Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/wwhTfyX9J34/w-d-xo.html Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman Guest bio: Sara Walker is an astrobiologist and theoretical physicist. She is the author of a new book titled "Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence".
The True Nature of Time: A Unified Narrative Understanding the nature of time requires an exploration of both its physical and experiential dimensions. This unified narrative synthesises perspectives from general relativity, field dynamics, and human consciousness to provide a comprehensive view of time. This synthesis highlights the interplay between spacetime curvature, informational flow, and the dual nature of temporal experience, ultimately framing time as a dynamic, integrative process. The Physical Nature of Spacetime 1. Spacetime Curvature and General Relativity - Einstein's General Relativity: Traditionally, gravity is not seen as a force but as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. Massive objects like stars and planets warp the fabric of spacetime, creating paths that other objects follow. This curvature is described mathematically by the Einstein field equations, linking spacetime geometry to the distribution of mass and energy. 2. Field Dynamics Perspective - Informational Flow: From a field dynamics standpoint, spacetime curvature results from complex field interactions. Mass and energy create disturbances in the spacetime field, similar to ripples in a pond. These disturbances represent informational changes that propagate through the field, maintaining coherence and stability. 3. Integrating Curvature and Field Dynamics - Unified Perspective: The physical curvature described by general relativity can be seen as a macroscopic manifestation of these field dynamics. Curvature represents the geometric interpretation, while field dynamics emphasise the flow of information and energy. This unified view helps reconcile the mathematical elegance of general relativity with a more intuitive understanding of dynamic systems. The Experiential Nature of Time 1. Linear and Non-Linear Time - Linear Time: In the external world, time is experienced as a linear sequence of events-a traditional, chronological progression. - Non-Linear Time: Within human consciousness, time is experienced non-linearly. This nonlinearity arises from the aggregation of sensory inputs, memories, and anticipations, creating a rich, complex temporal narrative that defines personal experience. 2. Boundary Layer and Human Consciousness - Constant Interface: The boundary layer between the external and internal worlds captures and integrates interactions and informational changes within the field. Despite internal non-linearity, this layer ensures temporal consistency, allowing the self to evolve coherently within the broader linear progression of external events. - Dual Temporal Experience: Positioned at this boundary, human consciousness experiences both linear and non-linear time. Externally, we perceive a continuous flow of time, while internally, our sense of time is shaped by the aggregation of various events and experiences. Dynamic Stability and Homeostasis 1. The Conscious Spiral of Dynamic Stability - From Circle to Spiral: In two dimensions, a circle represents static balance. When traced dynamically, it evolves into a spiral, representing dynamic stability. This concept extends to three dimensions where the human body is viewed as an electromagnetic sphere. - Human Electromagnetic Sphere: The heart generates electromagnetic fields, creating a dynamic sphere where information flows in a spiral pattern. This flow reflects how the body’s electromagnetic field interacts with and adapts to stimuli, maintaining homeostasis through continuous feedback mechanisms. 2. Homeostasis in Three Dimensions - Dynamic Integration: Homeostasis in the electromagnetic sphere is maintained through the integration of informational changes and feedback mechanisms. The boundary layer of the sphere captures the system’s current state, facilitating balanced feedback to ensure stability and adaptability. - Applications: This model applies to biological systems, where cells and organisms dynamically maintain balance through metabolic and signal transduction processes, and to larger systems like ecosystems and planetary environments. Conclusion The nature of time encompasses both its physical manifestations and its experiential dynamics. By integrating perspectives from general relativity, field dynamics, and human consciousness, we understand time as a dual phenomenon: a linear progression in the external world and a non-linear experience within the field of dynamic stability. This comprehensive framework reveals the intricate balance and adaptability inherent in the universe, enhancing our appreciation of the dynamic processes that govern both physical and conscious realms.
OMFG! You killed me man! Exactly as I read this, I looked up to the running video at the top of my phone, and their was Lex, his head hanging off to the side, like he might fall off his chair, but with his eyes firmly fixed on his guest with his eye brows raised to show interest. Best laugh I have had in a week. Poor Lex. Guy needs to take a vacation I think. And no, going to the rarainforest and eating ayuasca does not count!
At 14:04 the answer is simple - as to “how humans can create so much order” which seemingly goes against second law of thermodynamics? It requires MORE entropy to create order. For example, we build a house - but the materials came from destruction of forests, extraction of resources, huge expenditure of fossil fuels to transport goods, a huge lifetime caloric requirement of a human - the order created from building structures is so minute compared to the enormous entropy involved in fuelling the creation of those structures. The same with our bodies and minds, they’re incredibly calorifically demanding, so any order we create is massively offset by the disorder needed to fuel it.
The quote at 14:20 is "why can life generate so much order". It is easy to find examples where in the big picture we increase entropy while building something. You could call such examples a strawman. The trick is to figure out what these intelligent people were thinking about when they make such a statement. How does life in some way reduce entropy. Perhaps as best, it is like a local minima. A momentary reduction in entropy. Let's consider the use of forests and fossil fuels as increasing entropy. Where did these lower entropy materials come from? They came from life. Every action is not an increase in entropy. Life has a little play in that. That is the essence of the point.
My kid always mixes up the Play-Doh so we don’t get Play-Doh any more because… when you mix it up enough, it all becomes one and apparently that’s boring. But maybe we can find some other kids who have mixed up their Play-Doh to the point of homogeny and if we’re lucky it’ll be a different color than ours. It might take a while, but maybe if we combine enough, we can put together a whole other set! We have to be really careful not to get that one mixed up though.
Okay, I'm entranced...gonna go listen to the entire podcast now....mind blowing stuff but resonates deeply with me....loved this so much, thank you both.
What she's describing as 'big' in time are systems with the most interconnections both in her mind and in reality. If you think of time as being either linear or cyclical, cyclical things remain the same 'size' in time, linear things continue to grow in complexity (specifically the number of agency/agent-directed interconnections). Everything contains a bit of both, but life hijacks the linear component of time in order to persist. 'Big in time' means intelligent things can make more choices. Across all of life, that sum total of all those choices creates a 'fanning out' in time that non-living matter doesn't. In a sense, the gestalt of life explores time for ways to persist. You have to really zoom out from the individual point of view to start seeing these patterns. I get what she's saying, but she's definitely coming from a non-standard thought origin and she's still working on the exact words to communicate it.
I don’t think it’s about the choice in regards to be “big in time”. I think she means literally. Take the 2D world of flatland with time as height dimension. A circular moving object will be a worm across the time dimension for us - a higher dimension being (4d beings, able to perceive 3D) Similarly a 5d being who can perceive 4d will see us humans to be a loooooong structure across the time dimension starting from the Big Bang! Additionally the space is expanding too, and we have interacted with huge distances using telescopes, light, technology, have converted so much energy - so we are ever increasing creatures.
Well, she wrote the book. I hope she found the right words in the book. 😂I think I will buy the book. It’s quite an interesting perspective. I like these kind of twist
This young lady's thinking reminds me of the Tralfamadorians in the book Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut. They see living objects with their time evolving characteristics integrated. A sort of Tralfamadorian philosophy. Anyway, I should break out this book again now that I'm older. It might not seem so strange reading it at 72.
@@GoatOfTheWoods I was unaware there was a single word definition for the concept. Thanks for the new information. It's an interesting concept. Even an object moving through time will change with time.
@@fjdarling Yeah, it's a school of philosophy of time, in which objects, are viewed as 4 dimesional "worms"coiling according to the flow of spacetime; an apple is a worm which begins as a seed and ends as a rotten tail that spreads out, disintegrating into the soil. Looking at it from this perspective, I can't help but think that the whole universe would look like a 4 dimensional broccoli
@@GoatOfTheWoods I checked out Perdurantism on Wikipedia. It's an interesting Philosophy. It appears to be additional element I need to account for in trying to understand the Universe I happen to be in the middle of. Thanks for pointing me in that direction. How is it that you see the expanding universe as a 4D Broccoli? Are you a student of the Sciences? I'm a retired Electrical Engineer trying to keep up with what's happening in the world. Thanks.
@alienproxy you really don't see the tension? Great podcast, great information about super interesting stuff, but Lex self admittedly doesn't have a partner, he has a legit reason for it he explains, but I gotta be honest... when i was watching this I was thinking man they seem like they are into into each other and then I saw the ask her out comment and not only agreed but realized were not making it up, there is certainly some chemistry going on between them. I don't mind if you think I'm weird, but honestly clearly I wasn't the only one thinking it.
Time, as I understand it is the dual aspect of wave propagation and field dynamics. Originating from the Big Bang, time reflects both the linear sequence of events dictated by the metric expansion of space (as described by the FLRW model and Hubble's Law) and the nonlinear accumulation of coherent information influenced by quantum field interactions and informational density. The constant processing speed of the universe corresponds to the regular progression of cosmic expansion, while the nonlinear growth in informational complexity is rooted in the volumetric expansion and the dynamics of entropy and structure formation. Human perception of time operates at the universe's processing speed and is therefore linear, while our physical bodies respond to the cumulative effects of processed information since the Big Bang, highlighting the duality in our experience of and measurement of time.
Time is distinctly right handed: always on the right of the equation as a product. This is because time is a measurement that can be used only after the first three dimensions appear. There must be present first: space, then energy, then matter(energy that is static); then time can be calculated; but only as the formalization of observed matter(3-dimensional) moving through a vectored space.
Close, but the consensus is more that time is needed for change to occur. For change to occur, at least two particles of matter must exist that interact with each other. This interaction (change) creates time. Circle is complete. Many interactions in succession = time rolling forward as we know it.
She starts by describing living beings as these massive causal structures (which seems like a perfectly rational perspective that I can understand), but then 15:10 she states "the universe is random at its base" and that the universe is not deterministic? If this were true, then what causes randomness? The very idea seems incoherent to me.
