Paul Davies - The Mystery of Existence
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 фев 2022
- If all that exists-everything imaginable, physical and nonphysical-is 'something'. Why is there 'something' rather than 'nothing'? Wouldn't 'nothing' be simpler than any sort of 'something'? It's a haunting wonderment. It's the biggest possible question. Why is there anything at all? There must be an answer. But who can know it?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on why we exist: bit.ly/3n6DQMG
Paul Davies is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
The age old questions of “why”, “how”, “who” have been the cause of immeasurable collective existential angst suffered by humanity over the eons. We often assuage this anxiety by ritual belief - deferring it to the creator or the father. A father that we trust is the penultimate intelligence, reason and beginning. This is a heavy load we ask our gods to carry for us. Imagine the magnitude of existential angst our gods endure when they inevitably ask the same questions of themselves - why am I god, why am I here, how did I get here, what is my purpose, who am I, who is my father?. Even if he/she/they have all these answers - she will have a final unanswerable question too. That’s anxiety at a galactic scale :)
Perhaps “why” is not a relevant question in the context of forever
Nice one. Have you heard of the notion of the 'infinite regress'? It's a concept associated with our attempt to continue to seek ever-greater explanations for prior events via causality. The typical example of the infinite regress is the Big Bang. Regardless of whether that is the most accurate or correct description of the origin of space and time and 'everything', it is not obviously wrong for people to ask what 'caused' the Big Bang? Indeed, how did something as extreme as a singularity - an infinitely-dense and infinitely-small point of ... something ... how did THAT spontaneously erupt into the event that we sometimes see in our minds eye as the world biggest explosion?! At about this point, you start to see the problem. It seems to me that either we must accept some 'level' of explanation as a brute fact that we must somehow find acceptable in and of itself, with no external explanation needed .- or we will feel compelled to seek ever-deeper reasons for why THAT particular brute fact should be accepted as such.
I seriously feel that this infinite regress problem is sufficiently deep and fundamental that even a supposed Kardashev Level 3 society (if life even exists away from Earth!) would be unable to escape it. We seem forever stuck with the knowledge - even now, even this early on in our learning - that will likely NEVER reach an explanation for certain fundamentals as the origin of the Universe that is satisfactory.
At first I didn't think his final argument made any sense, but then it clicked. Really interesting point he made there at the end. If consciousness is inevitable, then teleology is literally built into the fabric of the universe.
Something exists. That's about all we know for sure. Everything else is speculation and conjecture.
Rambling. Something hasnt exist of course. Searching show up something it true sentence. "Something is existence " are no sense it no means nothing as tatulogy .
Something exists, but it may only be your thoughts.
How do you know we're not in a simulation?
Was there a day when consciousness happened? An event that happened and all of a sudden, consciousness started? It's a strange idea...
I like to think that on some level consciousness happened when the earliest forms of life first evolved, though probably a very simplistic consciousness. Maybe some level of consciousness is built into every life form. I doubt humans have a monopoly on it, we just have the most complex formulation of consciousness that we know of so far. I’d like to think that consciousness and life are inextricably linked together from the outset. It’s not scientific but it makes life feel like it has a purpose.
The only time that consciousness exists is now, the present moment. Past and future are just ideas that consciousness is thinking in order to describe the present to itself. When assessing the past we always start with the present and work our way backward using the theoretical contruct of 'cause and effect.' The past is like the wake of a boat, it shows you where you've been but it emanates from where you are-- it does not propel you forward.
The more i think about it, the more i feel convinced that the universe is actually a simulation happening in some sort of a computer
My simulation sucks. I want a refund.
Excellent. My most Favourite Program .
What about in dreams when you open a window and feel the cold air and the wind coming in just like in real life how can you explain that? Everything is an illusion, you just enjoy the ride, or not.
Interesting. I'd argue that 'feeling wind coming in' within a dream is the result of you imagining the sensation and - because you have experienced that real phenomena plenty of times before, your brain does not have a difficult time essentially recreating the sensation, the expectation, perhaps even priming your skin for the sensation. I don't pretend to have an answer that would pass any muster though, so I grant you that when it comes to dreams and their relationship to reality, I reckon we've got lots to learn.
You ever notice that dreams take on the form of a story...who's writing the story?
Weird right, but how about insect and Orchid that can evolve mimicing leaf, they even dont understand the shape of leaf
Oh I love Paul Davies' books! I just finished one, I love the way he explains things
Agenda means there is a mind with an intent involved. If you don’t mean that, don’t use the word. this is probably why you cant bring the debate to a higher level.
The first person experience as observer , doer and receiver is the very important question about conciousness
Definitely saving this video. Paul Davies' books, especially 'The Mind of God', 'The Goldilocks Enigma', 'The Eerie Silence', 'The Origin of Life/The Fifth Miracle', 'The Demon in the Machine' and my newly arrived and yet unread, 'What's Eating the Universe? ... I've had an intellectual feast reading his works over the years! I'm a 42 year old Australian guy, I work in IT rather than the sciences, but find the so-called 'Big questions' externally fascinating.
PS: If I was to say something philosophical to add to some of the wise comments here, it is this: I see no obvious escape from the problem of infinite regress when it comes to seeking ever-greater explanations for earlier and earlier events leading back to the moment of creation of the Universe, or what we currently understand as a beginning (Big Bang or some other similarly-fundamental point) It seems to me that even if there exists intelligent life in the Universe and even if that life was to endure for billions of years, somehow continue to thrive, grow and refine themselves, I STILL cannot see how even some Kardashev Level 3 superspecies would be able to get around the infinite regress of explanation.
