In a new partnership between Oxford and Cambridge, researchers in physics and philosophy Simon Saunders, Joe Silk, and David Wallace at Oxford University, and John Barrow and Jeremy Butterfield at Cambridge, join researchers at a cluster of US universities including Columbia University, Yale University, and New York University, to establish the field of philosophy of cosmology as a new branch of philosophy of physics.
Videos produced by Distant Object Productions - www.distantobject.com
Some may be mistaking the stars in the sky for their reflections in water. Real numbers, time, etc. are useful abstractions... but what exists must be constructible-like LEGO bricks...like growing collections of changes...Infinities only exist conceptually, in possibility spaces...
1 week before i saw a UFO, i saw Nima talk about this based on the Amplituhedron video from the YT algorithm. Hes discussing things i've pondered since i could read. Its my understanding that there is a geometric mathematical substructure which underpins spacetime. The infinities we experience as Singularities which form event horizons at both ends of the size scale cause no such troubles in geometry and math. Perhaps we are experiencing a procedurally generated high defenition holographic simulation. Per Goedel we wont find a material expression of it, the large universe we experience as large creatures made of small things, is a set of inertial frames and no proof for the idea of its existence can be derived from the rules that govern the sets existence. Is this why math so effectively explains reality?!
Well if Sean Carrol believes in the multiverse hypothesis, would that mean there is an infinite amount of universe where a god or gods exist? So technically speaking god does exist
I think you misunderstand the implications of the multiverse. It would mean there are potentially an infinite number of realities/variations. That doesn't mean fictional characters actually exist. It just means the stories describing them might be different in different realities.
@@Fawglemynoggle I didn't say god can't exist but as described religiously it seems like a fictional character. It seems like the adult version of an imaginary friend.
this is SO DUMB. I can't believe an idiot like me can immediately see all the errors this guy makes that he AS A PROFESSOR isn't able to. Lord have mercy. 😂
I like Sean Carroll, I always listen to him. He's an eloquent speaker and relies on persuasion which I admire. However, I don't find his idea that we shouldn't ask WHY to be convincing. We should ask all sorts of questions including the why. Science can't explain how the universe came along -- the big bang is one theory, but it's just that. I find the idea of a God creating the universe to be no less deserving as an explanation than Sean's scientific theories.
Just because you can imagine a universe where a god does not exist does not mean that such a universe actually exists, it just means you have imagined it :)
@@alankoslowski9473 That's right. Your faith in Naturalism is quite dependent on naturalism. Good luck with that. It takes more faith to believe in your god. Random selection isn't what I call intelligent. Biblical Truth is. Is that random too?
@@JD-ev1uj That randomness isn't intelligent is exactly the point. Many aspects of fundamental nature seem random which seems like a evidence against god.
@@alankoslowski9473 Mathematically the time frame for evolution doesn't even come close to fitting their world view. 14.5 billion years isn't near long enough. In fact in reality it's impossible. all the intrinsic codes and cells and eyes and lungs and everything else is impossible. And you should know that.
@@JD-ev1uj Even if it's true (it's not) it's not evidence of god. Discreditting evolution wouldn't be evidence of anything else. Evolution might be false and there's no god. Unless they're shown to be mutually dependent there's no reason to assume they are.
THE XTIAN APOLOGIST W. CRAIG IS A WANNABE PHYSICIST PRESUP WHO THINKS THE UNIVERSE COULD ONLY HAVE SPRUNG FROM THE SUPERNATURAL LOINS OF A POWERFUL AND TIMELESS BEING THAT IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. THE PROBLEM IS THAT HIS DENIAL THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT COME FROM THE NATURAL WORLD IS JUST AN EMPIRICAL PRESUPPOSITION LACKING EMPIRICAL PROOF. SAID PRESUPPOSITION HAS BEEN AND IS USELESS TO SCIENCE. TO ADD INSULT TO (INTELLECTUAL) INJURY, THE BIG BANG AND QUANTUM THEORY HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO WITH THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION HE PROFESSES. THE BASIS OF HIS RELIGION IS THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS WHICH IS A NON SEQUITUR FROM ANY HYPOTHESIS OR THEORY OF PHYSICS.
