Gotta say, in what little she spoke, Veronika Hubeny made one hell of a case for not taking too literally the claims of the description of reality in one particular formulation of physical theories vs another. I was completely convinced by her rather uncommon statement that even the classical 3D world is necessarily more "real" than what any other (mathematically equivalent) description might suggest.
Too many brilliant minds seem to forget, mathematics is merely a philosophical tool for logic and reasoning in the metaphysical realm and does not directly define the physical realm. All the models of the physical realm in physics are just that, models, a rendition of our current understanding of reality. Just as an artist starts off drawing gibberish to making better and better models of reality to having a good rendition of it. However, these models will always be our perception of reality and not necessarily reality itself.
I think your attempt to condescend, by admonishing supposedly brilliant minds for missing an apparently trivial observation, itself underestimates the nuance and complexity of the question about whether Mathematics is invented or discovered.
Fun stuff. Albert is great. Never heard anyone who could state something so well - even beautifully - while speaking in a style where the main word is the hated "uh".
The discussion led to a place that might as well have been on the other side of an event horizon. The moderator seemed much more intent on lobbing controversial questions in order to push buttons than keeping things on track
?? They were on track. The nature of these conversations simply lends itself to the fact that many fundamental issues are related and connect to each other, and the problems physics face today which need answering are also connected. Therefore, you cannot have a rigid, straightforward track to follow in any of these types of conversations.
They took out the part when the host Jim Holt was called out by an audience member for talking over the only woman on stage. An audience member screamed out "let her talk please!"
Every WSF video has one ( or sometimes even more ) obligatory female panelist . PC dictates that . Even mr Trump can't change that . Sorry . Life sucks some times .
Does anyone else think that this panel would have been more interesting and informative without David Albert? I don't understand how someone can talk so much and yet contribute so little?
when i was young i was introduced to the basic edition dungeons and dragons. You ask what has that to do with science? the 5th book is the immortal rules and it introduced me to alternative realities and the laws of each universe that could be different....it had rules to create all this for a game ( it got into dimensions and a lot more then what qm talks of)....far from advanced...thanks for the upload
For those of you out there who, like me, are binge watching these physics lectures and presentations - I have to say that this one, in particular, is much more tense and lively a debate than the other WSF panels. I fell asleep a quarter of the way through the first time (not uncommon as I watch before bed) because I was a little turned off by the abstract nature of the conversation but upon a second go-around, am pleasantly intrigued by this powerhouse line-up and their politely tense parsing of words - when so much seems to be on the line - i've grown a little tired of watching Brian Greene chew his own scenery and this is a nice antidote.
Indeed. I'm personally looking to start another one of these programs myself, that's more based around psychology, neuroscience, potential realization, health and music. I plan to have it up and running in 5 years, let me know if you or anyone you know would be willing to help or contribute suggestions!
Greene convinces me with his pretty materialistic view when i read him. Its kinda baffling that there are competing ideas that seem just as valid, formulated by people with the same level of understanding of things.
a thought.or at least a thought experiment what if the photon, and the other force carriers do not actually exist. the photon, traveling at the speed of light, experiences no elapse of time. it is destroyed at the very instant of it's creation. whether it only travels to the next atom, or across the universe, it doesn't really matter to the photon, the EM energy produced and expended is I am not actually talking about not using the term photon as a place holder object in language, merely that while it's interaction between two particles of matter is known, no time actually elapses between the two interacting particles in question. maybe this indicates a three dimensional EM field unto itself. Where the two interacting particles may actually be atop each other. I would go four, but time doesn't seem to be on the list of interactions in this case. try this again for the other massles bosuns, and suddenly, many dimensions are available to such theories as string to propagate perchance the 3 dimensions of up, down, left, right, forward and backward repeat in multiple fields, with no resemblance to our traditional notions of such. with time standing alone, add gravitation to this (a force carrier in another range?) the possibilities abound, with a simple change in viewpoint
Yes, I had the same reaction. Looks they were having a great time, and def more lively than many other panels I've seen. I think the moderate deserves a considerable amount of credit for that as well.
