The myth of matter | Robert Wright & Paul Davies [The Wright Show]
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 11. 2017
- 01:55 Bob and Paul question “matter” as we know it
13:19 Is information bound to the physical world?
19:54 Finding room for consciousness in quantum physics
34:41 Paul on the faith required of scientists
44:34 What enforces the laws of physics?
Robert Wright (Bloggingheads.tv, The Evolution of God, Nonzero, Why Buddhism Is True) and Paul Davies (The Eerie Silence, The Goldilocks Enigma)
Recorded on September 27, 2017
Join the conversation on MeaningofLife.tv: meaningoflife.tv/videos/39168
Subscribe to the MeaningofLife.tv CZcams channel: goo.gl/J9BHA4
Follow us on Twitter: / meaninglifetv
Like us on Facebook: / meaningoflife.tv
![Our weird universe | Robert Wright & Brian Greene [The Wright Show]](/img/n.gif)
Thank you Robert for the quite interesting interview with Paul Davies! You asked some uniquely provoking questions and Mr. Davies of course always provides such good and logical explanation of these topics!
Robert Wright is a great interviewer. His humor and insights on his interview subjects is singular
Helpful conversation, thnx.
On a far more serious note than all discussed herein: grow the 'tache back Paul, immediately! It any countenance ever suited a 'tache it was Paul Davies's.
Small correction at about 3:30 - it was not Einstein who said that space and time should be united into one object, it was in fact Minkowski and Einstein later adopted the idea from him.
No, it was Einstein. Are you gonna deny Einstein his theory of relativity also??? I have issues with people like you.
It was introduced by Einstein. Sorry but you are wrong
Sorry, I hate this erroneous comment so much I had to reply 3 diff times. EINSTEIN PROPOSED IT, THEN AND ONLY THEN DID minkowsky SAY SOMETHING
I love Paul Davies. He is the best mind today. ;)
One of them, at least. :)
Agreed. Search this on youtube "Paul Davies Closer to Truth" and watch all his videos via Closer to Truth. Incredible conversations with the host Roberts Lawrence Khun.
Are you religious?
"You can fire an electron at a target, it bounces to the left. You do the same thing again under identical circumstances and it bounces to the right. Quantum mechanics can predict what that ratio might be, it might be 50/50 for example. And you do it a large number of times to test that. But in any individual case, you cannot tell in advance which way it's going to go.
And we believe even nature doesn't know which way it's going to go. That is, this is an indeterminism NOT born of ignorance like the toss of a coin or the outcome of a roulette wheel, but it's because we don't know enough about the factors, many factors affecting it's behaviour. But we're saying in quantum mechanics, indeterminism, or uncertainty is INTRINSIC to the system. So even mother nature does not know." Paul Davies (Interview with Robert Wright.)
Just because matter is more than what we think it is doesn't make it a myth .
What it all boils down to is: At infinitesimally small scales it might all dissolve away, but at our human scale we better learn to deal with it, or else.
If materials don't exist, then accountants have a lot of corrections to make.
Paul is a legend
8:47 - YES, we should question whether materialism is the right way to look at reality. Until we do, we are never going to make any progress toward understanding the physical nature of consciousness.
Paul Davies asked a troublesome question - Where did the laws (That govern the universe) come from?
Please turn down the levels for the interviewer recording. Or edit it afterwards so that the sound levels are even/equal. The over-loud levels for Robert make his contributions feel insensitive, intrusive.. Going to have to continue the search for a really solid piece from Paul Davies about 'information' and physics.
Evolving Knowledge can be said to be Knowledge in formation i.e., information
Brilliant
Psl fix audio levels .
There really isn't such a thing a tiny tiny thing with a "hard" defined body, which the word "particle" suggests in most conversation. It's no more than a vibrating field, if that. Why, in fact, do we put on an almost equal basis the ideas of two things, energy AND matter at least in general usage? Seems to me there really is only energy, with matter as really amounting to just clusters of energy that appear---as one moves up from the infinitely small into lives filled with tables, chais, clothes, pencils and everything else down to blood vessels and nose hairs...? Deep down, matter doesn't really, er, matter.
Is Gravity ? Space-Time Extracting Space-Time from Matter to Further Expand Space-Time ?
Information (specified complexity , not Shannon) in the Greek is logos which is translated in the New Testament as the Word (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God , and the Word was God. John 1:1)
Why all the reuploads (that have already been posted on the meaningoflife.tv site?)
why not many find this stuff over youtube myself included.
If I've already watched an episode on meaningoflife.tv then it's an inconvenience to me to have them cluttering my CZcams feed.