@9:50 "a hypothetical 3D universe with a particle moving in space and time, the question remains the same: when, where and how it started from nothing(no time, space, matter/energy). Let's side aside metaphysical and explore the scientific side, the mathematics describing the origin is undefined at time <=0 .
37:37. Richard Swinburne would rather posit a god or gods rather than posit physics that allows for an extraordinary number of universes. His error is in this: the astronomical number of universes is the result of a physical model that corresponds to the actual evidence. Adding a god or gods helps not at all. We still have the astronomical number of universes; but in addition we have an infinite being, an omni-god, that can break the “laws” of nature at will. If this is the case then our science theory cannot forbid anything, cannot predict anything, can no longer explain anything. Swinburne offers a false choice.
A claim has been made by some geneticists that the Homo line of primates was very close to extinction 900 Kya. If it had gone extinct, we would not be here. The alien from outer space would not conclude that this extinction was “meant to happen”, but only that it did happen. We evolved in a hospitable cranny of the universe that is otherwise inhospitable for life. It did not have to happen. It almost didn’t. End of story.
Carroll makes a funny, clever little dig at 32:12.It is possible to hypothesize that a god selected the parameters of the universe so that life/humans could survive. After all, what is the purpose of the universe if we do not exist? The arrogance of H. sapiens to assume that we are the reason for the universe, a universe that existed fine without us, will continue to exist once we are extinct. Someone comments on this video an adage they say is from Native American people: if dogs and horses conceive gods, then they conceive them as dogs and horses.
the biggest problem between religion and science is the boundary between the two. Religion should not explain how the universe works and science by explaining how the universe works can not get from its inner workings the existence of god or any other metaphysical cause. If one can deeply study the Ford Model A and profoundly understand all of its inner workings one cannot derive from it the existence of Henry Ford. we can imagine that an Henry Ford is needed to construct the Model A but no one can derive scientifically and mathematically the existence Henry Ford from it. Science deals with the inner workings of the universe and Religion deals with the moral nature of it. because we can't derive morals from its inner workings. Science can not proof that it's immoral to kill another human being.
One can say that morals are created by humans and not religion but, I argue that religion is an emergent property of that process. We can say that morals are given to us by god and that's ok, we should leave it at that because that assumption is in itself a moral assumption and should be dealt within the moral framework. Humans are profoundly spiritual creatures and need spirituality. If scientists aim to take that away from society and transform science in a atheist religion with the aim of creating an atheist society people will fulfill their need for spirituality in instant gratification games. (maybe some can live happily in at atheist world and have the power of fulfilling themselves alone but society at large don't)
Objection. Morals are more of a human instinct. Right now studies show that moral features form more from the genes, and not the outside factors. Same with IQ and other stuff. It's mostly bottlenecked by the genes. A fat kid will most likely stay fat in a skinny family even though they eat same stuff. There are twins and even threes that were separated into different families and after growing up they found out they like the same things, wear similar clothes and such.
For a smart man he's not very smart... I haven't taken any advanced classes and understand every bit of this and as much as he prides himself on not making assumptions and using science he makes alot of assumptions....
Of course science makes assumptions. The major one is that nature is not lying to us. It works pretty well, especially when we compare it to religion, which always lies. ;-)
@lepidoptera9337 if you misinterpret it sure I could see how it could appear as lies, I never once stated he lied just didn't understand some concepts that are beyond his understanding
"God is not a good theory," but an infinite number of fully formed, human occupied universes that instantly and continuously branch off of each other like bubbles exploding out of a shaken bottle of champagne, is a better theory? Seriously?
Yeah, Sean Carrol has made his own little religion there. That much is true. It is simply a misinterpretation of quantum mechanics, though. The actual theory is completely rational and once you understand it it's also pretty boring.
