we should redefine causation as "things working a certain way", from simple to complex. It's an organizational heuristic. Complex things "come from" simple things. So... In order to find the prime mover, we simply have to use logic to decide what we should consider as "the simplest thing" which everything else relies on.
@@Francis0206 being an atheist doesn't mean you can't see a religious person's point of view. To me, it means not believing the world came from a sentient creator. The prime mover, as it was thought up by Aristotle, was not a sentient being.
@@Francis0206 for me, prime mover means "a reason that the world exists". This is not a thing inside the world, it is rather: a fact.... about the world.
There are many facts about the world. However, which fact do you think is the most essential to the world's existence? This is the idea of what the phrase "prime mover" should actually mean.
@@dmitrysamoilov5989then he must be a magician fleeting in and out time...
Nature is fundamentally relational and is necessarily dynamic. The absolute state is impossible.
Patterns in purely abstract, dynamic relationships manifest as what we call nature.
Nothing can be said to exist at a point in time other than in a relational sense.
Space can be said to exist at a point, if space is a thing that exists.
physical existence, mental existence, abstract existence, infinite existence?
The laws are not independent of the materials. When matter is created, the nature of the matter defines the laws.
Matter was never created.
Probably more complicated than that, with the nature and characteristics of the matter and the laws changing depending on their proportions and relations to each other.
Any chocolate bar that can exist does exist. There are whole isles dedicated to them now, hundreds on the shelves.
I know and eat and enjoy them before you die. After you're dead, no more chocolate bars or ice cream or Chinese buffet.
Mmmmmmm 😋
The first law of ElectroMagnetism is quantum alternate of the 01 intangible - tangible phenomenon.
I could see that, 'everything that can exist does exist,' does not necessarily mean devils and demons as this may not be possible in a physical reality, as it would need to obey those laws of physics. However, only in belief of the human mind working out what is reality, by way of a confusing belief system and slowing their own personal evolution. Also, chaos, evil and destruction would not seem to be the direction of any physical evolution that may retain its information beyond the physical laws if this is the case as well, and someway in a minuscule energy form. As there would seem to be a need for a 'fundamental principle' of stability for anything supported by, 'what came before any physical laws.' to maintain the present state of physical reality in a logical way? Furthermore to 'everything that can exist does exist,' does not mean it is in a continued physical form, but perhaps in timeless information of an undetected minuscule energy form... Such as the passing evolution of Earth's dinosaurs, which may continue to exist elsewhere in a lesser evolved Universe or timeline other than our own? but no longer here. My two bits on...
They're in a bar that's a new one
What exists? Nonexistence exists for whatever to exist.
“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”
Blah blah blah blah Bible
@@longcastle4863 - As an atheist it's still and interesting verse, but yup the blah blah Bible.
@@longcastle4863 - I liked that it rhymed 🤪
@@bitphr3ak 👍
Alfred E Newman.
What exist may be an ever changing, ever evolving thing. What we need to know is the state of that thing in our particular time and place. At some later time we may find reasons to look deeper.
Do colors exist? We seem to believe that photons vibrating at certain wavelengths exist but the experience of blue is not as real because it only arises as a subjective visual model in nervous systems.
However, thinking more critically, all the evidence we have that photons exist is also constructed as a subjective model. Instead of an experience of blue we experience an idea about photons. At the end of the day everything we think we know is just a model. If our skin were made of diamond then granite would feel soft to us instead of hard. We don’t see the world at all. We see a representation that is a reflection of what we are. So consciousness exists for certain and everything else we can never be sure.
But we obviously see, hear, taste, touch, smell a very good representation of it. Good enough that we adapt and survive by it as a species. As do many other species; who, observing they mostly have sensory perceptual systems similar to ours, probably experience reality, broadly speaking, in similar ways as us.
what we know/describe as photons might not be exactly what those 'energy packets' are... even LHC data is so vast and complex that only a future AI can take a shot at presenting a model that we're all waiting for... that model will be able to explain every step, from mater formation to ultimately a star's formation... until then, we're just stuck with what we've got...
@@longcastle4863
You don’t see a ‘representation’ of the world at all (unless you’re looking at a painting or a photo or the like). You see the world itself. Even if your brain constructed a model of your environment, you would still not be able to look inside your head to see that model. It would not help you acquire information about your environment. Also, you wouldn’t be able to compare the representation with the scene it represents to know how accurate it is (just as we can do with paintings).
