A new physics theory of how life emerges | Sara Walker and Lex Fridman
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 06. 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Sara Walker: Physics o...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Notion: notion.com/lex
- Motific: motific.ai
- Shopify: shopify.com/lex to get $1 per month trial
- BetterHelp: betterhelp.com/lex to get 10% off
- AG1: drinkag1.com/lex to get 1 month supply of fish oil
GUEST BIO:
Sara Walker is an astrobiologist and theoretical physicist. She is the author of a new book titled "Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence".
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Věda a technologie
Full podcast episode: czcams.com/video/wwhTfyX9J34/video.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: czcams.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Sara Walker is an astrobiologist and theoretical physicist. She is the author of a new book titled "Life as No One Knows It: The Physics of Life's Emergence".
As a social scientific trained mind - I read and find it amazing that we possess the power to push the entire universe away to make space for ourself to remain and take space cause we literally take some space to reside. We have a serious force in us. we don't usually recognize this ability and achievement as it's over looked but pretty amazing property. To think is to be -kant followed by I think therefore I am! -Descartes
So great to see such excellent dialogue between two intelligent and noble people. I've followed you for years Lex and I really appreciate your approach to the podcast format. Great interview
Thank you
I swear i watched this 2 years ago..
I think I get what she is saying. The probability space of things that can exist at each level of assemblage is always larger than the things that do exist at that level but each newer (the time factor) level has more possible things to exist as assembled things than the earlier levels. Thus, each new level's space of possible things to exist increases from the one below it. All of this leveling are pathways to more complex assemblages with no return path. There is an early level (15 steps chemically) where that assemblage becomes self-sustaining (as such it 'snaps' into existence as 'life'). Of the possible things that can exist selection (along with randomness - like evolution) brings about assembled things and thus excludes thing that don't (or did not get to exist) and as such the potential for further assemblage is increased because the higher-level assemblages have access to other nearby assemblages thus the space at each higher/newer level has more probability for potential things that can exist and thus increases always. It is almost like many worlds' interpretation of QM. Or not! LMAO! I gave it a go!!
Well explained.
She drank the smart water 🧠 🔥
I understood everything
Cool. Me too. Lots of people do.
Then explain to me how the addition of one proton changes the physical properties of the element…
…or how can the universe be infinite if inflation-duration is finite…?
She's actually really fucking smart despite her upspeak, vocal fry and speech disfluencies.
@@jimliu2560 It was a sarcastic joke😂 I didn’t understand a s…t
@propagandacritic5511 yes...not all smart peoplle are necessarily good communicators....and she's working with concepts that are fundamentally mathematical.....
So it's like trying to describe Mozart by using flavors of cheese and spices
I love how she expresses the scientific validity of the feminine attitude and ego nature. She is not a girl-boss trying to be one of the guy's. She is doing more than keeping up she is challenging our ability to better comprehend reality with the sciences. She is an authentic person, ahead of the curve.
No one but you gives a shit that she's a woman lol
perfect observation
"the almost shortest path is always most likely". That's occams razor. Love it
Now imagine fusing assembler theory with Hugh Everetts' ideas, and we MIGHT see that they all actually do exist but at varying energy levels derived from probability... Maybe? Great clip!
I have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
She is saying: things that “do” exist arise from things that “can” exist…
…that there is a “Invisible” but real and constant struggle/battle between the “can-exist” and “cannot-exist” things….
Basically she is Using a lot of “Gobbledygook” to make something small and known seem more complex for $$$$ purposes…( ie from NIH grants, publications, etc)…
She is saying: things. That “do” exist comes from things that “can” exist…
She is saying: there is an invisible but real struggle/war between the “can-exist” and “cannot-exist” things…
Basically, she is using a lot of gobbledygook to make a small-known fact seem more complex in order to get $$$$$$….(in the form of NIH grants, publicity, etc…)
neither do they!
Thanks for saving me 17 minutes
she's trying to fit all of nature in some kiddy lego blocks mindset, i e BS, B as in a big ox huge one makig lots of S
Thanks, Lex. Another eye opener to a new idea.
