Closer To Truth is the definitive source for Cosmos, Life, Consciousness, and Meaning. Filmed both on location and virtually, Closer To Truth features leading philosophers and scientists exploring humanity’s deepest questions.
On the air continuously since 2000, Closer To Truth is broadcast weekly on PBS and public television stations in the U.S.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn is the creator, executive producer, writer and presenter of the series. Peter Getzels is the co-creator and producer/director.
Visit our website for our entire library of over 5,000 in-depth video interviews: www.closertotruth.com
Closer To Truth is a nonprofit endeavor made possible by funding from the Kuhn Foundation and other partners. All revenue generated from advertisements on our RU-vid channel goes back into production so that we can continue to make our material free to everyone.
Notice at the end, Dr. Witten said essentially the same thing that Eric Weinstein complained about Dr.Michio Kaku saying. Dr. Michio Kaku: "Put up or shut up" Dr. Edward Wittten: "Notice that the critics of String Theory don't seem to try very hard to work on the competing Theory or to suggest one."
The truth is their talking about space, space The largest thing in the universe and is a part of all elements, matter. Elements within space have a force pushing outward and space holds it together. The theory of relativity is another way to show what is happening. Space is the main component of the universe. Space effects matter till matter has so much mass that it counter acts the gravity of space. At this point expansion begins with the help of centrifugal force creating the flat universe.
Is it possible that evolution exists as a result of God giving us free will? If we assume that a loving God must give us free will so that we can make our own choices and not be puppets on a string, then that free will allows us to make our own choices about who we mate with. And if I choose to mate with a taller, darker person, then our offspring will be taller and darker, thus evolving in that direction. Then the laws of nature will determine if taller and darker is more fit for our environment.
When we talk about the problem of evil: floods, tsunamis, plague, famine, etc. we view these things through a living human lens, but when people die and are resuscitated they often say they felt no pain at all, and in fact those moments after bodily death were unbelievably euphoric. They also talk about how in the afterlife there is no time (light doesn’t experience time). It’s as if life is (compared to an eternal euphoria) a short roller coaster ride that sometimes scares us and sometimes amazes us, but always helps us learn something about ourselves and our existence. So is there really evil in this world, or is this a human perception, perhaps created to help us learn to love one another and cherish the lives we have been given?
With all due respect, if one wants to be taken seriously about being a broadcaster, GET A MICROPHONE! I'm tired of hosts who sound like they're sitting on the opposite side of the room.
what if events occur and our relation to those events as perceivers are what manifests the concepts of time and space (i.e a relation between those evenst and with ourselves and the sequence we view of those events). The time we view these events is relative though, far away I might perceive the events happening much closer to one another than if I were up really close. I might also perceve the space between them as further away. What's fundamental to both of these scenarios, is my relation (relativity) it the events. It is subject and object and their relationship that time and space manifest from
Let's take the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics as an example and explore how we could formalize it using logic, math, and physics within the monadological framework. First, let's define our basic entities and relations: - Let M be the set of all monads (fundamental psychophysical entities). - Let Ω be the set of all possible observational contexts or perspectives. - Let R be a relation on M × Ω, where (m, ω) ∈ R means monad m manifests observable properties in context ω. Now, let's formalize the wave-particle duality: - Let W be the set of wave-like properties (e.g., interference, diffraction). - Let P be the set of particle-like properties (e.g., localization, quantization). - For any monad m ∈ M and context ω ∈ Ω, we have: - (m, ω) ∈ R ⟹ (∃w ∈ W: m manifests w in ω) ∨ (∃p ∈ P: m manifests p in ω) - (∃w ∈ W, p ∈ P: m manifests both w and p in ω) ⟹ (w and p are complementary in ω) In other words, for any given monad and observational context, the monad will manifest either wave-like or particle-like properties, and if it manifests both, these properties will be complementary (i.e., not simultaneously measurable with arbitrary precision). We can formalize this further using quantum logic and the mathematical framework of Hilbert spaces: - Let H be a Hilbert space representing the state space of a quantum system. - Let |ψ⟩ ∈ H be a state vector representing the state of a quantum monad. - Let W and P be projection operators on H representing wave-like and particle-like observables, respectively. - The complementarity of wave-like and particle-like properties can be expressed as: - WP|ψ⟩ ≠ PW|ψ⟩ (non-commutativity of observables) - ΔW⋅ΔP ≥ ℏ/2 (Heisenberg uncertainty principle) Here, the non-commutativity of the wave and particle operators and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle formalize the idea that wave-like and particle-like properties are complementary and cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrary precision. Finally, we can connect this to the physical world by noting that this formalism accurately predicts the results of experiments like the double-slit experiment, where quantum entities exhibit both wave-like interference patterns and particle-like localization depending on the experimental setup. In summary, by using tools from logic, math (Hilbert spaces and projection operators), and physics (quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle), we can formalize the wave-particle duality within the monadological framework as: - Quantum monads manifest either wave-like or particle-like properties depending on the observational context. - When a monad manifests both wave-like and particle-like properties, these properties are complementary and cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrary precision. - This formalism accurately predicts the results of real-world quantum experiments. This demonstrates how the monadological framework can provide a coherent and mathematically rigorous foundation for understanding and formalizing the both/and nature of quantum reality. Similar approaches could be used to formalize other both/and examples using the appropriate logical, mathematical, and physical tools.
