How can we go beyond the Standard Model of Cosmology? Leave your thoughts in the comments! To watch another talk by Bjørn Ekeberg, visit iai.tv/video/the-breakdown-of-cosmology-bjorn-ekeberg
Hubble/Cosmological Constant is not a single constant. Space is moving at different speeds. Some scientists/creationists try to ignore that extra space exists beyond the observable universe. The material objects in the previous universe could convert into material energy during the contraction of the previous universe. According to the Buddha, the observable universe expands (Vivatta), stables the expansion (Vivstta Sthai), contracts (Sanvatta), and stables the contraction (Sanvatta Sthai). Dark Energy is an illusion. The universe doesn't make a new energy called Dark Energy.
I visited this link, but just when he finished introducing his talk and was about to get into the meat of it, it stopped and insisted I subscribe, so I lost interest.
Why do we want to go beyond the "Standard Model of Cosmology?". Aren't standard models supposed to be the "consensus view"? Aren't we all supposed to be boot-lickers for the consensus view today? Philosophy got "lost in the woods" post-enlightenment. Hegel lost us. But Kant and Rousseau misled the way. 230 years wandering lost in the woods.
@@mark4asp I'm just guessing, but maybe it's because certain aspects of this consensus view pretty much defy belief, or leave key questions unanswered. But if you as much as question any part of it publicly, you are likely to be called a crackpot, so it has achieved the status of dogma. This despite the fact that it is based on relatively tenuous and scanty data, scientifically speaking. And very few people qualified to dispute it are willing to risk being labeled a heretic. It is dangerously close to being a religious belief. Science should welcome skepticism, not discourage it.
What a lovely breeze of fresh air to hear this Metaphysicist speak. Eloquent, concise and obviously accurate arguments presented in a clear and easily understood manner. The current state of human knowledge development is laid out in as clear a fashion as I've heard in a very long time. Thanks Bjørn Ekeberg and IAI for this pearl of provocative wisdom. Specifically, thanks for contributing to our moving forward in our interpretations of our world. Let's go.
Hi @marty. Thanks for your comment! By "obviously accurate arguments", that you say is "a red flag", I meant in the same way that the comment "science has become more and more specialised" might be an obviously accurate argument, because of its truth based on historical fact. In any case it is easy to criticise and harder to praise, although it might be more positive, constructive, rewarding and fulfilling to praise. There are many comments here that I view as obviously accurate arguments. For example, when he speaks about the relationship and closeness between philosophy and sciences, how they've now become "almost like two solitudes" and that in the past "all the classical scientists through James Maxwell up through Einstein would've had some degree of philosophy background". An obvious example is Einstein's self-styled 'Olympia Academy' he set up with his great friend Solovine and others only a few years before he took off like a rocket (theoretically speaking, of course).
Very eloquently explained. He's right, we scientists are not trained in philosophy any more and that's detrimental when you need a deeper scrutiny of scientific foundation of particular research.
Scientists don't need philosophy any more than lawyers or architects do. Properly applied the scientific method works just fine. If you like, science describes the universe to us and philosophy describes us to us.
@@BenjWarrant no. Science is the methodology of observing phenomena but in categorising and defining the results causality as knowledge thats becomes idolatry when you don't understand philosophy and limitations of inductive reasoning to provide knowledge.
You can just read Greek Philosophy. I did study Philosophy briefly before Physics. I read a LOT of stuff and outside of the Ancient Greeks there are no other Philosophers worth reading (but those are definitely worth reading for sure and I vividly recommend it to any young Physicist).
I feel relieved! Ekeberg just verified my biggest concern which he very carefully lays out here trying his best to not offend the “monopolised mainstream physics community”! He is spot on, on where the whole problem started which is the route cause of current (mainstream) physics / cosmology why is stuck for nearly a Century making no progress dooming us and theoretically marooning us to this solar system … it’s Einstein’s work! Questioning Einstein is considered as “Blasphemous” by the mainstream physics community cos not only just their lifetime career crunching “numbers” is based on it but their whole academic education was built on the ‘Assumption’ that Einstein’s theory is Gospel Truth and all their work and education is built on it… literally! Physics today is no different trying to lay a small carpet to a bigger room… pull one side to the wall, you are left with a gap on the opposite side. The day we throw away Einstein’s Theory and restart physics from there bottom up on a clean sheet of paper … we will be going forward and making progress! 50+ years bluffing over a stuck theory and other theories based, built, around it needs to be openly questioned with courage, scepticism by everyone and scrutinise it’s fundamental assumptions and mathematical applications (starting with using time as a 4th dimension vector , when the theory itself ends up claiming time not being linear. It’s preposterous).
easy to say, harder to achieve, many have tried, all have failed to this point, including string theory, It seems foolish to throw away Einstein model as it is valid within certain boundaries, just as Newtonian physics is valid within boundaries. It seems there is an new underlying meta-model to both of those models, however within certain limits, this new model must decompose to the Einstein and Newton relations. Einstein's view decomposes to Newton's view within certain constraints, and therefore any new model must decompose to Einstein's view within certain constraints. It seems silly to talk of throwing theories away, when instead we must build on top of the previous layer, because it is well-proven within certain limits, thereby a valid description of that domain.
I think that most intellectually honest scientists agree with Ekebergs statements. As our observable cosmos expands the inaccuracies of our current physics knowledge and models become increasingly clear. The search for a unified theory continues. For that very reason, I think the world would be much better off investing in scientific research instead of war.
The hypothesis that I support is that the BIG BANG never happened, the universe is not expanding (we have miss interpreted the red shift), the universe is infinite and never had a beginning, if the universe is infinite and never had a beginning it will never have an end.
Give us a few examples. Dogma is not a scientific term, but how a non scientific person regards theories that are misunderstood or poorly represented in popular media. As Einstein basically said, make explanations as simple as possible, and if you can’t do that so that people can understand then you don’t understand
I agree with the OP. Academia in a given discipline has a period of producitivity... But when the low hanging fruit have all been picked, then it seems to attract the types of people who trend toward moving the discipline to an analogue of the cult of pythagoras. Truely open minded people are repelled... And we get a feedback loop. The debate that OP desires wont happen because no one is left but the hive mind. An example is dark energy and dark matter... Never been detected but essential for making the equations fit the observations. The new space telescope with added precision is breaking down our models again... So... Will we add more to balance the equations? Or abamdon currently accepted theories.
I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from the prejudices of this generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Albert Einstein to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)
I started my academic career as a pre-engineering student and then completed my Bachelor of Arts majoring in physics. But because i already had a massive religious indoctrination as a background i failed to see the connection between philosophy and what we call "science." (Though i have seen that connection on an intuitive level. But too late to save my academic career.) Since then i have had what you call a " MARGINAL EXISTENCE " from a career point of view. Many thanks for your insights.
@@BenjWarrant Some schools do offer Bachelor of Arts degrees in Geology, Physics, Environmental Studies, etc. I think it’s mainly intended for stuff like teaching K-12, doing science journalism, etc.
I love to see blocks challenged. There should always be a lively debate about such things. I hope to never again see the sort of situation we had during the heyday of string theory, when challenging it could torpedo a scientist's career. The sort of behavior that went on in that environment is inexcusable.
The most sensible talk on modern physics that I've ever come across. I cannot grasp how anyone could believe cosmology can function without a grounding metaphysical theory.
The Standard Model is just that, a model. It tells a story that pieces together observations and measurements at any given time of scientific discovery. The Steady State Universe was purely based on a philosophy that the Universe is fundamentally simple and a universal theory of everything was just round the corner that would tie it up in a neat little bow in the form of an elegant equation in the days before any useful observation and measurement to hold it to task. I think there is much greater acceptance to be flexible these days as it has become apparent that the universe is stranger and stranger. I see the Standard model as like how you go about solving a jigsaw puzzle without the picture of the finished puzzle to go by You find bits that go together, ok they are blue I'll put then up the top because it looks to be sky.
I think that there's always some level of implicit metaphysics in physics. Because the actual teaching of theoretical physics does not present a scoping review of metaphysics; many theoretical physicists are unaware of the implicit metaphysical contents of their physical theories.
Nor is such awareness required. The strength of a theory is judged on its explanatory and predictive power. GR as a background theory is well-tested. Dark matter can be accommodated in GR by modifying the energy-momentum tensor, and dark energy can be accommodated via the cosmological constant. These aren't mods to the underlying theory, they fall within its framework. It's well-known that there are limits to observational evidence in cosmology, so we don't know what happened in the Big Bang before the Universe became transparent. And we don't know what the interiors of black holes are like. GR makes predictions, but these predictions rely on simple assumptions (e.g. symmetry). It may well be that either those assumptions, or the theory itself, could be invalidated by new evidence, but until then we can choose to work with GR or MOND. In short, I don't think there is a metaphysical underpinning for cosmology that can be better tested than the background theory is, nor could such an underpinning help us establish whether GR or MOND is a better theory.
You assume they are a physical thing/field/force. What if it's just an error in the underlying theories and doesn't really exist. We have gone from proving our foundations, to adding theory on top of the foundation to validate the foundation.
That's not even Close to correct. BOTH Dark Energy and Dark Matter are OBSERVERED (measured and quantified (refer to the rotation curves they are REAL)), what we don't have is enough measurements to ID the specifics (MOND or Transparent particles for Dark Matter), and for Dark Energy (the Cosmological Constant) we don't yet understand vacuum Energy (BUT we do know it's history)@@poksnee
For those of you are supper annoyed by Ekeberg’s argument and very confident of your understanding of current physics and that it is flawless cos it “assumes nothing” , the math is sound or proven in lab experiments.. let me throw a wrench 🔧 at that,… I’ll make this even more simple.. forget the standard candle. Speed of light is and can only be measured on the assumption that light travels both directions in the same speed. It is assumed the bounced back ray of light (reflected beam) has the same speed as the incident beam prior hitting reflector. There is no going around this fact. Assumptions are at the very core in laboratory experiments! So yeah… science is fundamentally built on assumptions. It can’t be helped. If there is a flaw in one or more assumptions, the results will be unavoidable ‘Systematic Error’! This is about Logic of identifying, understanding Problems and application of the right tools in the correct method for Solving it. If your logic is flawed , it doesn’t matter how good the math be you end up exactly like where we are today in physics/cosmology .. Stuck! Trying to bluff our way out of problems after problems patching it with “invention” after invention (like a software patch) … dark energy/dark matter… what not. If you have a small carpet, you can’t fit it into a bigger room! Pull one end to wall, the opposite side ends with a gap between the carpet and opposite wall. I agree with Ekeberg 100%.
There was also a discussion between Einstein and the Indian poet/philosopher Rabindranath Tagore about whether reality was subjective or objective. Beside being of general interest to philosophy, the subject also goes to the heart of the physical interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which bothered Einstein a lot. In this discussion, both great men showed sufficient awareness of the perspective of the other to carry on a very interesting dialogue.
This video popped up on my feed late at night a few days ago but never got around to watching it then it disappeared, glad it came up again. From a layperson’s perspective I agree it’s beginning to be difficult to trust everything coming out of the “science “ community these days as skeptics are brutally attacked from deviating from the official line that blurs money, politics and ego. The lambda CDM model does increasingly rely on assumptions in particular that the universe is homogeneous and isotopic at sufficiently large scales as we continue to discover larger and larger galactic structures. Will be very interested in hearing more from the interviewed gentleman.
When I hear discussions about the varied nature of distant objects, the same issue always comes to mind. Even Bjørn mentioned differences in the present tense. But the idea of the further "away" something is, is a false framing. It is further back in time. Thus, my question would be, could the behaviour, and in a sense "the natural laws" have changed over time? Thus, seeing differences in the past (the more "remote" objects) might then be explained by an evolution in the behaviour of the system, rather than it being different in different places alone. We have no idea what the universe is like in distant areas of the cosmos. If there is anything still there at all. It was so long ago, it could be nothing now. And how would, could, we know?
It could be analogous to the way Einstein differs from Newton for high speeds and strong gravitational fields. So it could be something like what you describe or some other as yet unknown property of the universe on a big scale. Whatever laws govern this would then reduce to GR on a smaller scale. That makes more sense to me than different laws in different places.
"my question would be" and that question has been answered by science. Your argument is for instance used by "young earth creationists" and it's easily refuted by using actual physics, instead of posting gratuitous stuff on YT.
@@TheMg49 Yes, scientists really have no idea how to explain dark matter and dark energy, which are meant to compose 95% of the matter-energy content of the universe, so I think it is premature or presumptuous to say that science has already explained it.
@@simonstebbins3838 When scientists don't know something, that doesn't mean they don't know anything. Scientists always don't know something, that's the reason why they still have jobs. They still have a lot of data, with new data arriving every day. It's just a matter of time when there is enough data so that all the puzzle pieces fit together properly. We do have the puzzle pieces, though. That means we aren't just blindly poking around.
I studied Physics at University 30 years ago. One of the things that put people like me off, was how it became more and more mathematical. I think that's part of the reason Physics has broken with philosophy. Theoretical physists now see mathematics as the basis of everything, and they don't really think about the philosophical elements anymore. I agree that this is a bit of a step backward, and I think it can prevent access to the debate from non-scientists (and non-mathematicians).
I think that's true, and the weird thing to me is that the focus on mathematics by theoretical physicists has had the effect of turning much of physics into something more like metaphysics than science. The theoretical physicists often seem to think that their mathematics is sufficient to explain things, as if the math doesn't just describe our observations but provides the interpretations and explanations as well. It seems like experimentation has become optional as far as declaring a theory and its interpretation valid.
All science is unconnected with philosophy; the idea that they used to be connected because the first scientists described themselves as 'natural philosophers' is a linguistic error. 'Philosophy' simply means 'love of wisdom' and 'natural philosophy' denoted a desire to have 'wisdom' about 'nature'.
@@BenjWarrant "You have correctly seen that this line of thought was of great influence on my efforts and indeed Ernst Mach and still much more Hume, whose treatise on understanding I studied with eagerness and admiration shortly before finding relativity theory." "It is very possible that without these philosophical studies I can not say that the solution would have come." -- Albert Einstein, in a letter to physics Professor Moritz Schlick of the University of Vienna
@@BenjWarrant Are you honestly saying you don't see how much of cosmology these days is more metaphysics than physics? "I believe that every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no matter how pure a "positivist" he may fancy himself. The metaphysicist believes that the logically simple is also the real. The tamed metaphysicist believes that not all that is logically simple is embodied in experienced reality, but that the totality of all sensory experience can be "comprehended" on the basis of a conceptual system built on premises of great simplicity. The skeptic will say that this is a "miracle creed." Admittedly so, but it is a miracle creed which has been borne out to an amazing extent by the development of science." -- that pesky Einstein again
In explaining how we arrived where we are at in cosmology by creating the Jenga tower of assumptions at around 8:45 into the video, isn't that how science works? Making assumptions that fit the data and the model until you learn something new that changes things? Like the JWST seeing galaxies larger than they should be for their age - that just means we learned something that we didn't know before and gives us an opportunity to adjust our models to fit the data again.
