The only thing that is outside of the single bang is the popping of ur brain cells or the banging of reproduction. This should cover everything u can see observe in the mind. The ecology plants space time existence
what absolute BS. Sean Carroll: "There is no point in doubting the big bang model"? LOLOLOL thats good science. Science is just another religion. Made up fairy tales. Sean Carroll is fraud!
Penrose is just amazing. Whether or not you agree with him, you gotta admit he has the most extraordinary mind and style of thinking. And he's about 88 years old here. What a beautiful mind (and a charismatic character).
@@rationalsceptic7634 When did time begin? Big bang? OK, what happened before that? And if time can't begin it would take an infinite amount of time to get to now. The same reasoning with space, Conclusion: neither can exist in any actual reality. There! I did that so quickly. And yes, really.
@@felixfedre518 there is no "before" time began, that's just silly. Also there could be infinite time before the big bang just as there are infinitely many negative numbers before zero. But either way we don't know enough (yet) to answer the question of what time is definitely.
This should have been a 2 or 3 hour discussion. But anyway, thanks for gathering these geniuses! 😄 And a big thank you to Sir Roger Penrose for doing this at the age of 87! 🙏🏼
GOD I hope for fuck's sake you were making a sarcastic joke. Can never be to certain in a world filled with flatturds & evolution deniers & Holocaust deniers & AGW deniers.
@@allstarwatt7246 religious people are willing to subvert reason and rational thought to intentional ignorance and hate. I have little concern for what they "believe".
@@allstarwatt7246If these religious people actually gave it any introspective thought they would come to the realisation that this theory does support a Creator, themselves.
I'm just a layman but I've never understood why physicists and cosmologists have such a hard time wrapping their heads around an infinitely cyclical universe. Of all the theories I've heard Roger Penroses explanation makes more sense to me than any explanation I've heard. Just because infinity is an uncomfortable thing to accept, in some form or another, in perhaps a form that physics may be unable to explain and never observe, our universe has always existed and always will.
@Dharma Defender I don't even see the need for there to be a definition between our universe and whatever existed before? Whatever 'something' it is you refer to is just the universe in a state and form that we can never comprehend.
@Dharma Defender While as an agnostic I don't totally disregard the possibility of a God, using God as a 'fill in the blank' doesn't really count as definitive proof of anything really.
I agree! It is, just as Roger said, a very hard idea to swallow. However think about this… if the universe is infinite; I mean truly infinite.. it has no end, then the many worlds theory is correct, as there are only a finite number of ways that particles can arrange themselves.
I’m gathering that information from the James Webb telescope has confirmed it’s not a walk in the park. That just being adamant about the existence of of the universe and its song and dance just means you have a favorite pop singer.
The beauty of the situation is that any time you observe anything that is happening around you, you are witnessing a beginning at that point in time...the end and beginning of the world as you know it, happening simultaneously.
Three actual REAL scientists...people who clearly acknowledge what is right in each others' positions, yet are able to disagree without rancor, and in fact are even amused by their differences. And Laura's assertion that they'll all be "forced" into agreement eventually is a testament to what real science is supposed to do-namely establish empirically corroborated theories whose truth and utility obviates any need for further argument. I could have listened to these three for hours! 😎
I'd like to thank The Institute of Art and Ideas for making these videos and putting them on RUclips. Great effort by all concerned. The older I get, the more I think the main benefit of these and other ideas is keeping the chattering classes chattering. Whether these chats are conducted at a low level, (like me, who struggles moving beyond the basics), or others like Penrose et al, whose chats are conducted at a very detailed, highly technical level, everyone is chatting, arguing, agreeing, disagreeing etc., but real, genuine understanding and progress is either painfully slow or illusory. These ideas are just so big, so abstract, and so far removed from ordinary life, that it just overwhelms you. Or as Woody Allen put it, “How is it possible to find meaning in a finite world, given my waist and shirt size?"
What a great video, 3 of my absolute favorites. Obviously Roger Penrose is a giant in physics, and I'm absolutely intrigued by his conformal cyclical model. Sean is one of the best science communicators alive today, and is a brilliant physicist in his own right. And I very much appreciate Laura Mersini-Houghton's willingness to probe the frontiers of physics. One question I have here though, is how she can say we know that our local universe had a beginning- certainly that's a defensible proposition based purely on GR, but given that quantum effects would become significant as we approached the hypothetical "t=0" singularity, how can we say that the universe has a beginning without knowing what a quantum theory of gravity would tell us about this situation? Maybe it not only removes the singularity, but allows us to apply physical laws backwards across this point?
I wish i could hear more Sean Carrol speaking. His book The Big Picture was one of the most fascinating and intelligent books about physics I have ever read.
Interesting and respectful conversation between some top scientific thinkers on differing “origin models”. Three takeaways for me on their discussion. 1. How little we as a human species really know for sure about the universe. 2. How amazing it is that we humans are able to contemplate such radical and imaginative possibilities. 3. The stunning thought that the universe we live in is truly far grander, far richer and far more complex than we can ever imagine. Well done IAI for putting on the show.
I sometimes think about the fact that until 1924, we thought our Milky Way galaxy was the entire universe. The fact that we can now see with our own eyes the possibility of 100 billion galaxies is overwhelming. There is a new telescope going up (hopefully) next year, that can see infrared light. We will be able to see farther than ever before. Who knows what other hidden secrets will be revealed.
His Book Cycles of Time was outstanding. I wished they would have had Lee Smolin up there with his Fecund Universes... As explained in his book The Life of the cosmos. Steinhardt & Turok released a book called Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang which , like Penrose, explores a cyclic model but different...
@@RobertsMrtn the kicker is that once only photons are around, time becomes completely meaningless. A photon must always travel at the speed of light - but it can not experience time at that speed thanks to relativity. thus, for a photon, any path is the same length, because length is velocity times time, but if velocity is constant and time is not there, then you only get one answer. which means that in a very real sense the photons are all in the same spot, because distance is, like time, nonexistant for it. Which would mean that all the photons are in the same spot, an infinitely small spot of extreme energy - which should sound familiar.
@@pensiring7112 Yes, you are correct. A photon will not experience time using its own clock. The instant it is created it is destroyed. But from our clock it could last billions of years. I would argue that I would need the speed of light in order to calibrate my clock and measure time.
@@RobertsMrtn Yes, but I think the point of his theory is that there might be a time where "our clock" just does not exist at all, that there is no possibility to measure time, not even theoretically, because nothing with mass can even form. The only valid observer in that universe IS a photon that can neither experience time nor distance, so it does not really matter if the photon lasts billion of years, or takes trillions upon trillions of years to meet another photon, infinite time and no time become the same thing, and thus, a Poincare recurrence must occur, bringing the universe back to the big bang (because from an "outside" view, even though impossible, infinite time could pass before the next aeon starts). I am not a physicist, so, I can't really say if that makes sense, but it does make intuitive sense to me.
Basically if after the universe has expanded beyond the final black hole evaporating then there is nothing left to let the universe know how large it is -no point of reference left - only quantum fluctuations in fields ..so that gives way to a new big bang ..i think is Rogers point . Well that is how a genius puts forward complexity to us, the layman ....mindblowing and understandable.
@@richardmarcus3340 I agree with you. The universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is increasing, either that or time is slowing down or of course a combination of the two. If expansion continues the universe will continue to cool. This could cause a black hole to "mini" big bang but none of this would cause all matter to become photons.
This is a fascinating conversation and I appreciate that each and every person on this panel is waaaay smarter than me but I don't believe for one second that they have any clue what happened at the beginning of the universe.
Benaiah Wright: I agree with you, and your comment is looking more and more valid in the light of recent ideas that challenge the Big Bang theory (Prof. Learner etc).
quote I don't believe for one second that they have any clue what happened at the beginning of the universe As an accompanying inferior mind I believe you are correct. They are creating ever more intricate explanations based on their mathematical skills and without any regard for plausability. How do we arrive at NOW after an infinite number of previous universal aeons ? Is not TIME a man made construct to indicate that we can experience events separately ? The lady says we have an EXACT knowledge of events ; except for the beginning. That is NOT true ! Interpretation of Doppler red shift is being challenged. If it succeeds theoretical cosmologists will have a Universal heart attack ! Measurements showing that light bends in a gravitational field produced different results when measured in S America and Africa. Dark matter was created to overcome knowledge unknowns ! etc
@@divvy1400yam600 Is time a human concept? no! A photon leaves the sun to travel to earth. It will take that photon 8 minutes to get here. When it arrives, it arrives in the now. When the photon left the sun, it was in the suns now. So to be precise, all events are done in the now: the past now, the present now, and the future now. What we measure and call time, is the spaces between one now and the next now. Motion can be measured using one point in space to another. If there is no motion, then there's nothing to measure time by. This would mean everything will be in a state of suspension. What's interesting is measuring the shortest distance from one time segment to another is known as a Planck length. That's 1.6× 10^-35. Physists say that anything below this level cannot be measured. Our universe is in constant motion. Particles pop in and out all the time, but when they do, the time they are here can be measured. So time does not need man to exist. Man exists because of time.
Penrose's point about life in other possible universes is pretty interesting. I'd never thought about it but it does solve the anthropomorphic principle, with a sufficiently complex system, you're bound to have self-replication with error, which leads to evolution.
It would be wonderful for another discussion like this with Stephen Wolfram included, along with Max Tegmark, and spread over several hour long seasons. For those who don’t know, Sean Carroll has interviewed all but one (?) of the panel members on his Mindscape podcast. The thing about Wolfram is that he and his team’s computational physics research seems to be getting at what underlies quantum mechanics, which of course goes relates to the entire discussion here. Carroll has also interviewed Wolfram and Tegmark, as well as Susskind, Rovelli, and others leading physicists.
I wish they would dispel the common misunderstanding the the Big Bang was some kind of explosion. It was very unfortunate the the term Big Bang was coined for common use.
I’m not dumb enough to disagree with Roger Penrose. I love the fact that a 90-year-old genius is still ready to fight for truths that are unknown. I know there was a beginning for Roger, but I wish there was no end
Every creation story of every culture, religion, science, etc. is a story about how consciousness arises and becomes self conscious. No so-called scientific model of physical creation can escape this fundamental context that creation is a psychological event not just a physical event. The "big bang" is a myth of how consciousness looks at itself and the myth is projected onto a story of an objective universe.
