@@michaelmckinney7240 l thought that was your guys specialty..nope cartoons for me ..if your not busy head over to NASA they are tracking space turds right now.. reviting
You just hate Peterson. Probably because he bursts your bubble in social issues. Peterson was simply asking questions on a topic he is at minimum better informed than you.
To have a one on one , discussion , conversation with Roger would have been fascinating !!!!! . As it would have been 125yrs ago . What they were thinking and why they were thinking it .
And then there is the thinking over the last 100yrs . To Now . We have come along way in the last 100yrs. A very , very , very long way in Our Understanding of the Universe . From both the alternative thinking understanding and the mainstream thinking understanding of the Universe . Its time that both got together with their theories and present their evidence , and discuss . Face to Face . Lets see where we are at in our understanding of the Universe .
This new physics always makes me think of Gulliver's Travels and the Laputans. Nobody has ever made me understand what is supposed to happen to the increasingly accelerating universe when the expansion approaches the speed of light. To say that it will never do so is to opt for Zeno's reasoning. Why is it wrong to think that, as its velocity approaches the speed of light, its mass becomes too huge and the whole thing collapses on itself. This, in its turn, creates a new expansive Big Bang, and so on.
No one will ever convince me that the entire contents of the universe was at any point in time contained in a singularity! The theory was postulated by a Roman Catholic Cardinal and I will never base my understanding of the universe on a religious person's creation theory!!
In his lectures at university, Roger would draw his diagrams anew every time using coloured pens on a flip chart (which became a whiteboard). No pre-prepared materials that I ever saw. It made his lessons much more interesting because he knew/sensed that it was the dynamics of the the drawings evolving that gave us the learning (as each new connection was made). I always admired him for this small thing.
He was demonstrating the imaginative power of the brain on fire with learning and evolution of theory as he taught...like watching the way a wildfire evolves with the landscape, fuel, temperature and wind...our brains in the process of thought and learning are just like that fire! Penrose was giving you a window to what was happening in his mind as he put all that together!!! Fire. Very symbolic, agree do you not?
"The Big Bang wasn't the beginning." True. But that's only because there was no beginning. The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. And the theory that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning is also a theory. And theories are determinations made by scientists. Just as the rest of us make determinations in every day life. To say "The world begins at this point and did not previously exist" is an attempt to discover a determinate meaning. Which is itself a mode of determination woven into a vast tapestry of previous determinations. In short, it's impossible to make a new beginning.
I'm worried about Penrose. He now disagrees with some of the things he previously demonstrated daily. Things he knew at the time were facts. He was always a little flowery in fairness... But these days he seems to be in full weird mode. Well perhaps not full weird mode...but he's working on it.
I think Penrose did a great job putting it in laymen's terms. Basically when all the mass in the universe disapates into massless photons, most of the things that define reality as we know it time, distance, size, etc... go with it as those are the creation of mass, which allows photons to go wild, which creates an enviroment that recreates mass from the energy of their unrestricted movements, and that creates a new big bang. This generates an eternal cycle. Thing of the massless photon universe as an ocean of pure chaos, from that chaos order (mass arises), eventually entropy (chaos) destroys that orders, so that it desolves back into a ocean of chaos (universe of photons without the limiting rules of mass) whose unrestitcted energy, free from the rules of mass, allow it to give rise to mass again. It all very Greek to me.
I agree wholeheartedly. So much so that it pains me to see him forced to suffer fools like the Lobster Man with what precious little time he may have left.
@@Timkast Seems to be enjoying his conversation with “lobster man” to be honest and why wouldn’t he. They’re both hyper intelligent albeit in very different fields.
@@Timkast Oh my god. Give it a rest. He’s a clinical psychologist by trade. He discusses philosophy for the most part which is a subject without a ‘right’ answer. So do explain how he’s intellectually dishonest or a hack. He’s not a physicist and doesn’t claim to be one but He’s smarter than the two of us put together. So stop throwing stones in that glass house if yours.
@@jackbrooking4754 I agree with you mate and I'm sure if Robert didn't want to talk to him he wouldn't so @timkast podcast who the hell are you to tell anyone let along sir Robert, what to do with there time!!!
I've heard this theory before and I like it. Basically, if all matter in the universe decayed into photons, because photons don't experience time, all distances become zero for the photons. From the photons' perspective, they all occupy the same point in space. This is a singularity, all the energy of the universe at a single point. It is both infinitely large and infinitely small. Why that results in a big bang and conversion of photons into other forms of matter I don't know.
@@cleanerben9636 I don't think I've ever heard of photon decay. How would a photon decay if it is a timeless particle anyway? There is no such thing as half-life. I will assume you're joking with the bored part lol
@@iamBlackGambit the fact that true nothing is a high maintenance state, means some sort of asymmetry always occurs, that eventually leads to some kind of vacuum energy
What purpose? He's just a stupid little man full of dumb imaginings. He denies his Maker and will end in hell. And you will follow him there? What a horrid gift you've received.
He's definitely a great mind. I heard him in an interview that when he concluded that the universe would end up being photons, he became depressed. I understood that this could be the factor that led him to propose the possibility that this physical state gave rise to the formation of a new universe with new implicit possibilities. In that sense, did the passion for living return to you?
You need to find Jesus. He is the key to life and purpose. When I have any problems in life, I ask myself what would Jesus do? And then a calmness comes over me and I also know the answer after speaking with him. I was once stressed out due to world hunger and climate change. I asked Jesus what he would do, and he suggested I smoke a joint and forget about it. It really helped to relieve my stress that day and now I pretty much stay high and have no worries.
It’s not that complicated basically your on a rock made out of earth in space which inhabits another space where there’s little things so small you can’t see them and god made that so behave and be nice to yourself and others and it might work out for you.
@@Tyrell_Corp2019 No, I think the reference here is a light-hearted one. In the UK we have a tradition of "national treasures" you know! We just like the idea of them being "protected" ... daft but there you are.
@@70AD-user45 What started the first big bang though? It's impossible for nothing to create something. Something outside of our universe started our existence.
And demonstrably false. He's pulled a Linus Pauling -- he won the Nobel and went completely insane. His Conformal Cyclic Cosmology has been ruled out but he insists that not only is it not ruled out but that it's proven. Not to mention his outright illegal fraudulent work in the field of consciousness, still holding to Orch OR which has also been completely ruled out.