I love this topic here, language vs thought meta analysis, humans have this unique ability to create highly abstract models in their minds so much so that even our language can't completely describe some of the most abstract/high level. That's always been interesting to me personally and a challenge I take on frequently, one of my favorite ones which is trying to compress such thoughts into plain language, like mapping a 1000 dimensional thought into a lower subspace, or to put it simply, ha, how to speak clearly and plainly about complex thoughts. If you can do that, perform that mapping eloquently, you’ll be successful because it is so valuable and people love that. It would be wild to imagine a world where it is normal to converse thought-to-thought, so much information could be shared, alarming scenarios aside.
I've listened to this woman speak for 6 minutes and I'm already salivating at the idea that I'm actually able to follow her due to me coming to contact with Lex, Stephen Wolfram and Kurtzgezagt. If I send this video to my parents they will not assimilate what she is saying at all. Requires a decent foundation in scientific and abstract thinking to even contemplate what she is saying. This is some good brain food, if you have the pallet for it!
What a wonderful guest speaker with a creative and brilliant perspective! The deeper one pokes into the universe, the more mysterious and beautiful it is. ❤
What a great perspective to see things, and by things, I mean everything. Experience is just thr number of snapshots of matter and its state you have experienced and memorized / generalized
She is basically talking about past and future lightcones but inserting "living things" as some special objects that affect / are affected by time in unique ways from non-living things. I doubt there is any reasonable way to argue that 2 objects made of fundamental particles, but differing in complexity would have differing future forking.
Yes she is just regurgitating known topics and adding in some Woo-woo. She didn’t say one profound thing in this convo. She is smart no question- but not a physicist (DEI hire).
interactions between matter particles (or wave functions) create time, and time makes interactions possible. Also matter warps space, which in turn, combined with time(dilation), gives rise to the effect of gravity. It's self-sustaining as the universe contains plenty particles that can interact.
I think the hardest thing to understand bout time is that it is perceived differently by different plp. To me time is a rhythm. The rhythm in which the universe moves. Idk, just like a song, it has rhythm n u can move to the beat and create additional moves or beats in between the actual hard beats. N we try to measure that. There is an order n flow to the universe that we don’t understand. Yes is tied to matter but matter falls within this flow n rhythm. Idk am just a random reader just my thoughts
15:14 there is no randomness It's just effects we can't calculate The universe is not random Everything has a cause and it's true nature will be forever a mystery to us... But never to it
But then you remember there were times when ppl thought ppl just die randomly (before germ theory for example). One can argue the history of science is kinda like the history of thinking something is "random" (in the sense that we can not know) to just then figure it out and reallise that wasn't random at all. Wheter quantum phenomena is truly inherently random or not is stil not concusively decided. It very much seems it is for now, but again, a heart attack in the bronze age seemed so random and unexplainabe that it was might as we taken as divine punishment.
@9:30 think of the faces receding through time like an 'infinity mirror' (a physical object / set of reflections that models the history of what brought them to that point in space and time)
This is not physics, it's just philosophy. Doesn't really matter if we are big in time or not. Universe is deterministic on the small scale but random on the grand scale. Good example is the weather. Also, it's not like people don't know we need to look deeper. People have not stopped and said "yep, that's it, we've figured it out", they constantly are trying to see the more detailed resolution of the universe
Couldn’t agree more. Its philosophy disguised as physics. This is apparent to any person of science & critical thinking. The language she is using will appeal to non-science types, people who are looking for complex descriptions to validate ideas without empirical data. Philosophy is certainly interesting and has its value, but I feel she thinks she's treading in the realms of physics - but she's not.
You’d be right if assembly theory wasn’t written down. You’re conflating theories and philosophy anyway. She’s saying things that are measurable, descriptive, and predictable. These are ideas in their infancy that don’t have established language and ways to talk about it. You could consider it closer to network systems or information science if it makes you more comfortable. It’s definitely not philosophy or metaphysics as I think you’re implying.
Glad I’m not the only one seeing this - it’s essentially philosophy, not physics. It is very physics-informed, and pretty rational and I’m liking it. Physics isn’t the study of everything: introspection on experience is not physics.
4:28 - "The universe is far larger in time than it is in space." Any physicists or astrophysicists around? I've never heard that before, what does that mean? Aren't time & space intertwined into a four-dimensional space-time continuum in the theory of relativity? How do you separate them so as to make one "far larger" than the other? 🤔
@@bradleyknight8330 Maybe! Is "thicker" (or "denser"?) the same as "larger" to an astrophysicist if they're talking about spacetime? 🤔 So many questions!
This is exactly how I've been trying to say this for years and years. Im interested in the totality of a given structure. Imagine mapping the total path of the solar system from it's start to it's end. For every planck length, you map the current structure. Do that to the end of time and analyze the structure in its totality. Now, imagine doing this for the entire universe from start to end, and you will end up with a structure. I want to know of these structures. Even something as small as an electron will have a wildly interesting and complex structure in totality.
is there a limit to how many times you can cut time in half though? how many times can you make a millisecond smaller before you reach a limit? if there is a limit then would that mean we are in a simulation, or that time is a "tangible" 4th dimension like slices of frozen time.
@@humanbean3 Well, it would be a planck length. so far, thats the smallest increment that we have aside from quantum stuff. The planck time is the amount of time it takes light to travel one planck length. According to our most current theories, nothing can be smaller than a planck length and nothing can travel a shorter distance than a planck length So, for each planck length, map the points of matter. Continue until the end of "time" then you have a total structure. Now, one common misconception i should say is that the "planck length" is the point where quantum gravity overtakes nonrelativistic gravity. Lastly, a philosopher named Democitus came up with the idea of the atom around 400 bc when he posed a thought experiment just like yours. He wondered how much can you divide matter into before youre left with the smallest piece. He called that thing "Atomos" meaning indivisible. Our current models go beyond the previous "indivisible". The planck length is our current "indivisible" It would be a bit foolish to think we wont get to a new "indivisible" in the future.
@@STaSHZILLA420 If we consider the planck length both physically the smallest thing, and also the smallest amount of time, does that mean we can consider time as pixels just like we could consider matter as pixels in space. the entire universe being comprised of planck lengths and at each moment it's occupied with particles or time.
@@humanbean3 Well, people say that although there is no physical significance to the planck length. Think of a planck length as the smallest possible space for an observation to take place, any smaller and it would collapse into a black hole and evaporate before the observation would be complete. An observation often includes hitting what you want to observe with packets of light. the light then bounces back to the observation device. It's impossible for us to create light with a short enough wavelength to interact with something smaller than a planck length. There are smaller lengths in theory but they can never be observed directly. And are considered non-physical. I dont think the planck length can be regarded as a "pixel" But I do like using this length in my ideas as it is the smallest we can physically observe.
@@STaSHZILLA420 its really hard to fathom speed, size, and time having a limit. if we take the smallest particle like a nuetrino or something (idk) and make it move super fast, it will just disappear outside of time? that makes me think that the universe is spinning super fast like a harddrive and the slower we go the closer to the middle we are, and the faster we go the further to the outside we get, and if we go too fast we go faster than it can create/spin itself therefore disappearing???? is that what a black hole is? the star spins too fast for time to handle? ok sorry im rambling but i really appreciate the insightful comments
If information cannot be destroyed, then the whole universe could be the computing or technological potential but if time exists then it’s not just potential. Time might be the storage media for all information that could be retrieved by a consciousness capable of perceiving it. Perhaps this is why time feels intangible, almost illusory yet the past and future are almost within grasp…a memory, a dream, a hope, a will…..the dimensional trap of human suffering.
@@msolar1041she tried to sound smart. A smart person explains things so everyone can understand them. I know you are trying to sound super educated yourself but you really just come off as a snob. I highly doubt you are much smarter than anybody else commenting here. So relax your mother should have dinner ready for you soon!
A note on the "alignment problem and its similarity to insanity": Dopamine is released in response to salient events... events that "standout and surprise the mind". A part of insanity is an excess of salience/dopamine in the perceived environment. In other words the experiencer is having a moment of incongruency between what is expected from the observer and what is actually observed. One way to remediate this is through dopamine suppression via medication...which can also depress movement and speech...feeling like chemical neural castration. And/or the experiencer can alter their expectations to more match the perceived environment or "reality". I think the issue I am having is I am too attached to my idealized mental model to want to adjust my perception to fit "reality". I don't frankly like a lot of what I see in "reality " and it chronically surprises me. In other words, I am so attached to my ideal mindset that I am willing to forgo sanity in order to fight for it. Anger arrives out of friction...friction between the observed and perceived models differing and "fighting for dominance". There's two ways anger can stop... through relationship building and reconciling the differences in perceived expectation between parties or anger can be reconciled through "caring" dissapearing. The latter is a very sad alternative. It's a type of mental dissociation that I think has been written into our DNA from many past traumas. We live in a culture that venerates this type of mental dissociation in order to deal with the differing incongruency between our childish expectations and the perceived world. It's easier to adjust one perception than it is to change the whole world. I get that. That's where this weird social psychology of "mindset" comes in. I think probably, the answer is a combination...as usual. I obviously air on the side of idealism. It's a very vulnerable and somewhat mentally disabling place to be. I also believe our obsession with science and fact finding is a type of mental dissociation that numbs the pain of the world. The number of engineers and scientists we have far outweighs the number of humanitarians we have. It's HARDER to be a humanitarian. It's a weird age we live in and frankly, from an emotional intelligence perspective, not a lot of it makes sense to me but hey. I'm here. #staying sane since circa 2023.
Her response to his uhhh was dead on, too. It is indeed hard to share visuals with words, one is often accused of speciousness, esp. when less common words are used. In this day and age, with definitions and etymologies just a google away, and videos being pausable, ignorance is less excusable.