Makes me think of "the ocean" in Solaris, it must have gone through similar stages of all these assembly chains in order to recreate them.
what she said here with assembly theory (that above 15 steps we can only see molecules passed this threshold are ones that are in life) simply means that complexity emerges step by step, i.e. locally. just like the optimisation nature of evolution. not globally, but locally. in other words, life is probably very rare, and conscious life is ever much more improbable, but the spontaneous emergence of life or mind are WAY LESS probable. so in a sense, if assembly theory is correct, it refutes the idea of Boltzmann's brain.
Great talk. its hard to say that free will could be a quality of randomness which is where selection comes in i guess. expansion makes the process easier
ttheres something about duality or the initial stages of growth that expresses a quality of randomness which is a reflection of the need for more expansion and thus stucture.
Christ I had to listen to this whole thing while making a pie and had flour all over the place and nearly went blind, def became dizzy while listening to this unwillingly because i had pie dough on my hands.
This is my favourite comment of the year
life is rare, and exactly because of its rarity life is "more" than non-life. and this extra thing is something we call synergy. in a couple of years people will understand how entropy and synergy are related. even the assembly theory provided by Sara Walker started to scratch the surface of this topic. however, the key is not time (causation), it is only an indicator of complexity and synergy, and NOT the inducer. the answer is hidden in the concept of potentiality (and counterfactuality).
Ok so, like, sometimes i have a hard time following some topics on Lex’s podcast but I didn’t really comprehend any of this but she’s clearly correct about what she was talking about.
I could be way off, but I vibe a lot of chemistry between Lex and Sarah. Ha!
Regardless, Lex rocks in totality, but I specifically enjoyed all clips I've viewed from this interview.
Fascinating 🙏❤️
If I understand her correctly, in Assembly Theory, life is inevitable, given enough time.
I think I get it, I was thinking about this, but in the idea-space, it might be true there as well.
It would be really nifty to see her and Michael Levin talk!
Can anyone summarize this, so I can process this idea?
This theory is blown up by Butterflies, moths, and cicadas existing.
?????
„Do you wiggle“ is the modern wolf of wallstreet
When does Assembly become law? This is it - the equation to creation. Bravissimo!!!
It's like simple electric charges, through this process eventually evolve into the people talking about it. A positive charge and negative. Always opposites or codependents. When i move my arm through the air, the rest of The Universe does the exact opposite around me.
so her main point is time is above all and is always ahead; So everything that happens is always on “the past” and we could never catch up to that, and then comes depressing thoughts….😂❤❤
in*
And how useful is this?
@@dimitardobrev3296 Very
15:30 "people that hate on everything" is not a description of a cohort of people existing, but rather a description of a measurement taken. Don't let the statistics of "social science" lead you to believe that you're using this to think with it. You're thinking in a dimension not used by most people you're thinking about in these terms. Your insight, whatever insight you might derive is rooted and sunned by the sun of a different world. It is an insight into your own thinking, not into someone else's.
TL;DR -- I'd be one of those people "that hate on everything" in most of my online interactions. Doesn't describe me, doesn't describe what I do. It's just Twitter, after all.
I let my dog listen to this now he is calculating deterministic probabilities on my computer
Words are nothing more than manipulated noises of our vocal chords. We then attach emotions to those random noises and create our own unneeded controversy.
So, you know... words don't hurt. We hurt ourselves with our own opinions of our surroundings.
Imagine you start with a semiconductor. One complexity layer above that might be a transistor. One layer above that might be logic gates. A layer above that might be basic logic chips like half adders and multiplexors. Another layer up might be multi-bit versions of those chips. Another layer up might be an Arithmetic Logic Unit, RAM, and machine code processing circuits. Another layer up might be a CPU.
I believe what she's saying is that when something requires at least 15 layers of complexity, it is no longer reasonable to believe that it could have occurred purely randomly. There is simply too much complexity for it to have existed within the age and size of the universe. Instead, it must be explained by structures that build upon existing complex structures.
