I like his introduction to the new laws of physics, that's what was missing to the picture since a stagnation on the basic rules that allowed no forthcoming. Our developing conscious minds are understanding more and more and creating concepts to the complexity of the whole, we'll soon have answers to some complex appearances.
Still we may say conciousness is the biggest mystrey and this single arrow hits modern world so strongly that debate occurs in every sector, spiritual world and scientific world.
It's an emergent byproduct of the being having the necessary components to produce the experience. It's not much of a mystery. How it's produced is the hard part.
To understand how complexity emerge (basically a process) leave two questions open 1) that the starting set ALLOWED complexity (no complexity if was a rock...) 2) that complexity need the tools (as laws, as elements, as timing) to evolve.
The only thing need for complexity is a selection principle that is able to actualize possibilities. In evolution the selection principle is female of the species. Easiest way to find the selection principle that allows complexity to emerge is find out what the female principle is.
@@francesco5581 Yes it does tools, laws and elements are top down. There needs to be a bottom up way for emergence to happen when talking about nature.
@@kos-mos1127 I think that tools , laws and elements are HOW you build, you build nothing (especially complexity) without them. And even those things are irrelevant if you start with a banana.
Were getting closer to the truth here! Wolframs bottom up approach is where it's at but i think even the ^fundamental arbitrary rules^ he mentions are emergent from a lower level just as our scientific equations are.. emergent from Quantisation of logical states at the base level.. just like a Mandelbrot emerges from Quantisation of a simple iterative formula.
Stephen has multiple math and science doctorates and owns a scientific software company, definitely not just some writer, his ideas from A New Kind of Science are novel and might be the edge we need to discover new things.
Interesting topic and interesting view point. Might a new scientific method or technology be “linking”? Linking through maps, nodes, edges etc., of words of languages for example to answer how could meanings emerge? Why are different interpretations possible for a sentence? Are those the kinds of complexities that needs studying? AI for example uses “graphs”
To create a cosmos, make Euler’s formula the mechanics of Leibniz’s monad, infuse it with Riemann’s sphere and Einstein’s relativity then you have the theory of everything.
Sir Roger Penrose: "We need new physics to understand consciousness, something outside the physics that we know. But it's not simply invented for the purpose to explain consciousness, it is something which can explain for many other reasons." Sir Roger Penrose determined that wave function collapse was a prime candidate for a non-computable process.
Science Cannot Follow Evidence Wherever it Leads. Does science disprove the existence of God, souls, spirits, and the supernatural? The problem with answering this claim in the affirmative is that science, as it is currently defined, cannot acknowledge any evidence for the supernatural. This is because scientists while doing their scientific work, are told that they must assume supernatural causation does not occur. This view is known as “methodological naturalism” and it prevents scientists from following the evidence wherever it might lead. If any scientist does try to use science to point to the supernatural, it is immediately dismissed as "pseudoscience." What this means is that science is not an unqualified search for truth but rather a search for the best explanation assuming that supernatural causes do not exist and that natural causes are the only causes. But science cannot “prove” what it assumes. For an atheist to use science to disprove the supernatural (i.e. without appreciating the limits of science) is to simply make a circular argument. The philosopher and atheist, Bradley Monton, points this out. If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism, it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility.
Fourth smartest man in the World , physicist Edward Witten. At a 1990 cosmology conference, voted as "the smartest living physicist". I’ve been writing a lot lately about consciousness, the ultimate enigma. I used to think why there is something rather than nothing is the ultimate enigma. But without mind, there might as well be nothing. I think consciousness will remain a mystery. Yes, that's what I tend to believe. I tend to think that the workings of the conscious brain will be elucidated to a large extent. Biologists and perhaps physicists will understand much better how the brain works. But why something that we call consciousness goes with those workings, I think that will remain mysterious. I have a much easier time imagining how we understand the Big Bang than I have imagining how we can understand consciousness. … LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE . It is interesting to contrast Witten's thoughts with John Horgan's End of Science thesis… The end of science really is the end of the search for final causation. In that sense not just consciousness but many aspects of the world may always remain a mystery. Whether that is emotionally pleasing or disconcerting is an individual choice that each one of us has to make. (Thus, you need to respect other peoples' philosophical beliefs, be it scientific or religious/spiritual).
by John Horgan. He makes the case that the era of truly profound scientific revelations about the universe and our place in it is over. Interviewing scientific luminaries such as Stephen Hawking, Francis Crick, and Richard Dawkins, he demonstrates that all the big questions that can be answered have been answered, as science bumps up against fundamental limits. The world cannot give us a “theory of everything,” and modern endeavors such as string theory are “ironic” and “theological” in nature, not scientific, because they are impossible to confirm.
@@dongshengdi773 I think these “hardcore” empiricists know this. Just that empiricism has become almost as dogmatic as religion. From Planck to Heisenberg all have quotes regarding mind as the fundamental stuff in existence. All of these nearly 100 years ago.
Good discussion, interesting viewpoints. Yes, we can prepare thousands of INTERTWINED EQUATION FLOWCHARTS ON THE ONE TABLE, then, we put that board on the cockpit, now, our universe is ready to fly. Flowcharts and mathematics flowcharts are always useful for us. But it is insufficient to understand THE WHOLE!
