This was a fantastic episode! I’d never heard of Kelsey before, but I find her candor and humility refreshing. She is a wonderful contrast to the smug certainty of some of the more well-marketed name brand astrophysicists out there. I much prefer her approach and find it to be much more scientifically grounded. I’m excited to read her book!
What a fascinating interview and especially awesome "closing speech"...........one of the most articulate and thought provoking discussions I have ever heard.
This episode is so good!!! Thank you both. Thank you, especially to Kelsey Johnson. It made me realize how valuable curiosity, learning and teaching is.
Having been born 72 years ago, light pollution was much less of a problem in cities than it is today. Much of my inspiration was from the Observer Book series from Frederick Warne publishers. Being pocket sized books with pocket money prices, I had several, one of which was Astronomy by Patrick Moore, from which I learned all the seasonal night skies and the constellations.
I feel the same way. I enjoyed this episode very much. By the way, do you speak like that too, or do you just leave out "I" and "I'm" when writing? And if the latter, do you know why?
@@Mr.N0.0ne -- How interesting of you to notice that. For speaking, no. But for writing I purposefully leave out "I" and "I'm" as it generally isn't necessary, tilts the focus to the subject, and just feels more "modern".
I could only listen for fifteen minutes. Her use of “like” and the new verbal tick of saying “right” after an utterance lessens her intellect for me. Right, it’s like….
"Euler's equation, is often cited as evidence supporting Platonism in mathematics because it exemplifies the notion that mathematical truths exist independently of human thought, as if they inhabit a "Platonic realm" of abstract, eternal forms."
I remember that someone (a SMART person) said something to the effect of “Contemplating the Infinite for too long is a Great way to go insane” (Can’t remember the exact quote, or who said it) ...I always thought that contemplating the “Nothing” would have the same effect... The absence of everything the Universe is aware of. Including the Universe 🙂
Great interview. So, in the minute 40 Mike talks about these extraterrestrials telling us that they had figured out the dark matter/energy long time ago and listening to their explanation we go "oh, of course", etc. But Kelsey's point is: NO, we would be like these labs or chimps listening to human explanation of calculus. We would lack the basic computational capacity to get anywhere to the level of this explanation. This is the real barrier. It is not that our mathematics is wrong. I presume, in some way a chimp may be capable of adding or subtracting. The rest of math is just a complication of these basic computation (Richard Feynman called them tricks, recall the bean counting analogy) but as we move higher and higher in the level of "shortcutting" we will reach limits of our cognition (computational complexity, grasping higher level of this shortcutting). So, to use a crude example, as chimp may grasp 2+2+2=6, she may not get the equivalent 3x2=6, which is just that shortcut Feynman is talking about, at a very basic level. Now, the calculus is nothing more than 2+2+2=6 taken many levels up. We would not be able to explain this to to the chimp any better than the green guys would be able to explain the dark energy to us. The barrier in both cases would be due to the evolutionary development of the cognitive abilities. So, there would likely never be the "oh, of course" moment for us, but just a blank stare. This would be the real epistemological issue. But, of course we can't know that until that first encounter with "them", where we either have the "oh!" moment or an "huh?" one...
In the stillness of meditation one is in touch with the timeless dimension of the Universe - no beginning, no ending, always was and always will be.. The Big Bang is just a theory, also the Big Crunch. Beginning and Ending is a result of Dualist Thinking. Also, Creator and Creation. Stilling the mind through meditation practice, one is able to go beyond thinking and duality. With Cosmic Consciousness, one can realize that we are aspects of the Universe in this temporary form, composed of the six elements, being aware of itself, experiencing itself.
1:02:00 three comments regarding the Fermi Paradox: 1. Abiogenesis is impossible. The Universe is sterile. Humans are absolutely alone. 2. Technology has progressed a lot in a century but the envelope of available technological progress has been exhausted entirely in that century so there aren't actually technologies available after a thousand or million years of advancement. Technological progress always dead ends and we are there already. 3. Technological civilization is destroying itself and will cease to exist. The human species is headed to extinction. Once our civilization is dead and humankind extinct that is the end of civilization for the entire Universe. It is a one shot deal and will never happen again.
Fermi statement’s only holds good, everything else is conjecture including aliens and other civilisations. We are the only civilisation in the entire universe.
This is really cool and in-depth. What is the universe going "into" - more space? What is "nothing" it isn't a thing! :D Is time travel possible? If the universe is so big, why will it not fight me? :D
I feel the pain of her childhood i am so glad she's ostensibly escaped the trauma I hope we all find peace with whatever is coming and if we find ourselves in some waiting room after death we will at least have a big laugh some I told you so s will be spoken but most of us will be happy to wait lets wait and see im in no hurry
The guy doesn’t even know the Euler equation. It reminds me of when I was little in Vietnam, where no one in the fishing village knew what Pi was. So please, stop talking and let her speak. As a professor of quantum physics at one of the top three universities in the world, I still find her discussion absolutely fascinating.
The field of astrophysics at the moment is strongly leaning female. I'm glad Shermer is providing a platform to some of the rising scientific luminaries. Just the other day I found out about Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, the step-granddaughter of C.L.R. James
If you think there is merit listening to a discussion even just partially based on the fact the person is male or female, you arent listening for the right reason.
