Sean Carrol "The Big Picture - On the Origins of Life, Meaning and the Universe Itself"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 янв 2017
- Sean spoke at the first annual LogiCal-LA conference in January of 2017. We hope to see you at the next LogiCal-LA! See logicalla.com for more info. If you enjoy this video please make a small contribution at backyardskeptics.com.
Love listening to Sean. I only grasp about half of it. Up from 0% originally. I'm getting there.
He’s charismatic, he’s eloquent and he is music to my ears to listen. Very acknowledgeable in field he’s talking about makes me very patient listener! Science community should give him huge recognition in talk he’s doing for them....Bryan Green, Siskin, etc are also one of these...
Absolutely! ❤
Sean doesn't follow science. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
I could listen to this man for hours!
I'm the same. I find myself understanding little, but enjoying the sound of his voice, his cadence, and the fact that he's trying valiantly to help me understand. ;-)
Could not agree more. Having a science and art orientation since I was about 7 or 8, I do so appreciate access to science lectures, Sean Carroll being one of the best.
I do like Larry Krauss' lectures as well, but between the two, I think I may prefer Sean just a tad more. Lectures by profs like these are treasures.
@@cuzned1375 l999loi99l
Awesome upload! Amazing you already have the LogiCal-LA stuff up. I just was flipping through a Skeptic magazine and saw the meeting advertised (a little late but I wouldn't have been able to go anyway) and didn't even know about it's inception.
Thanks for all the good stuff good atheist :)
Sean Carrol one of my favorites! You nailed that dude!
Sean Carroll is the best. The lecture is so rich with fascinating ideas.
He's pretty bad. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block LOL. shut up, weirdo.
Lectures by Carroll et. al. are so refreshing, educational, inspirational and just ;lain pleasurable, particularly given the political relationship to science these days.
What an incredible talk! Wow!
There's a little old lady in the 2nd row knitting while listening to a talk on the origins of life, meaning and the universe. I know Dr. Carrol is an eloquent speaker, but didn't think he could pull in such a diverse audience!
Thanks for the upload, well worth watching. Professor Carroll's pedagogical skills are awesome.
His skills are not much. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Really good talk. Thanks for the upload.
Great lecture by the great Sean!
Amazing speech!
Dr. Carroll. Quite entertaining, informative, surprising, and amusing. That's something else we can do: you can tell it.....and thousands of miles away, months later.....I can hear it. 😎
such a great guy sean carroll is.great mind and great person
Some of the greatest.
Class production with class speakers - Nice :)
I see that there is a beauty in this. There is a thing my mind does when it hears "These four things you have never heard of explain everything that we know" where I am incapable of hearing the four things. I think that this may be an adaptive learning disability. I try to be minimal in all things, but I am someone who doesn't mind keeping this fuzzy. I like it being fuzzy.
Watched this 4 times in another 2 uploads
Why? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
excellent speech, and still people won't listen with ears open
Open ears, perhaps, but closed minds. Looking at the audience it just seemed to me that most of them didn't want to make the effort to follow the stream of ideas. I've seen much more attentive audiences. It seemed like his time and effort was wasted on most of these people.
Dan Lennon .......That was not my take. And here am I, sitting out here some space, with no physics background, who really caught every word. Had to think, though about that middle stage of entropy, as well as one or two others 🔙🔛🔜. (I experience the end stage every day in some way or another). Anyway, I'm just saying, many people listened whole heartedly. And I'll be ordering that tee shirt.
There is a natural world but he forgot about the spiritual world snd the role consciousness plays in creating the natural world.
You missed the whole part about no particles/physics that could interact with our world.
@ Jy Walking... Your 1st point -- ZERO credible evidence √for; but massive evidence of earth-shattering levels of foolishness, violent behavior, broad ignorance, and sheer stupidity √in support of.
