Physicists should stay in their lane which is the tangible. They either do not believe in or understand the non-tangible which is in the domain of religion. At least consciousness which is likely fundamental and not elemental is off-limits to materialists or physicists or whatever they call themselves. Consciousness in the domain of religion whose definition is ‘that to which we are bound’ and we are definitely bound to consciousness. Mind is likely elemental; emerging with quantum events and physicists should study that and leave consciousness to the experts; those who are trained in theology.
Lame. Stay in your lane and only comment on things in your area of professional expertise? Nonsense. Nobody does that, especially people who tell other people to stay in their lane.
@@ALavin-en1kr Understanding conciousness is a practice which involves different disciplines, neuroscience, physics, theology, etc. You will never be able to explain conciousness with theology alone, which is why it IS so important to hear from for example physicists.
Tim is just yapping about absolutely nothing. Nothing he said countered anything she said at all. Such a refreshing take from Lisa, we really need more people like her in this field and less people yapping about nothing and truly doing nothing. A search for a theory of everything or "absolute truth" is the most braindead approach to physics, it shows the exact lack of humility as people claiming to know "ultimate undeniable truth" as religion. Zero evidence, people yapping about how it is true for decades, and provides zero benefit to humanity.
@@haaake finding truth is like digging a tunnel in pre-historic world. First you assume a bottom of the world exist, then you dig to find a bottom that your tools can't penitrate, you think that you have found the base of the world on which whole world is standing, then you relax and chill since you found 'the' true base. Then somebody challanges that notion and state that this badrock is not the base of the world and improve the tools for trying to digg the supposed base of the world to find the true base of the world, with sufficient no. Of trial and commitment they found another new bedrock which their tools cannot penitrate and think now they have found the base of the world, which is more true since this new bedrock holds previous bedrock up. And the cycle continues, on and on. Untill someone realise that there's no base and the world is round, it's everything is holding everything, there's no true base, it's all interconnected. You discover what buddha said all those years ago. Shunyata(0, nothing) is the ultimate truth. "The" truth is dependent on the observer. But that doesn't mean you gain nothing with this process, you gain knowledge and to get that knowledge you have to assume that there's a base.
Once somebody begins to argue that 'We have to 'ban' the word Truth from our colloquial, formal, academic, political and/or social discourses, and/or to recommend to everyone to reject the use of the word Truth because we don't care about such kind of 'Philosophical Words' ... Open, your ears and eyes, ... that people just want to set a political agenda for braindead sheeps ...
What is "yapping" his point seems clear to me. Physical theories are fallible and subjected to change over time suggesting it might be relative, it is pragmatic since we can use most of its laws likewise from Newtonian physics to flying rockets from the sky- yet it doesn't tell if this is enough to absolutely describe the same processes to other natural phenomena in different states.
In what regard does Tim Maudlin "have" a dog? Does he own it? What is "owning"? Does he have it for dinner? If not, what does the "have" correspond to? It might be not just that simple, Tim.
So we can say what it would mean for something to be true in abstract terms but we can't say reliably if any one thing is true and what it would take for it to be true.
Tell us with a straight face that you don't understand what it means to own a dog. Or have one as a pet. There are clear situations which would make the sentence true, and that situation happens to be the case. He has a dog on dog. Truly. If you can't admit that, you wouldn't be able to adjudicate/evaluate any claim in your life any more easily. The idea that the concept of truth and the existence of truths doesn't play an important role in our lives and thought is silly and dangerous
And at what scope in space and time? Does he have a dog locally (in the room) or in general (globally)? Also general relativity gets crazy with that statement time wise…
steven jay gould wrote about the relationship between social circumstance and scientific discovery, citing the nature of embryos in eggs. there is always a relationship between our modes of thought and discovery and as such, truth can never be absolute as we evolve different ways of conceptualizing. which is good, for this is a journey, and 'absolute' will vary as we progress.
@@IR17171717 A Partial Truth appealing to another Partial Truth as proxy to an unreacheable 'Absolute Truth' ... You can call that : 'an hypothesis about The dynamics of Partial Truths and its limits' ... When/where a Lie is already identified as a Lie ... that Lie becomes a Truthfull Lie ... at the end of the day, The Lie is something that never happened, happens and/or will happen ... Humans getting deceived and/or self-deceive between themselves are true events that happened, happens and will happen ... Humans lies exist as true lies ... The lier's paradox solution. The lier who knows who is lying is aware of being lying but unaware that is already bringing a Partial Truth about Himself/Herself ....The lier is lying ... and seen truthfully as a lier ... therefore, bringing Truth and Lie in the same package ...
The guy use the argument that he knows to have a dog is true, continue saying tar Newton theory is “totally” wrong, no matter the precision, context, application. TRULY a genius
I have a great appreciation for Lisa Randall’s contributions, particularly her work on extra-dimensional theories like the Randall-Sundrum model. This framework explores the possibility that our universe is a 4-dimensional brane embedded in a higher-dimensional bulk, providing a creative approach to solving the hierarchy problem by proposing that gravity’s weakness could be explained by its ability to “leak” into extra dimensions. It’s an elegant hypothesis that has inspired extensive research in particle physics and string theory, and it has spurred experiments aimed at finding evidence of Kaluza-Klein (KK) particles. However, despite its influence, the theory has faced challenges in terms of empirical support, as no direct evidence for extra dimensions or KK particles has emerged from high-energy experiments like those conducted at the LHC. This reliance on unobserved, speculative constructs highlights a key limitation: the theory’s testability is currently constrained by our technological capabilities and the speculative nature of extra dimensions themselves. In contrast, my wave-based theory of gravity offers a grounded alternative that does not rely on higher-dimensional constructs but instead posits that gravity emerges as a scalar, frequency-based wave phenomenon. Rather than viewing gravity purely through the lens of spacetime curvature, I propose a model where gravitational interactions arise from the resonant interference patterns of a quantized wave field. This approach not only integrates more seamlessly with quantum mechanics but also provides a direct, testable link to observable data. By framing gravity as an emergent wave phenomenon, the theory avoids the pitfalls of relying on speculative particles or dimensions, offering a more parsimonious and empirically grounded framework. To establish the robustness of this theory, I have gone beyond conceptual exploration and have rigorously developed a full mathematical framework, complete with detailed equations and testable predictions. I have derived specific, quantifiable effects that differ from those predicted by General Relativity, such as frequency-dependent gravitational lensing and distinct patterns in gravitational wave data. These predictions are not speculative in nature; they are grounded in empirical physics and can be tested with current observational technologies, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, LIGO, and the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope. In terms of empirical validation, I am currently working with data from the Hubble archive and other astronomical sources to test these predictions. I am conducting a series of analyses comparing the observed gravitational lensing effects across different frequencies to the theoretical predictions outlined in my model. Additionally, I am exploring the possibility of identifying unique resonance signatures in the gravitational wave data collected by LIGO, which would provide a critical empirical test for the wave-based nature of gravity as posited by my theory. Unlike many alternative models, including Randall’s, my approach emphasizes falsifiability and empirical testability. I have structured the theory to make clear, specific predictions that can be validated or refuted with existing data, rather than relying on hypothetical constructs that may remain unobservable for the foreseeable future. This focus on empirical evidence and testable predictions not only strengthens the theory but also positions it as a viable competitor to current paradigms, including General Relativity and extra-dimensional theories. I am currently preparing a comprehensive paper detailing the full theoretical framework, mathematical derivations, and empirical predictions for submission to [insert journal name]. My goal is to engage with the scientific community at the highest level, presenting a theory that is not only conceptually innovative but also rigorously grounded in empirical science. I welcome dialogue, critique, and collaboration, as I believe that true progress in theoretical physics requires both rigorous testing of new ideas and a willingness to challenge the limitations of existing models. In summary, while I respect the creativity and influence of Lisa Randall’s work, I believe my wave-based theory of gravity offers a more parsimonious, empirically grounded, and testable alternative. By avoiding speculative constructs and focusing on observable predictions, I aim to provide a framework that not only aligns with our current understanding of physics but also offers a pathway to new discoveries that could reshape our understanding of gravity itself.
1:44 Underlying “Ultimate Truth”‽ How about an incrementally extended “model” that deals with the incompleteness of GR & QM‽ Is it even possible to attain the “Ultimate Truth”‽ Probably a question for the philosophers. Go Lisa!! 6:44 By his own definition of “Truth”, he seems to contradict that by stating that physics should have a “model” that can be “stated in sharp mathematical terms”. Does something like a model that is “stated in sharp mathematical terms” make it any “Truer” than a model that has fuzzy characteristics ‽ The philosopher needs to be more “sharp” in his terminology because he seems to be missing the point that Lisa was making to just have something to say.
Haha that's a pretty good way of summarizing that exchange. With a bit more cross examining each other, I'm pretty sure they'd arrive at similar conclusions although their approaches might be different.
The absolute truth can only be an ideal like God, Absolute, Cosmic Consciousness or Oneness, which we will never be able to posses or touch, but always be able to aspire to or feel.
Some of what Lisa R said make sense, but I don't buy the idea that everything in the universe including the cosmological constants, mathematical laws etc ( and hence us and orr consciousness) are lucky coincidences.
She did not say that the known fundamental constants are coincidental. Essentially what she said is scientific "truth" is like peeling an onion, and science reveals deeper underlying truths through experimentation proving or disproving deeper underlying principles.
One eye will tell a slightly different story to another eye . Truth is about accuracy of alignment . May we align in all appropriate ways to all appropriate degrees with the greatest realities .
I don't agree with Tim with his general view of physics, I tend to agree with Lisa more, but in this specific case, I agree with Tim. History has told us that when we discovered the earth is round, it is no longer flat. When we learnt that the universe is infinitely large, the old geocentric and heliocentric views are no longer the truths but are lies. When we learnt that the universe is a spread of and kayout of dynamical space-time curvature, then gravity is no longer a force. Therefore, new learning not only completely destroyed old ones but old ones are false and lies if we don't explain clearly. When new reality of consciousness is recognized, then there is really no physics - physics has never existed.
