I have problems to understand, must be me. But, at the same time I was focused on the professor view, I had the image of Mr Lynch talking about the levels of transcendental meditation...maybe, another lecture or meaning... incredible show Sir. I'm a fans
5:39 Uma lei da natureza admite uma ordenação racional e previsível do mundo, mas, para o Bas, essa formulação não implica na existência de uma necessidade natural que justifique esse comportamento, mas sim de que esse causa se trata na verdade de uma regularidade de fenômenos observáveis que são passíveis de tal sistematização
Symmetries allow more generalisable models..there are no exact symmetires in nature, or at least we haven't found them..we make approximate models and get approximate results, but if we find some symmetries hold to a good approximation, then we have improved our predictive power..and that's what its all about
The concept of physical laws as some kind of absolute and unchanging foundation is a vestige from a time when theology and "God's law" reigned supreme in human thought. An increasing number of theoretical physicists are now questioning and challenging that authoritarian model with more flexible ideas like the many worlds theory and constructor theory.
@@soubhikmukherjee6871 🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH: The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word. Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down. A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a certain degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering. For example, the personal conception of Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent. The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute. It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent. Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed. Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.' However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an enlightened soul. When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the term “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law). The ONLY (absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit). Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability). This sense of existence is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter. Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so sees everything in himself and himself in everything. If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth. OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least ”an extremely accurate fact”. For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being. So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL Truth. "In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are. We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is." ************* "God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This. So God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness. The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source." Roger Castillo, Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015. "I am the TRUTH..." ************* “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”. Lord Jesus Christ, John 14:6 & 8:32
So a better word for law maybe simply opposing forces upon a fulcrum of symmetry. For natural law is like civil law-You really don’t feel it’s effects until you try to oppose it. But its also something that can be overcome with greater force
Its quite simple, in order for the rules to exist in the first place someone had to think them trough. We can see the laws work perfectly with each other and are so precise, they seem to never fail or missfire can be the right term. But how is that so since matter on its own is very chaotic.
So are there “Anti-Laws”? Laws that tell something to *not* do something? Technically they should be limitless. And how do Models or Laws come into being, or rather, how is necessity assigned?
In philosophy / metaphysics there is more inquiry into non-physical aspects of topics like consciousness and others where the concept of law might still be helpful, while science has become a lot more physical inquiry for which theory and model more helpful. Probably would be good to clearly delineate between scientific theories of nature and metaphysical laws or whatever.
What about Newton's 3 laws of motion, and the 3 laws of thermodynamics? Why are they not laws that cannot be broken within physical reality as we understand it?
There are properties of reality that can never change, so rules must emerge from structure itself. Everything material is made from atoms and there are only so many ways protons, neutrons and electrons can be combined into elements, giving raise to chemistry. We can't have an element with a thousand protons, for example. It's because matter is made from even smaller energetic dots, following the rules of energy potentials. Potentials can't ever change also, they're bound in the structure of space-time. We can't have only space or only time, everything that exists is engaged in a constant exchange of those potentials. It's very hard to accept the fact everything is connected and balanced out so perfectly, but that is what means to be real, there can be no glitches in the natural matrix. Anomalies would cause reality to shatter, making nothing our of something, it seems nature is always fighting against any physical abomination simply because of previously mentioned fact, everything is connected. There's one more physical property that prevents divergence from eternal natural laws, energetic dots always radiate and absorb light, most frequencies bounce around and go through various transformations, but some waves shine straight through anything material, like nothing at all exist but a sea of that primordial light of lights.
