Leonard Susskind - Is the Cosmos a Computer?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 тра 2024
- That the cosmos is a computer sounds like a modern metaphor, a way of explaining how things work. But some make a bolder claim: that the cosmos is in reality a computer, not just as metaphor. This would mean that all that exists in the physical universe is in essence the computational process of the universe itself generating itself. Does that make sense?
BROWSE THE CLOSER TO TRUTH STORE: www.bonfire.com/store/closert...
- Limited time only. Taking orders from Nov 15 - Dec 5 2021.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on if the universe is a computer: bit.ly/2YMSkJs
Leonard Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, and Director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. He received a BS in physics from City College of New York and a PhD from Cornell University.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I actually could visualize and understand what susskind was saying, he has got to be one of the best physics explainers.
One of the greatest scientific minds.
Yeah, he’s saying my brain wasn’t built to understand it, I can get that part.
Yes, being a layman in physics, I sort of understood, quite a few complex things that he explained in lucid and clear terms. But mostly, genius physicists tend to over complicate things for a man with normal IQ
Almost sounds like 'convenient engineering'... the universe displaying all/most contained information at its surface, like a giant spherical screen, where observing from the outside could be possible without interfering with the inside, where an imagined 'first layer of Gods' can watch, study and be well entertained.
The ultimate aquarium. A metaphysical puzzle piece to the age-old question of what Gods do when an instance of eternity gets long towards the end, and knitting just isn't enough to fill long winter nights.
Right? I've heard this all explained before but it only just sank in.
Love Leonard Susskind. He can reduce complex ideas to a form that is intelligible to dummies like me.
Agree he is the best at it.
same lol
that is true intelligence
The Feynman Technique
ua-cam.com/video/6Waurx8e-1o/v-deo.html
So did the catholic church for centuries. There were those who never bought that either... ideas should never be reduced, they should be revealed.
If the cosmos is a computer can someone please reload the 2018 save file? Thanks.
I think I've encountered a few corrupted files in my lifetime!
Please don't reload the 2018 save file, I don't want to go through the 2020 again.
How do you know that didn’t already happen?
Why not 2002
@@vc6596 Hell yeah
I love how these brilliant videos come out either once every six months or once every six years 😄
Yeah, Closer To Truth starting filming in the around 2010 I believe. This video is likely 6 or 7 years old.
Susskind is FAR from brilliant.
Leonard Susskind "I'm not an historian but I'll venture an opinion: Modern cosmology really began with Darwin and Wallace. Unlike anyone before them, they provided explanations of our existence that completely rejected supernatural agents... Darwin and Wallace set a standard not only for the life sciences but for cosmology as well."
They were two losers just like Susskind is. All of them reject science and what it proves.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block When a commenter loses the plot halfway through the first sentence of their comment, I stop wasting my time reading the tripe.
Susskind, like Feynman are phenoms. The fact that they both can explain extremely abstract and counterintuitive ideas to lay people and simultaneously understand in a profound way the actual mathematics and physics that are foundational to these ideas includes them in a very select club of geniuses.
They only appeal to their fellow losers who believe them.
Leonard Susskind "I'm not an historian but I'll venture an opinion: Modern cosmology really began with Darwin and Wallace. Unlike anyone before them, they provided explanations of our existence that completely rejected supernatural agents... Darwin and Wallace set a standard not only for the life sciences but for cosmology as well."
They were two losers just like Susskind is. All of them reject science and what it proves.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block "Real science says nothing and does nothing", says an account whose owner owes its very existence to computer science.
We need a new series of interview with Lenny!
This episode really does get us "Closer to Truth"
Susskind cares little about truth.
Leonard Susskind "I'm not an historian but I'll venture an opinion: Modern cosmology really began with Darwin and Wallace. Unlike anyone before them, they provided explanations of our existence that completely rejected supernatural agents... Darwin and Wallace set a standard not only for the life sciences but for cosmology as well."
They were two losers just like Susskind is. All of them reject science and what it proves.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Working on a branch of physics called supersymmetry, Dr. James Gates Jr., discovered what he describes as the presence of what appear to resemble a form of computer code, called error correcting codes, embedded within, or resulting from, the equations of supersymmetry that describe fundamental particles. Gates asks, "How could we discover whether we live inside a Matrix? One answer might be Try to detect the presence of codes in the laws that describe physics." And this is precisely what he has done. Specifically, within the equations of supersymmetry he has found, quite unexpectedly, what are called "doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block codes." That's a long-winded label for codes that are commonly used to remove errors in computer transmissions, for example to correct errors in a sequence of bits representing text that has been sent across a wire. Gates explains, "This unsuspected connection suggests that these codes may be ubiquitous in nature, and could even be embedded in the essence of reality. If this is the case, we might have something in common with the Matrix science-fiction films, which depict a world where everything human being's experience is the product of a virtual-reality-generating computer network."