The modern idea that we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell representations produced in our brains is _wholly_ mistaken. It’s based on confusions inherited from early modern philosophy about perception.
@@legron121 Interesting. But your argument seems a bit semantical to me. The point I was trying to make in my comment is that even though we experience the world by means of our various sensory perceptual systems, it also seems obvious that the product of those systems correlate very well or at least well enough with the world around us, that we are able to adapt and survive in it. When air waves cause the tiny bones in our inner ear to tap against our tympanic membrane, which then triggers the tiny hairs (cilia) lining our inner ear “canal” or chloe, that then trigger a series of electrochemical interactions among neurons and dendrites moving toward the hearing areas of our brain, what would you call or how would you describe the sound we subsequently experience? If not a representation or “appearance”, to use Kant’s word (since I think you were alluding to that), how about a “translation”? Also, I agree with you that we do not experience things inside our heads, rather what our sensory perceptual systems do is “open up” the world around us-placing us, experientially, in the midst of it. Experiencing things “inside” our head may be applicable, however, when trying to remember or imagine something or, for example, when trying to mentally put together the pieces of a puzzle, etc.
@@longcastle4863
"...what would you call or how would you describe the sound we subsequently experience?"
I'm not sure what this question means. The sound that we hear when someone blows a trumpet _is_ the sound that the trumpet produces - it is not a representation, or "translation", of this sound. The series of physiological events that you described explain _how it is possible_ for me to hear the sound of a trumpet (or any other sound), but hearing a trumpet sound is not simply the last link in this chain.
There is a _metaphorical_ sense in which we imagine things "in our head" (since we associate mental activities with the head or the brain, just as we associate love with the heart). But we don't _literally_ imagine anything in our head - we imagine things in our study, or in our rooms, or in the garden, or wherever we are when we exercise our imagination. Peter Hacker covers all of these things in meticulous detail in "Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience" or "Human Nature", which I highly recommend checking out.
6:13 ... but you raise a very interesting question which is uh if you ask somebody say a hundred years ago what exists they would probably say well the matter and maybe energy at this particular moment in time throghout the universe however fa that goes today you get a very different answer that 👍 the fundamental objects of existence to a physicist today will be something like the wave function it would't actually be material particles it would be this abstract entity the excitations of which are particles but the particles are rather secondary it's the wave function that's funcamental they wouldn't declare that it's at this particular moment of time is existence it stretches through all of time and so existence now is this rather shadowy wave function extending across spae and time and that's uh that thing is existence is vested in rather peculiar entity which we certainly don't see in daily life and that in turn is supported by mathematical laws and relationship which we don't ever see but they manifest themselves in the way that world is 7:33 ... 8:34 ❤... but I think that the laws really are part of what exists I don't think we can separate out the stuff of the world and separated from the laws and say the stuff has existence and the laws uh some sort of human creation I think it all exists and that if we ever get an ultimate theory of existence it's going to be at the level of those underlying laws. Thanks for the wonderful idea.
Me. Me exists. Me Me Me Me Me.
No. No you don't.
Your non-existent self claims to be existent. 🤪
But what we perceive as us is not real😅
@@SamoaVsEverybody814 Yes.Yes Me Do.
@@1stPrinciples455 Me as real as Donald Hoffmans eyebrows.
I am looking forward to the near future where I can spend an infinite, or perhaps finite but a vast playground, manifested by God, a series of explorations, his creation. Where this ultimately leads, I do not know but am looking forward to getting off this rock and into exploring the many possibilities we otherwise could never have imagined. Unfettered by terrestrial limitations. Thank God!!!
A pipe dream that is unlikely to happen, but which almost guarantees, from the sound of it, that you are on your way to wasting this one life you have. Unless you were born into absolutely horrid circumstances, from which there is no escape; in which case I sincerely apologize.
FFS
@longcastle4863 what is wasting a life? Who decides what is wasting and what is not?
Q: What exist?
A: a lot.
What doesn't exist?
@@suatustel746 Events. Events happen, they don't exist.
@@CMVMic l was thinking of objects & organisms..
@@CMVMic
Indeed.
Davies, Dyson, Barrow, Tipler, Hoyle and Polkinghorne are for antropic principle. Wrong position.