6:10 What she is describing is not too unlike those structures that emanate from bodies in that scene in Donnie Darko. But the entire human species is one of those, with the most recent bifurcations being individuals (despite the entire evolution being comprised of individuals as well?).
no way. i actually love lex a little more each time i catch a podcast. this is despite the fact that i could say i'm "anti celebrity" and really cant understand why people idolize strangers...
Yes constructor theory will be able to include the observer in the theory of everything, and entropy cannot do alone, it works with critical points and back propagations, chain rule
Lex, I am on my third ayahuasca. I was told on my first to not ever have the belief that you are flitcrazy once we get back to life things aren't ever the same and people out there don't and won't ever know what is like to have these existential experiences. You have had an experience that most wont ever , past and future. Keep going because you have just began.
She’s saying seeing the universe as random processes is really how physics should see things and it’s wrong not to, but she said that right after admitting we have no idea how such order and complexity could come from random processes. Thats implicit bias and not going where the evidence leads.
Im glad Lex brought up a trip that reminded him of her thought. I was thinkng the same thing about a time on LSD. It was a visual thing but a feeling that I infinitely connected. One of the most calming experiences of my life.
I’ve always felt that life is as abundant as existence. It makes sense and she’s really just letting us see the forest when all we normally see are trees. Perspective is everything.
Seems to me that she's actually suggesting viewing the world from a higher dimension... that is, regarding our 4 dimensions (space-time) from a 5th or higher dimension. Cool...
I do not think that this is it. You do not need to be in a higher dimension for that. In fact we will never do that...not with our fizical body . What is she proposing I think, that is more like something that the movie Arrival (2016) presented. Where we have to perceive time entirely different than we do today.
Recently Lex is interviewing a lot of people that all they talk about is “you” and our world and never take in consideration the fact that we could be minuscule in the universe and “you” is only in our mind because this is all we can see
@@a.j.4076 for sure, I liked the idea of using the time to define the "size" of objects in the universe...but again it's just an interesting idea or point of view...it almost become the same as a personal religion if we don't try to expand our point of view and be humble when we present our ideas.
Easiest way I imagine it is….time is how long it takes your elementary partials to get from point A to point B. Mass bends space like putting something heavy on bedsheets, and it obviously takes longer to get from point A to point B if your journey isn’t a straight line. The more mass, the more space is bent, the longer it takes to travel from point A to point B therefore time is slower.
That's only because physicists are not entertaining the visualization that each of the 3 spatial dimensions have their own separate dimension of time. And it only appears as 1 when the three overlap to appear as one. And they can only overlap when the times between their separate wave function to massed particle states are completely different. There is time 1 dimension particle to wave fluctuations, time 2 dimension and time three. When all 3 different dimensions over lap you get a hydrogen atom. Where they don't all three overlap but are side to side arrange D1,D2,D3 and repeating into infinity you get quantum vacuum foam and virtual particles. Now to figure out how the neutron comes into play in deuterium Hydrogen atoms. We know how deuterium can become helium and eventually build all the other atomic elements through nuclear fusion. But I'm working on visualizing what could bring about the first neutron. Perhaps anti-mater particles and waves from -1D,-2D,-3D also exist and space really is 6D? And the vacuum foam fluctuates from negative dimension and time to positive dimension and time. And some times you get a -1D time overlapping +2D, +3D in the same space which also means in the other half of the cycle there is a -2D,-3D to +1D and this takes on the characteristics of deuterium when these three dimensions over lap in one space. We interpret this as the behavior of quarks perhaps. Lot of work to do on this still. But physicists current models fail to get around the speed of light barrier so a new model is way over do, LOL.
More word salad. If the Scientific, and Specifically the Physicist, community really wants to help humanity with their "work", they are going to need to learn to define words, or create new ones, that explain what they "know". If not, they are just wasting everyone's time, since they will be the only ones to profit from their "work".
This experience involved more physics than I have encountered before. It was a perfect interaction between two physical entities, filled with giggling and flirting
Visualising the "things they were a few seconds ago" effect that Lex described, I pictured the scene in the Matrix where an agent corners Neo on a rooftop, Neo fires at him, and he dodges the bullets, and each movement is shown as a blurred action that freezes for a moment.
@@ChrisAthanasyeah so he wasn't seeing the person at a previous time, it was simply a memory of what he'd recently seen being reflected in the visual cortex
If you take away from the universe any "time measurement device", how is everything not emergent ? If we perceive "time" related to our perceptual scale in space, how the lack of "time measurement devices" (us) is locally constructing the "future"?
How could the methodology of creation then be considered the cause of the object? Beside the temporal/causal problem(s), it would yield an infinite (or at least as high a number as there are created things) number of causes.
I take to heart your guest comment about the way she writes. I also am using language in this compressed way I think. Now I am writing a poetic review of a Carmageddon game ( yeah I know ;) ) and instead of writing: "Game came from UK, on a disc" I wrote: The united states of the soul sailed from the Islands on binary ships into a laser-tamed ocean of carriers.
Sara Walker's mind is brilliant 👏 thanks for this interview @Lex , she reminds and capture imagination the same way as Terrence Howard , by the way @Lex when are you, interviewing Terrence 🙏
The information was so hard to hold on to. I could understand things while they were talking. A few moments later, I couldn’t explain that thought on the fly. But the emotion was there just couldn’t emerge out on words in mind. What a great talk. I am glad there is me in the past that rejoiced the feeling of that realization of reality. Now I was thinking about writing this story, I thought of why this feeling feels so good and how it feels so relatable like squench of thirst of some sort. Like she said of that Einstein quote at the end. I know this feeling because I have felt the same because of my knowledge of Hindu religion or Buddhist or any Eastern religion of this sort in that matter. Perhaps that is why I find solace in enjoying the religion and wonderful ways folks in the past found ways to let many people know through stories and rituals so they could get little glimpse on true nature of reality or called Brahman in Hindu religion broken down into gods and goddesses but the fundamental truth being “Aham Brahmasmi”. And then you start being compassionate not get too freaked out about your suffering in life, this Maya this illusion whatever you wanna call it. Anyways it is so humbling to see a real physicist giving m scientific perspective to this philosophy. They both merge and I know they merge because it is giving me similar feelings which are so deep even I can’t bring it to my mind, simply feel. This is the ultimate reality, I am the universe.
i mean its all one thing so the idea of size doesnt make sense at all. even if one is thinking in terms of causal chains, its just a big web, and no part of it has a bigger history than any other part.
Lex, perhaps a good question that leads from Sara's statement that "time is constantly bifurcating" can lead to a better understanding of the quantum wafer function collapse on observation. There are several theories like multi-world. But Sara may be open to the more unusual theory that the Observer wave function collapses on observation and proceeds with that information and thus time proceeds for that observer with a new time step of information.
She has a fascinating concept for time which is counter to our perception of it.. constructor time is like the optimal path that ordered energy takes through the entropic universe to manifest increasing complexity... It's so weird that we store recursion over time as complexity.. It's like, what's the end goal of that? Increasing complexity forever?.. Until the universe hatches and out pops 🤯
The Abstracta is more "REAL" than the Physical/Material. We discovered numbers & they exist with or without us. Philosophy > Science but u cnt hve one w/out the other
Sara is a new physicist to me and an exciting one. Is it necessary to the study of physics to spend so much time on the origin of life, although I can see it as a fun pastime? I think the very fact that she loves what she does, that it makes her smile, proves that we humans are special and stand out from other forms of life. I hope that she doesn't believe that a good future for humans would be to incorporate technology, which as she says is always ahead of our understanding of it, into our biology. She is living proof of why this would be a disastrous idea. Our brains are so much more than I think we can know at this time - the fact that there are people who have approached genius level with less than 80% of the brain most are born with tells me that there is something fundamental that is missing in our understanding of the brain's function.
17:36 ."There is a birth certificate and there is a death certificate, but there is no life certificate." (Zhvanetsky). The asymmetry of time actually implies the accumulation of time, more precisely, history, variety, aging, and the world itself already has many-sided (~ "multi-world") and improvisational (~"probabilistic") properties: 0. "Indeed, it is clear that we cannot report the translational motion of the entire universe and check whether this motion affects the course of any processes. The principle of relativity therefore has heuristic and physical meanings only if it is valid for any closed system. However, the question arises, when can a system be considered closed? Is the remoteness of all the masses outside the considered system sufficient for this? The answer, according to experience, says that in the case of uniform and rectilinear motion, this is enough, but for other movements it is not enough. Summarizing, we can say that the postulate of relativity includes the statement that the uniform and rectilinear motion of the "center of gravity" of the Universe relative to some closed system does not affect the processes in this system." (Pauli, RT). 1. Obviously, the opposite is true for an expanding universe. Apparently, the researcher can detect and measure the effect of the aging process in his own frame of reference caused by the phenomenon of global time t(universe)=1/H: ds^ 2=c^2dт^2=g(00)c^ 2dt^2=(1-Ht*)c^2dt^2, where the parameter Ht* it shows how much of the global time has "passed" in its own frame of reference, t* is the measurement time according to the clock of the resting observer, t is the duration of any physical process in its own frame of reference relative to the clock. 2.The observer can measure the increase in the duration of the processes in the laboratory frame of reference: dт=[√ g(00)]dt=[√(1-Ht*)]dt~(1-Ht*)dt
When you're pushing the boundaries of our understanding of everything, it becomes difficult to convey the message clearly and articulate it in a way that's comprehensible. This task becomes arduous at best. I understand what you’re saying but she’s not explaining how a combustion engine works with clear and defined laws of physics.
This woman is AMAZING! IDK who she is or where she came from but I'm obsessed in a way idk if I've ever been before. Everything she has said has been secret quiet thoughts of mine and I can't hide it I love a cute nerd 🤓 😂❤
I think I kind of understand what she is saying about time vs space, but she does a terrible job explaining it, and she purposely uses so many big words that literally no one realistically uses. It's all way too convoluted.