Your 2nd point -- Long passé, fragmented/incoherent, nonsensical, anti-empirical rubbish which has virtually no place among respected physicists; but a central place in the oeuvre of charlatans and con artists like Deepshit Chopra, whose appeal is to the scientifically illiterate and constitutionally gullible.
I see professor gad saad sitting in the audience :)nice
This all seems very logical.
One issue that always keep me scratching my head is the wide variation in estimates of the number of galaxies in the observable universe.
Sean Carroll mentions 2 trillion; I have heard as low as 100 billion, to 400 billion, now Sean mentions two trillion. Through what I have heard over the past 10 years or so, there doesn't seem to be a closely agreed upon estimate.
Better detection tools
He's great is Sean Caroll :-)
In thermodynamical sense, entropy is tendency of temperature of interfering bodies to be the same. In that case, if you have “0” entropy of universe it means it’s dead and has not more energy to change among particles or bodies....
Sean Carroll, Stephen Weinberg, Peter Hitchens = great speakers.
Shirley Mason wrong brother mate
And as some scribe wrote here after one of Professor Carroll's talks, he could listen to Sean even if he were only reading the ingredients on a cereal box.
how is that a good thing? as an educator you want people to think critically about what they're hearing not just lull them into a state of acceptance
Because of the Uncertainty principle
on the quantum level, you can not tell the future for sure! But you can tell the past for sure!
Aristotelian physics was so sweet.
2:08 Gad Saad in the audience. Left side of the screen, second row back.
Just noticed this lol
Life came from the well spring of Life......
I have always suspected that the propensity for life to form is itself a natural property of matter.
I'm reading The Big Picture (the spanish translation. My english isn't good enough to read the original) and I want to ask a question. Carroll writes that dark matter / energy don't have any influence upon the basic properties of atoms and the physical laws that describe them, although this dark matter / energy represents more than 75% of the entire matter and energy in our visible Universe. However, He writes in other section of the book that any supposed non physical feature of the reality should exert some influence on the behavior of atoms. Can anyone explain me this apparent contradicition? P.S.: I'm sorry for my bad english.
It's the matter of degree. Dark matter, if it exits, is able to exert influence on ordinary matter so weakly, that it indeed doesn't change anything about the physics that underlie how we live our everyday life.
That's why the existence of dark matter is disputed - it has so little influence on other, more tangible things, that there's only limited evidence. (Gravitational evidence in the scale of galaxies.)
I think I understand what you mean. Anyway, as far as I know, Carroll is one of those who "believes" in the existence of dark matter / energy. So, if dark matter / energy actually have such a little influence on the rest of matter, to what extent is it reasonable for Carroll to "demand" that any nonphysical feature of reality exert a significant influence on matter?
I think that Carroll has a good reason to believe in dark matter - it's the only compelling explanation that can explain some properties of galaxies - dark matter influences other matter through gravity, and it's gravity pull is hypothesised to cause the "speed anomaly" of the outskirts of galaxies - i.e. their rims are moving too fast, but the discrepancy has a natural explanation if you explain it using the gravity of the dark matter.
There's another explanation called MOND, or Modified Newtonian Dynamics, but I don't know too much about it. Apparently it has its own problems.
If someone claims that there is an invisible, undetectable 'soul' that stores or transmits information to some other location when life ends, then it must be some force that can interact with the details of the atoms in our bodies. Our memories and reactions, personalities, and emotions are stored in or implemented by the cells/atoms in our body. We know that for a fact because we can manipulate them using psychoactive drugs, electromagnetic and physical simulation, then observe the changes using fMRI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging
You can't transmit information about the state of an atom or cell in your body using dark matter or dark energy because it doesn't interact with the atoms in a way that can detect or encode the state of the atom.
Any supernatural silliness like an afterlife would have to be strong enough to influence/reflect the behavior of atoms. Such a strong force would have been detected long ago.
Also renormalization tells us where any undiscovered forces could be - and they're all either too short range or too weak to do the job of transmitting information about cells or atoms.
www.osti.gov/accomplishments/wilson.html
So I always find the comment I'm about to write annoying... But they should show this video in schools.