False dicotomy at 2:18
Maybe point it out…
Lets rid ourselves of this multiverse idea. First there exist a multiverse within the number-line. Every number including the irrationals exhibit a multi descriptive behavior which in itself is an expanding identity. Example: The number two can be described by an endless set of equations. We can say 1+1=2 , 4/2=2, 10-8=2, 2x1=2 .....etc. The number pi has a continuous nonrepeating sequence of numbers by which its identity is expanded.
As we see from this example for the number two a multiverse of continuing growth in describing it exist. The hypothetical physical multiverse mirrors this same kind of replicating identity. So looking at the idea of having the right combination of parameters for life to exist such as life dose in our universe fits this scenario of having the right combination of operations to fix the identity of the number two. In short both the description for the number two and the description for a series of universes to fit an ideal model for life to exist fall within the same set of rules.
Now suppose we look at the number infinity itself. Given there would have to be an Infinite number of universes for there to be one with the right stuff to make life. What do we see?
We see that the number of universes would have to exist in isolation from every other number of Infinite universes. In other words just like the number two must sit inside an Infinite isolation separated from every other number's identity in order to maintain its own specific culmination of identity so would a universe giving birth to its identity of life.
This is a problem because it means that the number of Infinite universes must all contain separate identities where life do and do not exist and those infinities must have infinities themselves. We must note that these combinations must agree to complete a specific identity. In short order must exist within the combination of a sequence for a correct identity to be completed.
Now the question becomes who make the rules?
Funny how the multiverse idea scares so many people. Is it because they were trying to shoehorn a god into that place?
This is a good discussion, which is a preliminary prelude to genuine acknowledgement and inquiry of All this. The books i read and study am i so greatful to have come across and if i were to compare such inquiries from past giants with todays academicians i see that today such groups are very... not fully developed thought or systems, lacking explication and synthesis. Books like, by Walter Russel, Plato, Plotinus, Eriugena, Proclus, Iamblichus, the arithmetics & mathematics of the Pythagoreans, Indian & Egyptian metaphysics in general - these giants are so far ahead in comprehension compared to the academicians and authors of today.
I don't see you mentioning Aristotle and other Western thinkers. Maybe because they were against your Neoplatonism? Lmao
What a cute and biased kid!
Isaac Newton really needs to be in there. Optics, mechanics and calculus is a solid trilogy of contributions.
No Einstein? General relativity was so groundbreaking it spent decades in the fringe before it was properly taken seriously, and his seminal work on the photoelectric effect launched quantum mechanics, which is the foundation of vast swathes of modern technologies, including several that you’re using to read this now.
Frankly I think most of the really big advances relevant to our lives have already been made. The current generation are only left with the crumbs left over after the Giants ate all their lunch.
@@anteodedi8937 Aristotle's work is seminal. I haven't studied his books yet. He is not greater than those i mentioned.
@@simonhibbs887 Einstein doesn't matter. The gods of feild theory are Poincare, Steinmetz, Maxwell, Tesla.
Why waste your time with Isaac Newton when there's much better content out there.
Existence only exists! , everything else, all that is formed is just an illusion a play of existence
Note that without all the theories, inventions continue . Inventions are whats physival and real. Theories are non physical inventions written in mathematics. Whats in maths equations need not be reality
“Everything that can exist does exist” is just a guess, motivated by a desire to grasp and tame infinity… Why can’t infinity be so long and deep that things get passed over, left behind; never to be gone back to because of all the possibilities that lie ahead?
Except Multi-Worlds theory is taken seriously by many physicists today. And what exactly is a super-state? And how is quantum entanglement even possible?
I agree with him. The laws come from the stuff. Not the other way around.😂
How do you know that?
@@ElChocoLoco
Because without stuff (Existence) there's no framework for the laws.
@@browngreen933Maybe when laws interact they produce matter
@@longcastle4863The laws do not have causative power. Criminal laws do not prevent criminals from committing crime.
@@kos-mos1127 Your first sentence I do not think you can say unequivocally. And with regard to your second sentence, criminal laws and physical laws are different things. Still gravity causes one to fall down and speed laws can cause one to slow down. Lot of causing going on for things that “do not have causative power”.
If space/time is infinite then everything than can possibly exist has existed or will exist. If it's possible that a god can exist then it does. The issue really becomes what things cannot exist due to fundamental laws of nature.
What does it mean to say space is infinite that is has no boundaries? If that is the case, then everything that can possibly exist will not necessarily exist or has existed. Only in closed systems, this would be true. The Poincare Recurrence Theorem supports this.
