What did you think fo this interview? Do you agree with Sabine Hossenfelder? Leave a comment below! For more science content visit iai.tv/player?RUclips&
She looks like from the Jores-Tamayo geniuses side. She went to me in Dimasalang, MasbatePH and consulted me in the 1980s when I was still kinda prolific. Perhaps it was the last effort of the British Monarchy that time (bringing top scientists) to extract knowledge from the Jores-Tamayos relating to Physics, (our) Tokamak and ITER, and Star Trek technologies.
Since you asked what we think of the interview, I'll tell you: I think it would have been much better without all the background noise. That was very distracting, and made it harder to concentrate on what Dr. Hossenfelder was saying.
Sabine is one of the smartest, bravest, most trustworthy and soulful scientists, humanity can count on currently. Thanks for this insight in her thinking.
Sabine is a very inspiring person and I am full of admiration about the way she arrives to transmit complicated stuff in a easy and simple way on her own channel. Thank you for this video
Yeah frankly she should just pursue her career in music, it’s clearly where her talents lie. That and her contributions to string theory are mind blowing; she’s just an all around rock star, it really is astounding.
@@cloroxbleach6344 Sabine Hossenfelder's talent lies in her ability to communicate complex issues such as theoretical physics to the person, such as myself, in a way that makes physics more understandable and interesting. Her music is a side note. 🎵
I agree a lot with Sabine here. I'm an engineer, but I also studied philosophy and psychology, and both have proven very helpful to me as an engineer. Philosophy essentially teaches you how to evaluate abstract concepts which have no yes/no right/wrong answer and apply logic to these situations, as well as establish a framework for what constitutes knowledge and how people approach problems based on their theory of knowledge. Psychology has similar benefits in terms of understanding others' viewpoints and why they do the things they do. Being aware of human frameworks and limitations, being taught to question the foundations of knowledge, and being taught to formalize complex, abstract problems are all useful for scientists and engineers.
@@vhawk1951kl knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject: Whose knowledge, or whether it's accurately informing decisions is another story altogether
Yes, we must understand that which(brain/mind) is doing the understanding of the world if we are to understand our world. Our brain/mind is structured making knowledge possible while the structure limits what we know.
@@bobs182 the world around us is structured also... So it has it's limitations, too... Biological/evolutionary requirements/constraints are physical ones at the basic level: we should develop a good understanding of the boundaries but also of the connections between living systems and other natural systems. Abandoning static pictures of processes, instead thinking of causes and effects (inputs/outputs...) as guiding principles of stable systems will leade us to reveal answers to one of the major questions: to what extent the deterministic nature of cognitive processes limits the area of possible knowledge...
I've recently read a book on AI from the 70s, written by mathematicians, and they criticize physicist for viewing "more accurate" as always strictly superior to "more understandable" (which is not necessarily the same as simpler). The discussion on how philosophy can impact physics reminded me of that, even though it's not the same point being made.
I see Sabine doing a great job of pushing the boundaries of science. Being critical of the status quo is something most scientists will not do. She is a brave soul, in my mind, capable of understanding the conceptual dynamics and voicing concerns without the trappings of emotional overtones. Pushing the limits of what we know sometimes involves questioning what we know.
@@poksnee One can only hope that the philosophy adopted by science is truth based and robust. It is common knowledge that scientists are under the influence of factors that support their world view/sustenance. There seems to be no underlying philosophical construct that defines science with a set of goals - no analog to the oath of office, or Hippocratic oath. These have not stopped politicians from abandoning the will of the people, or doctors from being influenced by drug companies. This general lack of ethics are a negative indicator for everyone being affected. Scientists have no code, such as to support the advancement of humanity, for instance.
I really respect Sabine for this! Just because she's very skeptical and down to earth doesn't mean she doesn't recognize the value of philosophy. Some people seem to outright dismiss any aspect of reality not discoverable by the scientific method as religious, simply unknowable, dishonest, etc
Would like to hear Dr. Hossenfelder have a discussion/debate with Dr. Sean Carroll. Both are brilliant. I understand they are friends, but they differ quite a bit on theory. Dr. Carroll will be teaching Philosophy of Physics soon on the faculty at Johns Hopkins.
Nice interview. Sabine is one of the most interesting educators on RUclips. I always enjoy watching her. She's always got something interesting to say.
The philosopher Aristotle discovered the hierarchy of ideas, w/philosopht at the base. He also discovered scientific method and was the first scientist. Even the attempt to deny philosophy rests on philosophy. Leap Of Logic-David Harriman, physicist; science as inductive; a new theory of induction
Philosophy is not contemplation, reflection or communication - it's about continuous creation of concepts. Contemplation, reflection and communication ought to be already an inherent part of everything, be it science, art, society, politics, social media etc. but since they obviously are not, we need philosophers reflecting on things outside philosophy...
I agree with Sabine, and find her RUclips channel both approachable and informative. Especially impressed that in a challenging interview format like this, Dr. Hossenfelder manages to come back with eloquent, thought-provoking answers at the drop of a hat, that we can all appreciate.
Many thanks! An extremely important topic and interesting discussion for an open global brainstorm. John A. Wheeler: *_"Philosophy is too important to be left to philosophers."_* *_"We are no longer satisfied with understanding only particles, force fields, geometry, or even time and space. Today we require physics to have some understanding of existence itself."_* Carlo Rovelli in *_"Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics"_* (2017), in which he also outlined a list of issues and topics currently being discussed in theoretical physics. It can be seen that most of the questions relate to the sphere of philosophical ontology. And this list is not complete. The first question on the list is "What is space?" Second: "What is time?"... Today, fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology) is experiencing an acute conceptual-paradigmatic crisis in the metaphysical/ontological basis, manifested as a “crisis of understanding” (J. Horgan “The End of Science”, Kopeikin K.V. “Souls” of atoms and “ atoms” of the soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and “three great problems of physics”), “crisis of interpretation and representation” (Romanovskaya T.B. “Modern physics” and contemporary art - parallels of style”), “loss of certainty” (Kline M “Mathematics: Loss of Certainty”, D. Zaitsev “Truth, Consequence and Modern Logic”), “trouble with physics” (Lee Smolin “The Trouble” with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next”). Fundamental science "rested" in the understanding of space and matter (ontological structure), the nature of the "laws of nature", the nature of "fundamental constants", the nature of the phenomena of time, number, information, consciousness. It's time to realize that Quantum theory and General relativity are phenomenological (parametric, operationalist. "effective") theories without ontological justification / substantiation (ontological basification). Also, String Theory is a theory without ontological justification. There is no basic ontologically based structure. A theory that claims to be “fundamental” must be an ontologically based theory. To achieve a breakthrough and overcome the conceptual-paradigmatic crisis in the foundations of fundamental science , a new comprehensive ontological basis of knowledge and cognition is needed. To understand the "EXISTENCE itself" means to "grasp" (understand) the nature of the primordial TENSION of the Cosmos, to understand the nature of space and time. And for this it is necessary to "grasp" the primordial generating structure of matter - *"La Structure Mère" (Ontological SuperStructure=Ontological Causal Primary Structure)* . That is, to build a model of the metaphysical triad "being-nothing/otherbeing-becoming". We need breakthrough dialectical and ontological ideas, a methodology for dialectical-ontological construction of the basis of knowledge, and not just mathematics and physics. It is necessary to build a new EXTENDED BASIS of knowledge and cognition in general - a new EXTENDED IDEALITY. Here we need DIALECTICAL ONTOLOGIC. G. Hegel: “The truth of space and time is matter.” The paradigm of the Universe as an eternal holistic generating process (the "PARADIGM OF UNDERSTANDING") gives a new look at matter and space. MATTER is what all meanings, forms and structures are born from. SPACE is an ideal entity, an ideal limit for states of matter. The ontological structure of space (absolute, ontological, existential) is rigidly connected with the absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states). And there are three and only three of these states: absolute rest (linear state, absolute Continuum, ideal image, shape - "cube", "Cartesian box") + absolute motion (vortex, cyclic, absolute Discretuum, ideal image, shape - "sphere") and their synthesis - absolute becoming (wave, absolute wave, absolute DisContinuum, ideal image, shape - "cylinder"). What is especially important: each absolute form of existence of matter has its own ONTOLOGICAL PATH (the bivector of the absolute state). Accordingly, SPACE (absolute, ontological, existential) has three ontological dimensions / 9 gnoseological dimensions: three “linear” + three “vortex” + three “wave”. But we must "dig" deeper into ontology in order to “comprehend” the meta-phenomenon - the ONTOLOGICAL (structural, cosmic) MEMORY, the “soul of matter”, its measure. Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory is that "NOTHING " that holds, preserves, develops and directs matter (entelechy, nous, Aristotle's "mind-prime mover"). To understand SPACE and TIME, we must move from the physicalist concept, the simple ideality of “SPACE-TIME”, to the ontological concept of “SPACE-MATTER/MEMORY-TIME". That is, to generating process with memory. TIME (ontological) is a polyvalent phenomenon of ontological (structural, cosmic) memory, which substantiates the quantitative certainty of the existence of the Universe as an eternal holistic process of generating meanings, forms and structures. Time (ontological) is the dialectic of the generation of number and meaning. Ontological time = cyclic ("horizontal" of being of the Universe) + wave (emergent, time of becoming of the generating structure) + linear ("vertical" of being, hierarchical time). The birth of the "arrow of time" is the birth of light. Gnoseological time ("human-dimensional") - past, present, future. Information is a polyvalent phenomenon of ontological (structural, cosmic) memory which substantiates the certainty, orderliness, essential / substantive unity of the Universe as an eternal holistic process of generating more and more new meanings, forms and structures.