@@mv3380 That's a faulty argument because then that thing becomes the mystery of what started it, and you either say that it always existed or something else started it, resulting in the same exact idea as the Universe model presented here. So it's simpler to just stick with the Universe since we don't have any evidence or math for something outside of a Universe (aside from math for a multiverse theory, which runs into a similar problem). Also, you can't say impossible on the level of fundamental physics. It's all magic. What the hell is existence anyway? It can follow any rule imaginable and unimaginable.
@@mv3380 You can either say the big bang has been going on eternally in the past without beginning and without end, which doesn't make sense, or someone created the first big bang...God.
@@justwannabehappy6735 yes, big bounce is a bit different. It shrinks and then there is another big bang which creates the universe. In Penrose's theory the universe does not shrink. After there is no mass in the universe you cannot distinguish between big and small distances because the photons experience no time. our do not know how much time you need to pass a distance because there are no objects for reference. Without this space reference, the photons do not know their energy density so the energy density of the entire universe would not be defined. So you have all photons in the universe but there are no defined distances between those photons. Without a defined distance your relative position to other photons is 0. This means all photons of the universe are at at the same "place". A place does not really exist but they are all together. The "size" of the universe gets "setted" to 0 because as explained you have no measurement tool (mass) to measure distances. All photons of the universe together would be a huge amount of energy density so another big bang would happen. The main difference between this and the big bounce is the course of the end. The universe decays and shrinks not because of the massiveness of mass but because you have no mass. Personally I like this theory because it shows and enforces relativeness.
I used to scoff at the idea, but more and more, I am starting to think that it is very likely that we are living in a simulation possibly MANY layers away from true base reality. There are many things that make me think this is likely true, but probably the existence of the Planck constant which eludes to the digital nature of energy as well as the observer effect (wave function collapse) of quantum mechanics are the main ones. If that is the case, then it may well be that the entire lifetime of our universe will happen in just a very short time in base reality. We may very well be just a few fleeting clock cycles in some vast complex hierarchy of software. Of course, the problem there is if true, we will likely never be able to prove it.
… like Roger Penrose, you can make it a cyclic universe. But maybe it was a big bounce, or it started with the collision of membranes. These ideas are all possible - they’re all compatible with the observations that we have. But I would call them ascientific - the kind of idea that evidence says nothing for nor against. Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist, 26 November 2022.
@@plumleytube Spot on . Have you seen Philip Stott's Creation Science channel ? You probably have but if you haven't it's well worth a look . God bless .
So essentially like a fractal universe? Waves of expansion originating from within themselves. Not each universe being bigger than the last per se as the universe ceases to have a size when mass dissolves, but scaleless in the way that a fractal pattern is. That's the way my brain is interpreting it. Like those videos of fractal patterns that look like you're forever zooming out, but with time being the dimension that's changing rather than the first 3 dimensions
Peterson understands very little outside his of PhD. He also has some skill manipulating sophomoric minds with logical fallacies and making old wiasdom sound original.
When I saw that Jordan was there I almost noped out, but I am glad I stayed. I have heard that the "Big Bang" wasn't beginning before but it wasn't explained this well.
@@hardeveld50 All the non-Petersom bits were great. Jordan's fawning was cringe worthy. His fans should not how differently Peterson behaves around genuine geniuses. He has to drop the logical fallacies and manipulations.
What causes matter to form from a void? You need consciousness as an equation point or it can't work. This is both modern quantum and theoretical physics. If you need consciousness to make the equation work well then that implies a higher being of thought. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. John 1:1 sound created matter says the Bible, science says the big bang, either way form and matter was formed from sound, sound is a frequency and vibration. Both require a consciousness.
@@sanderson9338 What is a void and which theory do you believe proposes that matter forms from a void? You don't know quantum physics. You don't know theoretical physics. So, what are you trying to talk about here?
No end. No beginning. It just is. Endless. Infinite. No walls. No outer shell. Brains don't like it much. I know mine doesn't. But it cannot be any other way except endless.
Consider this: Space & Time go together as a single unit, containing all the ways--in-which-matter-&-energy-can-be-displaced (= dimensions). If all Space/Time is shrunken down to a singularity, what meaning could the isolated idea of Time (by itself) have, in such a (non) situation? So then there is no way to sequence events in terms of 'before' or 'after'. (In fact, in that circumstance there are no Events at _all,_ anyway.) Our brains can only think relative to our simple conception of a continuum of time, stretching beyond sight in both directions, relative to our experience of 'Now'. That's the fixed background assumption, against which we plot/sequence events-that-are-relevant-to-human-life. But that way of conceiving is just a limitation of the human mind, isn't it? That doesn't mean our Time idea corresponds to how Space/Time works.
But, after all, who knows and who can say, whence it all came and how creation happened? The Gods themselves are later than creation,so who knows truly whence it has arisen?- part of Creation hymn- the Rigveda.
@@jp-jb1bw I have no intel on 'the gods', but I feel pretty confident that our human brain's way of sequencing time (= lining up the befores & afters) are of no use, once space-time itself collapses into a singularity. Because space-time is a structure of displacement; and by definition, a singularity is the condition of No Displacement At All.
when you are trying your darndest to comprehend but in all honesty, you havent a clue, yet you watch and listen to the end as its so captivating and intriguing... sounds like this oke really knows his stuff
We are like children with questions about how something (complicated) works. Rodger Penrose is like: "oh how do I explain it to them?...It really can't be properly explained to them, but I can give them a super-basic idea of what I'm getting at".
To simplify what I understood about his already simplified explanation, the state of the universe preceding the big bang is remarkably similar to the eventual "end" state of the universe (given what we know about how its expanding/entropy/etc) so eventually, once all things have decayed and only massless photons of pure energy exist, another big-bang-like event may eventually occur... Or something like that? xD
@@crookeddesk what bakes my noodle is when he suggests that the universe no longer knows its size when everything has decayed. I guess he's saying that size isn't a thing, when the only thing which exists are photons which don't experience time.
@@protoxus because as far as we can tell (probably), we live our lives, die and that's it. Even if that should repeat in infinity, it will feel entirely the same, right? And there's nothing to be done about it, otherwise the loop wouldn't exist in the first place. So nothing to worry about :)
@@davidstevens3934 honestly your right, but we don’t really know if that’s true. It’s important that we as a species try to advance and prosper since it’s the most reasonable thing we do.
