I can understand that people not following how knowledge develop are getting confused and perhaps react by refusing information if they have "invested" in some world view, we humans mix everything together to a mess, and it is not so easy always, to handle "new" information Just take small and relatively inconsequential issues as an example, like alcohol are suddenly healthy, then unhealthy, then it is unhealthy again etc, I remember it was like this with potatoes many years ago here where I live, it was suddenly unhealthy, for then to be healthy again, not that I care so much, but understand people gets frustrated
This is a major part of people's distrust of experts and their opinions. When one person has become 'the science', you're darn right I'm gonna question and test their beliefs before I accept them blindly.
@@doncarlodivargas5497 I think the biggest issue is most people don't deal with uncertainty well. As a result, anything discussed with limits is treated as "not really true"
@@charleslivingston2256 - could be, but still, in my opinion many people "invest" in the current truth, without starting a big discussion about climate change, let's say it is proved there is no climate change, will you be glad or angry? Because, this is my point, even if it is good news, a lot of people, politicians, journalists and activists etc, will react with anger, because they have "invested" in some truth, in my opinion it is too easy to say people are stupid etc, there is a dynamic relationship between the science/priests and the plebs, especially in religion we can clearly see the same thing
I'm close to 25 minutes in at this point and I just wanted to say, I love the interview, I think the guest is great and I'll be looking into more of his stuff later, and *the music you've been going with recently is perfect.* You guys are doing a great job, Fraser, so I wanted to voice my support and give you my personal vote of confidence 🤜🤛
Ever since I read a book in my early 2000s titled 'Feyman's Rainbow' I held kind of a uninterested look towards philosophy and psychology and that they were more on the boring and uninteresting spectrum. I really enjoyed the ideas and thoughts that this unbiased observer that has no expectation of an outcome that's destined to be and how this may relate to quantum mechanics and bringing in specialists from these other fields.
Such a great friggin interview! I particular love the section related to time but I really found this conversation, this scientist’s way of communicating, to be extremely thought provoking in general. Great job Fraser, I hope you bring this guy back and continue to delve into this realm of scientific discussion!
Fraser you brought Sean Carroll as example of the theoretical physicist getting into philosophy and even creating a new position within academia for that. I am listener to his Mindscape podcast and if i understand him right, he is also doing precisely what prof. Baron suggested - revising how universities are not making interdisciplinary cooperation exactly easy, and trying to bring people from these two camps to talk together. Great discussion, thank you!
About 18:00 f: Yes, colours are something emergent, a leave's green colour is not one of its fundamental properties. At the other hand, the leave has an absorption/ remission spectrum which a normal human _would perceive as_ green, given the required conditions such as sufficient "white" light (in red light, all green things would simply look dark), _if_ (s)he _were_ around to see it, even if this is not actually the case. So I'd still call it "green".
27:40 f: It's kind of funny that "time travel" is so often understood as traveling to the past. The main problem with this is that in the usual past travel scenarios, the traveler disappears in his present and reappears in the past which the continuity equations for energy, particle number and so on "forbid" i.e. state impossible. Given we workaround this, the grandfather paradox will be a minor problem. Nature doesn't contradict itself. Maybe, it's superdeterministic and our past traveler's grandfather had indeed survived a murder attempt by some stranger and, recovering in a hospital, he met a nurse whom he never had met without the attack. The nurse will turn out to become our past traveler's grandmother, and the loop is closed. So, our past traveler doesn't alter but maintain the original history and was always determined to do so.
I've always thought of the relationship between philosophy and science as being very much analogous to the relationship between science and engineering. In the latter, science provides mathematical precision and repeatability that without which engineering would be either too risky or flat-out impossible. In other words, to paraphrase the infamous XKCD comic, engineering is applied science (physics). What science itself needs is *conceptual* precision, robust enough to be able to formulate a method of testing. In other words, science needs well-formulated, meaningful questions, and this is exactly where Philosophy comes in. Philosophy has a much greater willingness to tunnel as far down the rabbit-hole as it can, grasping for meaning in the dark. What kind of questions can we ask, and should we be asking? What makes an idea meaningful or useful in the scientific domain? Is it even possible to take certain concepts or questions formulated for other human endeavors, like art or religion, and meaningfully translate them for scientific analysis without losing their essence, and if not, are there domains of human experience for which scientific analysis will always fall short? Philosophy revels in open questions with endless levels of deconstruction and reformulation. Science can't afford to muck around with that.
Awesome interview was looking forward to this, I remember Fraser mentioning this interview during the last Q&A specifically the Time dilation part @ 30:35 I learned a lot from Professor Sam Thanks Fraser and Universe Today
At the very end, I heard "Australian Catholic University" - and I'd already got the impression, "this guy is VERY strongly influenced by Aquinas, I wonder if he was trained by Dominicans." (Disclaimer: I'm an engineer, neither a philosopher nor a physicist.)
1:07:05 This reminds me of an old Mitch Hedberg bit about "I think you're more likely to have met me at the store. Coming up next is Mitch Hedberg, you might recognize him from... the store."
I think human's have a very intuitive sense of the way objects move through space. Intuitive and ultimately incorrect.. When Galileo did his experiments proving Aristotle wrong may have been one of those moments when we began to understand the importance of testing our theories.
Time travel paradoxes with a black hole are solved by the fact that if you are going backward in time then you can not escape the back hole and influence your timeline per the escape velocity would exceed light speed.
Please don’t. There is no such property. Not the way he’s using it. His uses it to mask ontological confusion. He mistakes concepts for the things they represent. That’s confusing the map for the territory. Take his example of color. Color is not perspectival. The photons reflecting off an object are real; part of external physical reality from your perspective. The concept of color, however, is as made up (or a “projection” like he says) as all other concepts. There’s nothing actually perspectival about color, etc.