The more she learns the skill of getting complicated ideas across to those w/o the math background the more fascinating are the depths and reaches of her awesome universe of a mind to those less gifted and unschooled. Excited about the new book.
It is a mixed blessing because without the math the ideas never truly get across. I thought I understood so much as a fan of pop physics, until I took higher math and physics courses. Then realize I had only understood extremely simplified versions or analogizes.
@@vids595 My intuition is that is probably correct. Ideas whose comprehension perhaps surpasses what is available through ordinary spoken language-- which could say something maybe about math and realism. Thanks.
There is really no reason for a layman who is unable or unwilling to do the work to know these things, they’ll simply misuse it. See quantum mystics like Deepak Chopra.
@@peterader3073 Brian Greene did a funny bit (I think it was Prof. Greene) as do others on folk quantum whacko-ness. On that score, it is hard to disagree. It is sad if not often tragic how the laughing primate insists on finding ghosts in the machine.
Philosophy is perhaps the only disciplinary field that intersects and can inform all other human endeavours. In fact it was not that long ago that British Universities inserted what they called the "classics" into ALL University qualifications. Irrespective of what studies a student undertook, Physics, language, Medicine, Accounting, Art, Economics etc, within your course was an introduction in Philosophy and music etc. Over the past 3 or 4 decades this requirement and educational culture has been phased out. And I think it has been to the detriment of all studies, including Philosophy itself, which fed off external problems and themes. Compare the graduates today to previous years. They are Ultra specialised in their field today. You can see it in the Nobel Prize winners in Physics: compare the first 60 years to the previous 60 years. The Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to a few researchers for inventing the Blue LED about a decade ago. Compare that to say Paul Dirac's Nobel Prize for theoretically predicting the existence of the anti-electron in his 80 page PhD thesis that he hand wrote in his 20s. Fundamental Physics has stagnated since about the mid 1970s. Technology and innovation has increased due to the demands of short term corporate profit or fueling the military machine. But overall Physics has stagnated: Physicists were even afraid to talk about Hugh Everritt III's work. "Shut up and calculate" is not a healthy catch cry for Physicist to adopt. For any scientists to adopt for that matter. It will turn around - I see positive healthy signs emerging from Physics and Philosophical discussions have played a big role in that turn around. Just my opinion - what the hell would I know folks?
Yes! Beautifully said, I agree fully. I think science got engangled in it’s own web, as it has become way too specialised, so no one can actually understand the big picture - a job that was in the past reserved for philosophers.
@@oldrichpriklenk5089 Someone actually read my post and responded? Many Scientists are offended or their ego gets bruised when I highlight this change in the way Scientific fields have been commodified and corporatised - in particular Physicists seem to be the most fragile and insecure in this regard. In the USA about half of all the Physicists are directly or indirectly employed by the military industrial complex and Corporate defence contractors developing and maintaining weapons and defence systems, including WMDs. The scientific goals become short term and very narrow. We also saw this in Big Pharma during the Pandemic (and before). It's a cultural and political issue rather than a scientific one. (imo) Cheers
We need to embrace Philosophy Psychology Physics Mathematics Art Music to trend towards a better understanding of Existence. One discipline is not enough.
Such a great interview and a great woman. Also, I want to know everything Dr. Hossenfelder thinks about the measurement problem. And I want to know now! :-)
Good interview and discussion. I like the way Sabine Hossenfelder phrases most of the stuff she says. My take on the title question is that there's a necessary philosophical component to physics which necessarily impacts physics. Then there's the philosophy of science, which is a separate field, and which is not necessarily, or very often, impactful. The idea that time is an illusion is one of the least interesting philosophical views, imho. Good channel. Thanks
Thank you for your detail, Ms hossenfelder. My philosophy is that everything is the center of infinity. Your curiosity at the forces great and small that centers us here burning daylight is quite enlightening.
Deniel Dennett says that the purpose of philosophy is to refine the question but that where it goes astray is when people try to use it to provide "answers". Answers require empirical input.
fascinating discussion, and to the extent that I can judge the picture of contemporary contributions from philosophy accurate, but this has to do a lot with the abandonment of metaphysics as an ambitious project and the idea that tends to dominate or at least represents the consensus of reasonableness is that metaphysics should be done in the broader context of physics. While there are lots of different ways this idea informs cont metaphysics one clear effect is the sociology of science feel to much phil sci. By contrast reading anything from 17th-18th c metaphysics (say Leibniz) the debates and ideas seem to me very relevant to cont physics - at least the big questions. I realised this listening to different theories of wave function collapse, when expressed in natural language rather than math, they seemed to be positions in a metaphysical landscape that 17th and 18th c metaphysicians and critical metaphysicians would definitely recognise. By contrast in the contemporary philosophical environment this sort of speculative thought does not flourish and there are interesting and important reasons for this I'm just putting this out as n observation.
Sabine Hossenfelder is always excellent. Thanks to IAI for bringing this kind of content to the world. Idealism's dominance of contemporary philosophy (rather than Realism) might unfortunately keep this phenomenon alive well into the foreseeable future.
@@54eopifkg3ehfkj43 Idealism (Kant, Plato) is the basis of Western culture (including the its current state of entropy). Materialism (Aristotle, Democritus, Marx) has never truly held sway beyond the press it gets as being the source of critique. The scientific disciplines live in the cultural milieu of Idealism and as such, they are affected by its inherent magical thinking. Realism, but especially Speculative Realism & Object Oriented Ontology (Deleuze, Harmon, Morton) takes a dynamicist approach which is decentered from/properly disrespectful of the human subject as prime mover regarding object relationships.
@@rvnsglcr7861 Only dialectical ontology can help overcome the conceptual-paradigmatic crisis in the metaphysical basis of fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology). Mathematician Vladimir Arnold: “In the middle of the 20th century, the highly influential mafia of “left-hemisphere mathematicians” managed to exclude geometry from mathematical education (first in France, and then in other countries), replacing the entire content side of this discipline with training in the formal manipulation of abstract concepts. All geometry and, consequently, the entire connection of mathematics with the real world and with other sciences was excluded from mathematical education."... "Despite this, the “left-hemisphere patients” managed to raise entire generations of mathematicians who do not understand any other approach to mathematics, and are only able to teach the following generations in the same way. The disgust for mathematics on the part of ministers who were subject to the humiliating experience of such teaching in school is a healthy and legitimate reaction. Unfortunately, this disgust of theirs extends to all mathematics, without exception, and can kill it entirely." (V. Arnold "Anti-scientific revolution and mathematics", 1999) Mathematician and philosopher Dmitry Bukin makes the following conclusion in the article “CRISIS OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS AS A CRISIS OF ONTOLOGY”: “The crisis of the foundations of mathematics is, first of all, the crisis of ontology, the essence of which is the inability to describe objects, the fact of being or becoming of which goes beyond the usual ideas about the world. Way out such a crisis state should be sought not so much in the improvement of the methods of mathematics itself, but in the renewal of the cognitive. means of ontology, which do not deny the classical paradigm, but can go beyond its framework is a historically proven method of comprehending the existence of a mathematical object in its development and relationship with objective reality." V. Voevodsky: *_“Material reality is the absolute judge of truth.”_* A.N. Whitehead: *_"A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge."_*
Even if philosophy of science spent its time exclusively on what emerges from science and then tries to make sense of it and asks what it might mean (which it doesn't) this would hardly be 'useless'. Asking what something might mean or what sense it might make is a crucial activity.