55:30 Without the idea of the external source: the proto universe ( Ambartsumyan spoke of the proto-substance), the Universe is doomed, because it does not have its own energy source. P.S. See the Appendix ( if interesting). Appendix Protouniverse/Universe: 0.Comparing with Einstein's equations of 1915, we find a=-c^3/16πG. Strictly speaking, in order to determine the constant a, it was necessary to make a transition to the Poisson equation. Thus, a rigorous derivation of Einstein's equations can be given. 1.The transition to the non-relativistic limit allows us to determine a constant factor for the integral of the gravitational field according to: R[(0)^0]=(4πG/c^2)p; Δφ=-pc^3/4a=4πGр. And a=(1/16π)m(pl)w(pl). 2.Therefore, the Poisson equation can be written as: ∆g(00)=8πGT(00)/c^4, where g(00) is the time component of the metric tensor (for a weakly curved metric the time component of the energy-momentum tensor: T(00)~=pc^2). 3.This equation is true only in the non-relativistic case, but it is applicable to the case of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, when Einstein's equations have only solutions with a time-varying space-time metric. 4.Then the energy density of the gravitational field: g^2/8πG=T(00)=pc^2 [~=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4= =1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (~500 quanta/cm^3)], where the critical density value determining the nature of the model is: p=(3/8π)H^2/G. Hence it follows: g~πcH. 5.Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space. Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, and we can now talk about the fact that it is possible to generate a gravitational field in a non-inertial frame of reference.That is, finally achieve global (instead of local in GR) compliance with the equivalence principle. According to the strong equivalence principle: g=|a*|=πcH [=r(pl)w(relic)^2], and w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. Thus H=1,72*10^-20 sec^-1. {By the way, at t(universe)= πт(pl), w(“relic”) was =w(pl), g=cw(pl)=g(pl); at 1/”H”= t(universe)=380000 years, w(“relic”)/2π was =3.5*10^14 Hz} 6.And а*=-2πcа/M(universe), what is F=M(universe)а*=-2πса=-с^4/8G=-(⅛)F(pl). In the case of the Universe: M(universe)H=m(pl)w(pl)/8π=c^3/8πG=-2a (~ the "dark" const~inv), where M(universe)=E/c^2 is the full mass of the Universe, and the total energy E is spent on creating a phase-quantized space-time: m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H { w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. 7.That is: Δφ=-pc^3/4a= рс^3/2M(universe)H^2. And Δφ=4π[с^3/Gm(pl)w(pl)]H^2= 4πH^2; which is evidence of a phenomenon: spontaneous Lorentz transformations. 8.Thus; Δφ(0)/Δφ=w(pl)^2/H^2~10^126, where Δφ(0)=4πw(pl)^2; the “best” prediction. P.S. Intra-metagalactic gravitational potential: |ф0|=πGm(pl)l/λ(relic)=[Gm(pl)/2c]w(relic), where the constant Gm(pl)/2c is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i)=h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction. a.The basic formula QG of the quantum expression of the Newtonian gravitational potential is: ф(G)=-Ф(i)w, where w is the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational (~ vibrational) field.} b.“Giving the interval ds the size of time, we will denote it by dт: in this case, the constant k will have the dimension length divided by mass and in CGS units will be equal to 1,87*10^-27", Friedmann, (On the curvature of space, 1922). [The ds, which is assumed to have the dimension of time, we denote by dт; then the constant k has the dimension Length Mass and in CGS-units is equal to 1, 87.10^ ± 27. See Laue, Die Relativitatstheorie, Bd. II, S. 185. Braunschweig 1921.] c. Apparently, the following expression takes place: μ(0)ε(0)Gi=1, which means that Gi=с^2 where i is inertial constant, i=1,346*10^28[g/cm]; or k°=1/i=7,429*10^-29[cm/g]: k(Friedmann)/k°=8π; where k°=r(pl)/m(pl)=r(G)/2m(0); i=m(pl)/r(pl)=(1/c)m(pl)w(pl), w=[r(G)/r]w(pl). d.That is ф(G)=-[Gm(pl)/2c]w=-(½)[w/w(pl)]c^2=-(½)(√Għ/c)w=-Ф(i)w. e.w(pl)=(√8n')w(relic)=8πn'H; where H=c/L, L=8πn’r(pl) is the length of the phase trajectory, n'=4*10^61. H=1,72*10^-20(sec^-1). f.By the way, it turns out that the universe is 1.6 trillion years old. g.The area of the "crystal sphere": S(universe)~n' λ(relic)^2~n'S(relic). r=2.7*10^29cm, L=2πr. P.P.S.The inscription on the ancient Roman clock: “More than you think”.
11:00 You're vision only has to be around 20/25 to 20/23 if you live in a rural area. Edit: Supposedly, blue-eyed people have better night vision, so your mileage might vary.
Only human beings can think in the sense of having thoughts in the mind. The reason is simple, having thoughts in our mind is a late phase of language development when speech in internalised. No other animals have external language so even less a late internal stage development. Does not mean animals do not use their brains. Does not means that a tiger does not act in a highly intelligent and creative manners but it does not need to think for doing this with thought in its head.
The things that alway confuse me about the BBT is what was around the singularity for the start of the cosmic inflation event? Wouldn't there have to be space for matter and motion to expand? Also, the singularity itself doesn't make sense. A dense, hot 0D point. It's really just a mathematical character in the equation. But how does nothing morph into something? Nothing (0D) morphing into something (3D) in zero time? To me it seems like something, (atoms) would have to be eternal, always assembling, disassembling and reassembling into objects for ever.
I agree with Mike saying words are just place holders for a phenomena until we figure out more. The problem comes into when these concepts are reified and used like objects. Concepts can't move or be moved in a scientific theory. Just like the poetic phrase, "love moves mountains". We know that love can't move mountains in reality, only other objects like bulldozers and backhoes can do that. It's the same with gravity or energy moving something. It's fallacious. Also, math is only descriptive. You can't explain the physical mechanism of why a pen falls to the floor when dropped instead of the sky by using math.
M Shermer, Please think about what you imply after your “stuff happens…..even if you’d been a doctor…” words. The fact that your guest’s story is so exceptional (due, no doubt, to her individual experiences) is the very opposite to what you imply. Bad childhood experiences generally amount to disadvantage and negative social outcomes.
