Sean Carroll is the one who will explain to you in the simplest way possible while still discussing the most profound ideas in physics. This is a rare rare rare talent and he is an absolute champion!!!
When the Covid epidemic started, Sean did a series of lecture that I listened to not really understanding much. I really appreciate his continued effort to educate me , the ordinary curious human. Also I have watched many of Robert’s interviews. It is evident that he understands a great deal. Thanks to both of you from a little old lady in Indiana.
Sadly, Sean is not good at explaining things if you're in that middle range where you understand equations but lack a formal education in advance physics. He doesn't know how to get those ideas across. It's as if he's forgotten how his mind worked when he was at that stage. His book _Spacetime and Geometry_ is terrible in that regard.
I love reading comments like these. It makes me think about what little old ladies in Indiana were doing 20 years ago instead, or 50 years ago, or 100 years ago. Imagine explaining to them the idea of listening to educational lectures by a professor at a university 500-1,000+ miles away, while sitting at home in Indiana. Just 20 years ago, that would have seemed unimaginable. What will little old ladies in Indiana being doing 20 years from now?
Robert, that was an exceptional job understanding the material before coming up with the questions, and letting Sean do most of the talking. Your best interview ever.
I love Sean Carroll and this is one of the better talks I've ever seen him have with anyone. You did a great job at covering so many topics in a single interview Robert.
@@cosminvisan520 proofs are for mathematical formulations, not for imperic observation. For these matters we use induction. You would think someone who claims to be a physicist would know this, but here we are at the start of the conversation and you're already making category errors.
@@uninspired3583 reported account for harassment already and for needlessly fomenting straw man arguments and inciting online conflict for its own sake. Ignore and report account and comments.
Carroll’s a marvelous teacher, mainly because he thoroughly understands his subjects. His book “Something Deeply Hidden” opened my eyes to Everett’s Many Worlds interpretation and convinced me that it is our best interpretation of quantum mechanics so far.
This was an amazing conversation that showed the value of having a knowledgeable interviewer who takes pride in the questions as well as in letting the interviewee “do their thing”.
Haha, I love that. "No one in the visible universe could buy your book." This actually makes me want to buy it more. I did sit through his biggest ideas lecture series through the pandemic. I have a strong math background but less exposure to physics, and I appreciated that he didn't avoid mathematical reasoning when explaining topics. I've followed Sean for a long time, initially because he was impressive in science discussions online, but I've grown to really appreciate his considerations on other topics like democracy and ethics as well. Easily my most respected public intellectual. Thanks for having him on.
How fortunate to have ready access to the golden part of the Internet explosion - continuing education, and from the likes of Robert Lawrence Kuhn and Sean Carroll. Robert sets up some of the best topics in Sean's latest book and then Sean is able to articulate response with such clarity and ease. An outstanding contribution to public awareness and appreciation of science, the best way to cultivate the awe that comes from a better understanding of the universe.
an incredibly rich discussion and I really enjoyed the format of racing through the biggest ideas of the book of the biggest ideas in the universe. got a lot from this and I thought Robert brought out the best in Sean, an already lucid explainer of complex ideas. thanks for sharing.
Absolutely astounded here!!! Mr Lawrence, you never fail. I imagine I am not alone in actually taking you for granted old chap. You not only ask the most fundamental questions ever fathomed by mankind...but meticulously position your interviewee with a platform to respond to the Layman like myself....and boy, Mr Carrol so triumphantly delivers!!!! some of the most complex imaginings..... all in a bite size and wholly digestible package even a builder like yours truly can get at. I thank you both....and am buying the book 1st ting tomorrow.
🙏 i am Thai,just started to watch your channel.i am still poor in English.However i 'm very lucky to be able to learn up date the most wonderful modern knowledge Quantum physics from this channel and can practice my English in advance too. Thanks so much ,keep on this so excellent human beings benefits work.🌅🌧️🌿🌎🌌👍🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
Two of my favorite speakers, Robert and Sean, and one of my most favorite subjects. I enjoyed the talk. I just ordered the book. Looking forward to reading it.
I'm definitely a fan of Sean Carroll! I'll be buying his book. I'm guessing he's going to be making the rounds since it's coming out. Hope he gets an appearance on one of the late night talk shows!
one my favorite things about Sean is whenever someone asks if something really IS such and such way, he always rephrases and says "it's a useful way of thinking about it." cautiously avoiding the arrogance of saying there's anything we know about the universe that is absolutely objectively certain for any possible species at any possible time to be fundamental with no underlying phenomena. all additional data confirmed by experiment is only getting closer and closer to truth (had to go for the pun) without ever absolutely arriving there. spoken like a true scientist!
@@visancosmin8991 see this right here is a good example. The post talks about conservative, realistic claims, and the first thing you do is make a sweeping unfalsifiable statement. This is the line between science and pseudoscience. We don't make claims about certainty, we don't make claims about things we don't have access to, and we avoid unfalsifiable conjecture. Violating those while posing as legitimate science places you squarely in pseudoscience.
