Seth Lloyd - How Much More to Physical Reality?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 май 2023
- What is the farthest extent of the physical world, not only cosmologically across the universe but also conceptually across laws of nature? Can there be radical new discoveries in the 21st century as relativity and quantum mechanics were in the 20th century? Some speculate that a true understanding of consciousness will require laws as yet unknown.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on the laws of the cosmos: bit.ly/3I1MjfV
Seth Lloyd is a professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He refers to himself as a “quantum mechanic”.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
![Darren Waller - Who Knew (Her Perspective) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GytDjB8u6bM/mqdefault.jpg)
Underrated. Thank you!
The 2016 sci-fi movie "Arrival" is food for thought in terms of science from such a distant "vantage point".
Thanks for the tip, ill have to check it out.
@@jareknowak8712 Science is so haughty. Science is very wrong .
The more realistic reality of nature is nonphysical.
Only vibrations , frequency, waves , probability, consciousness, thoughts, emotions, etc exist.
Great video
The things that are most important for us are hidden from us by their simplicity and familiarity.
~Wittgenstein
What we see depends on light entering the eye. Furthermore we do not even perceive what enters the eye. The things transmitted are waves or - as Newton thought - minute particles, and the things seen are colors. Locke met this difficulty by a theory of primary and secondary qualities. Namely, there are some attributes of the matter which we do perceive. These are the primary qualities, and there are other things which we perceive, such as colors, which are not attributes of matter, but are perceived by us as if they were such attributes. These are the secondary qualities of matter.
Why should we perceive secondary qualities? It seems an unfortunate arrangement that we should perceive a lot of things that are not there. Yet this is what the theory of secondary qualities in fact comes to. There is now reigning in philosophy and in science an apathetic acquiescence in the conclusion that no coherent account can be given of nature as it is disclosed to us in sense-awareness, without dragging in its relation to mind.
~Whitehead
I love how he mentions that we don't know how life originated because many scientists talk as if we *basically* know, but we just have a few more tiny details to add to the story. WRONG!
The question is, WHO is asking the questions?
There are no physical objects. We can only physically experience properties (adjectives) and their changes (verbs). Nouns are souls.
I remember a show about IQ on cable years ago. This guy was on there and had an IQ over 180
Nothingness and infinity are two sides of the same coin. existence is the change and nothingness is fixed and unborn and uncaused. Nothingness is potential and infinity is actualization. Illusion is the whole of the coin of nothingness-infinity. There is a path from nothingness to infinity. and this path can be seen in a specific point of view. From this specific point of view, from nothingness to infinity, you can see the path in different resolution. Nothingness is resolution zero of illusion and infinity is illusion resolusion infinty. So like an image by increasing the resolution super-impositions will fade away and image will be sharper. At resolution zero, infinite changes is needed to go from resolution 0 to resolution 1. but at resolution 1 it needs infinity/2 changes for going to resolution 2. and at resolution 2 you need infinity/3 changes to go to resolution 3 and so on. at resolution (infinity/2)-1 it needs 2 changes to go to resolution (infinity/2). and at resolution infinity-1 it needs one change and the last change to go to resolution infinity. So each point of view in resolution infinity represent nothingness, because only nothingness can not be discerned more. So illusion at resolution infinity consist of infinite points of view at resolution zero. and no change left after it. All changes have taken place and no changes remained and there is no superimposition and no more discernment can be done. But anything except nothingness can be discerned. So paradoxically at resolution infinity what is left is nothingness. illusion can be seen as these parallel point of views at infinite resolutions from zero to infinity like a parallel block universes. in this sense every moment is real and present in its proper time. and each moment of you is present and think that that particular moment is present time. topdown view: in this view reality is continues and this view is in favoure of endurantism, Eternalism. You can see reality (as illusion) as a whole. Illusion has symmetry and self-similarity. 1-there is illusion. illusion is consist of branches. iluusion is all aspects of reality from zero to infinity. Iluusion is the only paradox that exists. 2-there is branch. each branch describe a unique concept or property or quality or quantity or relations or changes or anything else. each branch is unique in its own way but it can be seen as an interaction of infinite branches. in other way each branch is entangled with illusion. Some interactions between branches are stronger and some are weaker. each branch has an effect on illusion. These interactions creates physics. All branches are emergent from illusion. branches converges toward resolution zero and diverge toward resolution infinity. branch exists in different resolutions. 3-there is resolution. resolution determines how many branches there is in that specific resolution of illusion. resolution can be any number from zero to infinity. resolusion 0 of all branches are literally the same and it is potentiality itself. There is R branches of Illusion at resolution R, each branch represent a unique configuration of illusion at that resolution. downtop view: in this view reality is quantized and it is related to perdurantism and Presentism. In this view you can see how reality is created by itself. “causation” and “Change” is the process of adding new illusion to previous resolution and create new resolution and new facts. 1-there is resoulution 0. illusion resolution 0 is resoulution 0 of all branches. illusion resolution 0 is illusion itself at resolution 0. resolution 0 contain no branches. The only simple in the world is illusion resolution 0. illusion resolution 0 is nothingness. 2-there is resoulution 1. next resolution is created when one illusion is added to previous resolution. so in resolution 1, one illusion is added to illusion resolution 0 in previous resolution and create one branch. There is only one configuration at resolution 1, and it is the product of superimposition of 2 branches at resolution 2. 3-there is resolution infinity.
