Henry Stapp - How is the Cosmos Constructed?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2024
- Follow us on Twitter for news, articles, and discussions with fellow followers: shorturl.at/imHY9
What are the basic components of the cosmos? At the deepest levels of reality-the particles, fields and forces of the smallest slices of existence-how does the world work? Standard model of particle physics? Quantum theory? String theory? What are these theories, how do they work, and can they work together?
Watch more videos on the deep laws of nature: shorturl.at/gksQY
Support the show with Closer To Truth merch: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Henry Pierce Stapp is a mathematical physicist known for his work in quantum mechanics, particularly the development of axiomatic S-matrix theory, the proofs of strong nonlocality properties, and the place of free will in the "orthodox" quantum mechanics of John von Neumann.
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, 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.
It's dificult to explain something we dont understand, but it is easy to pretend one does understand it, but the rest don't because they are not as smart.
Anybody verify this guy’s diplomas? 😂
“Some Life Thing” - Is that a technical term Henry?
The experimenter being the Giver, Observer, and the Developed/Developer.
Yes , god-like inputs
At 8:45 Stapp claims the universe may have existed for billions of years as just (Schrodinger wavefunction) evolving potentialities, until some life-like thing "occurred" and by observation "collapsed" the many potentialities into instantiation of one of them. But how could something capable of making that observation of the potentialities have "occurred" (come into existence) if only potentialities existed?
Fully agree. This video is perhaps the maximum possible confusion regarding the observer problem in quantum physics.
I think he believes consciousness is fundamental, and there’s some universal consciousness collapsing the wave function.
When a guest fails to disclose that his interpretation of a theory is controversial, and instead presents it as if it's known fact, that takes us "Further From Truth." At 9:20 Stapp makes the bogus claim that "science tells us that consciousness seems to be necessary to makes quantum mechanics work." To the contrary, most physicists do NOT believe conscious observation of a system is what causes its wavefunction to "collapse" to a definite state. Also, psychological creativity is not represented in the purely probabilistic predictions of quantum mechanics.
"We don't know how to deal with the observer problem. Thus, there must be something metaphysical driving the whole show." This is pseudo scientific and in a way religious. Wild mumbo-jumbo imo.
How else would you know the collapse occurs if you don't observe it? We know measurement causes the collapse some how (or interaction), but in order to gain the results of the experiment, you have to observe the data itself. Roger Penrose believes that quantum collapse in the brain (in microtubules) might account for the quantum observations we see, like the wave function collapse.
@@producerjc2941 First of all, no observation is needed for quantum events (collapse of the wave function) to take place. The far side of the moon already existed before we observed it. Furthermore, as far as I know, Penrose never claimed that the alleged quantum processes in the brain have any influence on experiments. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>producerjc2941 : There haven't been any observations of "collapse." And quantum mechanics doesn't predict there ever will be observations of "collapse." If you think about what actually _does_ get observed by a measurement and the information gained by the measurement, it doesn't imply much about the state of the system prior to the measurement. For example, suppose the wavefunction of an electron indicates that if you were to measure the spin relative to the Up or Down direction, you would have a 50% chance of measuring spin=Up and a 50% chance of measuring spin=Down. Does that imply the electron spin IS currently in a mixed state of both Up and Down, before the measurement? No, it doesn't. Although that might be the case, our actual knowledge of the electron's spin on the Up/Down axis is that we have no knowledge about it (which is what leads to the 50/50 odds).
I recommend you read about various interpretations of quantum mechanics. For instance, in the Many Worlds interpretation there is no collapse, and instead of the electron existing with spins in more than one direction, multiple electrons exist, each with a definite spin and each in a different universe, and the measurement merely informs the experimenter which subset of the universes s/he is in. Or consider the DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation, in which the Schrodinger wavefunction isn't a complete description of the state of the system, the electron is in a definite state but we don't know which state, and the probabilities just correspond to the incompleteness of our information.
As from my OP above.
This is a theist like "God Head" paradigm. Not saying it is right or wrong, just implies a god head (intelligent creator).