@@protoxus Some philosophies impact our societies and way of thinking very directly, and some are just not very relevant on a day to day basis. I'd say this is one of those that don't really matter unless it's actually proven to be true, and even then... what does it specifically change about our behaviour if we believe it?
Moses 3:5 - "5 For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;"
Ha! I totally understand how you feel. Every time I _start_ to THINK I have an idea of what's being taught, something is said that throws me back to square 1.
Not a hope in hell. I think I am a reasonably intelligent individual, but I seemed only able to follow the words with the vaguest of comprehension before sagely nodding to myself, confidant that I have the intellect of a pea brain.
Don't ask me about the maths but conceptually it's fairly simple. 1. The universe is expanding and every structure like planets and galaxies are decaying into an homogenous soup of simple particles. Everything pretty much looks the same whichever direction you look in. No structure. 2. That uniformity is exactly what the early universe looked like, trillionths of a second after the big bang. No structure. 3. The only difference is that the beginning of the universe was really small compared to the future universe which is unimagineably big. 4. What Roger's saying (I think) is that the size difference is of no importance. In terms of geometry they are the same as size doesn't come into the equations. so the whole thing starts again but at a different scale and will do again and again forever. see simple. LOL.
What!? Penrose is a pretty hard nosed egomaniac. He gets frustrated very easily. He's a genius and like most people of genius, they are very aware of the fact. Just cause he's old and wearing a cardigan doesn't make him a very nice man. The world's full of very nice men, they're everywhere.
Over ten years ago they discovered many "bruises" in our universe caused by collisions with other universes which means the cosmos is far larger than first imagined. These circles of Universes interact just as colliding galaxies do and distant ones are detected by background radiation which has travelled trillions of years.
The problem in understanding new physical ideas is that our imagination is clogged with misleading metaphors like "big bang". If you called it "Big X" and don't think of an explosion or other nonsense, then it's easier to free your mind for new thoughts. Math works without metaphors, which is why translations to real life are so obscure, impossible, or difficult.
This was very helpful. Our understanding of time and space are developing. Thank you for sharing this. Roger Penrose is amazing in his teaching us the boundaries of our knowledge of our universe.
again,,,children starving....but l have given a theory ..eat well..//.JCM a Scot as all the REAL smart ones are,,,no point in ideas when your friends go hungry....
Developing? It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe. I mention this because they don't have a CLUE what Dark matter and dark energy are .
@@uppercut2246 you ARE aware I hope that even our sun is NOT UNDERSTOOD ??? There is no definitive explanation for solar cycles ( 22 years each of 11 years max 11 years min ) yet these old ( and young ) astronomers blare on about their DEEP SPACE KNOWLEDGE !!! Nikola Tesla knew more than all these guy's put together. Einstein said as much when talking about Tesla. Tesla laughed at these people like a comedy show.
@@uppercut2246 You are right. But we need these concepts. Money is also just a concept (otherwise it would be just a piece of paper or a number), but still we need it.
Peterson: I'm not sure what you're saying Penrose: I'm not sure I can make you understand what I'm saying Peterson: so what you're telling me is physics is hard to fully understand Penrose: physics is really hard to understand, yes.
It's quite a simple ideea the way he explains it but there's something missing. The trigger for the big bang acurring . Conditions prior to the big bang are similar to conditions in the distant universe, as all mass turns into energy the ideea of size and time dissapears. Since there is no size, there is no difference betwen infinity and a infinately small point. ......I can go down the rabbit hole of the argument but, what triggers the big bang ?
Except nothing like that. Sparks are made of particles. Now, what the really fun part is... look up how far in the future it must be at least. Because you need the universe to lose all sense of time.
@@oisnowy5368 Everyone reading it knows what i meant by "spark" I know how far in the future hes talking about also. You added nothing new to what Penrose has said.
This is the world we live in now, a childish comment about farts gets pinned in the comments section of a video discussing the origins of the universe.
It all sounds good in theory, truth is that we live a one tiny rock, revolving around a small sun. Not like people are ever going to leave our solar system.
in some book i have read explanation of how space-time continuum looks, if you imagine space and time as 3d graphics, where big bang is beginnig, it looks like bottle, where big bang is a bottle cap, bottle has no bottom now, coz space is still expanding....
Even in that end it's like lottery, you'd have to wait an insurmountable amount of time (relatively speaking) and then the odds of an entirely different random kind of universe with different physics would likely emerge. That's my lay understanding.
Your spiritual energy is not bound by mass. The big bang is where the physical realm meets the spiritual realm. Time was created in the physical, intelligence in the spiritual-both need each other to exist. Without either there is neither
Albert Einstein, like everyone else at the time, believed in a static universe, which is the equivalent of having a pencil with its tip on a flat table, perfectly balanced. To reconciliate this he introduced "lambda", a mathematical constant to make sense of an unmoving universe. I commend Peterson for the topic, but he is obviously green in many areas of this discussion.
Oh bum, wanted to watch Penrose but can’t watch Peterson. It’s impossible. He will start crying at some point no doubt. I can’t deal with this broken person.
Odd Rog is into the idea here but was tearing Michio Kaku apart recently for his multiverse theories, more specifically that analysis of this era is viable and can illuminate whether various multiverse theories hold water or not. Right as I heard it, Kaku seemed reasonable, not asserting that the multiverse is valid at all, just that it may be and that analysis of causal elements of the bang could test (i.e. disprove) various theories. And Rog was having none of it. Not even taking in his sentences. Acting as if he was a crackpot. Now this. Oof. -50 pts Rog. Not for this. For beating Kaku up when he presented valid ideas.
Is Penrose alluding to the big crunch and big bounce here? These aren't original/mind-blowing ideas. Also, not a huge fan of his obfuscated communication style. There are much clearer ways of laying out these concepts.
Makes sense, you can't get the chicken (mass) before the egg (energy). Want to travel close to the speed of light? Reduce the mass to close to zero. How do you reduce the mass? Increase it's frequency.
My hunch is that he doesn't understand a single word he is saying. He works on the principle: If you can't blind them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit. I am not exactly stupid, but I do not understand a songle one of his utterances!
I might be depressive right now, but existence itself sucks. We are just gonna keep respawning over and over again and even if we reach an end goal, say heavens, what now? We just exists for what? Alright consciousness is a great feature but thank god I am not immortal.
I've heard that being able to explain something to a 5 year old shows that you've really mastered the subject. I suggest being able to explain something to Jordan Peterson is a step beyond.....