Instead of looking for a consciousness particle, what about previously understood mechanism which indicate consciousness? As the description of the collapse of the wave function in response to conscious observation. In one way, we already have discovered mechanism, uncertainty. We do not need to smash particles to explore why uncertainty breaks down in respect to conscious system which is in constant observation of its constituents. Maybe we already have found those particles, the standard 4, and they are involved in consciousness and perhaps we have already discovered a mechanism from which to make measurements regarding consciousness. Its likely that people are working on similar ideas. "Easter egg:" You can put the egg back together by creating the "chicken" or rather the conditions that were required to create the egg, using the constituents of the "Scrambled" egg as a portion of the ingredients which satisfy the original conditions. What we may find is that a conscious observer cannot faithfully recreate the conditions of uncertainty as uncertainty could be directly related to conscious observation. Which implies that a conscious observer may never be able to put the egg back together, because the physical conditions are absolutely never available for observation and therefore the information cannot be exactly recreated, regardless if we have a vast understanding of how it could be possible. I'm a believer in physics because physics studies what is physical what is ultimately possible.
41:07 Mathematically there is something called the WHAT of complexity? I tried googling it but I have no idea how to spell the word that he used. Can anyone help me here?
Aziraphale686 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
Lotsa comments as of 04/01/17 six nineteen am EST. BUT not one addressing carrol's "[cause and effect universe is wrong]" (under 15mins in). [eyeroll]
I hope he clears that up by the end.
wow min 52:40 ...WOW !!
at least there is purpose in the talk
the bottle was moving but just within a different frame of reference
what is quantizing everything is only 1 aspect of reality
Does anyone 'know' the music at the beginning and end of this video please? :-)
lol it's an old Atari computer
What happens when there is an automobile accident? Do we say I was in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Sean is a celebrity with finite ideas about life and death. It would be very interesting to have him pitch his ideas with a Hindu guru like the debate he had a Christian scholar regarding the existence of god.
Sean doesn't follow evidence. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
47:24 That sounds teleological.
It is not clear to me why we have to remember things in the direction entropy is lower, nor why the opposite is not true?
jomen112 it is because of the arrow of time. Along with the increasing entropy the arrow of time moves forward. as entropy in the universe tends to increase but not decrease, we can only remember what was in the past but we cannot (for obvious reasons) remember the future (past=lower entropy)
That's not an explanation, its a tautology. Why does the arrow of time follow the direction of increasing entropy? The broken egg doesn't explain it for me either. It is in a state of higher entropy than the unbroken egg, but how does that relate to the memories I form? A memory is encoded in our neurons. This encoding, presumably, increases the information content of the brain and therefore lowers its entropy. But our brains aren't going backward in time. It is obvious that it is so - or is it. Einstein called time a persistent illusion. If the universe is timeless and the passage of time merely an illusion, where does that leave entropy, memories, and the rest of it?
jomen112 /Dan Lennon
'Entropy' is a dazzle word meant to confound.
That is the way creationists use it and the way jew liberal "scientists" use it.
Therefore everyone has mis-defined /straw-manned what it is.
He sounds like Zach Braff
50:03 Gad Saad in the audience, far to the left.
Where do phonons fit in? I thought quantum scientists were finding phonons easier to study and work with than photons nowadays.
They are not part of the fundamental picture (or the "core theory" as he puts it). Phonons are an emergent phenomenon - certainly below chairs, rocks, plants and people, but above quantum fields.
1:04:33
two trillion galaxies in the observable universe..
The origin of life ? It seems pure energy turns into quarks, then into atoms, elements, simple molecules, RNA then DNA. Somehow, DNA has become the blueprint of all forms of life we can see on earth. Simply put like this, it seems life comes from pure energy, originally. If this is close to right, what drives energy to transform itself into really complicated matter is the real interesting question. Of course, nobody knows.