And if everything we think of as true is actually wrong? Is time real or an human invention to count? Does space have propertys? Are particles real, do they really exists? There are other ways of explaining everything witout these things being real. All of this comes from math only so how can we be sure it’s true? Math is a human invention and not something we can rely on to find the truth. Math is not explicative, just descriptive and that is really something importent cos this means math can’t be used to explain the universe. For example particles, charge, waves, electron-volts, joules, spinn, is merely postulates derived from math only. For example, scientists loves to talk about waves. A wave is what something does, not what something is. A wave doesn’t exist! Nor does quantum, wich are used everywhere in physics. Everything in todays particle physics is solely and exclusively based on mathematical calculations. We believe so strongly that today's theories are correct that we forget everything logical. We are constantly trying to find meaning and to understand the universe based on already determined principles, and with mathematics. This locks us in our thinking as we are constantly trying to combine new experiments, observations and measurements with what we already believe to be true. This leads to absurd and illogical theories without any substance in reality. Unfortunately, we are stuck in our thinking that particles of various kinds exist, that Einstein was right and that our current theories are right. We never actually seen an elementary particle. All of our understanding derives from calculations only, and our understanding of light is that it’s a duality, yet we are certain we know what light is. It’s a belief system, much like religion. It’s not up for debate or questioning. Is that really science? Is that really the right way in search for truth? Anyone who thinks he knows the truth, stops looking for it!
@@klassemyra That's why we're philosophers, not scientists, free to examine the entire hierarchical structure of scientific knowledge and ask questions no scientist ever would because they can't see the point. Scientific model works, global scientific community exist only 200 years and look what they achieved. It's about consistency and hierarchy of natural facts, we can trust same principles will always produce same results, this allows for incredible complexity and functionality. But is it actually true how we imagine physics, nobody cares, science will progress one discovery after another regardless of how people imagine things that are real. I do understand what you're saying and can agree with many points you made, except i can't see the real value asking the same questions over and over again, without means to verify any of your claims. Things are not as they seem, it's OK, this fact makes science way more interesting and fun than fiction. In matter of fact, we already live a science fiction in reality.
This involved in standardization of those physical laws and the laws of existence. Patterns came from many different equations. For example, the pattern of a very simple circle or cube comes from a derived equation related to numbers and constants. E=mc2 is in context with constant c, the speed of light. Let's c is a simple constant, c = 1 and immediately Energy is mass. Pointless, isn't it? Constant must differ in context from 1 in order to see and recognize the true mass connection to the speed of light, gravity, dark energy and many other dimensions.You wanted to link a living pattern like ants into existence and how you wanted the constant to appear in terms of equation? How about other animals or birds or fish? We can create different patterns and equations that really link to reality or existence. Human eyes and brains can only see where the patterns appear biased and not real based on our physical laws and constants.If we change the constant to a simpler simple one, zero, or infinity, they become meaningless patterns and do not show reality. When we see the universe with our understanding of the laws of physics and the constants that we know, we may not be able to discover patterns of reality and existence that we do not know or many uncertainties. What's the breakthrough and next?
Why would we call it that? They are different things. Laws and natural selection will emerge from complex systems without requiring prior planning or an external interference. Design and purpose implies someone to do all that. Seems like a good use case for Ockham's razor, and remove the explanation that requires an external entity, that is neither supported by evidences nor necessary to explain anything.
@@Cynry ... the debate on the origin of the laws of nature will ultimately lead to confession that ...Yes there is a God Who created this universe and the laws that govern it. Wow we are closer to the truth
'Nature' as people often perceive nature as having laws we simply apply the term 'law' when we discover behaviours. In 'truth' and fundamental consciousness 'what is' 'nature' has no laws, no rules it simply has evolved and formed into what is currently is. To imply everything has rules and laws has connotations with 'creation' which is for another philosophical illusory debate. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed it is simply transmuted through existence into 'what is'.
Logical necessity does not exist; 'things just happen.' Although, the possibility that the universe is governed by necessary laws cannot be demonstrated false- however unlikely.
Many of these comments are misguided, conflating law and theory. In too small (and partly debatable) of a nutshell, a law (should they exist, with respect to BVF) is a description of regularity among (mostly) observable events/states of affairs. A theory is mostly a description of unobservable events/entities/states of affairs that are intended to explain observable ones. Think of a law as the answer to a “what?” question and a theory as the answer to a “how?” question.
Law, drives everything, in our Universe, it's Natural truth, I think, We should, learn from it, our every Law, should be based on 100% Truth, Am I Right, if you think, Yes, then, Again, You got my point, 100Nu.
Either there is a creator like a god or an external simulation programmer or there is not. If not, then the laws of Nature arose purely by chance. Or, if the many-worlds conjecture of quantum mechanics is true, then by happenstance. Anyone who has studied the principle of least action knows that all physical laws are derivable from this principle, making the happenstance argument even more improbable. This leaves us with a creator or a programmer, although the difference between the two is moot.
