Tim Maudlin: The Big Bang
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- Was there any before, before the Big Bang?
Subscribe to the Aeon Video newsletter: bit.ly/2MfCgqO
Watch 'Tim Maudlin: The Big Bang' on Aeon: bit.ly/3kMOF4z
Watch more free videos on Aeon: bit.ly/35DJcpb
Subscribe on UA-cam: bit.ly/2EQf1zv
Follow us on Twitter: bit.ly/2SaTMjt
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/2MgoDrg
Follow us on Instagram: bit.ly/2tDzsNC
Scientists now have a fairly thorough understanding of the event known as the Big Bang, but what, if anything, came before it? According Tim Maudlin, professor of philosophy at New York University, modern cosmologists must consider two possibilities: that the universe was born of out nothing, or that the Big Bang was preceded by ‘another state’. However, both possibilities - that time simply began, or that an infinite amount of time has elapsed - provoke discontent among scientists and philosophers, which leaves the door open for a range of competing theories.
Producer: Kellen Quinn
Interviewer: Nigel Warburton
Editor: Adam D'Arpino
#science #philosophy #BigBangTheory
Oh my, Dr Maudlin. There is no such thing as "nothing." SO good to hear a reasoning, educated, intelligent person who studies all aspects of modern physics echo a premise I've had since I was 12. Respect to you!
I couldn't follow the argument because a sandwich really is better than heaven.
Someone ought to show this to Lawrence Krauss
What if the answer really is simple? What if events do occur once in a while which are not causally related to previous events? Maybe entropy is the most fundamental aspect of both space and time and from entropy everything else is born. I don't understand the logic behind treating unwavering causal determination as a necessity for 4-dimensional spacetime models. Hume said our only argument for causality is induction by enumeration, but even that stops being an argument when you lack the tools to observe such an occurrence in fundamental particles let alone at any point in time all we can really infer is that if such events occur they are not likely to have any significant effect on larger objects. And the maths/observations that we actually can make about those particles are more complimentary of this idea than contradictory. They certainly don't entail a lack of causality but I don't see why any scientist would deem it necessary to preserve causality especially when the possible randomness is still occurring in a probabilistically measurable way.
Taylor Adams TA, good points. If we took the logic of your argument as true, in that there were no causal constraints on future downstream events .... then anything could happen as without the constraints of causality there would be large degrees of freedom. We do not observe this behavior in the physical world, so I suspect it does not exist. Even non-deterministic events such as nuclear decay, virtual particle production, etc, require a substrate from which these events originate. I hope I understood your comment.
How to satisfy a materialist? Just say we don’t know yet. There worldview has such solid foundations.
What if what we really need to explain is the totality of every CONTINGENT thing (everything for which it was logically possible that it fail to exist)? This was Leibniz's answer to the problem. Then we could appeal to a logically necessary thing that transcends and explains the totality of contingent things. The only problem is that it's very hard to see how a necessary cause could have contingent effects unless that cause has freedom of the will in some sense (otherwise, however the causal conditions are necessarily configured will determine one-and-only-one possible outcome, which renders that outcome likewise necessary). So, a free agent that exists necessarily and created the whole world (the totality of things) because it chose to.... That answers the question logically soundly. But, such a being would be a God.
That's a very interesting point on Leibniz's part, but that's a huge CONTINGENT if.
why is he interviewing himself?
It's a common film-making technique to edit out the questions of the interviewer and change camera angle or degree of closeness (using zoom) to signify a new question is being addressed. In this video the camera angle changes significantly more often than once per question (and often mid-sentence). Also, video clips have been added as well. He is answering his own questions the way he might in a lecture, when he would not have the benefit of having an interviewer on cue.
hes so annoying, no one bothers with him.
In another vid, he claims to have re- written relativity! - This may be why.
Dao gives rise to 1.
1 gives rise to 2.
2 gives rise to 10000 things.
Therefore,
Big Bang comes from de Dao.
I3
Good pointless babble.