What I mean is simply this - Q) What caused the earliest forms of stars to form? A) Probably - Vast clouds of molecular hydrogen atoms underwent some form of collapse until central regions reached sufficient levels of temperature and pressure to commence nuclear fusion. Q) How are we to account for the clouds of hydrogen gas? A) Hydrogen atoms were able to form after the recombination era when the Universe average temperature had dropped below the level that was previously preventing ionized matter from settling into its familiar atomic arrangement, required the passing of time Q) Whence doth even the ionized hydrogen originate? A) Um, the Big Bang, possibly. Q) An unimaginably-dense point, a singularity somehow burst its shackles to burst forth and subsequently go through a period of inflation? What could have caused that? Q) I'm not sure. We're collectively not sure, although some might argue that if we take the idea of spacetime originating at the point of the Big Bang, then some might argue that any notion of a 'before' and therefore of causality itself - are moot or meaningless. Q) I find your answer unsatisfactory and require a deeper explanation than the one before - and we'd be doing so well! Proceed deeper, please. Q) Okay, well, perhaps - and this is outside any notion of established science here; perhaps the Big Bang we think of as a singular, monumental fount of everything that ever was or will be, it was instead a more ... localised affair, perhaps one Big bang among many that gave rise to our local Universe residing within a great - and possibility infinite - roster of other Universes. How's that? Q) I appreciate the disclaimer and I do credit you for at least trying to go deeper, but instead of knowing more, I find myself simply applying less significance to your earlier explanation of a singular 'Big Bang'. If it could be one of a possible sea of them, then surely you won't blame me for wanting to ask who or what is responsible for all those Big Bangs! In fact, forgive me but you're just giving me new avenues of questions! How many big bangs were there? Are they still occurring somewhere, somehow? Why those particular types of 'bangs' and not others? Why have 'bangs' at all? What was wrong with came before the bangs and if there was no 'before', what could possibly exist in the frames between to possibly fill my desired role as causative force in chief?
i'm been intrigued by paul davies for a while, but i'm not sure where his thinking is going
for me, i think automata theory gives answers to many questions but yet just a few scientists in other desciples had embrassed it as a tool
for example, turing completness and abstraction layer can solve the emergence problem and the scale problem of QM vs classical physics
it's all about the rules, and not the nature of the material itself, sure if the material is built to apply the rule then cool
but that's not necessary
A whole bunch of speculations. Nothing more nothing less. What a waste.
Hello Daniel. I'm retired 65 year old British/Australian guy living in China. I'm also a big fan of Paul Davies. Here’s my relatively uneducated take after decades of thinking about the Universe/Multiverse.
What if our Universe is part of a Multiverse superstructure (block universe) that is actually a Möbiverse or a Multiple Klein Bottle Multiverse like an M.C.Escher drawing of a Möbius strip, where the beginning is the end, and the end is the beginning? This concept evokes Carl Sagan's famous quote, "The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."
We have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise it becomes as you say, 'the problem of infinite regress'. Initially, I think we have to assume that something came from nothing at the quantum vacuum zero-point field state at the very origin of the Multiverse, in which the very first Parent Universe was born, the first stage of a Multiverse super-structure of Universes. What I'm suggesting is a self-creating non-orientable topology Möbiverse Multiverse of multiple baby bubble universes that are finite, but boundless curving back on itself/themselves in and endless cycle of birth, death and rebirth of universes in a liquid-like quantum foam.
By expanding on the Schwarzschild Cosmological Model / Black Hole Cosmological Model in which the observable Universe is the interior of a “Black Hole’, and combining it with Igor Novikov’s White Holes, Einstein-Rosen Bridge Theory, and Stephen Hawking’s proposal that a Supermassive Black Holes (SBH) spawn a Supermassive White Holes (SMW), it seems a plausible concept that 'Black Holes' could become inverted 'White Holes' or 'Big Bangs' which create new ‘Baby Bubble Universes’ in the superstructure of the ‘Multiverse’ that just fold back on themselves forever; finite, but everlasting with no true beginning or end.
This Möbiverse concept helps to answer the 'Black Hole Information Paradox', and what came before this Universe (our Universe). In conventional thinking this appears to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and thus entropy. But does it? If space and time invert inside a 'Black Hole' couldn't it be possible from our perspective? Considering our understanding of what goes on inside a ‘Black Hole’ is purely theoretical, it seems entirely possible that entropy could indeed decrease to an entropy minimum state at the singularity, due to the extreme density that’s associated with the low entropy ‘Big Bang’. From that point, entropy increases again in a ‘Big Bang’ of plasma expansion and ‘Time’ in this newly formed universe would also appear to reverse or go backwards from our relative perspective. From an observer in the newly formed universe it would appear fairly consistent with our currently accepted theories of astrophysics and observations so far, including Alan Guth and Andrei Linde’s Cosmic Inflation Model. Every iteration of a newly recycled Universe into its new aeon, might be close to symmetry but not quite. The possible reason for this slight asymmetry being the spin or angular momentum favoring one direction (directionality), so it can't be completely symmetrical. ‘Quantum Fluctuations’ would still occur in this new “Baby Bubble Universe’, as we see in our own Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), but the physics may be altered and slightly different and not necessarily consistent with our own universe.
This concept of the Multiverse also helps to answer the ‘Fine-tuning’ problem and the ‘Weak Anthropic Principle’ question if ‘Cosmological Natural Selection’ (CNS) as postulated by Lee Smolin is a real phenomenon. Not every ‘Baby Bubble Universe’ would have the correct physics and universal constants to support intelligent sentient life; we just happen to be in one that does.
This Möbiverse hypothesis could also incorporate String Theory/M-Theory and extra dimensions in a hyperspace/bulk universe. There’s still far too much we don’t fully understand; e.g. ‘Dark Energy’ (73%) and ‘Dark Matter’ (23%). We only have some understanding of the non-luminous matter (3.6%) and luminous matter (0.4%) in our Universe (note: these percentages vary slightly depending on what model the calculations are taken from).
The Möbiverse is a concept that is at least balanced in some way like Einstein's simple equation E=mc2.
After decades of personal speculation, my visual interpretation of the Möbiverse seems the most elegant to me. It’s a simple closed loop system that recycles itself just like we see in every other aspect of nature. Each bubble universe gives birth to other baby universes through ‘Black Holes’ being ‘White Holes’ or ‘Big Bangs’ on the other side, in the newly formed Baby Bubble Universes, and so the cycle continues.