Remember reading stuff on the dangers of reductionism years ago. It’s been obvious that you can’t explain higher level activity in terms of lower level for a long time. The logic of this higher level activity is different from the logic of lower level activity?
(11:00) *SW: **_"What are the basic things that come about when you start from the underlying stuff and you build up to the whole?"_* ... The evolutionary process of Existence always follows a "simplicity to complexity" template. If you want to start at the beginning, then you must first establish a _true_ beginning point. Since science can only address observable "stuff," then naturally science wants to establish the starting point right at Big Bang, ... but is that really the _true beginning_ of Existence? Is that how _we_ bring "stuff" into physical existence? ... *No!* Whenever we invent "stuff," our concepts are first conceived within our consciousness in the form of nondimensional information. We necessarily assign mathematics to this information to facilitate virtual structure. We then move all prior information into multidimensional "physical" information as one might do with a 3D printer, a CNC milling machine, or a chisel. If you want to discover the true, bottom-tier beginning point of Existence, then you have to start with nondimensional information ... and not with the "stuff" that happens later.
This is a logical fallacy because you are ignoring the fact that we are physical being with brains that allows us to be conscious. Also the prerequisite for consciousness is being able to form symbolic relationships based on what is being detected by the physical senses. This is where your analogy falls apart. What really happens in your description is the unconscious part of our brain conceives and idea. Then the idea is transmitted to consciousness in order to make a go or no go decision. Consciousness is like an incompetent CEO who does not have as much control they think they have. Unconscious behavior is in control most of the time and making all the decisions until multiple ideas that have similar outcomes are presented. This is when the unconscious part of our brain defers to the conscious part in order to decide the best course of action. To arrive at a true beginning we need something background independent. The best candidate for something that is background independent would be black holes. A Blackhole is not in space and time. It is just a dense state of matter that collapsed to a 2 dimensional surface horizon which describes matter in its purest form. Matter is described by just pressure and density just two variables that is all that is needed to describe all the matter in the Cosmos. A Black Hole is describe by two variable surface area and gravity. The solution to Blackholes would be the solution that describes all matter. Mass divided by volume gives density. Force divide by surface area gives pressure. These equations mean there is no way to destroy matter. The opposite must also be true that there is no way to create matter. Only possible thing that can be done to matter is change it’s form. I though about this a lot. We cannot imagine the Cosmos not exiting. At best we imagine the Cosmos in a different state or in a blank state but never not existing at all. This is what prevents us from fining the true beginning. There is a point where consciousness can be pushed pass but I do not recommend doing that if you want to maintain your beliefs. Experiencing an emotionless version of yourself detached from everything is unnerving.
@@kos-mos1127 *"This is a logical fallacy because you are ignoring the fact that we are physical being with brains that allows us to be conscious."* ... If inanimate structure and organic structure are information (consciousness) then our ability to process data is merely a byproduct of an ongoing evolution of data. *"Also the prerequisite for consciousness is being able to form symbolic relationships based on what is being detected by the physical senses. This is where your analogy falls apart."* ... The prerequisite you are referring to is in relation to sentience: a 13.8-billion-year evolution of "stuff." An abacus is merely a group of parallel rods with balls on them. The balls don't do anything unless a human hand moves them. Fast forward 4500 years and you have fully autonomous computers roaming around on Mars processing data. That is empirical evidence of how rudimentary information can evolve into autonomous complexity. We are the end result of an evolution of data from T=0 up to now. Your inability to think past your own sentience does not negate an evolution of data into a level of autonomous data that's now able to self-evaluate. *"Unconscious behavior is in control most of the time and making all the decisions until multiple ideas that have similar outcomes are presented."* ... It takes a far more complex argument to claim that a Model-T was the result of unconscious deterministic brain activity than to claim that it was intentionally and consciously conceived in order to fulfil a specific purpose. *" To arrive at a true beginning we need something background independent. "* ... "Background independent" is an abstract term that can be molded to fit any narrative. I only deal with "known entities" such as data, mathematics, dimensions, thoughts, etc. Our only background is "Existence" and the only stuff we get to work with is whatever exists. True, the CMB is called a background, but only because there is no better term to use when it encompasses the volume of the entire universe. *"Mass divided by volume gives density. Force divide by surface area gives pressure. These equations mean there is no way to destroy matter. The opposite must also be true that there is no way to create matter."* ... False equivalency. The conservation of mass only applies to whatever matter currently exists. There is no law that states that the amount of matter that exists right now cannot be the result of an initial formation (a cause) that cannot be replicated after-the-fact. *"We cannot imagine the Cosmos not exiting."* ... *"At best we imagine the Cosmos in a different state or in a blank state but never not existing at all."* ... I can. I can easily conceive a universe based solely on mathematical structure that evolved from 0-dimensional data to 1-dimensional data, to 2-dimensional data, and ultimately into the 3-dimensional universe we enjoy today. Now, if you will accept that what I just stated was _still_ the universe, but _"in a different state"_ then I will agree. But if you do, then I can equally argue that its origin can be regressed to nondimensional data ... and regressed even further to the most rudimentary form of data. *"There is a point where consciousness can be pushed pass but I do not recommend doing that if you want to maintain your beliefs."* ... The fullest extent of conceivability has already been established: An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God occupies one end of the spectrum and a nondimensional point of singularity from which everything has emerged occupies the other end of the spectrum. There is no level of conceivability beyond either endpoint that can stand the test of logic. BTW: I do not believe in God. *"Experiencing an emotionless version of yourself detached from everything is unnerving."