Andrew Stewart
Because a lot more people know about YT than the other site. Not exactly rocket science...
30:15 - This is it EXACTLY. Our free wills influence quantum outcomes WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS set by physical law. And our brains and bodies "amplify that up" to macroscopic behavior. Robert is ABSOLUTELY right in his statement that quantum events are only "random as far as we know." This has been my essential point of view for a long time now.
When considering the fine-tuning argument it is important to realize that we are only talking laws inferred from the the observable universe, not the entire universe. In other words the laws are still local, not really universal. Then you apply the Anthropic principle.
I tried to eliminate fine tuning in my robust cosmological multiverse Liquid Crystal Space model outline posted here recently. It's conformal in that all universe follow the same rules. The base cosmological constants are the constant time light/charge takes to move between the varying size lattice cells, lattice cell charge (+6) and surrounding ether charge (-6)... There may (need to) be a minimum and maximum cell size. If the cosmos is finite it will have a min, max and average cell size but finding them would be impossible.
@@PrivateSi Could you pass along a link for your idea? It sounds interesting.
Nonsense, the laws of physics hold true throughout the universe.
@@Darwinianone Depends on what you mean by "the universe". ;)
The observable part of space-time?
All of space-time, including the unobservable parts like stuff that is really really far beyond the cosmological horizon, or below the event horizons of black holes?
All of space-time, including the unobservable parts, as described by the universal probability wave function of QFT and its alternate branches?
Or, the universe as "everything that exists"? Which can include all of the above and infinite other variants of space-time continuums with different physical laws (only a tiny fraction of which has laws that support the presence of conscious observers, like us), and possibly even all the abstract mathematical objects, if we accept the Platonic realism paradigm.
what’s matter for? is it just. a metaphor?
10:00 Quantum physics and laser, transistors
Special Relativity [1905] is part of the mathematical Framework forming General Relativity [1915]. In this sense both are not really that important to distinguish, as it was said here. Claiming one is about speed [of light] , the other about gravity, mass and spacetime is not correct. It is far from that simple. GE covers it all.
Just a little note on what was otherwise a fantastic interview (again).
I believe Orch-OR (Penrose's interpretation) views the collapse of the wave function as consciousness itself.
Does Penrose believe that consciousness a) causes the collapse, or b) consciousness *is* the collapse of the wavefunction? Or is there a third option which my mind can't think of?
Joshua Nicholls watch Penrose' s youtube video
The emperors new mind.
Oh, I've watched that documentary several times. I just wanted a more precise understanding of his views, since the video is rather old and he has probably updated his views. #microtubules
Penrose and Hammeroff believe that consciousness IS the collapse of the wave function, and that microtubules in the brain are the mechanism by which that happens. In fact Penrose came up ith the idea that the collapse is consciousness, but he didnt have a mechanism. Hammeroff had been studying microtubules and realised that they may be Penrose's missing mechanism. He presented it to Penrose and they have been working together on it ever since. This to me makes the most sense out of any other theory I can think of.
YA and the I believe there is a tea pot floating around Jupiter. Both of those beliefs have the same amount of evidence.
I want some books talkt about life of prophesor poual Davis.
Why isn't simulation hypothesis considered by scientists to explain the observer effect?
Observer effect or fine tuning?
Perhaps there is Only Rates of Processing Information ! !
We constantly crave interpretation, that is, we want to have an intelligible story to everything we experience. (Experiences vary individually, but also have a strong collective component). Intelligibility means we can create a story or image that comforts us in a way that we feel: We are in control. This is an evolved function of our brain. Giving "meaning" to things in this way is critical to our lives. There is a possibility that we may find that this is not always possible. The more we try and the more we question, the more difficult it may become. We may come to the conclusion that it is impossible. Some are uncomfortable with that, others are not. Some ask: What is a particle? Some say: that's a pointless question, "shut up and calculate". Others say: science is a curse rather than a blessing, let's ban it, because it destroys our religion, which is the source of our comfort. Some say: science and (our or my) religion are compatible. etc. etc. I think a lot of it is about keeping stressful internal conflicts at an acceptable level. The brain is just one organ that has an important function in homeostasis.
31:15 - But you CAN'T do precisely repeated experiments on living beings. Every experiment is a little bit different. These free-will supporting quantum outcomes in the brain are outcomes of events each of which happens only once. So quantum theory really has NOTHING to say about predicting an outcome.
How can we tell if it's _really_ non-deterministic or if it's in fact deterministic but the determinism is hidden below the resolution of our current theory?
