My second degree was in physics, I started in my 30s after having studied philosophy and as a passionate musician. Physics is no less creative than the arts, the ends might be different but physics requires ample creativity so as to create a model and/or understanding that is truly new. It's a shame that physics and mathematics aren't taught with an aim of discovery and creation, rather than only understanding the basics of the tools of the subject. It is a little like learning an instrument but only practicing scales. Interestingly, on mind altering states, I find intense exercise and playing music seems to inspire ideas and understanding in physics.
"To be a political power, you have to suppress truth from morning to evening." And ... "Maybe my ideas are wrong. Of course they are wrong." Great quotes. I need to put them in my journal. Thanks. Also, extremely heartened that Carlo Rovelli disagrees propositiion that we exist within a simulation.
Why are you interested in whether the universe is a simulation or not? I always think it makes no difference at all since everything we can interact with is contained within it anyway
I find that his dismissal of the simulation theory was his weakest stance in this conversation. Silly, ludicrous, or whatever term he used is not a rebuttal. It's fine that he doesn't believe it but but he didn't offer any insightful counter arguments. Great conversation otherwise but I'm perplexed why this subject was used for the video title...
The simulation was very likely considered ‘catchy’ for today’s audience. I appreciated very much that he frankly refuted the idea of a simulation but even more that he brought it back to the current level of ‘human thinking’ … the idea of simulation is today’s prison of thoughts
The fundamental problem with the simulation hypothesis is the following: it is epistemologically self-undermining. What that means is that if we are living in a simulation then the laws of physics we observe are part of the simulation as well. That means that we have no idea what the real laws of physics are in the non-simulated reality. Nick Bostrom’s (fellow Swede by the way; not a fan!) argument for why it’s likely that we live in a simulation is based on the laws of physics we observe in our universe. But these laws of physics might be simulated as well! So in that case we have no basis for our knowledge about anything, including the likelihood that we live in a simulation! So the hypothesis just undermines itself epistemologically. It’s like the Boltzmann brain idea.
You are stretching the concept to its limits here. I prefer a simpler explanation - the universe is a simulation and probably most of it does not exist in physical terms. The 'laws' of physics pertain to the human experience only, so yes, these laws are also part of the simulation, but this does not necessarily mean that the simulation of the universe is itself part of another simulation. What I do believe is that universe we live in, and our own human lives, are 'manufactured', i.e. exist to a set plan. Free will is an illusion because we have little or no choice as to how we live our lives, we are 'programmed' to live our lives in a certain way. If we didn't then we would simply do what gives us pleasure, i.e. have sex all the time and eat and drink until we die of excess. Human awareness of acceptable limits of behaviour is part of our programming.
As a computer programmer i think carlo has just oversimplified....and I think the actual reality can be infinite in all means....Because our world is finite and has alot of limitations and laws this strongly indicates that our reality canNot be the base reality...Moreover, "A scientific application simulates real-world activities using mathematics." then Why computer simulations are scientific applications?.....the existence of computer simulation itself indicates a strong probability...Apart from that, the old idea that everything in universe is machine was due to lack of knowledge of Quantum physics....But now we have both sides of reality ... Also i think laws of physics and logics are nothing but our understanding of simulation because we want to make sense of everything....Everythings seems to be logical because its programmed....Also i think you are neglecting the claim because of some dogmatic biases you have grounded your imagination on the idea that our world is only world that why you somehow want to avoid this possibility...
@@tancreddehauteville764not having free will underpins moral responsibility and accountability. Most people don’t have sex and drink all the time because we know it is not healthy. To your logic we have free will. Edit: I read your post again. I really don’t understand why you are saying that if we had FREE will we would seek pleasure all the time and drink and eat till we die. It doesn’t make sense at all! It is a good argument for NOT having free will. Maybe you are just an incel.
I love the way Carlo doesn't finish statements that are obvious in the context of his previous words. So many sentences just end in thin air because there's no need to finish them. This increases the density of his communication...
Something I said a few times before: I wish more Heterosexual people would speak up for Gay people, and more White people to speak up for Black and Brown people...
Actually excited for this and so surprised to see this guy's picture pop up in my subscription feed. Probably my favorite author. You should absolutely read every one of this man's books if you're even casually interested in physics and the science of space-time. They're very accessible and beautifully written.
@@MargaritaMagdalena I read Reality Is Not What It Seems and it was hugely enjoyable. I'm hoping my library gets in his other books on audiobook because it's the best way for me to comprehend books.
@@MargaritaMagdalena "Seven Brief Lessons in Physics" is probably where I'd start. It's the most accessible and his other books build on things he talks about in this one. "Helgoland" and "Reality Is Not What It Seems" are my favorite I think, but they're honestly all great. He also has a book called "There Are Places in the World Where Rules Are Less Important Than Kindness" which is a collection of shorter essays he's written on all kinds of non-physics topics that's an interesting departure from his usual wheel house.
Science and art often merge to create a thing of beauty. In music, the science of instrument manufacture provides a tool for the musician to apply skill and creativity. In photography, camera science and technical skill enable the vision of the photographer to create a masterpiece. As an artist, Picasso understood the need to learn technique when he said "learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist." Why must we separate knowledge in compartments? Why compartmentalise education?
I was patient with the half answers, inchoate ideas, and trailing thoughts, but Rovelli totally lost me with his scorn for ideas he disagrees with in the last third of this interview. Not nearly as brilliant as I thought he would be.
>In 2023 he was one of the firmataries of the International Peace Conference manifesto which accuses USA-NATO-EU of being the aggressor in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. hahahaha
@@numberonedad Not sure why you find that "hahahaha" funny, but what I do know is you lifted that quote without citing your source. Do better, be better.
@@er... it's from wikipedia and just a fact. it's not possible to link to sources on youtube fyi, so do better, be better, before casting aspersions on others. the idea that autocracies have the right to invade their weaker neighbors due to international pressure has nothing to do with pacifism nor leftism, and that's what's funny. not sure how you could miss that.
