Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
What is the fundamental nature of reality? | Paul Davies, Rupert Sheldrake, Katie Robertson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 авг 2024
- Paul Davies, Rupert Sheldrake, and Katie Robertson discuss what the world is made of.
00:00 Intro/Theme One
01:00 Paul Davies
04:10 Katie Robertson
07:00 Rupert Sheldrake
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/what-the-world-i...
Once we imagined that the world was made of atoms. Our children are now taught that it is made of fundamental particles, quarks, leptons and bosons. Then again particles themselves disappear in contemporary physics leaving us with fields, and energy. But what are these made of? Some talk of relations, information and mathematics. It seems we have lost the stuff of the universe and found nothing else in its place.
Should we just give up on physical stuff altogether? Should we recognise that it is not possible to provide an account of ultimate bits and just make use of our theories to achieve our goals? Or can we imagine that we might finally come up with an answer and know once and for all what the universe is made of?
#UltimateBitsOfTheUniverse #WhatIsTheUniverseMadeUpOf #FundamentalParticlesOfExistence
Legendary physicist Paul Davies, trailblazing author of 'The Science Delusion Rupert Sheldrake and ground-breaking philosopher of physics Katie Robertson debate the fundamental nature of reality. Acclaimed science presenter Dallas Campbell hosts.
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
Do you think we should give up on the search for what the universe is made of? Let us know in the comments below!
To watch the full debate, visit iai.tv/video/what-the-world-is-made-of?RUclips&+comment
As soon as I saw this and went to the link to discover it was $$$ I unsubbed. Boooo Use Patreon
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
Matter cannot exist without physical laws and constants first existing. Physical laws and constants cannot exist without mind / consciousness / intelligence first existing. Mind / consciousness / intelligence is Prime. Consciousness / Intelligence Exists Before Matter. Mind Over Matter.
the moderator was out of order. the moderator is not there to give personal opinions. the moderators' comments disturbed and distracted the discussion. Bad form at least.
Spoilt by the moderator, who seemed to think this debate was about him.
Sadly quite painful to hear the 'moderator' being completely biased and rudely interrupting Sheldrake...
Essar.
Agreed the moderator is very rude and unprofessional. And it is so sad to know that in spite of being a moderator still he is talking more than anybody else
Agreed the moderator is very rude and unprofessional. And it is so sad to know that in spite of being a moderator still he is talking more than anybody else
String theory doesn’t seem to be where we’re at. Watch the latest discussion with Penrose, Michio Kaku and Sabina Hossenfelder.
AFAIK, it’s the only decent theory of quantum gravity we have
@Dionysis - Yeah, that was...er, rather discomfortable. I imagine that there are many proponents of the string hypothesis who would rather that Dr. Kaku were not the most outspoken self-appointed spokesman for that particular field if inquiry.
The 'moderator' inserts himself repeatedly, frequently making a fool of himself. So rude. He should rethink what the role calls for, or not be invited back.
Paul Davies was right. The Moderator was no moderator at all. He is a TV presenter with a degree in Drama and English. Like many Science presenters and journalists in the media covering Science , they communicate dogma with no depth of understanding of the subject. It's a pervasive problem.
feels weird rushing through the questions like that.
The exact location of a point cannot be found. It can be imagined but it cannot be located.
The angular relationship of what we call points is the most accurate concept. In reality a point is an energy density and the most accurate description involves the triad or equilateral trinity of these densities on a circumference with the equilateral triangle as The fundamental form. Everything is a variation of this fundamental form. The equilateral triangle with its vertices on the circumference.
The exact position of a point is a relationship within a trinity or triad,not a place.
I love Rupert's thinking here! Reminds me of Richard Feynman, or David Berlinski. The very meaning of science is (not) to be self-serving, and to be skeptical of every result.
Part of Sheldrake's argument is supported by 3 physicists winning the Nobel Prize this year for proving the universe is fundamentally non-local.
