David Deutsch - Which Laws of Nature are Fundamental?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 01. 2016
- Why is there a world that works so well? How does the cosmos generate diversity and opportunity?
Click here to watch more interviews with David Deutsch bit.ly/1xAaXvW
Click here to watch more interviews on the laws of nature bit.ly/1TrW87l
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
I continue coming back to this string of interviews and every time I listen, the profundity of what he articulates never ceases to amaze me.
We need _far_ more David Deutsch interviews on CZcams - he really is one of a kind. If we had the facility to back up just one human mind to the cloud, Deutsch would probably be my top pick
I concur. I’m new to the Deutsch, but damn if he does not seem to see things entirely outside of anyone else I have ever come across.
He did a series on quantum computing you can find on youtube.
Z va nnnnnnnn;;j. X
F
Deutsch and Dennett need to have a baby together.
@@sherlockholmeslives.1605 I have had my IQ properly tested to be 82 and David Deutsch is still far more intelligent than I 😄
What an erudite speaker and lucid thinker David Deutsch is! This series is a pleasure to listen to - a big thanks for posting.
OK so without Robert Kuhn to introduce us, I probably never would've heard of this guy, and he is AWESOME! So thank you, Kuhn and Closer to Truth. Again!
1000x volume just to be audible
Robert, we need another full interview with David Deutsch.
We need more David Deutsch interviews
The only thing of value in my entire life that I use everyday has come from Double D's thinking- Thank you
Same thing, metaconcepts from his book beginning of reality shifted my daily life reasonning
Can you name the book please?
@@ishraknoor8992 The Beginning of Infinity
My mind is blown right now
I read The Fabric of Reality in late 90s, a master piece!
Fascinating conversation!
He Is Just Amazing..And Correct that's the most important
David is by far the smartest guy able to speak on camera and talk to average humans. I think the Multiverse theory plus consciousness emergence is the key to understanding the universe set that I call the universal tree of cellular life. The universal tree of cellular life is every universe capable of supporting cell life in the infinite set. If graphed it would probably look like a branching tree with a definite height.
The maths says that not all of the universes support life because the physics is different in all of them but the truth is that they are different ages but they may all see a period of the physics we are experiencing now where we are manifestations of the quantum field. A crystal will have the same geometry as the atoms that makes it and like wise most living things zip around like quantum particles and bond. They can even be many places at once, on a TV, in someone's mind, in many minds, or their real position in space and time might be somewhere relaxing. The universes seems to want to know more about itself and we are definitely looking harder as we go because we are the universe.
I love this video so much.
VERY INSIGHTFUL.
This man is a true genius....
why?
Very good
Robert, thank you a million times for these valuable videos, however, so that we can learn from them, please please check the Audio levels before uploading.
Great 👌👍
i like lee smolins solution outlined in the life of the cosmos
We can't see the world as it is because of our limited senses and brain, so
physicists built us a tool, a mirror, to see the world through their projections.
The first mirrors were bumpy and faceted, and when they were moved a bit the projection changed.
So they were modified and polished until they got really plane and now
when moving them the projection does not change, it looks somewhat static.
As beings we like static things because they fit better to our limited capacity and
because of our survival instinct shaped by evolution. We try to survive, as
individuum as well as society and static things are very helpful in this respect.
Because we found a projection which does not change a lot when moved we think it is
the real world we see through the projection, but it is still a projections fitted to our limiations by ourself.
Another physicist made another tool out of curved surfaces called lenses and proved that some aspects
of the world could be better seen through this. The lenses aren't flat as the mirror,
bit more complicated, but still follow some mathematical laws and what we see
through them are still projections, not the real wordl. But we have forgotten this.
So now we are asking: why the world is so flat, so simple that it follows some basic laws.
If the mirror or the lenses whould be made a bit different, the world would look also so
different, who made the world that flat, was it God?
The answer is: No, it wasn't God, it was us, that made our projection of the world so simple,
because the real world is too complex to fit our limited minds, we need a simple projection
to get some understanding of it. If we were insects with other eyes or had another type of brain,
most likely we would shape the mirror and the lenses in a different way. And than we would
ask: why the world is exactly like it is fitted to us so perfectly - was it made for us by some God?