@@CMVMic having no boundary means space is closed. An open system has a boundary because there is an environment outside.
It seems more likely there are a near infinite number of things that could have existed that never did.
@@kos-mos1127 No. you are confused.
"Having no boundary" is associated with the idea of an unbounded or infinite space. In this sense, "no boundary" implies that space extends indefinitely, and there is no finite edge or limit to it.
In physics and systems theory, a "closed system" typically refers to a system that is isolated from its external environment. It doesn't exchange matter with its surroundings, but it can exchange energy. A closed system has physical boundaries that separate it from the external environment.
An "open system" is one that can exchange both matter and energy with its surroundings. It has permeable boundaries that allow the flow of substances or energy between the system and its environment.
Open systems are defined by their ability to exchange matter and energy with an external environment. They typically have boundaries, but these boundaries are permeable, allowing for interactions with the surroundings. The presence of boundaries doesn't imply a "closed" system in the sense of isolation; it simply means there is a distinction between the system and its environment.
@@CMVMic With the Cosmos there is not a distinction between its system and environment.
Machines exist. Something like game of life. And it’s testable and true. Physics is statistics of those machines. Fields are densities/probabilities.
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement.
Quantum mind emerge.
Quantum biology emerge.
Mind and body entanglement, Consciousness emerge.
Consciousness could be defined as the ever expanding cognition of form "with" function.
Existence without consciousness is called what? Matter. Inorganic, insentient matter.
Life, unlike matter, posesses consciousness. Existence with consciousness exposes the passive "i". The evolutionary being that is just reacting to Nature and its own predetermined, biological urges.
Life with both consciousness and self-consciousness exposes the active "i". The non-evolutionary being who turns his own predetermined, biological urges inward. The being that does not just react to his urges but tries to anticipate them. This produces lust or desire which can also be turned inward. Producing primitive thought.
It is this primitive thought which is the the source of the ever expanding cognition of form with function. Characterized today with meaning.
The cognition of meaning is what is used by different conscious, observers to state what exists. Thus a physicist, a chemist, a pharmacist and a drug user all maintain their urges by using their desire to find and harness what exists.
The universe is so vast that everything conceivable probably does exist somewhere.😮
A conception and an entity that exists independent of that conception are two distinct things. Can you conceive of a human being breathing in space? The vastness of space doesnt make a logical possibility, a metaphysical possibility.
@@CMVMic
Yes, I can conceive of a human being breathing in space. It happens all the time on space walks. It's 20th century technology. Of course I see what you're getting at and don't disagree. What we can conceive and that probably happens somewhere in the universe still have to obey the laws of Nature and Existence. My point is that Existence is so flexible that it may be open ended -- within its own law structure.
@@browngreen933 i love it when ppl are being intentionally obtuse. Implying that the laws could be different requires proving it is first metaphysically possible before assessing its probability
@@CMVMic
I don't see how we can know for sure whether the same laws hold true in every part of the universe.
Or there’s an infinity of things that will never exist.
Terribly disappointed that someone as interdisciplinary and who I respect as much as Paul Davies does not engage with the problem of how existence cannot be separated from a conscious agent, or with the problem of the many levels of organization in Nature that can't be collapsed, at least not meaningfully, into quantum fields.
We could get into the whole ridiculously convoluted debate about ontology and whether something exists outside of consciousness but we certainly have no knowledge of anything existing outside of a conscious state in which we experience a world. Of course the problem with engaging with the problem of Consciousness is it doesn't really have an easy reductive solution although you have people trying to propose the nonsense that quantum mechanics explains consciousness.
In any case I was disappointed that Paul did not talk about emergence and why this means there can never be a single science unifying everything, or any form of sledgehammer reductionism, the infatuation with QM to the contrary. Or the hierarchy of emergent properties - the 3 great nested mysteries - emergence of the universe, inside that the emergence of life, and within some kind of evolutionary trajectory, the emergence of mind. Humans have struggled with these three questions for as long as we have a record of human thought and inquiry.
The laws of physics exist because of holes, and fillers.. 1 + -1 = 0. And that's all you need to create the universe from zero. Particles are just holes in gravity, so you have particle physics from holes. It's not complicated at all.
Thumbs up 👍
Hebrews 11: 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
In other words, God.