Richard M You don’t even know... I am jumping out of my skin because I know a lot of the answers and I am in psychology 😳 Not even kidding. See my general comment on the video just now. But my name is Stephanie- you’ll probably hear it more within a year or so. I definitely have it. Way too coincidental and perfect and beautiful 😊
time is like shadow you can see it but it has no fucking particle for mathemagisians to count. so time and space doesn't exist because it is a posterior attribute and get off the crack
Time is the camera through which we view the world. It takes exactly one picture per moment that just passed. It never takes a picture of any moment other than the one that just passed. Our camera has an obvious limit in how fast it can take pictures. We call this the cosmic constant, the speed of causality or the speed of light. Since we and our camera exist inside the bubble that make up our reality we can only move through space moment by moment, which we our camera happily records as we move along. Since we are bound within this universe we are trying to observe we can never escape it and take pictures from the outside. So whether our universe is finite or infinite, for all practical purposes the part we have access to is all we will ever have access to. Now, here's the fun part. We can only ever experience the past. There is no "right now". We only notice the moment after our camera took the picture. ;)
Why? It's a simple concept. It may indeed be infinite into the past too, though. And time may come to an end some time in the future after all. So neither part is necessarily true. Well, time will probably not come to an end if the big bang wasn't actually the beginning, because that would imply a sort of cyclical universe.
@@medexamtoolscom Time is not a thing. To illustrate, take a movie. Each frame is a moment in time but it is not time itself. Time is also not something outside of the movie (for the characters in the movie). It does not occupy the space between one frame and the next. Moving from one frame to the next is time. If I pause the movie half way and never play it again then time will stand still for the movie characters. This is exactly the same for us. Time is not some weird or mystical force. It is simply what we name the idea of moving from one moment to the next. So the real question is, will we keep moving from one moment to the next forever? If nothing destroys the universe then sure, why not? You don't need matter around for one moment to move to the next. Nobody will see it but time will still flow. Which begs the question. If a moment passed and nobody was there to see it did it happen? :p
I desperately want to know what this existence is about. It’s all I think about. Electron particles not being there unless you observe them. Space expanding, but into what? Humans caught up in mass consumption without even any thought of the implications. Everything is so bizarre I want to know the truth. The theory of everything.
What your are despairing about is Continued Universal Human Cluelessness (which I've developed a new philosophy of survival and morality in response to - read it - it offers Final Enlightenment) (you can throw your Zen into the dustbin of history - it is child's play). Here is a sample of Final Enlightenment: The Ultimate Value of Life is Enlightened Higher Consciousness - enlightened by my philosophy, and the 'higher consciousness' being what humans are endowed with (but waste). The Ultimate Goal of Life is to secure the Ultimate Value of Life, in this case securing enlightened higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe (the harshness and deadliness of which has been verified). Wording that differently, 'securing' means defeating natural and unnatural death, and pursuing resurrection technology. My philosophy began by answering the Greatest of the Great Questions of Life, "Why Bother?" (because consciousness is a good thing - worth working for and preserving), and "Now What?" which my Strategies of Broader Survival address at the second highest level. It continued developing its specific structure with The Third Greatest Question of Life is "What threats and benefits to life are out there?" which is what science addresses (discovery), while engineering addresses the Fourth and Fifth Greatest Questions of Life: "What can we do about it?" and "How?" Finally, my philosophy created the Ultimate Determining Factor between Good and Evil (the 'morality' aspect), which is the Ultimate Goal of Life, since I discovered (thank you) that Good and Evil are based on Goals (go ahead and think it through).
So, the man who came up with inflation to satisfy the Big Bang theory, is now working on a model of an eternal universe? That's really impressive. We need more men like Alan Guth in science (and in politics?). Follow where curiosity and feasibility lead (as long as the funding lasts).