* ... Existence was completely emotionless for the majority of its 13.8 billion years. Stripping myself of all emotion, ideologies, and bias was key to formulating my book. KOS, you are free to come up with any scenario for how "stuff" came about after T=0. I'm dealing with everything that happened just prior (which involves no supernatural beings). Everything I propose is based on the patterns that formed afterward - just like we used the CMB to take us back to the beginning of Big Bang.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC *"The fullest extent of conceivability has already been established: An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God occupies one end of the spectrum and a nondimensional point of singularity from which everything has emerged occupies the other end of the spectrum. There is no level of conceivability beyond either endpoint that can stand the test of logic."* Except a theist will insist there is no level of conceivability beyond their God, whereas scientists would say singularities are our _temporary_ limit of conceivability. You just happen to be alive at a time when we can't explain singularities, but my money is on it just been a matter of time before we can. I may not be around to collect my winnings however :)
... The fullest extent of conceivability has already been established: An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God occupies one end of the spectrum and a nondimensional point of singularity from which everything has emerged occupies the other end of the spectrum. There is no level of conceivability beyond either endpoint that can stand the test of logic. While interesting, I think there cab be other levels. And I don't see who has established this spectrum. You used the term ' established, so can you provide a link for such a claim?
@@johnyharris *"You just happen to be alive at a time when we can't explain singularities, but my money is on it just been a matter of time before we can."* ... I'm surprised on how often I have to defend my "spectrum of Conceivability." This spectrum remained dynamic until the Big Bang theory closed it with everything that exists being squashed into a nondimensional point of singularity. Now, the "omnipotent being" side of this spectrum took some time as well, but this endpoint was established much earlier through an evolution of polytheism into monotheism. A "singularity" is based on a mathematical point. I can't add any links, but the New World Encyclopedia defines this point as _"the basic visual (imaginable) representation for the minimal structure of existence."_ That's as low as it gets, my friend! Anything below this point is inconceivable. Nonexistence is all that you will find below this mathematical point. And as you can see, my errant use of the word _"is"_ and the phrase _"all that you will find"_ demonstrates how Nonexistence is inconceivable. You can't _"find"_ something that does not exist and _"is"_ belongs to the realm of existence. So, it doesn't matter whether or not science ultimately explains a singularity because a *mathematical point* will always occupy the lowest possible state of conceivability. *Side Note:* This spectrum has only been closed since 1927 (Big Bang Theory), so as you say, _"You just happen to be alive at a time"_ when conceivability has become a closed spectrum. In 1827 you would have been laughed at for proposing that everything that exists was squished down to the non-size of a mathematical point.
@@Light-pl9ti So are the architects of the Matrix in a Matrix then, if not who created these architect's? How can you/they be sure they are not in a Matrix? Is it Matrices all the way down?
Most likely,the architect himself is in the Matrix, but nobody really knows who he is between 8 billion people! His is the one who controls the consciousness, and nobody could have higher consciousness over him, so nobody really could spot him! During my childhood he contacted me, and he said his is the one who controls the matrix!
There’s only one system in reality -one rule and any subdivision is an artificial construct. Everything in reality moves in synchronization and reaction to each other. And if you try to study the system in parts you’re simply displacing the whole with parts -And you’ll just have circular knowledge. If we study ourselves we will know everything in the universe in a sort of metaphoric but at the same time literal- fractal example
Complexity arises ... only by an intelligence. Only an intelligence makes rules & Laws ... and ... things with purpose, PROPERTIES, function, form & design. Man has known for thousands of years the origin of Laws or anything that clearly has a purpose, function, form or design. Religion is a natural phenomena .. where the only known intelligence in the Universe will ALWAYS believe in a supernatural existence & intelligence. Atheism is a religion, where an "almighty" intelligence is replaced by the theories, beliefs & ideologies of a "puny" intelligence called "Humans." The scientific method is: 1. Observes ( a natural phenomena) 2. Hypothesis( to explain the phenomena) 3. Test & Predict 4. Conclude 5. Refine. If you are seeking the origin of the Universe & Life .. then you must identify NATURAL PHENOMENA clearly linked to what you are seeking an answer for. Man is an intelligence with free will to think, believe, say & do what he wants and can make abstract & physical constructs with purpose, function, form, design & ... properties. The gods of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks & Romans, Islam, Hinduism, Mayans, etc .... are all an intelligence with free will .... etc. Religion is a Natural Phenomena ... because the only known intelligence in the Universe, has always known that only a "supernatural" intelligence could have made the Universe & Man ( an intelligence). Newtonian physics in not just Classical physics. Newton's Watchmaker Analogy ... includes four natural phenomena which clearly prove the Universe & Life have an UNNATURAL origin by an intelligence. Universe Functions is retroactively Sir Issac Newtons' greatest discover. Everything is either an ABSTRACT ( time, space, Laws of Nature) or PHYSICAL (matter & energy) FUNCTION... with set purpose, properties, design .... PROCESSES inputs into outputs ... and can only be made an an intelligence. Everything in the Universe is a Function. Mathematics deals only with FUNCTIONS. All the sciences today ... are dealing with natural processes or FUNCTIONS. And this is what Newton was trying to say 300 years ago, when he said the Universe( & Life) is like a Watch, with precision parts, that requires a Watchmaker to exist & to work. Life, a watch and the parts of a watch ... are all physical FUNCTIONS. Man & the Watchmaker of the Universe ... is an intelligence ... with free will, and can make rules & Laws and things with purpose, properties, function, design & form .... for an intelligence. Follow the facts & the science. Sheez!!!.