Usually love CTT but didn’t agree with really anything that Henry said here…
Arne Wyller's intelligence field was proposed to address this back in the '90s, but I haven't seen it referenced yet on this show. I'd be interested to hear RLK's take, or that of his guests, on that idea.
Oh my
It's easier to explain if you understand how quantum consciousness designed, implemented, and tested the major and minor version of the simulation multiverse, making ample reuse of useful patterns to make the game more interesting for the more precocious creators and captivated observers.
Possibly an almost infinite number of "events" per second (we can only go to the Planck length) each requiring creative input and then/thereby shaping and influencing the very unfolding of reality?
Sounds like God to me.
maybe causation produce physical nature (include conscious awareness), with backward causation of subjective future?
How was Mr. Kuhn constructed?
Note: the takeaway here is
"The God-like Inputs"
5:39 what is the nature of the creativity element...
By creativity he means randomness.
@@simonhibbs887 so in ither words randomnes creation in consecutive steps or did irandomly memorization ofthe steps also randomly occurred...
@@r2c3 I don’t know exactly what he believes about that. I think he’s right about randomness being creative, in the sense that it introduces new structures and outcomes that would not otherwise occur, if that’s what he means.
@@simonhibbs887the creativity part is really marvelous... no one has been able to understand how and when such creative drive started or how many years it took for a Universe like structure ro form...
Guys It is wrong when he is understanding quantum mechanics though psychological and physical. Unpredictable consciousness NOT figure out psychological than physical. In quantum mechanics there are NOT sequence of events. Fundamental Law of physic keep out how figuret out random particles.
Change is a continuous nature of atom. It is never sudden though it may appear that way. And every change starts at fundamental level. For the atom it's quanta. Here Henry Stapp used the word 'creativity'. He could have elobrated on why he used that word.
Thanks for blithering for us, Henry.
4:52 ... does it make sense that's how much time there is between these events 【Are you meaning that time is quantized accordingly?】HS en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp : well one of the one of the questions is what determines wehen the events occur (okay) and the other question is once you say when it occurs what occurs (okay) so those are two aspects that quantum mechanics puts in the hand of the experimentalist of the observer of the conscious whatever it is so if you take the human element out but just look at what seems to be happening you have these psychological events and instead of all of creativity and all of the freedom what could be being put in right at the beginning (the initial conditions and the law everything runs) you say no it's a process you put in a little bit of creativity here and then it's there's a process that takes in what the situation was and does some psychological evaluation and says the next 5:52 thing is going to be so but the process is a repetitious input repeated input of creativity into the universe as you go along (but there was a vast) period of time of course in vast parts of the universe where there are no human beings at all no human creativity can be involved in any of that no human psychology both in time and in space) yeah that's an interesting the way that quantum mechanics works in actual practice involves human beings because we set up experiments we want to make predictions about so but certainly you don't want to say that this creative process is just localized in human beings you want to say all sorts of things can also contribute sure first simpler life forms for sure and and then there's a question of well does it have to be a life form I've been giving you I should there are examples of how quantum collapse processes are important already in the very simplest life forms just the harvesting of light and the 7:07
Luv this guy he looking outside the box pity main stream science doesn't
Imagine mixing a handful or infinite amount of pinballs the same size together and you still end up with one pinball the same size. Zero dimensional points are the intersections of two one dimensional lines crossing paths. You can’t see them because they are zero dimensional, but are used for locating areas on a map. Like the pinballs, you could keep mixing an infinite number of zero dimensional points together forever and still end up with one zero dimensional point.
Let’s say there is one zero dimensional point composed of twenty individual zero dimensional points mixed together. Imagine an individual zero dimensional point mixing with the one composed of 20, it would be still the same as two individual points mixing together. As this individual point mixes with the point composed of 20, as it mixes in it will make the point composed of 20 half as different as it was, then the individual point will become meaningless, because it is now part of one zero dimensional point that was composed of 20. You can’t say there is a certain number of zero dimensional points mixed with each other because there is no order in one zero dimensional point.