It also has elements of 2020 Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose’s concept of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) where Roger postulates the single Universe going through different iterations or aeons, but with a twist; a Möbius twist of many ‘Baby Bubble Universes’ being created in numerous ‘Big Bangs’ and destroyed at the end of their epoch, as they are drawn in and swallowed into ‘Supermassive Black Holes’ (SMBs) over aeons of time. As the earlier generation Universe is eventually entirely drawn into the Supermassive ‘Black Holes’ they eventually evaporate and disappear leaving nothing behind, but a new ‘Baby Bubble Universe or Universes’ have already begun a new cycle/aeon in the never ending and turbulent liquid like ‘Möbiverse/Multiverse’ superstructure.
I’m just conceiving the Möbiverse through the eye and brain of an artist like Escher. I just wish I could do advanced math to back-up my visual concept like Penrose and produce my own scientific paper. Lol!
If you have any ideas you'd like to add, I'd be interested in hearing them. Like you I'm endlessly fascinated by these 'Big Questions'.
@@TshaajThomas Without speculations there would be no science. Without science there would be no computers. Without computers you wouldn't be able to waste the space making such a silly comment.
@@bipolarbear9917 He's not making a point. Science came out of usable speculations. He just went on a rambling, that's it.
And that's right, I wouldn't be wasting space making comments.
If there's a creator, it's having a good laugh at how we're trying to figure it out.
Answering Why? Is more difficult than answering how
I think the reason we struggle so heavily with the grand issues like ‘How?’ and ‘Why?’ is because we reflexively apply unidirectional (or even bidirectional) causality to our contemplations. It’s all we really know.
Unfortunately, it’s kind of impossible to get around that, because that’s how Logic works.
We divide the world into separate objects, however, strictly speaking, none of them is the same at the next moment. This division might serve our purpose, with acceptable accuracy, but the ever remaining inaccuracy is what makes the difference between reality and abstraction. To put it in a different way, we are most likely inadequate and insane. That is why these conversations can't actually lead anywhere, just some pleasant (or boring) pastime. hehe.
@@Sergei_Gusakov we divide the world into separate objects even though, strictly speaking, we know nothing is truly "separate", and that everything is built from excitations in the one extended object.
@@Sergei_Gusakov but, yes, the degrees of freedom counted in entropy refer only to those microscopic conditions that all look macroscopically the same. So, while it's (probably) true that Platonic ideals such as circles cannot exist in objective "reality", it's also true that we can never gain access to that "reality" at all. We see things as we imagine them to be, not as they exist in and of their own right. Well said.
@@simesaid To me it is a good thing that we can't. There's still hope then, whatever the hope might be about :)
This is a question we can never answer within the context of our existence. We cannot answer it anymore than a cartoon character can know the answer why it was created. This is because the answer is not contained within our very substance, because we are derived of that which came into existence, not from that which allows for such existence. Our universe is like being suspended inside an expanding balloon. From the inside, all parts of the balloon look the same as it is being inflated. Suppose you are inside a vessel that you can travel with and you head for the inner wall of the balloon but no matter how fast you move, the balloon is expanding even faster, thereby locking you in, as you can never reach the confines. That is analogous to how our universe is, expanding in all directions faster than the speed of light. The only way to know the totality, is if somebody takes you out of the balloon, and then you will who and how the balloon is being inflated and how large it truly is, and why it is there at all! Meanwhile these guys are selling books, writing about something that we cannot know.
I like your balloon analogy 👍
You're thinking about the _size_ of the (known) universe, not the reason there _is_ a universe. And although the former may at first glance appear the more straightforward of the two questions, a theory of quantum gravity, or results from ESA's planned LISA experiment could, in fact, provide a coherent answer to the latter.
@@simesaid from what i read about the LISA probe, it says that it is for the purpose of acurately measuring gravitational waves mainly coming from close binary stars. I dont see how doing that can tell us why the universe exists (if i understood you correctly).
@@Slo-ryde no, our current interferometer does just fine with those resolutions. LISA is being built primarily to detect "primordial" gravitational waves, ones that were created during the so called "inflationary" epoch, at some arbitrarily small point after the big bang (approx. -10³⁴ seconds). If Guths theory is proven correct then we would also know why there is something, rather than nothing. Because it's demanded by quantum mechanics and the process of eternal inflation. I'm not holding my breath on this, but at least it _is,_ in some sense, an answerable question.
You said it right there, it can never be answered. I can sleep now. This is the best analogy I’ve seen about the biggest question.
Steady dropping knowledge on this channel. Well done.
Blowing liars from manipulitive evil minds.
@@maxwellsimoes238 What the hell does that mean?
Wow. Davies is one of my favorites anyway, but what he has to say here, I have found....I don't know...fresh air
3:20. The universe is about something, it does have a goal. It's purpose, as judged by what it does, is to follow a process that takes it from a low entropy state to a high entropy state along a path of natural laws. This is a dysteleological process.
Existence is a mystery humans will never understand. Live with it.
*"Existence is a mystery humans will never understand. Live with it."*
... Existence is only a mystery to those who refuse to "connect the dots." In fact, Existence is very easily understood _after you do!_
BTW: I'm not singling you out. You are making bold statements (which I applaud), so they deserve bold responses.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC All humans can do is observe the "something". They will never know why there is a "something". That would require knowledge that predates the "something".
Oh well, I'll just drop it and get back to sports. Seriously!? That's some rockhard confidence you've got right there.
@@DanielVerberne You can break my absolute assurance easily. Show a problem.
"Naughtiness is a mystery humans will never understand. Touch yourself." - Jacking Armstrong
It's nice to find genuine seekers like this man.
Far to many sit back at base camp with the peer reviews parting in tedious arguments thinking they're worthy of credence because they make no claims therefor make no risks.... And No, the only genuine men worthy of reverence are those natural expoditionists whom actually put the work in and make risks who make discoveries and break throughs. If your belief is only in evidence than what break throughs or discoveries are you going to reveal.
How many fools here say stuff like, "there's no evidence of this or that".
They are bad people. They're not the ones who make the revelations, they mock are impertinent and impious.
