Sabine Hossenfelder on Physics and the Big Questions | Closer To Truth Chats 

I find this two Channels too very good. She is one from the best here so Far it here so Visble is. I work a long Time with all this Stuff here and with more ,and think she lives not so extrem in a Bubble how so many People here. The Determinisem Plays a Important Role here,more as that die the most People so Vosible is. The Life moves his self more through us ,as many People taht so belive. For me is it extrem Visible how the Life the People so Moves or drive or how Fast the Subconscious here so works. Here is the Awerness a big theme or Topic ,or the Consciousness, but the Role from the Subconscious,that is here for the most People not so Important. The most People Understand that not ,how the Self esteem or the Inferiority complexes in the Mass here so work, or how that the People so moves, or what taht with us so made. My Englisch is not the best, but it is Visible for me, that the Human here not so extrem the Control have ,as the most People that here so belive. The People here lifes with to much Mental Problems and that is more as big Problem. That is good here but, many from the People that we can see here, have self more Psychologic Problems with Psychologic Disorders as many People taht here so belive. The People or the Mass has here more Problems with the Subconscious and with the Inferiority complexes as the Most People taht here belive. The Nature made this Errors from us, in the Next Time more Visible for us. The Human brings a Chaos in or on this World and that comes Back als this Chaos knows no mercy. The Human works Visible very bad with the Logik on Spezial Places or very Important Places ,and that makes here the Mass ,more as good Visible. I belive the Mass must more talk About so Themes waht the Nature through us so made or the Life. The Problems here with the Mony or the Greed or the Nature or the different to the Poor and to the Rich,that all made here ,a bigger and a depper Problem Visible. That made can made a Line to the other Problems Visible. Then the Self esteem and the Inferiority complexes is a mover from the Problems with the Mony. The Human likes the Materialism to give his self a better Feeling or the Kapitalism or the Brand Fetischism. The live give bis self through the Human Mass his own Dopamin und Seratonin kicks,that it so loves or so Need. I belive the Mass work not so much with his Consciousness how so many People that so belive. I belive for her is here more Visible from the Determinisem as for many other People here.

Wolfgang Petersun, Have You Visited Wolfgang Peak in Central Queensland Australia ?. Apparently this Peak is the Core of an Extinct Volcano.

I was going to say the same! I need Sean Carroll to have the whole crew.

The anatomical brain and its resources might limit what might be explored scientifically, philosophically, linguistically and hence the need for AI like technologies. Even with those, we might create consciousness and yet be without a clue about the purpose or meaning for anything and everything. In the end, after all is said and done multiverse might just be without any explanations, reasons, cause or causeless.

Wow is right. 11 seconds in, Sabine nails it 💅🏻 ❤️‍🔥👍🏻

🤗

@@ROForeverMan Trollboy

@@ROForeverMan you've demonstrated a sad yet hilarious example of projection. Good luck in your search.

entirly right, her books belong the best, I read in public science communication

Exactly, let the data write the conclusions. Too many people try to write whatever story best fits their preconceived (theological) conclusion.

@@TurinTuramber I'm not atheist, just strongly agnostic, but i fully agree with you Geralt, btw i subscribed to your channel many many months ago

Because you have no proof of what happened 13.7 billion years ago that you are using to explain natural phenomena today. She says she starts with with what we know ... but we have known for over 120 years that the Universe, Galaxy, Sun, Earth Atmosphere, life and machines are thermodynamic Systems and with increasing entropy. We have known the Universe is an ISOLATED thermodynamic system with finite matter & energy & increasing entropy. All thermodynamic systems ... are Functions ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) which must provide the matter & energy and time, space & Laws of physics to exist & to Function. Man has known for thousands of years what a "function" is and who makes them. A Function is simply ... a system that PROCESSES inputs into outputs and has clear PURPOSE & FORM which is information that every Function possesses to exist & to function. How long have we known the three types of physical machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ) and that nature can never make or operate the simplest machine(Function) made by Man ( intelligence)? The simplest mechanical machines ... include the stone wheel, axe head, lever, wedge, nail, screw, spring, spoon, fork, cup, plate ... which are single homogeneous objects ... with clear purpose, form & design to exist and to function. Quantum particles are the simplest single homogeneous objects with clear purpose, form & design and properties. Protons, neutrons & electrons are functions composed of Elemental particles(functions). The Elements are functions composed of Functions. Molecules are Functions composed of Functions. Everything in the Universe is a Function and every complex function ... is composed of simpler Functions. Again. How long has Sabine and all the rest of you known that the Universe is an Isolation Thermodynamic FUNCTION ... and that Nature can never make & operate the simplest PHYSICAL FUNCTION made by an intelligence ... like Man? You are cherry picking what you know to explain natural phenomena and supposedly "confirm" your materialist beliefs Universal Functions is the Hypothesis for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago. The Machine Analogy is just an OBSERVATION. Newton was saying everything is a Function ... that can only be made by an intelligence. And Universal Functions can be easily tested and confirmed ... by simply fully defining the Function & Intelligence Categories using information from known natural & unnatural phenomena which a subcategory types. You use the Function Category to identify anything that is a Function ... and you immediately will know the origin of that Function. Only an intelligence makes Functions which possess information. Only an intelligence extracts information from a Function. The Laws of nature and all scientific knowledge .. is information .... extracted from various types of functions ... by an intelligence called Man. Sabine claims that "we don't know" what happened with the early Universe is BS because she does know what a thermodynamic system is, and only an intelligence makes Functions. She KNOWS the Universe was created by God over 4 days less than 6000 years ago but by some "unknown" UNNATURAL process 13.7 billions years ago. Again. An elemental particle is the simplest Function. There is zero evidence that nature can make & operate the simplest Function.

