If there was even remote chance it was right it would be the only "religion" that would constitute any meaning to any existence... I'm more than ok with my Consciousness ceasing to exist when I'll die naturally or by having my brain smashed, but the thought that wherever we or our descendants will do in Universe is in the end meaningless because Heat Death is inevitable was always unbearable for me! And Sir Roger Penrose CCC gives little solace, although better and more sensible than wild ideas about "Universes, creating Universes creating Universes"( psychological artefact stemming from our cave man-like obsession with fertility, anthropomorphism, and materialistic ideas about consciousness that lead to Simulation HYPEothesis culture, what Lee Smolin proposes is just another version of the same cognitive trap... Why should Universe unless conscious care about creating other Universes with constants better for life?! It solves nothing and you may just as well evoke Creator Simulator if you are willing to give any credence to Smolin. Back to Barbour. That's the truly "New Akeropoulos of Cosmology"! Sadly I can't quite grasp myself to believe in it even for a minute... It all rests on a very peculiar interpretation of Quantum that goes against both Orthodoxy and Sir Roger Penrose and Relativist propositions for Gravity. Right? And I also don't understand (you can explain it to me if you do) how can we experimentally distinguish Barbours QM from Everett... as it is basically a Everettian math applied to Time rather than measurement results. As to his Christian faith... It really baffles me. Such a beautiful Universe if real would certainly indicate existence of some Buddhist like Cosmic Consciousness but definitely not Christianity. As religions of a book teach that this world will be erased and God will simulate on some super computer human souls after that. I don't like it. Neither traditional Christianity nor it's Dennettian version. But honestly I think Anirban Bandyopadhyay and his team should talk to Julian how theoretically Stuart Hameroff Theory of Consciousness might work in Julians interpretation of QM? It would be interesting. But for now I'm sticking to Sir Roger Penrose ideas.
Same here. I want to know more about his work and theory. I think i like it and makes alot of sense, at least regarding Time and The Universe progression. I just found this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ka9Tc9eRUzU.html
I look forward to Barbour's further exploration of William James views on consciousness. James who may well have had someone like Barbour in mind when he proposed, in 1910, that it would not be in THIS generation or the the next that the answer would come to the question "Is...consciousness already there waiting to be uncovered and is it a veridical revelation of reality?" Barbour's affirmation can be linked with what James saw as the possible prime reality not if consciousness but of "sciousness"--consciousness without consciousness of self-- a simple "that" before it is doubled into 1. A state of mind and 2. A reality intenden thereby.
Awesome interview Robert! I love Dr Barbour and his ideas..They're not entirely convincing, but wonderful to think about..The Differentials" he refers to that account for our perception of time, is essentially a rephrasing of how Einstein described it, with his two particles changing in relationship to each other.. Julian's first book was a GREAT read, and many parts (Not all) ring true, I'll definitely read the new one..Peace.
At one point he states that plants communicate but is that consciousness. A very interesting comment. Human beings communicate with each other but do we achieve understanding. When communication is understood what is that? Is it like a merge, are we merging something: what is being merged? Our minds? Reality? Most communication isn't complete. That is there isn't one thing we communicate whenever we communicate, there is a gap in communication, a subtext or hidden context. We communicate about one thing in contrast, comparison, detachment and ignorance, about other things. Every successful communication is incomplete in this way. We say one thing but leave other things unsaid. Some things are implied but most things are ignored or detached. Depending on the success of the communication what is implied is fully understood or not fully understood: merged or partially merged. Is there a form of communication that is always fully understood? Does it include the detached or ignored? Would the inclusion of the detached and ignored make it complete. One can communicate with full understanding but not complete understanding. What would be required for each, what would complete understanding merge as compared to full understanding? We humans communicate through language, gestures, smells, dress, and other things. Language communication takes up time differently than visual or muscular communication. Language is primarily sequential. It is not immediate like a smell or push, it is achieved by receiving letters and words one after the other. Only after understanding does the whole achieve success. A push or smell does not have to be processed by the understanding, the body processes it. At once. Completely. Time, therefore, is different for different types of communication. Processing speed, or frame rate, is time. Depending on the communication time is different. Communication is merging. Depending on what is being merged time is different. It may be that there is a difference in what is being merged that makes the time difference fundamentally incommensurate. A processing that leaves a gap that cannot be resolved. A gap that presents itself to consciousness as the world we see. A world where red is not blue.