The divergence between philosophy and science (and the inward loss of philosophical focus and consequence relevance as a way of knowing) was Einstein’s 1917 publishing of Cosmological Consideration in the General Theory of Relativity. This was the collapse of the static module of the universe and the second and irrecoverable blow to natural/religious philosophy harmony that, until that point, survived the collapse of the heliocentric model.
I agree. Cosmology is a description of what physicists believe to be true. But it is based on observations . The problem, though is that there are several interpretations of the observations and that makes it a murky science. It's worth mentioning that natural selection in a physics department selects for physicists who support the work of those in office. If you can't help with the course work & research it's unlikely you'll be useful.
This habit of adding successive "fixes" to the current model sounds suspiciously like adding epicycles to the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. The most basic unresolved schism in modern physics (quantum vs. relativity) added to the growing fixes shouts loudly to my ears that we really need a new theory altogether. After all, it only took a couple small inconsistencies to classic physics to bring about the 20th century physics revolution of relativity and quantum physics. At the beginning of the 21st century we need an Einstein 2.0 to find that revolution for us.
I like Mr. Ekeberg's description of current cosmology as being a series of fixes successively built on the existing edifice to explain observations as they come in. I don't pretend to be an expert on cosmological theory but I generally follow news in science and I've had that impression for a while. Data that jars the current status of the mainstream model can come in at any time unexpectedly. A prominent example from the late 90s is the supernova data which showed that the universe expansion was accelerating. At this moment observations are coming in from the James Webb Space Telescope which show the emergence of large galaxy structure very early in the history of the universe which the current theories of galaxy evolution struggle to explain. How cosmology will adapt to the observations due to come in over the next several decades is anybody's guess.
The unfortunate addendum here - in the form of an elephant in the room - is that we have a pretty huge contingency on both sides of the God issue that is clearly leading the evidence where they want it to go versus the other way around. I say this as a theist - I would much rather have an honest appraisal of the facts than a “story” that conveniently fits the narrative. I’m realizing as I get older how naive it is to trust science, as all scientific findings are interpreted by and filtered through our crazy, crazy brains.
@@PeterStrider A takeaway from Ptolemaic cosmology is that most paths can be decomposed into a series of simple atomic paths (eg. Fourier series and circles). As someone who leans toward an instrumentalist philosophy of science, I wouldn't say that Ptolemaic cosmology was wrong, simply unparsimonious in relation to Kepler's theory.
@@Papa-dopoulos Why do you need to "trust" science? Everyone is aware that there are issues with Cosmology, it doesn't affect your life one way or another (unless you want it to affect your life for some reason), so you just wait until the issues are resolved. In other important areas of life, science either works or it doesn't. Your car either starts or it doesn't. If it starts every time, then it is trustworthy, then you trust it, that's all to it.
Ekeberg mentioned the "standard candle" and that it's "theory dependent". Scientists accepted the "standard candle" after it was independently verified outside the theory. Ekeberg needs to read about that detail.
Exactly. As one of the astronomers who discovered the standard candle nature of SNeIa, I can say we were only guided by theory and never theory dependent. The class of SNeIa was only identified in 1985 by Elias et al based purely on observations. We formed the Calan/Tololo Survey to discover and measure a few dozen supernovae of Type Ia to verify they were standard candles. They were not - there was a significant spread in intrinsic luminosities. But we found in Phillips 1993 that there was a single correction based on the speed of evolution of the brightness of the explosion that allowed us to correct to a standard luminosity of about 6%. The tightness of this relationship, which is purely empirical, has not been adequately explained from theory yet. There are problems still remaining in supernova cosmology but not the ones mentioned here.
I interpreted his standard candle comment to highlight that if any of the candles are incorrect, the measurements are distorted. An extension of his claim that "cosmology is a game of jenga".
@@robbiep742 as far as I understand, the whole of human civilization is a game of Jenga, in which the pieces are welded together. That's why we have sayings like: "Edifice of Science" and "standing on the shoulders of giants". His tone is that Philosophy would help transform Science into a serious knowledge endeavor if only the "nerds" stopped calculating and started thinking more broadly. More specifically, I interpret that "standard candle" and inflation refer to each other in a vicious circle. I don’t take Ekeberg seriously.
@@DLee1100s I don’t fully understand. Cosmologists know (don't assume) how supernovae work, that's why they "dare" trust it, even though it's many lightyears away. What assumption are you thinking about?
He is well-informed and clearly explains his ideas. I think he is spot on about physicists not understanding philosophy. Of course philosophical assumptions are made in cosmology, but there is a pretence that science can exist without philosophy.
@userJohnSmith a rather sweeping blanket statement, wouldn't you say? Tell me, have you ever found yourself searching for your glasses, sunglasses, hat, or the like only to discover you were wearing it the entire time? If so, you would know that it is tremendously easy to ignore that which you take for granted, and an external perspective is sometimes useful. If you work with data and you actually understand what you are doing, you should know full well that all data is theory-laden. Interpretation of data, doubly so. There are many ways to fit the data. Fitting the data is, as they say, necessary but not sufficient to prove the validity of the model. After all, Newtonian mechanics was sufficient until it wasn't. Phlogiston was a useful placeholder like dark matter and dark energy until it wasn't. All logic rests upon axioms, and all axioms are assumptions, no matter how useful they have been in the past. Ditch the arrogance, friend, check your metaphysical and epistemological assumptions at the door, pick up a book, and learn.
@John Smith your statement would hold weight if you starting by saying, "as a philosopher..." but you are really just confirming the point being made, by claiming to know about philosophy as a scientist. Science does not exist in a vacuum, but it presumes the universe to be a certain way e.g. there is the assumption that the universe obeys physical laws. This is not something science can prove, but it is necessary for science to work.
The public is very interested in cosmology, therefore mr. Ekeberg, whose idea is that someone should rethink cosmology, gets some attention, too. That sums up the entire interview.
Layman's question: If Universe settled uniformly after big bang, then did Galaxies form in random places both near and far from big bang location? So further away doesn't mean older and there are new and very old Galaxies in same parts of the Universe? If so you cannot run back time using models to the starting location of the big bang?
He has not been the first to say this, as many in the Electric Universe Paradigm has been saying much the same. Though.... he keeps saying they do not know what to put in its place, and all they need to do is acknowledge the presence of electromagnetic fields, ergo, electric fields and fluids(currents). The solar system acts as an RLC circuit, so too does the galaxy.
After watching several of these programs with well qualified people; I have decided that the "great answer" is just as likely to come from a wheat farmer in Kansas...:-)
Hi @marty. Thanks for your comment! By "obviously accurate arguments", that you say is "a red flag", I meant in the same way that the comment "science has become more and more specialised" might be an obviously accurate argument, because of its truth based on historical fact. In any case it is easy to criticise and harder to praise, although it might be more positive, constructive, rewarding and fulfilling to praise. There are many comments here that I view as obviously accurate arguments. For example, when he speaks about the relationship and closeness between philosophy and sciences, how they've now become "almost like two solitudes" and that in the past "all the classical scientists through James Maxwell up through Einstein would've had some degree of philosophy background". An obvious example is Einstein's self-styled 'Olympia Academy' he set up with his great friend Solovine and others only a few years before he took off like a rocket (theoretically speaking, of course).
Aren't String Theory, Inflation Theory and Normalisation in Quantum Mechanics just Philosophy dressed up as Science? When people resort to quasi religious tenets or dubious mathematics then surely they are practicing something other than science and that that 'thing' is more belief than fact. Philosophy has a long history of belief. He is quite right to say that the foundations are shaky. I think his comments at 10:25 are like music to my ears :-) What a truly refreshing interview that was.
It is all about authority, power and money. Standard cosmology model is a religion rather than science. All those big expensive gizmos they have to study the universe are not for free. Everyone who dares to question absurdities in modern cosmology is immediately ridiculed and treated as a big danger to the 'business'. The best prove is totally unsuccessful fusion power generation concept. The foundation of modern astrophysics seems to be completely mistaken. They spent billions of dollars and for the last 50 years. Without a single reactor running they are still not convinced they don't have their theory right. The first star that is available to study is just 8 light minutes away but astrophysicists ASSUMED they know what happens there without a shadow of a doubt. I bet I will find a lot of 'explanations' how stupid I am instead of real explanation how stars work.
Ekeberg says that "some people" are not convinced about the current model of cosmology. What percentage of people would that be? What are the philosophical leanings of those people?
Cosmology is not a science like physics or chemistry, or even observational astronomy. It is more like archaeology, paleontology or anthropology. In the former, theory leads to experimentation which ether tends to prove or disprove the theory. In the latter, one builds a picture with incomplete data. Then, as often happens, a new discovery comes along and the whole structure needs to be reformed and rethought. Another aspect where these differ is that physics and chemistry can be used to do something. In the case of the others, it is only explanatory. I mention this because if a physical theory is wrong and one tries to use it to obtain an effect, then one will fail. In the case of the others, if our theory is wrong, there is no meaningful effect.
Exactly, Louis, in so far as it attempts to address "origins" and "endings": we were not here when all this started, and will not be here when it completes, so that's bad news for observation and corroboration. To infer cosmological beginnings from what we observe today is a solidly metaphysical quest. The chain of connection is too tortuous and uncertain. I have no problems with trying to understand the world as is, but expecting to use such observations to "prove" or "model" how it all started is overselling the evidence and the theory.
@@gregf1299 Good points. Interesting that you mentioned metaphysics. I am reading Stehen Meyer's "The Return of the God Hypothesis". He mentions the need for metaphysics in understanding these things.
Ekeberg is spot on. It's not that difficult to understand, either. Take a class in logic and the philosophy of science and you will understand the nature of these limitations (over/underdetermined phenomena, the GIGO problem inherent in logic and mathematics, parsimony as a guiding principle not an absolute law.) W. V. O. Quine's Web of Belief is a fantastic primer. Larry Laudan's Progress and its Problems is also great as an introduction to Kuhnian paradigms without Kuhn's assumption of intranslatability.
The Moon landings are fake, and anthropogenic cataclysmic climate change is fake. The big pharmaceutical companies are more corrupt and criminal than imaginable. Sadly, 'science' has become a nothing but an avenue to scam citizens out of billions of dollars.
This talk makes a very significant contribution. I have argued for the need for theology, science and philosophy to synergize and work together to better understand the universe rather than continue to quarrel in the 21st century. This way many perceived paradoxes will Just vanish and make rapid progress in the advancement of knowledge, so I think.
be sure to leverage whatever computers and the web which operate on a theological or philosophic basis. I am impressed you can prophesy about unknown unknowns.
Theoretical physicists adopt certain core metaphysical assumptions as starting points when they work at refining the Standard Model of Cosmology to make it account for new information and discoveries. Aren't such assumptions really euphemistic references to an actual non-theistic pre-commitment?
I want to know if you can answer these three question: 1) For galaxies that we can see 13 billion LY distant, what is their average distance between each other? 2) For galaxies that are only 1 billion LY distant, what is their average distance between each other? 3) What is the difference between these to measures and what does it say about the expansion of space between those galaxies 13 BLY away relative to those 1BLY away?
@@carlosgaspar8447 You wrote, "maybe unrelated but there are galaxies supposedly moving closer to each other and eventually collide." So, let's think about that for a moment. These galactic interactions are due to gravity. (Check out the topic of the "cosmic web" sometime. Recent research on this has been quite fruitful and fascinating.) In "local regions" of the universe, relatively close galaxies and galaxy clusters overcome the expansion of spacetime because of gravity.
Read the article "Ask Ethan: Is the Universe’s expansion accelerating or not?" by Ethan Siegel (Jan. 13, 2023). The expansion rate appears to be the same between 13 billion years ago, 1 billion years ago, and today. Of course, as the universe continues to expand, then galaxies farther away from each other (I'm talking on large scales here) are receding from each other faster than galaxies that are not as far away from each other - we have to distinguish between expansion rate (which is the same everywhere, even while it's slowly decreasing over time) on the one hand, and recessional rate on the other, which is directly related to the expansion rate but is an effect of the universe's expansion. Here's how Siegel puts it: "Even though the expansion rate - also known as the Hubble constant/parameter - still decreases, for the past ~6 billion years it’s been decreasing at a slow enough rate that as the volume of the Universe grows, these same distant objects now appear to recede away from us faster and faster; they’re now moving away from us in an accelerated fashion."
Galactic mergers are going to mess this calculation up. A galaxy we see at 1LY might have been in separate smaller (close) galaxies 13LY ago. The Milky Way has many dwarf galaxies orbiting it today that would be indistinguishable from the Milky Way at 13LY distance. There are many measurement issues as well making it unreliable to compare the two datasets.
We can only detect a few very large galaxies 13 BLY away due to the limitations of our telescopes, so we don't have enough data to even begin to estimate how far apart they are.
Philosophy is inherent in the action. There's no real possible way to separate philosophy and physics so this is kind of a fun conversation topic than anything valuable.
For a while now, years actually, I've realized that there's always a story, and people, behind everything in science. People have personal motivations, and needs, to make their idea succeed, for a variety of reasons. This means that when a new law became established, or a discovery explained, there's an underlying story motivated by simple human urges desires and rational explanations for things that become more complex when one truly delves in to history and reality. This means that alternative views may not be untrue, they just lack popular support, and only mathematics can be used to argue these points, but without support the mathematics of alternatives is not explored fully
My thoughts: Not necessarily. It can give predictions to an extent within the scope of the model's framework. Physics spreads across a spectrum of theoretical and experimental modelling and prediction.
@@subhuman3408 You wrote, "Physics is philosophy that gives correct predictions." I think there's a better way to articulate that: Physics is philosophy that make scientifically testable predictions. They might be correct - or they might be wrong. It depends on the results of the tests. ;-)
@@subhuman3408 The problem with physicists is they generally fail to grasp when they're doing philosophy and what assumptions they are making which are philosophical.
@@subhuman3408 physics is mathematically driven. However, it cannot quantify human Values. Values like ... love, reason, truth, goodness, beauty, etc. Therefore, Life is more than scientific understanding and "predictions".
