Видео

Tim Maudlin is the type of guy to argue against everything Einstein would state.

Before we can reach a more universal perception, we need to realize a better conceptual understanding of what reality is. I can, of course, only speak from my own introspective experience, which is that universal conceptual perception becomes attainable if you do not begin with the Universe. As humans, we are too strongly conditioned by our human scale within a spacetime bubble. Starting with the Universe as a starting point means you create orientation from a highly complex state. Instead, begin by realizing that reality needs to be self-sustaining, self-acknowledging, self-explanatory, and must contain itself. Reality is bound by principles and can only move forward conditionally. Solve the simplicity of the essence of reality, and then move on to the Universe. A good starting point is this: for reality to be in a state of equilibrium, it must contain nothing that contradicts its own nature as a conditional necessity. Every solution begins with a common thread, a starting point, and the entire solution is the ball of yarn. I wish every philosopher the patience and joy to unravel this thread themselves, in order to discover a complete foundation for reality.

How can you get so excited about a 3,000-year-old idea about impermanence taught by the Buddha? Embracing impermanence is another way to deal with death acceptance I have watched Buddhist monks, create beautiful mandalas and then sweep them up and put them in a trash can. Think wisdom literature. Think world mythology.

Do you know how the Neanderthals coped with their death Terror? Ritualistic burial using burial poses, burial jewelry, and there is evidence of floral bouquets buried with Neanderthal individuals. To put it simply, meaning is the answer. All you have to do is define meaning and figure out ways to get to it. Start with Albert Camus. Or read the wisdom literature of the Upanishads. Start digging into the ideas of mythology with Mircea Eliade. How have humans coped with death Terror throughout history? Mythology and religion. It's the quest for meaning. Using psychology is like trying to do geography with a microscope. The traditional response has been a belief in an afterlife. We live in an enlightened world and so that is a difficult and sometimes unacceptable response to death Terror. But we have to take a look at the billions of people that believe in some type of afterlife. This is not a question that psychology can deal with. This is a question for philosophers.

I don't understand why you're not reaching out to philosophy of religion, the evolution of religion, and the sociology of religion. . Religion is used a bulwark against the anxiety of death and always has been. Even ritual is a bulwark against the anxiety about death. Man, you've got to move on to the the world of philosophy/history of religion and not pigeonhole yourself into experimental psychology.

G. is correct that psychiatry posits a medical problem. This was examined and challenged in depth and at length by Thomas S. Szasz. I cannot see how G’s work can proceed without attention to Szasz’s work.

How one can say so many words and say nothing? Does he himself even understand himself 😂.

Yes, that phenomenon is called G.d. Your "assembly theory" is just a crappy version of LZ77 compression algorithm. Listen to Dr. James Tour to learn more about those issues.

Dr. Tour EXPOSES the False Science Behind Origin of Life Research ruclips.net/video/v36_v4hsB-Y/видео.htmlsi=eC264rMR5VaIP-Yz&t=93

I suggest that just as there is an arrow of time, there is also an arrow of space. The arrow of space points outward and its manifestation is dark energy. But my thoughts are generally not conventional.

Schrodinger never owned a cat.

This is a great discussion- too much to learn from The conversation.

Recent research have formally demonstrated that Assembly Theory (AT) closely mirrors established theories like Shannon entropy and LZ compression, yet fails to cite them properly; moreover, its authors claim AT does what it does not. As a result, AT is a weaker version of these well-known concepts, raising concerns about its novelty and scientific significance. This situation highlights the risks of overhyping ideas that lack sufficient originality and formal rigor. Critical assessments include a paper in npj Systems Biology and Applications ("On the salient limitations of Assembly Theory") , "Assembly Theory is a weak version of algorithmic complexity based on LZ compression that does not explain or quantify selection or evolution", and blog posts by Dr. Hector Zenil, who argues that AT undermines scientific integrity through misleading claims.

Please just talk about the chemical properties of molecules in early earth history that enabled them to form structures like micelles that were able to survive for some period of time, and why some were able to survive longer than others, and then with certain phospholipids and peptides able to grow to the point they were able to spontaneously “divide” (by virtue of having a particular size that was most stable), and finally SENSE THE ENVIRONMENT. Because THAT is where “life” began - the age of homeostasis, which requires sensory feedback, which is the evolutionary forerunner of memory and cognition. That would be helpful.

This is a discussion which is currently undergoing neuro-evolution and will someday make sense to our primitive brains.