Penrose's aeons makes the most sense. Aeons explains what was before the bang, how it gave rise to the bang, the nature of time having a "before the beginning" and a clean slate to "begin" again, a clean slate for mass, gravity, and scale, the nature of the CMB, and what will happen after this universe's expansion. It's elegant as well.
It still doesn't explain how the first ever aeon came into existence. Unless there's an infinity of aeons in the past without a beginning, which doesn't make sense.
@@70AD-user45 I agree. I should add a caveat that it makes the most sense (or is the most satisfying) in the context of the big bang and big freeze theories. Wetterich's "long thaw" is also an interesting theory. In terms of the ultimate beginning, it's very hard to escape a scenario of complete non-existence. Even theories involving nonlinear time or an infinite loop likely can't avoid it.
@@70AD-user45 I never understood this insistence on the need for an "origin". Explain how there can be a "nothing" - or really even a something from nothing - even the big bang had to start with something, in which case why was there that something? its a never-ending line of enquiry that seems to imply that there always has to be something.
@@bilbonob548 The word "nothing" in physics means there was a quantum field which created virtual particles, which borrowed energy from the gravitational field, before the virtual particles annihilated each other. What they're saying is, the universe was created from this quantum field during a quantum fluctuation when matter was created from energy during this quantum fluctuation. Mass is a positive form of energy and gravity is a negative form of energy. The two cancel each other out and what are you left with... nothing.
Sean is great at history. But, my take is that he gives an unbalanced view of the state of science. He doesn't spend enough time on valid ideas that do not align with his way of thinking. For example, he is a proponent of the block universe theory (eternalism). In a book on time, he hardly considers the growing block universe, and dismisses it with the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
@@PaulHoward108 Whether or not abiogenesis is indeed an ideology or not (debatable), I think Moldy Carrot meant "That's because these people don't have an ideology *about the origin of the universe*." That's what this discussion was about, after all.
@@Dalendrion If abiogenesis is not true, the origin of the universe is in consciousness. The Vedas describe the universe as one of Viṣṇu's dreams, and several pioneers of quantum theory praised the Vedas for helping their understanding. All the evidence available to science can be represented in a dream, but not in any naturalistic theory.
@@PaulHoward108 Can you describe to me what consciousness is? I suspect that you and I have a very different concept of it and it makes understanding the rest of your argument quite hard at the moment.
I think each contributed equally. Sean Carroll has more earned his seat at the table and always well grounded. Roger is more free spirited in his creative thinking but there is room for that too.
@@Daveunave now that's not fair... obviously few scientists alive today can compete with Roger's intellect or accomplishments, but Sean is a FANTASTIC science communicator, and Laura does extremely valuable, indispensable even, work on the frontiers of cosmology. Laura in particular brings stuff to the table that neither of the other two do, just because of her areas of research and interest. But yeah, Roger is amazing, obviously.
@@myopenmind527 you are insane. Penrose is a way more accomplished scientist than Carroll! Carroll is just a trendy pop science writer and popularizer! Have you read Penrose work or studied his career? He won a Nobel Prize!. He literally proved the existence of the singularity with Hawking. His book Road to Reality is a tour de force of the world of physics and one of the most comprehensive science texts of our generation, and also extremely philosophically sophisticated. He is the inventor of twistor theory, has several theorems, methods, and effects named after him (Hawking-Penrose theorems, Penrose Tilings, Penrose-Terrell Rotation, Penrose Diagrams). He invented spin networks, the strong censorship hypothesis, the Weyl curvature hypothesis, and CCC theory. His work on consciousness is also highly innovative with the Orch-OR theory. What notable theories has Carroll even proposed? Carroll is just a popularizer.
I love rodgers idea here. Inflation has always hit me wrong, results like that scream that we are missing something. Rodgers aeoms/cosmic rescaling are much easier to swallow than inflation for me.
I definitely appreciate that it solves several sticky problems with the BBT (flatness, horizon, etc) but it has always struck me as ad hoc, and Roger's point that it introduces new physics motivated entirely by this particular model alone is a good one. Would love to see some convergent/independent lines of observation or theory pointing to these mechanisms (e.g. inflaton fields). Then again, I'm not a physicist only a hobbyist so my comprehension is limited here.
Three wonderful minds! Great to see the female of our species represented here. I understood very little of this having no formal education in the science of physics but I found this video very down to earth. Thank you!
I have always wanted to see a convo between Sean and Roger both now if Eric could join in and have a long form discussion it would be AMAZING those are my three absolute favorite ideas about what this is we are all experiencing. Thank you for this !!
@@illlDCllli Yeah that ones great. I would check out "From Eternity to Here" next it goes into so much more detail about things like the nature of spacetime and thermodynamics. All his books are good.
He has a great voice, he is also overbearing in this presentation, basically ruining it. You may not understand why, because you don't understand the physics arguments here.
imagine the nerve of this debate moderator, he actually interrupted Penrose when he was explaining something so complex. And to add to all of that, he interrupted Penrose with his disrespectful figger waggling.
It’s sad that we live in a time where such profound concepts have to be reduced to a 1 minute soundbite or a 2-sentence tweet. Seeing the host shush Penrose in the middle of his statement was just pathetic.
John Giorgetti it’s whoever programmed this event to think someone could feasibly explain the origins of existence in one minute or less is just absurd. It’s catering to what they believe is an audience with little attention spans.
Enter the Braggn' I gotta admit I wanted to dismiss your comment because it came across very arrogant, but thank you for introducing me to the ideas of Halton Arp. Seeing as how they both worked for CalTech, I wonder what Sean Carroll’s argument against Arp’s would be. Whether he’s right or wrong, Arp had conviction to pursue his own research regardless of the suppression from the mainstream. I’ll need to look into his theory further to see if recent data supports or disproves it...
I say the same things as Penrose, albeit less eloquently, and I get looked at like I’m “obviously” wrong. I find these ideas are often in consensus with my own and i don’t often read other peoples ideas. Calculating it is beyond me without a mathematical or scientific background, but the thoughts themselves are in layman’s terms - so from what I understand it to be it seems so. I, for one, sincerely appreciate the lack of jargon.
How can finite humans (like the ones in this video) seriously discuss things they didn't or could not observe? Physicists and cosmologists that discuss for example, "singularities" and "parallel universes" may actually be a grouping of people with a form of insanity and get paid for it?
How can finite humans discuss and accurately predict the orbit of pluto 248 years when no one has ever seen it complete an orbit it was only discovered in 1930
@@vermouth310 They are not stating for certain these things are true. They are exploring the idea because it is possible within the math. Einstei's theory predicted black holes long before we could actuallty observe one. It predicted gravitational lensing long before we had proof of it. So, if the math works out, it's worth discussing as a possibility. This is how science works. You hypothesize, and then you test it.
I find that both, religious and scientific attempt to solve the issue of creation is to take pretty much everything and pack it into a singularity. Scientists call it the big bang, and religious people call it "god", but functionally and psychologically, they perform an identical function. They say: "Everything you see and don't understand can be compressed into a meta entity that is nice and easy to comprehend, like a dot. And then the dot itself obeys its own rules, be that quantum mechanics, or a divine intelligence. My question is - if a creation took place, why did it stop? If life spontaneously emerged on this planet, then why don't we see new life show up every day? Why, despite our scientific understanding of things down to the DNA, we can't manufacture a single living cell, or reanimate a dead one, without transplanting living matter off something else? What are we missing?
why did it stop?- one of the jewish- hebrew words for G-D literally is 'enough' ie - thats it - ie those are the ' measurements',the ' demensions', the ' parameters' etc. ie the realitie . and of course creation didn't stop - it's renewed every day every moment and every micro moment.
Debate? They didn’t talk long enough to say anything of great relevance at all. Not even 40 minutes long, I didn’t even have the time to finish the days dishes! First time experiencing iai and I was underwhelmed, this should have been at least 3 hours long if not more. People crave long form discussions these days, and by people I speak for myself. It seems like time is the ultimate original placeholder for the universe, we can’t see beyond it as we are enmeshed within it.
I think the textbook Copenhagen quantum mechanics and conscious observer relation could be key in all this. Only a conscious observer can see the branching occur. Even that doesn't matter because it's based on probability of a deterministic theory. I agree with Sean that quantum mechanics will more likely provide us 'the conscious' observer the answer if there is one.
Sorry we can't make this any longer, but we can offer you more of Penrose - here's 2 more to help finish the dishes: iai.tv/video/the-next-universe and iai.tv/video/bang-goes-the-big-bang | thanks for watching and commenting, we really value feedback
Why and how does the universe exist? Sean-"because it can and doesn't need a cause. It's a perfectly symmetrical event ". Laura- "because there may be infinite universes which would mean ours is a product of inevitability" Roger- it's a conceivably eternal perpetual motion and the question of why is doesn't apply"
What everyone here (on the panel) is allowing to slide by is that the only person here actually SOLVING the math problem inherent in the entropy question (that the origin state of the universe must be of zero entropy) is Dr Penrose. Sean Carroll has a fantasy story, Mersini-Hougton has a fantasy story. Penrose has a math solution. This is why he states point blank that the inflation idea is NOT beautiful, as his idea of beauty is that it must strictly respect consistent math. Under his scheme time naturally becomes nonexistent in the very distant future, when mass ceases to exist leaving only photos in space. No mass = no time. No time = no dimensions. Geometry of space becomes "conformal." Bingo you are at the state required to begin anew with a singularity precipitated perhaps by quantum fluctuation. See his book, "Cycles of Time" (2010 Knopf). Too bad Dr Penrose is not as bossy as Sean Carroll, we'd have a real discussion here rather than a lecture for Jr High kids.
the argument often used here "the life, as we know it here on earth.." is inappropriate (certainly wrong) because there is no good understanding of nature of life on its very basics (at least among the cosmologists participating in the discussion), whereas the strong anthropic principle affirms that we cannot understand the universe without fundamental understanding of the phenomenon of life.. life is fundamentally important for the physical universe to become real and it takes place in the very center of the reference frame related with the observable universe.