Events that just happens one time and/or randomly distributed can be True Truthfull Events ... The Replicability Quality is not an intrinsic property from Truth but more a functional mechanistic way to extract and differentiate those True Events who have 'replicability' as a boundary condition ... but the Notion of Truth could be more deeper, up to recognizing true events that can not be replicated by simplified formal/mathematical/statistical representations ... Replicability comes to the Truth's Games as a 'desirable feature' by its potential for mechanistic and/or technological outcomes ... but 'replicability' is not a necessary condition for Truth ... just a nice Hint that provides evolutionary advantages by bringing ways for controlling 'Nature/Given Existence' ... Of course, It is not required the need for nurturing beliefs about 'sui generis events' that can not be 'easily' replicated ... and replication brings the intersubjective space for developing less biased anthropocene's explanations for Regularities in Nature ... But Truth embeds that and very likely go deeper that humans can rationalize ... Almost All Humans can not even form 'mental imaginery' for representing in their 'cognitive system' inner acurate representations of topological spaces of more than 4-5 Dimensions ... what they do is algebraic sequential processing of multivariable quantifiable models , rather than to really think in X>4 dimensions ... and very few had some sort of embodied intuition about torsions 3D spaces where the torsion becomes the representation of the Time variable ... but if you really had X>4D cognitive abilities, easily, you would discern a sequence of events as a single event from its higher dimension ... Currently, humans seems to be more near to the Neanthertal's behavioral patterns rather than to any sort of behavioral patterns proper from Type 1,2 or 5 Civilizations would 'render' ... As neantherthals where between themselves disable to imagine the behavioral patterns from current humans ... Current humans could be intrinsically disable to comprehend that other beings can easily grasp ...
Love this discussion. When I tried to define TRUTH, I discovered something that was profound to me. This discovery changed me and how I behave. My definition accounts for subjective truths, relative & individual truths, and how truth can change over time and in the light of new information.
The concept of truth and reality is difficult to navigate. It is sometimes the difference between digital and analog. One has discrete finite values with limited precision, and the other has a balance between the infinities with infinite precision. Neither can ever reach a point of finite truth or reality. In some ways it is the very magic of the universe that allows it to exist and makes it so perplexing for us humans :)
Tim is being obtuse, not willing to allow himself so see what is valid. Lisa, your body language was clear, but don't let the turkey weigh you down. You function at a higher level.
@@IR17171717 I just watched the 8:44 segment and decided I had no need for the full video. Tim spent a lot of time dealing with the word truth and who is not allowed to use it, lest they would be lying. I did not distill out his words that some things are true even if we don't know they are, but hey, he was hard to follow. Does it need to be said that there are true things we don’t know? I think that Lisa had just articulated the limited application of our best understanding of things and how refinement led to better application of underlying truths, if not understanding/attaining it. My comment was to encourage Lisa where I felt Tim had been rude, viz. “I pretty much disagree with everything that was just said” Lisa’s presentation was elegant and well articulated and sensible. Tim’s disagreement was obtuse.
Knowledge is justified belief sufficient to accept a particular fact or take a particular action. Proof is justification sufficient to convince a rational skeptic.
"I really don't think humanity is part of the ultimate description of reality". There could have been a mic drop right then, that would prevent Mrs Randall from wasting her time with lesser thinkers.
Tim Maudlin is right. We shouldn't abandon the notions of true and false. A theory could work for practical purposes and still be false. We should still look for actual true theory.
If you listened to Lisa she said it is impossible to know whether or not you have a true theory on your hands. You can only rule theories out, and never prove they are true. You's have to expose a theory to every test possible for it to be known to be true, which of course is impossible.
@@jamesfullwood7788 Well, what Maudlin is saying is that we need the true/false frame to rule theories out and find better ones. Newtonian view and General Relativity have actual flaws, Its not that they just have different applications. So you can still look for a new or modified theory that works "every" time. Of course you can appeal to the problem of induction as proposed by Hume, we can almost never be 100% sure of anything.
A theory that's true mathematically isn't necessarily true experimentally. If you've set your standards too high, then the conclusion is these scientists have been producing nothing but falsehoods! (There is no perfectly complete, mathematical theory of reality that we know of.) Truth as a goal that's worth investing time, effort and resources into I agree with. What I disagree with is that this truth seeking process is going to produce simple binary true/false determinations, or even that that's a good goal. Accounting for uncertainties has turned out to be a very productive avenue for finding truth.
Wow. The animosity toward Tim is interesting. But all I see in the comments is name-calling of him. I didn't hear the whole conversation, as I have to pay to hear it, but it seems to me what he was initially saying is that the only truths we can have are uninteresting and tell us nothing about the world because they are tautologies. This piece of paper is equivalent to this piece of paper. But I'm not even sure tautologies are true as some ideas in physics seem to break those tautology rules. And his example of medical science was good. Medical or nutritional science is the perfect example of the changing nature of scientific understanding and how scientists try to cling onto their falsified hypotheses despite all evidence to the contrary. This is actually a complex subject, as QBism and the philosophy of science reveal, and while I don't disagree with what Lisa is saying, merely side-stepping the problem and labeling a scientific theory "effective" does not get rid of philosophical and practical questions/problems about science: what it is trying to do, what it should be doing, what it actually tells us about reality, if anything, etc. However, I disagree with Tim that physics is different from other sciences. It encounters the same problems of all sciences: the same un-examined assumptions and biases, the same tendency toward conformity and group-think, and the same unwillingness to involve itself in deep reflection about the nature of science and the same difficulty accepting paradigm shifts, the same problems with the educational system reinforcing and rewarding adherence to dogma in the form of rewarding degrees and jobs and funding to those who adhere and don't rock the boat.
Lisa Randall is a fine thinker. Approximations are just fine! We have no need for certainty. Tim Maudlin should remember that absolute truth is a traditional metaphysical (a Platonic) notion. As "truth" seems indelibly stained by metaphysical thinking, we can follow philosopher of science Steven Goldman's suggestion and switch to "actuality." Also, Helicobacter pylori is a strain of bacteria, not a virus.
I think Lisa's opener makes a lot of sense. Physicists would love to have that holy grail theory that describes all of nature. But that's too hard, at least for now. (Feynman famously observed that it would be very nice to discover the ultimate law, if such a thing even exists. But if instead, it's just like millions of layers of an onion and we become sick and tired of all the layers, then that's just the way it is.) So physicists must settle for mathematical theories that try to describe and predict as much as they can about how nature behaves, with no one theory covering the whole enchilada. The consequences of a given mathematical theory can sometimes, though not always, be calculated to arbitrarily fine precision if enough labor is done. Experiments have measurement uncertainties, which are usually more difficult to improve, but the experimentalists work very hard. "Market corrections" in theories occur usually when some new, better or more precise experiment disagrees with a current theory. This means that while the theory is still fine for the stuff it applies too, it is no good for the new observations. Sometimes the theory can be patched up, while other times (relativity and quantum mechanics being prime examples) the theory must be rebuilt from the ground up. But of course the new theory must still agree with all the old experiments; i.e. it must agree with the old theory in those regimes where the old theory worked. And so, relativity at low speeds, and non-galactic masses and distances agrees with Newton. Similarly, in the regime of macroscopic objects, quantum mechanics also agrees with Newton (which can be established by analogies with wave-to-geometric optics, but using the de Broglie wavelength). Incidentally, the only theory I know of where there was actually no inkling of an experimental problem to drive it was general relativity. This seems to have been created right out of Einstein's (and others') imagination with essentially no experimental data. This makes Einstein's achievement appear to be almost super human! For quantum mechanics, the interplay between experiment and theory was more typical. There were catastrophes with experimental data disagreeing with all known theory (stability of atoms when according to Maxwell the electron should radiate away its energy in something like ~ 10 ps; discrete structure of atomic spectra; lack of an ultraviolet divergent in the blackbody spectrum, and the list goes on). So theorists were working quite hard trying to explain all these experimental results. Even then, it took over a decade between Bohr's first step and the Heisenberg/Schrodinger quantum mechanics. (Followed by Dirac + 20 years until Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga for the relativistic theory, but that's another chapter.)
There are some deep dives into the Mandelbrot Set. To mix the metaphor, Maudlin thinks that the "no diving" sign at the shallow end of the pool describes the ocean, while Randall is happily swimming far beyond the horizon.
CONCEPTS Vs TRUTH: The word “TRUTH” (“satyam”, “tathya”, “tattva”, or “siddhānta”, in Sanskrit) is one of the most greatly-misused terms in the English tongue. Anything that has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatāra (incarnation of Divinity, assuming such a phenomenon exists - see the Glossary for the most exacting definition of that Sanskrit word), including every single postulation delineated within this Holiest of Holy Scriptures, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, is merely a CONCEPT (that is to say, an idea, or a notion, that belongs to the sphere of relative truth) and not “The Truth” full stop, period, at least not in the Absolute sense of the term. Again, refer to the Glossary. A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. For example, the personal conception of Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is totally inaccurate (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being an ideation of a mind (“Idealism”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth”, as such, because all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is Absolute. A BELIEF is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept or idea, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of all psychological suffering. RELATIVE TRUTH Vs ABSOLUTE TRUTH: It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and necessary. Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed. The ONLY Real Truth in the phenomenal manifestation, is the impersonal sense of being, that is, the sense of “I am” (“aham”, in Sanskrit). Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability). This sense of haecceity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence”, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one’s being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter. Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything.
It's really within the similar paradigm of subjective reality vs objective reality. For the most part we live in a human world based upon subjective reality.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas It's YT. There is not enough space to do justice to any concept of reality :) There are many historical as well as modern works which go into the discussion in depth.
