Can physics ever get to the truth? | Eric Weinstein & Hilary Lawson clash over the nature of reality
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 05. 2024
- Philosopher Hilary Lawson goes head to head with mathematical physicist Eric Weinstein over the nature of reality. Is metaphysics still relevant?
This excerpt was taken from the debate 'The matrix, myths and metaphysics,' which took place at the HowTheLightGetsIn festival in Hay-on-Wye, Wales in May of 2023.
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/the-matrix-myths...
Not so long ago philosophers and scientists were deeply critical of overall metaphysical accounts of the world, arguing that they were empty nonsense and should be consigned to the dustbin. 'Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe on instinct', concluded the author Somerset Maugham. But metaphysics is back. Idealism, possible worlds, panpsychism all have their adherents. 'We are living in a simulation', Matrix followers, like Elon Musk, intone. But is this a fundamental error that we once had recognised and have now forgotten, that trades evidence and reality for fiction and fantasy?
Should we recognise all overall metaphysical accounts as speculative nonsense? Since there can be no empirical evidence for any of them, is contemporary science the only way to determine the nature of things? Or might metaphysics be not only necessary but unavoidable?
#TheNatureOfReality #Metaphysics #TheMatrix
Hilary Lawson is a post-postmodern philosopher and a renowned critic of philosophical realism. He is best known for his work on reflexivity and his theory of Closure, which puts forward a non-realist metaphysics arguing that we close the openness of the world with our thought and language.
Eric Weinstein is a mathematical physicist and the host of the podcast The Portal. He is the former Managing Director of Thiel Capital in San Francisco and was formerly a Co-Founder and Principal of the Natron Group in Manhattan as well as a Visiting Research Fellow at Oxford University in the Mathematical Institute. Since completing a PhD dissertation in the Mathematics Department at Harvard in 1992 he has held research positions in Mathematics, Physics, and Economics departments (at MIT, Hebrew University, and Harvard respectively).
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
Calling something New Age is not a winning argument for a materialist, because it is based on his a priory beliefs.
It is an assertion without much substance.
a priori, and prior beliefs, are two different things
Did you only hear these two words out of what he said?
That doesn't apply when prior beliefs are compared to new ones which are completely irrational.
@@Sinkorswim1225 Irrational according to whom?
Fun but the real sparring match we want to see is Kaku vs Weinstein! "You are out of control!" " Stay out of the kitchen!"
weinstein is less insane than kaku, other than entertainment i don't think it would advance science more than a few feet.
Doesn't anyone get that when Hilary Lawson asserts that we can't know reality, he's stating it as a reality he knows for certain! Time to retake that upper division college logic class again, Hilary.
You have a flashlight (ie., knowing) in a dark room (ie., reality). Lawson asserts that our flashlight is insufficient. He's not making assertions about the room.
@@tonyr3090 I'll listen to him again. I thought he was denying certainty itself - something about which he sounded quite certain. Thanks.
@@rdjinaz He was. Because our flashlight has proven to be repeatedly more insufficient than the repeatable "laws" and "theories" it sheds light on. So while it is not with "Absolute" certainty that our flashlight is incapable, it is with stronger "Relative" certainty that the flashlight is incapable. In other words, the Theory of Incapable Flashlight is more certain than the Theory of Gravity (or any theory we're "certain" of).
@@tonyr3090 Ah, well, is he certain about this? Do you see the logical non-starter here?
Have you ever had a kid? "Why? You answer. Why? You answer. Why? You answer. Why? You answer. Why? You say you don't know.... Why?" There will always be a question to ask.
Physics is simple. In essence we only have 4 continuum functions (Grid, Clock, Potential, Inertia) and 4 measures (Space, Time, Energy, Mass). What we need to realize is that the relation between functions and measures is dual and inverse in order to keep an over-all zero change, while yet allowing change in either grid. Space and Energy are inversely related as are Time and Mass. Unless we understand this (and understand Einstein gave us incorrect fundamental equivalence relations) we will not understand the essence of physics. Physics is not hard. Eric is right; it is very easy to grasp all. We are just not looking under our feet.
is this an unconventional or personal account? I don’t know physics. I would also ask - while it’s a well organized and elegant account, could it be one option of many in that regard? There are many ways to organize information.
A model is a prediction tool, to predict everything the model would have to model the state of the entire universe, not just a slice out of context, such a model would need a computer the size of several universes to be able to do this effectively, and why would we even want to do that?