That is a very interesting question. I’ve wondered that myself. I would imagine there would be some changes because of “randomness” of particles bouncing off one another. But if there’s bigger changes like the constants and such? Great thought experiment. Or did you mean something else and I missed it?
Penrose is like Newton trying to convince the Church that angels are not driving the planets. He is still being reverent, but knows things are not quite figured out. One of the assumptions that big bang theorists make is that the universe should look roughly the same from any viewpoint. They often neglect time in this assumption, but Penrose is starting to catch on that time is kin to space.
I'll leave brilliant men at work here so I can go take out the trash and heat up some pizza. I can't keep up with this concept I'm sorry to say. Since the only thing left will be photons or light.....I wonder if that really is God, that is and always will be?
I may be very wrong, but I took what Roger was saying a little deeper than just 'the universe in the future will be in the same condition as the start of the universe, and a new big bang will occur, and on and on'. I took it that, as photons do not experience time, and as the conditions of the future universe will be so very like the early conditions, then perhaps they are very literally the same. Time ceases to be linear, the end of the universe approaching is literally our beginning. There won't be another big bang, but rather the one that's already happened. Probably completely wrong 😂
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
There was a big fart before the big poop lol
Go back to watching cartoons Penny
@@michaelmckinney7240 l thought that was your guys specialty..nope cartoons for me ..if your not busy head over to NASA they are tracking space turds right now.. reviting
@@lrescue_do_N_cts Thank you Penny for your gentle reply. Have you always had such an interest in human excretory function?
Only in the reference frame of an asshole...
@@michaelmckinney7240 yes that's what dirt is just old turds lol
Jordan Peterson trying to finish his sentences to maintain being the smartest man in the room, even when he’s not.
🤣
You just hate Peterson. Probably because he bursts your bubble in social issues. Peterson was simply asking questions on a topic he is at minimum better informed than you.
@@Tigererolo
It depends on how do u define *define*🤡
May he live for another 91 years.
If he were only made of photons, he might. Alas..
@JZ's BFF Given Penrose's privilege and the state of the planet, you may not live long enough to collect.
@JZ's BFF you’re hilarious
No human has ever lived to be 120.
@@soulcells Jeanne Calment
If your grandad tried to have this conversation with you, you'd make him a cup of tea with some gingernuts and just assume he was bonkers.
"Infinity is just like anywhere else" Mind. Blown.
"Stars appear to be going away from us" ... yet they appear in the same places in the sky on the same day every year. Year after year. Like clockwork.
Jwst confirms this with images that looked past the bang and saw fully formed galaxies
Yes to Penrose the legend,but remember the Canadian guy.
That would explain why particles are unequally distributes in big bang - because they always were.
i do like the idea of an infinite cycle
It requires the initial domino pusher so there would have to be something infinite pre cycle.
To have a one on one , discussion , conversation with Roger would have been fascinating !!!!! . As it would have been 125yrs ago . What they were thinking and why they were thinking it .
And then there is the thinking over the last 100yrs . To Now . We have come along way in the last 100yrs. A very , very , very long way in Our Understanding of the Universe .
From both the alternative thinking understanding and the mainstream thinking understanding of the Universe . Its time that both got together with their theories and present their evidence , and discuss . Face to Face .
Lets see where we are at in our understanding of the Universe .
This new physics always makes me think of Gulliver's Travels and the Laputans.
Nobody has ever made me understand what is supposed to happen to the increasingly accelerating universe when the expansion approaches the speed of light. To say that it will never do so is to opt for Zeno's reasoning. Why is it wrong to think that, as its velocity approaches the speed of light, its mass becomes too huge and the whole thing collapses on itself. This, in its turn, creates a new expansive Big Bang, and so on.
I actually understood that. It’s brilliantly simple
That was very interesting and makes me want to know more.
Peterson sitting thinking 'yes u r crazy cause it was god that created everything. And we should all eat 🥩 steak after this.
the reference of a clock is another clock
what is time?
Are we there yet?
No one will ever convince me that the entire contents of the universe was at any point in time contained in a singularity!
The theory was postulated by a Roman Catholic Cardinal and I will never base my understanding of the universe on a religious person's creation theory!!
At 91 years old, most people struggle to function, but Sir Penrose is explaining to us how the Universe works. This man is a legend.
A legend in the making, he will be great
@Mad Musings That's what I was thinking. Smart man. Might not be right though.
He's 91? From his appearance, I thought he was in his 70s.
Cuz people need to eat saturated fat
he rambling you mean like that old dude at the post office lol
In his lectures at university, Roger would draw his diagrams anew every time using coloured pens on a flip chart (which became a whiteboard). No pre-prepared materials that I ever saw. It made his lessons much more interesting because he knew/sensed that it was the dynamics of the the drawings evolving that gave us the learning (as each new connection was made). I always admired him for this small thing.
I envy you.
He was demonstrating the imaginative power of the brain on fire with learning and evolution of theory as he taught...like watching the way a wildfire evolves with the landscape, fuel, temperature and wind...our brains in the process of thought and learning are just like that fire! Penrose was giving you a window to what was happening in his mind as he put all that together!!! Fire. Very symbolic, agree do you not?
Hey, you are a lucky man to have met him. CG? We are not related I presume.
"The Big Bang wasn't the beginning." True. But that's only because there was no beginning.
The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. And the theory that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning is also a theory.
And theories are determinations made by scientists. Just as the rest of us make determinations in every day life.
To say "The world begins at this point and did not previously exist" is an attempt to discover a determinate meaning. Which is itself a mode of determination woven into a vast tapestry of previous determinations.
In short, it's impossible to make a new beginning.
I'm worried about Penrose. He now disagrees with some of the things he previously demonstrated daily. Things he knew at the time were facts.
He was always a little flowery in fairness... But these days he seems to be in full weird mode. Well perhaps not full weird mode...but he's working on it.
This guy is more lucid at 91 than I am at 41.
I need to step up my game.
😂😂😂 Don’t be too hard on yourself…you are not alone!
Same Joe, same
Patience, friend. In thirty years you will catch him up. You`ll be only 71. No way he will be this smart at 121.
just take drugs and enjoy the ride, hes just good at convincing you his guess is the right one
Roger must share his diet plan and workout routine to the young generation.
This guy is talking over Jordan’s head. There’s levels to genius
I think Penrose did a great job putting it in laymen's terms. Basically when all the mass in the universe disapates into massless photons, most of the things that define reality as we know it time, distance, size, etc... go with it as those are the creation of mass, which allows photons to go wild, which creates an enviroment that recreates mass from the energy of their unrestricted movements, and that creates a new big bang. This generates an eternal cycle.