He doesn't know. No one does. People have to stop pretending they know, they don't. Given all explanations for everything is naturalism, and never magic, most likely the answer is natural cause.
@@knowledge_lantern Lol. You definitely are a jumble of atoms dude, time to face reality. There's no magic in molecules and chemical bonds and atomic properties. We see life building blocks in asteroids, you would have to be ultra dense to not accept evolution. You are all about fairies and I'm all about reality.
@@knowledge_lantern Hitler had a personal experience. You saying that was truth? That's nuts. Evolution is undeniable and doesn't take a average IQ to accept the overwhelming evidence for it.
@@knowledge_lantern Mouth breather, even the pope has accepted evolution. get with the times. There's no sky daddy only atoms and molecules that came from supernova's.
laws in science are NOT necessary, they are universally observed constants. Now, we tend to define certain things that do not meet this criteria as a law and that's a problem, but characterizing scientific laws in this way makes no sense.
The origin of the laws of nature is the pressure of the dark matter of space. This pressure is the cause of the gravitational constant. Gravity is caused by the manipulation of this field by heat. Dark matter is extremely pressurized electron neutrinos and a mass creates these particles by destroying electrons and turning them into electron neutrinos. These neutrinos are shot from the mass gravitationally invisible. Space uses it's natural pressure to push through the outgoing matter and cause gravity. The force of the outgoing matter pushes out on the natural pressure of space and causes gravitational lensing. These neutrinos are the cause of lightning in any type of clouds.
@@BradHolkesvig You're absolutely right, we will live in a world governed by kids who skipped an entire school year. Best part about it is, it doesn't matter, it's only less thing they wouldn't understand or remember anyway.
Or maybe light doesn’t exist as we know it. Light is an ”coaxial circuit”, an longitudinal field (pulse) pertubation of compression and rarefaction of dielectricity that gives rise to alternating magnetic and electric fields. The dielectric discharge (the release of inertia) creates two volyms, one of magnetism and one of electricity. This takes time, and is what we messure as the speed of light but it’s an rate of induction (of the medium against it self), or one can also say the hysteresis of this fields rate of disturbance from counterspace (which is the field, the medium). This means that light is NOT an particle, nor is it a wave, (a wave is what something does, not what something is). And in this way of thinking light has no speed, and is NOT an emission, light doesn’t even travel. This solves alot of problems in todys physics.
This is a perfect example why reduction-ism is so silly. They "cut off" (as he says) all things they cant explain just to arrive to simplified "mechanisms" they can see. And they think that this is enough !! It's very like Graziano's theories of yesterday. Another squirrel alert !!
Creation, birth death and fath of aliveness of creation until take last breath. (Body time ) Creation law Universe law= infinity blank space, dark and inside dark there is one conscious light, (Universe Time) This is truth and law of nature.
Eternal laws, has No origin, Eternal laws is a consequence of the Eternal Life-structure, and nature. Local laws, is based on Eternal laws. 'Law of Motion', is very basic for our thinking, and the Stuff-side, physical matter.
Newton's Law of Gravity but Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Perhaps there is nothing that can ever be absolutely proven to be true, so the idea of physical "laws" should be done away with.
Hypothesis, theory, and laws are useful terms in science. Playing word games to validate one’s contrary opinion doesn’t eradicate these terms. Thumbs down on the usefulness of this interview.
No man has the truth except for those who have received it and is guarded by the one who gave it. Only those who have laid down their life for it, can see it. Truth is not of this world but it exposes this world for what it is and leaves it naked and exposed for those who understand it. Truth was never intended for those who aren't truthful. Lies are their nature. Truth has the right to condemn those who don't have it. Truth is the justice that mere man cannot conceive. The injustice man does, keeps him from it. Life is chaotic to those who don't bear it, but is understood by those who do. One can never know what truth really is until he has it. Then he will understand that its true. Nobody can buy the truth because its not for sale. It is freely given to those who ask for it. What you see is not always the truth because your eyes deceive you and your ears don't hear. Truth is the righteousness that excludes men. Not to be seen until they are righteous. Truth is more precious than gold, and gold is more precious than silver. A miner of truth will tell you that. Give a man the truth and he will know your heart but don't trust a man without it. Truth wasn't made for man's eyes because he is blind. Without his blindness he will see the truth. Truth is not what you think it is, it's what you know it is. Truth can't be defined in man's laws, because there's no truth in man. Truth is freedom for those who lay down and die. Then they can live with the truth. Truth avoids those who look for it but when it finds you, you will no longer look for it.
