:D...Being german I find her accent not as beautiful as you do ;) (I prefer french accent or british... :)) But I will readily agree that Sabine is really good at explaining complex matters. That is why her channel is also a big favourite of mine and I will keep seeing more of her stuff!
@@MauriceApophis If you were German, you might agree that Sabine's Hessian "Hamwaned" (we don't have) would be a good placeholder for predicted but not found particles.
not because he wasn't thinking, he got zapped out of existence because he didn't say ''no, thank you'' and the universe called him out on his bad manners
Hi Sabine, you have actually touched on a subject I can speak with some real knowledge about as I have worked in it myself. This is the field of visual effects used to create all manure of fantastic imagery for film and television. We are indeed just about on that threshold of being able to recreate real people using today’s latest 3D modeling, shading, lighting, animating and rendering software. You are correct, with today’s state of the art, it would take a lot of specialized knowledge, skill, time, and effort (not to mention money) to be able to recreate a credible synthesized “Sabine.” Even with all of that, we would still need an actor who could mimic your voice and speech patterns to read a script plus an actor (the same actor if we were very lucky) who could credibly mimic your body and facial mannerisms to “perform” you on a motion capture stage. Modeling and texturing artists would have to have very good reference photos of you to be able to model any part of you: your face, your clothes , your hair, even any jewelry visible to the camera and then shade (paint) your face all of the same. Is doing this anything as complex as building a large particle collider or a gravity wave detector? Likely not but, it is complex enough that is well beyond the reach of all but about maybe 25,000 across the entire globe. And even if the very best of the best in the VFX field were assigned this as a project, bridging that “uncanny valley” would be a tall order indeed. I realize that this is a bit of an off-track discussion but, it does touch on part of the theme of your lecture so I thought I would share some of my knowledge. It feels good to be the teacher instead of the student every once in a while 😊.
Great video. Take it a bit further and your at the forefront of Cognitive Science of the self... YOU are also a model that you create to explain the data being observed. That is your Self is a modelling construct that is inferred by your brain.
@TheAbstraction you dont have to model the entire universe to study the universe. a brain could model someone else's elements of cognition. A 100% perfect model could still not explain its funtioning. Dynamic systems such as chaotic systems are easy to model but offer no help in predicting its behavious. As a side note, neural networks were first created, by copying (in a super simplistic way), the neuron, its most obvious funcions and its connections. Part of what we now call AI is based on observations about our brain. Also, a model could be such that its functioning is not 100% known. Such is the case with quantum physics, the models are (may be) yet too rough and correspond only partially to what it is being modelled
Well done. A very smart conceptual construction for distinguishing observation and data fitting with predictions and how important is they match each other in some way!!!
That's not exactly what motivates the "Cogito, ergo sum". If you assume that you do not exist, then your reflection about that question (and everythink else) will not be real either. The only solution to give sense to your thinking (also that one about your existence) is to postulate that you exist. BTW that makes sense even when you are really just a simulation. Also the simulated being should assume its existence.
we don't exist....because observation is just an emergent of some underlying existence. so that One exists but we all and all observed universe don't exist.
Sabines presentations of very abstract and complex topics are the clearest that I have ever encountered. Her music videos are an absolute scream. I wish I could meet her over a cup of coffee or some such thing. Lynn
That explanation was insightful, very clearly explained, and colored with humor. That is what my internal model of Sabine predicts and has come to consistently expect- I have not yet felt the need to alter or discard that model. With that said: boy it would be cool to discover that she was in fact a brilliant simulation as not only would that be a staggering technological accomplishment but it would perhaps make it possible for me to buy myself a copy. Thank you Sabine; your videos never fail to bring clarity to a subject and to evoke further thought.
As an eye doctor, I long ago concluded that reality is the sum of cognitive illusions - to include the illusional sense of self. Our sense of self is autobiographical; a construction made necessary by serial events (past and present) in which "I" (my sense of self) was always "there." Thank you, Sabine, for your very instructive and informative lectures, and for advancing (what is often abstruse and not easily understood) into terms most people will understand. I cannot think of 2 more important subjects than cognitive neuroscience and particle physics (QM and QFT in particular). Cheers.
@@normanstewart7130 Sorry, but when it comes to consciousness, my views align more with those of Sam Harris than Dan Dennett. For our Tufts professor, there is no such thing as consciousness (as he attempted to explain in his lengthy tome "Conscious Explained"). Whereas I would argue that because of consciousness - on the stage of consciousness - the illusion is experienced. "You" are not experiencing consciousness, for the simple reason that you are no independent of the conscious experience. "You" - the illusional and autobiographical sense-of-self - are part of the illusion. Ours is a phenomenological reality, not (in the words of Kant) a noumenal reality. Cheers.
I just made myself a cup of tea and dropped most of it over myself when listening to your vid. The momentary pain of hot liquid covering my shirt reconfirmed my personal existence to me (on a bleak Monday near London), but did nothing for my general mood.
It's a shame this channel and your videos on the philosophy of science aren't more popular, because that is what general audiences sorely need to understand.
No. It gives me a huge ego boner to think abou the uneducated massrs, and how they don't think things through as much as people in scientific or philosophical fields. (I am joking of course, obviously)
We process more than just sensory inputs: when I dream, the things I am experiencing are not the result of sensory input, but of (I'm guessing) constructions made from previously modeled sensory input. Within those dreams, I believe that these internally-produced simulated inputs exist. But when I awake, I then believe that I am in a more real frame of reference, and those dream constructions stop existing.
Greetings Sabine, good video. Existence in nature means structures in space-time. They can also be software structures. Software means structure (aka information) stored in a memory system. Mathematics, genomes, and minds are all software universes. Reality means perception and control. That means a mind connecting to a universe. All minds are software. The universe can be nature, or it can be a software universe (a "virtual world") like a game world. When people communicate you are actually connecting software universes. Thanks for listening. :) p.s. - energy is a measure of changing structures as they go down the time dimension (so potential energy means a change storage machine). The more energy (+changes) you have, the more you bend space-time (attractive gravity).
About the question of Sabine, I bring my own answer.Il 2018 I have published a paper of mathematical physics which show that in the universe we should deal with four kinds of matter. Two real matter +/- m and two kinds of "imaginary matter" (+/-)- i m. Il 1970 the french mathematician Jean-Marie Souriau developed the "symplectic mechanics"? The basis : He starts from the geometry of the space we are supposed to live in. If it is a Minkowski space time, then this universe contains masses and photons. In addition this technique shows that the masses and the energies must be positive or negative. It goes with the paper published in 2008 by Sabine in Physical Review D. If we shift to a "complex Minkowski space time" ( a "Hermite space" ) the the masses and the energies become complex. This brings a model mixing physics and metaphysics. I just remember the old movie "The Maltese Falcon", with Humphrey Bogart. In that movie men fight to get that falcon. At the end the bad guys are dead or captured. Bogart, an inspector, gets the falcon and scratch ir with his knife. A guys says : - Then, what is it made of ? And Bogart answers : "what men's dreams are made of". I would say the same thing. Our dreams are made of imaginary mass. Same thing for out thought, our feelings, our beliefs and … our god. I would be glad to debate with Sabine about that. By the way I will compose a paper entitled " Bimetric cosmological models". I will center the paper on Damour's model, Haodenfelder's model and mine, which could possibly be a perculiar case of Sabine's model. I would appreciate her help for that job.
Does God exist asks Ssbine? A number of historians external to the New Testament before 100AD(or CE) refer to the existence of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Take a copy of the NT and cut out all references to the resurrection of Christ. That NT will be in complete tatters It is clear that Christianity could not exist without the risen Christ. The NT itself makes this assertìon in 1Corinthians 15. But Christianity does exist. Hence God raised Jesus, his Son, from the dead, and so God exists. This argument is as reasonable as any argument about the creation of the universe from nothing and the origin of life.
