I really enjoyed this conversation with Ian. Here's the outline: 0:00 - Introduction 5:32 - Nuclear physics and plasma physics 8:00 - Fusion energy 35:22 - Nuclear weapons 42:06 - Existential risks 50:29 - Personal journey in religion 56:27 - What is God like? 1:01:34 - Scientism 1:04:21 - Atheism 1:06:39 - Not knowing 1:09:57 - Faith 1:13:46 - The value of loyalty and love 1:23:26 - Why is there suffering in the world 1:35:08 - AGI 1:40:27 - Consciousness 1:48:14 - Simulation 1:52:20 - Adam and Eve 1:54:57 - Meaning of life
Lex , with all due respect your the only person I look upto...please keep making videos...I watch everyone of your videos. loads of love..I keep saying this againa and again.love you
@Lex Fridman I am researching ball lightning phenomena, and came across these videos which seem to describe a new particle or phenomena, that may be related to nuclear physics and plasma physics. I would be interested in other people looking at this and help reject or verify the phenomena discussed. Here are the videos I found: Magnetic Signature of Strange Radiation (4 parts) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oEyxKFUqvU0.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QJxr3WnLQAc.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rtDd3PuGTyM.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9QLJQHqu_KY.html
4 года назад
Ian didn't do a good job of talking to you about God, Religion, Scientism, Atheism or Faith. Go to Stephen C. Meyer, or David Berlinski. Or maybe just straight talk to a theologian like Taylor Marshall or at the very least an apologist like Matt Fradd.
A few months back RU-vid started offering your videos on my feed as something I might like to watch. More recently I decided to start checking the videos out, and I have to say, I've become an enormous fan of these long-form interviews, and your ability to conduct them with not just the appropriate level of intellectual rigor, but with the appropriate level of kindness compassion and good-will. Frankly I now see you as the thinking mans version of Joe Rogan. About this particular interview, I think it speaks volumes that you can conduct productive interviews with both Ian and Dawkins, and I mean that as a significant compliment. While I describe myself as a Spiritual Agnostic (meaning I feel we are greater than the sum of our parts and we cannot fully understand our intrinsic nature purely by a study of our physical components *thus Spiritual* and that we cannot define God, meaning it makes no sense to argue the existence or non-existence of something we cannot define *thus Agnostic* ) I found myself enjoying much of his wisdom, even though I do not share his underlying belief system, for the simple reason that it simply does not seem rational to believe in a personal God. What I will say is that I become more and more convinced that what someone believes is far less important than who they become because of it. Perhaps it is even the reverse: That some people have an innate calling towards love kindness and compassion, and that religion offers them a way to grow that part of their existence, and science and rational thought might only serve as a barrier to them taking that journey. Who am I to say that such a path is wrong? My path feels different, and as much as I disagree with a lot of his talking points, I won't let that blind me to the simple truth that this is a good man who on balance can and does make the world a better place.
_"I feel we are greater than the sum of our parts and we cannot fully understand our intrinsic nature purely by a study of our physical components thus Spiritual"_ Could this spiritual component consist of a sort of emergent behavior like consciousness (not that I have a clue what that even is, but it surely must be dependent on the function of the brain) or do you require a component that is independent of the physical universe (like a soul)?
@@lordkekz4 I have no way of knowing this but I think it makes more sens to think it is emergent which certainly fits with my personal view that the mind and body are intrinsically connected. One minor proof I have of this is that when I look after my body it seems to help the health of my mind also.
I’m trying to answer your question for myself. I need to ask, what do you mean by “physical universe”? Do you consider energy independent of the physical universe? Light? Seems like nothing is independent of the universe (and why add “physical”?) My guess is, your question is sort of creating a scenario that doesn’t really make sense merely for the sake of having a question, but I could be wrong.
@@mrroberts9230 With physical universe I mean everything that is subject to the laws of physics and is part of our universe. Anything we can emiprically detect (like matter, light, energy, the fundamental forces) is by definition part of the physical universe. I think the distinction between the physical universe and possibly metaphysical entities (like souls or spirits) makes sense to ask for a question, as the latter cannot be reasoned about using empirical science.
@@axiom1650 do you think that Lex would be willing to do a "virtual" interview? The current travel rules would make it impossible to do an in person interview with someone from either of those companies.