I see some resemblance between error codes and a feedback in automatic control that makes an object stable in the presence of random disturbances.
Say that again
More proof of a Creator.
Also observing phenomena like Zipf’s Law, Benford’s Law, fractal geometry, synchronicity and the fine-structure constant, and we soon start to realize our so-called laws and constants are nothing more than parameters within a large algorithm we call the universe. The fingerprint of God.
They're usually called parity check codes or hamming codes, yeah be mentioned it a few times and it sounds really tantalising, it could also indicate that information loss is a fundamental property of the universe, so it has a mechanism to reconstruct lost information. Also, information loss may indicate that the universe is not deterministic.. Well well!😬
Glad to see both those guys doings so well
10 years ago !!
Thanks for this talk with a wonderful guest. Susskind makes this topic really interesting and engaging. I highly recommend reading his book: The Black Hole Wars. It is in-put-down-able.
He is just a loser that cares little about science.
Leonard Susskind "I'm not an historian but I'll venture an opinion: Modern cosmology really began with Darwin and Wallace. Unlike anyone before them, they provided explanations of our existence that completely rejected supernatural agents... Darwin and Wallace set a standard not only for the life sciences but for cosmology as well."
They were two losers just like Susskind is. All of them reject science and what it proves.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Could antimatter be on the surface / event horizon of universe? If so, quantum matter information might be projected into universe from antimatter at the horizon of universe?
Love it. Keep them coming ☺️
Yay ☺
Loved his music...
Especially "Workin for the MCA" and "Freebird"
I always understand Leonard, even if the concepts he shares, are probably the most complex and exotic in science.
I see what a liar he is and doesn't think much.
Leonard Susskind "I'm not an historian but I'll venture an opinion: Modern cosmology really began with Darwin and Wallace. Unlike anyone before them, they provided explanations of our existence that completely rejected supernatural agents... Darwin and Wallace set a standard not only for the life sciences but for cosmology as well."
They were two losers just like Susskind is. All of them reject science and what it proves.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block You need help
@@markmauk8231 then stop playing with yourself, you nasty fella, and help me by showing how creation happened naturally and got around the laws I gave. Oh, wash your hands first.
@@2fast2block God isnt real
@@infinitekeys1603 Wow! I gave science and this is somehow what you think is good evidence to get around that science...
"God isnt real"
Now give that tiny brain of yours a rest.
“There are things out there in the universe that we know but nothing”
(David Robinson Crusoe 2021)
I'm afraid that everything is alot more complex than we can ever imagine. It is highly unlikely that there is an enormous hologram that has all the bits of information for the entire Universe. The Universe is absolutely extraordinary and I am sure that the more we delve deeper the more complex it will become. So if there is anyone out there that claims he or she knows 99% of everything they are totally oblivious about what we are dealing with here.
Perhaps our knowledge of the universe is like the size a single water molecule within it. Perhaps our knowledge of 'the All' is infinitesimal. However, even if above was true, it does not take away - no, it rather adds to mystery, hopeful purpose, depth, liveliness of the observers' adventure... along the magical path of discovery, where every answer likes to bring in three new questions.
Or..... It really is simple.
@@romzeezthegreat8585 Philosophy and mathematics are infinitely complex. At some point a hypothetical "simple universe model" would be asked to explain how such ('platonic/divine') qualities, worlds, entities... can exist, function, observe, evolve, live... within the proposed universe model and/or within the minds (resp. neural networks) of observers - alternatively have to declare that such entities are not part of the model; thus renouncing most fashionable materialist ambition.
To my knowledge, there are currently few mathematically provable upper bounds to the aquisition of "physical truths". Historically the progress of physical understanding has never halted and it is hard to imagine this progress halting at a definitive resting point, at a certain level of simplicity or complexity.
Perhaps only curiosity and the age-old dream, but not the actual possibility of "getting to the bottom of it", have been given by the countless entities & parameters of the world we find ourselves in.