@@numberonedad Two issues with your statement. 1. Setting aside the fact that it is a place to start research rathe then an end all be all, you can still cite Wikipedia without posting the link. 2. You contradicted yourself in a way that I cannot know where to start unpacking without posting an entire research paper. What I will say is you missed the mark entirely. Happy new year!
@@er... 1. apologies, i had figured his support of this absurd position was common knowledge among fans of his and wouldn't require a citation. 2. you'd prefer not to explain how USA-NATO-EU is the aggressor in the invasion of Ukraine, because there is no reasonable explanation. "Leftism" that excuses the crimes of autocrats is fraudulent. Happy New Year to you too!
Buddhism: The ego, the outward projected mind, creates a false reality, and we all live there. This false reality is called samsara. But there is a true reality, one we must access from within, by dissolving the ego and discovering the true mind.
I feel Aaron's last question. I think some kind of spiritual rejuvenation is possible and I daresay desirable, while I also agree with Mr. Rovelli's stance that humanist values are to be found on the inside.... The thing is, isn't it, that this spiritual thing could be founded on a robust theory of subject/object dualism, and in such a paradigm causation by the efficient past is "an abstract limit in some circumstances of the creative interaction that governs the becoming of actual entities in all circumstances", and perhaps look something like Alfred N. Whitehead's organic cosmology. Then our sense of spiritual meaning in the cosmos would truly link up, as it would be precisely our capability of finding value within that we understand relates us to all the rest in a way that makes evident our self-worth. Or for now one could just hold that it's really nice for each individual to be able to express themselves fully and freely in this life in a way that's conducive to individual growth and social welfare.
At around 10:56 Aaron references the 1954 book ‘The Doors of Perception’ by Aldous Huxley, in which Huxley mentions William Blake (1757-1827)-which is probably why Aaron mistakenly attributed it to Blake here. In the book Huxley describes his experience of psychedelic experience under the influence of mescaline, as Aaron says in the conversation.
I don’t agree with all Carlo Rovelli said - especially when mentioning some historical events - but I enjoyed the conversation and I respect and like his thinking and humanist approach.
you've caught my interest , an open and honest discussion . Einstein once said "It's not that I'm smarter than others ,it's just that I stay with problems longer ." love this talk .
They dismissed and skipped over the simulation idea without actually discussing it properly. The idea is basically a thought experiment designed to look further and more radically into what David Chalmers calls the hard problem of consciousness.
He seems to be a realist. He understands current affairs. Surprisingly, not many people can do this, most are affected by current one sided news, stereotypes, propaganda, and hearsay.
Baghdad Renaissance was merely the act of collecting knowledge from India, China, Persia, Egypt and leftovers of ancient Hellenistic Greeks. Thanks for the translations into Arabic.
I was the other way around, I studied physics and then became a beggar, sadly not through choice. I can see the connection between physics and science, especially in how the disconnect between the scientific principles at the time of the enlightenment and now how haven't translated well into principles of good governance.
I think he's missing the point in simulation theory. It's not that there's any specific empirical evidence that we live in a simulation, it's a logical extrapolation based on the possibility that a simulated universe is possible. We don't currently know that this is the case, but if it is, it suddenly becomes infinitesimally unlikely that we just happen to inhabit the real universe that hosts all of the simulated ones.
It's a deterministic future. We're on a 2d plane but 3d space allows for variables in your timeline, which is a direct result of memory retention or information that must be held by the laws of physics. Proven: if you isolate a blackhole, it still expands due to probability alone...it makes 3d space. Time is just an expression of how that information travels to and from you. In other words...everytime you orientate your position in space you make a probability in the future and those interactions are accounted for by making 3d space.
Young people in China _definely_ worry about the future, and are are fed up with the present. He must be unfamiliar with the, e.g., "lying flat" and "let it rot" movements -- many Chinese youth no longer see a point in playing the game, and have given up on economic mobility. Also, regarding what China has been up to relative to Europe -- they've been up to things that are presently forcing them over an economic cliff. A ridiculously high fraction of their GDP was a real estate sector that basically amounted to a Ponzi scheme. And while I like high-speed rail as much as the next guy, much of their lines are hemmorhaging money and were shoddily built. Corruption is rampant, and an absurd amount of the budget goes to the maintenance of a gigantic, bloated corpse of a corrupt government. They're also belligerently running around the South China Sea trying to claim the whole place. ... there's an unpleasant whiff of Tankie-ism in this interview.
The part discussing university life in Bologna at 13:13 where Carlo Reviolli mentions Deleuze and Guattari … I found his book The Order of Time after studying Deleuze’s philosophy of time and idea of three syntheses of time.
He never said he doesn't believe in "god". He said that we all feel there is something beyond our comprehensive capacity that we call with different name and enjoy in different ways and I totally agree with him. We "see universe" we "don't understand it fully" but that doesn't prevent us to enjoy our earthy experience for whatever it is. We enjoy it in our minds. There are only 7 notes but millions of songs. Infinite creation is evident to every fool on earth if they observe with open mind. I am not religious, but I understand why people are. I believe there is something more to everything around us but we are unable to understand it completely because we are human beings. We have our limits. But within those limits we are able to thrive as much as the "laws of universe/god" make it possible.
If by system he means the CCP dictatorship allowing the development to happen then I agree that its proven better than 150+ countries around the world embracing democracy and cult-dictatorships which just breed corruption and failure. But separating China's development from the West doesn't make sense as it was unlocked by embracing markets and Western investment and offshoring.
This question ""Do we live in a simulation?" has been addressed by India's foremost philosopher Adi Sankara in his commentaries on the end portion of the Vedās,viz., the Upanishads; people with keen intellect would be able to "see" these as Revelations of the highest order! But when most of us are concerned with Objects (and rarely with the Subject, viz., the Self), the "question" appears to be untenable in the domain of Science (which is just philosophy of the objective world as we know it today)!