"We seem to be more afraid of shark attacks than car accidents" is a brilliant way of simply explaining to non-scientific people the importance of well-defined interpretation of data.
@@johngrunwell6101 more risk riding in a car i'd assume. I just imagine the media's effects are far more powerful when were told its real rather than fiction
I truly enjoyed this podcast, even if I'm not a religious person I can understand and empathize with everything he said about God, the meaning of life etc etc
Thank you for having Dr. Hutchinson on your podcast. We've had him on as well. I'm grateful that you have an open mind as to what he had so say and encourage you to continue to have scientists and technologists who are also people of faith on your show.
Hutchinson is a very clear and likeable speaker. At around 1:15 I suspect he hasn't read The Selfish Gene, though. He should, as it points out the biological underpinnings of what he's talking about, namely the origin of benevolence and perhaps even faith.
@@danellwein8679 Neither would I but for the clear reasoning provided by Dawkins and others. Natural selection finds and utilises every available resourse to advantage living things, the carrier of the genes. It is the genes (and gene combinations) in us and all other living things that carry through the generations, randomly mutating but naturally selected to weed out the ones that can't compete from those who carry a slight advantage. If you're not convinced but are curious then I strongly recommend reading a book on natural selection. The Selfish Gene is a good one but there are others. Darwin's book On the Origin of Species is also valid, although perhaps a bit tedious for some, and predates our knowledge of DNA and genes.
Thank you Lex I just found your channel this week. I'm so grateful an thankful to have found your podcast. Thank you again an your guests for all the knowledge you share. Sending positive energy. 💜💫
Hi Lex, As a fellow software researcher and long-time fan of this series, I think an interview with Hank Green (of vlogbrothers) would be interesting. I recently finished his book "A Beautifully Foolish Endeavor", and think it raises some good questions - some related to artificial intelligence and communities surrounding future technologies.
All this talk about plasma made me curious about the Electric Universe! Lex !! Please interview Wallace Thornhill!!! It would make a lot of people's day!
I really enjoyed learning about the fusion and ITER. Regarding the second part; the historical tales of the divine existence is subjective to the narrative suffering and greatly differ with the temporality of events. The unbearable loneliness of the individual entity without a form of social organization, makes us act and believe in accordance with our environment. The comfort of beatitude often prevails doubts ;)
Interesting discussion on Fusion, why didn't LENR or Lattice Confinement Fusion come up? I would like to hear an experts honest opinion on it. The theory of resonating hydrogen in a lattice catalyst. Thanks for the interview's Lex, fascinating discussions as always. I really appreciate the markers too, very handy.
I am so glad that Lex let his guests express their points of views as long as they need and it is great that this scientist explains his faith with complete confidence. He clearly knows the Bible and has spend time with God. He speaks in a wonderful way, so that normal people can understand all the sience stuff. Furthermore, he is very peaceful and respectful. He is not old-fashioned. This is the fashion which is always is in- fashion. People who criticise his "belief sysyem" without any respect are very often jealous folks, or people lost in nonsens, or some are too lazy and coward to search God. Brave or desperate ir curious people search God and will find him. Of course, he was never dead as Nietzsche said. Very intelligent people like poor Nietzsche believe often to be at the same level or even above God, but of course cannot understand the Theodezie Question and other stuff like the Sinnesfragen, so they have to "kill" God ... And we humans (specially the clever ones) must be HUMBLE enough to know, that even we can create many complicated Engineering stuff and AI, and wonerful art and music and so on, men will never understand everything that exists because we are ONLY humans (es gibt keine Übermenschen, wir sind einfach nur Menschen). The Theodezie Question cannot be answered by men, is not meant to be answered, otherwise there would not be any reason for this life ... So glad this intelligent man explains many things so well, and I believe too.
Thank you for always including an outline to your podcast interviews. Got here from watching Yannis Pappas. Personally prefer taking an online or uni course to learn about things, but also enjoyed this content!
I have always been very curious about how well respected and rigorous scientists can reconcile their faith in God and their faith in the scientific method. This podcast has cast a bit more light on the subject so thank for another thought-provoking interview Lex.
Science has never been a problem for theists. The “conflict” was simply a philosophical assertion spawned by Spinoza, entrenched by Nietzsche, and propagandized by the “New Atheists.” The truth is that the scientific tradition came out of theism, and fits in perfectly with a theistic worldview.
