The quote "Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think“ is by Werner Heisenberg in his book 'Across the Frontiers' (1974), not by Niels Bohr, as the presenter says at the beginning and as is written in the description.
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” - Douglas Adams
I'm not sure that we will ever understand everything. But I feel that the persuit of understanding is a fundamental part of humanity. Humans love to learn, explore, and discover. I don't imagine humanity would be able to stop trying to understand things.
And this is where i agree with Bjorn and Sabine. If the universe is infinite (or so big, that for our human minds can be treated as such), our small and finite brains will never be able to understand it all. Not in todays configuration. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try!!! This is exactly the same thing with free will and decision making. I'm all for those who say we don't have free will (just an illusion). But it doesn't mean we can't make decisions. And i as a human being, I decided I'd love to find out as much as i can before i pass away. I have no idea what will be in a few hundred, thousands or more years. Perheaps we will evolve into something much more capable than humans? Personally i really hope so. And i also hope that this one particular character trait - curiosity, will remain in our grand, grand, grand.... children.
This universe is the breath of God through his angel, he created and ended nature with three trumpet blasts. Humans as God's most perfect creation are given the highest gift, namely being able to speak and reason. There is only one weakness of the human mind, that is, the human mind cannot find the limits of its own mind. There are two most important parts of man, namely the spirit (spirit/consciousness) and his heart. The human spirit experiences seven phases ( 1. the eternal age 2. the mother's womb 3. birth into the world 4. life in the grave 5 in the plains of society (flat earth) 6. the day of judgment 7. Heaven or Hell. While the human heart is like a King for the Body man.
@@MarsLonsenin our spirit realm there is no three-dimensional space yet or only in the form of writing, in our mother's womb we already exist in three dimensions but there is no time dimension yet, in the natural world we live in 4 dimensions, space and time, in the grave we live in five dimensions , time space and memory of our actions, in the realm of resurrection we live in six dimensions while in the afterlife we live in seven dimensions. but mathematically those dimensions could be primes. 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17.
Diverse panel, and interesting discussion. Much better than I expected, as the panelists did not get bogged down by their own disciplines and personal views. They were still able to present their perspectives and recognize their limitations.
@@ebog4841could argue that 'discipline' is a large part of the problem of early conditioned reactivity to causal naivety that brings forth the protectively self-centric individualised mind that, neccesarily, forms psuedo-protective, stubborn thinking patterns and consequent behavioural loops.
Why not argue respectfully with a Delusional patient in Asylum, as to why he believes Unicorns will eat all humans next Monday... because the process of mind believing something purely based on assumptions rather than full knowledge/complete observations... is literally called Delusion... Please stop baby sitting these God believers because they can cut your head if they have done that in the past, for literally not believing in a delusion... Christianity like any other religion is Delusion... Delusion have two components: one that is practical (like human extinction) + one that is impractical (Unicorn made human extinct)... understand that your mind can make impractical blend in with Practical and make whole thing believable... But you should always keep questioning things... and that's only Science's capability... neither religion, nor philosophy have capabilities of accepting that they are taking a huge Risky leap of faith in the middle to connect Impractical to Practical world...
@@n.p.mackenzie Rupert is totally crazy my best, nothing is to verify about the claim, that the sun is conscious, it's a gigantic ball of hot plasma, constantly whirled, with very few structures and without any possibility to form complex ones. You also could claim, that your dirty underwear is conscious in the same way. Of course, you may believe it like the indian people, he talked about, but if you come with that in a scientific disguise, it's pseudoscience. And Sabine is not arrogant, she just says clearly what she thinks is right. Better than blabla.
I agree! Educated like Sabine, I yet like Sheldrake's argumentation of things. Sheldrake may not have the math skills of Sabine, but at least he is deeply committed to understanding the REAL phenomenon of consciousness, whilst Sabine is committed to understanding a purely IMAGINARY phenomenon of Quantum Gravity (which even Penrose has to admit is nonsensical). Yes I get the raised eye-brows when suggesting the Sun may be conscious. But think it through please. Take the example of cockroaches; They are successful in survival, quite aware of their surroundings and relative smart in their strategies. By any standards that qualifies as some level of consciousness. The fact they can't communicate with us is due to what we consider to be an 'inferior' level of consciousness. Well ok. All Sheldrake says is that this may apply in reverse as well; that there might be higher fractal levels of consciousness our Sun is part of, that likewise we can't recognize or communicate with due to our own relative inferior consciousness level. That is a very reasonable line of thought. As for Sheldrakes' suggestions of the existence of a medium through which consciousness may be 'uploaded and downloaded' manifesting in living organisms; We may again laugh and hold the view our consciousness is confined to only the working of neurons in brain activity. Ok. laugh all we want. But then take a look at UA-cam at the very tenacious tiny creature called 'lacrymaria'. Watch it being aware and conscious of its surroundings, hunt for food, avoid enemies. And next realize you are looking at a single cell creature. Not having a single neuron. How on Earth is this intricate behavior coming from the suggested confinement of its limited biology? Until anyone can explain that to me, I don't exclude Sheldrake again has a very valid point. Sabine needs to open her mind a bit. She should be intelligent enough to yet see the merit of what Sheldrake is proposing.
@@RWin-fp5jn yes the “imaginary” phenomenon of QG, which you emphasize in capital letters confidently. This gets 3 likes. Incredible stuff. The world is in so much trouble.
@@RWin-fp5jn I also saw elsewhere in these comments that you’ve stuck in there for psychological effect that Penrose called quantum gravity nonsensical. Just a complete lie. You’re quite the propagandist and liar, huh?
@@RWin-fp5jn I like this, great comment. I've followed Sheldrake for ages, his concepts make a lot of sense to me. Your analogy of the Lacrymaria is the way I feel about a lot of things, including viruses. A virus is not considered to be alive, but it will somehow adapt as a 'species/strain' to suit its needs, mutate without communicating. The mechanism for this seems to be a riddle. I think there's something in this pansychism theory. I just feel there's an inherent reason behind every action of a system that is 'non-living' which could be explained if that entity had some kind of awareness. If an alien observed a bunch of humans going about their daily business it would all seem like we were all a shower of brainless nutters. 😏
@@liamhickey359 At the opposite side of a mirror, sometimes another mirror. Opposite a lush forest nourished by rivers, clouds travelling with the wind; casting shadows traced by distant stars.
Wow this is such a treat for me. I am more than interested in Rupert Sheldrake especially his ideas on consciousness and I so enjoy Sabine Hossenfelder in every way. This was a great experience for me. Thank you. 🙏🤓✨
@@kipponi Because my cat scratched at the flywire and wanted to go out. As soon as I opened the door, it changed its mind. That has to be as good as any other why question you can conjure up.
I love the idea that we may never know, but we will keep asking questions and trying to find out. It's perfectly OK to not know things, and exercising one's imagination and solving puzzles is wonderful. I cherish all three speakers. BIG FAN
Very interesting discussion. Thank you :) [edit] Everyone here makes very valid points even if they appear to be a little conflicting. Can we understand the universe? I think words like Knowledge or understand are the wrong words and question. Can we experience the universe? Yes, in every way even if we cant understand it or offer explanation of it. > My 20 cents worth. I still think we are excessively prone to subjectively superimposing our own creative idea of knowledge and language over the reality of the universe. The universe is what it is and we just haven't yet found the best language to describe the reality of it... When I say language I also include math as we currently use it. All our tools of description are made/created by man, not the universe :)
The Aussie government is a violent CRIMINAL organization. 🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe that can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (i.e. the observer of all phenomena) - is unknowingly to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of Ultimate Reality as being the Perfect Person, and “God” is a personal epithet of the Impersonal Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Monad is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every fully-enlightened sage in the history of this planet, Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, consubstantially and simultaneously, Absolutely NOTHING and Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “(Param) Brahman”, “Cosmic Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “Unconditioned Truth”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Universal Self”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). Subsequent chapters expand on this axiom. In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself, or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! This understanding can be factually-realized by studying a systematic method of introspection, called “gnosticism” (“jñāna yogaḥ”, in Sanskrit). Because the Unmanifested Absolute (i.e. NO-THING) is infinite creative potentiality, “It” perpetually actualizes as the manifest creation (i.e. EVERY-THING), in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes/multiverses. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, and because phenomenal existence is dualistic, there cannot be a single object without at least one subject. Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person’s sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. PURPORTEDLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created from the initial event (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of immeasurably-dense light, which in turn, was ultimately instigated by Extra-Temporal Supra-Conscious Bliss. From that primal event, every motion or action that has ever occurred, has been a direct or indirect result of that expansion. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are, essentially, this Eternally-Aware-Bliss, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn’t normally mistake the reflected image to be one’s real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating forms. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything that can presently be perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of the primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every subsequent action has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit”, is largely a fallacious belief. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they desire. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of but two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic sequence). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. Cont...
"Everyone here makes very valid points even if they appear to be a little conflicting." I agree, although underlying everything in this debate is more than a little disagreement between Sabina and Rupert regarding mechanistic determinism. I drink up her no-gobbledygook reports and almost everything she has published online, though don't buy her deterministic take on the way things are. I loved her astute point about fantasy literature's being based to some degree on knowledge derived through science, and hope it wasn't a dig against that which she doesn't agree. But @axle.australian.patriot -- I wonder what you mean by "experience the universe...in every way" if there exist aspects of it we are completely unaware of. Could you unpack that somewhat?
@@eugenecampbellutube ""experience the universe...in every way" I struggle myself to offer an easy explanation of that. Experience in the sense of being the raw observer without concepts of knowledge, belief or prejudice. This is a philosophical or even Metaphysical expression. Like the unborn child experiencing the stimuli that it is subjected to without knowledge of what it is and without a need to describe it. Maybe thinking as "Raw Awareness or consciousness". > Can we experience the full extent of the universe like that in a natural human way? Metaphysasists and theolagists may argue yes, mechanical physics would likely argue no, mathematical physics and theoretical physics boarders at times upon metaphysics. Can we experience the universe in full (as a raw awareness) with our human made extension of our senses. Through cautious reason quite possibly. But many would argue that it is impossible to be a truly objective observer having been born a subject human being and a lifetime of reinforcing our subject instinct. > See the universe as it is and let it form it's own description of itself rather than imposing our neat subjective human rules over it. We can explain it in our own terms after we see it for what it really is.. > Yeah, I know I'm a bit out there lol
Rupert Sheldrake: "as soon as things become in a structure--(like in the human body)-- the randomness is replace by an order...." Nobody notice that? And that is a truth as big as a cathedral, people. Greetings from Chile.
What are you talking about? This is what's known in quantum mechanics since early 1900s. Physicists have been wondering why the strangeness in quantum scale does not exist in macro scale long ago and that's what baffled even Albert Einstein and made him write a bunch of papers including the famous line: "God does not play dice."
This is exactly why I like to describe math as a language, you recognize that there are limits to language, that it can evolve and change over time, and there are multiple ways to come to the same conclusion. The power and weakness of scientific thought is rigid definition, this rigidity also exists within western philosophy. Eastern philosophy on the other had embraces and encouraged fluid thinking, a core tenant of Buddhism is accepting that you cannot understand everything.
😄@@rogerphelps9939 true: i wonder if it is testable that you can see in one's eyes that he/she is not able to create a certain truth out of some known and proven truths without wondering of in fantasy and religion
@@runePV fantasy and religion are your reminder that on a cosmic scale all your knowledge might as well be produced by the brain of an ant. which i think you need reminding of
@@runePVtry some kykeon worked wonders for the Greek Philosophers to shake to your core that cult-urally conditioned, pseudo-protective mind veil of causally naive reactivity that began in late infancy.
Not sure if everybody caught that there was general agreement that mathematics requires an agreement on axioms. Theoretical physics is really about what is the simplest set of axioms that would explain what we observe. The mathematics is just computing what would happen if we start from a hypothetical set of axioms so we can then compare that to observations.
in physics, the axioms can be hypothetical. in mathematics and philosophy of logic, axioms just are. they are a set which combined with logical operators lead to another set of statements.
I would be happier to have physics without a multiverse (it seems like a cop out), physics without the odd notion of the 'many worlds hypothesis' (again, dubious), physics without a swampland of 10²⁷²·²⁰⁰ initial conditions (Cumrun Vafa's _F-theory_ which can F-off as far as I am concerned). Maybe something can be "smuggled in" underneath spacetime using various forms and combinations of Imaginary Numbers. Maybe it is as simple as everything we perceive as having mass in what we comprehend as spacetime (which may well not exist in the way we assume as it could be something wildly transformed yet still be mathematically consistent: such as a single electron/positron weaving forward/backward throughout what we think of as spacetime ~ with our sampling of reality being turned inside out so that the distant entanglements were proximal and our Free Will was neurologically coupled with it, so that in a relatable sense, but from an atheistic perspective, we are a part of a God which constitutes the cosmos who has a Disassociative Identity Disorder and rarely experiences an awareness of oneness except when the brain chemistry changes due to some hallucinogens and hypomanic psychosis ~ all this is speculative and is not even a worthy hypothesis for scientific enquiry as there would be no experiment that can be devised to determine whether one person is a fragment of the divine, yes, you might fool around with some cards with squiggly lines and try to see if one person can read the mind of God that is trapped within another person's brain, but ESP is about as discredited as staring at goats these days), is representable by Real Numbers, and everything that we perceive as quantised energy waves is represented by various forms of Imaginary Numbers, which is so tempting in its simplicity given that a Spinor is a square root of a Vector and a square root has +ve and -ve solutions, which is why Paul Dirac came up with antimatter in the form of the positron and the rest of _Quantum Field Theory_ can be seen as an elaboration of his ocean of Spinors that are the host to phenomena within our psuedo-Riemannian manifold, but it could be that the inability to tie a persistent knot in anything other than a Lorentzian (1, 3) Metric is a mathematical reason which recovers our 4-dimensional spacetime, not as some arbitrary parameterisation of a set of physical multiverses where other exouniverses of different combinations of dimensions exist, or a number lazily pasted in from our solipsistic observations which lack the introspection to accept these are tainted by a privileged quasi-"God's children" mindset, but one which could be proven through _Knot Theory_ to be the only tenable topology given the alternatives are either lacking in sufficient spatial dimensions to have the knot pass over and under itself as it is (1, 2) or (1, 1) or (1, 0), or no time in which to tie the knot (0, n), or too many spatial dimensions allowing the (1, 4) knot to slip past its own bounds through an adjacent hyperspace, which is the same for any (1, m) where m > 3. Why knots? Well Lord Kelvin once put forward _Vortex Theory_ to explain atoms as knots in the aether, but at a level of a _Theory of Everything_ it will move beneath physical observations to mathematical consistency which synthetically generates reality a sample of which we experience ~ to ask the question: "What happened before the Big Bang?" ceases to be about physics and increasingly becomes one of meta mathematics (the mathematics where axioms are not taken for granted as there are multiple foundational choices for mathematical systems based on different axioms). Consequently, I was pleased to see Cohl Furey's video entitled as being fresh thinking: _Summary (Video 13/14)._
@Readinganddifference with empiricism, the facts with which theories are based, are from observations, and not axioms per se. but the logic used to then develop theories is the same as the logic applied to axioms. it makes no more sense to start with false axioms than with false facts (apriori). if observations are later proven false then they are modified or removed. with axioms you simply need to show they are consistent.