If it's really non-deterministic I think that automatically implies the many-worlds interpretation of QFT. If you have a state A and you can have any state B1, B2, ... Bn as a consequence of A, then it kind of implies all of them are equally real.
Even God, simulated/emulated/created universes or a universe emerging from consciousness are more plausible than a literal interpretation of the many worlds theory for every particle in the universe.... Check out my Liquid Crystal Space for a strictly materialistic, theoretically deterministic unified field approach if you want. I posted it here recently.
@@PrivateSi Gods are individual and collective fantasies. You just can't say "God" in a way that you can say electron. The current theory of electrons has consequences that affect everyone in the same way.
Consciousness is not well defined and the connotations of consciousness may not apply in a physics sense.
More likely it is used to describe the limits of measurement at very small scales.
Run us through the books on your bookshelves. Inquiring minds want to know.
How can there be something? But just as implausible, how could there be nothing?
I am no physicist but I see giant holes in saying information is fundamental. The items of information mentioned are cherry picked out of an infinite amount of relationships (information) with an infinite amount of other particles. All of which are invented by a human mind. The letter a for example, is not information unless we attribute significance to it. Otherwise it is curved lines against some background with no information.
Quantum Physics has shown that Reality is based on Probabilities.
A statistical impossibility is defined as *_“a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument."_* The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more *Rational and Reasonable* to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Furthermore, of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/ 10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more *Rational and Reasonable* to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer while trying to determine the origin of the universe.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely *Irrational and Unreasonable* hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists _‘must’_ believe in and promote because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, Information, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.
The Greeks were right we just haven't viewed the smallest world as yet.
Life = information + matter.
@@kafka27 ..what's the matter, would it matter that there was no matter anyhow ?🙄
No matter which direction you're headed, no matter which aspect you pursue to its core, absolute materialism fails. This thought provoking discussion begins by talking about matter as myth, but ends affirming matter as matter, albeit in the form of other universes when absolute materialism again fails, and the concept of a deity is rejected in favor of said other universes (more matter). The missing ingredient should be considered as consciousness, aka pure formless existence. Not consciousness produced by the brain (more matter again), but universal consciousness, the means by which we all same to experience and apparently material reality that is not actually material. This is a proposition with the explanatory powers to account for the already admittedly nonmaterial nature of reality. Regardless, remind participation in observing reality must be a factor, given the "spooky" nature of quantum reality. And "spooky", by the way, what is the descriptor Einstein used. How else to describe something as in affable as quantum uncertainty and non-locality? How can the human mind and consciousness NOT be central to such phenomena. Even operative.
And so, one might perhaps look at it this way:
The mind's knowledge of anything is only as good as the mind's knowledge of itself. -Rupert Spira
Science's knowledge of reality hits a wall, invariably, when its premise is absolute materialism. The next step then must be knowledge of knowing itself. What is awareness?
There is only consciousness, and its fair nice
asserts a material being using a material brain and computer, paradoxically....
I never said matter didn't exist, just that its not what we presume it to be
@@goodsirknight: What do you mean by consciousness? Are you a solipsistic type... everything's all in just your mind and only you really exist.... If so, as an atheist I reckon only The One True God by definition could imagine an entire, consistent universe... God would have perfect control over the universe - do you have perfect control over your universe using your imagination? NO! You are not God!... Seriously, are you one of these anti-individual consciousness types (and if so I'd guess a liberal lefty globalist type...) that believes in a Cosmic Consciousness and telepathy / group subconscious / morphic fields..
Check out my Liquid Crystal Space comment posted recently here for a solid, material universe if you want, it's almost complete (for now..). It could be hijacked by the Cosmic Consciousness crowd but I am definitely not a believer. We are individual consciousnesses within a brain to me. The only manifestation of energy is the movement of matter.
Also better to make a mini-universe or universe analogue / emulation than simulate one using a computer for a number of reasons... I find the literal take by many of the Copenhagen crowd of their Many Worlds, all possible paths for every particle in the universe the most outlandish interpretation though...... Theories with extra dimensions I also take with a large pinch of salt.
@@PrivateSi no you have me wrong on all counts.