@@Graewulfe Know that claiming God is not is much more fallacious than acknowledging God, when in fact science reveals everything that God emanates.
In science your kind seperates and divides everything: Light here, gravity over there, magnetism here, vibration here etc. Whenbthe truth is they're all One.
Science is discreminative, and definition comes only by division, by comparison. We are inside the cosmos, thus we cannot stand apart from God so defining God thus proving God.
This is the fault in the materialists, nihilists, atomists thinking.
If this make since good, if it does not, that's good too.
You're not hurting me saying that I have no evidence of God. If that's what you choose to believe fine.
@@Graewulfe forget about religion, it's scriptures that must be acknowledged.
The interpretation of scripture is the problem, thus you have sects and differing religions and conflict.
If you cannot decipher scripture than you cannot interpret science.
@@Graewulfe the laws are the gods. Research the laws, there's evidence of the laws. They're evident.
"God" is an Appalachian. And that which is defined is done so by it's attribution.
Acknowledging the Gods is reckoning the laws.
Same as photon is spirit; dark matter aether etc.
I've already informed you of this mind you.
So you will have to admit defeat or continue on being the pretentious liar pedant that you are.
And scientifically we cannot prove anything, not illumination, laws, life, time and space, or God. It's not that God isn't, it's because God is great, do great, immanent, transcendent...
@@Graewulfe You're a child you wouldn't understand.
Quantum field is spookily similar to Buddhism Nothingness. Physicists while desperately seeking answers could have come across or overheard the idea of nothingness mentioned in Buddhism and got a eureka moment. This we can never rule out as a possibility. But buddhism knew that thousands of years ago.
@Scientific Irfan Its at a higher dimension than mere science
the host has such a good voice wow
Excellent Program. My Best Favourite
But the black turtle necks... so trite.
@@blackandgold676 He has a tower of turtle necks.
I think Max Tagmark has the most intriguing theory for existence or why is there something rather than nothing. In his book, he believes there are four (4) levels of universes that exist. So, the first three encompass 1) our known cosmos that, is infinite, 2) The Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, 3) the Multiverse with perhaps 10 to the 500 difference manifolds (string theory) and moving onto 4) that mathematical equations underlie everything including the first three levels. So, math is abstract and since there are most likely an infinite number of mathematical equations, then an infinite number also create something. As Stephen Hawking famously asked, “what breathes the fire into equations?”
Resorting to infinities to avoid the obvious, a God created the universe. Even if he is granted his point, that a multiverse exists. That doesn't explain consciousness. That doesn't explain how life emerges nor does that explain how functional dna sequences could emerge in a short time (billions of years) given that it is extremely unlikely.
Besides, there is a recent study titled "Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana" dismantling one of the main foundations of evolution, that the mutations are random. Another blow to materialistic explainations.
Max Tegmark is right about multiple strings of time.
Now understand that Max posits multiple strings of Time.
I have experienced the same events twice several times.
I have had gifts aka objects appear from thin air right in front of my lap.
One object traveled from Massachusetts to Los Angeles...1.14.2016.
Reason to lie or bullshit.
Zero.
Those four levels, along with the infinite math, is still one step ahead of “nothing”. Even the concept of infinite is something. Any attempt to explain the reason for something rather than nothing always starts with a basis of something. God would actually be the most simple explanation, but then why is there God? We have no frame of reference for any of these questions. It’s like describing colors to a blind person. Impossible.
Go ponder 11 solar years, 11 days it takes the blackhole in the middle of the milky way to rotate once, 11dimensions of string theory and how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.
@@dbk5816 OMG, of course mutations are random but you forgot to add "natural selection" part. Before Darwin, it appeared that all this complex life must have been designed. Know we know. Evolution was proven at the beginning of the Century...the 20th Century!. God explains nothing because then, who or what created God? You can't answer that and it's simply an unfalsifiable argument. If I tell you there is a teapot in orbit between Mars and Jupiter, you can't prove me wrong...because it can't be proven. It's the same thing. To your first point. Even if the whole of existence isn't finite, it doesn't change the Multi-verse theory. We're here by the Anthropic Principal. Finally, (my preference because it's not proven, YET) Consciousness is emergent from complexity and also a survival necessity within natural selection. The universe doesn't know we're here, doesn't care if we're gone tomorrow. It's not about us. As Carl Sagan once said, it's arrogant thinking.
Its like being obvious when there is life, consciousness and stuff at some point it is part of sublimation, refinement etc... process of the universe. I think one needs to accept that as being true.
So, he’s a teleologist, right?
Closet teleologist, seems a bit embarrassed to use the word, and hopes to replace science by bringing nothing new to the argument.
The universe was created for the living because only the living care. A stone doesn't contemplate the meaning of it's existence.
How do you know? You aren’t a stone.
3:05. The M word, miracles. I don't think it comes up regularly in Closer to the Truth.
The key to existence comes down to consciousness.
@7-07 oh the universe is teeming with life is sort of inevitable well if life is inevitable why can't mind why can't comprehension inevitable.
These were trillion dollar question, I love it.
We create our own existence.
so basically he said life and conciousness are originated by the inevitable purposeless nature of the universe evolving in itself randomly as well as the emergence of mind? Even the human mind which explains purpose via the scientific method, religion and the system that would come next...
Absolutely, why can’t mind be the only exp we have. We never find anything separate from the senses/mind. And in by the time this has been read, it too will be mind. Maybe space is the illusion. Idk. Xx
The third way of looking at things is already taking shape, the theory that everything is a simulation
I would love that, and they should switch it off immediately.
Just another way in which our species continues to feel itself at the mercy of things it cannot control.
Simulation theory is just a modern-day reinterpretation of Descartes' Evil Demon Hypothesis - which itself is just another reinterpretation of the Hindu concept of Maya
Simulation theory might explain our universe, but then what about a the universe that is simulating us. It doesn't directly tackle the question of existence and instead passes the buck to a different universe.
the reason why cosmologist say that life is inevitable on other worlds, is purely because what life is made up off, is the most common elements in the universe and the universe is mind bogglingly huge.
IOW, life may or may not be rare in the universe, but it's nothing special.