Talking about stretching the facts. Assembly theory or LZ77 ? And w call this science these days? Shame! Shame! Shame!

Actually this talk is nothing but a scam. We're used of car dealers being dishonest, insurance brokers or Bankers but too many assume a scientist is honest. That's however far from true and Lee Cronin is a great example, sorry to say. To claim evolution is a well proven Theory is the first scam as he's referring to macroevolution but using microevolution phenomenon to "prove" it. Fact is there is no evidence for any Species gradually changing into another one by evolution. ( not talking of cross breeding/ Mendelian laws btw). When going to abiogenesis the scam gets obvious when you try to create a self replicating cell or to create photosynthesis. No scientist today can recreate photosynthesis in any laboratory. Nobody can do it. Our intelligence isn't enough, despite all our technology and computers- but nature did it without any foresight and intelligence? Really? Scientists continously claim photosynthesis evolved but its a scam! A lie. If it was reproduce that process. Let's see the pathway that nature used by accident. Nobody can. So how could nature could have done it? Then claiming a cell was 4 billion years of trial and error is another scam. Why? Photosynthesis and a cell was there at the beginning of life. Atoms don't care about life. They don't care about being a cell. They are content with being an atom. Left to themselves atoms would never organise themselves to create a cell. That's the fact.

Researchers from King's College London and the University of Oxford have formally demonstrated through published papers and blog posts that Assembly Theory (AT) is formally equivalent to existing work (Shannon entropy and LZ compression grammar) without proper citation, and is a weaker version of these established concepts. This raises significant concerns about AT's originality and scientific merit, and also highlights the importance of not exaggerating intended scientific work, especially if it is not original and does not explain what their authors claim to explain. Publications include a paper in npj Systems Biology and Applications: "On the salient limitations of the methods of assembly theory and their classification of molecular biosignatures". "Assembly Theory is a weak version of algorithmic complexity based on LZ compression that does not explain or quantify selection or evolution", published in the arXiv and two medium post by Dr. Hector Zenil, broadly explaining why Assembly Theory and its marketing campaign are seriously damaging the image of science as a whole.