At 2:59 "... if there will be some big advance in the future, some breakthrough..." And at 6:20 "... no way are the laws of biology derivable just from the laws of chemistry."
The final frontier, imho, is cube root scaling and the phenomenology of the very small. The materialists have failed us in their physicalist interpretations inclined towards billiard-balls popping into and out of existence. They should step aside to encourage alternative narratives to take root. My hunch is in the direction of information and meaning as central to top-down causation - the "knowing how to be" of ontology and phenomenology (at 7:29 phenomenology gets a mention - yay!).To this end, Giulio Tononi's integrated information theory might be a step in the right direction, especially if meaning (semiotic) is factored in, and here, Lee Smolin's references to Peirce's semiotics will be relevant.
The roadblock to self driving cars was that computers see differently than humans, meaning there are other ways of seeing. A file on a computer desktop is, in reality, a series of electrical and magnetic particles in different parts of the computer. The Amoeba doesn't need to understand the rules of the game of basketball to live a full happy life.
Conductivity in solids is one area where meyer-neldel rule doesn't quite work to explain.
Om Tat Sat. Waves are many.... ocean is one.
Variables......variables my dear friend laments.
Dr. Science 😆
The nature of spacetime itself remains a mystery. Is there a fabric? During early inflation, was it quantum fields that expanded (meaning what?) or some sort of scaffolding as well?
Not more, not less, just one.
3:10 ... string theory should be in the right track anyway, ... 4:31 well first of all, ... in every level of a reality exists a mysterious starting point there, e.g. chemistry, biology, and so on. 5:35 Here is the question is it a matter of knowing sufficiently much about the more fundamental laws that will enable us to predict accurately what happens on the next level and we just have to learn more and study more maybe it'll take time but it's in principle doable, or is it such that there are other kinds of llaws that some people talk about that are needed on each different level of chemistry or biology or the level of life as you know some people think that there's some other laws operating in those dimensions which in a sense are as fundamental as the laws of physics but on that level that are needed or is it derivable from what you find just with a lot of hard work. 6:19 NO WAy, strongly suggesting No Way for a theory of everything.
K.
I can't follow what you've written without any punctuation.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
🤣🤣 I had some spare punctuation marks in my garage. Here you are; use them at your will; maybe it helps both of us.
. , ; " ' - , , , -
@@piruz3243 *" I had some spare punctuation marks in my garage."*
... *Capt. Kirk:* _"A, ... comma is, ... a, .... terrible thing, ... to waste!"_
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
ruclips.net/video/VSKn8RlD7Is/видео.html
Neo-Protagorean. To get away from that infection, we discover principles that we once did not see. It doesn't always equate to things constantly "changing." It's our own understanding that is capable of seeing more and more.
*We know nothing but we keep pretending we know everything.*
Do we ? I know of no scientist who thinks this , only the religious
@@tonyatkinson2210
*You know that most scientists are trying to establish "the theory of everything" right?*
*Religion is based on faith,science on the scientific method,still religious people believe God is infinite.*
@@user-ry2qs7xf9k key thing here is science *has a method. Faith as a method fails utterly.
As George Micheal said - “you gotta have faith faith baaaaabbby”
Science is not looking for a theory of everything. They are looking for a theory that combines quantum physics and general theory of relativity.
