Відео

Amazing~ I chose a quark for my brand that had the first part of my name and a pattern representing my field..finding out later this quark had a history of serendipity...and my background includes Jungian psychology. Truly Beautiful.

Jai mahabir bajrangbali

Hello Dear, I analyzed your channel. Your channel and video quality is excellent. But due to some problem, your videos are not getting views and the channel is not growing. I can discuss your channel problem if you want. I can say from my experience that if you solve the problem your channel will grow in a few days. I can help you grow your UA-cam channel & your business. Let me know if you'd like my assistance. Best regards, Maruf (UA-cam video SEO Expert)

Why did she have to say brown?

Why is everything about race though? A bit much

Hello there, I have analyzed your UA-cam Channel and found out some problems, do you want to talk about it for a while?

There is one.

The cognitive error of "creator" is immediately introduced without dispute. Neither is the concept of "beauty." Some further bias occurs in the unchallenged use of "human" or human social values as composing "beauty." Beauty appears to be dependent upon complex diverse factors. Truth, as in true or real factors, is surely a component and dynamic factor. Dynamical process appears to best describe reality. Emergence itself is such process. Material, though having relatively stable componentry in quark-gluon relationship under conditions observable to us, may not exist as stable in all universal conditions. All, then, is likely dynamical in nature. On this particular planet, relatively self-replicating organisms are and were subject to modification, and in utilizing exterior resourcing. This, within that dynamical subsystem, selected for capacity to molecularly absorb, and sometimes develop toward, and move toward nutritive, and away from, toxic molecules. This motility itself selected for changes increasing detection, at least of molecular gradients. Senses, then, evolved, for such gradient detection. Senses, detecting differences gave rise to the self-signaling resulting in endocrine, juxtacrine, and exocrine distinctions useful to such motility. Beauty itself attracts a in a limited manner - much that is beautiful to humans, is noxious or toxic when approached too closely, perhaps implicitly inducing a recognition (again, quite molecular) of diversity. What is "good" for one organism is certainly not the same for another. So "good" is a VERY limited evaluation, NOT AT ALL universal. That alone invalidates any single creator or observer as arbiter of Beauty. We involved in the study of brains recognize that brains evolved to develop individual estimates of predictability, that contingent and error-prone, if constantly updating system, comparing memory with novel sensory input/experiences. It is the brain and sensory organs reporting change to it, that induces teleological probability to organisms having neural tissues, though the pure molecular gradient-sensing of single motile cells precedes and includes teleological presumption. Self-interest is emergent, even in inert rna and dna replicating viruses. Accretion of nonliving elements really must be distinguished from that emergence, though contributing to beauty sensed by any replicating or basically gradient- or difference- sensing organism. Those involved in the discussion, it strongly appears, may not at all be described as scientists, due to commission of cognitive errors so numerous and accepted by their interlocutors without immediate critical questioning. The symposium's validity is immediately compromised by this failure. Of course, it evokes a broad hormonal response, involving such failure and consequent sadness in the necessary rejection of any claim by the participants to any scientific validity therein.

First

That’s not a true identity

😅

9p

this reminds me of something a professor said in class that he wanted models to be simple but not simplistic, which i guess shows a human aesthetic bias ['m not sure which profesor this was...but if my guess is right i think he was known for a proof that required tens of thousands of cases to be proved...which doesn't sound elegant at all 🙂]

The beauty of this whole idea is, that no matter from which field or where you belong, you can always relate it so easily. And you would have your own perception for this topic.

12:06

Are you eating contaminated food like I am now? You look overweight:)

❤

You're beautiful in April so I am I.

Interesting, another physicist, who doesn´t swim on the mainstream.

Scientists who do not have their own opinion and they only reads the papers of others and repeat the old, disputed and conflicting theories, and waiting for one of their students to figure it out later, is fake and dangerous to the young people.

Ok...am...🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

Nice explanation that shows, that Sabine is not in conflict with religion. She just shows the limits of science. People who try to mix science and faith, guys like Goff, Kastrup or Meyer are pseudoscientists in my opinion. What a lame belief, that needs panpsychism, cosmological finetuning or biological creationism to work. Thanks for loading this up again.