I remember coming across Descartes' statement when I was a teenager, and liking it. And I thought about it some more, and decided that I cannot *prove* that anyone else is thinking, and therefore I can't prove that they exist. And I didn't mean that I thought other people did things which I considered stupid. I meant that I have no way to actually experience the constant stream of thoughts that some other person is (presumably) going through. I cannot "feel" their thought process.
A few years ago while riding a bicycle the realization appeared that I don't know where thoughts come from and that the statement "I think" is not true; rather, thoughts come into awareness, unbidden, and unpredictable. Noticing, as well, that thought/feeling/impulses/urges are different labels for the same phenomena--the basic qualia of experience--likewise unpredictable and random, or at most constrained in some unknowable way, the notion of agency, i.e. that there is a personal "I" that is in control of this "person" begins to weaken. Personhood is a set of mental experiences, undefinable and not shareable. Not only is it impossible to know what someone else is thinking/experiencing, each quantum (quale) of your own experience is unique, fleeting and unrepeatable with no possible algorithm/recipe for its repetition and therefore unknowable, even to yourself. We don't know anything, can't know anything, there are no constants beyond this unknowing which is the mother of humility/emptiness.
"I think" should be replaced with "I do have a subjective experience", which is the only thing I can be really sure of. Do other people exist and have subjective experience? I can't be sure, it's just a reasonable conjecture.
There seems to be a stage in a child's development where they become aware of that other people also think. I remember it put in the form of the idea of dreaming. The impossible question to answer was "are you just part of a dream I am having, or are you really there?" If the other child is really there, they knows that they are not part of your dream, but can't prove it to you. Just as you know you are not part of their dream, but can't prove it to them.
fortunately, it is not certain that you exist, but your image is instructive, amusing, and there is a deep pleasure in hearing from a sane, smart and educated person, even if i am fooled by a. i.
Regardless of holding the PhD in physics, Sabine holds our rapt attention not only with excellent cogent presentations but with her compelling appeal. Who says physics is dull? And, like Feynman said about women, "You just ask them." After some fifty years, the physics community is STILL grappling with the meaning of that statement.
At the time you recorded this video you did!, So did I at the time of watching the same video, But at the present time someone may say you or I or both don't exist any longer. What a funny old world!
you exist only where you are present in this bodily shroud. Rest of the universe is sans without you. Now, as far as your videos are concerned .... there, your CONSCiousness is representing you! Stay blessed!🙏🙏🙏
The famous fylosophical statement "i think therefor i am" says it all. It's not just a statement about what the i or thinking entity can be sure of, namely that your i exists, it's more importantly a statement about what you can't be sure of: everything else, including the nature of your self.
I've always felt that spending a lot of time arguing about whether God exists is kinda of pointless. The fact is that there is no consistent observable difference between the world we appear to live in and a world in which god(s) do not exist (since we explain essentially everything we can ever observe with science and reasoning). The most rational response, in my opinion, is to simply behave as if god(s) don't exist until it's demonstrated clearly that they do.
Making you up “for no good reason!” Oh, Sabine, you are a valuable existence, and, if you didn’t exist, then “making you up” would be for a very good reason. That is, to realize the benefits of your virtual existence. You undervalue yourself.
There is no observable or measurable phenomena that can be directly, or even indirectly, attributed to the existence of a creator and governing deity, simply no roof means no god. But, then the argument put forth by Douglas Adams in the Hitchhikers Guide, postulated that the existence of god must come from unproven belief, if a governing deity gave proof of their existence, then belief is replaced by fact and again, no god.
@O. M. π defines the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, and is an emergent property of reality. It's irrationality poses an infinite series. The probability of π being real is greater than the probability of you being real, on a consensual basis. Reality seethes with infinities, arguably more than finite numbers. It's the abyss looking back at you.
@O. M. Pi is found in other places as well, like it's relation to e. It's baked into the cake, so to speak. You can claim that pi is a construct, or a concept. Whatever. You can't build things without it. Sounds kinda real to me.
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem: “The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers” No proof does not mean that there is “No” god. But that isn’t the issue is it? The issue is: why should I believe a random stranger or book that If I follow a magical formula that only they have knowledge of ... I will please god and live an eternal life or otherwise be sent to eternal torture. People could surely send some biological material to a foreign planet and in millions of years from now be considered the Devine Designer for all species on that planet. But what does it matter if there is no evidence? And what is a likely extinct species of humans on planet earth going to play in the daily going’s on in the aliens life.
You'd really wonder how many of these Napoleon stories are true... Napoleon seems to be the go to 'Einstein said...' character of his day for all the conversations he seems to have had. You'd wonder how he ever found the time to invade a country!
If Sabine appears to be asking me, "Do I exist?", it's safe to say "Yes" because I can't be wrong. If Sabine does exist then I'm right. If Sabine doesn't exist then I'm neither right nor wrong because no one asked me anything.
A conversation takes place in a Turkish bath house: Priest: I suppose then, Mr Campbell, that there is no way I could prove to you the existence of God. Joseph Campbell: If there was father, what then would be the value of faith?
There comes a point where science must join with other disciplines to be authentic, to be true.. Many of the questions currently baffling physics and astronomy cannot be answered without a thorough knowledge of metaphysics and logic. (My opinion, of course).
No. God was a concept developed to answer questions raised by sensory data, such as "what produced the cosmos and its contents?" Every test, whether intentional or accidental, performed so far indicates the answer is mechanisms intrinsic to the cosmos itself. Given this success there is every reason to expect that hypothesis-driven observation (i.e. science) will continue to provide answers to what were previously mysterious phenomena. This may take a long time. Meanwhile the God hypothesis will no doubt continue to appeal to the impatient, the fearful as well as autocrats and priests whose self-interest it serves. Thanks Sabine for your concise and elegant presentations. Your explanation of mathematical frameworks for understanding natural phenomena is brilliant.
You, too? I put mine in a box last week and taped it shut. The box stopped moving three days ago, and it’s starting to smell, but I figure as long as I don’t open it... Hmm... too dark?
Douglas Hauck A cop stopped Werner Heisenberg and demanded: “Do you know how fast you were going?” Heisenberg responded: “No, but I know exactly where I am.” Sanjosemike (no longer in CA: but maybe)
Don't worry Dr Sabine. In Live TED Talks, they include live online video as well as pre-recorded talks. Welcome to the world! And thank you for your great visuals. It is not Marijuana. Physics is the best(Dr Sheldon).
I am afraid that, although you avoid philosophical questions, your last two questions about existences, belong to the philosophical, even theological field,
The existence of God doesn't explain any of my observations more plausibly than I can explain without one. The origin of the Universe attributed to God doesn't actually explain anything. It's just 'it came out of nothing apparently with one extra step'. That said, I have nothing to gain by arguing about God's existence, so usually I don't partake in the discussion. And those who believe in God tell me that it's not meant to be a scientific concept in the first place.
The question about the Existence of God must be answered in two ways: 1. Of course the idea of god exists. There are a lot of people who describe a being with some "special" features and the call the being "god" (depending on the actual religion). As this "idea" has a real meaning for those people and a real influence on their lives, we can say this "idea of god" exists. 2. A "god" as it is postulated by all those ideas what a god may be, does not exist. - There is not even a hint, that a supernatural being has any influence on human lives. Thinking about this with criteria like independence of personal believes and a minimum of intersubjectivity. Conclusion: The existing idea of god has caused war and suffering and has urged people to built churches and temples, but the being god does not exist and has no influence on the "reality" that physic is dealing with.
My strongest background is philosophy. It was great to consider existence from the "strictly" scientific point of view. I put strictly in quotations because you quote Descartes, a philosopher. I am looking forward to your video on the existence of God/god.