Godel's incompleteness theorem has it that, in mathematics, there will always be true statements that come from the set of axioms and yet cannot be proven by those axioms. You'd need more axioms to prove those statements, but from those more axioms, you'd have more true and yet unprovable statements. Would something similar be true of physics? That we by definition can't have an ultimate theory of everything, or an ultimate and exhaustive set of equations from which reality can essentially be captured? There will always be something true about reality that our theories fail to touch, so Randall is right in saying that aiming for this idea of an ultimate theory of everything is a frivolous exercise and a misdirection of energy.
I think truth is a slippery term. All science's claims are based on our BEST INTERPRETATION (theories) of data. As such they are metaphors (our best approximation) pointing at what is going on. As soon as an improved interpretation or updated, data evidence comes along, we drop these established metaphors for new ones. There is a gap in science from empirical evidence to the way we see the world. There is creative imagination that toys with the data.
Truth is a standard which is applied. A true shot hits the mark, a true ruler produces straight lines. Mathematicians have their standards for accepting statements as truth. Scientists employ mathematical standards, as well as experimental, and social! It's not science if none of the other scientists recognize it as such. The problem with science is it takes a team of PhDs to produce a true statement, in many of these fields. Which is to say it's a process that's good at producing expensive truths. The everyday, cheaper variety of truth may not be as well validated, but we make do with what resources we have.
How do you actually know you have a dog? What is a dog? Eventually, you have to get to physics questions and definitions. And then you are limited by observability. Lisa is absolutely right, and the philosopher doesn't understand the issues with observation and their implications to how scientific theory works in describing what we observe as reality. There are limitations on "truth" that we can know. All theories are effective theories, and we will never know "truth". Even from a mathematical POV, we have to assume certain axioms as true. Whether they are "really" true is not determined.
As far as I am concerned there are only two things which can be trusted, human nature which is totally unpredictable and empiricism which can be totally predicted. The rest is semantics and hyperbole, and possibly metaphysics.
My only personal takeaway from this very interesting argument is that I'm pretty darn sure Lisa and Tim didn't do the dirty later on after a nice dinner out. That, I think, is the Truth.
Some physical events, planetary ones and subatomic ones likewise, are not at all determined by the starting parameters, simply because when the difference between two full sets of starting parameters are undetectably small (by Planck), they can still, admittedly, result in two different outcome. Now, if all outcome isn’t, indeed, determined by the full set of the detectable starting parameters then it must either be based on pure white noise (ultimate randomness, NOTHING) of that factor of uncertainty, OR the outcome is pre-determined by SOMETHING (that we don’t have to have any idea of). Now the final theoretical question one can ever ask from themselves is whether one prefer attributing complexity (and, therefore, life, intelligence, feelings and consciousness) to the result of a meaningless white noise of NOTHING, OR SOMETHING we can formulate no valid statements about? There can be no 3rd option imaginable - this is a perfectly Boolean choice.
ultimate truth is in itself impossible to know about, at least on conciouss human terms. There is always the possibility of something not discovered, it can never be fully ruled out. That does not imply that ultimate truth doesnt exist.
Seemed sort of interesting so I went to their website to watch the whole video. Unfortunately, though I have GB speeds, their website is horribly congested. You get a few seconds and then you must wait a minute to get the next 5 seconds.
The truth “It is wise to be humble and say I don’t know and let’s figure it out together” How can any from of consciousness understand what is the truth without first understanding environment that it exists in. There are many different thresholds of environments to pass before the truth can be seen in the imagination.
Just one request, until you’ll agree on ‘truth’, go with words like real, fact and actual. Truth will reveal itself, it has no choice, but intellect is not the way, it may lead one to the door but crossing that threshold depends on the the individual, of the two, I think Tim is closer to ‘TRUTH’.
Most comments concerns themselves to what Tim Maudlin mannerisms or act likes but not addressing any arguments or actually getting into the heart of what he actually said and yes he is annoying but that doesn't mean that what he just said was just jumbled syntax.
Wow, another example of the majority being busy with the form rather than substance. Tim is neither narcissistic nor egoistic. He is talking about the fact that scientific endeavor is based on the assumption that the Universe is nomative and conceptually articulated. This allows validity of science as source of truth, which is the assigned truth values to those normative statements. An error is intelligible due to conflicts in prior said statements, hence truth has a history....read Kant, Hegel.
Once a theory has shown that it has strong predictive power, we engage with the world as if our theories are describing true reality because it’s the pragmatic thing to do.
A pragmatist would rather not bring up the notion of true reality at all. It’s an optional way of talking that has proven to be more trouble than it’s worth.
@@peterhalick6226 I simply see it as a linguistic convenience to talk about our best theories as if they’re true when that may not be the case. Prefacing all conversations by stating that scientific knowledge is provisional, all theories are applicable within a limited scope, and the scientific endeavor just about making predictions rather than truth seeking feels cumbersome.
@@anacjb422 no need to preface. You can use the word true in the regular ordinary way we do. The idea of true reality need not be brought up at all. Also no need to talk about what’s really real. Science will go on all the same. Us linguistic pragmatist don’t need a theory of truth. Acting as if you’re a scientific realist even though you’re a pragmatist seems an odd coupling. For a lot of us it’s that youthful scientific realism that we now find naive and misleading.
Dr Maudlin disagrees with Dr. Randall because he didn't listen to her. Add the phrase ".. in a regime" to each of his assertions and you get essentially what Dr. Randall said.
CONCEPTS Vs TRUTH: The word “TRUTH” (“satyam”, “tathya”, “tattva”, or “siddhānta”, in Sanskrit) is one of the most greatly-misused terms in the English tongue. Anything that has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatāra (incarnation of Divinity, assuming such a phenomenon exists - see the Glossary for the most exacting definition of that Sanskrit word), including every single postulation delineated within this Holiest of Holy Scriptures, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, is merely a CONCEPT (that is to say, an idea, or a notion, that belongs to the sphere of relative truth) and not “The Truth” full stop, period, at least not in the Absolute sense of the term. Again, refer to the Glossary. A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. For example, the personal conception of Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is totally inaccurate (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being an ideation of a mind (“Idealism”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth”, as such, because all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is Absolute. A BELIEF is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept or idea, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of all psychological suffering. RELATIVE TRUTH Vs ABSOLUTE TRUTH: It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and necessary. Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed. The ONLY Real Truth in the phenomenal manifestation, is the impersonal sense of being, that is, the sense of “I am” (“aham”, in Sanskrit). Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability). This sense of haecceity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence”, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one’s being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter. Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything.
I can follow you up till the fully realized , awakened individuaI part. i think that when the realization happens the individual is no more. Its transparency becomes apparent. It’s like a flip on the mobius strip of reality. We as individuals will never get it, we’ll never get the truth as the end prize but individuals appear along the path towards as a way for Being to be experienced.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas whole books have been filled on this subject but in short the paradoxical division of One into Many. A unit of consciousness that reflects that same One.
@@RoryRonde, that is a rather bizarre definition of the word. I would have defined it as simply, "non-divisable; that which cannot be further divided".
Over half a current MSc course on particle physics is based upon the Natural Philosophy and mathematics from the Age of Enlightenment. The same holds for a theoretical analysis of Neural Networks. I am an engineer and not interested in what Maudlin opines, because he brings nothing significant to advancing mathematics, physics, engineering or philosophy so far as I can determine. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers who depend on the concepts and mathematical insight of Newton each and every day.
Scientists disagree on things if they dont have enough evidence so disagreeing is a good thing. Yes they can have hypothesis which may or may not be correct until they have enough verified evidence. Religion does not do this.
Todas as nossas percepções da "nossa realidade" dependem do "filtro" dos nossos sentidos ( instrumentos que temos para isso). E isso nos traz , tanto limitações, como também possibilidades infinitas. Mas, o que realmente nos permite - tudo isso - é a nossa consciência... E quando ela está "ligada" a alguma coisa - relação sujeito/objeto, aí - ela - está limitada a isto no espaço/tempo (que só existem, "são percebidos", por ela mesma!
Tune in to The Electric Universe. Those actual physicists and electric engineers actually have a clue regarding basic reality. Tesla and Steinmetz were the actual intellectual giants of their period.
This is the problem with all studies of ultimate truth, it's that they are taught with a mandatory belief that the complete attainment of ultimate truth is necessary to live. If the millennia old traditions that study ultimate truth eased up on this false belief, then it would be more accessible to everyone, including scientists. I don't have a problem with religion, just with it's hold on ultimate truth. When ultimate truth is taken away from religion, religion can and will exist and have importance.
I think, thereforfe I am - Descartes I am, therefore I think = J. P. Sartre There is Me and Thee, but I am not altogether sure about Thee. Just because you're schizophrenic, doesn't mean the Universe isn't a figment of your imagination....
Maudlin says there's just truth, period, end of story. Then, he goes on to invoke notions of probability (General Relativity is probably not correct), which itself rests on a notion of induction, at which point it seems there isn't just simply truth, period, end of story. Wtf?
I agree with everything Mrs. Randall says. This is how physics has been constructed-detached from the human world, and we think there is objective truth. However, everything would shift if one day we determine that, indeed, consciousness is how we understand the world, and that without these interpretations, we wouldn't be able to know or understand anything. (Tim seems to be a sicko)
Try my science-aligned ÆPT view on what is going on (one that is mainly focused on us humans, and that is are rounded of with a simple take on Ultimate Reality).