I agree with Hossenfelder we won't know until we know. Our lives have changed so much but as we opened our fields of vision we see more. I do find the question of consciousness appropriate as we do not know what an alien being is and at this point we seem to be stuck in a terracentric opinion. As far as the big bang - this cycle.
With respect, I recommend probing the following idea: that your consciousness (C) is what it is like to be the updating of the model of self in the world (UMSITW) which your brain creates and maintains all the while that you are awake. What this means is that your brain, which exists in order to make your muscles move in the right way at the right time, needs a model of the world with you in it in order for you to be able to navigate your physical and social environments. The model is always a set of predictions created out of memories appropriate to current location and circumstances. This must be so otherwise it would be impossible for you to make any plans or have any useful expectations. The world is always changing however so we need to be updating relevant parts of our model of the world, and/or self, wherever a significant change has occurred. This entails the creation of new memories, and our emotional response to the _novelty each time_ determines the degree of significance. The beauty, and the power, of this description is that it provides a coherent explanation of C, which I like to characterise as _rememberable awareness_, which is not contradicted by any discoveries of neuroscience or psychology that I have read about *and* allows us to understand to what extent other animals may be experiencing awareness similar to our own. Extraterrestrial animals will be endowed in analogous, even if not very similar, manner because the underlying logical requirements of autonomous navigation through variable environments will always apply. 😉
@@cliveadams7629 Agreed, She's great when speaking, but when anyone else is speaking, she shuts down and just sits there looking slightly uncomfortable.
@@AsifBooks I mean, I don't know how much she knew beforehand about the other panelists, but I could see the whole conscious sun angle being hard to interact with on the spot
@@AsifBooks That's her couping mechanism for the discomfort she feels at having her assumptions challenged and being unable to respond in a raitonal manner 😂lol
I don't think I gained much listening to a guy talking about conscious suns that can fire jets to move around and that humans can apparently communicate with it lmao
@@terreschill461 don't know much about him so I'm looking forward to this. Love Sabine's critical and brave sight on the world. Ekberg is a nice guy too
@@terreschill461 thank you. Ekberg is a science philosopher. Sabine discusses in her book 'existential physics' the possibility of a "thinking universe". Though she doesn't see much chance in it, I got the feeling by reading that chapter, she simpathisizes with that. Perhaps here is a common point to Sheldrake. Let's see...
A wonderful panel. We all want definitive answers to alleviate our existential angst. The reality is that we are we are very early in our journey, but eventually, after several millennia, the atomist approach should bear fruit and we will know. It’s not until we have reached the truly indivisible that we can start to understand the hows and the whys become irrelevant. Although it is almost certain we will have destroyed ourselves before reaching that point.
it's also not certain that we will ever get there as it might be that the level at which human brains are entangled with the universe will yield an efficiently computable theory of the ultra microscopic, that is if we can even measure it.
@@daarom3472 I suppose anything is possible until you can verify it’s not. If you compare and contrast an ant to a human, at a functional level we are largely identical, I don’t foresee the ant ever moving towards a full understanding of metaphysics, so it’s quite possible neither will we.
The average duration of a mammalian species is about 3.8m years. So one day humans will be gone. But let's hope this is due to genetic exhaustion rather than by destroying ourselves.
@@jimgraham6722 I’m probably a few decades out of date, but wasn’t aware of any documented evidence that could be described as genetic exhaustion. With global movement, Heterosis has become more frequent in humans than previously, so that reshuffling of genes should assure the vigour of the species, even the inbred royalty now understands this is important to their survival.
This is one of the best discussions I've heard in a long time. All of the participants are motivated by the deep desire to understand the nature of things. Hossenfelder and Sheldrake are both free range, omnivorous minds engaged in the pursuit of fundamental understanding. They are both exceptionally clear communicators and careful thinkers, each in their own ways. Moreover, each can probably recognize and honor this in the other, even though each thinks the other is probably mistaken about many things.
Agree. Very well put. If you're not familiar with the Sheldrakes (Rupert & his son Merlin) you might enjoy their books. I've watched a lot of Sabine Hossenfelder's video & I have to say this one increased my respect for her.
@@vKarl71 Sheldrake and Hossenfelder, a remarkable pairing. With Sheldrake we have a person deeply committed to understand the REAL phenomon of consciousness in ways not pleasing the academia. And with Sabine we have someone deeply committed to a purely IMAGINARY phenomenon of 'quantum gravity ' (which even Penrose says is nonsensical) and does so in ways highly approved by academia. So if you have to pick one of both, then surely Sheldrake has the more promising story? How is it, academia have reality into fiction. How is it we worship the mathematics of something in stead of the subject it self? Sheldrake is much more down to Earth if you think it through...
@@DistinctiveBlend well, you ignt also ask that question to a cockroach. You wont get an answer back. Does that mean a cockroach is not conscious? No it just means their level of consciousness is at a too far distant level for the, to contact us. Likewise Penrose suggest the are forms of consciousness whxi the Sun could be part of that we are not able to communicate with, simply because we are at an inferior fractal level. The idea is interesting and a valid one. If you dont get that reasoning, you are slightly hinging to the cockroach - side of things. Simple
@@RWin-fp5jn It is neither interesting or valid (that requires evidence) unless you're higher than jesus. But if you enjoy asserting 'inferior fractal levels' of humans compared to a star then have fun! Oh and another great point for ya is that proof and evidence aren't really required for faith based stuff right?
@@ximono Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse Meeeeeeeeee! Sheldrake is a philosopher, not a scientist! Besides that since when has serious science ever followed no evidence whatsoever as vigorously as religion? Not fo r long at all, and then only under the threat of death by religious zealots! But please explain to me what the F you mean by that exactly and where doing so has ever brought facts to light, good evidence worth following, let alone irrefutable proof for anything: Give it your best shot!
@@ximono It's exactly the opposite: when someone provides evidence through their false claims that they are not credible, one should increase your credence like a good Bayesian that said someone is likely generally not credible, right? It's like you Sheldrake's universe of demonstrated false claims over the years gets to be forgotten to you.
The Sun is conscious. Any scientist who will rightly call themselves a scientist, having now read my post will investigate the veracity (or not) of the Aetherius society recordings.
Consciousness(the term) has,in modernity, been diluted,enhanced,manipulated,commodified to the point of loosing an agreed upon objective meaning...so sad.
Wow, loved this! More, please! There will be something we won't understand, let alone be unable to measure. We will understand the origin of the universe because we are an infinitesimal byproduct of it. We carry only of the characteristics that make it up for a specific reason that is a part of the truly fundamental rules and mechanics of what actually drives the universe. Randomness needs to be parsed out to take into account the levels of the universe's infinite activities. What happens "randomly" is always within some pretty tight bounds, only happening in within a broader, but context. That randomness is an integral driving force of the overall path/lifecycle of any entity; without it we wouldn't see the structured systems (plants, animals, planets, solar systems, and all the way further and back infinitely) all around us. We are coded to be only what we are and that determines what we need and what we don't: We can only see a very small part of the light spectrum because the no-doubt-infinite other spectra would only get in the way of our existence. And will never see a man with fire for an arm or a body of water suddenly morph into an apple: randomness clearly has limits, and rules. Even if we marry-up to human-developed computers that expand our understandings (or at least provide more and better access to the entire repository of what we know) the next limit is certainly how much more within our self-and uniquely human-developed measuring system technologies we tightly-defined humans can provide that AI, imbuing it with the ability to go outside of the universe they were taught exists through the only language they truly understand: math. The limits of understanding will always be there because we are able to use tools of our making. Our conscious mind is - if anyone hasn't noticed - uniquely human, but clearly not uniquely animal; but when you necessarily stretch way out the definition of conscious, it is not at all probable conscious to us is what conscious is, and how it acts and communicates in, say, a rock or the sun. Talking to the sun would clearly not be the same kind of task an English speaker has in learning Japanese. A Brit could get really close to becoming Japanese (we all share a whack of DNA), but a human or one of it's machines will forever be simply unable to even "hear" the sun trying to communicate, never mind have some kind of connection with it because it was not in the cosmic rules for us to exist. If we could communicate with the sun, we should've already been able to communicate with gourds, dandelions, water, ants, the moon, and everything else. In the context of these thoughts, there is a lot (relatively speaking) we can perceive and measure that at least show us a glimpse of how everything is connected. Our atmosphere does for us what we see space does for the bodies and activities in it. Same idea, same blueprint, but at an insignificant scale and with obviously different attributes. Dark matter for the infinite number of heavenly bodies could be as oxygen is for us; "allows" stars to do their radiation thing. But if we hope to have discussions like this for the next few thousand years, progress really needs to be redefined. What we like to call progress created what could actually be our significantly premature demise. As boring as it would be, maybe the best thing we can do for humanity is to hit the progress brakes, take stock, and redetermine what it will take for us to progress and survive a while longer.
Pretty interesting AWD. I don't think we should slam on the brakes, like a Mennonite, but we oughta pump the brakes a little, ''take stock, and re-determine what it will take for us to progress and survive a while longer''.
🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe that can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (i.e. the observer of all phenomena) - is unknowingly to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of Ultimate Reality as being the Perfect Person, and “God” is a personal epithet of the Impersonal Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Monad is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every fully-enlightened sage in the history of this planet, Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, consubstantially and simultaneously, Absolutely NOTHING and Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “(Param) Brahman”, “Cosmic Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “Unconditioned Truth”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Universal Self”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). Subsequent chapters expand on this axiom. In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself, or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! This understanding can be factually-realized by studying a systematic method of introspection, called “gnosticism” (“jñāna yogaḥ”, in Sanskrit). Because the Unmanifested Absolute (i.e. NO-THING) is infinite creative potentiality, “It” perpetually actualizes as the manifest creation (i.e. EVERY-THING), in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes/multiverses. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, and because phenomenal existence is dualistic, there cannot be a single object without at least one subject. Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person’s sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. PURPORTEDLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created from the initial event (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of immeasurably-dense light, which in turn, was ultimately instigated by Extra-Temporal Supra-Conscious Bliss. From that primal event, every motion or action that has ever occurred, has been a direct or indirect result of that expansion. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are, essentially, this Eternally-Aware-Bliss, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn’t normally mistake the reflected image to be one’s real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating forms. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything that can presently be perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of the primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every subsequent action has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit”, is largely a fallacious belief. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they desire. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of but two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic sequence). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. Cont...
I feel like the "observer effect" needs to be looked at more closely. The "observer effect" doesn't necessarily imply a subjective entity to trigger its effect but, rather it's the process of extracting information, which I think confuses a lot of people when it comes to this phenomenon. This mechanism coupled with quantum information theory could imply a theoretical observer at work within the system. The one place I can immediately think of as to where to apply this principle would be during the Planck era, a small mass of condensed energy would be perfect for quantum phenomena to occur.
I like to call it nature's internal consistency-checking mechanism: it only commits to a particular detail about reality once it's sure it's not contradicting itself.
Not only not necessarily, but not at all, and it never implied an entity, or conscious, agency..! That is and always was a deliberate misreprisentation of science by freaking religious apologist creationists! The observer refers to the equipment, and the fact that it too has effects and influences the outcome of the experiments, and we have no way of observing the quantum realm, without influencing it! Hence "The observer effect"!
Early on in physics the wording of “observer” was misconstrued. It wasn’t meant to be a conscious entity, but just anything that “measured” something. By measure, it’s meant that anything that impinges on something else, such as a particle that hits another particle has taken a “measurement” and therefore is an “observer”. It doesn’t require anything conscious.
I think most physicists probably already implicit assume the observer effect is the cause of the wave function collapse. It's already orthodoxy that decoherence occurs through the observer effect, so it's not really a stretch to assume a similar process is what causes the wave function to collapse. Although the exact way this happens is not known, a popular idea is that it's caused by gravity, if you get a lot of energy into a single location the curvature of spacetime collapse the wave function, Roger Penrose talks a lot about that.
I first saw Rupert Sheldrake when he was a young man. He was talking to Jiddu krishnamurti and David Bohm. There’s a video on here of that talk back in like 70s or 80s I believe it was. God I loved Bohm and Krishnamurti
Never did understand those exceptionals too well. Was busy getting the necessaries for me and my lady. Glad to talk about the granular nature of matter at Planck length now tho.