No, it is just a product of evolution: evolution found a way to provide us with tools like
eyes and the ability to create mirrors that fit our eyes and brains, so we can understand
the world at least partially and improve our survival capabilities using this understanding.
Others ask then: if it is not God, so maybe there are multiple worlds, and we just live in
a world which could be recognized by us. Other worlds are non-functional for human.
The answer is "No" again: there is just one world we live in, but there are multiple projections of it,
and we found some special projections, we like, because they minimize the information,
required by our limted brain capacity to handle them; we like them because they appear static and we
like static things, because they give us a feeling of immortality. But every projection
is a true projection of the world, just some fits our conditions better then others.
Meanwhile there are also holographic tools which stores multiple projections at the same time and we can choose the one projection we like by choosing our position in front of it. Those holograms they call quantum computer, still it is projections, but we found a way to have multiple of them during some time choosing one only at the time we require it.
So as David explains, there is a principal behind the fact, that the world is following
special basic laws, but in reality it is not the world which follows those principals,
but the projections we found fitting best. So the principal is fabric made of our
conditions shaped by evolution, the way we try to explain and understand the world with
a limited brain, the fact, that we are part of the world, so follow the same physics as the
world and the way light is reflected at our tools (i.e. information about the world is
reflected by our world concept). - if we would use other material for the mirror - again
may be the "world", i.e. the projection, would not be flat, but still we had found a principal
to optimize the projection to our eyes and brains.
So the basic principal of the universe we are looking for is in essence narcism - we try to shape the world
as we see it (which in fact is our concept of the world) as an outer projection of our inner mind - we fall in love with our own perfect projection shaped out of ourself.
Brilliant
We are not only seeking a correct solution to the questions but one we are able to understand. Nature is not guaranteed or likely to meet both criteria.
I plugged my phone into the speakers at a slipknot concert and still couldn't hear this video.
I don't understand his objection to the ensemble multiverse. He seems to suggest that universes would pop into and out of existence, but I understand the multiverse idea to require that individual universe bubbles undergo a process of evolution where all start out simple. Some then have constants that support complex matter and others that simply evaporate.
Forward, Unlimited Forward!!
David Deutsch is really awesome. The interviewer is also excellent. What is his name?
+Pancho The interviewer is "Robert Kuhn".... an investment Banker!......Who loves China ! ......and furthermore is a neuroscientist.
Hamid Shokri
Thanks - Yup - seems like quite an impressive guy! And seems to be a good listener and knowledgeable interviewer.
I agree on both counts.
For the first time ever, a very good interviewer.
I concur with all of you. Truly a one of a kind interviewer. And not simply because he's intelligent, but I think what most of us appreciate is the fusion of his intelligence with the fact that he approaches every topic so innocently and candidly, and displays a pure desire to just know and understand more with no interference from his ego; in no interview has he ever made the dialogue about him or his beliefs, despite being completely engaged in the conversation.
Well this guy is very interesting.
This guy is really smart.
Imagine him as a child. Wow! What great ideas.
I'd say there is a common-sense solution to the big question. Indeed it will be a law. And this law works on a different level than all others. It will be one that helps understand why we exist regardless of entropy and 2nd law of thermodynamics. It will have to be about self-organization, emergence, self-ordering. There might even be two. One is about life rising from the mud (emergence). The other is about physics seeking to establish a balance where it can (ordering).
David, what is your unified worldview?
The problem is in the idea that describing is possible. Describing is a form of deceiving to obtain power from the described. The discriptions and explainations are abstractions of reality that give a glimps into relative power. Describing gravity doesn't help climb the hill. Inventions do.
Explaining the the unexplainable is the grand prize.
some of these programs have very low sound volume.
What would come first the solution that is transformative or the transformation that yields a solution?
Turn up your volume next time. thanks
There's no limit to naturalistic discovery except the discovery of laws that so limit this discovery
Re: fine tuning. I wonder if there could be a third possibility, that the charge on an electron is changing as a function of time? The time scale is so slow that we've not measured it, and out understanding of physics is incomplete. There's no ensemble, but a continuum and at some point in the distant past and in the distant future life has benn and will be impossible.