Tim Maudlin appears to be a fool when compared to Lisa Randall. It is more about words ? Right, Wrong? How can Tim ever make progress if everything is just wrong? His speech seems to be arrogant but I think this way of thinking leads us to nothing…
A lot of mockery towards Tim seems to stem from his attitude; but there are also substantial problems with his views. Here are some: First, he is referring to what is called „correspondence theory of truth“. Basically, this entails that the meaning of a sentence „corresponds to“ a true fact about the world. There are some troubles with this idea of truth (of which Tim is probably perfectly aware), mainly that it seems impossible to say, what „corresponds to“ means without referring to truth, i.e. without becoming circular. Though this philosophical problem is rather old, it is minor compared to what he said about „engineering“ (that he would not care about). This reveals a complete ignorance about how we come to know truths. To start with, every experiment - and in particular modern physical experiments - has an integral engineering aspect to it. More general, engineering can be understood philosophically as „practice“, in the sense of practically trying something out in order to make it work. Frankly, I don’t see, how practice could be separated from truth. Every truth reveals itself through some type of practice. Even mathematical reasoning can be understood as a kind of practical doing in order to make things work (which is why it is sometimes hard). Therefore, it appears quite nonsensical to say, I want to know the truth, but I don’t care about practice. This is also a long known philosophical approach to truth (pragmatism). And I am not even going into more modern ideas about truth (deflationism and the like); nor am I going to attack Tims idea of an „absolute truth“. It’s just to hint that he is either willingly ignorant (which I believe), or completely naiive and clueless about truth.
>cipaisone : I disagree. You might try listening to his interview on Sean Carroll's youtube channel a few years ago, which was mostly about the DeBroglie-Bohm versus Many Worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics. (Maudlin favors DBB and Carroll favors MWI.)
@@brothermine2292 the guy starts saying that the fact that he “has a dog is true” somewhat explains the “naive” concept of truth , continue by saying that “newton mechanics is totally wrong”, regardless of concepts like precision and approximation, no matter that people use classical mechanics to send stuff to the moon or mars….and he is not a troll? He can talk with whoever emeritus physicist or philosopher, about whatever cutting edge physics or pseudo-physics : he is just a useless troll.
>cipaisone : Maudlin did NOT say Newtonian gravitation is "totally" wrong, and he DID say it's useful for practical purposes (like trips to the moon). Your criticism is erroneous. Maudlin has a more demanding standard than you have regarding how we should use the word "truth." Useful is NOT a synonym for true.
There is only the electric field and its movement and condensations. Magnetism is circular current created by straight line currents within the field. It’s not waves. It’s what is waving. Change this one perspective and reality comes into focus. So simple it just cannot be believed,
Truth is we can not be absolutely certain (of any of the totality), what we can know is that we have working constructs for our little corner, a good scientist NEVER announces his ( and the boring ones are like Maudlin) theory, idea, discovery, as the end...the final solution!! The future is the consequence of the continuous interaction of the ideas and actions of us ALL...and at present we don't seem to being a very good job...my term for this is 'stupid primate'.
scientists, in fact all humans, always have their own pride ofc they always think and want to say this is true, this is false, I'm right, you're wrong it's inevitable what are you a emotionless piece of rock? you have 0 pride in saying what you know to be true?
I think the problem is in word science. As long we will have the science that forces that everything is just physical, so long we will have separation between truth and something else. If the science is just outward directed there will always be theory not something that is felt as truth. There cant be one without another. If there is outside more important than inside or other way around there will always be a question, is this the right way or the other...
When scientist knew a thing about epistemology, life was good. What happend then? Tim really don't understand what is the difference between constructing a sentence and what is reality. His example "I have a dog", can evaluated as true/false only if you formulate in terms of set theory, which is not reality. If set theory is not reality, How can describe it? It can't. Math is just the abstractions we do to understand reality, but in the end, we can't perceive.
That you have a dog is also untrue and true in many context. Have implies possession and control...in this context, but it depends on so much of the context, the statement is always going to be meaningless in and of itself. The dog could secretely have two masters if you let it out a lot and doesnt come home some nights. How much of the dogs individuality is invested in you and the other way around. Control and ownership are illusions or work both ways. The earth is flat for all practical purposes for people who travel only a few 100 miles in their life...to those people and provided they define their earth as the local place they live and know no other place. You might think thats quaint but its actually practical. The flat approximation may even be more accurate than a spherical one at small scales given geographic variation. Tims obsession with truth is a (very human) obsession with absolutes that leads to fascism in the end. There certainly exist certain truths in specific context, but we must always be aware that our desire for control and power may cause us to limit our world to force the context. Thats fascism. Its kind of bizarre Tim seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. Hes obsessed about absolutism, but that whole concept rests on a Newtonian Clockwork universe always operating in the background at time steps...neither which relativity nor QM support..and in this he appealing to Newton while simultaneously saying its a false theory. I would argue you can ONLY say true things with vague language. Operating at extremely violent energies of particle physics we have fundamental unvertainities that is its own variety of vagary...that may or may not be connected to the most umportant understanding of our universe and reality. We just dont know. Ulcers are produced by many things....including stress which is a common cause. H Pylori is a spirochetal bacteria, not a virus, and is only one of many causes including stress, direct irritation, tumors, viruses, bacteria.
Lol the last guy is absurdly naive, his binarization of truth and inability to acknowledge uncertainty and scope is hilarious! WOW he then goes on to demand a simple and comprehensible ultimate truth from the universe! The arrogance is remarkable
Maudlin is unnecessarily combative, but I don’t think his conception of the relationship between scientific success and truth should be controversial, on the other side, Randall makes quite reasonable claims, with the exception of the following: (paraphrasing) “I don’t think consciousness should figure in our understanding of fundamental reality, human nature and the human story is not centre stage, it’s not even a decoration, let alone a supporting character.” This is a hopeless non sequitur, there is nothing about consciousness in itself that should convince us that it supervenes on human cognition or information processing systems, or that it achieves its ultimate form in humans and piffles out as you go down the evolutionary tree, it anything, our view of a mindless universe is harder to square with the ideals of rationalism and naturalism. The more we understand nature the less mechanical it seems. Besides, there is a serious ontological lacuna at the foundations, there is no sense to be made in a descriptive and explanatory scheme that adduces computational or wave-like structures that float free of ontology and the only realistic ontology on the table right now is experience. Not my experience, or your experience. Not human experience period. It’s not ‘Orca experience’ or ‘fish experience.’ Every characterisation of a mental state must be weary of including ownership terms, likewise it should avoid conflating what it can be said to do for the organism (even if it’s merely epiphenomenal) with what it is in and of itself. Randall’s argument also fails to engage with serious literature on the hard problem of consciousness and findings on non-human intelligence (yes I’m correlating consciousness with intelligence, but not for reasons relating to logical inference or proof). To me, imputing a non-human ontological status to consciousness is the furthest one can get from parochial.
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w7Wf0h1Q8a4/mqdefault.jpg)
Truth is, a pay wall will appear right about the time it gets interesting 🤔
Physicists should stay in their lane which is the tangible. They either do not believe in or understand the non-tangible which is in the domain of religion. At least consciousness which is likely fundamental and not elemental is off-limits to materialists or physicists or whatever they call themselves. Consciousness in the domain of religion whose definition is ‘that to which we are bound’ and we are definitely bound to consciousness. Mind is likely elemental; emerging with quantum events and physicists should study that and leave consciousness to the experts; those who are trained in theology.
Lame. Stay in your lane and only comment on things in your area of professional expertise? Nonsense. Nobody does that, especially people who tell other people to stay in their lane.
That is definitely the “ultimate truth” with regard to pay wall!!
@@SAntczak2 Well then explain what consciousness is or admit that is fundamental, one or the other; stop waffling.
@@ALavin-en1kr Understanding conciousness is a practice which involves different disciplines, neuroscience, physics, theology, etc. You will never be able to explain conciousness with theology alone, which is why it IS so important to hear from for example physicists.
This video should be called Humility vs Arrogance. Lisa's take was refreshing while I could only get through the first minute of Tim.
"Give up and calculate" is its own arrogance.
It’s a bacteria and yes it causes peptic ulcers but it’s not the only cause.
And tellingly, not a virus :)
Tim is just yapping about absolutely nothing. Nothing he said countered anything she said at all. Such a refreshing take from Lisa, we really need more people like her in this field and less people yapping about nothing and truly doing nothing. A search for a theory of everything or "absolute truth" is the most braindead approach to physics, it shows the exact lack of humility as people claiming to know "ultimate undeniable truth" as religion. Zero evidence, people yapping about how it is true for decades, and provides zero benefit to humanity.
@@haaake finding truth is like digging a tunnel in pre-historic world. First you assume a bottom of the world exist, then you dig to find a bottom that your tools can't penitrate, you think that you have found the base of the world on which whole world is standing, then you relax and chill since you found 'the' true base.
Then somebody challanges that notion and state that this badrock is not the base of the world and improve the tools for trying to digg the supposed base of the world to find the true base of the world, with sufficient no. Of trial and commitment they found another new bedrock which their tools cannot penitrate and think now they have found the base of the world, which is more true since this new bedrock holds previous bedrock up.
And the cycle continues, on and on.
Untill someone realise that there's no base and the world is round, it's everything is holding everything, there's no true base, it's all interconnected. You discover what buddha said all those years ago. Shunyata(0, nothing) is the ultimate truth. "The" truth is dependent on the observer.
But that doesn't mean you gain nothing with this process, you gain knowledge and to get that knowledge you have to assume that there's a base.
I completely agree! Lisa's take was very clear, simple and pragmatic. Tim's on the other hand...
Once somebody begins to argue that 'We have to 'ban' the word Truth from our colloquial, formal, academic, political and/or social discourses, and/or to recommend to everyone to reject the use of the word Truth because we don't care about such kind of 'Philosophical Words' ...
Open, your ears and eyes, ... that people just want to set a political agenda for braindead sheeps ...
If you think he is doing nothing, then you are wrong. Read his stuff. She seems great too.
What is "yapping" his point seems clear to me. Physical theories are fallible and subjected to change over time suggesting it might be relative, it is pragmatic since we can use most of its laws likewise from Newtonian physics to flying rockets from the sky- yet it doesn't tell if this is enough to absolutely describe the same processes to other natural phenomena in different states.