@@flavioguinez1456 great point! Multi disciplinary studies can and do happen. My formal education is in philosophy but I also am self educated in string theory and astrophysics. I claim no expertise in any field. Have a great day!!
I suppose the god question is invalid as is dividing by zero. There simply cannot be an answer. Of course you can answer it for yourself and find other people with the same or a similar belief system but in the end there is no way of proving either statement. So in a way both states of »god« exist simultaneously. But none can be proven. :D cheers
A cheap philosopher has said, " I think there for I am." Skin flint. I can afford or allowed to buy a little more meat. I've a mind to think about God allowing for me. Nothing like being grateful and thankful like to another and oneself. Adds more plausibility to a friendship with the handshake. Sustains the continuum I think and pray. An amen.
I can answer this question with a story. Two fellows were off to do some skiing. a younger man, and an older man. The younger man was waxing philosophy when he told the older man that nothing exists and all things are illusion. This conversation continued right up till they got to the top of the ski area. After that, the younger man grew quiet as he prepared himself for his skiing. All things were good. right up to the point that the young man didn't see the tree coming up fast upon him. The elder man cried out to warn him but it was too late. The younger man hit the tree full on. After the younger man got attention at the local hospital, the older man visited him t see how he was doing. The younger man had a cast on and didn't look happy. The older man said to the younger man as he viewed the accident," it looks like the tree's belief in you was greater than your disbelief in the tree."
Beleving or not in God is a matter of FAITH ,say, believing witout seeing, like a lot of things in our daily life, by the way. The pity is that nowadays science is becoming just the same.
You either exist or not when I observe you. Without observation I have no way of knowing the answer. At the time I watched this video you existed. But I am closing it now so ….. POOOOF!!!!!🔥
You must see Sabine's music videos to begin to get a fuller picture of who she is. I imagine that in her classroom lectures she is so droll that half her students grin while half her students look nonplussed.
IMO, God is a missing part of a human puzzle to grasp whole reality around us. The less you fit your understanding and observations of the universe into your mind models and feelings in your soul, the more room for God existence you get. In other words, God gives you confidence that you live in a perfectly sensible world where you can feel safe and have some purpose. The less you know, the more you need God to have your model of world consistent with what you perceive. So in another words, until we solve last riddle of our world, until we know and explain everything for every human being including "what was before..." "what is behind..." "where do I go after death", God will exist. And for many, I belive that even then God will continue to has its place in their lives, including me :)
I think that first we should try to answer, what is it to exist, what is almost the same as asking what am I. Of course, the answer depends on external data for us to compare ourselves with. Nonrtheless, it is more fundamental to start from the subject analysing itself.
How is "existence" a useful concept? An operational definition of the existence of an object is that it is a sense person that can be lost of then recovered through actions. That satisfies a lot of what I am trying to invoke when I mean something exists. My glass of water in my kitchen of my house exists because I can go to it, observe it, and pick it up. It has water because I can drink from the glass and feel it quench my thirst. And my thirst exists until I quench it. And until I do that, I can recover my thirst when I pay attention to it.
When the waving hand is at its lowest point you can see that it's not the hand behind your back. Which is obvious, I know, but it was so well made that I had to figure out how exactly you did it.
Like you said all we have is sensory input. Some Vedanta scholars would say that using this input to confirm for example that you exist, when I am not watching this video, like asking you and so on, is the same as asking a thief if he has stolen. Consistency as well does not at all imply that things exist when we are not watching, or even while we are watching. All confidence that you mention comes from the basic premise that is at best uncertain. If we want to avoid getting caught deeper into the illusion we must ignore this confidence as best as we are able. More importantly, statement "I think therefore I exist" is not certain at all as well. First of all we can not find this I, because everything ends up being seen by this I. And many say that this seen only seems to be happening, it is not actually happening. This I appears to exist only when there is some object that it can attach itself to. For example in deep sleep when we are not dreaming, there are no objects and there is no I. If there is no I apart from the objects and phenomena, that means that the very phenomena is questionable without some constant that is there while they are gone, otherwise how the difference can be known? If this I only seems to exist, all the phenomena also only seems to exist. The woman without the womb can not have a child. I know I am also offering bunch of uncertainty here, but the whole point is that the criteria by which we determine certainty is not accurate.
Did everyone know that I controlled their parasympathetic nervous systems, therefore, I existed? I could observe my affects on you! Both of us exist! I did the experiment upon you! Duane
@Roger Loquitur I would pretend to be apologetic about not being impressed at zero like you are...but " breathtakingly intelligent" is a matter of opinion, and fortunately we are welcome to our own opinions...aren't we?... Mate?????... (grin)
@Roger Loquitur You have reached a conclusion with ZERO display/demonstration of the intellectual workings behind your conclusion... You're brilliant...
My view is: properties interact with properties. Everything has some property. If something had no property then it wouldn't interact with anything. It would be nothing. Nothing has no property. Or, No property is the property of nothing. Or, every property is the property of something. If we observe interactions, we know properties are interacting. Therefore, we know things exist. Everything exists as some set of properties. Science is, basically, discovering and recording how properties interact. Sometimes, an interaction may be observed without observing everything that is interacting, like stars revolving quickly around, seemingly, nothing.
The concepts of "truth" and "reality" are part of making predictions. The "true" or "real" theory explains not just what you have already seen, but what you will see in the future. They are very important in science, since making predictions is one of if not the most important purpose of science.
By the way, Google translate have a function where you can play the sound of the word you want to translate into English. You can even play whole sentences, albeit most often constructed in the wrong way grammatically.
„Existence“ can be seen as a popping up on a neutral or devouring background. For some synesthetes the world is different to ours, because they receive more existence by having a broader popping-up-apparatus. Their consciousness can be therefor intensified. Take these isolated sentences by William Shakespeare: „Why, I can smile, and murder whiles I smile, And cry 'Content' to that which grieves my heart, And wet my cheeks with artificial tears, And frame my face to all occasions. I'll drown more sailors than the mermaid shall; I'll slay more gazers than the basilisk; I'll play the orator as well as Nestor, Deceive more slily than Ulysses could, And, like a Sinon, take another Troy. I can add colours to the chameleon, Change shapes with Proteus for advantages, And set the murderous Machiavel to school.“ These are existential fireworks, not only associative ones, a sum type of possibilities urging for coming into being. The aggressiveness is not by chance. Intense passion on the other hand can be also an existential quality.
It's strange but listening to your videos creates some form of excitement within me, something - so far - only real persons were able to accomplish. However, I know that with currently technology it would be possible to create a virtual person but wouldn't be that person as real as anyone else? Unless I cuddle and kiss you - for scientific reasons only - there is no way to be sure about your existence. ^^
I am only sure that *I* (in the metaphysical sense, ie my thinking mind) exist. I know that my mind is creative and has the capacity to imagine pretty much anything to a very high degree of detail. Based on those few things that I can be sure of, the simplest and most plausible conclusion is that only I exist, and everything that isn’t *I*, including my physical body, is a creation of my mind.