And yet knowing how science doesn't prove anything, nor tell you what anything actually is, it's bizarre that so many scientists reject the mountains of evidence that point to Idealism being more explanatorily powerful than science at addressing the nature of awareness, consciousness, self, reality, and god
@@uninspired3583 Your comment reflects an astounding lack of knowledge that points irrefutably to mind being all that exists. You consider your own mind and direct experience to be a worthless source of trustworthy information, yet mind is the ultimate prerequisite to knowing anything at all. Literally anything. Your cognitive dissonance and conditioned beliefs keep you trapped in the extremely limited domain of knowledge science can provide
Excellent interview about Sean's new book. Sounds like it's just what I need to move on to the next level. Robert, you asked some great questions. Thanks.
I'm glad to hear that physics and philosophy are being combined in some manner rather than butting heads against each other. I've always felt that both go hand in hand. One greatly compliments the other.
@@visancosmin8991 Materialism is no religion. It's simply the truth, that makes the world function (think of cell phones, computers, cars, medicines). Everything is materialistic!
@@cosminvisan520 In our reality matter does exist. You just proved it by typing on your keyboard to reach this comment. Prove to me that matter doesn't exist as you claim... Ya see, its kind of a dumb question in this context.
I am an Engineer and am an expert at solving equations. I get it understanding equations is a whole different ball game. Great intro I hope I can follow you two. This is already sounding really deep. Great talk thanks for posting.
I loved watching Robert obviously thrilled at the understanding this book gave him, and getting the opportunity to speak with the author. It was particularly good to see him ask about something he didn't quite understand, but once explained, it clicks "Ah, I see it!" 😊
Thanks Sean for demystifying big ideas. And thanks Robert for asking the questions we need to understand. Keenly awaiting the book on Emergence which seems to be a keyhole into "next levels" in physics, or really, into reality. Such as why do emergent properties exhibit a kind of certainty if underlying reality is uncertain and probabilistic. That's a big idea needing a big philosophical answer. Thanks
Sean has talked about "why do emergent properties exhibit a kind of certainty if underlying reality is uncertain and probabilistic", I think he wants to do technical work on how such things come to be, but my feeling was that he didnt think it was some deep mystery. Statistical mechanics, ideal gas law, those things are clues about how super complex systems resolve to simpler solutions at a lower resolution/wider scope.
Thx so much for putting this out on UA-cam! Being old & uneducated it’s really a treasure to hear and try to understand some of the ideas brilliant minds throughout the world have come up with through math and experimentation over many centuries. 🙏
I'm old too. Old and super ignorant. I mean, no one is more ignorant on the planet than moi. So if I get to totally redeem myself before they lower my carcass into the dirt, it'll because of Sean Carrol. 💪
Very interesting plus a great learning opportunity, I will be purchasing this book, thank you Sean Carroll you have a high sense of clarity that I can HEAR what you are endeavoring to explain to us that are curious to the issues of the Universe.
I'm a big fan of this guy. I recently got to meet Richard Dawkins, which was a big moment for me, and Sean Carroll is one on my list of famous skeptics I'd like to meet while I'm alive. I hope the opportunity comes to make it happen one day. If he's ever in Canada, I'll be there.
37:25: we don't know the final answers; Hamiltonian foundational to quantum mechanics 38:50 field is the fundamental building block of reality 39:15 Newton - action at a distance 40:15 modern particle physics based on quantum field theory 40:40 time; time and space similar but different; time has direction, not space; entropy increases from the past to the future 41:50 reversibility is foundational; conservation of info 42:35 time reversal variance 43:25 arrow of time is an epi phenomenon; mystery of past present difference 43:50 arrow of time not dependent on laws of universe but specific state of universe, ie entropy increasing post big bang 44:45 presentism vs eternalism (Einstein's block universe; future exists in the future but all moments are equal) vs possiblism 46:30 what does physics say about philosophical approach to time? 47:35 physics reports what's happening in the world; philosophy conceptualizes it 47:50 many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (1 thing can persist in time and become 2 things in 2 worlds) 49:00 space time 53:45 metric tenser 55:40 special and general relativity 1:02:00 black hole and singularity; Einstein did not know about black hole and the big bang but his theory predicted them; why questions 1:09:00 modern physics based on quantum field theory 1:10:50 strong emergence
Thank you for the fantastic opening talk. I sometimes get scared of anti-creationist talks but I'm delighted to know that it's never a 100% conclusive topic and there is always the motion to just let others believe what they feel, see, or sense.
Good on Sean Carroll for including equations in his book. I think the real reason why most scientists don't include equations in their popular books is because they're actually too lazy or unable to explain the math in a manner that is comprehensible to an educated but non-expertised lay public. The result is that for the educated individual who wants more than a very superficial understanding of the math, it remains inaccessible unless they get their hands on or delve into a textbook. However, a truly talented teacher can find ways to teach the math on a more intuitive level for a wider audience
I'm a music teacher capable of college level instruction, although I greatly value simple explanations for those who are at the beginning of their journey. It makes all the difference in the world.
@@cosminvisan520 because "mumbo jumbo" means words that are semantically incoherent. Ergo, your 'argument' that Dr. Carrol does not understand the ontology of materialism is "mumbo jumbo".