I agree it was at that time, around the 1920s, we derailed ourselves but rather blame the Copenhagen Agreement for nailing it. Very little progress has been made since all things, including fields, were regarded as ‘particulate’. It’s essentially a reductive kantian materialistic approach which i regard as deeply flawed, and responsible for much of the chaos we see around us today.
8:30 mark. The Standard Model of Cosmology (Lambda-CDM/Concordance) has become “like a Jenga Tower.” Lol. And it’s about to fall with each new observation and data reading like a house of Kuhn cards!
The problem with challenging the existing physical models is that it only produces more questions than answers. The field is open, anybody can contribute as long as the contribution is supported by the observations.
I can't help but feel like his description of what cosmology could be if we didn't assume the things we do basically describes the same thought process that lead to epicycles.
I see the opposite. Cosmology today is much like Ptolomaic astronomy. Cycles, epicycles, and equants are all used to patch up the discrepancies between the simplest form of the model and the observed universe. In the Standard Model we use dark matter, dark energy, and inflation to do the same sort of thing.
LOL, there is so much fudging going on today to try to get the cosmological model to actually fit observation, it is just so very much like that time before Copernicus with people jumping through all kinds of hoops to to get an anthropocentric cosmology, with Earth at the center of the universe, to fit observations. Note that the model presently held as what is essentially the 'one true religion' was born of a metaphysical notion. The original interpretation of the 'red shift' as representing velocity, implying some explosive starting point for the universe. was very explicitly intended as a 'proof of god' concept - If it had that point of origin, thermodynamics requires that for that spring to unwind like that, someone had to have initially wound it. So we have 'scientists' today speculating that 'well, the initial 'nothingness' is inherently unstable' which implies billions of other universes likely because there's still plenty of 'nothing' left out there beyond our universe to be equally unstable... The current standard model, with its 'Doppler shift light = velocity' predates Einstein, who said that the Doppler effect was a feature of special relativity, a feature of discrete inertial frames of reference, so we got the first big fudge - 'well, except for light'. What if the 'red shift' were merely a function of a curved space instead? Fun to think about 'big bang' - it would have resulted in faster than light expansion of the universe. The speed of light defines temporal location, so we're in a time zone earlier than the big bang - it hasn't happened yet. You got a problem with 'what if's? The present standard model is chock full of 'em. But that's ok, suspecting there may be a fundamental reason for not being able to come up with a comprehensive description of everything - Humans are a part of the universe and to come up with an accurate and thorough description of the workings of the universe would amount to the universe pointing to itself - constitute a 'self-referential system'. Self-referential system - like 'pulling yourself up by your boot straps'. The eye has difficulty seeing itself and we can't exactly step out of the universe to see what it going on. While such systems can be constructed, they invariably result in their own destruction.
He didn't say *why* scene became distinct from natural philosophy and then from philosophy. It happened because science worked. It gave us actionable, reliable and usable knowledge.
For a philosopher of science he seems to be ignoring (like most scientists themselves) Thomas Kuhn's 1960's book on the Structure of Scientific Revolution that introduced the idea of paradigm shifts that explains why questions to accumulate in every discipline until a radical shift occurs but that does not invalidate the internal consistency or usefulness of all the work that has been done till then.
5:27: ‘’. . . completely subservient to it (science) and doesn’t actually ask critical questions’’ That is a completely misleading interpretation of analytic philosophy. There are countless philosophers who are posing challenging questions in response to many of the big ideas in science. Two that immediately come to mind are in the field of consciousness studies and quantum mechanics. Philosophy is concerned with critical reflective thinking; quite baffling how someone could be so uncharitable towards it as a discipline.
@@jangaraj1229 No one does real physics these days ... it's all about getting funding for projects which resonate with the readers of 'scientific' paperbacks.
Very interesting discussion. In my view it is very useful to question the underlining assumptions of any knowledge structure to test it's usefulness. A good example of this Al-Ghazli's 11th text " The Incoherence of the Philosophers" where even the most basic metaphysical assumptions of cause and effect are questioned.
@@fukpoeslaw3613 Al-Ghazli was an 11th century Persian Islamic polymath who questioned the Greek philosophy of the necessity of natural cause and effect ,in part to account for God's miracles. Hume as I understand it had similar doubts of the necessity of cause and effect
@@donmc1950 yes, & the dude from Ghazal is said to have singlehandedly brought an end to the golden age of Islam, by making a too good case for God as opposed to the laws of physics. But anyways, the 11th text you said, right?
@@fukpoeslaw3613 Al-Ghazli essentially questioned the certainty of the 3 forms of inquiry: scientific, logical and spiritual ; as means to seeking truth. But relying on only 2 of these forms is also erroneous. Unfortunately Al-Ghazli's followers abandoned scientific inquiry. Today's Western thought is mostly following scientific and logical inquiry
On AIA "guidelines" if the person has a bias how can that be rebuked or be shown to be guiding or framing their argument, if you cant critique the person for having said bias, when they conceive of the argument?
Gödel dismantled positivism, but sophistry found it useful for precisely the same reasons that philosophers disqualify it: the manipulation of opinion with hidden paradox. If the axioms cannot be challenged then either horn of a dilemma is a deadly weapon of either offense or defense. Kant identified paralogism (not paradox) as the obstacle to reason; the upshot is that the inductive goals and forms of mathematics require _inductive refinement of the axiomatic foundations_ based on the resolution of discovered paralogism. The positivist sophists may go home at this point, and good riddance. But the work of philosophy remains. First to improve mathematical reasoning in keeping with its cogent inductive process by reducing paralogism in the foundations. Then applying this reasoning to the demarcation between mathematical and empirical reasoning, which Kant has already duly outlined. But a cogent metaphysics is the metatheoretical foundation of both of these disciplines and therefore must oversee their mutual interactions and distinctions, as well as their internal consistency. This is a very different process than participating in current academic mathematics or physics cultures. Needing to support the useless cultural apparatus that accompanies fundamentalist nonsense about real number theory, the big bang, the contradictory standard models of both quantum and cosmos, and other castles in the metaphysical heavens, is the reason that monks go to the mountains and deserts to contemplate reality; metaphysics can only be mastered by a person who masters themselves first. And culture does not teach mastery, but only self-enslavement to the insane machinery of society. Think for yourself, then your ignorance becomes apparent. At least that is how it seems to me. Thanks for this refreshing perspective.
Great post. I was introduced to the Incompleteness Theorem as a physics undergrad. Best I could make use of that masterpiece was to use its ideas in a fictional essay for a utopian literature class ...
@@johnpayne7873 There is some humor in the fact that that the mechanics of his theory is precisely the same mathematical trick used everywhere in analysis: using logarithmic representation as a method of encoding arithmetical values and producing dual expressions for summation and multiplication. He used an encryption encoding to produce formal expressions to evaluate logically. But in Gödel's case the reasoning is abstracted from empiricism and treats purely logical expressions numerically, in a manner that echoes the use of natural logarithms in empirical analysis of phenomenal measures. So it strikes me as humorous that in order to argue against his results, one has to undermine the Eulerian workhorse of all quantitive analysis in the natural logarithm and its broad applications. There are good mathematical arguments to be made there, but I have never seen the discussion taken to that level. But it's possible that he was playing a masterful logical trick on everyone. If we can resolve the difficulties associated with the logic of incompleteness then we will know the difference between synthetic mathematics and phenomenal analysis and ironically the work of Kant will have been completed without overturning physics. But I wouldn't hold my breath. I think that Gödel was serious, but that he set a clever trap for detractors; you cannot have logical completeness without rejecting the logic of calculus. Either way, positivism is out of rope at that point.
@@haniamritdas4725 I do. The title was "Epistemology and the Ideal Physicist" and was written a theatrical play. The setting was a lobby outside a lecture hall at Limbo U and the cast included Einstein, Feynman, Hume and myself. I purposely left Godel out to amuse my literature professor who was an authority on philosophy of science.
@@haniamritdas4725 That was immensely fun and informative to read. It would be great to continue this exchange on another format. Suggestion as to how to do that safely?
Interesting perspective from Einstein that I wasn't aware of. But later in life he was much more willing to admit the value of philosophy. See library of living philosophers.
I'm very surprised to hear nothing about PLASMA COSMOLOGY. The basic flaw of the standard model should be obvious: It's based on the gravitation of gas and dust. But those make up just a few percent of all matter. The rest is PLASMA, which has electro-magnetical properties, that are a vastly stronger force than gravitation. Do the math with electro-magnetic equations and you'll see, that you don't need fancy dark matter/energy to describe the observable universe. Unfortunately most astronomers get no electro-magnetic education at all at university. They don't even know, that the huge magnetic fields, that they observe everywhere in the cosmos, could not exist without enormous amounts of flowing electricity. So it's the plasma physicists of the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE community, who are creating currently the new cosmological paradigm.
One of the abilities of a good model is to make accurate predictions. It seems that plasma cosmologists have been able to make some predictions that have been proven out in observations. I believe it was Wal Thornhill, from the Electric Universe, who successfully predicted that the Deep Impact mission to Comet Tempel 1 would produce an electrical discharge, which it arguably did. What you don't want to repeatedly hear about the standard model is "This was not expected".
@@johnpayne7873 my goodness. In astrophysics, we certainly teach turbulence. We use Kolmogorov theory and its modifications, Navier Stokes, convective theory, etc all the time.
@@nicholassuntzeff228 I am happy to be corrected. Not trying to be a pest, but how many course hours are dedicated to teaching turbulence? As a physics undergrad I took separate courses - all from the Aerospace Engineering department - in introduction to fluid mechanics, real fluids and boundary layer theory but turbulence wasn't a separate topic until post grad. Even with all that, I would say it wasn't enough when I got involved in hemorheology. Teaching Kolmogorov theory is fantastic; I got it the hard way through stat mech approach to bioelectricity.
@@johnpayne7873 We tend to teach hydro and turbulence but focused on what is needed for understanding astrophysical theory. For instance, the formation of exoplanets is tied to turbulence and angular momentum. In my day, we had one or two courses purely on hydro in grad school. However, students have to learn much more these days - especially Bayesian statistics and ML - that we don't have time to teach some of the basics as deeply as we would like. So I would say that we are skimping on some of the astrophysics.
1:45 "how the science operates as a science and pretends not to do metaphysics." Love it! I've been trying to articulate that idea myself. I would add to that "isn't it interesting to hear some public skeptics point to anything outside of this science as 'woo woo'"? 3:00 The beef I have with this profession of science is how none of these geniuses or authorities of science, say from the 1920s or so, ever published some kind of logical demonstration explaining how it is that NOW the practice of physics should proceed unmoored from its philosophical roots since we have now come to the point that we can dispense with it and declare these philosophical questions irrelevant to the practice of physics. Yet many in the field proceed with their profession as if there were some kind of establishment for this mode of thinking. 9:50 "the core of the (standard) model is taken as a matter of faith" 11:30 I think it's impossible to create a cosmology or to have a cosmological understanding without having made some metaphysical assumptions to begin with. 12:02 "but it's one of the legacies of the split between philosophy and Science in the 20th century is a strand of thought sometimes called logical empiricism or positivism."
@mojojojo1529 philosophy is the childhood of Science, therefore it has been superseded. Philosophy still has a role in the areas of knowledge that we don't care too much about yet to apply Science; we'll get to those eventually, though.
@mojojojo1529 about science = philosophy, sum of our efforts, broaden our inquiry. I agree 100% with you on those, except on metaphysics. About, philosophy = science; it's just like gardening = agriculture. I'm not being facetious, they are synonyms in practice, but semantically different, right? About metaphysics. Our brain is a very complex "patter recognition and reality simulation system", it evolved to encompass "our reality", which is a narrow simulation of the "real reality" that exists outside of our skulls. What we call Metaphysics is what we imagine "real reality" might be if only we could go beyond Physics. In other words, Metaphysics stands for our ignorance, while Physics is a model of "our reality".
All aspects of human thought should be weighed against one another and should augment one another when appropriate. Certainty requires only one thing: proof that withstands all scrutiny within our means. Anything outside that is theory or conjecture.
Scrutiny doesn't work. People are going to miss out important scrutiny that can take out the fact. Continuous surprising predictions is only thing that matters. General relativity predicted Gravitational lensing, Gravitational waves, black holes. These are UNIMAGINABLE WITHOUT General relativity.
@@subhuman3408 Good points. I think Ekeberg points would have more credibility if he could also cite points where General Relativity (and other astronomical/cosmological models) have made great strides in understanding.
There is absolutely no way that scientists could ever be biased since we all know science is the only arbiter of truth and scientists dispassionately interpret data. /s
Great to see that questioning of scientism is gaining ground. Calling tweakable mathematical models "theories" was a huge mistake. And, given the history of the epicyclic models of planetary motion … which were mathematically beautiful and awesomely accurate, but mechanistically, were "not even wrong" … there really is no excuse. Back then, few realised that their ideas were based on an unconsciously held and unexamined geocentric paradigm. Likewise, modern physicists is based, just as unconsciously, on chronocentricism and atomism … Niether of which is philosophically tenable. And sure, there is no place in academia for such ideas. Hence we can expect the next century to be as woo-generating as the last century has been. Sad, because understanding the "great mysteries", "anomalies" and "problems" of current physics and cosmology is quite trivial if one has sound (non-westernised) philosophical basics.
It is the duty of scientific method for scientists to ALWAYS to question scientists. It's not like some theologians getting together assembling some claim they extrapolated from an interpretation of some holy-book text and then insist believers take their findings on faith.
The epicycle model was wrong though. It violates conservation of angular momentum, since there isn’t a force to produce the epicycles. It was thought to be the “hand of god”, which is silly metaphysical nonsense.
@@yugioh395 Yes. directly in account of taking that tweakable mathematical model to be an explanation of mechanism. And don't forget .. physics will still forgive any error and will happily generate mystical woo ... if the "theory" is mathematically "extremely accurate". And, wrong or not, epicyclic models were awesomely accurate. Modern models are just as "wrong" because they unnecessarily offend philosophical basics. Believing that they describe mechanism is an error in the dogmas of scientism. Pretty maths which can be tweaked to awesome accuracy have nothing to do with understanding.
@@casparuskruger4807 Sure, but between the funders of science and white-coat guys replacing black-coat guys in courtrooms, dogmas have been normalised, and more scientism happens than Science worth calling Science.