Well if I must, at Planck length there are vibrations that seem random at the tiny local scale causing the unmeasurable. These happen such that pressures of eg gravity can be transmitted between the resulting granules to give spacetime it's shapes. The granules also transmit quanta of light in a way that looks similar to Feynman's electro dynamics due to a random nature of interior's of the granules. This would be caused by unknown influences acting from all directions giving a pseudo randomness for our macro observations. Thus we would have transmission of light and gravity in different ways through the granules giving overall different seemingly wavelike propagation on the cosmic scale. Hardly testable until more data re light and gravitational propagation comparison gathered but conceptually graspable.
If you consider that no sensor system genuinely "perceives" the "truth," then you must accept that science, and scientific knowledge is a collection of tools intended to extract predictable results. The trouble with that is that the expectation bias is more or less explicitly a foundation stone of science. The limits of mathematics are that they are entirely created, an art. As Kurt Gödel showed, mathematics, in fact any non-trivial logical system, is fundamentally incomplete.
So you side with Sheldrake, and we should just make believe? Sorry, sensors are not made to "Perceive" anything but make hard truth factual measurements! And no, Math isn't an art as in the abstract, and Godel showed that one can put any nonsense into mathematical equations, but that's not how science uses it, that would be "Numerology", and it's what the religious, conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience freaks do! Math isn't "Created" it's extrapolated from data we can gain from observance and experimentation!
What a wonderful discussion! Consciousness is what you’re doing, be aware first and then be able to make decisions. Both come from your conscious efforts.
Rupert has such amazing mind and creativity, science really needs more people like him who project and extend ideas further then anyone thought possible.
Have ideas is nice, but if you are doing science you need more. If you are propsing the sun is conscious how do you test that? Simply having creative speculative ideas isn't science.
@@101Mant , dark matter is as speculative as the sun being conscious, was the only point Rupert made - he was smiling and joking all along... dark matter , makes the equations correct - was Sabine's response, but remember that Newton's equations were also correct at one point in time (They still are - but only at the scale of this tiny planet)
@@101Mant I am skeptical of his proposal, which he surely would acknowledge is speculative, as is the theory of dark matter. However, he proposed an experimental test of the "conscious sun" hypothesis. Then the question becomes whether such a test is worth the time and expense.
Sabine wins again, by admitting that Sheldrake has some good points. I would pray to the sun for the first time as part of that experiment! Honesty in science is key. time=2006!
Isn't it a GOOD THING that we will always have new questions to answer, new mysteries to engage our imagination? How wonderful to be, in a sense, always a child exploring the woods behind his parents' house!
@@rogerjohnson2562 I for one quite enjoy speculative fiction, and I think that funny questions provide interesting answers, and infinite more questions. About people, about our environment, about everything we can conceive of.
@@Luxamor-8 -The fact that this discussion was very good does not mean that we agree with all theses, eg Dr. Hossenfelder! One can have many reservations about her way of seeing and understanding the world. I could immediately put forward completely different assumptions, equally logical. In general, discussions of this type show how these scientists have limited scientific horizons and are stuck in errors learned from elementary schools.
@@wicekwickowski3798 Yes totally, early reactions in being naive of causality and becoming conditioned, naturally, in wanting to feel safe so being appropriated by and attached to culture. Here there can be the multiple comfort associations, two by example, status and tenure with scientific cult'ure.
On the last question, there are two different kinds of understanding when it comes to the universe: 1 getting deeper into the fabric, down to an understanding of aether or quantum foam. 2 finding useful laws that describe chaotic behaviour at all levels of physics, from quantum foam up. Including complex chemical reactions and interactions, aerodynamics at hypersonic speeds, weather, plasma fields etc… The former can have a finite depth of understanding. That is the foam is made of discrete particles and forces that can be mapped mathematically. The latter is infinitely complex as chaos is what it is. After all we can easily map the trajectory of a cannon ball as it falls through the air but it is incredibly hard to predict the path of a feather doing the same thing, in the same conditions, under the same laws of physics. If it is worth finding useful rules that describe the probabilistic oath of the feather, then it is worth exploring.
@@rogerjohnson2562 > When physics laws explain chaos, it wont be chaos anymore. "Chaos" in physics does not mean "behavior which follows no rules and thus can't be predicted by any theory". "Chaotic system" merely means a system where even tiny changes of initial conditions lead to significantly divergent later states.
Guru Vasishta tells Sri Rama swami "seeking from outside the secret of the existence of the universe will never be found because the universe never really came into existence." It is exclusively a consciousness activity about itself.
Yeah, consciousness is pretty straight forward imo. We started as hunter gatherers and as we travelled and our hunting needs grew more complex our cognitive abilities also developed. We learnt to communicate and function as societies also learning morals and ethics as conscious beings.
@@ximono That depends on what you mean with decision. A computer makes decisions. A program has if-then-clauses. So consciousness doesn't seem necessary to make decisions. If you want to say that it enhances our decision making, that's probably true. But I don't consciousness is enough. You also need imagination, language and rationality.
@@devalapar7878 I mean in organisms, not machines. A computer doesn't make conscious decisions, it simply follows instructions, either compiled to machine code from higher-level code written by a human, or code generated by an algorithm.
@@HarryNicNicholas It is my belief that you wouldn't but it is academic as they will never get that sophisticated, or more likely humans are too arrogant to try it!
They already are, given how prevalent AI is these days, sometimes when I talk to people online I second-guess myself because some people sound like ChatGPT how they talk.
I am grateful, that people which can discuss with good manners were guests on this panel, not some of people from this comment section. I would like this debate be much longer and let those smart people get dirty with some nitty gritties...
It is interesting to see the materialist paradigm challenged more often these days when for so long it was taboo and you got dismissed as a flake. Roger Penrose deserves a lot of credit for basically single-handedly kickstarting the field of the direct study of consciousness and therefore leading us, 30 years after The Emperor's New Mind, to being able to even discuss things like whether stars can be conscious.
the first things we see and touch become the basis for our comfortable metaphors. when i say, "i cannot understand this." it is that i can't apply the comfortable metaphors of my childhood. but, as sabine alludes to, there are other types of understanding that we can learn and apply. still, i expect that there are limits to how much i can cram into a container the size of the human head.
That's far from a new idea. We know other animals have consciousness and to think of it as a wholly human trait is arrogant to say the least. I do think it's interesting to consider the idea of consciousness in other life forms and weather it exists in a more distributed way.
@@Alan-zf2tt time will tell. We've only been around for 200 000 to 300 000 years. We have a long way to go before we consider ourselves a successful species.
@@paulm5443 I must admit to feeling uncomfortable about "human supremacists and human supremacism". There seems to be a lot of evidence we are anything but supreme
I once asked Ed Witten the following question: “If there was no life in the universe - none; no animal, plant or other life including bacteria, viruses, etc. NONE - would it make any sense to speak of the universe existing at all.” Dr. Witten shrugged, and said words to the effect: ‘…that is a meaningless question.’ I was trying to engage him in a discussion of bishop Berkeley’s “esse es percipi,” but he was not having any of it……
Stars perambulating the universe of their own volition by sending out jets until they find their right place….I think Sabina almost choked but she’s a very polite person and really didn’t miss a beat…🇨🇦
So, a question to all the skeptics scoffing and chuckling in derision at non-traditional thinking, have any of you ever done any psychonautical exploration?
@@tristanmules7995Yes. And we know better than to be enamoured of the rambling thoughts attached thereto. Sheldrake sounds like Terence McKenna in this regard, but worse…
It is possible that we may harmonize our understanding to our perceptions - though it may depend on each's view of what we understand or how total it's domain.
I would argue we have made zero progress on the ultimate "strangeness" question and probably never will. "Why is there something rather than nothing at all?"
Maybe the question itself is useless. The difference in being and not being might be arbitrary in the greater scheme of things. Everything is and is not all at once and all that jazz. Then again, I might have no idea what I'm saying. I'm just some guy on the internet after all.
I mean the initial state of the human condition is: there is therefore I think, which is only followed by: I think therefore I am. So in a sense you posing that question; "why is there something rather than nothing at all?" = the reason of something being there by virtue of posing that question. Again on larger scales the question becomes irrelevant. Looking at the universe as a whole it doesn't seem to matter any ant deciding to follow any scent. But from the microbiomes inside the ant the question becomes so much relevant that some organisms spend their entire lifespan to make the ant express certain behavior's. I'm not saying were ants i'm saying; posing the question is just following a scent. And the purpose of meaning is within the meaning itself. Whatever that meaning may be. But some guidelines have higher values than others. Like increase complexity or atrophy. You may feel like murdering the person in front of you blocking your way to get to your destination quicker. But in that process, you calculate the damage you do to those around you and yourself what that would mean. This rule becomes hardwired in your brain, and you stop running over people to get to your destination quicker, mainly because you know (hope) there will be another destination after that. Because there are things, there is meaning. If there where no things there would be no meaning. Yes, things also constitute your thoughts, because without the material world we would not come to be as thinking beings. So the question remains is the thought a function of the things or are things a function of thoughts. Both are correct and incorrect at the same time. The universe or universes might truly be infinite, or might not exist at all. Their is no difference.
@@leggoentertainment2947 It does make sense. If you're not persuaded by the 'religious' idea that we were created by a greater Being that desires to have a relationship with us, then your life has no purpose and you have no answer to the question 'why are we here?'
@@lo1234-w9r I hear you, however I must insist that the believe in god is just as useful/useless as the believe that live doesn't have a purpose. The purpose is in the act of living itself. With the first breath you take till the last breath you breath you're fulfilling your purpose. Even us having this otherwise meaningless UA-cam conversation is defining purpose. I am no fan of the sky daddy concept especially one that looks at your genitals. But at the same time, saying that life is meaningless is forgoing the part that every day you iterate on behavior that is meaningful to you. If that isn't purpose I don''t understand the notion of meaning. Mind you: It wouldn't be the first time I completely missed the obvious... And definitely won't be the last. If I make it through this day. Alhamdulilah
I would ask instead "why should there be nothing at all?" The answer to that is self evident. While nothing at all might be possible, it is an unstable state of affairs that inevitably gives rise to 'something'. Hence the tangible universe we see about us. This is really no more mysterious than nuclear decay. It just happens.
Sabine H. seems satisfied with a mere functional understanding of QM and not the understanding of what it is and how it fits into a larger understanding of the Universe.
@@Thomas-gk42 The original post was "Hossenfelder always looks like she's about to enter a boxing match." Are people who look such a way not aggressive? Are they not ready for a fight because they feel threatened?
Curious that Sabina didn't invoke Gödel's famous Incompleteness Theorem to underscore math's limitations as far as being "all-encompassing" and reaching some final total knowledge of the Universe through some mathematical construct. By Gödel's theorem there will always be something inferred by a mathematical system that cannot be proven by the rules of that system. A sort of Zeno's paradox to my mind.
Well Sabine is quite naive of philosophical developments, I doubt she has looked into or mastered this kind of concern. Which is fair enough, its not her field. But it is a good point to bring up, in fact, its something Penrose often raises, he has tried to come to terms with that a bit. check out the Penrose Hamerhoff approach.
It seems to me that each of the speakers could agree to the statement that marveling at the universe under all circumstances will never end. Maybe we then could agree that marveling in itself is an intrinsic part of "knowing" the world...
When humans become humble enough and realize their limitations they will understand a lot more about themselves and the universe they live in. But as long as they believe they are smart enough to understand or explain the universe with their mathematics they will remain ignorant. Humility is the key.
"But as long as they believe they are smart enough to understand or explain the universe with their mathematics they will remain ignorant" Well they have managed to enable this communication between all of us with their mathematics - not a poor achievement!!
Great point adrian!! Limited here on earth, yes, but aspiration is the key to unlock the door to the unlimited when our bodies on earth have served their purpose @@adrianwright8685
It has nothing to do with humility. Humility wont take us 1 microset to understanding. Continuting to speculate, hypothesize, and test hypotheses. That's got us this far. It is all taht works. Maybe we'll understand and maybe we won't.
collective consciousness is the next step in our evolution in order that we might understand and take appropriate decisions for the development of humanity ?
Either the universe is of finite complexity, and we end up with the question of the chicken and the egg, or the universe is of infinite complexity, and researchers, like Sisyphus pushing his rock, will search until the end of time.
I dont know what keeps something from being conscious or how I would tell exactly, especially if I am ill equipped to communicate with it. Sheldrake makes some good points, although he certainly does fall short in many of his statements. I am unconvinced that the sun is alive in the sense he means it, but humanity is certainly not the only example on earth, and carbon/water based might not the only example in the universe. We dont yet have enough data.
@@gumby2241 There is zero evidence that dark matter exists and yet its taught as fact. So your statement is a lie. You are the lunatic with a fraction of a brain compared to Rupert.
@@gumby2241Did you even listen to his argument? He didn't claim that it is conscious, he referred to Matloff's hypothesis and offered it as an example of something that could be studied scientifically, to see if there's any evidence. His argument was that it's no less valid to study this than string theory, which is absolutely right IMO. Science is not supposed to be so narrow-minded. At least Einstein was more humble about these topics.
His definition of "strangeness" is mind-blowing off; it doesn't mean what is strange is dissipated by knowledge; knowing is precisely what causes strangeness and motivates us to understand the accumulated knowledge is incomplete.
I love Sheldrake's ability to be science-minded while retaining the open-mindedness to understand the deeper nature of Science- Science is never settled as the universe is no static.
Those who spend time in the Sciences and lack exposure to less rigourous thinking processes often find "right-brained" divergent thinking to be flaky. Those who spend no time in the Sciences sometimes are. The balanced Renaissance mind uses both adeptly. Sheldrake is such a person.
Once the “woo woo” is proven by data, it’s no longer “woo woo”, is it? It’s what Schopenhauer would call self-evident “truth”. And what Thomas Kuhn would remind us is a paradigm shift in science.
Thank you Dr Sabine. I love it when you included philosophy as a necessary tool that should be used to aid science in advancing it's discoveries. But may I add, philosophy should be used to help you how to think but not what to think. Thanks again for keeping science grounded.