I agree with Julian that what we call disorder is really just a mixing of structure at increasingly attenuated levels to a point where we have a difficult time to resolve it within the system. But that does not mean the structure is necessarily destroyed, it is more of a the result of our inability to resolve it.
The tendency toward structure and eventual self-annihilation (re-creation), which is what we observe, is incompatible with heatdeath (entropy). The universe only appears to expand in our local neighborhood, but the spongelike nature proves that it is simply flowing about, reflexively creating and destroying massive bodies over and over. Supervoids make this scenario absolutely essential because they defy entropy. Gravity is itself anethema to heatdeath.
Finally, Janus Point book got out. I was waiting for it something like two years! Good luck and all the best with the reception, Julian. Time is the most interesting problematic open question of our time. So they say and keep trying to explain that unseizable flow. Huh.
Lee Smolin wrote 'Einsteins unfinished universe' he clearly points out the direction of observation is local so we can have different universes from different points of view. Al though very separate from each other we can se same happening differently.
Dear Mr Kuhn and Professor Barbour, Thank you Mr Kuhn for bringing science into our homes in such a dignified way. Thank you Mr Barbour for letting us in on your thinking. My question on time is the following. If there are no people to record it or observe it, does time exist when there is no humans or living things around? Does time exist only because we as living beings have organisms that are born and die, but if we weren't here, would there be a thing called time? If people weren't there, would things simply re-arrange like the universe does, and that time would not be a part of the equation? It's the old argument about a tree falling in the forest if no one is there to observe it? Does it crash or is there no sound when people aren't around?
Regarding the large-scale structure of the universe, the explanation sounds quite a bit like the Game of Life starting with the least possible complex structure.
Not sure about energy creating structure, heat is not structure, in fact tends to destroy structure, but all energy does create information, although it does at some point become noise.
Thank you for bringing us with such interesting interviews. Jean Pierre Petit is a French scientist who coined also the term Janus for his model on universe, is there any relation between the works of Pr Barbour and those of Pr Petit?
Has anyone else thought of the possibility of corroborating Julian's ideas of complexity and shape with Wolfram's recent Theory of Everything based in computation and geometry?
As far as I know its about "clocking mechanisms". But, reality is open! Julian sees 'structure like a clock'.. but nature doesn't make them . Good sensitive interview Robert K. Ultimately, natures best clocks are in the vacuum. Julian may be right therein!
I think that science's reluctance overall to prove certain flaws and sketchy theories is the fact that there are still so many anomalies overall, when you're trying to find a unifying theory of everything and you change one thing in the structure it invariably changes everything else and its back to the drawing board of the entire theory in general. So they would rather continue on then admit there mistakes. A classic example is the eggs used in the theory of evolution. The flaws are so well known and yet it is still taught as fact if I'm correct or at least I know that it is still used in arguments on the subject.
Time would only exist inside an ordered state capable of creating structures. The frequency of light, sound, electromagnetic field in which human physiology, and material exist forces the imposition of time. The need for structured materials to deteriorate by the energy contained within ALWAYS seeking to separate, time is truly the measurement of deterioration and wouldn't exist outside of the exact sound, light, and electromagnetic fields we are currently observing our reality through. Mahe Ohna, ✌️ Favour ALL
Julian needs to think about what happens to human bodies when we die.. We go from high entropy as semen, to low entropy as humans ,and then back to high..(as we become food for the earth).. Structure that .
