I am in love with the nonchalant savagery of you correcting the record on climate change at the beginning. You are among the greatest linguists of all time in my opinion.
Thank you so much for doing these, i've only just got back realised the value of the knowledge you share with both your own podcasts and the ones with guests. Truly you have been curing my brain of some dogma and incomprehensible ways of trying to figure out what some of the deeper elements of the universe mean, thank you!
Hey Sean. Just want to say thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I have no idea how you manage your time with all the things you have going on, but I appreciate it nonetheless. Parallel Sean Carroll's? Maybe.
The sun has more to do with the climate than humans. Humans do create environmental chaos. That's their role in the system. Humans are a variable that keeps the system from getting becoming static. Scientists are paid to discount the role of the sun in Earth's climate system and overplay the importance of man and his technologies and outputs.
Jonathan, Have you considered the fact that the climate has always been changing. For instance, during the last ice-age much of Canada and the U.S. was covered in about 100 meters of ice. Just food for thought.
@@yy-sf1xq The climate is always changing by itself. How much of the climate change is caused by man, and how much is naturally occuring? Politicians and other alarmists would have us believe that it is all caused by man.
@@robinbrowne5419 good that you asked. The science is very clear here: around 96-97% of climate change is created by humans. do you think a smart person like Sean would get fooled by alarmism if there wasn't any real science behind it? I suggest you listen to an episode on climate change with one of the guests, they are very interesting
Hey Sean, love the content. Re: human extinction...seems like a moot point. We are all individually destined for extinction. What comes after is therefore irrelevant. What we contribute in our time is what matters and you're doing a fine job! Thank you. E.
What you need is a video that goes viral. Everyone that has, say 4 or 5 million subscribers always say that they had a viral video that accelerated them into the million+ position. Kinda like a hit record would be.
@@mkelly7068 Not ad hominem. Sean just made a guess as to why he would make a statement contrary to the consensus of experts in the field. Also even if it was there is nothing wrong with a scientist speaking casually (ad hominem) on his own podcast. Context matters.
I feel like getting viral might be a function of few people sharing it in their communities that normally don't listen which boosts it in the youtube algorithm which drives more people etc.
As a fellow cat lover, I would like to quibble re: your cat Caliban and whether has a "reason" to open drawers. You indicated that animals would not have a reason for actions, but I suppose you meant a more human-like level of reasoning - some extra level of meta cognition. Cats and some of the higher-order animals (like humans) can do planning (on a trivial level), have some level of "theory of mind", etc. As for why the cat wanted to open the drawer, am sure is not totally random or autonomous - most likely likes the tactile sensation of playing with physical objects, as opposed to a particular objective in this case. I doubt you would disagree with the above ...
Thanks for not mincing words about the conversation of climate change. There's something about people who think the calm of ignorance is actually intellectualism that makes me see red.
Yesterday, I came across a lecture you gave and I enjoyed it so much that I watched another one, then one you held together with your lovely and also brilliant wife, and today, I wanted more. That is how I came across your podcast. There is one thing I would like to share: people who leave negative comments usually are people who are insecure and therefore feel small. So they like to bring "people down", so that they can look down on them for a very small while, until their insecurity catches up with them. They do not want to give you the possibility to answer, because it is not about dialog, but about wanting to critisize to feel better for a moment. It is a dynamic which does not have anything to do with you. People who want to have conversations or even discussions with you will give you the possibility to answer. Thanks so much for your podcast and the effort you put into it! Greetings from Germany!
On the intro: If we're talking RUclips hits I believe a big difference would be more catchy thumbnails (as I'm sure you're aware), but then again I don't think mindscape will ever get traction with the doomscroll scene so might not be worth chasing. A catchy way of thumbnailing it could be putting a pic of the guest with some insightful answer they gave in a text bubble, but really im not sure that's the way to go. When I've spammed the podcast to friends and family over the years it only ever stuck with engineers. Of those at least one bought a book and loved it!
I believe Sean's thumbnails are Ok, people into science don't need flashy thumbnails. It's good he has an image of the guest now, the old ones were just text, and that was truly not good.