Maybe Donne was on to something calling the sun “the busy old fool” ☀️. The contributions by all three were wonderful and I would have liked to have heard more.
No sun no nothing here worth talking about. I regard Sol as king of our planetary system. He calls the climate shots among everything else Hail king Sol.
Praying to the sun is a fine thing, but what is new in that? People do that since thousands of years. Did it lead us to sit here where we sit with the technology to write comments on YT?
unlike sheldrake who took little childish jabs - i.e. poisoning the well - to make those evil "mechanical materialists" look worse. he did it every chance he got. as well as making grand claims and misreprentations of fields he is no expert in. and whatever you saw as arrogant could just as easily be behavioural perks from a plethora of causes. sooo, long story short: you seem to employ motivated reasoning
In most cases I would agree with you about Rupert being a more humble scientist, but I don't think he did very well this time. I personally like Rupert Sheldrake immensely, have read many of his books, and follow his talks online (it's why I am here). But he's 81, and seems like he's just getting old. He's presented his ideas much more sharply in the past. This was not a great forum to dive so deeply into his Solar Consciousness speculation and he didn't present it as speculation either. This isn't his best showing, but he's still awesome in my opinion. I'm not *as familiar* with Sabine, but I've been watching her videos on UA-cam for the last couple of years. My impression of her is that compared to most modern scientists, that Rupert might accuse of being rigid materialists, she's much more open minded and less dogmatic. Also awesome. Didn't know of Bjorn until this video, but enjoyed his contribution to the extremely wide-ranging conversation. Probably also awesome.
I used to imagine the Solar System like in the kiddie picture books, until I explored the sun's incredible magnetic effects on all the planets, and well beyond. They are all so connected! Like a true Solar family, not a disconnected dystopian one. Our perspectives must be open to evolution &change.
As an experienced Taoist who has formed a permanent merge between my mind and my bio-eectrical system (chi, ki, spirit), and, after a few years studyng my direct experience, it seemed obvious that consciousness exists as a state of electromagnetism; it's tangible to my mind. I think it can exist after the physical body has died. (I look orward to finding out.) I speculate also that consciousness is fractal in nature. There is some small science concerning consciousness as electromagnetism. Also "Starlight, Starbright: Are Stars Conscious?" by Greg Matloff is worth a read.
google scientists tie light into knots i suspect and hope the soul is a gordian knot of infomration filled light :D:D:D but at a frequency too high to detect
Perhaps not the same and I’m just spouting nonsense because I feel like I’ve found people who are willing to perhaps come across this comment, but I believe I have experienced the oneness of things. Still however, i have felt it only in bursts and I cant confirm whether it was just my brain playing tricks on me. It felt real but still it’s subjective. At those instances, i feel one with everything- animate or inanimate. I don’t know if it means anything or me just meditating a bit helped my brain cope. Interesting feeling nonetheless.
I don't think Sabine should have accepted this debate with a loonie like Rupert, he should not be given a platform like this, it creates a false balance.
0:33: 🌌 The universe's strangeness is a source of inspiration for science and philosophy, and they should continue to explore it. 6:40: 🌌 The speaker discusses the existence of consciousness in the universe and suggests that the sun and other celestial bodies may have conscious interfaces. 12:59: 🌟 There are limits to what humans can understand, but the connection between human minds and the universe is deep. 17:59: 🌍 There are limits to human understanding, particularly in managing complex ecosystems, but we can extend our minds through technology. 23:24: 🌟 The discussion explores the possibility of dark matter and the alternative theory of stars having autonomy in galaxy structure. 28:38: 🔬 Physics is full of improbable and untestable speculations, but some aspects like randomness in quantum mechanics may have a deeper explanation. 34:04: 📚 Science is a highly creative force that constructs reality and solves problems, rather than revealing a total view of the universe. 39:33: 🧮 The panel discusses the need to explain mathematics and its relationship to the universe. Recap by Tammy AI
What a fascinating conversation! I very rarely think about subjects like this, so it is great fun to hear professionals talk about it. I have the feeling Sabina thought the fellow who was talking about the sun being conscious was a bit of a nut. I surprisingly found him reasonable and would be very interested in trying to disprove what he says because I doubt it's true. He does does seem to be smart enough that it might be true. I don't think so, but it could be. So why don't they try to do some experiments to see whether or not it is true. The human mind is quite limited, although very flexible, so I find it hard to believe that there isn't many things in the universe we cannot understand. For example: Chaos Theory, the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics, aspects of parallel universes, what happened before the Big Bang, etc. There are many things we don't understand and just say "we don't have to understand" or that " they can't be understood" that maybe are just more complicated than our limited Minds can comprehend.
The trouble with Rupert suggesting the possibility of the Sun being conscious is that we all know it is a fireball and we associate life as we know it with consciousness and life as we know it certainly cannot live on the sun. Obviously Rupert knows this as he is referring to the conscious realm which is attached to but distinct from matter. Thus certainly it is plausable that the sun is aware and conscious. Do I think he is right, well in a word YES because existence has to be holistic. Much of Rupert's thinking is mirrored in various ways by great thinkers from the past such as Plato. When it comes to physicists such as Sabina the truth is she is a human being and her thinking like the rest of us is subject to her psycology, or putting it another way she believes the spiritual realm is B.S and just automatically denegrates its reality. Still love her, in the end she will see.
the sun can be concious depending on your definition of consciousness. If your definition means something like human/animal consciousness whereby we create a virtual simulacrum of ourselves in a dreamworld and use that to create better control models for survival/procreation, then I don't think the sun is doing that.
Getting ahead of yourself there. We don't even know if or how conscious subjects are made or how they can be produced from unconscious matter. There's not even a definition for consciousness that couches it in purely physical terms without overlooking or denying its subjective qualities. Much more to be explored yet.
Sheldrake is a bit of a nut, but he never claims that his ideas are anything other than speculation. I did acid too back in the day, so his ramblings do resonate with me. Possibly even morphically.
If all sub atomic particles are in fact waves of energy at different frequencies then the question is what is the mechanism that waves can be particles.? Three wave/ particles exist to produce everything in the Universe apparently?.... The Electron + The Up Quark + The Down Quark. The wave/particle duality is fundamental and everything in existence depends on it. How a packet of energy in the form of a wave becomes a particle. The electron is a good place to start because it exhibits this phonomenon clearly. One moment it is a wave and the next it is a particle and it exists everywhere. Light is the same, one moment it is a wave and has a frequency or frequencies and the next it is a photon. Take a magnifying glass and focus the light from the sun which consists of many frequencies (waves) and focus that light on one spot.....All that energy with different frequencies on one spot and what do we detect....Nothing!...We know that the concentration of frequencies exist at that spot...could be an infinite number of frequencies...but nothing is evident...Until a peice of paper iks placed at the spot and then the obvious....a reaction and a burnt hole in the sheet of paper.....Only at the focus point of light concentration does the waves exhibit particles. So we know for sure that light is both a wave which can be at a single frequence as in a laser (or a spectrum of light as in a rainbow) or a particle or particles as in when it hits a piece of paper or in nature as in photosynthesis.....Energy transfer from a light wave. It is really frustrating to not being able to understand the duality of waves and particles. Waves can exist everywhere and at one spot simultaneously apparently.....how.? So frustrating.....I have not heard any clear explanaion of why or how this is. The whole universe as we see it exists because of this one single fact that nobody understands.
About strangenesss, Sabine is the only person that i know that speaks 90% with the teeth closed! For me it is more strange than the stars being conscient...
@@s2snider you were...and do you know who else speaked or barks like that? Rudolf Hess and my Rottweiler, all from a millenary brand of arrogance, superiority complex and rudeness...
![Gravity and the universe | Sabine Hossenfelder, Erik Verlinde, Priyamvada Natarajan [FULL DEBATE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1j0Xh9XM34M/mqdefault.jpg)
![Gravity and the universe | Sabine Hossenfelder, Erik Verlinde, Priyamvada Natarajan [FULL DEBATE]](/img/tr.png)
The quote "Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think“ is by Werner Heisenberg in his book 'Across the Frontiers' (1974), not by Niels Bohr, as the presenter says at the beginning and as is written in the description.
PicoPhysics: In PicoPhysics Universe appears to be very simple. Amulgamated (or Free) Quants of Kenergy in Space.
It's also attributed to J.B.S. Haldane "queerer than we can suppose"
Stating an opinion is not making an argument. Poor fellow needs a long holiday.
What does this mean - never heard this puzzling - stuff before - it better make things - more understood.? Fare thee well.@@VijayGupta-lw7qz
'Owt as queer as folk'. I wonder if the Universe will simply prove inexplicable to us ?
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
- Douglas Adams
Anything that happens, happens.
Sounds like a bold claim lol
If only that could happen then it would be a result of Murphy's Law which says that anything that can happen will happen .
PicoPhysics: In PicoPhysics Universe appears to be very simple. Amulgamated (or Free) Quants of Kenergy in Space.
There is a theory that what Douglas Adams says, makes no sense.
I'm not sure that we will ever understand everything. But I feel that the persuit of understanding is a fundamental part of humanity. Humans love to learn, explore, and discover. I don't imagine humanity would be able to stop trying to understand things.
And this is where i agree with Bjorn and Sabine. If the universe is infinite (or so big, that for our human minds can be treated as such), our small and finite brains will never be able to understand it all. Not in todays configuration. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try!!! This is exactly the same thing with free will and decision making. I'm all for those who say we don't have free will (just an illusion). But it doesn't mean we can't make decisions. And i as a human being, I decided I'd love to find out as much as i can before i pass away.
I have no idea what will be in a few hundred, thousands or more years. Perheaps we will evolve into something much more capable than humans? Personally i really hope so. And i also hope that this one particular character trait - curiosity, will remain in our grand, grand, grand.... children.
Aristotle: “All men by nature desire knowledge.”
We will never understand everything.
This universe is the breath of God through his angel, he created and ended nature with three trumpet blasts. Humans as God's most perfect creation are given the highest gift, namely being able to speak and reason. There is only one weakness of the human mind, that is, the human mind cannot find the limits of its own mind. There are two most important parts of man, namely the spirit (spirit/consciousness) and his heart. The human spirit experiences seven phases ( 1. the eternal age 2. the mother's womb 3. birth into the world 4. life in the grave 5 in the plains of society (flat earth) 6. the day of judgment 7. Heaven or Hell. While the human heart is like a King for the Body man.
@@MarsLonsenin our spirit realm there is no three-dimensional space yet or only in the form of writing, in our mother's womb we already exist in three dimensions but there is no time dimension yet, in the natural world we live in 4 dimensions, space and time, in the grave we live in five dimensions , time space and memory of our actions, in the realm of resurrection we live in six dimensions while in the afterlife we live in seven dimensions. but mathematically those dimensions could be primes. 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17.
As someone who's worked with a few famous actors and musicians, I can tell you that, the bigger the star, the less likely they are to be conscious.
😂
Diverse panel, and interesting discussion. Much better than I expected, as the panelists did not get bogged down by their own disciplines and personal views. They were still able to present their perspectives and recognize their limitations.
Sheldrake has no perspective. Not even within his own ... uh.... "discipline"
@@ebog4841could argue that 'discipline' is a large part of the problem of early conditioned reactivity to causal naivety that brings forth the protectively self-centric individualised mind that, neccesarily, forms psuedo-protective, stubborn thinking patterns and consequent behavioural loops.
Why not argue respectfully with a Delusional patient in Asylum, as to why he believes Unicorns will eat all humans next Monday...
because the process of mind believing something purely based on assumptions rather than full knowledge/complete observations... is literally called Delusion...
Please stop baby sitting these God believers because they can cut your head if they have done that in the past, for literally not believing in a delusion...
Christianity like any other religion is Delusion... Delusion have two components: one that is practical (like human extinction) + one that is impractical (Unicorn made human extinct)...
understand that your mind can make impractical blend in with Practical and make whole thing believable...
But you should always keep questioning things... and that's only Science's capability...
neither religion, nor philosophy have capabilities of accepting that they are taking a huge Risky leap of faith in the middle to connect Impractical to Practical world...
@@ebog4841some of Rupert's work on plant biology is school-coursebook standard worldwide...
Agrees
Watching Dr Sabine debate topics like "is the sun conscious?" is one of my favorite forms of entertainment
she talks the least, but says the most
She's a smart little lady
@@n.p.mackenzie Rupert is totally crazy my best, nothing is to verify about the claim, that the sun is conscious, it's a gigantic ball of hot plasma, constantly whirled, with very few structures and without any possibility to form complex ones. You also could claim, that your dirty underwear is conscious in the same way. Of course, you may believe it like the indian people, he talked about, but if you come with that in a scientific disguise, it's pseudoscience. And Sabine is not arrogant, she just says clearly what she thinks is right. Better than blabla.
@@Joseph-fw6xx No doubt, she is!
I believe each galaxy is a form of conscious - too many very intelligent people seem to think so.
A wonderful discussion. Polite and deeply intellectual. Thank you for posting.
There is nothing intellectual about Sheldrake's ideas. He has no substance.
Very entertaining and stimulating in the best of ways. Thanks for sharing.
Rupert Sheldrake and Sabine Hossenfelder both did very well! A great discussion!!