This individual zero dimensional point that has mixed in with the zero dimensional point composed of 20 individual zero dimensional points, has made the point composed of 20 points half as different as it was then the individual point has become meaningless because it is part of the 20 individual points to make one single point. Could this be a result of a point being part of two systems. It could be one point that is in its original spot, and at the same time be a point that has come from its original spot. Don’t think about the individual point mixing in making the point of 20 half as different following the individual point becoming meaningless as it is mixed in. Think of it as the individual point becomes meaningless as it is mixed in to the point of 20 after making it half as different, it is as if there has being nothing to make the point of 20 half as different. This gives you the impression this one zero dimensional point could be two points in one, one that is in its original spot, and one that has come from its original spot. Don’t think of two zero dimensional in one as being two zero dimensional points mixed together, think of it as one single object as being part of two systems.
Say there are two cars that are exactly the same, parked next to each other. One of the cars has just come from Texas, and the other one has just come from California. If the cars turn into each other could they both be based on a lie, saying they have come from somewhere they haven’t. It may not be a lie, because the car that came from California could be two cars in one. It could be the car as we see as having just come from California, and at the same time it could be the car that has just come from Texas. This could be the same for the car as we see as having just come from Texas. So this way, as the two cars turn into each other, they would not both be based on a lie.
Picture a blue square on the left and a red square on the right. Now we look at them from the other side and see a red square on the original left and blue square on the original right. Could the reason we are now seeing the squares as their neighbourd square’s colour be because we are now seeing the spaces the squares are filling up as being the squares. Each square could be one in two squares. The spaces the squares are filling up could be a system where there has already been a square that has come from its original spot. The squares we are focused on think they are the squares filling up the spaces, and the spaces think they are the squares filling up the spaces.
The two square could be two zero dimensional points, not in any particular space or not separated from each other by any space by, but both be separated from each other by time.
When an individual point mixes with a point of 20 and makes the point of 20
half as different following by the individual point becoming meaningless itself, could this indicate that a square and empty space are meeting up.
If 20 people were 20 individual zero dimensional points mixed together to make one single zero dimensional point, then every one would agree on what number they are looking at because every one would make one. But if one of the 20 disagreed with the rest on what colour the numbers are, would they form another zero dimensional point. If how many, what colour, and distance apart or away, all combined to form a sense of how fast time is moving, then every one could form a point where one second feels like one second, and not form a seperate point because they disagree with something. That way we can keep just two zero dimensional points existing.
Dude what? That was a fail, just say, "I have no idea"
One week goes around in a circle. Imagine if the 7 days were each frozen infinitely large 3 dimensional spaces. The circular week would be composed of time, but not the 7 days. If Friday is switching spaces with the 6 other days infinitely fast non stop, Friday would be taking the 6 o days spaces up all at once, so Friday would go from being a frozen 3 dimensional space to becoming 4 dimensional because it would now be composed of time. As Friday is constantly spaces with the 6 other days infinitely fast non stop, the 6 other days would have to all fit inside the space Friday is leaving behind all making one 3 dimensional day. Imagine if Friday and the 6 other days remain in their own spaces not switching. If Friday is separated from the 6 other days by time, but the 6 other days are not separated from each other by time, then the 6 other days would make one 4 dimensional entity. So now the same thing is happening with all 7 frozen days remaining in their spaces. Imagine 2 zero dimensional points. These 2 zero dimensional points are the only known red colour and only known blue colour to exist. Imagine if both these 2 zero dimensional points are each composed of 20 individual zero dimensional points. If these 2 points split apart into 40 individual points, you might think red and blue don’t exist any more, but if the all the dispersed points formed a system like the week with frozen days, red and blue could still exist. Imagine two groups of people, group A and group B. These two groups are separated by the shortest span of time possible, therefore there is no time In between these two groups. If one person from leaves group A and enters group B, then someone from group B would leave group B and enter group A at the exact same time, because time can’t move on until this happens.