Nothing about non-locality of quantum particles supports telepathy or morphic fields.
The standard model requires an observer to collapse the wave function. A physical observer doesn't exist in physical reality until it itself has been observed, therefore Consciousness must be the observer collapsing all wave functions.
How do superstrings account from the inflationary epoch of the big bang? Two slit interference patterns? Time dilation? Wave functions?
Upload the full debate on youtube please
.. how about something substantive, such as stopping the war on cannabis, which is a war on people?
or something even much more substantive .. such as the US shadow government waging war on 17 countries atm ???
Please do that then.
These people are spending their lifetimes for searching the truth about our universe.
Science gave us incredible tech. So ranting on some other subject here is totally pointless
Haha you're on wrong channel mate
☕😹
What year is this ?
Are the physics constants stored in the superstrings? How do strings account for big bang expansion?
The point is that there is no way to tell. String "theory" is not a theory in any sense in which the word theory traditionally has been used in science - namely, a hypthosis that has been experimentally corroborated...a process that has never been performed for the string hypothesis. Elegant? Yes. Ingenious even? Perhaps. Empirically confirmed? Nope...ergo, not theory; hypothesis.
What are all those fundamental particles of light streaming around while Dr Davis is speaking? Does anyone know? I've seen this happening in a number of lecture videos. Ghosts???
Sheldrake has his Feyerabend hat on as usual. To his objections though, and to non-reductive medicine and the like, I do wonder if Friston and Levin's work will help open some doors if not to broad holism at least to network effects between recursive layers of intelligence (they could open significant doors on things like trauma, TMS, etc.).
what do you mean by broad holism?
@@raresmircea holism is pretty much seen as 'woo' and it's going to take a long examination with very solid quality constraints before it loses that reputation. There was a great discussion a few days ago between Joscha Bach and Michael Levin on Curt Jaimungal's channel that was parsing some really interesting territory in this regard. They may very well find that they're headed to places where they'd find increased agreement with Sheldrake, it's more of a reputational damage hurdle than anything right now and to keep traction on what they're doing they have to keep the tightest constraints for that reason.
The premise is classic. It implies that there's an objective truth there that needn't be understood in the human context, which obviously cannot be right. So if you just put the word "human" in front of "reality", you have a much better question. But what happens then is that physics won't be playing first violin anymore, and that's a problem.
Agreed. What this "moderator" had in mind for this discussion is beyond me though. He both interrupts and interjects with his own opinions and biases.
@QualeQualeson - Indeed...and alas, there seem to be few physicists (although the dysfunction is not confined to physicists) that have managed to un-enslave themselves to the myth of "objectivity". There was one, though, who managed to break free: Sir Arthur Eddington identified the subjective nature of knowledge in his _Philosophy of Physical Science_ - which is sadly now out of print...a book that many who claim to be scientists need to read.
@@Vito_Tuxedo Interesting. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not promoting postmodern relativism. I still think we need standard definitions, I just don't want delusional ego to run away with us and make leaps like the one we see in this title. To factor in our subjectivity is part of objectivity, so there's not necessarily a dichotomy there.
@@QualeQualeson It never occurred to me that your comment in any way suggested you are promoting postmodern relativism. And I completely agree that standard definitions are a prerequisite for genuinely meaningful communication. As far as objectivity is concerned, I see it as an unfortunately-named concept, in that it engenders semantic confusion that obscures the subjective nature of knowledge.
What I mean is that there is a false association between subjectivity and relativism, and a correspondingly false equivalence between objectivity and absoluteness. Those who recognize the pitfalls of relativism but fail to understand that subjectivity and absoluteness are *_not_* mutually exclusive often flee to the false alternative of objectivity.
But applying the principle of standard definitions (which is predicated on semantic precision), there is actually no such thing as objectivity, because it denies and ultimately obviates the subjective nature of knowledge. What is usually meant by objectivity should actually be called absolute subjectivity, in more semantically precise parlance...that is, it is verified by independent observation within the same contextual framework.