If particles are really point like,and string theory is wrong,what "tells" an Electron for example to have the mass,spin and electric charge it has? How do you get something fundamental without a further regress to another theory?
+antipodeandreason My current theory, and it's just a theory with nothing to back it up really with is:
Modern science recognizes the quantum as being a bundle of energy.
It's possible to me at least that when the internal bundle is arranged one way, certain interactions within itself and with other quantum cause certain things to occur, and when the internal bundle of energy is arranged in another way, other interactions cause other things to occur.
Again, I will admit this is all pure speculation and certainly could be wrong. But this way, I could see how such fundamental particles such as quarks and electrons could be formulated.
Maybe the "pure energy unit" is like a mobious strip or a mini torus or something that wraps around itself. When configured one way one thing happens, when configured another way, something else happens. Actually, now that I think about it the torus idea is probably more correct. Different setups would give different outputs.
So you're saying that topology (or topological invariants of 3-manifolds I suppose) is the only distinguishing variable between fundamental particles and the properties that they may have?
I'm not a physicist nor am I well versed in it, but I really doubt that's even a tenable position to hold.
@@vids595 Here is a copy and paste of my latest Theory Of Everything idea along with it's associated gravity test to prove or disprove that portion of the TOE. The gravity test will speak for itself.
Do you have your own Theory Of Everything idea oh wise one?
Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a.
My Current TOE:
THE SETUP:
1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism.
2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.).
3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them.
4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them.
5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them.
FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO:
6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field.
7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field.
8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality.
9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons.
10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary.
11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks.
12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do.
THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA:
13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc.
14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe.
15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe.
16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate.
17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure.
18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons).
THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY:
19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up.
20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency.
21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies.
NOTES:
22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well.
25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true.
26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught?
DISCLAIMER:
27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.
___________________________________________________________________________
Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way.
a. Imagine a 12 hour clock.
b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions.
c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions.
(The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.)
d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields.
e. Do this with the em fields on and off.
(The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.)
f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects.
(Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.)
(An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.)
'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done.
'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
The fine tuning problem is countered by the adaptation theory. If the environment is fine tuned for existence, then existence cannot adapt to suit the environment. If we are adapted to the environment, then the environment cannot possibly be fine tuned.
Learning: 10:00
I'm no philosopher, but it seems to me that so-called fine tuning of the physical constants doesn't violate the Copernican principle at all - but the fine tuning ARGUMENT does.
I think the question of a fine tuned universe is backward. Consider the idea that the life we see is precisely the RESULT of existing in THIS universe with THIS cosmological constant. If there are multiple universes, then it follows that there are likely many other universes where some sorts of "life" exists in them as well. Life in any given universe will have evolved according to the value of the cosmological constant for that universe.
Ah, the last sentence!
If we know every particle and ... no we we say at a deep level... is not completely known
13:05 how? unless we have a good explanation that says so and so- which is probably the answer anyway
Quarks interacting with the Higgs quantum scalar field gives us mass so atoms form and gravitational, electromagnetic, and weak and strong nuclear fields allow stars, planets, and life to form. So fundamentally it is energy and analog and digital information with ever-increasing complexity.
Tj Green
Why specify quarks? Did you forget about all of the other particles that have mass, such as electrons lol?!
@@Oners82It was a discovery at CERN when they observed quarks interacting with the Higgs field to form hydrogen atoms.
@@higreentj
My point was that atoms wouldn't form if it was only quarks interacting with the Higgs field, so it was a bit odd to specify just quarks.
Other than gluons, photons and gravitons ALL particles gain mass via interaction with the Higgs field, so why specify only quarks?
@@Oners82 I seem to have this picture in my mind that after the big bang it was just quarks, then a rapid expansion, then these five fields appear from the multiverse so that energy can acquire mass to form atoms and then cause and effect takes over.
The law that would make the anthropic principle work is this: complex life can evolve only in stable conditions and is extremely unlikely to happen at random.
That law seems to resolve professor Deutsch's objection to the anthropic principle, and moreover, it is a very reasonable law because it is testable even in our universe: complex life doesn't exist in most places in this universe.
