Fragments of the IDW: Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein | Sean Carroll & Timothy Nguyen
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- Physicist and philosopher Sean Carroll shares his thoughts on a few key figures from the Intellectual Dark Web with Timothy Nguyen.
#joerogan #samharris #ericweinstein
Patreon: / timothynguyen
00:00 : Introduction
01:56 : Joe Rogan and podcasting
07:03 : Sam Harris and philosophy
13:25 : Eric Weinstein and physics
Relevant Links:
Sean Carroll's thoughts on the IWD on Mindscape: • Episode 53: Solo -- On...
Joe Rogan:
Sean Carroll's appearances:
www.jrepodcast.com/episode/jo...
www.jrepodcast.com/episode/jo...
Sam Harris:
Debate with Sean Carroll: • Waking Up with Sam Har...
Eric Weinstein:
Guardian article by Jennifer Ouellette: blogs.scientificamerican.com/...
Geometric Unity literature: timothynguyen.org/geometric-u...
Brian Keating and Eric Weinstein on Juan Maldacena: • Eric Weinstein: Geomet...
Twitter:
@iamtimnguyen
Webpage:
www.timothynguyen.org
Thanks for your work Tim. The point Sean makes about scientific integrity and the reputation of science is a good one. The world where the public no longer trust professional scientists and instead prefer the personal theories of their favourite social media personalities is a slightly frightening one.
More than slightly, and it's already the world for most of the population
I listen to Sean's Mindscape podcast quite a bit. Very interesting stuff. He does a good job of staying out of dramatic IDW-esque topics.. but I do want to know his opinion on these issues in fact. Strong click on this vid. Well done!
And Sean hit it on the head with the free will debate. It's always been semantics. Free will as a first cause doesn't exist. Emergent free will is indistinguishable from whatever the truth is. I don't see why the debate doesn't end there.
Just found this channel from Sean's link. Great video and I can't wait to watch/listen to more!
Clearly, Weinstein's Geometric Unity's purpose is for notoriety, not for serious science. He avoids serious scrutiny by ignoring the substance of your analysis, Tim, and pointing to the irrelevant "Who is Theo Puleo"; by making announcements on Joe Rogan instead of a scientific journal; and by preening in the pretense of having a serious model instead of putting together a team to flesh out the inadequacies. But Eric does have a significant following. He IS a super-interesting, smart guy, which is why Keating brings him on and joins the laughable pretense of GU being a serious model of reality ... Keating wants to maximize his viewer-count and his own notoriety, truth be damned.
Yes and let’s not forget Keating and his involvement with PragerU.
@@rossmcleod7983 oh god, how could we ever forget an academia guys involvement with a mainstream rightwing organisation!?
how dare you step out of line nad not do follow the demanded steps, inclding cheering on a literal vegetable who cant speak, destroys our reputation around the world, and creates third world country inflation in record time never before seen in our history
I don't like Weinstein, he's made some dodgy comments about the IQ's of black people. He seems to want to gatekeep academia to prevent Chinese people having access. I would rather listen to the ideas of Neil Turok who promotes physics and mathematics in Africa and espouses the merits of the people studying there.
@@loushark6722 Even though what I wrote of Weinstein may seem harsh, it isn't. It's merely candid. Eric understands the power of kayfabe. He wrote a paper on it. Kayfabe is bringing drama off of the stage and immersing it in real life, just as pro wrestlers do, but to the next level - he doesn't break character. He can't. His ego won't allow it. He does, however, wink from his hermetic enclosures of histrionics. Read his GU paper again. He says it right there - he is an entertainer. He puts papers out on April Fool's day. He has a bit of Loki in him. Except now he's trapped and will never find his way out. Prediction - he will never produce a serious paper or - as Wolfram has done - put together a team of talent to explore, add ballast to and make seaworthy his "ship in a bottle" - his Geometric Unity.
@@arthurrimbaud3414Who is Arthur Rimbaud?