@@DarkSkay How can we see all states of the CBR? This is one question that mystifies me. Secondly, we assume that we know all states going backwards from CBR to near planck lengths. There was definitely hyperinflation and if we can prove how it happened then we will be closer to a unified theory of gravity. I think we are a long way off from that, ok crew. Goodluck though
string theory says that all the information in black holes was actually hidden in higher dimension on the strings
Mankind created mathematics in order to access these other realities of the world that our senses can't reach. Best explanation so far.
The best explainer of complexities ever ..Bravo Mr Susskind..Bravo!
yes he is very smartified!!!!!
Thanks for posting!!
I really like the direction Klee Irwin has gone with his Emergence Theory, a code-theoretic approach to information theory which proposes that the cosmos (including the information underpinning the physical spacetime we live in is in deep computational, but is not a deterministic algorithm but a language- a code with syntactic degrees of freedom that could explain the role of consciousness & the possibility of free will. It’s all built off of E8 & studying the possible structure of the vacuum to provide a geometric basis for understanding the link between the physical & the informational (or the ideal if you’re Platonistically inclined).
We effed up the day we started to count and measure things. We limited our reality to hold a false sensation of control.
Of course. Lovely to know men studied this since the beginning of ‘time’. 🙂🎶🎶 It’s cool throughout & there is an unmistakable music. A ‘hum’ if you will and it ‘crackles’. 💫🪐🌟✨
Simulation parameters: Can a basic germ of consciousness upgrade itself into complex algorithm and reveal the face of game designer? 😎
Kind of like playing hide & seek with our little kids. Time doesn't matter to the game designer as he can always fast forward it at will. The fun of it while life evolves into greater and greater complexity (for us in the simulation) to ultimately get up and see behind the curtain 👽
game designer?
Plato said the same thing in different words. His theory of the forms is another way of explaining the hologram we live in, the projection we are and everything is.
The wave function of the universe is similar to the surface of the event horizon. Both aren't able to encode complex relations and emerging complex information...
Love listening to LS. But, this theory is based on the idea of projecting the surface area/ information ideas of black holes onto the Universe as a whole, which seems to assume an equivalence in the physics between the two. Since we don't know the physics within black holes how do we know this equivalence to be true? It could be that the information is held by the Universe in a way that is nothing like that of the unique nature of black holes.
There is an equivalence... The information falling into black holes comes from the rest of the universe, and that information is best described in pixels not voxels
I agree that the video should've contained an explanation by Susskind as to mechanism by which he derives his hologram theory of the universe in total from localized black hole hologram observations.
AH: What if our universe IS just the inside of some other universe's black hole? This, what we see, what we have, what we study, what we are or seem to be, could be what the inside of a black hole is. The mass that made that BH collapsed under its own gravity in its home universe, a BH whose singularity now keeps our newer universe forever separated from, and inaccessible to, any aspect or location in the BH's universe. And vice versa. And from that BH collapse in its home universe emerges on the other side a stupendous White Hole, i.e., our big bang. It's speculative, and maybe fanciful, but may have some useful ideas for thought and exploration. We are the inside of someone else's BH. This universe - that's what the inside of a BH is. And if so, then yes, our holographic universe would be the result of the information stored on the surface of the other universe's BH. What do you think?
@@geoffreytylerpayne Add to that a simple assumption that the information doesn't somehow change in it's fundamental behavior as it travels through our known universe, including when it slams into the black hole's event horizon, and you are kind of forced to conclude that the information inside our universe is "pixelated" everywhere. From there it's a mindbending journey through mathematics, leading you to the only way to rectify that. Which is to just put the pixels infinitely far away, and then bound our universe. Finally, you step back and look at this picture, both literal and mathematical, and realize it's exactly the same picture you got when you described the information structure of black holes.
Now... that's ALL that's happening here. LS uses this fascinating analytical consequence to demonstrate the power of the analytical tools that have been developed since he started his Physics Adventure. But it is no more than a fascinating analytical consequence at the moment. There's no real "meaning" to be gleaned from it.
@@daviddavis-vanatta1017 WoW. But didn't get the white hole conception clearly. And one more thing to add, may be that's why our universe is growing like a black hole increases it volume or surface area by devouring more and more objects or information of the universe within which it exists. May be the event horizon of this BH is ever increasing boundaries of our observable universe. This even supports the hypothetical conjectures about multiverse, that is, a universe within a universe and that within another universe.