@@GoatOfTheWoods I agree its good and no flash is needed. As a listener and complete layman id suggest giving them more space to the text in favour of the mindscape logo, as its currently hard to read the topic in the thumbnail. I would also put either the guest or topic first in the title, its more important than "Mindscape ###" which can come after.
ARGH!!! 42:00 "You're trying to understand the universe at a fundamental level, and if that is made easier by postulating a universe of infinite extent, then, GOOD!" How can you not see that postulating physical infinities so that simple maths describe an effective theory obstructs understanding of the fundamental level! A universe of infinite extent is a universe of infinite mass and infinite energy with no boundary. You should return your diplomas and stop misleading the public if you haven't learned the most fundamental rule of the universe: Zero and infinity are imaginary concepts with no analog in physical reality. GR may be an outstanding effective theory within a particular range of scale, but it fails at the fundamental level because it postulates a spacetime that is infinitely divisible with no substructure allowed and no entanglement of spacetime with itself. We will never have a fundamental theory of the universe until we understand the substructure and boundary conditions of spacetime.
I'm generally a spotify listener. I just came here to leave a comment. You were chatting about getting the word out on your podcast, and I figured I'd leave how I found out about this. It was through the spotify algorithm, linked to Lex Fridman. So imo if you were trying to get the word out to people that would want to listen to this. I think collaborations with Lex and maybe drawing engagement from his followers. This goes both ways. I think there is significant overlapping of viewers between both of your channels.
What a twilight zone moment. I just started reading Koonin’s book. Literally just put it down to listen to Sean. I am reading it at the behest of my brother in law whom my sister rolls her eyes when he says what he does about the climate. I foresee a good debate with him in the future.
In the segment at 2:10:00 you mention that nature has laws and patterns. It has always intrigued me that many laws in nature can be expressed as simple mathematical equations, and that the same equation can represent laws for seemingly very different natural phenomena. For example, the simple equation A = B x C can be used to describe many natural phenomena, such as F = M x A, L = W x H, Watts = Volts x Amps, and probably many others. I have always felt that there must be some deep underlying similarity between these phenomena since they are all described by the same equation. On top of this there are other equations such as A = B + C which gives us Height1 = Height2 + Height3, R1 = R2 + R3 and A = B x C^2 which gives us E = M x C^2. The more I think about it, the more puzzling it becomes. Anyway, it is food for thought. I really enjoy your podcasts and guest interviews. Cheers from Canada :-)
@@CorwynGC Yes. I think you're right. They were probably used to calculate practical things like how much work can be done by a steam engine. And other real world problems.
Question for your thoughts; what kind of energy that if it passed through Venus, Earth ,and Mars would pull apart a large portion of the Sun by gravitational pull I suppose?
I would love to see you bring on more traditional AI researchers to talk about more than just LLM. I saw a podcast with Yoshua Bengio and he has some interesting insights more related to statistical learning theory (not a shocker given how brilliant he is). He talks about using gflow networks for combating antimicrobial resistance and climate change too.
Thesis: it is not likely that AI will endanger humanity because it will be the cleverer; rather it's risk lies in humanity assuming it to be far cleverer than it actually is
35:00 This pause on AI also seems kinda ironic now that the "elites" are seeing how much of a threat automation is. Especially now that it could become way easier to replace think tanks, 'higher education jobs' etc., instead of manual laborers. I mean, i'm a street cleaner, i've yet to see an efficient litter picker robot, but i'm sure Janice from accounting could be replaced more easily.
I still don’t understand how QM, can say that the whole universe can be described as a Wave Function. Is this inferred or assumed. How does a particle travelling to other side of the observable Universe, know what branch of the Wave Function it’s on to interact with another particle.
Is it not the ability to imagine that makes things intelligent? Running the "possible" outcomes of actions? If intelligence can create reality based on imagination then exploration ceases to be a function of distance. The "multiverse" exists just as real as this universe. Fermi paradox answered. Dogma wonders where are they. Intelligence says they are already exploring infinity from a fixed point needing no travel in this universe...just massive computation.