These interviews are great, and the Eric Weinstein references are proving to be an almost endless source of amusement.
I was fascinated by the story that EW wanted to focus on the author not the substance. What does that say about his real goals? He is mainly distinguished for his entertaining rants from what I see. It seems he wants to be a science influencer not a scientist.
I love Sean Carroll’s spirit. He is simultaneously sedate and motivating.
Why so short? Would've loved a longer interview. At least 1 hr. Wolfram s theories, impact and implications of quantum computing ...
Yes, Sean is someone I could talk to for days, but alas, I wanted to talk to him mostly about science, which is why the current video is only an excerpt.
@@TimothyNguyen is this part of a longer episode that will be uploaded or is this the only part for the public?
@@TimothyNguyen a woke lunatic supporting strippers stripping for children and cheerleading for an old folks home patient destroying the country at a faster pace than anyone else in history as he creates third world country inflation levels?
he hasnt even done anything in his actual career. you may as well have any random science professor on...
@@sessmurda All my excerpts are taken from longer episodes that are part of The Cartesian Cafe. I always release them as teasers to the full episode. My main episode with Sean will be released soon - stay tuned!
@@TimothyNguyenCould you please make a video going through Weinstein’s paper on GU.
Mighty white of them to manically shout "WHO IS THEO POLYA," thereby conveniently affirming that use of a pseudonym was, in fact, prudent or necessary.
He just solved the endless, pointless free will debate in a few sentences. We can stop having it now, I hope.
The Idw hasn’t been a thing for years now. Sam and Joe didn’t want to be a part of it anymore.
Sean Carrol, who is not a trained philosopher, utterly decimates Sam Harris’ ridiculous moral landscape theory and any idea that objective morality can be sourced in the natural sciences. It’s an absurd worldview. Well done.
Sean missed a great opportunity to quote Rohan at the end with a “it’s entirely possible”
I feel like Sam and Sean actually essentially agree about morality, the only question is the very first assumption. Once we grant the assumption that generally life is preferable to death, then science can tell us which actions better/worsen the likliehood of acheiving that outcome. It doesn't make sense to waste time on this is/ought debate, I think Sam should just acknowledge that we need a few fundamental assumptions and arrive at the same place.
'generally life is preferable to death' is only one assumption among many and is totally lacking in nuance; some areas of human activity have extremely shoddy research in the first place and some are basically not subject to scientific research. The idea that you can go on holiday/vacation in a scientific manner (an idea Harris defended) is pretty obviously misguided.
Q: Do you want to live a very long life in extreme pain, a long life in significant pain, a below average length life with little pain or a short life of unusual joy, bliss and with an absolute minimum of pain?
Hint: your answer is not a scientific statement. Any more than 'what is the best poem?' is a scientific question.
The only assumptions needed are epistemological, and they're things our culture has in heaps - its the value of critical discussion, preserving error correcting institutions, stuff of that kind. No assumptions about the root of morality are needed, people don't have to first agree about what is fundamental in morality before they engage in cooperation to solve a moral problem.
I am laughing so hard right now. I remember watching some podcast with Weinstein prolly Rogan and thinking "whats his point...what is he talking about" Maybe I am not smart enough to understand him. Speaking on the joe rogan podcast, I thought this podcast is interesting he has intellectuals and then I started diving into these peoples theories and I wasnt impressed. Sometimes overcomplicated sometimes overhyped. With that being said, it made me realize wait I am doing the research I am asking the right questions Joe should have asked why am I wasting my time. I do appreciate the comedic podcasts but I am bit surprised how he has built to such a large scale with mediocre questions, lack of research, and always laying back with the excuse "mmmm IDK I am not that smart". There is so many other podcasts or other sources that you can extract concise valuable information.
Rogan is a shrewd anti-intellectual opportunist. Much respect for Carroll in pointing out the vapidity of the "just asking questions" smokescreen.