She seems slightly confused. She isn’t discussing dimensionality in a rigorous way. “Time embedded in an object” has no physical,formal description that I know of. She has some potentially interesting ideas but in this form, for me, they’re unfortunately similar to the type of language people use when announcing their amateur theories of everything to the world.
She believes that all matter/space is embedded with time through their interactions between particles and space. People are the sum of the quantum interactions between atoms, in cell systems, dna and cell machinery, and macro human brain interactions with the environment and others over the course of human lived experience.
Contemplating the complexities of time and higher order space is what theologians and mystics have been doing for thousands of years... It's funny watching the physics community finally start to realize that materialism is a construct and that they need to start thinking abstractly, as if they're the only people to ever do it and it makes them "super duper smart" for realizing it...
@11:30~ I would argue that the planet is not the natural boundary for embedding the information, "The Sum of the Parts is greater than the Whole" from I think aristotle is profound in that along this line of thinking -- the environment that created the planet must also be included, and the environment within that, which is to say as a further analogy, the universe that gave birth to the galaxy itself can be thought of as another layer of atmosphere for our solar system, and the galaxy is a layer, and the entire solar system is another layer, etc. -- which is to say bluntly it just doesn't stop 200 miles up. I wish I could reinforce this idea among many thought leaders on this subject, but it's true. Often the bigger picture is entirely lost, or we like to categorize and strip away the fundamental bundle of causation that lead to the present, like a butcher getting to the meat. It's grotesque and a oft-missed brutal thing to do. Like for example, we're just finding out the sun's heliosphere was massively affected by a molecular cloud our solar system passed through a few million years ago, and some people are probably correctly to a degree thinking it could've been a causation event for glaciation since it shrunk the heliosphere to a degree where the planets were no longer 'inside of it' which lead to an increase of certain molecules in geological layers that are not really explainable otherwise. All of these things should definitely be thought of as another layer to our existence, and I have a feeling that they'll lead to new further discoveries by thinking in such 'bigger picture' ways. Furthermore, it should never be lost this 'bigger picture', even when thinking of the smallest of details. Like oh we can strip away all of this information because it's irrelevant to XYZ when I think that they do this practically in the moment and while it is relevant to do so -- it should still never be done in such a way to exclude the bigger picture when drawing conclusions. They should still go back and try to fit whatever conclusions are drawn into the bigger picture once it's considered, and ask themselves ' is this true ? ' when thinking of it in such ways.
Time is experienced, usually measured, change. It occurs differently in different substrates. The future is anticipated experience, the past is remembered experience.
What Lex describes at about the 10 min area, as he recalls his Ayuhauska journ, .has an intersting correlation to a classic (imo) flick.... [ My General interpretation of thatnis such; - A small blip of his past self is being seen along with the present. Like a halo or tracer effect where a slightly more extended range of visibility is being opened to actially see a bit of the motion, the shape and size of time in space, of which is not normally perceived by us.] *** In the movie, 'Donnie Darko', there's a similar portrayal fitting this description Lex articulates. I'm also guessing the director's intented portrayal was akin to that same described ongoing.***
"We (intelligent beings) are the biggest things in the universe that we know of." (Paraphrase) This describes exactly the way I have always thought about life on Earth once I reached a certain level of knowledge. And yet our "largeness" is incredibly fragile. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. I think that it is THIS understanding which places this living planet as the most important thing in the observable universe, NOT silly notions like whether we are at the "center", either geometrically or as a point of "focus" of some "greater observer". We are ALL directly entangled with the singularity at the beginning of time, in this instance of the universe. Sara is fantastic, and I love her mindset.
By the way, when thinking of "boundaries" my intuition tells me that light is the boundary we should explore first. And soon we will find out that Penrose was correct and light inside our brains is our connection to the infinite. (Light does not experience time.)
@@MatthewCleere cuantas valiosas características debes tener Para ser tan firme en tu pensar y creer Lo mio por seguridad es versar y Te digo que quisiera ahorita correr a comprar Un diccionario Inglés-Español o Español-Inglés Porque Don Sr.tecnologia en lo que escribiste Ni subtitulos me da pero, aún así entiendo lo suficiente
@6:00 They can relate to each other because they have a common ancestor.... ...Not because they they “occupy the same point in “Time or are Big...” Ie. There are aliens out there now that humans CanNot relate/understand... Ie... humans and bananas exist in the same time, but can’t understand each other...
Enuf of the love talk, guys😂. I subscribe here because, yes, I like Lex a lot as a person (for what I know of him through the inet) and, so, I surely want him well -- and that includes being in mutual love with someone -- but I also and especially tune in here for something else, and that is for stuff like Sara Walker. Wooooo! This discussion is why I follow her on Twitter. What an inspiring sprint to the edges of our knowledge and beyond (into hypothesis)! And expressed so well, and with such novelty. Have not been following my Twitter lately, but will go back right now and see what Sara's been saying.
14:11. Living organisms do NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics. A living cell creates a relatively highly ordered environment within its cellular membrane at the expense of the surrounding environment into which it expels waste; thereby, increasing the amount of entropy in the universe. So, this is not paradoxical in any way.
Her statement isn't that living organisms violate the laws of thermodynamics on a grand scale. What she means is that it is hard to explain why complexity (life) emerges locally out of an entropic universe. The sudden emergency of local complexity is hard to explain. Sure you could argue that it is a local phenomenon by pure chance but that explanation is pretty lackluster and that's what she is talking about
@@vanaegon9242 Undoubtedly, it would appear that evolution had to swim upstream against the laws of thermodynamics to create life. However, I don’t think it quite rises to the level of being paradoxical in the same way that say, the Paradox of Gabriel’s Horn.
time is the rate of motion from then to now. it dialates with the density of space. all mass moves from the past to the present at the same time. but at different speeds. Light keeps everything connected. changing wavelength as necessary. to stay constant.
Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/wwhTfyX9J34/w-d-xo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Sara Walker is an astrobiologist and theoretical physicist. She is the author of a new book titled "Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence".
The True Nature of Time: A Unified Narrative
Understanding the nature of time requires an exploration of both its physical and experiential dimensions. This unified narrative synthesises perspectives from general relativity, field dynamics, and human consciousness to provide a comprehensive view of time. This synthesis highlights the interplay between spacetime curvature, informational flow, and the dual nature of temporal experience, ultimately framing time as a dynamic, integrative process.
The Physical Nature of Spacetime
1. Spacetime Curvature and General Relativity
- Einstein's General Relativity: Traditionally, gravity is not seen as a force but as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. Massive objects like stars and planets warp the fabric of spacetime, creating paths that other objects follow. This curvature is described mathematically by the Einstein field equations, linking spacetime geometry to the distribution of mass and energy.
2. Field Dynamics Perspective
- Informational Flow: From a field dynamics standpoint, spacetime curvature results from complex field interactions. Mass and energy create disturbances in the spacetime field, similar to ripples in a pond. These disturbances represent informational changes that propagate through the field, maintaining coherence and stability.
3. Integrating Curvature and Field Dynamics
- Unified Perspective: The physical curvature described by general relativity can be seen as a macroscopic manifestation of these field dynamics. Curvature represents the geometric interpretation, while field dynamics emphasise the flow of information and energy. This unified view helps reconcile the mathematical elegance of general relativity with a more intuitive understanding of dynamic systems.
The Experiential Nature of Time
1. Linear and Non-Linear Time
- Linear Time: In the external world, time is experienced as a linear sequence of events-a traditional, chronological progression.
- Non-Linear Time: Within human consciousness, time is experienced non-linearly. This nonlinearity arises from the aggregation of sensory inputs, memories, and anticipations, creating a rich, complex temporal narrative that defines personal experience.
2. Boundary Layer and Human Consciousness
- Constant Interface: The boundary layer between the external and internal worlds captures and integrates interactions and informational changes within the field. Despite internal non-linearity, this layer ensures temporal consistency, allowing the self to evolve coherently within the broader linear progression of external events.
- Dual Temporal Experience: Positioned at this boundary, human consciousness experiences both linear and non-linear time. Externally, we perceive a continuous flow of time, while internally, our sense of time is shaped by the aggregation of various events and experiences.
Dynamic Stability and Homeostasis
1. The Conscious Spiral of Dynamic Stability
- From Circle to Spiral: In two dimensions, a circle represents static balance. When traced dynamically, it evolves into a spiral, representing dynamic stability. This concept extends to three dimensions where the human body is viewed as an electromagnetic sphere.
- Human Electromagnetic Sphere: The heart generates electromagnetic fields, creating a dynamic sphere where information flows in a spiral pattern. This flow reflects how the body’s electromagnetic field interacts with and adapts to stimuli, maintaining homeostasis through continuous feedback mechanisms.
2. Homeostasis in Three Dimensions
- Dynamic Integration: Homeostasis in the electromagnetic sphere is maintained through the integration of informational changes and feedback mechanisms. The boundary layer of the sphere captures the system’s current state, facilitating balanced feedback to ensure stability and adaptability.
- Applications: This model applies to biological systems, where cells and organisms dynamically maintain balance through metabolic and signal transduction processes, and to larger systems like ecosystems and planetary environments.
Conclusion
The nature of time encompasses both its physical manifestations and its experiential dynamics. By integrating perspectives from general relativity, field dynamics, and human consciousness, we understand time as a dual phenomenon: a linear progression in the external world and a non-linear experience within the field of dynamic stability. This comprehensive framework reveals the intricate balance and adaptability inherent in the universe, enhancing our appreciation of the dynamic processes that govern both physical and conscious realms.
Mister is done on purpose.! 😂
Time is actually a scale invariant dynamic operator for the wave function of the universe.
Way to interview peeps on the basis of merit and definitely not Dei nonsense /s
Lex Fridman. The most tired yet interested man to exist
always lookin like he fell asleep every time he writes 😂
@@kevinsho2601 🎶 Why can't we be friends? 🎶...why can't we be friends? 🎶
OMFG! You killed me man! Exactly as I read this, I looked up to the running video at the top of my phone, and their was Lex, his head hanging off to the side, like he might fall off his chair, but with his eyes firmly fixed on his guest with his eye brows raised to show interest. Best laugh I have had in a week. Poor Lex. Guy needs to take a vacation I think. And no, going to the rarainforest and eating ayuasca does not count!