I believe the day will come when quantum mechanics will be seen as the physics of 'time' as a physical process! With classical physics representing process over a period of time as in Newton's differential equations. In this theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the dynamic geometry of a physical process that we see and feel as the continuum of time. This is a process formed by the spontaneous absorption and emission of light photon energy ∆E=hf. This forms a continuous process of energy exchange that forms the ever changing world of our everyday life. The Universe is a continuum with the future coming into existence photon by photon with each new photon electron coupling or dipole moment. This forms the movement of positive and negative charge with the continuous flow of electromagnetic fields. Consciousness in the form of electrical activity in the brain is the most advanced part of this process and can therefore comprehend this process as 'time'. With a past that has gone forever and a future that is always uncertain in the form of a probability function or quantum wave particle function that is explained mathematically by Schrödinger's wave equation. Therefore each individual is in the center of their own reference frame as an interactive part of this process being able to look back in time in all directions at the beauty of the stars! At the smallest scale of this process this uncertainty is seen as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π with the Planck constant ħ=h/2π being a constant of action in the dynamics of space and time! Please Subscribe on CZcams and be part of the promotion of this theory!
Aristotle used the terms potentiality and actuality. I seem to notice that quantum physics and fields or whatever stuff pops into existence is originally made of potentiality. Light is nothingness (the field of potentiality? ) waving. Virtual particles come and go back to.."the source". or the well" . So the real essence of everything seems a stuff that is not yet stuff but only potential stuff ;-) I have no idea why this potential stuff comes in bursts so nicely organized as the particles from the standard model etc. Normally potentiality should give rise to just about anything. Is the vacuum even now capable of giving birth to all kinds of "infertile" particles that can't survive??? I guess a family or stable smaller particles would be detected but what about a possible family of extremely heavy stable particles ? They would then be so heavy that they are nowhere found. Around a black hole, they could perhaps lend enough energy to materialize,? ( into a anti matter particle too if they would need to exist long)
Many world Interpretation Is a deterministic solution of the schrodinger EQUATION
the question of free will can be answered quite easily
Please do elaborate.
We have free will to a limited extent. We are free to choose our partners but we don't have the strength to fight against the instinct of needing sex, food and companionship. We have the free will to choose what to eat, but can't fight the need to eat. We're constrained where we can go, by the amount of money we have.
I love Robert Wright but he looks better with a beard. Actually, he should just grow a badass Alan Watts goatee. Actually, there is a universe in which he has but I am not in it.
One more question...oh wait
Interviewer had a disappointing amount of prep
I think he's a fine interviewer and clearly understands much of the subjects that Paul brings up, it's just hard to get in sometimes as PD has a lot to say
"The closer we look at it, the more it all looks like a dream." -- Oliver Heaviside, British physicist.
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside
Can Quantum physics explain what is life, what is birth, what is death? Why is one person rich, another poor, one healthy another ill, one moral another amoral? Why do these things happen?
To say that the Laws of Physics are 'bio-friendly'... or that the Universe is 'in favour of life' - is a chronological paradox ... Its the other way around. Its biology that is 'Universe-friendly'. Unless the Laws of Physics or the Universe only 'solidified?' AFTER biology did? ;) How can we possibly assume that 'life' is 'better' than 'no life'? If The Universe is a thing without 'desires'? There is no source of 'preference' towards one or the other... except in our heads.
Robert- you are yelling!
Imputing Lawrence Kraut with any intelligence is going WAY out on a limb
@ Frank S... What a stupid, witless comment. Notably, it's one completely useless to anyone with a modicum of sincere interest the *substance* of some pertinent debate involving any aspect of Lawrence Krauss' world view... regardless of who's on what "side". You appear to be as useless here, and as clever, as a frustrated chimpanzee reflexively hurling feces. I must presume you took your best shot, which pretty much says it all.
The host keeps rubbing his face, scratching his ear, putting his fingers in his mouth. It's very annoying and a little gross. What makes Davies so compelling is his ability to take theoretical, abstract ideas and present them in a way comprehensible to the lay person. It's a rare skill.
Bob's restless scratching rocking wriggling nose rubbing is what I find most charming in his arsenal of charms. He is also a wonderful conversationalist who is a guest at my imaginary dinner party along with Einstein John Lennon and Gertrude Stein.
Wouldn't be CZcams without ungrateful bitching and moaning :)
Mr Wright. Please think about itting still and holding your head straight.....you are unwatchable
I'm going to be honest here, i didnt watch the video. I saw the phrase "finding room for consciousness in Quantum Physics", so i just drop my DISLIKE.
MINEIRO I suppose you’re an open-minded person and open-minded people are open for the ideas they don’t agree with. And btw Paul himself doesn’t like the idea of consciousness being the reason to collapse the wave function, he’s more into the many worlds interpretation so I think you should’ve watched the video, it was enjoyable for me
Well it is called the hard problem of consciousness, and it's closely linked to the mystery of fine tuning. But another mystery is why tou're so thick as to give a dislike to something you don't understand, didn't watch and then admit those things.