How quantum thinking is something special 🌔✨ After the Fukushima disaster 2011, I began collecting minds at CrazyLa AirG, referring to myself as a "quantum mechanist". The science/pseudoscience was still so new quantum physicists were still being picked on for calling themselves scientists. *Shrugs*. So I grabbed it & claimed it. Quantum is no persons or company's intellectual property. *Pats myself on the chest*. Mine. & I spoke it like a 1st language. More. Like it were my very teeth. 💃🕺 I weigh up everything i think & anything that's said to me for potential depth of life within. Quantum ideas don't feel as though they need to be weighed. It feels as though quantum thinking might take delight in the sustained joy of quantum thinkers. It makes me laugh so hard I sometimes cry. It can make me freeze & not breath at all in awe. Whilst i enjoy charting the mind, it will be just like my quantum thinking mind to both bridge gaps & open doors, but then walk through walls anyway as well. It might be a unique perk that quantum thinking may construct pathways through the mind, just ahead of the thoughts that would establish them. *Feels like I've arrived somewhere way too early, in way too bright a dress*. *Walks up to the jukebox & pops on tunes & lights* All I write is free. 🌔 ⛓️💃 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BVjsberxu58.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-D5Y11hwjMNs.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MsnegUwNmPY.html 🥂If I were to collect minds, reduce the degrees of separation betwixt us to disenfranchise flailers & reduce degrees between them, might I help cause a ripple effect of flailers? Might that the mentality of the flailing solipsistic be ..to ebb 😉. That they ebb, is it a sign that we flow forward? ..I tend to think particles of philosophers, who when walking singularly into crowded rooms only see eachother, over ones who make friends for reasons other than they respect them who I regard as a wave. I regard philosophers as particles, having wondered that like we were the culmination of the 5 we're closest to, ..were stars also. And I thought, what might it be like never to know that stars (like men) don't all look like one another. Might one day, if reviewed & redescribed as history expands as does universe & we change beneath & including our noses as truth faster than light stubs us so fast our wicks hadn't burnt yet, thinkers had sat bright in the places of ones who'd have had no explanation ..all along? Does creation walk hand in hand with evolution 👫? Does it matter to know that 2 different critical ideas have more in common with eachother than 2 exact same ideas had based on others say so, to see if our fates to either ebb or flow could be incorporated into our very design? ..again, if truth were to move faster than light? Right now we are the greatest difference of builds of soul as we've ever been. Covid accentuated us, all the flailers & problem solvers for due to our very different mentalities we've become evident to one another. 🙂 *Splits the sea*. All I write is free 💨⛵ Krystel Spicer Mind Ark FB🌊 . . . . . . . . . . Krystel Spicer Mind Ark Reality As Meta Data Is the world noumenal or phenomenal? Is reality external to the mind or do we create it mentally as a convincing illusion? Neither option is convincing. If reality is objective and discernable only as synthetic truths, why do words have such an impact on us? If solipsism is a valid approach why are human problems so intractable. Reality as Meta-Data offers a different possibility and opens a new way of understanding reality in the faith versus nature debate. www.academia.edu/45153692/Reality_as_Meta_Data KSMA Response: Is solipsism a valid approach though, if someone experiencing solipsism is characterised by feeling lonely, detached & indifferent to the outside world & is not as impacted by words? If truth is synthetic then yes why would they have such an impact on us (the ones of us who aren't suffering solipsism at least😉)?. Could it stand to reason, that of the two types of people, it would be easiest to think reality is objective to who would wonder we had no explanations? Human problems may be hard to deal with if a person cannot discern between 2 things. I think freedom of choice, is the freedom to relinquish life & be ignored doing it. The freedom of someone making choices (who cannot gauge that anything has life let alone one of us more than the other), is also to drag down anyone with them who entertains them. I give thanks to Jesus for offering us forgiveness if we should ask, & for dying for my and your sins, because it leaves me more time to conduct a ripple effect via a Disenfranchisment of minds. Who could believe our purpose could be enmeshed with our very beings as history expands as does universe? So that some practice honesty (🔑) & be familiar to other minds in crowded rooms degrees of separation between them, & some others not, & be without as if holding their souls at arm's length from them. When people do that, i don't think reality is meta data. I wonder it would be counterintuitive to think we are meta data, if ones who would naturally think that would would be slight in build of soul. I think reality it is sufficient unto itself😉. Are some "not", & "without", & are condescending & discouraging because they're ebbing? The worse people become, will it be evident by the clusters of them all trying to look as though they've builds of soul enough between them for you not to tell a one of them from the other? Will their attempt to conceal themselves be futile, because it is their fate to reveal themselves for all intents & purposes. They are their own tell-tale canary-in-the-mine. Have you ever seen one turn tables so much that they do a complete roll reversal with you? Might it just so happen, they will wish they never twisted truth when they're themselves are twisted against it one day. Much of what those suffering solipsism do out of inconsideration for us, are mixed blessings😉. That they are friends with people for reasons other than they trust them, teaching that to show respect to anyone is to act friendly to them, tells me they're in a current, & that it is good. Had they not suffered solipsism, this would not be happening. That they did, is it happening beyond anyone's control. (Except that I like to push a little bit😉.) To your 1st & second question, I'd say both equally, for it makes sense to me that creation must walk hand in hand with evolution. Always a pleasure talking with you Robert Burk . . . .it's ok to change our minds 😉
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement, Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality. Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge, Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge. Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.