31:19 Interstellar question! How much thrust is needed to launch from Miller’s planet at that deep gravity where time is so dilated back into normal spacetime?
17:00 "are we seeing reality?" Well, enough to keep us alive at least, and how does something we can not sense or realise, how does that exist in the first place?
@@Muhahahahaz - so then we can have mass movements for example because? Why is pizza and hamburgers so popular if everything is individually experienced? I think some academics simply are a little too clever
"philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex: it is cheaper, easier, and some people seem, bafflingly, to prefer it" - Philosopher Dan Dennett on how most scientists view philosophy
Correct me if I’m wrong, we had a discovery that some polarized light from the CMB confirming that inflation happen in the early universe. But farther study found that turned out to be in case. Inflation theory solve a lot of problems in cosmology, but is there any evidence?
The double slit experiment highlights the fact that time does not exist at the Quantum level. The interference pattern builds up simply because TIME does NOT exist for photons.
I'm confused how you arrive at the conclusion "time does not exist at the Quantum level" from the double slit experiment. If you perform the experiment with sufficient precision, you can watch the individual photons build up an interference pattern over time. It takes a known amount of time for photons to travel from the emitter to the target. The Schrödinger equation has a "t" in it for time!! Time is "stopped" for photons because they're travelling at the speed of light. But you can perform the double-slit experiment with (relatively) slow-moving particles, too. Even if the experiment only worked with photons, it doesn't logically follow that because they have an unique property, this property is the reason they have an unique effect in experiment. That's a fine guess for hypothesis generation. But in science, you have to actually test hypotheses.
Hot Fraser, Thanks so much for this fascinating discussion. Also, if there are Doctors of Philosophy, are there also nurses and orderlies? Philosophical Therapists? ;-) Seriously, thank you.
27:28 to paraphrase: 'philosophers have been interested in such a thing (time travel) ever since we've had the notion that there might be such a thing'. Well DUH. Sorry, I'm being a bit flippant here. Great interview/discussion. I'm liking the causation thing and lean toward that in terms of the beginning of this universe. What if there were something that was before Matter , Energy, Space, and Time ? What if that causally , but not necessarily intentionally, brought the Universe into being ?
@@doncarlodivargas5497 Yes. In fact those subjects are literally studied using math. And experiments when its possibe. Unless you have some magical alternative. Maybe praying?
we also have seen many times when science was used as a political tool of mass manipulation and it led us down into some dark paths... or when too much money and ego is involved and that corrupts the process, the results and sometimes even the scientists ... I think these should be factored in at least love your channel btw its a really good listen while working. Many thank from Hungary
33:30 No, you won't get spaghettified in a sufficiently large black hole where the slope of spacetime curvature is low enough for stable atoms to exist. So, most SMBHs. He didn't say the time loop is at or close to the singularity. Just that it's beyond the event horizon.
Using repeated gravitational lensing of several galaxies, would it be possible to eventually view our own galaxy if the alignments of other galaxies were just right? Kind of like a selfie....
18:20 f: _Depending on how fast you move, distances contract and expand._ That's not quite accurate: Let B be a body, maybe a spacecraft, we chose to be our reference body which implies we regard it as stationary. Let B' be another body moving at constant x velocity βc. That _motion as such_ doesn't effect which slice of spacetime we consider "now" but rather _the reinterpretation_ of B' being stationary and B as moving at x' velocity −βc which does so. BTW nothing is really contracted but, as the B' "now" slice is slanted against the B "now" slice, its intersection with the world tubes of bodies will differ from that of the B "now" slice with those world tubes.
Thanks for this video. It is a good time to have this discussion at the intersection of Philosophy and Physics/Science. I thought I'd also post a quote by Nikola Tesla within the context of this video : "My brain is only a receiver in the universe, there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength, and inspiration. I haven't penetrated the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists" . It may also be a good time to look at the Cosmological Physics of people like Brian Greene, the CCC theory of Roger Penrose, the quantum events in brain micro-tubules with Stuart Hameroff, the philosophical musings of Rupert Sheldrake of his fields of Morphic Resonance - which may well point to a new kind of science, plus the concept of the Void and the perceived "cessation of time" ( "Nirvana " ) in Buddhism. This is all very interesting and there may be a convergence of all of this "deep science" ( see Ken Wilber about the 3 strands of Deep Science ).
39:30 "string theory and graviton" if there is a gravitational particle, how come this is not destroyed in black holes? Can string-scientists explain that?
14:30 Metaphysics fail. This is not how emergence works. There is heat there, per se, even at the atomic level. Heat exists in the motion of atoms. Just because a property emerges at a higher conceptual level, doesn't mean it's metaphysically constrained to that level. Even if space and time emerge from some more fundamental theory, they still exist. At every conceptual level. It's metaphysically unjustified to deny the existence of emergent properties. No matter what level you're looking at. They may be difficult to discriminate on levels where they have not yet emerged. But metaphysically, they're still there.
I guess it depends on exactly how you define “time” in the first place. I would say the usual definition of time is sort of like this continuous line that exists no matter what is happening. But the causal structures that they discuss in the video are more like a “discrete” realization of time. Events still occur in an ordered sequence (technically a partial ordering I believe, since some events cannot influence each other), but that’s all there is. You can think of it like a tree graph of events, with an arrow connecting one event to another if it “causes” that event Because these arrows imply various sequences, they are similar to tiny elements of time. But it’s not quite the same thing. It’s the events and causation that are fundamental. (I’m sure someone who directly studies this area could give a more accurate description, but hopefully that helps)
Obviously you can't. It's a great exercise to throw out all conceptualization of time and study how it might emerge in a theory of quantum gravity. But any successful theory will have a property, however emergent, that maps to what we today call time. Because time (that regularly patterned relationship between events) is an fact of external physical reality which demands explanation.