The guy (Tim?) on the right is pretty happy with himself....but his statements are far less confident...Lisa Randall makes far more sense.
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
he seems much more emotionally tied to his statements than she does. she is factual and pointed, he kind of ambles around.
Good reason to disbelieve someone. They don't come across as confident. I foresee no problem with rating academics using this criteria...
@@Vanessa-eo3sfmaybe he's less confident as a speaker. What does that have to do with the plausibility of his claims?
@@IR17171717 you clearly get the point
As Lisa Randall said, some egos are bigger than others.
Yeah, good of her to note that she is more modest than others are. Super modest thing to do...
In what regard does Tim Maudlin "have" a dog? Does he own it? What is "owning"? Does he have it for dinner? If not, what does the "have" correspond to? It might be not just that simple, Tim.
Figuring out what is the case is a difficult task, that doesn't change the definition of truth as p is true if p is the case.
So we can say what it would mean for something to be true in abstract terms but we can't say reliably if any one thing is true and what it would take for it to be true.
Tell us with a straight face that you don't understand what it means to own a dog. Or have one as a pet. There are clear situations which would make the sentence true, and that situation happens to be the case. He has a dog on dog. Truly. If you can't admit that, you wouldn't be able to adjudicate/evaluate any claim in your life any more easily. The idea that the concept of truth and the existence of truths doesn't play an important role in our lives and thought is silly and dangerous
And at what scope in space and time? Does he have a dog locally (in the room) or in general (globally)? Also general relativity gets crazy with that statement time wise…
@@mkhex87 Do I truly have a dog if I also have Schizophrenia?
"I want the truth."
"You can't handle the truth!"
I always wanted to use that in a comment section.
Cudos to Lisa's Randall. Tim Maudlin needs to quit coffee or something.
The underlaying Structure is a Kind of Art.
Arithmetic follows.!
SIMP SPOTTED.
steven jay gould wrote about the relationship between social circumstance and scientific discovery, citing the nature of embryos in eggs. there is always a relationship between our modes of thought and discovery and as such, truth can never be absolute as we evolve different ways of conceptualizing. which is good, for this is a journey, and 'absolute' will vary as we progress.
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Is that true?
@@IR17171717 A Partial Truth appealing to another Partial Truth as proxy to an unreacheable 'Absolute Truth' ...
You can call that : 'an hypothesis about The dynamics of Partial Truths and its limits' ...
When/where a Lie is already identified as a Lie ... that Lie becomes a Truthfull Lie ... at the end of the day, The Lie is something that never happened, happens and/or will happen ... Humans getting deceived and/or self-deceive between themselves are true events that happened, happens and will happen ... Humans lies exist as true lies ...
The lier's paradox solution.
The lier who knows who is lying is aware of being lying but unaware that is already bringing a Partial Truth about Himself/Herself ....The lier is lying ... and seen truthfully as a lier ... therefore, bringing Truth and Lie in the same package ...
The guy use the argument that he knows to have a dog is true, continue saying tar Newton theory is “totally” wrong, no matter the precision, context, application. TRULY a genius
I have a great appreciation for Lisa Randall’s contributions, particularly her work on extra-dimensional theories like the Randall-Sundrum model. This framework explores the possibility that our universe is a 4-dimensional brane embedded in a higher-dimensional bulk, providing a creative approach to solving the hierarchy problem by proposing that gravity’s weakness could be explained by its ability to “leak” into extra dimensions. It’s an elegant hypothesis that has inspired extensive research in particle physics and string theory, and it has spurred experiments aimed at finding evidence of Kaluza-Klein (KK) particles. However, despite its influence, the theory has faced challenges in terms of empirical support, as no direct evidence for extra dimensions or KK particles has emerged from high-energy experiments like those conducted at the LHC. This reliance on unobserved, speculative constructs highlights a key limitation: the theory’s testability is currently constrained by our technological capabilities and the speculative nature of extra dimensions themselves.
In contrast, my wave-based theory of gravity offers a grounded alternative that does not rely on higher-dimensional constructs but instead posits that gravity emerges as a scalar, frequency-based wave phenomenon. Rather than viewing gravity purely through the lens of spacetime curvature, I propose a model where gravitational interactions arise from the resonant interference patterns of a quantized wave field. This approach not only integrates more seamlessly with quantum mechanics but also provides a direct, testable link to observable data. By framing gravity as an emergent wave phenomenon, the theory avoids the pitfalls of relying on speculative particles or dimensions, offering a more parsimonious and empirically grounded framework.
To establish the robustness of this theory, I have gone beyond conceptual exploration and have rigorously developed a full mathematical framework, complete with detailed equations and testable predictions. I have derived specific, quantifiable effects that differ from those predicted by General Relativity, such as frequency-dependent gravitational lensing and distinct patterns in gravitational wave data. These predictions are not speculative in nature; they are grounded in empirical physics and can be tested with current observational technologies, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, LIGO, and the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope.
In terms of empirical validation, I am currently working with data from the Hubble archive and other astronomical sources to test these predictions. I am conducting a series of analyses comparing the observed gravitational lensing effects across different frequencies to the theoretical predictions outlined in my model. Additionally, I am exploring the possibility of identifying unique resonance signatures in the gravitational wave data collected by LIGO, which would provide a critical empirical test for the wave-based nature of gravity as posited by my theory.
Unlike many alternative models, including Randall’s, my approach emphasizes falsifiability and empirical testability. I have structured the theory to make clear, specific predictions that can be validated or refuted with existing data, rather than relying on hypothetical constructs that may remain unobservable for the foreseeable future. This focus on empirical evidence and testable predictions not only strengthens the theory but also positions it as a viable competitor to current paradigms, including General Relativity and extra-dimensional theories.
I am currently preparing a comprehensive paper detailing the full theoretical framework, mathematical derivations, and empirical predictions for submission to [insert journal name]. My goal is to engage with the scientific community at the highest level, presenting a theory that is not only conceptually innovative but also rigorously grounded in empirical science. I welcome dialogue, critique, and collaboration, as I believe that true progress in theoretical physics requires both rigorous testing of new ideas and a willingness to challenge the limitations of existing models.
In summary, while I respect the creativity and influence of Lisa Randall’s work, I believe my wave-based theory of gravity offers a more parsimonious, empirically grounded, and testable alternative. By avoiding speculative constructs and focusing on observable predictions, I aim to provide a framework that not only aligns with our current understanding of physics but also offers a pathway to new discoveries that could reshape our understanding of gravity itself.
I don’t know what is hard to grasp. You learn new things in your life. You learn new things in science. Simple.
1:44 Underlying “Ultimate Truth”‽ How about an incrementally extended “model” that deals with the incompleteness of GR & QM‽ Is it even possible to attain the “Ultimate Truth”‽ Probably a question for the philosophers. Go Lisa!!
6:44 By his own definition of “Truth”, he seems to contradict that by stating that physics should have a “model” that can be “stated in sharp mathematical terms”.
Does something like a model that is “stated in sharp mathematical terms” make it any “Truer” than a model that has fuzzy characteristics ‽ The philosopher needs to be more “sharp” in his terminology because he seems to be missing the point that Lisa was making to just have something to say.
“I have a Dog”
Yes . . .
And . . .
The Dog has . . . 'You' 😹
Dogs have masters. Cats have slaves. 🐶🤗😼😳
Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
She said glass is half full. He said, wrong, glass is half empty 😂 I am a physicist too.
Haha that's a pretty good way of summarizing that exchange. With a bit more cross examining each other, I'm pretty sure they'd arrive at similar conclusions although their approaches might be different.
The absolute truth can only be an ideal like God, Absolute, Cosmic Consciousness or Oneness, which we will never be able to posses or touch, but always be able to aspire to or feel.
Is that true?
Nonsense.
Some of what Lisa R said make sense, but I don't buy the idea that everything in the universe including the cosmological constants, mathematical laws etc ( and hence us and orr consciousness) are lucky coincidences.
She did not say that the known fundamental constants are coincidental. Essentially what she said is scientific "truth" is like peeling an onion, and science reveals deeper underlying truths through experimentation proving or disproving deeper underlying principles.
Change the word true in physics to accurate & your there.
Newton's laws are accurate within their domain of applicability, but fundamentally wrong.
@spaceinyourface Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
One eye will tell a slightly different story to another eye .
Truth is about accuracy of alignment .
May we align in all appropriate ways to all appropriate degrees with the greatest realities .
W. Pauli once said about another physicist's work: it is not even wrong...
I don't agree with Tim with his general view of physics, I tend to agree with Lisa more, but in this specific case, I agree with Tim.
History has told us that when we discovered the earth is round, it is no longer flat. When we learnt that the universe is infinitely large, the old geocentric and heliocentric views are no longer the truths but are lies. When we learnt that the universe is a spread of and kayout of dynamical space-time curvature, then gravity is no longer a force.
Therefore, new learning not only completely destroyed old ones but old ones are false and lies if we don't explain clearly.
When new reality of consciousness is recognized, then there is really no physics - physics has never existed.
The Truth is whatever continuously replicates. A truth is an instance of The Truth; a fact or perspective.
Events that just happens one time and/or randomly distributed can be True Truthfull Events ... The Replicability Quality is not an intrinsic property from Truth but more a functional mechanistic way to extract and differentiate those True Events who have 'replicability' as a boundary condition ... but the Notion of Truth could be more deeper, up to recognizing true events that can not be replicated by simplified formal/mathematical/statistical representations ... Replicability comes to the Truth's Games as a 'desirable feature' by its potential for mechanistic and/or technological outcomes ... but 'replicability' is not a necessary condition for Truth ... just a nice Hint that provides evolutionary advantages by bringing ways for controlling 'Nature/Given Existence' ...