At 38m 15s, Tim Maudlin says, “That’s where I think relativity is wrong, I think you need a foliation.” A preferred spatial foliation of spacetime constitutes a preferred reference frame, which violates the relativity of simultaneity (all spatial foliations are equally valid) and the relativity principle (the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames), at least in spirit. Tim believes this is necessary to accommodate faster-than-light influences (Einstein’s “spooky actions at a distance”) that he wants to use to account for the empirically verified Bell-inequality-violating correlations predicted by quantum entanglement. This ugly fact leads him to say (at 2h): “This universe we’re living in is not the kind of universe an intelligent creature would make who had humanity at the center of their concerns.” It also led him to write in his book “Quantum Non‐Locality and Relativity” (Wiley, 2011): “One way or another, God has played us a nasty trick. The voice of Nature has always been faint, but in this case it speaks in riddles and mumbles as well. Quantum theory and Relativity seem not to directly contradict one another, but neither can they be easily reconciled. Something has to give: either Relativity or some foundational element of our world-picture must be modified. Physicists may glory in the challenge of developing radical new theories in which non-locality and relativistic space-time structure can more happily co-exist. Metaphysicians may delight in the prospect of fundamentally new ontologies, and in the consequent testing and stretching of conceptual boundaries. But the real challenge falls to the theologians of physics, who must justify the ways of a Deity who is, if not evil, at least extremely mischievous.” We open Chapter 9 of our book "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" (Oxford UP, 2024) with that last quote because Tim’s attitude is the perfect foil for what we show in the previous eight chapters. Not only is there no contradiction between special relativity (SR) and quantum mechanics (QM) due to the QM prediction and observed violation of Bell’s inequality, but the axiomatic reconstruction of QM from information-theoretic principles shows that the two theories actually follow from the same principle. Specifically, the kinematics of SR (Lorentz transformations) and QM (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) both follow most fundamentally from the relativity principle. There is also a beautiful symmetry between length contraction and time dilation per the relativity of simultaneity and the Bell-inequality-violating correlations of quantum entanglement per ‘average-only’ conservation. Let me summarize that here. According to Einstein, SR is a "principle theory," i.e., a theory whose formalism follows from an empirically discovered fact. For SR that empirically discovered fact is the light postulate -- everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions. Since c is a constant of Nature according to Maxwell's electromagnetism, the relativity principle says it must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motions (boosts), the relativity principle tells us the light postulate must obtain, whence the Lorentz transformations of SR. Likewise, quantum information theorists have rendered QM a principle theory and its empirically discovered fact is called Information Invariance & Continuity. In more physical terms, Information Invariance & Continuity entails that everyone measures the same value for Planck's constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations (let me call that the "Planck postulate"). Since h is a constant of Nature according to Planck's radiation law, the relativity principle says it must be the same in all inertial reference frames. And, since inertial reference frames are related by relative orientations in space (rotations), the relativity principle tells us the Planck postulate must obtain, whence the finite-dimensional Hilbert space of QM. Quantum superposition is one consequence of the Planck postulate and that leads to 'average-only' conservation, which is responsible for the mystery of quantum entanglement. However, once you understand how 'average-only' conservation follows from quantum superposition, which follows from the Planck postulate, which follows from the relativity principle and Planck’s radiation law, there is nothing mysterious about the Bell-inequality-violating correlations of QM. Here is how those correlations make perfect sense using spin-1/2. Suppose you send a vertical spin up electron to Stern-Gerlach (SG) magnets oriented at 60 deg relative to the vertical. Since spin is a form of angular momentum, classical mechanics says the amount of the vertical +1 angular momentum that you should measure at 60 deg is +1*cos(60) = 1/2 (in units of hbar/2). But, the SG measurement of electron spin constitutes a measurement of h, so everyone has to get the same +/- 1 for a spin measurement in any SG spatial orientation, which means you can't get what you expect from common sense classical mechanics. Instead, QM says the measurement of a vertical spin up electron at 60 deg will produce +1 with a probability of 0.75 and it will produce -1 with a probability of 0.25, so the average is (+1 + 1 + 1 - 1)/4 = 1/2. In other words, QM says you get the common sense classical result on 'average only' because of the observer-independence of h. Now suppose Alice and Bob are measuring the spin singlet state (the two spins are anti-aligned when measured in the same direction) and Alice obtains +1 vertically and Bob measures his particle at 120 deg relative to Alice. Obviously, if Bob had measured vertically he would have obtained -1, so at 120 deg Alice says he should get 1/2 per our single particle example. But of course, Bob must measure the same value for h that Alice does, so he can't get the fractional value of h Alice says he should (otherwise, Alice would be in a preferred reference frame). Instead, his outcomes at 120 deg corresponding to Alice's +1 outcomes vertically average to 1/2 just like the single particle case. And, of course, the data are symmetric so Bob can partition the results according to -*-his-*- +/- 1 outcomes and show that Alice's results satisfy conservation of spin angular momentum on 'average only'. In the end, Alice partitions the data per her +/- 1 outcomes and says Bob's results must be averaged to satisfy conservation of spin angular momentum, while Bob's partition says Alice's outcomes must be averaged (Answering Mermin’s challenge with conservation per no preferred reference frame, Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 15771 (2020)). This should remind you immediately of an analogous situation in SR. There when Alice and Bob occupy different references frames via relative motion, they partition spacetime events per their own surfaces of simultaneity and show clearly that each other's meter sticks are short and their clocks run slow. In other words, the mystery of quantum entanglement resides in 'average-only' conservation that results from "no preferred reference frame" (NPRF) giving the observer-independence of h (NPRF + h). And, the mysteries of length contraction and time dilation reside in the relativity of simultaneity that results from "no preferred reference frame" giving the observer-independence of c (NPRF + c). So, whose meter sticks are really short and whose clocks really run slow? This question arises in the (wrong) constructive perspective, there is no causal mechanism shortening meter sticks and slowing down clocks in SR. Length contraction and time dilation are not dynamical effects, they are kinematic facts due to the light postulate, as justified by the relativity principle. Likewise, who has to average their data to conserve spin angular momentum? This question arises in the (wrong) constructive perspective, there is no non-local or superdeterministic or retro causal mechanism responsible for Bell-inequality-violating correlations of QM. ‘Average-only’ conservation is not a dynamical effect, it’s a kinematic fact due to the Planck postulate, as justified by the relativity principle. Give up your constructive bias for QM, just as is done for SR, and physics makes perfect sense. God, it seems, is neither “evil” nor “extremely mischievous,” but benevolent in an impartial fashion. In short, NPRF + h and NPRF + c reveal that ‘God has made the world’ so that QM and SR phenomena may be understood via empirical investigations from any and all reference frames of our data collection devices, because the mathematical regularities (including their constants of Nature) that provide an understanding of the data are valid in all of those reference frames.