There will never be a calculable theory of everything if we do not consider the Creator as the primary variable and acknowledge the Creator's sphere of influence.
by John Horgan. He makes the case that the era of truly profound scientific revelations about the universe and our place in it is over. Interviewing scientific luminaries such as Stephen Hawking, Francis Crick, and Richard Dawkins, he demonstrates that all the big questions that can be answered have been answered, as science bumps up against fundamental limits. The world cannot give us a “theory of everything,” and modern endeavors such as string theory are “ironic” and “theological” in nature, not scientific, because they are impossible to confirm.
@@dongshengdi773 Creating this dream-like simulation is a work of art, beyond compare and fit for purpose, I think, if consciousness is exploring the scope of multiple senses that aren’t relevant in the spirit realm; such as taste, smell, individuality.
What is the formula of the creator that we can use to calculate? How do we measure it so we can use the measurements into the calculation? We need to detect something in order to calculate it. How do detect the creator?
@@adarwinterdror7245 I believe we exist in a created simulation and that all life forms fulfill a purpose, by design, in keeping the simulation operational
@@chyfields why would there need to be a harmony between all creatures for the simulation to operate? Considering animals go extinct on a regular basis and everything we know about physics implies to the complete destruction of all life in the universe in a few billion years, your belief doesnt exactly fit with the observations, i think.
Computational rules of any kind can't give the ultimate complex reality, because the ultimate complex reality is always emergent. Computational rules can go up to a relative maximum level after which they can't "transcend" ( or "ascend" ) anymore in meaning. The "reality" that's making the "transcendence" and transition is always emergent. Evidently, like always, emergent can be seen as "emergent", but the understanding of its absolute correct and real meaning is for the truly smart people and not for the cohort of idiots with useless PhDs and useless cacademic positions.
Actually, he says quite a lot. The challenge for you is to raise your game either to work out what the point is he's making (it's a good one), or make a counter point.
@@chris.dalton 🤣 rrriiiggghht 👍please go look at Robert's other interviews in this series, he pushes for an answer but not here with Stephen, its apparent he just wants to get this disaster over
I love how consciousness just “emerges.” Sounds like a God of the gaps argument. Same goes for the specified information found on DNA. “Evolution” did it. Lol!!!!
Consciousness is just humans just getting better at being aware of the surroundings and where they fit in and for information on DNA , I am not sure if you want the answer to be GOD Did it ,cause I think billions of years is quite a long time for anything to evolve to be hard-coded with or carry the information...
@@ManiBalajiC I’ll give you 50 trillion years and evolution can’t come up with 1% of the specified information found on DNA. Specified information only comes from a mind. Big difference between “information” and specified information my friend.
@@jollygreen9377 The God of the gaps argument is used to fill in gaps in our knowledge. Emergence is how simple systems evolve into complex system based on interactions with their environment.
@@kos-mos1127 Kind of sounds like magic. It has to be specifically answered, how? You can’t just say “emergence’ or “evolution.” If you do that, it’s the same as the God of the gaps argument.
Just outstanding. Wolfram is one of the most important theorists ever.
Wolfram is the smartest person I have ever heard speak.
It’s cool seeing people like the founder of wolfram alpha talk here, thanks. I would like to hear more
I like his introduction to the new laws of physics, that's what was missing to the picture since a stagnation on the basic rules that allowed no forthcoming.
Our developing conscious minds are understanding more and more and creating concepts to the complexity of the whole, we'll soon have answers to some complex appearances.
Looking forward to watch the full discussion !
Still we may say conciousness is the biggest mystrey and this single arrow hits modern world so strongly that debate occurs in every sector, spiritual world and scientific world.
It's an emergent byproduct of the being having the necessary components to produce the experience. It's not much of a mystery. How it's produced is the hard part.
@@dustinellerbe4125 from embryogenesis 🤔
What beautiful words as I listen to these gentlemen speak it almost sounds like music to me
To understand how complexity emerge (basically a process) leave two questions open
1) that the starting set ALLOWED complexity (no complexity if was a rock...)
2) that complexity need the tools (as laws, as elements, as timing) to evolve.
The only thing need for complexity is a selection principle that is able to actualize possibilities. In evolution the selection principle is female of the species. Easiest way to find the selection principle that allows complexity to emerge is find out what the female principle is.
@@kos-mos1127 That have nothing to do with the 2 points above ...