Essentially, all things that exist, exist on a tree of possibilities, branching from things that existed already. This tree expands exponentially, but far more slowly than the total space of possibilities it expands into. There may be extraordinary things that could exist if only they had a path to reach them along this tree.
“Do you wiggle?” is crazy
How many ways to have an explosion
Where the idea is transported through an expansion in all ways human being a way
Let’s Go!!!
life is abrupt in relation to linear time against non existence like somone holding their breath and then exhaling. the objects that never get a chance to exist might reap selection because of the need for experience. Sometiimes the fit just need expansion or they just need more structure.
Two smart people made up mostly of water, having a conversation. Ironically or not, right next to two bottles of Smart Water. Made me smile a little bit.
Both made of molecules billions of years old, maybe once burning in a star, that combined because a butterfly flapped its wings in the right direction, on a moon, in the early universe.
Water is just the medium...
The complexity/Magic is the other stuff in the water...
Meanwhile the two volumes of water are having a conversation about the deterministic steps that water took to create the humans that made the bottles.
They are mostly made up of empty space.
@@fkalanda space in which galaxies once passed through. This is my favorite :)
You know what’s complex, X will forever be called Twitter even though the name change.
Schrödinger’s social media platform.
There are many forms of life. Life has many forms. Humans think their form is important.
I somwtimes wonder with all the deep time, eons, if the universe weeded out the antimatter in the universe, similiar to the way life only uses righthand versions chilrality of molecules. Anyhow it all seems like alot of chaos, sure there's patterns in the clouds patterns on the bottom of the river, order construction of order is life. So these natural systems evolve in an unordered way. One event can birth multiple new trajectories. There's computational thesholds reached quickly. The universe itself could be sourced from some random event, vs say a multiverse. Some event at some phenomenally large scale occurs and from that is what we see and are.
Not sure how assembly theory explains the purposefulness of the assembly process.
That's assuming "purpose" is some sort of intentional requirement, is it?
@ghostwalk2446 One cannot observe complex functionality from infinite possibilities and conclude random chance.
@@ChannelSRL1 It is an excellent theory, and I have been thinking along these lines for nearly two decades. What they are missing is the retro-causal effect of future constructs on past constructs, which can be interpreted as a deep-seated purposefulness inherent in existence. Without taking into account retrocausality and Sheldrake's concept of morphic resonance, the theory remains incomplete.
@@ChannelSRL1
Why not?
Why can’t things just-happening occur “first”…and then give rise to a “later” process?….that creates more complex things….
The problem with your “creator”-hypothesis, is that you still can’t explain where the creator came from…
..and saying the creator needs no explanation is insufficient…
@jimliu2560 How about we substitute 'creator' with an 'organizational dynamic'? Think of it as the symmetrical opposite of entropy. That way you won't be spooked with all of the religuos baggage.
Everything that exists, emerges...
I think the precondition of the existence of highly resilient structures (redundancy) is necessary for biological life to develop. Think about how many complex processes go on all the time in even the simplest forms of life, and humans are far more complex than that. There are so many things that could go wrong that would be life ending for an individual organism if they were to occur, but usually, in the vast majority of cases, they don't. The processes that take place inside biological organism are very, very robust and reliable such that they almost always succeed in functioning adequately. This is a fact that cannot just be glossed over. It is an essential requirement for something as "complex" as biological life to be successful.
The flavors of vibrations, are partial to individual functions, and these functions show instantaneous correlations between complex and simple forms.
For instance, Lanthanum - Ytterbium is the same set of functions in the same sequence as Glycine - Valine. The alphabetic order of the amino acids is not random, because it follows the alphabet which is a naturally self forming set also.
Can you simplify your argument? You may be onto something, and you also have a very cool beard. Thanks.
@@attilaszekeres7435 I wouldn't consider it an argument. It is a pretty simple observable thing. The missing knowledge that does not come from academia is ancient knowledge of time. The periodicity of things, are functions in sequence. The 20 days of the Maya and Chinese are the world's premier example of specific functions in a cycle. Those match the corresponding elements Tin - Yyterbium, and the 20 standard amino acids in sequence and function. so that is 3 separate levels of matter, all exhibiting the same sequence of peculiar functions. this also can be further observed in the specific inter-relational aspects as well.