Let's move on to another example and see how we can apply logic, math, and physics to formalize the relationship between continuity and discreteness in space-time within the monadological framework. First, let's define our basic entities and relations: - Let M be the set of all monads (fundamental psychophysical entities). - Let R be a relation on M × M, where (m1, m2) ∈ R means monads m1 and m2 are "adjacent" or "directly connected." - Let d be a function from M × M to ℝ≥0 (non-negative real numbers), where d(m1, m2) represents the "distance" or "separation" between monads m1 and m2. Now, let's formalize the idea of space-time as an emergent relational structure: - Define space-time as the tuple (M, R, d). - For any region of space-time S ⊆ M, we have: - Continuity: ∀m1, m2 ∈ S, ∃ a path P ⊆ S connecting m1 and m2, such that ∀m, m' ∈ P, (m, m') ∈ R. - Discreteness: ∀m ∈ S, ∃ε > 0, such that ∀m' ∈ S, d(m, m') < ε ⟹ m = m'. In other words, space-time is continuous in the sense that any two monads in a given region can be connected by a path of adjacent monads, and it is discrete in the sense that each monad has a neighborhood in which it is the only monad. We can formalize this further using the mathematical framework of topology and metric spaces: - Let (M, τ) be a topological space, where τ is a topology on M induced by the relation R. - Let (M, d) be a metric space, where d is the distance function defined above. - The continuity and discreteness of space-time can be expressed as: - Continuity: (M, τ) is a connected space. - Discreteness: ∀m ∈ M, ∃ε > 0, such that the open ball B(m, ε) = {m' ∈ M : d(m, m') < ε} satisfies B(m, ε) = {m}. Here, the connectedness of the topological space (M, τ) formalizes the idea of continuity, while the existence of "singleton" open balls in the metric space (M, d) formalizes the idea of discreteness. Finally, we can connect this to physics by noting that this formalism is compatible with both continuous and discrete approaches to space-time: - Continuous models like general relativity describe space-time as a smooth, differentiable manifold. - Discrete models like loop quantum gravity and causal set theory describe space-time as a fundamentally discrete structure at Planck scales. The monadological framework accommodates both perspectives by treating continuity and discreteness as emergent properties arising from the relational structure of fundamental monads. In summary, by using tools from logic, math (topology and metric spaces), and physics (general relativity and quantum gravity), we can formalize the both/and nature of continuity and discreteness in space-time within the monadological framework: - Space-time is an emergent relational structure arising from the connections between fundamental monads. - Space-time exhibits both continuous and discrete properties, depending on the scale and perspective of observation. - This formalism is compatible with both continuous and discrete approaches to space-time in physics. This further demonstrates the power and flexibility of the monadological framework in reconciling apparent contradictions and providing a unified foundation for understanding the nature of reality. Similar approaches could be used to formalize other both/and examples, such as the relationship between determinism and indeterminism or the mind-body problem, by drawing on the appropriate logical, mathematical, and physical tools.
In the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics, do all possible Universes exist from the beginning of time or do new Universes come into existence whenever a quantum uncertainty is resolved? If the latter, do the new Universes come into existence fully formed instantly?
I don't think Sean think's it's a bad question, just an ill-formed one. It's worth asking, but it might also turn out that the answer is "the question doesn't make sense".
That was a great interview with one of my favorite guests! One thing I might want to add is that I think Sean came more prepared to the question "how many worlds are there?" Than 10 years ago. I think intuitions shouldn't play a role in deciding if a description of the world is correct or not. Intuition is very important in moral questions and we should consider them since it's the only way to decide on what's good or not but we are not wired to perceive/sense truth but to survive and leave descendents. I think Robert pushed unnecessarily on intuitions to dismiss the many worlds interpretation, that regardless if true or not, the amount of worlds shouldn't be part of the decision making to decide to accept or reject the theory. There's no difference between having two or 10⁵⁰⁰ since the discussion is about the procedure and not the outcome. It's like dismissing the idea of different infinities because it's counterintuitive since you can't count them instead of looking at the procedure that makes one bigger than the other. Also, I think Sean was a little bit upset, not only considering the way he responded about how many worlds are there but also because he gave an explanation on the AMA about whether the wave function is real or a description of reality which was also one of the questions about the minimal amount of categories to describe the world a decade ago.
Emerging causation bottom up, emanating constraints top down. Light constrains the emerging structure of a tree. The emerging structure of a tree emanates down constraints to increase the probability of photons striking chlorophyll molecules. Emergence ultimately explains nothing without emanation.