While Guth is crediting with originally proposing the idea, he didn't come up with *Cosmological Inflation* Theory on his own. Linde and Starobinsky (amongst others) also share credit. It was an attempt to address problems created by *Big Bang* Theory in explaining the homogeneity of the large scale structure of the universe. However, instead of solving the "Fine-Tuning" problem it created it's own version of it, necessitating the need for an extension to the Theory, known as *Eternal Inflation,* which has proved to be more controversial/divisive and hence is less is widely accepted. Indeed, Paul Steinhardt, (mentioned at 30:27) one of Inflation's earliest proponents, who initially also supported *Eternal Inflation,* later became a critic of it and the "multiverse" predicted by it, for the reasons mentioned by David Albert (36:50) in the above video. Regardless, *Eternal Inflation* is a consistent continuation of the original CI Theory, so Guth hasn't altered his position about it.
Isn't it amazing how, of all the possible combinations of ways the collection of all the particles of the universe could come together, at its basic micro-wave constituents the visible universe ours was made up of looks like guano?
Inflation seems to be trying to explain away the apparent fine tuning of the universe by introducing an infinite number of universes we can never observe or contact. It is philosophy, not physics. Other than that, very interesting discussion.
the problem with infinity is that to prove anything is infinite requires an infinite amount of time to prove, but it goes both ways to prove something isnt infinite would also take an infinite amount of time to disprove therefore infinities nature ends with the the fact that it is impossible to either prove nor disprove so i think it leaves all arguments over the nature of infinity will always remain inconclusive.
A better question than "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is: "Why do we wonder why the universe exists"? Why does it seem odd to us "that there is anything at all"? And why should it ever occur to us that somehow "nothing" existing should be more likely than "something"? (Nothing or "nothingness" if you like, is a concept without a referent. There is no reason to believe that "nothing" exists, ever did in any sense exist, or ever could exist.) Could it be because human language evolved to handle human scale experience, and when we think about the entire universe in language, our concepts are just not appropriate to apply? By stretching our human-scale-evolved concepts beyond the context in which they have meaningful functionality (indulging in a "misuse of language") we tie ourselves in conceptual knots, and create what are traditionally called "metaphysical problems". It's fun, for instance, to think concepts like "being", and "nothingness" have deep meaning. They are great for the romance offered by "continental philosophy". But, in reality they are just our own language concepts fooling us into thinking their misapplication is producing profundity. Much as we might enjoy, or be captured by, the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we would do much better to accept the fact that the likely-hood of "nothing" ever existing is zero, and the real task at hand is dealing with the "something" that does.
Sadly our brains only evolved to handle problems related to survival and procreation on this planet, so there are many paradoxes which we cannot even theorise about. If understanding the origin of existence ever becomes advantageous to procreation, then we may finally have a chance! Actually I think we'll get there sooner than that by using our tools of mathematics and computing, but whether we will really 'understand' it, I'm not so sure.
By definition, nothing cant exist because there is nothing to exist in nothing. It's impossible to be conscious of nothing. Therefore, something must always exist and you will always be conscious of something.
It’s heartwarming how none of the participants are interrupting each other... such a relief from basically every other conversation happening in both business and public television.
Very true, it isn't brought up nearly enough, and it's the most elegant solution I've heard yet. The only one that makes any sense to me, at least. Though I think people shy away from it for a reason. Penrose inserted some bits to try and allow it to be proven, which seem to have turned out not quite right. Echoes of supermassive black holes in the cosmic microwave background, for example. Maybe it's my own lack of knowledge, but I still can't see why features like that would make it through to the other side. I can understand the desire to have it be provable, but I think he might have gone about it the wrong way, and it ended up being prematurely discredited. Here's to hoping smarter minds than mine at least give it fair consideration.