@@francesco5581 Yes it does tools, laws and elements are top down. There needs to be a bottom up way for emergence to happen when talking about nature.
@@kos-mos1127 I think that tools , laws and elements are HOW you build, you build nothing (especially complexity) without them. And even those things are irrelevant if you start with a banana.
@@francesco5581 Tools and laws have to be build as well. Answering the question of complexity with another answer is not very useful.
Were getting closer to the truth here!
Wolframs bottom up approach is where it's at but i think even the ^fundamental arbitrary rules^ he mentions are emergent from a lower level just as our scientific equations are.. emergent from Quantisation of logical states at the base level.. just like a Mandelbrot emerges from Quantisation of a simple iterative formula.
Stephen has multiple math and science doctorates and owns a scientific software company, definitely not just some writer, his ideas from A New Kind of Science are novel and might be the edge we need to discover new things.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn _ The Man The Myth The Legend :)!
Interesting topic and interesting view point. Might a new scientific method or technology be “linking”? Linking through maps, nodes, edges etc., of words of languages for example to answer how could meanings emerge? Why are different interpretations possible for a sentence? Are those the kinds of complexities that needs studying? AI for example uses “graphs”
Could the laws of nature bring about complexity of universe?
To create a cosmos, make Euler’s formula the mechanics of Leibniz’s monad, infuse it with Riemann’s sphere and Einstein’s relativity then you have the theory of everything.
Sir Roger Penrose:
"We need new physics to understand consciousness, something outside the physics that we know. But it's not simply invented for the purpose to explain consciousness, it is something which can explain for many other reasons."
Sir Roger Penrose determined that wave function collapse was a prime candidate for a non-computable process.
Science Cannot Follow Evidence Wherever it Leads.
Does science disprove the existence of God, souls, spirits, and the supernatural? The problem with answering this claim in the affirmative is that science, as it is currently defined, cannot acknowledge any evidence for the supernatural. This is because scientists while doing their scientific work, are told that they must assume supernatural causation does not occur. This view is known as “methodological naturalism” and it prevents scientists from following the evidence wherever it might lead.
If any scientist does try to use science to point to the supernatural, it is immediately dismissed as "pseudoscience." What this means is that science is not an unqualified search for truth but rather a search for the best explanation assuming that supernatural causes do not exist and that natural causes are the only causes. But science cannot “prove” what it assumes. For an atheist to use science to disprove the supernatural (i.e. without appreciating the limits of science) is to simply make a circular argument. The philosopher and atheist, Bradley Monton, points this out.
If science really is permanently committed to methodological naturalism, it follows that the aim of science is not generating true theories. Instead, the aim of science would be something like: generating the best theories that can be formulated subject to the restriction that the theories are naturalistic. More and more evidence could come in suggesting that a supernatural being exists, but scientific theories wouldn’t be allowed to acknowledge that possibility.
Fourth smartest man in the World , physicist Edward Witten. At a 1990 cosmology conference, voted as "the smartest living physicist".
I’ve been writing a lot lately about consciousness, the ultimate enigma. I used to think why there is something rather than nothing is the ultimate enigma. But without mind, there might as well be nothing.
I think consciousness will remain a mystery. Yes, that's what I tend to believe. I tend to think that the workings of the conscious brain will be elucidated to a large extent. Biologists and perhaps physicists will understand much better how the brain works. But why something that we call consciousness goes with those workings, I think that will remain mysterious. I have a much easier time imagining how we understand the Big Bang than I have imagining how we can understand consciousness.
…
LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE .
It is interesting to contrast Witten's thoughts with John Horgan's End of Science thesis… The end of science really is the end of the search for final causation. In that sense not just consciousness but many aspects of the world may always remain a mystery. Whether that is emotionally pleasing or disconcerting is an individual choice that each one of us has to make. (Thus, you need to respect other peoples' philosophical beliefs, be it scientific or religious/spiritual).
by John Horgan. He makes the case that the era of truly profound scientific revelations about the universe and our place in it is over. Interviewing scientific luminaries such as Stephen Hawking, Francis Crick, and Richard Dawkins, he demonstrates that all the big questions that can be answered have been answered, as science bumps up against fundamental limits. The world cannot give us a “theory of everything,” and modern endeavors such as string theory are “ironic” and “theological” in nature, not scientific, because they are impossible to confirm.
@@dongshengdi773 I think these “hardcore” empiricists know this. Just that empiricism has become almost as dogmatic as religion. From Planck to Heisenberg all have quotes regarding mind as the fundamental stuff in existence. All of these nearly 100 years ago.
Good discussion, interesting viewpoints. Yes, we can prepare thousands of INTERTWINED EQUATION FLOWCHARTS ON THE ONE TABLE, then, we put that board on the cockpit, now, our universe is ready to fly. Flowcharts and mathematics flowcharts are always useful for us. But it is insufficient to understand THE WHOLE!
To be general is to particular and particular to be general!
Awesome
It's incredible we exist, and what is this place? It just constantly blows my dumb mind.
Yeah. We are higher intelligence prisoners here what we call Earth...
We are just their toys.
This is so absurd and so rare life in Universe.