...and shapes the destiny of the universe. A scary thought has occurred to me. One's destiny can be side-tracked by fate. Destiny and fate are opposite sides of the same coin, one self-directing, the other mis-directing. If the universe's path (end??) is inevitable, unstoppable, then destiny has conquered fate. Just a stray thought.
Thermodynamics likes closed systems, which cannot exist really. Also thermal equilibrium never is more than an approximation. It may be ok for engineering but not physics theory
PRIME NUMBERS!!! ARE THE POINTS OR OSCILLATIONS IN TIME, WHEN CONNECTED MAKE THE STRUCTURE HE IS TALKING ABOUT. E.G. PRIME 17 IS 8+8 DIMENSIONS OF TIME +1 DIMENSION OF STATIC SPACE. 2 = 1 (+1) OBSERVED SINGLE POINT IN STATIC SPACE = 0D LINE 3 = 2 (+1) OBSERVED TRAIL FROM ONE POINT TO ITS END OF THE LINE = 1D LINE 5 = 4 (+1) OBSERVED TRAIL FROM FORWARDS/BACKWARDS AND UP/DOWN = 2D SQUARE 7 = 6 (+1) 2D HEXAGON 11 = 8 + 2 (+1) OCTAGON 13 = 8 + 4 (+1) OUTER OCTAGON, PLUS X 4 ONE DIMENSIONAL LINES INSIDE THE STRUCTURE CONNECTING EACH POINT INSIDE THE SHAPE 17 = 8 + 8 (+1) RE-ARRANGEMENT OF SHAPE FROM OCTAGON TO CUBE AND COPY OF ITSELF = TESSERACT = 4D UNIVERSE This is where we are at - the change in reality is the shift from 13 - the 6th prime ("6 days of toil" = octagon NOT hexagon) to 17 - the 7th prime ("day of rest" = tesseract). The reason why EVERYTHING is wrong is because the true shape of reality is 8 NOT 6... a 3D cube NOT a 2D flat "cube"....
I'm inclined to go with the first theory to an extent that there is no time but that is of separate consequence to the theory of the begging and ending of exsistance. In this case I'm inclined to go with the same thing that pending the behavior of the separate entities of exsistance many things could happen. Exsistance is painted on to reality as exsistance takes place.
Isn't the problem that the values of atoms are absolute? Yes, photons have continuous frequencies and there will be variety within them, but isn't the fine structure constant a hard 137 between different space-time related variables?
Also in different points of reality time is experienced differently and means something completely different. On earth for instance time is exactly that an experience. In reality exsistance is a happening not a frame of time. It is our perception that creates time as we see it.
That's why he proses the idea of - extropy? I think is how he spells it - in which rather than order --> disorder, we see matter congregate into different "shapes" and structures. In a closed environment, a gas would ultimately settle into a chaotic uniformity, but without anything to wall off or contain energy, it clumps together rather than evenly distributes itself due to gravity. This is my basic understanding of this caveat but I'd love to understand his thinking more because I think he makes a bunch of great points that are very hard to actually disprove, even if you disagree.
without change of some kind you could not know the passage of time. if every moment were exactly like the one before there would be no time. change is the thing. Movement.
possibily there was life before big bang as mentioned in quran chapter 36 verse verse 49 are they not waiting for big blast when they engaged in war that point toward big bang and end of life to recreate ahain.
