I'm only half way through the video, but I have to say: I love how he says things in scientific terms and then repeats them in layman terms. I'm sure that class understands all he's saying, but he still thinks of those of us who aren't scientifically inclined but still interested.
I have had trouble getting footage from someone who operated another camera that filmed the lecture. The original plan was that he would give me the footage, so hopefully I will at some stage have it.
What Krauss emphasized at the end, pushing the fact consciousness is insignificant, makes me think of him as one of the most worthy living things of this world, because there is no arrogance in his existence. I hope Krauss and the others (three horsemen) have some plan in order to topple the politics we are so used to and trip the system into one run by Science. That would be the greatest thing life could have done for it.
It was a camerawoman who it seems did not care as much as I thought before I agreed to have her do the filming. However, I do have other camera angles, one of which is still on tape somewhere. I just have to collect it- then perhaps I can edit a better version :)
Agreed. Just because something is logical doesn't mean that it maps to reality. As far as quantum mechanics though, I think it's just fascinating how we're now discovering all these things. We may not be able to test some theories and hypotheses now, but I have no doubt that we will eventually develop better tools.
He's not making fun of either, he is remarking on how serendipitous scientific discoveries sometimes are. A large number of amazing discoveries happened by accident.
thanks for the upload,I'm sure after you filmed this, you realized how much disservice you did to his speech by focusing in so hysterically and denying us his visual references. Khan Academny needs to team up with Krauss
"... are among the strongest deductions ever made by man" The principle of causality (along with many other axiomatic principles of science) are often not deductions but "inductions" or based on inductive reasoning at the core. Entropy (the 2nd law) might be one of the few that could be said to be deductively true (though it paradoxically seems the most inductive at first inspection). There's a massive difference between deductive reason and inductive (or abductive also) reasoning methods.
According to Krauss (best I can figure) it boils down to an exceedingly rare quantum fluctuation where a separation of "positive" energy (matter-energy) from negative energy (dark energy and inflationary energy) occured. This caused the early universe to blow up like a balloon from what we'd otherwise call nothing. The vacuum of space has virtual particles popping in and out of existence all the time for no apparent reason. I think this is a type of symmetry breaking, like matter vs. antimatter.
Well, sorry - no one else complained. But yes, having Lawrence Krauss at the conf was kinda exciting. Some photos don't' turn out if not flash is used.
You can't make confident conclusions about the future or past of the universe when the deduction alone resides on only that which you can observe in the present time. New observations always come to place, there are obviously many laws that govern the Universe we haven't discovered yet, which is why its very likely this prediction about the future of the Universe will change in a decade or so.
The important part of this video is what Prof. Krauss is saying. If the video was audio only it would still be worth uploading so I'm not sure why you care so much about the camera.
Another scientist has that idea - Roger Penrose. The expansion of the Universe will either result, given enough time, to the eventual separation of all individual particles reducing the "visible universe of matter" to "nothing" (essentially empty space) or it might result to a "Bg Rip." Now "nothing" is not nothing ("what rocks dream about"). It is full of acitivity (vacuum fluctuations) that could cause another Big Bang.
If depression is the feeling left after seeing this speech it is evidence that your own view on life needs to be adjusted. 1: Just because we are insignificant at the cosmological scale, it is gives more value to on how important we are to each other. 2: The end of the universe as we know it is just a story based on evidence we have right now but I say anything about the things we don't know we don't which if discovered in the future could change this picture. 3: that end is too far away.
It's important to keep in mind that the unobservable expanding universe is still out there, even though we cannot see it. It's also possible that other bubble universes are out there in the unobservable void. If that is the case, I wonder if it's possible to use quantum entanglement to reach them. The unobservable universe WAS once entangled with where we are, so I think it should be possible if we ever devise a way to use quantum-entanglement for travel. This may forestall life's ultimate end.
If space weighs something and it is expanding then the more space you get the more energy you get, it seems to be literally out of control, or maybe the expansion of space is being driven by a force we do not understand or comprehend, much like something falling faster and faster and an observer not understanding gravity then questioning why the object is falling faster and faster.
I cant blame the cameraman because obviously she was in the wrong spot. As an amateur photographer and filmographer, you cant be that close, with the both subjects being on opposite directions (Krauss and the screen), while using that focal length. If the screen had been in his background it would have made things easier, as well as being farther away. Its a shame because I really LOVE this conference, and have seen all the different versions of it, and this could have been the best.