39:33 Am I the odd one out here? When 16 I delivered a lecture to the French language club in our school. The topics were not assigned and I choose to talk about Henri Poincaré. Poincaré was at the forefront of development of Electrodynamics. He contributed to the idea of the speed of light being finite, corresponded with Hendrik Lorentz (hence not only Lorentz Group, but also Poincaré group), but his main contribution to science was contained in the work Sur le problème des trois corps et les équations de la dynamique [On the problem of the three bodies and the equations of dynamics]. Poincaré introduces concepts of non-integrable systems, qualitative analysis and develops analysis situs (topology) towards its modern shape. Call me biased, but I consider Poincaré's contributions of no less, in fact, greater impact on science, than those of Einstein. For most of the people, even for the scientists, the idea of non-integrable systems is something they instinctively desire to reject... This was the case with my audience. They questioned everything I said (although I had all the citations - something not usually demanded at such casual talks). They even questioned my pronunciation of Poincaré's name. Mine was right, they knew it, but their shaken belief in omniscience of science pressed them to take revenge...
Aaron should have pushed harder with the notions of intelligent design and simulation theory. The best argument for the simulation thing is: we can do OK simulations right now; it is plausible that, with lots of time and resources, we will be able to make near-perfect simulations in the future; if there was a version of reality where near-perfect simulations were possible, there would be an infinitesimal amount of simulations and only one true reality. Given these factors, the chances of our reality NOT being a simulation are extremely low.
I used to give some mental energy to simulation theory and I decided it didn’t matter. For all we will likely ever know, this is the one life we have and we should live it accordingly.
I find it fascinating. I believe that we will know the answer to this if we become capable of creating, with our knowledge through technology, inventions conscious of their existence and surroundings. This would be very difficult, however. If we cannot achieve it, it is because what we create will always be non-conscious and will respond to commands given by humans and their laws, limiting them, as the creator is limited. This could also mean that we might be in a simulation where our way of thinking, among other things, would be programmed, and there would only be a bit of randomness when we are 'free' to think. If you observe a game, it was created by a human, and this game will have characters and phenomena that do not necessarily correspond to reality. In other words, these may be more limited or exaggerated, but making them identical to reality is very difficult. So, if something created this reality we are in, and this reality is the game, then that something could be limiting us or creating a reality with beings and phenomena more extravagant and capable of things that the creator cannot do or is limited in. This doesn't end here, as that creator could be part of a larger simulation where that creator is just another character, and the reality or creation itself of all things would be multiple fractals at different scales, where the repeating pattern is the simulation itself.
Its funny because i was interested with this topic long ago.. Until i was thinking does it matter we living in simulation or not? My problems are real enough for me to handle 😂
What an excellent interview. If you gentlemen are ever in the Scottish Highlands, come round for dinner anytime. It would a great pleasure to chew the fat with you.
If you want to deny the Abrahamic versions of God, that’s one thing. If you want to deny a creator altogether which is a highly logical thing to believe for how everything began, I need more then essentially everything was a big oopsie.
There are boundaries beyond which we cannot make observation. This may be due to limitations in our current scientific abilities.. but what if these are defined limits which we cannot go beyond are fixed and unbreachable? What would that be an indication of, If not a simulation?
Maybe or just that we have reached the boundaries we are unable to breach because of the limitations of our matter. Would a 7 dimensional being have the same limitations? The film Arrival offers an intriguing idea/question around language impact on brain development and universe understanding.
Why not God? Is it easier to believe that we are in a simulation? Is there a practical difference beyond just how we conceptualize the universe? Personally, the simulation idea strikes me cold with dread, whereas the God idea seems to be far more "warm" and sensible, if not somewhat frightening in a different way.
As ever, I loved listening to Carlo Rovelli. I would have enjoyed the interview even more if Aaron Bastani had calmed down a little when it came to presenting his own interpretations of Rovelli's ideas. ;-)
Don’t ask too much from physics. We know only 5% of the universe, despite all our theories, and cannot explain the existence of a heavy atom beyond hydrogen from first principles, despite all our theories and experiments. There is an old and vicious trend among us physicists, to invade other fields of knowledge and make them look simpler than physics, so that physics appears to contain all answers. It is so rarely the case. The world around us is vastly more complex and richer than what current physics can attack and vaguely try to explain.
I think the " we live in a simulation" is misunderstood. Within a computer game one can choose to go into a room to the right or the left. Both are written in the program but only the one we choose will be made visible. The other remains just an element of the program that remains unknown. This is an analogy to the quantum state where everything is an unknown probability until observed. The idea of things only becoming real when observed is like what happens in a computer game when one chooses to go left or right. So, it is not that we live in a simulation but that things becoming real when observed is analogous to that.
As the Buddha said (to the princes seeking the thief) “is not your time better spent seeking your selves?”…all metaphysical, political, social and dare I say scientific pursuits ultimately find a ‘ground’ on the self. May I humbly suggest a book by Brian Lowery: Selfless; The Social Creation of ‘You’. Maybe it will help both featured persons understand how our sense of a selfhood is externally produced. To call it personal is merely a designation. Great conversation! Best….
I am not religious and was an atheist until the age of reason ... that is, until I read Italian Essayist Mauro Biglino> I never asked again 'does God exist' nor could I say that I was an atheist ... No one has looked at ancient scriptures like this guy ;)
As he himself declared, his ideas are mostly based on the literary works of fringe theorists Erich von Däniken and Zecharia Sitchin. None of that gives you a hint of theistic truth.