This channel is for those interested in the human and communal activity we call "science". It's essential for the progress and survival or humanity. BUT science doesn't answer my own personal concerns nor does it help me with the day-to-day relationships of my own life. These are two different worlds - an outer world and an inner world. My own concerns are absolutely unique to me and no-one else. I have spend my life learning how to handle them with little help from science or other people. If religion and God help some people tackle lifes personal problems then so be it. If it helps someone grieve and say goodbye to a dead child or parent then I'm glad it's there - even though it's of no interest or value to a professional scientist. Who does not have a personal life? Who doesn't need help sometimes with personal problems they've never faced before? Who is the perfect human being who needs to believe in nothing else except what science has deemed to exist? Let's not forget our humanity. Hello all you religious people out there! Don't listen to Sabine when she says "goodbye!". You are welcome as far as I'm concerned; and you are welcome to become professional scientists too, because religion and science should not be in conflict. At it's best, religion complements science and helps individuals to become better human beings (and honest scientists). At it's worst, religious leaders claim to know the mind of God, contradict science and make everyone's life a misery. At it's worst, scientific leaders claim to know religion, ignore it's purpose and make everyone's life a misery too. Let's not coerce people to believe science at the expense of religion; and let's accept that religion has a role to play in the personal and ultimately sad lives of human beings. If science knows nothing about God then professional scientists should stop giving the impression to the public that science has anything to say about God. Instead, have a go at mathematicians who believe in Platonic forms that live in an abstract universe. Let's face it, which is the average person more likely to relate to in their ordinary lives - the Bible or Quantum mechanics?
The question "does god exist" is a trick question. It has already been answered by this video 100%. But I am sure that won't stop Sabine from making another video
I’m definitely not 100% confident that I exist. Nor am I any more confident that I was born or will ever die. All I really think I can know to any degree is that something is happening in the now that seems to express a model of a self with some consistency. But the harder I look at what is the self, the less I can actually resolve the self as anything more than an abstraction of a constantly changing temporal perspective which models and projects a reality construct with no more resolution than is necessary for survival. There is no certainty in any of it.
Descartes pointed out that his senses made the sun appear small in the sky, but based on astronomical reasoning he perceived it to be much larger than the Earth. His point was that knowledge comes through reason whether or not sensory data is involved. While certainly there are some things we won't know without some specific sensory data, our understanding should be built on reason alone. Reason can tell us when to use the sensory data and when not to. And reason can tell us when an Empirical scientific method is a good choice or not for a given situation. While our reason is not perfect, if we don't trust it, nothing else will help and we can know nothing.
2 cents thank you for existing and giving me a reason to be challenged in my knowledge of cosmology only thing that allows my snail growth evolution you exist but are my dream as well
Good video. You have to be specific about which “God” exists. The term is so amorphous I don’t think there can be sensible discussion without some preliminary definition. -- My preference with questions like this is to start with the difference between objective knowledge and absolute knowledge. Objective knowledge (or science) is characterised, seemingly paradoxically, by the quality that it can be wrong. Absolute knowledge, that religion and spiritualism often doles out, cannot be wrong. This insistence on an absolute statement about something’s existence is the demand for absolute knowledge. The question of simulations of people is becoming important given the new AI with deep learning can create a convincing CGI animation, with audio, of a real person.
Excellent add-on to the ideas in your ground truth book "Lost in Math". I am not helping with the data I know but I read Max Tegmark's book as well so I am thinking I am just a universal math simulation anyway, ha ha. Thanks Dr. B!
I hope I’m not too late to give my answer to your last challenge of “does God exist” I think nonstop on this issue, I have been in a constant state of existential anxiety/crisis/ depression because of this for decades, so hopefully all this trouble hasn’t been for not lol. Anyways this is my understanding of a plausible approach. I think we are probably further away from a concrete answer to this question then we are from answering how our universe started and that’s because we are more interested in our physical nature rather than our inner nature. I’m sure this will change in the future but for now I can only approach this issue with my own personal experiences and research on most philosophies and faith systems. I look at how nature reacts and I also try and take in the information that kind people like yourself share on the more subtler levels of our physical universe. From this I see that if there is a God it’s certainly not the one most people worship nor does it seem to be interacting with us the way most people hope. As I see it we are stuck in a magic and myth view of such matters. This view in my opinion seems to be very difficult for us to shake off for a more realistic approach. I love the theory that I learned from the book The Emerald Tablet. It’s theory of “as above so below” makes sense in a way of possibly getting some perspective of what our inner nature is and if there is to be a separate God self or a more all is God Truth. I’m more inclined as to everything is God and our physical nature is our cosmic evolution of our inner God energy understanding. Nature doesn’t stop or even pause during any cosmic or personal “disasters”, it only knows how to keep going. Wether an individual person, animal, organism or even earth dies the universe will not pause or stop, it only knows to push on with balance as it’s guide. Physical nature shows patience beyond reproach and most things I’m aware of end up here through a birthing process of one form or another. So my prediction for our physical universe is not a Big Bang but rather a birthing from a black hole in an older but equal universe as this one. Not sure if I should keep going or if this is enough information for you to dissect my thoughts. Thank you sooooo much this made all my existential angst worth it.
@@romanski5811 believe it or not I don’t really think about this stuff anymore. I got assessed with ADD a couple of years ago and now that I’m on medication my brain has slowed down and I’m actually getting 💩 done. I always had a heck of a time getting myself motivated and now I just get up and head out the door.
This is currently my favourite science channel. Sabine is great at explaining complex ideas.
*And I love her accent.
:D...Being german I find her accent not as beautiful as you do ;) (I prefer french accent or british... :))
But I will readily agree that Sabine is really good at explaining complex matters. That is why her channel is also a big favourite of mine and I will keep seeing more of her stuff!
@@MauriceApophis I read your comment to myself in German accent. You sound sexy, too 😍. But yeah she's great!
Wait until the next time she says "Einstein"!
@@MauriceApophis If you were German, you might agree that Sabine's Hessian "Hamwaned" (we don't have) would be a good placeholder for predicted but not found particles.
In fairness Anton Petrov is quite good too.
Waitress asked Descartes if he wanted another cup of coffee? Descartes said, "I think not" and promptly disappeared.
not because he wasn't thinking, he got zapped out of existence because he didn't say ''no, thank you'' and the universe called him out on his bad manners
@@Depleted-Uranium - Much funnier the way you said it?
the universe is a stimulation, get real.
Yes that's an old joke. It's supposed to start with "Descartes walks into a bar" though.
@@medexamtoolscom Was he injured?
Hi Sabine, you have actually touched on a subject I can speak with some real knowledge about as I have worked in it myself. This is the field of visual effects used to create all manure of fantastic imagery for film and television. We are indeed just about on that threshold of being able to recreate real people using today’s latest 3D modeling, shading, lighting, animating and rendering software. You are correct, with today’s state of the art, it would take a lot of specialized knowledge, skill, time, and effort (not to mention money) to be able to recreate a credible synthesized “Sabine.” Even with all of that, we would still need an actor who could mimic your voice and speech patterns to read a script plus an actor (the same actor if we were very lucky) who could credibly mimic your body and facial mannerisms to “perform” you on a motion capture stage. Modeling and texturing artists would have to have very good reference photos of you to be able to model any part of you: your face, your clothes , your hair, even any jewelry visible to the camera and then shade (paint) your face all of the same. Is doing this anything as complex as building a large particle collider or a gravity wave detector? Likely not but, it is complex enough that is well beyond the reach of all but about maybe 25,000 across the entire globe. And even if the very best of the best in the VFX field were assigned this as a project, bridging that “uncanny valley” would be a tall order indeed. I realize that this is a bit of an off-track discussion but, it does touch on part of the theme of your lecture so I thought I would share some of my knowledge. It feels good to be the teacher instead of the student every once in a while 😊.
It's plausible that your channel is one of the best on UA-cam. ;)
What is UA-cam? 🤔
It's a fact. Beyond your senses 😁
possibly...
Great video. Take it a bit further and your at the forefront of Cognitive Science of the self... YOU are also a model that you create to explain the data being observed. That is your Self is a modelling construct that is inferred by your brain.
@TheAbstraction Wut?
@TheAbstraction Modelling does not have to have 100% fidelity.
What is this self observing and interpreting the data? I may assume my existence. What about yours?