In justifying this premise: (1) If God does not exist, then moral knowledge does not exist. Certain actions are morally wrong, but moral wrongness is a curious property when you think about it: it’s nonphysical and empirically undetectable. To illustrate what I mean by moral wrongness being empirically undetectable, imagine a moral nihilist (who disbelieves in moral wrongness) and a moral realist (who believes in moral wrongness) observe some jerk kicking a dog just for fun; the dog whimpers in pain and runs away. Both agree on all physiological and psychological facts, e.g., that the dog felt pain and suffered minor injury. The moral nihilist says, “I don’t think moral wrongness is associated with that action.” The moral realist says, “I think moral wrongness is associated with that action.” There is no empirical way to determine who is right here. Both views agree on all the same empirically observable facts. In that sense, moral wrongness is empirically undetectable. But if moral wrongness is non-natural and empirically undetectable, how do we know about it? In practice we rely on moral intuition. The theist could believe that God has moral knowledge and designed our cognitive faculties in such a way that when they’re functioning properly, we intuit certain elementary moral truths. Given atheism however, even if atheistic evolution resulted in us having true moral beliefs we wouldn’t know those beliefs to be true. Why? Because barring the supernatural, nonphysical moral wrongness is causally inert, and our brains would give us the same intuitions of moral wrongness existing regardless of whether moral wrongness existed, and this seems to undercut such intuition from properly justifying our belief in morality. We would thus not have moral knowledge. To illustrate with an analogy, suppose a cyborg knows she has a metal-detecting implant installed in her brain that’s designed so that when a widget is in her hand, the implant delivers a strong intuition that the widget contains metal if and only if it contains metal. Suppose however the metal-detecting implant later malfunctions such that it would deliver the intuition that the widget contains metal regardless of whether the widget contained metal. Then even if the widget in her hand did contain metal and she believed it contained metal on the basis of her intuition, her belief wouldn’t count as knowledge. Moreover, if she learned the metal-detecting implant would give her the intuition that the widget contains metal regardless of whether the widget contained metal, she would no longer have adequate grounds to believe the widget contains metal. Similarly, if we would have the same intuitions of moral wrongness existing regardless of whether moral wrongness existed, we couldn’t rely on moral intuition to believe that moral wrongness exists. Since if atheism is true we’d have the same moral intuitions we do regardless of whether morality existed, this undercuts our grounds for knowing that morality exists.
I named a today's quick video, "The Pharisees of Modernity - etc." Thanks for the content. I didn't mention your name, simply replied in a proper and complete manner. A YT comment thread is a poor place for much more than YT comments. I have now replied properly. And where it should be. Not on some channel where no one sees us.
So "before" the big bang, there is this little nugget, sitting there in nowhere, because the little nugget is space. Then it suddenly rapidly expands, right?
It's more likely that there are many universes bubbling away and this is our moment to be self aware within one. What we call a big bang was just the start of ours. As a course analog, think bubbles in a sink as hot water pours on the soap . We emerge in one of those but we are so tiny we think that one bubble is all there is. We need to get outside of our biases.
The creation event described by the Bible is meant to be a love poem to the Hebrew people. Was written by Moses. It’s important to remember time is a relative proposition by special relativity and theoretical quantum mechanics. Time flow on our sun flows differently than our moon is an example. Another consideration is that Adam was not created as a child. He was created with age. The earth was created with age Etc…..
Why Is there something instead of nothing is a bit of ridiculous question because there’s no such thing as nothing, it takes something to observe it. It’s moot.
I think you may have misunderstood the question. The question is asking why there is anything at all as opposed to it not being the case that there exists something. This is a major question in philosophy with multiple possible answers.
@@MaverickChristian You leave lots of empty comments. What a pile of insecurity emerging from the garden. The fruits emerge and they are thistles. Looking for someone blind to lead?
Michael I've followed U for year's but M8 your comment at the 40minute mark that sometimes "I don't even know if I exist"- Michael if I pinch myself+ I feel pain - Then I exist.Do I know Everything - No. But M8 why not simply get on with Life,have fun+ help other people if we can. Your conversation with your guest is "airy fairy"- Not trying to be rude M8 but you have lowered your standard's.
Physicists have a hard time thinking outside the box. Not to be rude but the answers they are searching for will most likely come from the outside in. The bakers, the nurses, the students, those that are less educated in the disciplines of modern physics, they will find your answers with their fresh minds.
time of past does not exist yet until the future even exist before it observe where the present lies on consciousness to be experiences it as journey its destiny of configuration
@wadetisthammer3612 - 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is a question that is in principle unsolvable. Because god made everything! But why is there god rather than nothing? God was made by god2! And where does god2 come from, and god3, etc. You can also ask the question: What lies north of the North Pole? - Red.
_ 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is a question that is in principle unsolvable._ It's not in principle unsolvable. The theist could say that God, a metaphysically necessary entity, is the first cause. _But why is there god rather than nothing?_ Because God is metaphysically necessary.
@@MaverickChristian This is like a copy and paste fallacy blabber head. Lol How very insecure. Buddy, we don't all live in spiritual fear and need to believe in bs just to feel alive. The nursery is down the hall.
If God alone is being, Being, then the universe, the creation, is non-being--illusion, as Eastern religion intuited, having a net balance of zero, as Dr. Johnson suggested.Time might then be seen as the essential marker of non-being, the condition of coming into and then ceasing to exist. Kierkegaard's journal contained a couple of provocative observations along these lines. "God does not exist; He is eternal. God does not think; He creates."
Skeptic ... Michael Shermar with guest - PhD .,. Ms. Kelsey Johnson.! [ Cool ] :: *Astronomy "" ?? "" Entropy? :: Yes! :: But? :: Does? :: Does a ''cohesion factor'' .,.,. maintain ... at all ... maintain a ''parallel'' - - connectivity venue in a ''universal'' sense intrinsic to and upon our KNOWN existence from our position of comprehension as ''us'' being assessed as an = ''ignorant'' living ''creature?'' .,.
the word 'nothing' has a definite meaning - but you are trying to use an element of language to define a new physics - it seems to be an abuse of language - Wittgenstein might say it is just part of your word games, and if you only used words as ways to describe discrete objects or ideas, the problem might disappear. Physics requires words - not the reverse
46:36 to 47:01 - This guy really needs to have a theist philosopher of religion come on his channel; he doesn't seem to gave a good understanding of a theist's answer here regarding why there is something rather than nothing. 1:15:20 to 1:15:31 - That doesn't follow. Again, a sufficient philosopher would be useful here.