I have noticed that physicists who deride philosophy engage in poor philosophical constructs. I think of Larry Krauss and his extreme spite of philosophy in any way. Or Stephen Hawking writing that "philosophy is dead." in his book, The Grand Design, it is a self stultifying statement and cannot be true. Hawking's book like Krauss' was full of philosophy, poor philosophy. As for does the Past or Future exist? It does if there is more than one dimension of Time such as a plane of time. It would certainly answer a lot of mysteries like how electrons can be in two places at the same time or why quantum particles cannot be measured in more than one way. I mean we can measure its speed, but then lose its position or measure its position, but not its speed. It would explain how quantum particles pop in and out of existence. To say they come from not anything nowhere is not science, it's just ignorance.
At the beginning of the discussion, Sabine started by mentioning the measurement problem, should we eliminating the human factor. Strange, this simple concept is central to all of physics.
I would add it also needs psychology and history. We need to see patterns of human behavior, especially deviant and destructive tendencies, and look forward in time to the end products and stages that COULD be acheived...for better or worse.
Yep, definitely. For instance many scientists don't distinguish between causal determinism and predictive determinism. And many are being influenced by their views on free will.
So help me out here: With the question at 9:09 she goes on to answer, that this is “that happened to be a topic that I’m not very familiar with”. But she goes on to say @ 15:30 that she has a book coming out that deals with “time” “is time an illusion”. What gives ? What did I miss…or misunderstand??
The topic she isn't familiar with is how philosophers speak about the "illusion of time." The topic she is familiar with is how physicists speak about time. No contradiction.
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself Okay, that’s fair enough, yet very peculiar, especially considering (in her own words) her gravitation towards philosophy of late. However I suppose, not even a scientist/aspiring philosopher can be abreast of all discourse emanating from the two disciplines, even though the interviewer seems to be appraised.
In case you like Sabines interview, you will probably like interviews with or presentations by Markus Gabriel, best selling philosopher from Germany. There are many German and several english videos here on youtube, e.g. "Making sense of thinking" , 7.September.2019 .
Those who made real impact on Physics always had profound knowledge of and engaged in philosophical discussions. Aristotle, Descartes, Galileu, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, you name it. When this stopped, Physics pretty much stopped as well. It's common knowledge that we have not made any great leap in Physics after Einstein and the quantum guys. And, mark my words, we won't until physicists start paying attention to Philosophy again.
on the contrary, Aristotle effectively put back science 1500 years, as everybody assumed that because Aristotle had decided something, that was settled, and and disagreement was heresy. It was not until Bacon and Newton that science took off again, as science rather than "natural philosophy"
It seems to me a great failing of our time is hyper-specialisation. It seems like great thinkers / scientists of the past were much more well-rounded in general. A simple example being that John Adams was deeply interested in mathematics, the arts, law etc., nowadays he would have done 4 years at The Diplomatic School for Diplomats. It seems trivial to say that now we have experts who spend their whole time thinking in one paradigm, when say mathematics itself takes its greatest leaps forwards when the links from seemingly disconnected areas reveal a deeper truth. I've found in my own life my mind feels more barren when it is focused on one thing. There are obvious counter-examples where someone specialises in a real niche place and does amazing work without reference to anything else, but my sense is that the ones who make the greatest leaps are consciously or subconsciously influenced by (and crucially are interested in) a much wider array of things.
@@Pippins666 In Western Europe, maybe, but the Islamic world made decent progress in mathematics and astronomy after Aristotle, because they didn't take his metaphysics as dogma. Surely the blame shouldn't be on philosophy, but on the repression by the Catholic Church, right?
@@vauchomarx6733 partly, but not entirely. It is certainly true that Aristotle had the deadening effect I mentioned, but equally true that the Vatican destroyed science in southern Europe. After the inquisition of Galileo the centre of scientific knowledge moved to northern Europe, away from the dead hand and even deader brain of the Catholic hierarchy. Coincidentally this was about the time the Islamic scholarship and enlightenment was at its peak.
Watching a tree grow and a bonfire tell you a lot about the forces in nature. Also watching how humans create societies, fight wars and fall in love, gives you information on the same forces. Our modern science tells us a lot about individual forces and makes us able to create all kind of tools. In my view, our old knowledge made us able to understand complex systems of life and create wisdom in our minds.
Curiosity and compassion with all their is rather than "old knowledge". What you are pointing at is that we lost the awe in which open questions pend and the courage to bear with it. We ran from complexity towards detail as it's easier, even when challenging. We define all by what we know and boast about it, looking down on less knowledgeable previous generations which did exactly the same with their predecessors. This arrogance is our down fall as we miss to see the space and the natural limitedness of gathered knowledge. Unless we correct this initial mistake, all scientific and technological endeavours will continue to be a very risky business for human kind. It's ignorant of us not to see how we are driving a dangerous zickzack and call it progress. It's repetitive clouded by inevitable findings, but our view of life and ourselves remains...."old" and underdeveloped. After more than one shove close to full disaster in the 20th century, we should come to our senses and see that technological findings are a great pastime and sometimes quite practical, but yet kid's play compared to really unfolding our intelligence beyond just explorimg every grain of sand in the box we played in so far.
The philosophers Popper, Kuhn & Feyerabend offer quite useful epistemological guide lines about what science is all about, because the fundamental foundation of all sciences is DOUBT!
The role of mathematics in modern physical science is undeniable, making measurements of objects in the natural world, and the ability to make predictions require skills in mathematics and a method to communicate limits.
V. Voevodsky: *_“Material reality is the absolute judge of truth.”_* A.N. Whitehead: *_"A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge."_* Today, the "problem No. 1 of the millennium" is the ONTOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION of mathematics (ONTOLOGICAL BASIFICATION), and therefore knowledge in general, the construction of the New Extended Ideality - the ontological basis of knowledge and cognition for the New information age: ontological frame, carcass, foundation.
@@vladimirrogozhin7797 there is a book in all your questions, lol. I got a lot out of a book called “Feemat’s” Enigma “ by Simon Singh. The field of mathematics is in an understandable way a pleasure of its own, and somewhat akin to puzzles, you just have that question only math can solve, or see a pattern worth meditating on, but Whitehead may have been joking a little because we are never going to have a complete understanding.😜 We’re going to try anyway. The proof is in the predictions, do you like math?
Sabine Hossenfelder is so brilliant. I am fascinated by the nexus of philosophy and physics. I recently published an article that looks at time with regard to illness, Holographic Universe: Implications for Cancer, Parkinson's, ALS, Autism, and ME/CFS in the peer-review journal Science & Philosophy.
one of the best actual physicists explaining the most difficult physics to the layman online, by a long chalk. However, she is only part of the way there - her lack of a view of philosophy as 'thinking about anything in terms of its meaning' is very deficient and/or under-expressed. The reason most philosophy is poorly regarded by physicists, and many others, is that philosophers fail to fully assert themselves by explaining that the foundations of all science, not just reductionist physics ('everything is explained by particles, atoms, and the void'), rely on a very exacting set of philosophical assumptions concerning: objectivity versus subjectivity; the strict reliability of human logic and reasoning in general (ie, epistemology); and realism versus idealism. She presents Ockham's Razor (from the 14th century English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher, apologist, and Catholic theologian) as a principle of science, but without deeply understanding - or at least presenting - that fact that the Razor of William of Ockham is a principle of economy of all cognition, not of 'science'. Thus she blurs the boundaries of science and philosophy and confuses the two. In short, her scientific training and general habit of mind leads her to see everything thru the scientific lens and subsume it into a 'science = everything' worldview.
IMO, Quantum Mechanics is doing the same for advancement of understanding of the physical world as Roman Numerals did for the advancement of understanding of arithmetic.
You asked Sabine about the transcendentals of beauty and truth... but not about the transcendentals of feeling, being, and identity. Science and our very existence derives from the transcendentals and yet Science cannot measure the transcendentals at all. For example, we all have the feeling of free choice, but Science cannot measure feelings like free choice. Even if you do not believe you have the feeling of free choice, you do have it. Sabine is rightly critical of the doldrums of unification of gravity and quantum charge and far too many in Science have no escape from the doldrums. It is clear that not much can really move forward until Science shows that the quantum bond of matter to the universe is a form of the quantum bond of charge.
I’m confused. @15:30 she says her new book addresses philosophical intersections and questions like: Is time an illusion? But earlier in the interview she said that topic wasn’t something she studied deeply and therefore couldn’t comment on @9:16
Yes, as I see it, the interviewer was interested in the topic and threw out some statements, she's not in agreement with. Think she didn't want to discuss it in that interview, and therefore tried to bypass the issue
"Science" has a philosophy, it is called empiricism. The next question is whether one is committed to limiting the field of knowledge to that which is derived via positivistic falsification.
there IS a Masterplan of our life, if we followed it all the time, we would gain the utmost of learning. But there are also built in cornerstones, where our path of life could have taken a completly other direction.