I strongly believe that either the Many Worlds Interpretation, or The Simulation Hypothesis, is the correct explanation of our lives. We either live in one of an infinite number of possible realities, or we are living in a digital simulated universe under a greater Universal Consciousness that exists outside of our perceivable "universe". For this reason, Sean Carroll (for the MWI explanation), and Tom Campbell/Jim Elvidge/Rizwan Virk (for the Simulation Hypothesis explanation), are the ONLY scientists whose talks I take seriously and never get tired of listening to.
So you only take seriously people who repeat what you already personally believe, and people with different ideas are outright ignored or dismissed, got it. That’s a great way to get to truth!🤥🙄
@@dickjones4912 What other ideas that make any kind of sense am I ignoring ? No, you are wrong, my friend. I listened to (and read) a lot of different ideas about the nature of our reality and have come to the conclusion that the Simulation Hypothesis and the Many Worlds Interpretation are the ones that make the most sense to me, and so I tend to follow them. It is not the other way around in that I could not have possibly developed these two ideas myself and THEN follow these scientists whose ideas resonate with me. For example, if you want to believe in the Flat Earth Hypothesis, then go right ahead. Join that idiot PG of the Brooklyn Nets, Kyrie Irving, in that belief for all I care. Me, I tend to stay away from non-sense beliefs. I hope my explanation is clearer now.
Robert! Great discussion. Sean is hands down and perhaps the best in the world at articulating the complexities of atomic physics and its limits compared to fields we see and experience all day every day. This topic seems to be the very "Theory of Everything" science community has been seeking. The precise use of terms to describe these ultra complex topics is a huge turning point it seems we as human society need to tackle in the academic medical, biological, social, physical, micro/nano scale and up to astronomical (JWST) science worlds.
@@visancosmin8991 I believe in only that for which there is sufficient evidence to justify belief. If you are unable to differentiate a belief from the imaginary, then there isn’t sufficient evidence to justify belief in it
@@visancosmin8991 What is “consciousness”? You can’t even define it and you cannot formally describe it because there is no formal description of it. May as well be “magic”. One cannot use something one doesn’t understand as the basis for an explanation of the rest of the universe. Ignorance cannot be used to solve ignorance Your solipsist view of the universe has absolutely no utility and fails as a model to make any predictions, and fails to explain anything What is the best model to make predictions of what will occur in the future and explanations of what occurred in the past? Quantum mechanics + General Relativity are hands down without question the most predictive and explanatory models we have. When you can come up with an actual MODEL that makes better predictions I’ll listen to you, until then you’re just invoking magic and pretending like that’s an explanation
@@cosminvisan520 Beliefs are by definition models. And a model is measured by how well it correlates with what it is trying to model. I don’t rule out panpsychism as a possibility, I simply assert that it’s objectively less probable because materialism is a model that better matches what we observe. If panpsychism were a better model of reality, then it would make better predictions and better explanations, but it doesn’t do that Indeed, something isn’t true because it makes better predictions of course, but if you have no way of differentiating panpsychism from the infinite number of fantastical ideas I can fabricate in my head, then why should I not classify it as such? That is the most probable classification because it has all the same properties Panpsychism is just a modern attempt at the God of the Gaps fallacy, which simply makes an axiom out of whatever you don’t understand, and calls it a day
@@cosminvisan520 You presuppose “God” exists in your ontology. Furthermore, you aren’t describing what consciousness IS, you are merely describing some properties. Colors can be removed form conscious experience by manipulating the brain, as can sounds, and smells and tastes and pains and pleasures. These senses are all models that the brain constructs for utilitarian purposes to understand it’s environment. There is no part of your conscious experiences that cannot be manipulated by manipulating some part of the brain. We don’t need to invoke anything but the brain to explain any of it, and the closer our AIs get to copying brain behaviors, the more intelligent and aware they become I’m a strong believer in Occams Razor, and I will not invoke unneeded entities until they are needed, and all evidence so far is consistent with consciousness being a product of the brain. If when we get to the center of the brain maze by fully understanding the brain, and determine the brain cannot produce consciousness, I will happily consider invoking NEW entities, but until then, I’m sticking with Occams Razor
@@cosminvisan520 “Matter” is a model, and it is a model that just happens to be very predictive and explanatory of both future and past observations, which is why we think it is capturing some property of reality. Your claims do not make any predictions, are unfalsifiable, and therefore indistinguishable from all the other unfalsifiable claims I can fabricate in my mind “Consciousness” is not well defined, and it is unlikely your paper on the subject has made a Nobel prize worthy breakthrough on the idea, especially when you can’t even summarize your idea apart from blindly asserting Panpsychism without providing evidence. I can provide simple high level summaries of Einsteins theory of relativity, Newtons Universal Gravitation, or even Quantum Mechanics so don’t pretend like your ideas are somehow too complex for a UA-cam comment
I wasn't aware that Robert is also a graduate of JHU, like myself. Welcome to the area, Dr. Carroll. I hope you are a fan of lacrosse...lol...Go Bluejays, indeed!!
Man, I love this channel "Closer to Truth." Sean, I can't help but think that the absolute only true Constant is Change. Could Change be Intropy playing in the realms of its life? Of course you might laugh at my ignorance, but aren't we all still quite in the infancy stage of knowledge?