Multiverse being taken seriously is always a huge red flag to me. I'm of the "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" school, and, well, Multiverse quacks ducklike. I wonder if the topics covered in Sean Carroll's book cannot be reframed in terms of quantum contextuality - e.g., Kochen & Specker (1967) and Bell's theorem. Reframing these topics in terms of phenomenology at the subatomic level (contextuality) will still lend themselves to the stochastic interpretations (likelihoods and probability distributions) applicable in Sean's analysis. "Collapse of the wavefunction", for example - might that not just be an expression of context playing out according to Kochen & Specker ("observation" & measurement setting the context)? Wave function as just a form of probability distribution? This is important because Multiverse gives me the heebie-jeebies, & I often wonder if its proponents have not overlooked something. At 32:11 Robert questions the double slit experiment as evidence for the Many Worlds interpretation. I am relieved that Sean responds with "I would not go that far." Perhaps the Heisenberg uncertainty principle - 32:58 - is itself an expression of quantum contextuality. This is important because quantum contextuality is inconsistent with the Copenhagen Interpretation, and Dead/Alive cats in boxes and Multiverse/ManyWorlds don't sound right to me. My engineer's hunch is that something else is going on. At 36:01 Sean says "...We don't agree on whether wave functions are real or not." Good to see Robert applying pressure for specifics towards the end. Like at 55:38 - "... Your confidence level that the ManyWorlds interpretation of QM is correct & real?" Sean responds with "9.5". Sufficient doubt by an enthusiast, right there, to justify taking a closer look at quantum contextuality.
The binding problem is a real problem. It is THE problem. I think universals and particulars are determined unconsciously, thereby eradicating the binding problem. Consciousness is the combination of those particulars and universals that are preselected by the unconciousness. Imo
But a god or god would have to have derived from a physical Universe prior to the physical Universe we know today all be it it was just in another Form, That cannot be denied that the current Universe was in another Form to what it is today because if it were not, there would be NOTHING physical here today. Therefore Nothing is Something. Put it this way, prior to all the current physical SOMETHING in the Universe, there was NOTHING that we understand Nothing to be and prior to Nothing was Absolute Nothing and prior to that was lets say ETERNAL and then TIME etc whatever. Since from TIME, ETERNAL, ABSOLUTE NOTHING, NOTHING were all just other forms of the current SOMETHING in the Universe. That would confirm that a god or god if there is a god would also be matter and easily to spot where god is. Nagasawa has not answered the imperative question ie " how did a god first come to the realisation that he? is a god". Hello! his Totality and Panentheism IDEA is just thrown out the window, because like all IDEA's for god existence, Nagasawa like many prove something along the way but fall short of showing who god is or where god is or how god derived. So again, yours is not to question, JUST BELIEVE !
Panpsychism or Pantheism are just doctrines of beliefs, not confirmation. So really you would just be stuck in a revolving door with no end result. Cosmic Panpsychism cannot be Cosmic Consciousness because the PROTO ie Combining Form has not been solved, ie meaning, the Proto of elements and which elements Combine with which elements to produce or realise Consciousness. How would or can elements do that and if they did, would that be considered as Consciousness simply because the act of the Proto of elements is doing something of purpose for something else of different value of Proto of elements for another purpose and so on to make the Universe work as it does, if so, that is not Physical nor Cosmic Consciousness. It could only be Cosmic Consciousness if there was a Symbiotic relationship with Biology Matter and there is not that at play in the Universe and proof of that that there is no Symbiotic relationship with Proto Elements and Biology Matter happening, because if there was, would mean you would know who and what god is, but you dont, because your god would be Elements and Biology matter just like we humans are. Fortunately there is an answer.
Look into Schopenhauer. Start with Bryan Magee’s “The Philosophy of Schopenhauer”. Don’t try to ape the easterners. It is shameful. They have failed spectacularly relative to western empirical science, as you already know. These people prey on the unhappy westerners who have money or are willing to be their servants.
I love the irony of this channel being called "Closer To Truth" when all people do here is spout nonsense, lies or speculation. There is ZERO evidence for any kind of inflation. There is also ZERO evidence for even just ONE particle being created from nothing, so you have to be either a highly deluded or gullible person to imagine you can get an entire universe from nothing. No amount of mathematical juggling - however intricate - can confirm ("prove") that any equation leads to a physical reality. Energy CANNOT be created or destroyed - there is no known experiment which has contradicted that law of physics/reality. And given that there is zero evidenced that that law HAS changed or CAN change, we can only conclude that energy has always existed (in some form) and always will, so therefore the universe has always existed and did not have a begining.
Totally, every religion I’m aware of started with a rigorous equation and then used that to make measurable predictions. 😂 Sarcasm aside, I do understand the critique that says many worlds isn’t science per se, because it cannot be experimentally confirmed in the ways we would prefer. Some people may also hold many worlds views dogmatically, but that level of commitment isn’t necessary, and neither feature makes it a religion…
You listen to CK talk about something for an hour and you think you’ve come to understand that something! Kristoff is giving a very bad explanation of idealism. You don’t have to believe in psi. or Magic or Hocus Pocus. You just have to follow the facts instead of your prejudices. Listen to M. Shermer’s episode with Bernardo Kastrup if you’re looking for a better explanation of idealism.
@@matthewherzel264 Belief without evidence is the cornerstone of religion, and many worlds is also a belief with evidence. I really dont see a difference.