If (or when) we ever encounter alien life (even if microbes) and if they have DNA, would it be safe to say that is not in fact alien at all, but merely a relative?
Depends on whether there is a common ancestor. There is such a thing as evolution producing the same result from different independent ancestors. Now stepping back from that rabbit hole...
I would even go as far to say you could alter your perception and be able to see an earlier iteration of the shockwave. Idk why we talk about time travel in terms of the body when perception is all that needs to carry.
Also is everything everywhere all at once growing at a rate. And the variation in growth rate defines an object. I guess I’m saying dark energy or that which is in between is my god and way of seeing the world. 😪
Because I am here I am not there. Because I am here [obj.] is not. Sounds like there is divine truth to the past when you consider reality under a causal structure. And information is only gained as far as I can tell so we build from that which we have. The exponentially fractaling structure of reality through the [causes]. Can you put me back together? Can I become one with my past self by saving a record of myself?
Think quantum theory and general relativity are not entirely able to be explain by single theory. Quantum theory has many brick walls; Planck's Constances as examples. General relativity hints at being entirely or mostly entirely stretchable; black holes being example. Good talk.
Good point! Yes, very incompatible as they are today. The hope is for a future theory flexible enough to approximate these very different properties in their respective regimes. It’s a tall order. But compare the rigidity of Newtonian gravity to the stretchiness of General Relativity. Such a revolution has happened before. It’s reasonable to think it could happen again.
@@PhysicsPolice Would like do add previous comment. Think maths are wrong. In sense that not mathematics used to describe GR, and QT are wrong, but that maths it self is not able to describe natural world. Would point to Kurt Gödel. Maths as used today are incomplete. Invoking number theory there is axiom that states that 1 is not equal to 0. Error here is by how much, This concept does not exist in number theory - basis for or current usage of maths, Opinion please
@@Coraxyn It sounds like you're proposing that limits on the utility of mathematics e.g. via Gödel's incompleteness theorems explain the incompatibility between QM and GR. I don't think this works because I can explain, sans mathematical rigor, the disagreements between the two theories. For example, QM uses classical space and time dimensions, whereas in GR distance and time are relative. I believe that if we do find a theory to unify QM and GR, it may involve mathematical structures not yet invented. Einstein relied on the Lorentz transformations to develop special relativity. These transformations came from the theory of continuous groups developed by Sophus Lie decades earlier. Sometimes progress in math is needed to make progress in physics. But we can't know if today those prerequisite mathematical inventions are discovered yet. There's only one way to find out!
@@PhysicsPolice Good point. Turns out any sufficiently axiomatic system will display incompleteness. Progress in maths are possible, think any such progress will expose new aspects of these theories as you stated. But short to ToE there will be new problems. Bet you a beer ;)
I'm of the opinion that we're looking at the wrong thing when it comes to reconciling gravity between quantum and relativity. Also dark matter as well. That the reason we dont see gravitons is because gravity either doesnt or only partly acts within our universe. That gravity's relation to mass and the warping of space time actually acts across either higher dimensions or on the edges of our reality. That just like how we use the gravitational lensing of the dark matter we cant directly observe to study it we would have to observe the effects on other fundamental quarks to see where gravitons would be if they existed within our universe other than simply acting upon it. Tldr spooky action at a distance but the distance is between dimensions or across the fabric of reality/the universe and the thing doing it is gravity
Manifolds and tuning instruments to get the answers that we want is problematic . Industrial Revolutionary mindset caused us to see our obsession with consumption and materialism in everything and everywhere. Paradolia of the mind. The prohobitions and dogma ruled by theoretical detailed instead of following evidence where it leads is wrong and sets us back and we need abondon this return to different schools of thought so we can be skeptical and rigorously sharp . Now computation is reviving idealism allowing us to see the better explanations
What about it? I find that people declare that science is "politicized" when the conclusion doesn't match their beliefs. Science is nothing more than trying to understand the truth about the Universe.
I get that. But it’s not a theology school. It’s a public school. Beware of the genetic fallacy. The origin of a thing doesn’t strictly determine how the thing exists today.
35:00 Class error. The only reason this view is unpopular is because you presented it in a comically incorrect way. It's actually a consensus view in physics that time is a relationship between events. Because time (like any other component of a scientific theory) is a concept, yes, it's something we invented (you used the wrong verb "project"); and no, concepts aren't real nor do they exist. But those events with relationships between them absolutely do exist! And that pattern between them is real and objective. It's not an illusion projected by humans. That's stupid. You keep making the same mistake over and over: mistaking the map for the place. Why is that?
We have been stuck in transitor age for 70 years. All fields of study has been stagnant. The normalization of constants and tuning instruments for outcomes of a pre determined out come where we seek to fill in blanks is what kept ancient greeks from the stem engine despite having all the knowledge because they asked the wrong questions in the wrong manner. Only when the West said I am therefore I exist did we really advance but since we reversed this and said being is that I am we hsvnt gotten anywhere in academia. Relying on mechanics and tech workers to merge tvs , library into our hands will not cover up academia failure any longer.
8:40 "It may be there are some things that are deeply perspectival in science" -- This is wrong in two ways. First, the they're not in science. At all. The subjective is not testable because tests, in science, rely on some objective system of measurement. Second, they don't even exist. Linguistically, you've really gone out of your way to paint a different story. But perspectives are not things. They're conceptual relations between real things that exist. Concepts are not things. They don't exist.
Time is not an illusion. The concept of time, like all concepts, is an invention. Or an "illusion" if you want to be poetic at the cost of accuracy. Time is a relationship between events. That relationship is real. It's repeatably, reliably quantifiable using clocks, duh. Time is an aspect of how things change and move. Your watching this all take place is entirely incidental.
If quantum mechanics accurately describes the electric force, why can't it describe the gravitational force? They are both 1/r2 (one over R squared) forces, and they have the same vectors. Why don't they just postulate the sea of virtual gravitons we swim in and be done with it?