The one question I wish they would have addressed specifically was if the universe is eternal, rather than having a beginning and first cause, what aspect of the universe is fundamental? Regardless of the type of eternal universe model (conformal cyclical cosmology, bubble multiverse, or quantum universe etc.), what aspect of the universe is self existent in their view. This seems to be an underlying question that has to be answered - is it matter, space/time, causality, energy or something else?
Mr. Caroll has a more conservative theory (or more mainstream), BUT Prof. Penrose has more revolutionary (“craizy”) theory and my modest intuition says that Penrose is more close to actual nature of existence. HISTORY HAS GIVEN RIGHT TO THE BOLD ONES. 😎👍Penrose 🙏
What? Like Adolf Hitler? I love Roger Penrose but there is no correlation between the boldness and the veracity of an idea. Of course there is no correlation that runs the opposite way either. We must be simultaneously open minded yet critical to keep our foot firmly on the road to reality - which just so happens to also be the title of a book by Sir Penrose.
Absolutely stunning content. Penrose and those of that ilk make so much sense, are today’s difference between condescending arrogant beliefs. True understanding and the search of it has no room for those who may talk to others that they and only they understand. True science is about accepting the reality and changing our worldly views.
See the difference between science and theism? Sean and Roger have definite differences of opinion yet both remain good natured and open to being wrong.
This talk didn't start assuring that a viable explanation will be given to the fundamental issues it dealt with, and it ended too without any such assurance. But the process the talks went thru in those 38 minutes was sublime, given the sincerity & erudition of the participants. I only want to say that their speculative talk was based on knowledge over things measuring less than 5% of what our universe, as we presently know, comprises of. There is the 70+% of dark energy and another 20+% of dark matter about which these big brains have very little idea. Add to that issues like quantum entanglement, which simply defy information propagation laws. So, their speculation about Time, Multiverse, etc, at many levels, is only as good as that of any concerted thinker, though not educated.
Entanglement doesn't violate information propagation laws, you belong in the 1920s with Einstein, this has already been discussed. Also they most definitely do study dark energy and dark matter they're fucking cosmologists (except Penrose, but he might as well be one)
Roger mentions the book from Robert Forward called "Dragons egg". I've just recently read it and I recommend to all. It's very interesting cool unusuall sci fi book. ..Life on a neutron star, apparently proposed long ago by physicist Drake.
The term “Multiverse” came from a scientist at an Oxford debate on origin of life and the astronomical odds against it. ( 1x10>264 ). Admitting the chances were unrealistic, he used the idea of a “multiverse” to assuage those odds and soften the numbers.
Scientists with this logic !!!! My friends the concept beginning is only happened in space and time so if we say there is beginning it should be there is a space and time ,second how time has a beginning? Beginning is for things happened in time allrady , the concept beginning used when there is a before and after . The problem is you take a wrong idea and you want to apply it to nature.
Many thanks for your video! This remind me that a pope (Pie XII or a more recent pope told l'abbé Lemaitre "Great! As far back as the Big Bang it's your business while before the Big Bang is my business" 🤯🤯🤯
Here's an idea. What if we were to think of the expansion of the universe as a wave moving through a soup of elementary particles (or a 5th dimension)?
It seems to me we could start with a universe that is much bigger than a singularity that “banged” into existence and observe all the same things that we do today.... perhaps quantum physics fails us at the “ beginning “ of our present universe and the observation of it. Interesting discussion! Thanks
fenom Sean is a fantastic communicator of established theories. Unfortunately established theories are incomplete. Roger proposes new theories which depart from the establishment. Progress is made by rebels, not conservatives. Roger is invested in his ideas because they conform to basic physical principles. Sean is invested in his ideas because they conform to economic necessity. 👍🏽
When I was a kid I used to enthusiastically ask people 'Is the universe bigger than a breadbox?' My answer was that the universe is both infinitely large and infinitely small simultaneously. By 'the universe' I meant all of the 'space' in which the matter of the universe existed. 'Space' as it seems to me, is intrinsically dimensionless.
@@Dalendrion I'm arguing (as Penrose did) that 'space' is dimensionless - it is a construct just as 'time' is. There is no time without motion and there is no space without matter. My living room is made of matter and 'it' has a size but the 'space' it 'takes up' does not 'exist' independently of the room itself. Do you think that 'brightness' is bright? Of course it isn't. The brightness of a flame is a property of the flame but 'brightness' does not possess the property of brightness any more than 'sound' has a sound.
@@MarkLucasProductions So you're saying that you're not measuring space, but it's the _object_ that's measured in m³? It's a little hard to wrap my head around. Especially since spacetime can warp and bend. It's said to be an active thing, so to say it doesn't exist is hard to understand. But I feel like I need a few more nudges for it to click. (Also, if Penrose said it here, I think I missed it.)
@@Dalendrion I cannot tell you what space or time 'really' is. No one can do that. If you interact with people you will hear things that seem absurd and things that seem reasonable or plausible. However you're unlikely to be able to tell which are objectively true or objectively false. I genuinely 'do' think that all of the space in the universe would fit into a breadbox. The 'matter' would certainly not but we are not talking about the 'stuff'' that fills the universe - we are talking only about the 'space'. It is my view that space does not have the kind of physical properties you are suggesting. To understand left-handedness or just 'leftness' we absolutely need to consider 'rightness'. The one actually gives rise to the other. In a universe absent of 'rightness' there can be no 'leftness'. Similarly in a universe absent of 'stuff' there can be no 'space'. We all think of the universe as a big 'place' full of lots of 'stuff'. With a little effort it became possible for me to conceive of it differently. I think the physical ("active") attributes of space are either mathematical constructs or otherwise dependent upon the 'stuff' in the universe for their existence. By the way, 'space' in the absence of matter immediately loses all of its geometrical qualities. No curvature. No expansion, dilation etc. You will be aware that 'space' (as we are considering it here) is really only an aspect of spacetime. The universe does not exist in space. It exists in spacetime. In the absence of matter there is no 'motion' in the universe. In the absence of 'motion' there can be no 'time'. In the absence of time there can be no space.
Thanks for putting this on here. People like these, who take time and pains to test theories and think about the evidence, are incredibly valuable to us.
Sean Carroll: "We should be humble about this ..." as he refuses to shut the fuck up and let Dr Penrose present the only unique and creative body of theory we have here in this short lecture.
15:00 actually penrose aeon idea is rather neat, if you wanted to you could say that each aeon is the *first* , or it's the *only* aeon, we have a big bang, then an expansion, then nothing but black holes, then evaporated black holes, so only photons, so there is no time / no distance = singularity, and that's another big bang, but as time doesn't exist it's the "first" big bang - we don't need infinity or eternity. and it could even fit with what carroll was saying about "in our history we are other people's past" - the aeons reverse direction (?) and of course the part of the universe we can see might be expanding, but if the universe is finite, but really, really fkn big, bigger than we can imagine, our part of it could collapse again at some point.
He figured out a way of his saddened state,, but where does he describe this process. The matter has to come from somewhere. So if there was a point in a previous aeon where only photons existed and then a big bang occurred. Where did the matter come from?
Sean Carroll is sure the voice doppelganger of Alan Alda. Every time he opens his mouth, it sounds like Hawkeye is giving a lecture about theoretical physics.
They don't even entertain the thought the hot dense state model may be wrong? He jokes they wouldn't let you on the stage if you doubt it. That doesn't sound like science. Sounds like dogma, religion.
ok i finally understood that thing about eons Mr. Penrose is talking about (i hope...)...its about SCALE...expanding universe with no mass is big and small at the same time (like if you are looking at ant thru glass, it looks big, if you put the glass of, its small) ....damn, thats fascinating!!!
The spiritual take on that is that prior to existence there is Being ((God) and at the level of Being all questions and reasons are invalid, because there is Being only. Being comes before existence and existence comes before something and nothing.
"There is no point in debating the big bang model". Well when one of the speakers opens this debate in such a manner, it suggests that the parameters of this discussion have already been set (limited) by orthodox ideas.
@@lizadowning4389 Clearly you have not explored the hundreds of NDE (Near Death Experiences) recorded on RUclips--- so you really have little knowledge (or experience) of this matter However, if you choose to ignore the evidence, then you must also think that life (including yours) is of no consequence at all. Happy days !!
@@electricmanist NDE's ... really? Some random people claiming they saw a bright light while under surgery, etc... and you call that evidence because they testified on RUclips? But when scientists and enigineers collect hard and observable data, apply sound math and reasoning, you call that orthodox ideas ... what is wrong with your brain? Why should I think that life is of no consequence? It's not because I reject "a higher power" that my life is meaningless. I find meaning in what I do and who I do it with. You think worshipping some imaginary deity is the only thing that gives you meaning? And what do you do it for? To win the ultimate prize in the end? An eternity of worshipping the same as you did during life? Don't you see the tragedy in that? Talking about a sad way to spend your brief time on this planet...
@@lizadowning4389 Oh dear oh dear; just how an intelligent person can compose such a simplistic reply really suggests that you either cannot comprehend a spiritual existence outside the physical body, or alternatively you really believe that consciousness ceases to exist when the physical body dies. Then you continue your EMail by throwing into the discussion "An imaginary deity', ---although it would seem you have missed out including ritual human sacrifices, -- !!!-- since the tone of your EMail relegates your response to that level of understanding . I'm not quite sure though just how you manage to accommodate a few (weak) caveats to that level of understanding, such as "that you do not find life meaningless". A mental psychological safety net perhaps ? But when you add the comment that "seeing a bright light while under surgery' by "some random people", then your position not only becomes clear, but demonstrates that you really haven't done any research into the nature of human experience. Not only have I personally experienced a NDE (Near Death Experience), but literally thousands of other people have had this experience. The internet (You tube for example) and numerous publications have recorded this experience, and since these people come from all parts of the world, collusion or some such silly conspiracy is not really likely is it.? Oh I mustn't forget to include the "dying brain-- lack of oxygen theory, --- another crackpot idea put forward by so called "scientists', whose limited 3 dimensional concept of reality is, shall we say, rather primitive.-- to say the least. I'm sure that should you make the time (and effort) to seriously investigate the nature of consciousness, ( NDE'e and recorded personal experiences) you would open the door to a greater understanding of the (total) human condition. PS. Somehow I get the impression that your concept of a Deity, is that of a elderly white coated figure, (no doubt stooped due to carrying the weight of all the letters after his/her name) .