@@browngreen933 if it is rare, by definition it is special.
@@anthonycraig274
Nope. "Not special" meaning that life arises from common substances where local conditions are favorable. But overall in the universe favorable conditions are probably rare. Witness our own solar system.
@@anthonycraig274 Rare is a nebulous term, meaning a relative value, not a quantity. Special means unique, singular. One is a quantity.
Category error.
@@browngreen933 I dont think its rare but intelligent species should be very rare.. U would sure find Bacteria, VIrus but full blown civilization with intelligence is not possible.
Sir Kuhn. You should be interviewing Jagadish Vasudev from India. He understands the "Way of Life" and I believe has a lot of answers.
[Possible Axiom 1}: A universe without observers is an abomination.
Perhaps the whole point of existence is simply to experience the universe subjectively, however it came into existence...? Who knows?
After thousands of years, if the bible or qur’an were the “answer” then everyone would have long ago stopped asking the “question”. Yet here you are, here we sit, relying on ‘belief’ in lieu of anything rational. For every “believer” the price of admission to this fiction is not just adopting a convenient “ belief” but rather begins first by suspending their own natural disbelief. That speaks volumes to me. I agree its time for another approach as Paul Davies describes.
You are right, because 'God' doesn't really solve the why problem, it just moves it so you have to ask why does god exist instead of nothing.
@@leob3447 There are somethings which are not logical either we try to bring new methods make that logic work or forever never answer the big questions.
Local temporal complexities within entropy's long path.
For what its worth, imho..
"An experience" manefest in a temporal complexity within entropy.
It's 'experience' that creates locally long paths.
When Davies speaks of “aboutness” - or qualia Of existence, I think of “emergence” - a process of existence.
While neither cosmology nor biological evolution are complete systems, they encompass those concepts.
How would nothing be simpler than any sort of something? nothing is a sort of something. Nothing existing is just as mysterious as something. There's no proof nothing does or doesnt exist. No one has observed absolute nothingness.
*"How would nothing be simpler than any sort of something?"*
... It wouldn't. "Existence and Nonexistence" have always been juxtaposed throughout eternity. You cannot have one without the other. I applaud your depth of thought.
*"No one has observed absolute nothingness."*
... Furthermore, "nothing" is paradoxical. "Nothing" cannot be adequately communicated without incorporating something that already exists within the communication.
I think the starting question is wrong because at the end we always go back to 2 options A) existence is caused by the act of some kind of intelligence B) existence is here for a random causation.
what other option(s) is there, currently ????
@@paultorbert6929 no one, but he started a step later ... God vs "dont ask questions"
@@francesco5581 yeh, i get that...... both options should be dropped from our consciousness, so we can Objectively do the search..... i want to KNOW the person with the imagination that can do that !!!!
i mean i want that person as a friend !!!!
i hope you are having a wonderful weekend !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
my weekend is kinda stuck in a rut, i am having a "songwriter's block"..... i am stuck on a "verse" and its so good my mind wont let me move to a chorus or bridge..... i hate when that happens...... but i am happy.
@@paultorbert6929 i see that like me you like doing videos with your cats (but you use your fantastic music too !!) ... start to seek answers in them .
Third choice is we start taking matters into our own hands and figure out how we survive this thing as a species.
Heidegger addressed this 60 years ago.
What did he conclude? I have read some Heidegger but don't remember his thoughts on this...
Actually, in trying to make sense of the world, first came religion, then came philosophy, then science. Some people argue that philosophy came first.
I wish they would talk about why, us as individuals, were chosen to even exist? I would think we were chosen from a pool of God know's what.
Rather than god creating the universe could it be that the universe has created god...in an evolutionary process ?
Your mind is truly remarkable Paul Davies!
Paul Davies is such a brilliant and original thinker. Much more from him please.
you can't claim there is a purpose or a goal, if you can't demonstrate there is a purpose or a goal.
can you demonstrate that there is no purpose or goal ?
@@francesco5581 no, nor did I make any claims either way.
@@sqlb3rn but since its one or the other it's natural for us to ponder and lean toward one or the other option. Since it's a too important question.
your post is like saying its possible to 'read minds".......
Science is DATA Driven..... DATA demonstrates how nature Functions....
Purposes and Goals are the realm of a Conscious Entity.
give an EXAMPLE of what you mean....... otherwise, Francesco owned you and you missed that.
@@francesco5581 "can you demonstrate that there is no purpose or goal ?"
That's a false challenge. If a thing does not exist to begin with, there is no method of proving it does not exist.
Can you prove that there are no unicorns? Please show your method.
The next step may be to finally start honering ourselves as a species and figuring out how to take ourselves into the next hundred thousand years. And then the next million after that. That way there's plenty of time to figure out what it's all about.
who cares at the end ? Each of us will discover it sooner anyway
Suppose you are RIGHT about evolutiion Universe necessary Paul wasnt concern this Universe process. You as Paul arent shows up true Universe biy only predict words. It is ilusion from mental health problems like scientif neuroses.
The fixed order of things; invincible necessity; fate; an irresistible power or agency conceived of as determining the future, whether in general or of an individual ----> Doom
💖🙏❤️
This unaveris is not here for just us...... There is definitely something bigger at play , we are no different then any other life form. This unaveris could be a staging ground for something else .. something to think about
The word "for" implies too much. Why should the universe be "for" anything?
“Humanity, just another failed mutation; another closed-end biological mistake.” ~ George Carlin
Levels of existence...
Why is the human condition in a low entropy state? Are we in a bubble?
PAUL DAVIES! * Prof. Kuhn! **Puff the MAGIC DRAGON - lives by this ''dream''!" (YES SIR!) [ ** LIFE ** ?? ] " Or? " .. Is it really a ''nightmare''!?'' (HUH?) (????) :: ERGO:: Wow! So! A thousand YEARS from TODAY - not a ''living'' human will ever even KNOW the "WE" were even here at this juncture in time! ( I doubt it! ANYHOW! ) ''Poof'' == Poof == '''' POOF ''''' ! (GONE~!)
Could we not say that the purpose of the universe is to house life.