There is some interesting information here as well:
www.quora.com/What-is-David-Deutschs-argument-against-anthropic-reasoning-I-have-read-the-relevant-passages-in-The-Beginning-of-Infinity-several-times-and-cannot-seem-to-follow-his-logic-on-this-particular-topic/answer/Bruce-Nielson
This seems like teleological argument - working backward from results to argue that therefore preceding steps must have been designed specifically to produce those outcomes.
We are manifestations of the quantum field! So whatever the quantum field in all universes there are macro representations in all the multiverses. Other universes are different ages with different physics some of which can briefly support manifestations of quantum fields like us.
It's nice to see smart people that don't talk about the law of attraction.
Does anyone know why Deutsch doesn't regard the view that there is an ensemble of universes as having any merit?I don't understand how a universe in which we are 'just asking the question' is a problem.
yeah, i didn't understand his (Feynman's) response to the Multiverse objection.
I'm glad he mentions evolution as a fundamental law. I agree, even though it's emergent I would be inclined to put it in the Standard Model. As it logically evolves out of the other forces and is super fundamental.
Well besides existing in a Universe which is generally hostile to life and besides existing on a planet which is hospitable to life, our solar system is located in a very special place of the galaxy and in turn our galaxy is located in a very special place in the universe, making it not only quite optimal for life but also optimal for observations of the universe.
In turn, the moon and the sun, from the vantagepoint of the earth, are almost identical in size on the canvas of the sky.
This in turn has made a whole spectrum of scientific discovery possible. The list goes on.
It its very futile to point out the obvious shape of the earth to a flatearther... equally futile is it to point out how overwhelmingly obvious it is that we live in a purposeful existence, to those unable to grasp that fact.
I'm only 30 seconds in, but he Kenny Shield's doppelgänger might have a point.
i dont really understand why david thinks the multiverse argument doesnt work? something about fluctuating universes? but there could also only be "whole" universes like ours.
Why do explanations of core physics sound more like philosophy and metaphysics than science these days?
Simple Answer: The universe is a living organism, and all life within it subscribes to the same phenomenon that the cosmos homeostatically does. Physics is essentially BIOLOGY!
Hence, all life within the organism is either a pathology or has functional utility for the organism.
I agree in principle with D. Deutsch that anything that is not constrained by the laws of nature, but requires proper knowledge, are conceivably doable, but I am not so optimistic about humans being up to the task intellectually. We have already replaced individual brains with complex interconnected communities where no individual can possibly know everything about any particular subject area, and that which they do know gets smaller and smaller every year. A super AI could perhaps be able to bridge the gap, but that brings its own set of problems. Luckily, I am old, so I will not be there with you, along with the rest of the Boomers. Good luck.
Biocosm theory takes care of the 'infinite regress' objection, nicely.
We exist in a physical and biological environment which can make our appearance and life systems similar to other creatures. However, there is a huge gap between us and the highest order of animal as far as ability and complexity. There was a point in fairly recent history that man diverged from other living things and became something quite unique. Some would say that Man was touched by God. Whatever it was we are far beyond our fellow creatures and our potential may be unlimited. We do not know if others like us exist anywhere in the universe.
If we did not evolve to be the humans we are today, there would not be such a question as what is fundamental or ultimate.
The question is WHY THIS QUESTION? And that if there were other intelligent being on other planet, maybe even more intelligent than we are,
do ALL INTELLIGENT BEINGS IN THE UNIVERSE ASK THIS QUESTION AS THIS VIDEO ASKS?
I don't quite understand his problem with the multiverse theory is. Can someone break that down for me?
It's called Uni-Verse, one word, one universe. 0s and 1s. On and Off.
Unity in duality.
I don t think his explanation is lucid here.
"If the laws of physics were very slightly different..."
Are we sure that this sentence makes any sense at all?
"If the squares were circles..."
This might sound mad, but could it be possible that our observable universe is actually contained within a black hole? .... perhaps the missing matter and energy are outside of our host black hole?
I don’t understand how this isn’t circular logic. If there’s a universe with fundamentally different laws of physics, there would be different types of fundamental particles and arguably different types of math. In that context, how can you even say “this universe wouldn’t support chemistry as we know it, so there’d be no life to ask about the laws of physics.” It could support a completely alien chemistry, life, math.