That's admittedly cumbersome, so we say "objectivity" for short. The unfortunate consequence of such semantic imprecision is that it befuddles the minds of people like the moderator in this video, and thereby promotes the kind of misconception that underlies the arrogant presumptuousness in titles like the one in this video, and further legitimizes the concept of objectivity beyond the credibility it deserves...
...which credibility, within the semantic structure of consistent definitions as set forth above, is essentially zero.
@@Vito_Tuxedo I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood.
I think you hit the nail on the head, and I'm gonna read through your response a couple times and think about it. It's obvious that you have structured this much better than I ever did.
I also concur with your conclusion. Thanks for a great contribution.
EDIT: I did think about it, and I can't see any misconceptions. So, I think what people intuitively mean when they use the word objectivity is simply absolute subjectivity, but most probably never thought to specify it, like you said. So the video title is incorrect at least once. In fact I think it's too blurry to mean anything at all. :) I might reply to this thread later, because there may be some questions coming. Thanks again.
Don't give up on exploring what the universe is made of, just stop trying to over simplify it to one thing, like strings or a unified field.
Scientists at the highest levels of academia are (whether negligently or intentionally deceptively to mislead in forwarding a particular ideological / worldview agenda) tossing around the words 'hypothesis' and 'theory' as interchangeable synonyms. This has caused much confusion within the general population regarding many important scientific subjects such as Cosmology, Origin of Life (OoL), Macro-evolution, Micro-evolution, etc. which have tremendous social, political, and religious implications.
@Moses Exodus - Absolutely agreed. They have never been synonymous in the past. And calling the string hypothesis a "theory" hasn't helped.
Drs. Sheldrake and Davis. Awesome.
at 8:54 it's really hard to see. what you absolutely refuse to look at; isn't it?
;-p
By the time string theory is laid to rest there will be a hall full of naked emperors
If you're looking for the answer to "What is the fundamental nature of reality" as per the title, they never get there. You fell for click-bate.
Isn't it possible that the particles we see in collider are not fundamental to the thing we are smashing, but emerge based on certain conditions and energy states. So the particles we ~see in collider may not actually be present inside the larger thing, but just emergent.
Absolutely
It will require understanding forces, how they operate and impact substance. Also magnetism is not understood.
Read "The Binary Universe" - A Theory of Time. The answer is in there. But, in a nutshell, the fundamental quantum is?.......................a "possibility".
String Theory = Jimmy Hendrix at Woodstock.
Rupert Sheldrake is my hero 😉 and 'Katie Robertson' is also my Granddaughter's name - she's studying Astrophysics and Cosmology, I'm so chuffed 😏
Scientists: We dont really know the nature of reality.
Moderator: 7:55 I know the correct theory!
Sheldrake is (mostly) a bright guy.
Just read that in the transcript too 😂
Well that might be generous considering his ides on "morphic resonance" and telepathy.
Particles are the jewelry we wear with our energy costume when we come to the carnival
Wow. Nice.
'Carnival' carnal.. flesh.. good one, agreed
Don't need more collider's (they have done enough), don't need holistic mumbo jumbo ( unless you want to be a groupie) and no need for philosophy (unless you are having a dinner party).
No, all you need is freely available on the Internet and a few good books.
Imagine how many lives we could've saved if we had invested in telepathy instead of molecular medicine. What fools we have been.
Why not both?
Telepathy,sure...
lol
I would venture that it was an absurdum.
As also it is absurd to spend dozens of billion Euros to build and run so many particle colliders. Precious little is projected to be discovered and even what would be (or has been, in the case of the Higgs) is of little practical use, as it would require impractical amounts of energy to utilize.
There is NOTHING elementary predicted by the past half centuries theories which have been discovered. No progress has been made at all. The theoretical basis is stagnant and atrophied.
Maxwell you made my evening with that beautiful comment.
jelly beans and cheese. but the jelly beans are magical.