I salute science and those that dedicate their lives to the pursuit of truth and beauty. That said, I await the arrival of the Monkeymen of Delmak-0 ...
Science doesn’t deal with truth. Nor does it deal with beauty
Without going through dizzying theories to understand the origin of life, it's very simple you just have to understand water and its origin,
The big advance will be the general populace accepting reason and science and not superstition and magical thinking. Doubtful it will happen though.
I am not disagreeing with you but please consider looking up the words "right knowledge" or "dependent origination"; both terms strikingly familiar to what we know in biology and cosmology.
How would it help? Seriously.
@@bozo5632
We'd have to see it happen before we know if it was good or not.
@@browngreen933 By that standard we equally might benefit if the public dropped science and embraced magic, and we'll see what happens.
@@bozo5632
We could try that too. Possibly that's the direction we're headed in anyway.
The next peak always looks like the tallest one
That attempt at a combover by Seth is so sad, I guess he doesn't watch videos of himself on here 😅
He should just shave it off. He looks stupid
Goes to show how out of touch with reality he is. He has no real friends, he surrounds himself with yes men and submerses himself in an echo chamber called a university. A real friend would kick him in the crotch and cut that sh-t off.
Guys speakes in phich is wortheless Science his show evidence phich are out. Ridiculos blah blah.
Well that's a poser..
One paradox , we need to account is , why the history of science be more predictable that will repeat. May be String theory is there. We still will have to do more work. Given their mathematical complexity we need better math formulation to to solve problems at next level I
A math formulation won't give a theory of everything because the Cosmos has non computational features.
6:18
"...no way for Biology"
"...only one possibility"
I dont think He understands the principles of Evolution and environmental factors.
I'm trying to imagine what it would be like to not exist, but I can't because if I know I don't exist, I exist. Thus, the idea of no after-life/existence is absurd and absurdly far fetched.
You didn't exist 100 years ago and you won't exist 100 years from now.
*"I'm trying to imagine what it would be like to not exist, but I can't because if I know I don't exist, I exist. Thus, the idea of no after-life/existence is absurd and absurdly far fetched."*
... Existence is paradoxical, and you're stuck right in the middle of it. That's why so few people even think about it. They feel like no conclusion can be reached either way ... _so why bother?_
Just imagine the 13.7 billion years of events happening in the universe without your existence because that is exactly what happened. Now just project forward the same thing happening after you're gone. The universe will go on doing it's thing without you or any one of us. We get a brief taste of existence and then back to the previous state of affairs, where you were not.
@@anteann It's like you're looking at a single ocean, thinking it's made of separate waves that come and go, pretending that each wave is a separate thing of water that disappears into a void you've never seen after it crashes on shore. How can I cease to exist if I don't exist right now?
@@anteann *"Just imagine the 13.7 billion years of events happening in the universe without your existence because that is exactly what happened."*
... So, I am a valid, card-carrying, 3.7-billion-year-old "observer" prior to my existence in the universe as a human. ... _Got it!_ After all, that's the only way "I" can imagine anything like that, right?
*"Now just project forward the same thing happening after you're gone."*
... Right! I continue my existential duty as an "observer" in some other form. ... _Got it!_
*"The universe will go on doing it's thing without you or any one of us"*
... All of the energy the universe started with is still with us right now and will continue to exist well into the future. That's the law of conservation of energy telling you that - not me.
*"We get a brief taste of existence and then back to the previous state of affairs, where you were not."*
... (See above).
*Summary:* There is no scenario where anyone can "conceive" or "imagine" their own nonexistence. All we know is existence and that's all we will ever know. Any proposition of nonexistence always requires an "observer."
Even some of the most taboo science could be close to the truth like multi universes and self simulation theory , or Roger Penrose theory of an infinite universe, such things that most people see as ridiculous 🤷♂️ but I like out of the box thinking. This was a great video, thank you guys 🙏🏻.
In the future, I think science will discover a perspective that will change the enormous scales of distance and time at which we currently perceive the universe, bringing the distant closer and sooner.
As a scientist you have to live with uncertainty. Quite right.