But still I don't understand the concept of white holes. And also what about the anti matter? Anything to do with Hawking radiation? What about dark matter?
is it a newly fresh interview or an old record & cuz if it's new, than the most astonishing thing except that out universe is a hologram is that Leonard looks so young and energetic for his real age(81)
Great clip!
Susskind is the brightest Guy alive and more importantly the best educator alive--his sharing ability is the best!
That "alive" part, I mean Mr. Susskind himself is pondering that, at age 81. Hee hee.
I have questions, dr Susskind, is this theory compatible with big bang theory? and if it is, does expanding of universe mean that whole amount of information universe can hold is expanding? or isamount of information universe can hold static, but only holographic illusion is expanding??
As I’ve been saying of recent. So we found the code but, the computer is missing. It suggests that the thing we know of as now is a central processor unit or cpu but it seems to be broken into parts that are needed for the result we see. How’s that happen?
Binge-watching Closer to Truth, here....This one went a bit over my head.
It is been forced upon us from an original thought that had been reciprocated and corresponded to others. I’ve been exploring this idea for at least the last 10 years of my life.
Is it possible that information is unlimited, no matter the "defined" area you are looking at? Is there anything telling us that information is not unlimited, ie the universe cannot actually be reduced to 1s and 0s? What would be the implications of this?
Well articulated words and sentences make all the difference.
I could listen to Leonard Susskind all day...
I knew it! We are in a reality show that is watched by beings that perceive more than 3 dimensions.
Lawrence with Susskind is a must watch.
When was this filmed?
Information within a given galaxy is proportional to the surface area of a black hole. All galaxies are self contained units.
Does that mean that the same message is given forever or does each strand of time provide a snapshot of a different message. If we bring in any theory of a multiverse, what does that mean to this view
If each moment is a snapshot of a unique combination of information, and each moment as it passes divides into symmetric and asymmetric values, the symmetric could possibly go sideways or back in time to create a new timeline. Like a boomerang it goes back and then forward again, describing an arc segment of efficiency, a brachistochrone curve. Do that enough, maybe it describes (burns in) a shape or verse. Function follows form?
So do I have this right? If the expected capacity of a black hole is 13billion terabytes of information, that's what we expect where as the surface is more likely to be 17.5billion terabytes? Or are those numbers back to front, or am I off by billions.
I like the way you described reality how we have to deal with it whether we like it or not and we have to invent a way to describe the truth my hat off to you for put it in in clear language That a layman Can understand
More interesting points from these interviews. Makes me wonder if information in the universe is infinite? Of course, that would be exhausting if you are trying to "figure it out." On the other hand, if information in the universe is finite, that would be disappointing--maybe.
this theory makes sense based on our observations of the universe as a whole. For example, we really don't see or comprehend any boundaries for our universe, and we believe it is finite yet expanding. IF we exist inside some kind of computer simulation, wouldn't it be exactly the same? Let's say we are the product of AI software running on a computing device beyond our senses and comprehension. We likely would not be able to perceive any edge to our spatial existence, we would only perceive motion and change, which in this case would be the expansion of the universe. But from the "outside" where the computer exists, perhaps in another dimension we cannot access, our existence is merely the result of a series of software instructions being executed on a super advanced operating system.
Windows 5000 Pro
How was the computer manufactured ? Is there just one computer that never wears out ? Does it never crash ? Does the computer conform to entropy ?
We can understand the Cosmos, we are it. The most complex structures that we know of in the universe, the human brain, and by extension, human beings, are defined by our use of language. Whatever the science that governs the information on the boundary of the universe, is the same science that governs our brains, and everything else in the universe. Information/language seems to be a recurring theme. The number of electrons in the valence shells of atoms, as you progress through the periodic table, have an emergent numeric pattern. For example, gold is 2-8-18-32-18-1, mercury is 2-8-18-32-18-2, and two along from that is lead 2-8-18-32-18-4. RNA/DNA is unambiguously an information system that reads itself. Perhaps the universe is literally a language expressing itself. The letters of that language are also the building blocks of the universe...
I've always wondered if the size of the universe literally grows with the size of us seeing it and understanding it. A hundred years ago the universe was only as big as the Milky Way, and there was a debate about those nebulas, and the question if they were objects within the Milky Way, or if they were Milky Way-sized objects only much much further away. Perhaps the Universe only were as big as that, but grew beyond it with our ability to see much further? Perhaps "we" are imagining the universe, and by that are creating it?