1:06:33 If you lay out all the states the universe could be in you may find that they form a loose ordering where low entropy states are next to slightly higher entropy states, which are next to slightly higher entropy etc. and we're just somewhere on that order drifting to the right. There's no 'why' it was that way in the past. It's adjacency and you call the past that direction that has low entropy. How else could it be? Low entropy states are not adjacent to super high entropy states and you as a large structure can't force yourself too far towards lower entropy. So you find a universe ordered by entropy with the big bang at one end.
How could the early universe, composed of a quark/gluon plasma, have had a very low entropy? It seems to me the entropy must have been instead very high. Where am I going wrong here?
Congratulations sean! I've always appreciated seans affinity towards all world views and recognition of what assumptions science makes all while also explaining the value in what where when and why. I've always thought he was to rational and logic to be at UCLA im surprised he made it out without it changing him or selling out to propagandist.
I see în a ecuation from QFT that charge is în Dirac ec an integral over local cinetical moments of quantum field. +/-charge may be some AT left or right rotation when îs masure.
Kudos to both Robert and Sean. Not convinced though that the reason for the observed arrow of time has anything to do with low entropy at the big bang (past hypothesis). Time is a succession of changes or events (before events to after events). Even if the entropy decreases from before configuration to after configuration the time will still flow from before to after. As per some theories, the big bang was a chance fluctuation to a low entropy bottleneck - the big bang. However, time was still flowing in "before" to "after" direction on the other side of the big bang event (julian barbour's tgeory of Janus point). That IS the definition of the direction of arrow of time. It may be true that in our universe it happened that way, but low entropy is not the cause of the direction of arrow of time. In other words it just may be that in our universe the entropy of the whole universe seems to increase as the time progresses. But corollary may not be true. Also if at the big bang if everything was at one point i.e. not many degrees of freedom, then entropy can only be low. Thoughts?
37:03 "Theories Can Be Exactly Identical in their predictions but be psychologically different in how you would move beyond them" - Carroll paraphrasing Richard Feynman.
Sean Carroll is the one who will explain to you in the simplest way possible while still discussing the most profound ideas in physics. This is a rare rare rare talent and he is an absolute champion!!!
Hes Feynman for our generation. A true master of educating regardless whether you agree with many world's or not
When the Covid epidemic started, Sean did a series of lecture that I listened to not really understanding much. I really appreciate his continued effort to educate me , the ordinary curious human. Also I have watched many of Robert’s interviews. It is evident that he understands a great deal. Thanks to both of you from a little old lady in Indiana.
Sadly, Sean is not good at explaining things if you're in that middle range where you understand equations but lack a formal education in advance physics. He doesn't know how to get those ideas across. It's as if he's forgotten how his mind worked when he was at that stage. His book _Spacetime and Geometry_ is terrible in that regard.
It was a pandemic.
I love reading comments like these. It makes me think about what little old ladies in Indiana were doing 20 years ago instead, or 50 years ago, or 100 years ago.
Imagine explaining to them the idea of listening to educational lectures by a professor at a university 500-1,000+ miles away, while sitting at home in Indiana.
Just 20 years ago, that would have seemed unimaginable.
What will little old ladies in Indiana being doing 20 years from now?
@@HelvetesSkitApa ok, thanks for telling her that, Einstein.
His new book series will be based on these lectures.
Robert, that was an exceptional job understanding the material before coming up with the questions, and letting Sean do most of the talking. Your best interview ever.
Sean Carroll is a charismatic explainer of whom there are not so many. Thank you very much.
I love Sean Carroll and this is one of the better talks I've ever seen him have with anyone. You did a great job at covering so many topics in a single interview Robert.
@@visancosmin8991 *yawn*
@@visancosmin8991 go away you annoying little man
@@visancosmin8991 quit liking your own comments
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
Just love Robert's style, voice and intellect.
@@visancosmin8991 lol
@@cosminvisan520 I said lol
@@cosminvisan520 materialism specifically excludes "mumbo jumbo". Your ridiculous strawman is funny.
@@cosminvisan520 proofs are for mathematical formulations, not for imperic observation. For these matters we use induction. You would think someone who claims to be a physicist would know this, but here we are at the start of the conversation and you're already making category errors.
@@uninspired3583 reported account for harassment already and for needlessly fomenting straw man arguments and inciting online conflict for its own sake. Ignore and report account and comments.
Carroll’s a marvelous teacher, mainly because he thoroughly understands his subjects. His book “Something Deeply Hidden” opened my eyes to Everett’s Many Worlds interpretation and convinced me that it is our best interpretation of quantum mechanics so far.
I love Sean Carroll, I could listen to him explain stuff all day.
This was an amazing conversation that showed the value of having a knowledgeable interviewer who takes pride in the questions as well as in letting the interviewee “do their thing”.
Dear Prof. Carroll seems very happy with his new position and I am happy for him.
He's not at Caltech anymore?
@@visancosmin8991 not if you're in academia on a tenured track
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
Welcome to Baltimore, hon!