@TheAbstraction you dont have to model the entire universe to study the universe. a brain could model someone else's elements of cognition. A 100% perfect model could still not explain its funtioning. Dynamic systems such as chaotic systems are easy to model but offer no help in predicting its behavious. As a side note, neural networks were first created, by copying (in a super simplistic way), the neuron, its most obvious funcions and its connections. Part of what we now call AI is based on observations about our brain. Also, a model could be such that its functioning is not 100% known. Such is the case with quantum physics, the models are (may be) yet too rough and correspond only partially to what it is being modelled
@TheAbstraction yeah, but scientist cannot, by definition, flag a problem as unsolvable
Well done. A very smart conceptual construction for distinguishing observation and data fitting with predictions and how important is they match each other in some way!!!
To expand upon Descartes a bit: Your awareness of your existence proves your existence. That is all.
That's not exactly what motivates the "Cogito, ergo sum".
If you assume that you do not exist, then your reflection about that question (and everythink else) will not be real either. The only solution to give sense to your thinking (also that one about your existence) is to postulate that you exist. BTW that makes sense even when you are really just a simulation. Also the simulated being should assume its existence.
Even that is not certain, (using the typical meaning of exist in this context).
we don't exist....because observation is just an emergent of some underlying existence. so that One exists but we all and all observed universe don't exist.
I see your Descartes and raise you a Sartre: your awareness, or rather an act of it, proves only its own existence.
Sabines presentations of very abstract and complex topics are the clearest that I have ever encountered. Her music videos are an absolute scream. I wish I could meet her over a cup of coffee or some such thing. Lynn
That explanation was insightful, very clearly explained, and colored with humor. That is what my internal model of Sabine predicts and has come to consistently expect- I have not yet felt the need to alter or discard that model. With that said: boy it would be cool to discover that she was in fact a brilliant simulation as not only would that be a staggering technological accomplishment but it would perhaps make it possible for me to buy myself a copy. Thank you Sabine; your videos never fail to bring clarity to a subject and to evoke further thought.
*Sabine
As an eye doctor, I long ago concluded that reality is the sum of cognitive illusions - to include the illusional sense of self. Our sense of self is autobiographical; a construction made necessary by serial events (past and present) in which "I" (my sense of self) was always "there." Thank you, Sabine, for your very instructive and informative lectures, and for advancing (what is often abstruse and not easily understood) into terms most people will understand. I cannot think of 2 more important subjects than cognitive neuroscience and particle physics (QM and QFT in particular). Cheers.
You're sounding like Daniel Dennett. If consciousness is an illusion, then who or what is having the illusion?
@@normanstewart7130 Sorry, but when it comes to consciousness, my views align more with those of Sam Harris than Dan Dennett. For our Tufts professor, there is no such thing as consciousness (as he attempted to explain in his lengthy tome "Conscious Explained"). Whereas I would argue that because of consciousness - on the stage of consciousness - the illusion is experienced. "You" are not experiencing consciousness, for the simple reason that you are no independent of the conscious experience. "You" - the illusional and autobiographical sense-of-self - are part of the illusion. Ours is a phenomenological reality, not (in the words of Kant) a noumenal reality. Cheers.
Student to philosophy professor: "How do I know if I really exist?"
Philosophy professor to student: "Who's asking the question?"
I just made myself a cup of tea and dropped most of it over myself when listening to your vid. The momentary pain of hot liquid covering my shirt reconfirmed my personal existence to me (on a bleak Monday near London), but did nothing for my general mood.
It's a shame this channel and your videos on the philosophy of science aren't more popular, because that is what general audiences sorely need to understand.
No. It gives me a huge ego boner to think abou the uneducated massrs, and how they don't think things through as much as people in scientific or philosophical fields.
(I am joking of course, obviously)
@@younggod5230 where's the punchline
We process more than just sensory inputs: when I dream, the things I am experiencing are not the result of sensory input, but of (I'm guessing) constructions made from previously modeled sensory input. Within those dreams, I believe that these internally-produced simulated inputs exist. But when I awake, I then believe that I am in a more real frame of reference, and those dream constructions stop existing.
Excellent explanation!
Marvelous! I like very much of this enthusiasm by big questions...
Greetings Sabine, good video.
Existence in nature means structures in space-time. They can also be software structures. Software means structure (aka information) stored in a memory system. Mathematics, genomes, and minds are all software universes.
Reality means perception and control. That means a mind connecting to a universe. All minds are software. The universe can be nature, or it can be a software universe (a "virtual world") like a game world. When people communicate you are actually connecting software universes.
Thanks for listening. :)
p.s. - energy is a measure of changing structures as they go down the time dimension (so potential energy means a change storage machine). The more energy (+changes) you have, the more you bend space-time (attractive gravity).
About the question of Sabine, I bring my own answer.Il 2018 I have published a paper of mathematical physics which show that in the universe we should deal with four kinds of matter. Two real matter +/- m and two kinds of "imaginary matter" (+/-)- i m.
Il 1970 the french mathematician Jean-Marie Souriau developed the "symplectic mechanics"? The basis : He starts from the geometry of the space we are supposed to live in. If it is a Minkowski space time, then this universe contains masses and photons. In addition this technique shows that the masses and the energies must be positive or negative. It goes with the paper published in 2008 by Sabine in Physical Review D.
If we shift to a "complex Minkowski space time" ( a "Hermite space" ) the the masses and the energies become complex. This brings a model mixing physics and metaphysics.
I just remember the old movie "The Maltese Falcon", with Humphrey Bogart. In that movie men fight to get that falcon. At the end the bad guys are dead or captured. Bogart, an inspector, gets the falcon and scratch ir with his knife. A guys says :
- Then, what is it made of ?
And Bogart answers : "what men's dreams are made of".
I would say the same thing. Our dreams are made of imaginary mass. Same thing for out thought, our feelings, our beliefs and … our god.
I would be glad to debate with Sabine about that. By the way I will compose a paper entitled " Bimetric cosmological models". I will center the paper on Damour's model, Haodenfelder's model and mine, which could possibly be a perculiar case of Sabine's model. I would appreciate her help for that job.
“Going out to run errands” look... Nicely done. A rising star/system in your field.
Does God exist asks Ssbine?
A number of historians external to the New Testament before 100AD(or CE) refer to the existence of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Take a copy of the NT and cut out all references to the resurrection of Christ. That NT will be in complete tatters It is clear that Christianity could not exist without the risen Christ. The NT itself makes this assertìon in 1Corinthians 15. But Christianity does exist. Hence God raised Jesus, his Son, from the dead, and so God exists. This argument is as reasonable as any argument about the creation of the universe from nothing and the origin of life.
I remember coming across Descartes' statement when I was a teenager, and liking it. And I thought about it some more, and decided that I cannot *prove* that anyone else is thinking, and therefore I can't prove that they exist. And I didn't mean that I thought other people did things which I considered stupid. I meant that I have no way to actually experience the constant stream of thoughts that some other person is (presumably) going through. I cannot "feel" their thought process.
A few years ago while riding a bicycle the realization appeared that I don't know where thoughts come from and that the statement "I think" is not true; rather, thoughts come into awareness, unbidden, and unpredictable. Noticing, as well, that thought/feeling/impulses/urges are different labels for the same phenomena--the basic qualia of experience--likewise unpredictable and random, or at most constrained in some unknowable way, the notion of agency, i.e. that there is a personal "I" that is in control of this "person" begins to weaken. Personhood is a set of mental experiences, undefinable and not shareable. Not only is it impossible to know what someone else is thinking/experiencing, each quantum (quale) of your own experience is unique, fleeting and unrepeatable with no possible algorithm/recipe for its repetition and therefore unknowable, even to yourself. We don't know anything, can't know anything, there are no constants beyond this unknowing which is the mother of humility/emptiness.