More like Big Bang -> Big Freeze -> Big Bang. As I understand it, after having read the book : All the matter in the universe will keep going in accelerated expansion and eventually decay into extremely diffuse redshifted radiation. (The "Big Freeze / Heat Death" theory.) But once all the particles with mass are gone, standard mechanics break down. The energy field starts acting like a singularity of sorts, because there's no real way for time or distance to exist. This puts all the energy in the universe into what equates to no space and kick starts the big bang. Nothing lost, nothing gained, but probably turns out differently each time.
+Aitch Thanx for this elaborate explanation of a theory that's new to me . To be honest , it leaves me slightly baffled , as if it were way more complicated than necessary . Personally i prefer to see the mess we're in as a 7+ dimensinal sphere where Bang and Crush are the poles and each incarnation of a new round / universe as a meridian . I don't even care whether that's scientifically sensible , but for my personal peace of mind , it simply suffices . I'm crap in differential equations , that's why i flunked , ages ago . But thanks mate , i truely value your reply .
to start with this story and not tell an iota about the author of this text it seams to me be a little unprofessional. the author is j. l. borges and the story is "la biblioteca de babel".
Some physiscist seem to have the tendency to assume whatever comes out of Mathematics must necesarily describe some physical relaity. The physcial world can be described by Mathematics, but Mathematics cannot by itslef describe any physical reality on the ground of self-consistentency or conformity to the presummed axioms. Emperical results and our intuitions are the ultimate tools to decide.
In particle physics, a photon has no one point in space while it's in wave form. But if the wave is interfered with, then the placement of the photon is known. If you use this idea when dealing with space/time, the outcome is the same. We cannot know the future, because there has been no interference from the events in the now. Only until the collapse of the time wave can we come into contact with the new reality. In mathematics, a physicist can create a probability graph based on known information. He then can use that information to determine where something ought to be. Still, until he can test his information, he cannot know whether or not he's right. So in this state, the physicist is building a house on an uncertain ground.
As a layperson, my understanding is that the waveform is a probability curve. It should not be interpreted as being in all places at the same time, but a particle has certain chance of being anywhere in the curve when it is measured.
@@TheWraithkrown Well yes, and no. According to Schroeder's cat theorem, a particle can be in one place or in any place. But we can't know where the exact placement of a particle until we measure it. It's true that you could create a extrapolation of where the particle may be, but until you interfere with the quantum wave, you cannot know for certain.
@@TheWraithkrown according to the two split experiment, a single particle's wave was seen to go through both slits at the same time. The end result was 2 bands and not just one.
What you're explaining is the same rhetoric that is used to confuse most people & it's just not true. The particle exists somewhere prior to our measurement. It's only at that time when we know where it exists. When you're not looking at something is that thing not happening soley because you're unaware of it ?
big up to the lady who gave a succinct description of holographic principle. I am not impressed with philosopher of science who kept on insisting that space is 3D. Has he not "read" einstein?
I think (not sure) I understand about 10% of the info talked about in this video. I wish I would've studied physics in school. It's amazing how much more interesting it is to me after I got out of that hellish existence of public education.
A school physics education wouldn't help you and for mathematical/theoretical topics such as these even a physics degree only helps superficially (I have one). These esoteric subjects can only be properly understood by someone with a PhD in a related field but I doubt that WSF expect the audience to understand much. Instead I think it's more about giving scientists publicity and visibility with the general public for their work.
@@GonzoTehGreat Haha. Yeah I kinda feel the same way.. If there's one thing I DO know.. it's that mankind actually doesn't know as much as we're sometimes led to believe...
Great talk. Please allow the women the same respect as the men and do not talk over them. Also, are there any non-white scientists working on any of these things? It would be great to get some insight from people who are not all caucasian
One word solves so much confusion... Cycle. A cycle can be infinite, have a beginning and end, and become broken and die and be born again. Once you know the cycle of existence and life those basic principles translate to every other thing in reality.