If the Eternal Life didn't have the 'ability of Motion', there would never have been any Life-performance.
The Law of Motion, is the most precious Ablity of Life.
The Stuff-side, physics, is 'camouflaged motion', degrees of motion, the hardest stuff, is 'frozen' motion.
(Frozen motion, AHA), Yeah, the basic-energies behind the Stuff-side, is Heat and Cold. All Stuff's condition is a matter of balance between Heat and Cold.
The Life-side is also depending on the Motion-Principle, thoughts is Motion, and thoughts present Consciousness.
All motion goes in Circuit, and come back to 'the mover/sender'. (Law of Thinking)
To go in further details will be very extensive, but this is some very basically for the nature of Life.
Yeah David Deutsch, is closer to truth.
to die, isa fundamental law of Nature-
6:45 "It sounds like there's no solution - because I don't got one, I'm waiting how you....."
Spoken like a New Yorker.
The law of unruly haircuts.😄
Seriously? The multiverse is now the prevailing theory in cosmology? Even though there is not a shred of empirical evidence for it that is not purely speculative? Is this what they mean by the crisis in cosmology?
I think correct quantum mechanics is fundamental.
Questions, questions, questions. Given infinite monkeys and infinite time, we can answer them all but still may never comprehend. That's the fundamental governing principle as I see it (or can't see it?).
David Deutsch rebuttal to the first explanation is just "Well if God created us, Who created God?"
Brandon Carter ? Or Jimmy Carter?
I lived on the top floor of my dorm. If that building had been one story shorter, I couldn't have lived there. Spooky...
The kicking the problem up a level is fine by my estimation. All we need to do is explain by what causal nature did we arrive. After that point it is irrelevant why or how that causal nature arrived in the first place because it is outside our fish tank of reality anyway. We cannot escape the fish tank unless the fish tank owner wills it. If the fish says to himself 'how did these rocks arrive in the tank', either by scientific inquiry or by meta-physical insights it is irrelevant, they are there and originated from outside the fish tank
Savantjazzcollective Ever see a fish jump out of a tank ? I have ....
Post rationalised purpose.
7:27 So.... computation is an emergent property that is fundamental law of physics?. I.E. consciousness is fundamental?
That could be true, as well as the possibility that we exist inside a simulation, or an infinite regress of simulations.
Randy Constan's day job?
Define "progress".
Infinity is impossible?
real flanders, I'm glad someone had the nerve to say it. No matter how far you go, no matter how fast, you will always be just as far away from infinity as when you started. Infinity is a made-up human construct, and in math, a sign that you have done something wrong.
Funny he should mention Richard Fyenman & then spout all that. He could have summed that up as, 'If we can we will, & if we can't, we won't.'. There is a lot of fluff he gave.
Not that he really addressed the question of origins of the universe or fine tuning. He just mentioned it & danced over to practicality at the end. In short, he doesn't know, & if it is not practical, he doesn't care. That is not really looking for truth.
mackdmara that’s not really what he said when he laid out his constructor theory. He relates it to the laws of physics that may or not be there and says it’s a win win situation because we either can do awesome things, or we discover new laws when we fail. He says that’s grounds for optimism and I agree
mackdmara
Of course he doesn't know, NOBODY knows. And as for the rest of your diatribe, it is nothing but a big straw man.
Why can't it be DESIGN? Saying: "it kicks the problem Upstairs AND THEREFORE it can't be Design" is not LOGICAL or VALID... Its seems that Life on Earth is DESIGNED... but just because we know nothing of the 'DESIGNER' does not mean he does not Exist.
annoyboyPictures and it also doesn't mean he does exist
This guy must be derived of the Law of the Bee Gees.
Time is fundamental. Nature has no laws. Nature functions within the realms of the Infinite Possibilities, at the ~ instantaneous speed of Time.
The uncertainty principle allows things to be as they may. A being. That’s 'Y' 'God' said, “I am who I am.”