You're so talented, i envy your imagination. Keep it going, never stop regardless what anybody might say, this is exactly how the greatest ancient works of arts were written, like Vedas, Torah, Book of death and other testaments to human monkey origins.
Law nature are linked necessety. He is manipluted phisch as swindler sophist . Necessety, Law of Nature are mind. He is undermined phiscs, impossible progress in Science.
Unfortunately when someone uses the word beautiful to describe something it reflects a superficial, limited understanding that has twisted Nature to comply with their limited comprehension. Always best to say this is how we explain these phenomena, I hope we are right, let's look for alternative explanations too.
Very well spoken and calm and compelling. But not saying anything of value. Susskind does a great job of exposing “symmetry” thinking as having no value, not “current in contemporary physics” or even used by any real physicists.
Symmetry, yes, it is an ultimate 'just and balance' natural disposition of every God created thing. It carries the connotations of The Almighty Creator ultimate Perfect Wisdom, and refine and finest beauty in his creations rather than brute forces those usually associated with laws. It is also within reach of human imagination than the abstract laws ... which are metaphysical.
this was very uninformative. do you want some ketchup? well yesterday i was on a walk with my dog and got quite tired. today i had some bacon and eggs for breakfast. thx for your clear answer.
Who created the symmetry?
He means that some symmetry is necessary even if some symmetries may end up being broken
Isn’t symmetry now sort of like a necessity?
Cool. Back to some good questions!
Like understanding nature systemically?
Quest and explorations are always benificial for progress of human civilization. All possible fields needs to be explored to get maximum benifits.
I have problems to understand, must be me. But, at the same time I was focused on the professor view, I had the image of Mr Lynch talking about the levels of transcendental meditation...maybe, another lecture or meaning... incredible show Sir. I'm a fans
All these Closer to Truth videos are sht. READ. FASTER.
How does this fit with Rupert Sheldrake's notions of 'laws' evolving?
5:39 Uma lei da natureza admite uma ordenação racional e previsível do mundo, mas, para o Bas, essa formulação não implica na existência de uma necessidade natural que justifique esse comportamento, mas sim de que esse causa se trata na verdade de uma regularidade de fenômenos observáveis que são passíveis de tal sistematização
Interesting topic. 👏
Symmetries allow more generalisable models..there are no exact symmetires in nature, or at least we haven't found them..we make approximate models and get approximate results, but if we find some symmetries hold to a good approximation, then we have improved our predictive power..and that's what its all about
Aren’t symmetries found in the phenomena of human mathematics?
The concept of physical laws as some kind of absolute and unchanging foundation is a vestige from a time when theology and "God's law" reigned supreme in human thought. An increasing number of theoretical physicists are now questioning and challenging that authoritarian model with more flexible ideas like the many worlds theory and constructor theory.
It's still that time and will always be that time.
I challenge gravity 😤
Can different functions be turned into a symmetry?
Absolute truth needs no defense.
In your own words, define “TRUTH”. ☝️🤔☝️
Yaap
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices pure infinite consciousness. Actually I just lost my uncle and can sense that he's immortal.
@@soubhikmukherjee6871
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH:
The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word.
Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down.
A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a certain degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering.
For example, the personal conception of Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent. The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute.
It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent.
Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed.
Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.'
However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an enlightened soul.
When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the term “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law).
The ONLY (absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit).
Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability).
This sense of existence is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter.
Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so sees everything in himself and himself in everything.
If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth.
OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least ”an extremely accurate fact”.
For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being.
So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL Truth.
"In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are.
We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is."
*************
"God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This.
So God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness.
The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source."
Roger Castillo,
Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015.
"I am the TRUTH..."
*************
“...and the TRUTH shall set you free”.