Lets say you have a belief that you have always had and have never truly questioned. How sure can you be that it is true? If others have differing beliefs there must be a chance you are actually wrong. On the other hand if you have changed your mind about a belief, that is you used to think otherwise but you have been persuaded by evidence and argument that you were wrong, your new position has been battle tested. We are all resistant to changing our beliefs, so the evidence and argument to change your view must have been very persuasive, and you know that you have honestly looked at the problem from another viewpoint. So the beliefs that you have where you changed your mind are actually the beliefs that you can have the most confidence about.
Furthermore if you rarely if ever change your mind about anything substantive, and once you have fixed on a belief that it, unless you are an incredible genius of historically unprecedented insight, it's almost certain that you have many false beliefs. Nobody is that perfect, and rarely adopting new ideas is a reasonable sign of an inflexible and shallow intuition.
That doesn't mean we should be changing our minds all the time, but we should be actively seeking out differing viewpoints and cherish the differing views of others as valuable. People who think otherwise are not your enemy. We should allow space for our beliefs to be genuinely challenged and willing to accept limits to our levels of certainty. Don't just say what you believe, but why you believe it. Acknowledge and respect the strongest arguments against you.
I don't always live up to these ideals, we're all only human, but I look forward to meeting up with you and debating with you in this channel's comments.
Scientists already do that. The average person doesn't.
@@itheuserfirst3186 With respect to scientific theories and evidence sure, I hope so, but there are plenty of things outside that such as politics and moral philosophy.
*"Lets say you have a belief that you have always had and have never truly questioned. How sure can you be that it is true? "*
... By juxtaposing it with beliefs that others have on the same issue.
*"If others have differing beliefs there must be a chance you are actually wrong."*
... After comparing my beliefs to others, I may still adhere to my beliefs as being "true," but depending on the nature of other people's beliefs, I may "consider" that I may be wrong.
*"We are all resistant to changing our beliefs, so the evidence and argument to change your view must have been very persuasive, and you know that you have honestly looked at the problem from another viewpoint. So the beliefs that you have where you changed your mind are actually the beliefs that you can have the most confidence about."*
... I understand your argument, but the operative word is "belief" and not "theory." A belief is tantamount to a wager in poker. You're putting skin in the game based on unknown variables. You're going to ride that wager to the final card because you' "believe" you're holding the highest hand.
A "theory" is simply tossing out ideas for what may or may not be going on. You don't have to put any skin in the game with a theory. If your theory goes south, you can always say, _"Well, it was just a theory."_
That's why atheists come down so hard on theists, because theists are "all-in" on their belief in God. However, challenge an atheist to state what they "believe" in and it will no-doubt be connected to 100% empirical evidence.
*Typical Atheist Belief:* "A round Earth."
_" ..rarely adopting new ideas is a reasonable sign of an inflexible and shallow intuition."_ Einstein included?
@@B.S... Einstein personally created three of the most insightful theories in modern Physics. You don’t do that by trying out new ideas, discarding ones that don’t work and changing your mind when needed. Famously he changed his mind about the static universe and said that the cosmological constant was his greatest mistake. He also almost retracted his suggestion about the existence of gravitational waves, but found an error in his own maths before publishing it.
Nothingness is a infinite blackout.
As far as I understand, quantum physics is for the physicist, what French postmodernism is for the humanities.
Nn 11:04
Would AI make the task of finding the bits that will be right in the future? It will speed up the search so much!
(4:20) *SL: **_"You've now solved this fundamental question about the nature of reality, yet it still tells you nothing about the origin of life."_* ... Mr. Lloyd is spot-on! It's like physicists expect to uncover some type of vibrating string, a new dimension, or the tiniest possible particle that suddenly waves back at them saying, _"Well crap! You finally found me!"_
What I find amazing is that CNC machinists and 3D animators already have their fingers on the foundational pulse of Existence, yet physicists can't seem to grasp that they have. You can only reduce physical structure down to a certain point (no pun intended) and then you have to start considering "other arenas" of existence.
*Example:* Darwin took "Life" down to a single-celled prokaryote, and that's as far as it goes. Anything prior is just physical structure. Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig took the physical structure of the universe down to fundamental quarks, and that's as far as it goes. Lemaître and Einstein took the entire universe that holds all of life and every quark down to an immeasurable point of singularity. ... So, what's left for us to explore?
*Answer:* "Mathematics!" ... Where "Existence" is first logically conceived and by which everything is orchestrated.