Dudes been listening to Terrance Howard.
@@active4delta You listened to neither.
@@artstrology Thanks for the clarification. I see your perspective now and I agree that there are interesting patterns and symmetries in nature that seem to repeat across different scales. These hint at an underlying reality, be it platonic, mathematical, or something else.
But we are hardwired to seeing patterns where there are none. A prime example of this is matching chakras with everything under the sun from colors and animals to tarot cards. Exploring these connections is a worthwhile avenue to probe one's psyche, all the way down to archetypes, as the alchemists did.
However, in scientific thinking, this is a common pitfall. The vast majority of patterns people see are illusory, or better say, hold significance "only" at a personal or perceptual level (apophenia).
Scientific (objective/interpersonal) meaning is much harder to come by. I am no familar with the Maya calendar to comment on that, but I do know a few things about amino acids, and to be honest, correlating them with elements seems very far fetched to me.
While I believe there is a validity to the concept, I question its strength/utility and the methodology the author used to arrive at their conclusion.
I love her ! Please have her listen to Abraham Hicks she will understand !
Maybe it's because I just woke up but I'm totally lost.
You are in your room!
@@veridicusmaximus6010 You see a window, a closet, and a door. What do you do next?
🤣🤯😂🤔 lex that look at 3:19 ! Idk why but u had me falling over laughing, if u aren’t already u now know how to be the best husband, listen, encourage, and u can do anything but bore them!
We will never come to an understanding that actually works until we abandon the idea that this is all random.
This doesn't really feel like physics, but rather philosophy. This seems more abstract than physical.
Unfortunately I don't find this particularly helpful or compelling. Maybe my IQ is not high enough.
The one point I did find highly interesting is the notion that life is a phase change of "complexity" in the universe, though I'm not particularly moved by it because it is subject to the sample size of the universe: i.e., life is an irregularity in our galactic neighbourhood, but if you zoom out far enough then it is probably dispersed regularly, at which point things look homogenous again.
Whatever led you to believe that theoretical physics has ever NOT been more abstract than physical? Theoretical physics is a mathematical and logical discipline, not experimental or applied.
Competing implies striving - the great and meaningful struggle to exist - but when it becomes easy - survivors become somewhat redundant.. In the grand scheme of things - lemmings standing on the shoulders of greatness
Lex won't ask the most obvious question, "What's Curious George like in real life"?
He high key wants to be Mr. Lady in the yellow shacket.
"think this is too yellow?"
Maybe she's Tracy...Dick, Tracy..... depends on which yellow hat she wears... where's her hat?
She should read Terence Deacon.
As a biochemist/Computer Scientist (I agree who cares but) I wouldn't talk like this to an audience unless I knew they understood what I was saying. Otherwise, I would use analogies and as much lamen terminology to convey what I was trying to say.
world class ideas and creaking vocal fry. I thank you.
You can make an entire episode of midnight gospel out of this clip
Sounds to me like she is talking about the parallel universes theory and multiple timelines being simulated simultaneously
No... the possibility spaces she's talking about are not physical entities, so they do not require multiple universes for them to exist in a theoretically/mathematically meaningful way. Also, the pathways that end up being realized (instantiated) through those possibility spaces do not require multiple universes either. The concept works perfectly well with only a single physical universe. (Which is not to say that multiple universes do not exist. That's a different question; I'm just saying THAT question is not entangled with this one.)
i would ship them 😂🎉
I was following but at some point I started to get exponentially lost
Yo Lex! She's it. Few women are as intelligent as her and still actually super attractive. Wow, whata gal
Ita kind of sad to think about all the worlds that could have existed if life defeated the odds in those places and just didn't. And really scary to think of how close we were to not existing.
What she is struggling with is called 'dependent arising', the concept invented before the century began and it is also a key doctrine in Buddhism. All she's doing is trying to make a well-known concept seem novel, profound, and original in her own way.