I agree! Educated like Sabine, I yet like Sheldrake's argumentation of things. Sheldrake may not have the math skills of Sabine, but at least he is deeply committed to understanding the REAL phenomenon of consciousness, whilst Sabine is committed to understanding a purely IMAGINARY phenomenon of Quantum Gravity (which even Penrose has to admit is nonsensical). Yes I get the raised eye-brows when suggesting the Sun may be conscious. But think it through please. Take the example of cockroaches; They are successful in survival, quite aware of their surroundings and relative smart in their strategies. By any standards that qualifies as some level of consciousness. The fact they can't communicate with us is due to what we consider to be an 'inferior' level of consciousness. Well ok. All Sheldrake says is that this may apply in reverse as well; that there might be higher fractal levels of consciousness our Sun is part of, that likewise we can't recognize or communicate with due to our own relative inferior consciousness level. That is a very reasonable line of thought. As for Sheldrakes' suggestions of the existence of a medium through which consciousness may be 'uploaded and downloaded' manifesting in living organisms; We may again laugh and hold the view our consciousness is confined to only the working of neurons in brain activity. Ok. laugh all we want. But then take a look at UA-cam at the very tenacious tiny creature called 'lacrymaria'. Watch it being aware and conscious of its surroundings, hunt for food, avoid enemies. And next realize you are looking at a single cell creature. Not having a single neuron. How on Earth is this intricate behavior coming from the suggested confinement of its limited biology? Until anyone can explain that to me, I don't exclude Sheldrake again has a very valid point. Sabine needs to open her mind a bit. She should be intelligent enough to yet see the merit of what Sheldrake is proposing.
@@RWin-fp5jn yes the “imaginary” phenomenon of QG, which you emphasize in capital letters confidently. This gets 3 likes. Incredible stuff. The world is in so much trouble.
@@RWin-fp5jn I also saw elsewhere in these comments that you’ve stuck in there for psychological effect that Penrose called quantum gravity nonsensical. Just a complete lie. You’re quite the propagandist and liar, huh?
@@RWin-fp5jn I like this, great comment. I've followed Sheldrake for ages, his concepts make a lot of sense to me. Your analogy of the Lacrymaria is the way I feel about a lot of things, including viruses. A virus is not considered to be alive, but it will somehow adapt as a 'species/strain' to suit its needs, mutate without communicating. The mechanism for this seems to be a riddle. I think there's something in this pansychism theory. I just feel there's an inherent reason behind every action of a system that is 'non-living' which could be explained if that entity had some kind of awareness. If an alien observed a bunch of humans going about their daily business it would all seem like we were all a shower of brainless nutters. 😏
@@coreyleander7911 I've also seen Sir Penrose say it is nonsensical.
"plenty of strangeness here on earth if you think about it" .
Agreed.
Yea, like Hollywood 🙄
''People are strange, when you're a stranger.''
Plenty of marvel as well. At the source of this marvel, many see the generosity of the Gods.
@@DarkSkay generosity , gods. What is the opposite of generosity and what is the opposite of gods.
@@liamhickey359 At the opposite side of a mirror, sometimes another mirror. Opposite a lush forest nourished by rivers, clouds travelling with the wind; casting shadows traced by distant stars.
Sabine Hossenfelder, I love that woman she has one my favorite channel's very informative.
Wow this is such a treat for me. I am more than interested in Rupert Sheldrake especially his ideas on consciousness and I so enjoy Sabine Hossenfelder in every way. This was a great experience for me. Thank you. 🙏🤓✨
"Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think." -Werner Heisenberg
Yes it is beyond our understand, but why?
I am uncertain about that.
@@kipponi
Because my cat scratched at the flywire and wanted to go out. As soon as I opened the door, it changed its mind.
That has to be as good as any other why question you can conjure up.
No, Nils Bohr, right? But anyway just nice words, no meaning
@@kipponi Haw!
Sabine's face when the whole conscious sun story was going on showed a struggle to not scream.
LOL!
I screamed for her.
Because she thinks and behaves as if she is the only smart person in the room. Sad.
@@DanielJones-wj7mm She may well have been...Love her!
@@DanielJones-wj7mm Nah, besides Sabine, there was conscious sunlight there too.
I love the idea that we may never know, but we will keep asking questions and trying to find out. It's perfectly OK to not know things, and exercising one's imagination and solving puzzles is wonderful. I cherish all three speakers. BIG FAN
Very interesting discussion. Thank you :)
[edit] Everyone here makes very valid points even if they appear to be a little conflicting. Can we understand the universe? I think words like Knowledge or understand are the wrong words and question. Can we experience the universe? Yes, in every way even if we cant understand it or offer explanation of it.
>
My 20 cents worth. I still think we are excessively prone to subjectively superimposing our own creative idea of knowledge and language over the reality of the universe. The universe is what it is and we just haven't yet found the best language to describe the reality of it... When I say language I also include math as we currently use it. All our tools of description are made/created by man, not the universe :)
mathematics has been waiting to be discovered and is primely needed to find out dimenmsions and reltive constructions
The Aussie government is a violent CRIMINAL organization.
🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”:
Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe that can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (i.e. the observer of all phenomena) - is unknowingly to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of Ultimate Reality as being the Perfect Person, and “God” is a personal epithet of the Impersonal Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Monad is a fictional character of divers mythologies.
According to most every fully-enlightened sage in the history of this planet, Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, consubstantially and simultaneously, Absolutely NOTHING and Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “(Param) Brahman”, “Cosmic Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “Unconditioned Truth”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Universal Self”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). Subsequent chapters expand on this axiom.
In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself, or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving!
This understanding can be factually-realized by studying a systematic method of introspection, called “gnosticism” (“jñāna yogaḥ”, in Sanskrit).
Because the Unmanifested Absolute (i.e. NO-THING) is infinite creative potentiality, “It” perpetually actualizes as the manifest creation (i.e. EVERY-THING), in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes/multiverses. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, and because phenomenal existence is dualistic, there cannot be a single object without at least one subject.
Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person’s sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual.
PURPORTEDLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created from the initial event (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of immeasurably-dense light, which in turn, was ultimately instigated by Extra-Temporal Supra-Conscious Bliss. From that primal event, every motion or action that has ever occurred, has been a direct or indirect result of that expansion.
Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities).
“Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that!
This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness).
HUMANS are, essentially, this Eternally-Aware-Bliss, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn’t normally mistake the reflected image to be one’s real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating forms. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances.
Everything that can presently be perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of the primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every subsequent action has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit”, is largely a fallacious belief.
As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous.
Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they desire. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment.
Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of but two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic sequence). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism.
Cont...
"Everyone here makes very valid points even if they appear to be a little conflicting." I agree, although underlying everything in this debate is more than a little disagreement between Sabina and Rupert regarding mechanistic determinism. I drink up her no-gobbledygook reports and almost everything she has published online, though don't buy her deterministic take on the way things are. I loved her astute point about fantasy literature's being based to some degree on knowledge derived through science, and hope it wasn't a dig against that which she doesn't agree.
But @axle.australian.patriot -- I wonder what you mean by "experience the universe...in every way" if there exist aspects of it we are completely unaware of. Could you unpack that somewhat?
@@eugenecampbellutube ""experience the universe...in every way" I struggle myself to offer an easy explanation of that. Experience in the sense of being the raw observer without concepts of knowledge, belief or prejudice. This is a philosophical or even Metaphysical expression. Like the unborn child experiencing the stimuli that it is subjected to without knowledge of what it is and without a need to describe it. Maybe thinking as "Raw Awareness or consciousness".
>
Can we experience the full extent of the universe like that in a natural human way? Metaphysasists and theolagists may argue yes, mechanical physics would likely argue no, mathematical physics and theoretical physics boarders at times upon metaphysics.
Can we experience the universe in full (as a raw awareness) with our human made extension of our senses. Through cautious reason quite possibly. But many would argue that it is impossible to be a truly objective observer having been born a subject human being and a lifetime of reinforcing our subject instinct.
>
See the universe as it is and let it form it's own description of itself rather than imposing our neat subjective human rules over it. We can explain it in our own terms after we see it for what it really is..
>
Yeah, I know I'm a bit out there lol
Rupert Sheldrake: "as soon as things become in a structure--(like in the human body)-- the randomness is replace by an order...." Nobody notice that? And that is a truth as big as a cathedral, people. Greetings from Chile.
What are you talking about? This is what's known in quantum mechanics since early 1900s. Physicists have been wondering why the strangeness in quantum scale does not exist in macro scale long ago and that's what baffled even Albert Einstein and made him write a bunch of papers including the famous line: "God does not play dice."
It's a load of horseshit.
Sheldribble needs to go away.
This is exactly why I like to describe math as a language, you recognize that there are limits to language, that it can evolve and change over time, and there are multiple ways to come to the same conclusion.
The power and weakness of scientific thought is rigid definition, this rigidity also exists within western philosophy. Eastern philosophy on the other had embraces and encouraged fluid thinking, a core tenant of Buddhism is accepting that you cannot understand everything.
This is wonderful!
Sabine is a treasure of humanity and i hope to get to know Rupert's and Bjorn's work more!
Don't bother with Sheldrake.
😄@@rogerphelps9939 true: i wonder if it is testable that you can see in one's eyes that he/she is not able to create a certain truth out of some known and proven truths without wondering of in fantasy and religion
@@runePV fantasy and religion are your reminder that on a cosmic scale all your knowledge might as well be produced by the brain of an ant. which i think you need reminding of
@@runePVtry some kykeon worked wonders for the Greek Philosophers to shake to your core that cult-urally conditioned, pseudo-protective mind veil of causally naive reactivity that began in late infancy.
Sheldrake is a true (i.e. undogmatic) scientist, comparable with e.g. Michael Faraday. Sabine and Bjorn I found also undogmatic, as it should be.
This conversation reminds me how we are all trying to explain the same thing, just using different words.
No. The guy on the left is using claims and unfalsifiable methods to try and prove his quackery.
It is actually very far from the truth. Concepts have historical thickness and opacity, not only rivalry, but controversy.
Absolutely love this juxtaposition of fine minds considering essential questions from different perspectives. Thanks so much!
Not sure if everybody caught that there was general agreement that mathematics requires an agreement on axioms. Theoretical physics is really about what is the simplest set of axioms that would explain what we observe. The mathematics is just computing what would happen if we start from a hypothetical set of axioms so we can then compare that to observations.
In my mind "understanding" is justifying a choice of axioms beyond "hey, they give us the right results".
in physics, the axioms can be hypothetical. in mathematics and philosophy of logic, axioms just are. they are a set which combined with logical operators lead to another set of statements.
I would be happier to have physics without a multiverse (it seems like a cop out), physics without the odd notion of the 'many worlds hypothesis' (again, dubious), physics without a swampland of 10²⁷²·²⁰⁰ initial conditions (Cumrun Vafa's _F-theory_ which can F-off as far as I am concerned). Maybe something can be "smuggled in" underneath spacetime using various forms and combinations of Imaginary Numbers. Maybe it is as simple as everything we perceive as having mass in what we comprehend as spacetime (which may well not exist in the way we assume as it could be something wildly transformed yet still be mathematically consistent: such as a single electron/positron weaving forward/backward throughout what we think of as spacetime ~ with our sampling of reality being turned inside out so that the distant entanglements were proximal and our Free Will was neurologically coupled with it, so that in a relatable sense, but from an atheistic perspective, we are a part of a God which constitutes the cosmos who has a Disassociative Identity Disorder and rarely experiences an awareness of oneness except when the brain chemistry changes due to some hallucinogens and hypomanic psychosis ~ all this is speculative and is not even a worthy hypothesis for scientific enquiry as there would be no experiment that can be devised to determine whether one person is a fragment of the divine, yes, you might fool around with some cards with squiggly lines and try to see if one person can read the mind of God that is trapped within another person's brain, but ESP is about as discredited as staring at goats these days), is representable by Real Numbers, and everything that we perceive as quantised energy waves is represented by various forms of Imaginary Numbers, which is so tempting in its simplicity given that a Spinor is a square root of a Vector and a square root has +ve and -ve solutions, which is why Paul Dirac came up with antimatter in the form of the positron and the rest of _Quantum Field Theory_ can be seen as an elaboration of his ocean of Spinors that are the host to phenomena within our psuedo-Riemannian manifold, but it could be that the inability to tie a persistent knot in anything other than a Lorentzian (1, 3) Metric is a mathematical reason which recovers our 4-dimensional spacetime, not as some arbitrary parameterisation of a set of physical multiverses where other exouniverses of different combinations of dimensions exist, or a number lazily pasted in from our solipsistic observations which lack the introspection to accept these are tainted by a privileged quasi-"God's children" mindset, but one which could be proven through _Knot Theory_ to be the only tenable topology given the alternatives are either lacking in sufficient spatial dimensions to have the knot pass over and under itself as it is (1, 2) or (1, 1) or (1, 0), or no time in which to tie the knot (0, n), or too many spatial dimensions allowing the (1, 4) knot to slip past its own bounds through an adjacent hyperspace, which is the same for any (1, m) where m > 3. Why knots? Well Lord Kelvin once put forward _Vortex Theory_ to explain atoms as knots in the aether, but at a level of a _Theory of Everything_ it will move beneath physical observations to mathematical consistency which synthetically generates reality a sample of which we experience ~ to ask the question: "What happened before the Big Bang?" ceases to be about physics and increasingly becomes one of meta mathematics (the mathematics where axioms are not taken for granted as there are multiple foundational choices for mathematical systems based on different axioms). Consequently, I was pleased to see Cohl Furey's video entitled as being fresh thinking:
_Summary (Video 13/14)._
Well summed up, thanks.
@Readinganddifference with empiricism, the facts with which theories are based, are from observations, and not axioms per se. but the logic used to then develop theories is the same as the logic applied to axioms. it makes no more sense to start with false axioms than with false facts (apriori). if observations are later proven false then they are modified or removed. with axioms you simply need to show they are consistent.
I agree with Hossenfelder we won't know until we know. Our lives have changed so much but as we opened our fields of vision we see more. I do find the question of consciousness appropriate as we do not know what an alien being is and at this point we seem to be stuck in a terracentric opinion. As far as the big bang - this cycle.