This man has a clear mind and made an excellent description of today’s physic foundation. Though I don’t think for a second that his colleagues aren’t somehow aware of all this. On the topic jobs he is right, but here also this obvious. I started in abstract mathematics, but soon realized that, if you don’t belong to the rare most brilliant students which I don’t, there is simply no place for you in the very small job market. There is another interesting point. It is frustrating to see that relativity and quantum physics still are the pinnacle of physics while new questions pile up. Maybe this is due to the fact that low hanging fruits have been plucked and therefore it is really difficult to make bombastic progresses in science today. About philosophy, yeah, not convinced, I fail to see any productivity or world changing results there.
"Cosmology" is a category of thought, a tool box into which any idea that tries to make sense of reality can be placed. It is not a monolithic or discrete theory. If individual cosmologies have "shaky foundations", it is because they boil down to meta-narratives or first principles that necessarily, and sometimes explicitly, beg the question they attempt to answer. Pointing out the inadequacy of human faculties to push beyond the limitations of perception or reason is a pointless exercise. We are fallible and foolish, temporally bound and constrained by the very faculties of understanding with which we attempt to make sense of the world. This is why the hubris of Humanism is the most ridiculous of cosmologies. The most inadequate god a human being can worship is the one in the mirror.
He makes some very smart points, but the most revealing one comes at the very end: there is no room for unorthodox views and for thinking outside the box in today's overpopulated and underfunded academia. Creativity is a virtue only up to a point, but don't rock the boat too much, or it's no job for you.
"WhyCan'tIRemainAnonymous?!" writes, "He makes some very smart points, but the most revealing one comes at the very end: there is no room for unorthodox views and for thinking outside the box in today's overpopulated and underfunded academia. Creativity is a virtue only up to a point, but don't rock the boat too much, or it's no job for you." But in fact, it is precisely on that point that he's completely wrong, and all we have to do is look at the published research in physics to see what Ekeberg is claiming isn't there. Whoops! Indeed, when he said that, that's when I knew he didn't know what he was talking about.
@@whycantiremainanonymous8091 I'm discussing theoretical physics and cosmological physics and the "Standard Model" of physics, which is what Bjørn Ekeberg specifically refers to in his discussion. I wrote a main response post to the OP video in which I discussed numerous examples that show why what Ekeberg was saying is wrong. I could have done the same with biology, genetics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, archaeology, and so on. My point is simply that what Ekeberg was is simply a false portrayal of science and scientists. All we have to do is look at the actual research published in the professional science literature to see that it's wrong. The issue has nothing to do scientists being "hush-hush" about their assumptions, because they routinely discuss their assumptions in their research articles (especially in regard to where they're relying on past research, which they reference, and then get into the research that they conducted based on previous results). Also, the issue isn't about merely being "unorthodox." You can be as unorthodox as you like as long as in regard to the scientific research itself you can produce results, following the procedures of the scientific method appropriate to the field of science in which the research is being conducted - and, indeed, even if the research results don't back up your hypothesis, that information itself is relevant and useful for science.
@@steveg1961 Again, examples? You describe a literature but cite not one article in support of your claims. I've been looking at stuff being published in my fields of expertise (admittedly, outside the "hard" sciences) for decades, and also have "insider“ experience (as both author and journal editor), and can see little evidence for such openness. Yes, people discuss assumptions, but it's incredibly hard to get anything published without being part of an academic "tribe" with a shared agenda, and, accordingly, a shared view of basic assumptions. Moreover, scholars with an independent approach quickly develop a bad reputation. That's not new, by the way. Fringe ideas were always very hard to push. The difference now is that you won't get a job anywhere near a university nowadays if you're on that fringe, while in the past you could at least get employment of some kind. And the problem with that, in turn, is that when a scientific paradigm outlives its usefullness, the garden of fringe ideas, despite being messy and full of weeds, is where new paradigms emerge from. The current structure of academia is seriously endangering the biodiversity of academic ideas.
He didn't give any clear indication of how Philosophy can be applied to cosmological models. It just sounded like he was trying to justify he years of Philosophy education. There's a lot of evidence for some of the cosmological "assumptions" as he put it. While there are a lot of unanswered questions in cosmology - I fail to see how Philosophy can help (ask Lawrence Kraus what he thinks of Philosophy).
Fascinating! Ekeberg touched on several items I have often wondered about - such as Physics not containing any Metaphysics... i.e. as pointed out, where/why are certain presumptions acceptable, how fundamental is fundamental - how and when does a property become emergent and what combination of fundamentals causes/allpws that transition?
I think what you state after "ie" is very much science. Sure scientists can become dogmatic (if that's the right word) but history shows that science always wins out in the end over fondly held ideas. I don't think physics should contain metaphysics. I think physics should remain the realm of what we do know and not what we don't. I might be barking up the wrong tree, but isn't metaphysics just about making stuff up then making it a belief? Yes many in science do that as I manteioned but at least many admit they are speculating. I'm not into speculation. If a question can't be answered with evidence that can stand up to solid scrutiny, well it remains unanswered and I'm fine with that. I am also fine with answers that did have the best available support being replaced with answers that have even better support at a later time. At the end of the day, it is best to hold beliefs with a light grip. :)
@@subhuman3408 Not it is not. Philosophy is all about rational thought and challenging fixed thinking. It is not science or pseudoscience. Science is a process that aims to discover the facts about how things work. Pseudoscience is an attempt to brand things that are false as true. Philosophy will never make discoveries about nature. But it can question the methods and conclusions of scientists. But scientists can do that too.
@@robguyatt9602 You wrote, "But scientists can do that too." And it is on that specific point that Bjørn Ekeberg's discussion went completely off the rails, because scientists can and do do that - and their philosophy is much better, and indeed more insightful, precisely because they are much more intimately familiar with the subject matter than almost any professional philosopher.
The standard model of cosmology is still in its Flat Earth phaze. The Electric Universe model seems to be reproducible. Once text books are written concepts are hard to change.
Good, clear, and very interesting interview/conversation. Thanks. Thumbs up! (Edit: I have no ideas about how we might go beyond the Standard Model of Cosmology, except to say that I see no good reason to assume that a cataclysmic event associated with the Standard Model of Cosmology was the beginning of everything. It's quite possible that our observable universe is a relatively small part of something much larger, maybe even infinite in extent and duration, i.e., a preexisting medium within which our observable universe emerged and is evolving toward equilibrium. It's in that sense that I think that many universes will remain a possibility. This is different from the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum theory, which I think is wrong.)
@John Smith Evidence for what? Something predating the hypothesized beginning of the known universe? I agree. It's just more reasonable than assuming that nothing predated the hypothesized beginning of the known universe.
@@deevnn Like much of cosmology, it's speculation based on logic. Assuming that there was actually a cataclysmic event that initiated the omnidirectional large scale expansion of our observable universe, then it's reasonable to assume that it's part of a preexisting universe that's much larger, maybe even infinite in extent and duration. It's a possibility that can't be ruled out. It's therefore unwarranted to say that the point at which backward extrapolation can go no further is the beginning of everything. We don't know what "everything" is. (The observational science tells us that the farther we're able to see, then the more stuff we see.) Or, we can, as some do, say that our universe emerged from nothing, which makes no sense at all to me. I prefer the idea that something predated the hypothesized beginning of our observable universe.
While I enjoy hearing perspectives like Dr. Ekeberg’s, who is certainly a very articulate and well informed presenter, I have to agree with physicists like Roger Penrose and Max Tegmark, that the way we now understand our universe is thru the math, and since most philosophers can’t really do the math and physics anymore, and having finally studied both the philosophy of science and the math at a non-trivial level, that unfortunately it’s now very difficult for philosophy anymore to remain relevant in these fields. Historically science emerged from philosophy, and that is important to understand and appreciate, but the science has moved on. As Einstein himself once said, the big problem is that first principles are unknown to us; physicists can only describe what is. The biggest question is why the universe exists at all, why “there is something rather than nothing,” and neither philosophy or physics can answer that question. This might be philosophically unsatisfying, as philosophy likes to discover these first principles, but that is just speculation. Personally, I always liked the famously witty Columbia philosophy professor Sidney Morgenbesser’s answer, when one of his graduate students asked him that question, to which he responded, “Even if there was nothing, you’d still be complaining!” ;-)
'Historically science emerged from philosophy, and that is important to understand and appreciate, but the science has moved on.' Science and philosophy are intertwined and so it is unrealistic to say that science has moved on. Main stream scientists may choose to ignore philosophy, but when they do so it is to the detriment of science itself. 'why “there is something rather than nothing,”' I do not understand why that question is considered by many to be the biggest question there is. The answer is so obvious.
Most physicists and philosophers forget that the foundation based realty is eternal as a process. Penrose seems to have the hang of such a nature of time, so he formulated his theory of CCC. Very few physicists and philosophers, can understand this nature of time.
The tedious truth implied by this truly excellent presentation is that when I studied Philosophy 40 years ago, the course included some of the most boring topics ever. These were headed 'language philosophy' ('When a man asks 'Is this a table?' what sense is he giving the word 'table'? Etc.). Utterly sterile. Other than that a great deal of very interesting basics (Hume, Aristotle etc.) but no Popper, and only passing references to conintental irrationalism (Foucault, Derrida etc.). All this has been solved! Language and Classicism have been thrown away,. Heidegger rules OK? Now we know Science is a Judeo-Christian ruse to conceal 'Being'. Not OK.
Intriguing extrapolated hypothesis in your conclusion. Pursue it! (this coming from an evidential Christian - trusting in the unique truth claims of Jewish God and Scriptures)
@@gregrice1354 Thank you. Surely. It is my contention that as early as the late 50s it was apparent that Marxism's problems were becoming insurmountable, even to its followers. Ths breakdown resulted in the 60s 'New Left' - essentially consisting of middle class bohemians (like me) - arriving at the same conclusions as Mussolini had some 60 years before, namely that the 'solution' to 'capitalism's' woes lay in culture. Mussolini had the national culture to fall back upon to fill in the gaps left by Marxism. This was not available to the Leftiists (since they hated the US and the West) and it all raised the question of a suitable metaphysic to replace the bankruptcy of Marx's economism. They found this in the intepretation of the NAZI Heidegger by Jacques Derrida. Derrida shared Heidegger's hatred of Judeo Christianity and applied it to language, a major Heideggerian concern. Just as Heidegger had linked the domination of the oppressive 'bourgeoisie' to language use, so did Derrida. All languages are screens against reality (Marx: 'False Consciousness'). When we abandon the language of domination, we will uncover reality, or 'Being' as Heidegger had it. We have now been uncovering' Being' (or 'God') (or 'Satan') for the last 60 or so years, and the result, predictably, is utter chaos. We seem now to be approaching the final act in this terrifying drama.
@@redmed10 Apologies. Missed typo - 'continental' - meaning (here generally) continuations of the main ideas from C19th Germany by French philosophers such as Foucault, Derrida, Sartre, Barthes and of course Heidegger. Mainly concenred with existential questions. Thanks for the question.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
How can we go beyond the Standard Model of Cosmology? Leave your thoughts in the comments!
To watch another talk by Bjørn Ekeberg, visit iai.tv/video/the-breakdown-of-cosmology-bjorn-ekeberg
Check "Misinterpretation of James Webb Images, Again" - it explains handful of optical illusions. Math and Physics still works.
Hubble/Cosmological Constant is not a single constant. Space is moving at different speeds. Some scientists/creationists try to ignore that extra space exists beyond the observable universe. The material objects in the previous universe could convert into material energy during the contraction of the previous universe. According to the Buddha, the observable universe expands (Vivatta), stables the expansion (Vivstta Sthai), contracts (Sanvatta), and stables the contraction (Sanvatta Sthai). Dark Energy is an illusion. The universe doesn't make a new energy called Dark Energy.
I visited this link, but just when he finished introducing his talk and was about to get into the meat of it, it stopped and insisted I subscribe, so I lost interest.
Why do we want to go beyond the "Standard Model of Cosmology?". Aren't standard models supposed to be the "consensus view"? Aren't we all supposed to be boot-lickers for the consensus view today?
Philosophy got "lost in the woods" post-enlightenment. Hegel lost us. But Kant and Rousseau misled the way. 230 years wandering lost in the woods.
@@mark4asp I'm just guessing, but maybe it's because certain aspects of this consensus view pretty much defy belief, or leave key questions unanswered.
But if you as much as question any part of it publicly, you are likely to be called a crackpot, so it has achieved the status of dogma. This despite the fact that it is based on relatively tenuous and scanty data, scientifically speaking.
And very few people qualified to dispute it are willing to risk being labeled a heretic. It is dangerously close to being a religious belief. Science should welcome skepticism, not discourage it.
I like this guy. He is a genuine thinker. True edge of thought type who is driven more by the question than the answer.
What a lovely breeze of fresh air to hear this Metaphysicist speak. Eloquent, concise and obviously accurate arguments presented in a clear and easily understood manner. The current state of human knowledge development is laid out in as clear a fashion as I've heard in a very long time. Thanks Bjørn Ekeberg and IAI for this pearl of provocative wisdom. Specifically, thanks for contributing to our moving forward in our interpretations of our world. Let's go.
"obviously accurate arguments"
That's a red flag right there...
"obviously accurate arguments"
That's a red flag right there...
Hi @marty. Thanks for your comment! By "obviously accurate arguments", that you say is "a red flag", I meant in the same way that the comment "science has become more and more specialised" might be an obviously accurate argument, because of its truth based on historical fact.
In any case it is easy to criticise and harder to praise, although it might be more positive, constructive, rewarding and fulfilling to praise.
There are many comments here that I view as obviously accurate arguments. For example, when he speaks about the relationship and closeness between philosophy and sciences, how they've now become "almost like two solitudes" and that in the past "all the classical scientists through James Maxwell up through Einstein would've had some degree of philosophy background". An obvious example is Einstein's self-styled 'Olympia Academy' he set up with his great friend Solovine and others only a few years before he took off like a rocket (theoretically speaking, of course).
@@BailelaVida How would Jesus fit into these "obviously accurate arguments?"
metaphysics is not a real thing nor is it even a comprehensible idea. metaphysics has the same status as unicorns or goblins, complete fantasy.
Very eloquently explained. He's right, we scientists are not trained in philosophy any more and that's detrimental when you need a deeper scrutiny of scientific foundation of particular research.
Scientists don't need philosophy any more than lawyers or architects do. Properly applied the scientific method works just fine. If you like, science describes the universe to us and philosophy describes us to us.
@@BenjWarrant no. Science is the methodology of observing phenomena but in categorising and defining the results causality as knowledge thats becomes idolatry when you don't understand philosophy and limitations of inductive reasoning to provide knowledge.