I suspect it's even worse than that when you try to localize such a theory.
A theory of everything where you start from the big bang and calculate everything afterwards isn't much use, you'll never catch up to where you are at present. (14 billion years later.)
In order to localize the theory, you'd need to take as input the state of the universe, every last detail, just to output the next Planck scale event!
The data throughput of such a theory would be one universe per Planck scale event. Good luck with that.
In a deterministic universe, described by deterministic mathematics, the uncertainty principle appears to be the closest thing to a universal law we have.
Heisenberg may be too simple for Eric, but the universe appears to agree with the simplicity of universal observational uncertainty.
At the intersection of theory and reality lies the measurement. Uncertainty, then, is a byproduct of being unable to differentiate between theory and reality.
We never solved that one (it turns out they're the same thing, and we needed to make a paradoxical assumption to begin the scientific analysis in the first place).
I don't know what to make of realism when all the measurements appear surreal!
the solution is to make multiple measurements. Phenomenologists say you can only ever see the front of an object. But in theory, you can turn it around and combine the observations.
@@PsychedelicAnxiety Disturbing the system you're examining multiple times doesn't solve the independence problem - it makes it worse.
This particular problem of differentiating between theory and reality is what the scientific method is designed to solve!
I think it's paradoxical to solve this problem completely mathematically, as it would take a theory of everything to do so.
Between a deterministic reality and a deterministic theory then, the measurements must all occur on a membrane of uncertainty between the two.
This uncertainty has the nice property of simplifying, and compressing reality into theory.
Yikes 😳 I have not historically believed in possession, until I witnessed Lawson here possessed by Kant.
I am a physicist and I will explain why physics can never explain the nature of consciousness and 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 used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. 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 idea, a 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. 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
this is a video channel, put it in a paper.
The brain is hardwired to find consciousness and to know it when it sees it because that is what it is. It's hard to realize consciousness because it's everywhere. It's finding something that's not conscious but still living. That's the difference. The body is a system with a motor and a brain. The brain controls the motor, so it doesn't lose consciousness. Alex 79suited. Peace ✌️ 😎.
"We have suggested that Dewey was right when he observed that the poles of any dualism indicate dimensions or characteristics of a continuum of functional processes, and not distinct ontological kinds of things. The dualistic error is thus the turning of what is a functional organization of organism-environment interactions into metaphysical entities or causes. Once you do that, you become locked into a dualism from which you can never extricate yourself, insofar as the very terms by which you have defined the problem to be solved assume a radical metaphysical and epistemological dichotomy." - Johnson, Mark L. and Schulkin, Jay. 2023. "Mind in Nature: John Dewey, Cognitive Science, and a Naturalistic Philosophy for Living." Cambridge, Massachusetts MIT Press.
Only the 'truth' can get to the 'truth'.
I like poetry.
what rhymes with poetry? know-it-try?
Closures must be embraced as the rule upon which Kuhn's normal science advances, and it is also true that lack of closure must also be embraced to allow revolutionary paradigm shifts to also occur. (as well as minor updates that may be needed) Settling upon one or the other as inherently true is a false dichotomy.
Knowledge is a process because reality is a process. As for the Gilligan example of uncharted islands, I give you Niijima island.
The basics of our reality is a place to start a debate like this.
I think think the only way in which science won't close is that changes in human needs and desires will always try to push past whatever we have and solve whatever annoyances confront us. I think Eric's obviously right that some things in nature are closed, it's us shifting goal posts for our own reasons that'll lead to new explorations. For example right now - I don't know how many people have thought explicitly about issues like social technology and ways to keep pro-social incentive structures by way of technology but - there are a lot of people thinking about that now, just like there are a lot of people thinking about environmental and renewables, and these are quite new concerns relative to our historical climb.
The "Dominant Story" for the last 30 years in physics is NOT "String Theory" or the ideas on how to make String Theory fit Reality...
Weinstein said it has been.
I think we need to go back to r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry Huygens’ Principle of 1670. The Universe could be based on the most simple geometry that forms the potential for evermore complexity. Forming not just physical complexity, but also the potential for evermore-abstract mathematics. It might be ‘cool’ but it stops us finding a fundamental theory.
Which layer of truth do you prefer?
"With the exception of the artificial and abstract thinker in you, you are pure Nature". This is a phrase from a book titled Toward your Real Self.
The universe only has a finite amount of laws; therefore, the sum total of functional laws is truth. It's physics and mathmatics that will provide this answer, not philosophy.