With respect, I recommend probing the following idea: that your consciousness (C) is what it is like to be the updating of the model of self in the world (UMSITW) which your brain creates and maintains all the while that you are awake. What this means is that your brain, which exists in order to make your muscles move in the right way at the right time, needs a model of the world with you in it in order for you to be able to navigate your physical and social environments. The model is always a set of predictions created out of memories appropriate to current location and circumstances. This must be so otherwise it would be impossible for you to make any plans or have any useful expectations. The world is always changing however so we need to be updating relevant parts of our model of the world, and/or self, wherever a significant change has occurred. This entails the creation of new memories, and our emotional response to the _novelty each time_ determines the degree of significance.
The beauty, and the power, of this description is that it provides a coherent explanation of C, which I like to characterise as _rememberable awareness_, which is not contradicted by any discoveries of neuroscience or psychology that I have read about *and* allows us to understand to what extent other animals may be experiencing awareness similar to our own. Extraterrestrial animals will be endowed in analogous, even if not very similar, manner because the underlying logical requirements of autonomous navigation through variable environments will always apply. 😉
Very interesting
The universe is totally incomprehensible to us humans. This is the reason to be radically agnostic about essentially everything.
Sabine looks like someone who mistakenly walked into the Furries convention and is trying to figure out wtf is going on... 😂
Now that is a pretty damned good analogy.
@@cliveadams7629 Agreed, She's great when speaking, but when anyone else is speaking, she shuts down and just sits there looking slightly uncomfortable.
@@AsifBooks I mean, I don't know how much she knew beforehand about the other panelists, but I could see the whole conscious sun angle being hard to interact with on the spot
@@AsifBooks That's her couping mechanism for the discomfort she feels at having her assumptions challenged and being unable to respond in a raitonal manner 😂lol
@@AsifBooks She seemed to appreciate Bjorn's perspective. She even looked at him when he was talking 😂😂
Sabine did well to keep a straight face
I’m just glad the sun kept cool and shined on.
Her face is most often straight that's the hyper-rationalists issue.
Three of my favorite thinkers. Just a fantastic conversation
sabina's face when he's talking about talking to the sun. yes.
I am so glad he didn't get into Flat earth stuff
He is already active in the pseudoscience area after all
@@bengeurden1272he is ? how come?
Yeah. She is limited by her own unchallenged and limited conceptions.
@@natanaellizama6559just an exponent of naive materialism
I love Sabine's face! She's so expressive!
she has arrested emotional development i think
I wouldn’t have watched this without Dr. Sabine
Great to hear this open and more expansive discussion.
Good thing, too, because the universe is expanding.
I don't think I gained much listening to a guy talking about conscious suns that can fire jets to move around and that humans can apparently communicate with it lmao
Sabine is the garanty for an interesting and pointed debate. Thanks
@@terreschill461 don't know much about him so I'm looking forward to this. Love Sabine's critical and brave sight on the world. Ekberg is a nice guy too
@@terreschill461 thank you. Ekberg is a science philosopher.
Sabine discusses in her book 'existential physics' the possibility of a "thinking universe". Though she doesn't see much chance in it, I got the feeling by reading that chapter, she simpathisizes with that. Perhaps here is a common point to Sheldrake. Let's see...
Soon we will know everything in the world at its atomic level, so fake scientists out there get ready to go down.
💐❤ for Rupert Sheldrake 😊, love it .
Beautiful speach, and hopefull arguments, thank you Sir. 💝
Thank you very much.
Just found this video, Rubert has a unique speculation on the consciousness, even the lady held her own. But a wonderful discussion all around
He's a quack.
Loved the discussion, thank ya'll.
A wonderful panel.
We all want definitive answers to alleviate our existential angst. The reality is that we are we are very early in our journey, but eventually, after several millennia, the atomist approach should bear fruit and we will know. It’s not until we have reached the truly indivisible that we can start to understand the hows and the whys become irrelevant. Although it is almost certain we will have destroyed ourselves before reaching that point.
it's also not certain that we will ever get there as it might be that the level at which human brains are entangled with the universe will yield an efficiently computable theory of the ultra microscopic, that is if we can even measure it.
@@daarom3472 I suppose anything is possible until you can verify it’s not. If you compare and contrast an ant to a human, at a functional level we are largely identical, I don’t foresee the ant ever moving towards a full understanding of metaphysics, so it’s quite possible neither will we.
The average duration of a mammalian species is about 3.8m years. So one day humans will be gone. But let's hope this is due to genetic exhaustion rather than by destroying ourselves.
@@jimgraham6722 I’m probably a few decades out of date, but wasn’t aware of any documented evidence that could be described as genetic exhaustion. With global movement, Heterosis has become more frequent in humans than previously, so that reshuffling of genes should assure the vigour of the species, even the inbred royalty now understands this is important to their survival.
When we find the bottom-most subatomic particle and crack it open, it will read: 42
Hossenfelder always adds a fresh perspective to things
and she´s a poet here too: "...and in that case, there will be some strangeness left for us forever."
I like her also
She may be a competent scientist but she is a fanatical "climate change crisis" promoter.
This is one of the best discussions I've heard in a long time.
All of the participants are motivated by the deep desire to understand the nature of things. Hossenfelder and Sheldrake are both free range, omnivorous minds engaged in the pursuit of fundamental understanding. They are both exceptionally clear communicators and careful thinkers, each in their own ways. Moreover, each can probably recognize and honor this in the other, even though each thinks the other is probably mistaken about many things.
Agree. Very well put. If you're not familiar with the Sheldrakes (Rupert & his son Merlin) you might enjoy their books. I've watched a lot of Sabine Hossenfelder's video & I have to say this one increased my respect for her.
@@vKarl71 Sheldrake and Hossenfelder, a remarkable pairing. With Sheldrake we have a person deeply committed to understand the REAL phenomon of consciousness in ways not pleasing the academia. And with Sabine we have someone deeply committed to a purely IMAGINARY phenomenon of 'quantum gravity ' (which even Penrose says is nonsensical) and does so in ways highly approved by academia. So if you have to pick one of both, then surely Sheldrake has the more promising story? How is it, academia have reality into fiction. How is it we worship the mathematics of something in stead of the subject it self? Sheldrake is much more down to Earth if you think it through...
@@RWin-fp5jn I'd have to ask the sun what it thinks about this
@@DistinctiveBlend well, you ignt also ask that question to a cockroach. You wont get an answer back. Does that mean a cockroach is not conscious? No it just means their level of consciousness is at a too far distant level for the, to contact us. Likewise Penrose suggest the are forms of consciousness whxi the Sun could be part of that we are not able to communicate with, simply because we are at an inferior fractal level. The idea is interesting and a valid one. If you dont get that reasoning, you are slightly hinging to the cockroach - side of things. Simple
@@RWin-fp5jn It is neither interesting or valid (that requires evidence) unless you're higher than jesus. But if you enjoy asserting 'inferior fractal levels' of humans compared to a star then have fun! Oh and another great point for ya is that proof and evidence aren't really required for faith based stuff right?
Brilliant. Deep Respect for all of these Thinkers.
Ruben Sheldrake deserves no respect.
Two speakers!
@@Bob-of-Zoid That attitude says a lot about the current state of the science community. Paradoxically unscientific.
@@ximono Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse Meeeeeeeeee! Sheldrake is a philosopher, not a scientist! Besides that since when has serious science ever followed no evidence whatsoever as vigorously as religion? Not fo r long at all, and then only under the threat of death by religious zealots!
But please explain to me what the F you mean by that exactly and where doing so has ever brought facts to light, good evidence worth following, let alone irrefutable proof for anything: Give it your best shot!
@@ximono It's exactly the opposite: when someone provides evidence through their false claims that they are not credible, one should increase your credence like a good Bayesian that said someone is likely generally not credible, right? It's like you Sheldrake's universe of demonstrated false claims over the years gets to be forgotten to you.
Kudos to Sabine for not bursting like a solar flare when the topic turned to if the Sun is conscious 😂😂😂
The Sun is conscious. Any scientist who will rightly call themselves a scientist, having now read my post will investigate the veracity (or not) of the Aetherius society recordings.
Consciousness(the term) has,in modernity, been diluted,enhanced,manipulated,commodified to the point of loosing an agreed upon objective meaning...so sad.
I studied her face carefully when that came up, I half expected her to laugh or stop that gentleman mid-way through his speech 😅
Yes. Her expression is priceless.
And for not cringing when the presenter mispronounced her name at the beginning.
Wow, loved this! More, please!
There will be something we won't understand, let alone be unable to measure. We will understand the origin of the universe because we are an infinitesimal byproduct of it. We carry only of the characteristics that make it up for a specific reason that is a part of the truly fundamental rules and mechanics of what actually drives the universe.
Randomness needs to be parsed out to take into account the levels of the universe's infinite activities. What happens "randomly" is always within some pretty tight bounds, only happening in within a broader, but context. That randomness is an integral driving force of the overall path/lifecycle of any entity; without it we wouldn't see the structured systems (plants, animals, planets, solar systems, and all the way further and back infinitely) all around us.
We are coded to be only what we are and that determines what we need and what we don't: We can only see a very small part of the light spectrum because the no-doubt-infinite other spectra would only get in the way of our existence. And will never see a man with fire for an arm or a body of water suddenly morph into an apple: randomness clearly has limits, and rules.
Even if we marry-up to human-developed computers that expand our understandings (or at least provide more and better access to the entire repository of what we know) the next limit is certainly how much more within our self-and uniquely human-developed measuring system technologies we tightly-defined humans can provide that AI, imbuing it with the ability to go outside of the universe they were taught exists through the only language they truly understand: math. The limits of understanding will always be there because we are able to use tools of our making.
Our conscious mind is - if anyone hasn't noticed - uniquely human, but clearly not uniquely animal; but when you necessarily stretch way out the definition of conscious, it is not at all probable conscious to us is what conscious is, and how it acts and communicates in, say, a rock or the sun. Talking to the sun would clearly not be the same kind of task an English speaker has in learning Japanese. A Brit could get really close to becoming Japanese (we all share a whack of DNA), but a human or one of it's machines will forever be simply unable to even "hear" the sun trying to communicate, never mind have some kind of connection with it because it was not in the cosmic rules for us to exist. If we could communicate with the sun, we should've already been able to communicate with gourds, dandelions, water, ants, the moon, and everything else.
In the context of these thoughts, there is a lot (relatively speaking) we can perceive and measure that at least show us a glimpse of how everything is connected. Our atmosphere does for us what we see space does for the bodies and activities in it. Same idea, same blueprint, but at an insignificant scale and with obviously different attributes. Dark matter for the infinite number of heavenly bodies could be as oxygen is for us; "allows" stars to do their radiation thing.
But if we hope to have discussions like this for the next few thousand years, progress really needs to be redefined. What we like to call progress created what could actually be our significantly premature demise. As boring as it would be, maybe the best thing we can do for humanity is to hit the progress brakes, take stock, and redetermine what it will take for us to progress and survive a while longer.
Pretty interesting AWD. I don't think we should slam on the brakes, like a Mennonite, but we oughta pump the brakes a little, ''take stock, and re-determine what it will take for us to progress and survive a while longer''.
🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”:
Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe that can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (i.e. the observer of all phenomena) - is unknowingly to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of Ultimate Reality as being the Perfect Person, and “God” is a personal epithet of the Impersonal Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Monad is a fictional character of divers mythologies.
According to most every fully-enlightened sage in the history of this planet, Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, consubstantially and simultaneously, Absolutely NOTHING and Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “(Param) Brahman”, “Cosmic Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “Unconditioned Truth”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Universal Self”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). Subsequent chapters expand on this axiom.
In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself, or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving!
This understanding can be factually-realized by studying a systematic method of introspection, called “gnosticism” (“jñāna yogaḥ”, in Sanskrit).
Because the Unmanifested Absolute (i.e. NO-THING) is infinite creative potentiality, “It” perpetually actualizes as the manifest creation (i.e. EVERY-THING), in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes/multiverses. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, and because phenomenal existence is dualistic, there cannot be a single object without at least one subject.
Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person’s sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual.
PURPORTEDLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created from the initial event (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of immeasurably-dense light, which in turn, was ultimately instigated by Extra-Temporal Supra-Conscious Bliss. From that primal event, every motion or action that has ever occurred, has been a direct or indirect result of that expansion.
Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities).
“Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that!
This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness).
HUMANS are, essentially, this Eternally-Aware-Bliss, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn’t normally mistake the reflected image to be one’s real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating forms. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances.
Everything that can presently be perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of the primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every subsequent action has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit”, is largely a fallacious belief.
As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous.
Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they desire. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment.
Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of but two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic sequence). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism.
Cont...
I feel like the "observer effect" needs to be looked at more closely. The "observer effect" doesn't necessarily imply a subjective entity to trigger its effect but, rather it's the process of extracting information, which I think confuses a lot of people when it comes to this phenomenon. This mechanism coupled with quantum information theory could imply a theoretical observer at work within the system. The one place I can immediately think of as to where to apply this principle would be during the Planck era, a small mass of condensed energy would be perfect for quantum phenomena to occur.
I like to call it nature's internal consistency-checking mechanism: it only commits to a particular detail about reality once it's sure it's not contradicting itself.
Not only not necessarily, but not at all, and it never implied an entity, or conscious, agency..! That is and always was a deliberate misreprisentation of science by freaking religious apologist creationists! The observer refers to the equipment, and the fact that it too has effects and influences the outcome of the experiments, and we have no way of observing the quantum realm, without influencing it! Hence "The observer effect"!
@@blackshard641 Sounds cute, but it's really just Nonsense!
Early on in physics the wording of “observer” was misconstrued. It wasn’t meant to be a conscious entity, but just anything that “measured” something. By measure, it’s meant that anything that impinges on something else, such as a particle that hits another particle has taken a “measurement” and therefore is an “observer”. It doesn’t require anything conscious.
I think most physicists probably already implicit assume the observer effect is the cause of the wave function collapse. It's already orthodoxy that decoherence occurs through the observer effect, so it's not really a stretch to assume a similar process is what causes the wave function to collapse. Although the exact way this happens is not known, a popular idea is that it's caused by gravity, if you get a lot of energy into a single location the curvature of spacetime collapse the wave function, Roger Penrose talks a lot about that.