We could be part of one zero dimensional point where one second seems like one second. A physical system like a hurricane or falling line of dominos could be an intelligent being and be another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second. The two zero dimensional points we are part of and the physical system are part of can be two zero dimensional universes separated by time, but both still existing simultaneously. If we are a zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, and another intelligence is part of another zero dimensional point separated by time, where one week feels like one second, it makes sense for both points to be separated by time but still both exist simultaneously.

First to say first

❤

Imagine two colours that exist one side of the tennis net, and two colours that don’t exist the other side. Each colour could be part of two systems. Each colour could be its original self as a colour that exists or doesn’t exist, at the same time could also be a colour that originated from the other side of the net as a colour that did or didn’t exist that has already crossed the net to become a colour that does or doesn’t exist. So there are two colours that exist on one side of the net, and two colours that don’t exist on the other, all four existing simultaneously each being part of two systems. The empty spaces might think their the colours and think the colours are the empty spaces they are filling up. We are just observing one system. When two colours switch spaces with each other, the way we can see the two colours as well as the spaces they fill up all move, is if the two colours move vertically across the net, and the two spaces they fill moving diagonally across the net. So a blue a red colour next to each other move across the net to the other side, and the two spaces they fill move diagonally across to meet up with the opposite colours. But shouldn’t we now be seeing two colours that don’t exist. If the colours and spaces they meet up with after they cross over the net change into each other (the empty space becoming the colour hence the colour becoming the empty space), could they avoid becoming two colours that don’t exist. In other words the side of the net for colours that don’t exist become the side for colours that do exist. Now if we look at the two colours from above the court with the top of our head pointing away from the net, we might see red on the left and blue on the right. Now if we look at the two colours from underneath the net with the top of our head pointing the same direction we see blue on the original left and red on the original right. Is this because we are now seeing the empty spaces as the colours. The empty space and colour we see are both part of two systems each originating from both sides of the net, as well as the two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net. The backbone of this system is you can’t have a colour filling a space up that is the same colour. So if we look at the two colours from underneath the court with our head pointing away from the net, we see what would happen if they cross over the net and we were facing them from the side of the net they came from. Now by looking at the two colours before they cross over the net from underneath the court, could we be actually causing them to cross over the net to the other side. So when we look at the two colours from underneath the court, if that causes them to cross over the net to the other side, we are not actually looking from underneath the court, but looking at the other side of the court from above with our head pointing away from the net. Now if we look at the two colours from above on their original side, could the reason we can’t see the empty spaces be because we are looking at the two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net that are there right now. After all, the colours that don’t exist the other side of the court is a kind of future if the four colours that exist and don’t exist are all separated by time. If you have say 10 different things you still have 10 of the same thing. The reason is because they are all in the same category of being a different thing. All numbers are just really a digit one a certain way up the number line. If we want a truly different thing we have to look at the gaps or boundaries in between numbers. All logic is based on numbers, but could we create a new kind of logic based on gaps or boundaries in between numbers. Imagine if 20 people were each individual zero dimensional points that mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point. Every one would agree with what number they are looking at because every one would be one single zero dimensional point. If a number of zero dimensional points were not in any particular space or not separated by any space, they would all be separated by time, each being a separate zero dimensional universe. Now imagine 20 scattered individual points

Thanks Sabine. Clear, succinct and sincere, always getting to the point in the shortest way posible. You make science transparent and accesible. I'm greatful that I found you.

This lady is a beautiful soul and a razor-sharp mind. Her books belong to the best stuff, I read in my lifetime.

Once a mathematician came to Imam Hazrat Ali a.s. and asked to Imam Hazrat Ali a.s. What is the number which can be decided from 1 to 10 all the numbers aur kisi bhi division mein koi bhi Hasil nahi aata And Imam Hazrat Ali a.s. told about that number, So can you tell me please what is that n number which can be devised from 1to 10 all numbers with out leaving any hasil?, Allah Hafiz Allah ho akbar.