Thing of the massless photon universe as an ocean of pure chaos, from that chaos order (mass arises), eventually entropy (chaos) destroys that orders, so that it desolves back into a ocean of chaos (universe of photons without the limiting rules of mass) whose unrestitcted energy, free from the rules of mass, allow it to give rise to mass again. It all very Greek to me.
There IQ may be the same the issue is not genius it's one of competence. You could reverse this quite easily talking about somethibg else.
For sure, such as Psychology@@mattk1358
He looks so great for 91. Really astonishing.
Sir Roger Penrose is one of humanity's greatest treasures. I hope we still have him around for a while.
I agree wholeheartedly. So much so that it pains me to see him forced to suffer fools like the Lobster Man with what precious little time he may have left.
@@Timkast Seems to be enjoying his conversation with “lobster man” to be honest and why wouldn’t he. They’re both hyper intelligent albeit in very different fields.
@@jackbrooking4754 Jordan Peterson is an intellectual fraud and a philosophical hack.
@@Timkast Oh my god. Give it a rest. He’s a clinical psychologist by trade. He discusses philosophy for the most part which is a subject without a ‘right’ answer. So do explain how he’s intellectually dishonest or a hack. He’s not a physicist and doesn’t claim to be one but He’s smarter than the two of us put together. So stop throwing stones in that glass house if yours.
@@jackbrooking4754 I agree with you mate and I'm sure if Robert didn't want to talk to him he wouldn't so @timkast podcast who the hell are you to tell anyone let along sir Robert, what to do with there time!!!
I don't understand any of this, but it's still fascinating!
Socrates: "For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing..."
Just remember that
Next time you adamantly believe to be correct
It's like Kid Rock trying to interview Niels Bohr.😂😂😂😂😂
Not rly tho :P
More like Queen Latifah interviewing Kid Rock
In the same way that most of the comments are like Gomer Pyle wandering in to the Solvay Conference and nodding sagely.
Hahahahaha wtf 😂
I've heard this theory before and I like it. Basically, if all matter in the universe decayed into photons, because photons don't experience time, all distances become zero for the photons. From the photons' perspective, they all occupy the same point in space. This is a singularity, all the energy of the universe at a single point. It is both infinitely large and infinitely small. Why that results in a big bang and conversion of photons into other forms of matter I don't know.
Because the photons get bored. Or they decay in some circumstances.
@@cleanerben9636 I don't think I've ever heard of photon decay. How would a photon decay if it is a timeless particle anyway? There is no such thing as half-life. I will assume you're joking with the bored part lol
@@radscorpion8 hmm that’s very interesting. There are certainly sub-particles smaller than protons but do protons actually decay?!?!
That’s a very eloquent way of putting it,I appreciate your clarification
Its follow the structure of 369. Your pineal gland is in singularity with all light as you say.
"Infinity is just like anywhere else" is a brilliant explanation.
No that's not a good explanation 😕
@@iamBlackGambit I agree.
@@richardl1275 what caused this supposed bang?
It's just human beings with authority complex
@@iamBlackGambit the fact that true nothing is a high maintenance state, means some sort of asymmetry always occurs, that eventually leads to some kind of vacuum energy
Imagine being so cognescent at 91 years old
Roger, just say INFINITY!!
I’ve lost passion in life and I started listening to this great mind, now I have found my purpose. Thank you sir, you are a great gift to humanity ❤
What purpose? He's just a stupid little man full of dumb imaginings. He denies his Maker and will end in hell. And you will follow him there? What a horrid gift you've received.
He's definitely a great mind. I heard him in an interview that when he concluded that the universe would end up being photons, he became depressed. I understood that this could be the factor that led him to propose the possibility that this physical state gave rise to the formation of a new universe with new implicit possibilities. In that sense, did the passion for living return to you?
You need to find Jesus. He is the key to life and purpose. When I have any problems in life, I ask myself what would Jesus do? And then a calmness comes over me and I also know the answer after speaking with him. I was once stressed out due to world hunger and climate change. I asked Jesus what he would do, and he suggested I smoke a joint and forget about it. It really helped to relieve my stress that day and now I pretty much stay high and have no worries.
No religion needed. Just science.
Great minds are just curious minds. Very curious minds. Be curious.
I can almost hear Yoda telling Luke: "You must unlearn what you have learned!" 😅
I can almost hear Yoda shout: kill me...
@@hjuikkll Are you sure that wasn't Kermit the Frog?
It’s not that complicated basically your on a rock made out of earth in space which inhabits another space where there’s little things so small you can’t see them and god made that so behave and be nice to yourself and others and it might work out for you.
"Size matters not"
Roger Penrose must be protected at all costs
I think he's tougher than he might seem! Amazing guy.
from what? age? good luck
@@kirkhunter146 didn't work for you, did it
Protected from what? The secret cabal who stopped you from watching this video?
@@Tyrell_Corp2019 No, I think the reference here is a light-hearted one. In the UK we have a tradition of "national treasures" you know! We just like the idea of them being "protected" ... daft but there you are.
I love this CCC theory. Penrose connecting the last moments of this eon to the beginning of the next. Its brilliant and simple and amazing.
I think what he's saying is, at the end of this aeon, the universe will have a "time death", which will trigger off another big bang.
@@70AD-user45 What started the first big bang though? It's impossible for nothing to create something. Something outside of our universe started our existence.
And demonstrably false. He's pulled a Linus Pauling -- he won the Nobel and went completely insane. His Conformal Cyclic Cosmology has been ruled out but he insists that not only is it not ruled out but that it's proven. Not to mention his outright illegal fraudulent work in the field of consciousness, still holding to Orch OR which has also been completely ruled out.
@@mv3380 That's a faulty argument because then that thing becomes the mystery of what started it, and you either say that it always existed or something else started it, resulting in the same exact idea as the Universe model presented here. So it's simpler to just stick with the Universe since we don't have any evidence or math for something outside of a Universe (aside from math for a multiverse theory, which runs into a similar problem). Also, you can't say impossible on the level of fundamental physics. It's all magic. What the hell is existence anyway? It can follow any rule imaginable and unimaginable.
@@mv3380
You can either say the big bang has been going on eternally in the past without beginning and without end, which doesn't make sense, or someone created the first big bang...God.
