Robert Wright & Freeman Dyson (2003)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 тра 2017
- Consciousness
Direction in history
Faith and reason
Limits of science
Science and religion
The anthropic principle
Freeman Dyson is professor emeritus of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study.
Legend has it that those equations remain on the chalk board to this day.
Wonderful Prof Dyson. I love his self deprecating humor and permanent humbleness throughout the whole interview. He really tried to downplay his achievements. And Robert Wright was not having any of it, I really hope he's developed a sense of humor over the last 17 years. RIP Professor Dyson!
I❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ this stuff.
16:15
He states the "Universe is friendly to life." To me, that couldn't be further from the truth. Life appears to be amongst the rarest of phenomenon in the Universe. Millions, perhaps billions, of events had to occur perfectly for life to exist just on this one planet.
...It depends mostly on one's perspective on life. In any case, one thing is for sure: just because one doesn't know about, doesn't see it, or is not aware of life in any other place, dimension or time-space reality of any kind, doesn't mean that life doesn't exist anywhere else but on earth.
What is the unknown path between the known and unknown?
That answer tells you how to go anywhenwhere, and return correctly.
A+ in physics, F in philosophy...
The only why, purpose, & reason is only in the minds of humans, none comes from any other thing or place.
except that the minds of humans do, implying that their subjective qualities also have an embodied status in the objective world. think a little outside the basic materialism box.
My learning from this is the strength of the early years indoctrination process that anything has, be it religious or cultural. A normally highly rational man with an elevated ability to see patterns in his environment and yet totally under the spell of his formative experiences, he even expressed the contradictions frequently but was powerless to reject them. Just proves to me that Plato’s idea to separate children from parents is a very wise one and put them into the care of rational humans until post puberty.
I think I’ve observed a trait although know little of psychology and using my fabricated terms, those more creative and emotional individuals seem to be held spellbound, but those with the opposite traits can escape it’s control. I guess it’s the same tool as the stage hypnotists use.
I am disappointed in Freeman stating anything positive about anything that believes in a creator. I stay as far away as I can 100% from anything related to any gods/creators.
...said the ants after discovering glass panes on either side of their nest...
...point being - Dyson isn't saying there's an all powerful god, just saying there may be something we've yet to discover having an origin very different than anything imagined here-to-fore.
I think that there is a real problem with atheism being worn as a badge of intelligence. I'm suspicious of people who declare that they know anything with 100% certainty when most experts in various fields of science happily declare that there is a whole lot of uncertainty about most things. My personal view on "is there a creator" is that there could be because we don't know with absolute certainty that there isn't. If it exists, is it a man with a beard who had a son called jesus and that he lives in a place called heaven that we can go to when we die (but only if we have lived to a standard which he has deemed correct)? Well I wouldn't put money on it to be honest. I had to listen to the office bore crap on last week about how he considers anyone who believes in a creator to be intelligently deficient which was followed by him sharing an article with everyone on simulation theory. (?????!!!!)
@@markc7469 you agree with the office bore, though, right? You and he are suspicious of people who claim to know something. He is suspicious of theists and you of a subset of atheists: those who say "there is no God" rather than "I see zero evidence for God".
@@edwardjones2202 You're right with ' "He is suspicious of theists and you of a subset of atheists: those who say "there is no God" rather than "I see zero evidence for God". ' but that wasn't the point he was making. His point was that he is intellectually superior to theists because they believe in a creator and he doesn't (until he read about simulation theory that is).