@@lizadowning4389 Just found your Email on my 'In Box'--not sure if I've already replied , so please excuse if this is a repeat. Unfortunately, it is difficult to respond to someone who has already decided (set in concrete might be more appropriate in this case) upon the nature of life--and the Creative force inherent in all that is. So, firstly your reference to "people claiming to see a bright light while under surgery, not forgetting your inclusion of You Tube as if that medium itself is a measure of the validity (or otherwise) of NDE reports. However, it is clear that (despite your obvious lack of personal experience) you feel you are able to make a negative judgement upon such reports. Yet somehow your response comes across as if you have whole gamut of scientific research to back your negative reaction/response to such experiences. Any worthwhile research (on your part) would reveal that a number of medical professionals (i.e. doctors/nurses etc) have themselves (personally) experienced a NDE (as well as thousands of other people), so rather than your "one size fits all" response, you really have carried out little or no research into the matter. Well many people do in fact make judgement about matters of which they know little or even nothing, so your response is not all that unusual. Lack of awareness or experience is not all that unusual, either --particularly when relating to such matters as consciousness in its many varieties. Incidentally I also have experienced a NDE, so one could say that I do have the 'edge' when it comes to dealing with such matters. So outside your 'scientific or medical books', what experience have you ?
Roger explains his idea even more with an illustration that helps on the Joe Rogan podcast, if anyone is interested in understanding what he is talking about.
This Sean Carroll guy just says nobody is allowed on stage who disputes the Big Bang. He may have meant it as a joke but just goes to show his ignorance and arrogance. However, Roger Penrose, a breath of fresh air compared to Carroll.
That the universe expands and was smaller in the past is an experimental fact or life. Denying it is like denying that objects appear to fall to the ground.
@phillustrator our region is expanding but we can ever know about regions too faraway to get information from. we currently assume that the whole universe had the same beginning as our region, but it can only ever be an assumption. It is analogous to a cell only having access to its own interior and its history back to its emergence and knows nothing of the cell division that occurred. Perhaps the origin of the universe is much further back than we could imagine.
Carrol is the kid that everyone hated in school.. he isnsonsure of himself and yet the more we see the more questions we have. He's basically a ticket salesman.
_ These are debates about theories, ideas and beliefs - not about Reality! _ In case some people haven't discovered yet: There is currently a great debate in the cosmologist community about the veracity of the "Big Bang Theory". Scientific data collected over an extended period of time show that what the "The Big Bang Theory" was supposed to predict has been a grand failure.
Ryan Counts Yes, what were they thinking when they were scheduling the program... “Let’s ask the world’s top theoretical cosmologists about the origins of the universe, and give them each one minute tops.” Jerks
Ryan Counts obviously you missed the part about time being a social construct😂 These are busy people. I appreciate how little we’ve got from their time.
When Penrose says (in my words) that notions of big and small, hot&cold are lost if there's no reference for those anymore, I think I understand what he's saying. BUT, though this might be the case right before the start of another aeon; as soon as _that_ one starts expanding, size/scale and temperature IS there again, and when that eaon also results in beings like us who'll at some point realize the expansion and winding back the clock like we have, they too would reason that the beginning must've been small and hot. Right? (or am I totally missing what the thesis is?)
@@bonleofen sorry I wasn’t very clear in my response. Infinite regression isn’t a problem with these models of as they all use different ways to define “infinity”. For instance Ccc says we have local measurable time and each aeon happens in sequence but not in “time”. Time as we recognize it is emergent inside each aeon after mass is formed. Inflation again says we have a local time but the cosmos was infinite. The main two ways I’ve seen this described was, either the cosmos is fundamental or a random quantum fluctuations started everything moving through time. Carroll holds to the B theory of time (although he doesn’t like that terminology) in that the flow of time is an illusion and past and present are equally real for light cones. Take what I say with a several grains of salt as I am a complete layman in this area but I know each of these cosmologist have taken infinite regression into account.
@@redbad2652 they define infinity in a sense that they don't consider the absolute infinity in their definition. Because if they consider absolute infinity as we know it, as a concept, they must have a first cause for it or else infinite regression becomes a problem. What they have is quantities that are large enough that they can be considered to be tending to infinity. That's part of study of limits in mathematics. So, in order for random fluctuations to "take place", we need time. Any equation or any scientific apparatus that gives us an explanation of some fluctuations happening has to give an explanation based on time. The evidence or mathematical explanation of quantum fluctuations "starting" everything has to have a beginning or a continuity of time in it. It can not be independent of time and then somehow give knowledge of "something taking place". Any explanation of anything "starting" is in itself an explanation based on time. If there was infinite time and then you have an explanation of everything starting. That's a contradiction. So, they define quantity infinity in a sense that it 'tends' to infinity but never becomes an infinite value. The trade off is that you don't speak in absolute terms. You're just talking about a quantity that is very large that it appears to be infinite or tending (if you like the mathematical terminology) to infinity.
@@bonleofen you may be right as I say I’m a layman in this area. All models wiIl eventually reach a foundation that will have no evidence to fall back upon, but I do feel confident that each of these models have taken your abjection into consideration. The interview was too short to discuss all the topics relating to the beginning of the cosmos.
This talk all rests on the idea that the Observed red shift of Galaxies can only be explained by recessional velocities. But there are very high red shift Quasars in from of much lower red shift galaxies. How can this be and how can this evidence be ignored. Sean may not allow anyone to stand on stage unless they agree with him but, he still needs to address this problem..
The ONLY books that physicists write that impress me or would impress me would be textbooks with loads of mathematical exercises in them. Learn by doing.
No one can prove the universe beginning .......arts and ideas are articulation but as man is finite being, he can not prove anything in the beginning........
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
For more on this debate, watch Sean Carroll's latest talk on how life and meaning emerge from physical stuff ruclips.net/video/GenTQ6mXwt4/видео.html
The Institute of Art and Ideas why not put enistines discovery at the beginning of the Christian Era.
The Institute of Art and Ideas You have deleted my comments, you have Violated your own principles!
Hi. I would like to reach out to some of ur staff who might want to hear what I have to say about the big questions.
There’s only one big bang
The only thing that is outside of the single bang is the popping of ur brain cells or the banging of reproduction. This should cover everything u can see observe in the mind. The ecology plants space time existence
So incredible to see Professor Penrose win the Nobel Prize.
One of the greatest minds.
I found it pretty credible.
My money is on Penrose's aeons being a spark of the next revolution in Cosmology.
what absolute BS. Sean Carroll: "There is no point in doubting the big bang model"? LOLOLOL thats good science. Science is just another religion. Made up fairy tales. Sean Carroll is fraud!
and there is a "smart guy" Sean Carrol who truly belive that we are alone in this universe and life exist only on planet earth.
@@mrloop1530 and the Aliens (including the humans millions of years from now) are laughing at these idiots.
Penrose and Carroll together. This is my jam.
Mine too.
Penrose is just amazing. Whether or not you agree with him, you gotta admit he has the most extraordinary mind and style of thinking. And he's about 88 years old here. What a beautiful mind (and a charismatic character).
Not smart enough to realise there are somethings the human mind is not cable of understanding such as time and space both of which are paradoxes.
@@felixfedre518
Really?
@@rationalsceptic7634 When did time begin? Big bang? OK, what happened before that?
And if time can't begin it would take an infinite amount of time to get to now.
The same reasoning with space,
Conclusion: neither can exist in any actual reality.
There! I did that so quickly. And yes, really.
@@felixfedre518 there is no "before" time began, that's just silly. Also there could be infinite time before the big bang just as there are infinitely many negative numbers before zero. But either way we don't know enough (yet) to answer the question of what time is definitely.
@@rationalsceptic7634 Really, and truly. Anyone claiming to know is simply pulling it out of their ass, which is not science.
IMO criminnaly short screentime for such beautiful minds and such fascinating discussion.
thanks for flagging! we've released the Q+A as well here ruclips.net/video/MdIV57k2ILM/видео.html
N 001 I would like to know what he thought of the work of the unmentionable Priest George Lemaitre?
This should have been a 2 or 3 hour discussion.
But anyway, thanks for gathering these geniuses! 😄
And a big thank you to Sir Roger Penrose for doing this at the age of 87! 🙏🏼
I concur. They need an hour each.
@@petercohen3966 Could we stand it?
The idea that time goes away when mass goes away is fascinating. I have never seen any scientist contradict Penrose on that point.
That was the idea of the day!
Time is a yooman word for cellular decay
Time goes away without something to measure it, isn't that like saying there is no sound if there is no one to hear it?
@@ahad2k11 That could be
@@ahad2k11: Not if time is caused by movement, rather than vice versa.
Please ignore these people. the real world-renowned physicists are in the comments.
GOD I hope for fuck's sake you were making a sarcastic joke. Can never be to certain in a world filled with flatturds & evolution deniers & Holocaust deniers & AGW deniers.
I assume you’re NOT including yourself..........
Thank you for recognizing me...
@@theultimatereductionist7592 woosh
Don't under estimate Russian bots...
Penrose is beyond brilliant ♥
I find Sir Penrose's theory so elegant (I've followed it for a while) I don't understand why so much push back!
religious people tend not to like his theory because it suggests that our universe did not need a creator.
@@allstarwatt7246 religious people are willing to subvert reason and rational thought to intentional ignorance and hate. I have little concern for what they "believe".
@@allstarwatt7246If these religious people actually gave it any introspective thought they would come to the realisation that this theory does support a Creator, themselves.
I'm just a layman but I've never understood why physicists and cosmologists have such a hard time wrapping their heads around an infinitely cyclical universe. Of all the theories I've heard Roger Penroses explanation makes more sense to me than any explanation I've heard. Just because infinity is an uncomfortable thing to accept, in some form or another, in perhaps a form that physics may be unable to explain and never observe, our universe has always existed and always will.
@Dharma Defender I don't even see the need for there to be a definition between our universe and whatever existed before? Whatever 'something' it is you refer to is just the universe in a state and form that we can never comprehend.
@Dharma Defender While as an agnostic I don't totally disregard the possibility of a God, using God as a 'fill in the blank' doesn't really count as definitive proof of anything really.