"I think" should be replaced with "I do have a subjective experience", which is the only thing I can be really sure of. Do other people exist and have subjective experience? I can't be sure, it's just a reasonable conjecture.
There seems to be a stage in a child's development where they become aware of that other people also think. I remember it put in the form of the idea of dreaming. The impossible question to answer was "are you just part of a dream I am having, or are you really there?" If the other child is really there, they knows that they are not part of your dream, but can't prove it to you. Just as you know you are not part of their dream, but can't prove it to them.
fortunately, it is not certain that you exist, but your image is instructive, amusing, and there is a deep pleasure in hearing from a sane, smart and educated person, even if i am fooled by a. i.
You're so smart and pretty and entertaining and talented. You're an all around delight. Thank you for taking the time to make these videos for us.
Regardless of holding the PhD in physics, Sabine holds our rapt attention not only with excellent cogent presentations but with her compelling appeal. Who says physics is dull?
And, like Feynman said about women, "You just ask them." After some fifty years, the physics community is STILL grappling with the meaning of that statement.
Yes, you do. And you're looking good while doing it.
Stop flirting with your teacher
I am always rewarded for having listened.🐚
At the time you recorded this video you did!, So did I at the time of watching the same video, But at the present time someone may say you or I or both don't exist any longer. What a funny old world!
you exist only where you are present in this bodily shroud. Rest of the universe is sans without you. Now, as far as your videos are concerned .... there, your CONSCiousness is representing you! Stay blessed!🙏🙏🙏
Thanks for the high band width thoughts, more.
Sabine is the queen of skepticism, but then being skeptical is the major tenant of the scientific" manner".
Two exploratory questions:
1. Does the planet Uranus exist?
2. Did the planet Uranus exist prior to 1781?
Look into it. That's all I'm saying.
The famous fylosophical statement "i think therefor i am" says it all. It's not just a statement about what the i or thinking entity can be sure of, namely that your i exists, it's more importantly a statement about what you can't be sure of: everything else, including the nature of your self.
I've always felt that spending a lot of time arguing about whether God exists is kinda of pointless. The fact is that there is no consistent observable difference between the world we appear to live in and a world in which god(s) do not exist (since we explain essentially everything we can ever observe with science and reasoning). The most rational response, in my opinion, is to simply behave as if god(s) don't exist until it's demonstrated clearly that they do.
This demonstrates no more than the limits of human reason and science but not the limits of existence itself.
Dr Hossenfelder, thank God you exist. At least in my mind. I think, therefore you are. Thanks for your great videos. Keep up the good works!
Making you up “for no good reason!” Oh, Sabine, you are a valuable existence, and, if you didn’t exist, then “making you up” would be for a very good reason. That is, to realize the benefits of your virtual existence. You undervalue yourself.
There is no observable or measurable phenomena that can be directly, or even indirectly, attributed to the existence of a creator and governing deity, simply no roof means no god.
But, then the argument put forth by Douglas Adams in the Hitchhikers Guide, postulated that the existence of god must come from unproven belief, if a governing deity gave proof of their existence, then belief is replaced by fact and again, no god.
@O. M. π defines the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, and is an emergent property of reality. It's irrationality poses an infinite series.
The probability of π being real is greater than the probability of you being real, on a consensual basis.
Reality seethes with infinities, arguably more than finite numbers. It's the abyss looking back at you.
@O. M. Pi is found in other places as well, like it's relation to e. It's baked into the cake, so to speak. You can claim that pi is a construct, or a concept. Whatever. You can't build things without it. Sounds kinda real to me.
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem:
“The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers”
No proof does not mean that there is “No” god. But that isn’t the issue is it? The issue is: why should I believe a random stranger or book that If I follow a magical formula that only they have knowledge of ... I will please god and live an eternal life or otherwise be sent to eternal torture.
People could surely send some biological material to a foreign planet and in millions of years from now be considered the Devine Designer for all species on that planet. But what does it matter if there is no evidence? And what is a likely extinct species of humans on planet earth going to play in the daily going’s on in the aliens life.
I like this woman on so many levels.
With regards to the question stated at the end, I have to say:
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là
(Pierre-Simon Laplace (allegedly))
You'd really wonder how many of these Napoleon stories are true... Napoleon seems to be the go to 'Einstein said...' character of his day for all the conversations he seems to have had. You'd wonder how he ever found the time to invade a country!
I'm very glad you exist Sabine!
I now know not to try shaking Sabine's hand if I ever meet her.
If Sabine appears to be asking me, "Do I exist?", it's safe to say "Yes" because I can't be wrong. If Sabine does exist then I'm right. If Sabine doesn't exist then I'm neither right nor wrong because no one asked me anything.
A conversation takes place in a Turkish bath house:
Priest:
I suppose then, Mr Campbell, that there is no way I could prove to you the existence of God.
Joseph Campbell:
If there was father, what then would be the value of faith?
Just replace the word faith with gullability and it changes the joke so much, and yet so little.
Truly everything is a footnote on Plato. Forms and knowledge.
There comes a point where science must join with other disciplines to be authentic, to be true..
Many of the questions currently baffling physics and astronomy cannot be answered without a thorough knowledge of metaphysics and logic. (My opinion, of course).
of course.
your editing really is subtly incredible
You're one of my favourite AI on youtube.
No. God was a concept developed to answer questions raised by sensory data, such as "what produced the cosmos and its contents?" Every test, whether intentional or accidental, performed so far indicates the answer is mechanisms intrinsic to the cosmos itself.
Given this success there is every reason to expect that hypothesis-driven observation (i.e. science) will continue to provide answers to what were previously mysterious phenomena. This may take a long time. Meanwhile the God hypothesis will no doubt continue to appeal to the impatient, the fearful as well as autocrats and priests whose self-interest it serves.
Thanks Sabine for your concise and elegant presentations. Your explanation of mathematical frameworks for understanding natural phenomena is brilliant.
All I know about existence is that I named my cat Schrodinger. Well, maybe.
You, too? I put mine in a box last week and taped it shut. The box stopped moving three days ago, and it’s starting to smell, but I figure as long as I don’t open it...
Hmm... too dark?
Douglas Hauck A cop stopped Werner Heisenberg and demanded: “Do you know how fast you were going?”
Heisenberg responded: “No, but I know exactly where I am.”
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA: but maybe)
San Jose Mike Hoo-sha!!
Douglas Hauck just dark enough
Don't worry Dr Sabine. In Live TED Talks, they include live online video as well as pre-recorded talks. Welcome to the world! And thank you for your great visuals. It is not Marijuana. Physics is the best(Dr Sheldon).
Define "I".
That seems unnecessary, in a conversation.
@@grandpaobvious In a conversation, yes. In science, no.
Empiricist to the core, which is one of the reasons I like Sabine.
>god
i am still, 60 years on, waiting to see any evidence.
Are you looking for evidence, Sir. Or, are you awaiting a formal introduction.
Like love, are you looking for God in all the wrong places?
If god exists its on them to prove it, I've got no interest in games of celestial hide and seek.
I see, the background of wood plank is a representation of absorption lines on the spectrum..thats clever and beautiful.
This is going towards the Simulation Hypothesis, isn't it?
Kind of :) Stay tuned.
"Simulation" is what the Vedantins call "maya".
I'm not sure if she exists, but she's so smart I am 100% sure Sabine could convince me she doesn't.
I wish I could live long enough to see AI call humans 'God' for being the creators.
Or vermin. And exterminate.
I can write a simple program that will say so, if that makes you happy.
Love the VIBGYOR planck background radiation simulation.
Violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, red?
I am afraid that, although you avoid philosophical questions, your last two questions about existences, belong to the philosophical, even theological field,
True, but that is nothing to be afraid of.