Remember reading stuff on the dangers of reductionism years ago. It’s been obvious that you can’t explain higher level activity in terms of lower level for a long time. The logic of this higher level activity is different from the logic of lower level activity?
How might nature bring about laws of nature? Does energy develop mathematically?
Are there simple rules that bring about mathematics?
Do possibilities in nature come from quantum field mechanics?
Can rules transition from possibility to probability in mathematics?
(11:00) *SW: **_"What are the basic things that come about when you start from the underlying stuff and you build up to the whole?"_* ... The evolutionary process of Existence always follows a "simplicity to complexity" template. If you want to start at the beginning, then you must first establish a _true_ beginning point. Since science can only address observable "stuff," then naturally science wants to establish the starting point right at Big Bang, ... but is that really the _true beginning_ of Existence?
Is that how _we_ bring "stuff" into physical existence? ... *No!*
Whenever we invent "stuff," our concepts are first conceived within our consciousness in the form of nondimensional information. We necessarily assign mathematics to this information to facilitate virtual structure. We then move all prior information into multidimensional "physical" information as one might do with a 3D printer, a CNC milling machine, or a chisel.
If you want to discover the true, bottom-tier beginning point of Existence, then you have to start with nondimensional information ... and not with the "stuff" that happens later.
This is a logical fallacy because you are ignoring the fact that we are physical being with brains that allows us to be conscious. Also the prerequisite for consciousness is being able to form symbolic relationships based on what is being detected by the physical senses. This is where your analogy falls apart.
What really happens in your description is the unconscious part of our brain conceives and idea. Then the idea is transmitted to consciousness in order to make a go or no go decision. Consciousness is like an incompetent CEO who does not have as much control they think they have. Unconscious behavior is in control most of the time and making all the decisions until multiple ideas that have similar outcomes are presented. This is when the unconscious part of our brain defers to the conscious part in order to decide the best course of action. To arrive at a true beginning we need something background independent.
The best candidate for something that is background independent would be black holes. A Blackhole is not in space and time. It is just a dense state of matter that collapsed to a 2 dimensional surface horizon which describes matter in its purest form. Matter is described by just pressure and density just two variables that is all that is needed to describe all the matter in the Cosmos. A Black Hole is describe by two variable surface area and gravity. The solution to Blackholes would be the solution that describes all matter.
Mass divided by volume gives density. Force divide by surface area gives pressure. These equations mean there is no way to destroy matter. The opposite must also be true that there is no way to create matter. Only possible thing that can be done to matter is change it’s form. I though about this a lot. We cannot imagine the Cosmos not exiting. At best we imagine the Cosmos in a different state or in a blank state but never not existing at all. This is what prevents us from fining the true beginning.
There is a point where consciousness can be pushed pass but I do not recommend doing that if you want to maintain your beliefs. Experiencing an emotionless version of yourself detached from everything is unnerving.
@@kos-mos1127 *"This is a logical fallacy because you are ignoring the fact that we are physical being with brains that allows us to be conscious."*
... If inanimate structure and organic structure are information (consciousness) then our ability to process data is merely a byproduct of an ongoing evolution of data.
*"Also the prerequisite for consciousness is being able to form symbolic relationships based on what is being detected by the physical senses. This is where your analogy falls apart."*
... The prerequisite you are referring to is in relation to sentience: a 13.8-billion-year evolution of "stuff." An abacus is merely a group of parallel rods with balls on them. The balls don't do anything unless a human hand moves them. Fast forward 4500 years and you have fully autonomous computers roaming around on Mars processing data.
That is empirical evidence of how rudimentary information can evolve into autonomous complexity.
We are the end result of an evolution of data from T=0 up to now. Your inability to think past your own sentience does not negate an evolution of data into a level of autonomous data that's now able to self-evaluate.
*"Unconscious behavior is in control most of the time and making all the decisions until multiple ideas that have similar outcomes are presented."*
... It takes a far more complex argument to claim that a Model-T was the result of unconscious deterministic brain activity than to claim that it was intentionally and consciously conceived in order to fulfil a specific purpose.
*" To arrive at a true beginning we need something background independent.
"*
... "Background independent" is an abstract term that can be molded to fit any narrative. I only deal with "known entities" such as data, mathematics, dimensions, thoughts, etc. Our only background is "Existence" and the only stuff we get to work with is whatever exists. True, the CMB is called a background, but only because there is no better term to use when it encompasses the volume of the entire universe.
*"Mass divided by volume gives density. Force divide by surface area gives pressure. These equations mean there is no way to destroy matter. The opposite must also be true that there is no way to create matter."*
... False equivalency. The conservation of mass only applies to whatever matter currently exists. There is no law that states that the amount of matter that exists right now cannot be the result of an initial formation (a cause) that cannot be replicated after-the-fact.
*"We cannot imagine the Cosmos not exiting."* ... *"At best we imagine the Cosmos in a different state or in a blank state but never not existing at all."*
... I can. I can easily conceive a universe based solely on mathematical structure that evolved from 0-dimensional data to 1-dimensional data, to 2-dimensional data, and ultimately into the 3-dimensional universe we enjoy today.