I agree! It is, just as Roger said, a very hard idea to swallow. However think about this… if the universe is infinite; I mean truly infinite.. it has no end, then the many worlds theory is correct, as there are only a finite number of ways that particles can arrange themselves.
I’m gathering that information from the James Webb telescope has confirmed it’s not a walk in the park. That just being adamant about the existence of of the universe and its song and dance just means you have a favorite pop singer.
The beauty of the situation is that any time you observe anything that is happening around you, you are witnessing a beginning at that point in time...the end and beginning of the world as you know it, happening simultaneously.
Three actual REAL scientists...people who clearly acknowledge what is right in each others' positions, yet are able to disagree without rancor, and in fact are even amused by their differences. And Laura's assertion that they'll all be "forced" into agreement eventually is a testament to what real science is supposed to do-namely establish empirically corroborated theories whose truth and utility obviates any need for further argument. I could have listened to these three for hours! 😎
liars
I'd like to thank The Institute of Art and Ideas for making these videos and putting them on RUclips. Great effort by all concerned.
The older I get, the more I think the main benefit of these and other ideas is keeping the chattering classes chattering. Whether these chats are conducted at a low level, (like me, who struggles moving beyond the basics), or others like Penrose et al, whose chats are conducted at a very detailed, highly technical level, everyone is chatting, arguing, agreeing, disagreeing etc., but real, genuine understanding and progress is either painfully slow or illusory.
These ideas are just so big, so abstract, and so far removed from ordinary life, that it just overwhelms you. Or as Woody Allen put it, “How is it possible to find meaning in a finite world, given my waist and shirt size?"
What a great video, 3 of my absolute favorites. Obviously Roger Penrose is a giant in physics, and I'm absolutely intrigued by his conformal cyclical model. Sean is one of the best science communicators alive today, and is a brilliant physicist in his own right. And I very much appreciate Laura Mersini-Houghton's willingness to probe the frontiers of physics.
One question I have here though, is how she can say we know that our local universe had a beginning- certainly that's a defensible proposition based purely on GR, but given that quantum effects would become significant as we approached the hypothetical "t=0" singularity, how can we say that the universe has a beginning without knowing what a quantum theory of gravity would tell us about this situation? Maybe it not only removes the singularity, but allows us to apply physical laws backwards across this point?
I honestly don't think they can know.
I wish i could hear more Sean Carrol speaking. His book The Big Picture was one of the most fascinating and intelligent books about physics I have ever read.
Interesting and respectful conversation between some top scientific thinkers on differing “origin models”. Three takeaways for me on their discussion. 1. How little we as a human species really know for sure about the universe. 2. How amazing it is that we humans are able to contemplate such radical and imaginative possibilities. 3. The stunning thought that the universe we live in is truly far grander, far richer and far more complex than we can ever imagine. Well done IAI for putting on the show.
I sometimes think about the fact that until 1924, we thought our Milky Way galaxy was the entire universe.
The fact that we can now see with our own eyes the possibility of 100 billion galaxies is overwhelming.
There is a new telescope going up (hopefully) next year, that can see infrared light. We will be able to see farther than ever before.
Who knows what other hidden secrets will be revealed.
That was certainly a great conclusion .
holy shit Penrose is brilliant
His Book Cycles of Time was outstanding. I wished they would have had Lee Smolin up there with his Fecund Universes... As explained in his book The Life of the cosmos. Steinhardt & Turok released a book called Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang which , like Penrose, explores a cyclic model but different...
I don't think much of his theory. It's like saying that if you get rid of all the clocks in the world then time would stop.
@@RobertsMrtn the kicker is that once only photons are around, time becomes completely meaningless. A photon must always travel at the speed of light - but it can not experience time at that speed thanks to relativity. thus, for a photon, any path is the same length, because length is velocity times time, but if velocity is constant and time is not there, then you only get one answer. which means that in a very real sense the photons are all in the same spot, because distance is, like time, nonexistant for it. Which would mean that all the photons are in the same spot, an infinitely small spot of extreme energy - which should sound familiar.
@@pensiring7112 Yes, you are correct. A photon will not experience time using its own clock. The instant it is created it is destroyed. But from our clock it could last billions of years. I would argue that I would need the speed of light in order to calibrate my clock and measure time.
@@RobertsMrtn Yes, but I think the point of his theory is that there might be a time where "our clock" just does not exist at all, that there is no possibility to measure time, not even theoretically, because nothing with mass can even form. The only valid observer in that universe IS a photon that can neither experience time nor distance, so it does not really matter if the photon lasts billion of years, or takes trillions upon trillions of years to meet another photon, infinite time and no time become the same thing, and thus, a Poincare recurrence must occur, bringing the universe back to the big bang (because from an "outside" view, even though impossible, infinite time could pass before the next aeon starts). I am not a physicist, so, I can't really say if that makes sense, but it does make intuitive sense to me.
Basically if after the universe has expanded beyond the final black hole evaporating then there is nothing left to let the universe know how large it is -no point of reference left - only quantum fluctuations in fields ..so that gives way to a new big bang ..i think is Rogers point . Well that is how a genius puts forward complexity to us, the layman ....mindblowing and understandable.
He's no genius.
@@richardmarcus3340 I agree with you. The universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is increasing, either that or time is slowing down or of course a combination of the two. If expansion continues the universe will continue to cool. This could cause a black hole to "mini" big bang but none of this would cause all matter to become photons.
This conversation was _way_ too short! Needed an extra hour or two.
I agree. Whenever I listen to any of the talks by these folks (espescially Roger) I am always looking around for more talks.
no
This is a fascinating conversation and I appreciate that each and every person on this panel is waaaay smarter than me but I don't believe for one second that they have any clue what happened at the beginning of the universe.
The evidence is there. Beliefs are irrelevant.
Benaiah Wright: I agree with you, and your comment is looking more and more valid in the light of recent ideas that challenge the Big Bang theory (Prof. Learner etc).
quote I don't believe for one second that they have any clue what happened at the beginning of the universe
As an accompanying inferior mind I believe you are correct.
They are creating ever more intricate explanations based on their mathematical skills and without any regard for plausability.
How do we arrive at NOW after an infinite number of previous universal aeons ?
Is not TIME a man made construct to indicate that we can experience events separately ?
The lady says we have an EXACT knowledge of events ; except for the beginning.
That is NOT true !
Interpretation of Doppler red shift is being challenged. If it succeeds theoretical cosmologists will have a Universal heart attack !
Measurements showing that light bends in a gravitational field produced different results when measured in S America and Africa.
Dark matter was created to overcome knowledge unknowns !
etc
@@divvy1400yam600 Is time a human concept? no!
A photon leaves the sun to travel to earth. It will take that photon 8 minutes to get here. When it arrives, it arrives in the now. When the photon left the sun, it was in the suns now.
So to be precise, all events are done in the now: the past now, the present now, and the future now. What we measure and call time, is the spaces between one now and the next now.
Motion can be measured using one point in space to another. If there is no motion, then there's nothing to measure time by. This would mean everything will be in a state of suspension. What's interesting is measuring the shortest distance from one time segment to another is known as a Planck length. That's 1.6× 10^-35. Physists say that anything below this level cannot be measured.
Our universe is in constant motion. Particles pop in and out all the time, but when they do, the time they are here can be measured. So time does not need man to exist. Man exists because of time.
Hmmm....the arrogance of man....we’ve been wrong more than right throughout history when making such absolute statements.
Penrose's point about life in other possible universes is pretty interesting. I'd never thought about it but it does solve the anthropomorphic principle, with a sufficiently complex system, you're bound to have self-replication with error, which leads to evolution.
who could possibly suppose the selection pressures universal or eonic evolution might have to contend with.
It would be wonderful for another discussion like this with Stephen Wolfram included, along with Max Tegmark, and spread over several hour long seasons. For those who don’t know, Sean Carroll has interviewed all but one (?) of the panel members on his Mindscape podcast. The thing about Wolfram is that he and his team’s computational physics research seems to be getting at what underlies quantum mechanics, which of course goes relates to the entire discussion here. Carroll has also interviewed Wolfram and Tegmark, as well as Susskind, Rovelli, and others leading physicists.
If time is continuous, infinite complexity can be fit into a single second. You don't need a beginning because the universe is like a fractal.
A universe with a beginning but no end is like a universe with a center and no edge.
Great discussion - broad but short! Thanks for posting. It would be nice if there were a more complete sequel :0)
check out our website - iai.tv - we've got loads more debates there!
I wish they would dispel the common misunderstanding the the Big Bang was some kind of explosion. It was very unfortunate the the term Big Bang was coined for common use.
I’m not dumb enough to disagree with Roger Penrose. I love the fact that a 90-year-old genius is still ready to fight for truths that are unknown.
I know there was a beginning for Roger, but I wish there was no end
Unless there's a proposition with arguments, rebuttals, etc., I prefer these events to be unmoderated.
Did the host try and tell Sir Penrose to hurry up at 10:10? Really? Unreal....
Amazing discussion! I would go for the words of Primrose, his theory looks smarter than others. 🙏
Every creation story of every culture, religion, science, etc. is a story about how consciousness arises and becomes self conscious. No so-called scientific model of physical creation can escape this fundamental context that creation is a psychological event not just a physical event. The "big bang" is a myth of how consciousness looks at itself and the myth is projected onto a story of an objective universe.
You went off the rails at “scientific model of physical creation”.
Pick one.
To tell Roger Penrose you have one minite left to finish speaking is a crime against humanity.
Penrose's aeons makes the most sense. Aeons explains what was before the bang, how it gave rise to the bang, the nature of time having a "before the beginning" and a clean slate to "begin" again, a clean slate for mass, gravity, and scale, the nature of the CMB, and what will happen after this universe's expansion. It's elegant as well.
It still doesn't explain how the first ever aeon came into existence. Unless there's an infinity of aeons in the past without a beginning, which doesn't make sense.
@@70AD-user45 I agree. I should add a caveat that it makes the most sense (or is the most satisfying) in the context of the big bang and big freeze theories. Wetterich's "long thaw" is also an interesting theory. In terms of the ultimate beginning, it's very hard to escape a scenario of complete non-existence. Even theories involving nonlinear time or an infinite loop likely can't avoid it.