Quite right
Settle down and get over the fact that you do exist and are beautiful. Your intellect is amazingly beautiful as well.
The existence of God doesn't explain any of my observations more plausibly than I can explain without one. The origin of the Universe attributed to God doesn't actually explain anything. It's just 'it came out of nothing apparently with one extra step'.
That said, I have nothing to gain by arguing about God's existence, so usually I don't partake in the discussion. And those who believe in God tell me that it's not meant to be a scientific concept in the first place.
Great observations. Explanations are very impressive. That much is plausible.
The question about the Existence of God must be answered in two ways:
1. Of course the idea of god exists. There are a lot of people who describe a being with some "special" features and the call the being "god" (depending on the actual religion). As this "idea" has a real meaning for those people and a real influence on their lives, we can say this "idea of god" exists.
2. A "god" as it is postulated by all those ideas what a god may be, does not exist. - There is not even a hint, that a supernatural being has any influence on human lives. Thinking about this with criteria like independence of personal believes and a minimum of intersubjectivity.
Conclusion:
The existing idea of god has caused war and suffering and has urged people to built churches and temples, but the being god does not exist and has no influence on the "reality" that physic is dealing with.
no God, no laws, no physics
My strongest background is philosophy. It was great to consider existence from the "strictly" scientific point of view.
I put strictly in quotations because you quote Descartes, a philosopher.
I am looking forward to your video on the existence of God/god.
Descartes was also a mathematician...
@@flavioguinez1456 great point!
Multi disciplinary studies can and do happen. My formal education is in philosophy but I also am self educated in string theory and astrophysics. I claim no expertise in any field.
Have a great day!!
I suppose the god question is invalid as is dividing by zero. There simply cannot be an answer. Of course you can answer it for yourself and find other people with the same or a similar belief system but in the end there is no way of proving either statement. So in a way both states of »god« exist simultaneously. But none can be proven. :D cheers
A cheap philosopher has said, " I think there for I am." Skin flint. I can afford or allowed to buy a little more meat. I've a mind to think about God allowing for me. Nothing like being grateful and thankful like to another and oneself. Adds more plausibility to a friendship with the handshake. Sustains the continuum I think and pray. An amen.
I can answer this question with a story.
Two fellows were off to do some skiing. a younger man, and an older man. The younger man was waxing philosophy when he told the older man that nothing exists and all things are illusion. This conversation continued right up till they got to the top of the ski area. After that, the younger man grew quiet as he prepared himself for his skiing. All things were good. right up to the point that the young man didn't see the tree coming up fast upon him. The elder man cried out to warn him but it was too late. The younger man hit the tree full on. After the younger man got attention at the local hospital, the older man visited him t see how he was doing. The younger man had a cast on and didn't look happy. The older man said to the younger man as he viewed the accident," it looks like the tree's belief in you was greater than your disbelief in the tree."
Beleving or not in God is a matter of FAITH ,say, believing witout seeing, like a lot of things in our daily life, by the way. The pity is that nowadays science is becoming just the same.
What about Santa Claus, do you have faith in Him too?
@@JohnStephenWeck Of course, I have.
You either exist or not when I observe you. Without observation I have no way of knowing the answer. At the time I watched this video you existed. But I am closing it now so ….. POOOOF!!!!!🔥
Sabine looks like she would snap your spine like a stick, after explaining science efficiently...
You must see Sabine's music videos to begin to get a fuller picture of who she is. I imagine that in her classroom lectures she is so droll that half her students grin while half her students look nonplussed.
Like the Hitler youth?
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@sanjosemike3137 umm, no.......
ramada snowking In 1943, her relatives would have been more than glad to.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
A multitude of words doesn't settle an issue, rather it's evidence of a breakdown of algorithmic flow.
IMO, God is a missing part of a human puzzle to grasp whole reality around us. The less you fit your understanding and observations of the universe into your mind models and feelings in your soul, the more room for God existence you get. In other words, God gives you confidence that you live in a perfectly sensible world where you can feel safe and have some purpose. The less you know, the more you need God to have your model of world consistent with what you perceive. So in another words, until we solve last riddle of our world, until we know and explain everything for every human being including "what was before..." "what is behind..." "where do I go after death", God will exist. And for many, I belive that even then God will continue to has its place in their lives, including me :)
that is called ‘god of the gaps’. In a nutshell: “I don’t know, therefore God”. The scientific method doesn’t work like this.
Sabine, if you wouldn't exist, there would be no point in someone popping in out of the blue to blow my mind like you do
I think that first we should try to answer, what is it to exist, what is almost the same as asking what am I. Of course, the answer depends on external data for us to compare ourselves with. Nonrtheless, it is more fundamental to start from the subject analysing itself.
How is "existence" a useful concept? An operational definition of the existence of an object is that it is a sense person that can be lost of then recovered through actions. That satisfies a lot of what I am trying to invoke when I mean something exists. My glass of water in my kitchen of my house exists because I can go to it, observe it, and pick it up. It has water because I can drink from the glass and feel it quench my thirst. And my thirst exists until I quench it. And until I do that, I can recover my thirst when I pay attention to it.
Excellent explanation
When the waving hand is at its lowest point you can see that it's not the hand behind your back. Which is obvious, I know, but it was so well made that I had to figure out how exactly you did it.
The rate of the loss of confidence in the reality model depends on the events.
Like you said all we have is sensory input. Some Vedanta scholars would say that using this input to confirm for example that you exist, when I am not watching this video, like asking you and so on, is the same as asking a thief if he has stolen. Consistency as well does not at all imply that things exist when we are not watching, or even while we are watching. All confidence that you mention comes from the basic premise that is at best uncertain. If we want to avoid getting caught deeper into the illusion we must ignore this confidence as best as we are able.
More importantly, statement "I think therefore I exist" is not certain at all as well. First of all we can not find this I, because everything ends up being seen by this I. And many say that this seen only seems to be happening, it is not actually happening. This I appears to exist only when there is some object that it can attach itself to. For example in deep sleep when we are not dreaming, there are no objects and there is no I. If there is no I apart from the objects and phenomena, that means that the very phenomena is questionable without some constant that is there while they are gone, otherwise how the difference can be known? If this I only seems to exist, all the phenomena also only seems to exist. The woman without the womb can not have a child.
I know I am also offering bunch of uncertainty here, but the whole point is that the criteria by which we determine certainty is not accurate.
Did everyone know that I controlled their parasympathetic nervous systems, therefore, I existed? I could observe my affects on you! Both of us exist! I did the experiment upon you!
Duane
Apart from the _"I think therefore I Am"_ schpeel...this was really cool...
@Roger Loquitur Clearly you conflate disagreeing with not understanding.
Real smart...
@Roger Loquitur I would pretend to be apologetic about not being impressed at zero like you are...but " breathtakingly intelligent" is a matter of opinion, and fortunately we are welcome to our own opinions...aren't we?...
Mate?????...
(grin)
@Roger Loquitur You have reached a conclusion with ZERO display/demonstration of the intellectual workings behind your conclusion...
You're brilliant...
@Roger Loquitur just not impressed...in the least.
Seemingly you are...
@Roger Loquitur Your last two replies suggests suggests that i am talking to a juvenile.
Since you seem to have nothing substantive to add...
I mean no disrespect, but i love this woman!!
This is the question I frequently ask myself after waking up
My view is: properties interact with properties. Everything has some property. If something had no property then it wouldn't interact with anything. It would be nothing. Nothing has no property. Or, No property is the property of nothing. Or, every property is the property of something. If we observe interactions, we know properties are interacting. Therefore, we know things exist. Everything exists as some set of properties. Science is, basically, discovering and recording how properties interact. Sometimes, an interaction may be observed without observing everything that is interacting, like stars revolving quickly around, seemingly, nothing.