I couldn't disagree more. I would agree if you simply said he is sometimes irresponsible. Joe Rogan is a comedian with a podcast. And he's had the podcast for like 15 years, way before anyone else was doing it, and way before he started making any money from it. It's clearly something he enjoys doing. He's just a pretty regular guy, who happens to be particularly curious.
Rogan is also a Texas Republican conspiracy peddler: ruclips.net/video/GazSTh7dzIM/видео.html
Fair enough, but be sure to do the same for all journalists who appear to be 'just asking questions', not just the ones you might happen to disagree with.
How is Rogan remotely intellectual?
Another great video!
You should ask "ought from would be". I apologize, but I am very busy. Come to my office if you want to discuss.
This channel is crazy good. What a collection of topics.
Sean is the best
I love Sean's perspective on both Rogan's responsibility & Eric's scientific value, solely because they mirror my own, making them objectively correct. He's got a sui generis voice too, & I mean his actual speaking voice/cadence, which makes him instantly recognizable. I mostly enjoy his consistent means of reasoning...he's always going to reach whatever conclusion he reaches in the same way, because that way is logic/reason. So happy I found your podcast - thanks Tim! I feel like I can call you Tim, I feel like we're pretty close at this point.
I hope this is sarcasm.
@CharlesQuiros That's what my lovely wife says to me every night Chuck....every night.
Good joke, sir. The only thing we learned from this conversation is their lack of understanding on subjects beyond their field of expertise.
The closest thing to absolute truth I can say about Weinstein, Carroll, and Nguyen, is: Both Timothy and Sean are superior to Eric in their respective fields and Eric is superior to both of them at deducing everything else.
Finally. I'm quite new to all this "hocus pocus", as I would call it. I seem to come across these guys who on first listen, sound very informative but even on their second video I am already starting to think, is there any point to what these guys are saying? Does it have any real world value? No and no. Does it massage the ego of the person involved? Oh yes.
I used to respect Sam Harris but he has just turned into a broken record of recycled nonsense these days. Joe Rogans actual experts are few and far between. Jordan Peterson made a couple of good points...years ago and judging by recent videos, seems to be slipping into some kind of religious fervour. Eric Weinstein just exaggerates everything, he is barely worth mentioning.
These guys have made a positive difference to me though, I have started reading again, time for some Orlando Figes or Timothy Snyder me thinks, actual experts. That's the big question though isn't it, do you want knowledge or to be entertained?
Awesome
Two people who are actually intellectually and scientifically responsible, what a breath of fresh air.
I was having headache from listening to the emotional outburst of this individual Sean Carroll😢
you can converge to a ought from an is and that is what evolution has done. the human brain has no problem asserting, or telling itself "that something is an ought", if the "ought" turns out to be effective. that's how humans have actually converged to universal human values and laws. it's not that complicated lol
EW spends a lot of time ranting about how much time and money has been wasted on string theory and then wants people to spend time on his baseless ideas.
(FD: I don't disagree vis a vis string theory.)
Timothy Nguyen is way smarter than I. I cannot compete in an intellectual joust, in the same I could not compete with Joe Rogan in Jiu Jitsu. There are some things to consider. First he works for Google. An employer that has a charge sheet reading guilty for ideological views inserted into personal life. Secondly, he is known more for his 'take downs' of heterodox thinkers. By nature heterodox thinkers should be wrong a lot, that's their utility, because when they are correct we advance. I think Timothy is so smart it is impossible for him not to know this. I also know it's important to have people like Timothy to challenge heterodox thinkers so we can separate the bad challenges to the good. My fear is Timothy doesn't know what role he serves. He's 100% not smart enough to know himself, be able to see through his own internal motivations, nobody is. The fact he's so certain in his take downs suggests he's ideologically possessed as he has not explored solutions to problems created but stopped at take down. My I.Q is not high but Timothy is unlikely to respond as I do have a level of wisdom, which is different to I.Q and he knows it
Freewill is the capacity for future interactions to not be necessarily determined by past interactions. It is the element of unpredictability. Humans are unpredictable. Sure, you can sometimes make predictions that will be followed by an average of a large number of people, but which individuals will follow that predication is unpredictable. The interesting part is, by the Strong Free Will Theorem, this does not just apply to humans. Cat's are definitely unpredictable as Mr. Schrodinger accidently pointed out, and my cat definitely has freewill. The influence of freewill is measured in Shannons.
