Steven Weinberg - What Makes the Universe Fascinating?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 кві 2016
- There is so much in the universe that is astonishing, from the smallest particles to the largest galaxies. Hear the wonder and awe from the scientists who discover the secrets of the universe.
Click here to watch more interviews on what makes the universe fascinating bit.ly/1q05njH
Click here to watch more interviews with Steven Weinberg bit.ly/1ThPqP0
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
One of the most articulate, principled, intelligent people on the planet. We need a few billion more like him.
Absolute objective is a mirage, at least according to Godel.
Sadly the planet just lost one of the most articulate, principled, intelligent people.
Wonderful talk. What clarity and substance! Thanks to both the gentlemen.
I am always humbled by his intelligence
Did he realize that he was philosophizing. In my opinion he is a genius a realistic philosopher.
I think all philosophy is amazing just so long as individuals realize that distinction between what can be logically proven as observably inherently correct from a relatively objective standpoint, as objective as a standpoint can be, and those things which are inherently subjective, and can never be truly right or wrong, as both have benefit
He is unbelievably principled to neutrality and yet can give a sharp opinion wherever necessary..
The title is misleading.
Hammer. Nail. Head.
I don’t feel anywhere near qualified to to comment on this, but I feel I must.
It’s not a fascinating place, but it’s still the best place to get a good meal.
His comment that scientists in the past were influenced by bad philosophy should make him wonder whether the same is true today. Being under the influence of bad philosophy is like being under the influence of bad religion. It's very difficult to realize from the inside and, even if recognized, doesn't necessarily improve ones personal or professional life - especially when ones beliefs are in line with majority opinion.
The attitude of leaving the big questions alone because one doesn't see how to answer them or suspects that the answers are relative, is ultimately a short-sightedness that leaves room open for all kinds of shady ideologies to claim authority in that realm with sloppy thinking. Humans ask these questions, kids ask these questions; a clear answer - even if agnostic - can be justified rationally.
The next generation will have to fight a real hard battle to reclaim both philosophy and spirituality from the realm of nonsense to the realm of rationality. The older generation have been too inert with their dispirited worldview and are too narrow-minded and myopic to realize the importance of the territory that they have surrendered.
True, although this applies to societies at large, not just science. At least science left by itself is set up to find objective truth... shame its reputation in that respect is often abused to push political and commercial agenda's.
"Most physicists ignore philosophy the way atheists ignore religion
"
You are an idiot.
www.richardcarrier.info/philosophy.html
Can you be more concrete? What are this bad philosophies scientists are influenced by?
For someone who questions the usefulness of philosophy, he lays down some deep philosophical statements.
Fascinating - and unfascinating.
The big truth is that we as humans have the duty to be the zookeepers and the master gardeners.
And, WHY, exactly, is that THE big truth? What empirical evidence do you have to support your assertion? I'm not arguing against what you say but am just trying to stay within the accepted framework of this highly self-important, totally "scientific" discussion, LOL.
Philosophy gave birth to mathematics and science. Who knows what else it will create in the future.
Good.
With regard’s, if we’re carrying, scientists object following our names, then we should, learned, everything is possible to learn, to let’s people to understand the subjects, and any tools that we need will help us to do our duties much better, and that is possible !
I have categories of interest that I've developed over the last few weeks that can help answer this question. These interest types are :
-Social (emotional) interest
-Philosophical interest (truth searching)
-Mechanical interest (cause and effects)
-Cyclic interest (interest in cycles)
-Aesthetic interest (interest in beauty)
-Kinesthetic interest (bodily experiences, hiking, sports)
-Transcendent interest (interest in very large and small)
Survival interest (avoidance of prolonged discomfort)
So why is the universe fascinating? I think because some people, like me, find that the universe satisfies mechanical, Transcendent, cyclic, Aesthetic, and philosophical interests. And science also spurs the nearly universal survival interest.
So the universe fires on all cylinders for some people.
Despite what Steven Weinberg says at the beginning, philosophers have changed their minds of what they've done - many times. There are many examples. Wittgenstein's early and late periods. Frank Jackson moving from being a physicalist to be an anti-physicalist to be a physicalist again. Bertrand Russell started of an idealist and then completely gave that up... I suppose that now we can reverse the charge and say: "Philosophers keep on changing their minds."... Oh well.
A fact does not need to be proven to one who suffers from it.
You will be missed.
I agree with him completely on religion but especially his views on Abraham built religions
Nothing but artificial intelligence that gives us a chance to listen the inquisitive minds appearing here in this channel and something ununderstable is going on when love itself is ununderstable but exists in infinite DIMENSIONS of zero entropic consciousness as plate farm of a railway systems where conscious minds are moving in towards their goals or hopes or just a union of relationships that has expanded infinitely by AI revolutions enabling me to watch this video and ofcourse admire the amazing indomitable continuity that itself is a great ACHIEVEMENT. Thanks.