35:00 - helena sheehan wrote an excellent book about marxism and the philosophy of science, tracking all these debates from Marx and Engels to post WW2
Time does exist but as a process not a dimension nor an absolute entity. and it’s normal that time is relative because time is a process that differ based on different observers (different calculations based on different situations).. time in physics has direct connection to distance , that’s why they couldn’t understand time at subatomic scale. (Time is a process). The current understanding of space and dimensions,….etc And how they took space, time, some constants and their roles,…etc as axioms,….. etc Infinity and the role of Pi, space is one indivisible unit and how could the fine structure constant is a sign that space is one indivisible unit must be maintained,….etc Dirac had the right to wonder (LNH). The only solution is to rely completely on future generations and invest in them (the fundamentals of physics are far much harder). Time is related to distance and velocity (interrelationships), they only make things more complicated to satisfy their wrong interpretations. 3:50 Gravity affects the measurement tools (clocks), not time itself directly! Because time is a process. and the assumption that light experience no time is not accurate assumption. Both Newton and Einstein had wrong understanding of time, time is not an independent entity (not a dimension nor an absolute entity). Time is a (process). There’s no chance to understand the fundamentals of physics without connecting both levels (subatomic and cosmological levels), that alone could take up to few hundreds of years of continuous scientific hard work. It’s very dangerous to rely on current pseudoscientists, they just hide under the cloaks of some former good physicists but they have nothing to add to science, many of them are storytellers.
Great interview. The idea of simulation was only lightly touched and dismissed without much of an explanation. Not sure why that topic was chosen as the title. :)
Aldous Huxley and Mescaline. Quoting William Blake. :) Did you know Captain Beefheart - when he was a door-to-door salesman - once tried to sell AH a vacuum cleaner? A truly epochal intellectual encounter, which took place over a Kirby.
Where would one find Einstein's 1914 Manifesto, It appears he refused to sign the manifesto of the Ninety-Three as he was a pacifist, but his own manifesto I cant seem to locate. Given that Carlo reiterates that he no longer wanted to be a vagabondesque individual, I'm wondering if he was at a time influenced by Herman Hesse's Siddhartha. Interestingly in regards to China, the wealth disparity is now higher than Europe and is reaching a point where it is close to such in the USA, I felt he was implying it was Socialist and I think China now requires novel definitions of what it is, its some sort of hybrid. Carlos beliefs don't seem to fit in with the binary of Atheism, he has meandering notions and intuitions that seem incompatible with such a fixed label, especially if we consider God to be in essence something "other" internally experienced, maybe humanitarianism is connected with the acceptance of the intangible notion of the evenly dispersed sacred, the opposite of Ultra Nationalism, maybe intuitive wisdoms of the past, in a sense precursors to faith based systems, to a degree should be retained via reinterpretation. On a sidenote nice Tradescantia (burgandy ?) on the shelf!
I know so very little about this man, despite being myself of Italian origin and close in age to him. From what I gather through others' comments, Rovelli's books are phenomenal. However my perception of his answers to questions on humanism, ethical values and the existence of God are surprisingly lacking in depth. I'm particularly perplexed about his lack of a fitting rational answer to how we can build a better society if we do not have a foundation in shared human rights across all humans (irrisoective of the presence or not of a God as creator). He seemed extremely casual, relativistic and narrow in postulating a personal individual preference for some values as a model for societal coexistence.
Agree with your points here, however when talking about physics and so on, his eyes lit up and I found those sections to be incredibly interesting and compelling
If time goes slower doesn´t it mean more time? Only as an example, assuming a clock on the 100th floor of my office building goes faster and the clock in the basement goes slower couldn´t I move do my work in the basement and get a bit more work done than anyone on the higher floors?
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
My second degree was in physics, I started in my 30s after having studied philosophy and as a passionate musician. Physics is no less creative than the arts, the ends might be different but physics requires ample creativity so as to create a model and/or understanding that is truly new.
It's a shame that physics and mathematics aren't taught with an aim of discovery and creation, rather than only understanding the basics of the tools of the subject. It is a little like learning an instrument but only practicing scales.
Interestingly, on mind altering states, I find intense exercise and playing music seems to inspire ideas and understanding in physics.
Just to add, I'm about to (hopefully) embark upon reserch in theoretical physics this year.
Didn't Einstein say something like creativity is more important than intelligence?
I admire your passion and enthusiasm and wish you all the best in your adventures in the world of theoretical physics@@thomasullmann7447
I’m going to remember this.
Bastani is an exceptionally talented interviewer. This is the new model.
"To be a political power, you have to suppress truth from morning to evening." And ... "Maybe my ideas are wrong. Of course they are wrong." Great quotes. I need to put them in my journal. Thanks. Also, extremely heartened that Carlo Rovelli disagrees propositiion that we exist within a simulation.
second quote is particularly a propos
Why are you interested in whether the universe is a simulation or not? I always think it makes no difference at all since everything we can interact with is contained within it anyway
“Freedom is ignorance of ourselves. And that’s fine”
I find that his dismissal of the simulation theory was his weakest stance in this conversation. Silly, ludicrous, or whatever term he used is not a rebuttal. It's fine that he doesn't believe it but but he didn't offer any insightful counter arguments. Great conversation otherwise but I'm perplexed why this subject was used for the video title...
The simulation was very likely considered ‘catchy’ for today’s audience. I appreciated very much that he frankly refuted the idea of a simulation but even more that he brought it back to the current level of ‘human thinking’ … the idea of simulation is today’s prison of thoughts
Dear Novara Media, your takes on the Palestinian conflict have been really good. Please don't stop.
Kind regards.
What a nice man. Thanks Aaron for inviting him.
Happy New year to you all at NM and thank you for your honest reporting and bringing a little hope to us all
I live in Santa Fe....I'll take your Good Wishes. Blessings.
Thank you Novara Media
The fundamental problem with the simulation hypothesis is the following: it is epistemologically self-undermining. What that means is that if we are living in a simulation then the laws of physics we observe are part of the simulation as well. That means that we have no idea what the real laws of physics are in the non-simulated reality. Nick Bostrom’s (fellow Swede by the way; not a fan!) argument for why it’s likely that we live in a simulation is based on the laws of physics we observe in our universe. But these laws of physics might be simulated as well! So in that case we have no basis for our knowledge about anything, including the likelihood that we live in a simulation! So the hypothesis just undermines itself epistemologically. It’s like the Boltzmann brain idea.