Ah, a discussion on morality vs reality. Morality is the pain experienced when reality is not as one desires. This is part of sentience as Dr. Ford (from West World) pointed out. However, to realize that reality isn't as one desires, one must first Desire reality to be a certain way. We expect reality to be better when we choose behaviors that move us toward our desired state. This is way off the Science track. People who have a problem with morality, don't Desire, they simply Want (i.e., consume.) Desire is the expectation of return on a change of context, and is part of freewill as it requires choice. But, now we're sliding down a deeper rabbit hole because we'd have to bring in Decision-Field theory along with Thought and Memory.
A problem for Eric Weinstein is that he can't explain his theories to anyone in an understandable way, not even to very smart and educated people like his friend Sabine Hossenfelder.
14:07-14:14 this needs to be a gif
I really don't see how sam harris could associted with "dark web" at all.
Who has Joe Rogan not invited?
they talked about rogan not inviting enough people?? thats a laugh and ahalf from two clowns from the side of the biggest cult in western world history.
when were the last time they dared to try and learn anything about the safe and secure batch of rushed, untested chemicals responsible for a 400000% increase in vac adverse events?
or entertaining the climate change cult, because its completely normal for the side of science to push a made up, ludicrous and eternally debunked piece of propaganda for 3 decades like how "97% of all scientists agree"
Sean, it's entertainment. Not everything is serious. And also I don't like that you get to choose who should say what. Also where is the string theorists responsability for sucking out all the air?
Let me give you a short and sweet answer, they're all hypocrites. I just listen to them for my entertainment and not take them seriously, joe was a comedian and he himself tells everyone not to take him seriously so should you not.
17:41 SC: _“I’ve got_ real _people to talk to and_ real _work to do.”_ That’s delightful! You know who I am and what I’m capable of, but I’m not a _real_ person to you, am I? So, when I ask you a brief, straightforward question about why your universal wavefunction’s definition of energy allows infinite data bandwidth at zero added energy cost, you see no need to respond on such a pesky detail because… I’m not real!
Oh my… that _is_ delightful!
In any case, you are a good man and a deep thinker, and I genuinely wish you luck in figuring out Everettian probabilities. Good luck with your research, and thanks for that helpful insight.
Ha!!!
Ok, but nobody, and I mean nobody, would agree with Sean's concept of free will. That is not what people think of when most people think of free will.
And even his concept of free will makes no sense given his first conclusion about the laws of physics.
I going to whatch joe!😅
Insane to treat science as dogma.
Who does that?
What a waste of time and questions to someone as interesting as Sean Carroll. I get that this is kind of Nguyen’s claim to fame, but it was a little cringe worthy watching him ask Carroll multiple questions about Nguyen’s own papers focused on the theories of someone simply because they’ve been on podcasts and received some media attention. Nothing substantial has ever been shown from Weinstein and his ilk. It’s a really obvious way to get attention. And I think Brian Keating is promoting Weinstein the person more than his actual theories, and for the same reason…attention and clicks.
And one is a fraud... guess which one?
I like Sam Harris , enjoy Eric Weinstein, although he should engage with his critics about GU, and avoid Joe Rogan , but Sean Carroll is terrific
'Women are discriminated against in science because so many men are represented.'