There is no good answer. Only answers that circumvent emotional fears. Theists talking about this as if they have anything tangible is about as intelligent as talking to the clown head at a drive through about Astro physics. One has to leave their own thinking behind. That’s called the blind leading the blind.
@@danielpaulson8838 _There is no good answer._ There are philosophically better answers then the _de facto_ straw men that Michael Shermer put forward. One answer is that God is a metaphysically necessary entity who is the first cause. The response, "You could always ask...where did the god come from who created something out nothing?" is terrible because the answer is to trivial: God is metaphysically necessary, eternal, and never began to exist. This isn't as applicable to the physical universe since, even if eternal in some sense, it doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that is metaphysically necessary (e.g., there is evidently no physical particle that is metaphysically necessary). The assertion, "If God created something out of nothing then apparently you can create something out of nothing" smells like an equivocation, since _ex nihilo nihil fit_ used in e.g., the _kalam_ cosmological argument refers to there being no cause at all, not merely the lack of a material cause. Even if you don't like the theist's answer, Shermer's responses to it are nonsensical and seem to be based on philosophical ignorance.
@@danielpaulson8838 _There is no good answer._ The theist could say that the reason why there is something rather than nothing is because God is metaphysically necessary and is the first cause. Even if you disagree with this explanation, the _de facto_ straw man Michael Shermer put forward is a terrible response; e.g., that one could always ask the question "Where did God come from?" when God is uncaused and metaphysically necessary on this view. (It's as if Michael Shermer isn't aware of what the theist's position is here.) In contrast, the physical universe doesn't appear to be the sort of thing that is metaphysically necessary (there are no metaphysically necessary particles). The best option for the atheist is to just say that there is no explanation at all for why there is something rather than nothing, and no explanation for why physical reality exists.
@@MaverickChristian Okay, first, I don't care about Shermer's views in this comment thread. He is not here to clarify or speak on his behalf or what he may or may not have said taken in or out of context, so you don't get to and I won't entertain that idea either. You bring something of your own to discuss, right? Something you can answer questions about? That said, from what I presume you believe some God created all. The God of Abraham, yes? The Jewish God Yahweh, derived from Babylonian God Apsu? You didn't establish your foundation. You sure don't get to establish Shermer's.
@@MaverickChristian Do you know that even if not by definition, but by action, Christianity is Idol worship? That's why there are thousands of different denominations who don't share common values. They just worship, then make God and Jesus into their beliefs. Do you see that Mav? One more variant.
If you use the Big Bang theory to argue for a beginning of the universe, you are mistaken. The Big Bang theory is flawed; the universe is cyclical, without a beginning or an end. It is contradictory to claim that God created time while also saying God has always existed. For something to have always existed, time must exist concurrently. True spirituality is about bridging the gap between the physical and nonphysical realms, uniting matter with the intangible essence-the formless source-that brings matter into existence. To truly comprehend this, one must delve into the realm of supernatural abilities, particularly the phenomenon of materializing objects through the power of consciousness.
@kevinp198x This is just a brief comment. I’ve explored these concepts in depth across entire chapters, which cannot be fully addressed in a comment section.
@kevinp198x -- It's the big words man. You put enough of 'em together and *BING* it all makes sense. Well, after you have your aura cleansed and your chakras aligned.
LaBalco James aka Mr. P.E.D Is Not! Will Not! EVER Be Anything Close To The Best NBA Player Of All Time….. That’s MJ The GOAT.. I Can Name A Few More Who LaBum Is Not Better Than…
This was a fantastic episode! I’d never heard of Kelsey before, but I find her candor and humility refreshing. She is a wonderful contrast to the smug certainty of some of the more well-marketed name brand astrophysicists out there. I much prefer her approach and find it to be much more scientifically grounded. I’m excited to read her book!
What a fascinating interview and especially awesome "closing speech"...........one of the most articulate and thought provoking discussions I have ever heard.
This episode is so good!!! Thank you both. Thank you, especially to Kelsey Johnson. It made me realize how valuable curiosity, learning and teaching is.
Great guest! One of the best guests you've had, this year.
Fantastic show. Fantastic guest. Thank you.
Having been born 72 years ago, light pollution was much less of a problem in cities than it is today. Much of my inspiration was from the Observer Book series from Frederick Warne publishers. Being pocket sized books with pocket money prices, I had several, one of which was Astronomy by Patrick Moore, from which I learned all the seasonal night skies and the constellations.
This was a great episode. Purchasing Dr. Johnson’s book and hoping that tattoo is in her future.
Suprised I haven't come across Kelsey Johnson until now. Very impressed. Hope to hear more from her in the future.
I feel the same way. I enjoyed this episode very much.
By the way, do you speak like that too, or do you just leave out "I" and "I'm" when writing? And if the latter, do you know why?
@@Mr.N0.0ne -- How interesting of you to notice that. For speaking, no. But for writing I purposefully leave out "I" and "I'm" as it generally isn't necessary, tilts the focus to the subject, and just feels more "modern".
I could only listen for fifteen minutes. Her use of “like” and the new verbal tick of saying “right” after an utterance lessens her intellect for me. Right, it’s like….
@@rickd2140 -- Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man.
Same!
I like these shows because Michael is such a good listener and asks educated questions.
Yes he doesn't interrupt. Sooo many people do not know how to listen.
Excellent. One of the best teaching of astrophysics for the - interested- layperson.
Likewise, thank you! Our beautiful Kelsey for attending unto our own I so Love!
"Euler's equation, is often cited as evidence supporting Platonism in mathematics because it exemplifies the notion that mathematical truths exist independently of human thought, as if they inhabit a "Platonic realm" of abstract, eternal forms."
Mind-melting episode! Kudos to you both.
Great conversation
“What banged?” 😂😂 that was funny
Excellent coverage of the Fermi conjecture....
Great episode. She is wonderful. I can't wait to read her book.
This is just a really cool conversation about some really cool stuff!
What a delight! One of the best. Thank you. Get the tatoo!