Yes. Fraser just hadn’t figured this out yet. To be pedantic, they didn’t replace it. They superseded it. Philosophy is still down there as a foundation. But what people study in a philosophy degree is hopelessly outdated, largely inaccurate, and demonstrably ineffectual. In the modern era, that actually produces poor thinkers. Like this guy.
@@PhysicsPolice This guy tries to justify its value but fails in my view. It’s only use that I’ve found, is intellectual theists using it as a tool to maintain their belief.
@@burmabaines Yeah, I know what you mean, especially regarding theism! Although to give Sam credit, he pushed back on Fraser's over-selling of the value of philosophy, toward the end of the interview.
Or is the problem the fact that we use classical electromagnetism to describe the electron, a thoroughly quantum and quantized object? Is the spherically symmetric electric field around a point-charge a myth? Or more accurately, a model based on an idealization that does not exist in the real world? Kind of like "the free market"? It certainly applies. Worse, it's not a market and there is nothing free about it.
Not necessarily. I guess you could say the usual conception of “time” travel is a bit simplistic. Think of it more like “spacetime” travel instead. Follow the time-like curve of the ground beneath you, in the reverse time direction
11:35 "There's not a lot you can do except sort of like churn through the philosophy..." -- Wow. No. This is so incredibly wrong. There are experts in the field of dealing with science denial (Dunning, Kruger, Novella, Swire, etc.) and we know a lot about what works to counter it. I've never heard any of them recommend "churning through the philosophy" or any such suggestion. Why are you so eager to speak outside your area of expertise? Fraser, why are you asking him these questions so far outside his area of expertise?
The whole 'time' concept is ridiculous because it is a pure human concept. For the Universe time does not exist. No matter how you try to twist and turn it: we humans invented it. Same goes for distance. So... for the Universe both 'time' and 'space' are totally irrelevant.
You're equivocating between the concept of time and the thing that concept describes. The map is not the territory. Time is a relationship between events. The universe absolutely does "care" about these relationships, as seen in repeatedly reliably measurable patterns like clocks ticking. You're welcome to throw out all prior conceptualization of time and try to explain why clocks tick. No matter what description you come up with, it will have to share a lot in common with our current conceptualization of time. But maybe you'll solve quantum gravity along the way! It's a worthy endeavor! But don't mistake it for a denial that time exists. You can't do that because the universe has a property that fits that description. Whether you conceive of it or not. For example, you can't reply to my words here above this comment. Any time you reply to me, it will be below this comment. You can't reconceive that ordering. That ordering exists regardless of your conceptualization.
@@PhysicsPolice Like I said before. Time is a human concept and is irrelevant for the Universe, only to us. Same goes for distance. The Universe could not care less about 'time' and 'distance'. Have a nice day.
@@puppymax4559 "Have a nice day" -- Nice attempt to cheekily get in the last word. I heard what you said, and I explained why it's wrong. The universe "cares" about distance insofar as rulers accurately measure the length of boards when building a house, and time insofar as clocks help you not be late for meetings. You can use whatever words and concepts you like to describe these regularities of nature. But to deny these regularities is to deny aspects of reality. Have a nice day.
so you might suggest universe is a timecrystal or every piece of matter can act like one or even the fabric is a timecrystal contracting and more expanding thus generating something we se as time
Completely disagree with this guest. Science isn't getting better, it's getting worse. Science peaked in the Victorian era when science became the domain of the hobbyist. Science before this and after this required patrons. The patrons have never been so biased as they are today.
Before this time, Galileo and others got persecuted by churches and kings. Today's "entrepreneurs" like Musk are 90% funded by government loans/grants and are directed by politicians. The victorian gentlemen hobbyist scientist was free of political pressure and funding constraints. A unique period in history.
@@user-pf5xq3lq8i I asked you to prove the claim in your comment; namely that science is getting worse, not better. You haven’t done that. You just restated the claim. Do you know how to prove a claim?
I've noticed a lot of people thinking that science is a body of unquestionable fact rather than a process.
I can understand that people not following how knowledge develop are getting confused and perhaps react by refusing information if they have "invested" in some world view, we humans mix everything together to a mess, and it is not so easy always, to handle "new" information
Just take small and relatively inconsequential issues as an example, like alcohol are suddenly healthy, then unhealthy, then it is unhealthy again etc, I remember it was like this with potatoes many years ago here where I live, it was suddenly unhealthy, for then to be healthy again, not that I care so much, but understand people gets frustrated
yes and It's mostly politics doing it.
This is a major part of people's distrust of experts and their opinions. When one person has become 'the science', you're darn right I'm gonna question and test their beliefs before I accept them blindly.
@@doncarlodivargas5497 I think the biggest issue is most people don't deal with uncertainty well. As a result, anything discussed with limits is treated as "not really true"
@@charleslivingston2256 - could be, but still, in my opinion many people "invest" in the current truth, without starting a big discussion about climate change, let's say it is proved there is no climate change, will you be glad or angry?
Because, this is my point, even if it is good news, a lot of people, politicians, journalists and activists etc, will react with anger, because they have "invested" in some truth, in my opinion it is too easy to say people are stupid etc, there is a dynamic relationship between the science/priests and the plebs, especially in religion we can clearly see the same thing
I'm close to 25 minutes in at this point and I just wanted to say, I love the interview, I think the guest is great and I'll be looking into more of his stuff later, and *the music you've been going with recently is perfect.*
You guys are doing a great job, Fraser, so I wanted to voice my support and give you my personal vote of confidence
🤜🤛
2 videos in 24 hrs. Bonus Fraser!