You don't get it
@@ichtozavuzovsky8370
How do you know I don't get it? You don't even get what I'm saying.
@@user-ni2rh4ci5e She isn't just trying to make it "seem novel, profound, and original." She's trying to find a way to systematize the concept within a scientific framework so that it can be applied to greater understanding of the natural world... from a scientific perspective. (Buddhism is not science; it doesn't try to be. Therefore, it and its concepts are not scientifically useful in their "Buddhist" form.) If you don't get the import of this difference (i.e., that there IS a difference, and that the difference is meaningful), then there's a pretty large gap in your intellectual grasp. (So, yes, I get what you're saying, and I can determine from what you're saying that you "don't get it.")
@@RD-jc2eu
Bunches of meaningless words arguing that 'I get what you're saying' when you get nothing. Stop outsourcing your brain to GPT. It only makes it worse, hiding behind the glimpse of undigested outlines that fool you into believing you know something.
What she's arguing over is called 'Assembly Theory,' and she presented this concept very poorly. The core concept is pretty simple and evident if you take a look around where you live and how you interact with other things. Assembly Theory clarifies how each separate component integrates to form consistent systems that adapt to a rapidly changing environment in real-time, allowing new features to emerge as a whole. Otherwise, those merits wouldn't exist.
This integration inevitably leads to the formation of existence and is noticeable throughout various environments, such as the emergence of life, certain atmospheric phenomena, and even celestial systems and humanity. Being integrated is not merely a summation of random materials where emergence is hardly achievable. It's a constant series of processes observable and defined as distinct steps towards the threshold of complexity.
Bunches of meaningless words arguing that 'I get what you're saying' when you get nothing. Stop outsourcing your brain to GPT. It only makes it worse, hiding behind the glimpse of undigested outlines that fool you into believing you know something.
What she's arguing over is called 'Assembly Theory,' and she presented this concept very poorly. The core concept is pretty simple and evident if you take a look around where you live and how you interact with other things. Assembly Theory clarifies how each separate component integrates to form consistent systems that adapt to a rapidly changing environment in real-time, allowing new features to emerge as a whole. Otherwise, those merits wouldn't exist.
This integration inevitably leads to the formation of existence and is noticeable throughout various environments, such as the emergence of life, certain atmospheric phenomena, and even celestial systems and humanity. Being integrated is not merely a summation of random materials where emergence is hardly achievable. It's a constant series of processes observable and defined as distinct steps towards the threshold of complexity.
It's probably just light that causes life.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs that depend on the level of abstraction one chooses to analyze the system and are used to approximately describe underlying physical processes; these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities, and therefore consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Some clarifications.
The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.
Marco Biagini
Define conciousness, please.
@@rodrigozauli6573 With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experience such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams. The most fundamental empirical piece of information we have is the existence of our mental experiences. Consciousness is what we experience, therefore we know exactly what consciousness is. Consciousness is what we know best because it is the only reality we directly know exactly as it is in itself, the only reality we directly experience because it is experience itself. We have then a direct empirical knowledge of consciousness and consciousness represents the necessary preliminary condition for all other knowledge, consciousness is the foundation of all knowledge.
With the word consciousness I refer to the property of being conscious= having a mental experience such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams. The most fundamental empirical piece of information we have is the existence of our mental experiences. Consciousness is what we experience, therefore we know exactly what consciousness is. Consciousness is what we know best because it is the only reality we directly know exactly as it is in itself, the only reality we directly experience because it is experience itself. We have then a direct empirical knowledge of consciousness and consciousness represents the necessary preliminary condition for all other knowledge, consciousness is the foundation of all knowledge. The existence of consciousness is therefore the most fundamental certainty we can have and denying the existence of consciousness is an unscientific claim, because it denies the most fundamental empirical fact. If we were not conscious, we would neither know nor understand anything; we would not even understand the meaning of the present conversation and we would not even know that this conversation took place. The claim that consciousness is an illusion or does not exist is an utterly meaningless expression, exactly as the expression "a married bachelor" or “a spherical cube”; it is an expression formed by juxtaposing two words whose meaning is mutually exclusive, thus leading to an intrinsic logical contradiction. Language allows us to form meaningless sentences by associating mutually excuding words and this can create illusory definitions; these expressions may create the illusion of a meaning, while being devoid of any meaning.