You are stretching the concept to its limits here. I prefer a simpler explanation - the universe is a simulation and probably most of it does not exist in physical terms. The 'laws' of physics pertain to the human experience only, so yes, these laws are also part of the simulation, but this does not necessarily mean that the simulation of the universe is itself part of another simulation. What I do believe is that universe we live in, and our own human lives, are 'manufactured', i.e. exist to a set plan. Free will is an illusion because we have little or no choice as to how we live our lives, we are 'programmed' to live our lives in a certain way. If we didn't then we would simply do what gives us pleasure, i.e. have sex all the time and eat and drink until we die of excess. Human awareness of acceptable limits of behaviour is part of our programming.
@@tancreddehauteville764that's an unfortunate delusion to hold
As a computer programmer i think carlo has just oversimplified....and I think the actual reality can be infinite in all means....Because our world is finite and has alot of limitations and laws this strongly indicates that our reality canNot be the base reality...Moreover,
"A scientific application simulates real-world activities using mathematics."
then Why computer simulations are scientific applications?.....the existence of computer simulation itself indicates a strong probability...Apart from that, the old idea that everything in universe is machine was due to lack of knowledge of Quantum physics....But now we have both sides of reality ...
Also i think laws of physics and logics are nothing but our understanding of simulation because we want to make sense of everything....Everythings seems to be logical because its programmed....Also i think you are neglecting the claim because of some dogmatic biases you have grounded your imagination on the idea that our world is only world that why you somehow want to avoid this possibility...
@@tancreddehauteville764not having free will underpins moral responsibility and accountability. Most people don’t have sex and drink all the time because we know it is not healthy. To your logic we have free will.
Edit: I read your post again. I really don’t understand why you are saying that if we had FREE will we would seek pleasure all the time and drink and eat till we die. It doesn’t make sense at all! It is a good argument for NOT having free will. Maybe you are just an incel.
FABULOUS HUMAN BEING 🙏
I thought this interview was never going to be uploaded. What a new year gift by Novara. Thank you.
I love the way Carlo doesn't finish statements that are obvious in the context of his previous words. So many sentences just end in thin air because there's no need to finish them. This increases the density of his communication...
imho i'd say we
Thanks for this brilliant interview ❤
What an amazing guest and great conversation!
I’ve never heard of this dude, but i thoroughly enjoyed this conversation
Something I said a few times before: I wish more Heterosexual people would speak up for Gay people, and more White people to speak
up for Black and Brown people...
From interstellar to simulation theory, I feel Aaron has had a few bubbles burst during this interview! Loved this interview ❤
SPEAK TRUTH AND OWN IT PEOPLE 👌
Actually excited for this and so surprised to see this guy's picture pop up in my subscription feed. Probably my favorite author. You should absolutely read every one of this man's books if you're even casually interested in physics and the science of space-time. They're very accessible and beautifully written.
Which of his books would you recommend to me to start with?
@@MargaritaMagdalena I read Reality Is Not What It Seems and it was hugely enjoyable. I'm hoping my library gets in his other books on audiobook because it's the best way for me to comprehend books.
@@Definatalie Thank you!
@@MargaritaMagdalena "Seven Brief Lessons in Physics" is probably where I'd start. It's the most accessible and his other books build on things he talks about in this one. "Helgoland" and "Reality Is Not What It Seems" are my favorite I think, but they're honestly all great. He also has a book called "There Are Places in the World Where Rules Are Less Important Than Kindness" which is a collection of shorter essays he's written on all kinds of non-physics topics that's an interesting departure from his usual wheel house.
Science and art often merge to create a thing of beauty. In music, the science of instrument manufacture provides a tool for the musician to apply skill and creativity. In photography, camera science and technical skill enable the vision of the photographer to create a masterpiece. As an artist, Picasso understood the need to learn technique when he said "learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist." Why must we separate knowledge in compartments? Why compartmentalise education?
I was patient with the half answers, inchoate ideas, and trailing thoughts, but Rovelli totally lost me with his scorn for ideas he disagrees with in the last third of this interview. Not nearly as brilliant as I thought he would be.
I thought I would go mad waiting for him to finish a thought.
@@CAM-fq8lv And the swallowing sounds.
Carlo Rovelli is such an amazing writer. Seeing this interview pop up is an absolute dream!
>In 2023 he was one of the firmataries of the International Peace Conference manifesto which accuses USA-NATO-EU of being the aggressor in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
hahahaha
@@numberonedad Not sure why you find that "hahahaha" funny, but what I do know is you lifted that quote without citing your source. Do better, be better.
@@er... it's from wikipedia and just a fact. it's not possible to link to sources on youtube fyi, so do better, be better, before casting aspersions on others.
the idea that autocracies have the right to invade their weaker neighbors due to international pressure has nothing to do with pacifism nor leftism, and that's what's funny. not sure how you could miss that.
@@numberonedad Two issues with your statement.
1. Setting aside the fact that it is a place to start research rathe then an end all be all, you can still cite Wikipedia without posting the link.
2. You contradicted yourself in a way that I cannot know where to start unpacking without posting an entire research paper. What I will say is you missed the mark entirely.
Happy new year!
@@er... 1. apologies, i had figured his support of this absurd position was common knowledge among fans of his and wouldn't require a citation.
2. you'd prefer not to explain how USA-NATO-EU is the aggressor in the invasion of Ukraine, because there is no reasonable explanation. "Leftism" that excuses the crimes of autocrats is fraudulent.
Happy New Year to you too!
Thank you for introducing me to this wonderful scholar. Imagine if we had political leaders with the logic, insights & philosophy of Carlo Rovelli.
Isn't the simulation argument just a revival of gnosticism? This was a fabulous interview, more Carlo please
Mhmm, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying!
Wow, you're right!
Really looking forward to this discussion.
Buddhism: The ego, the outward projected mind, creates a false reality, and we all live there. This false reality is called samsara. But there is a true reality, one we must access from within, by dissolving the ego and discovering the true mind.