I first saw Rupert Sheldrake when he was a young man. He was talking to Jiddu krishnamurti and David Bohm. There’s a video on here of that talk back in like 70s or 80s I believe it was. God I loved Bohm and Krishnamurti
They did fall out as friends when it came to living pantheism
And talks with Terence McKenna
Never did understand those exceptionals too well. Was busy getting the necessaries for me and my lady. Glad to talk about the granular nature of matter at Planck length now tho.
Well if I must, at Planck length there are vibrations that seem random at the tiny local scale causing the unmeasurable. These happen such that pressures of eg gravity can be transmitted between the resulting granules to give spacetime it's shapes. The granules also transmit quanta of light in a way that looks similar to Feynman's electro dynamics due to a random nature of interior's of the granules. This would be caused by unknown influences acting from all directions giving a pseudo randomness for our macro observations. Thus we would have transmission of light and gravity in different ways through the granules giving overall different seemingly wavelike propagation on the cosmic scale. Hardly testable until more data re light and gravitational propagation comparison gathered but conceptually graspable.
Entertaining discussion, thank you.
If you consider that no sensor system genuinely "perceives" the "truth," then you must accept that science, and scientific knowledge is a collection of tools intended to extract predictable results. The trouble with that is that the expectation bias is more or less explicitly a foundation stone of science. The limits of mathematics are that they are entirely created, an art. As Kurt Gödel showed, mathematics, in fact any non-trivial logical system, is fundamentally incomplete.
So you side with Sheldrake, and we should just make believe? Sorry, sensors are not made to "Perceive" anything but make hard truth factual measurements! And no, Math isn't an art as in the abstract, and Godel showed that one can put any nonsense into mathematical equations, but that's not how science uses it, that would be "Numerology", and it's what the religious, conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience freaks do! Math isn't "Created" it's extrapolated from data we can gain from observance and experimentation!
What a wonderful discussion! Consciousness is what you’re doing, be aware first and then be able to make decisions. Both come from your conscious efforts.
All of what we know now was once strange. At least once we started paying attention.
Rupert has such amazing mind and creativity, science really needs more people like him who project and extend ideas further then anyone thought possible.
Have ideas is nice, but if you are doing science you need more. If you are propsing the sun is conscious how do you test that? Simply having creative speculative ideas isn't science.
@@101Mant , dark matter is as speculative as the sun being conscious, was the only point Rupert made - he was smiling and joking all along... dark matter , makes the equations correct - was Sabine's response, but remember that Newton's equations were also correct at one point in time (They still are - but only at the scale of this tiny planet)
@@101Mant I am skeptical of his proposal, which he surely would acknowledge is speculative, as is the theory of dark matter. However, he proposed an experimental test of the "conscious sun" hypothesis. Then the question becomes whether such a test is worth the time and expense.
What he does, is absolutely not scientific.
@@Thomas-gk42 there should be room for his views as well
Sabine wins again, by admitting that Sheldrake has some good points. I would pray to the sun for the first time as part of that experiment! Honesty in science is key. time=2006!
I'm so glad that Sabina exists and has a voice!
Had you any doubt? She's a great and soulful human
Einstein " The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is , that it's comprehensible " 😵💫
If the universe were incomprehensible how can I.make a cup of coffee?
Mainly involves frogs
Isn't it a GOOD THING that we will always have new questions to answer, new mysteries to engage our imagination? How wonderful to be, in a sense, always a child exploring the woods behind his parents' house!
It is.
Excellent discussion. An excellent exchange of scientific ideas and views. Superbly conducted and only a pity that it was so short. But how succinct!
'excellent' chat about intelligent stars... really...
@@rogerjohnson2562 I for one quite enjoy speculative fiction, and I think that funny questions provide interesting answers, and infinite more questions. About people, about our environment, about everything we can conceive of.
Find it interesting if they had the same meeting again, but changed the seating arrangement.
@@Luxamor-8 -The fact that this discussion was very good does not mean that we agree with all theses, eg Dr. Hossenfelder! One can have many reservations about her way of seeing and understanding the world. I could immediately put forward completely different assumptions, equally logical. In general, discussions of this type show how these scientists have limited scientific horizons and are stuck in errors learned from elementary schools.
@@wicekwickowski3798 Yes totally, early reactions in being naive of causality and becoming conditioned, naturally, in wanting to feel safe so being appropriated by and attached to culture.
Here there can be the multiple comfort associations, two by example, status and tenure with scientific cult'ure.
On the last question, there are two different kinds of understanding when it comes to the universe:
1 getting deeper into the fabric, down to an understanding of aether or quantum foam.
2 finding useful laws that describe chaotic behaviour at all levels of physics, from quantum foam up. Including complex chemical reactions and interactions, aerodynamics at hypersonic speeds, weather, plasma fields etc…
The former can have a finite depth of understanding. That is the foam is made of discrete particles and forces that can be mapped mathematically. The latter is infinitely complex as chaos is what it is. After all we can easily map the trajectory of a cannon ball as it falls through the air but it is incredibly hard to predict the path of a feather doing the same thing, in the same conditions, under the same laws of physics. If it is worth finding useful rules that describe the probabilistic oath of the feather, then it is worth exploring.
When physics laws explain chaos, it wont be chaos anymore.
@@rogerjohnson2562 > When physics laws explain chaos, it wont be chaos anymore.
"Chaos" in physics does not mean "behavior which follows no rules and thus can't be predicted by any theory".
"Chaotic system" merely means a system where even tiny changes of initial conditions lead to significantly divergent later states.
@@denysvlasenko1865 > tiny changes of initial conditions
How do meterologists keep track of where all the butterflies are?
"The former can have a finite depth of understanding."
-
It could, but there's also no reason to think that that is the case.
*buzzwords* *buzzwords* *buzzwords*
Guru Vasishta tells Sri Rama swami "seeking from outside the secret of the existence of the universe will never be found because the universe never really came into existence." It is exclusively a consciousness activity about itself.
Consciousness has nothing to do with decision making. It is just the awareness of your surrounding and thoughts.
Yeah, consciousness is pretty straight forward imo. We started as hunter gatherers and as we travelled and our hunting needs grew more complex our cognitive abilities also developed. We learnt to communicate and function as societies also learning morals and ethics as conscious beings.
@@TheTruthKiwi I am not sure what you mean. Consciousness is just awareness. It has nothing to do with cognitive abilities except for awareness.
But it's a prerequisite for decision making, no?
@@ximono That depends on what you mean with decision.
A computer makes decisions. A program has if-then-clauses. So consciousness doesn't seem necessary to make decisions.
If you want to say that it enhances our decision making, that's probably true. But I don't consciousness is enough. You also need imagination, language and rationality.
@@devalapar7878 I mean in organisms, not machines. A computer doesn't make conscious decisions, it simply follows instructions, either compiled to machine code from higher-level code written by a human, or code generated by an algorithm.
I am of the belief that if the Turing test was taken to a certain degree of sophistication, that humans would also fail the Turing test
i would.
@@HarryNicNicholas It is my belief that you wouldn't but it is academic as they will never get that sophisticated, or more likely humans are too arrogant to try it!
Well maybe humans fail the test because we are in a simulation and are therefore all programmes that just think they are human…
Bot
They already are, given how prevalent AI is these days, sometimes when I talk to people online I second-guess myself because some people sound like ChatGPT how they talk.
I am grateful, that people which can discuss with good manners were guests on this panel, not some of people from this comment section. I would like this debate be much longer and let those smart people get dirty with some nitty gritties...
It is interesting to see the materialist paradigm challenged more often these days when for so long it was taboo and you got dismissed as a flake. Roger Penrose deserves a lot of credit for basically single-handedly kickstarting the field of the direct study of consciousness and therefore leading us, 30 years after The Emperor's New Mind, to being able to even discuss things like whether stars can be conscious.
What did we learn about the universe today? Anything? The strangeness is ever expanding.
the first things we see and touch become the basis for our comfortable metaphors. when i say, "i cannot understand this." it is that i can't apply the comfortable metaphors of my childhood. but, as sabine alludes to, there are other types of understanding that we can learn and apply. still, i expect that there are limits to how much i can cram into a container the size of the human head.
It is great to listen to a learned person consider and talk about consciousness in things that are not human.
That's far from a new idea. We know other animals have consciousness and to think of it as a wholly human trait is arrogant to say the least.
I do think it's interesting to consider the idea of consciousness in other life forms and weather it exists in a more distributed way.
@@paulm54432nd reply: human supremacists?
@@Alan-zf2tt time will tell. We've only been around for 200 000 to 300 000 years. We have a long way to go before we consider ourselves a successful species.
@@paulm5443 I must admit to feeling uncomfortable about "human supremacists and human supremacism".
There seems to be a lot of evidence we are anything but supreme
Animals are conscious
I really liked Sabine and Bjorn!
My sister really liked Sabine and Rupert. She said her mum didn't like anyone.
I once asked Ed Witten the following question: “If there was no life in the universe - none; no animal, plant or other life including bacteria, viruses, etc. NONE - would it make any sense to speak of the universe existing at all.” Dr. Witten shrugged, and said words to the effect: ‘…that is a meaningless question.’ I was trying to engage him in a discussion of bishop Berkeley’s “esse es percipi,” but he was not having any of it……
haha, nice try, 'I refute it thus!' - Dr Johnson
@@pn2543 can’t argue with the man…..
Stars perambulating the universe of their own volition by sending out jets until they find their right place….I think Sabina almost choked but she’s a very polite person and really didn’t miss a beat…🇨🇦
Celestial flatulence.
So, a question to all the skeptics scoffing and chuckling in derision at non-traditional thinking, have any of you ever done any psychonautical exploration?
@@VaughanMcCue Newton could not explain why the solar system was stable given his laws. He invoked God. Planet farting is even worse.
@@tristanmules7995 ''...non-traditional thinking...''
Creating euphemisms. You are good at it.
@@tristanmules7995Yes. And we know better than to be enamoured of the rambling thoughts attached thereto. Sheldrake sounds like Terence McKenna in this regard, but worse…
Much respect to Sabine Hossenfelder for resisting the urge to facepalm during Rigbert Shelduck's wibblings.
shall we now all praise the rationalists among us.....they are positively inspiring
Gosh, this pathetic circlejerk is out of this world...
@@beerman204 lol
Understanding is not when you predict what can be. Understanding is when you know for sure what cannot be.
It is possible that we may harmonize our understanding to our perceptions - though it may depend on each's view of what we understand or how total it's domain.
I would argue we have made zero progress on the ultimate "strangeness" question and probably never will. "Why is there something rather than nothing at all?"
Maybe the question itself is useless. The difference in being and not being might be arbitrary in the greater scheme of things. Everything is and is not all at once and all that jazz.
Then again, I might have no idea what I'm saying. I'm just some guy on the internet after all.
I mean the initial state of the human condition is: there is therefore I think, which is only followed by: I think therefore I am. So in a sense you posing that question; "why is there something rather than nothing at all?" = the reason of something being there by virtue of posing that question. Again on larger scales the question becomes irrelevant. Looking at the universe as a whole it doesn't seem to matter any ant deciding to follow any scent. But from the microbiomes inside the ant the question becomes so much relevant that some organisms spend their entire lifespan to make the ant express certain behavior's. I'm not saying were ants i'm saying; posing the question is just following a scent. And the purpose of meaning is within the meaning itself. Whatever that meaning may be. But some guidelines have higher values than others. Like increase complexity or atrophy. You may feel like murdering the person in front of you blocking your way to get to your destination quicker. But in that process, you calculate the damage you do to those around you and yourself what that would mean. This rule becomes hardwired in your brain, and you stop running over people to get to your destination quicker, mainly because you know (hope) there will be another destination after that. Because there are things, there is meaning. If there where no things there would be no meaning. Yes, things also constitute your thoughts, because without the material world we would not come to be as thinking beings. So the question remains is the thought a function of the things or are things a function of thoughts. Both are correct and incorrect at the same time. The universe or universes might truly be infinite, or might not exist at all. Their is no difference.
@@leggoentertainment2947 It does make sense. If you're not persuaded by the 'religious' idea that we were created by a greater Being that desires to have a relationship with us, then your life has no purpose and you have no answer to the question 'why are we here?'
@@lo1234-w9r I hear you, however I must insist that the believe in god is just as useful/useless as the believe that live doesn't have a purpose. The purpose is in the act of living itself. With the first breath you take till the last breath you breath you're fulfilling your purpose. Even us having this otherwise meaningless UA-cam conversation is defining purpose.
I am no fan of the sky daddy concept especially one that looks at your genitals. But at the same time, saying that life is meaningless is forgoing the part that every day you iterate on behavior that is meaningful to you. If that isn't purpose I don''t understand the notion of meaning.
Mind you:
It wouldn't be the first time I completely missed the obvious...
And definitely won't be the last. If I make it through this day. Alhamdulilah
I would ask instead "why should there be nothing at all?"
The answer to that is self evident. While nothing at all might be possible, it is an unstable state of affairs that inevitably gives rise to 'something'. Hence the tangible universe we see about us.
This is really no more mysterious than nuclear decay. It just happens.
Sabine H. seems satisfied with a mere functional understanding of QM and not the understanding of what it is and how it fits into a larger understanding of the Universe.
Hossenfelder always looks like she's about to enter a boxing match. Love it!
She looks marvelous, and she´s funny
People always get aggressive when they have reached the end of their knowledge and it no longer explains what is taking place
@@enigma7791 what do you mean, no one was aggressive in this talk?
@@Thomas-gk42 The original post was "Hossenfelder always looks like she's about to enter a boxing match." Are people who look such a way not aggressive? Are they not ready for a fight because they feel threatened?
@@enigma7791 you might be a great psychologist than.