Now, if you will accept that what I just stated was _still_ the universe, but _"in a different state"_ then I will agree. But if you do, then I can equally argue that its origin can be regressed to nondimensional data ... and regressed even further to the most rudimentary form of data.
*"There is a point where consciousness can be pushed pass but I do not recommend doing that if you want to maintain your beliefs."*
... The fullest extent of conceivability has already been established: An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God occupies one end of the spectrum and a nondimensional point of singularity from which everything has emerged occupies the other end of the spectrum. There is no level of conceivability beyond either endpoint that can stand the test of logic.
BTW: I do not believe in God.
*"Experiencing an emotionless version of yourself detached from everything is unnerving."*
... Existence was completely emotionless for the majority of its 13.8 billion years. Stripping myself of all emotion, ideologies, and bias was key to formulating my book.
KOS, you are free to come up with any scenario for how "stuff" came about after T=0. I'm dealing with everything that happened just prior (which involves no supernatural beings). Everything I propose is based on the patterns that formed afterward - just like we used the CMB to take us back to the beginning of Big Bang.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC *"The fullest extent of conceivability has already been established: An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God occupies one end of the spectrum and a nondimensional point of singularity from which everything has emerged occupies the other end of the spectrum. There is no level of conceivability beyond either endpoint that can stand the test of logic."*
Except a theist will insist there is no level of conceivability beyond their God, whereas scientists would say singularities are our _temporary_ limit of conceivability. You just happen to be alive at a time when we can't explain singularities, but my money is on it just been a matter of time before we can. I may not be around to collect my winnings however :)
... The fullest extent of conceivability has already been established: An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God occupies one end of the spectrum and a nondimensional point of singularity from which everything has emerged occupies the other end of the spectrum. There is no level of conceivability beyond either endpoint that can stand the test of logic.
While interesting, I think there cab be other levels. And I don't see who has established this spectrum. You used the term ' established, so can you provide a link for such a claim?
@@johnyharris *"You just happen to be alive at a time when we can't explain singularities, but my money is on it just been a matter of time before we can."*
... I'm surprised on how often I have to defend my "spectrum of Conceivability."
This spectrum remained dynamic until the Big Bang theory closed it with everything that exists being squashed into a nondimensional point of singularity. Now, the "omnipotent being" side of this spectrum took some time as well, but this endpoint was established much earlier through an evolution of polytheism into monotheism.
A "singularity" is based on a mathematical point. I can't add any links, but the New World Encyclopedia defines this point as _"the basic visual (imaginable) representation for the minimal structure of existence."_ That's as low as it gets, my friend! Anything below this point is inconceivable.
Nonexistence is all that you will find below this mathematical point. And as you can see, my errant use of the word _"is"_ and the phrase _"all that you will find"_ demonstrates how Nonexistence is inconceivable. You can't _"find"_ something that does not exist and _"is"_ belongs to the realm of existence.
So, it doesn't matter whether or not science ultimately explains a singularity because a *mathematical point* will always occupy the lowest possible state of conceivability.
*Side Note:* This spectrum has only been closed since 1927 (Big Bang Theory), so as you say, _"You just happen to be alive at a time"_ when conceivability has become a closed spectrum. In 1827 you would have been laughed at for proposing that everything that exists was squished down to the non-size of a mathematical point.
Do the simple rules have any relation to time?
Yes because they have to iterate which needs time or emerges it..
💖
I have a preference for particulars in the universe. The moon is very particular. Math is nice, but we need to head for space.
@McGyver289 Not really. I'm still waiting for results. Do you know an astronaut... anywhere?
@McGyver289 Until they do it, they do nothing.🙂
It’s a programmed Matrix!
What does that really mean?
@@S3RAVA3LM means everything in this Matrix is predetermined!
@@Light-pl9ti So are the architects of the Matrix in a Matrix then, if not who created these architect's? How can you/they be sure they are not in a Matrix? Is it Matrices all the way down?
Most likely,the architect himself is in the Matrix, but nobody really knows who he is between 8 billion people! His is the one who controls the consciousness, and nobody could have higher consciousness over him, so nobody really could spot him! During my childhood he contacted me, and he said his is the one who controls the matrix!
Are rules made up of ideas, logic, something else abstract?
Wolfram is an anunnaki
Honestly he not knows how figuret it Universe because he dont know how are important though honest minds Universe reality are. Challatan.
There’s only one system in reality -one rule and any subdivision is an artificial construct. Everything in reality moves in synchronization and reaction to each other. And if you try to study the system in parts you’re simply displacing the whole with parts -And you’ll just have circular knowledge. If we study ourselves we will know everything in the universe in a sort of metaphoric but at the same time literal- fractal example
Allen Melissa Hall Sarah Perez Brian
Complexity arises ... only by an intelligence.
Only an intelligence makes rules & Laws ... and ... things with purpose, PROPERTIES, function, form & design.
Man has known for thousands of years the origin of Laws or anything that clearly has a purpose, function, form or design.
Religion is a natural phenomena .. where the only known intelligence in the Universe will ALWAYS believe in a supernatural existence & intelligence.
Atheism is a religion, where an "almighty" intelligence is replaced by the theories, beliefs & ideologies of a "puny" intelligence called "Humans."