As I understand, the universe started from pure energy. E=MC2 but life's beginning is still a mystery. I guess I should have just said I agree 😊
The Jesus advertising is not welcome in front of a physics lecture, youtube.
Just a simple guy, liked the title and gave it a listen... he talks soooo fast and changes directions like a pin ball bouncing all over the place I could not maintain a logical thread for more than 10 seconds at a time. As soon as I was comprehending one little illustration it went off onto a whole other tangent. Some interesting tangents tho - liked the fish with short sightedness crawling onto land and inventing imagination/theory thru enhanced vision, stuff like that.
We all have different assimilation rates. I found his pace excellent, his words not over-technical, and his explanations quite lucid. Better than most others I've watched. Other good ones include Sam Harris, Steven Weinberg, and Steven Pinker. Not so good - Daniel Dennet, Neal DeGrasse Tyson, and Lawrence Krauss.
Great tallk. Sorry for stating the obvious.
58.48 this pineal gland fairytale is the cause of all problems lol.. welcome to the new age cosmology. ;v
Wonderful presentation; atrocious, thought-numbing music at both beginning and end. Why?
Disappointed that he didn't discuss idealism
Entropy isn't much of a pastifist.
The dude falling asleep at the front at 39:26
1:00:49 No. The point she's making is that the driver, the impulse behind existence and the Universe is that which presents as a story. It has shape, meaning, tension and resolution. It is a communication. The story is not just 'representative' of what the Universe is - that's the job of the atom. The story is what the Universe actually IS; she says as much. Carroll, as usual, has it all about face.
Evolution is not science, it is pure magic and imagination.
So according to Sean Carrol it's an incomplete story but utterly compatible with the scientific image. Yes and I'm a married bachelor. I love listening to physicists hustle.
Sounds like Dr Carrol does not believe in “settled science”.... Good...
Certainly sounds like the old bait and switch scam.
Doesn't it ever.
Dr Carrol I would like to invite you to review my 2 short 2 minute video postings. On YOU TUBE enter the Latin captivus brevis in the search bar. Both videos will show immediately. I hope you will find these interesting & thought provoking. Thank you so very much for your kind consideration, most respectfully...Chuck...
Carol is great, however he assumes everyone has the same abilities..not everyone has those opportunities. Family, personal finances, responsibilities of life may get in the way of someone being a notable person or luminary in a given field. Albert Einstein or Newton may have never emerged or blossomed had they been born with the same mind but in a society that did not cultivate education or value academics.
Sean Carroll
5 October 1966-31 May 2017
RIP
Wut?
tasteless
I am so ashamed that this briliant PhD scientist must explain physics to this people ! Some guy , has got even a beer for himself while Sean talks. This people , probably will go home , thinking that they got lots of fun beeing at this conference , but my point its that this is lame! Its like watching a play or some opera to them. My point is that , this situation its not what it should be. I do agree that people must learn science , and maybe someone will find this very helpful and start digging for more , but never the less this is lame , because its not the way that science should be treat it. Neither this PhD man.
I am trully ashamed for them. Its like watching Seinfield for them.
+Mike D - Utter rubbish.
The people there enjoyed the lecture probably more than you or I did. And are smarter than us as well - stop projecting.
That its exactly my point! Those people are enjoyed that lecture more than I . So much they enjoyed that they had spieced it with beer . In front of this huge figure of science , Sean Carrol. Its something that I will never ever due , due to the respect of science and to doctor Carrol as well. How smart this people are are not in question , its how they acted at that lecture.
Onestly , i had the impresia that they were at the standup comedy for them. Science can be fun too , but onestly I put doctor Sean Carrol way to high in my people that I admire to those things. I will probably be so absored by what he is saying, and trying to process everything that having beer will never happen for me.
Mike.. just because you require a sterile environment to focus on and learn from someone does not mean others have different parameters for optimal engagement with new concepts. I, for example, learn new concepts better with prog rock instrumentals as background noise. As long as no one interrupts him or has their own audible conversation, I could care less. The only real things that prevent me from focusing are repetitive noises and crying babies.