All science does is create provisional models for the purpose of prediction and control. As soon as a model better at prediction and control come along, the old models are set aside in favour of the one that woks better. Models are tools created for a purpose - a human all too human purpose, a human all too human creation, a human all too human hope We never get to a final, exclusive, complete "truth". All we get is abstractions, man-made abstractions. The greatest mystery in the universe is the consciousness doing the questioning, the abstracting/ model building/ predicting and the observing/ measuring - the one who cares, the centre of care, the origin of care. Consciousness cannot "know" itself, model itself, because when consciousness tries to look at itself, it enters into an infinite regress. We never get to the "bottom" of it. We never "wrap it up". And that brings us to the philosophical/ spiritual/ religious realm. It's a never-ending process of generating more questions, modelling wider contexts, more subtle observations, finer measurements, more precise provisional "conclusions". But I wouldn't worry about it. Just enjoy the ride. And appreciate the awe and wonder of it all. Keep an open mind. Find out what works to accomplish what. Creator. Creation. Creativity. Consciousness is an irreducible part of the cosmos. A sine quo non. As far as we know, eternal.
Hello everybodey,, i am so happy to watch the viedeo from Sabine,, she is amazing ! i am so happy to find her. i watched her the first time in a TV programm from SRF cultuer,,so good. I would like to ask Sabine, if we belivie in cause and effect, like the budism from Nitchiren Daishonin teach ? couse the philosophy from his believes is kind of microcosmos and macrocosmos,,, there is no coincidence,, and that is very hard to believe that everything happends becouse of your actions. it is unbeliebeble i ill read now the book of Schrodinger Wbat i life,, anxiously waiting for your comments i am German and i live since 2014 in Brazil i am so happy to find this kind of mindsetting and for sure her,, she opens my mind of a easy way,,, bye to all
No, physicists do not believe in sitting under a tree while cult members are asking the poor for donations of food that the poor can hardly afford. ;-)
The question I ask my philosopher friend is how to distinguish correlation from causation and I never get a good answer and sometimes no answer at all.
The beauty of listening to Sabine is that even for those of use who have little understanding of the many issues she discusses, her ability to navigate that ocean in a way that even I can follow and grasp the essence of what she is saying is a marvel. As to philosophy and science, there seems to be a struggle for primacy that should not exist. Science is an outgrowth of philosophy. Science is limited to considering questions that involve empirical evidence. If you it can't be weighed, counted or otherwise measured, you can't apply the mathematics to form a testable hypothesis. Therefore, science has nothing to say. For instance, science has nothing important to say about the existence of God. Therefore, if science and religion are at odds, the conflict comes from religion not science. Unfortunately, too many scientists now choose to present their personal opinions as scientific opinions and this is greatly damaging science. About 50 years ago, CalTech Professor of physics David Goodstein created a multi-part series for PBS called "The Mechanical Universe". It covered the history of science covering the most important scientific discoveries. I have used what I learned from that series as a guide ever since. In his final comments at the conclusion of the series, he addressed the question of whether we will ever know how the universe works. He predicted "no". Because in order to understand the universe, we would have to build a model of it and we already have a universe. Why would we need two? So our pursuit of science is limited to time and funding and the laws of physics themselves. Most money spent in science is targeted to developing more efficient technologies, not answers for philosophical questions. We will never find the final answers to how large the universe is, nor what the smallest component of matter is nor how it all works because we can't afford it, don't have time for it, and it is far from necessary. We need science to focus on doing things more efficiently to improve or lives today. Let the philosophers worry about the meaning of life. We must not allow scientists to become substitutes for the wizards of old. The value of science depends on the quality of the decisions philosophers make regarding what is best for humanity. Nazi philosophy was evil but was based on their "science" and there is a lot of that going on today at the highest levels. I find it comforting to listen to Sabine discuss this is in her own way. I think that is what she is saying about the need for more philosophy in science. I am tired of listening to "scientists" give their "scientific" opinions about everything. I've lived a couple of blocks away from CalTech for over 30 years now have learned to take pleasure in irritating arrogant scientists who insist on conflating their scientific vs personal opinions. It's a plague that is ruining the credibility of science.
A really interesting perspective. I find the notion of science being an outgrowth of philosophy very familiar. The framework of philosophy I need to ask without boundary, to take every configuration of myself and my experience into account. The framework of science is essentially a method that is strongly utilitarian, but in a way more disconnected from the human mind, and in that, uniquely powerful. In its neutrality, it has brought us wealth and power beyond comparison, but to fulfill our human need to bridge the gap between the rationale and our affections, ourselves, the universe, objective knowledge and subjective experience, we will always need something more all-encompassing.
Isaac Newton: "I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
good that shes moving more toward philosophy- physics is narrow in the end- solve how to get beyond human centric measurement problem - is not spacetime not doomed?
It's very dependent on what definition of creativity you use. I would argue that although physics is fundamentally a convergent activity, attempting to find the answer, rather than a divergent activity, one might some times use divergent thinking in order to entertain ideas that wouldn't otherwise occur to you. The big problem comes when crackpots use this as an excuse to base their "physics" in imagination rather than converging on an answer that is corroborated with evidence. Answers that can be reach with other people using different equipment in different places and reaching the same result.
Did Sabine explain to you how to comply with Betteridge's Law of Headlines, and how to give away the answer in your stupid, closed question, title? You saved me from wasting 18 minutes of my life! Thank you!
Here's the problem I see with quantum physics today. We are not past the point of describing what it is, let alone why it is the way it is. For example, we can't describe the effect of gravity at the quantum level. We need to be able to describe it before understanding how it works. Another example would be quantum entanglement. We need to describe the process before understanding the how. There's still a debate over particle or wave. But since matter is just energy compressed to what appears to us to be a solid and thus a particle it seems to me that any discrete packet of energy, like a photon, could look like both. The problem comes in when physicists speculate as if they actually know how these things work. Sabine is one of the few who never seems to do this. She says what she knows and also what she doesn't know.
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
What did you think fo this interview? Do you agree with Sabine Hossenfelder? Leave a comment below!
For more science content visit iai.tv/player?RUclips&
She looks like from the Jores-Tamayo geniuses side. She went to me in Dimasalang, MasbatePH and consulted me in the 1980s when I was still kinda prolific. Perhaps it was the last effort of the British Monarchy that time (bringing top scientists) to extract knowledge from the Jores-Tamayos relating to Physics, (our) Tokamak and ITER, and Star Trek technologies.
Philosophy is the LOGIC of science.
Since you asked what we think of the interview, I'll tell you: I think it would have been much better without all the background noise. That was very distracting, and made it harder to concentrate on what Dr. Hossenfelder was saying.
@@SteveDeHaven -- Whew, I thought it must just be me, that noise was annoying and distracting.
You need philosophy to form coherent ideas and its hard to do science without coherent ideas.
Sabine is one of the smartest, bravest, most trustworthy and soulful scientists, humanity can count on currently. Thanks for this insight in her thinking.
Sabine is a very inspiring person and I am full of admiration about the way she arrives to transmit complicated stuff in a easy and simple way on her own channel. Thank you for this video
I enterely agree!
Is your "admiration" your only "inspiration"? lol
@@radupopescu9977 And me. Thank you for the video.🌱
Yeah frankly she should just pursue her career in music, it’s clearly where her talents lie. That and her contributions to string theory are mind blowing; she’s just an all around rock star, it really is astounding.
@@cloroxbleach6344 Sabine Hossenfelder's talent lies in her ability to communicate complex issues such as theoretical physics to the person, such as myself, in a way that makes physics more understandable and interesting. Her music is a side note. 🎵
I love Sabine! I hope to see more and more of her.
I agree a lot with Sabine here. I'm an engineer, but I also studied philosophy and psychology, and both have proven very helpful to me as an engineer. Philosophy essentially teaches you how to evaluate abstract concepts which have no yes/no right/wrong answer and apply logic to these situations, as well as establish a framework for what constitutes knowledge and how people approach problems based on their theory of knowledge. Psychology has similar benefits in terms of understanding others' viewpoints and why they do the things they do. Being aware of human frameworks and limitations, being taught to question the foundations of knowledge, and being taught to formalize complex, abstract problems are all useful for scientists and engineers.
Define knowledge and consider *whose* knowledge.
At least engineers are useful
@@vhawk1951kl knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject:
Whose knowledge, or whether it's accurately informing decisions is another story altogether
@@vhawk1951kl Define useful.
Yes, we must understand that which(brain/mind) is doing the understanding of the world if we are to understand our world. Our brain/mind is structured making knowledge possible while the structure limits what we know.