The scientific method is:
1. Observes ( a natural phenomena)
2. Hypothesis( to explain the phenomena)
3. Test & Predict
4. Conclude
5. Refine.
If you are seeking the origin of the Universe & Life .. then you must identify NATURAL PHENOMENA clearly linked to what you are seeking an answer for.
Man is an intelligence with free will to think, believe, say & do what he wants and can make abstract & physical constructs with purpose, function, form, design & ... properties.
The gods of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks & Romans, Islam, Hinduism, Mayans, etc .... are all an intelligence with free will .... etc.
Religion is a Natural Phenomena ... because the only known intelligence in the Universe, has always known that only a "supernatural" intelligence could have made the Universe & Man ( an intelligence).
Newtonian physics in not just Classical physics. Newton's Watchmaker Analogy ... includes four natural phenomena which clearly prove the Universe & Life have an UNNATURAL origin by an intelligence.
Universe Functions is retroactively Sir Issac Newtons' greatest discover.
Everything is either an ABSTRACT ( time, space, Laws of Nature) or PHYSICAL (matter & energy) FUNCTION... with set purpose, properties, design .... PROCESSES inputs into outputs ... and can only be made an an intelligence.
Everything in the Universe is a Function. Mathematics deals only with FUNCTIONS.
All the sciences today ... are dealing with natural processes or FUNCTIONS. And this is what Newton was trying to say 300 years ago, when he said the Universe( & Life) is like a Watch, with precision parts, that requires a Watchmaker to exist & to work.
Life, a watch and the parts of a watch ... are all physical FUNCTIONS.
Man & the Watchmaker of the Universe ... is an intelligence ... with free will, and can make rules & Laws and things with purpose, properties, function, design & form .... for an intelligence.
Follow the facts & the science. Sheez!!!.
Every Human is a Universe , walking about harboring life, life motivates life.
Darwin forgot intellect motivation
That's pretty accurate
This guy said a bunch of nothing.
Hard to believe someone pays him.
There will never be a calculable theory of everything if we do not consider the Creator as the primary variable and acknowledge the Creator's sphere of influence.
by John Horgan. He makes the case that the era of truly profound scientific revelations about the universe and our place in it is over. Interviewing scientific luminaries such as Stephen Hawking, Francis Crick, and Richard Dawkins, he demonstrates that all the big questions that can be answered have been answered, as science bumps up against fundamental limits. The world cannot give us a “theory of everything,” and modern endeavors such as string theory are “ironic” and “theological” in nature, not scientific, because they are impossible to confirm.
@@dongshengdi773 Creating this dream-like simulation is a work of art, beyond compare and fit for purpose, I think, if consciousness is exploring the scope of multiple senses that aren’t relevant in the spirit realm; such as taste, smell, individuality.
What is the formula of the creator that we can use to calculate?
How do we measure it so we can use the measurements into the calculation?
We need to detect something in order to calculate it. How do detect the creator?
@@adarwinterdror7245 I believe we exist in a created simulation and that all life forms fulfill a purpose, by design, in keeping the simulation operational
@@chyfields why would there need to be a harmony between all creatures for the simulation to operate?
Considering animals go extinct on a regular basis and everything we know about physics implies to the complete destruction of all life in the universe in a few billion years, your belief doesnt exactly fit with the observations, i think.
Weak and old
Computational rules of any kind can't give the ultimate complex reality, because the ultimate complex reality is always emergent.
Computational rules can go up to a relative maximum level after which they can't "transcend" ( or "ascend" ) anymore in meaning.
The "reality" that's making the "transcendence" and transition is always emergent.
Evidently, like always, emergent can be seen as "emergent", but the understanding of its absolute correct and real meaning is for the truly smart people and not for the cohort of idiots with useless PhDs and useless cacademic positions.
So many words to actually say nothing....
Actually, he says quite a lot. The challenge for you is to raise your game either to work out what the point is he's making (it's a good one), or make a counter point.
@@chris.dalton 🤣 rrriiiggghht 👍please go look at Robert's other interviews in this series, he pushes for an answer but not here with Stephen, its apparent he just wants to get this disaster over
Said so much and said nothing
I love how consciousness just “emerges.” Sounds like a God of the gaps argument. Same goes for the specified information found on DNA. “Evolution” did it. Lol!!!!
Consciousness is just humans just getting better at being aware of the surroundings and where they fit in and for information on DNA , I am not sure if you want the answer to be GOD Did it ,cause I think billions of years is quite a long time for anything to evolve to be hard-coded with or carry the information...
@@ManiBalajiC I’ll give you 50 trillion years and evolution can’t come up with 1% of the specified information found on DNA. Specified information only comes from a mind. Big difference between “information” and specified information my friend.
@@ManiBalajiC Again, your explanation of consciousness is basically it “emerged.” That’s no different than a God of the gaps argument.
@@jollygreen9377 The God of the gaps argument is used to fill in gaps in our knowledge. Emergence is how simple systems evolve into complex system based on interactions with their environment.
@@kos-mos1127 Kind of sounds like magic. It has to be specifically answered, how? You can’t just say “emergence’ or “evolution.” If you do that, it’s the same as the God of the gaps argument.