The concepts of "truth" and "reality" are part of making predictions. The "true" or "real" theory explains not just what you have already seen, but what you will see in the future. They are very important in science, since making predictions is one of if not the most important purpose of science.
By the way, Google translate have a function where you can play the sound of the word you want to translate into English. You can even play whole sentences, albeit most often constructed in the wrong way grammatically.
„Existence“ can be seen as a popping up on a neutral or devouring background. For some synesthetes the world is different to ours, because they receive more existence by having a broader popping-up-apparatus. Their consciousness can be therefor intensified. Take these isolated sentences by William Shakespeare: „Why, I can smile, and murder whiles I smile,
And cry 'Content' to that which grieves my heart,
And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
And frame my face to all occasions.
I'll drown more sailors than the mermaid shall;
I'll slay more gazers than the basilisk;
I'll play the orator as well as Nestor,
Deceive more slily than Ulysses could,
And, like a Sinon, take another Troy.
I can add colours to the chameleon,
Change shapes with Proteus for advantages,
And set the murderous Machiavel to school.“ These are existential fireworks, not only associative ones, a sum type of possibilities urging for coming into being. The aggressiveness is not by chance. Intense passion on the other hand can be also an existential quality.
It's strange but listening to your videos creates some form of excitement within me, something - so far - only real persons were able to accomplish. However, I know that with currently technology it would be possible to create a virtual person but wouldn't be that person as real as anyone else? Unless I cuddle and kiss you - for scientific reasons only - there is no way to be sure about your existence. ^^
I am only sure that *I* (in the metaphysical sense, ie my thinking mind) exist. I know that my mind is creative and has the capacity to imagine pretty much anything to a very high degree of detail. Based on those few things that I can be sure of, the simplest and most plausible conclusion is that only I exist, and everything that isn’t *I*, including my physical body, is a creation of my mind.
This channel is for those interested in the human and communal activity we call "science". It's essential for the progress and survival or humanity. BUT science doesn't answer my own personal concerns nor does it help me with the day-to-day relationships of my own life. These are two different worlds - an outer world and an inner world. My own concerns are absolutely unique to me and no-one else. I have spend my life learning how to handle them with little help from science or other people.
If religion and God help some people tackle lifes personal problems then so be it. If it helps someone grieve and say goodbye to a dead child or parent then I'm glad it's there - even though it's of no interest or value to a professional scientist.
Who does not have a personal life? Who doesn't need help sometimes with personal problems they've never faced before? Who is the perfect human being who needs to believe in nothing else except what science has deemed to exist? Let's not forget our humanity.
Hello all you religious people out there! Don't listen to Sabine when she says "goodbye!". You are welcome as far as I'm concerned; and you are welcome to become professional scientists too, because religion and science should not be in conflict.
At it's best, religion complements science and helps individuals to become better human beings (and honest scientists). At it's worst, religious leaders claim to know the mind of God, contradict science and make everyone's life a misery. At it's worst, scientific leaders claim to know religion, ignore it's purpose and make everyone's life a misery too.
Let's not coerce people to believe science at the expense of religion; and let's accept that religion has a role to play in the personal and ultimately sad lives of human beings. If science knows nothing about God then professional scientists should stop giving the impression to the public that science has anything to say about God. Instead, have a go at mathematicians who believe in Platonic forms that live in an abstract universe. Let's face it, which is the average person more likely to relate to in their ordinary lives - the Bible or Quantum mechanics?
Yes, you exist! And, boy, are we glad of that!
The question "does god exist" is a trick question. It has already been answered by this video 100%. But I am sure that won't stop Sabine from making another video
I’m definitely not 100% confident that I exist. Nor am I any more confident that I was born or will ever die. All I really think I can know to any degree is that something is happening in the now that seems to express a model of a self with some consistency. But the harder I look at what is the self, the less I can actually resolve the self as anything more than an abstraction of a constantly changing temporal perspective which models and projects a reality construct with no more resolution than is necessary for survival.
There is no certainty in any of it.
Sabine is too much funny to be a hoax (and too much smart to be an IA)
Descartes pointed out that his senses made the sun appear small in the sky, but based on astronomical reasoning he perceived it to be much larger than the Earth. His point was that knowledge comes through reason whether or not sensory data is involved. While certainly there are some things we won't know without some specific sensory data, our understanding should be built on reason alone. Reason can tell us when to use the sensory data and when not to. And reason can tell us when an Empirical scientific method is a good choice or not for a given situation. While our reason is not perfect, if we don't trust it, nothing else will help and we can know nothing.
This explanation sounds a lot like a novel expression of the Principle of Indispensiblity, usually associated with WO Quine and the Pragmatists.
2 cents thank you for existing and giving me a reason to be challenged in my knowledge of cosmology only thing that allows my snail growth evolution you exist but are my dream as well
Good video. You have to be specific about which “God” exists. The term is so amorphous I don’t think there can be sensible discussion without some preliminary definition.
--
My preference with questions like this is to start with the difference between objective knowledge and absolute knowledge.
Objective knowledge (or science) is characterised, seemingly paradoxically, by the quality that it can be wrong.
Absolute knowledge, that religion and spiritualism often doles out, cannot be wrong.
This insistence on an absolute statement about something’s existence is the demand for absolute knowledge.
The question of simulations of people is becoming important given the new AI with deep learning can create a convincing CGI animation, with audio, of a real person.
Excellent add-on to the ideas in your ground truth book "Lost in Math". I am not helping with the data I know but I read Max Tegmark's book as well so I am thinking I am just a universal math simulation anyway, ha ha. Thanks Dr. B!
my existential crisis is cured, thanks Sabine
I hope I’m not too late to give my answer to your last challenge of “does God exist”
I think nonstop on this issue, I have been in a constant state of existential anxiety/crisis/ depression because of this for decades, so hopefully all this trouble hasn’t been for not lol.
Anyways this is my understanding of a plausible approach. I think we are probably further away from a concrete answer to this question then we are from answering how our universe started and that’s because we are more interested in our physical nature rather than our inner nature. I’m sure this will change in the future but for now I can only approach this issue with my own personal experiences and research on most philosophies and faith systems.
I look at how nature reacts and I also try and take in the information that kind people like yourself share on the more subtler levels of our physical universe. From this I see that if there is a God it’s certainly not the one most people worship nor does it seem to be interacting with us the way most people hope. As I see it we are stuck in a magic and myth view of such matters. This view in my opinion seems to be very difficult for us to shake off for a more realistic approach. I love the theory that I learned from the book The Emerald Tablet. It’s theory of “as above so below” makes sense in a way of possibly getting some perspective of what our inner nature is and if there is to be a separate God self or a more all is God Truth. I’m more inclined as to everything is God and our physical nature is our cosmic evolution of our inner God energy understanding. Nature doesn’t stop or even pause during any cosmic or personal “disasters”, it only knows how to keep going. Wether an individual person, animal, organism or even earth dies the universe will not pause or stop, it only knows to push on with balance as it’s guide. Physical nature shows patience beyond reproach and most things I’m aware of end up here through a birthing process of one form or another. So my prediction for our physical universe is not a Big Bang but rather a birthing from a black hole in an older but equal universe as this one.
Not sure if I should keep going or if this is enough information for you to dissect my thoughts. Thank you sooooo much this made all my existential angst worth it.
*naught
What is your opinion on igtheism?
@@romanski5811 believe it or not I don’t really think about this stuff anymore. I got assessed with ADD a couple of years ago and now that I’m on medication my brain has slowed down and I’m actually getting 💩 done. I always had a heck of a time getting myself motivated and now I just get up and head out the door.
Sigmund Freud described some of his patients as being so neurotic that they were "permanently unfit for existence". I've been there and back.