Wft this is the most variable group of questions ever many of which have been answered, others are impossible to know, some are not normal and not one of them are related to the title. I can answer on behalf of the people who are dead and the reincarnation question is answered simple math are we all Adams and Eve's? 😅 The man answering the impossible questions is better than the people he's getting his nonsense from. No 1 should be expected to answer questions beyond what Google knows i love you guys 😊
How can one ordinary man or woman realistically (not talking about having great charisma, luck or whatsoever) destroy the world and end the life of all humanoids on it? I ask out of curiousity, morality and a general observation of our world.
Intent seems to be the factor in punishment. That seems flawed. If the outcome is the same why should intent factor in. When a team or an athlete wins a contest or game, "a win is a win". ... A loss is a loss... I understand that accidents happen. That shouldn't effect the punishment.. People with power came up with degrees of guilt to justify their actions.
Spread more democracy is the answer to nuclear prolifigation? Well, the only country to ever use Nuclear weapons in anger claims to be the shining beacon of democracy on the hill, so maybe you need to rethink that idea that democracy makes you safer?
One country having used nuclear weapons is not a large enough sample size to base arguments on who would use nukes more readily upon. If there were fifty nuclear-equipped nations and ten of them used nukes and each of the ten was a democracy, then maybe your argument could hold water. The US using nukes in WWII probably has more to do with factors like (1) deployable nukes were only a year or two old and (2) the US was the only nation on Earth that had deployable nukes at the time.
Yes!, The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home,[4][5][6][7] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons".[8][9] In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right.[10][11] New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) assured the right to carry weapons in public spaces with reasonable exceptions. Wikipedia
The right to protect your (owned) property or your family while on said property.... Nothing about carrying weapons in public or stockpiling ammunition.
Your historic media exposure was often very provocative and singularly (deliberately?) opinionated and now you are taking more of a "host" role in your podcast. So for me, it was/is hard to transition from the "old you" to this "new you". I liken this to political primaries where the candidates go way left or way right (trying to gain attention and a core group of supporters, no doubt) but in the final election, many of the candidates rush to the center and are far less controversial (alarmist) since they want to be seen as "more understanding and uniting" regarding everyone's preferences/priorities. So I sensed this too, about the old Sean and this new Sean. 🤔
Sean, I don't understand why you, a democratic, liberal and balanced individual in most respects change tack when it comes to nuclear proliferation. Non proliferation was a means for a select few nations to control other parts of the world like I ndia, Israel, Iran, some of the oldest civilizations in the world. We in India were even threatened by the US in India's case in 1971 when we said we were non-aligned. The 7th fleet was at out doorstep and a peaceful democratic country could have even possibly suffered a nuclear strike as Nixon etc werent fans. Not only nuclear power but other technology as well as Uranium etc were not exported to India as if we were a warlike pariah state.Had we been a nuclear power earlier, US would not have dared. It's that simple. We like to boast (perhaps wrongly) that we never attack first but given our size and history why should'nt we have had that right. Why only US, Russia, France etc. *The west?
This should be a rhetorical question right? You said at the start he is a naive liberal in a literal sense and someone completely immersed on his career. He already admits he doesn't even read science papers anymore due to lack of time and interest. Imagine asking him to sit down and actually read a book on US/western imperialism or something to even begin to understand the critiques of capitalism beyond "poverty bad". You shouldn't expect anything from types like him. He is a brilliant physicist, nothing more nothing less. His philosophical opinions and politics are baby like, it doesn't help he lets his sense of superiority(due to career success) cloud his horizon, he doesn't have the humility required to learn anything new in areas outside of physics. Its sad and unfortunate but it is what 20th century liberalism ultimately leads towards, dogmatic certaintainty of the same type they condemn, ironically they're usually "leftist" in name only. The extent of their political activism is to vote Democrat every 4 years, and if that doesn't work and the world is destroyed, well it's just unfortunate you didn't vote for a democrat politician hard enough. It is so ironic too considering he seems so concerned about climate change. His only solution is within the same institutions that will ultimately destroy the planet. His only solution is "voting". As I said the typical useless liberal. He decries populism even though as I said his rethoric is entirely superficial, the institutions and "democracy" are not working? Just keep trying the same thing! And he is supposed to be the "rational" one. As you say, unless you can vote for at least 2 fascist parties doing nothing to improve the working class conditions like in the US then your country is "bad" and not a "democracy" therefore you have no right to sit at the "civilized" table. Pay no attention to him on these topics I beg you.