Weinberg is a deep thinker, great interview. I would differ with his interpretation of Abrahamic religion. What if the God who doesn't need our support, happens to be the programmer of the universe. The understanding of the nature of reality will eventually end with the identity of the programmer.
+SeanMauer If that's the case, then it's the ongoing scientific process that will uncover the programmer. Nothing in religion that I know about could help other than, "told you so!" after science does all of the actual work and giving us the benefits (technology) during that hard work.
Nature reality? What is nature reality? How can an invented thing explains another invented thing if they were both invented? So you are telling me that physics created human so he can eventually claims that he was created from physics. It like someone saying I can see my eyes from within my eyes
I wonder what his opinion would be on the science of morality or the moral landscape proposed by Sam Harris.
At around 6:00 he says that isn't what science is for. He's right too the is ought problem takes care of that fantasy.
At about 5:00 - They were actually known as Alchemist back into Middle Ages, which were the scientist of chemistry and also the speculative philosophers of their day. So pick your time period and research it and you will find that times nomenclatural terminology for scientist. Oh, if were it not for philosophy, you would hear and feel a great sucking emptiness in the universe...
Are scientific theories not theories of what ought to be? I think Weinberg is possibly assuming a lot of concepts here - pragmatism can easily remain coherent in the sense that what a physicist finds useful just happens not to be what the common person would - but theories, especially potential theories, are surely "of use" to physicists. When science considers itself part of the human sphere, then they must admit that when in this domain the distinctions are not academic/common, but epistemic/ethical and so on. Philosophers don't make up these distinctions - they study them, because other people make use of them. Weinberg possesses the bias of a convert - as Kuhn turned from physics to philosophy and noted its institutional and social problems, Weinberg turned from philosophy to physics, and argues that they are stuck in the mode of speculative metaphysics. It is ironic that, looked at objectively from the outside, Weinberg appears very similar to the natural philosophers he argues are mostly distinct from his view in physics - he studied philosophy, and then specialized in the study of physics. If philosophy is thinking in general - and reflexively examining thinking - then physics is an applied theory of thinking, bounded by the parts of the world which allow themselves to be measured.
Why should science "decide what ought to be"? We already have a word for that, its called opinion.
Allow me to shine some light on a few things. First, science is the study and understanding of physical nature. Philosophy is more the study and understanding of principle and how it works within that nature. Each provide understanding and grounds for expansion upon the other. Religion is merely the acceptance of a big lie to fill the gaps of understanding and is resorted to by the cowardly and the intellectually lazy. Now it is very important not to confuse religious study such as biblical history with religion. One is knowledge about the past whereas the other is practice of traditions for the purpose of pleasing your peers and worshiping some god or deity. I do believe in God but I believe all truth can be known through the study of the value and effects of principle (philosophy) as well as the knowledge of natural law (science). You really should try to get Mark Passio on this show. The big truth is a spiritual one but it is beyond all religions.
You seem to have the roles of science and philosophy reversed. But, since you obviously value science above all, and since science "proves" the non-existence of anything beyond itself, then you must accept that there is no morality and that no human standards of behavior really have any significance. Therefore, it should not surprise you if one fine day, you might be slaughtered by someone who shares your ridicule of religion.
The universe is quite fascinating, alright. Then again, according to Dr. Weinberg, it is also quite pointless. (Read "The First Three Minutes", which is also a fascinating book by Weinberg)
But the Universe provided the Diversity that ultimately originated intelligent
life. Can this be Pointless ?
Well it's a bit concerning that naked apes are looking through their big tubes at the sky and figuring out many observed truths about the universe. You can take this a couple of ways. You can say many big bangs happened and we're the winnners in a multiverse. You can say God did it, if you'd like. You can say someone else will figure it out. Or you can say that the only people who'd ask that question would be ones that observe naked apes looking at the sky with their big tube....observers likely naked apes themselves. Problem is none of the 4 are really provable. Closest one to provide any proof for is a multiverse.... if it's an inflationary Linde universe.
Gravity, Electro Magnetic field and light are all made from the same quant. That is why polarized light bends in magnetic field. A photon can travel at the speed of light or 0. In gravity the speed of the photon is 0...and the photons make an "net" that everything "sticks" to. Light bends in gravity because reacts with "gravity photons" that are fixed like a net in the gravity field (yes the warping of space thing....but this is quantified warped space OOOOK). It must be that way. Because of this graviton has very small energy and cannot be detected.....but....if it is knocked out the gravity web it can be detected...this can explain why photons from the sun can "push" the earth 1kg even though they have 0 mass...because they have mass of 1 graviton.....pilot wave is just a wave of gravitons...
time slows down with speed because "static" gravitons get energy with speed and slow everything down...even a thought is a chemical process with moving molecules so everything slows down...that is why the two observers will se the speed of ight the same. the amount of energy that graviton receives is equal to the time dilation. Static graviton gets the energy exactly so the both observers will see the same speed of light because of the time dilation....this can only happen if the light, graviton and photon is the same particle ....
