Julian Barbour on Cosmology, Time, and the "Janus Point" | Closer To Truth Chats
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- Donate to Closer To Truth and help us keep our content free and without paywalls: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Julian Barbour discusses the beginning of the universe, the existence and nature of time, and his newest book, "The Janus Point: A New Theory of Time."
Read "The Janus Point": www.basicbooks...
Julian Barbour's Website: www.platonia.com/
Julian Barbour is a physicist with research interests in quantum gravity and the history of science. Since receiving his PhD degree on the foundations of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity at the University of Cologne in 1968, Barbour has supported himself and his family without an academic position, as an author and translator.
Watch more Closer To Truth interviews with Julian Barbour: bit.ly/3eIW96E
Register for free at closertotruth.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
© 2020 Closer To Truth
The question I want answered is what is the implication of the history of our existence? The universe is incomprehensibly large, but the fact that I existed here in this place and time, is a true fact that can never be erased. It may not be remembered, but it is *true.* There has to be some value in ultimate truths. In a sense, my being in this universe is as ultimate a truth as the origin of the universe or the end of it, and I know this with certainty because I am here right now, in the flesh. I exist, and that will always have been true.
I don't understand any of this, but I got the two books, and will see if I can grok it. I just recently figured out that time doesn't exist, or more accurately the passage of time, that there is only now, this instant. I'm hoping prof Barbour will support my idea/hypothesis/fever dream.
Part of me feels that once all of the information from your series completely crystallizes inside my head, it will be at that precise moment the universe will collapse back to a singularity; except this time I will be standing outside it watching as an observer.
Are you separate from the universe?
One of the most profound and simple ideas I’ve heard: Time is the complexity of the universe.
What is uniform at the big bang, is it matter, quantum, energy or other?
Are the deviations from uniformity in the period of inflation due to differences in energy density, quantum fluctuations, matter, or something else?
Not his ideas. Most his ideas I have heard are outlined in this work written 1734 By Swedenborg, Chapter 2 and 3. archive.org/details/principiaorfirst01swedrich The book can be downloaded as a pdf and can be searched on every topic he discusses.
Could quantum gravity be virtual particles from quantum fluctuations?
Why would an expanding universe stretch light waves to cause red shift but not cause galaxies to expand to the point they flew apart?
Isn't that where the 'dark matter' theory comes in to play? It's bizarre for sure. It's like the mass in the universe is structured along some invisible scaffolding or some kind of Swiss cheese membrane, and in between is open space. The scaffolding is getting larger, but the connecting parts remain the same. AKA, Cosmic web. It boggles the mind.
Edited. I said dark energy but I meant dark matter.
In the Big Rip scenario, dark energy does "win". Galaxies, planetary systems and even molecules will be torn apart.
@Al Garnier Idiot.
The extra energy after particle generation and molecule generation is maybe the extra energy in the universe? In it's will to minimize energy for material preservation?
I have been attempting for many years to formulate a model of the universe which does not incorporate a deity as being the creator of the Big Bang - basically trying to figure out what it's all about - and I believe I have succeeded. In short, the model as a whole concludes that gravity and time are two sides of the same coin [with gravity being an emergent property].
The observable universe according to the current BB cosmological model is fundamentally finite in time and space and will end at the Big Rip. The 'finiteness' of the universe of itself, subsequently precludes the existence of anything which is defined essentially as being eternal in nature - ie, the concept of heaven and hell and also by implication, the existence of an omnipotent eternal God.
Although it was not my initial intention, the scenario of the universe which my own alternative model describes, appears to contend that that which we describe as 'the soul,' has an existence which is separate from the physical body. It is this aspect of our existence as an immortal soul which Benjamin Libett discovered in the 1970's [ and indeed explains the results of his experiments]. [url]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet[/url]
Moreover, the model contends that the perpetual reincarnation of the soul is a fundamental property of the fabric of space and time. This video represents the culmination of my research. The greatest affirmation of the reincarnation model of the universe is that it endorses John Lennon's philosophy that 'All You Need Is Love'.
Due to the profound implications inherent in the model, by producing the video I am therefore fulfilling my own moral obligation to share that which I have discovered. Whether anyone heeds the message in the video however is entirely up to the individual. Every person has their own free will to choose what to do.
Also, I intend only to reply to those people who have actually watched the video. Fair warning however, if you watch the video in full, I can guarantee that the moment that it finishes will represent the moment that your life will change for ever.