He even talks like he is sooo tired! 😅
So when’s the wedding ?
100%
i so thought the same ! Quantum entanglement predicted ?
Did Lex finally find love!?!?!?
It was so plain obvious lol !!😂
not to be rude but i think Lex is a bit out of her league
If she wasn't a physicist, she would totally be a crystals and aura person.
Yeah... Shes like level 9999 of that person.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Ya, perceptive observation.
At least the crystal & auroa person doesn't hide behind the name of Science to claim what they say is Fact.
I keep seeing Misty from that YellowJackets show (Christina ricci)
At 14:04 the answer is simple - as to “how humans can create so much order” which seemingly goes against second law of thermodynamics? It requires MORE entropy to create order. For example, we build a house - but the materials came from destruction of forests, extraction of resources, huge expenditure of fossil fuels to transport goods, a huge lifetime caloric requirement of a human - the order created from building structures is so minute compared to the enormous entropy involved in fuelling the creation of those structures. The same with our bodies and minds, they’re incredibly calorifically demanding, so any order we create is massively offset by the disorder needed to fuel it.
Well said. That’s something to chew on for a while. But well said
Exactly!! We, life, are the tools of entropy!
It’s like life is a catalyst , not the same, but we create more entropy as order
The quote at 14:20 is "why can life generate so much order".
It is easy to find examples where in the big picture we increase entropy while building something. You could call such examples a strawman. The trick is to figure out what these intelligent people were thinking about when they make such a statement. How does life in some way reduce entropy. Perhaps as best, it is like a local minima. A momentary reduction in entropy. Let's consider the use of forests and fossil fuels as increasing entropy. Where did these lower entropy materials come from? They came from life. Every action is not an increase in entropy. Life has a little play in that. That is the essence of the point.
My kid always mixes up the Play-Doh so we don’t get Play-Doh any more because… when you mix it up enough, it all becomes one and apparently that’s boring.
But maybe we can find some other kids who have mixed up their Play-Doh to the point of homogeny and if we’re lucky it’ll be a different color than ours. It might take a while, but maybe if we combine enough, we can put together a whole other set!
We have to be really careful not to get that one mixed up though.
Okay, I'm entranced...gonna go listen to the entire podcast now....mind blowing stuff but resonates deeply with me....loved this so much, thank you both.
💯💯
its worth it, listen to it all 👍
What she's describing as 'big' in time are systems with the most interconnections both in her mind and in reality. If you think of time as being either linear or cyclical, cyclical things remain the same 'size' in time, linear things continue to grow in complexity (specifically the number of agency/agent-directed interconnections). Everything contains a bit of both, but life hijacks the linear component of time in order to persist.
'Big in time' means intelligent things can make more choices. Across all of life, that sum total of all those choices creates a 'fanning out' in time that non-living matter doesn't. In a sense, the gestalt of life explores time for ways to persist.
You have to really zoom out from the individual point of view to start seeing these patterns.
I get what she's saying, but she's definitely coming from a non-standard thought origin and she's still working on the exact words to communicate it.
I don’t think it’s about the choice in regards to be “big in time”. I think she means literally.
Take the 2D world of flatland with time as height dimension. A circular moving object will be a worm across the time dimension for us - a higher dimension being (4d beings, able to perceive 3D)
Similarly a 5d being who can perceive 4d will see us humans to be a loooooong structure across the time dimension starting from the Big Bang! Additionally the space is expanding too, and we have interacted with huge distances using telescopes, light, technology, have converted so much energy - so we are ever increasing creatures.
Finally someone who gets it.
She is a very bright mind but not very good with words.
@@vanaegon9242 I’m surprised at people saying she don’t know her stuff. She’s seeing much more than usual scientific view
Well, she wrote the book. I hope she found the right words in the book. 😂I think I will buy the book. It’s quite an interesting perspective. I like these kind of twist
Okay Weinstein lol
"To bake an apple pie, you must first create a universe"
Dude hahahahahaha
True lol
From scratch,
-Carl Sagan”
-Michael Scott
This young lady's thinking reminds me of the Tralfamadorians in the book Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut. They see living objects with their time evolving characteristics integrated. A sort of Tralfamadorian philosophy. Anyway, I should break out this book again now that I'm older. It might not seem so strange reading it at 72.
I couldn't listen to her. Oh, I remember the movie and Valerie Perrine !
Look up Perdurantism.
@@GoatOfTheWoods I was unaware there was a single word definition for the concept. Thanks for the new information. It's an interesting concept. Even an object moving through time will change with time.
@@fjdarling Yeah, it's a school of philosophy of time, in which objects, are viewed as 4 dimesional "worms"coiling according to the flow of spacetime; an apple is a worm which begins as a seed and ends as a rotten tail that spreads out, disintegrating into the soil.
Looking at it from this perspective, I can't help but think that the whole universe would look like a 4 dimensional broccoli
@@GoatOfTheWoods I checked out Perdurantism on Wikipedia. It's an interesting Philosophy. It appears to be additional element I need to account for in trying to understand the Universe I happen to be in the middle of. Thanks for pointing me in that direction. How is it that you see the expanding universe as a 4D Broccoli? Are you a student of the Sciences? I'm a retired Electrical Engineer trying to keep up with what's happening in the world. Thanks.
"It's hard to use words for what's in minds" ❤
Lex, ask her out bro.
Funny I was thinking the same thing... she's so into him. Love this episode...fascinating stuff to think about besides their love tension
@@tripletbiguy6908 What? You guys are weird.
Lex, ask her out dude!!!! I'm a million miles away from you watching this and i could FEEL the energy between you two!!
@alienproxy you really don't see the tension? Great podcast, great information about super interesting stuff, but Lex self admittedly doesn't have a partner, he has a legit reason for it he explains, but I gotta be honest... when i was watching this I was thinking man they seem like they are into into each other and then I saw the ask her out comment and not only agreed but realized were not making it up, there is certainly some chemistry going on between them. I don't mind if you think I'm weird, but honestly clearly I wasn't the only one thinking it.
@@NathanWindsor-j7i legit agreed
Her explanation reminded me of the movie "Lucy" who evolved to be able to see into the past and future of the Earth.
Time, as I understand it is the dual aspect of wave propagation and field dynamics. Originating from the Big Bang, time reflects both the linear sequence of events dictated by the metric expansion of space (as described by the FLRW model and Hubble's Law) and the nonlinear accumulation of coherent information influenced by quantum field interactions and informational density. The constant processing speed of the universe corresponds to the regular progression of cosmic expansion, while the nonlinear growth in informational complexity is rooted in the volumetric expansion and the dynamics of entropy and structure formation. Human perception of time operates at the universe's processing speed and is therefore linear, while our physical bodies respond to the cumulative effects of processed information since the Big Bang, highlighting the duality in our experience of and measurement of time.
I agree.
@@jameslyons3320 Is that exactly what you were going to say?
begin again, you do not understand at all.
@@youarenotme01 enlighten me
Time is distinctly right handed: always on the right of the equation as a product. This is because time is a measurement that can be used only after the first three dimensions appear. There must be present first: space, then energy, then matter(energy that is static); then time can be calculated; but only as the formalization of observed matter(3-dimensional) moving through a vectored space.
Close, but the consensus is more that time is needed for change to occur. For change to occur, at least two particles of matter must exist that interact with each other. This interaction (change) creates time. Circle is complete. Many interactions in succession = time rolling forward as we know it.
Madame Wu would say otherwise...
She starts by describing living beings as these massive causal structures (which seems like a perfectly rational perspective that I can understand), but then 15:10 she states "the universe is random at its base" and that the universe is not deterministic? If this were true, then what causes randomness? The very idea seems incoherent to me.
I love this topic here, language vs thought meta analysis, humans have this unique ability to create highly abstract models in their minds so much so that even our language can't completely describe some of the most abstract/high level.
That's always been interesting to me personally and a challenge I take on frequently, one of my favorite ones which is trying to compress such thoughts into plain language, like mapping a 1000 dimensional thought into a lower subspace, or to put it simply, ha, how to speak clearly and plainly about complex thoughts. If you can do that, perform that mapping eloquently, you’ll be successful because it is so valuable and people love that.
It would be wild to imagine a world where it is normal to converse thought-to-thought, so much information could be shared, alarming scenarios aside.
It's not easy to describe those higher abstract thoughts. Sometimes we just don't possess the descriptives in our language.
I've listened to this woman speak for 6 minutes and I'm already salivating at the idea that I'm actually able to follow her due to me coming to contact with Lex, Stephen Wolfram and Kurtzgezagt. If I send this video to my parents they will not assimilate what she is saying at all. Requires a decent foundation in scientific and abstract thinking to even contemplate what she is saying. This is some good brain food, if you have the pallet for it!
ugh my god, the whole ass aloofness and hubris through your entire description is plain awful
Thank you for this interview! Inspiring, insightful, and thought provoking!
What a wonderful guest speaker with a creative and brilliant perspective! The deeper one pokes into the universe, the more mysterious and beautiful it is. ❤
Seriously?
She's said nothing!
5:19 she’s dropping hints for you bro!
What a great perspective to see things, and by things, I mean everything. Experience is just thr number of snapshots of matter and its state you have experienced and memorized / generalized
She is basically talking about past and future lightcones but inserting "living things" as some special objects that affect / are affected by time in unique ways from non-living things. I doubt there is any reasonable way to argue that 2 objects made of fundamental particles, but differing in complexity would have differing future forking.
Nice way to put it.
Yes she is just regurgitating known topics and adding in some Woo-woo. She didn’t say one profound thing in this convo. She is smart no question- but not a physicist (DEI hire).