I feel Aaron's last question. I think some kind of spiritual rejuvenation is possible and I daresay desirable, while I also agree with Mr. Rovelli's stance that humanist values are to be found on the inside....
The thing is, isn't it, that this spiritual thing could be founded on a robust theory of subject/object dualism, and in such a paradigm causation by the efficient past is "an abstract limit in some circumstances of the creative interaction that governs the becoming of actual entities in all circumstances", and perhaps look something like Alfred N. Whitehead's organic cosmology. Then our sense of spiritual meaning in the cosmos would truly link up, as it would be precisely our capability of finding value within that we understand relates us to all the rest in a way that makes evident our self-worth.
Or for now one could just hold that it's really nice for each individual to be able to express themselves fully and freely in this life in a way that's conducive to individual growth and social welfare.
I love that Mr Bastani isn't hesitating, but straight out says "it's completely implausible".
bastani is the interviewer btw
totally agree with Rovelli that there is too much pressure on academics to come up with things quickly. They need more time than they are given.
At around 10:56 Aaron references the 1954 book ‘The Doors of Perception’ by Aldous Huxley, in which Huxley mentions William Blake (1757-1827)-which is probably why Aaron mistakenly attributed it to Blake here. In the book Huxley describes his experience of psychedelic experience under the influence of mescaline, as Aaron says in the conversation.
Oh thank you so much for this super interesting conversation!! love it.
Sometimes I think there is a hell, and I am in it.
Yes he can, thank you both.
Bernardo Kastrup also.
I don’t agree with all Carlo Rovelli said - especially when mentioning some historical events - but I enjoyed the conversation and I respect and like his thinking and humanist approach.
I loved this interview ❤️
you've caught my interest , an open and honest discussion . Einstein once said "It's not that I'm smarter than others ,it's just that I stay with problems longer ." love this talk .
Great interview Aaron. Keep up the amazing work Novara. You bring hope❤
HAPPY NEW YEAR NM , keep on and thanks
One of the best conversations I have listened to. Carlo Rovelli and I are from the same generation so I had no trouble understanding him.
"Science is a wonderful space of freedom". Und so bewegt sich doch! Great stuff.
They dismissed and skipped over the simulation idea without actually discussing it properly. The idea is basically a thought experiment designed to look further and more radically into what David Chalmers calls the hard problem of consciousness.
I’ve lived in Italy for years. Rovelli is a great example of what amazing people Italians can be, when they’re not being Giorgia Meloni.
yawn
How to spot an populist extremist? All he/she/they does is speak about the opposite end of the spectrum.
Very well said.
thank you :)
So you dont agree with Meloni's views on things? How does that discredit her?
Excellent conversation with a great mind... thank you for this
A lovely man with a very fine mind.
Everything’s technology humanity couldn’t exist without it. We die in the night.
He seems to be a realist. He understands current affairs. Surprisingly, not many people can do this, most are affected by current one sided news, stereotypes, propaganda, and hearsay.
I've been waiting for this one!! Thank you Novara for introducing us to Carlo and his work. Ordered some of his books from the local library.
Baghdad Renaissance was merely the act of collecting knowledge from India, China, Persia, Egypt and leftovers of ancient Hellenistic Greeks. Thanks for the translations into Arabic.
I was the other way around, I studied physics and then became a beggar, sadly not through choice. I can see the connection between physics and science, especially in how the disconnect between the scientific principles at the time of the enlightenment and now how haven't translated well into principles of good governance.
Not Engels! The living Stalin and Lysenko, he's surely talking about (regarding biology in 50s-60s USSR).
This is why I love downstream!
That was such an interesting and wide ranging conversation.
What a great start to 2024. 🎉
I think he's missing the point in simulation theory. It's not that there's any specific empirical evidence that we live in a simulation, it's a logical extrapolation based on the possibility that a simulated universe is possible. We don't currently know that this is the case, but if it is, it suddenly becomes infinitesimally unlikely that we just happen to inhabit the real universe that hosts all of the simulated ones.
"William Blake Doors of Perception" lololol!
It’s Aldous Huxley isn’t it?
No, he's right. The phrase came from William Blake and was popularized by Huxley when he used it as the title of a book.
It's a deterministic future. We're on a 2d plane but 3d space allows for variables in your timeline, which is a direct result of memory retention or information that must be held by the laws of physics. Proven: if you isolate a blackhole, it still expands due to probability alone...it makes 3d space. Time is just an expression of how that information travels to and from you. In other words...everytime you orientate your position in space you make a probability in the future and those interactions are accounted for by making 3d space.
Thanks for the very interview. Much interesting
Young people in China _definely_ worry about the future, and are are fed up with the present. He must be unfamiliar with the, e.g., "lying flat" and "let it rot" movements -- many Chinese youth no longer see a point in playing the game, and have given up on economic mobility.
Also, regarding what China has been up to relative to Europe -- they've been up to things that are presently forcing them over an economic cliff. A ridiculously high fraction of their GDP was a real estate sector that basically amounted to a Ponzi scheme. And while I like high-speed rail as much as the next guy, much of their lines are hemmorhaging money and were shoddily built. Corruption is rampant, and an absurd amount of the budget goes to the maintenance of a gigantic, bloated corpse of a corrupt government. They're also belligerently running around the South China Sea trying to claim the whole place. ... there's an unpleasant whiff of Tankie-ism in this interview.
The part discussing university life in Bologna at 13:13 where Carlo Reviolli mentions Deleuze and Guattari … I found his book The Order of Time after studying Deleuze’s philosophy of time and idea of three syntheses of time.
What a fascinating interview. Really enjoyed listening to Carlo. Highly recommend
An important contemporary thinker with humanist values. Love his writing
I listened to this man lecture at the royal college of science on Time. I Clicked the video immediately. Hoping to learn alot.
An excellent guest👍 Need to see Carlo have a debate with Robert Salporsky on the issue of free will....