A properly functioning human brain allows a person to use reason to reach goals that were set by desires or wants. At the best of times a person is self-serving, self-absorbed, narrow minded and capable of mindless destruction with the weakest justification. Adding an unregulated and variable psychoactive substance, that in some circumstances could be classified as a poison, is not only the height of foolishness, but shows a complete lack of appreciation for having been born without any mental handicaps.
@@caricue Psychedelics have been used by almost every culture since the beginning of recorded history and probably earlier. They have also been used by some scientists in our modern age. And according to some of these scientists greatly benefited their creative connections allowing for breakthroughs. These substances certainly are not for everyone but to claim they may automatically handicap a mind is reactionary more than factual.
@@bellezavudd Thank you for the kindly spanking. I try very hard to be open and accepting of everyone, but we all need our little indulgences. Being anti-drug is my harmless little prejudice, besides, I'm not the only one who cannot afford to let down their guard for a minute lest the darkness overwhelm them, am I?
@@caricue I'm also anti drugs when it comes to most of them. Plenty of addicts around the world should try it. ( being anti drug ) Knowledge of the actual properties and effects of drugs is also something many people would benefit from. Keep the light on my freind. 🌞
I Do . Actualy why not you. Please awnser but with a bit less anger, you are alow to speak About what you realy think. I am, PS let your got speak what so ever. Critic is good. Sincères salutations philippe Martin
AND ............ HERE COMES THE CATCH: He has absolutely No evidence/proof, whatsoever, in support of his speculative conjecture. Talk is cheap, irrefutable evidence is hard to come by. If it’s not falsifiable, it’s not science. End of story.
@@tomashull9805 spacetime itself is not a thing that exists as a fundamental part of reality but rather has got to do with how we think. It then follows from that that time cannot flow in any objective sense since it is just a framework of thought. We could talk of time having an arrow or direction but we have to understand that this kind of talk is simply metaphorical trying to capture the experiences we have which are subjective
@@tomashull9805 it's as a result of the clocks we use being susceptible to the influences of the law of gravity, it's not that time passes faster at higher altitudes than a lower one. It's that the ticks and tocks of the clock quicker or slower and not time itself for there is no objective thing flowing.
why not take universe as is, in the middle all variety, ok cobe etc, but after we cannot say really but the way we look at cobe etc is like we must say it is that way, maybe we just live in universe with complexity. Ok i overexaggerate point is we tend to super impose this is ok but in universe it is hmmm not ok frankly about future really not ok. I see science we can say everything up to now and only little into future other is NOT science.
Assuming everything he proposes is true, or at least following his logic, then our reality is entirely non-euclidean. Complexity is seen at the largest and smallest of scales, and both realities (quantum and classical) assume similar structures under dramatically different rules. We can not prove that matter in our universe is "boxed in" akin to gas in an enclosed environment, so it doesn't make sense to assume that matter or energy will reach an equilibrium if there is nothing that confines it. We don't know how far the universe extends past what we can observe, but we know that there's more than what we can see, so we should operate under the ASSUMPTION that there are no WALLS to stop the energy. Therefore, this "shape" that the universe is forming includes structure at our largest and smallest, and that all matter contributes to this "shape". The geometry is not something that we can make sense of, but we can attempt to visualize such a structure if we think about a tennis ball. We see a sphere with a center mass, but we can also see many fibers on the outside of the ball. If we look at a single fiber, we can zoom in to see that in a single fiber the structure forming it is very, very complex. We can go deeper than the structure of the fiber, because something is there to make up the structure of the fiber itself as well. The ball also has other materials within, all with their own complex shapes. We can also think of a nucleus, recent studies have revealed that a nucleus is also a complex structure that forms semi-spherically, even though it's not inherently constructed by spherical shapes. We as humans are also shapes ourselves, made up of shapes while contributing to the shape of our planet, that contributes to the shape of our solar system, our galaxy, our universe, et cetera. With this in mind, I can't help but feel as though our universe is technically non-dimensional and that there is not a limit to true geometry. Therefore geometry is simply an abstraction of the human brain and it does not exist, but mathematics inherently do. You can't truly measure anything, only quantify it.