@@BenjWarrantthis comment is why so many people believe math and reality are equal and why scientists aren’t making progress in astrophysics
@@wvltjr2934 I think that's a lot of weight to put on a simple comment to a RUclips video, but tell me more.
You can just read Greek Philosophy. I did study Philosophy briefly before Physics. I read a LOT of stuff and outside of the Ancient Greeks there are no other Philosophers worth reading (but those are definitely worth reading for sure and I vividly recommend it to any young Physicist).
Spot on. Plasma Cosmology is the only cosmology that predicated everything and accounts for 100 percent of matter in the universe.
I feel relieved! Ekeberg just verified my biggest concern which he very carefully lays out here trying his best to not offend the “monopolised mainstream physics community”! He is spot on, on where the whole problem started which is the route cause of current (mainstream) physics / cosmology why is stuck for nearly a Century making no progress dooming us and theoretically marooning us to this solar system … it’s Einstein’s work! Questioning Einstein is considered as “Blasphemous” by the mainstream physics community cos not only just their lifetime career crunching “numbers” is based on it but their whole academic education was built on the ‘Assumption’ that Einstein’s theory is Gospel Truth and all their work and education is built on it… literally!
Physics today is no different trying to lay a small carpet to a bigger room… pull one side to the wall, you are left with a gap on the opposite side.
The day we throw away Einstein’s Theory and restart physics from there bottom up on a clean sheet of paper … we will be going forward and making progress! 50+ years bluffing over a stuck theory and other theories based, built, around it needs to be openly questioned with courage, scepticism by everyone and scrutinise it’s fundamental assumptions and mathematical applications (starting with using time as a 4th dimension vector , when the theory itself ends up claiming time not being linear. It’s preposterous).
easy to say, harder to achieve, many have tried, all have failed to this point, including string theory, It seems foolish to throw away Einstein model as it is valid within certain boundaries, just as Newtonian physics is valid within boundaries. It seems there is an new underlying meta-model to both of those models, however within certain limits, this new model must decompose to the Einstein and Newton relations.
Einstein's view decomposes to Newton's view within certain constraints, and therefore any new model must decompose to Einstein's view within certain constraints. It seems silly to talk of throwing theories away, when instead we must build on top of the previous layer, because it is well-proven within certain limits, thereby a valid description of that domain.
What insane about astronomers is that they are gravity, dust, and gas centrentric and avoid electric, magnetic, plasma causes.
"but it doesn't do anything" ;-)
I think that most intellectually honest scientists agree with Ekebergs statements. As our observable cosmos expands the inaccuracies of our current physics knowledge and models become increasingly clear. The search for a unified theory continues. For that very reason, I think the world would be much better off investing in scientific research instead of war.
Western elite find war more profitable.
Oh i think that goes back to about 10^-34 seconds after the socalled singularity. We could also talk about the physics beyond the event horizon.
😅Ahh,
Nuclear bomb possible- Manhatten project; good science
Hydrogen bomb possible - Edward Teller; good science
Quark-Gluon bomb possible; LHC?; Nah, doesn't look good; science good?
The universe cannot expand without an outside force known as Jesus.
@@Kenneth-ts7bp Jesus is Dark Energy, I bet the Pope's staff will get a rise when i tell him that.
The hypothesis that I support is that the BIG BANG never happened, the universe is not expanding (we have miss interpreted the red shift), the universe is infinite and never had a beginning, if the universe is infinite and never had a beginning it will never have an end.
Super keen to see more professional academics debate these sorts of things. Scientists in many fields are WAY too rigid in their narrow dogma.
Give us a few examples. Dogma is not a scientific term, but how a non scientific person regards theories that are misunderstood or poorly represented in popular media. As Einstein basically said, make explanations as simple as possible, and if you can’t do that so that people can understand then you don’t understand
Examples?
I agree with the OP. Academia in a given discipline has a period of producitivity... But when the low hanging fruit have all been picked, then it seems to attract the types of people who trend toward moving the discipline to an analogue of the cult of pythagoras. Truely open minded people are repelled... And we get a feedback loop. The debate that OP desires wont happen because no one is left but the hive mind. An example is dark energy and dark matter... Never been detected but essential for making the equations fit the observations. The new space telescope with added precision is breaking down our models again... So... Will we add more to balance the equations? Or abamdon currently accepted theories.
I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from the prejudices of this generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.
(Albert Einstein to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)
Bjørn was so clear and precise with his explanation! 👍
I started my academic career as a pre-engineering student and then completed my Bachelor of Arts majoring in physics. But because i already had a massive religious indoctrination as a background i failed to see the connection between philosophy and what we call "science." (Though i have seen that connection on an intuitive level. But too late to save my academic career.) Since then i have had what you call a " MARGINAL EXISTENCE " from a career point of view. Many thanks for your insights.
Highly unusual to be studying physics for a BA, I've only ever heard of physics studies leading to a BSc.
@@BenjWarrant Some schools do offer Bachelor of Arts degrees in Geology, Physics, Environmental Studies, etc. I think it’s mainly intended for stuff like teaching K-12, doing science journalism, etc.
I love to see blocks challenged. There should always be a lively debate about such things. I hope to never again see the sort of situation we had during the heyday of string theory, when challenging it could torpedo a scientist's career. The sort of behavior that went on in that environment is inexcusable.
The most sensible talk on modern physics that I've ever come across. I cannot grasp how anyone could believe cosmology can function without a grounding metaphysical theory.
The Standard Model is just that, a model. It tells a story that pieces together observations and measurements at any given time of scientific discovery.
The Steady State Universe was purely based on a philosophy that the Universe is fundamentally simple and a universal theory of everything was just round the corner that would tie it up in a neat little bow in the form of an elegant equation in the days before any useful observation and measurement to hold it to task.
I think there is much greater acceptance to be flexible these days as it has become apparent that the universe is stranger and stranger.
I see the Standard model as like how you go about solving a jigsaw puzzle without the picture of the finished puzzle to go by
You find bits that go together, ok they are blue I'll put then up the top because it looks to be sky.
I think that there's always some level of implicit metaphysics in physics.
Because the actual teaching of theoretical physics does not present a scoping review of metaphysics; many theoretical physicists are unaware of the implicit metaphysical contents of their physical theories.
Nor is such awareness required. The strength of a theory is judged on its explanatory and predictive power. GR as a background theory is well-tested. Dark matter can be accommodated in GR by modifying the energy-momentum tensor, and dark energy can be accommodated via the cosmological constant. These aren't mods to the underlying theory, they fall within its framework.
It's well-known that there are limits to observational evidence in cosmology, so we don't know what happened in the Big Bang before the Universe became transparent. And we don't know what the interiors of black holes are like. GR makes predictions, but these predictions rely on simple assumptions (e.g. symmetry). It may well be that either those assumptions, or the theory itself, could be invalidated by new evidence, but until then we can choose to work with GR or MOND. In short, I don't think there is a metaphysical underpinning for cosmology that can be better tested than the background theory is, nor could such an underpinning help us establish whether GR or MOND is a better theory.
Excellent presentation. Dark energy and dark matter are what used to be called fudge factors.
They still are. That’s why they are called dark. We don’t know what they are.
You assume they are a physical thing/field/force.
What if it's just an error in the underlying theories and doesn't really exist.
We have gone from proving our foundations, to adding theory on top of the foundation to validate the foundation.
@@garyedwards5345
That was my point. They don't exist and are just fudge factors to cover a fundamental error in the theory.
That's not even Close to correct. BOTH Dark Energy and Dark Matter are OBSERVERED (measured and quantified (refer to the rotation curves they are REAL)), what we don't have is enough measurements to ID the specifics (MOND or Transparent particles for Dark Matter), and for Dark Energy (the Cosmological Constant) we don't yet understand vacuum Energy (BUT we do know it's history)@@poksnee
@@anthonyBosSoCal LOL
For those of you are supper annoyed by Ekeberg’s argument and very confident of your understanding of current physics and that it is flawless cos it “assumes nothing”
, the math is sound or proven in lab experiments.. let me throw a wrench 🔧 at that,…
I’ll make this even more simple.. forget the standard candle. Speed of light is and can only be measured on the assumption that light travels both directions in the same speed. It is assumed the bounced back ray of light (reflected beam) has the same speed as the incident beam prior hitting reflector. There is no going around this fact.
Assumptions are at the very core in laboratory experiments! So yeah… science is fundamentally built on assumptions. It can’t be helped. If there is a flaw in one or more assumptions, the results will be unavoidable ‘Systematic Error’! This is about Logic of identifying, understanding Problems and application of the right tools in the correct method for Solving it.
If your logic is flawed , it doesn’t matter how good the math be you end up exactly like where we are today in physics/cosmology .. Stuck! Trying to bluff our way out of problems after problems patching it with “invention” after invention (like a software patch) … dark energy/dark matter… what not. If you have a small carpet, you can’t fit it into a bigger room! Pull one end to wall, the opposite side ends with a gap between the carpet and opposite wall.
I agree with Ekeberg 100%.
Einstein's statement that science can separate itself from philosophy is itself a philosophical statement.
Very astute remark...
That would only be a problem if the statement was a scientific statement, which it isn't.
?
There was also a discussion between Einstein and the Indian poet/philosopher Rabindranath Tagore about whether reality was subjective or objective. Beside being of general interest to philosophy, the subject also goes to the heart of the physical interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which bothered Einstein a lot. In this discussion, both great men showed sufficient awareness of the perspective of the other to carry on a very interesting dialogue.
This video popped up on my feed late at night a few days ago but never got around to watching it then it disappeared, glad it came up again. From a layperson’s perspective I agree it’s beginning to be difficult to trust everything coming out of the “science “ community these days as skeptics are brutally attacked from deviating from the official line that blurs money, politics and ego.
The lambda CDM model does increasingly rely on assumptions in particular that the universe is homogeneous and isotopic at sufficiently large scales as we continue to discover larger and larger galactic structures. Will be very interested in hearing more from the interviewed gentleman.
_"Will be very interested in hearing more from the interviewed gentleman."_
Why? He isn't a scientist.
Include classical metaphysics in the discussions and Wolfgang Smith and Robert Sugenis.
When I hear discussions about the varied nature of distant objects, the same issue always comes to mind. Even Bjørn mentioned differences in the present tense. But the idea of the further "away" something is, is a false framing. It is further back in time. Thus, my question would be, could the behaviour, and in a sense "the natural laws" have changed over time? Thus, seeing differences in the past (the more "remote" objects) might then be explained by an evolution in the behaviour of the system, rather than it being different in different places alone. We have no idea what the universe is like in distant areas of the cosmos. If there is anything still there at all. It was so long ago, it could be nothing now. And how would, could, we know?
It could be analogous to the way Einstein differs from Newton for high speeds and strong gravitational fields. So it could be something like what you describe or some other as yet unknown property of the universe on a big scale. Whatever laws govern this would then reduce to GR on a smaller scale. That makes more sense to me than different laws in different places.
"my question would be" and that question has been answered by science. Your argument is for instance used by "young earth creationists" and it's easily refuted by using actual physics, instead of posting gratuitous stuff on YT.
@@victotronics That question has been answered by science? Really? I thought it was still an open question.
@@TheMg49 Yes, scientists really have no idea how to explain dark matter and dark energy, which are meant to compose 95% of the matter-energy content of the universe, so I think it is premature or presumptuous to say that science has already explained it.
@@simonstebbins3838
When scientists don't know something, that doesn't mean they don't know anything.
Scientists always don't know something, that's the reason why they still have jobs.
They still have a lot of data, with new data arriving every day.
It's just a matter of time when there is enough data so that all the puzzle pieces fit together properly.
We do have the puzzle pieces, though. That means we aren't just blindly poking around.
Because the outcome are a reasonable equity of power to understand the reach of forces of planets to give strength to the body
I studied Physics at University 30 years ago. One of the things that put people like me off, was how it became more and more mathematical. I think that's part of the reason Physics has broken with philosophy. Theoretical physists now see mathematics as the basis of everything, and they don't really think about the philosophical elements anymore. I agree that this is a bit of a step backward, and I think it can prevent access to the debate from non-scientists (and non-mathematicians).
I think that's true, and the weird thing to me is that the focus on mathematics by theoretical physicists has had the effect of turning much of physics into something more like metaphysics than science. The theoretical physicists often seem to think that their mathematics is sufficient to explain things, as if the math doesn't just describe our observations but provides the interpretations and explanations as well. It seems like experimentation has become optional as far as declaring a theory and its interpretation valid.
All science is unconnected with philosophy; the idea that they used to be connected because the first scientists described themselves as 'natural philosophers' is a linguistic error. 'Philosophy' simply means 'love of wisdom' and 'natural philosophy' denoted a desire to have 'wisdom' about 'nature'.
@@BenjWarrant
"You have correctly seen that this line of thought was of great influence on my efforts and indeed Ernst Mach and still much more Hume, whose treatise on understanding I studied with eagerness and admiration shortly before finding relativity theory."
"It is very possible that without these philosophical studies I can not say that the solution would have come."
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter to physics Professor Moritz Schlick of the University of Vienna
@@NondescriptMammal That's no different from a scientist saying that they got inspiration from HG Wells or Manet.
@@BenjWarrant Are you honestly saying you don't see how much of cosmology these days is more metaphysics than physics?
"I believe that every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no matter how pure a "positivist" he may fancy himself. The metaphysicist believes that the logically simple is also the real. The tamed metaphysicist believes that not all that is logically simple is embodied in experienced reality, but that the totality of all sensory experience can be "comprehended" on the basis of a conceptual system built on premises of great simplicity. The skeptic will say that this is a "miracle creed." Admittedly so, but it is a miracle creed which has been borne out to an amazing extent by the development of science."
-- that pesky Einstein again
In explaining how we arrived where we are at in cosmology by creating the Jenga tower of assumptions at around 8:45 into the video, isn't that how science works? Making assumptions that fit the data and the model until you learn something new that changes things? Like the JWST seeing galaxies larger than they should be for their age - that just means we learned something that we didn't know before and gives us an opportunity to adjust our models to fit the data again.
A profound conversation. Thank you so much.
The divergence between philosophy and science (and the inward loss of philosophical focus and consequence relevance as a way of knowing) was Einstein’s 1917 publishing of Cosmological Consideration in the General Theory of Relativity. This was the collapse of the static module of the universe and the second and irrecoverable blow to natural/religious philosophy harmony that, until that point, survived the collapse of the heliocentric model.