He never said he doesn't believe in "god". He said that we all feel there is something beyond our comprehensive capacity that we call with different name and enjoy in different ways and I totally agree with him. We "see universe" we "don't understand it fully" but that doesn't prevent us to enjoy our earthy experience for whatever it is. We enjoy it in our minds. There are only 7 notes but millions of songs. Infinite creation is evident to every fool on earth if they observe with open mind. I am not religious, but I understand why people are. I believe there is something more to everything around us but we are unable to understand it completely because we are human beings. We have our limits. But within those limits we are able to thrive as much as the "laws of universe/god" make it possible.
If by system he means the CCP dictatorship allowing the development to happen then I agree that its proven better than 150+ countries around the world embracing democracy and cult-dictatorships which just breed corruption and failure.
But separating China's development from the West doesn't make sense as it was unlocked by embracing markets and Western investment and offshoring.
Beautiful bit of brain food to mull over at the start of the new year 🙂
This question ""Do we live in a simulation?" has been addressed by India's foremost philosopher Adi Sankara in his commentaries on the end portion of the Vedās,viz., the Upanishads; people with keen intellect would be able to "see" these as Revelations of the highest order! But when most of us are concerned with Objects (and rarely with the Subject, viz., the Self), the "question" appears to be untenable in the domain of Science (which is just philosophy of the objective world as we know it today)!
I'd be surprised if William Blake had access to mescaline ... think you may be thinking of Huxley.
Interviewer is confused about the timeline. Probably because simulation. Also might just be a random UA-cam dumb dumb. 🤷♂️
Truly fascinating just simply listening to be observing good topics and perspectives. ❤ 🙏🏾✌🏾✌🏾✌🏾
39:33 Am I the odd one out here?
When 16 I delivered a lecture to the French language club in our school. The topics were not assigned and I choose to talk about Henri Poincaré. Poincaré was at the forefront of development of Electrodynamics. He contributed to the idea of the speed of light being finite, corresponded with Hendrik Lorentz (hence not only Lorentz Group, but also Poincaré group), but his main contribution to science was contained in the work Sur le problème des trois corps et les équations de la dynamique [On the problem of the three bodies and the equations of dynamics].
Poincaré introduces concepts of non-integrable systems, qualitative analysis and develops analysis situs (topology) towards its modern shape. Call me biased, but I consider Poincaré's contributions of no less, in fact, greater impact on science, than those of Einstein.
For most of the people, even for the scientists, the idea of non-integrable systems is something they instinctively desire to reject... This was the case with my audience. They questioned everything I said (although I had all the citations - something not usually demanded at such casual talks). They even questioned my pronunciation of Poincaré's name. Mine was right, they knew it, but their shaken belief in omniscience of science pressed them to take revenge...
Very interesting discussion
49:45 according to Our World in Data the literacy rate in China was 65.5% in 1982, 97.2% in 2020.
Aaron should have pushed harder with the notions of intelligent design and simulation theory. The best argument for the simulation thing is: we can do OK simulations right now; it is plausible that, with lots of time and resources, we will be able to make near-perfect simulations in the future; if there was a version of reality where near-perfect simulations were possible, there would be an infinitesimal amount of simulations and only one true reality. Given these factors, the chances of our reality NOT being a simulation are extremely low.
I used to give some mental energy to simulation theory and I decided it didn’t matter. For all we will likely ever know, this is the one life we have and we should live it accordingly.
I find it fascinating. I believe that we will know the answer to this if we become capable of creating, with our knowledge through technology, inventions conscious of their existence and surroundings. This would be very difficult, however. If we cannot achieve it, it is because what we create will always be non-conscious and will respond to commands given by humans and their laws, limiting them, as the creator is limited. This could also mean that we might be in a simulation where our way of thinking, among other things, would be programmed, and there would only be a bit of randomness when we are 'free' to think.
If you observe a game, it was created by a human, and this game will have characters and phenomena that do not necessarily correspond to reality. In other words, these may be more limited or exaggerated, but making them identical to reality is very difficult. So, if something created this reality we are in, and this reality is the game, then that something could be limiting us or creating a reality with beings and phenomena more extravagant and capable of things that the creator cannot do or is limited in.
This doesn't end here, as that creator could be part of a larger simulation where that creator is just another character, and the reality or creation itself of all things would be multiple fractals at different scales, where the repeating pattern is the simulation itself.
Its funny because i was interested with this topic long ago.. Until i was thinking does it matter we living in simulation or not? My problems are real enough for me to handle 😂
Very nice mountain of pure speculation!!!!!!!!
What an excellent interview. If you gentlemen are ever in the Scottish Highlands, come round for dinner anytime. It would a great pleasure to chew the fat with you.
If you want to deny the Abrahamic versions of God, that’s one thing. If you want to deny a creator altogether which is a highly logical thing to believe for how everything began, I need more then essentially everything was a big oopsie.
How is a big oopsie different from just a choice the end result is still the same
Excellent ce Rovelli surtout qu'ici il parle aussi politique et philosophie / J'apprécie ce podcast British relish all dress! Merci!
There are boundaries beyond which we cannot make observation. This may be due to limitations in our current scientific abilities.. but what if these are defined limits which we cannot go beyond are fixed and unbreachable? What would that be an indication of, If not a simulation?
Maybe or just that we have reached the boundaries we are unable to breach because of the limitations of our matter. Would a 7 dimensional being have the same limitations? The film Arrival offers an intriguing idea/question around language impact on brain development and universe understanding.
Why not God? Is it easier to believe that we are in a simulation? Is there a practical difference beyond just how we conceptualize the universe? Personally, the simulation idea strikes me cold with dread, whereas the God idea seems to be far more "warm" and sensible, if not somewhat frightening in a different way.
Aaron trying to convince him of the possibility that we are living in a simulation.
He just wasn’t having it!
As ever, I loved listening to Carlo Rovelli. I would have enjoyed the interview even more if Aaron Bastani had calmed down a little when it came to presenting his own interpretations of Rovelli's ideas.