Penrose is a genius and far ahead of his time.
What time would that be?
@@7john7able 3.15pm.
@@7john7able In the remote future when there are only fotons
@@7john7able Exactly xD
@@7john7able ...amusing.
The end of the universe is the starting point of the beginning of a universe... How eloquent, mystical and poetic. I like the concept
There is also the Big Bounce theory which is similar to Penrose's idea.
Thats stupid, think
@@justwannabehappy6735 yes, big bounce is a bit different. It shrinks and then there is another big bang which creates the universe. In Penrose's theory the universe does not shrink. After there is no mass in the universe you cannot distinguish between big and small distances because the photons experience no time. our do not know how much time you need to pass a distance because there are no objects for reference. Without this space reference, the photons do not know their energy density so the energy density of the entire universe would not be defined. So you have all photons in the universe but there are no defined distances between those photons. Without a defined distance your relative position to other photons is 0. This means all photons of the universe are at at the same "place". A place does not really exist but they are all together. The "size" of the universe gets "setted" to 0 because as explained you have no measurement tool (mass) to measure distances. All photons of the universe together would be a huge amount of energy density so another big bang would happen.
The main difference between this and the big bounce is the course of the end. The universe decays and shrinks not because of the massiveness of mass but because you have no mass.
Personally I like this theory because it shows and enforces relativeness.
I used to scoff at the idea, but more and more, I am starting to think that it is very likely that we are living in a simulation possibly MANY layers away from true base reality. There are many things that make me think this is likely true, but probably the existence of the Planck constant which eludes to the digital nature of energy as well as the observer effect (wave function collapse) of quantum mechanics are the main ones.
If that is the case, then it may well be that the entire lifetime of our universe will happen in just a very short time in base reality. We may very well be just a few fleeting clock cycles in some vast complex hierarchy of software. Of course, the problem there is if true, we will likely never be able to prove it.
@@heinrich6294 Nice. Thanks
Wow
Roger Penrose ❤ what a legendary guy
I think I need to go back to videos of cats doing amusing things.
Like being dead and alive at the same time?
@@kubhlaikhan2015 Great answer, you amused me.
@@michalpetrilak3976 If you could see my cat it would be double amusing. Passed his sell by date for sure.
I love this subject it’s so interesting ♥️♥️♥️
… like Roger Penrose, you can make it a cyclic universe. But maybe it was a big bounce, or it started with the collision of membranes. These ideas are all possible - they’re all compatible with the observations that we have. But I would call them ascientific - the kind of idea that evidence says nothing for nor against.
Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist, 26 November 2022.
This should be titled: Jordan Peterson finally shuts up and listens as he realizes he cannot bullshit an actual genius.
Is that Jordan Peterson????????
Bottom line is - they don't know .
It's one of several hypotheses.
No. Just another junk idea to do away with the need for a creator
@@plumleytube Spot on . Have you seen Philip Stott's Creation Science channel ? You probably have but if you haven't it's well worth a look . God bless .
@@plumleytube : Or perhaps a creator is another junk idea to do away with the need for science. Science has something creationism doesn't. Data.
Unlike religions, science doesn't claim. IT AIMS to know and hence has no pretension just research.
So essentially like a fractal universe? Waves of expansion originating from within themselves. Not each universe being bigger than the last per se as the universe ceases to have a size when mass dissolves, but scaleless in the way that a fractal pattern is. That's the way my brain is interpreting it. Like those videos of fractal patterns that look like you're forever zooming out, but with time being the dimension that's changing rather than the first 3 dimensions
So many words saying so little. Just have the humility to say I DONT KNOW.
It’s healthy for Jordan to listen and learn some 🙏🏼
Yes he’s quite a talker sometimes… his interview with Dawkins was pretty manic
I almost sympathize with his troubled mind.
Peterson understands very little outside his of PhD. He also has some skill manipulating sophomoric minds with logical fallacies and making old wiasdom sound original.
When I saw that Jordan was there I almost noped out, but I am glad I stayed. I have heard that the "Big Bang" wasn't beginning before but it wasn't explained this well.
@@hardeveld50 All the non-Petersom bits were great. Jordan's fawning was cringe worthy.
His fans should not how differently Peterson behaves around genuine geniuses. He has to drop the logical fallacies and manipulations.
After the Big Bang, the universe keeps expanding until the stuff that holds it together snaps and we have another Big Bang.
Says who?
Did you even watch the video?
What causes matter to form from a void? You need consciousness as an equation point or it can't work. This is both modern quantum and theoretical physics. If you need consciousness to make the equation work well then that implies a higher being of thought.
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. John 1:1 sound created matter says the Bible, science says the big bang, either way form and matter was formed from sound, sound is a frequency and vibration. Both require a consciousness.
@@sanderson9338 What caused god to form from a void then? Or do you get to cheat your own logic for that?
@@sanderson9338 What is a void and which theory do you believe proposes that matter forms from a void? You don't know quantum physics. You don't know theoretical physics. So, what are you trying to talk about here?
How did the Universe begin?
Me: I don’t know.
Penrose: I don’t know
No end. No beginning. It just is. Endless. Infinite. No walls. No outer shell. Brains don't like it much. I know mine doesn't. But it cannot be any other way except endless.
It's sad how the atheist will create such fantasies to deny the obvious creation by The Almighty.
Consider this: Space & Time go together as a single unit, containing all the ways--in-which-matter-&-energy-can-be-displaced (= dimensions). If all Space/Time is shrunken down to a singularity, what meaning could the isolated idea of Time (by itself) have, in such a (non) situation? So then there is no way to sequence events in terms of 'before' or 'after'. (In fact, in that circumstance there are no Events at _all,_ anyway.) Our brains can only think relative to our simple conception of a continuum of time, stretching beyond sight in both directions, relative to our experience of 'Now'. That's the fixed background assumption, against which we plot/sequence events-that-are-relevant-to-human-life. But that way of conceiving is just a limitation of the human mind, isn't it? That doesn't mean our Time idea corresponds to how Space/Time works.
But, after all, who knows and who can say, whence it all came and how creation happened? The Gods themselves are later than creation,so who knows truly whence it has arisen?- part of Creation hymn- the Rigveda.