Lord Jesus Christ,
John 14:6 & 8:32
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices I completely agree with you. You exactly spoke my words. Thanks.
Are possible worlds observed, and is it consciousness observing possible worlds?
So a better word for law maybe simply opposing forces upon a fulcrum of symmetry. For natural law is like civil law-You really don’t feel it’s effects until you try to oppose it. But its also something that can be overcome with greater force
Its quite simple, in order for the rules to exist in the first place someone had to think them trough. We can see the laws work perfectly with each other and are so precise, they seem to never fail or missfire can be the right term. But how is that so since matter on its own is very chaotic.
After watching the video, all I can say its just a matter of language. To claim physics has no fundamental laws is a bit bizzare.
What are they?
The minority is sometimes right, the majority is always wrong- George Bernard Shaw.
Might makes it right.
So are there “Anti-Laws”? Laws that tell something to *not* do something? Technically they should be limitless. And how do Models or Laws come into being, or rather, how is necessity assigned?
In philosophy / metaphysics there is more inquiry into non-physical aspects of topics like consciousness and others where the concept of law might still be helpful, while science has become a lot more physical inquiry for which theory and model more helpful. Probably would be good to clearly delineate between scientific theories of nature and metaphysical laws or whatever.
What about Newton's 3 laws of motion, and the 3 laws of thermodynamics? Why are they not laws that cannot be broken within physical reality as we understand it?
They work only in a closed space.
6:20
There are properties of reality that can never change, so rules must emerge from structure itself. Everything material is made from atoms and there are only so many ways protons, neutrons and electrons can be combined into elements, giving raise to chemistry. We can't have an element with a thousand protons, for example. It's because matter is made from even smaller energetic dots, following the rules of energy potentials. Potentials can't ever change also, they're bound in the structure of space-time. We can't have only space or only time, everything that exists is engaged in a constant exchange of those potentials.
It's very hard to accept the fact everything is connected and balanced out so perfectly, but that is what means to be real, there can be no glitches in the natural matrix. Anomalies would cause reality to shatter, making nothing our of something, it seems nature is always fighting against any physical abomination simply because of previously mentioned fact, everything is connected.
There's one more physical property that prevents divergence from eternal natural laws, energetic dots always radiate and absorb light, most frequencies bounce around and go through various transformations, but some waves shine straight through anything material, like nothing at all exist but a sea of that primordial light of lights.
And if everything we think of as true is actually wrong? Is time real or an human invention to count? Does space have propertys? Are particles real, do they really exists? There are other ways of explaining everything witout these things being real. All of this comes from math only so how can we be sure it’s true? Math is a human invention and not something we can rely on to find the truth. Math is not explicative, just descriptive and that is really something importent cos this means math can’t be used to explain the universe. For example particles, charge, waves, electron-volts, joules, spinn, is merely postulates derived from math only. For example, scientists loves to talk about waves. A wave is what something does, not what something is. A wave doesn’t exist! Nor does quantum, wich are used everywhere in physics.
Everything in todays particle physics is solely and exclusively based on mathematical calculations. We believe so strongly that today's theories are correct that we forget everything logical. We are constantly trying to find meaning and to understand the universe based on already determined principles, and with mathematics. This locks us in our thinking as we are constantly trying to combine new experiments, observations and measurements with what we already believe to be true. This leads to absurd and illogical theories without any substance in reality.
Unfortunately, we are stuck in our thinking that particles of various kinds exist, that Einstein was right and that our current theories are right. We never actually seen an elementary particle. All of our understanding derives from calculations only, and our understanding of light is that it’s a duality, yet we are certain we know what light is. It’s a belief system, much like religion. It’s not up for debate or questioning. Is that really science? Is that really the right way in search for truth?
Anyone who thinks he knows the truth, stops looking for it!
@@klassemyra That's why we're philosophers, not scientists, free to examine the entire hierarchical structure of scientific knowledge and ask questions no scientist ever would because they can't see the point. Scientific model works, global scientific community exist only 200 years and look what they achieved.
It's about consistency and hierarchy of natural facts, we can trust same principles will always produce same results, this allows for incredible complexity and functionality.
But is it actually true how we imagine physics, nobody cares, science will progress one discovery after another regardless of how people imagine things that are real.