Imagine a circle composed of 20 frozen 3 dimensional days. Each frozen day was either red or blue. So it goes red red blue blue blue red red blue blue and so on. Let’s imagine each frozen days as being red or blue, or being like groups A or group B. If one day switched with the day next to it that is a different colour, all the other days would each switch with the different coloured day next to them at the exact same time, because the span of time each day around the circle is separated by wouldn’t compose of any shorter span of time.
With seven days of the week being frozen infinitely large 3 dimensional spaces, Friday can’t be separated from Monday by time, it would have to be separated from Monday by time and space, because Saturday and Sunday would block it from getting to Monday.
(9:45) *HS: **_"I don't think we're at the end of Science by any matter of means."_* ... Many who attempt to explain "Existence," do so from an unnecessarily limited perspective. They don't give "Existence" the credit it's due. They either want to restrict its scope to whatever is directly observable or infinitely expand it beyond the limits of logical conceivability.
... People want to decide for "Existence" what it's allowed to do, able to do, and what it can't do.
I wish more people would evaluate "Existence" from what the word "Existence" represents. It's the most powerful word ever scribed! The only barrier to what is possible within existence is *logical conceivability* ... which leaves everything that's conceivable on the table.
*Example 1:* If you can logically conceive things that don't exist, then, at the very least, they exist as nonphysical constructs. That's the power of consciousness combined with logic.
*Example 2:* If everything physical was removed from "Existence" save for a single nonphysical, logically conceivable construct, then "Existence" would still be present. Despite having no dimensional form, spatial presence or physical structure, that purely information-based construct still rises above the lowly status of "Nonexistence," ... _therefore it exists!_
It seems *far more logical* to fully comprehend what the term "Existence" represents from a philosophical standpoint before settling on ANY concrete ideological stances or scientific theories regarding its scope, abilities and limitations.
...There's a heII of a lot more going on inside "Existence" than just totally benign, purposeless, physical stuff, my friends. _"To be"_ is logically a better option than _"not to be."_
"To be is logically a better option than not to be." No, not if you don't state the criterion on which "to be" performs better than "not to be."
Two counter-examples: "To be" is NOT better than "not to be" at preventing chaos and at preventing suffering.
@@brothermine2292 *""To be is logically a better option than not to be." No, not if you don't state the criterion on which "to be" performs better than "not to be."*
... No criterion is required. If you don't exist, then you cannot render a judgment either way. Therefore, logic dictates that existence is the better option. "Something" will always _perform better_ than "Nothing." That's Existentialism 101.
*"Two counter-examples: "To be" is NOT better than "not to be" at preventing chaos and at preventing suffering."*
... "To be" is the better option (by default). Bad situations can change for the better, but if you don't exist, there is no option for any change whatsoever. I thought you were supposed to be _Captain Logical?_
BTW: For someone who thinks they know everything, you obviously haven't thought this one through.
>0-by-1_Publishing_LLC : You've revealed that you DO have a criterion: better "at existing." Your reasoning is circular. That's not a step up from the vacuous reasoning of having no criterion on which to perform better.
Furthermore, your response to my two counter-examples is clearly wrong. Your argument that "existence" could improve over time so it might not always be _worse_ at preventing suffering fails to show it could ever be _better_ than non-existence at preventing suffering. Non-existence has zero suffering, which can't be reduced.
If you're going to claim I'm being illogical, you ought to accompany it with a sensible argument.
@@brothermine2292 *"Your reasoning is circular."*
... lol! Only someone who "exists" can decide if something is circular. "Nonexistent things" cannot make any claims whatsoever. You're clearly out of your depth, brother.
*"Your argument that "existence" could improve over time so it might not always be worse at preventing suffering fails to show it could ever be better than non-existence at preventing suffering."*
... No, you didn't read it correctly (as usual). Here's what I wrote: _"Bad situations _*_can change_*_ for the better, but _*_if you don't exist,_*_ there is _*_no option_*_ for any change whatsoever."_ That means the "possibility" of a better situation is only present if you exist. Nonexistence removes all options ... _period!_ Less options = less value. ......... _Think, man!_
*"If you're going to claim I'm being illogical, you ought to accompany it with a sensible argument."*
... lol (see above).