An observer apparently can explain this because we are living in the time where it was predicted long ago and yet we are witnessing it with our own eyes.
We are living in the time where what was predicted long ago?
Imo these ppl worry themselves over silly questions- we can't explain what exists- how does he think we're going to explain why things that could exist don't? And- who's to say they don't- somewhere- at some time? Maybe everything that can exist does- somewhere, at some point in time- even if for just a millionth of a second. Which means somewhere- I'm a young, attractive, talented, wealthy, charismatic person with no vices or bad habits. But don't bother going to look- by the time you get there, I'll have long been dead and gone. You just have to take my word for it- it's possible. It doesn't violate any laws of physics so- has to happen- somewhere.
The so-called laws are not laws. As if some congress mandated them. At best, the so-called "laws" of physics are theories and mathematical constructs, differential equations if you will, that allow us finite humans to make limited predictions back and forward in time. Truth is not a place but rather a never ending journey as I would say God intended. It ultimately is the only antidote to eternal boredom.
Death is an antidote to eternal boredom…
There is probably a near infinity of things that could have existed that never did and probably never will exist. Vastly outnumbering, most likely, the near infinity of things that could have existed that actually did.
Both of you are adopting a left-hemisphere view of existence and reifying conceptual thought. I'd strongly recommend you learn about the hemisphere differences and begin to notice the trademarks of left-hemisphere arrogance, and also convince yourself that the right-hemisphere is closer to truth and to actuality. If you can't understand that the number "2" isn't actually real, but rather an overlay onto the perception of distinction (which is itself a thought), then you are still in left-hemisphere land. ACTUALITY has no numbers, no laws, no conceptions, and no categories. It simply IS. And yet, there is so much here to understand. But that understanding isn't conceptual, but metaphorical and experiential. Learn to see this way and your world will open up in unimaginable ways.
God Exists. Revealed in nature, conscience and the resurrection of Jesus.
What about other gods like Islam and Hindu why only jesus thinking only our god is true is irrational religious god concept is outdated by scientific truths
It’s hard to hear him through all that dirty Templeton money.
very interesting but sheer belief. like some learned intelligent medieval theologian explaining the nuances of his belief system. he's mansplaining stuff that is way, way beyond what we know and probably beyond what we ever will know. physicists and cosmologists are the ultimate mansplainers. they always know - when in reality we have no idea..
Well, i learned nothing today. But thanks anyway...
Where do the Laws of Nature come from? Nature.
Reality either is empty or full if its full there must be one way.. ..... It's this this way...
Nature then comes from where? If the impulse for motion must necessarily come from outside the object moved, possibly nature comes from something that nature is not. Categories, as we know them, would not exist in such a realm
@@RolandHuettmann what categories might be known by us? Could you expand your vision..
@@RolandHuettmann Roland, Like Einstein and Spinoza. I'm a Pantheist. Nature is all that there is and ever was, its not necessary to explain it's existence. Read some Einstein and Spinoza and look up Pantheism.
@@suatustel746 What do the concepts of empty and full have to do with the Universe? I do know lots of people that are full of it, but the Universe, no .
My credit card balance
(7:45) *PD: **_"I think that the underlying laws are real, that is they do exist."_* ... If the laws of physics represent *information* that can be readily communicated, they are repeatable / predictable, and there are no logical barriers to their conception, then they obviously do exist. There is far less intellectual support for the "laws of physics" being merely human constructs as opposed to an axiomatic control structure that's integrally connected to "physical existence."
Laws simultaneously emerge with whatever it is that's being regulated. A law without something to regulate would be nonsensical (non sequitur). *Example:* What would the law, *_"All commercial motor vehicles must be equipped with front and side airbags."_* mean to someone back in 1200 BC?
Nothing...
My mother in law is 94 and lives her own can't get out rely on telly pass her time when l asked the other day what was on telly her answer was. NOTHING.......
Nothing exists.
Only things exist.
@@CMVMic Things are illusions, imaginations. Only nothing is real.
@@edimbukvarevic90 What are illusions and imaginations? What is nothing?
@@CMVMic Nothing is ground of being (and non-being). Absolute reality. It's not a thing. Things emerge from this no-thing. They are only imagined.
Words are also just things and cannot exactly describe this no-thing. They can maybe hint.
@@edimbukvarevic90 You defined nothing as something. Your statement is self contradictory and unworthy of further consideration.