I do understand what you're saying and can agree with many points you made, except i can't see the real value asking the same questions over and over again, without means to verify any of your claims.
Things are not as they seem, it's OK, this fact makes science way more interesting and fun than fiction. In matter of fact, we already live a science fiction in reality.
This involved in standardization of those physical laws and the laws of existence. Patterns came from many different equations. For example, the pattern of a very simple circle or cube comes from a derived equation related to numbers and constants. E=mc2 is in context with constant c, the speed of light. Let's c is a simple constant, c = 1 and immediately Energy is mass. Pointless, isn't it? Constant must differ in context from 1 in order to see and recognize the true mass connection to the speed of light, gravity, dark energy and many other dimensions.You wanted to link a living pattern like ants into existence and how you wanted the constant to appear in terms of equation? How about other animals or birds or fish? We can create different patterns and equations that really link to reality or existence. Human eyes and brains can only see where the patterns appear biased and not real based on our physical laws and constants.If we change the constant to a simpler simple one, zero, or infinity, they become meaningless patterns and do not show reality. When we see the universe with our understanding of the laws of physics and the constants that we know, we may not be able to discover patterns of reality and existence that we do not know or many uncertainties. What's the breakthrough and next?
Does a possible world measure mathematics, which then describes nature?
Its the first thing you think
Sounds like a lot of lawlessness.
We have a narative of colectiv human mental, belive can change all. Mental Power, belive can change reality and laws.
Living things: Natural Selection
Non living things: Law of Necessity
Can we call it design and purpose?
As a Creator , natural selection is clearly a very good design.
Why would we call it that? They are different things. Laws and natural selection will emerge from complex systems without requiring prior planning or an external interference. Design and purpose implies someone to do all that. Seems like a good use case for Ockham's razor, and remove the explanation that requires an external entity, that is neither supported by evidences nor necessary to explain anything.
@@Cynry ... the debate on the origin of the laws of nature will ultimately lead to confession that ...Yes there is a God Who created this universe and the laws that govern it. Wow we are closer to the truth
Who are you people?
@@i4niable if you think that it doesn’t mean it’s true
'Nature' as people often perceive nature as having laws we simply apply the term 'law' when we discover behaviours. In 'truth' and fundamental consciousness 'what is' 'nature' has no laws, no rules it simply has evolved and formed into what is currently is. To imply everything has rules and laws has connotations with 'creation' which is for another philosophical illusory debate.
Matter can neither be created nor destroyed it is simply transmuted through existence into 'what is'.
Logical necessity does not exist; 'things just happen.' Although, the possibility that the universe is governed by necessary laws cannot be demonstrated false- however unlikely.
Thanks for sharing your faith.
Many of these comments are misguided, conflating law and theory. In too small (and partly debatable) of a nutshell, a law (should they exist, with respect to BVF) is a description of regularity among (mostly) observable events/states of affairs. A theory is mostly a description of unobservable events/entities/states of affairs that are intended to explain observable ones. Think of a law as the answer to a “what?” question and a theory as the answer to a “how?” question.
Hmm? Before Unlimited...........?.......What?.......Nothing/Everything......Definitely Not Infinity!?
The universe is mental. The laws of physics, the laws of mind. Miracles are supernatural to those under the assumption of nature.
Humean shift from necessitarian to regularist theory.
Law, drives everything, in our Universe, it's Natural truth, I think, We should, learn from it, our every Law, should be based on 100% Truth, Am I Right, if you think, Yes, then, Again, You got my point, 100Nu.
things just happen, actually, they don't.....hence the law of cause and effect.
Either there is a creator like a god or an external simulation programmer or there is not. If not, then the laws of Nature arose purely by chance. Or, if the many-worlds conjecture of quantum mechanics is true, then by happenstance. Anyone who has studied the principle of least action knows that all physical laws are derivable from this principle, making the happenstance argument even more improbable. This leaves us with a creator or a programmer, although the difference between the two is moot.
He doesn't know. No one does. People have to stop pretending they know, they don't. Given all explanations for everything is naturalism, and never magic, most likely the answer is natural cause.
@@knowledge_lantern Since there's never been any evidence for the supernatural it logically follows all is naturalism, no magic required.