@@bobs182 the world around us is structured also... So it has it's limitations, too...
Biological/evolutionary requirements/constraints are physical ones at the basic level:
we should develop a good understanding of the boundaries but also of the connections between living systems and other natural systems.
Abandoning static pictures of processes, instead thinking of causes and effects (inputs/outputs...) as guiding principles of stable systems will leade us to reveal answers to one of the major questions:
to what extent the deterministic nature of cognitive processes limits the area of possible knowledge...
I've recently read a book on AI from the 70s, written by mathematicians, and they criticize physicist for viewing "more accurate" as always strictly superior to "more understandable" (which is not necessarily the same as simpler). The discussion on how philosophy can impact physics reminded me of that, even though it's not the same point being made.
Could you tell me the name of the book please?
So I am in the company of Sabine again ... and she is clear, distinct and to me she shines like the sunflowers of the decor.❤
The more I watch and listen to Sabine, the more my respect for her grows, both as a physicist and a general thinker.
Why are you telling us that you have bad taste in the saints you venerate? :-)
I see Sabine doing a great job of pushing the boundaries of science. Being critical of the status quo is something most scientists will not do. She is a brave soul, in my mind, capable of understanding the conceptual dynamics and voicing concerns without the trappings of emotional overtones. Pushing the limits of what we know sometimes involves questioning what we know.
What you say is true. Sabine is a breath of fresh air...a free thinker.
@@poksnee One can only hope that the philosophy adopted by science is truth based and robust. It is common knowledge that scientists are under the influence of factors that support their world view/sustenance. There seems to be no underlying philosophical construct that defines science with a set of goals - no analog to the oath of office, or Hippocratic oath. These have not stopped politicians from abandoning the will of the people, or doctors from being influenced by drug companies. This general lack of ethics are a negative indicator for everyone being affected. Scientists have no code, such as to support the advancement of humanity, for instance.
I really respect Sabine for this! Just because she's very skeptical and down to earth doesn't mean she doesn't recognize the value of philosophy.
Some people seem to outright dismiss any aspect of reality not discoverable by the scientific method as religious, simply unknowable, dishonest, etc
The whole of Mathematics (& its yet to emerge branches) is but a tool to explain the Physical reality of Nature around us.
Sabine Hossenfelder
Definitely admire Sabine. It's great to see someone that can make science legible and have a decent amount of people listen. It gives me hope.
creativity and love are the main forces of the whole creation
Sabine Hossenfelder, you've just become my home of ontological security. Thanks for this interview
Would like to hear Dr. Hossenfelder have a discussion/debate with Dr. Sean Carroll. Both are brilliant. I understand they are friends, but they differ quite a bit on theory. Dr. Carroll will be teaching Philosophy of Physics soon on the faculty at Johns Hopkins.
Cant wait to read her new book she mentions coming out this summer about the intersection between philosophy and the foundations of physics!
I love this woman! She understands real science! Math is a tool to explain what reality is. Not the other way around!
She is so awesome. Love you Sabine!
Honestly, I am in love with this amazing woman and my wife of 39 years completely understands :)
Nice interview. Sabine is one of the most interesting educators on RUclips. I always enjoy watching her. She's always got something interesting to say.
Have been subscribed to SH for quite a while. Love how she pokes at the holes in the various hypotheses.
Sabine just ROCKS!!!
Love you Sabine. Awesome person! Love your tussled hair also...
The philosopher Aristotle discovered the hierarchy of ideas, w/philosopht at the base. He also discovered scientific method and was the first scientist. Even the attempt to deny philosophy rests on philosophy.
Leap Of Logic-David Harriman, physicist; science as inductive; a new theory of induction
Philosophy is not contemplation, reflection or communication - it's about continuous creation of concepts. Contemplation, reflection and communication ought to be already an inherent part of everything, be it science, art, society, politics, social media etc. but since they obviously are not, we need philosophers reflecting on things outside philosophy...
I am a fan of Sabine's honesty, great content, thanks!
I like her view on how philosophy’s role could be more proactive and useful by critically examining it @8:30
I agree with Sabine, and find her RUclips channel both approachable and informative. Especially impressed that in a challenging interview format like this, Dr. Hossenfelder manages to come back with eloquent, thought-provoking answers at the drop of a hat, that we can all appreciate.
Many thanks! An extremely important topic and interesting discussion for an open global brainstorm.
John A. Wheeler:
*_"Philosophy is too important to be left to philosophers."_*
*_"We are no longer satisfied with understanding only particles, force fields, geometry, or even time and space. Today we require physics to have some understanding of existence itself."_*
Carlo Rovelli in *_"Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics"_* (2017), in which he also outlined a list of issues and topics currently being discussed in theoretical physics. It can be seen that most of the questions relate to the sphere of philosophical ontology. And this list is not complete. The first question on the list is "What is space?" Second: "What is time?"...
Today, fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology) is experiencing an acute conceptual-paradigmatic crisis in the metaphysical/ontological basis, manifested as a “crisis of understanding” (J. Horgan “The End of Science”, Kopeikin K.V. “Souls” of atoms and “ atoms” of the soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and “three great problems of physics”), “crisis of interpretation and representation” (Romanovskaya T.B. “Modern physics” and contemporary art - parallels of style”), “loss of certainty” (Kline M “Mathematics: Loss of Certainty”, D. Zaitsev “Truth, Consequence and Modern Logic”), “trouble with physics” (Lee Smolin “The Trouble” with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next”). Fundamental science "rested" in the understanding of space and matter (ontological structure), the nature of the "laws of nature", the nature of "fundamental constants", the nature of the phenomena of time, number, information, consciousness.
It's time to realize that Quantum theory and General relativity are phenomenological (parametric, operationalist. "effective") theories without ontological justification / substantiation (ontological basification). Also, String Theory is a theory without ontological justification. There is no basic ontologically based structure.
A theory that claims to be “fundamental” must be an ontologically based theory.
To achieve a breakthrough and overcome the conceptual-paradigmatic crisis in the foundations of fundamental science , a new comprehensive ontological basis of knowledge and cognition is needed.
To understand the "EXISTENCE itself" means to "grasp" (understand) the nature of the primordial TENSION of the Cosmos, to understand the nature of space and time. And for this it is necessary to "grasp" the primordial generating structure of matter - *"La Structure Mère" (Ontological SuperStructure=Ontological Causal Primary Structure)* . That is, to build a model of the metaphysical triad "being-nothing/otherbeing-becoming". We need breakthrough dialectical and ontological ideas, a methodology for dialectical-ontological construction of the basis of knowledge, and not just mathematics and physics. It is necessary to build a new EXTENDED BASIS of knowledge and cognition in general - a new EXTENDED IDEALITY. Here we need DIALECTICAL ONTOLOGIC.
G. Hegel: “The truth of space and time is matter.”
The paradigm of the Universe as an eternal holistic generating process (the "PARADIGM OF UNDERSTANDING") gives a new look at matter and space. MATTER is what all meanings, forms and structures are born from. SPACE is an ideal entity, an ideal limit for states of matter. The ontological structure of space (absolute, ontological, existential) is rigidly connected with the absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states). And there are three and only three of these states: absolute rest (linear state, absolute Continuum, ideal image, shape - "cube", "Cartesian box") + absolute motion (vortex, cyclic, absolute Discretuum, ideal image, shape - "sphere") and their synthesis - absolute becoming (wave, absolute wave, absolute DisContinuum, ideal image, shape - "cylinder"). What is especially important: each absolute form of existence of matter has its own ONTOLOGICAL PATH (the bivector of the absolute state). Accordingly, SPACE (absolute, ontological, existential) has three ontological dimensions / 9 gnoseological dimensions: three “linear” + three “vortex” + three “wave”. But we must "dig" deeper into ontology in order to “comprehend” the meta-phenomenon - the ONTOLOGICAL (structural, cosmic) MEMORY, the “soul of matter”, its measure. Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory is that "NOTHING " that holds, preserves, develops and directs matter (entelechy, nous, Aristotle's "mind-prime mover").
To understand SPACE and TIME, we must move from the physicalist concept, the simple ideality of “SPACE-TIME”, to the ontological concept of “SPACE-MATTER/MEMORY-TIME". That is, to generating process with memory.