>0-by-1_Publishing_LLC : "Only someone who "exists" can decide if something is circular." That's an irrelevant point, because I do exist. Your reasoning was circular.
"That means the 'possibility' of a better situation is only present if you exist." You're assuming the logical possibility of betterment implies the actual option of betterment.
"Less options = less value." That's an axiom, not a known fact. It's well known to economists that having too many choices causes problems. Furthermore, it's of the "assuming all else is equal" variety, and there's no reason to believe all else is equal. In particular, the negative value of suffering may outweigh the positive value of "more options in a universe filled with suffering," in which case non-existence would be better than that existence.
Still awaiting a sensible argument from you. Not holding my breath.
Can someone explain the last sentence? What is he saying is more "creative" than saying God created it and let it run like a clock?
Probably is that he has no idea of what is the reason and the purpose of the Universe. May I can suggest a book which is giving good explanation of the Universe = "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@valentinmalinov8424 nice self promotion there :) the problem is... one of the reviewers of your book state "The author has apparently debunked the Big Bang theory, dismissed the Cosmic microwave background radiation, demonstrated that the universe is conscious..." now the last point I keep an open mind about... but the first 2 points would earn you prizes in physics if true... so it's s red flag for me. Especially since you dismissed Dr Stapp, instead of explaining his last sentence.
@@PEM-zt5rd I am not going to argue with you, but will ask you to put 2+2 together. - For example How much time the Universe need to expand to 13.7 bly? How much time the light from the outer edge need to travel back to our point? And I guess that your answer is 27.4by? - If the Universe expanding with the speed of light would be possible to see anything which running away from us with such speed? - Because the Universe expand to 13.7 bly in 13.7by. I can ask you also to draw a circular diagram of the "Expanding" Universe and to tell us where CMB is emitted and in which direction? - From the center out, or from the outer edge inn? When you answer these questions then you are welcome to teach me Physics and Astronomy. Regards
@@valentinmalinov8424 Valentin, I am in no position to teach anyone Astrophysics. I was simply pointing out the consensus of those who have an expertise in Astrophysics. Why dont you publish your "findings" or "theory" in a scientific journal then have it peer-reviewed and then actually contribute to this planet if you really believe you are on to something? I am all for progress in Science so I am not trying to put you down in anyway... but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That is my only point. Going against mainstream Astrophysics need strong reasoning.
@@PEM-zt5rd My dear friend, you are so honest and innocent. The best which I can do is to try to explain you that the suppression of science at present is much severe than in the time of Galileo and Bruno. The peer review system is one of the tools of suppression of the independent voices. You must trust your own judgement. - The Universe is spherical. Make cut off projection thru the center. - Circular diagram. then put a small circle in the center, which is the era of "Recombination" and emit the CMB from there. The CMB will travel from the center out. Ask yourself - How is possible the CMB to make a U turn and to come from the outer rim inwards. When you find out the deception, then reed the "Electric Universe" and then you will be able to understand my book. Make this for your self, not for me. Regards.
If I had to state what he's saying without the "psychology", I'd say he believes something like "true randomness" (not an intentional creativity) exists. What that means is that if you could create a universe, that began with the EXACT SAME INITIAL STATE as ours, and then ran it off to see what happens, the results would not be the same. Would there quantum coin flips at the very beginning of inflation that could "butterfly-effect" out so that there was no earth in that replicant universe? If so, then the next time it happens (assuming cyclicity here) no Mozart (or anybody else really), but maybe there'd be something just as good, idk. It seems, life evolves (continually) to take advantage of randomness.
The question of cosmos creation relates to the paradox of who created the creator in an infinite regression, which is typically modeled by Russell paradox in logical science.
The paradox resolution by logicians applies Godel incompleteness theories 1 and 2 on our whole universe to deduce that an external axiom to our universe exists.
Because science is continuous, and considering the first law of thermodynamics, that external axiom must be metaphysical and is the cause of the universe creation.