Sure - but it's certainly possible that our traditional concept of cause and effect was over simplified due to our limitations of our senses and tools. Quantum mechanics clearly shows that our traditional notion of causality breaks down at those size and timescales (i.e. in the LHC). There's no agent popping up virtual particles, it's just how reality happens to work. There's still "causality" afterward, but at that small scale there are also lots of "uncaused" events happening all the time.
most of his talks found on youtube are just his talk designed to summarize his book "A Universe from Nothing". You can get more details by reading that and many of his other books.
So I just want some clarification: 1. Have we concluded that our universe is a flat one? or is it open? 2. Trillions of years from now, when future civilizations will only be able to see their own galaxy, how will the universe end? Krauss hints at the end that it will eventually collapse on itself in a blackhole during the Q&A. Am i interpreting him correctly?
Lol, every time I try to watch a new Lawrence Krauss video, it's always the same slides & info. I'm sure there's different information in each but it's hard to tell when I take time between watching em.
The camera guy is listening to a lecture on singularities and quantum mechanics, but some how can't anticipate Krauss's pacing to pan the camera in time before he walks out of frame! Camera Tip: If one is more concerned with the lecture then the camera, go WS (wide shot)!
thanks for this but you need a new cameraman who is able to include the entire presentation slide in the shot, not just the bottom half with the wall below it.
These limits may derive from limited advance in today's science as he stated as an answer to "baby universe" question at the end. He refuses to think about possibilities without any observational evidence. But one should think the integrity, capability of observation if the observer observes itself. We shouldn't lose that skepticism.
I immediately favorited this before viewing- that's how highly I think about the Four Horsemen. By the way, I say Lawrence Krauss should be the fifth horseman.
To be fair - we don't know what happened in the first unit of planck time. There are a lot of aspects even after that point which are still hotly debated. What does appear to be the case (and Dr. Krauss has made a point of explaining this) is that the gravitationally repulsive negative dark energy and positive gravitative energy from particles and energy in the universe sums to zero. And this leaves open the possibility that our universe resulted from a rare quantum fluctuation...
very neat presentation! i never knew we knew this much about dark energy! i verily want his book now... and the limit on moores law is so depressing! and the news we cant spawn baby universes! arg! but indeed this is a very exciting and special era, i am quite thankful for it
From what i have heard from him the universe is the saddle shape and it prolly will just expand into nothingness. His Inr2 lecture goes into both those questions in pretty great detail.
Yes sleestacks are from Land of the Lost, i think your right. I didnt spend much time watching it, or Star Trek though :( But sleestack and sour alien are my favourite strains :D Thats the reasoning behind the pic sadly lol
If he explains that some space can move quicker than the speed of light, therefore we cannot see an object in that particular area because space being accelerated or expanding too quick for the light. Then couldn't we assume dark matter is just particles moving quicker than we can see? as in that area of space is just accelerating quicker than light??? i am just a simpleton but doesn't that seem plausible?? Why can't dark matter be simply super accelerated particles that have weight?
"We live in a very special time in which we can observe phenomena that will not be observable in 100K years." Nice, but this raises the question: What other phenomena and conditions are there in the universe that are NOT observable now? This is where we can only speculate.
Well Maybe a bit. When they discovered the radiation, which really was a complete accident, a team at Princeton university was actually working on looking for it. Their telescopes were not good enough so Penzias and Wilson discovered it at Bell Labs instead when they were testing a new antenna.
@NASAChiefScientist Not to be a douche, but gravity is the result of the curvature of space-time itself, so technically gravity doesn't bend space-time, but rather bent space-time "creates" what we call gravity; and mass bends space-time. Just semantics though, doesn't affect the point you were making about gravitational lensing. I very much agree, it's very interesting.
Yeah, the math is tough. Although, a lot of physics math isn't extremely hard math in itself, it's hard because of how physics works (with vectors, etc). You can do a lot of physics with basic integral and derivative knowledge. The problem is that physics isn't just regular math, its physics. You better be really good with vectors.
Well... tbh, the calculations can't help but be logically consistent (what's why we all need and love math :D) but something being logically consistent doesn't mean it maps to reality. It's worth asking whether reality is logically consistent at its core though. I mean quantum is certainly counter intuitive, but it appears to follow certain rules and it's consistent (if weird). This is the problem with string theory that's usually brought up - it's logically consistent but we can't test it.