Humility stood up from HIS SEAT and took the lowest of the lowest seat last older than trees.
I remember that someone (a SMART person) said something to the effect of “Contemplating the Infinite for too long is a Great way to go insane” (Can’t remember the exact quote, or who said it)
...I always thought that contemplating the “Nothing” would have the same effect...
The absence of everything the Universe is aware of. Including the Universe 🙂
Great interview. So, in the minute 40 Mike talks about these extraterrestrials telling us that they had figured out the dark matter/energy long time ago and listening to their explanation we go "oh, of course", etc. But Kelsey's point is: NO, we would be like these labs or chimps listening to human explanation of calculus. We would lack the basic computational capacity to get anywhere to the level of this explanation. This is the real barrier. It is not that our mathematics is wrong. I presume, in some way a chimp may be capable of adding or subtracting. The rest of math is just a complication of these basic computation (Richard Feynman called them tricks, recall the bean counting analogy) but as we move higher and higher in the level of "shortcutting" we will reach limits of our cognition (computational complexity, grasping higher level of this shortcutting). So, to use a crude example, as chimp may grasp 2+2+2=6, she may not get the equivalent 3x2=6, which is just that shortcut Feynman is talking about, at a very basic level. Now, the calculus is nothing more than 2+2+2=6 taken many levels up. We would not be able to explain this to to the chimp any better than the green guys would be able to explain the dark energy to us. The barrier in both cases would be due to the evolutionary development of the cognitive abilities. So, there would likely never be the "oh, of course" moment for us, but just a blank stare. This would be the real epistemological issue. But, of course we can't know that until that first encounter with "them", where we either have the "oh!" moment or an "huh?" one...
Shared "i" Am come forth!
In the stillness of meditation one is in touch with the timeless dimension of the Universe - no beginning, no ending, always was and always will be.. The Big Bang is just a theory, also the Big Crunch. Beginning and Ending is a result of Dualist Thinking. Also, Creator and Creation. Stilling the mind through meditation practice, one is able to go beyond thinking and duality. With Cosmic Consciousness, one can realize that we are aspects of the Universe in this temporary form, composed of the six elements, being aware of itself, experiencing itself.
1:02:00 three comments regarding the Fermi Paradox:
1. Abiogenesis is impossible. The Universe is sterile. Humans are absolutely alone.
2. Technology has progressed a lot in a century but the envelope of available technological progress has been exhausted entirely in that century so there aren't actually technologies available after a thousand or million years of advancement. Technological progress always dead ends and we are there already.
3. Technological civilization is destroying itself and will cease to exist. The human species is headed to extinction. Once our civilization is dead and humankind extinct that is the end of civilization for the entire Universe. It is a one shot deal and will never happen again.
Fermi statement’s only holds good, everything else is conjecture including aliens and other civilisations. We are the only civilisation in the entire universe.
Nothing is all the things that's not in the empty box 🤗
The box and its internal dimensions for a start - Dr Johnson dealt with this.
God, that fucking nothing rabbit hole. ~sigh~
@@seriouskaraoke879 oh! Plus the rabbit...
This is really cool and in-depth. What is the universe going "into" - more space? What is "nothing" it isn't a thing! :D Is time travel possible? If the universe is so big, why will it not fight me? :D
cool
There is reason why it is called Big Bang. There is no explanation for action and reaction in the classical snese. It's just action, it's a Big Bang.
I feel the pain of her childhood i am so glad she's ostensibly escaped the trauma I hope we all find peace with whatever is coming and if we find ourselves in some waiting room after death we will at least have a big laugh some I told you so s will be spoken but most of us will be happy to wait lets wait and see im in no hurry
As far as I am concerned when I die there is no universe and there was never one 🤗
Ha. CHANGE MY MIND!
The guy doesn’t even know the Euler equation. It reminds me of when I was little in Vietnam, where no one in the fishing village knew what Pi was. So please, stop talking and let her speak. As a professor of quantum physics at one of the top three universities in the world, I still find her discussion absolutely fascinating.
The field of astrophysics at the moment is strongly leaning female. I'm glad Shermer is providing a platform to some of the rising scientific luminaries. Just the other day I found out about Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, the step-granddaughter of C.L.R. James
If you think there is merit listening to a discussion even just partially based on the fact the person is male or female, you arent listening for the right reason.
I'm going to name my next pet "Photon".
Could our universe and others be like a rising bubble and expanding in a verry large " lake" ?
55:30 Without the idea of the external source: the proto universe ( Ambartsumyan spoke of the proto-substance), the Universe is doomed, because it does not have its own energy source.
P.S. See the Appendix ( if interesting).
Appendix
Protouniverse/Universe:
0.Comparing with Einstein's equations of 1915, we find a=-c^3/16πG. Strictly speaking, in order to determine the constant a, it was necessary to make a transition to the Poisson equation. Thus, a rigorous derivation of Einstein's equations can be given.
1.The transition to the non-relativistic limit allows us to determine a constant factor for the integral of the gravitational field according to: R[(0)^0]=(4πG/c^2)p; Δφ=-pc^3/4a=4πGр.
And a=(1/16π)m(pl)w(pl).
2.Therefore, the Poisson equation can be written as: ∆g(00)=8πGT(00)/c^4, where g(00) is the time component of the metric tensor (for a weakly curved metric the time component of the energy-momentum tensor: T(00)~=pc^2).
3.This equation is true only in the non-relativistic case, but it is applicable to the case of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, when Einstein's equations have only solutions with a time-varying space-time metric. 4.Then the energy density of the gravitational field: g^2/8πG=T(00)=pc^2 [~=(ħ/8πc^3)w(relic)^4=
=1600 quanta/cm^3, which is in order of magnitude consistent with the observational-measured data (~500 quanta/cm^3)],
where the critical density value determining the nature of the model is: p=(3/8π)H^2/G. Hence it follows: g~πcH.
5.Expansion is a special kind of motion, and it seems that the Universe is a non-inertial frame of reference that performs variably accelerated motion along a phase trajectory, and thereby creates a phase space.