TIME (ontological) is a polyvalent phenomenon of ontological (structural, cosmic) memory, which substantiates the quantitative certainty of the existence of the Universe as an eternal holistic process of generating meanings, forms and structures. Time (ontological) is the dialectic of the generation of number and meaning. Ontological time = cyclic ("horizontal" of being of the Universe) + wave (emergent, time of becoming of the generating structure) + linear ("vertical" of being, hierarchical time). The birth of the "arrow of time" is the birth of light. Gnoseological time ("human-dimensional") - past, present, future. Information is a polyvalent phenomenon of ontological (structural, cosmic) memory which substantiates the certainty, orderliness, essential / substantive unity of the Universe as an eternal holistic process of generating more and more new meanings, forms and structures.
excellent questions thankyou, I have followed sabine for a few years
The more she learns the skill of getting complicated ideas across to those w/o the math background the more fascinating are the depths and reaches of her awesome universe of a mind to those less gifted and unschooled. Excited about the new book.
It is a mixed blessing because without the math the ideas never truly get across. I thought I understood so much as a fan of pop physics, until I took higher math and physics courses. Then realize I had only understood extremely simplified versions or analogizes.
@@vids595 My intuition is that is probably correct. Ideas whose comprehension perhaps surpasses what is available through ordinary spoken language-- which could say something maybe about math and realism. Thanks.
There is really no reason for a layman who is unable or unwilling to do the work to know these things, they’ll simply misuse it. See quantum mystics like Deepak Chopra.
@@peterader3073 Brian Greene did a funny bit (I think it was Prof. Greene) as do others on folk quantum whacko-ness. On that score, it is hard to disagree. It is sad if not often tragic how the laughing primate insists on finding ghosts in the machine.
The book is excellent. I swallowed it up pretty quick. Tackling great questions. Common sense to the nth.
I wish to see a discussion between Sabine and David Albert
Philosophy is perhaps the only disciplinary field that intersects and can inform all other human endeavours.
In fact it was not that long ago that British Universities inserted what they called the "classics" into ALL University qualifications.
Irrespective of what studies a student undertook, Physics, language, Medicine, Accounting, Art, Economics etc, within your course was an introduction in Philosophy and music etc.
Over the past 3 or 4 decades this requirement and educational culture has been phased out.
And I think it has been to the detriment of all studies, including Philosophy itself, which fed off external problems and themes.
Compare the graduates today to previous years. They are Ultra specialised in their field today.
You can see it in the Nobel Prize winners in Physics: compare the first 60 years to the previous 60 years.
The Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to a few researchers for inventing the Blue LED about a decade ago.
Compare that to say Paul Dirac's Nobel Prize for theoretically predicting the existence of the anti-electron in his 80 page PhD thesis that he hand wrote in his 20s.
Fundamental Physics has stagnated since about the mid 1970s. Technology and innovation has increased due to the demands of short term corporate profit or fueling the military machine.
But overall Physics has stagnated: Physicists were even afraid to talk about Hugh Everritt III's work.
"Shut up and calculate" is not a healthy catch cry for Physicist to adopt. For any scientists to adopt for that matter.
It will turn around - I see positive healthy signs emerging from Physics and Philosophical discussions have played a big role in that turn around.
Just my opinion - what the hell would I know folks?
Yes! Beautifully said, I agree fully. I think science got engangled in it’s own web, as it has become way too specialised, so no one can actually understand the big picture - a job that was in the past reserved for philosophers.
@@oldrichpriklenk5089 Someone actually read my post and responded?
Many Scientists are offended or their ego gets bruised when I highlight this change in the way Scientific fields have been commodified and corporatised - in particular Physicists seem to be the most fragile and insecure in this regard. In the USA about half of all the Physicists are directly or indirectly employed by the military industrial complex and Corporate defence contractors developing and maintaining weapons and defence systems, including WMDs. The scientific goals become short term and very narrow.
We also saw this in Big Pharma during the Pandemic (and before). It's a cultural and political issue rather than a scientific one. (imo)
Cheers
We need to embrace Philosophy Psychology Physics Mathematics Art Music to trend towards a better understanding of Existence. One discipline is not enough.
I love it when I see Sabine in a video because I immediately know I'm out of my depth.
Science requires scientists who are honest and ethical. Philosophy is profoundly important to our future progress.
Thanks Sabine!
Such a great interview and a great woman. Also, I want to know everything Dr. Hossenfelder thinks about the measurement problem. And I want to know now! :-)
I hope Sabine does more talks about superdeterminism.
have a look at gerard t’hooft lectures if you want to learn more about it
Good interview and discussion. I like the way Sabine Hossenfelder phrases most of the stuff she says. My take on the title question is that there's a necessary philosophical component to physics which necessarily impacts physics. Then there's the philosophy of science, which is a separate field, and which is not necessarily, or very often, impactful. The idea that time is an illusion is one of the least interesting philosophical views, imho. Good channel. Thanks
Just subtly blew my mind
I wish I could think like Sabine, but unfortunately I often times get too caught up in wonder to question things.
Thank you for your detail, Ms hossenfelder. My philosophy is that everything is the center of infinity. Your curiosity at the forces great and small that centers us here burning daylight is quite enlightening.
I love her way!
Feynman did exactly what Sabine argues for when he developed the Feynman diagrams.
Deniel Dennett says that the purpose of philosophy is to refine the question but that where it goes astray is when people try to use it to provide "answers". Answers require empirical input.
fascinating discussion, and to the extent that I can judge the picture of contemporary contributions from philosophy accurate, but this has to do a lot with the abandonment of metaphysics as an ambitious project and the idea that tends to dominate or at least represents the consensus of reasonableness is that metaphysics should be done in the broader context of physics. While there are lots of different ways this idea informs cont metaphysics one clear effect is the sociology of science feel to much phil sci. By contrast reading anything from 17th-18th c metaphysics (say Leibniz) the debates and ideas seem to me very relevant to cont physics - at least the big questions. I realised this listening to different theories of wave function collapse, when expressed in natural language rather than math, they seemed to be positions in a metaphysical landscape that 17th and 18th c metaphysicians and critical metaphysicians would definitely recognise. By contrast in the contemporary philosophical environment this sort of speculative thought does not flourish and there are interesting and important reasons for this I'm just putting this out as n observation.
Sabine Hossenfelder is always excellent. Thanks to IAI for bringing this kind of content to the world.
Idealism's dominance of contemporary philosophy (rather than Realism) might unfortunately keep this phenomenon alive well into the foreseeable future.
@@54eopifkg3ehfkj43 Idealism (Kant, Plato) is the basis of Western culture (including the its current state of entropy). Materialism (Aristotle, Democritus, Marx) has never truly held sway beyond the press it gets as being the source of critique.
The scientific disciplines live in the cultural milieu of Idealism and as such, they are affected by its inherent magical thinking.
Realism, but especially Speculative Realism & Object Oriented Ontology (Deleuze, Harmon, Morton) takes a dynamicist approach which is decentered from/properly disrespectful of the human subject as prime mover regarding object relationships.
@@rvnsglcr7861
Only dialectical ontology can help overcome the conceptual-paradigmatic crisis in the metaphysical basis of fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology).
Mathematician Vladimir Arnold: “In the middle of the 20th century, the highly influential mafia of “left-hemisphere mathematicians” managed to exclude geometry from mathematical education (first in France, and then in other countries), replacing the entire content side of this discipline with training in the formal manipulation of abstract concepts. All geometry and, consequently, the entire connection of mathematics with the real world and with other sciences was excluded from mathematical education."... "Despite this, the “left-hemisphere patients” managed to raise entire generations of mathematicians who do not understand any other approach to mathematics, and are only able to teach the following generations in the same way. The disgust for mathematics on the part of ministers who were subject to the humiliating experience of such teaching in school is a healthy and legitimate reaction. Unfortunately, this disgust of theirs extends to all mathematics, without exception, and can kill it entirely." (V. Arnold "Anti-scientific revolution and mathematics", 1999)
Mathematician and philosopher Dmitry Bukin makes the following conclusion in the article “CRISIS OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS AS A CRISIS OF ONTOLOGY”: “The crisis of the foundations of mathematics is, first of all, the crisis of ontology, the essence of which is the inability to describe objects, the fact of being or becoming of which goes beyond the usual ideas about the world. Way out such a crisis state should be sought not so much in the improvement of the methods of mathematics itself, but in the renewal of the cognitive. means of ontology, which do not deny the classical paradigm, but can go beyond its framework is a historically proven method of comprehending the existence of a mathematical object in its development and relationship with objective reality."
V. Voevodsky: *_“Material reality is the absolute judge of truth.”_*
A.N. Whitehead: *_"A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge."_*
Even if philosophy of science spent its time exclusively on what emerges from science and then tries to make sense of it and asks what it might mean (which it doesn't) this would hardly be 'useless'. Asking what something might mean or what sense it might make is a crucial activity.