@@jp-jb1bw I have no intel on 'the gods', but I feel pretty confident that our human brain's way of sequencing time (= lining up the befores & afters) are of no use, once space-time itself collapses into a singularity. Because space-time is a structure of displacement; and by definition, a singularity is the condition of No Displacement At All.
when you are trying your darndest to comprehend but in all honesty, you havent a clue, yet you watch and listen to the end as its so captivating and intriguing... sounds like this oke really knows his stuff
I hear ya.
We are like children with questions about how something (complicated) works. Rodger Penrose is like: "oh how do I explain it to them?...It really can't be properly explained to them, but I can give them a super-basic idea of what I'm getting at".
Dont believe him where have you been on the Moon.
To simplify what I understood about his already simplified explanation, the state of the universe preceding the big bang is remarkably similar to the eventual "end" state of the universe (given what we know about how its expanding/entropy/etc) so eventually, once all things have decayed and only massless photons of pure energy exist, another big-bang-like event may eventually occur...
Or something like that? xD
@@crookeddesk what bakes my noodle is when he suggests that the universe no longer knows its size when everything has decayed.
I guess he's saying that size isn't a thing, when the only thing which exists are photons which don't experience time.
So possibility that we are forever stuck in this loop?
Dunno if this possibility is more comforting or scary
I don't think it's something for us to worry about 😂
@@protoxus because as far as we can tell (probably), we live our lives, die and that's it. Even if that should repeat in infinity, it will feel entirely the same, right? And there's nothing to be done about it, otherwise the loop wouldn't exist in the first place. So nothing to worry about :)
@@davidstevens3934 honestly your right, but we don’t really know if that’s true. It’s important that we as a species try to advance and prosper since it’s the most reasonable thing we do.
@@protoxus Some philosophies impact our societies and way of thinking very directly, and some are just not very relevant on a day to day basis. I'd say this is one of those that don't really matter unless it's actually proven to be true, and even then... what does it specifically change about our behaviour if we believe it?
Moses 3:5 - "5 For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;"
i am never going to get it ever.
Ha! I totally understand how you feel.
Every time I _start_ to THINK I have an idea of what's being taught, something is said that throws me back to square 1.
Amen (no pun intended)
Not a hope in hell. I think I am a reasonably intelligent individual, but I seemed only able to follow the words with the vaguest of comprehension before sagely nodding to myself, confidant that I have the intellect of a pea brain.
Don't ask me about the maths but conceptually it's fairly simple.
1. The universe is expanding and every structure like planets and galaxies are decaying into an homogenous soup of simple particles. Everything pretty much looks the same whichever direction you look in. No structure.
2. That uniformity is exactly what the early universe looked like, trillionths of a second after the big bang. No structure.
3. The only difference is that the beginning of the universe was really small compared to the future universe which is unimagineably big.
4. What Roger's saying (I think) is that the size difference is of no importance. In terms of geometry they are the same as size doesn't come into the equations. so the whole thing starts again but at a different scale and will do again and again forever.
see simple. LOL.
@@steeleye2112 that's a really good summary actually
It's above my pay grade but I like listening to him.
Roger Penrose is a patient (and very nice) man, there should have been a Nobel Prize just for that…
Yes you're 100% right. we should give out Nobel prizes for being nice and patient..
What!? Penrose is a pretty hard nosed egomaniac. He gets frustrated very easily. He's a genius and like most people of genius, they are very aware of the fact. Just cause he's old and wearing a cardigan doesn't make him a very nice man. The world's full of very nice men, they're everywhere.
The Nobel peace prize is reserved for people who are going along with the establishment of the new world order
@@tonkrogerio I mean the threshold for getting the Peace one seems pretty low tbh...
Over ten years ago they discovered many "bruises" in our universe caused by collisions with other universes which means the cosmos is far larger than first imagined. These circles of Universes interact just as colliding galaxies do and distant ones are detected by background radiation which has travelled trillions of years.
Interestingly, this is very similar to what Nietzsche theorized in the mid 19th century with his ‘eternal recurrence’ concept.
The problem in understanding new physical ideas is that our imagination is clogged with misleading metaphors like "big bang". If you called it "Big X" and don't think of an explosion or other nonsense, then it's easier to free your mind for new thoughts. Math works without metaphors, which is why translations to real life are so obscure, impossible, or difficult.
You're right! People like you and me, (We, mediocre people) our imagination is clogged with misleading metaphors like "Big Bang".
@@user-is3yn7xr4c perhaps start with another user name
This was very helpful. Our understanding of time and space are developing. Thank you for sharing this. Roger Penrose is amazing in his teaching us the boundaries of our knowledge of our universe.
again,,,children starving....but l have given a theory ..eat well..//.JCM a Scot as all the REAL smart ones are,,,no point in ideas when your friends go hungry....
Developing?
It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe. I mention this because they don't have a CLUE what Dark matter and dark energy are .
Time & Space are concepts, but do go on, this should be interesting.
@@uppercut2246 you ARE aware I hope that even our sun is NOT UNDERSTOOD ??? There is no definitive explanation for solar cycles ( 22 years each of 11 years max 11 years min ) yet these old ( and young ) astronomers blare on about their DEEP SPACE KNOWLEDGE !!! Nikola Tesla knew more than all these guy's put together. Einstein said as much when talking about Tesla.
Tesla laughed at these people like a comedy show.
@@uppercut2246 You are right. But we need these concepts. Money is also just a concept (otherwise it would be just a piece of paper or a number), but still we need it.
Peterson: I'm not sure what you're saying
Penrose: I'm not sure I can make you understand what I'm saying
Peterson: so what you're telling me is physics is hard to fully understand
Penrose: physics is really hard to understand, yes.
😂😂😂😂🙏
I'm not sure what Roger said, but I believe he is correct. : (
😂😂😂😂👍
I needed to listen to it 4 times before understanding his ideas. Mindblowing, and confusing for a layman like me. Physics is so fascinating
It's only confusing because it's so simple.
It's quite a simple ideea the way he explains it but there's something missing. The trigger for the big bang acurring .
Conditions prior to the big bang are similar to conditions in the distant universe, as all mass turns into energy the ideea of size and time dissapears. Since there is no size, there is no difference betwen infinity and a infinately small point. ......I can go down the rabbit hole of the argument but, what triggers the big bang ?
@@think2invest Penrose has explained that his theory's version of inflation is caused by the dark energy of the previous universe.
In the far future, the universe forgets how big it is, which sparks a new big bang. What's scary is that it makes sense.
Except nothing like that. Sparks are made of particles. Now, what the really fun part is... look up how far in the future it must be at least. Because you need the universe to lose all sense of time.