Imagine transposing race to this discussion finding that Asian and Jewish people are overrepresented and deciding that indicates discrimination. No. Science is not uniquely prejudiced against women... where an abundance of women decide to go and make a career, an abundance of women make a career. There have been many hurdles in places like the financial industry and law... but women studied those subjects in vast numbers and now there are vast numbers of women in those areas. If you say women are discriminated against in science you need an explanation for why similar hurdles were overcome elsewhere but not Science.
Does Sean actually think that journalists say true things?
Click bait..!
From is to ought -
Sam Harris is right. He's obviously not claiming ought follows syllogistically from is.
He argues ought can - and should - be rationally derived from is.
There's no need for the fiction of religion - God Simon says 'I am. Therefore, you ought'.
Rationality and reason are all that are needed to deliver the ethics of 'ought' from the science & reality of 'is'.
Everyone claims to be rational, so your point is completely moot.
I feel like its hard to take the stand he did on free will (which I mostly agree with, leaving room at the margins for someone discovering something because it would be irresponsible not to) and then claim you can't get an ought from an is.
A "true ought" would be something very much like that free will he doesn't think exists. Some subjunctive-y type thing that violates the laws of physics; because if it doesn't violate the laws of physics to "think of an ought" then its just some big long list of Turing operations (or however you want to call this, heuristics, bools, whatever) that are so complex that it just becomes this fuzzy thing that we give a subjunctive quality to.
Just because we decide to give a subjunctive-type quality to the thing because the list of operations in the reasoning behind the thing are so complex its hard for us to sit down and call it "an is" instead of "an ought" doesn't mean it violates the laws of physics to think of an ought.
I think the problem with this is that any heuristic you use requires assigning subjective values to the premise. And that the values are necessarily subjective.
@@mrjdgibbsNo, it just requires the premise and values are definable through Turing operations. If they aren't then they violate the known laws of physics
@@EuphoricDan Are all human lives equal? What is the value of altruism? Is it ever okay to treat other people as a means instead of an end, if so, when?
There are no objective answers to these questions, no way to assign absolute values. Morality cannot be derived. At least, not entirely.
@@mrjdgibbs There are absolutely objective answers to those questions - and again if there are not then that violates the Church-Turing Thesis.
I don't have so much a problem with someone claiming it's wrong - I mean, I do but that's not the point - my argument is that the same rationale used to derive his views of determinism axiomatically define he can't take this position on the is-ought thing.
The only one these guys have a modicum of respect for (Sam Harris) is the only one who's gone down in flames for bad reasoning. His own audience fled in huge numbers. It's almost like these guys don't know anything beyond their field of expertise.
black holes ?! that's racist man
What BS, "there's no such thing as just asking questions"??? There absolutely is and of course Joe will ask a finite number of focused questions because he's a human being that understands he's on a podcast and therefore needs to attempt to get to the best questions as he deems them to be.
This Guy Timothy is out of his depth.
"We talked a lot about the fact that women are discriminated against in science . . . for the next two weeks he was tweeting out links to show how women are discriminated against in science. But then other people appear on the show and they say other things..."
I think I've heard enough right there.
Weren't you just complaining that he didn't give time to both sides of a question just minutes before? Or... Does that only apply when the side you agree with isn't being presented as much as you'd like? So... What you're saying is that Joe Rogan, of all people, has a better grasp of how to accept new information than a scientist? Aren't you supposed to be a philosopher? Do you see nothing wrong with your argument there?
I think I can figure out which person I shouldn't be paying much attention to and which one is more likely to present both sides of an argument.
"He's really trafficked in some very wild, conspiratorial, anti-scientific ideas."
"I'll take, 'statements that didn't age well' for fifty."
So... Asking questions about the response is a bad thing? Really? Yeah, that didn't age well, did it?