I have noticed that physicists who deride philosophy engage in poor philosophical constructs. I think of Larry Krauss and his extreme spite of philosophy in any way. Or Stephen Hawking writing that "philosophy is dead." in his book, The Grand Design, it is a self stultifying statement and cannot be true. Hawking's book like Krauss' was full of philosophy, poor philosophy.
As for does the Past or Future exist? It does if there is more than one dimension of Time such as a plane of time. It would certainly answer a lot of mysteries like how electrons can be in two places at the same time or why quantum particles cannot be measured in more than one way. I mean we can measure its speed, but then lose its position or measure its position, but not its speed. It would explain how quantum particles pop in and out of existence. To say they come from not anything nowhere is not science, it's just ignorance.
Not to mention, a large portion of philsophers of science/physics actually have degrees in physics.
@@handzar6402 George Ellis comes to mind.
@@MountainFisher Yes, and many others.
I love her brain! Also, the interviewer was very good, but his identity was not disclosed.
I want to be as exact as possible, but it gives me the abdabs!
At the beginning of the discussion, Sabine started by mentioning the measurement problem, should we eliminating the human factor. Strange, this simple concept is central to all of physics.
I would add it also needs psychology and history. We need to see patterns of human behavior, especially deviant and destructive tendencies, and look forward in time to the end products and stages that COULD be acheived...for better or worse.
Yep, definitely. For instance many scientists don't distinguish between causal determinism and predictive determinism. And many are being influenced by their views on free will.
The issue is that none of that matters. My views on free will have nothing to do with writing down a number produced by a machine.
@@cougar2013 compatibilist?
So help me out here:
With the question at 9:09 she goes on to answer, that this is “that happened to be a topic that I’m not very familiar with”.
But she goes on to say @ 15:30 that she has a book coming out that deals with “time” “is time an illusion”.
What gives ? What did I miss…or misunderstand??
Yeah, that is an odd contradiction.
The topic she isn't familiar with is how philosophers speak about the "illusion of time."
The topic she is familiar with is how physicists speak about time.
No contradiction.
@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself Okay, that’s fair enough, yet very peculiar, especially considering (in her own words) her gravitation towards philosophy of late.
However I suppose, not even a scientist/aspiring philosopher can be abreast of all discourse emanating from the two disciplines, even though the interviewer seems to be appraised.
In case you like Sabines interview, you will probably like interviews with or presentations by Markus Gabriel, best selling philosopher from Germany. There are many German and several english videos here on youtube, e.g. "Making sense of thinking" , 7.September.2019 .
As usual, Sabine is correct 😘
Those who made real impact on Physics always had profound knowledge of and engaged in philosophical discussions. Aristotle, Descartes, Galileu, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, you name it. When this stopped, Physics pretty much stopped as well. It's common knowledge that we have not made any great leap in Physics after Einstein and the quantum guys. And, mark my words, we won't until physicists start paying attention to Philosophy again.
on the contrary, Aristotle effectively put back science 1500 years, as everybody assumed that because Aristotle had decided something, that was settled, and and disagreement was heresy. It was not until Bacon and Newton that science took off again, as science rather than "natural philosophy"
It seems to me a great failing of our time is hyper-specialisation. It seems like great thinkers / scientists of the past were much more well-rounded in general. A simple example being that John Adams was deeply interested in mathematics, the arts, law etc., nowadays he would have done 4 years at The Diplomatic School for Diplomats.
It seems trivial to say that now we have experts who spend their whole time thinking in one paradigm, when say mathematics itself takes its greatest leaps forwards when the links from seemingly disconnected areas reveal a deeper truth.
I've found in my own life my mind feels more barren when it is focused on one thing. There are obvious counter-examples where someone specialises in a real niche place and does amazing work without reference to anything else, but my sense is that the ones who make the greatest leaps are consciously or subconsciously influenced by (and crucially are interested in) a much wider array of things.
@@Pippins666 In Western Europe, maybe, but the Islamic world made decent progress in mathematics and astronomy after Aristotle, because they didn't take his metaphysics as dogma. Surely the blame shouldn't be on philosophy, but on the repression by the Catholic Church, right?
@@vauchomarx6733 partly, but not entirely. It is certainly true that Aristotle had the deadening effect I mentioned, but equally true that the Vatican destroyed science in southern Europe. After the inquisition of Galileo the centre of scientific knowledge moved to northern Europe, away from the dead hand and even deader brain of the Catholic hierarchy. Coincidentally this was about the time the Islamic scholarship and enlightenment was at its peak.
Watching a tree grow and a bonfire tell you a lot about the forces in nature. Also watching how humans create societies, fight wars and fall in love, gives you information on the same forces. Our modern science tells us a lot about individual forces and makes us able to create all kind of tools. In my view, our old knowledge made us able to understand complex systems of life and create wisdom in our minds.
well said.
Curiosity and compassion with all their is rather than "old knowledge". What you are pointing at is that we lost the awe in which open questions pend and the courage to bear with it. We ran from complexity towards detail as it's easier, even when challenging. We define all by what we know and boast about it, looking down on less knowledgeable previous generations which did exactly the same with their predecessors. This arrogance is our down fall as we miss to see the space and the natural limitedness of gathered knowledge.
Unless we correct this initial mistake, all scientific and technological endeavours will continue to be a very risky business for human kind. It's ignorant of us not to see how we are driving a dangerous zickzack and call it progress. It's repetitive clouded by inevitable findings, but our view of life and ourselves remains...."old" and underdeveloped. After more than one shove close to full disaster in the 20th century, we should come to our senses and see that technological findings are a great pastime and sometimes quite practical, but yet kid's play compared to really unfolding our intelligence beyond just explorimg every grain of sand in the box we played in so far.
The philosophers Popper, Kuhn & Feyerabend offer quite useful epistemological guide lines about what science is all about, because the fundamental foundation of all sciences is DOUBT!
Science is just knowledge. And every branch of science may have different parameters or methodology.
The role of mathematics in modern physical science is undeniable, making measurements of objects in the natural world, and the ability to make predictions require skills in mathematics and a method to communicate limits.
V. Voevodsky: *_“Material reality is the absolute judge of truth.”_*
A.N. Whitehead: *_"A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge."_*
Today, the "problem No. 1 of the millennium" is the ONTOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION of mathematics (ONTOLOGICAL BASIFICATION), and therefore knowledge in general, the construction of the New Extended Ideality - the ontological basis of knowledge and cognition for the New information age: ontological frame, carcass, foundation.
@@vladimirrogozhin7797 there is a book in all your questions, lol. I got a lot out of a book called “Feemat’s” Enigma “ by Simon Singh. The field of mathematics is in an understandable way a pleasure of its own, and somewhat akin to puzzles, you just have that question only math can solve, or see a pattern worth meditating on, but Whitehead may have been joking a little because we are never going to have a complete understanding.😜 We’re going to try anyway. The proof is in the predictions, do you like math?
Sabine Hossenfelder is so brilliant. I am fascinated by the nexus of philosophy and physics. I recently published an article that looks at time with regard to illness, Holographic Universe: Implications for Cancer, Parkinson's, ALS, Autism, and ME/CFS in the peer-review journal Science & Philosophy.
Yes of course it does. Now I will watch.
Just look around at the social effects of science. Good, and bad. Philosophy can possibly mediate.
Excellent.... thanks.
❤️
one of the best actual physicists explaining the most difficult physics to the layman online, by a long chalk. However, she is only part of the way there - her lack of a view of philosophy as 'thinking about anything in terms of its meaning' is very deficient and/or under-expressed. The reason most philosophy is poorly regarded by physicists, and many others, is that philosophers fail to fully assert themselves by explaining that the foundations of all science, not just reductionist physics ('everything is explained by particles, atoms, and the void'), rely on a very exacting set of philosophical assumptions concerning: objectivity versus subjectivity; the strict reliability of human logic and reasoning in general (ie, epistemology); and realism versus idealism. She presents Ockham's Razor (from the 14th century English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher, apologist, and Catholic theologian) as a principle of science, but without deeply understanding - or at least presenting - that fact that the Razor of William of Ockham is a principle of economy of all cognition, not of 'science'. Thus she blurs the boundaries of science and philosophy and confuses the two. In short, her scientific training and general habit of mind leads her to see everything thru the scientific lens and subsume it into a 'science = everything' worldview.
A theory in itself is never right nor wrong it is at best fitting to explain observations
I think it's important Sabine, that you have a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) in physics.
Bravo!!!
Philosophy is not ideology. Don’t mix or confuse the two. Ideology is the opposite of science
For ideology read religion?
@@vhawk1951kl or politics
Or any "idea" based system where the idea comes first and is defended without regard for reality.