بسمك اللهم اعني على قول الحق الحق يقال الحلال ينموا والله عزوجل يبارك به والحرام لا يدوم يهلك ويهلك صاحبه المعني ان الله سبحانه ليسى بغافل عن عباده احتى لو صاحب الحق مات فلله عزوجل يجازيه بلاخراان الله رحيم في عباده الله اكبر ولله الحمد اللهم لا توءاخذنا بما فعلو السفهاء منا ولا حول ولا قوة الا بلله العلي العضيم
I was at a symposium on this very day. A “radical physicist “ spoke to a closed room o Against theoretical science and the pompous Aholes that confuse us with their fantasies
if you take the babel lybrary as an anology in which each book represents a possible universe... perhaps then this is an intresting way to conceptualize a multiverse wiht infinite potential..... ther mihgt be a universe where this sentence ha no misspellings 🎃⚾🎵
I'm wondering.. even if we managed to figure out all the answers needed - would we even be able to comprehend them? I personally don't think so. We are just humans with very limited senses. We even have animals with more and/or deeper senses than us who live in completely different realities than ours. Man, why does this meaninglessness come crashing down on me when I get this buzzing feeling of.. I don't even know what. Too much to handle.
so many phrases and principles in this discussion that flew right over my head. But still eyes glued. Possibly like a toddler watching a cartoon, not picking up on the plot and what will happen next, but just soaking it in.
If we are part of the whole, at one point do we understands tray we can't continue to just alter the inner parts of a system, before the whole wants to just spit us out all together?
@@taylorrice3183 It is nothing Taylor. He just says 'back' with very high pitched voice. I know it is just childish to 1) first, even notice that 2) have time to get the link at that point in time 3) post the link in the comment and 4) and tell people to enjoy. Waste of time. Isn't it? Just to let you know, I have become better now. I have grown 2 years older and I have learned not to write shit in youtube. I have also gotten busier. Btw, How is your day going Taylor?
Nothing last forever, but forever people will discuss about nothing. Nothing can be everything, and everything will turn nothing. The problem is, our brains have no free space, for answers.
_"Sometimes people ask if religion and science are not opposed to one another. They are: in the sense that the thumb and fingers of my hands are opposed to one another. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped."_ ⊙ Sir William Henry Bragg
People don't discriminate agaibst, oppress, or kill other people based on which version of string theory they prefer. Beliefs that become actions, laws, or culture are the problem.
What if entropy grows whether time moves forward or backward. A cup drops and shatters. Time is reversed and the pieces fly back together shattering more on impact. Time looks the same forward or backward.
You are conceiving 'time' wrong. It is not a physical parameter, 'change' is. Time is just our tool to document change. If you want the shattered glass to reverse itself, then you have to create an enclosed system and force it backwards (with adequate precision).
Add up an infinite amount of infinitesimals and you get something. Amazing. You can actually do this. Depending on how infinitesimal the infinitely small things are you get a different result.
It's why infinity is a state and not a number. Using ordinary mathematical functions don't always make sense, and opens up a solution that includes every possibility.
It amazes me how such smart people save one, don't understand what infinity means. It's a process that continues on forever and only exists in mathematics not reality. Just the same as the concept of zero/nothingness. In fact, zero can only be perceived by using infinity to approach zero in mathematics. Even black holes are finite and will eventually die. Perhaps the reason for quantisation in particle physics is because we have found the smallest chunks of reality (spacetime)...
I have questions about the works of the Higgs boson in the genesis of the universe .The first question when did the particles appear massless? .second question When did particles get a mass of Higgs boson? How did the Higgs boson emerge after the creation of the universe? The third question How did the Higgs boson emerge after the creation of the universe? the fourth question What is the fate of the Higgs boson ؟ The fifth question What are the names of those particles that got their mass? Please send these five questions to cosmologists. We ask you to make a science fiction video about the birth of the universe From the great explosion that created the universe Hopefully this is a great film about the emergence of the Higgs boson We hope that the film will be translated into Arabic
Why would physicists think the universe should be static? Nothing we know of in our experience has ever been static, why would the universe be static? In fact, all you have to do is study what we have nearest to us to understand the whole thing.