THANK YOU for pointing out the silliness of the carbon obsession within environmentalism. The active biosphere destruction is much more pressing than the passive.
Yes man. This is exactly the video i wanted to see. Nuclear Fusion is the breakthrough we need, and lack of awareness of this subject in the general public, is exactly what should change to bring this technology to reality
Thanks for mentioning Stanisław Lem. As a big fan of this Polish writer, I recommend: 1) Golem XIV 2) Dialogues Unfortunately, I don't know if these books have been translated into English, but for sure into Russian. Both items relate to artificial intelligence. Of course, I also recommend all other books as a crazy fan of sf and science.
He talks about it in #98 podcast with Kate Darling (who is absolutely gorgeous btw. :D not that you ask) I don't remember it well, so i rather not try to speculate. Go watch it :)
its about human machine interaction, if i am remembering correctly. he also left mit and is making money out of the podcast to live while build it. all the more reasons to sypport him through the sponsors!
Having known the data of world population birth rate has declined from 4.8 in 1990s to 2.4 in 2020. And continued declining below the minimum 2.1 rate by which the generation is unable to replace itself.
Lex, good introduction, with which I completely agree, including the reference to Solaris, which I don't remember so well after forty years, but saw Stanislaw Lem being ashamed by the homonymous movie....Congrats 🌟
hello lex, I see your pressing interest in consciousness and you have done great work asking folks from different background. I was wondering if you wanna check swami sarvapriyananda and maybe invite him to the podcast. Since we all are open to ideas, would love to have his and ventandas perception of consciousness into account too.
You, Lex Fridman, should make an interview with Wall Thornhill and listen to the Electric Universe sun model, if of course - you are allowed to step outside the closed circle of mainstream science. He has interesting things to say about plasma, and more people could learn about his theory for how galaxies are created. It's absurd that Wall Thornhill has not been nominated to a Nobel prize - but of course, he has been thinking out of the box on his own, and that is not appreciated by the established community of Einstein-committed scientists.
This whole overpopulation issue is simply not based on facts, in most western countries the problem is the exact opposite. World population growth has been decreasing since the 60s and most models predict it to top at 9 to 11 billion by mid to late century and to decrease after that
Could we use vantablack as essentially a flow straightener for molecules and collide particles within a noble gas atmosphere essentially combining 3 current elements? Or would the vantablack be destroyed in the process?
Wow. this guest is a rare breed. You don’t hear too many scientists speaking about religion. His bit about the earth’s problem with overpopulation was depressing though.
I loved all the focus on fusion energy however I do wonder why you never asked your Father all these questions as well? I know you touched on his work as a plasma physicist but nowhere where the questions as deep and wide on fusion as in this one. Would've loved your fathers take on it as well :)
George (Bishop) Berkeley’s concept of realty was that the universe only exists because it is held in the mind of god. So, unfortunately, Hutchinson’s ideas on this part of simulation theory are hundreds of years old. See Berkeley’s Three Dialogues Between Hilas and Philonious for the full argument.
I never thought that I would care that much about this nuclear reactor stuff. Funny what life does. I have some residual ptsd listening to this one. At the start of the "pandemic" I was exposed to an excessive amount of the Uranium 238 metal. I ignored the symptoms for about one year until my symptoms got severe and I was in debilitating pain and I was breathing very heavily. After one year of exposure, I became a walking nuclear reactor. But, I wasn't powering anything. Lol. Just making people sick with the fumes coming out of my pores and eyeballs. Lol. People thought that they were getting covid. Some memories I have. Took me awhile to figure out what was the source of it all. My first indication that it was something serious was at my work, the air quality machines Oxygen was dropping down to 68 % when I was in the room. And some people started to get pnuemonia. Some just got sick and recovered. No one could figure out why. The rooms CO2 went up to 3800 ppm at my worst. By that time, I was gasping for breath. And I had pinging pain jumping around everywhere in my body. I still didn't know what the hell it was at the end of the first year. I thought that it would just go away at one point. I consumed extremely healthy stuff. I tasted bleach in my mouth that was unbearable at one point. So, I tested myself at one point and found out that I had an excessive amount of the Uranium 238 metal. I figured out the source at one point. Got rid of the source. And, one year later on, I'm just dealing with the metal breaking down now. I no longer feel like I drank a cup of bleach. And I feel only slight traces of the fumes coming out of my eyeballs. So, I think that I've improved. I stopped looking at my air quality machine. Because it was depressing to keep seeing the words air quality polluted in red. But, I am curious how I'm doing these days. I don't work indoors anymore. So, I've just been letting myself ride this out and see what happens with my health down the road. I did not have an existential crisis over this. I had many of them when I was younger. So, this was no big deal. I don't talk about this with anyone. It's not ideal for people to know that they are around a person with radioactive issues that will probably make them sick. Lol. I just keep these things to myself. And I'm just riding this out. Life is interesting. I don't know what else to say.