@@oisnowy5368 Everyone reading it knows what i meant by "spark" I know how far in the future hes talking about also. You added nothing new to what Penrose has said.
@@oisnowy5368 if it only contains massless particles there will be no time, so the conditions are met.
No. Just another junk idea to do away with the need for a creator
@@plumleytube people with a need for a creator have serious daddy issues.
I’m so glad Roger’s got that nice warm jumper. Someone’s clearly looking after him 🥰
This is the world we live in now, a childish comment about farts gets pinned in the comments section of a video discussing the origins of the universe.
Indeed . And Disappointing .
I'm surprised Peterson didn't start crying
It all sounds good in theory, truth is that we live a one tiny rock, revolving around a small sun. Not like people are ever going to leave our solar system.
Future generations will it’s only a matter of when
There is no beginning, there is no end, there is no such thing as time, there is only now.
in some book i have read explanation of how space-time continuum looks, if you imagine space and time as 3d graphics, where big bang is beginnig, it looks like bottle, where big bang is a bottle cap, bottle has no bottom now, coz space is still expanding....
Doesn’t there need to be, by necessity, more than this dependent physical stuff for there to be this dependent physical stuff?
Ancient concept. 🙏
Even in that end it's like lottery, you'd have to wait an insurmountable amount of time (relatively speaking) and then the odds of an entirely different random kind of universe with different physics would likely emerge. That's my lay understanding.
Your spiritual energy is not bound by mass. The big bang is where the physical realm meets the spiritual realm. Time was created in the physical, intelligence in the spiritual-both need each other to exist. Without either there is neither
Albert Einstein, like everyone else at the time, believed in a static universe, which is the equivalent of having a pencil with its tip on a flat table, perfectly balanced. To reconciliate this he introduced "lambda", a mathematical constant to make sense of an unmoving universe. I commend Peterson for the topic, but he is obviously green in many areas of this discussion.
Oh bum, wanted to watch Penrose but can’t watch Peterson. It’s impossible. He will start crying at some point no doubt. I can’t deal with this broken person.
One needs to get to the point,and the other needs to stop interrupting! I only managed half the video.
After listening to a rap song I came to see this video and my brain expanded and retracted like the big bang. Now, it all makes sense.
Big bang is beginning of observable universe. But observable universe is not all.
Odd Rog is into the idea here but was tearing Michio Kaku apart recently for his multiverse theories, more specifically that analysis of this era is viable and can illuminate whether various multiverse theories hold water or not.
Right as I heard it, Kaku seemed reasonable, not asserting that the multiverse is valid at all, just that it may be and that analysis of causal elements of the bang could test (i.e. disprove) various theories.
And Rog was having none of it. Not even taking in his sentences. Acting as if he was a crackpot.
Now this.
Oof.
-50 pts Rog. Not for this. For beating Kaku up when he presented valid ideas.
Are you going to upload the rest of this? 9min just isn't enough.
ruclips.net/video/Qi9ys2j1ncg/видео.html
@@ansari1375 Thank you very much!
Mainstream scientists hate this guy, real scientists love him.
What is a mainstream scientist?
He's almost arrived at the Indian concept of the cyclic nature of time or Yuga cycle
🙏🙏🙏
Yes isn’t it a “manvantaric period” and “praliya”, something like that I read once in a book on adviata/non-dualism?
Is Penrose alluding to the big crunch and big bounce here? These aren't original/mind-blowing ideas. Also, not a huge fan of his obfuscated communication style. There are much clearer ways of laying out these concepts.
Makes sense, you can't get the chicken (mass) before the egg (energy). Want to travel close to the speed of light? Reduce the mass to close to zero. How do you reduce the mass? Increase it's frequency.
God, Peterson constantly pretending to know what he’s talking about is so grating.
Wow. Haven’t had this happen in a long time. Can’t say I understand but a door I didn’t know existed just opened.
When you ask a question and hope you get back on track to finding out what the hell is happening
My hunch is that he doesn't understand a single word he is saying.
He works on the principle:
If you can't blind them with brilliance
baffle them with bullshit.
I am not exactly stupid, but I do not understand a songle one of his utterances!
Full of crap, both of them. All guesswork and you can never know through scientific analysis unless you can actually view/witness it.
Wow if I was blind listening to him I would think he was 63 not 91. Damn. What a guy.
He doesn't look 91 either.
He should get another Nobel Prize for trying to explain something to Peterson.
As a physicist, all I can say is: WOW. What a legendary conversation
It’s not a conversation. It’s an interesting soliloquy interrupted occasionally by an idiot.
I might be depressive right now, but existence itself sucks.
We are just gonna keep respawning over and over again and even if we reach an end goal, say heavens, what now? We just exists for what?
Alright consciousness is a great feature but thank god I am not immortal.
I've heard that being able to explain something to a 5 year old shows that you've really mastered the subject. I suggest being able to explain something to Jordan Peterson is a step beyond.....
My grandma died at 91 last week. Big up the long living!
I wonder if there’s any variation with each cycle or whether it’s an infinitesimal loop of the same universe over and over again?
I think Penrose is implying it's the latter.
That is a very interesting question. I’ve wondered that myself. I would imagine there would be some changes because of “randomness” of particles bouncing off one another. But if there’s bigger changes like the constants and such? Great thought experiment.
Or did you mean something else and I missed it?
@@therick363 no misunderstanding you got it right
@@decard01 cool cool. Again, great question.
@@therick363 thank you
Penrose is like Newton trying to convince the Church that angels are not driving the planets. He is still being reverent, but knows things are not quite figured out. One of the assumptions that big bang theorists make is that the universe should look roughly the same from any viewpoint. They often neglect time in this assumption, but Penrose is starting to catch on that time is kin to space.
Wtf? What the heck are you smoking?
I'll leave brilliant men at work here so I can go take out the trash and heat up some pizza. I can't keep up with this concept I'm sorry to say. Since the only thing left will be photons or light.....I wonder if that really is God, that is and always will be?
I may be very wrong, but I took what Roger was saying a little deeper than just 'the universe in the future will be in the same condition as the start of the universe, and a new big bang will occur, and on and on'. I took it that, as photons do not experience time, and as the conditions of the future universe will be so very like the early conditions, then perhaps they are very literally the same. Time ceases to be linear, the end of the universe approaching is literally our beginning. There won't be another big bang, but rather the one that's already happened. Probably completely wrong 😂