I agree. Cosmology is a description of what physicists believe to be true. But it is based on observations . The problem, though is that there are several interpretations of the observations and that makes it a murky science.
It's worth mentioning that natural selection in a physics department selects for physicists who support the work of those in office. If you can't help with the course work & research it's unlikely you'll be useful.
What a clear, accessible, well rounded take on the situation. I will be following this man more closely. Excellent thinker!
This habit of adding successive "fixes" to the current model sounds suspiciously like adding epicycles to the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. The most basic unresolved schism in modern physics (quantum vs. relativity) added to the growing fixes shouts loudly to my ears that we really need a new theory altogether. After all, it only took a couple small inconsistencies to classic physics to bring about the 20th century physics revolution of relativity and quantum physics.
At the beginning of the 21st century we need an Einstein 2.0 to find that revolution for us.
I like Mr. Ekeberg's description of current cosmology as being a series of fixes successively built on the existing edifice to explain observations as they come in. I don't pretend to be an expert on cosmological theory but I generally follow news in science and I've had that impression for a while. Data that jars the current status of the mainstream model can come in at any time unexpectedly. A prominent example from the late 90s is the supernova data which showed that the universe expansion was accelerating. At this moment observations are coming in from the James Webb Space Telescope which show the emergence of large galaxy structure very early in the history of the universe which the current theories of galaxy evolution struggle to explain. How cosmology will adapt to the observations due to come in over the next several decades is anybody's guess.
The unfortunate addendum here - in the form of an elephant in the room - is that we have a pretty huge contingency on both sides of the God issue that is clearly leading the evidence where they want it to go versus the other way around. I say this as a theist - I would much rather have an honest appraisal of the facts than a “story” that conveniently fits the narrative. I’m realizing as I get older how naive it is to trust science, as all scientific findings are interpreted by and filtered through our crazy, crazy brains.
I was also struck by the add-ons. It reminded me of Ptolemy and the epicycles upon epicycles to fix the appearances
@@PeterStrider A takeaway from Ptolemaic cosmology is that most paths can be decomposed into a series of simple atomic paths (eg. Fourier series and circles). As someone who leans toward an instrumentalist philosophy of science, I wouldn't say that Ptolemaic cosmology was wrong, simply unparsimonious in relation to Kepler's theory.
@@michaelzahir2580 ptolemaic cosmology is a misnomer
@@Papa-dopoulos
Why do you need to "trust" science?
Everyone is aware that there are issues with Cosmology, it doesn't affect your life one way or another (unless you want it to affect your life for some reason), so you just wait until the issues are resolved.
In other important areas of life, science either works or it doesn't. Your car either starts or it doesn't. If it starts every time, then it is trustworthy, then you trust it, that's all to it.
Realizing WE are going into a magnetic pole shift, everything's up for grabs.
Ekeberg mentioned the "standard candle" and that it's "theory dependent". Scientists accepted the "standard candle" after it was independently verified outside the theory. Ekeberg needs to read about that detail.
Exactly. As one of the astronomers who discovered the standard candle nature of SNeIa, I can say we were only guided by theory and never theory dependent. The class of SNeIa was only identified in 1985 by Elias et al based purely on observations. We formed the Calan/Tololo Survey to discover and measure a few dozen supernovae of Type Ia to verify they were standard candles. They were not - there was a significant spread in intrinsic luminosities. But we found in Phillips 1993 that there was a single correction based on the speed of evolution of the brightness of the explosion that allowed us to correct to a standard luminosity of about 6%. The tightness of this relationship, which is purely empirical, has not been adequately explained from theory yet. There are problems still remaining in supernova cosmology but not the ones mentioned here.
I interpreted his standard candle comment to highlight that if any of the candles are incorrect, the measurements are distorted. An extension of his claim that "cosmology is a game of jenga".
@@robbiep742 as far as I understand, the whole of human civilization is a game of Jenga, in which the pieces are welded together. That's why we have sayings like: "Edifice of Science" and "standing on the shoulders of giants".
His tone is that Philosophy would help transform Science into a serious knowledge endeavor if only the "nerds" stopped calculating and started thinking more broadly.
More specifically, I interpret that "standard candle" and inflation refer to each other in a vicious circle. I don’t take Ekeberg seriously.
Perhaps it's more accurate to call the standard candle concept as being assumption dependant.
@@DLee1100s I don’t fully understand. Cosmologists know (don't assume) how supernovae work, that's why they "dare" trust it, even though it's many lightyears away. What assumption are you thinking about?
He is well-informed and clearly explains his ideas. I think he is spot on about physicists not understanding philosophy. Of course philosophical assumptions are made in cosmology, but there is a pretence that science can exist without philosophy.
As Lawrence Krauss said "Philosophers will do philosophy and scientists will make progress".
@@goodquestion7915 the less people know, the easier it is for us to lead the scientists. so I completely agree
@@goodquestion7915Krauss is thoroughly naive here
@userJohnSmith a rather sweeping blanket statement, wouldn't you say? Tell me, have you ever found yourself searching for your glasses, sunglasses, hat, or the like only to discover you were wearing it the entire time? If so, you would know that it is tremendously easy to ignore that which you take for granted, and an external perspective is sometimes useful. If you work with data and you actually understand what you are doing, you should know full well that all data is theory-laden. Interpretation of data, doubly so. There are many ways to fit the data. Fitting the data is, as they say, necessary but not sufficient to prove the validity of the model. After all, Newtonian mechanics was sufficient until it wasn't. Phlogiston was a useful placeholder like dark matter and dark energy until it wasn't. All logic rests upon axioms, and all axioms are assumptions, no matter how useful they have been in the past. Ditch the arrogance, friend, check your metaphysical and epistemological assumptions at the door, pick up a book, and learn.
@John Smith your statement would hold weight if you starting by saying, "as a philosopher..." but you are really just confirming the point being made, by claiming to know about philosophy as a scientist.
Science does not exist in a vacuum, but it presumes the universe to be a certain way e.g. there is the assumption that the universe obeys physical laws. This is not something science can prove, but it is necessary for science to work.
The public is very interested in cosmology, therefore mr. Ekeberg, whose idea is that someone should rethink cosmology, gets some attention, too. That sums up the entire interview.
Thanks because 8 minutes in he said absolutely nothing new
Layman's question: If Universe settled uniformly after big bang, then did Galaxies form in random places both near and far from big bang location? So further away doesn't mean older and there are new and very old Galaxies in same parts of the Universe? If so you cannot run back time using models to the starting location of the big bang?
The prayer of every professor, "Please, dear God, let there be no Kuhnian revolutions during my tenure."
Actually the oval of move to the spherical rotation of cosmology is a sphere of gravity
He has not been the first to say this, as many in the Electric Universe Paradigm has been saying much the same. Though.... he keeps saying they do not know what to put in its place, and all they need to do is acknowledge the presence of electromagnetic fields, ergo, electric fields and fluids(currents). The solar system acts as an RLC circuit, so too does the galaxy.
What a bafflingly absurd analogy.
At least many of their assertions are provable under laboratory settings.
"It is not my role to judge the merits of a scientific theory". Exactly my thoughts, Mr. Ekeberg.
Whose role is it?
@@rainerherrmann7025 scientists
After watching several of these programs with well qualified people; I have decided that the "great answer" is just as likely to come from a wheat farmer in Kansas...:-)
no, it was already solved, read my last comment. We've known for 50 years
Hi @marty. Thanks for your comment! By "obviously accurate arguments", that you say is "a red flag", I meant in the same way that the comment "science has become more and more specialised" might be an obviously accurate argument, because of its truth based on historical fact.
In any case it is easy to criticise and harder to praise, although it might be more positive, constructive, rewarding and fulfilling to praise.
There are many comments here that I view as obviously accurate arguments. For example, when he speaks about the relationship and closeness between philosophy and sciences, how they've now become "almost like two solitudes" and that in the past "all the classical scientists through James Maxwell up through Einstein would've had some degree of philosophy background". An obvious example is Einstein's self-styled 'Olympia Academy' he set up with his great friend Solovine and others only a few years before he took off like a rocket (theoretically speaking, of course).
Aren't String Theory, Inflation Theory and Normalisation in Quantum Mechanics just Philosophy dressed up as Science? When people resort to quasi religious tenets or dubious mathematics then surely they are practicing something other than science and that that 'thing' is more belief than fact. Philosophy has a long history of belief. He is quite right to say that the foundations are shaky. I think his comments at 10:25 are like music to my ears :-) What a truly refreshing interview that was.
They are practicing "beauty"......
@@jimb4090 oh! very good! :-)
Imagination dressed up as Science, to be precise.
The big bang is a theistic postulate.
Yes. It's all the same. Truth is one - Rig Veda.
You are a brave man for daring to expose the king's nakedness
I believe the poet Gertrude Stein was saying the same thing when she wrote "there is no there there".
It is all about authority, power and money. Standard cosmology model is a religion rather than science. All those big expensive gizmos they have to study the universe are not for free. Everyone who dares to question absurdities in modern cosmology is immediately ridiculed and treated as a big danger to the 'business'. The best prove is totally unsuccessful fusion power generation concept. The foundation of modern astrophysics seems to be completely mistaken. They spent billions of dollars and for the last 50 years. Without a single reactor running they are still not convinced they don't have their theory right. The first star that is available to study is just 8 light minutes away but astrophysicists ASSUMED they know what happens there without a shadow of a doubt. I bet I will find a lot of 'explanations' how stupid I am instead of real explanation how stars work.
Ekeberg says that "some people" are not convinced about the current model of cosmology. What percentage of people would that be? What are the philosophical leanings of those people?
A high percentage of that percentage would be religious people (in my opinion).
@@mando074 and I would wholeheartedly agree
Cosmology is not a science like physics or chemistry, or even observational astronomy. It is more like archaeology, paleontology or anthropology. In the former, theory leads to experimentation which ether tends to prove or disprove the theory. In the latter, one builds a picture with incomplete data. Then, as often happens, a new discovery comes along and the whole structure needs to be reformed and rethought. Another aspect where these differ is that physics and chemistry can be used to do something. In the case of the others, it is only explanatory. I mention this because if a physical theory is wrong and one tries to use it to obtain an effect, then one will fail. In the case of the others, if our theory is wrong, there is no meaningful effect.
Exactly, Louis, in so far as it attempts to address "origins" and "endings": we were not here when all this started, and will not be here when it completes, so that's bad news for observation and corroboration. To infer cosmological beginnings from what we observe today is a solidly metaphysical quest. The chain of connection is too tortuous and uncertain. I have no problems with trying to understand the world as is, but expecting to use such observations to "prove" or "model" how it all started is overselling the evidence and the theory.
@@gregf1299 Good points. Interesting that you mentioned metaphysics. I am reading Stehen Meyer's "The Return of the God Hypothesis". He mentions the need for metaphysics in understanding these things.
Ekeberg is spot on. It's not that difficult to understand, either. Take a class in logic and the philosophy of science and you will understand the nature of these limitations (over/underdetermined phenomena, the GIGO problem inherent in logic and mathematics, parsimony as a guiding principle not an absolute law.) W. V. O. Quine's Web of Belief is a fantastic primer. Larry Laudan's Progress and its Problems is also great as an introduction to Kuhnian paradigms without Kuhn's assumption of intranslatability.
The Moon landings are fake, and anthropogenic cataclysmic climate change is fake. The big pharmaceutical companies are more corrupt and criminal than imaginable.
Sadly, 'science' has become a nothing but an avenue to scam citizens out of billions of dollars.
You neither need philosophy to understand this, nor use philosophy to provide any real world answer.
@@quinnishappy5309 you are correct and Tim is wrong...
@@quinnishappy5309 That statement is quite a major philosophical claim in itself.
Fantastic. So important to shine light on this
This talk makes a very significant contribution. I have argued for the need for theology, science and philosophy to synergize and work together to better understand the universe rather than continue to quarrel in the 21st century. This way many perceived paradoxes will Just vanish and make rapid progress in the advancement of knowledge, so I think.
Spot on!
be sure to leverage whatever computers and the web which operate on a theological or philosophic basis.
I am impressed you can prophesy about unknown unknowns.
Theoretical physicists adopt certain core metaphysical assumptions as starting points when they work at refining the Standard Model of Cosmology to make it account for new information and discoveries. Aren't such assumptions really euphemistic references to an actual non-theistic pre-commitment?
I want to know if you can answer these three question: 1) For galaxies that we can see 13 billion LY distant, what is their average distance between each other? 2) For galaxies that are only 1 billion LY distant, what is their average distance between each other? 3) What is the difference between these to measures and what does it say about the expansion of space between those galaxies 13 BLY away relative to those 1BLY away?
maybe unrelated but there are galaxies supposedly moving closer to each other and eventually collide.
@@carlosgaspar8447 You wrote, "maybe unrelated but there are galaxies supposedly moving closer to each other and eventually collide."
So, let's think about that for a moment. These galactic interactions are due to gravity. (Check out the topic of the "cosmic web" sometime. Recent research on this has been quite fruitful and fascinating.) In "local regions" of the universe, relatively close galaxies and galaxy clusters overcome the expansion of spacetime because of gravity.
Read the article "Ask Ethan: Is the Universe’s expansion accelerating or not?" by Ethan Siegel (Jan. 13, 2023). The expansion rate appears to be the same between 13 billion years ago, 1 billion years ago, and today. Of course, as the universe continues to expand, then galaxies farther away from each other (I'm talking on large scales here) are receding from each other faster than galaxies that are not as far away from each other - we have to distinguish between expansion rate (which is the same everywhere, even while it's slowly decreasing over time) on the one hand, and recessional rate on the other, which is directly related to the expansion rate but is an effect of the universe's expansion. Here's how Siegel puts it: "Even though the expansion rate - also known as the Hubble constant/parameter - still decreases, for the past ~6 billion years it’s been decreasing at a slow enough rate that as the volume of the Universe grows, these same distant objects now appear to recede away from us faster and faster; they’re now moving away from us in an accelerated fashion."
Galactic mergers are going to mess this calculation up. A galaxy we see at 1LY might have been in separate smaller (close) galaxies 13LY ago. The Milky Way has many dwarf galaxies orbiting it today that would be indistinguishable from the Milky Way at 13LY distance. There are many measurement issues as well making it unreliable to compare the two datasets.
We can only detect a few very large galaxies 13 BLY away due to the limitations of our telescopes, so we don't have enough data to even begin to estimate how far apart they are.