Mind understands the entire physical universe / nature?
"Wouldn't 'nothing' be simpler than any sort of 'something'? It's a haunting wonderment. "
What is haunting me is how, after two decades of producing this series, the writers could possible imagine that this is a cogent statement.
If there was nothing we wouldn't be here taking about it. Closer to DERP.
Nothing is not the same as non -existence. Nothing just means having no distinct features so it means everything appears the same. That is still not non existence that is absolute symmetry
More haunting? So how did “something” come about or is something infinite? And if something came about, there could be no HOW because how cant exist. “HOW” is something. (HOW being the means that brought something about). BTW, most people mistake nothing for something. In the vacuum of space, there are still virtual particles coming in and out of existence…well at lease in our space and time 4D universe.
@@kos-mos1127 That's a stretch and a meaningless distinction. I am pretty sure that is not what Khun meant, anyway.
@@Ascendlocal Kuhn isn't talking about the space between two things. He's talking about the non existence of everything.
@@con.troller4183 Absolute Nonexistence is a world without meaning. How did existence arise from absolute Nonexistence is a meaningless question that people ask before they have any understanding of what they are asking. The question itself has no answer. The theological answer of God does not answer the question because the evidence points to God’s existence depending on human belief. The Cosmos always existed does not answer the question because it is the long way of getting to Stephen Hawkins statement of the Cosmos simply be
Everything is composed of units that make a whole .......the cell, the human body, the galaxies, etc etc......everything has an organization and has a purpose.......a nothing couldn't have created all these harmonious components
There are people - many people - for whom cricket is very exciting. I am incredulous but it is true. The universe is about something in the same way that Little Red Ridinghood is about something. But of course it's narrative structure is much more prolix.
Nothing is there, but it's not the main feature of reality. That's all.
Unfortunately, as far as we know , the universe is NOT infinite
(3:20) *PD: **_"To do something new, you have to bring in a new conceptive framework."_* ... "Something new" was already conceived, penned, published, and made available to everyone back in April of 2021. It is a book that explains "Existence" in a way that has never been presented before. Unfortunately, because it was not written by a popular celebrity, physicist, biologist, or theologian ... nobody wants to even consider it.
As I've stated numerous times before, *_"You can present the truth to the entire world in a book, and humanity will simply burn it._*
Manuscripts don't burn
Truth is in the Bible, bestselling book ever. Can easily be picked up for free or read online. Your book is about 18$, with enticing reviews, but smells like tricky commercial, ultimate wondermop.
@@grijzekijker *"Your book is about 18$, with enticing reviews, but smells like tricky commercial, ultimate wondermop."*
... Thank you for verifying my original claim: _"You can present the truth to the entire world in a book, and humanity will simply burn it."_
Marginalizing new information without subjective review is what keeps humanity on the precipice, inching closer to self-destruction.
Nope, modern cosmology, well according to Sean Carroll, the universe is going through a state of entropy. Started off with a smooth non complex state, then moving to a complex state, then settling in to a smooth state of entropy. Like coffee being mixed with milk.
Right. Davies shows himself up here by being disingenuous. He know it's well understood how an entropic universe gives rise to complexity with the 2nd law of thermodynamics intact.
@@johnyharris Disingenuous is Davis' middle name.
Could Sean Carroll be wrong?
@@Samsara_is_dukkha Sean Carroll’s maths pans out. It’s not just him, many others theoretical physicist, mathematicians, cosmologists has independently came to the same conclusion.
Besides, if it’s between an English man who doesn’t know how to use the word agenda and a man who has fashioned the univers with a mathematical model to a high precision, I know who I’m putting my money on.
@@anthonycraig274 "Sean Carroll’s maths pans out. It’s not just him, many others theoretical physicist, mathematicians, cosmologists has independently came to the same conclusion..."
There is no such thing as "conclusion" in science. As far as mathematics are concerned, the effort to reduce even simple arithmetic to axiomatic logic was shown decisively to be impossible by the work of Czech mathematician-logician Kurt Gödel (1906-1978). Thus the effort to show that mathematics need not be metaphysical has failed. Even today, some people still try to hold to empiricist, nominalist, or formalist accounts of mathematics, but those efforts too have not been successful. Thus, those who hold to a realist account of mathematics-to the view that there is a real world of numbers and mathematical theorems and that mathematics cannot be reduced to generalizations from experience-have a great deal of evidence on their side.
"Besides, if it’s between an English man who doesn’t know how to use the word agenda and a man who has fashioned the univers with a mathematical model to a high precision, I know who I’m putting my money on."
Any scientist who claims to have fashioned a "high precision mathematical model of the Universe" can only be diagnosed as a raving psychopathic egomaniac since we barely understand 4% of matter and energy in the Universe.
At best you have exemplified what we have known since Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos: there is no such thing as "the scientific method" and "scientific objectivity" is a fallacy. Indeed, if subjectivity, opinions and biases could be simply eliminated by applying a known method, both Paul Davies and Sean Carroll would hold the exact same views which is clearly not the case. Meanwhile, you are welcome "to put your money" wherever you choose so long as you remain aware that, while such betting may well fit your subjective needs, it does not mean that it has any objective value.
There is only one answer, either intelligent design or this all came about by chance and there is no meaning. You can’t have it both ways and there’s no undiscovered 3rd option.
We exist independent of one another which give the question is this the answer to reincarnate
Perception is EVERYTHING. The lie ( illusion) is that we are separate. The Truth is that WE ARE ALL ONE. If you hurt I (all of us) hurt. If one is helped we are all healed.
Cenextechiho natureccourse Frankenstein posendent.
After seeing what God does, manages and calculates I am a rare person that loves God with all her heart, mind and Soul and is grateful to not be God.
And you know all these details how? Does God actively manage everything, or did he just kick-start it, . or when does god intervene, or choose not to?
@@leob3447 As a woman who mocked people who believed in God. He empirically proved His existence. I would have to divorce myself from my 5 senses.
He is not divorced from Science nor Reality. Universal Symmetry. 11 solar years, 11 days for the black hole in the center of the milky way to rotate once.