Oh shut up! You aint gonna do shit! Nice troll though!!
I agree its not just the brain, its the nervous system, sight, hearing, touch, an organism will have limited consciousness just as a brain
At least this doesn't only use a dualistic order and spin on the platonic solids.
The most taught ordering skills of population species defines a city by walls reduced down to ethnicity and cells. Idealism and physicalism only. It denys x,y,z= manmade time hierarchy knowledge of good evil equations.
Denys that subjective properties make up 96% of our known standard reality & universe .
It projects formalism but atleast it's broad and free enough to dig out some soul agency and an excuse in overcoming horizon paradoxes to scales that very few things in nature can do .
Something humans get mobile and overcome so effortlessly we take for granted just how fast we plagerize correlate and project symmetrical beauty and ugly chaos upon.
She’s so right about the language part. The truth is our languages are too simple to easily unravel concepts from this “Assembly theory” discussion.. considering the theory requires you to detach from first perspective observational perspectives and perceive things in higher perspectives makes it challenging to describe these concepts on a linguistic level. Our languages evolved to be spoken from a subjective viewpoint, a particular perspective non-subject to logical patterns.
“The cake was horrible!”
“That boy is brave”
“Horrible” and “brave” are subjective terms in their reference.. they require a particular perspective, not a way of seeing but rather a way of perceiving things in order for them to exist to their observers.
was she flirting with Chat_Lex at 13:24???
She looks like April O'Neil from ninja turtles
It's almost like word salad, but both her and lex seem to understand
That’s the story of a cell…
I think lux found a soul mate… lol ❤
Rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb.
It sounded like you are trying to solve a Zen koan scientifically but with some level of intuition : who is that true self before your parents were born? Yes when you are at the edge of not being able to go anywhere, that’s when a spark of insight or awakening can happen. Just be in samadhi. An origin of creativity.
There may be a force that had intention and conceived of design. The god head souls be explored more.
Did they just take the longest time to say one individual idea or am I completely lost as usual?
Lex was trying to fully understand the idea, one which is rather new and not obvious. So, yes, of course it took several minutes to think through some of the implications of that one idea (which, to stay in step with the implications of the theory, rests on several other already existing complex ideas).
2 Snaps and a Twist...
She is flat out wrong saying big bang was from an infinitesimal . That is not implied in big bang theory. Only a very large expansion of the universe is implied. It could have been an infinitely large universe expanding in the big bang meaning the universe will still be infinitely large. We simply don’t know currently.
According to some sources, the Big Bang phase occurred after inflation, while others state that inflation happened after the Big Bang. What is clear is that the Big Bang was not a bang but a rapid expansion of space, corresponding to a solution of Einstein’s equations for the expansion from a singularity. Additionally, the cosmic microwave background is the empirical evidence, which emerged after the early universe cooled down, with hot plasma condensing into particles and radiation. ‘Big Bang’ is a great trademark but a poor term. I would call it ‘Explosive Emergence,’ including inflation as a later phase.
All you've said here is that "infinitesimal' is relative to perspective.
She gives good Brain,
Man I’m having trouble following this one
No ring on her finger yet! I’m creating my theory now. Sorry this is my girl lex! 😂 needs a neck and back massage, then back to work
Ramble ramble
Does the universe even exist if there is no life?
Are you paraphrasing the question about the tree falling in the forest?
Pure pain for the ears; pseudoscience. It’s better to take Mikhail Nikitin’s course on the emergence of life, which coherently explains every step: abiogenesis of nucleotides => RNA World => peptide synthesis => cell membrane => eukaryotic cell. Additionally, alternative life chemistry: non-water, non-carbon. He’s Russian-speaking, but that shouldn’t be a problem for Lex. Or, Eugene Koonin, who is English-speaking, is also good on the topic.
Got wiggle?