Bjorn made a straightforward statement of grounding metaphysics in physics. E.g., schrodinger's cat has it's trace of metaphysics
Very interesting interview
Philosophy is inherent in the action. There's no real possible way to separate philosophy and physics so this is kind of a fun conversation topic than anything valuable.
Why are you telling us that you don't understand physics? ;-)
For a while now, years actually, I've realized that there's always a story, and people, behind everything in science. People have personal motivations, and needs, to make their idea succeed, for a variety of reasons.
This means that when a new law became established, or a discovery explained, there's an underlying story motivated by simple human urges desires and rational explanations for things that become more complex when one truly delves in to history and reality.
This means that alternative views may not be untrue, they just lack popular support, and only mathematics can be used to argue these points, but without support the mathematics of alternatives is not explored fully
Another good speaker who has no idea what he is talking about. I believe quack might be the term.
Loved this. Philosophy and physics together can be fun!
Physics is philosophy that gives correct predictions
My thoughts: Not necessarily. It can give predictions to an extent within the scope of the model's framework. Physics spreads across a spectrum of theoretical and experimental modelling and prediction.
@@subhuman3408 You wrote, "Physics is philosophy that gives correct predictions."
I think there's a better way to articulate that: Physics is philosophy that make scientifically testable predictions. They might be correct - or they might be wrong. It depends on the results of the tests. ;-)
@@subhuman3408 The problem with physicists is they generally fail to grasp when they're doing philosophy and what assumptions they are making which are philosophical.
@@subhuman3408 physics is mathematically driven.
However, it cannot quantify human Values.
Values like ... love, reason, truth, goodness, beauty, etc. Therefore, Life is more than scientific understanding and "predictions".
I agree it was at that time, around the 1920s, we derailed ourselves but rather blame the Copenhagen Agreement for nailing it. Very little progress has been made since all things, including fields, were regarded as ‘particulate’. It’s essentially a reductive kantian materialistic approach which i regard as deeply flawed, and responsible for much of the chaos we see around us today.
Cosmologists are now using quantum physics to uphold their vague conclusions; Because they can’t explain it properly through scientific means.
Could our Universe be orbiting something else which causes galaxies to be moving in 1 direction?
8:30 mark. The Standard Model of Cosmology (Lambda-CDM/Concordance) has become “like a Jenga Tower.” Lol. And it’s about to fall with each new observation and data reading like a house of Kuhn cards!
The problem with challenging the existing physical models is that it only produces more questions than answers. The field is open, anybody can contribute as long as the contribution is supported by the observations.
thank you. big bangs & expanding cosmos has never sounded real for me.
Well done RUclips algorithm, well done. You took what annoys me the most about modern day cosmologists and gave me the video I needed to calm down.
I can't help but feel like his description of what cosmology could be if we didn't assume the things we do basically describes the same thought process that lead to epicycles.
Tycho Brahe wasn't wrong though. He just used a self-centered projection. A pretty apt metaphor for the human condition, including current "science".
I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion?
Absolutely.
I see the opposite. Cosmology today is much like Ptolomaic astronomy. Cycles, epicycles, and equants are all used to patch up the discrepancies between the simplest form of the model and the observed universe. In the Standard Model we use dark matter, dark energy, and inflation to do the same sort of thing.
LOL, there is so much fudging going on today to try to get the cosmological model to actually fit observation, it is just so very much like that time before Copernicus with people jumping through all kinds of hoops to to get an anthropocentric cosmology, with Earth at the center of the universe, to fit observations. Note that the model presently held as what is essentially the 'one true religion' was born of a metaphysical notion. The original interpretation of the 'red shift' as representing velocity, implying some explosive starting point for the universe. was very explicitly intended as a 'proof of god' concept - If it had that point of origin, thermodynamics requires that for that spring to unwind like that, someone had to have initially wound it. So we have 'scientists' today speculating that 'well, the initial 'nothingness' is inherently unstable' which implies billions of other universes likely because there's still plenty of 'nothing' left out there beyond our universe to be equally unstable... The current standard model, with its 'Doppler shift light = velocity' predates Einstein, who said that the Doppler effect was a feature of special relativity, a feature of discrete inertial frames of reference, so we got the first big fudge - 'well, except for light'. What if the 'red shift' were merely a function of a curved space instead? Fun to think about 'big bang' - it would have resulted in faster than light expansion of the universe. The speed of light defines temporal location, so we're in a time zone earlier than the big bang - it hasn't happened yet. You got a problem with 'what if's? The present standard model is chock full of 'em.
But that's ok, suspecting there may be a fundamental reason for not being able to come up with a comprehensive description of everything - Humans are a part of the universe and to come up with an accurate and thorough description of the workings of the universe would amount to the universe pointing to itself - constitute a 'self-referential system'. Self-referential system - like 'pulling yourself up by your boot straps'. The eye has difficulty seeing itself and we can't exactly step out of the universe to see what it going on. While such systems can be constructed, they invariably result in their own destruction.
Thank you for this! 👏🙏
He didn't say *why* scene became distinct from natural philosophy and then from philosophy. It happened because science worked. It gave us actionable, reliable and usable knowledge.
Just like any other successful confidence game in fact.
For a philosopher of science he seems to be ignoring (like most scientists themselves) Thomas Kuhn's 1960's book on the Structure of Scientific Revolution that introduced the idea of paradigm shifts that explains why questions to accumulate in every discipline until a radical shift occurs but that does not invalidate the internal consistency or usefulness of all the work that has been done till then.
5:27: ‘’. . . completely subservient to it (science) and doesn’t actually ask critical questions’’
That is a completely misleading interpretation of analytic philosophy. There are countless philosophers who are posing challenging questions in response to many of the big ideas in science. Two that immediately come to mind are in the field of consciousness studies and quantum mechanics. Philosophy is concerned with critical reflective thinking; quite baffling how someone could be so uncharitable towards it as a discipline.
Philosophy of physics is my dream job. I am not smart enough to do a real physics.
@@jangaraj1229 No one does real physics these days ... it's all about getting funding for projects which resonate with the readers of 'scientific' paperbacks.
He is a philosopher of physics.
Very interesting discussion. In my view it is very useful to question the underlining assumptions of any knowledge structure to test it's usefulness. A good example of this Al-Ghazli's 11th text " The Incoherence of the Philosophers" where even the most basic metaphysical assumptions of cause and effect are questioned.
Is al Ghazali adding to what Hume says about cause and effect?
@@fukpoeslaw3613 Al-Ghazli was an 11th century Persian Islamic polymath who questioned the Greek philosophy of the necessity of natural cause and effect ,in part to account for God's miracles. Hume as I understand it had similar doubts of the necessity of cause and effect
@@donmc1950 yes, & the dude from Ghazal is said to have singlehandedly brought an end to the golden age of Islam, by making a too good case for God as opposed to the laws of physics.
But anyways, the 11th text you said, right?
@@fukpoeslaw3613 Al-Ghazli essentially questioned the certainty of the 3 forms of inquiry: scientific, logical and spiritual ; as means to seeking truth. But relying on only 2 of these forms is also erroneous. Unfortunately Al-Ghazli's followers abandoned scientific inquiry. Today's Western thought is mostly following scientific and logical inquiry
This man has nothing to add factually and is just stating what we already know. I can't understand why he is being interviewed. Poor.
On AIA "guidelines" if the person has a bias how can that be rebuked or be shown to be guiding or framing their argument, if you cant critique the person for having said bias, when they conceive of the argument?
Gödel dismantled positivism, but sophistry found it useful for precisely the same reasons that philosophers disqualify it: the manipulation of opinion with hidden paradox. If the axioms cannot be challenged then either horn of a dilemma is a deadly weapon of either offense or defense. Kant identified paralogism (not paradox) as the obstacle to reason; the upshot is that the inductive goals and forms of mathematics require _inductive refinement of the axiomatic foundations_ based on the resolution of discovered paralogism.
The positivist sophists may go home at this point, and good riddance. But the work of philosophy remains. First to improve mathematical reasoning in keeping with its cogent inductive process by reducing paralogism in the foundations. Then applying this reasoning to the demarcation between mathematical and empirical reasoning, which Kant has already duly outlined.
But a cogent metaphysics is the metatheoretical foundation of both of these disciplines and therefore must oversee their mutual interactions and distinctions, as well as their internal consistency.
This is a very different process than participating in current academic mathematics or physics cultures. Needing to support the useless cultural apparatus that accompanies fundamentalist nonsense about real number theory, the big bang, the contradictory standard models of both quantum and cosmos, and other castles in the metaphysical heavens, is the reason that monks go to the mountains and deserts to contemplate reality; metaphysics can only be mastered by a person who masters themselves first. And culture does not teach mastery, but only self-enslavement to the insane machinery of society.
Think for yourself, then your ignorance becomes apparent. At least that is how it seems to me.
Thanks for this refreshing perspective.
Great post. I was introduced to the Incompleteness Theorem as a physics undergrad. Best I could make use of that masterpiece was to use its ideas in a fictional essay for a utopian literature class ...
@@johnpayne7873 There is some humor in the fact that that the mechanics of his theory is precisely the same mathematical trick used everywhere in analysis: using logarithmic representation as a method of encoding arithmetical values and producing dual expressions for summation and multiplication. He used an encryption encoding to produce formal expressions to evaluate logically. But in Gödel's case the reasoning is abstracted from empiricism and treats purely logical expressions numerically, in a manner that echoes the use of natural logarithms in empirical analysis of phenomenal measures.
So it strikes me as humorous that in order to argue against his results, one has to undermine the Eulerian workhorse of all quantitive analysis in the natural logarithm and its broad applications. There are good mathematical arguments to be made there, but I have never seen the discussion taken to that level. But it's possible that he was playing a masterful logical trick on everyone. If we can resolve the difficulties associated with the logic of incompleteness then we will know the difference between synthetic mathematics and phenomenal analysis and ironically the work of Kant will have been completed without overturning physics. But I wouldn't hold my breath. I think that Gödel was serious, but that he set a clever trap for detractors; you cannot have logical completeness without rejecting the logic of calculus. Either way, positivism is out of rope at that point.
@@johnpayne7873 the essay you mentioned sounds interesting. Do you still have it? I think Gödel's work definitely treats of fictional utopias 😅
@@haniamritdas4725 I do. The title was "Epistemology and the Ideal Physicist" and was written a theatrical play. The setting was a lobby outside a lecture hall at Limbo U and the cast included Einstein, Feynman, Hume and myself. I purposely left Godel out to amuse my literature professor who was an authority on philosophy of science.
@@haniamritdas4725 That was immensely fun and informative to read. It would be great to continue this exchange on another format. Suggestion as to how to do that safely?
15.20 Great question from a very good interviewer who shows they were listening.
Interesting perspective from Einstein that I wasn't aware of. But later in life he was much more willing to admit the value of philosophy. See library of living philosophers.
Great edit.
I'm very surprised to hear nothing about PLASMA COSMOLOGY. The basic flaw of the standard model should be obvious: It's based on the gravitation of gas and dust. But those make up just a few percent of all matter. The rest is PLASMA, which has electro-magnetical properties, that are a vastly stronger force than gravitation. Do the math with electro-magnetic equations and you'll see, that you don't need fancy dark matter/energy to describe the observable universe. Unfortunately most astronomers get no electro-magnetic education at all at university. They don't even know, that the huge magnetic fields, that they observe everywhere in the cosmos, could not exist without enormous amounts of flowing electricity. So it's the plasma physicists of the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE community, who are creating currently the new cosmological paradigm.
Compound that educational deficiency with the fact turbulence is almost exclusively taught in Engineering schools.
One of the abilities of a good model is to make accurate predictions. It seems that plasma cosmologists have been able to make some predictions that have been proven out in observations. I believe it was Wal Thornhill, from the Electric Universe, who successfully predicted that the Deep Impact mission to Comet Tempel 1 would produce an electrical discharge, which it arguably did. What you don't want to repeatedly hear about the standard model is "This was not expected".
@@johnpayne7873 my goodness. In astrophysics, we certainly teach turbulence. We use Kolmogorov theory and its modifications, Navier Stokes, convective theory, etc all the time.
@@nicholassuntzeff228 I am happy to be corrected. Not trying to be a pest, but how many course hours are dedicated to teaching turbulence? As a physics undergrad I took separate courses - all from the Aerospace Engineering department - in introduction to fluid mechanics, real fluids and boundary layer theory but turbulence wasn't a separate topic until post grad. Even with all that, I would say it wasn't enough when I got involved in hemorheology. Teaching Kolmogorov theory is fantastic; I got it the hard way through stat mech approach to bioelectricity.
@@johnpayne7873 We tend to teach hydro and turbulence but focused on what is needed for understanding astrophysical theory. For instance, the formation of exoplanets is tied to turbulence and angular momentum. In my day, we had one or two courses purely on hydro in grad school. However, students have to learn much more these days - especially Bayesian statistics and ML - that we don't have time to teach some of the basics as deeply as we would like. So I would say that we are skimping on some of the astrophysics.
1:45
"how the science operates as a science and pretends not to do metaphysics."
Love it! I've been trying to articulate that idea myself. I would add to that "isn't it interesting to hear some public skeptics point to anything outside of this science as 'woo woo'"?
3:00
The beef I have with this profession of science is how none of these geniuses or authorities of science, say from the 1920s or so, ever published some kind of logical demonstration explaining how it is that NOW the practice of physics should proceed unmoored from its philosophical roots since we have now come to the point that we can dispense with it and declare these philosophical questions irrelevant to the practice of physics. Yet many in the field proceed with their profession as if there were some kind of establishment for this mode of thinking.
9:50
"the core of the (standard) model is taken as a matter of faith"
11:30
I think it's impossible to create a cosmology or to have a cosmological understanding without having made some metaphysical assumptions to begin with.
12:02
"but it's one of the legacies of the split between philosophy and Science in the 20th century is a strand of thought sometimes called logical empiricism or positivism."
If I might humbly sum up: Science without metaphysics is no science at all.
Luckily youve found the right toilet door to write it on.
Allow me to correct: metaphysics is not a science, and should not be part of science at all.
I think Metaphysics is to Philosophy what a Unicorn is to Zoology.
@mojojojo1529 philosophy is the childhood of Science, therefore it has been superseded. Philosophy still has a role in the areas of knowledge that we don't care too much about yet to apply Science; we'll get to those eventually, though.
@mojojojo1529 about science = philosophy, sum of our efforts, broaden our inquiry.
I agree 100% with you on those, except on metaphysics.
About, philosophy = science; it's just like gardening = agriculture. I'm not being facetious, they are synonyms in practice, but semantically different, right?
About metaphysics.