Real gravitational fields are variable in space and time, and we can now talk about the fact that it is possible to generate a gravitational field in a non-inertial frame of reference.That is, finally achieve global (instead of local in GR) compliance with the equivalence principle.
According to the strong equivalence principle: g=|a*|=πcH [=r(pl)w(relic)^2], and
w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H. Thus H=1,72*10^-20 sec^-1.
{By the way, at t(universe)= πт(pl), w(“relic”) was =w(pl), g=cw(pl)=g(pl);
at 1/”H”= t(universe)=380000 years, w(“relic”)/2π was =3.5*10^14 Hz}
6.And а*=-2πcа/M(universe), what is F=M(universe)а*=-2πса=-с^4/8G=-(⅛)F(pl).
In the case of the Universe: M(universe)H=m(pl)w(pl)/8π=c^3/8πG=-2a (~ the "dark" const~inv), where M(universe)=E/c^2 is the full mass of the Universe, and the total energy E is spent on creating a phase-quantized space-time:
m(pl)w(pl)=8πM(Universe)H
{
w(relic)^2=πw(pl)H.
7.That is: Δφ=-pc^3/4a=
рс^3/2M(universe)H^2.
And
Δφ=4π[с^3/Gm(pl)w(pl)]H^2=
4πH^2; which is evidence of a phenomenon: spontaneous Lorentz transformations.
8.Thus;
Δφ(0)/Δφ=w(pl)^2/H^2~10^126, where Δφ(0)=4πw(pl)^2; the “best” prediction.
P.S. Intra-metagalactic gravitational potential:
|ф0|=πGm(pl)l/λ(relic)=[Gm(pl)/2c]w(relic), where the constant Gm(pl)/2c is a quantum of the inertial flow Ф(i)=h/4πm(pl) (magnetic flux is quantized: = h/2e, Josephson’s const; and the mechanical and magnetic moments are proportional).Thus, the phenomenon can be interpreted as gravity/inertial induction.
a.The basic formula QG of the quantum expression of the Newtonian gravitational potential is: ф(G)=-Ф(i)w, where w is the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational (~ vibrational) field.}
b.“Giving the interval ds the size of time, we will denote it by dт: in this case, the constant k will have the dimension length divided by mass and in CGS units will be equal to 1,87*10^-27", Friedmann, (On the curvature of space, 1922).
[The ds, which is assumed to have the dimension of time, we denote by dт; then the constant k has the dimension Length Mass and in CGS-units is equal to 1, 87.10^ ± 27. See Laue, Die Relativitatstheorie, Bd. II, S. 185. Braunschweig 1921.]
c. Apparently, the following expression takes place: μ(0)ε(0)Gi=1, which means that Gi=с^2 where i is inertial constant, i=1,346*10^28[g/cm]; or k°=1/i=7,429*10^-29[cm/g]:
k(Friedmann)/k°=8π; where k°=r(pl)/m(pl)=r(G)/2m(0);
i=m(pl)/r(pl)=(1/c)m(pl)w(pl), w=[r(G)/r]w(pl).
d.That is ф(G)=-[Gm(pl)/2c]w=-(½)[w/w(pl)]c^2=-(½)(√Għ/c)w=-Ф(i)w.
e.w(pl)=(√8n')w(relic)=8πn'H; where H=c/L, L=8πn’r(pl) is the length of the phase trajectory, n'=4*10^61.
H=1,72*10^-20(sec^-1).
f.By the way, it turns out that the universe is 1.6 trillion years old.
g.The area of the "crystal sphere": S(universe)~n' λ(relic)^2~n'S(relic).
r=2.7*10^29cm, L=2πr.
P.P.S.The inscription on the ancient Roman clock: “More than you think”.
Holding a BASKET of Bread and a Fish!
11:00 You're vision only has to be around 20/25 to 20/23 if you live in a rural area.
Edit: Supposedly, blue-eyed people have better night vision, so your mileage might vary.
Students will say, what is position nor positions given? Knowing each positions knows belongs in front of HIM?
The Humility "i" sitteth with HIS "AM".
Why do so many people assume alien life is so much more advanced than us? Theres probably a lot of life far out there that is basic, like microscopic.
Only human beings can think in the sense of having thoughts in the mind. The reason is simple, having thoughts in our mind is a late phase of language development when speech in internalised. No other animals have external language so even less a late internal stage development. Does not mean animals do not use their brains. Does not means that a tiger does not act in a highly intelligent and creative manners but it does not need to think for doing this with thought in its head.
Can't handle this "NEW WINE"!
Indeed even all old minds Shared who's minds?
Little New minds will say, doesn't takes a whole lot to bring a smile!
The things that alway confuse me about the BBT is what was around the singularity for the start of the cosmic inflation event? Wouldn't there have to be space for matter and motion to expand? Also, the singularity itself doesn't make sense. A dense, hot 0D point. It's really just a mathematical character in the equation. But how does nothing morph into something? Nothing (0D) morphing into something (3D) in zero time? To me it seems like something, (atoms) would have to be eternal, always assembling, disassembling and reassembling into objects for ever.
with a capital (silent) K. It's a nothing letter in "know".
Something instead of nothing is our gobbledygook. Self-refuting.
Euler's identity not equation
I agree with Mike saying words are just place holders for a phenomena until we figure out more. The problem comes into when these concepts are reified and used like objects. Concepts can't move or be moved in a scientific theory. Just like the poetic phrase, "love moves mountains". We know that love can't move mountains in reality, only other objects like bulldozers and backhoes can do that. It's the same with gravity or energy moving something. It's fallacious. Also, math is only descriptive. You can't explain the physical mechanism of why a pen falls to the floor when dropped instead of the sky by using math.
Yet, our beautiful will say, many old BOTTLES came in front of HIM! Bursting!
Some will say what is NBA? Students will say, NEVER BE ABSENT!
The truth of Everything is : GOD IS!
Who can do such position?
M Shermer, Please think about what you imply after your “stuff happens…..even if you’d been a doctor…” words.