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so much Dr. Carroll. I so much enjoy your AMA episodes on the RUclips!!
I am in love with the nonchalant savagery of you correcting the record on climate change at the beginning. You are among the greatest linguists of all time in my opinion.
Best three hours of the RUclips month. Your endurance is awe inspiring!
I feel bad we take up so much of his time but I sure to get a lot out of it!!
I'm very drunk right now. I appreciate your sober explanation of things
I just got an uppercut from the coping at my skatepark. I feel ya
Yay! My fav show, always get so happy to see a Sean AMA appearing
Thank you so much for doing these, i've only just got back realised the value of the knowledge you share with both your own podcasts and the ones with guests. Truly you have been curing my brain of some dogma and incomprehensible ways of trying to figure out what some of the deeper elements of the universe mean, thank you!
quality educational content on RUclips. thank you, Sean.
Hey Sean. Just want to say thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I have no idea how you manage your time with all the things you have going on, but I appreciate it nonetheless. Parallel Sean Carroll's? Maybe.
13:00 love this question. i've been trying to find a way to express a similar question in my head, so thanks to the questioner for putting it so well
You are an epitome of knowledge, Sean. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and for your great service to mankind. I wish all professors do the same.
Love almost anything you publish, but learn something from everything!👍🏻
Wake up babe new 3 hour Sean carroll ama just dropped
Thanks for being vocal and unequivocal about climate science.
The sun has more to do with the climate than humans. Humans do create environmental chaos. That's their role in the system. Humans are a variable that keeps the system from getting becoming static. Scientists are paid to discount the role of the sun in Earth's climate system and overplay the importance of man and his technologies and outputs.
Jonathan, Have you considered the fact that the climate has always been changing. For instance, during the last ice-age much of Canada and the U.S. was covered in about 100 meters of ice. Just food for thought.
@@robinbrowne5419what does that have to do with current climate change
@@yy-sf1xq The climate is always changing by itself. How much of the climate change is caused by man, and how much is naturally occuring? Politicians and other alarmists would have us believe that it is all caused by man.
@@robinbrowne5419 good that you asked. The science is very clear here: around 96-97% of climate change is created by humans. do you think a smart person like Sean would get fooled by alarmism if there wasn't any real science behind it? I suggest you listen to an episode on climate change with one of the guests, they are very interesting
Good insight into the holographic principle.
"Almost" auto explanatory.
Very good 🙏.
Thank you so much.
Sean Carroll AMA time!!!
Hey Sean, love the content. Re: human extinction...seems like a moot point. We are all individually destined for extinction. What comes after is therefore irrelevant. What we contribute in our time is what matters and you're doing a fine job!
Thank you.
E.
What you need is a video that goes viral. Everyone that has, say 4 or 5 million subscribers always say that they had a viral video that accelerated them into the million+ position. Kinda like a hit record would be.
7:00 Keep keeping it real Sean!
Ad hominem doesn't seem fitting for a scientist.
@@mkelly7068 Not ad hominem. Sean just made a guess as to why he would make a statement contrary to the consensus of experts in the field. Also even if it was there is nothing wrong with a scientist speaking casually (ad hominem) on his own podcast. Context matters.
I greatly appreciate every upload. Thank you very much!
You are by far my fav astro dude. Even tho i understand like 80%.
I feel like getting viral might be a function of few people sharing it in their communities that normally don't listen which boosts it in the youtube algorithm which drives more people etc.
Second amendment in no way is intended to protect someone leaving their property with a firearm...