Haha, I love that. "No one in the visible universe could buy your book." This actually makes me want to buy it more. I did sit through his biggest ideas lecture series through the pandemic. I have a strong math background but less exposure to physics, and I appreciated that he didn't avoid mathematical reasoning when explaining topics. I've followed Sean for a long time, initially because he was impressive in science discussions online, but I've grown to really appreciate his considerations on other topics like democracy and ethics as well. Easily my most respected public intellectual. Thanks for having him on.
Sean is such a wonderful teacher. Thanks for this!!
@@cosminvisan520
"Church of materialism“ or like rational people call it: science and verifiable facts.😂
Sean is such a communicator!
Sean Carroll is one of, if not *the* best physicist of our time!
Physics explainer/educator , maybe . But working physicist? There’s much more prolific physicists than Carroll that you won’t have heard of
not really. he is all fake
@@beamerUSA
What do you mean by fake ? That’s he’s not a published , currently working PHD Kenton physicist ?
@@beamerUSA Sean is as REAL as anyone can get. We need more scientists who are not just effective science communicators, but great overall thinkers!
Clearly not, but I hear you. Maybe this - Sean Carroll is one of the best (english speaking) physics communicators around right now
How fortunate to have ready access to the golden part of the Internet explosion - continuing education, and from the likes of Robert Lawrence Kuhn and Sean Carroll. Robert sets up some of the best topics in Sean's latest book and then Sean is able to articulate response with such clarity and ease. An outstanding contribution to public awareness and appreciation of science, the best way to cultivate the awe that comes from a better understanding of the universe.
an incredibly rich discussion and I really enjoyed the format of racing through the biggest ideas of the book of the biggest ideas in the universe. got a lot from this and I thought Robert brought out the best in Sean, an already lucid explainer of complex ideas. thanks for sharing.
Absolutely astounded here!!! Mr Lawrence, you never fail. I imagine I am not alone in actually taking you for granted old chap. You not only ask the most fundamental questions ever fathomed by mankind...but meticulously position your interviewee with a platform to respond to the Layman like myself....and boy, Mr Carrol so triumphantly delivers!!!! some of the most complex imaginings..... all in a bite size and wholly digestible package even a builder like yours truly can get at. I thank you both....and am buying the book 1st ting tomorrow.
🙏 i am Thai,just started to watch your channel.i am still poor in English.However i 'm very lucky to be able to learn up date the most wonderful modern knowledge Quantum physics from this channel and can practice my English in advance too. Thanks so much ,keep on this so excellent human beings benefits work.🌅🌧️🌿🌎🌌👍🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
Two of my favorite speakers, Robert and Sean, and one of my most favorite subjects. I enjoyed the talk. I just ordered the book. Looking forward to reading it.
Sean Carroll leaves me feeling brilliant!
I'm definitely a fan of Sean Carroll! I'll be buying his book. I'm guessing he's going to be making the rounds since it's coming out. Hope he gets an appearance on one of the late night talk shows!
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
Sean Carroll such a great person and a hell of scientists. Thank you so much to both you such a compelling interview.
This was so well done. Thank you both!
one my favorite things about Sean is whenever someone asks if something really IS such and such way, he always rephrases and says "it's a useful way of thinking about it." cautiously avoiding the arrogance of saying there's anything we know about the universe that is absolutely objectively certain for any possible species at any possible time to be fundamental with no underlying phenomena. all additional data confirmed by experiment is only getting closer and closer to truth (had to go for the pun) without ever absolutely arriving there. spoken like a true scientist!
@@visancosmin8991 see this right here is a good example. The post talks about conservative, realistic claims, and the first thing you do is make a sweeping unfalsifiable statement.
This is the line between science and pseudoscience. We don't make claims about certainty, we don't make claims about things we don't have access to, and we avoid unfalsifiable conjecture. Violating those while posing as legitimate science places you squarely in pseudoscience.
@@cosminvisan520 a rock. You're welcome
@@cosminvisan520 i just woke up at the alarm I've set in my phone.
I know, silly idea, what I have been thinking...
And yet knowing how science doesn't prove anything, nor tell you what anything actually is, it's bizarre that so many scientists reject the mountains of evidence that point to Idealism being more explanatorily powerful than science at addressing the nature of awareness, consciousness, self, reality, and god
@@uninspired3583
Your comment reflects an astounding lack of knowledge that points irrefutably to mind being all that exists.
You consider your own mind and direct experience to be a worthless source of trustworthy information, yet mind is the ultimate prerequisite to knowing anything at all. Literally anything.
Your cognitive dissonance and conditioned beliefs keep you trapped in the extremely limited domain of knowledge science can provide
Excellent interview about Sean's new book. Sounds like it's just what I need to move on to the next level.
Robert, you asked some great questions. Thanks.
I'm glad to hear that physics and philosophy are being combined in some manner rather than butting heads against each other. I've always felt that both go hand in hand. One greatly compliments the other.
@@visancosmin8991 Materialism is no religion. It's simply the truth, that makes the world function (think of cell phones, computers, cars, medicines). Everything is materialistic!
@@cosminvisan520 says the obvious troll
@@cosminvisan520 Donald Hoffman is that you?