Economic development is the best population control out there. Birth rates are plateauing in India as well as the West. It's also the best way to protect ourselves from natural disasters - many more people used to die from them before industry was causing climate change. I'm all for moderate environmental safeguards, but extreme solutions that hobble our economic output will likely do more harm than good. Eliminating infectious diseases is probably a more cost-effective way to "save the planet" (meaning humans).
What about Perrats Petroglyphs? He has had been studying plasma since the early 2000s.. .. Anthony Peratt was an Astro-physist and Nuclear-physist.. He found something that was history-changing..! RU-vid; "Perrat's Petroglyphs"
The only responsible interaction between science and religion would be before the big bang. It would be like using hearsay say in a court of law. They're two different things.
I appreciate Ian's honesty about the real time-line for fusion energy and his support fission energy. This man must understand the first law of thermodynamics, unlike our current political leadership. A great next topic could be on thorium fission. Get on that Lex!
Some wishy-washy arguments here from i) firstly deciding that you want to believe in (in a very very confident way) and then ii) secondly doing mental gymnastics to justify your belief in the first place. Hope he doesn't think this way when he writes academic papers.
You need a well spoken sycophant to promote the industry's monotonous and unimaginative posture over the decades that.........here we go........." Yeah, there was a radiation leak, but nothing to worry about here." I'm 75 and across all these years I have NEVER heard the AEC acknowledge ANY hazard from ANY radiation leak.........despite.......statistical evidence that screams of the opposite reslity.
Excellent podcast. Talking to people with views different from your own and being able to do so with curiosity and with a genuine quest for ideas and without any acrimony in truly refreshing.
Yes, Lex did a great job handling the Christianity discussion and I'm glad that he included this in the discussion. In that spirit, I tried to maintain an open and interested mind through it too, but I found Hutchinson's answers to be very disappointing. For starters I think he created a straw man with his concept of scientism - who really discards the value of history or other things that don't allow for scientific analysis? And even on the most obvious and fundamental problem - why suffering - he could do nothing more than dance around the issue and try to undermine even the idea of looking for a reasonable answer. Keep in mind that it is his all powerful God that created this world, so why didn't that God simply create a world that could maintain consistency and meaning without the need for extreme suffering and injustice?
@@TomsDone I agree that his beliefs are on very shaky ground. I won't go into specifics of his arguments but in general when subjected to scrutiny theists have a way about them where they portray their beliefs as very generic and completely in the realm of the unknown so that they can say this is something science can't answer so I will choose to believe X, however they bandy about very specific notions of religion when speaking to fellow theists which are not at all in the unknown realm. I doubt there will ever be a way to change people's religious beliefs through argument, there has to be a consciousness raising event in their life which brings them to the right conclusion. I do think there are a few smart theists who adhere to the falsehoods of religion in name only, not necessarily maliciously, rather to be able to continue to participate in their communities and to hold on to their identities. They also probably recognize some of the memetically evolutionary benefits of religion despite its tenuous hold on reality, and so stand by it knowing fully well that it is turtles all the way down. What I enjoyed most about this video was the patience and openness which Lex afforded him despite having a polar opposite point of view, I would like to be able to incorporate that kind of patience in my own interactions. Also some of the nuclear physics stuff was pretty interesting too.
@@anoopramakrishna For: "patience and openness which Lex afforded him"; Firstly, How do you know he has the polar opposite view? Secondly, Lex asked the questions about religion and faith etc. of course he is required to be kind to his guest; the fact that you take this as "affording" is nothing but an insulting act.