I've listened to Lawson several times and the one questions always comes to mind, "What is the utility of your argument? Supposing you're right...how should or must the scientific enterprise change?" So much "useless" criticism...?
This is a fun sparring match
every time philosophers argue with physicists a photon speeds up.
to continue watching this video click the link yea right! to find out its behind a paywall
Any truth that science arrives at will ultimately still be relative to the arbitrariness of the way the sense data represents reality.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
Please sell the full videos on CZcams. I don't want to give you my credit card number.
We really created exceptional things like time and space
Physics always finds truth.
These people don't know "the truth".
Therefore this debate is pointless.
They should know this.
What is their definition of "the truth"?
Hilary is exactly what i would have thought a philosopher would look like
Ditching Einstein’s theories is a great start to remedying the ‘Crisis’ in Physics.
Even if we just changed his map basis from particles to field we could get a lot further.
2:20 who is so inconsiderate to bring a crying baby to a panel discussion such as this?
Parents?
Maybe the baby was quiet until the panel discussion made it cry...
@@MrHws5mp Early symptoms of existential angst, perhaps?
My best friends think reality is a possibility of nothing
are your best friends imaginary?
my best friends read sci-fi too.
anything is possible - is it likely?
I wish that Roger Penrose and Avshalom Elitzur had been on this panel. And the ghost of David Hume.
What is truth? Truth is what you did yesterday and who you did it with. Hey, I don't know about that.
Why are philosophers invited to speak on things they don't understand? They should stick to their philosophy nonsense and leave the science to scientists.
Is that Mr. Dikovitch from Spider-Man? the philosopher guy
Eric in slay mode fun to watch... Wish i could comprehend what he said.
We need to define first the Truth. Otherwise, this discussion is not valid. Can we ask "why there is a Universe"? Will we ever know the answer the why questions? All we know so far is How based on observation only. Our knowledge is limited by the capacity of our brain which is limited in space time fabric. If there are higher dimensions we are trapped and probably we would never be able to uncover the true reality.
We’ve already defined “TRUTH” and moved on to an advanced technological world that EXCLUSIVELY relies on the substrate of science.
If an “axiomatic” analyst responds to the mumbo jumbo of rambling people like you, they come off as arrogant.
All that rigmarole you just uttered, would have us still living in the dark ages.
If we want to find for instance, underground petroleum reservoirs, we do so by observation, not by getting psychologically distracted and asking romantic questions like, “what is truth” ?
"why" there is a universe is a bit of a silly question, one day we may find that there is an answer, but as things stand it's hard enough to answer "how"
@@readynowforever3676"your" truth and "your" science both lack a lot. We've been getting nowhere worthwhile for a very long time now using man's science. Getting to the moon and microwaving dinner are small potatoes compared to where we ought to be if our applications were scientifically based anywhere near "truth". I concede that our paltry scientific methods are probably sufficient to gain ground were it not for the poor definition of "truth" you claim we use and have gotten "past" needing to debate. Claiming to be the arbiter of truth is pretty bold indeed. Good luck with your genius.
Knowledge is self a full filling prophecy isn’t it?
There is no theory, problem solved.
Math describes nature. Nature is math, the physical.
Math can be extrapolated, as it can describe nature, because nature itself uses math as expression language.
But nature is not inherently math, as your body is not the language you speak.
(aside: of course you body is also part of nature and of course it speaks also math, via its biology and physics, additionally to your spoken language; but I was simplifying to keep it easy, hope you got the point)
@Pictor13 H Bar Pillar of Heaven, Pillar 43 is a great ref. 7, 4/3, 7 step past Einstein Metric 0, 4/3, 0 .. by 7 planes of light give Weinstein a key, r > c, r = c, r < c .. nature does not wait, btw .. unlike Mr. Weinstein practiced geometrical unification can help more than just me too .. with love later, oh that Eric, yeah.
gee mr murgatroyd.
Admiral Byrd found new land please let Eric know.
We are always in the here and now that is our reality. Science is a sideshow.
🎉
Although he started asking for a fair conversation, the math guy puts too many stingy points and comments, dropping barely-in-context notions, to compensate for lack of actual concrete arguments.
His opinion is purely based on speculations, as much as the opinion of the philosophy guy in front of him.
But.. as scientist is a bit embarrassing to act the same way, making claims with zero evidence (apart for a weak correlation with land exploration).