@@lepidoptera9337 It is not the least bit rational if it suggests that copies of us (along with the entire universe) instantly (and literally) spring into existence (branch off of this universe) simply to accommodate all of the "possible outcomes" inherent in the superpositioned wavefunction of a singular electron as it moves between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen in the double slit experiment.
@@TheUltimateSeeds The actual theory doesn't suggest any of that. What the theory says is the following: 1) Individual quantum measurements (when and where a quantum of energy will be detected) are not predictable. 2) For suitable systems these detections are independent. 3) Systems for which these detections are independent can be described with ensembles that produce frequentist expectation values. 4) In the large numbers limit (same as for probability distributions) these frequencies can be approximated by the Born rule (describing the measurement apparatus) and a unitary dynamic (usually the Schroedinger equation) of an abstract mathematical object called "wave function" that describes the free quantum system's ensemble. That's the actual theory. There are no copies of the universe in there. There is a statistical independence assumption that may or may not be true for any one particular system. And, yeah, then there are people like Sean Carroll who will talk total nonsense about quantum mechanics because they didn't pay enough attention to the structure of the theory. Although in case of Sean Carroll I suspect that he has simply discovered that one can sell books with MWI which one can not with the real theory that is about as boring as watching paint dry. It's all about money... no different from religion. Nonsense sells.
It's nearsighted, ignorant & silly how proponents of science are a) seemingly happy and willing to hypothesize on the existence of conscious beings from other solar systems and/or galaxies, while b) still having no practical idea at all regarding what consciousness itself is, yet c) still presumptuously promote that consciousness, as the source of all existence, is a non-explanation. I don't agree with most (man-made) religions' presupposition that the top god is divinely masculine. I rather think the original word/sound was/is 'aum' and that it's the first form of shakti, the divine feminine, from which all other forms arise. In any case, it's the child's perspective that appearances matter most, which is analogous to science postulating that consciousness is an extension of the brain-&-nervous system, rather than the other way around. To sum up, as the great philosopher said, "Stupid is as stupid does."
There's no evidence of consciousness absent a functioning brain or similar structure. We also know changes or damages to specific brain regions consistently affects consciousness and behavior. A dead brain still exists but and there's no evidence of consciousness. All evidence definitely shows consciousness depends on a functioning brain and there's no evidence a brain depends on consciousness.
I feel like you use the term scientific theory more like the word hypothesis. In science a theory is not just any idea that may or may not be true. Gravitational theory, plate tectonics, and germ theory are all categorized as theories, but that does mean that we don’t know that gravity is real, or how earth quakes start, or that pathogens exist. A theory is the highest level of understanding in science, while a hypothesis is more similar to your definition of a theory. God and gods are not a theory because they cannot be tested in any consistent way.
A hypothesis needs to be testable, as well, so the gods are not even a hypothesis. What is a fact, though, is that all religions work like the Nigerian scam. :-)
I just buy 5% of what this mate has said, don't use the word science in vain, this talk could be summarised in what he says in min 37:40. "This is not good science". The Great Contradiction of this man min 14:12 to 18:05 VS his closing phrase 52:45. Embarrassing
@@Daiyve A mentally normal person is not troubled by facts. That we all have to die is a fact. That's the price we have to pay for evolution creating us. What matters is how you live. And no, I don't want to share your misery. It's absolutely unnecessary to participate in such bullshit. If you are depressed, please get mental healthcare services. Our professionals know how to treat what you are feeling. I am not one of them, though, and I won't pretend that I can help you. I have to find a greater purpose in life, you say? How about I get myself a PhD in physics and design one of the central components of one of the world's largest high energy physics detectors? Ooops... I actually did that when I was young. What did you do with your life, other than begging for attention on the internet. ;-)
thank goodness this prat got to live to see the downfall of Christianity, the burning of churches, and keir starmer bring in islam as the official protected ideology of britain, he deserves to live another 50 years to see what his hand wringing idiotic hen pecking bullshit has help proliferate.
Just know that you can't prove God the same way you can't prove why the universe exists. One thing is certain though. There is no evidence to God other than media and there is concrete evidence of the universe existing.