Time is directly tied to matter; allowing dimension, shape and finally measurable time.
interactions between matter particles (or wave functions) create time, and time makes interactions possible. Also matter warps space, which in turn, combined with time(dilation), gives rise to the effect of gravity. It's self-sustaining as the universe contains plenty particles that can interact.
I think the hardest thing to understand bout time is that it is perceived differently by different plp. To me time is a rhythm. The rhythm in which the universe moves. Idk, just like a song, it has rhythm n u can move to the beat and create additional moves or beats in between the actual hard beats. N we try to measure that. There is an order n flow to the universe that we don’t understand. Yes is tied to matter but matter falls within this flow n rhythm. Idk am just a random reader just my thoughts
15:14 there is no randomness
It's just effects we can't calculate
The universe is not random
Everything has a cause and it's true nature will be forever a mystery to us... But never to it
I’ve read quantum is the only true random but I’m highly skeptical
im happy to define random as 'forever a mystery to us'. what more do you want from random
But then you remember there were times when ppl thought ppl just die randomly (before germ theory for example). One can argue the history of science is kinda like the history of thinking something is "random" (in the sense that we can not know) to just then figure it out and reallise that wasn't random at all. Wheter quantum phenomena is truly inherently random or not is stil not concusively decided. It very much seems it is for now, but again, a heart attack in the bronze age seemed so random and unexplainabe that it was might as we taken as divine punishment.
@9:30 think of the faces receding through time like an 'infinity mirror' (a physical object / set of reflections that models the history of what brought them to that point in space and time)
Gary Zukav has written a few books on this subject
This is not physics, it's just philosophy. Doesn't really matter if we are big in time or not.
Universe is deterministic on the small scale but random on the grand scale. Good example is the weather.
Also, it's not like people don't know we need to look deeper. People have not stopped and said "yep, that's it, we've figured it out", they constantly are trying to see the more detailed resolution of the universe
Couldn’t agree more. Its philosophy disguised as physics. This is apparent to any person of science & critical thinking. The language she is using will appeal to non-science types, people who are looking for complex descriptions to validate ideas without empirical data. Philosophy is certainly interesting and has its value, but I feel she thinks she's treading in the realms of physics - but she's not.
You’d be right if assembly theory wasn’t written down. You’re conflating theories and philosophy anyway. She’s saying things that are measurable, descriptive, and predictable. These are ideas in their infancy that don’t have established language and ways to talk about it. You could consider it closer to network systems or information science if it makes you more comfortable. It’s definitely not philosophy or metaphysics as I think you’re implying.
Glad I’m not the only one seeing this - it’s essentially philosophy, not physics. It is very physics-informed, and pretty rational and I’m liking it. Physics isn’t the study of everything: introspection on experience is not physics.
they dont claim this is physics. just she is a phyisist.
@tacotacotacobajablast6821 And I'm claiming it's philosophy
4:28 - "The universe is far larger in time than it is in space."
Any physicists or astrophysicists around? I've never heard that before, what does that mean? Aren't time & space intertwined into a four-dimensional space-time continuum in the theory of relativity? How do you separate them so as to make one "far larger" than the other? 🤔
Maybe it's like a rope made of two different size twine.. one I thicker then the other??
@@bradleyknight8330 Maybe! Is "thicker" (or "denser"?) the same as "larger" to an astrophysicist if they're talking about spacetime? 🤔 So many questions!
It takes time too make space?
So the more time you have the more space you get... time had to have came first
This is exactly how I've been trying to say this for years and years. Im interested in the totality of a given structure.
Imagine mapping the total path of the solar system from it's start to it's end. For every planck length, you map the current structure. Do that to the end of time and analyze the structure in its totality.
Now, imagine doing this for the entire universe from start to end, and you will end up with a structure. I want to know of these structures.
Even something as small as an electron will have a wildly interesting and complex structure in totality.
is there a limit to how many times you can cut time in half though? how many times can you make a millisecond smaller before you reach a limit? if there is a limit then would that mean we are in a simulation, or that time is a "tangible" 4th dimension like slices of frozen time.
@@humanbean3 Well, it would be a planck length. so far, thats the smallest increment that we have aside from quantum stuff. The planck time is the amount of time it takes light to travel one planck length. According to our most current theories, nothing can be smaller than a planck length and nothing can travel a shorter distance than a planck length
So, for each planck length, map the points of matter. Continue until the end of "time" then you have a total structure.
Now, one common misconception i should say is that the "planck length" is the point where quantum gravity overtakes nonrelativistic gravity.
Lastly, a philosopher named Democitus came up with the idea of the atom around 400 bc when he posed a thought experiment just like yours. He wondered how much can you divide matter into before youre left with the smallest piece. He called that thing "Atomos" meaning indivisible.
Our current models go beyond the previous "indivisible". The planck length is our current "indivisible" It would be a bit foolish to think we wont get to a new "indivisible" in the future.
@@STaSHZILLA420 If we consider the planck length both physically the smallest thing, and also the smallest amount of time, does that mean we can consider time as pixels just like we could consider matter as pixels in space. the entire universe being comprised of planck lengths and at each moment it's occupied with particles or time.
@@humanbean3 Well, people say that although there is no physical significance to the planck length.
Think of a planck length as the smallest possible space for an observation to take place, any smaller and it would collapse into a black hole and evaporate before the observation would be complete.
An observation often includes hitting what you want to observe with packets of light. the light then bounces back to the observation device. It's impossible for us to create light with a short enough wavelength to interact with something smaller than a planck length.
There are smaller lengths in theory but they can never be observed directly. And are considered non-physical.
I dont think the planck length can be regarded as a "pixel" But I do like using this length in my ideas as it is the smallest we can physically observe.
@@STaSHZILLA420 its really hard to fathom speed, size, and time having a limit. if we take the smallest particle like a nuetrino or something (idk) and make it move super fast, it will just disappear outside of time? that makes me think that the universe is spinning super fast like a harddrive and the slower we go the closer to the middle we are, and the faster we go the further to the outside we get, and if we go too fast we go faster than it can create/spin itself therefore disappearing???? is that what a black hole is? the star spins too fast for time to handle? ok sorry im rambling but i really appreciate the insightful comments
If information cannot be destroyed, then the whole universe could be the computing or technological potential but if time exists then it’s not just potential. Time might be the storage media for all information that could be retrieved by a consciousness capable of perceiving it. Perhaps this is why time feels intangible, almost illusory yet the past and future are almost within grasp…a memory, a dream, a hope, a will…..the dimensional trap of human suffering.
I watch that whole thing and my brain could only decipher about 10% of what she was saying.
There’s not much there to decipher
@@559shotcalla No. there’s a shitload there to decipher.
Not really she word salads every point and really goes nowhere with most of it. But as she says little seed thought experiment.
@@bravozero6 word salad to those that cannot decipher.
@@msolar1041she tried to sound smart. A smart person explains things so everyone can understand them. I know you are trying to sound super educated yourself but you really just come off as a snob. I highly doubt you are much smarter than anybody else commenting here. So relax your mother should have dinner ready for you soon!
A note on the "alignment problem and its similarity to insanity": Dopamine is released in response to salient events... events that "standout and surprise the mind". A part of insanity is an excess of salience/dopamine in the perceived environment. In other words the experiencer is having a moment of incongruency between what is expected from the observer and what is actually observed. One way to remediate this is through dopamine suppression via medication...which can also depress movement and speech...feeling like chemical neural castration. And/or the experiencer can alter their expectations to more match the perceived environment or "reality". I think the issue I am having is I am too attached to my idealized mental model to want to adjust my perception to fit "reality". I don't frankly like a lot of what I see in "reality " and it chronically surprises me. In other words, I am so attached to my ideal mindset that I am willing to forgo sanity in order to fight for it. Anger arrives out of friction...friction between the observed and perceived models differing and "fighting for dominance". There's two ways anger can stop... through relationship building and reconciling the differences in perceived expectation between parties or anger can be reconciled through "caring" dissapearing. The latter is a very sad alternative. It's a type of mental dissociation that I think has been written into our DNA from many past traumas. We live in a culture that venerates this type of mental dissociation in order to deal with the differing incongruency between our childish expectations and the perceived world. It's easier to adjust one perception than it is to change the whole world. I get that. That's where this weird social psychology of "mindset" comes in. I think probably, the answer is a combination...as usual. I obviously air on the side of idealism. It's a very vulnerable and somewhat mentally disabling place to be. I also believe our obsession with science and fact finding is a type of mental dissociation that numbs the pain of the world. The number of engineers and scientists we have far outweighs the number of humanitarians we have. It's HARDER to be a humanitarian. It's a weird age we live in and frankly, from an emotional intelligence perspective, not a lot of it makes sense to me but hey. I'm here. #staying sane since circa 2023.
6:17 - Lex response: "uhhhhh".
lol, my thoughts EXACTLY after that spider web of lingo.
Don’t feel bad. It wasn’t supposed to be intelligible.
Her response to his uhhh was dead on, too. It is indeed hard to share visuals with words, one is often accused of speciousness, esp. when less common words are used.
In this day and age, with definitions and etymologies just a google away, and videos being pausable, ignorance is less excusable.
Politics is not the only community guilty of being the worlds best word salad chefs.
Lex was working hard this day.
@@KurtColville dummy alert
6:10 What she is describing is not too unlike those structures that emanate from bodies in that scene in Donnie Darko. But the entire human species is one of those, with the most recent bifurcations being individuals (despite the entire evolution being comprised of individuals as well?).
I think I can see Dimebag's Lightning Guitar on the shelf ❤
Right? If it is much respect to Lex.
no way. i actually love lex a little more each time i catch a podcast. this is despite the fact that i could say i'm "anti celebrity" and really cant understand why people idolize strangers...