First of all, in the current picture, it looks like the universe wouldn't "go back to nothing". Secondly, if the universe does somehow end, life would too. Even if life arose once more, it would have ended. His logic is not terrible.
The camera shutter clicks are really annoying! You have enough photos of Lawrence Krauss talking! Ruined it for me. Did you really need that many photos of Lawrence Krauss talking?
Laws of Thermodynamics indicate the future of the universe will be dark and cold. Honestly, I'm okay with this. We'll be long gone before that happens.
I'm slowly accepting this reality. What I see among atheists is that they have no reason to die. Religious people(If they follow their scriptures) have a heaven to look forward to. It's all about using your time in an intelligent and utilitarian way.
It really does instill in you to make the absolute most of your life... regardless of what you believe, or what you think is true, the only absolute certainty is the very instant you are living in now. Not the next second, nor the next day, nor the next year, nor even after death are certain. But right now, right this very second... make it count.
PHOENIXDude57 What if when you will see your god and he says, "I already created the universe for you, and now you want to go to some extra good nice place for all of eternity ALSO?" Don't you seem a bit greedy?
Better yet, here is the Nick Bostrom playlist where he talks about the Simulation Argument: .youtube dot com/playlist?list=PL-7qI6NZpO3u6wv29SklMC03V5jTdzWs9
Well Religious people sure don't seem to know much about physics, as they sure are not commenting on the topic of the video, which in my opinion is far more interesting than religion. Some smart Atheists tend to like to direct the indoctrinated to a place where they feel more comfortable about re-thinking their beliefs and adopting a naturalistic wonder about the universe, yes it's past, but also its future - that is what this video is about, and after all the future is were we are heading.
Finite means, in the simplest terms, countable. It doesn't matter how large the number is, if you can give a number then it is finite. The number 243,673,211,676,897,974,934,246,276,892 is finite. How exactly is it pompous to use the correct term? It certainly isn't an infinite number, and there are only two choices, so you're suggesting that he not call it anything at all which would be dishonest. Even if it's pompous somehow, I prefer pompous to lying.
The fact that man can understand is proof enough of intelligence. It seems here that the overload of scientific concepts, theories and principles has blurred clear thinking, ending up in some skeptic/cynic view of life and existence. What appears clear to me is that human understanding transcends the physical sciences, i.e., it's not space and time although within them - the consciousness. Causality is causality and is not a plausibility. That there's an Uncaused cause still stands out.
Religion doesn't rely on evidence or experiment, only belief and faith. So they may not be mutually exclusive, but they are two ends of a very vey long pole
I bet 200 years from now they will say, "Scientists at the time thought that 'things were just happening' But of course they never new about the pleamoton" I'm sure that is what they'll say lol
In looking at our own biology it is hard to conclude that it was intelligently designed by some super intellect - there is so much wrong with it, and inefficiencies abound. We build simple calculators that outpace mathematicians, I imagine in the future we will have machines that are far more creative than humans too. Perhaps we are the creators of future life far more superior to us - some would say we are creating gods.
1. If we can harness Dark Matter and Dark Energy then we can stop this effect. 2. If we can create 2 universe from nothing one anti-matter and the other Matter then we could live forever 3. If technology got infinitely smaller then it would not use up the universe. 4. You said you can go faster then light because the other galaxies are going to be moving faster then light away from us. there for we will be able to get to these other galaxies even thou we can't see them anymore. 5. What make us so sure that this isn't the case with the 13.2 billion light years of seeable galaxies. Maybe it goes on infantry but they are just moving faster then light away form us.
I find it ridiculous that there is almost no discussion about the topics Krauss adressed (I found the part about Moore's law fascinating). Krass talked about the future of life in the universe and information processing etc etv but all i see in the comments is the same silly discussions about God and infinite regression of causality bla bla bla, THAT WAS NOT THE TOPIC
This kalam argument bantered about by William Lane Craig and many others is quite silly by today's standards. As bluesrockfan36 explained, the core aspect of quantum mechanics (and further the vacuum "dark energy" to which the accelerated expansion has been attributed) that virtual particles will just pop into existence out of nowhere - without a "cause". So the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument is falsified by quantum mechanics. There are many QM behaviours that are "causeless".
To be able understand why galaxies moving a way from each other, people should try first understand how galaxies works? Do you think a doctor with out of any detail diagnosis will send the patient into operating room? Obviously not right. Our scientists round the globe left all the details jumping into something they aren't even sure with what they are dealing with. Trying to deal with the berth & the death of the universe.