@@cosminvisan520 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
@@cosminvisan520 In our reality matter does exist. You just proved it by typing on your keyboard to reach this comment. Prove to me that matter doesn't exist as you claim... Ya see, its kind of a dumb question in this context.
Sean is one of the best CTT contributors and this is a great conversation. Can't wait to read his book!
I am an Engineer and am an expert at solving equations. I get it understanding equations is a whole different ball game. Great intro I hope I can follow you two. This is already sounding really deep. Great talk thanks for posting.
This is such a great video! Looking forward to reading all three books now after watching this interview.
I’ve always liked the way that Carroll takes time to learn how to correctly pronounce the names of European scientists, the ones from history.😊
love these guys! and yes, sean makes the equations fascinating and fun
Good for you Sean on your new position !! I wish you all the best !
I loved watching Robert obviously thrilled at the understanding this book gave him, and getting the opportunity to speak with the author. It was particularly good to see him ask about something he didn't quite understand, but once explained, it clicks "Ah, I see it!" 😊
Big up Sean, the Goat of public intellectuals 🐐
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
I find this episode illuminating. I bought the Kindle version and I am reading it.
Love to see two of my intellectual heroes having a conversation.
Glad you came east coast come down to Virginia sometime!
Loving the book so far!
thank goodness he's on our side.
Thanks Sean for demystifying big ideas. And thanks Robert for asking the questions we need to understand. Keenly awaiting the book on Emergence which seems to be a keyhole into "next levels" in physics, or really, into reality. Such as why do emergent properties exhibit a kind of certainty if underlying reality is uncertain and probabilistic. That's a big idea needing a big philosophical answer. Thanks
Sean has talked about "why do emergent properties exhibit a kind of certainty if underlying reality is uncertain and probabilistic", I think he wants to do technical work on how such things come to be, but my feeling was that he didnt think it was some deep mystery. Statistical mechanics, ideal gas law, those things are clues about how super complex systems resolve to simpler solutions at a lower resolution/wider scope.
good on sean to bring people more understanding this is very noble effort
Hopefully there'll be future volumes that'll cover the rest of the topics that are covered in the online series.
There's going to be three volumes.
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
I feel so enlightened by this information. Thanks. 😀Book purchased arriving tomorrow! $20...greatest deal in the Universe.
Thx so much for putting this out on UA-cam! Being old & uneducated it’s really a treasure to hear and try to understand some of the ideas brilliant minds throughout the world have come up with through math and experimentation over many centuries. 🙏
I'm old too. Old and super ignorant. I mean, no one is more ignorant on the planet than moi. So if I get to totally redeem myself before they lower my carcass into the dirt, it'll because of Sean Carrol. 💪
One of your best interviews.
Thank you for the time you spend doing these!!!!
Superb - will let you know if the book matches up to it. Best in-depth channel on you tube. Cheers Dr Kuhn.
Very interesting plus a great learning opportunity, I will be purchasing this book, thank you Sean Carroll you have a high sense of clarity that I can HEAR what you are endeavoring to explain to us that are curious to the issues of the Universe.
Great interview brother!!!
Yes! I was expecting for this for a long time! Love them both.
@@visancosmin8991 certainly I'm not an idealist/solipsist. I know I have two hands and they're external objects you know.
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
I've enjoyed this chat. Thank you very much.
I'm a big fan of this guy. I recently got to meet Richard Dawkins, which was a big moment for me, and Sean Carroll is one on my list of famous skeptics I'd like to meet while I'm alive. I hope the opportunity comes to make it happen one day. If he's ever in Canada, I'll be there.
37:25: we don't know the final answers; Hamiltonian foundational to quantum mechanics 38:50 field is the fundamental building block of reality 39:15 Newton - action at a distance 40:15 modern particle physics based on quantum field theory 40:40 time; time and space similar but different; time has direction, not space; entropy increases from the past to the future 41:50 reversibility is foundational; conservation of info 42:35 time reversal variance 43:25 arrow of time is an epi phenomenon; mystery of past present difference 43:50 arrow of time not dependent on laws of universe but specific state of universe, ie entropy increasing post big bang 44:45 presentism vs eternalism (Einstein's block universe; future exists in the future but all moments are equal) vs possiblism 46:30 what does physics say about philosophical approach to time? 47:35 physics reports what's happening in the world; philosophy conceptualizes it 47:50 many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (1 thing can persist in time and become 2 things in 2 worlds) 49:00 space time 53:45 metric tenser 55:40 special and general relativity 1:02:00 black hole and singularity; Einstein did not know about black hole and the big bang but his theory predicted them; why questions 1:09:00 modern physics based on quantum field theory 1:10:50 strong emergence
Thanks!
Gratuliere Professor Dr. Carroll!
Thank you for the fantastic opening talk. I sometimes get scared of anti-creationist talks but I'm delighted to know that it's never a 100% conclusive topic and there is always the motion to just let others believe what they feel, see, or sense.
Good on Sean Carroll for including equations in his book. I think the real reason why most scientists don't include equations in their popular books is because they're actually too lazy or unable to explain the math in a manner that is comprehensible to an educated but non-expertised lay public. The result is that for the educated individual who wants more than a very superficial understanding of the math, it remains inaccessible unless they get their hands on or delve into a textbook. However, a truly talented teacher can find ways to teach the math on a more intuitive level for a wider audience
I'm a music teacher capable of college level instruction, although I greatly value simple explanations for those who are at the beginning of their journey. It makes all the difference in the world.