@@70AD-user45 I never understood this insistence on the need for an "origin". Explain how there can be a "nothing" - or really even a something from nothing - even the big bang had to start with something, in which case why was there that something? its a never-ending line of enquiry that seems to imply that there always has to be something.
@@bilbonob548
The word "nothing" in physics means there was a quantum field which created virtual particles, which borrowed energy from the gravitational field, before the virtual particles annihilated each other. What they're saying is, the universe was created from this quantum field during a quantum fluctuation when matter was created from energy during this quantum fluctuation. Mass is a positive form of energy and gravity is a negative form of energy. The two cancel each other out and what are you left with... nothing.
@@70AD-user45 So what brought about these quantum fluctuations?
Sean's explanations are very fascinating and super clear. Way too short debate though for such a deep subject.
Sean is great at history. But, my take is that he gives an unbalanced view of the state of science. He doesn't spend enough time on valid ideas that do not align with his way of thinking. For example, he is a proponent of the block universe theory (eternalism). In a book on time, he hardly considers the growing block universe, and dismisses it with the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Yes, he is easy to understand, but easy does not equal the best answer.
Yes, I disagree with Sean on many of his ideas. Especially the Many Worlds Interpretation. He is a great speaker though.
Around 15:40 and 20:00, very interesting concepts by Sir Penrose
I don't think it's much of a debate. It was a nice discussion, though probably a bit too short.
That's because these people don't have an ideology
@@moldycarrot9267 Belief in abiogenesis is an ideology.
@@PaulHoward108 Whether or not abiogenesis is indeed an ideology or not (debatable), I think Moldy Carrot meant "That's because these people don't have an ideology *about the origin of the universe*." That's what this discussion was about, after all.
@@Dalendrion If abiogenesis is not true, the origin of the universe is in consciousness. The Vedas describe the universe as one of Viṣṇu's dreams, and several pioneers of quantum theory praised the Vedas for helping their understanding. All the evidence available to science can be represented in a dream, but not in any naturalistic theory.
@@PaulHoward108 Can you describe to me what consciousness is? I suspect that you and I have a very different concept of it and it makes understanding the rest of your argument quite hard at the moment.
The liveliest and youngest mind on stage was Roger Penrose
who?
I think each contributed equally. Sean Carroll has more earned his seat at the table and always well grounded. Roger is more free spirited in his creative thinking but there is room for that too.
@@Daveunave now that's not fair... obviously few scientists alive today can compete with Roger's intellect or accomplishments, but Sean is a FANTASTIC science communicator, and Laura does extremely valuable, indispensable even, work on the frontiers of cosmology. Laura in particular brings stuff to the table that neither of the other two do, just because of her areas of research and interest. But yeah, Roger is amazing, obviously.
yeah he's incredible
@@myopenmind527 you are insane. Penrose is a way more accomplished scientist than Carroll! Carroll is just a trendy pop science writer and popularizer! Have you read Penrose work or studied his career? He won a Nobel Prize!. He literally proved the existence of the singularity with Hawking. His book Road to Reality is a tour de force of the world of physics and one of the most comprehensive science texts of our generation, and also extremely philosophically sophisticated. He is the inventor of twistor theory, has several theorems, methods, and effects named after him (Hawking-Penrose theorems, Penrose Tilings, Penrose-Terrell Rotation, Penrose Diagrams). He invented spin networks, the strong censorship hypothesis, the Weyl curvature hypothesis, and CCC theory. His work on consciousness is also highly innovative with the Orch-OR theory. What notable theories has Carroll even proposed? Carroll is just a popularizer.
I love rodgers idea here. Inflation has always hit me wrong, results like that scream that we are missing something. Rodgers aeoms/cosmic rescaling are much easier to swallow than inflation for me.
I definitely appreciate that it solves several sticky problems with the BBT (flatness, horizon, etc) but it has always struck me as ad hoc, and Roger's point that it introduces new physics motivated entirely by this particular model alone is a good one. Would love to see some convergent/independent lines of observation or theory pointing to these mechanisms (e.g. inflaton fields). Then again, I'm not a physicist only a hobbyist so my comprehension is limited here.
Three wonderful minds! Great to see the female of our species represented here. I understood very little of this having no formal education in the science of physics but I found this video very down to earth. Thank you!
Unfortunately, many are deceived by the "scientists" with/through fake theories.
I have always wanted to see a convo between Sean and Roger both now if Eric could join in and have a long form discussion it would be AMAZING those are my three absolute favorite ideas about what this is we are all experiencing. Thank you for this !!
Absolutely stunning conversation ... I would love to hear something about the expansion of electron orbits over time next x
Sean Carroll is an amazing communicator....
J Rashkan yes indeed. I’m currently in the middle of his “Big Picture” book. Great, enthralling read.
@@illlDCllli
Yeah that ones great. I would check out "From Eternity to Here" next it goes into so much more detail about things like the nature of spacetime and thermodynamics. All his books are good.
He has a great voice, he is also overbearing in this presentation, basically ruining it. You may not understand why, because you don't understand the physics arguments here.
imagine the nerve of this debate moderator, he actually interrupted Penrose when he was explaining something so complex. And to add to all of that, he interrupted Penrose with his disrespectful figger waggling.
It’s sad that we live in a time where such profound concepts have to be reduced to a 1 minute soundbite or a 2-sentence tweet. Seeing the host shush Penrose in the middle of his statement was just pathetic.
Absolutely agree. Penrose is one of the great scientists of our time and should have been seated with more serious discussants.
I don’t think he was shushing anybody...simply reminding him with a time check. It’s called being a moderator...it’s his job.
He's just doing his job so that others can address the ideas brought up.
John Giorgetti it’s whoever programmed this event to think someone could feasibly explain the origins of existence in one minute or less is just absurd. It’s catering to what they believe is an audience with little attention spans.
Enter the Braggn' I gotta admit I wanted to dismiss your comment because it came across very arrogant, but thank you for introducing me to the ideas of Halton Arp. Seeing as how they both worked for CalTech, I wonder what Sean Carroll’s argument against Arp’s would be. Whether he’s right or wrong, Arp had conviction to pursue his own research regardless of the suppression from the mainstream. I’ll need to look into his theory further to see if recent data supports or disproves it...
I say the same things as Penrose, albeit less eloquently, and I get looked at like I’m “obviously” wrong. I find these ideas are often in consensus with my own and i don’t often read other peoples ideas. Calculating it is beyond me without a mathematical or scientific background, but the thoughts themselves are in layman’s terms - so from what I understand it to be it seems so. I, for one, sincerely appreciate the lack of jargon.
How can finite humans (like the ones in this video) seriously discuss things they didn't or could not observe? Physicists and cosmologists that discuss for example, "singularities" and "parallel universes" may actually be a grouping of people with a form of insanity and get paid for it?
How can finite humans discuss and accurately predict the orbit of pluto 248 years when no one has ever seen it complete an orbit it was only discovered in 1930
@@TheD4VR0S You are correct about Pluto. However, you cannot make a similar statement about a singularity or a parallel universe.
@@vermouth310 They are not stating for certain these things are true. They are exploring the idea because it is possible within the math. Einstei's theory predicted black holes long before we could actuallty observe one. It predicted gravitational lensing long before we had proof of it. So, if the math works out, it's worth discussing as a possibility. This is how science works. You hypothesize, and then you test it.
Thankyou, Institute of Art and Ideas, for giving us the opportunity to enjoy this very clear, concise and amiable debate.
They barely said anything...
I find that both, religious and scientific attempt to solve the issue of creation is to take pretty much everything and pack it into a singularity. Scientists call it the big bang, and religious people call it "god", but functionally and psychologically, they perform an identical function. They say: "Everything you see and don't understand can be compressed into a meta entity that is nice and easy to comprehend, like a dot. And then the dot itself obeys its own rules, be that quantum mechanics, or a divine intelligence. My question is - if a creation took place, why did it stop? If life spontaneously emerged on this planet, then why don't we see new life show up every day? Why, despite our scientific understanding of things down to the DNA, we can't manufacture a single living cell, or reanimate a dead one, without transplanting living matter off something else? What are we missing?
why did it stop?- one of the jewish- hebrew words for G-D literally is 'enough' ie - thats it - ie those are the ' measurements',the ' demensions', the ' parameters' etc. ie the realitie .
and of course creation didn't stop - it's renewed every day every moment and every micro moment.
Debate? They didn’t talk long enough to say anything of great relevance at all. Not even 40 minutes long, I didn’t even have the time to finish the days dishes! First time experiencing iai and I was underwhelmed, this should have been at least 3 hours long if not more. People crave long form discussions these days, and by people I speak for myself.
It seems like time is the ultimate original placeholder for the universe, we can’t see beyond it as we are enmeshed within it.
I think the textbook Copenhagen quantum mechanics and conscious observer relation could be key in all this. Only a conscious observer can see the branching occur. Even that doesn't matter because it's based on probability of a deterministic theory. I agree with Sean that quantum mechanics will more likely provide us 'the conscious' observer the answer if there is one.
Sorry we can't make this any longer, but we can offer you more of Penrose - here's 2 more to help finish the dishes: iai.tv/video/the-next-universe and iai.tv/video/bang-goes-the-big-bang | thanks for watching and commenting, we really value feedback
The Institute of Art and Ideas WOW! Thank you so much, I’ll give your channel another chance for sure : ) The effort is much appreciated.