Of course, It is not required the need for nurturing beliefs about 'sui generis events' that can not be 'easily' replicated ... and replication brings the intersubjective space for developing less biased anthropocene's explanations for Regularities in Nature ... But Truth embeds that and very likely go deeper that humans can rationalize ... Almost All Humans can not even form 'mental imaginery' for representing in their 'cognitive system' inner acurate representations of topological spaces of more than 4-5 Dimensions ... what they do is algebraic sequential processing of multivariable quantifiable models , rather than to really think in X>4 dimensions ... and very few had some sort of embodied intuition about torsions 3D spaces where the torsion becomes the representation of the Time variable ... but if you really had X>4D cognitive abilities, easily, you would discern a sequence of events as a single event from its higher dimension ...
Currently, humans seems to be more near to the Neanthertal's behavioral patterns rather than to any sort of behavioral patterns proper from Type 1,2 or 5 Civilizations would 'render' ...
As neantherthals where between themselves disable to imagine the behavioral patterns from current humans ... Current humans could be intrinsically disable to comprehend that other beings can easily grasp ...
Love this discussion. When I tried to define TRUTH, I discovered something that was profound to me. This discovery changed me and how I behave. My definition accounts for subjective truths, relative & individual truths, and how truth can change over time and in the light of new information.
The concept of truth and reality is difficult to navigate.
It is sometimes the difference between digital and analog.
One has discrete finite values with limited precision, and the other has a balance between the infinities with infinite precision. Neither can ever reach a point of finite truth or reality.
In some ways it is the very magic of the universe that allows it to exist and makes it so perplexing for us humans :)
P.S. I am a believer that the universe is fundamentally analog based and not digital. Just for added context :)
Tim is being obtuse, not willing to allow himself so see what is valid. Lisa, your body language was clear, but don't let the turkey weigh you down. You function at a higher level.
What did he say that was wrong? All he did was defend the notion that some things are true even if we don't know they are.
@@IR17171717 I just watched the 8:44 segment and decided I had no need for the full video.
Tim spent a lot of time dealing with the word truth and who is not allowed to use it, lest they would be lying. I did not distill out his words that some things are true even if we don't know they are, but hey, he was hard to follow.
Does it need to be said that there are true things we don’t know? I think that Lisa had just articulated the limited application of our best understanding of things and how refinement led to better application of underlying truths, if not understanding/attaining it.
My comment was to encourage Lisa where I felt Tim had been rude, viz. “I pretty much disagree with everything that was just said” Lisa’s presentation was elegant and well articulated and sensible. Tim’s disagreement was obtuse.
Tim is just facetious. I hate this video, except for LR.
Knowledge is justified belief sufficient to accept a particular fact or take a particular action. Proof is justification sufficient to convince a rational skeptic.
"I really don't think humanity is part of the ultimate description of reality". There could have been a mic drop right then, that would prevent Mrs Randall from wasting her time with lesser thinkers.
Tim Maudlin is right. We shouldn't abandon the notions of true and false. A theory could work for practical purposes and still be false. We should still look for actual true theory.
If you listened to Lisa she said it is impossible to know whether or not you have a true theory on your hands. You can only rule theories out, and never prove they are true. You's have to expose a theory to every test possible for it to be known to be true, which of course is impossible.
@@jamesfullwood7788 Well, what Maudlin is saying is that we need the true/false frame to rule theories out and find better ones. Newtonian view and General Relativity have actual flaws, Its not that they just have different applications. So you can still look for a new or modified theory that works "every" time. Of course you can appeal to the problem of induction as proposed by Hume, we can almost never be 100% sure of anything.
@@juanma88ct
We can NEVER be 100% sure of anything.
@@rumidude except for the "cogito"
A theory that's true mathematically isn't necessarily true experimentally.
If you've set your standards too high, then the conclusion is these scientists have been producing nothing but falsehoods! (There is no perfectly complete, mathematical theory of reality that we know of.)
Truth as a goal that's worth investing time, effort and resources into I agree with.
What I disagree with is that this truth seeking process is going to produce simple binary true/false determinations, or even that that's a good goal.
Accounting for uncertainties has turned out to be a very productive avenue for finding truth.
Wow. The animosity toward Tim is interesting. But all I see in the comments is name-calling of him. I didn't hear the whole conversation, as I have to pay to hear it, but it seems to me what he was initially saying is that the only truths we can have are uninteresting and tell us nothing about the world because they are tautologies. This piece of paper is equivalent to this piece of paper. But I'm not even sure tautologies are true as some ideas in physics seem to break those tautology rules. And his example of medical science was good. Medical or nutritional science is the perfect example of the changing nature of scientific understanding and how scientists try to cling onto their falsified hypotheses despite all evidence to the contrary. This is actually a complex subject, as QBism and the philosophy of science reveal, and while I don't disagree with what Lisa is saying, merely side-stepping the problem and labeling a scientific theory "effective" does not get rid of philosophical and practical questions/problems about science: what it is trying to do, what it should be doing, what it actually tells us about reality, if anything, etc. However, I disagree with Tim that physics is different from other sciences. It encounters the same problems of all sciences: the same un-examined assumptions and biases, the same tendency toward conformity and group-think, and the same unwillingness to involve itself in deep reflection about the nature of science and the same difficulty accepting paradigm shifts, the same problems with the educational system reinforcing and rewarding adherence to dogma in the form of rewarding degrees and jobs and funding to those who adhere and don't rock the boat.
Truth is a pay wall
Lisa Randall is a fine thinker. Approximations are just fine! We have no need for certainty. Tim Maudlin should remember that absolute truth is a traditional metaphysical (a Platonic) notion. As "truth" seems indelibly stained by metaphysical thinking, we can follow philosopher of science Steven Goldman's suggestion and switch to "actuality." Also, Helicobacter pylori is a strain of bacteria, not a virus.
Tim Maudlin is an embarrassment to philosophy. I counted 6 logical fails in his rant(s.)
I think Lisa's opener makes a lot of sense. Physicists would love to have that holy grail theory that describes all of nature. But that's too hard, at least for now. (Feynman famously observed that it would be very nice to discover the ultimate law, if such a thing even exists. But if instead, it's just like millions of layers of an onion and we become sick and tired of all the layers, then that's just the way it is.) So physicists must settle for mathematical theories that try to describe and predict as much as they can about how nature behaves, with no one theory covering the whole enchilada. The consequences of a given mathematical theory can sometimes, though not always, be calculated to arbitrarily fine precision if enough labor is done. Experiments have measurement uncertainties, which are usually more difficult to improve, but the experimentalists work very hard.
"Market corrections" in theories occur usually when some new, better or more precise experiment disagrees with a current theory. This means that while the theory is still fine for the stuff it applies too, it is no good for the new observations. Sometimes the theory can be patched up, while other times (relativity and quantum mechanics being prime examples) the theory must be rebuilt from the ground up. But of course the new theory must still agree with all the old experiments; i.e. it must agree with the old theory in those regimes where the old theory worked. And so, relativity at low speeds, and non-galactic masses and distances agrees with Newton. Similarly, in the regime of macroscopic objects, quantum mechanics also agrees with Newton (which can be established by analogies with wave-to-geometric optics, but using the de Broglie wavelength).
Incidentally, the only theory I know of where there was actually no inkling of an experimental problem to drive it was general relativity. This seems to have been created right out of Einstein's (and others') imagination with essentially no experimental data. This makes Einstein's achievement appear to be almost super human! For quantum mechanics, the interplay between experiment and theory was more typical. There were catastrophes with experimental data disagreeing with all known theory (stability of atoms when according to Maxwell the electron should radiate away its energy in something like ~ 10 ps; discrete structure of atomic spectra; lack of an ultraviolet divergent in the blackbody spectrum, and the list goes on). So theorists were working quite hard trying to explain all these experimental results. Even then, it took over a decade between Bohr's first step and the Heisenberg/Schrodinger quantum mechanics. (Followed by Dirac + 20 years until Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga for the relativistic theory, but that's another chapter.)
There are some deep dives into the Mandelbrot Set. To mix the metaphor, Maudlin thinks that the "no diving" sign at the shallow end of the pool describes the ocean, while Randall is happily swimming far beyond the horizon.
No, he thinks the sign saying "this is the sea" is true.
CONCEPTS Vs TRUTH:
The word “TRUTH” (“satyam”, “tathya”, “tattva”, or “siddhānta”, in Sanskrit) is one of the most greatly-misused terms in the English tongue.
Anything that has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatāra (incarnation of Divinity, assuming such a phenomenon exists - see the Glossary for the most exacting definition of that Sanskrit word), including every single postulation delineated within this Holiest of Holy Scriptures, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, is merely a CONCEPT (that is to say, an idea, or a notion, that belongs to the sphere of relative truth) and not “The Truth” full stop, period, at least not in the Absolute sense of the term. Again, refer to the Glossary.
A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. For example, the personal conception of Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is totally inaccurate (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being an ideation of a mind (“Idealism”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth”, as such, because all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is Absolute.
A BELIEF is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept or idea, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of all psychological suffering.
RELATIVE TRUTH Vs ABSOLUTE TRUTH:
It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and necessary.
Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed.
The ONLY Real Truth in the phenomenal manifestation, is the impersonal sense of being, that is, the sense of “I am” (“aham”, in Sanskrit).
Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability).
This sense of haecceity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence”, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one’s being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter.
Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything.
It's really within the similar paradigm of subjective reality vs objective reality. For the most part we live in a human world based upon subjective reality.
@@axle.student In your own words, define “REALITY”. ☝️🤔☝️
@@ReverendDr.Thomas It's YT. There is not enough space to do justice to any concept of reality :)
There are many historical as well as modern works which go into the discussion in depth.