Curious that Sabina didn't invoke Gödel's famous Incompleteness Theorem to underscore math's limitations as far as being "all-encompassing" and reaching some final total knowledge of the Universe through some mathematical construct. By Gödel's theorem there will always be something inferred by a mathematical system that cannot be proven by the rules of that system. A sort of Zeno's paradox to my mind.
Well Sabine is quite naive of philosophical developments, I doubt she has looked into or mastered this kind of concern. Which is fair enough, its not her field. But it is a good point to bring up, in fact, its something Penrose often raises, he has tried to come to terms with that a bit. check out the Penrose Hamerhoff approach.
Gödel's famous Incompleteness Theorem is an overrated quip.
It seems to me that each of the speakers could agree to the statement that marveling at the universe under all circumstances will never end. Maybe we then could agree that marveling in itself is an intrinsic part of "knowing" the world...
Excellent.... thanks 🙏.
When humans become humble enough and realize their limitations they will understand a lot more about themselves and the universe they live in. But as long as they believe they are smart enough to understand or explain the universe with their mathematics they will remain ignorant. Humility is the key.
"But as long as they believe they are smart enough to understand or explain the universe with their mathematics they will remain ignorant"
Well they have managed to enable this communication between all of us with their mathematics - not a poor achievement!!
Great point adrian!! Limited here on earth, yes, but aspiration is the key to unlock the door to the unlimited when our bodies on earth have served their purpose @@adrianwright8685
It has nothing to do with humility. Humility wont take us 1 microset to understanding. Continuting to speculate, hypothesize, and test hypotheses. That's got us this far. It is all taht works. Maybe we'll understand and maybe we won't.
collective consciousness is the next step in our evolution in order that we might understand and take appropriate decisions for the development of humanity ?
Either the universe is of finite complexity, and we end up with the question of the chicken and the egg, or the universe is of infinite complexity, and researchers, like Sisyphus pushing his rock, will search until the end of time.
Forgot option 3
The universe is simplex
In my view it’s definitely number 2.
This seems like the same argument or discussion they would have before alchemy was converted into chemistry.
AS LONG AS WE DON'T UNDERSTAND CONSCIOUSNESS IN HUMAN BEINGS, PLEASE STOP SPECULATING ABOUT A CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE.
I love how Sheldrake's appearance reflects his inner crank.
He's a delusional guy
These people are all over the place, yet do not come across as idiots. This talk was better than one would expect, honestly.
Sorry, but science is supposed to be evidence based. The lunatic that argues the sun is conscious has zero evidence to back up his assertion.
I dont know what keeps something from being conscious or how I would tell exactly, especially if I am ill equipped to communicate with it. Sheldrake makes some good points, although he certainly does fall short in many of his statements.
I am unconvinced that the sun is alive in the sense he means it, but humanity is certainly not the only example on earth, and carbon/water based might not the only example in the universe.
We dont yet have enough data.
@@gumby2241 There is zero evidence that dark matter exists and yet its taught as fact. So your statement is a lie. You are the lunatic with a fraction of a brain compared to Rupert.
@@gumby2241Did you even listen to his argument? He didn't claim that it is conscious, he referred to Matloff's hypothesis and offered it as an example of something that could be studied scientifically, to see if there's any evidence. His argument was that it's no less valid to study this than string theory, which is absolutely right IMO.
Science is not supposed to be so narrow-minded. At least Einstein was more humble about these topics.
His definition of "strangeness" is mind-blowing off; it doesn't mean what is strange is dissipated by knowledge; knowing is precisely what causes strangeness and motivates us to understand the accumulated knowledge is incomplete.
I love Sheldrake's ability to be science-minded while retaining the open-mindedness to understand the deeper nature of Science- Science is never settled as the universe is no static.
open mindedness .. lol ... you mean open to ideas that make no sense. This is not something to be admired.
Those who spend time in the Sciences and lack exposure to less rigourous thinking processes often find "right-brained" divergent thinking to be flaky. Those who spend no time in the Sciences sometimes are. The balanced Renaissance mind uses both adeptly. Sheldrake is such a person.
you mean pseudoscience?
Sheldrake is a proponent of pseudoscientific ideas, I wouldn’t even say that his arguments make any kind of sense in philosophy either.
He is very open
One man’s woo woo, is another man’s creative ground-breaking theory later proven with data.
The difference is that woo-woo is not even testable.
Unless it's pure woo and then your claim falls apart.
Once the “woo woo” is proven by data, it’s no longer “woo woo”, is it? It’s what Schopenhauer would call self-evident “truth”. And what Thomas Kuhn would remind us is a paradigm shift in science.
Thank you Dr Sabine. I love it when you included philosophy as a necessary tool that should be used to aid science in advancing it's discoveries.
But may I add, philosophy should be used to help you how to think but not what to think.
Thanks again for keeping science grounded.
Maybe Donne was on to something calling the sun “the busy old fool” ☀️. The contributions by all three were wonderful and I would have liked to have heard more.
Ha.. I giggled. Nice observation and yes, it would have been nice to have an after show where those topics are further explored.
No sun no nothing here worth talking about.
I regard Sol as king of our planetary system.
He calls the climate shots among everything else
Hail king Sol.
Sheldrake is one of the most open-minded and cognizant thinkers out there! His thinking and insights are truly profound.
Praying to the sun is a fine thing, but what is new in that? People do that since thousands of years. Did it lead us to sit here where we sit with the technology to write comments on YT?
I don't understand how this man's debate is even viable And scientific in the slightest.
I laughed hard when Sabine said the solar flares bit :D
She´s a garanty for fun
The difference between Rupert and Sabine is humility. The subtle arrogance of the physicist shows in her speech and body language.
unlike sheldrake who took little childish jabs - i.e. poisoning the well - to make those evil "mechanical materialists" look worse. he did it every chance he got. as well as making grand claims and misreprentations of fields he is no expert in. and whatever you saw as arrogant could just as easily be behavioural perks from a plethora of causes. sooo, long story short: you seem to employ motivated reasoning
Odd how confidence is seen as arrogance and simpering seen as humility.
In most cases I would agree with you about Rupert being a more humble scientist, but I don't think he did very well this time. I personally like Rupert Sheldrake immensely, have read many of his books, and follow his talks online (it's why I am here). But he's 81, and seems like he's just getting old. He's presented his ideas much more sharply in the past. This was not a great forum to dive so deeply into his Solar Consciousness speculation and he didn't present it as speculation either. This isn't his best showing, but he's still awesome in my opinion.
I'm not *as familiar* with Sabine, but I've been watching her videos on UA-cam for the last couple of years. My impression of her is that compared to most modern scientists, that Rupert might accuse of being rigid materialists, she's much more open minded and less dogmatic. Also awesome.
Didn't know of Bjorn until this video, but enjoyed his contribution to the extremely wide-ranging conversation. Probably also awesome.
Whoosh..... get real.....whoosh again. 🤦🏻♂🤦🏻♂🤦🏻♂🤦🏻♂
Body speech? Are you a great psychologist?
As long as they can debate each other respectfully, it's fascinating to listen to people with vastly different perspectives.
I used to imagine the Solar System like in the kiddie picture books, until I explored the sun's incredible magnetic effects on all the planets, and well beyond. They are all so connected! Like a true Solar family, not a disconnected dystopian one. Our perspectives must be open to evolution &change.
Sabine is a saint for participating
...and the supergirl of patience here.
How did she get on with Kastrurp?
@@Corteum Much better than Kastrup with her.
@@Thomas-gk42 Yes, Kastrup was t oo strrong for her.
@@Corteum Haha, Kastrup is really a great babbler and preacher, and that's fine, but if he begins to talk about physics, you better escape.
Thanks so much for posting.
As an experienced Taoist who has formed a permanent merge between my mind and my bio-eectrical system (chi, ki, spirit), and, after a few years studyng my direct experience, it seemed obvious that consciousness exists as a state of electromagnetism; it's tangible to my mind. I think it can exist after the physical body has died. (I look orward to finding out.) I speculate also that consciousness is fractal in nature. There is some small science concerning consciousness as electromagnetism. Also "Starlight, Starbright: Are Stars Conscious?" by Greg Matloff is worth a read.
google scientists tie light into knots
i suspect and hope the soul is a gordian knot of infomration filled light :D:D:D but at a frequency too high to detect
Perhaps not the same and I’m just spouting nonsense because I feel like I’ve found people who are willing to perhaps come across this comment, but I believe I have experienced the oneness of things. Still however, i have felt it only in bursts and I cant confirm whether it was just my brain playing tricks on me. It felt real but still it’s subjective. At those instances, i feel one with everything- animate or inanimate. I don’t know if it means anything or me just meditating a bit helped my brain cope. Interesting feeling nonetheless.
A great discussion and I enjoyed all the viewpoints immensely. Thanks.
I don't think Sabine should have accepted this debate with a loonie like Rupert, he should not be given a platform like this, it creates a false balance.
0:33: 🌌 The universe's strangeness is a source of inspiration for science and philosophy, and they should continue to explore it.
6:40: 🌌 The speaker discusses the existence of consciousness in the universe and suggests that the sun and other celestial bodies may have conscious interfaces.
12:59: 🌟 There are limits to what humans can understand, but the connection between human minds and the universe is deep.
17:59: 🌍 There are limits to human understanding, particularly in managing complex ecosystems, but we can extend our minds through technology.
23:24: 🌟 The discussion explores the possibility of dark matter and the alternative theory of stars having autonomy in galaxy structure.
28:38: 🔬 Physics is full of improbable and untestable speculations, but some aspects like randomness in quantum mechanics may have a deeper explanation.
34:04: 📚 Science is a highly creative force that constructs reality and solves problems, rather than revealing a total view of the universe.
39:33: 🧮 The panel discusses the need to explain mathematics and its relationship to the universe.
Recap by Tammy AI
What a fascinating conversation! I very rarely think about subjects like this, so it is great fun to hear professionals talk about it.
I have the feeling Sabina thought the fellow who was talking about the sun being conscious was a bit of a nut. I surprisingly found him reasonable and would be very interested in trying to disprove what he says because I doubt it's true. He does does seem to be smart enough that it might be true. I don't think so, but it could be. So why don't they try to do some experiments to see whether or not it is true.
The human mind is quite limited, although very flexible, so I find it hard to believe that there isn't many things in the universe we cannot understand. For example: Chaos Theory, the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics, aspects of parallel universes, what happened before the Big Bang, etc. There are many things we don't understand and just say "we don't have to understand" or that " they can't be understood" that maybe are just more complicated than our limited Minds can comprehend.
The trouble with Rupert suggesting the possibility of the Sun being conscious is that we all know it is a fireball and we associate life as we know it with consciousness and life as we know it certainly cannot live on the sun. Obviously Rupert knows this as he is referring to the conscious realm which is attached to but distinct from matter. Thus certainly it is plausable that the sun is aware and conscious. Do I think he is right, well in a word YES because existence has to be holistic. Much of Rupert's thinking is mirrored in various ways by great thinkers from the past such as Plato. When it comes to physicists such as Sabina the truth is she is a human being and her thinking like the rest of us is subject to her psycology, or putting it another way she believes the spiritual realm is B.S and just automatically denegrates its reality. Still love her, in the end she will see.
The Drake has spent too much time looking at and talking to the sun and moon. The poor Luna... appears to also have sunstroke.
the sun can be concious depending on your definition of consciousness. If your definition means something like human/animal consciousness whereby we create a virtual simulacrum of ourselves in a dreamworld and use that to create better control models for survival/procreation, then I don't think the sun is doing that.
Getting ahead of yourself there. We don't even know if or how conscious subjects are made or how they can be produced from unconscious matter. There's not even a definition for consciousness that couches it in purely physical terms without overlooking or denying its subjective qualities. Much more to be explored yet.
Sheldrake is a bit of a nut, but he never claims that his ideas are anything other than speculation. I did acid too back in the day, so his ramblings do resonate with me. Possibly even morphically.
If all sub atomic particles are in fact waves of energy at different frequencies then the question is what is the mechanism that waves can be particles.?
Three wave/ particles exist to produce everything in the Universe apparently?....
The Electron + The Up Quark + The Down Quark.
The wave/particle duality is fundamental and everything in existence depends on it.
How a packet of energy in the form of a wave becomes a particle.
The electron is a good place to start because it exhibits this phonomenon clearly.
One moment it is a wave and the next it is a particle and it exists everywhere.
Light is the same, one moment it is a wave and has a frequency or frequencies and the next it is a photon.
Take a magnifying glass and focus the light from the sun which consists of many frequencies (waves) and focus that light on one spot.....All that energy with different frequencies on one spot and what do we detect....Nothing!...We know that the concentration of frequencies exist at that spot...could be an infinite number of frequencies...but nothing is evident...Until a peice of paper iks placed at the spot and then the obvious....a reaction and a burnt hole in the sheet of paper.....Only at the focus point of light concentration does the waves exhibit particles.
So we know for sure that light is both a wave which can be at a single frequence as in a laser (or a spectrum of light as in a rainbow) or a particle or particles as in when it hits a piece of paper or in nature as in photosynthesis.....Energy transfer from a light wave.
It is really frustrating to not being able to understand the duality of waves and particles.
Waves can exist everywhere and at one spot simultaneously apparently.....how.?
So frustrating.....I have not heard any clear explanaion of why or how this is.
The whole universe as we see it exists because of this one single fact that nobody understands.
About strangenesss, Sabine is the only person that i know that speaks 90% with the teeth closed! For me it is more strange than the stars being conscient...
tbf I'd also speak via gritted teeth dealing with such nonsense.. but maybe I'm biased.. brb asking the sun what it thinks about it
And I was foolish enough to listen to what she said instead of how she moved her mouth when she said it. How embarrassing.
@@s2snider you were...and do you know who else speaked or barks like that? Rudolf Hess and my Rottweiler, all from a millenary brand of arrogance, superiority complex and rudeness...
Thanks for clearing that up. I missed the "millenary" thing, too.