@@knowledge_lantern Lol. You definitely are a jumble of atoms dude, time to face reality. There's no magic in molecules and chemical bonds and atomic properties. We see life building blocks in asteroids, you would have to be ultra dense to not accept evolution. You are all about fairies and I'm all about reality.
@@knowledge_lantern Hitler had a personal experience. You saying that was truth? That's nuts. Evolution is undeniable and doesn't take a average IQ to accept the overwhelming evidence for it.
@@knowledge_lantern Mouth breather, even the pope has accepted evolution. get with the times. There's no sky daddy only atoms and molecules that came from supernova's.
@@knowledge_lantern th-cam.com/video/i48zNH_olps/w-d-xo.html
laws in science are NOT necessary, they are universally observed constants. Now, we tend to define certain things that do not meet this criteria as a law and that's a problem, but characterizing scientific laws in this way makes no sense.
The origin of the laws of nature is the pressure of the dark matter of space. This pressure is the cause of the gravitational constant. Gravity is caused by the manipulation of this field by heat. Dark matter is extremely pressurized electron neutrinos and a mass creates these particles by destroying electrons and turning them into electron neutrinos. These neutrinos are shot from the mass gravitationally invisible. Space uses it's natural pressure to push through the outgoing matter and cause gravity. The force of the outgoing matter pushes out on the natural pressure of space and causes gravitational lensing. These neutrinos are the cause of lightning in any type of clouds.
Everything we experience came from our Creator's programmed thoughts, both temporary and eternal.
Awesome idea, there is a God, but he's a total moron.
@@xspotbox4400 You won't be saying stupid things in the next generation.
@@BradHolkesvig You're absolutely right, we will live in a world governed by kids who skipped an entire school year.
Best part about it is, it doesn't matter, it's only less thing they wouldn't understand or remember anyway.
The imaginations of sentient beings they are descriptive not prescriptive.
Our real self is God and it's the source of everything
Do you like short cuts?????
Hum - what is the speed of light? Maybe we will call it a suggestion. Will call them suggestions of Nature.
Or maybe light doesn’t exist as we know it.
Light is an ”coaxial circuit”, an longitudinal field (pulse) pertubation of compression and rarefaction of dielectricity that gives rise to alternating magnetic and electric fields.
The dielectric discharge (the release of inertia) creates two volyms, one of magnetism and one of electricity. This takes time, and is what we messure as the speed of light but it’s an rate of induction (of the medium against it self), or one can also say the hysteresis of this fields rate of disturbance from counterspace (which is the field, the medium).
This means that light is NOT an particle, nor is it a wave, (a wave is what something does, not what something is). And in this way of thinking light has no speed, and is NOT an emission, light doesn’t even travel. This solves alot of problems in todys physics.
This is a perfect example why reduction-ism is so silly. They "cut off" (as he says) all things they cant explain just to arrive to simplified "mechanisms" they can see. And they think that this is enough !! It's very like Graziano's theories of yesterday. Another squirrel alert !!
An apple fell on my head and I discover the law of gravity. What is gravity? like God? What is God. The law of nature= the law of God.
What?
Lol 😂
I'd like to suggest the discovery of Pietro Ubaldi's work, specially his book " The Great Sinthesys".
Ok, i'm pretty sure all Physicists around the world are going to stop using the term "law", because phylosophers don't like it.
🌴😎💯
th-cam.com/video/vqOD_R93D8c/w-d-xo.html
Could mathematics describe nature into physical reality?
Creation, birth death and fath of aliveness of creation until take last breath. (Body time )
Creation law
Universe law= infinity blank space, dark and inside dark there is one conscious light, (Universe Time)
This is truth and law of nature.
Nope, this is only crapy poetry.
Eternal laws, has No origin,
Eternal laws is a consequence of the Eternal Life-structure, and nature.
Local laws, is based on Eternal laws.
'Law of Motion', is very basic for our thinking, and the Stuff-side, physical matter.
insists on using his initial. insists on dodging the question
Pure infinite consciousness.
Souvik / BS
Pure infinite BS.
@@bozo5632 then what is your idea? What you think? What the hack is the reality and existance?