The fact that your guest’s story is so exceptional (due, no doubt, to her individual experiences) is the very opposite to what you imply.
Bad childhood experiences generally amount to disadvantage and negative social outcomes.
In justifying this premise:
(1) If God does not exist, then moral knowledge does not exist.
Certain actions are morally wrong, but moral wrongness is a curious property when you think about it: it’s nonphysical and empirically undetectable. To illustrate what I mean by moral wrongness being empirically undetectable, imagine a moral nihilist (who disbelieves in moral wrongness) and a moral realist (who believes in moral wrongness) observe some jerk kicking a dog just for fun; the dog whimpers in pain and runs away. Both agree on all physiological and psychological facts, e.g., that the dog felt pain and suffered minor injury. The moral nihilist says, “I don’t think moral wrongness is associated with that action.” The moral realist says, “I think moral wrongness is associated with that action.” There is no empirical way to determine who is right here. Both views agree on all the same empirically observable facts. In that sense, moral wrongness is empirically undetectable.
But if moral wrongness is non-natural and empirically undetectable, how do we know about it? In practice we rely on moral intuition. The theist could believe that God has moral knowledge and designed our cognitive faculties in such a way that when they’re functioning properly, we intuit certain elementary moral truths.
Given atheism however, even if atheistic evolution resulted in us having true moral beliefs we wouldn’t know those beliefs to be true. Why? Because barring the supernatural, nonphysical moral wrongness is causally inert, and our brains would give us the same intuitions of moral wrongness existing regardless of whether moral wrongness existed, and this seems to undercut such intuition from properly justifying our belief in morality. We would thus not have moral knowledge.
To illustrate with an analogy, suppose a cyborg knows she has a metal-detecting implant installed in her brain that’s designed so that when a widget is in her hand, the implant delivers a strong intuition that the widget contains metal if and only if it contains metal. Suppose however the metal-detecting implant later malfunctions such that it would deliver the intuition that the widget contains metal regardless of whether the widget contained metal. Then even if the widget in her hand did contain metal and she believed it contained metal on the basis of her intuition, her belief wouldn’t count as knowledge. Moreover, if she learned the metal-detecting implant would give her the intuition that the widget contains metal regardless of whether the widget contained metal, she would no longer have adequate grounds to believe the widget contains metal. Similarly, if we would have the same intuitions of moral wrongness existing regardless of whether moral wrongness existed, we couldn’t rely on moral intuition to believe that moral wrongness exists. Since if atheism is true we’d have the same moral intuitions we do regardless of whether morality existed, this undercuts our grounds for knowing that morality exists.
I named a today's quick video, "The Pharisees of Modernity - etc." Thanks for the content. I didn't mention your name, simply replied in a proper and complete manner. A YT comment thread is a poor place for much more than YT comments. I have now replied properly. And where it should be. Not on some channel where no one sees us.
@@danielpaulson8838
Unfortunately it seems you severely misunderstood what I was saying. I've left a comment there.
46:40 the Kabbalist idea of tzimtzum explains that
From thy little New minds even though old!
So "before" the big bang, there is this little nugget, sitting there in nowhere, because the little nugget is space. Then it suddenly rapidly expands, right?
It's more likely that there are many universes bubbling away and this is our moment to be self aware within one. What we call a big bang was just the start of ours. As a course analog, think bubbles in a sink as hot water pours on the soap . We emerge in one of those but we are so tiny we think that one bubble is all there is. We need to get outside of our biases.
Something coming from nothing makes no sense to me. Good interview.
The creation event described by the Bible is meant to be a love poem to the Hebrew people. Was written by Moses.
It’s important to remember time is a relative proposition by special relativity and theoretical quantum mechanics.
Time flow on our sun flows differently than our moon is an example.
Another consideration is that Adam was not created as a child. He was created with age. The earth was created with age
Etc…..
Why Is there something instead of nothing is a bit of ridiculous question because there’s no such thing as nothing, it takes something to observe it. It’s moot.
You left off
I think you may have misunderstood the question. The question is asking why there is anything at all as opposed to it not being the case that there exists something. This is a major question in philosophy with multiple possible answers.
@@MaverickChristian You leave lots of empty comments. What a pile of insecurity emerging from the garden. The fruits emerge and they are thistles. Looking for someone blind to lead?
Michael I've followed U for year's but M8 your comment at the 40minute mark that sometimes "I don't even know if I exist"- Michael if I pinch myself+ I feel pain - Then I exist.Do I know Everything - No. But M8 why not simply get on with Life,have fun+ help other people if we can. Your conversation with your guest is "airy fairy"- Not trying to be rude M8 but you have lowered your standard's.
Lord look at my paintings!
Unseen nor seen in front!
What if dark matter are those civilisations that catch all the energy from their sun.
Is like remembering who said, "if ye Love me"?
ok
Physicists have a hard time thinking outside the box. Not to be rude but the answers they are searching for will most likely come from the outside in. The bakers, the nurses, the students, those that are less educated in the disciplines of modern physics, they will find your answers with their fresh minds.
Instead of unguided process but remember!
Speaking unfamiliar ways of speaking!
10:39
time of past does not exist yet until the future even exist before it observe where the present lies on consciousness to be experiences it as journey its destiny of configuration
@wadetisthammer3612 - 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is a question that is in principle unsolvable. Because god made everything! But why is there god rather than nothing? God was made by god2! And where does god2 come from, and god3, etc. You can also ask the question: What lies north of the North Pole? - Red.
_ 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is a question that is in principle unsolvable._
It's not in principle unsolvable. The theist could say that God, a metaphysically necessary entity, is the first cause.
_But why is there god rather than nothing?_
Because God is metaphysically necessary.
@@MaverickChristian This is like a copy and paste fallacy blabber head. Lol How very insecure. Buddy, we don't all live in spiritual fear and need to believe in bs just to feel alive. The nursery is down the hall.