Our Galaxy and solar system are very special. P.S. There are multiple strings of time. Go ahead, ask me how I know. Lchaim from Jacova.
@@jacovawernett3077 I apologize if I came across as mocking, I'm actually interested to know how you came to these conclusions. I've never been able to figure out the answers to those questions. So, I'll ask - how do you know?
@@leob3447 it is okay Leo. One of the few things Gott told me I am is Evergreen. My middle name is Sue. When the Evergreen freighter Evergiven blocked the Suez Canal right before Passover, Easter and Ramadan I laughed with God and the entire angel team in Heaven above. For I knew. You are a heartfelt empathetic person for I did not ask God for anything, only to be a good person and care, help and love people. When Gott told me you are Anchor, I had no idea what it meant.
@@leob3447 8.4.2015...morning..I had read some of the newspaper and was getting ready to do a crossword puzzle sitting in the grass behind my mother's house.
There is a woodland preserve, pond and 10 foot hedge between the houses.
I was drinking chair tea. God spoke to my right ear from above and said, I'm sorry,....
You are the one.
Take a leap.
People have worked very hard.
People earn what they learn.
When you notice something there is a reason.
Don't give anything away.
To my left in the hedge was a burning spider web that did not burn.
P.S..GOTT told me to make Israel One
8.4.2021 Beirut Port blew up.
I laughed with Gott and the entire angel team in Heaven above for pain and sorrow. Joy and sacrifice coexist.
And yes, my Hebrew name Jacova is the female form of Jacob.
He says something really odd at ruclips.net/video/w5V98BEXQkg/видео.html. "A lot of the scientific worldview is a derivative of a religious worldview." Is that really true? Which science is a derivative of a religious worldview? Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Computer Science, Mathematics. Why do folks get away with saying this without any evidence to back it up?
Guys says this ways shows they not knows anithing. Liars are guys abusivd linguagens show Nothing.
@@maxwellsimoes238 Sorry are you saying that I am wrong? Or that Paul Davies is wrong?
Yes, at 2:08. I guess giving evidence would derail the conversation. Most early scientists were curious truthseeking believers, like Galilei, Bacon, Kepler, Newton, or even further back with Albertus Magnus, Hildegard von Bingen.
There are basically only two positions you can take. Either God made everything, or, everything just is because it is. We have no way of proving either position currently, and maybe never will using this old model of it's either option A or option B, period. You have to credit him for trying to think outside the box.
We are all just time travellers like Doctor Who except for the fact that we can't leave our own timeline. Our time machine is our own body which allows us to travel into the future. At some point in the future we will arrive at a time where we will cease to exist. The big question is about whether death is truly final and why were we even here in the first place? None of us chose to be here but yet here we are. If there is no such thing as eternal life then questions about anything ultimately become irrelevant. Probably one of the greatest human beings on earth to understand the significance of eternal life was Jesus Christ. Everything we do in life only has any REAL importance for US if we can somehow survive our own death in some way. Without a soul we just become mere flesh and blood mortal creatures wirh a limited lifespan. Without eternal life even the whole human race and everything that has been achieved throughout the ages will eventually become irrelevant, meaningless and completely worthless. Maybe the reason why some people decide to leave this world before their time is because they come to realise the futility of life and their own existence.
We will as humanity bring back our feet on earth the moment we stop using the word God in any intelligent discussion!
Metaphysics
We are sparks placed here for a brief moment to accumulate light and warmth (love) so that we can become as bright of a star as we can be...shining in heaven (joy, beauty and harmony).
Good (god) knows every star by name.
We accumulate light and warmth (love) by appreciating this paradise planet lifeboat and the miraculous works of fine art called "life" that inhabit it.
If we extinguish our light and warmth (love) with "greed" and it's ignorance (hate)...we become the darkness and emptiness that surrounds the stars.
A very cold, dark, lonely, desolate place to be...for eternity.
Why does God not talk about Mars?
He does in Ex. 23:13
@@grijzekijker earth is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The universe is too big . Yet God created living things on earth? Hmmmmm.....
"the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll" Isaiah 34;4. Earth is only insignificant in the scientific view that does not wonder about organic life, existence and consciousness.
@@grijzekijker that is in english which is language which is art and not precise. Language is art which means it allows different interpretations of the words. You need God to tell the world what it really means. By the way the words were written by humans not god
The tablets of stone, still to be rediscovered with the hidden Ark of the Covenant, are written by God, see Ex. 34;1
He thinks we can do better than God? Man didn't invent God, my good Sir. I hope Davies wises up before it's too late. All his 'science' won't amount to two hoots at the judgement and beyond.
A happy little accident.
The Universe is about Nothing.
A finite intelligence trying to comes to terms with the infinite intelligence ; many words, many ideas but all fall short of being able to understand the ultimate state of conscious (all that is) , which we call God.
You might as well say "the emergence of antlers is built into the nature of things." The universe exists for antlers?
It seems to plain me that life and consciousness are a tiny and unimportant feature of this large and almost perfectly lifeless, mindless universe.
Only consciousness matters though
@@natalyawoop4263 Tell that to the sea.
There was a middle stage: philosophy.
Religion and philosophy had a ~100,000 year head start. But as a method of understanding nature, in just a few hundred years, science has been several thousand times more successful than the other two combined.
The scriptures are science. And science today is so pseudo that they cannot even understand it.
Science hasn't the knowledge or evidence like those who compiled the Bible and this is factual.
It's not debatable. Look onto it yourself.
@@S3RAVA3LM Hopefully we can agree that one of us is completely mistaken.
I think philosophy evolves with science. I'm thinking things like law, art, and culture are under philosophy rather than science.
@@enfomy Science is a very narrow endeavor. As I said, a means of understanding nature. For both better and worse, law, art and culture are mostly not science-able.
I'm not sure philosophy is the main (or even a significant) force guiding law, art or culture, either.
@@bozo5632 law, art, and culture are not science-able, but they are part of nature. There’s parts of nature science doesn’t understand? I would say philosophy fills in those gaps. One would need to read a lot of boring but profound dead intellectuals to see the relation, I suppose.