I've had similar lines of thought. If I was tasked with designing the universe and it had to do computations, I wouldn't want to waste computational resources computing information that was not needed by anything. I wouldn't want sudden spikes in demand to overload the system and "crash" the universe! So how would I solve this? I'd want to put constraints in place (some laws of physics) the help limit the demand for computation to help prevent sudden spikes in load, things like having a max speed limit for how fast information can travel etc.
If the universes history was predetermined (like a movie playing out) I'd also rig the game. I'd know what was going to happen ahead of time so I could ensure I had sufficient resources scheduled accordingly to perform the required computation. Maybe one day I'll apply for the job
Magic is also counterintuitive and I think we have to console ourselves with the idea that we will never understand "the world" - today we have to say the cosmos. This time I can agree to Professor Süsskind! He points at something very true! We need abstract mathematical models to get along, without impossible!
This has been known since Plato described his realms of forms in The Cave Allusion. Also the Ancient Hindus spoke on these topics in their own time.
People have been talking about the same ideas for thousands of years, only the context changes.
The ancient Hindu writings known as the Upanishads have a lot that sounds like modern QM. Schrodinger was very interested in these writings.
Yes.
@@daviddavis-vanatta1017 Yes. Schrodinger was rare example of an educated physicist.
He's basically saying the Universe exists itself within a Black hole
Wonderful description of the human brain Sir!!
"Didn't wanna do it
'Cause I knew what I would find;
We're really only living
In a state of mind..."
St. Germain, 1970's
susskind is a plumber who happens to do theoretical physics
thats why he is so good at explaining these things
What if we contribute to Universe accelerated expansion with the increasing production of information?
Perhaps more civilizations do, as our little info contributions should be very insignificant compared to those kind of scales, like the expansion of the universe
One of the greatest minds of our time.
So why does this channel not post full interviews of conversations they didn't conduct?
Purely speculative, stitched together with bits n pieces of data - it's like images of dark space captured as images when strobe light was showing and piecing them together to put together as image - backed with some excellent oratory skills
How do you explain this in a naturalistic way?
This sounds like Plato's notion of the idealized Forms and the allegory of the cave, where the shadows on the wall (i.e., us and all things) are not really "real" but are just the reflection of the Forms.
All the elemental particles and all the laws of quantum physics they must abide by kind of puts me in the mind of some kind of basic computer programming.
Where is the information in a book? is it on the pages? is it on ink? or is it on the conscious observer that reads and understands it? what is information without something or someone that is reads it...
Is da kawsmooth a smoossie zats za kwesstyon ?
Regarding information and the surface area of the black hole . . .
Given the limitations of our ability to see "inside" a black hole, is it really all that surprising that the physics would sort of tell us that the information would be limited to the size of the area of the surface of the black hole? If so, isn't drawing the conclusion that the universe acts as if it is a hologram a little bit of a stretch? Seems like it to me. Aren't you effectively saying that "the limitations of science paint an incomplete picture, but the picture we have looks like a hologram . . . Ergo the universe is a hologram."
1:19 -- Greydon Square would love this...
Steven Hawking's area of physics but susskind explains it so well, know my sister who never got it,. Finally she understood, thank you
Best channel on UA-cam
Susskind talks about black holes where the information is stored at the surface area. In optical holography information about a volume is encoded on the surface area also ..which is a 1948 invention by Dennis Gabor who got the nobel prize for it in 1971 (the holographic principle is a idea from begin 1990s). So there tHoofd and Susskind likely got the inspiration from also. The claim is that our universe also works that way. Back in the real world researchers found ''strong evidence'' that a holograpic explanation work well at the very early stages of the universe - a few hundred thousand years after the big bang.
"The universe is a message". A host of languages with access to categorically different meanings. Accessed by evolutionally limited interpreters. Does the interpreter determine the interpretation; or does the interpretation determine the interpreter?
Long time ago. not a new interview.
The cosmos is the ULTIMATE computer
That’s an interesting explanation.
You have to know the subject deeply to explain it to others so easily.
That was awesome! Cause it was complete layman’s terms for why we are searching constantly to find what are these innate feelings of our species that everything we perceive in our reality isn’t quite right according to what we are told it is by the leading minds of the day..but the key point was at the end..reality as we know it right now..without the free thinkers and great minds willing to think and test our current theories we are still rocks.
Leonard Susskind explained everything I needed to know about this universe in this living room
That loser can't think his way out of a wet paper bag.