He correctly dismisses the multi-verse, but presuming that it "kicks the problem up a notch" because the "fine tuning" then would have to be asked about the mind of God only points to the errant mind of scientific methodology simple by presuming because you can't answer such it therefore becomes irrational as an answer which is where humanistic thinking IS barred from understanding, but through Faith, All the answers become logical stemming from Faith in the existence of God which is FAR more plausible than trying to explain such with the wild irrational idea of a "multi-verse",...
Correct: living to be 500 would be a problem.
Hasn't he looks like Seth Goddin with hair
what on earth does "only just exist" even mean... such an idiosyncratic turn of phrase that makes the whole criticism of multiple worlds incomprehensible
I see a haircut like that near mathematics, and I click near infinite velocity
Modern science recognizes four laws (forces) of nature : The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electro-magnetic radiation energy. I propose there are only three not four as follows:
1. In school with magnetism, we are taught that opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But, inside the arc of a horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel.
2. A charged particle has an associated magnetic field with it. Electrons and protons are charged particles that have associated magnetic fields with them.
3. When an electron is in an atom, at very close distances to the nucleus, it is in essence generating a 360 degree spherical magnetic field.
4. Like polarity protons stick together inside this spherical magnetic field while simultaneously attracting the opposite polarity electron across the inner portion of the electron's magnetic field.
5. There are no such things as "gluons".
6. There are only three laws of nature and not four. Two of them, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are both derivatives of the interactions of the magnetic fields of the electrons and protons.
7. The "nucleus" is most probably a magnetic field boundary.
8. Quarks also have a charge and most probably also have a magnetic field associated with them. Possibly a different magnetic field for each of the six different quarks.
9. The quark magnetic field interactions are how neutrons and protons are created and also why neutrons and protons stick together inside the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do.
10. There is probably a Magnetic Field Theory to the Atomic Structure.
+Zachary Meadows This is America with free speech, get over yourself.
+Charles Brightman a troll...or just a total ignorant who thinks they are smart, yet just barely scratches the surface.
iwannaseenow1
It takes one to know one. Plus, I've discerned that all of life is just an illusion from the human perspective as far as eternity is concerned. When we die we will forget everything we ever knew or experienced it currently appears. Our true destiny currently appears to be that we will all cease to exist and be forgotten. Even you, regardless how smart you may think you are.
Now, if you have any actual evidence that we truly do have an actual conscious eternal existence, please share that evidence with the world. Otherwise, you too die one day from something and will be forgotten, just like me and even all the smart people in existence on this Earth.
In fact, this Earth itself will be no more one day. All still upon it at that time will die. Then what in actual reality for the rest of eternity?
+Zachary Meadows While I can't prove it's true just yet, you can't prove it's not true either. So, go some where else troll. You are not wanted here.
From 2 years ago as of this post to today, here is a copy and paste of the updated TOE version along with the associated gravity test:
Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a.
My Current TOE:
THE SETUP:
1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism.
2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.).
3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them.
4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them.
5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them.
FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO:
6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field.
7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field.
8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality.
9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons.
10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary.
11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks.
12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do.
THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA:
13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc.
14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe.
15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe.
16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate.
17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure.
18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons).
THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY:
19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up.
20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency.
21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies.
NOTES:
22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well.
25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true.
26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught?
DISCLAIMER:
27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way.
a. Imagine a 12 hour clock.
b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions.
c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions.
(The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.)
d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields.
e. Do this with the em fields on and off.
(The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.)
f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects.
(Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.)
(An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.)
'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done.
'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
And tell me again how do we know that if the laws of nature were different there still wouldn't be something remarkable like higher complexity but under a very different structure. Life is what this particular set of rules allows to happen. If you had a different set of rules you would have had different structure or very simplistic structure to make Chemistry impossible etc. But wait! Not this nuclear physics or Chemistry! How about some other thing you would then call matter then Chemistry. How about some other interesting systems that do not even resemble at all current Chemistry but nevertheless enable gradual higher structure again. A new path to more complex systems could exist via different phenomena that the new rules enable or not. And unless you actually sit down and solve all the properties you cannot simplistically say that the universe would be totally boring and uninteresting without any bound states and transitions/interactions between them resulting in different structures.