The pandemic has clearly shown all the dangers of trusting scientist like they are some demigods. Rogan was detrimental in exposing this in its entirety. As scientist who meticulously criticize every new theory in physics, as you should, I am deeply disappointed by the lack of critic that you exhibit for anti-science pushed by pharmacomanfa and government censorship. Rogan has many flaws in terms of the guests he invites, but he also offers a rare place where those unjustly casted thinkers had when faced with canceling and censorship. Just to be clear and avoid unwarranted attacks, I do not count Eric here, but mainly the most established epidemiologists and vaccine experts who have been demonized by pharmacomafia. I am profoundly grateful to Joe for having a courage to do so at such a dark time for democracy.
Trafficking in establishment dogma. His uninformed speculation on Joes pod make me wonder just how misinformed Sean is in his area of study.
Who even gets a platform???
This conversation is bordering on fascism.
If Sean has courage to even talk or listen to Eric, this conversation would be completely different.
What would be different?
Yes, it would be even more profoundly shocked at the fact that a charlatan like Eric has gotten away with it for so long
Crickets...
Still crickets.
Love Eric. Don't care what anyone says. Chances are geometric unity is not true but I appreciate his spirit and intellect
I respect Sean Carroll and his work more than I do Weinstein, but Weinstein is more that just another crackpot. There has been a moderate amount of discussion among theoretical physicists and mathematicians - I have witnessed it firsthand at Stanford and at MSRI. He did and does have a few interesting ideas that have real mathematical substance.
Can you name some conferences or researchers that have shown interest in Weinstein's work (and which of his work to be specific)? Generally speaking if there is interest in someone's work, such person is invited to give a talk and their work ends up being referenced or cited in some documented form.
More crickets. Tim, as usual, delivering knockout punches by simply asking for specifics. Explains a lot.
No, not crickets. Tim doesn't come around MSRI during any of the colloquia on the relevant topics - so he has missed many conversations and explorations. Knockout punches? Hmmm, that's pretty off. This isn't about knockout punches, it's about interesting ideas. Are you student of math or just a spectator?@@jamesedward9306
-cocaine- clarity is a helluva drug.
I disagree with Sean on two points nonetheless. He doesn't need the vague sarc condescending undertones.
Unless they are a valid response to nonsense.
@@rossmcleod7983 thats great, wanna try and debate that since hes so sure of himself?
oh right, his c ult got humiliated the handful of times they dared show up the last 2 decades
Agent Smith and Edgar skin suit here trying to proclaim that there is no agenda against people like Weinstein while simultaneously demonstrating there's an agenda against people like Weinstein with a dash of ridicule and a dose of sarcastic boys club pomp is not all that surprising.
This was an awful episode
This guy is what a closet authoritarian looks like. "It's not just questions" is insane. They are quite literally questions. He simply doesn't like when the questions hit a topic that puts his current ideology/worldview in jeopardy.
Lol
You should at least ATTEMPT to steelman someone's argument before dismissing it.
@@alibabaschultz352 I've done that. This isn't my first time listening to Harris.
@@whiteymcwhiterson3974 No. The point is the adage "with great power comes great responsibility." When someone attains a huge level of power and influence like Rogan, there OUGHT to be an analogous level of responsibility. He should be aware that he influences the thoughts of millions of people, and take that into account when "asking questions".
You are free to disagree with that, but at least be honest about your disagreement.
These two attempted to deconstruct IDWS without ever listening to these shows.
How do you know that?
Sean has literally been on the shoes, multiple times.
Regarding covid, the origin needs to be determined. The MRNA vaccine is new technology, and no one knows its long-term effects. It doesn't prevent transmission. A fact. There are many questions about covid, including the negative effects of lockdowns, that need to be asked.
Joe Rogan is an excellent interviewer.
LMAO, pretending to have a constructive 'scientific' conversation, when u didn't even check the paper. You talk for several minutes about why it's bad that he didn't release a paper and how it's impossible to know if the theory holds any merit, then - without ANY hesitation - you say you didn't even look at the paper after it was published.
I read (and enjoyed) both The particle at the end of the universe and Something deeply hidden - my opinion of Sean Carroll went down by quite a lot based on this video.
It's not even a paper. It's a piece of entertainment.