Leonard Susskind "I'm not an historian but I'll venture an opinion: Modern cosmology really began with Darwin and Wallace. Unlike anyone before them, they provided explanations of our existence that completely rejected supernatural agents... Darwin and Wallace set a standard not only for the life sciences but for cosmology as well."
They were two losers just like Susskind is. All of them reject science and what it proves.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
@@2fast2block lol 😆
Can someone help me I have a Question :
Leonard has spoken about the possibility of a black holes event horizon storing the information of all the matter that falls into it and that we may exist within such a structure..If this is so it would make sense that we exist bound to the event horizon as everything is numerical and mechanical in our perception of the known universe?..the problem I see is we had to fall into the void in the first instance and that would mean spaghettification had to occur tearing everything asunder and doesn't that mean that everything we know doesn't exist anymore and we are nothing more than the data stored on the EH?..
If this is a possibility then we can never see the real scale of things because time slows on the EH and time beyond that would be running at a different speed so moving towards it would be pointless as we are entangled in the mighty hold of a black hole
This is a regular theme in for the existence of humans, looks like we're going to have to get used to, reality is often counterintuitive to our experiences.
I think the universe is an organisms, what is a body to a cell? Or an atom.
I would disagree with his model somewhat. I contend that each of the "objects" in the universe that make up everything is addressable (the "computer" knows where it is at all times), just as our personal computers address memory and disk. Therefore, if quarks are the smallest addressable objects, then each quark in the universe has an address.
You have obviously never experienced a hard drive crashing and losing all your data, so I would strongly disagree with you disagreeing
Ever buy a new computer?? those don't know where any of your data is either
and my personal computer and your personal computer also contain different information, so again the POV makes a difference here
Why do all these old interviews keep popping up in small chunks lately?
It seems to me that you can look at the computer as a construction of atoms that follow a script of instructions that we program on the level of ones and zeros, and also, on a lower level of atoms, forces, etc. But The universe can be thought of as a natural computer that follows its instructions (laws of nature).
As for the BH Hologram containing all the info in the hole, We use models, both math and physical, to follow and learn how things work. The models are not the thing, only a representation of it. Why cant the Holo just be a nice convenient representation of the hole but not be the hole itself?
Planck length = pixel?
So black holes turn 3d information into 2d information, making it dissapear from our 3d universe. Just like a 2d being can't percieve our 3d universe. The first and fourth must be absolutely fascinating.
As a licensed ham operator for fifty years, all I can say in Morse code is:
Dididahdit dididah
I like how he pronounces "dots" and "dashes" :-D
The Black Hole analogy: The matter on the horizon of a Black Hole is being drawn into the Black Hole. However, all the matter in our Universe is expanding at an increasing rate away from the origin of the 'SINGULARITY', along with the countless numbers of Black Holes within our Universe. This begs the question, could the Universe, in part, be on the edge of an Horizon of a far greater Black Hole?
What makes it even more bizarre is that the shape of the observable universe is completely flat.
Everyday we get closer to proving we’re in a simulation 👍
P.S. let me know if you come up with the Einstein Rosen bridge equation. Lchaim..to life.
Leonard is Superb.
Susskind elucidates ideas in such a simple manner.
WRONG. Susseking hasnt ideia, so he has bobastic comments.
@maxwell simoes Are you ok? You seem a little rattled over something...🤔
@@maxwellsimoes238 Learn some basic grammar then get back to me, genius.
@@comanchio1976 Somehow what I said has triggered him so much he cannot even type properly, lol.
@@mozzerianmisanthrope406 Please Learn basic good manners before back to me. Stuck up.
Finally a good question ;)
The cosmos is the output. Consciousness the computer.
Kind of reminds me of the allegory of the cave
If cosmos is a message then who is viewing or decoding the message. Cosmos cannot be the message, encoder and decoder all together,right?
Did you read "my big toe" by Tom Campbell?
Yes For Sure....
No doubt.........
The question should be: is the computer inspired by the cosmos?
But isn't this idea kind of analog? Why does it ignore the third dimension?
If this universe is some kind of computer simulation who builds bilders of simulations? Information theory of universe just raises more questions...
What physicists always forget is the information-space required for their theory. As soon as this taken into account one gets the description of reality given by Middle Way Buddhism.
If you assume a "bit" of information takes a finite amount of space (which it doesn't of course) then I'd agree with the discussion. However, a bit of information (a 0 or 1) is an abstract construct which we choose to represent by a transistor on a memory chip. That being said, the discussion is fantasy.