This analysis is completely scientific and defines the existence of an uncreated creator.
ua-cam.com/video/pxoZ8REpH-g/v-deo.htmlsi=c9Xvwz3slMf-tISM
ua-cam.com/video/I8JLvEix8Xw/v-deo.htmlsi=PvOuu1yJZqd7gX3d
This argument is specifically about “who created the creator” as it follows a prior argument of proving a creator existence based on Ontological argument and first thermodynamics law.
I want some of what he’s smoking 😂
y yo tambien
waht?
Clearly got his PhD in hand-waving......
You don't need gods, (potentials = magical god) and you think that is the end all be all. "Quantum mechanics is build out of discrete events" okay, I'm fine with this, now lets get MORE discrete events, till we find the operating local law. Remember, quantum mechanics is build on spatial frequency detections, those detections are always local interactions, therefore the reflection of intersecting motion is at work in every detection. This is what you detect every time you make a detection, there is no place to put your charge potential magic other than the gaps, which is fine, but science will one day catch up with you, and decompose your ideology into raw determinism. This idea that potentials are physical systems needs to be separate, Physics = (Physical mechanics)/(Probabilistic mechanics), physical wave function on a quantized motion exchange field (defined by polarization of smaller motion) is where the focus needs to be. For instance, spontaneous generation use to be a physical theory (after 3 days periodicity we should see maggots on hamburgers, and there are x number of hamburgers being thrown out daily) basically these people use to think that there is a (maggot charge potential that determined maggot generation with a certain frequency), till we realized that there was replication and the theory of evolution which shifted focus from the (potential) to (determination). Potential is a large scale importance when observing fast high frequency interactions, but it's not characteristic of actual physics at that level and time scale.
Huh?
Sounds like Artificial Intelligence and Epigenesis
The universe, as space-time, expands in the infinite multiverse. Matter is the dust left behind from the expansion. As particles form and annihilate, some particles get separated because space-time expands faster than they can reunite to annihilate each other. We live in the residual matter - frozen light! The faster a particle vibrates, the heavier it is and the more gravity it has.
💯👌
"It's more interesting than to say that God created the universe". But if creativity represents a form of intelligence, and it perhaps should, then what or who or whatever is 'doing' this subtle and pervasive work of creativity?
We're back to the question of of the origin of the universe...
It seams like a kind of theist "god head" paradigm. It implies some kind of intelligent creator, even if that intelligent creator is the universe itself. people find the god head in all kinds of places which is why we have had religions etc since the early ages.
Wat
The Cosmos,born out of chaos' and we're not out of yet,and probably never will be!...good luck trying🤔😉
Realy I like this video its so interestyng
Gee that was rather unsatisfying, lacking concrete specifics/examples, with vague references to "events", "happenings", "potentialities" and such. Regarding "events" I initially thought Henry had in mind virtual particles & the Feynman diagrams... sadly, I guess not. At 3:46 - "god-like inputs... something coming more from the psychological." I'm putting my money on association (CS Peirce) as the foundation of that "psychological". Mind-stuff revolves around "possibility" and the push-pull of the known versus the unknown. In this context, "potentialities" makes sense.
Analysis analytics.
I think, he's on the right direction, a determenistic universe is a horror version.
Science is not wishful thinking. The cosmos does not care a damn about your feelings of horror.
@@ridingboy Might be, but superdeterminism and multiversum is not provable and will never be. You can believe it, have fun.
This is a theist like "God Head" paradigm. Not saying it is right or wrong, just implies a god head (intelligent creator).
There can be nothing without an unborn eternal all-creative Energy. End of thread.
Vacuous and inane
One millionth of a second is too fast for us remember or experience, so it’s fair to say that in that short span of time we have no sense of being or our sense of being doesn’t exist. The span of time we can remember or be aware of is joined together by spans of time that are too fast for us to be able to take any notice of, so how is it possible to have a sense of being at all.
Let’s imagine an atom moves an extremely short distance. The span of time it takes for this atom to move this extremely short distance is too short of a time interval for us to be aware of anything, so where were we, or where was our sense of being.
To us, the universe, a hurricane, or an infinitely long line of dominos that are falling down does not have a sense of being according to us. Say one day feels like one second to us, but one second just feels like one second to the person standing next to us, then according to the person standing next to us our sense of being does not exist.