How to prove this experimentally.... if a object in space radiates strong light and magnetic field it must "steal" gravitons, ....because photons and gravitons are the same particle and mater cannot be created from nothing ... the mass of that object will get smaller....measure it and it will weight less.
that is literally just random gibberish
@@chriskindler10 on a table with a few beers i can convince you it's not
While I am a fan of Weinberg, I found this not very convincing. He says science has nothing to say about matters of value of morality. Then he goes on to make some claims which are about values and morals (for instance that religion is not a good way of telling us what to do and that it causes much trouble). I would ask: “On what basis do you make such a judgment?” Do you base this on 1) dogma?, 2) intuition?, 3) ‘common sense’?, 4) systematic observation? I think that any claims about reality (including about values and morals) can either be made intuitively or trough a more scienctific process. By systematically observing consequences of behaviors, practices and systems, scientific methods (systematic, unbiased observation, experiments, etc) can help us gain more insight into what practices help us flourish and which make us suffer. And that is ultimately what morality is about.
+Ali Veli What evident truth am I missing, Ali?
On what basis do you make such a judgment as you've made?
You can see how this would devolve into an infinite regress with no ground, rather than the elucidation you make it out to be.
Steven Weinberg is without exception a profoundly interesting man, though his view on religion is quite errant. If we are to base Christianity which we should on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the disciples (The New Testament Bible), its standards of love and moral conduct are unreproachable. The fact that certain figures cause great harm in the name of religion is in no way different from those who cause similar hard in the name of any other pretext. It is like saying that scientists cannot be trusted because a particular scientist falsified their experiment.
With regards to worshiping God, it seems to me that the scientific profession has, for the most part, instituted a policy of constraining scientific freedom of speech to those who champion a certain scientific view or worldview, thus worshipping at their Theoretical Alter of Science (i.e. that Science has discovered how life began). An allegation by a prominent scientist (in the book The Trouble with Physics) that students interested in String Theory were often preferred for Ph.D. Studies over those interested in other areas of Physics is quite telling about selective breeding in Science. No, the problem is not with Science but with the self-appointed gatekeepers.
I am an Electrical Engineer and I am fascinated by how many Biologists and Astrophysics practitioners come across in their views as primarily philosophers wielding mathematical tools than scientists wielding mathematical and rational (investigative) tools. As engineers, we design and create the machines and scientific tools (vis-a-vis computers, satellites, telescopes, and various types of equipment) that are used in modern scientific research and so we are quite grounded when it comes to science viewing it from a mathematics, physics, and experimental framework. Theories that cannot be tested whether it is Evolution or the Big Bang is viewed as Philosophy or intellectual gymnastics by engineers as referenced below.
Talk in Evolutionary Theory about Transitional Fossil and in Physics about Black Holes do not measure up to everyday issues like Medical Miracles in which tens of thousands of people have experienced near death experiences that have been well documented to provide stunning revelations on a person experiencing clinical death being able to observe with perfect accuracy events occurring in the operating room while under heavy sedation. But also observing objects with stunning accuracy on the roof of the operating room when recounting out of body experiences that provides conclusive evidence of the phenomenon of a soul or spirit, one that is beyond our limited scientific understanding of the physical world. Such phenomenon is obviously beyond the scope of science and casts doubts about prevailing scientific theories about the origins of man. So long as we understand the limitations of science as hopefully, Steven Weinberg seems to do, then we can all live peaceable, the scientists, engineers, and scientific philosophers. The fact that 15% (as alleged) of the elite scientists believe in God shows us that when a scientist talks about God, he/she is not representing Science but their own personal worldview which each person should be permitted to do ;-)
Absolutely nothing
Truth seekers will not find the Truth unless they listen to the Voice of God.
+Brad Holkesvig Yes, and did you give milk to your Ganesha statue today?
*****
You silly heathens have no idea where you get your thoughts from.
+Brad Holkesvig You didn't answer the question. Did you give milk to your Ganesha statue today, or didn't you? Maybe you don't have a Ganesha statue? Hmm... You mentioned the voice of God, and I asked you about one of them. My thoughts are obvious, you just don't seem to want to go where this line of logic will take you ;)
*****
Logic won't take you anywhere. Look at all the lost scientists and religious people there are today who don't have a clue how they were created.
+Brad Holkesvig Lol, did you give milk to your Ganesha statue today? ;) It's a simple question. Vishnu created you, of course, via Brahma...
The clip extended to include part that is not related to the title. Every body knows that the universe is fascinating bla bla bla. When he talked about religion, he seemed very foolish, flawed and totally uneducated. Anyway, I don't want to go over his flaws, but I am sure if he asks his 3 years grand grandson while playing video games on his iPhone, he will answer him. Apparently, he looks very high to himself that he cannot accept the idea of some entity that is more superior.
You are totally oblivious to the problems caused by Abrahamic religions - especially your naive and ignorant acceptance of of an invisible monster as your master.