[url]th-cam.com/video/Ew7mN6_hb_g/w-d-xo.html[/url]
I bought his book yey 🛁
I feel like some of this was in Ouspensky.
I like simple ideas the more simple the better. Complexity comes none the same. I read Lee Smolins book that I can say I cannot say to person on street. Einstein most get now. We need simple theories to build upon. Is the complexity so it is error minimizing? Like particles exist in clusters in an error minimizing way so it gives rise to molecules?
Any physical experiments for any of this. Please post the scientific hypothesis (dependent variable and independent variable) for just one experiment proving any of what was discussed in this video. None of this is science. Just ideas.
That's why he called it his conjecture, silly internet man. They know this hasn't been proven.
@@EccentricTuber Exactly 💯
How would you know what this jesus said? If it’s true then this jesus character agrees with Old Testament and so agrees slavery agrees slavery is ok?
I WROTE ABOUT THIS BACK IN 2016 SO THIS GUY MUST HAVE COPIED WHAT I WROTE 4 YEARS AGO. HE SHOULD GIVE ME A CREDIT.
A circle in 2D (Sphere in 3D) is WAY more special and natural than a triangle... hrmmm.
Arguable, because there's a heavy mathematical correlation between the two, so it doesn't matter much which one is chosen. But I'd argue triangles are easier to work with, and therefore more fundamental in some ways.
I have no idea why you want to introduce a god in most conversations. Doing so undermines science.
Instead of fields we need all that extra energy to uphold materials which could explain dark energy/matter.
Gobbledygook, gibberish, balderdash
Would you edit this some more?
@@dionysianapollomarx No problem : 1. What is the Universe Expanding Into?
This is the answer that you can get from those lunatics who believe in theory of relativity (devised with the purpose of defending HC theory in the face of abundant experimental evidence to the contrary) and everything that comes with this ultimate insult to a human common sense :
--The short answer is that this is a nonsense question, the Universe isn’t expanding into anything, it’s just expanding. HAHAHHAHAHHAHA....
2. Can a Singularity Be Described as “Nothing?”
According to the Standard Big Bang model, the universe began in the form of a singularity - a point of infinite density and infinitesimal (zero) volume. IT DOES MAKE SENSE, DOESN'T IT? HAHAHAHHAHAHAH...
But, now you have to see the following hilarious exchange of thoughts on this subject :
[b]Mr A[/b] says :
--This event that marked the beginning of the universe becomes all the more amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of “infinite density” is synonymous to “nothing.” There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense.
[b]Mr B[/b] replies :
-If you’re finding yourself thinking, “…uh …what!?” after reading that then you’re not alone. This is an extremely sloppy piece of work, and it’s hard to imagine that Mr A, a man with two PhDs, could have seriously written such a thing. Here are three problems with this argument:
[b]#1[/b]: Mr A writes, “…if [the singularity] had any size at all…” but the singularity predicted by the Standard model doesn’t have any size at all. So to put it bluntly, this means that Mr A’s justification doesn’t even apply to the proper situation. HAHAHAHAHHAHA... (Mr B obviously doesn't understand irony, does he?)
[b]#2[/b]: Mr A writes “There can be no object that possesses infinite density,” but the singularity is defined as a state of infinite density. So, even if his justification for this claim made sense, all it proves is that singularities, as they are defined by physics and mathematics, cannot exist. And because the Standard model predicts this singularity, it only means that the standard model is incorrect (which is probably true). BRAVO, GREAT INFERENCE SINCE IF IT IS WRONG IN THIS REGARD THEN IT IS ENTIRELY WRONG BECAUSE IF YOU BUILD SOMETHING ON THE BASIS OF "NOTHING" THEN EVERYTHING YOU PUT ON "IT" WILL ALSO BE "NOTHING" (OF NO VALUE AND WITHOUT SENSE)...HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA....
[b]#3[/b]: Mr A is claiming that “‘infinite density’ is synonymous with ‘nothing,”” but he only attempts to demonstrate that a state of “infinite density” is impossible. It simply doesn’t follow. As the philosopher Wes Morriston pointed out :
>>>No one would suppose that it follows from the fact that there can be no round squares, that “round square” is synonymous with “nothing.” But neither should anyone suppose it follows from the fact (assuming it is a fact) that there can be no infinitely dense objects, that “infinite density” is synonymous with “nothing.”
@@odiupickusclone-1526 Go take your meds.
@@ferdinandkraft857 I am too polite to insult your lack of intelligence!