Our brain is a very complex "patter recognition and reality simulation system", it evolved to encompass "our reality", which is a narrow simulation of the "real reality" that exists outside of our skulls. What we call Metaphysics is what we imagine "real reality" might be if only we could go beyond Physics. In other words, Metaphysics stands for our ignorance, while Physics is a model of "our reality".
All aspects of human thought should be weighed against one another and should augment one another when appropriate.
Certainty requires only one thing: proof that withstands all scrutiny within our means. Anything outside that is theory or conjecture.
Theory means consciousness...
Scrutiny doesn't work. People are going to miss out important scrutiny that can take out the fact. Continuous surprising predictions is only thing that matters. General relativity predicted Gravitational lensing, Gravitational waves, black holes. These are UNIMAGINABLE WITHOUT General relativity.
@@subhuman3408 Good points. I think Ekeberg points would have more credibility if he could also cite points where General Relativity (and other astronomical/cosmological models) have made great strides in understanding.
Would this mean that scientists could be ideologically biased? Color me UTTERLY surprised
There is absolutely no way that scientists could ever be biased since we all know science is the only arbiter of truth and scientists dispassionately interpret data. /s
what is in the voids between galaxies ?
Great to see that questioning of scientism is gaining ground.
Calling tweakable mathematical models "theories" was a huge mistake.
And, given the history of the epicyclic models of planetary motion … which were mathematically beautiful and awesomely accurate, but mechanistically, were "not even wrong" … there really is no excuse.
Back then, few realised that their ideas were based on an unconsciously held and unexamined geocentric paradigm. Likewise, modern physicists is based, just as unconsciously, on chronocentricism and atomism … Niether of which is philosophically tenable.
And sure, there is no place in academia for such ideas.
Hence we can expect the next century to be as woo-generating as the last century has been.
Sad, because understanding the "great mysteries", "anomalies" and "problems" of current physics and cosmology is quite trivial if one has sound (non-westernised) philosophical basics.
Very thought provoking insight
It is the duty of scientific method for scientists to ALWAYS to question scientists.
It's not like some theologians getting together assembling some claim they extrapolated from an interpretation of some holy-book text and then insist believers take their findings on faith.
The epicycle model was wrong though. It violates conservation of angular momentum, since there isn’t a force to produce the epicycles. It was thought to be the “hand of god”, which is silly metaphysical nonsense.
@@yugioh395 Yes. directly in account of taking that tweakable mathematical model to be an explanation of mechanism.
And don't forget .. physics will still forgive any error and will happily generate mystical woo ... if the "theory" is mathematically "extremely accurate".
And, wrong or not, epicyclic models were awesomely accurate.
Modern models are just as "wrong" because they unnecessarily offend philosophical basics. Believing that they describe mechanism is an error in the dogmas of scientism.
Pretty maths which can be tweaked to awesome accuracy have nothing to do with understanding.
@@casparuskruger4807 Sure, but between the funders of science and white-coat guys replacing black-coat guys in courtrooms, dogmas have been normalised, and more scientism happens than Science worth calling Science.
Very well said.
This man has a clear mind and made an excellent description of today’s physic foundation. Though I don’t think for a second that his colleagues aren’t somehow aware of all this.
On the topic jobs he is right, but here also this obvious. I started in abstract mathematics, but soon realized that, if you don’t belong to the rare most brilliant students which I don’t, there is simply no place for you in the very small job market.
There is another interesting point. It is frustrating to see that relativity and quantum physics still are the pinnacle of physics while new questions pile up. Maybe this is due to the fact that low hanging fruits have been plucked and therefore it is really difficult to make bombastic progresses in science today.
About philosophy, yeah, not convinced, I fail to see any productivity or world changing results there.
"Cosmology" is a category of thought, a tool box into which any idea that tries to make sense of reality can be placed. It is not a monolithic or discrete theory. If individual cosmologies have "shaky foundations", it is because they boil down to meta-narratives or first principles that necessarily, and sometimes explicitly, beg the question they attempt to answer. Pointing out the inadequacy of human faculties to push beyond the limitations of perception or reason is a pointless exercise. We are fallible and foolish, temporally bound and constrained by the very faculties of understanding with which we attempt to make sense of the world. This is why the hubris of Humanism is the most ridiculous of cosmologies. The most inadequate god a human being can worship is the one in the mirror.
He makes some very smart points, but the most revealing one comes at the very end: there is no room for unorthodox views and for thinking outside the box in today's overpopulated and underfunded academia. Creativity is a virtue only up to a point, but don't rock the boat too much, or it's no job for you.
Our world is built on creativity of mathematicians
"WhyCan'tIRemainAnonymous?!" writes, "He makes some very smart points, but the most revealing one comes at the very end: there is no room for unorthodox views and for thinking outside the box in today's overpopulated and underfunded academia. Creativity is a virtue only up to a point, but don't rock the boat too much, or it's no job for you."
But in fact, it is precisely on that point that he's completely wrong, and all we have to do is look at the published research in physics to see what Ekeberg is claiming isn't there. Whoops! Indeed, when he said that, that's when I knew he didn't know what he was talking about.
@@steveg1961 Examples?
I'm in another field, and can say that from my experience his description of academia rings very true.
@@whycantiremainanonymous8091 I'm discussing theoretical physics and cosmological physics and the "Standard Model" of physics, which is what Bjørn Ekeberg specifically refers to in his discussion. I wrote a main response post to the OP video in which I discussed numerous examples that show why what Ekeberg was saying is wrong. I could have done the same with biology, genetics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, archaeology, and so on. My point is simply that what Ekeberg was is simply a false portrayal of science and scientists. All we have to do is look at the actual research published in the professional science literature to see that it's wrong.
The issue has nothing to do scientists being "hush-hush" about their assumptions, because they routinely discuss their assumptions in their research articles (especially in regard to where they're relying on past research, which they reference, and then get into the research that they conducted based on previous results).
Also, the issue isn't about merely being "unorthodox." You can be as unorthodox as you like as long as in regard to the scientific research itself you can produce results, following the procedures of the scientific method appropriate to the field of science in which the research is being conducted - and, indeed, even if the research results don't back up your hypothesis, that information itself is relevant and useful for science.
@@steveg1961 Again, examples? You describe a literature but cite not one article in support of your claims. I've been looking at stuff being published in my fields of expertise (admittedly, outside the "hard" sciences) for decades, and also have "insider“ experience (as both author and journal editor), and can see little evidence for such openness. Yes, people discuss assumptions, but it's incredibly hard to get anything published without being part of an academic "tribe" with a shared agenda, and, accordingly, a shared view of basic assumptions. Moreover, scholars with an independent approach quickly develop a bad reputation.
That's not new, by the way. Fringe ideas were always very hard to push. The difference now is that you won't get a job anywhere near a university nowadays if you're on that fringe, while in the past you could at least get employment of some kind.
And the problem with that, in turn, is that when a scientific paradigm outlives its usefullness, the garden of fringe ideas, despite being messy and full of weeds, is where new paradigms emerge from. The current structure of academia is seriously endangering the biodiversity of academic ideas.
He didn't give any clear indication of how Philosophy can be applied to cosmological models. It just sounded like he was trying to justify he years of Philosophy education. There's a lot of evidence for some of the cosmological "assumptions" as he put it. While there are a lot of unanswered questions in cosmology - I fail to see how Philosophy can help (ask Lawrence Kraus what he thinks of Philosophy).
Fascinating! Ekeberg touched on several items I have often wondered about - such as Physics not containing any Metaphysics... i.e. as pointed out, where/why are certain presumptions acceptable, how fundamental is fundamental - how and when does a property become emergent and what combination of fundamentals causes/allpws that transition?
I think what you state after "ie" is very much science. Sure scientists can become dogmatic (if that's the right word) but history shows that science always wins out in the end over fondly held ideas. I don't think physics should contain metaphysics. I think physics should remain the realm of what we do know and not what we don't. I might be barking up the wrong tree, but isn't metaphysics just about making stuff up then making it a belief? Yes many in science do that as I manteioned but at least many admit they are speculating. I'm not into speculation. If a question can't be answered with evidence that can stand up to solid scrutiny, well it remains unanswered and I'm fine with that. I am also fine with answers that did have the best available support being replaced with answers that have even better support at a later time. At the end of the day, it is best to hold beliefs with a light grip. :)
@@robguyatt9602 That's exactly what it is. Philosophy is pseudoscience
@@subhuman3408 Not it is not. Philosophy is all about rational thought and challenging fixed thinking. It is not science or pseudoscience. Science is a process that aims to discover the facts about how things work. Pseudoscience is an attempt to brand things that are false as true. Philosophy will never make discoveries about nature. But it can question the methods and conclusions of scientists. But scientists can do that too.
@@robguyatt9602 You wrote, "But scientists can do that too."
And it is on that specific point that Bjørn Ekeberg's discussion went completely off the rails, because scientists can and do do that - and their philosophy is much better, and indeed more insightful, precisely because they are much more intimately familiar with the subject matter than almost any professional philosopher.
@@steveg1961 I certainly agree with you.
The standard model of cosmology is still in its Flat Earth phaze. The Electric Universe model seems to be reproducible. Once text books are written concepts are hard to change.
Good, clear, and very interesting interview/conversation. Thanks. Thumbs up! (Edit: I have no ideas about how we might go beyond the Standard Model of Cosmology, except to say that I see no good reason to assume that a cataclysmic event associated with the Standard Model of Cosmology was the beginning of everything. It's quite possible that our observable universe is a relatively small part of something much larger, maybe even infinite in extent and duration, i.e., a preexisting medium within which our observable universe emerged and is evolving toward equilibrium. It's in that sense that I think that many universes will remain a possibility. This is different from the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum theory, which I think is wrong.)
@John Smith Evidence for what? Something predating the hypothesized beginning of the known universe? I agree. It's just more reasonable than assuming that nothing predated the hypothesized beginning of the known universe.
@John Smith Agreed...
@@TheMg49 you're spinning a fantasy. Wake up
@@deevnn Like much of cosmology, it's speculation based on logic. Assuming that there was actually a cataclysmic event that initiated the omnidirectional large scale expansion of our observable universe, then it's reasonable to assume that it's part of a preexisting universe that's much larger, maybe even infinite in extent and duration. It's a possibility that can't be ruled out. It's therefore unwarranted to say that the point at which backward extrapolation can go no further is the beginning of everything. We don't know what "everything" is. (The observational science tells us that the farther we're able to see, then the more stuff we see.) Or, we can, as some do, say that our universe emerged from nothing, which makes no sense at all to me. I prefer the idea that something predated the hypothesized beginning of our observable universe.
While I enjoy hearing perspectives like Dr. Ekeberg’s, who is certainly a very articulate and well informed presenter, I have to agree with physicists like Roger Penrose and Max Tegmark, that the way we now understand our universe is thru the math, and since most philosophers can’t really do the math and physics anymore, and having finally studied both the philosophy of science and the math at a non-trivial level, that unfortunately it’s now very difficult for philosophy anymore to remain relevant in these fields.
Historically science emerged from philosophy, and that is important to understand and appreciate, but the science has moved on.
As Einstein himself once said, the big problem is that first principles are unknown to us; physicists can only describe what is. The biggest question is why the universe exists at all, why “there is something rather than nothing,” and neither philosophy or physics can answer that question.
This might be philosophically unsatisfying, as philosophy likes to discover these first principles, but that is just speculation.
Personally, I always liked the famously witty Columbia philosophy professor Sidney Morgenbesser’s answer, when one of his graduate students asked him that question, to which he responded, “Even if there was nothing, you’d still be complaining!” ;-)
'Historically science emerged from philosophy, and that is important to understand and appreciate, but the science has moved on.'
Science and philosophy are intertwined and so it is unrealistic to say that science has moved on. Main stream scientists may choose to ignore philosophy, but when they do so it is to the detriment of science itself.
'why “there is something rather than nothing,”'
I do not understand why that question is considered by many to be the biggest question there is. The answer is so obvious.
Most physicists and philosophers forget that the foundation based realty is eternal as a process. Penrose seems to have the hang of such a nature of time, so he formulated his theory of CCC. Very few physicists and philosophers, can understand this nature of time.
Excellent perspective.. 🤔👍
The tedious truth implied by this truly excellent presentation is that when I studied Philosophy 40 years ago, the course included some of the most boring topics ever. These were headed 'language philosophy' ('When a man asks 'Is this a table?' what sense is he giving the word 'table'? Etc.). Utterly sterile. Other than that a great deal of very interesting basics (Hume, Aristotle etc.) but no Popper, and only passing references to conintental irrationalism (Foucault, Derrida etc.).
All this has been solved! Language and Classicism have been thrown away,. Heidegger rules OK? Now we know Science is a Judeo-Christian ruse to conceal 'Being'.
Not OK.
Intriguing extrapolated hypothesis in your conclusion. Pursue it! (this coming from an evidential Christian - trusting in the unique truth claims of Jewish God and Scriptures)
@@gregrice1354 Thank you. Surely.
It is my contention that as early as the late 50s it was apparent that Marxism's problems were becoming insurmountable, even to its followers. Ths breakdown resulted in the 60s 'New Left' - essentially consisting of middle class bohemians (like me) - arriving at the same conclusions as Mussolini had some 60 years before, namely that the 'solution' to 'capitalism's' woes lay in culture.
Mussolini had the national culture to fall back upon to fill in the gaps left by Marxism. This was not available to the Leftiists (since they hated the US and the West) and it all raised the question of a suitable metaphysic to replace the bankruptcy of Marx's economism.
They found this in the intepretation of the NAZI Heidegger by Jacques Derrida. Derrida shared Heidegger's hatred of Judeo Christianity and applied it to language, a major Heideggerian concern. Just as Heidegger had linked the domination of the oppressive 'bourgeoisie' to language use, so did Derrida. All languages are screens against reality (Marx: 'False Consciousness'). When we abandon the language of domination, we will uncover reality, or 'Being' as Heidegger had it.
We have now been uncovering' Being' (or 'God') (or 'Satan') for the last 60 or so years, and the result, predictably, is utter chaos. We seem now to be approaching the final act in this terrifying drama.
What does conintental mean?
@@redmed10 Apologies. Missed typo - 'continental' - meaning (here generally) continuations of the main ideas from C19th Germany by French philosophers such as Foucault, Derrida, Sartre, Barthes and of course Heidegger. Mainly concenred with existential questions. Thanks for the question.
@@michaelorme7268 what's concenred? Sorry. Just kidding. I couldn't help myself.
I like bjorn he says what he means politely which is best.