If God alone is being, Being, then the universe, the creation, is non-being--illusion, as Eastern religion intuited, having a net balance of zero, as Dr. Johnson suggested.Time might then be seen as the essential marker of non-being, the condition of coming into and then ceasing to exist. Kierkegaard's journal contained a couple of provocative observations along these lines. "God does not exist; He is eternal. God does not think; He creates."
Nature is stuff. Not a He.
Man, at this point there is no diference between shermer and myers.
Skeptic ... Michael Shermar with guest - PhD .,. Ms. Kelsey Johnson.! [ Cool ] :: *Astronomy "" ?? "" Entropy? :: Yes! :: But? :: Does? :: Does a ''cohesion factor'' .,.,. maintain ... at all ... maintain a ''parallel'' - - connectivity venue in a ''universal'' sense intrinsic to and upon our KNOWN existence from our position of comprehension as ''us'' being assessed as an = ''ignorant'' living ''creature?'' .,.
Why say? Lord the very 1st step HE will be consumed in front of Thee!
Great riches nor wealth looking at HIM the "eye of the needle"!
You should just interview yourself, Mike
the word 'nothing' has a definite meaning - but you are trying to use an element of language to define a new physics - it seems to be an abuse of language - Wittgenstein might say it is just part of your word games, and if you only used words as ways to describe discrete objects or ideas, the problem might disappear. Physics requires words - not the reverse
Not being consumed in front of HIM?
Concepts of nothing? Sounds vaguely familiar.
Some will say, who's the THE I AM ALMIGHTY GOD?
46:36 to 47:01 - This guy really needs to have a theist philosopher of religion come on his channel; he doesn't seem to gave a good understanding of a theist's answer here regarding why there is something rather than nothing.
1:15:20 to 1:15:31 - That doesn't follow. Again, a sufficient philosopher would be useful here.
There is no good answer. Only answers that circumvent emotional fears. Theists talking about this as if they have anything tangible is about as intelligent as talking to the clown head at a drive through about Astro physics. One has to leave their own thinking behind. That’s called the blind leading the blind.
@@danielpaulson8838
_There is no good answer._
There are philosophically better answers then the _de facto_ straw men that Michael Shermer put forward. One answer is that God is a metaphysically necessary entity who is the first cause. The response, "You could always ask...where did the god come from who created something out nothing?" is terrible because the answer is to trivial: God is metaphysically necessary, eternal, and never began to exist. This isn't as applicable to the physical universe since, even if eternal in some sense, it doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that is metaphysically necessary (e.g., there is evidently no physical particle that is metaphysically necessary).
The assertion, "If God created something out of nothing then apparently you can create something out of nothing" smells like an equivocation, since _ex nihilo nihil fit_ used in e.g., the _kalam_ cosmological argument refers to there being no cause at all, not merely the lack of a material cause.
Even if you don't like the theist's answer, Shermer's responses to it are nonsensical and seem to be based on philosophical ignorance.
@@danielpaulson8838
_There is no good answer._
The theist could say that the reason why there is something rather than nothing is because God is metaphysically necessary and is the first cause. Even if you disagree with this explanation, the _de facto_ straw man Michael Shermer put forward is a terrible response; e.g., that one could always ask the question "Where did God come from?" when God is uncaused and metaphysically necessary on this view. (It's as if Michael Shermer isn't aware of what the theist's position is here.)
In contrast, the physical universe doesn't appear to be the sort of thing that is metaphysically necessary (there are no metaphysically necessary particles). The best option for the atheist is to just say that there is no explanation at all for why there is something rather than nothing, and no explanation for why physical reality exists.
@@MaverickChristian Okay, first, I don't care about Shermer's views in this comment thread. He is not here to clarify or speak on his behalf or what he may or may not have said taken in or out of context, so you don't get to and I won't entertain that idea either.
You bring something of your own to discuss, right? Something you can answer questions about?
That said, from what I presume you believe some God created all. The God of Abraham, yes? The Jewish God Yahweh, derived from Babylonian God Apsu? You didn't establish your foundation. You sure don't get to establish Shermer's.
@@MaverickChristian Do you know that even if not by definition, but by action, Christianity is Idol worship?
That's why there are thousands of different denominations who don't share common values. They just worship, then make God and Jesus into their beliefs.
Do you see that Mav? One more variant.
I have a theory, the universe is a fried chicken 🤗
And it taste like chicken as well
Yet, old bottles looking afar off saying, why all HIS shared "i" Am are "NOT BURSTING"?
Why say shared "i" Am students? Lord like thy Host Meek Elon given HIS OWN POSITION in front of THEE! INDEED!
What God?
Some will say, why HE speaks parables nor unfamiliar ways of speaking?
What else? Lord likewise Elon knows can't do thy position?
Wise, Scribes, and professors from who's mouth? Ye remember came from?
If you use the Big Bang theory to argue for a beginning of the universe, you are mistaken. The Big Bang theory is flawed; the universe is cyclical, without a beginning or an end. It is contradictory to claim that God created time while also saying God has always existed. For something to have always existed, time must exist concurrently. True spirituality is about bridging the gap between the physical and nonphysical realms, uniting matter with the intangible essence-the formless source-that brings matter into existence. To truly comprehend this, one must delve into the realm of supernatural abilities, particularly the phenomenon of materializing objects through the power of consciousness.
@kevinp198x This is just a brief comment. I’ve explored these concepts in depth across entire chapters, which cannot be fully addressed in a comment section.
@@supernaturalabilities -- Of course you have, you spiritually enlightened superior you.
@kevinp198x -- It's the big words man. You put enough of 'em together and *BING* it all makes sense. Well, after you have your aura cleansed and your chakras aligned.
Double layer foil on this one.
Now many wise saying HE must be drunk and all HIS SHARED "i" Am?
Michael should keep quiet, he wastes the time of the duration of the video. Brian Greene has the same problem and he is more educated in physics
LaBalco James aka Mr. P.E.D Is Not! Will Not! EVER Be Anything Close To The Best NBA Player Of All Time….. That’s MJ The GOAT.. I Can Name A Few More Who LaBum Is Not Better Than…
This woman is so boring and her conversation is prosaic.
Great conversation