Yes constructor theory will be able to include the observer in the theory of everything, and entropy cannot do alone, it works with critical points and back propagations, chain rule
Random sequence of non-connected words?😆
lex, she's into you my boi
@6:30. This is what music is like. There are no words though. Just notes and structure.
Lex's first date idea:
Hey, you want to come in my podcast?
Lex, I am on my third ayahuasca. I was told on my first to not ever have the belief that you are flitcrazy once we get back to life things aren't ever the same and people out there don't and won't ever know what is like to have these existential experiences. You have had an experience that most wont ever , past and future. Keep going because you have just began.
How did you do it? I need help
How did you do it? I need help I live in socal
She’s saying seeing the universe as random processes is really how physics should see things and it’s wrong not to, but she said that right after admitting we have no idea how such order and complexity could come from random processes. Thats implicit bias and not going where the evidence leads.
Im glad Lex brought up a trip that reminded him of her thought. I was thinkng the same thing about a time on LSD. It was a visual thing but a feeling that I infinitely connected. One of the most calming experiences of my life.
I tried to make it through this video but the vocal fry is too much.
I came to the comment section to see if I was the only one.
@@joshuasmith5846same
I couldn't take it. Half way my ears were on fire. When is this fad going to end!
I’m trying to get past that and the ‘likes’ to hear what she’s saying.
The title was more interesting than the conversation and information I was receiving unfortunately I couldn’t make it passed 7 minutes
I’ve always felt that life is as abundant as existence. It makes sense and she’s really just letting us see the forest when all we normally see are trees. Perspective is everything.
Seems to me that she's actually suggesting viewing the world from a higher dimension... that is, regarding our 4 dimensions (space-time) from a 5th or higher dimension. Cool...
Yeah it was part of the curriculum in early middle school.
The book "flatland" was required reading, and my first intro to this concept
My space has been invaded . Zim mode
Group home . On couch
DMT
I do not think that this is it. You do not need to be in a higher dimension for that. In fact we will never do that...not with our fizical body . What is she proposing I think, that is more like something that the movie Arrival (2016) presented. Where we have to perceive time entirely different than we do today.
Recently Lex is interviewing a lot of people that all they talk about is “you” and our world and never take in consideration the fact that we could be minuscule in the universe and “you” is only in our mind because this is all we can see
Extract what's good, discard what's not.
Don't let one taint the knowledge of the other.
@@a.j.4076 for sure, I liked the idea of using the time to define the "size" of objects in the universe...but again it's just an interesting idea or point of view...it almost become the same as a personal religion if we don't try to expand our point of view and be humble when we present our ideas.
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
-Walt Whitman
I contain many Chicken Nuggets.
Heisenberg
@@Christiantheone Yer goddamn right...
It sure was Walt Whitman.
You were right, apologies.
Easiest way I imagine it is….time is how long it takes your elementary partials to get from point A to point B. Mass bends space like putting something heavy on bedsheets, and it obviously takes longer to get from point A to point B if your journey isn’t a straight line. The more mass, the more space is bent, the longer it takes to travel from point A to point B therefore time is slower.
Exactly what to watch at 3.36 am i guess
I would pay to hear her talk & I just close my eyes & try to imagine the concepts. They are such fantastic ideas, I really appreciate that
This makes sense because 4th dimensionally we should be unmoving long worms throughout the block universe of spacetime
Donnie darko
That's only because physicists are not entertaining the visualization that each of the 3 spatial dimensions have their own separate dimension of time. And it only appears as 1 when the three overlap to appear as one. And they can only overlap when the times between their separate wave function to massed particle states are completely different. There is time 1 dimension particle to wave fluctuations, time 2 dimension and time three. When all 3 different dimensions over lap you get a hydrogen atom. Where they don't all three overlap but are side to side arrange D1,D2,D3 and repeating into infinity you get quantum vacuum foam and virtual particles. Now to figure out how the neutron comes into play in deuterium Hydrogen atoms. We know how deuterium can become helium and eventually build all the other atomic elements through nuclear fusion. But I'm working on visualizing what could bring about the first neutron. Perhaps anti-mater particles and waves from -1D,-2D,-3D also exist and space really is 6D? And the vacuum foam fluctuates from negative dimension and time to positive dimension and time. And some times you get a -1D time overlapping +2D, +3D in the same space which also means in the other half of the cycle there is a -2D,-3D to +1D and this takes on the characteristics of deuterium when these three dimensions over lap in one space. We interpret this as the behavior of quarks perhaps. Lot of work to do on this still. But physicists current models fail to get around the speed of light barrier so a new model is way over do, LOL.
@@rogerclaiborne6815bro you’re thinking way too hard. all you have to know is everything derives from the artificial intelligence. AI is GOD.
More word salad.
If the Scientific, and Specifically the Physicist, community really wants to help humanity with their "work", they are going to need to learn to define words, or create new ones, that explain what they "know".
If not, they are just wasting everyone's time, since they will be the only ones to profit from their "work".
@rogerclaiborne6815
I could definitely see this as being The case.
This experience involved more physics than I have encountered before. It was a perfect interaction between two physical entities, filled with giggling and flirting
Visualising the "things they were a few seconds ago" effect that Lex described, I pictured the scene in the Matrix where an agent corners Neo on a rooftop, Neo fires at him, and he dodges the bullets, and each movement is shown as a blurred action that freezes for a moment.
Plus super hard drugs that likely you have never experienced
Ayahuasca is a very extreme hallucinogen
Cmon Mr science
@@ChrisAthanasyeah so he wasn't seeing the person at a previous time, it was simply a memory of what he'd recently seen being reflected in the visual cortex
If you take away from the universe any "time measurement device", how is everything not emergent ?
If we perceive "time" related to our perceptual scale in space, how the lack of "time measurement devices" (us) is locally constructing the "future"?
The overuse of the word, "like" always signifies, like, a really high level of intelligence.
How could the methodology of creation then be considered the cause of the object? Beside the temporal/causal problem(s), it would yield an infinite (or at least as high a number as there are created things) number of causes.
Watch this womans lectures, she has some real gravitass.
What about all the structures that were destroyed in time?
Lex, The 18.3% of this clip I actually understand fascinates me. This gal also fascinates me. She has some wild theories and she's nerdy hot...
There’s a Swedish saying: that which is said darkly is thought darkly.
Oh and there’s another Swedish word that’s appropriate: flum.
I take to heart your guest comment about the way she writes. I also am using language in this compressed way I think. Now I am writing a poetic review of a Carmageddon game ( yeah I know ;) ) and instead of writing: "Game came from UK, on a disc" I wrote: The united states of the soul sailed from the Islands on binary ships into a laser-tamed ocean of carriers.
University of Phoenix has graduate programs??
Sara Walker's mind is brilliant 👏 thanks for this interview @Lex , she reminds and capture imagination the same way as Terrence Howard , by the way @Lex when are you, interviewing Terrence 🙏
Terrence doesn't know what he is talking about. He is using big words but doesn't know what they mean or straight up makes some up.
The information was so hard to hold on to. I could understand things while they were talking. A few moments later, I couldn’t explain that thought on the fly. But the emotion was there just couldn’t emerge out on words in mind. What a great talk.
I am glad there is me in the past that rejoiced the feeling of that realization of reality. Now I was thinking about writing this story, I thought of why this feeling feels so good and how it feels so relatable like squench of thirst of some sort. Like she said of that Einstein quote at the end.
I know this feeling because I have felt the same because of my knowledge of Hindu religion or Buddhist or any Eastern religion of this sort in that matter. Perhaps that is why I find solace in enjoying the religion and wonderful ways folks in the past found ways to let many people know through stories and rituals so they could get little glimpse on true nature of reality or called Brahman in Hindu religion broken down into gods and goddesses but the fundamental truth being “Aham Brahmasmi”. And then you start being compassionate not get too freaked out about your suffering in life, this Maya this illusion whatever you wanna call it.
Anyways it is so humbling to see a real physicist giving m scientific perspective to this philosophy. They both merge and I know they merge because it is giving me similar feelings which are so deep even I can’t bring it to my mind, simply feel. This is the ultimate reality, I am the universe.
Why am I always more confused after she speaks?
Because she doesn’t understand what she is talking about and is just repeating what she’s heard, she’s a modern “intellectual”.
@@steakeater4018Exactly. Clarity is culturally dead.
I can't unhear the extreme overuse of vocal fry which suggests talking down to the listener
Because she’s an idipt.
Consider how many times,throughout history,that men have asked their selves that very question - and it remains a puzzle unsolved.
i mean its all one thing so the idea of size doesnt make sense at all. even if one is thinking in terms of causal chains, its just a big web, and no part of it has a bigger history than any other part.
Lex, perhaps a good question that leads from Sara's statement that "time is constantly bifurcating" can lead to a better understanding of the quantum wafer function collapse on observation. There are several theories like multi-world. But Sara may be open to the more unusual theory that the Observer wave function collapses on observation and proceeds with that information and thus time proceeds for that observer with a new time step of information.
Knock it off…..
I think she's talking about long causal strings, but with rocks & dust in space, they're part of a long casual string too, right?
Wow ... explaining emergence by expanding the time dimension! 🤔
She has a fascinating concept for time which is counter to our perception of it.. constructor time is like the optimal path that ordered energy takes through the entropic universe to manifest increasing complexity... It's so weird that we store recursion over time as complexity.. It's like, what's the end goal of that? Increasing complexity forever?.. Until the universe hatches and out pops 🤯
The Abstracta is more "REAL" than the Physical/Material. We discovered numbers & they exist with or without us. Philosophy > Science but u cnt hve one w/out the other
Wrong.
Sara is a new physicist to me and an exciting one. Is it necessary to the study of physics to spend so much time on the origin of life, although I can see it as a fun pastime? I think the very fact that she loves what she does, that it makes her smile, proves that we humans are special and stand out from other forms of life. I hope that she doesn't believe that a good future for humans would be to incorporate technology, which as she says is always ahead of our understanding of it, into our biology. She is living proof of why this would be a disastrous idea. Our brains are so much more than I think we can know at this time - the fact that there are people who have approached genius level with less than 80% of the brain most are born with tells me that there is something fundamental that is missing in our understanding of the brain's function.