Physicalism is not sufficient either. It does not know how to explain consciousness and still does not have a theorie of quantum gravity. The standard Modell is a huge achievment but will be replaced bymodels which give up on time and space and have mind or god or whatever you want to call it as its primary principle. I am sorry current physicists are a bit like flat earthers they just do not want to give up on physicalism despite only having gigantic math models which cannot be falsified and do not make any predictions, it is a total mess.
We don't need a theory of quantum gravity. It has never been observed. Neither has your consciousness. If I asked you to prove to me that you are conscious, then you would have a very hard time. ;-)
That's the problem... because gods share that property with bullshit. Bullshit is not bounded, either. It is truly omnipresent and omniscient. Well, at least the bullshitters are. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 God is a personification, go beyond the idea of a divine personality, a big sky daddy, and use the term God to mean the everything (and the nothing), and do not accept the version of cosmology and history you have been given.
"His eye is on a sparrow" but yet he doesn't seem to mind when a meteor comes from and wipes out all of the dinosaurs. The argument from fine-tuning is weak at best. We are designed to live in a small pocket of the universe. The universe isn't designed just for us.
@@bardoface His point is that for the many (eg William Lane Craig) who invoke scientific principles while explaining why they believe God created the universe, here's why, taken as an actual scientific theory, it doesn't work very well.
He looks like a kid in the thumbnail but, It’s good theory because I started arguing with THEM about pre-destination long before I knew it was a thing in physics and what’s any of this about BUT arguing with someone about something? Anything.
Ok let’s say there is no God🤣 - why do you care? (Feelings😷) - survival of the fittest😎 🤣 -- And how are you so sure he’s not reproducible, If you’ve never GENUINELY SEEKED? 😂 Uhh uhh, YES THERES NO MILK BACK THERE - why? UHH BECAUSE I COULDNT SEE OR HEAR ANY (and someone told me that the milk would speak😷)😂
God is not a theory, just a fact And the facts are ALLL the evidence points to a creator (regardless of anyone’s opinion) “That’s how facts work” Plus if you really care about the truth (there’s also evidence against evolution) “Even tho there was none for it in the first place” 🤣 Evidence for God - a creation points to a creator - life does not come from non life (Something ETERNAL is Not Nothing 😂) - laws of the universe point to a law giver - (& everyone’s favorite - absolute morality) If everything was relative, murdering women and children would be acceptable as long as most people agree (Which is why JP says if you truly believe we came from nothing, Then there is no good or bad, so who are you to say what someone else is doing is bad, because it hurts your feelings?) I don’t think people who don’t have a conscious anymore, care about your feelings 😂 --- Plus the evidence against (Just ask) - but the real question is - why are yall so emotional about something you claim not to believe in (There is a reason) If yall were right, and everything came from nothing, according to that, “religious😷” people would just be good at playing survival of the fittest😷 (Even tho millions have been murdered all throughout history) (And will be murdered till the End “of this timeline”) So why be mad? 😂 --- Yall can get mad at your own creators “followers” (which is not known by their name tag😂) But that doesn’t change the facts And you can get mad at your creator and say - “I Don’t Understand - therefore you shouldn’t do blah blah blah” But your already assuming wrong - It’s not his fault, and even if it was, what can you do about it? --- And which “religion😷”? - none - Jesus is not a religion - (which you Will understand IF, you stop letting your preconceived biases (which were implanted) control you) - if you genuinely want to find who is your creator, ASK HIM YOURSELF - if you don’t Seek, you don’t FIND Yes there are difficult situations and questions, But they don’t change reality Reality is objective Perception is subjective --- And why do you think you would believe: - aliens (which coincidentally look exactly like the movies😂) - multiverses - no free will - (because Neil grass says habits make it difficult😢) Why would they want you to believe that? - plus ALLL the fear (turning small statistics - into something you actively put energy towards and think about) “Scientifically😷” - we create what we focus on and give energy too, You think the “experts😷” don’t know that? - when they tell you to be afraid of every little thing, cause you might get sick or die or “bad thing😷” (It’s implanted with a biased narrative “& emotion”, so when it comes back up, You’ll look at it negatively, and once you accept reality, You’ll blame it on your creator) ---- Since when did people shift from “not believing🤓” -> to hating😷 God ? I thought it was about the facts or evidence? (Spoiler alert it’s not) - but WHY? - no not “Gods fault😢🤬” --- OH YEA “Why bad things happen😢😷?” - because we all have a choice - choices can be influenced, but not forced (it’s complicated, but so is God😂) --- And there is no ultimate justice (which everyone wants & cries about) without him -- Again you can get mad without actually knowing anything, Or you can ask him yourself & find out - you don’t Seek, you Don’t FIND (which is a major point) -- It’s a choice, so you can’t really cry about it
Ed why did he make us like this, knowing it would happen? - he didn’t - his creation is good - but his free agents - have a choice to use it for “good or bad” (for now) Eventually he will take his followers (people who wanted a relationship with him and trusted in him) - to the way he wanted life to be, “still choice”, but without all the temptation and evil -- Before you start getting mad even tho this would still be considered “survival of the fittest😷” 😂 What’s wrong with a relationship and trust? 🤣 (MONEY POWER😭🤬😷🤓✊🏽) 😂
Ed why didn’t he hide himself, and why won’t he just give us proof😭? - he did (give endless proof) or evidence - some of us have just been conditioned to hide from it and hate it (based on strawman arguments & preconceived beliefs) - plus smart people’s opinions, don’t determine reality -- PLUS - the ULTIMATE cheat Code 🧑💻 IIIIISSSSSS? - Curiosity + Trust JUST ASK HIM - Genuinely (without being a disrespectful child, who doesn’t understand) - (Seek & FIND - then Trust) - NOT virtue signaling😷 -- PLUS - it’s about community (learning from others / SHARING) - again - preconceived biases and strawman arguments don’t change reality 😂 - just because you don’t understand, it doesn’t mean he’s wrong
Ed What about suffering😢? - complicated - can be VERY helpful (also depends on perspective- RAS) - unnecessary pain? (“Evil People”who inflict unnecessary suffering - will be judged Justly in the end) ---- - but the other thing is “what is good and evil”? (According to what standard) - according to the Jesus which there is a lot of historical evidence for (we are all evil in Gods eyes, which is why he took the pain WE DESERVE “regardless of how we feel😷 about it”) (Most people are willing to show more respect to a perceived high status human, But not their own creator🤣) --- Plus - it’s way to complicated for us to judge people’s future - everyone at some point has had good and bad experience with everyone - plus if we look at what we are told about the way God judges (it is based on how we judge others) (we can also just ask him individually) - making the timeline always changing, because people can CHOOSE to forgive someone or judge them worse for something they also did (plank in the eye) Which is probably why only the father knows when the End will come - because people will be making a choice until the last day
But Ed, isn’t it based on my feelings😷🤓? You HAVE TO be nice to me, or it’s wrong🧐 “Because that’s how reality works🤓” 🤣 “But when my group does it, ahhh it’s ok, they have good intentions😷” “It’s for the betterment of society🤓” --- Oh yea I forgot - yall know yall are the carbon they want to get rid of right? 😂
He dismisses philosophy, yet at the same time, he is using philosophy when he is talking about what is empirically testable and verifiable. Empiricism is an epistemological interpretation and that is from philosophy. Aristotle was an empiricist and not all philosophers sit in an armchair all day. The armchair philosophy is for the idealists who reason in vain. In fact, before 1833, Scientists were called Natural Philosophers. The word Scientist was coined in 1833 by William whewell, an Anglican Priest and Man of Science. To say it simply, Science emerged from it's Philosophical Roots, and when the growth of knowledge reached maturity, Science produced it's fruits!
This guy's abiity to think progressively has become petrified. If your not trying to move forward in this field than get out of the way and make room for those that are.