Hello, great talk, thank You. Perhaps is a Memory potential, an informational potential linked wurh the ver own Kosmos= Universe geometry. In 2014 I have found a different way to aproach.to Phi, Golden Ratio, Fibonacci Serie and, as in greeks, to the Beauty that is linked to Phi, that was originally named with Tau letter, there comes: Tautologic, self refered. So, this taurologuc self refered at Fibonacci aprox to Tau=Phi is: Future= Now(Present) + Past In standrad lecture is: Future number at the serie is the Sum/Addition of last 2, the sum of 2 past numbers. This 2 pasts was my clue: Is so silly but powerful: Now is past to future. Past is past to now. So, to sustain a living object in the Now, to the future, we and our biological vehicles needs to operate with Information, data that will be able to ReThink, as the lowest path to consume Energy: F= N+P. Is the most economic energy way and path. So, in a finite time to solve survival inquiries, I postulate that the computational accurace degree has to have limits, practiacal limits, or the biological machine will never "decide" one or other option. In 2019-2030 I have developed a geometrical model that includes numbers, as an "another sude of same coin" with "shapes", and this model is a geometric one that, in its first unfolding, guve us: Phi 1.618 phi 0.618 And Phi² 2.618 And is not the milenary way to obtain Phi as (1+√5)/2. There is, in the model, an equivalent to Hilbert geometrical model, starting with: An affirmation plane/area Lines And as in Hilbert's one: Points. But points are a sub product, as crossed lines. The contiinum Real line truble is "contained". The simmetry and quirality, too. The 1, 0=∅ and ∞ "troubles" in number theory and set theory too. Is on Dedekind's cuts and set aoroach, not on Cantor, Zermelo Frenkel. I will be glad to talk with You about, and thank You again by Your project. Regards. José Antonio.

Its a nice talk!!! We have an electron sphere 4πr² of probability around the nucleus of each atom. We also have Huygens’ Principle of 1670, that says: “Every point on a wave front has the potential for a new spherical wave”. We can think of the ‘point on the wave front’ as a photon ∆E=hf of energy with an uncertain probabilistic future unfolding with each photon electron interaction. This would form the broken imperfect symmetry of everyday life!

Wonderful~ thank you

So true. The many of us who are truly sincere childlike souls in this demonic matrix are really questioning the 'why' as well as our real purpose here within this dysfunctional matrix ` It doesn't begin to honor our God given gifts. But we will RISE 💪💌

Why can't you be as cool as Dr. Phil?

Josebeneditoumeudesejioedeus

❤❤😂🎉😢😢😮😮😅😅😅😊😊

great short one. where is the full video? can you send me the link please?

First

First

Very wise words. How they influenced views of Beauty At Work.

Well, that's not entirely correct. Sabine Hossenfelder made some suggestions for an alternative approach of research in physics in her book "Lost in Math". One of them is to put the work energy on the inconsistencies in nature and try to develop experiments.

This was my favorite interview of her, it really dug into things that shes just barely touched on in other discussions

Hi, I justcwant to say thank you for your wonderful series on religion and science that my wife and I watched on Curiosity Stream. We need a "new story" of science embracing divinity so that we can feel "whole" again. I hope you know the great good you did by creating that story of science and belief in God or Divinity. But, I wish you would take up that work again becausecwhat could be more important than showing humanity that we can experience life as a divine experience with and through the divine while working on problems of physics. I hope you are well and just wanted to say, I salute your patients with some very arrogant and mean-spirited scientist who really wanted to bring you down for your open loving soul. Well done, you embodied the highest levels of the religious quest to love one's enemy while offerring the other cheek...Please, please, please know how great a person you are and the great value you bring to our human condition. I just wish you would be interested in carrying on the conversation with prople like Marc Gafni, Iain Mcgilchrist, Zak Stein, Ken Wilber, and those people at Rebel Wisdom who are there with you in our conversation as scientists who live their lives enlightened by divine experience in the human condition...well done...

promo sm

You can't talk about beauty without talking about ugliness. Is Christ on the cross beautiful? I think it was pretty ugly thing to see. Will Beauty At Work talk about ugliness more?

This video is garbage. Unwatchable

I hear that some studies show that heavy metal fans are happier that general population. My relation to heavy metal music is complicated, but I wonder will Beauty at Work discuss such issues?

Very interesting, I 'm working with mental ill and psychotic people since decades and can absolutely confirm the experiences of this young woman about the beauty of professions in this field.

Cannot resist: there's obviously some beauty in psychiatry, as Dr. Ballou more than adequately illustrates! But seriously, there can be beauty in psychiatry, but it takes a certain amount of depth and understanding to see it.

I must say, I know some dr. Wilson poetry and I don't like it. No rhyme, no meter (for my ear), just blank verses that sounds flat.