Damn it I can only live for a few trillion years? I was expecting eternity, we need to find a way to tunnel into a twin universe in an early state. This is depressing :-(
heh, then I guess I'm even less of a lesser man, Mr. Krauss.(if you ever read this) Since I've not only got a solution to decreasing complexity but I've found it right on your own later arguments. =)
If theoretical physicists made good money, then there would be more people going into theoretical physics. Only a handful of people enter that field each year if that.
I'm only half way through the video, but I have to say: I love how he says things in scientific terms and then repeats them in layman terms. I'm sure that class understands all he's saying, but he still thinks of those of us who aren't scientifically inclined but still interested.
This is not only fascinating but Kraus at his most entertaining.
What a brilliant lecture. Thanks for filming it and if you are really listening to it, the quality doesn't matter in the slightest.
I have had trouble getting footage from someone who operated another camera that filmed the lecture. The original plan was that he would give me the footage, so hopefully I will at some stage have it.
A slice of cosmology with Lawrence Krauss.
Thanks for uploading. Nice to see Lawrence here in Melbourne, discussing a few concepts that aren't in usually in his lectures.
Thanks a BUNCH for posting this. Made my day.
thanks for the recording bro
They say we know beauty so we can know the universe, if that's true this is one of the most beautiful lecture i have ever hurt in my life.
What Krauss emphasized at the end, pushing the fact consciousness is insignificant, makes me think of him as one of the most worthy living things of this world, because there is no arrogance in his existence. I hope Krauss and the others (three horsemen) have some plan in order to topple the politics we are so used to and trip the system into one run by Science. That would be the greatest thing life could have done for it.
Simply amazing.
I hardly noticed the camera ;D. Thank you.
It was a camerawoman who it seems did not care as much as I thought before I agreed to have her do the filming. However, I do have other camera angles, one of which is still on tape somewhere. I just have to collect it- then perhaps I can edit a better version :)
Agreed. Just because something is logical doesn't mean that it maps to reality. As far as quantum mechanics though, I think it's just fascinating how we're now discovering all these things. We may not be able to test some theories and hypotheses now, but I have no doubt that we will eventually develop better tools.
He's not making fun of either, he is remarking on how serendipitous scientific discoveries sometimes are. A large number of amazing discoveries happened by accident.
Anyone know the name of the music playing at the beginning and end of this video? So relaxing
thanks for the upload,I'm sure after you filmed this, you realized how much disservice you did to his speech by focusing in so hysterically and denying us his visual references. Khan Academny needs to team up with Krauss
What a great communicator Krauss is.
awesome talk, it would be great to have this guy as a
teacher.
What is the music that begins and ends this video? Thanks for uploading.
"... are among the strongest deductions ever made by man" The principle of causality (along with many other axiomatic principles of science) are often not deductions but "inductions" or based on inductive reasoning at the core. Entropy (the 2nd law) might be one of the few that could be said to be deductively true (though it paradoxically seems the most inductive at first inspection). There's a massive difference between deductive reason and inductive (or abductive also) reasoning methods.
According to Krauss (best I can figure) it boils down to an exceedingly rare quantum fluctuation where a separation of "positive" energy (matter-energy) from negative energy (dark energy and inflationary energy) occured. This caused the early universe to blow up like a balloon from what we'd otherwise call nothing. The vacuum of space has virtual particles popping in and out of existence all the time for no apparent reason. I think this is a type of symmetry breaking, like matter vs. antimatter.
the part about Moores law is astounding. The Math doesn't seem complicated but the implication is huge.
LAWRENCE you are genius, and thank you for being you!
Anyone know what the music at the start is? I think it may have been buried if people have asked before.
Well, sorry - no one else complained. But yes, having Lawrence Krauss at the conf was kinda exciting. Some photos don't' turn out if not flash is used.
watching this in 2019
Anyone know the name of the piano piece in the beginning?
Yeah brother! I think many of them were there to hear jokes and not learn. This was an amazing lecture!
I hope to go to one in the future!
Thank you for posting this.
I really like this guy. He makes some very interesting points.
You can't make confident conclusions about the future or past of the universe when the deduction alone resides on only that which you can observe in the present time. New observations always come to place, there are obviously many laws that govern the Universe we haven't discovered yet, which is why its very likely this prediction about the future of the Universe will change in a decade or so.