As a fellow cat lover, I would like to quibble re: your cat Caliban and whether has a "reason" to open drawers. You indicated that animals would not have a reason for actions, but I suppose you meant a more human-like level of reasoning - some extra level of meta cognition. Cats and some of the higher-order animals (like humans) can do planning (on a trivial level), have some level of "theory of mind", etc. As for why the cat wanted to open the drawer, am sure is not totally random or autonomous - most likely likes the tactile sensation of playing with physical objects, as opposed to a particular objective in this case.
I doubt you would disagree with the above ...
Thanks for not mincing words about the conversation of climate change. There's something about people who think the calm of ignorance is actually intellectualism that makes me see red.
Thanks for all your outreach Doc. You provide so much food for thought.
12:05 - Haha, probably Sabine Hossenfelder 😏🤭
Yesterday, I came across a lecture you gave and I enjoyed it so much that I watched another one, then one you held together with your lovely and also brilliant wife, and today, I wanted more. That is how I came across your podcast.
There is one thing I would like to share: people who leave negative comments usually are people who are insecure and therefore feel small. So they like to bring "people down", so that they can look down on them for a very small while, until their insecurity catches up with them. They do not want to give you the possibility to answer, because it is not about dialog, but about wanting to critisize to feel better for a moment. It is a dynamic which does not have anything to do with you. People who want to have conversations or even discussions with you will give you the possibility to answer.
Thanks so much for your podcast and the effort you put into it! Greetings from Germany!
Hi Mr. Carroll, how do you feel about the Jwst discovery of the early galaxies discovery that destroyed the big bang model
On the intro: If we're talking RUclips hits I believe a big difference would be more catchy thumbnails (as I'm sure you're aware), but then again I don't think mindscape will ever get traction with the doomscroll scene so might not be worth chasing. A catchy way of thumbnailing it could be putting a pic of the guest with some insightful answer they gave in a text bubble, but really im not sure that's the way to go. When I've spammed the podcast to friends and family over the years it only ever stuck with engineers. Of those at least one bought a book and loved it!
I believe Sean's thumbnails are Ok, people into science don't need flashy thumbnails. It's good he has an image of the guest now, the old ones were just text, and that was truly not good.
@@GoatOfTheWoods I agree its good and no flash is needed. As a listener and complete layman id suggest giving them more space to the text in favour of the mindscape logo, as its currently hard to read the topic in the thumbnail. I would also put either the guest or topic first in the title, its more important than "Mindscape ###" which can come after.
ARGH!!! 42:00 "You're trying to understand the universe at a fundamental level, and if that is made easier by postulating a universe of infinite extent, then, GOOD!"
How can you not see that postulating physical infinities so that simple maths describe an effective theory obstructs understanding of the fundamental level!
A universe of infinite extent is a universe of infinite mass and infinite energy with no boundary. You should return your diplomas and stop misleading the public if you haven't learned the most fundamental rule of the universe: Zero and infinity are imaginary concepts with no analog in physical reality. GR may be an outstanding effective theory within a particular range of scale, but it fails at the fundamental level because it postulates a spacetime that is infinitely divisible with no substructure allowed and no entanglement of spacetime with itself. We will never have a fundamental theory of the universe until we understand the substructure and boundary conditions of spacetime.
I'm generally a spotify listener. I just came here to leave a comment.
You were chatting about getting the word out on your podcast, and I figured I'd leave how I found out about this.
It was through the spotify algorithm, linked to Lex Fridman.
So imo if you were trying to get the word out to people that would want to listen to this. I think collaborations with Lex and maybe drawing engagement from his followers. This goes both ways.
I think there is significant overlapping of viewers between both of your channels.
What a twilight zone moment. I just started reading Koonin’s book. Literally just put it down to listen to Sean. I am reading it at the behest of my brother in law whom my sister rolls her eyes when he says what he does about the climate. I foresee a good debate with him in the future.
You rock sean!
Such a good podcast
Excellent as usual
sparkling
Bravo my mind is blown again 👌🤙
In the segment at 2:10:00 you mention that nature has laws and patterns.