Godel's incompleteness theorem has it that, in mathematics, there will always be true statements that come from the set of axioms and yet cannot be proven by those axioms. You'd need more axioms to prove those statements, but from those more axioms, you'd have more true and yet unprovable statements. Would something similar be true of physics? That we by definition can't have an ultimate theory of everything, or an ultimate and exhaustive set of equations from which reality can essentially be captured? There will always be something true about reality that our theories fail to touch, so Randall is right in saying that aiming for this idea of an ultimate theory of everything is a frivolous exercise and a misdirection of energy.
I think truth is a slippery term. All science's claims are based on our BEST INTERPRETATION (theories) of data. As such they are metaphors (our best approximation) pointing at what is going on. As soon as an improved interpretation or updated, data evidence comes along, we drop these established metaphors for new ones.
There is a gap in science from empirical evidence to the way we see the world. There is creative imagination that toys with the data.
Truth is a standard which is applied. A true shot hits the mark, a true ruler produces straight lines.
Mathematicians have their standards for accepting statements as truth.
Scientists employ mathematical standards, as well as experimental, and social!
It's not science if none of the other scientists recognize it as such.
The problem with science is it takes a team of PhDs to produce a true statement, in many of these fields.
Which is to say it's a process that's good at producing expensive truths.
The everyday, cheaper variety of truth may not be as well validated, but we make do with what resources we have.
How do you actually know you have a dog? What is a dog? Eventually, you have to get to physics questions and definitions. And then you are limited by observability. Lisa is absolutely right, and the philosopher doesn't understand the issues with observation and their implications to how scientific theory works in describing what we observe as reality. There are limitations on "truth" that we can know. All theories are effective theories, and we will never know "truth". Even from a mathematical POV, we have to assume certain axioms as true. Whether they are "really" true is not determined.
I love Tim Maudlin but man sometimes he’s kind of abrasive in how he says things
The “simple example” that peptic ulcers are caused by the “virus” H. pylori is apt, in that the H. stands for helicobacter- a helical bacterium.
As far as I am concerned there are only two things which can be trusted, human nature which is totally unpredictable and empiricism which can be totally predicted. The rest is semantics and hyperbole, and possibly metaphysics.
No. He does not have a dog. In fact, he provides the appropriate counterexample to his own intellectual stance.
1.59 -- absolute truth there!!
My only personal takeaway from this very interesting argument is that I'm pretty darn sure Lisa and Tim didn't do the dirty later on after a nice dinner out. That, I think, is the Truth.
Some physical events, planetary ones and subatomic ones likewise, are not at all determined by the starting parameters, simply because when the difference between two full sets of starting parameters are undetectably small (by Planck), they can still, admittedly, result in two different outcome. Now, if all outcome isn’t, indeed, determined by the full set of the detectable starting parameters then it must either be based on pure white noise (ultimate randomness, NOTHING) of that factor of uncertainty, OR the outcome is pre-determined by SOMETHING (that we don’t have to have any idea of). Now the final theoretical question one can ever ask from themselves is whether one prefer attributing complexity (and, therefore, life, intelligence, feelings and consciousness) to the result of a meaningless white noise of NOTHING, OR SOMETHING we can formulate no valid statements about? There can be no 3rd option imaginable - this is a perfectly Boolean choice.
I was shaking my head in agreement with everything Lisa said, and then Mr. Maudlin comes along...
What did he say that was wrong? She seems cool also but what did he say that was incorrect?
This discussion is like ships passing in the night - no contact or understanding of the other. Approximations get closer to not being improved.
Our perceptions/concepts of a reality vary in accuracy, depth , alignment etc
I can see the future because I have a prosthetic eye with uv capabilities💀
How can anyone say "no one knows ultimate truth."
How can anyone say that ans speak for everyone?????
ultimate truth is in itself impossible to know about, at least on conciouss human terms. There is always the possibility of something not discovered, it can never be fully ruled out. That does not imply that ultimate truth doesnt exist.
@dinopassas8390 you got a point. But all I'm saying is we can't speak for everyone, we might be limited but someone else might be unlimited.
The Truth is Just Amazing!!! 👍😁
There's something different between a fact and a truth, we often hear that science is facts while philosophy is truth
Seemed sort of interesting so I went to their website to watch the whole video. Unfortunately, though I have GB speeds, their website is horribly congested. You get a few seconds and then you must wait a minute to get the next 5 seconds.
The truth “It is wise to be humble and say I don’t know and let’s figure it out together”
How can any from of consciousness understand what is the truth without first understanding environment that it exists in. There are many different thresholds of environments to pass before the truth can be seen in the imagination.
Just one request, until you’ll agree on ‘truth’, go with words like real, fact and actual. Truth will reveal itself, it has no choice, but intellect is not the way, it may lead one to the door but crossing that threshold depends on the the individual, of the two, I think Tim is closer to ‘TRUTH’.
Most comments concerns themselves to what Tim Maudlin mannerisms or act likes but not addressing any arguments or actually getting into the heart of what he actually said and yes he is annoying but that doesn't mean that what he just said was just jumbled syntax.
What is the nature of a lie…would be an equally interesting topic.
There is NO truth within dualty. That is inherent in its construct. Truth.
What about Trinity?
@@valentinmalinov8424 No maxims or true false logic there either :)
Tim is very intelligent.
Wow, another example of the majority being busy with the form rather than substance. Tim is neither narcissistic nor egoistic. He is talking about the fact that scientific endeavor is based on the assumption that the Universe is nomative and conceptually articulated. This allows validity of science as source of truth, which is the assigned truth values to those normative statements. An error is intelligible due to conflicts in prior said statements, hence truth has a history....read Kant, Hegel.
Science and not-science can both be right or wrong - but don't we know what is right or wrong.
Once a theory has shown that it has strong predictive power, we engage with the world as if our theories are describing true reality because it’s the pragmatic thing to do.
A pragmatist would rather not bring up the notion of true reality at all. It’s an optional way of talking that has proven to be more trouble than it’s worth.
@@peterhalick6226 I simply see it as a linguistic convenience to talk about our best theories as if they’re true when that may not be the case. Prefacing all conversations by stating that scientific knowledge is provisional, all theories are applicable within a limited scope, and the scientific endeavor just about making predictions rather than truth seeking feels cumbersome.
@@anacjb422 no need to preface. You can use the word true in the regular ordinary way we do. The idea of true reality need not be brought up at all. Also no need to talk about what’s really real. Science will go on all the same. Us linguistic pragmatist don’t need a theory of truth. Acting as if you’re a scientific realist even though you’re a pragmatist seems an odd coupling. For a lot of us it’s that youthful scientific realism that we now find naive and misleading.
Dr Maudlin disagrees with Dr. Randall because he didn't listen to her. Add the phrase ".. in a regime" to each of his assertions and you get essentially what Dr. Randall said.
Yes, those who live their abstractions forget that they might only apply to ahistorical, closed systems.
Is truth a scientific term? I'll collect the data and correlate a response.
CONCEPTS Vs TRUTH:
The word “TRUTH” (“satyam”, “tathya”, “tattva”, or “siddhānta”, in Sanskrit) is one of the most greatly-misused terms in the English tongue.
Anything that has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatāra (incarnation of Divinity, assuming such a phenomenon exists - see the Glossary for the most exacting definition of that Sanskrit word), including every single postulation delineated within this Holiest of Holy Scriptures, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, is merely a CONCEPT (that is to say, an idea, or a notion, that belongs to the sphere of relative truth) and not “The Truth” full stop, period, at least not in the Absolute sense of the term. Again, refer to the Glossary.
A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. For example, the personal conception of Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is totally inaccurate (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being an ideation of a mind (“Idealism”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth”, as such, because all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is Absolute.
A BELIEF is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept or idea, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of all psychological suffering.
RELATIVE TRUTH Vs ABSOLUTE TRUTH:
It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and necessary.
Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed.
The ONLY Real Truth in the phenomenal manifestation, is the impersonal sense of being, that is, the sense of “I am” (“aham”, in Sanskrit).
Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability).
This sense of haecceity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence”, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one’s being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter.
Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything.
I can follow you up till the fully realized , awakened individuaI part. i think that when the realization happens the individual is no more. Its transparency becomes apparent. It’s like a flip on the mobius strip of reality. We as individuals will never get it, we’ll never get the truth as the end prize but individuals appear along the path towards as a way for Being to be experienced.
@@RoryRonde, define "INDIVIDUAL".
@@ReverendDr.Thomas whole books have been filled on this subject but in short the paradoxical division of One into Many. A unit of consciousness that reflects that same One.
@@RoryRonde, that is a rather bizarre definition of the word.
I would have defined it as simply, "non-divisable; that which cannot be further divided".
Over half a current MSc course on particle physics is based upon the Natural Philosophy and mathematics from the Age of Enlightenment. The same holds for a theoretical analysis of Neural Networks.
I am an engineer and not interested in what Maudlin opines, because he brings nothing significant to advancing mathematics, physics, engineering or philosophy so far as I can determine. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers who depend on the concepts and mathematical insight of Newton each and every day.
Scientists disagree on things if they dont have enough evidence so disagreeing is a good thing. Yes they can have hypothesis which may or may not be correct until they have enough verified evidence. Religion does not do this.
I understand Tim Maudlin's position on this. I agree with some of the things he says. However, in this video he seems to dominate the conversion.
Tim Maudlin is NOT a Physicist...he's a huge Narcissist let's get it right.
What did he say that was wrong?
@@IR17171717 exactly my question.
Todas as nossas percepções da "nossa realidade" dependem do "filtro" dos nossos sentidos ( instrumentos que temos para isso).
E isso nos traz , tanto limitações, como também possibilidades infinitas.
Mas, o que realmente nos permite - tudo isso - é a nossa consciência...
E quando ela está "ligada" a alguma coisa - relação sujeito/objeto, aí - ela - está limitada a isto no espaço/tempo (que só existem, "são percebidos", por ela mesma!
He is a philosophy person, and it shows
Tune in to The Electric Universe. Those actual physicists and electric engineers actually have a clue regarding basic reality. Tesla and Steinmetz were the actual intellectual giants of their period.