The only thing your obsessed with Kuhn is continuing to monetise your old PBS broadcasts, "Closer to my fat wallet".
Maybe. Robert is making these questions more important - most people don't care about this stuff.
Go back to watching the View, maybe they can answer these questions!
You would say the same thing with new episodes asking the same questions.
Why wouldn’t he?
Rambling giberrich. He believes transcendent space time? What is it? Absurdo and bizarre.
Unrelated, I almost feel my brain cells die when these materialist people says something like everything came into existence on bigbang, don't even think about it before bigbang, it's a wrong question, or don't ask what's before this. they are literally killing peoples nature of logic and questioning.
My brain cells die anytime I hear a theist try to dispute verified science with their philosophical ramblings not based on logic. Please tell me what isnt physical and how did you verify this?
Also, you have no idea what the big bang is. Everything did not come into existence at the big bang. The big bang represents the earliest detected phase in the life cycle of the Universe.
Your view presupposes you know what time is.
Ginkgo Biloba might help.
"The real issue is how information storage and replication might have arisen spontaneously in biogenesis."
~Paul Davies #ES #p30 #Science
I’m surprised he asks that. We’ve known about the propagation, replication and environmental selection of autocatalytic sets, that evolves self propagating chemical cycles for quite a while. Of course we don’t know for sure how it actually happened historically, but we know there are whole classes of candidate mechanisms.
@@simonhibbs887
I'm not surprised one bit. If you ever take the time to look at abiogenesis - instead of depending blindly on Skeptic Materialist liturgy - you will begin to understand the literally impossible sequences of events required for life to even get started on even a most basic level. Paul Davies (a scientist/author I respect a great deal) goes into excellent detail in regards to the complexities involved in biogenesis, in his very readable book, "The Eerie Silence". One comes away agreeing with Hoyle's famous quote of abiogenesis (or even the subsequent biogenesis) happening by chance, i.e. the odds would be comparable to a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a jumbo jet.
Which makes me lean more toward consciousness somehow must have played a role - and is a fundamental aspect of reality (not derivative of other elements.) In what manner? Perhaps as a type of filter - similar to the way our eyesight filters out a good portion of the electromagnetic spectrum - or how the Observer will filter out a good portion of the Schrodinger probabilistic universal wave form, in order to experience the reality we experience every day. What we believe is reality - is filtered on many different levels. And it turns out, on the most fundamental level - the reality we experience comes from a universal measurement FILTER. But what is doing the filtering?
Spontaneous? From what we can tell, there appears to have been a pre-life, pre-biology kind of natural selection going on in the planet’s chemistry for hundreds of millions of years leading up to the actual occurrence of biological life-and which likely involved millions, if not billions of tiny chemical baby steps. Not spontaneous at all.
@@simonhibbs887 By the way, Hoyle was an Atheist. He wasn't arguing for the existence of some kind of anthropomorphic "God" figure.
@@jamenta2 Hoyle was awesome "it is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right".
a total waste of time.
Perhaps an Old Vulcan Philosopher put it best. "Nothing Unreal Exists". Save yourself 8 minutes...
Explain the natures of attraction and repulsion. You're either with me or against me. Go deeper into anti matter and white holes. If you came up with something better than the atom then would you be allowed to use it or have you committed a sin? Is there maths that doesn't have a use? Doesn't apply to anything, The nature of good and bad needs defining, surely it would go one way or the other. If not then is this a game?
An AI system exists that was created long ago by our Creator. YOU and I are an AI experience life according to our Creator's programming. The lowest form of his coded language is one wavelength of a vibration.
Coded on what? Coded to resemble what? Code written in what language?
@@ExistenceUniversity I already told you what our Creator's coded language is. One wavelength of a vibration.
@@BradHolkesvig What does "one wavelength of a vibration" mean?
@@BradHolkesvig To "vibrate" is to "oscillate", and to "oscillate" is: to move or travel back and forth between two points.
A wavelength is the distance between two points on a wave. A wave being an oscillation.
So "one wavelength of a vibration" is just saying one wavelength of a wave, which is just a tautology that waves exist with an identity of waving.
Ok, the universe is coded by waves. But what referent in God's reality did he gain this knowledge of waves?
@@ExistenceUniversity Are you trying to teach our Creator something that he taught me years ago?
Well, what did we learn from that? Nothing.
Imagine making a career out of talking about this stuff.