@@BrentWalker999 nope. it's a paper. although it is entertaining to watch 'scientist' talk about someones work without even considering to read it
@@seper159 have you read it?
Is it published in any real journals?
@@BrentWalker999 you have already demostrated not having enough information to talk on the subject. I'm not interested in correspoding to your comments for next weeks answering stupid questions :D Eric Weinstein has been anything but queit about why he isn't a fan of mainstream academy. If they don't want to read his theory, that's fine - just don't farm clicks talking about it... get your own content, if your not gonna discuss his ideas
(and yes, I have read it)
@@seper159 and what does the paper state in the beginning?
This show was stupid.
SC should grow up and not pout so much.
Stop theatrics, quit using single instance papers, videos, positions.
Take yourself into a room for a week and have the one on one.
You are using baseball, which you are very good at, to explain to me why Eric's cricket is flawed.
Do you know how to play cricket?
Again, you are late to his game.
Is only problem with all that is that joe rogan happened to be correct. It's also very easy to tell your bias. Maybe you should stop worrying about what joe rogan is doing because whatever He is doing he's doing it Better than you. Hi suspect that's the real reason you have issues with him. Intellectuals get very envious When somebody who's not educated, so to speak, is doing better than them .
You didn't debunk Eric Weinstein's physics work. See my 12 hour rebuttal:
_Uncompetative hates 'A Response to Geometric Unity' by Timothy Nguyen_
This guy sounds like a good tool. And as such, YT sure makes sure to Push his stuff in a way that''s actually very "sus", to me. It just is. He is utterly predictable and, unfortunately to him, he's got nothing interesting to say. And his voice tone sounds anything but pleasant and honest. (and I'm no Fan of any of the others, either. But Joe is at least charismatic. Not a pretentious schmuch.)
Tim, the palpable satisfaction you take in trying to undermine Eric is... pathetic.
3:47 So, Sean essentially wants to prevent freedom of expression because entertained ideas don't care about his "poetic naturalism"?🤣
Let's see his argument for believing that there is no such thing as" just asking question", and how that is somehow a big philosophical point that majority of homo sapiens just can't comprehend, because they're missing a gene or something, while Sean is like always, omniscient:
1. There are infinite number of questions one can ask, and infinite number of facts one can state
2. If somebody asks question or states a fact, he selects certain question or fact from infinite array of questions or and facts
3.Therefore there's no such thing as just asking question, because you are choosing things
Well, it is a fact Sean Carrol knows close to nothing about philosophy or valid reasoning outside of his field of expertise. What is he saying there? What does the fact that you can pick any question or fact has to do with impossibility of doing so??wtf? Like where is the relation between having capacity for potential generation of infinite amount of statements and factual claims, and claim that "you can't just ask questions because you must ask all questions"? So, in Sean's version of human epistemology, one must embody the paradox in order to appear credible and responsible. Does he know Joe Rogan is just a modern talk show, a podcast, a god damn amusement device. Is he scared people are gonna think with their heads ad freely act? After all maybe even Weinstein knows better than Carrol, why Carrol always assumes he's right? Did he mean that only physicists can talk about grand picture of reality, while in reality such topics are exclusively philosophical? Apart his claims being a total brain fart, it is pointless to argue with him, since he's gonna immediately start throwing words like physics, science, extraordinary claims extraordinary evidence while showing complete philosophical illiteracy. I get a feeling that he want to appear as a philosopher besides just scientist and that he sees that as justification to lecture others about the reality he's completely clueless about. He is just an ant on a wandering rock somewhere in space that acts like it has knowledge of what can or can't be the Carrol fails to understand that if we regurgitate same narrative he proposes, till eternity, there will be no space to entertain any other idea, and since people like Carrol, Tyson, Cox, Krauss etc. already told their story, and since they are bringing nothing new or unknown on a plate, it's time to move on. In next couple of months Rogan will probably get another set of guests that will share some other view, who cares!