;-)
Don’t ask too much from physics. We know only 5% of the universe, despite all our theories, and cannot explain the existence of a heavy atom beyond hydrogen from first principles, despite all our theories and experiments. There is an old and vicious trend among us physicists, to invade other fields of knowledge and make them look simpler than physics, so that physics appears to contain all answers. It is so rarely the case. The world around us is vastly more complex and richer than what current physics can attack and vaguely try to explain.
Realize with the different cultural backgrounds it's not the same but would be interested in Dr. Rovelli's input on the Mandela Effect.
Doors of Perception was Aldous Huxley
I think the " we live in a simulation" is misunderstood. Within a computer game one can choose to go into a room to the right or the left. Both are written in the program but only the one we choose will be made visible. The other remains just an element of the program that remains unknown. This is an analogy to the quantum state where everything is an unknown probability until observed. The idea of things only becoming real when observed is like what happens in a computer game when one chooses to go left or right. So, it is not that we live in a simulation but that things becoming real when observed is analogous to that.
Great questions, but the answers were not satisfying honestly. He's a great middle aged speaker of knowledge
As the Buddha said (to the princes seeking the thief) “is not your time better spent seeking your selves?”…all metaphysical, political, social and dare I say scientific pursuits ultimately find a ‘ground’ on the self. May I humbly suggest a book by Brian Lowery: Selfless; The Social Creation of ‘You’. Maybe it will help both featured persons understand how our sense of a selfhood is externally produced. To call it personal is merely a designation. Great conversation! Best….
I am not religious and was an atheist until the age of reason ... that is, until I read Italian Essayist Mauro Biglino> I never asked again 'does God exist' nor could I say that I was an atheist ... No one has looked at ancient scriptures like this guy ;)
As he himself declared, his ideas are mostly based on the literary works of fringe theorists Erich von Däniken and Zecharia Sitchin.
None of that gives you a hint of theistic truth.
35:00 - helena sheehan wrote an excellent book about marxism and the philosophy of science, tracking all these debates from Marx and Engels to post WW2
I want to get to the simulation that is more fun than this one.
Time does exist but as a process not a dimension nor an absolute entity.
and it’s normal that time is relative because time is a process that differ based on different observers (different calculations based on different situations)..
time in physics has direct connection to distance , that’s why they couldn’t understand time at subatomic scale.
(Time is a process).
The current understanding of space and dimensions,….etc
And how they took space, time, some constants and their roles,…etc as axioms,….. etc
Infinity and the role of Pi, space is one indivisible unit and how could the fine structure constant is a sign that space is one indivisible unit must be maintained,….etc
Dirac had the right to wonder (LNH).
The only solution is to rely completely on future generations and invest in them (the fundamentals of physics are far much harder).
Time is related to distance and velocity (interrelationships), they only make things more complicated to satisfy their wrong interpretations.
3:50 Gravity affects the measurement tools (clocks), not time itself directly!
Because time is a process.
and the assumption that light experience no time is not accurate assumption.
Both Newton and Einstein had wrong understanding of time, time is not an independent entity (not a dimension nor an absolute entity).
Time is a (process).
There’s no chance to understand the fundamentals of physics without connecting both levels (subatomic and cosmological levels), that alone could take up to few hundreds of years of continuous scientific hard work.
It’s very dangerous to rely on current pseudoscientists, they just hide under the cloaks of some former good physicists but they have nothing to add to science, many of them are storytellers.
Great interview. The idea of simulation was only lightly touched and dismissed without much of an explanation. Not sure why that topic was chosen as the title. :)
Aldous Huxley and Mescaline. Quoting William Blake. :) Did you know Captain Beefheart - when he was a door-to-door salesman - once tried to sell AH a vacuum cleaner? A truly epochal intellectual encounter, which took place over a Kirby.
Excellent!
hyped up
I want a copy of Carlo's Pirate Radio Book. I was in Italy with my husband in 1970's and he was held by the the Carbenary as a Red Brigade member.
Where would one find Einstein's 1914 Manifesto, It appears he refused to sign the manifesto of the Ninety-Three as he was a pacifist, but his own manifesto I cant seem to locate. Given that Carlo reiterates that he no longer wanted to be a vagabondesque individual, I'm wondering if he was at a time influenced by Herman Hesse's Siddhartha. Interestingly in regards to China, the wealth disparity is now higher than Europe and is reaching a point where it is close to such in the USA, I felt he was implying it was Socialist and I think China now requires novel definitions of what it is, its some sort of hybrid. Carlos beliefs don't seem to fit in with the binary of Atheism, he has meandering notions and intuitions that seem incompatible with such a fixed label, especially if we consider God to be in essence something "other" internally experienced, maybe humanitarianism is connected with the acceptance of the intangible notion of the evenly dispersed sacred, the opposite of Ultra Nationalism, maybe intuitive wisdoms of the past, in a sense precursors to faith based systems, to a degree should be retained via reinterpretation. On a sidenote nice Tradescantia (burgandy ?) on the shelf!
I know so very little about this man, despite being myself of Italian origin and close in age to him. From what I gather through others' comments, Rovelli's books are phenomenal.
However my perception of his answers to questions on humanism, ethical values and the existence of God are surprisingly lacking in depth.
I'm particularly perplexed about his lack of a fitting rational answer to how we can build a better society if we do not have a foundation in shared human rights across all humans (irrisoective of the presence or not of a God as creator).
He seemed extremely casual, relativistic and narrow in postulating a personal individual preference for some values as a model for societal coexistence.
Agree with your points here, however when talking about physics and so on, his eyes lit up and I found those sections to be incredibly interesting and compelling
If time goes slower doesn´t it mean more time? Only as an example, assuming a clock on the 100th floor of my office building goes faster
and the clock in the basement goes slower couldn´t I move do my work in the basement and get a bit more work done than anyone
on the higher floors?
no
This simulation sucks
25 minutes in and still stories about his pet rabbit. Such interesting ideas, don’t want to know about chaff.