Face it Guys: You are mere evolved mammals (admittedly of a high order of intellect, given your species) But: You really have no idea do you? How could you? The Cosmos has NO mandate to make sense to mammals! Nor was it ever "intended" to do so. You evolved to survive and procreate on a specific planet, with specific, limited environmental conditions. My Hamster has similar restrictions and limitations. That's All, sadly. (I admire the aspiration to knowledge, however)
I had a vision my conscious brain formed out of chance for a split second somewhere in the multiverse while I was asleep in this universe. Seems math supports the possibility I’m not crazy
because there is inflation does not mean the universe started at 0 either. some force could have kicked in at some point in a universe that already had a volume. It's like saying a balloon started out as nothing just because you witness it during the halfway point of it's largest volume.
I think so. I came to the comments to see if anyone else thought that. The moderator telling Andrei "make it funny" is what clued me in. I specifically remember a moderator saying that to him in a previous talk, prompting me to scroll the comments.
I just think that all that all stuff in our universe has always been there. Our consciousness only seems to travel forward through time and not backwards. I think if we had consciousness that went immortally back in time, it would see infinite causes of effects as it went back; just like if it were to go forward in time, it would see infinite effects of causes.
But its proven that the universe is so and so old, do you mean you'll reverse beyond that and transcend big bang or whatever the start of inflation was?
Ha by claiming that the rules that compose reality are infinite they invalidate all necessity for science. There’s an infinite number of realities where it doesn’t exist.
If you can prove that you've taken a step and also that you haven't moved - then you have proved infinity. Eg divide with multiple subtraction by zero 1/0 = count(1-0-0-0...). The moment you do the first subtraction and know that the next step is the same as the first, you know that you are looking at literal infinity. Sure, it may exist, you just can't get there from here.
(Viv you beat me to it.) Immortal ... there is no relativity called stop. Thus you cannot divide by it. I can hand you nothing ... infinitely many times and never run out of it.
Mathematically, though, there is zero and there is infinity whether it's dividing by zero or calculating one third. The first scientist claiming that infinity is beyond comprehension and, therefore, could be approached philosophically rather than scientifically was somewhat jarring.
Why ? Why do we live on a prison rock planet and why is death the only parole possible ? And who gave us this gift of life only to have to surrender it in death ? Some good God ? A good God never takes back gifts ....
@@wbiro How are philosophers' speculations any blinder than the untestable and unfalsfiable hypothesis proposed by theoretical physicists? You don't need a degree in physics to see that everybody is completely lost here.
Alan Lloyd If that child happened to be Ray Dalio, who tripled his very first stock investment at age 12, than an intelligent man would shut up and listen.
Regarding Linde's quote at 22:40, a more realistic characterization is as follows: For the poor in the United States, everything not explicitly allowed is forbidden. For the wealthy in the United States, everything not explicitly forbidden is allowed. This is not specifically a statement about the United States, but a statement about capitalism and the nature of freedom therein.
The poor are poor because of bad decisions. I'm sick of this victim mentality. You must be a lazy fucking liberal. Don't blame others for your bad decisions.
While listening to this discussion, I am overwhelmed with how little I know. And, to add to this feeling of how little I know, these exceptionally knowledgeable people have areas where they, too, know very little. Knowledge gaps are universal thangs. I can imagine that in the not too distant future, there may be people along with a means to embelish their cognitive reach who will have the means to know more about the universe. I hope that we can survive our harmful propensities, so as to be able to observe as well as to explore a greater portion of what are our numerous current unknowns. 📦🐈
James Watson who co-discovered the existence and structure of DNA's double helix, said "it was so beautiful it had to be true" and that he "knew it would be pretty."