A quark is still a physical structure according to science. Physics know that singularities are not real and represent a breakdown in the theory. Any theory that has a singularity is incomplete and needs to be encompassed by another theory.
@@kos-mos1127 *"A quark is still a physical structure according to science."*
... And I agree that it is. So, scientists and physicists should maybe start looking at "virtual structure" instead of _things_ that may be smaller (or more fundamental) than quarks. Everything produced by a CNC machinist and a 3D modeler starts out as a virtual structure ... and then it evolves into physical structure. Virtual in - physical out!
Consider that CNC machining has only been around since the early 50's (analog) and only came to digital fruition during the 70's. That's not very long considering everything science has been studying for centuries before it.
Existence has handed us a perfect "clue" to the origin of physical structure, but science was too busy smacking hadrons together and didn't get the memo.
*"Any theory that has a singularity is incomplete and needs to be encompassed by another theory."*
... I agree! And what we perceive as a "singularity" is in actuality nondimensional, _virtual structure_ moving into multidimensionality. Mathematics is what points us to Big Bang's singularity, and mathematics is also what you'll find operating behind that singularity.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC A virtual structure would not work because reality has emergent phenomena in physical and biological systems making the Cosmos not computable therefore cannot be simulated by a Turing machine. The Cosmos can simulate a Turing Machine though or any other machine and virtual environment for that matter.
To explain conductivity.
We are all influenced and influential. If i could have a word be considered, particularly by a genuine individual, then that would be Metaphysics. Physics ia supposed to help one acknowledge the principles; metaphysics helps use understand physics, thus theology.
It took me a long time to get where i am today, and long story short - Scriptures are a delight, so fun, and rewarding, in figuring out enigmas, learning the stars, physiology, Wisdom, meaning, ultimately GOD etc. There is no discrepancy between science and Scriptures - only amidst those who Know and they who do not. And.... these tool like academicians today influence so many, those who do not Know, atleast not yet.
GOD, theology, scripture, Metaphysics, psychology, Physics, art, music The Sacred Sciences....OMG... this stuff is SEXY, and is treated ridiculously by modern men. LIFE is incredible! And made to be seen as boring by the 'formal' tools, such as pastors, mental help doctors, school teachers.
Metaphysics, is what the cool kids study.
There are contradictions between the scriptures and science. The first words of the scriptures contradicts science.
@@kos-mos1127prove it, scrubb
@@kos-mos1127Science contadicts science every 100 years. Did you forget that already? For scriptures to contradict science means nothing. Scriptures is Theology which acknowledges science and based on Metaphysical Principles.
You however, First you have to prove what science even is, because it's not mathematics like you were told it was. And, do tell us the system, as in exposition, that modern science holds. You cannot deny something without having a scientific system, first, yourself. You can't even identify what science is - it's description. What does description have on a 'being' or 'mind' or life, consciousness, intellect, wonder, experience, meaning, feelings, interaction, dreams, inspirations, dejavu, non-being, suprasensual, supraessential, light, sound, energy, eternity etc.
There's only contradictions are between the unscrupulous and those who are Wise. Science is a tool. It doesnt feel, care, sympathize, experience, know, breathes, wonder, desires, lives, dreams etc. Science doesn't manifest beings, forms, things, places, etc.
Theology will always be the director of science; and those who claim science only will be remembered as nihilist Sophist FOOLS! Not worth anybodies consideration.
One acknowledges the Divine; the other is at the whims of some pompous materialists opinion.
Scripture IS scientific. Science interpreted by WISEMAN IS SCRIPTURES.
The only liar that says otherwise, is a nihilist anti GOD denier of the Divine.
And that's what you are.
Only in an ignorant world are you correct.
@@S3RAVA3LM The scripture says the world was created by the word of God. Science says the world was born from a quantum egg that is a big contradiction.
Origin of life was no accident. Existence knows what to do. Not a separate god though, but Existence doing itself.
Yes that is correct! You know it!!!
This was very poor journalism. That took everyone further from the truth.
It should be made clear to everyone viewing this episode that once Seth works out the last few details for understanding reality, he _will_ be enrolling in a class to study the history of hair care and the use and effectiveness of the common comb.