@@bigbangind "How do you know he has the polar opposite view?" I've been watching this channel from before the podcast started, so I made some educated guesses about Lex's stand on religion. However it is true that I can't authoritatively state that and probably my use of the superlative here was inappropriate. For the second point, maybe I was unclear in what I meant. You are right that Lex invited the guest and the onus of basic propriety is on him. Perhaps I projected my own feelings onto the conversation a little more than I should have, however when looked at just as a conversation between two very accomplished people with different views and to be able to do so with mutual respect and patience it gives me some hope that such open conversations can happen in general between people with different opinions, I might be extrapolating too much, but one can hope :)
@@TomsDone well, with issue of suffering there's one underlying problem, it is very emotional subject, that allows rejections of ideas on emotional basis. So i think he tried to focus on that, instead of on rational argument. Personally what i understand from the way he answered on that, is that he basically implied, that no matter what he said, it wouldn't be convincing enough, because for many people (sooner or later for everyone) it is emotional issue and emotions will overpower reason anyway, so it's better to be dealt on emotional level. As far as i understand it from the Bible, the suffering isn't something that God allowed, it is something that people chose. The suffering or goodness weren't created by God. It may sounds cheesy and beaten up as an argument, but it doesn't make it any less viable: evil is an absence of God. God could maintain world without suffering only one way - by forcing Himself in our lives and our decisions, basically making impossible for humans to make decisions that would go against God's will. But thing is, for God our freedom is much more important, than our safety of well-being. He could create creatures that wouldn't have a choice but to do what He wanted (in fact, in Christianity there are such creatures - angels), but He wanted to create something, that would hold His image, and the most distinct quality God had in universe before humans - was His freedom. We don't know why He wantes to create other free beings, but He did, and as a part of freedom, He offered Adam and Eve either to follow Him, or depart ways. They chose the latter (does not matter here if you believe in a story of Adam and Eve itself, it's just the idea behind that story). Why didn't God planted the Tree of Knowledge outside the garden? Or why did He planted it at all? Basically the answer is that He offered fhem choice. I don't even think that it was some special tree, it may have been some random one, and knowledge of good and evil came not from supernatural qualities of the fruit, bit from the experience. When Adam and Even decided to go against God, make Him absent from their decision making process, they experienced something new, something that they have never experienced before - evil. And that made them understand what evil is and, most importantly, what good was. Basically when good was norm for them, they didn't know it. So basically very first story in Bible explains to us, why evil exists in a world, and answer is - our freedom. Choosing between good and good, or better to say God and God wouldn't be freedom. But choosing between God and absence of God - is. I don't know how well i was able to present my thoughts here, considering also that English isn't my first language and i never engaged in serious religious discussions in this language, so i just hope that it's understandable at all. Also the whole issue of good and evil and free will and original sin are so huge, that explaining it in short and very clear form is very hard. Btw, i also am very surprised, that in debates almost no theologian is using this argument. There can be reason for that though, because in Christianity there are denominations (and very prominent ones, for that matter, Catholicism for example) that don't believe in freedom of will. So maybe Ian is a part of such denomination, who knows, but this argument is the most obvious one from the Bible itself.
Greatly appreciate how Lex managed to probe Ian's faith without challenging it in a confrontational manner. A conversation between two first class human beings. Thanks to both gentleman.
He's also a lot more intelligent, and his questions are infinitely better. My worry for his podcasts growth is that intellectuals generally do not draw a wide audience.
These are great replies. Lex and Joe have similar but different shows. Lex is natured so that he's easy to talk to. Rogan has been about 10 different shows at this point and the move to Spotify has brought even more change
They are geared towards entirely different audiences and I enjoy them both, when I'm feeling intellectual, I watch lex, If I just want to watch some guys kick it back and talk shit, I watch Joe. Lex himself said this when he went on the JRE that the people who recognize him on the streets from his appearance on there are Markedly different than those who know him from his podcast.
I find it disturbing the number of people in this comment section who think that it is impossible to hold scientific as well as religious views at the same time. Those people seem to have some adverse reaction when religion is mentioned and automatically jump to the conclusion that a religious person is mislead about his/her religious beliefs, even when he/she is shown to be perfectly sensible when talking about other subjects, like this is the case here. To me, this is a sign of immaturity and of an incapacity to question one's own beliefs. Quite sad really.
Lex is so great too. “Cognizant of the fact the he/we know very little...” this is the humility we all need, while maintaining our ability to be curious, the learn and to think. 🙏
Either he's got interesting facial expressions that make him look like he's smiling, or he's just super stoked about the subject and literally constantly smiles throughout the video. I hope it's the latter :)