So what if we as conscious beings are both ourselves, as well as the universe. We can be ourselves where one second feels like one second, and at the same time we can be the universe, which solves the problem as not consciously existing at extremely short time spans.
At extremely short time spans that are too fast for us to be aware of anything, we can’t say that we are different individuals because we don’t exist. Every one could be the universe.
Imagine two zero dimensional points. These two zero dimensional points are like two universes that are infinitely large, but in the opposite way, being infinitely small, not in any particular space, or are not separated by any space but both separated by time. Nonetheless, even though these two zero dimensional points are separated by time, they both still exist simultaneously.
Let’s say one second was like one second to one of these zero dimensional points, but one second was like one day to the other one. That would make perfect sense as to why the two points are separated from each other by time but still both exist simultaneously. So everyone could be their individual selves, and at the same time every one could make the universe. All numbers are the same because all a number really is is just the digit one that is a certain way up the number line, but the boundaries in between numbers really are different to the digit ones each side of them. So one of these two zero dimensional points that is experiencing time different from the other could be a boundary in between numbers, and the other could be a digit one. Our sense of being may not be zero dimensional but four dimensional. We need to be focusing on a colour to have a sense of being, even if we are just imagining it, which involves time going by. If one hundred years went on while we had no sense of being, it would be like a flash to us.
Let’s say we were each individual zero dimensional points all mixed together to make one single zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second. At the same time, in a span of time that is too short for us to be aware of or exist, we could all make the universe or another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second. You see, we are saying the universe doesn’t have a sense of being, and in an extremely short span of time we are saying our sense of being doesn’t exist, so in that short span of time we could all make the universe or we could all make another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second.
If one second feels like one second to zero dimensional point A, but one week feels like one second to zero dimensional point B, we would see zero dimensional point A as being us. In a super symmetrical way, what if there were other beings that thought the zero dimensional point B was them.
If 20 people were all individual zero dimensional points that were mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point, the 20 would all agree on what number they are looking at because the 20 zero dimensional points would make one single zero dimensional point. But if 5 of the 20 disagreed with what colour the numbers and background were, the distance away the numbers are, and how far they are spread apart, would that 5 of the 20 form a seperate zero dimensional point or individual zero dimensional points, as well as the one they are part of.
Imagine if how many, what colour, how far away, how far apart, all mixed to form a sense of how fast time is moving. Then if every one was part of one zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, then no one could form separate zero dimensional points because they disagreed with what colour the numbers are or how far away or apart they are.
If every one was part of zero dimensional point A where one second feels like one second, every one could be part of zero dimensional point B at the same time, where one week feels like one second, because no body’s sense of being exists at extremely short time intervals. To us, a hurricane or the weather doesn’t have a sense of being. Our sense of being can’t be joined together by extremely short time spans that we can’t take any notice of, so everyone can be the one universe at the same time.
If there were two things separated by time but both exist simultaneously, where one second feels like one second to one, but one second feels like one hour to the other, that would make sense as to why the two things are separated from each other by time but both still exist simultaneously.
One millionth of a second is not even remotely close to the plank length. Not even a billionth of a billionth of a second.
With brown paper, string , glue and daft talks like this. Ha ha.
How can it be other than that existence is a series of emergent realities that begin at the Planck-length and culminate at the macro level. Along the way complexities emerge and ultimately at the present date, what we are and what we perceive. One has to add the state and period before the beginning of the universe, as well as what state will succeed the universe. Whether one and done or cyclic is less important than understand, as best we can, the why and what of the current universe we are part of. This interview and interviewee seemed obtuse and unhelpful in answering the question posed. Here’s the scoop folks. A state existed before the Big Bang. It allowed for the Big Bang. For a perhaps unknowable reason, the Big Bang happened and over the billions of years cause no effect have resulted in the universe we contemplate to day. We extrapolate from what we know, the transformation and future reality of the universe, until perhaps it reverts to the state that existed before the Big Bang. I chose to hang my hat on the idea that the before, during and after scenario described about are not separate elements but different states of the originating state. I choose to believe that that originating state was self-conscious and wanted a transformation to occur that lead to us. I can’t be proven right or wrong, at least I don’t think so. I’m willing to allow for the possibility that all of existence is a brute fact that cannot and need not be explained. But I am happier believing the opposite.