Ever since I read a book in my early 2000s titled 'Feyman's Rainbow' I held kind of a uninterested look towards philosophy and psychology and that they were more on the boring and uninteresting spectrum. I really enjoyed the ideas and thoughts that this unbiased observer that has no expectation of an outcome that's destined to be and how this may relate to quantum mechanics and bringing in specialists from these other fields.
The universe's only fundamental rule appears to be self-consistency.
Such a great friggin interview! I particular love the section related to time but I really found this conversation, this scientist’s way of communicating, to be extremely thought provoking in general. Great job Fraser, I hope you bring this guy back and continue to delve into this realm of scientific discussion!
One must not confuse philosophy to pseudo-science.
Fraser you brought Sean Carroll as example of the theoretical physicist getting into philosophy and even creating a new position within academia for that. I am listener to his Mindscape podcast and if i understand him right, he is also doing precisely what prof. Baron suggested - revising how universities are not making interdisciplinary cooperation exactly easy, and trying to bring people from these two camps to talk together.
Great discussion, thank you!
30:00 ff: _Your clock will slow down compared to a clock further away._
Which means a fast forward future travel rather than a past travel.
About 18:00 f: Yes, colours are something emergent, a leave's green colour is not one of its fundamental properties.
At the other hand, the leave has an absorption/ remission spectrum which a normal human _would perceive as_ green, given the required conditions such as sufficient "white" light (in red light, all green things would simply look dark), _if_ (s)he _were_ around to see it, even if this is not actually the case. So I'd still call it "green".
27:40 f: It's kind of funny that "time travel" is so often understood as traveling to the past. The main problem with this is that in the usual past travel scenarios, the traveler disappears in his present and reappears in the past which the continuity equations for energy, particle number and so on "forbid" i.e. state impossible.
Given we workaround this, the grandfather paradox will be a minor problem. Nature doesn't contradict itself. Maybe, it's superdeterministic and our past traveler's grandfather had indeed survived a murder attempt by some stranger and, recovering in a hospital, he met a nurse whom he never had met without the attack. The nurse will turn out to become our past traveler's grandmother, and the loop is closed. So, our past traveler doesn't alter but maintain the original history and was always determined to do so.
Another fascinating interview! I think philosophy will become very important as we get further from the low hanging fruit of science. Thanks y'all!
Great episode! Thank you Fraser.
I've always thought of the relationship between philosophy and science as being very much analogous to the relationship between science and engineering. In the latter, science provides mathematical precision and repeatability that without which engineering would be either too risky or flat-out impossible. In other words, to paraphrase the infamous XKCD comic, engineering is applied science (physics). What science itself needs is *conceptual* precision, robust enough to be able to formulate a method of testing. In other words, science needs well-formulated, meaningful questions, and this is exactly where Philosophy comes in. Philosophy has a much greater willingness to tunnel as far down the rabbit-hole as it can, grasping for meaning in the dark. What kind of questions can we ask, and should we be asking? What makes an idea meaningful or useful in the scientific domain? Is it even possible to take certain concepts or questions formulated for other human endeavors, like art or religion, and meaningfully translate them for scientific analysis without losing their essence, and if not, are there domains of human experience for which scientific analysis will always fall short? Philosophy revels in open questions with endless levels of deconstruction and reformulation. Science can't afford to muck around with that.
Awesome interview was looking forward to this, I remember Fraser mentioning this interview during the last Q&A
specifically the Time dilation part @ 30:35
I learned a lot from Professor Sam
Thanks Fraser and Universe Today
At the very end, I heard "Australian Catholic University" - and I'd already got the impression, "this guy is VERY strongly influenced by Aquinas, I wonder if he was trained by Dominicans." (Disclaimer: I'm an engineer, neither a philosopher nor a physicist.)
1:07:05 This reminds me of an old Mitch Hedberg bit about "I think you're more likely to have met me at the store. Coming up next is Mitch Hedberg, you might recognize him from... the store."
I think human's have a very intuitive sense of the way objects move through space. Intuitive and ultimately incorrect.. When Galileo did his experiments proving Aristotle wrong may have been one of those moments when we began to understand the importance of testing our theories.
"Flies have four legs, there's no reason to check..." - Aristotle 🤣
I hit the bong and pressed play....
Time travel paradoxes with a black hole are solved by the fact that if you are going backward in time then you can not escape the back hole and influence your timeline per the escape velocity would exceed light speed.
8:39 _perspectival_ : aw great new vocab word for me; I'm gonna have to use that more
Please don’t. There is no such property. Not the way he’s using it. His uses it to mask ontological confusion. He mistakes concepts for the things they represent. That’s confusing the map for the territory. Take his example of color. Color is not perspectival. The photons reflecting off an object are real; part of external physical reality from your perspective. The concept of color, however, is as made up (or a “projection” like he says) as all other concepts. There’s nothing actually perspectival about color, etc.
31:19 Interstellar question! How much thrust is needed to launch from Miller’s planet at that deep gravity where time is so dilated back into normal spacetime?
17:00 "are we seeing reality?" Well, enough to keep us alive at least,
and how does something we can not sense or realise, how does that exist in the first place?
But my qualia are different than yours!
*vanishes in a cloud of philosophy*
@@Muhahahahaz - so then we can have mass movements for example because?
Why is pizza and hamburgers so popular if everything is individually experienced?
I think some academics simply are a little too clever
Skepticism is Science !
"philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex: it is cheaper, easier, and some people seem, bafflingly, to prefer it" - Philosopher Dan Dennett on how most scientists view philosophy
Correct me if I’m wrong, we had a discovery that some polarized light from the CMB confirming that inflation happen in the early universe. But farther study found that turned out to be in case. Inflation theory solve a lot of problems in cosmology, but is there any evidence?
The double slit experiment highlights the fact that time does not exist at the Quantum level. The interference pattern builds up simply because TIME does NOT exist for photons.