@@adriancioroianu1704 At the fundamental level I don't disagree with your argument. So how do you propose we proceed as a civilization? Do we throw in the towel and concede that nothing is knowable and therefore every explanation/viewpoint is as credible as the next? Before scientific inquiry, and before theism, human success and progress was probably dominated by some very different mode of thinking that is now relegated to the trash heap of human evolution. Who knows, rationalism may eventually give way to something better but, for now, it seems to me to be the best approach for human ecological fitness.

By ‘theory’, are you referring to all the many god(dess) hypotheses (even this term seems generous) … ? ☺️

Yeah he is one of the best

@@ROForeverMan Indeed 😉

I would say the counter is true. You know you've made it when Sabine is willing to talk to you.

Mr. Kuhn, you finally made it. You have Sabine on!!!

@@NeverTakeNoShortcuts Kuhn is much better known and established as a RU-vid personality than Sabine.

@@rckflmg94 I'm not sure. He's been around longer but they have about the same number of subscribers. But Hossenfelder posts new content every week, while most of the content here is recycled.

You'll only know you've made it when you see God!

@@ROForeverMan How do you know J5 is a male? Could be fangirl.

@@ROForeverMan sorry your woowoo is irreievant. maybe a girlfriend will help

Down to earth ?

Well, according to physicalist theory, it should have been entirely predictable! 🤣

He's far too weak to interview Hossenfelder - both professionally and verbally. Even when she placed herself wide open for attacks he wasn't able to go for the kill. Hossenfelder's weakness is her reluctance to accept anything outside what she thinks is the core of what we know from experience. This is not the tough mentality we need to discover new experiments we can do to know more. I can't blame him though, even Krauss turns into a softball when meeting her so I guess there must be something about her that makes you want to go agreeable. I was impressed by Kastrup when he basically dressed her naked.