So they do not convince me that they have actually done all the math and physics under the new slightly different constants. Furthermore you cannot just naively change the constants, this that way, the other keep the same and the other change this way arbitrarily. Maybe they have to change in some inner logic sync so that still interesting phenomena are possible in a different manner, a very exotically different manner even. So the process of finding all the available phenomena in the new system is not secure as they imagine it without a solid theory of everything in place (or at least a proper higher level theory than standard current cosmological and particle physics model that connects current constants).
Of course this is a hard task to do because we have the very same task in our own world that we have followed for centuries uncovering the mechanisms of all the basic phenomena. So recovering the mechanisms of the new different phenomena in the other exotic system is not a trivial thing even if initially some structures we are familiar with become unstable there. Some other structures we are not familiar with may exist there too. Those structures are not instantly available if you do not thoroughly study the new system and all the possible interactions/mechanisms that can emerge. And they are not doing that. They simply hide behind the obvious instability of current familiar systems and imagine that with them gone there is nothing left there. I doubt its that easy to argue that way with rigorous confidence though.
So are they seriously claiming that they have taken the time to do the proper analysis of a slightly different set of rules and securely deduce that it wouldn't have its own interesting bound states and properties that allow something similar to our chemistry or very different in many details that allows a very different but still possible hierarchy of higher complexity to emerge leading to interesting structure, even a different type of "life" and some self conscious system that arrived there in a radically different route.
Unless you know how the laws and constants are supposed to change to maintain consistency (and not arbitrarily alter them one by one as you please) you cannot securely argue that other worlds would be almost always uninteresting rendering our own fine tuned and very purpose driven in synthesis.
"Unless you know how the laws and constants are supposed to change to
maintain consistency (and not arbitrarily alter them one by one as you
please) you cannot securely argue that other worlds would be almost
always uninteresting rendering our own fine tuned and very purpose
driven in synthesis."
Absolutely right. The entire fine tuning argument is based in the assumption that these laws are individually variable without effecting any of the others. It is just as plausible to assume that changing one will also change another that balances out the first change to produce no difference in the universes what so ever. Since we have only one example universe and we aren't able to change the laws here, the entire argument suffers the same flaw as multiverse is often accused of... it is not falsifiable and therefore not a valid theory.
David is an Atheist but wrong:
The Universe isn't fine tuned for life but order of which life is a subset
Study Sean Carroll
Only a small percentage of the Earth's surface is able to support human life in this vast cosmos. If nature really were fine tuned, the entire universe would be be ocean and continent under air.
None of the integers, pi, or e are fine tuned for life. To claim fine tuning might only expose one's ignorance of exactly what constitutes "physical law".
Why would there be nothingness? The big bang didn't come out of nothing. Whatever gave rise to it is either eternal or over & above space & time. So there is no beginning to it. So there never was nothing & never will be.
Nothingness is impossible to define on its own because it has to be defined in terms of something. In other words, true nothingness is an empty concept.
I just can’t believe this has only 60 k views while someone imitating a song on TikTok get millions.
exactly my thoughts as well. a whole generation completely into the gutter. It should be mandatory for them to watch this.
@@guillermowijdemans1587 it takes patience to understand this...the way you see people behave now a days...do you think they have patiencee
Very disappointing to hear Deutsch describe (and dismiss) the idea of a Creator as necessarily itself a "fine tuned," "created" "sort of thing." Deutsch is wonderful and brilliant - if only he would get to know something about the theological tradition that made possible his mode of inquiry... A single undergrad course on Aquinas would undercut everything here.
If God created us ...then who created God.? If God created the Universe and us,then why did he make it so violent (eg black holes).If God made our world ,why did he wait 10,000 million years after the start of the Universe?.
I have a theory: we live in a illusionary holographic multiverse created and intended by a collective consciousness for the 'soul' purpose to experience so it can be then passed on to the source.
+Kevin Andrews that seriously collides with my theory that i am an Ai made by humans in 2082, and currently kept in an virtual simulation experiencing life from the perspective of a human of the early century. maybe so that i get accustomed with the perspective, fears, desires of my makers. so, i'm sorry for you kevin but my awesome computer gut feeling tells me that we exist in the structure of nothingness... also you don't exist
These kinds of explanations are never good. What is this collective consciousness and how is reality explicable in terms of this thing?