I'm confused how you arrive at the conclusion "time does not exist at the Quantum level" from the double slit experiment. If you perform the experiment with sufficient precision, you can watch the individual photons build up an interference pattern over time. It takes a known amount of time for photons to travel from the emitter to the target. The Schrödinger equation has a "t" in it for time!!
Time is "stopped" for photons because they're travelling at the speed of light. But you can perform the double-slit experiment with (relatively) slow-moving particles, too. Even if the experiment only worked with photons, it doesn't logically follow that because they have an unique property, this property is the reason they have an unique effect in experiment. That's a fine guess for hypothesis generation. But in science, you have to actually test hypotheses.
Hot Fraser, Thanks so much for this fascinating discussion. Also, if there are Doctors of Philosophy, are there also nurses and orderlies? Philosophical Therapists? ;-) Seriously, thank you.
27:28 to paraphrase: 'philosophers have been interested in such a thing (time travel) ever since we've had the notion that there might be such a thing'. Well DUH. Sorry, I'm being a bit flippant here. Great interview/discussion. I'm liking the causation thing and lean toward that in terms of the beginning of this universe. What if there were something that was before Matter , Energy, Space, and Time ? What if that causally , but not necessarily intentionally, brought the Universe into being ?
“Math is the language of the universe. So the more equations you know, the more you can converse with the cosmos.”
So why then, are not the mysteries in the universe explained by someone that knows math?
@@doncarlodivargas5497Because most normal people would not understand.
@@bravo_01 - so black holes, dark matter,
the size of the universe, all such issues can be "conversed" with math?
@@doncarlodivargas5497 Yes. In fact those subjects are literally studied using math. And experiments when its possibe. Unless you have some magical alternative. Maybe praying?
@@verdi2310 - what comes first, math or understanding?
we also have seen many times when science was used as a political tool of mass manipulation and it led us down into some dark paths... or when too much money and ego is involved and that corrupts the process, the results and sometimes even the scientists ... I think these should be factored in at least
love your channel btw its a really good listen while working. Many thank from Hungary
If you are flying to the opposite side of the world via the opposite way to the way the earth is rotating, is it quicker to get to your destination?
Where do I find the link to the book club so that I may make recommendations?
www.goodreads.com/group/show/1198440-universe-today-book-club
Thought this might ne interesting. But this just confirms that Scientists don't require prompting by Philosophers to question their work.
49:52 Lol 😂
33:30 No, you won't get spaghettified in a sufficiently large black hole where the slope of spacetime curvature is low enough for stable atoms to exist. So, most SMBHs. He didn't say the time loop is at or close to the singularity. Just that it's beyond the event horizon.
Using repeated gravitational lensing of several galaxies, would it be possible to eventually view our own galaxy if the alignments of other galaxies were just right? Kind of like a selfie....
18:20 f: _Depending on how fast you move, distances contract and expand._
That's not quite accurate: Let B be a body, maybe a spacecraft, we chose to be our reference body which implies we regard it as stationary. Let B' be another body moving at constant x velocity βc.
That _motion as such_ doesn't effect which slice of spacetime we consider "now" but rather _the reinterpretation_ of B' being stationary and B as moving at x' velocity −βc which does so.
BTW nothing is really contracted but, as the B' "now" slice is slanted against the B "now" slice, its intersection with the world tubes of bodies will differ from that of the B "now" slice with those world tubes.
31:20 No, not "big" or "massive" but *dense*. Crushed small enough, any mass down to 21.8 micrograms can form a black hole.
Thanks for this video. It is a good time to have this discussion at the intersection of Philosophy and Physics/Science. I thought I'd also post a quote by Nikola Tesla within the context of this video : "My brain is only a receiver in the universe, there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength, and inspiration. I haven't penetrated the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists" . It may also be a good time to look at the Cosmological Physics of people like Brian Greene, the CCC theory of Roger Penrose, the quantum events in brain micro-tubules with Stuart Hameroff, the philosophical musings of Rupert Sheldrake of his fields of Morphic Resonance - which may well point to a new kind of science, plus the concept of the Void and the perceived "cessation of time" ( "Nirvana " ) in Buddhism. This is all very interesting and there may be a convergence of all of this "deep science" ( see Ken Wilber about the 3 strands of Deep Science ).
39:30 "string theory and graviton" if there is a gravitational particle, how come this is not destroyed in black holes? Can string-scientists explain that?
can i see myself through gravitational lensing ?
Background music ?
14:30 Metaphysics fail. This is not how emergence works. There is heat there, per se, even at the atomic level. Heat exists in the motion of atoms. Just because a property emerges at a higher conceptual level, doesn't mean it's metaphysically constrained to that level. Even if space and time emerge from some more fundamental theory, they still exist. At every conceptual level. It's metaphysically unjustified to deny the existence of emergent properties. No matter what level you're looking at. They may be difficult to discriminate on levels where they have not yet emerged. But metaphysically, they're still there.
Great video. cheese thumbs up 😀👍🏻 lol
How do you have causality without time?
I guess it depends on exactly how you define “time” in the first place. I would say the usual definition of time is sort of like this continuous line that exists no matter what is happening. But the causal structures that they discuss in the video are more like a “discrete” realization of time. Events still occur in an ordered sequence (technically a partial ordering I believe, since some events cannot influence each other), but that’s all there is. You can think of it like a tree graph of events, with an arrow connecting one event to another if it “causes” that event
Because these arrows imply various sequences, they are similar to tiny elements of time. But it’s not quite the same thing. It’s the events and causation that are fundamental. (I’m sure someone who directly studies this area could give a more accurate description, but hopefully that helps)
@@Muhahahahaz Feynman diagrams :)
Obviously you can't. It's a great exercise to throw out all conceptualization of time and study how it might emerge in a theory of quantum gravity. But any successful theory will have a property, however emergent, that maps to what we today call time. Because time (that regularly patterned relationship between events) is an fact of external physical reality which demands explanation.