The important part of this video is what Prof. Krauss is saying. If the video was audio only it would still be worth uploading so I'm not sure why you care so much about the camera.
The questions at the end were a pain in the ass, especially the design one
awesome ...this guy represents the human mind at it's best
Another scientist has that idea - Roger Penrose. The expansion of the Universe will either result, given enough time, to the eventual separation of all individual particles reducing the "visible universe of matter" to "nothing" (essentially empty space) or it might result to a "Bg Rip." Now "nothing" is not nothing ("what rocks dream about"). It is full of acitivity (vacuum fluctuations) that could cause another Big Bang.
If depression is the feeling left after seeing this speech it is evidence that your own view on life needs to be adjusted.
1: Just because we are insignificant at the cosmological scale, it is gives more value to on how important we are to each other.
2: The end of the universe as we know it is just a story based on evidence we have right now but I say anything about the things we don't know we don't which if discovered in the future could change this picture.
3: that end is too far away.
It's important to keep in mind that the unobservable expanding universe is still out there, even though we cannot see it. It's also possible that other bubble universes are out there in the unobservable void. If that is the case, I wonder if it's possible to use quantum entanglement to reach them. The unobservable universe WAS once entangled with where we are, so I think it should be possible if we ever devise a way to use quantum-entanglement for travel. This may forestall life's ultimate end.
If space weighs something and it is expanding then the more space you get the more energy you get, it seems to be literally out of control, or maybe the expansion of space is being driven by a force we do not understand or comprehend, much like something falling faster and faster and an observer not understanding gravity then questioning why the object is falling faster and faster.
I cant blame the cameraman because obviously she was in the wrong spot. As an amateur photographer and filmographer, you cant be that close, with the both subjects being on opposite directions (Krauss and the screen), while using that focal length. If the screen had been in his background it would have made things easier, as well as being farther away. Its a shame because I really LOVE this conference, and have seen all the different versions of it, and this could have been the best.
Sure - but it's certainly possible that our traditional concept of cause and effect was over simplified due to our limitations of our senses and tools. Quantum mechanics clearly shows that our traditional notion of causality breaks down at those size and timescales (i.e. in the LHC). There's no agent popping up virtual particles, it's just how reality happens to work. There's still "causality" afterward, but at that small scale there are also lots of "uncaused" events happening all the time.
most of his talks found on youtube are just his talk designed to summarize his book "A Universe from Nothing". You can get more details by reading that and many of his other books.
So I just want some clarification:
1. Have we concluded that our universe is a flat one? or is it open?
2. Trillions of years from now, when future civilizations will only be able to see their own galaxy, how will the universe end? Krauss hints at the end that it will eventually collapse on itself in a blackhole during the Q&A. Am i interpreting him correctly?
Lol, every time I try to watch a new Lawrence Krauss video, it's always the same slides & info. I'm sure there's different information in each but it's hard to tell when I take time between watching em.
Did you let the camera man live or did you kill him on the spot?
The camera guy is listening to a lecture on singularities and quantum mechanics, but some how can't anticipate Krauss's pacing to pan the camera in time before he walks out of frame!
Camera Tip: If one is more concerned with the lecture then the camera, go WS (wide shot)!
Off topic, but the photos being snapped are driving me nuts.
Do you have evidence for the third theory?
thanks for this but you need a new cameraman who is able to include the entire presentation slide in the shot, not just the bottom half with the wall below it.
These limits may derive from limited advance in today's science as he stated as an answer to "baby universe" question at the end. He refuses to think about possibilities without any observational evidence. But one should think the integrity, capability of observation if the observer observes itself. We shouldn't lose that skepticism.
I immediately favorited this before viewing- that's how highly I think about the Four Horsemen. By the way, I say Lawrence Krauss should be the fifth horseman.
To be fair - we don't know what happened in the first unit of planck time. There are a lot of aspects even after that point which are still hotly debated. What does appear to be the case (and Dr. Krauss has made a point of explaining this) is that the gravitationally repulsive negative dark energy and positive gravitative energy from particles and energy in the universe sums to zero. And this leaves open the possibility that our universe resulted from a rare quantum fluctuation...
very neat presentation! i never knew we knew this much about dark energy! i verily want his book now... and the limit on moores law is so depressing! and the news we cant spawn baby universes! arg! but indeed this is a very exciting and special era, i am quite thankful for it
Why would you "hate" that?