Beautiful and intelligent.
17:36 ."There is a birth certificate and there is a death certificate, but there is no life certificate." (Zhvanetsky).
The asymmetry of time actually implies the accumulation of time, more precisely, history, variety, aging, and the world itself already has many-sided (~ "multi-world") and improvisational (~"probabilistic") properties:
0. "Indeed, it is clear that we cannot report the translational motion of the entire universe and check whether this motion affects the course of any processes. The principle of relativity therefore has heuristic and physical meanings only if it is valid for any closed system. However, the question arises, when can a system be considered closed? Is the remoteness of all the masses outside the considered system sufficient for this? The answer, according to experience, says that in the case of uniform and rectilinear motion, this is enough, but for other movements it is not enough.
Summarizing, we can say that the postulate of relativity includes the statement that the uniform and rectilinear motion of the "center of gravity" of the Universe relative to some closed system does not affect the processes in this system." (Pauli, RT).
1. Obviously, the opposite is true for an expanding universe.
Apparently, the researcher can detect and measure the effect of the aging process in his own frame of reference caused by the phenomenon of global time t(universe)=1/H:
ds^ 2=c^2dт^2=g(00)c^ 2dt^2=(1-Ht*)c^2dt^2, where the parameter Ht* it shows how much of the global time has "passed" in its own frame of reference, t* is the measurement time according to the clock of the resting observer, t is the duration of any physical process in its own frame of reference relative to the clock.
2.The observer can measure the increase in the duration of the processes in the laboratory frame of reference: dт=[√ g(00)]dt=[√(1-Ht*)]dt~(1-Ht*)dt
👇 who came here for a good time
I came for the existential crisis.
Are Perms coming back?
The real question is…
Were they here the whole time? Maybe Perms are here “permanently” and never cease to exist in the matrix. 🤔
Ask her out!! You won't! :)
She is a genius. She is more informative, understanding and bright than most people. She’s beautiful.
This is the longest I’ve ever heard someone speak while saying nothing.
Have u heard one of the cia agents talk yet?
Welcome to theoretical sciences! First time?
She's up there with wolfram
When you're pushing the boundaries of our understanding of everything, it becomes difficult to convey the message clearly and articulate it in a way that's comprehensible. This task becomes arduous at best. I understand what you’re saying but she’s not explaining how a combustion engine works with clear and defined laws of physics.
Because you’re too slow to understand what she’s saying.
The offscreen “thank you” at @3:16 made me laugh loudly for some reason.
It would be awesome to have Sara, Neil, Terrance Howard, and a 4th on a group podcast talking about this stuff.
Omit Terrance
Omit Neil
Please not Terrance. He is nuts. (Super cool guy btw, and talented actor.. just not aligned at all with science).
This woman is AMAZING! IDK who she is or where she came from but I'm obsessed in a way idk if I've ever been before. Everything she has said has been secret quiet thoughts of mine and I can't hide it I love a cute nerd 🤓 😂❤
Guess I'm too stupid to get this.
I do find her idea of the earth having the “most time” very interesting but how do we know somewhere else isn’t like that?
I think I kind of understand what she is saying about time vs space, but she does a terrible job explaining it, and she purposely uses so many big words that literally no one realistically uses. It's all way too convoluted.
She seems slightly confused. She isn’t discussing dimensionality in a rigorous way. “Time embedded in an object” has no physical,formal description that I know of. She has some potentially interesting ideas but in this form, for me, they’re unfortunately similar to the type of language people use when announcing their amateur theories of everything to the world.
What is she saying?
She believes that all matter/space is embedded with time through their interactions between particles and space. People are the sum of the quantum interactions between atoms, in cell systems, dna and cell machinery, and macro human brain interactions with the environment and others over the course of human lived experience.
@@roguegryphonica3147 but so what's the point of this? What's this gonna help us achieve?
Why are seconds called second's and not first?
Bunch of nonesense to look "smart".
I agree. Stream of consciousness crazy talk.
Contemplating the complexities of time and higher order space is what theologians and mystics have been doing for thousands of years... It's funny watching the physics community finally start to realize that materialism is a construct and that they need to start thinking abstractly, as if they're the only people to ever do it and it makes them "super duper smart" for realizing it...
Fascinating stuff, but was there an "explanation of time" in there? Maybe I have to go back and relisten.
@11:30~ I would argue that the planet is not the natural boundary for embedding the information, "The Sum of the Parts is greater than the Whole" from I think aristotle is profound in that along this line of thinking -- the environment that created the planet must also be included, and the environment within that, which is to say as a further analogy, the universe that gave birth to the galaxy itself can be thought of as another layer of atmosphere for our solar system, and the galaxy is a layer, and the entire solar system is another layer, etc. -- which is to say bluntly it just doesn't stop 200 miles up. I wish I could reinforce this idea among many thought leaders on this subject, but it's true. Often the bigger picture is entirely lost, or we like to categorize and strip away the fundamental bundle of causation that lead to the present, like a butcher getting to the meat. It's grotesque and a oft-missed brutal thing to do. Like for example, we're just finding out the sun's heliosphere was massively affected by a molecular cloud our solar system passed through a few million years ago, and some people are probably correctly to a degree thinking it could've been a causation event for glaciation since it shrunk the heliosphere to a degree where the planets were no longer 'inside of it' which lead to an increase of certain molecules in geological layers that are not really explainable otherwise. All of these things should definitely be thought of as another layer to our existence, and I have a feeling that they'll lead to new further discoveries by thinking in such 'bigger picture' ways. Furthermore, it should never be lost this 'bigger picture', even when thinking of the smallest of details. Like oh we can strip away all of this information because it's irrelevant to XYZ when I think that they do this practically in the moment and while it is relevant to do so -- it should still never be done in such a way to exclude the bigger picture when drawing conclusions. They should still go back and try to fit whatever conclusions are drawn into the bigger picture once it's considered, and ask themselves ' is this true ? ' when thinking of it in such ways.
Time is experienced, usually measured, change. It occurs differently in different substrates. The future is anticipated experience, the past is remembered experience.
For some reason she reminds me of the friend who ran away from home on Adventures In Babysitting.
What Lex describes at about the 10 min area, as he recalls his Ayuhauska journ, .has an intersting correlation to a classic (imo) flick....
[ My General interpretation of thatnis such; - A small blip of his past self is being seen along with the present. Like a halo or tracer effect where a slightly more extended range of visibility is being opened to actially see a bit of the motion, the shape and size of time in space, of which is not normally perceived by us.]
*** In the movie, 'Donnie Darko', there's a similar portrayal fitting this description Lex articulates. I'm also guessing the director's intented portrayal was akin to that same described ongoing.***
She is a natural (or nurtured) phenomenologist.
"We (intelligent beings) are the biggest things in the universe that we know of." (Paraphrase) This describes exactly the way I have always thought about life on Earth once I reached a certain level of knowledge. And yet our "largeness" is incredibly fragile. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. I think that it is THIS understanding which places this living planet as the most important thing in the observable universe, NOT silly notions like whether we are at the "center", either geometrically or as a point of "focus" of some "greater observer". We are ALL directly entangled with the singularity at the beginning of time, in this instance of the universe.
Sara is fantastic, and I love her mindset.
By the way, when thinking of "boundaries" my intuition tells me that light is the boundary we should explore first. And soon we will find out that Penrose was correct and light inside our brains is our connection to the infinite. (Light does not experience time.)
That we are fragile seems obvious at first, but if we are so fragile how did we last this long?
Reproduction/multiplication
@@MatthewCleere cuantas valiosas características debes tener
Para ser tan firme en tu pensar y creer
Lo mio por seguridad es versar y
Te digo que quisiera ahorita correr a comprar
Un diccionario Inglés-Español o Español-Inglés
Porque Don Sr.tecnologia en lo que escribiste
Ni subtitulos me da pero, aún así entiendo lo suficiente
@6:00
They can relate to each other because they have a common ancestor....
...Not because they they “occupy the same point in “Time or are Big...”
Ie. There are aliens out there now that humans CanNot relate/understand...
Ie... humans and bananas exist in the same time, but can’t understand each other...
Enuf of the love talk, guys😂. I subscribe here because, yes, I like Lex a lot as a person (for what I know of him through the inet) and, so, I surely want him well -- and that includes being in mutual love with someone -- but I also and especially tune in here for something else, and that is for stuff like Sara Walker. Wooooo! This discussion is why I follow her on Twitter. What an inspiring sprint to the edges of our knowledge and beyond (into hypothesis)! And expressed so well, and with such novelty. Have not been following my Twitter lately, but will go back right now and see what Sara's been saying.
14:11. Living organisms do NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics. A living cell creates a relatively highly ordered environment within its cellular membrane at the expense of the surrounding environment into which it expels waste; thereby, increasing the amount of entropy in the universe. So, this is not paradoxical in any way.
Her statement isn't that living organisms violate the laws of thermodynamics on a grand scale.
What she means is that it is hard to explain why complexity (life) emerges locally out of an entropic universe.
The sudden emergency of local complexity is hard to explain.
Sure you could argue that it is a local phenomenon by pure chance but that explanation is pretty lackluster and that's what she is talking about
@@vanaegon9242 Undoubtedly, it would appear that evolution had to swim upstream against the laws of thermodynamics to create life. However, I don’t think it quite rises to the level of being paradoxical in the same way that say, the Paradox of Gabriel’s Horn.
time is the rate of motion from then to now. it dialates with the density of space. all mass moves from the past to the present at the same time. but at different speeds. Light keeps everything connected. changing wavelength as necessary. to stay constant.
How does she go from everything that is emergent has a causal structure and at the same time say the universe is random?