In a world dominated by Instagram models, TikTok beauty queens. and butt implants that are expanding at a faster rate than the universe, ... I applaud Seth's lack of vanity.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Well, be serious now; let's not run into the ditch on the other side of the road just for spite! If a guy is going to all the trouble of being interviewed in front of the computer that came over on the Mayflower, and if he's wearing a shirt he pulled straight out of the box, we already know he thinks he's a fashion plate. A comb goes a long way to completing the effect.
No one looks to Instagrammers, TikTok ghouls, or the comically botoxed for their views of reality. I insist that the people who can't begin to explain reality at least be presentable on camera.
You know, for posterity.
@@whitefiddle *"A comb goes a long way to completing the effect."*
... How recognizable would that ubiquitous B&W silhouette of Einstein's head be had he combed his hair? At least we'll never have to suffer that annoying "chipmunk music" playing in the background of a Seth Lloyd RUclips short.
Could this possibly be connected with the Date on Saturday night problem ?
@@Beevreeter 'Spossible.
Guys who sport pony tails might also be drinking Bud Light in parallel universes and could be experiencing QGD [Quantum Gender Dysphoria].
Everything that exists must have had a cause.
God, however, did not have a cause.
Therefore, I am wrong.
Spiritual reality is more real than physical reality
You don’t know what dark matter is…
I read somewhere that dark matter is what is left after war. I don't know about that. But I do know the purpose why we appear apart is love.
dark matter is just a "cool" name like the Big bang, the wave collapse...
Hiranyagarbha
Farther from truth 😂
You may as well give up already
Bro, just shave that thing off.
The Theory Of Relativity has been debunked many times by many people eons smarter than I. That doesn't mean they are right and Einstein was wrong, but it does make it next to impossible for the average person (raises hand) to begin to decipher any of this.
There's this thing called "Absolute Relativity" but it's difficult to understand for what it implies is that all is one yet different.
That’s news to me and most scientists
@@tonyatkinson2210 *"That’s news to me and most scientists"*
... Yah, you get a rather wide spectrum of comments under these videos.
@@waldwassermann Isn't Absolute Relativity another name for the principle of fecundity.
When and how was the theory of relativity debunked?
What replaced it?
🥶🥵 we don't know how we got here? ☠️ hermetics say it's the mind of God. No ending because we don't know the beginning. A void without a past.
8:36
Some people act like science, which is only a tool, can be compared to Theology, Metaphysics, Philosophy, in making them look bad even. The fact of the matter is, science is a myth, endlessly revised - what is something thats mutable? Some followers of materialists think science is a principle, or criterion, which, in certain circumstances, sure, however, it is not a guide to life, or a way of life, like the Lifestyle that is Philosophy. That's right!
People who exclaim such shallow verses: 'god of the gaps', 'woowoo', 'science doesnt prove there's a god', or 'word salad', 'just imagination', although true to a certain degree, discipline, reason, logic are the criterions, ...these persons, are suspect. Any, who denies the DIVINE, should be kind of, ignored.
Science has only ever been a tool, like that of a measuring tape in the waist pouch of the Philosopher. Why should we worship a tool? Science, properly, is a means for Self- realisation
You have it backwards. Theology and Metaphysics are immutable and they all end up forgotten in the dust bin of history because they were stagnant and became useless. Tool, you know what else is a tool your mind. So is worshipping god worshipping a tool.
The word 'science' is derived from the Greek. It means knowledge. So it seems that you believe knowledge is a myth.
Most...including physicists still think we landed on the moon.
That’s because. Wait for it. We did. Civilian astronomers can find the moon landing site with their own tools and eyes bc we landed on the side of the moon facing the Earth. You can see pictures of the lunar module and vehicle from civilian sources. There are reflectors on the surface placed by astronauts which can be interacted with by civilians. The Soviets watched the US do it, though they would have had interest in exposing a fake. There was a live broadcast that lasted for many hours, which would have been impossible to fake using film at the time. There were hundreds of thousands of people who worked on it. We did it multiple times, not just once.
Consider trying to debunk your own beliefs, so that you can align your beliefs with reality. Fun to believe in conspiracies, more fun to know if they really happened or not. Some did. This one didn’t.
That’s because we did
@@chadthecurator1974
It was an ironic joke.
What do you mean? Do persons like Tony atkison know the TRUTH and are lying to us?
@@S3RAVA3LM He's either a government worshipping slack jawed mouth breather or a shill....both being equally useless.