@@PhysicsPolice Ah, got it. Missed in your talk. Thanks
If (or when) we ever encounter alien life (even if microbes) and if they have DNA, would it be safe to say that is not in fact alien at all, but merely a relative?
Depends on whether there is a common ancestor. There is such a thing as evolution producing the same result from different independent ancestors. Now stepping back from that rabbit hole...
Is there a reason we don’t refer to reality as a shockwave from the Big Bang that gets ever more complex as the distance from the source increases
I would even go as far to say you could alter your perception and be able to see an earlier iteration of the shockwave.
Idk why we talk about time travel in terms of the body when perception is all that needs to carry.
Also is everything everywhere all at once growing at a rate. And the variation in growth rate defines an object. I guess I’m saying dark energy or that which is in between is my god and way of seeing the world. 😪
Given this line of thought I don’t exactly agree with the notion of motion.
Because I am here I am not there. Because I am here [obj.] is not.
Sounds like there is divine truth to the past when you consider reality under a causal structure. And information is only gained as far as I can tell so we build from that which we have. The exponentially fractaling structure of reality through the [causes]. Can you put me back together? Can I become one with my past self by saving a record of myself?
Think quantum theory and general relativity are not entirely able to be explain by single theory. Quantum theory has many brick walls; Planck's Constances as examples. General relativity hints at being entirely or mostly entirely stretchable; black holes being example. Good talk.
Good point! Yes, very incompatible as they are today. The hope is for a future theory flexible enough to approximate these very different properties in their respective regimes. It’s a tall order. But compare the rigidity of Newtonian gravity to the stretchiness of General Relativity. Such a revolution has happened before. It’s reasonable to think it could happen again.
@@PhysicsPolice Thanks. Not for retired trucker, eh?
@@PhysicsPolice Would like do add previous comment. Think maths are wrong. In sense that not mathematics used to describe GR, and QT are wrong, but that maths it self is not able to describe natural world. Would point to Kurt Gödel. Maths as used today are incomplete. Invoking number theory there is axiom that states that 1 is not equal to 0. Error here is by how much, This concept does not exist in number theory - basis for or current usage of maths, Opinion please
@@Coraxyn It sounds like you're proposing that limits on the utility of mathematics e.g. via Gödel's incompleteness theorems explain the incompatibility between QM and GR. I don't think this works because I can explain, sans mathematical rigor, the disagreements between the two theories. For example, QM uses classical space and time dimensions, whereas in GR distance and time are relative.
I believe that if we do find a theory to unify QM and GR, it may involve mathematical structures not yet invented. Einstein relied on the Lorentz transformations to develop special relativity. These transformations came from the theory of continuous groups developed by Sophus Lie decades earlier. Sometimes progress in math is needed to make progress in physics. But we can't know if today those prerequisite mathematical inventions are discovered yet. There's only one way to find out!
@@PhysicsPolice Good point. Turns out any sufficiently axiomatic system will display incompleteness. Progress in maths are possible, think any such progress will expose new aspects of these theories as you stated. But short to ToE there will be new problems. Bet you a beer ;)
I'm of the opinion that we're looking at the wrong thing when it comes to reconciling gravity between quantum and relativity. Also dark matter as well. That the reason we dont see gravitons is because gravity either doesnt or only partly acts within our universe. That gravity's relation to mass and the warping of space time actually acts across either higher dimensions or on the edges of our reality. That just like how we use the gravitational lensing of the dark matter we cant directly observe to study it we would have to observe the effects on other fundamental quarks to see where gravitons would be if they existed within our universe other than simply acting upon it.
Tldr spooky action at a distance but the distance is between dimensions or across the fabric of reality/the universe and the thing doing it is gravity
This sounds like the Randall-Sundrum models which is strongly disfavored due to high tension with limits set by the LHC in 2016.
Enough comments for today
Would you consider yourself a Thomistic or traditional Catholic?
Could we build an AI that could interact with itself without knowing it?
Without us knowing it or the AI knowing it ?
05:04 "do science better!" Really? Euclid? Pythagoras? Arkimedes? Aristoteles? Heraclit?
Manifolds and tuning instruments to get the answers that we want is problematic .
Industrial Revolutionary mindset caused us to see our obsession with consumption and materialism in everything and everywhere. Paradolia of the mind. The prohobitions and dogma ruled by theoretical detailed instead of following evidence where it leads is wrong and sets us back and we need abondon this return to different schools of thought so we can be skeptical and rigorously sharp .
Now computation is reviving idealism allowing us to see the better explanations
there's a lot of errors in this video like assuming empiricism is real and its a truth which philosophy dismantles very well
What about politicized science?
What about it? I find that people declare that science is "politicized" when the conclusion doesn't match their beliefs. Science is nothing more than trying to understand the truth about the Universe.
I lasted 45 seconds.
I quit when "catholic university" was said.
I get that. But it’s not a theology school. It’s a public school. Beware of the genetic fallacy. The origin of a thing doesn’t strictly determine how the thing exists today.
35:00 Class error. The only reason this view is unpopular is because you presented it in a comically incorrect way. It's actually a consensus view in physics that time is a relationship between events. Because time (like any other component of a scientific theory) is a concept, yes, it's something we invented (you used the wrong verb "project"); and no, concepts aren't real nor do they exist. But those events with relationships between them absolutely do exist! And that pattern between them is real and objective. It's not an illusion projected by humans. That's stupid. You keep making the same mistake over and over: mistaking the map for the place. Why is that?
This video is been out for four hours and it only has 127 likes? Come on people! Git'er done!
6300 now
We have been stuck in transitor age for 70 years. All fields of study has been stagnant. The normalization of constants and tuning instruments for outcomes of a pre determined out come where we seek to fill in blanks is what kept ancient greeks from the stem engine despite having all the knowledge because they asked the wrong questions in the wrong manner.