Thats like going to see a show repeatedly and saying "Why are they repeating what they said in the last show?!"
Thanks for the video, but was this really the best spot you could possibly find for filming this?
He keeps referring to images that I can't see :(
From what i have heard from him the universe is the saddle shape and it prolly will just expand into nothingness. His Inr2 lecture goes into both those questions in pretty great detail.
Yes, and even if physicists still can't fully explain this because it is so counter-intuitive, the calculations can't lie.
hit the nail on the head, bud
Yes sleestacks are from Land of the Lost, i think your right. I didnt spend much time watching it, or Star Trek though :( But sleestack and sour alien are my favourite strains :D Thats the reasoning behind the pic sadly lol
If he explains that some space can move quicker than the speed of light, therefore we cannot see an object in that particular area because space being accelerated or expanding too quick for the light. Then couldn't we assume dark matter is just particles moving quicker than we can see? as in that area of space is just accelerating quicker than light??? i am just a simpleton but doesn't that seem plausible?? Why can't dark matter be simply super accelerated particles that have weight?
"We live in a very special time in which we can observe phenomena that will not be observable in 100K years." Nice, but this raises the question: What other phenomena and conditions are there in the universe that are NOT observable now? This is where we can only speculate.
Well Maybe a bit. When they discovered the radiation, which really was a complete accident, a team at Princeton university was actually working on looking for it. Their telescopes were not good enough so Penzias and Wilson discovered it at Bell Labs instead when they were testing a new antenna.
@NASAChiefScientist Not to be a douche, but gravity is the result of the curvature of space-time itself, so technically gravity doesn't bend space-time, but rather bent space-time "creates" what we call gravity; and mass bends space-time. Just semantics though, doesn't affect the point you were making about gravitational lensing. I very much agree, it's very interesting.
Yeah, the math is tough. Although, a lot of physics math isn't extremely hard math in itself, it's hard because of how physics works (with vectors, etc). You can do a lot of physics with basic integral and derivative knowledge. The problem is that physics isn't just regular math, its physics. You better be really good with vectors.
Well... tbh, the calculations can't help but be logically consistent (what's why we all need and love math :D) but something being logically consistent doesn't mean it maps to reality. It's worth asking whether reality is logically consistent at its core though. I mean quantum is certainly counter intuitive, but it appears to follow certain rules and it's consistent (if weird). This is the problem with string theory that's usually brought up - it's logically consistent but we can't test it.
First of all, in the current picture, it looks like the universe wouldn't "go back to nothing". Secondly, if the universe does somehow end, life would too. Even if life arose once more, it would have ended. His logic is not terrible.
This comment has the most win I've ever seen on RUclips.
The camera shutter clicks are really annoying! You have enough photos of Lawrence Krauss talking! Ruined it for me.
Did you really need that many photos of Lawrence Krauss talking?
Have a look at the Simulation Argument by Nick Bostrom. This video, and others like it on my channel: youtube dot com/watch?v=SIR8zc2uWNg
Does Lawrence Krauss believe in Aliens? 54:27
Laws of Thermodynamics indicate the future of the universe will be dark and cold.
Honestly, I'm okay with this. We'll be long gone before that happens.
I'm slowly accepting this reality. What I see among atheists is that they have no reason to die. Religious people(If they follow their scriptures) have a heaven to look forward to. It's all about using your time in an intelligent and utilitarian way.
Carlos Long is it nothing when we die
It really does instill in you to make the absolute most of your life... regardless of what you believe, or what you think is true, the only absolute certainty is the very instant you are living in now. Not the next second, nor the next day, nor the next year, nor even after death are certain.
But right now, right this very second... make it count.
PHOENIXDude57 What if when you will see your god and he says, "I already created the universe for you, and now you want to go to some extra good nice place for all of eternity ALSO?" Don't you seem a bit greedy?
Tenebrousable Considering that I don't believe in any god, I wouldn't care. But for the sake of the question, it does seem somewhat selfish.
Exactly. Now you're on to something.
Better yet, here is the Nick Bostrom playlist where he talks about the Simulation Argument: .youtube dot com/playlist?list=PL-7qI6NZpO3u6wv29SklMC03V5jTdzWs9
Well Religious people sure don't seem to know much about physics, as they sure are not commenting on the topic of the video, which in my opinion is far more interesting than religion. Some smart Atheists tend to like to direct the indoctrinated to a place where they feel more comfortable about re-thinking their beliefs and adopting a naturalistic wonder about the universe, yes it's past, but also its future - that is what this video is about, and after all the future is were we are heading.