Why and how does the universe exist? Sean-"because it can and doesn't need a cause. It's a perfectly symmetrical event ". Laura- "because there may be infinite universes which would mean ours is a product of inevitability" Roger- it's a conceivably eternal perpetual motion and the question of why is doesn't apply"
What everyone here (on the panel) is allowing to slide by is that the only person here actually SOLVING the math problem inherent in the entropy question (that the origin state of the universe must be of zero entropy) is Dr Penrose. Sean Carroll has a fantasy story, Mersini-Hougton has a fantasy story. Penrose has a math solution. This is why he states point blank that the inflation idea is NOT beautiful, as his idea of beauty is that it must strictly respect consistent math. Under his scheme time naturally becomes nonexistent in the very distant future, when mass ceases to exist leaving only photos in space. No mass = no time. No time = no dimensions. Geometry of space becomes "conformal." Bingo you are at the state required to begin anew with a singularity precipitated perhaps by quantum fluctuation. See his book, "Cycles of Time" (2010 Knopf). Too bad Dr Penrose is not as bossy as Sean Carroll, we'd have a real discussion here rather than a lecture for Jr High kids.
very good debate with very clever and eloquent panelists
A true delight to listen to! Thank you all.
the argument often used here "the life, as we know it here on earth.." is inappropriate (certainly wrong) because there is no good understanding of nature of life on its very basics (at least among the cosmologists participating in the discussion), whereas the strong anthropic principle affirms that we cannot understand the universe without fundamental understanding of the phenomenon of life..
life is fundamentally important for the physical universe to become real and it takes place in the very center of the reference frame related with the observable universe.
The one question I wish they would have addressed specifically was if the universe is eternal, rather than having a beginning and first cause, what aspect of the universe is fundamental?
Regardless of the type of eternal universe model (conformal cyclical cosmology, bubble multiverse, or quantum universe etc.), what aspect of the universe is self existent in their view. This seems to be an underlying question that has to be answered - is it matter, space/time, causality, energy or something else?
Mr. Caroll has a more conservative theory (or more mainstream), BUT Prof. Penrose has more revolutionary (“craizy”) theory and my modest intuition says that Penrose is more close to actual nature of existence. HISTORY HAS GIVEN RIGHT TO THE BOLD ONES. 😎👍Penrose 🙏
What? Like Adolf Hitler? I love Roger Penrose but there is no correlation between the boldness and the veracity of an idea.
Of course there is no correlation that runs the opposite way either. We must be simultaneously open minded yet critical to keep our foot firmly on the road to reality - which just so happens to also be the title of a book by Sir Penrose.
Absolutely stunning content. Penrose and those of that ilk make so much sense, are today’s difference between condescending arrogant beliefs. True understanding and the search of it has no room for those who may talk to others that they and only they understand. True science is about accepting the reality and changing our worldly views.
Infinite regression has been politely asked to leave the room.
Where is the part about myths ?
"We don't let people up here on stage if they doubt that model" ... yes, exactly
See the difference between science and theism? Sean and Roger have definite differences of opinion yet both remain good natured and open to being wrong.
broke my heart that this ended so soon
didn’t break mine
@@reissmaclachlan you don't have a heart
@@reissmaclachlan okay and?
@@albert6157 and… I’m glad the video was over, did you not understand!?
This talk didn't start assuring that a viable explanation will be given to the fundamental issues it dealt with, and it ended too without any such assurance. But the process the talks went thru in those 38 minutes was sublime, given the sincerity & erudition of the participants.
I only want to say that their speculative talk was based on knowledge over things measuring less than 5% of what our universe, as we presently know, comprises of.
There is the 70+% of dark energy and another 20+% of dark matter about which these big brains have very little idea. Add to that issues like quantum entanglement, which simply defy information propagation laws.
So, their speculation about Time, Multiverse, etc, at many levels, is only as good as that of any concerted thinker, though not educated.
Entanglement doesn't violate information propagation laws, you belong in the 1920s with Einstein, this has already been discussed. Also they most definitely do study dark energy and dark matter they're fucking cosmologists (except Penrose, but he might as well be one)
Roger mentions the book from Robert Forward called "Dragons egg". I've just recently read it and I recommend to all. It's very interesting cool unusuall sci fi book. ..Life on a neutron star, apparently proposed long ago by physicist Drake.
That’s odd. Just read the book because Sean Carroll listed it as one of HIS favourite books!!!
Great book, it has a sequel too.
The term “Multiverse” came from a scientist at an Oxford debate on origin of life and the astronomical odds against it. ( 1x10>264 ). Admitting the chances were unrealistic, he used the idea of a “multiverse” to assuage those odds and soften the numbers.
This discussion is like what the topic was all about. It has no beginning and no end.
Like alpha and omega?
@@DottieDuey no, Alpha and Omega has a beginning and an end. Discussions amongst humans has no beginning and no end.
I feel like this conversation barely got started before it ended. Wish it could have been longer. Much longer.
sort of the inherent limitations of the platform- to do these topics justice you'd need a 20 hour video not a 40 minute one
Every university has an exact beginning, published as ‘founded in’.
In the beginning there was a Unicorn. You can't prove me wrong or right so go ahead and make up your own story...feel free !
Only if your mind needs a beginning. :-)
What an amazing thing that these Super smart people all have different ideas on these narrow and fundamental questions
Scientists with this logic !!!! My friends the concept beginning is only happened in space and time so if we say there is beginning it should be there is a space and time ,second how time has a beginning? Beginning is for things happened in time allrady , the concept beginning used when there is a before and after . The problem is you take a wrong idea and you want to apply it to nature.
Many thanks for your video! This remind me that a pope (Pie XII or a more recent pope told l'abbé Lemaitre "Great! As far back as the Big Bang it's your business while before the Big Bang is my business" 🤯🤯🤯
Roger Penrose's idea actually makes sense. The other 2 have giant holes in their ideas.
Such as?
Needed 2 hours with these folks! Esp. Roger Penrose!
Here's an idea. What if we were to think of the expansion of the universe as a wave moving through a soup of elementary particles (or a 5th dimension)?
It seems to me we could start with a universe that is much bigger than a singularity that “banged” into existence and observe all the same things that we do today.... perhaps quantum physics fails us at the “ beginning “ of our present universe and the observation of it. Interesting discussion! Thanks
watch sean carroll how he react when penrose say " inflation is a artificial theory "
fenom Sean is a fantastic communicator of established theories. Unfortunately established theories are incomplete. Roger proposes new theories which depart from the establishment. Progress is made by rebels, not conservatives. Roger is invested in his ideas because they conform to basic physical principles. Sean is invested in his ideas because they conform to economic necessity. 👍🏽
When I was a kid I used to enthusiastically ask people 'Is the universe bigger than a breadbox?' My answer was that the universe is both infinitely large and infinitely small simultaneously. By 'the universe' I meant all of the 'space' in which the matter of the universe existed. 'Space' as it seems to me, is intrinsically dimensionless.
How, then, do you measure the amount of space available in your living room? Not in m³?
@@Dalendrion I'm arguing (as Penrose did) that 'space' is dimensionless - it is a construct just as 'time' is. There is no time without motion and there is no space without matter. My living room is made of matter and 'it' has a size but the 'space' it 'takes up' does not 'exist' independently of the room itself. Do you think that 'brightness' is bright? Of course it isn't. The brightness of a flame is a property of the flame but 'brightness' does not possess the property of brightness any more than 'sound' has a sound.
@@MarkLucasProductions So you're saying that you're not measuring space, but it's the _object_ that's measured in m³?
It's a little hard to wrap my head around. Especially since spacetime can warp and bend. It's said to be an active thing, so to say it doesn't exist is hard to understand.
But I feel like I need a few more nudges for it to click.
(Also, if Penrose said it here, I think I missed it.)
@@Dalendrion I cannot tell you what space or time 'really' is. No one can do that. If you interact with people you will hear things that seem absurd and things that seem reasonable or plausible. However you're unlikely to be able to tell which are objectively true or objectively false. I genuinely 'do' think that all of the space in the universe would fit into a breadbox. The 'matter' would certainly not but we are not talking about the 'stuff'' that fills the universe - we are talking only about the 'space'. It is my view that space does not have the kind of physical properties you are suggesting. To understand left-handedness or just 'leftness' we absolutely need to consider 'rightness'. The one actually gives rise to the other. In a universe absent of 'rightness' there can be no 'leftness'. Similarly in a universe absent of 'stuff' there can be no 'space'. We all think of the universe as a big 'place' full of lots of 'stuff'. With a little effort it became possible for me to conceive of it differently. I think the physical ("active") attributes of space are either mathematical constructs or otherwise dependent upon the 'stuff' in the universe for their existence. By the way, 'space' in the absence of matter immediately loses all of its geometrical qualities. No curvature. No expansion, dilation etc. You will be aware that 'space' (as we are considering it here) is really only an aspect of spacetime. The universe does not exist in space. It exists in spacetime. In the absence of matter there is no 'motion' in the universe. In the absence of 'motion' there can be no 'time'. In the absence of time there can be no space.
@@MarkLucasProductions just as waves contain particles, and particles contain waves . so also matter contains space , so space also contains matter.
Please note that when scientist speak about things they don't know, they're as much ignorant of it as anybody.
Thanks for putting this on here. People like these, who take time and pains to test theories and think about the evidence, are incredibly valuable to us.
They aren't testing anything.
Sean Carroll: "We should be humble about this ..." as he refuses to shut the fuck up and let Dr Penrose present the only unique and creative body of theory we have here in this short lecture.
15:00 actually penrose aeon idea is rather neat, if you wanted to you could say that each aeon is the *first* , or it's the *only* aeon, we have a big bang, then an expansion, then nothing but black holes, then evaporated black holes, so only photons, so there is no time / no distance = singularity, and that's another big bang, but as time doesn't exist it's the "first" big bang - we don't need infinity or eternity. and it could even fit with what carroll was saying about "in our history we are other people's past" - the aeons reverse direction (?)
and of course the part of the universe we can see might be expanding, but if the universe is finite, but really, really fkn big, bigger than we can imagine, our part of it could collapse again at some point.
He figured out a way of his saddened state,, but where does he describe this process. The matter has to come from somewhere. So if there was a point in a previous aeon where only photons existed and then a big bang occurred. Where did the matter come from?
Sean Carroll is sure the voice doppelganger of Alan Alda. Every time he opens his mouth, it sounds like Hawkeye is giving a lecture about theoretical physics.
"you take three molecules of vodka, two molecules of vermouth, an atom of olive..."
How nice to see a conversation from passionately different viewpoints not dissolve into chaos.
They don't even entertain the thought the hot dense state model may be wrong?
He jokes they wouldn't let you on the stage if you doubt it.
That doesn't sound like science. Sounds like dogma, religion.
ok i finally understood that thing about eons Mr. Penrose is talking about (i hope...)...its about SCALE...expanding universe with no mass is big and small at the same time (like if you are looking at ant thru glass, it looks big, if you put the glass of, its small) ....damn, thats fascinating!!!