Thanks for the conversation with Sabine. The background is too annoying on some angles.
15:38 Now THAT seems to be a great book to read!
I think that Objectivism is can fix the mysticism and formalism in physics.
IMO, Quantum Mechanics is doing the same for advancement of understanding of the physical world as Roman Numerals did for the advancement of understanding of arithmetic.
OBTW, great interview...
You asked Sabine about the transcendentals of beauty and truth... but not about the transcendentals of feeling, being, and identity. Science and our very existence derives from the transcendentals and yet Science cannot measure the transcendentals at all. For example, we all have the feeling of free choice, but Science cannot measure feelings like free choice. Even if you do not believe you have the feeling of free choice, you do have it.
Sabine is rightly critical of the doldrums of unification of gravity and quantum charge and far too many in Science have no escape from the doldrums. It is clear that not much can really move forward until Science shows that the quantum bond of matter to the universe is a form of the quantum bond of charge.
I’m confused. @15:30 she says her new book addresses philosophical intersections and questions like: Is time an illusion? But earlier in the interview she said that topic wasn’t something she studied deeply and therefore couldn’t comment on @9:16
Yes, as I see it, the interviewer was interested in the topic and threw out some statements, she's not in agreement with. Think she didn't want to discuss it in that interview, and therefore tried to bypass the issue
"Science" has a philosophy, it is called empiricism. The next question is whether one is committed to limiting the field of knowledge to that which is derived via positivistic falsification.
Fabulous🤩!!
Everyone needs to philosophize when screw ups inevitably happen.
there IS a Masterplan of our life, if we followed it all the time, we would gain the utmost of learning. But there are also built in cornerstones, where our path of life could have taken a completly other direction.
All science does is create provisional models for the purpose of prediction and control.
As soon as a model better at prediction and control come along, the old models are set aside in favour of the one that woks better.
Models are tools created for a purpose - a human all too human purpose, a human all too human creation, a human all too human hope
We never get to a final, exclusive, complete "truth".
All we get is abstractions, man-made abstractions.
The greatest mystery in the universe is the consciousness doing the questioning, the abstracting/ model building/ predicting and the observing/ measuring - the one who cares, the centre of care, the origin of care.
Consciousness cannot "know" itself, model itself, because when consciousness tries to look at itself, it enters into an infinite regress. We never get to the "bottom" of it. We never "wrap it up".
And that brings us to the philosophical/ spiritual/ religious realm.
It's a never-ending process of generating more questions, modelling wider contexts, more subtle observations, finer measurements, more precise provisional "conclusions".
But I wouldn't worry about it. Just enjoy the ride. And appreciate the awe and wonder of it all.
Keep an open mind.
Find out what works to accomplish what.
Creator. Creation. Creativity.
Consciousness is an irreducible part of the cosmos. A sine quo non. As far as we know, eternal.
I'm in love
Hello everybodey,, i am so happy to watch the viedeo from Sabine,, she is amazing ! i am so happy to find her. i watched her the first time in a TV programm from SRF cultuer,,so good.
I would like to ask Sabine, if we belivie in cause and effect, like the budism from Nitchiren Daishonin teach ? couse the philosophy from his believes is kind of microcosmos and macrocosmos,,, there is no coincidence,, and that is very hard to believe that everything happends becouse of your actions.
it is unbeliebeble
i ill read now the book of Schrodinger Wbat i life,,
anxiously waiting for your comments
i am German and i live since 2014 in Brazil
i am so happy to find this kind of mindsetting and for sure her,, she opens my mind of a easy way,,,
bye to all
No, physicists do not believe in sitting under a tree while cult members are asking the poor for donations of food that the poor can hardly afford. ;-)
¡¡¡SABINE!!!
And that's what she talked about today.
The question I ask my philosopher friend is how to distinguish correlation from causation and I never get a good answer and sometimes no answer at all.
You do it again and again and again. :-)
The beauty of listening to Sabine is that even for those of use who have little understanding of the many issues she discusses, her ability to navigate that ocean in a way that even I can follow and grasp the essence of what she is saying is a marvel. As to philosophy and science, there seems to be a struggle for primacy that should not exist. Science is an outgrowth of philosophy. Science is limited to considering questions that involve empirical evidence. If you it can't be weighed, counted or otherwise measured, you can't apply the mathematics to form a testable hypothesis. Therefore, science has nothing to say. For instance, science has nothing important to say about the existence of God. Therefore, if science and religion are at odds, the conflict comes from religion not science. Unfortunately, too many scientists now choose to present their personal opinions as scientific opinions and this is greatly damaging science.
About 50 years ago, CalTech Professor of physics David Goodstein created a multi-part series for PBS called "The Mechanical Universe". It covered the history of science covering the most important scientific discoveries. I have used what I learned from that series as a guide ever since. In his final comments at the conclusion of the series, he addressed the question of whether we will ever know how the universe works. He predicted "no". Because in order to understand the universe, we would have to build a model of it and we already have a universe. Why would we need two?
So our pursuit of science is limited to time and funding and the laws of physics themselves. Most money spent in science is targeted to developing more efficient technologies, not answers for philosophical questions. We will never find the final answers to how large the universe is, nor what the smallest component of matter is nor how it all works because we can't afford it, don't have time for it, and it is far from necessary. We need science to focus on doing things more efficiently to improve or lives today. Let the philosophers worry about the meaning of life. We must not allow scientists to become substitutes for the wizards of old. The value of science depends on the quality of the decisions philosophers make regarding what is best for humanity. Nazi philosophy was evil but was based on their "science" and there is a lot of that going on today at the highest levels.
I find it comforting to listen to Sabine discuss this is in her own way. I think that is what she is saying about the need for more philosophy in science. I am tired of listening to "scientists" give their "scientific" opinions about everything. I've lived a couple of blocks away from CalTech for over 30 years now have learned to take pleasure in irritating arrogant scientists who insist on conflating their scientific vs personal opinions. It's a plague that is ruining the credibility of science.
A really interesting perspective. I find the notion of science being an outgrowth of philosophy very familiar. The framework of philosophy I need to ask without boundary, to take every configuration of myself and my experience into account. The framework of science is essentially a method that is strongly utilitarian, but in a way more disconnected from the human mind, and in that, uniquely powerful. In its neutrality, it has brought us wealth and power beyond comparison, but to fulfill our human need to bridge the gap between the rationale and our affections, ourselves, the universe, objective knowledge and subjective experience, we will always need something more all-encompassing.
What science needs is to not have an agenda.
Isaac Newton: "I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
I'm just wondering what th result would be if Sabine cooperated on a book with Randall Munroe (xkcd)?
The majority of the notable philosophers were also brilliant mathematicians -- Descartes, Whitehead, Pascal, Aristotle, etc., etc.
Could add Sabine Hossenfelder on your list
good that shes moving more toward philosophy- physics is narrow in the end- solve how to get beyond human centric measurement problem - is not spacetime not doomed?
What kind of philosophy are we talking about exactly?
Time reversals, evolution law, space time, quantum entanglement,...can be seen in bhagavad githa
Skip ciphers of any sufficiently large text always reveal interesting statements.
It's very dependent on what definition of creativity you use. I would argue that although physics is fundamentally a convergent activity, attempting to find the answer, rather than a divergent activity, one might some times use divergent thinking in order to entertain ideas that wouldn't otherwise occur to you.
The big problem comes when crackpots use this as an excuse to base their "physics" in imagination rather than converging on an answer that is corroborated with evidence.
Answers that can be reach with other people using different equipment in different places and reaching the same result.
Natural Philosophy is at the forefront of science.
Natural science is crystallised natural philosophy
Nothing wrong with philosophy around physics, as long as you make clear what is evidence-based and what is conjecture & opinion.
Did Sabine explain to you how to comply with Betteridge's Law of Headlines, and how to give away the answer in your stupid, closed question, title? You saved me from wasting 18 minutes of my life! Thank you!
the future already exists, in hundreds of dreams I have seen it. The big question for me is, where are those pictures I have seen 20, 30 years ago??
All our interprétations about cosmology are based on the postulate physics has to be the same everywhere...
Here's the problem I see with quantum physics today. We are not past the point of describing what it is, let alone why it is the way it is. For example, we can't describe the effect of gravity at the quantum level. We need to be able to describe it before understanding how it works. Another example would be quantum entanglement. We need to describe the process before understanding the how. There's still a debate over particle or wave. But since matter is just energy compressed to what appears to us to be a solid and thus a particle it seems to me that any discrete packet of energy, like a photon, could look like both.
The problem comes in when physicists speculate as if they actually know how these things work. Sabine is one of the few who never seems to do this. She says what she knows and also what she doesn't know.