It has always intrigued me that many laws in nature can be expressed as simple mathematical equations, and that the same equation can represent laws for seemingly very different natural phenomena.
For example, the simple equation A = B x C can be used to describe many natural phenomena, such as F = M x A, L = W x H, Watts = Volts x Amps, and probably many others.
I have always felt that there must be some deep underlying similarity between these phenomena since they are all described by the same equation.
On top of this there are other equations such as A = B + C which gives us Height1 = Height2 + Height3, R1 = R2 + R3 and A = B x C^2 which gives us E = M x C^2.
The more I think about it, the more puzzling it becomes. Anyway, it is food for thought.
I really enjoy your podcasts and guest interviews. Cheers from Canada :-)
It MIGHT help to remember that those mathematical operations were created to solve real world questions for the most part.
@@CorwynGC Yes. I think you're right. They were probably used to calculate practical things like how much work can be done by a steam engine. And other real world problems.
Question for your thoughts; what kind of energy that if it passed through Venus, Earth ,and Mars would pull apart a large portion of the Sun by gravitational pull I suppose?
Great work Dr Caroll as usual.
#freejulianassange
#freejulianassangenow
I would love to see you bring on more traditional AI researchers to talk about more than just LLM. I saw a podcast with Yoshua Bengio and he has some interesting insights more related to statistical learning theory (not a shocker given how brilliant he is). He talks about using gflow networks for combating antimicrobial resistance and climate change too.
I share Stephen Wolfram's belief that it's easier to build a machine that understands physics than it is to understand physics :)
Nice!
Thesis: it is not likely that AI will endanger humanity because it will be the cleverer; rather it's risk lies in humanity assuming it to be far cleverer than it actually is
1:33:00 -- is that THE Danny Avidan, of Grumps fame?
35:00 This pause on AI also seems kinda ironic now that the "elites" are seeing how much of a threat automation is.
Especially now that it could become way easier to replace think tanks, 'higher education jobs' etc., instead of manual laborers.
I mean, i'm a street cleaner, i've yet to see an efficient litter picker robot, but i'm sure Janice from accounting could be replaced more easily.
I still don’t understand how QM, can say that the whole universe can be described as a Wave Function. Is this inferred or assumed.
How does a particle travelling to other side of the observable Universe, know what branch of the Wave Function it’s on to interact with another particle.
As mentioned, Episode 37 - Edward Watts on the End of the Roman Republic and Lessons for Democracy
ruclips.net/video/57-75hHXwZw/видео.html
a high ratio of likes on a video leads it to also be more recommended by the algorithm. so like them podcasts guys. :)
p.s. comments also help
never expected Sean to say horseshit lmao
Is it not the ability to imagine that makes things intelligent? Running the "possible" outcomes of actions? If intelligence can create reality based on imagination then exploration ceases to be a function of distance. The "multiverse" exists just as real as this universe. Fermi paradox answered. Dogma wonders where are they. Intelligence says they are already exploring infinity from a fixed point needing no travel in this universe...just massive computation.
I'm joining live next time you're audience clearly think your a genius beyond what's possible and the guy's cat 🎉🎉
Seans haircut in the thumbnail is saweeet.
I honestly think you should run for president 🙏
Wft this is the most variable group of questions ever many of which have been answered, others are impossible to know, some are not normal and not one of them are related to the title. I can answer on behalf of the people who are dead and the reincarnation question is answered simple math are we all Adams and Eve's? 😅 The man answering the impossible questions is better than the people he's getting his nonsense from. No 1 should be expected to answer questions beyond what Google knows i love you guys 😊
What did I have for dinner monday?
Trust MEMES as R Dawkins describe it. We like it we share it. Please remind us in every show.
How can one ordinary man or woman realistically (not talking about having great charisma, luck or whatsoever) destroy the world and end the life of all humanoids on it?
I ask out of curiousity, morality and a general observation of our world.
Intent seems to be the factor in punishment. That seems flawed. If the outcome is the same why should intent factor in. When a team or an athlete wins a contest or game, "a win is a win". ... A loss is a loss... I understand that accidents happen. That shouldn't effect the punishment.. People with power came up with degrees of guilt to justify their actions.