No human knows and no human ever will know the fundamental reason(s) for existence. We are not even wee tots in a sandbox.
The spiritual take on that is that prior to existence there is Being ((God) and at the level of Being all questions and reasons are invalid, because there is Being only. Being comes before existence and existence comes before something and nothing.
"There is no point in debating the big bang model". Well when one of the speakers opens this debate in such a manner, it suggests that the parameters of this discussion have already been set (limited) by orthodox ideas.
Nope, it's because it's been proven over and over again and to this date, no person on this planet has given another sound explanation.
@@lizadowning4389 Clearly you have not explored the hundreds of NDE (Near Death Experiences) recorded on RUclips--- so you really have little knowledge (or experience) of this matter
However, if you choose to ignore the evidence, then you must also think that life (including yours) is of no consequence at all. Happy days !!
@@electricmanist NDE's ... really?
Some random people claiming they saw a bright light while under surgery, etc... and you call that evidence because they testified on RUclips?
But when scientists and enigineers collect hard and observable data, apply sound math and reasoning, you call that orthodox ideas ... what is wrong with your brain?
Why should I think that life is of no consequence?
It's not because I reject "a higher power" that my life is meaningless. I find meaning in what I do and who I do it with.
You think worshipping some imaginary deity is the only thing that gives you meaning?
And what do you do it for? To win the ultimate prize in the end? An eternity of worshipping the same as you did during life? Don't you see the tragedy in that?
Talking about a sad way to spend your brief time on this planet...
@@lizadowning4389 Oh dear oh dear; just how an intelligent person can compose such a simplistic reply really suggests that you either cannot comprehend a spiritual existence outside the physical body, or alternatively you really believe that consciousness ceases to exist when the physical body dies.
Then you continue your EMail by throwing into the discussion "An imaginary deity', ---although it would seem you have missed out including ritual human sacrifices, -- !!!-- since the tone of your EMail relegates your response to that level of understanding .
I'm not quite sure though just how you manage to accommodate a few (weak) caveats to that level of understanding, such as "that you do not find life meaningless". A mental psychological safety net perhaps ?
But when you add the comment that "seeing a bright light while under surgery' by "some random people", then your position not only becomes clear, but demonstrates that you really haven't done any research into the nature of human experience.
Not only have I personally experienced a NDE (Near Death Experience), but literally thousands of other people have had this experience. The internet (You tube for example) and numerous publications have recorded this experience, and since these people come from all parts of the world, collusion or some such silly conspiracy is not really likely is it.?
Oh I mustn't forget to include the "dying brain-- lack of oxygen theory, --- another crackpot idea put forward by so called "scientists', whose limited 3 dimensional concept of reality is, shall we say, rather primitive.-- to say the least.
I'm sure that should you make the time (and effort) to seriously investigate the nature of consciousness, ( NDE'e and recorded personal experiences) you would open the door to a greater understanding of the (total) human condition.
PS. Somehow I get the impression that your concept of a Deity, is that of a elderly white coated figure, (no doubt stooped due to carrying the weight of all the letters after his/her name) .
@@lizadowning4389 Just found your Email on my 'In Box'--not sure if I've already replied , so please excuse if this is a repeat.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to respond to someone who has already decided (set in concrete might be more appropriate in this case) upon the nature of life--and the Creative force inherent in all that is.
So, firstly your reference to "people claiming to see a bright light while under surgery, not forgetting your inclusion of You Tube as if that medium itself is a measure of the validity (or otherwise) of NDE reports.
However, it is clear that (despite your obvious lack of personal experience) you feel you are able to make a negative judgement upon such reports. Yet somehow your response comes across as if you have whole gamut of scientific research to back your negative reaction/response to such experiences.
Any worthwhile research (on your part) would reveal that a number of medical professionals (i.e. doctors/nurses etc) have themselves (personally) experienced a NDE (as well as thousands of other people), so rather than your "one size fits all" response, you really have carried out little or no research into the matter.
Well many people do in fact make judgement about matters of which they know little or even nothing, so your response is not all that unusual. Lack of awareness or experience is not all that unusual, either --particularly when relating to such matters as consciousness in its many varieties.
Incidentally I also have experienced a NDE, so one could say that I do have the 'edge' when it comes to dealing with such matters. So outside your 'scientific or medical books', what experience have you ?
Roger explains his idea even more with an illustration that helps on the Joe Rogan podcast, if anyone is interested in understanding what he is talking about.
Thanks
I do not watch Rogan , swearing all the time , nasty bloke .
@@akumar7366 what are you? 10 years old? Engage with the substance of the ideas being explored, not the medium being used.
@@yoshikhurazi1769 Sorry not when swearing is going on , plenty of forums other then this fellow .
even at full volume it is too silent. next time please enhance sound/volume
This Sean Carroll guy just says nobody is allowed on stage who disputes the Big Bang. He may have meant it as a joke but just goes to show his ignorance and arrogance. However, Roger Penrose, a breath of fresh air compared to Carroll.
That the universe expands and was smaller in the past is an experimental fact or life. Denying it is like denying that objects appear to fall to the ground.
@phillustrator our region is expanding but we can ever know about regions too faraway to get information from. we currently assume that the whole universe had the same beginning as our region, but it can only ever be an assumption. It is analogous to a cell only having access to its own interior and its history back to its emergence and knows nothing of the cell division that occurred. Perhaps the origin of the universe is much further back than we could imagine.
Yep. Carroll will never understand with that attitude. Hope he was joking.
Carrol is the kid that everyone hated in school.. he isnsonsure of himself and yet the more we see the more questions we have. He's basically a ticket salesman.
_ These are debates about theories, ideas and beliefs - not about Reality!
_ In case some people haven't discovered yet: There is currently a great debate in the cosmologist community about the veracity of the "Big Bang Theory". Scientific data collected over an extended period of time show that what the "The Big Bang Theory" was supposed to predict has been a grand failure.
Way way way to short.
Ryan Counts Yes, what were they thinking when they were scheduling the program... “Let’s ask the world’s top theoretical cosmologists about the origins of the universe, and give them each one minute tops.” Jerks
Ryan Counts obviously you missed the part about time being a social construct😂 These are busy people. I appreciate how little we’ve got from their time.
@@harviej I appreciate it too. I could have listened to them chat for hours.
When Penrose says (in my words) that notions of big and small, hot&cold are lost if there's no reference for those anymore, I think I understand what he's saying. BUT, though this might be the case right before the start of another aeon; as soon as _that_ one starts expanding, size/scale and temperature IS there again, and when that eaon also results in beings like us who'll at some point realize the expansion and winding back the clock like we have, they too would reason that the beginning must've been small and hot. Right? (or am I totally missing what the thesis is?)
Very wise of you to start with "I think I understand what he's saying" :-))
It's amazing how they just secretly put the problem of infinite regression under the rug.
That’s because infinite regression isn’t a problem in physics only in philosophy.
@@redbad2652 science is nothing but methodological naturalism which is part of natural philosophy. I am not sure how you make distinction.
@@bonleofen sorry I wasn’t very clear in my response. Infinite regression isn’t a problem with these models of as they all use different ways to define “infinity”.
For instance Ccc says we have local measurable time and each aeon happens in sequence but not in “time”. Time as we recognize it is emergent inside each aeon after mass is formed.
Inflation again says we have a local time but the cosmos was infinite. The main two ways I’ve seen this described was, either the cosmos is fundamental or a random quantum fluctuations started everything moving through time.
Carroll holds to the B theory of time (although he doesn’t like that terminology) in that the flow of time is an illusion and past and present are equally real for light cones.
Take what I say with a several grains of salt as I am a complete layman in this area but I know each of these cosmologist have taken infinite regression into account.
@@redbad2652 they define infinity in a sense that they don't consider the absolute infinity in their definition. Because if they consider absolute infinity as we know it, as a concept, they must have a first cause for it or else infinite regression becomes a problem.
What they have is quantities that are large enough that they can be considered to be tending to infinity. That's part of study of limits in mathematics.
So, in order for random fluctuations to "take place", we need time. Any equation or any scientific apparatus that gives us an explanation of some fluctuations happening has to give an explanation based on time. The evidence or mathematical explanation of quantum fluctuations "starting" everything has to have a beginning or a continuity of time in it. It can not be independent of time and then somehow give knowledge of "something taking place". Any explanation of anything "starting" is in itself an explanation based on time.
If there was infinite time and then you have an explanation of everything starting. That's a contradiction.
So, they define quantity infinity in a sense that it 'tends' to infinity but never becomes an infinite value. The trade off is that you don't speak in absolute terms. You're just talking about a quantity that is very large that it appears to be infinite or tending (if you like the mathematical terminology) to infinity.
@@bonleofen you may be right as I say I’m a layman in this area. All models wiIl eventually reach a foundation that will have no evidence to fall back upon, but I do feel confident that each of these models have taken your abjection into consideration. The interview was too short to discuss all the topics relating to the beginning of the cosmos.
This talk all rests on the idea that the Observed red shift of Galaxies can only be explained by recessional velocities.
But there are very high red shift Quasars in from of much lower red shift galaxies. How can this be and how can this evidence be ignored. Sean may not allow anyone to stand on stage unless they agree with him but, he still needs to address this problem..
Well it sure as hell didn't start with Adam and Eve and their three sons🤣😅🙄
The ONLY books that physicists write that impress me or would impress me would be textbooks with loads of mathematical exercises in them. Learn by doing.
Those exist.
No one can prove the universe beginning .......arts and ideas are articulation but as man is finite being, he can not prove anything in the beginning........
They're so cheerful! Whatever the truth is - if there's truth in truthfulness btw - it's a universe that deserve respect.
What drivel
Sean Carroll is great for TV as a communicator, but is simply not at the cutting edge of Cosmology or Theoretical Physics.
Um he turned down Hawking twice lol. Penrose is at the cutting edge these days? They are both brilliant please listen more and comment less.
unlike you?
How did you come to that conclusion?
@@jonathanjones770 As a long time close friend and confidant of Peter Goddard, I am privvy to information you are rightfully not.
He's a research professor at Caltech. How would it be possible for him not to be at the cutting edge of cosmology or theoretical physics?