Loves me some Sheldrake
i dont buy sheldrakes ontology for a minute but he is a pleasant man.
So you buy into religion instead of scientism which is : post modernism, logical positivism, materialism and physicalism ? Stop it immediately. Really enough. This is un-scientific nonsense. This is not a place for religion. Instead listen to Rupert again.
@@AmericanBrainyou are obviously under his new age spells what fools... i dont buy anything.. just desbelief and reductionism .. you new age people just have that conforting delusions of god or cosmic minds.. grow up and accept the truth of scientism.
@@null.och.nix7743 I just wrote you so consider this an addendum, an extra tidbit.
From memory if I’m not incorrect you said you are for reductionism and skepticism?
Skepticism is the philosophy of David Hume. If you follow it through to the beginning and then you will see that if you’re skeptical about skepticism it implodes is incorrect.
Therefore where is recent and Rogic using critical thinking as well as valid purposes, skepticism parades has a full poor use of logic. It’s incorrect.
In analogy let’s look at Russell and Bertrand’s paradox: an honest man comes to you and says” I am a liar!”
Question for you: what is the truth here? Please think about this for a minute before reading on which otherwise it will spoil the surprise.
---
The answer is that the proposition, the question itself is incorrectly phrased, so it is not just a paradox it is in fact error. This is exactly like skepticism. To give up on skepticism. Instead use critical thinking and constructive thinking as in the methods a reason and logic. That means yes to reductionist sites but equivalently you are a systemic property such as Biology and a Bing. Therefore you must look at things in a holistic manner as well.
Reductionism works in physics but you’re not a robot, you are not me materialism, physicalism, New Age scientism, religion of science, I miss use of the science .
Science and math like a telescope in a microscope a very useful. They are instruments.
Hardware instruments extend man senses. Immaterial instruments such a science and math extend man’s perspective knowledge.
But it is always consciousness that was interpret invalidate knowledge and make certain it’s coherent with the rest of knowledge so it is logical. Otherwise it is mysticism such a string theory or manuals or multi-verse or big bang with inflation.
So yes to the lens of reductionism. But it is not sufficient. You need to Hollys. In part one of this post earlier post I went into detail about what is valid holistic properties. This is classical sides. This uses the method of induction . This is real hard-core site.
@@AmericanBrain the truth is that you believe funny things.. cuz you are an "American brain" right? What a joke.. basically there is no difference between what Rupert believes or Adolf Hitler , Qnon or radical islamism is the same..the stupid idea of some kind of force or spirit in the universe.. you can write fancy stuff but you are an anti naturalist . Rupert besides spends all his airtime trashing scientists and feeling sorry for himself instead of defending his irrational ontology mixed with his belief in Jesus lol .. that's why he is marginalized and considered a crackpot. Bye bye.
@@null.och.nix7743
You said "the truth is that you believe funny things.. cuz you are an "American brain" right? What a joke.. basically there is no difference between what Rupert believes or Adolf Hitler , Qnon or radical islamism is the same"
Answer: in part 1 micro and part 2 micro.
Part 1 micro: America is the richest most powerful nation on earth. That is why you have freedom - wherever you are on earth because "we/I" saved your parents and save you today else you'd be invaded by the Russians or the Chinese. You know that. I know that. That is why I am American Brain: the wealthiest top most universities on earth are here [except Oxford and Cambridge] but ours rank higher- although Oxford and Cambridge work people far harder.
Part 2 micro: I don't think you read my responses above? Either I am very bad at communicating OR you 're (non) mentally disabled due to a lack of education. Which is it?
I clearly stated Aristotle's law of identity which means there "is" a right versus a wrong. Therefore what people believe are "not' equal. By using the methods of reason and logic you can discern what is right, who is right .
Please read and read again- I wrote again in the posts above because it is genuinely better than and "more significant" than e=mc^2 : it's the biggest prize of all : what is consciousness? What is existence?
_________________
You said "..the stupid idea of some kind of force or spirit in the universe.."