Actually the spermcell is with a tail because of the growth of the umbilical cord

Lee Cronin is like a Neanderthal witnessing a bic lighters flame and deducing it flopped into existence by a random lightning strike to a mud filled ditch

This guy is 54 years old, doesn’t look it

The speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997

At least shes honest about how the rich/kleptocrat class rape the poor.

You're Lost, Life is Creator, it is Not possible to create Life.

Since the probability field of QM is nothing more than the time-space sector in Larson's Reciprocal System -- meaning, the probability field is time in three dimensions, the inverse of space -- the cat is in fact existing in different time dimensions at once. It would be helpful if you knew what space and time were. That would shed some, uh, _light_ on the _matter_

If increasing gravity slows the passage of time, then the speed of light cannot be everywhere constant but is ruled by the principles of relativity

Presentism vs eternalism is an interesting idea but difficult to precisely define. I would describe it as analogy to technology. Where eternalism would be like a video tape, where everything just exists in the tape and the machine moves between the frames in the way that we move in time. Presentism would say time is more like computer memory, where there is only a present contents in RAM and this changes as programs run and modify the contents according to algorithms and operations. But the previous and future state don't really exist they're just history or potentials. I am not convinced that general relatively rules out presentism. What GR rules out is a single universal absolutely simultaneous conception of now. But a local now that is not universal may still be consistent with GR.

Aristotle was right Copernicans were equivalent with flat earthers today

2:03:30 - Constants of Nature.

Is the 'birth of life' still ongoing on Earth ?

What a brilliant discussion. I have profound regard for a person with so much knowledge, with a real understanding of what lines of reasoning from a large array of different fields are articulating, to draw connections, and to flow seamlessly through a chain of thoughts while constructing a point. From Dr . Brown's gestures I got the sense of a huge matrix of of concepts and information, which from his depth of knowledge and humility he can openly explore and inter-relate in a fascinating, credible and enjoyable manner. Thanks for this experience.

I bet Sheldon had and still has some wild Times

I really really enjoyed this talk🙃😊

This guy looks like he's only in his 50s

"a general phenomenon that creates life" ... :)))) ... and that's why life emerged only once 3.5 billions year ago ... and then never again ... (according to Darwinists) ... so this "general phenomenon that creates life"-theory makes lot of sense :)))) what's wrong with Cronin ? _

A lost soul??

What do they mean when they say QM is reversable? Do they mean probability is reversed?

Chemeros work has always been on my radar as a 4E enthusiast but I have not read any of his papers/books - so this has been an excellent conversation. Deeply appreciate his epistemic humility and intellectual agility.

Not velocity, but acceleration which is per second, per second, or per second square. That is what makes motion time reversible. The idea is protect statistical thermodynamics which requires that the motion of heated molecules is individually reversible

You are completely misteken

You need a model for what you think it works befor you can discuss what it is, othervise you are just waistingvyour time. E.g. gravity compress space ( solve Einsteins eq without time) and since time is generated by the space it is going slower where the space is compressed. Say in quanta or just in random fluctuations. Then discuss it.

Schrødinger's cat is in a state that is indeterminate. Thats it, anything else is rubbish

Can I develop self-esteem by being counter to the dominant culture and seeing myself as superior to it/them?

I wonder if Lee Cronin can tell us how glycolysis, the "oldest" process of ATP production, evolved. Since it needs 10 enzymes that must have been encoded by DNA. The problem would be that the replication fork of DNA uses ATP, so how did DNA replicate before glycolysis? Well, biologists will just regress into the fantasy of a "simpler" system. The problem is theres no organism, even bacteria, that doesn't use glycolysis for energy production. THIS leaves the realm of science, and enters the realm of fable.

Nice that biologists borrow life to "prove" evolution, but haven't proved how the life they borrow came to be.

Delusional. He reminds me of the Monte Python episode where John Cleese describes how to play a flute ... "You blow in this end and move your fingers up and down the other end. Next week we will solve the war in Indochina."

charlatan and grifter

Excellent conversation! The questions you posed helped me learn far more about Alex's views than I thought I could have by just listening to a conversation. :3 Thank you very much for making this!

Wonderful ❤