Maybe , but yet again I ask my self : Does all of those people act like you ? I bellieve that my point is still solid. And its disturbing now more than before because your point just validated mine. Im sorry and ashamed for them . I do hope that maybe a procentage of them do find time to loock up more informations about those subljects later . Or this will turn up to be just a show to them . And that its the lame part I was talking about.
kaluza kline
Nothing wrong he say, but is just Blaaaaa Blaaaaa noting new
Classic human "failing," lack of vision, or whatever you want to call it.
"The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known." ~ Sean Carroll
Max Planck was told around 1875 by one of his teachers (Philipp von Jolly) not to go into physics because almost everything in physics had already been discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few unimportant holes.
And in another field: "Everything that can be invented has been invented."~ Charles H. Duell (Commissioner of US patent office in 1899)
. . . and on and on into the future! LOL.
Dr. Carroll is a brilliant scientist and speaker, very clever, very concise, very convincing ... but (as there's is always a but) he tends to accept laws of nature as granted (brute facts, axioms or "dogmas" if you will), and ontologically speaking, I can see a deep explanatory gap there. He fails to address why those patterns rather then some other ones. What is the source of those patterns in the first place and what gives them their "omnipresence" and "universality". Even if we bring multiverse into the picture to explain infinte random versions of those laws, same kind of questions could be asked about the multiverse itself as it obeys some meta-patterns and meta-laws in order to serve as a "container" for all those variants of universes ... and so on and so forth. This is brilliant, but it's rather a fragment of a picture, beautiful and coherent, but actually, imho, a very small one.
"he tends to accept laws of nature as granted (brute facts, axioms or "dogmas" if you will)"
Uh...maybe attending Science 101 will help you out there. a) A scientific law _is_ as close to fact as any claim will ever get and b) a scientific law is based on testable evidence so it is not dogmatic to accept them as writ.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
The only dogma that appears to be held here isn't held by Dr. Carroll.
"He fails to address why those patterns rather then some other ones."
Could it be that he's a scientist, and science doesn't answer 'why'
questions i.e. questions of purpose?
Like I say, you might want to brush up on Science 101 class before you start speculating about "deep exploratory gaps"
Dan, probably I haven't articulated my point very well. I've got no problem with understanding or accepting any aspect of science, scientific theories or scientific laws at all, and certainly I'm not questioning any of that - that's not my point at all. Quite the opposite, I'm great admirer of scientific thought and application of scientific method to everything we do. That's one of the reasons that we're both commenting and exchanging thoughts on this particular video. I'm mainly talking metaphysics here, what's behind the scene of existence which we mathematically formulated as a set of laws. What I'm missing here are deep questions such as "where did the laws of nature come from", "why things move and change at all", "what's foundation for quantum mechanics" and "why those laws and not some other laws" and those questions should be rather important part of anybody's big picture. I'm not saying that Dr. Carroll didn't address them at all, but he didn't emphasized then appropriately. Please note that I'm not having any inclination towards religious thought at all - I just want to point out metaphysical assumptions that are required for science to make sense while trying not to be caught in a circular reasoning.
+Tomislav Ocvirek
Let me try to answer why the rules/laws are the way they are.
First up the question is not what it seems. Given an answer, would not the next question be another 'why' those laws?
Lets ask - what would a satisfying reply to the question look like?
I personally don't like the idea of a Multi-Universe as the word 'Universe' technically means everything, with many of them you still have the same problem - a single concept of everything, and is the one I'm using.
So IMHO I believe and hope sometime in the near future it will be proved, that the current physical laws are the only ones that work - QED.