Or.... maybe reality is the macro-world imposing the order need on the micro-world so that it can exist. The emergence in this scenario is not upward but downward. A block-time universe and presumably pre-universe might need the exact set of parameters for it to exist, as it must, if all time exists at all times.
I'm not a quantum physicist, but I feel this interview is dumbing down and convoluting too many things. Not enough thriving for precision and distinction in the way they use their language. Sabine Hossenfelder would smell BS.
And "events" don't occur at the classical level?...The process metaphysics of Whitehead does not imply a time reversible Universe. The faster the reductionist nonsense of replete determinism is abandoned, the faster we will make progress.
👍
Atheist runaround
This guy’s spiel was highly speculative and wasn’t explained clearly.
Got absolutely nothing from this one, perhaps proving that nothing can exist after all. 😅
We don't know how it's constructed at all. This is silly imo.
Don't be too pessimistic! We already know how it is constructed! If you are interested, just find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Yes' theory,not fact as yet...
@@rochford59 The facts are all around, but someone must make sense of them!
I don't believe that person has been born yet...
Just another priest with a fantasy that, of course, must be.
Here's the content to study if you actually want to learn something. For some reason, it doesn't appeal to anybody here. You'd think academicians and modern physicists would help you out, but they don't. They don't care. They're clueless themselves. None of them are charitable, and none of them are genuine themselves. Anybody using the term "quantum" is a coward and be ignored.
Periphyseon, by Eriugena, translation by O'Meara.
Plotinus Enneads, 'Select works' translated by Thomas Taylor and complete translation by Lyyod Gerson.
Plato, translated by Thomas Taylor.
Proclus books, translated by Taylor.
Iamblichus books.
Syrianus books.
Bhagavad Gita, translated by Sri Aurobindo.
Upanishads translated by Nikhilananda 4 vol. set, and the 18 principal Upanishads translated by Radhakrisnan.
Upadesa sahashria by sankara, translated by jagadananda.
Vivekacudamani by sankara, translated by Madhavananda.
Shankaracharya's 'source books'.
Buddha Nikayas.
Philosophy as a rite of Rebirth by Algis U.
Meister Eckhart complete works.
The Unknown God, by D. Carabine.
Mystical languages of unsaying, by M. Sells.
Plotinus: Road to Reality, by JM Rist.
Bible - KJV translation only. archaic is very important here with mysticism.
Jacob Bohme books - a German mystics
Emmanuel Swedenborg books - a scientist turned mystic and metaphysics.
Ananda Coomaraswamy books & essays.
The presocratic Philosopher's - book.
Sweet touches of harmony - book; Pythagorean influence.
Lore and science in ancient pythagoreanism - book.
The Universal One, by Walter Russel.
The gods of field theory:
Henri Poincare
Tesla
Steinmetz
Maxwell
Heaviside
Dollard
Have you turned to metaphysics because you don't understand modern physics at all? That's human...
“…for some reason it doesn't appeal to anybody here…”
Perhaps you should consider or read something else beside Neoplatonism, mysticism, and you will understand why. Quit being a preacher here, lol.
Without understanding the basic principles of physics, any philosophy book is of no value. They will remain blind beliefs...
Religion is a very dangerous subject. My personal advice ....say no to it.
If one can't explain it, one does not understand it. Today's physicists have Ph.Ds and they feel they are knowledgeable and have the laureates to prove it, but they can't explain it because they don't understand it. The consequence of this phenomenon, the science is stuck, frozen in time, and they all go back to quoting Einstein as proof. But the reality is we don't have any proof of black holes and event horizons, but they exist because the matemáticas says so. It's a sad state of affairs, but because trillions of dollars got poured into research that has only yielded more particles but no new discoveries, the show must go on.