@@shadowoffire4307 IDK, but it's not pure, I doubt it's infinite, and I'm pretty sure it has nothing (at all) to do with consciousness.
@@bozo5632 what the f is this mysterious existence? Even there is no meaning why the hell we exist? Or we do not exist at all.
Still a dutch accent.
Newton's Law of Gravity but Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Perhaps there is nothing that can ever be absolutely proven to be true, so the idea of physical "laws" should be done away with.
Who would have ever thought that in these Biblical times atheists would be championing lawlessness?
all he's talking about is the problem of induction.
Hypothesis, theory, and laws are useful terms in science. Playing word games to validate one’s contrary opinion doesn’t eradicate these terms. Thumbs down on the usefulness of this interview.
Laws require a law giver. End of story.
No they don't.
@@insomnyuk I guess just like Universes popping into existence don’t need a cause either. 👌
Material law can get infinitely complex as we get deeper. QM is good example.
But, spiritual law does exist and it's called KARMA
That’s just a natural instinct based on evolution
Much ado about nothing.
If there is a law, then by necessity a law giver is required.
Que aburridos son los empiristas.
No man has the truth except for those who have received it and is guarded by the one who gave it.
Only those who have laid down their life for it, can see it.
Truth is not of this world but it exposes this world for what it is and leaves it naked and exposed for those who understand it.
Truth was never intended for those who aren't truthful. Lies are their nature.
Truth has the right to condemn those who don't have it.
Truth is the justice that mere man cannot conceive. The injustice man does, keeps him from it.
Life is chaotic to those who don't bear it, but is understood by those who do.
One can never know what truth really is until he has it. Then he will understand that its true.
Nobody can buy the truth because its not for sale. It is freely given to those who ask for it.
What you see is not always the truth because your eyes deceive you and your ears don't hear.
Truth is the righteousness that excludes men. Not to be seen until they are righteous.
Truth is more precious than gold, and gold is more precious than silver. A miner of truth will tell you that.
Give a man the truth and he will know your heart but don't trust a man without it.
Truth wasn't made for man's eyes because he is blind. Without his blindness he will see the truth.
Truth is not what you think it is, it's what you know it is.
Truth can't be defined in man's laws, because there's no truth in man.
Truth is freedom for those who lay down and die. Then they can live with the truth.
Truth avoids those who look for it but when it finds you, you will no longer look for it.
You're so talented, i envy your imagination.
Keep it going, never stop regardless what anybody might say, this is exactly how the greatest ancient works of arts were written, like Vedas, Torah, Book of death and other testaments to human monkey origins.
If everything is intelligently designed by a god where does the intelligence of god come from?
According to that model, you have stated the answer to the question twice in your question.
Laws of nature are human construct nonsensical dribble
People have lost their sense of humor. Why so serious...
This guy obviously doesn't like laws.
Law nature are linked necessety. He is manipluted phisch as swindler sophist . Necessety, Law of Nature are mind. He is undermined phiscs, impossible progress in Science.
I thought this was a science video, I'll see myself out.
Unfortunately when someone uses the word beautiful to describe something it reflects a superficial, limited understanding that has twisted Nature to comply with their limited comprehension. Always best to say this is how we explain these phenomena, I hope we are right, let's look for alternative explanations too.
Very well spoken and calm and compelling. But not saying anything of value. Susskind does a great job of exposing “symmetry” thinking as having no value, not “current in contemporary physics” or even used by any real physicists.
Symmetry, yes, it is an ultimate 'just and balance' natural disposition of every God created thing. It carries the connotations of The Almighty Creator ultimate Perfect Wisdom, and refine and finest beauty in his creations rather than brute forces those usually associated with laws. It is also within reach of human imagination than the abstract laws ... which are metaphysical.
You need to prove there is a god, which has not been achieved yet.
Splitting hairs
The origin of the laws of nature has to be God's command since there is no evidence for any contrary hypothesis :)
What about energy that is eternal?
Maybe you're reluctant dig deeper???
I can't see anything more than a re-heated Kantianism in Fraassen's position. Certainly plenty of positivism, too.
this was very uninformative. do you want some ketchup? well yesterday i was on a walk with my dog and got quite tired. today i had some bacon and eggs for breakfast. thx for your clear answer.