@@visancosmin8991 what you just said is mumbojumbo
@@cosminvisan520 because "mumbo jumbo" means words that are semantically incoherent. Ergo, your 'argument' that Dr. Carrol does not understand the ontology of materialism is "mumbo jumbo".
@@cosminvisan520...That's _why!_
@@visancosmin8991 _he is just a mumbo jumbo materialist_
Had he said this?
How and why is it “mumbo jumbo”?
What is the correct thing then?
Why is there someone rather than no one lurking in the background - @1:08:07😅
Thank you both!
34:28 I finally grasp the Hamiltonian at a basic level. Thank you!
Good talk and I liked the interesting answer to the singularity question as a moment in the future
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
Finally one author that is not afraid of equations :)
Wonderfully written book.
…..and chapters within the book can be revisited.
Can't wait to read the book!
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
I strongly believe that either the Many Worlds Interpretation, or The Simulation Hypothesis, is the correct explanation of our lives. We either live in one of an infinite number of possible realities, or we are living in a digital simulated universe under a greater Universal Consciousness that exists outside of our perceivable "universe". For this reason, Sean Carroll (for the MWI explanation), and Tom Campbell/Jim Elvidge/Rizwan Virk (for the Simulation Hypothesis explanation), are the ONLY scientists whose talks I take seriously and never get tired of listening to.
So you only take seriously people who repeat what you already personally believe, and people with different ideas are outright ignored or dismissed, got it. That’s a great way to get to truth!🤥🙄
@@dickjones4912 What other ideas that make any kind of sense am I ignoring ? No, you are wrong, my friend. I listened to (and read) a lot of different ideas about the nature of our reality and have come to the conclusion that the Simulation Hypothesis and the Many Worlds Interpretation are the ones that make the most sense to me, and so I tend to follow them. It is not the other way around in that I could not have possibly developed these two ideas myself and THEN follow these scientists whose ideas resonate with me. For example, if you want to believe in the Flat Earth Hypothesis, then go right ahead. Join that idiot PG of the Brooklyn Nets, Kyrie Irving, in that belief for all I care. Me, I tend to stay away from non-sense beliefs. I hope my explanation is clearer now.
Wow , Max Tegmark . . . Really enjoy the way this man thinks . . . Yet another brilliant segment . Odd bless you Robert :)
Robert! Great discussion. Sean is hands down and perhaps the best in the world at articulating the complexities of atomic physics and its limits compared to fields we see and experience all day every day. This topic seems to be the very "Theory of Everything" science community has been seeking. The precise use of terms to describe these ultra complex topics is a huge turning point it seems we as human society need to tackle in the academic medical, biological, social, physical, micro/nano scale and up to astronomical (JWST) science worlds.
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
Brian Greene included equations in some of his books, which I really appreciated.
57:22 The Eötvös experiment is my favorite null result in all of physics!
Excited to read this book!
@@visancosmin8991 I believe in only that for which there is sufficient evidence to justify belief. If you are unable to differentiate a belief from the imaginary, then there isn’t sufficient evidence to justify belief in it
@@visancosmin8991 What is “consciousness”? You can’t even define it and you cannot formally describe it because there is no formal description of it. May as well be “magic”. One cannot use something one doesn’t understand as the basis for an explanation of the rest of the universe. Ignorance cannot be used to solve ignorance
Your solipsist view of the universe has absolutely no utility and fails as a model to make any predictions, and fails to explain anything
What is the best model to make predictions of what will occur in the future and explanations of what occurred in the past? Quantum mechanics + General Relativity are hands down without question the most predictive and explanatory models we have. When you can come up with an actual MODEL that makes better predictions I’ll listen to you, until then you’re just invoking magic and pretending like that’s an explanation
@@cosminvisan520 Beliefs are by definition models. And a model is measured by how well it correlates with what it is trying to model. I don’t rule out panpsychism as a possibility, I simply assert that it’s objectively less probable because materialism is a model that better matches what we observe. If panpsychism were a better model of reality, then it would make better predictions and better explanations, but it doesn’t do that
Indeed, something isn’t true because it makes better predictions of course, but if you have no way of differentiating panpsychism from the infinite number of fantastical ideas I can fabricate in my head, then why should I not classify it as such? That is the most probable classification because it has all the same properties
Panpsychism is just a modern attempt at the God of the Gaps fallacy, which simply makes an axiom out of whatever you don’t understand, and calls it a day
@@cosminvisan520 You presuppose “God” exists in your ontology. Furthermore, you aren’t describing what consciousness IS, you are merely describing some properties.