Only when the West said I am therefore I exist did we really advance but since we reversed this and said being is that I am we hsvnt gotten anywhere in academia.
Relying on mechanics and tech workers to merge tvs , library into our hands will not cover up academia failure any longer.
The ads blow do more mars stuff and how we evolve . How they hold us back for what etc profit
8:40 "It may be there are some things that are deeply perspectival in science" -- This is wrong in two ways. First, the they're not in science. At all. The subjective is not testable because tests, in science, rely on some objective system of measurement. Second, they don't even exist. Linguistically, you've really gone out of your way to paint a different story. But perspectives are not things. They're conceptual relations between real things that exist. Concepts are not things. They don't exist.
I've been saying that forever time is an illusion created buy us watching things change and move
Time is not an illusion. The concept of time, like all concepts, is an invention. Or an "illusion" if you want to be poetic at the cost of accuracy. Time is a relationship between events. That relationship is real. It's repeatably, reliably quantifiable using clocks, duh. Time is an aspect of how things change and move. Your watching this all take place is entirely incidental.
If quantum mechanics accurately describes the electric force, why can't it describe the gravitational force? They are both 1/r2 (one over R squared) forces, and they have the same vectors. Why don't they just postulate the sea of virtual gravitons we swim in and be done with it?
Social science, theoretical science and neuroscience. Haven’t they, among others replaced philosophy?
Yes. Fraser just hadn’t figured this out yet. To be pedantic, they didn’t replace it. They superseded it. Philosophy is still down there as a foundation. But what people study in a philosophy degree is hopelessly outdated, largely inaccurate, and demonstrably ineffectual. In the modern era, that actually produces poor thinkers. Like this guy.
@@PhysicsPolice This guy tries to justify its value but fails in my view. It’s only use that I’ve found, is intellectual theists using it as a tool to maintain their belief.
@@burmabaines Yeah, I know what you mean, especially regarding theism! Although to give Sam credit, he pushed back on Fraser's over-selling of the value of philosophy, toward the end of the interview.
Or is the problem the fact that we use classical electromagnetism to describe the electron, a thoroughly quantum and quantized object? Is the spherically symmetric electric field around a point-charge a myth? Or more accurately, a model based on an idealization that does not exist in the real world? Kind of like "the free market"? It certainly applies. Worse, it's not a market and there is nothing free about it.
Time travel is impossible because if you travel through time you would have move the whole solar system through what ever time you traveling to.
Not necessarily. I guess you could say the usual conception of “time” travel is a bit simplistic. Think of it more like “spacetime” travel instead. Follow the time-like curve of the ground beneath you, in the reverse time direction
Fauci is why I'm hesitant to trust a scientist. I mean He 'Is the science, sir" sir,......lol
11:35 "There's not a lot you can do except sort of like churn through the philosophy..." -- Wow. No. This is so incredibly wrong. There are experts in the field of dealing with science denial (Dunning, Kruger, Novella, Swire, etc.) and we know a lot about what works to counter it. I've never heard any of them recommend "churning through the philosophy" or any such suggestion. Why are you so eager to speak outside your area of expertise? Fraser, why are you asking him these questions so far outside his area of expertise?
Why is building a bigger machine not worth it? I am bailing from this talk. I want to understand, not a lecture.
The whole 'time' concept is ridiculous because it is a pure human concept. For the Universe time does not exist. No matter how you try to twist and turn it: we humans invented it. Same goes for distance. So... for the Universe both 'time' and 'space' are totally irrelevant.
You're equivocating between the concept of time and the thing that concept describes. The map is not the territory. Time is a relationship between events. The universe absolutely does "care" about these relationships, as seen in repeatedly reliably measurable patterns like clocks ticking. You're welcome to throw out all prior conceptualization of time and try to explain why clocks tick. No matter what description you come up with, it will have to share a lot in common with our current conceptualization of time. But maybe you'll solve quantum gravity along the way! It's a worthy endeavor! But don't mistake it for a denial that time exists. You can't do that because the universe has a property that fits that description. Whether you conceive of it or not. For example, you can't reply to my words here above this comment. Any time you reply to me, it will be below this comment. You can't reconceive that ordering. That ordering exists regardless of your conceptualization.
@@PhysicsPolice Like I said before. Time is a human concept and is irrelevant for the Universe, only to us. Same goes for distance. The Universe could not care less about 'time' and 'distance'. Have a nice day.
@@puppymax4559 "Have a nice day" -- Nice attempt to cheekily get in the last word. I heard what you said, and I explained why it's wrong. The universe "cares" about distance insofar as rulers accurately measure the length of boards when building a house, and time insofar as clocks help you not be late for meetings. You can use whatever words and concepts you like to describe these regularities of nature. But to deny these regularities is to deny aspects of reality.
Have a nice day.
so you might suggest universe is a timecrystal or every piece of matter can act like one or even the fabric is a timecrystal contracting and more expanding thus generating something we se as time
Doctor who moved forward 250.000.000 in time and ended up in a zoo classified has a big rat with two legs
Gravity is NOT a force.
Yes it is.
Completely disagree with this guest. Science isn't getting better, it's getting worse. Science peaked in the Victorian era when science became the domain of the hobbyist. Science before this and after this required patrons. The patrons have never been so biased as they are today.
Prove it.
Before this time, Galileo and others got persecuted by churches and kings.
Today's "entrepreneurs" like Musk are 90% funded by government loans/grants and are directed by politicians.
The victorian gentlemen hobbyist scientist was free of political pressure and funding constraints.
A unique period in history.
@@user-pf5xq3lq8i I asked you to prove the claim in your comment; namely that science is getting worse, not better. You haven’t done that. You just restated the claim. Do you know how to prove a claim?