Without this idea that has been fully validated in the earlier post so you too can verify it - you would be left nothing but a blithering biological bot, a "Walking dead' series - zombie but for real. Think about it : you'd be part of the long chain of cause and effect - pre-determined at the big bang, so you have no free will, no choice, never as everything is a chain of cause and effect .
However because of this emergent causal power; the spirit which means pertains to the mind: you are neither determinism (pre-determined) nor quantum indeterminism (random chaos) but you are the "cause' and the effect is thinking , thought or behavior like raise your right arm.
You said "you can write fancy stuff"
Answer: there is nothing "fancy" here. It's just validating what "no scientist" has ever managed to do: free will and self awareness - a conscious power that is causal and it is you. For depth and detail see the earlier post where I give it my best.
________
Ref: Rupert - he is Cambridge university educated; self made multi-millionaire with books that sell off the shelves so fast his publishers keep awarding him new grants.
He is invited to science conferences debating men with super high credentials.
So what are you talking about below when you say " but you are an anti naturalist . Rupert besides spends all his airtime trashing scientists and feeling sorry for himself instead of defending his irrational ontology mixed with his belief in Jesus lol .. that's why he is marginalized and considered a crackpot. Bye bye."
The moderator really needs to learn how to be quiet and stop trying to talk over everyone else. I find the nature of reality to be fascinating but it's hard to watch/listen to this video because he never shuts up
Fields are not fundamental, because they are all effective(fractal). I think fractal seed can be fundamental.
Thanks for nothing.
@@Paine137 What's ur aim?
In what way are fields "fractal". "fractal seed" is a term from a video game as far as I can tell.
@@vids595 It is a hypothesis, that every grain of sand contains the universe of its own. Fractal seeds are used in the particular construction methods of fractals. A seed is a thing, that repeats itself on different scales, exhibiting self-similarity.
@@vids595 Rewriting rule in the Wolfram model is similar to fractal seed.
The Institute of Subscribe and We will take your Money.
Take away? When you add a woman, no matter how many learned degrees she has, you add giggling.
Hey moderator….zip it
rupert talks like a 'true believer' burning the midnight oil feverishly ;-)
Nothing to be found except to spent needed money for poor and sick
The moth won.
Very badly chaired and badly explained.
Cut the ego Dallas you're neither a scientist or a philosopher!
Pleae stop inviting Rupert Sheldrake to talks.
Why, oh why would you invite Sheldrake to something like this?
Look at how many dimwits in the comments love him.
@@vids595 I guess you can propose a mathematical model of morphogenesis based on Pauling or any other physical chemists work , that explain all the information negative entropy present in living system ?? Living systems are mostly irreducible , Sheldrake hypothesis is a step in the way of holistic science, or do you say neuroscientist had solve the mind-body problem like the rather infamous NBP problem ?? Which reductionistic bottom up models aren't even existing??
@Martin Evans no, try again
@@vids595: Yes, it's tragic. :(
@@vids595Hm.. Okay.. Can you please propose a way random genetic mutations would lead to a primitive non functioning limb(requires energy to exist) helping an organism survive without an intelligent driving force without it?
Lol, continue, you're tryna prove nothing, buoy.
Rupert Sheldrake is a bit of a bell end
Nowhere near as much as Paul Davies
@@Aaron_Gentry what makes you say that?
@@VictorKibalchich Did you watch the video? He constantly interrupts and seems to think he has all the answers already
@@Aaron_Gentry compared to Sheldrake, he does
@@VictorKibalchich That's your opinion
Sheldrake is dogmatic about his flawed view of science.
Rupert shelter does he ever go away every 10 20 30 years he's back again morphogenic Fields what this time he's going to probably say Consciousness is the fundamental thing in reality sorry no guys the most fundamental thing of reality are quantum fields
Hm.. How does your qualia occur?
Guy in black t shirt have to his mouth shut
Sheldrake: 🤢