Colors can be removed form conscious experience by manipulating the brain, as can sounds, and smells and tastes and pains and pleasures. These senses are all models that the brain constructs for utilitarian purposes to understand it’s environment. There is no part of your conscious experiences that cannot be manipulated by manipulating some part of the brain. We don’t need to invoke anything but the brain to explain any of it, and the closer our AIs get to copying brain behaviors, the more intelligent and aware they become
I’m a strong believer in Occams Razor, and I will not invoke unneeded entities until they are needed, and all evidence so far is consistent with consciousness being a product of the brain. If when we get to the center of the brain maze by fully understanding the brain, and determine the brain cannot produce consciousness, I will happily consider invoking NEW entities, but until then, I’m sticking with Occams Razor
@@cosminvisan520 “Matter” is a model, and it is a model that just happens to be very predictive and explanatory of both future and past observations, which is why we think it is capturing some property of reality. Your claims do not make any predictions, are unfalsifiable, and therefore indistinguishable from all the other unfalsifiable claims I can fabricate in my mind
“Consciousness” is not well defined, and it is unlikely your paper on the subject has made a Nobel prize worthy breakthrough on the idea, especially when you can’t even summarize your idea apart from blindly asserting Panpsychism without providing evidence. I can provide simple high level summaries of Einsteins theory of relativity, Newtons Universal Gravitation, or even Quantum Mechanics so don’t pretend like your ideas are somehow too complex for a UA-cam comment
What.. 3 vol… oh hell yeah!!!! Im so excited for this!!!
I wasn't aware that Robert is also a graduate of JHU, like myself. Welcome to the area, Dr. Carroll. I hope you are a fan of lacrosse...lol...Go Bluejays, indeed!!
Man, I love this channel "Closer to Truth." Sean, I can't help but think that the absolute only true Constant is Change. Could Change be Intropy playing in the realms of its life? Of course you might laugh at my ignorance, but aren't we all still quite in the infancy stage of knowledge?
Whomever needs to hear this : you deserve someone who looks at you the way Sean looks at RLK.
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
Time stamp 51:20 - 51:40 explains the acceleration of universe expansion.
Two of my favorite hosts combine?!? My lucky day! Id love to see Jeffery Mishlove join you both.
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
Is space (three dimensions) moving through time, i.e future? Space is past, being pulled by causation as present into time of future?
Finally equations got into a fun book 🥳
Can someone say which was first? Energy or matter, or are they dual
I see both of those book shelves and have a great hunger to spend hours perusing them! 😍
1:06:33 If you lay out all the states the universe could be in you may find that they form a loose ordering where low entropy states are next to slightly higher entropy states, which are next to slightly higher entropy etc. and we're just somewhere on that order drifting to the right. There's no 'why' it was that way in the past. It's adjacency and you call the past that direction that has low entropy. How else could it be? Low entropy states are not adjacent to super high entropy states and you as a large structure can't force yourself too far towards lower entropy. So you find a universe ordered by entropy with the big bang at one end.
what is the matrix of metric tensor, 3x3 or 4x4 or 3x4 or other?
Gonna buy this book!
Zrob to!
I second Margaret's comment. Thank you!
Loving the equations.
Music to my ears... 🎼🎶🎸
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
Great job
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
How could the early universe, composed of a quark/gluon plasma, have had a very low entropy? It seems to me the entropy must have been instead very high. Where am I going wrong here?
Both brilliant minds
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
Roger Penrose’s Road to Reality … for those middle chapters you’ll need to check out some external resources to understand
This is gonna be good
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
Magic! position and velocity accompanied by ΔT. Traffic tickets could be so much more thorough, with all those details included!
Congratulations sean! I've always appreciated seans affinity towards all world views and recognition of what assumptions science makes all while also explaining the value in what where when and why.
I've always thought he was to rational and logic to be at UCLA im surprised he made it out without it changing him or selling out to propagandist.
I see în a ecuation from QFT that charge is în Dirac ec an integral over local cinetical moments of quantum field. +/-charge may be some AT left or right rotation when îs masure.
Love shaun!!!!
I liked it. It's hard to understand for the Most of us but somehow true...
@@visancosmin8991... and it get's materilized in timespace...
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
Kudos to both Robert and Sean.
Not convinced though that the reason for the observed arrow of time has anything to do with low entropy at the big bang (past hypothesis). Time is a succession of changes or events (before events to after events). Even if the entropy decreases from before configuration to after configuration the time will still flow from before to after. As per some theories, the big bang was a chance fluctuation to a low entropy bottleneck - the big bang. However, time was still flowing in "before" to "after" direction on the other side of the big bang event (julian barbour's tgeory of Janus point). That IS the definition of the direction of arrow of time. It may be true that in our universe it happened that way, but low entropy is not the cause of the direction of arrow of time.
In other words it just may be that in our universe the entropy of the whole universe seems to increase as the time progresses. But corollary may not be true.
Also if at the big bang if everything was at one point i.e. not many degrees of freedom, then entropy can only be low.
Thoughts?
I like it
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
37:03 "Theories Can Be Exactly Identical in their predictions but be psychologically different in how you would move beyond them" - Carroll paraphrasing Richard Feynman.
I wish to see Sean Carrol and Nima Arkani Hamed in World Science Festival or in Closer to truth together.
@@visancosmin8991 Have you figured out why you have to tell lies on the internet yet?
570th viewer :) LOVE YOU GUYS from Closer To Truth!!
Ballroom dancers could probably dance to Sean Carroll's speaking. He has such a distinct cadence.