The problem with the Standard Model and fundy physics is it has ignored or dismissed a century ago far too many alternatives at all levels of QM and elevating TOO MANY MATERIALS to the status of fundamentally very important particles, many of which are still hypothetical / theoretical or poorly evidenced by often uncorroborated, very noisy, highly filtered experiments designed to confirm their theories, ripe for the picking of cherries. -- 2 good examples are hydrogen / proton energy levels... Explanations morphed into whole number wavy orbits with no fractions of waves allowed.. Not a bad idea, but Einstein and Planck combined forms a both pixelate and stretchy matter-energy EM field. -- A field of +ve cells close-packed by free-flowing -ve gas is all that is needed to emerge all the forces and a corrected particle model. 1 force, 2 base particle types, 1 with quantised charge.. +ve cell (gap) size decreases with -ve gas concentration up to a limit (see Planck and Schwarzchild). -- This allows hydrogen / proton energy levels to be modelled as a mostly stationary charge density gradient, a continuously flowing one with straightening inflows and spiralling outflows that mostly collide laterally, cancelling out their sideways force leaving only the inward flow force.. Some magnetic field loops form like a ring magnet with torus shaped field squashed into a sphere. -- Electrons obviously prefer to sit in a shell of +ve cells.. The shells get further apart the close to the atom . But what are Electrons and Positrons.. In this model it's field cell (+ve quanta, +1) with 'total escape energy' forming a positron with the excess charge left behind forming an electron.. They are entangled so play tug-of-war on the -ve gas which vibrates the field back and forth in a flux tube that can get very thin and long. KEEPS THEM IN SYNCH. -- Free electrons and positrons try to shoot their excess charge and suck in charge from the far more balanced field that is having none of it, so repels its load back from all directions.. The fastest way using the least energy to get rid of a field imbalance is in the direction of its motion. It's an INERTIAL FIELD - preserves momentum.. This spherical free electric field disrupts the quantum gravity field stretch so a free electron / positron is 99% electric energy, 1% (more like 0.5%) STRONG MASS ENERGY... -- Positrons and Electrons ALWAYS COME IN PAIRS, this is a well proven universal law, like DOING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITH AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE... Where are all the positrons and where do protons,provably composite particles, get their +ve charge from? There is one ignored solution to the ANTIMATTER PARADOX that does not properly break symmetry or invent very problematic anti-universes and anti-glaxies, and DOES NOT WASTE THE POSITRON - the only other known truly elementary particle.. -- Under certainly conditions (ie. the Big Bang) STRONG FUSION took/TAKES place where new protons are formed by 2 positrons colliding with an electron at opposite angles, or squeezed and held there long enough, with a spare electron left over... This happens more often than 2 electrons hit a positron to form an anti-proton so the net result is a HYDROGEN PLASMA SOUP. -- Beta- radiaiton is a Neutron losing its nucelar bound, not strong-mass-force bound neutralising electron that sits in a proton's +ve energy band or on its MAX-PACKED MASSIVE CORE, rolling round, with its vibes neutralising the proton's vibes.. Those vibes are part of the STRONG REPULSION FORCE too (as well as the core being max-packed).. It's the underlying electrostatic force of the field that bonds electrons and positrons via flux tubes that get thinner and thinner the further away from their connected partner(s) they get.. -- Most of a particle's energy is stored in the centre and will revert back there if the surrounding field warp is causes is diffracted.. No energy is lost by the field or the particle, and its warp field reforms.. This may be the case for photons to a certain extent, and definitely at a base level where photons are the size a single few cells.. -- A PHOTONIC BLIP is quantised.. Blips are like 'elementary photons' or 'photon elements', with photons build from them, effectively.. Energy is stored in the wave peak either way, an it's this that warps the surrounding field.. Photons do spread their energy when diffracted and these chaotic and calm interference bands act as wave guides for photon peaks..A kind of pilot wave theory. -- blah..blah... Everything can be explained and sensibly simplified into a semi-classsic + quantum, quantised space where MATTER TRAPS a finite supply of -ve ELECTRO GAS (like an 'electron gas') away from voids to particles, forming CHARGE DENSITY GRADIENTS = Gravity, with VOIDS EXPANDED and space around matter COMPACTED as the perfectly balanced, tiny, empty crystal turned more and more 'Matter-Energy EM FIELD into MATTER = permanent charge imbalance.. It was a chain reaction of matter creation from an initial parallel e_p pair creation. The universe expanded rapidly but WAS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE.

@@RU-vid_Stole_My_Handle_Too LOL Kastrup

@@notanemoprog Yes, Bernando Kastrup ripped her appart.

@@PrivateSi at the end of your discourse on matter & energy, you did not disclose the origin of Life. And if Life (living organisms) is not inherent in mechanistic atoms and lifeless molecules, then Abiogenesis is a lifeless hypothesis.

But then again why is there something rather than nothing? If the universe had a beginning then it must have a creator or a mechanicnism that is beyond our grasp that brought it into existence. What where did the information to create a universe or evolve one came from and the laws of physics too?

Indeed...reminds me of the Greek philosophers ignoring the existence of ZERO. Back to square one we are. Thanks for your honesty in this charming pool of agreeable 'scientists and philosophers'. Peace.

Soothing and satisfying write up with intense selfless intensity and thank you for that. The pertinent unanswered question is not about matter energy time space TAPESTRY or about artificial intelligence or about science and technology but about something called matter plus plus well defined and something undefined or beyond matter like consciousness kind of things and about cognitive paradoxes around us. Thanks again.

Mark Solms suggests inner experience is a measure of homeostasis. if we don't feel pain then we don't avoid harm, and this ends up reducing our survivability fitness. so the answer to why we feel pain is that its a measure of harm, that drives avoidance behaviour. the next step is to look at our other internal experiences, and see if a pattern holds up.

@Sky Gardener what's different about the mechanical avoidance signal vs the pain signal of experience?