The Vast majority of Physicists Acknowledge the “Fine-Tuning Theory”, of our universe… ie in our universe, the parameters of Nature , are set just perfect….
So “all the complexity does start with the infinitesimal”…
So Her “Assembling-Theory” is wrong because universes with “Different-starting-Parameters-of Nature” can Not form complexities…”even if it’s space is too large for all its possibilities”…
Right it’s literally saying we are special for no reason. Like why tf are we special then?? Leaving that up to ‘randomness’ is less logical than saying that there is a reason. Ppl are just ready to eat up the pie in the sky whenever they can tho lol
Nothing I heard said in this clip seems to imply that the "assembly theory" can be used to explain the origin of the universe. It sounds to me like it's an attempt to account for the steady increase of complexity (one example of which is "life") in a way that is scientifically and mathematically meaningful. You appear to be attacking the theory for not doing something it isn't trying to do. Very strange...
@@TheSavageGent Who in this clip said anything about "being special"? I didn't hear anyone say that or imply it. Do you need to feel "special" for some reason?
Compare with Terrence Howard. Thank you!
lol...
I love her dress.
To say, “It took a long Evolutionary History to get where we are today” is the most assumptive and dismissive statement in Science albeit too common. There is not one serious effort going to conduct an actual real Scientific effort to openly discuss and research the Origin of Man - period. And if we actually endeavored to delve into that discussion in earnest without bias regardless of the Scientist involved then we would start to understand the immense complexity of Man’s Origin and then we would look at the entire Universe differently. We ignore our Origins at our own undoing.
I need her to assemble her words differently
Lol, the problem with most physicists is they can't articulate in a way general lay people can understand. Most scientists, actually.
But do you think they explored each other's bodies
Man sounds like my last three relationships
I can’t like take like someone who like constantly says like seriously.
...then a sheer drop.
science and sanity....
Ive been around a lot of geniuses before, and a lot people pretending to be geniuses. The more buzzwords they use, the less they actually know.
elaborate
@rionfitch really intelligent people know things so deeply and thoroughly they can explain it at any level, from a child to an expert, in concise and clear language without filler words, buzzwords, or unnecessary jargon.
@@clayton97330
aye, but, which are we seeing here?
@@clayton97330 You're talking about established ideas (or "science" if we're dealing with ideas that happen to be in that domain.) What you describe isn't necessarily the case with brand new ideas, for the very reason that they are new. If a new idea survives and comes to be widely ensconced within the domain of ideas that it's related to, then the vocabulary needed for that idea takes on the meanings needed for that idea to be implemented and discussed in an everyday, ordinary sort of way. It's a chicken-and-egg thing. (By the way... I don't recall hearing very many "buzzwords" in that conversation. I could understand all the words they were using, even if the theory being discussed is trying to introduce new connotations for some of those words.)
Yeah, nah.
The Emperor is buck naked.
God did it.
Hail Paimon
Idk if she didn’t explain herself well of maybe she is just contradicting herself but I don’t get how as we are “excluding” more and more from existing, how is it, that the possibility also increases, and exponentially??? Nonsense. Sure, the increasing complexity increases the possibility “within” the “being”, but how does that not in every way mean that there are less and less possibility for things to exist?? That’s like driving halfway to your destination and then claiming you have more paths to choose than when you started your car.. I honestly don’t understand. Someone please? (Someone who understand philosophy, plzzz) 🤯
I don't think it's philosophy that you're struggling with here. It's stochastic theory (probabilistic mathematics) that you need a better grasp of. But I'm not an expert in that, so I'll wait to see if someone who is an expert might chime in here.
Fhuu call ready
It's tragic to see such an intelligent person waste their gifts. I suppose given sufficient complexity anyone can deceive themself.
Everyone is deceiving themselves no matter what. It's a base requirement for human consciousness.
It is more difficult to be simple than to be complex
This comment feels very autobiographical.
@@deephouse2695 Not true... it's very simple to be simple. Most people do it all the time. All it requires is never actually thinking about anything.
The assembly idea is nonsense.
She’s a glitch in the matrix.