The beginning of the video reminds me of the book 'A Short Stay In Hell' by Steven L. Peck. People get sent to this Hell (a vast library) because they didn't follow the one true religion and the only way to escape it is to find the book that has the story of your life. It's a quick read, but the story will haunt you for a lot longer.
The answer is infinity does not exist - it is the background nothingness (since it is boundless, and 'anything' needs bounds) in which everything exists. Now the question is, how much is 'everything', which is not necessarily infinite... As for multiverses, the error in that thinking is assuming that other universes are on the same scale as ours - in other words, it does not consider nested universes (for example universes within subatomic particles operating at proportionally faster speeds, or where our universe is operating within a subatomic particle of a larger universe that changes at a proportionally slower speed)... (the challenge in that scenario is contacting the beings in the nested universes, or traveling between them...
ISLAM IS FOR ALL Almighty Allah says: و ما ارسلناک إلا رحمة للعالمين We sent thee not,but as a mercy for the worlds.(for all creatures). There is no question now of race or nation of a " chosen people" or the seed of Abraham or the " seed of David"; of Jew or Gentile, Arab or non--Arab, European or African, White or Coloured etc. To all men and creatures other than men who have any spiritual responsibility the principles universally apply. LO ! RELIGION WITH ALLAH IS ISLAM إن الدين عند الله الإسلام و من يبتغ غير الإسلام دينا فلن يقبل منه o Islam is دين الله (Way of Life given by Allah). How mankind should live in this world. It is not made by Muslim. It has it's root in Qur'an and authentic حدیث (sayings of Prophet) Therefore Islamic laws are better than any other law of the world. Problem of Europe is that it does not understand this very important fact. They think that theirs law is better than Islamic law. Almighty Allah says : The revelation of the Book is from Allah,the Mighty, the Wise. Lo! We have revealed the Book unto them (Mohammad) with truth; so worship Allah,making the Deen pure for Him (only). Surely pure Deen is for Allah only (Qur'an,39:1-3) Kindly make your mind clear that the the mankind is created by Almighty Allah -- the Master Creator. We have to study and research the Holy Qur'an sincerely. It is in broader interests of humankind. Follow Islam to make your life better in this world and in the life of Hereafter. O Allah show us the right path of Islam. " The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not (the path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go stray". (Qur'an, 1:7) DR.MOHAMMAD LAEEQUE NADVI Ph.D. (Arabic Lit.) M.A. Arabic Lit.+Islamic Studies) Directorr Amena Institute of Islamic Studies & Analysis A Global & Universal Institute, Donate to developee this Institute SBI A/C30029616117 Kolkata,Park Circus Branch nadvilaeeque@gmail.com Thanks
1:00 this actually exists online, just Google for Library of Babel. Its a procedurally driven system that uses hex codes to generate the books. And it's even searchable. It doesn't WRITE what you searched for, it merely finds the right page in the right book on the right shelf in the right room, that has the specific seed to generate the string of text you searched for. So in essence, anything you search for already exists
Why you keep inviting someone limited and mentally challenged for this level of debate like David Z. Albert?? Left, right..up, down..forward, backwards...now, that I shall understand..."even people with physics education will say it is right". And just a sentence before he quoted about heliocentrism being counterintuitive for people of that time. Dear WSF, I understand that you want to bring philosopher to the table, preferably a religious believer, but hey - it comes with a price :)))
I have two questions about M theory Theory-M organized five versions of string theory through the eleventh dimension M theory is the theory of membranes These membranes are parallel universes extending from the eleventh dimension The first question is about membranes and calabi-yao spaces Are membranes are spaces Kalapi-Yao? The second question about the number of dimensions in space Kalabi-Yao? Does it contain the eleventh dimension? Please send the first and second question to space scientists