Bob, I hope so too. And it will probably be like that. But, you actually haven't answered why the rules are the way the are in the first place. Physical laws alone aren't sufficient to provide explanatory power, because they presuppose existence of fields, forces, ability to interact, ability to move, ability to occupy space-time, randomness, inflation, entropy, ratios (i.e. known constants) etc. All this meta-elements are needed in the first place to be governed by those physical laws. But I really don't expect that anybody would ever be capable of providing an answer. There is a danger of an infinite regression. It's not satisfactory and pragmatic, but if infinity is present on any level of the universe, imho, that's unavoidable (on the other hand, If there's no infinity, then we have to address "which mechanism" is doing the "counting" in order to provide a limiting factor and how). So, there are provisional partial answers, but "truth" (a true state of all affairs) can't be captured into single answer, at least not in form that would be understandable to human cognitive capacity. Isn't that a bit like the feedback loop when we point the camera to the screen and then we send the output of the camera back to the screen? Let's suppose that one day we have mathematically consistent and scientifically proven Unified Theory of Everything and then what? Would that be satisfactory answer to all our questions for mysteries of existence ? I seriously doubt that, rather it would be a beginning of something we can't even imagine at the moment, something like our ancestors couldn't imagine but we take as a norm these days ... To make long story short, I don't expect definitive answers, but I hope that doesn't render the questions unworthy of asking.
Tomislav, the problem with that question is that it simply can have no satisfactory answer. No matter what explanation one might attempt to put forth to explain this or that fundamental aspect of our reality, someone else can just as well ask "well, why is reality such that that explanation is the case rather than some other explanation?"The only things that simply could not be otherwise by their very nature are brute logical truths.
And unfortunately, no aspect of physics or even metaphysics rises to that level. We can always ask a further 'why?' question.
I know I'm probably gonna get flak for this, but for the sake of discussion, I must say something. I'm not in total agreement with this guy, and it all comes down to my view of science itself. That view is as follows: science can tell us what will happen with certain stimuli in a world where everything is moving constantly, and it may be able to point out the laws of nature by which every action and reaction is governed, but it cannot tell us why things came to be, or at least I have not heard it. A scientist can say the world wasn't always because it has been proven, but science only deals with the natural, not the unnatural or supernatural.
When you say supernatural though that is typically (always) another way of saying without proof or effort of study. If you are asking the public to give a daydream plucked from subconscious the same validity as definition supported by work that will never happen outside of cults where you have to trick people.
Fuck I wasted over an hour watching this..I thought it was STEVE Carrol
Brilliant scientist who,unfortunately, is looking at a very narrow view. Dr. Carroll, is it your understanding that the thousands of people who have reported their near-death experiences over just the past 50 years, are suffering from a mass delusion which, somehow, consists of the same content? Is it your view that the incredible intricate functioning of every living thing is a coincidence ? Wow. The more I learn, the more miraculous our reality is shown to be. How about verifiable proof of children's recollections of other lives? Your focus is ridiculously narrow and you conveniently omit that which may contradict your OPINION, not fact. You,sir, will be very surprised . namaste
Ok don't sit on any ghosts...
Being a skeptic myself and understanding that the the whole universe is meaningless, undirected and random....can anyone explain how life came from non life please? The actual process!Or is it a mystery that takes faith as much as religion. Its mathematically and chemically impossible and even at 15 billion years this is simply not enough time.Even multiples of this figure are completely insufficient! According to Steven Weinberg the multiverse is also hugely problematic and unsatisfactory.
Any ideas ? Or are we CLUELESS ?.......Anybody ?
There are no multiple universes or many worlds that Sean Carroll talks about, and two thirds of physicists agree with me on this point, but the facts remain that things are as they are and had to be this way--without explanation--or there would be no one, like yourself, to ask such questions!
It does not require faith to admit that we simply do not know (yet). But the mere fact that we have yet to understand something with science is no reason to resort to superstition.
The only people claiming life from non life are religious people when describing Genesis or when they are misunderstanding science.
With respect, feed that broken egg to an adult female hen (mix it in with her other feed so she won’t know she’s being a cannibal) and check back tomorrow and you will find she has verily indeed put that scrambled egg back together. ....... duh
These chaps do not understand how reality operates at any level ........