Funny how he tries to escape purpose and God but cant escape God.
I have always enjoyed Paul Davies discussions but for somebody who tries desperately to be objective in his evaluation of the evidence I found it interesting he gives sway to both the religious and scientific point of view that lacks empirical evidence in support of its view. So I understand at least why he is reluctant to project conclusions. For me personally the empirical evidence the conscious exploration of mind and everything physical testifies to God’s existence but I understand Paul’s response to being shouted down by scientists if he should even seem to suggest the notion of God after all religion has provided no credible reason or evidence for why we should believe God exists. Sad really
Matter cannot make or direct itself. In order to falsify God, show matter making or directing itself.
Humans are matter. We direct ourselves.
@@browngreen933 You are directed.
@@JungleJargon
I wish I were directed. Maybe then I'd get more work done.
@@browngreen933 You were ordered to decide for yourself... like a little god.
thats a kinda crazy person thing to say......
matter does things that you are refuting.... and NO HUMAN can Falsify or disprove GOD.....
if you like, look at it this way:
GOD created everything, and everything behaves as it should according to the INSTANT OF CREATION.
i am really taking a big unknown risky step in assuming you are a person of Faith.
remain Faithful and stop saying crazy stuff.
Science proved LONG ago that matter actually does stuff without GOD's direct intervention..... if you dont believe that then you imply that GOD is flawed. GOD is better at planning how matter behaves than you are at planning how YOU behave.
your statement removes Free Will, WHICH GOD MADE.... thats like saying you dont believe GOD's omnipotence.
_Before science we had religion._ So what? Before airplanes we had feet. What's the argument?
Just because something came first doesn't mean it is just as good as what came next. Science is clearly a better explainer than superstition.
He always wants to know why is there something rather than nothing. Which implies that there is a reason. There is no reason. You can ask HOW is there something rather than nothing? But you already know there is something so why bother. The answer is if you removed all the stars ,planets and galaxies out of the universe you would still be left with subatomic particles. That is the default position of existence not a complete vacuum state which would not allow life to form. You just have to break it down and stop getting sidetracked by wacky concepts and ideas but he would run out of episodes quick.
By the way, God Exist
religion is no way to assess reality.
mmmmmm, thats kinda arguable........ kinda...... the problem is seperating Faith and Religion..... humans fashioned Religion.... Faith is a thing humans feel from an unexplainable source......
and that can be debated too...... but i will go with the existance of an Entity we title GOD. everyday.
and all the while, NOT slam science..... science is good for explaining how nature works. to the quantum level.
@@paultorbert6929 "Faith is a thing humans feel from an unexplainable source......"
Not really. You are equivocating. Faith is a term with two opposite meanings. Blind faith is belief without evidence. That's what you mean. The other definition is certainty based on reliable evidence.
Same word - two meanings. That's the fallacy of equivocation.
@@con.troller4183 what if the possibility exists in my life expriences, that i have Faith due to reliable evidence ?
and how can you determine "what i mean" without having a full knowledge of my life and how i came to have that conclusion to be able to make that statement?
im not going to get into an etymological debate on a boarderline philosophical element of MY life and Faith.....
it means nothing to you and everything to me..... ill keep my pearls close to my heart for now, thank you.....
im cool with your statement..... you dont have to be cool with mine..... its like music and food, you like it or you dont.....
i hope the rest of your weekend is rewarding and relaxing, and i hope the week ahead is stress-free for you.
@@paultorbert6929 "what if the possibility exists in my life expriences, that i have Faith due to reliable evidence ?"
Then you could share that evidence and be the first person ever to scientifically establish the existence of god.
Not to mention enlightening the world.
@@paultorbert6929 I agree, not slam science. Although it is no help in understanding spirituality, love, hope and grace, it certainly gaves materialistic insights.
So, religion and science hasn’t solved it so you point to an different way.
But
You offer absolutely no alternatives after all the talk.
Respectfully.
There is no such thing as God
God is real
There is no god why even talk about it better off talking about big foot
you cannot say "there is no god"...better to keep an open mind. I am not religious, but even I would say god is a possibility.
A God is plausible. Very plausible.
i could just as easily say THERE IS NO Joseph George.
you mention GOD and Bigfoot......
how can you do that if they dont exist ???????
if SOMETHING DOES NOT EXIST, how then can you know of it ???????
thats really a bad example, and childish as hell........ really
let's just say there are many skeptics who have had experiences that has then utterly changed their belief system....so keep an open mind...
This is gobbledygook from Davies. Meaningless.
The answer, dear Paul Davis, is in The Qur'an( islamic Holly Book).
After thousands of years, if the bible or qur’an were the “answer” then everyone would have long ago stopped asking the “question”. Yet here your are, here we sit, relying on ‘belief’ in lieu of anything rational. For every “believer” the price of admission to this fiction is not just adopting a “ belief” but rather begins first by suspending their own natural disbelief. That speaks volumes to me. I agree its time for another approach as Paul Davies describes.
Only if the question is "can we take 6 year old girls to be our wives."
@@AlexLifeson1985 not cool...... dont troll, be an example of Understanding Truth and helping others understand.
NONE of us has the answer.
Science has yet to Prove or Disprove GOD(Allah in your language).....
dont try to steer the people away from trying to find our "cosmic origin" via Science......
i am of the opinion that GOD created ALL of us, (Scientists included), and that Science is NOT incompatible with GOD..... its just that GOD cannot be found by our conventions or cleverness(refer to the Tower OF Babel and Nimrod).
GOD does not hold our attempts to find evidence of GOD in contempt, GOD holds our Sin in contempt.
try to NOT BE CLOSED MINDED.
if you have Faith/Belief, then you should possess an Open Mind for Science.
it shouldnt threaten your Faith unless you are weak.
@@paultorbert6929 Western monotheisms are the only trolls. I was speaking truth. He claims a book containing horrific atrocities also contains an unparalleled wisdom.
And science is not out to disprove god, that is such a strawman. It simply describes the world as it is, and god doesn't factor into the equation.