@Bryana Leigh interesting. I feel the other way, I find it freaky, to use your phrase, to think there is something about us that could not be described by math. That would imply that core being of what we are is some chaotic thing that cannot be bound by rules or laws. To me it just doesn't follow that order in mind could come from something fundamentally chaotic.

@Bryana Leigh i don't think of consciousness as a thing, I think of it as a process. It's easy enough to look at a process like walking, and see it carried out by different kinds and numbers of legs. When we look closely at the brain, we can see that there are some processes that seem to be correlated to something in awareness, and other processes that are not. Those conscious and sub conscious processes are both carried out by the same kind of cell, a connected network of neurons. There's nothing about the cells that do visual processing that are different than the cells that control the speed of our heart beat. The difference is the patterns, and what they're connected to. So the process is context dependant. I don't see why a different material couldn't carry out the process. It just has to be set up correctly to do so (easier said than done)

Space-time is a difficult concept for me as well. I more or less grasp the idea intellectually, but I don't have an intuitive conception of it. I guess I'll just have to wait for an epiphany.

@@ROForeverManYup, it certainly seems like " mumbo jumbo", especially to those people that do not have the slightest clue about the topics that are discussed in this video..

What would a fundamental law of entropy look like though? Am I correct in saying this: Let us say the universe is completely determined by a state equation of the form S(a, b, c) = 0 with only three state variables. Again for simplicity, let us say, that all variables vary over the real numbers. Further that for any fixed value of a given variable, the values of the other two variables are uniquely determined. Then if we can find a function f(a, b) such that if (a, b, c) and (a', b', c') are both solutions of the state equation, then c>=c' is true precisely when f(a, b)>=f(a', b') then we say that f is an entropy function for c. Is that about right?

@@siriusradheoff8361 As I understand from your comment, you're talking about a strictly deterministic classical universe that can be considered as an isolated system. In that case, the number of possible microstates is ( uncountably) infinite, so you need some " coarse graining"- that is observer dependent - to define a notion of entropy. This subject is huge and very interesting. There are various notions of Entropy ( Boltzmann, Gibbs, von Neumann- in the case of a QM system, etc.)- if you're interested, you can search for it ( Wikipedia or other introductory articles, for the various definitions of Entropy ). Roughly speaking, if someone supposes that the whole universe is fundamentally quantum and moreover fully deterministic (i.e. no " information loss" and ignoring issues about measurement and complications with Gravity - these are controversial topics) then the von Neumann entropy does not change as the system -supposedly- evolves " unitarily". In my comment I was referring to the " Horizon Entropy" that is both Gravitational and quantum mechanical in nature, as it can be defined to be proportional to the surface area - in Planck units - of a causal horizon such that of a black hole or a deSitter cosmological horizon etc. Even if there's no agreement about what this entropy corresponds to, its definition is not dependent on the " coarse graining" that a macroscopic observer chooses, so it is , in a sense, objective . This entropy is considered of fundamental importance by many ( and rightly so..). In a classical deterministic system, as it seems to be the case in your comment, the relevant definition that you need to search is, perhaps, the Gibbs Entropy .

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 No, I was actually thinking in terms of an arrow of some parameter indicator. The value of entropy to big physics seems to be that it provides an arrow of time. But we could think of other parameters which are symmetric with regard to individual interactions etc but for which there's some kind of arrow indicator(at least statistically - and here coarse graining may be involved)

The typical question of Robert at the end is senseless and he hasn't still realized it after so many other interviews? That's sad. Already Parmenides the pre-socratian and pre- platonic thinker has easily proven with logic that "a nothing" cannot "exist" it's just virtual, like the "zero" 0 is just a concept to better and easier establish a numerical system to operate in mathematics with it. But it's not existent in the real material and physical world. Therefore also a singularity has no real representation in physics it's just another limit or horizon like the concept of infinity or eternity ( being no limited "space" in one case and being "timeless" in the other) But that is pure categorical logic and philosophy- not "science" (? or ! )

Superdeterminism doesn't have any particular requirements on initial conditions at all?

@@fluffysheap Without infinitely precise fine tuned initial conditions you don't have any chance to mimic the usual EPR - type correlations of standard QM with local hidden variable theories . If someone rejects " statistical independence" - as in superdeterminism - there is no other option than conspiratorial ( and infinitely precise! ) fine tuned data in any Cauchy hypersurface ( e.g. near the Big Bang etc.) Let's not mention the fact that we're living in a vastly big , old and complicated universe- we' re not living in a simplistic toy model !