This is the problem with all studies of ultimate truth, it's that they are taught with a mandatory belief that the complete attainment of ultimate truth is necessary to live. If the millennia old traditions that study ultimate truth eased up on this false belief, then it would be more accessible to everyone, including scientists. I don't have a problem with religion, just with it's hold on ultimate truth. When ultimate truth is taken away from religion, religion can and will exist and have importance.
The ultimate truth is taken out from Science and from Religion too. There is many people who know the Ultimate Truth!
Could someone offer me all the truths in physics and maths will help. An Wikitruth for the world❤❤🎉🎉
Haha knowing the ultimate truth we go anywhere
When u reach a time of confusion take time out not when u are stressed ❤❤🎉🎉
I think, thereforfe I am - Descartes
I am, therefore I think = J. P. Sartre
There is Me and Thee, but I am not altogether sure about Thee.
Just because you're schizophrenic, doesn't mean the Universe isn't a figment of your imagination....
“Cogito, ergo sum VEGANUS.”🌱
(I think, therefore I am VEGAN)
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Each to their own....
@@BuleriaChk, Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Maudlin says there's just truth, period, end of story. Then, he goes on to invoke notions of probability (General Relativity is probably not correct), which itself rests on a notion of induction, at which point it seems there isn't just simply truth, period, end of story. Wtf?
Perhaps a true statement is one that corresponds with reality. So maybe statements that are sufficiently vague and conditional can be true.
I agree with everything Mrs. Randall says. This is how physics has been constructed-detached from the human world, and we think there is objective truth. However, everything would shift if one day we determine that, indeed, consciousness is how we understand the world, and that without these interpretations, we wouldn't be able to know or understand anything. (Tim seems to be a sicko)
So obviously performative
Try my science-aligned ÆPT view on what is going on (one that is mainly focused on us humans, and that is are rounded of with a simple take on Ultimate Reality).
Why has nothing in the basic quantum model changed in over a hundred years.
Why has nothing in the basic relativity (SR GR) model changed in over a hundred years.
Tim's last name is appropriate.
Tim Maudlin appears to be a fool when compared to Lisa Randall. It is more about words ? Right, Wrong? How can Tim ever make progress if everything is just wrong? His speech seems to be arrogant but I think this way of thinking leads us to nothing…
A lot of mockery towards Tim seems to stem from his attitude; but there are also substantial problems with his views. Here are some: First, he is referring to what is called „correspondence theory of truth“. Basically, this entails that the meaning of a sentence „corresponds to“ a true fact about the world. There are some troubles with this idea of truth (of which Tim is probably perfectly aware), mainly that it seems impossible to say, what „corresponds to“ means without referring to truth, i.e. without becoming circular. Though this philosophical problem is rather old, it is minor compared to what he said about „engineering“ (that he would not care about). This reveals a complete ignorance about how we come to know truths. To start with, every experiment - and in particular modern physical experiments - has an integral engineering aspect to it. More general, engineering can be understood philosophically as „practice“, in the sense of practically trying something out in order to make it work. Frankly, I don’t see, how practice could be separated from truth. Every truth reveals itself through some type of practice. Even mathematical reasoning can be understood as a kind of practical doing in order to make things work (which is why it is sometimes hard). Therefore, it appears quite nonsensical to say, I want to know the truth, but I don’t care about practice. This is also a long known philosophical approach to truth (pragmatism). And I am not even going into more modern ideas about truth (deflationism and the like); nor am I going to attack Tims idea of an „absolute truth“. It’s just to hint that he is either willingly ignorant (which I believe), or completely naiive and clueless about truth.
Tim Maudlin is a querulous troll.
Not to those of us who prefer precision & clarity.
@@brothermine2292he is useless.
>cipaisone : I disagree. You might try listening to his interview on Sean Carroll's youtube channel a few years ago, which was mostly about the DeBroglie-Bohm versus Many Worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics. (Maudlin favors DBB and Carroll favors MWI.)
@@brothermine2292 the guy starts saying that the fact that he “has a dog is true” somewhat explains the “naive” concept of truth , continue by saying that “newton mechanics is totally wrong”, regardless of concepts like precision and approximation, no matter that people use classical mechanics to send stuff to the moon or mars….and he is not a troll? He can talk with whoever emeritus physicist or philosopher, about whatever cutting edge physics or pseudo-physics : he is just a useless troll.
>cipaisone : Maudlin did NOT say Newtonian gravitation is "totally" wrong, and he DID say it's useful for practical purposes (like trips to the moon). Your criticism is erroneous.
Maudlin has a more demanding standard than you have regarding how we should use the word "truth." Useful is NOT a synonym for true.
Truth is that no one knows. :-)
There is only the electric field and its movement and condensations. Magnetism is circular current created by straight line currents within the field. It’s not waves. It’s what is waving. Change this one perspective and reality comes into focus. So simple it just cannot be believed,
Truth is in Vedanta
Truth is we can not be absolutely certain (of any of the totality), what we can know is that we have working constructs for our little corner, a good scientist NEVER announces his ( and the boring ones are like Maudlin) theory, idea, discovery, as the end...the final solution!! The future is the consequence of the continuous interaction of the ideas and actions of us ALL...and at present we don't seem to being a very good job...my term for this is 'stupid primate'.
scientists, in fact all humans, always have their own pride
ofc they always think and want to say this is true, this is false, I'm right, you're wrong
it's inevitable
what are you a emotionless piece of rock?
you have 0 pride in saying what you know to be true?
I think the problem is in word science. As long we will have the science that forces that everything is just physical, so long we will have separation between truth and something else. If the science is just outward directed there will always be theory not something that is felt as truth. There cant be one without another. If there is outside more important than inside or other way around there will always be a question, is this the right way or the other...
Physicists need metaphysics... poor fellas
I'm with Tim on this :)
When scientist knew a thing about epistemology, life was good. What happend then? Tim really don't understand what is the difference between constructing a sentence and what is reality. His example "I have a dog", can evaluated as true/false only if you formulate in terms of set theory, which is not reality. If set theory is not reality, How can describe it? It can't. Math is just the abstractions we do to understand reality, but in the end, we can't perceive.
No. He is real. His dog is real. Those are absolute facts about REALITY. No need for any of your nonsense to claim it as TRUE.
@@autopilot3176 how can you meassure what is a dog? Just by seeing it? That's the ultimate unscientific behaviour.
@@rajinfootonchuriquen You can use camera if you don't trust your own eyes. It's simple. Learn about "scientific method", it's not that hard.
The Taoists solved this thousands of years ago. Great that you guys are catching up!
That you have a dog is also untrue and true in many context. Have implies possession and control...in this context, but it depends on so much of the context, the statement is always going to be meaningless in and of itself. The dog could secretely have two masters if you let it out a lot and doesnt come home some nights. How much of the dogs individuality is invested in you and the other way around. Control and ownership are illusions or work both ways. The earth is flat for all practical purposes for people who travel only a few 100 miles in their life...to those people and provided they define their earth as the local place they live and know no other place. You might think thats quaint but its actually practical. The flat approximation may even be more accurate than a spherical one at small scales given geographic variation. Tims obsession with truth is a (very human) obsession with absolutes that leads to fascism in the end. There certainly exist certain truths in specific context, but we must always be aware that our desire for control and power may cause us to limit our world to force the context. Thats fascism. Its kind of bizarre Tim seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. Hes obsessed about absolutism, but that whole concept rests on a Newtonian Clockwork universe always operating in the background at time steps...neither which relativity nor QM support..and in this he appealing to Newton while simultaneously saying its a false theory. I would argue you can ONLY say true things with vague language. Operating at extremely violent energies of particle physics we have fundamental unvertainities that is its own variety of vagary...that may or may not be connected to the most umportant understanding of our universe and reality. We just dont know. Ulcers are produced by many things....including stress which is a common cause. H Pylori is a spirochetal bacteria, not a virus, and is only one of many causes including stress, direct irritation, tumors, viruses, bacteria.
He's not a Physicist that's all I'm saying... he likes to think he is.
Laws as being used in theoretical physics. I suspect genetics/inculturation as the issue.
Lol the last guy is absurdly naive, his binarization of truth and inability to acknowledge uncertainty and scope is hilarious!
WOW he then goes on to demand a simple and comprehensible ultimate truth from the universe! The arrogance is remarkable
Tim is not happy
Maudlin is unnecessarily combative, but I don’t think his conception of the relationship between scientific success and truth should be controversial, on the other side, Randall makes quite reasonable claims, with the exception of the following: (paraphrasing) “I don’t think consciousness should figure in our understanding of fundamental reality, human nature and the human story is not centre stage, it’s not even a decoration, let alone a supporting character.” This is a hopeless non sequitur, there is nothing about consciousness in itself that should convince us that it supervenes on human cognition or information processing systems, or that it achieves its ultimate form in humans and piffles out as you go down the evolutionary tree, it anything, our view of a mindless universe is harder to square with the ideals of rationalism and naturalism. The more we understand nature the less mechanical it seems. Besides, there is a serious ontological lacuna at the foundations, there is no sense to be made in a descriptive and explanatory scheme that adduces computational or wave-like structures that float free of ontology and the only realistic ontology on the table right now is experience. Not my experience, or your experience. Not human experience period. It’s not ‘Orca experience’ or ‘fish experience.’ Every characterisation of a mental state must be weary of including ownership terms, likewise it should avoid conflating what it can be said to do for the organism (even if it’s merely epiphenomenal) with what it is in and of itself. Randall’s argument also fails to engage with serious literature on the hard problem of consciousness and findings on non-human intelligence (yes I’m correlating consciousness with intelligence, but not for reasons relating to logical inference or proof). To me, imputing a non-human ontological status to consciousness is the furthest one can get from parochial.
He is explaining the definition of "true" narcissist