Spread more democracy is the answer to nuclear prolifigation? Well, the only country to ever use Nuclear weapons in anger claims to be the shining beacon of democracy on the hill, so maybe you need to rethink that idea that democracy makes you safer?
One country having used nuclear weapons is not a large enough sample size to base arguments on who would use nukes more readily upon. If there were fifty nuclear-equipped nations and ten of them used nukes and each of the ten was a democracy, then maybe your argument could hold water.
The US using nukes in WWII probably has more to do with factors like (1) deployable nukes were only a year or two old and (2) the US was the only nation on Earth that had deployable nukes at the time.
Dr. Carroll, I belong to the flat universe society which means space and time does go on forever including the space and time inside my brain. 😀
Yes!, The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home,[4][5][6][7] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons".[8][9] In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right.[10][11] New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) assured the right to carry weapons in public spaces with reasonable exceptions. Wikipedia
The right to protect your (owned) property or your family while on said property.... Nothing about carrying weapons in public or stockpiling ammunition.
Your historic media exposure was often very provocative and singularly (deliberately?) opinionated and now you are taking more of a "host" role in your podcast. So for me, it was/is hard to transition from the "old you" to this "new you". I liken this to political primaries where the candidates go way left or way right (trying to gain attention and a core group of supporters, no doubt) but in the final election, many of the candidates rush to the center and are far less controversial (alarmist) since they want to be seen as "more understanding and uniting" regarding everyone's preferences/priorities. So I sensed this too, about the old Sean and this new Sean. 🤔
Sean, I don't understand why you, a democratic, liberal and balanced individual in most respects change tack when it comes to nuclear proliferation. Non proliferation was a means for a select few nations to control other parts of the world like I ndia, Israel, Iran, some of the oldest civilizations in the world. We in India were even threatened by the US in India's case in 1971 when we said we were non-aligned. The 7th fleet was at out doorstep and a peaceful democratic country could have even possibly suffered a nuclear strike as Nixon etc werent fans. Not only nuclear power but other technology as well as Uranium etc were not exported to India as if we were a warlike pariah state.Had we been a nuclear power earlier, US would not have dared. It's that simple. We like to boast (perhaps wrongly) that we never attack first but given our size and history why should'nt we have had that right. Why only US, Russia, France etc. *The west?
This should be a rhetorical question right?
You said at the start he is a naive liberal in a literal sense and someone completely immersed on his career. He already admits he doesn't even read science papers anymore due to lack of time and interest. Imagine asking him to sit down and actually read a book on US/western imperialism or something to even begin to understand the critiques of capitalism beyond "poverty bad".
You shouldn't expect anything from types like him. He is a brilliant physicist, nothing more nothing less.
His philosophical opinions and politics are baby like, it doesn't help he lets his sense of superiority(due to career success) cloud his horizon, he doesn't have the humility required to learn anything new in areas outside of physics. Its sad and unfortunate but it is what 20th century liberalism ultimately leads towards, dogmatic certaintainty of the same type they condemn, ironically they're usually "leftist" in name only. The extent of their political activism is to vote Democrat every 4 years, and if that doesn't work and the world is destroyed, well it's just unfortunate you didn't vote for a democrat politician hard enough. It is so ironic too considering he seems so concerned about climate change.
His only solution is within the same institutions that will ultimately destroy the planet. His only solution is "voting". As I said the typical useless liberal. He decries populism even though as I said his rethoric is entirely superficial, the institutions and "democracy" are not working? Just keep trying the same thing! And he is supposed to be the "rational" one.
As you say, unless you can vote for at least 2 fascist parties doing nothing to improve the working class conditions like in the US then your country is "bad" and not a "democracy" therefore you have no right to sit at the "civilized" table.
Pay no attention to him on these topics I beg you.
12:00 wonder if it was Wolfram, or Weinstein.
BP makes money
31:57 captain here - he is talking about that clown and serial scammer Elon Musk
12:20 🙂👍