Finite means, in the simplest terms, countable. It doesn't matter how large the number is, if you can give a number then it is finite. The number 243,673,211,676,897,974,934,246,276,892 is finite. How exactly is it pompous to use the correct term? It certainly isn't an infinite number, and there are only two choices, so you're suggesting that he not call it anything at all which would be dishonest. Even if it's pompous somehow, I prefer pompous to lying.
The fact that man can understand is proof enough of intelligence. It seems here that the overload of scientific concepts, theories and principles has blurred clear thinking, ending up in some skeptic/cynic view of life and existence. What appears clear to me is that human understanding transcends the physical sciences, i.e., it's not space and time although within them - the consciousness. Causality is causality and is not a plausibility. That there's an Uncaused cause still stands out.
In the future, eatch person will live a universe life time. Visiting other stars eg.
Yes my bad. I didnt watch either but have since been corrected.
"Singularity" is = - Obey us instead of your Maker. -
hey look its spike from buffy at 2:13!
wow, I can't believe this video got only 5800 views.
But the Sleestak where from Land of the Lost!
Religion doesn't rely on evidence or experiment, only belief and faith. So they may not be mutually exclusive, but they are two ends of a very vey long pole
Not to nitpick or anything, but Sleestacks are from Land of the Lost, not Star Trek. Otherwise, agree about atheism.
YA
I bet 200 years from now they will say, "Scientists at the time thought that 'things were just happening' But of course they never new about the pleamoton"
I'm sure that is what they'll say lol
In looking at our own biology it is hard to conclude that it was intelligently designed by some super intellect - there is so much wrong with it, and inefficiencies abound. We build simple calculators that outpace mathematicians, I imagine in the future we will have machines that are far more creative than humans too. Perhaps we are the creators of future life far more superior to us - some would say we are creating gods.
I'm an atheist too but doesn't the absence of god = material/natural universe?
I mean...how can u not believe in god but still fear spirits?
Yeh some tips on the camera work.. don't zoom in to much..
1. If we can harness Dark Matter and Dark Energy then we can stop this effect.
2. If we can create 2 universe from nothing one anti-matter and the other Matter then we could live forever
3. If technology got infinitely smaller then it would not use up the universe.
4. You said you can go faster then light because the other galaxies are going to be moving faster then light away from us. there for we will be able to get to these other galaxies even thou we can't see them anymore.
5. What make us so sure that this isn't the case with the 13.2 billion light years of seeable galaxies. Maybe it goes on infantry but they are just moving faster then light away form us.
I find it ridiculous that there is almost no discussion about the topics Krauss adressed (I found the part about Moore's law fascinating). Krass talked about the future of life in the universe and information processing etc etv but all i see in the comments is the same silly discussions about God and infinite regression of causality bla bla bla, THAT WAS NOT THE TOPIC
This kalam argument bantered about by William Lane Craig and many others is quite silly by today's standards. As bluesrockfan36 explained, the core aspect of quantum mechanics (and further the vacuum "dark energy" to which the accelerated expansion has been attributed) that virtual particles will just pop into existence out of nowhere - without a "cause". So the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument is falsified by quantum mechanics. There are many QM behaviours that are "causeless".
Is it me or can Krauss be depressing as hell to listen to? I love it and will listen to everything he records, but yeah, I'm depressed now...
To be able understand why galaxies moving a way from each other, people should try first understand how galaxies works? Do you think a doctor with out of any detail diagnosis will send the patient into operating room? Obviously not right. Our scientists round the globe left all the details jumping into something they aren't even sure with what they are dealing with. Trying to deal with the berth & the death of the universe.
i am sure the cameraman is drifted away by the lecture
Damn it I can only live for a few trillion years? I was expecting eternity, we need to find a way to tunnel into a twin universe in an early state. This is depressing :-(
I just don't think (or wish?) that in Europe you would have that kind of question...
It's far more intriguing that the earth is flat, the sun orbits the earth, and the earth is the center of the universe. And obvious.
heh, then I guess I'm even less of a lesser man, Mr. Krauss.(if you ever read this) Since I've not only got a solution to decreasing complexity but I've found it right on your own later arguments. =)
If theoretical physicists made good money, then there would be more people going into theoretical physics. Only a handful of people enter that field each year if that.
Yes, really.