I’m sure there are better scientists than that (and better philosophers too), that can discuss such an interesting topic in a less biased way.
He's making an analogy, not claiming to present evidence. Not everything scientists think or discuss is based in evidence.
IQ guess? I’ll go with 166.
Life have a Life-side and a Stuff-side,
Life-Science and Stuff-science.
Life-Science explain nature of Life,
Stuff-Science, try to explain Stuff-side.
144 grand unified theory now pay up
Cash for cardinals
Day n+1 of trying to correct modern physics of the correct interpretation of penrose diagrams 😂
NO! Causality of David Hume!
“You can t find the laws (…) you can t look through a telescope and find the laws (…)” literally what galileo, newton and Kepler did
wrong laws tho
Those were their interpretation stemming from their observance of the appearance of something.
They all opinionated on what they saw, which is why we are still debating the interpretation all these years later.
If its gods word then is it the devils mumber or gesus christy what abook symbols🍀🦍👀
It's OK to have universal modeling needed we are talking about absolute reality lol
For me it's enough arbitrary evidence telling us this reality generator on the smallest scales is infinite degree of freedom yet uniformity timelessness without linear direction just perfect building blocks perculating permutations that can't and won't be precise until it emerges so.
This ground zero of reality just seems to be something old world minds still can't condition themselves on enough to grant nature it's 1st position orientation and direction enough to have the conversation & modeling this way.
It's okay use mri machine point of view. It is very sensible to sigma 6 subjective properties like hamiltonian oscillating waves correlated with idealized time but once you top down physical measure, 1st newton,2nd Einstein,3rd hiesenberg approach the physical mystification yoo hoo woo hoo uncertainty emerges.
As identifiers it's perfectly fine to say here is physical form & shape the reduce now dig out the core emerged energetic actor code of nature 1st position. Then 2nd is lattus structure body 3rd Is an emerging critical extreme state or environment.
This is what it tells us.
Drink plenty of water.
Drinking from the eternal cosmos waters 💧
In all due respect,
Why does someone with your archetypal mind feel better about telling yourself something is physical even when you know better ?
What's imside that makes it so difficult to accept nature for what it tells us?
Is it left over catholicism or some Hinduism or orthodoxy that still gets passed down in families?
Or is it just truly how some.people archetypal minds must view the world?
4Chan500 members
I love when scientists declare that everything is sewn up and there's nothing else to know about a subject. He stated twice that nobody is looking for land anymore, yet new volcanic islands pop up all the time.
"Wow!" (Joe Rogan)
I think Weinstein is arguing along the lines that the more we know the less knowledge or understanding that can be known will decrease. Like there isn’t an infinite amount of knowledge or understanding to be discovered.
we don't "look for" volcanoes pushing up "new land", what he means is maps of the planet are complete, thanks to satellites. some things are finished - if a new volcanoe pops up it will get mapped. i think you're missing the point.
I hate to break it to yall, but the apple didn't fall from the tree. Why? Cause in the vacuum space there aren't many tree's. So what's that tell you? That the property is different. Ones planetary science, Ones galacty science closed environment, and the last is the infinite ♾️ vacuum space. So the galacty system is born from the sphere the planetary or solar system is born from a star, which in itself a closed environment inside a much bigger closed environment. Gravity is weighted mass at the bottom of the systems, it's local to its environment. It trickles down and up. I wonder sometimes if people have any idea of how this shite actually works. Gravity is always local that's why its weak. It's a phenomenon that only shows up inside closed systems if the conditions are right ✅️. It emerges from local planetary systems. Sorry but that's reality. Otherwise it's EMFSYSTEMS and VEM =0Msquared. And that's that. Peace ✌️ 😎. Eric great to see ya back on the stage. Tickets? Send some next time and I'll have a listen. Peace ✌️ 😎. Ready to Rock@Roll.
Why do they keep dragging Weinstein into these things? He is full of hot air
I don't think what he says is entirely pointless, but he ends up dragging every conversation into a discussion about problems in academia. It's an interesting topic, but he tries to make EVERYTHING about that topic. It's like watching a cable news show where none of the issues are discussed and the host keeps trying to get people to yell at each other.
Eric Weinstein talking about how great Eric Weinstein is
Eric Weinstein is misunderstanding the point. The rules of chess are conventions not absolute reality. In a pedantic sense but none less indisputable, it is the same with the Earth. New Islands are formed and destroyed all the time.
Besides, he is not aware that he is claiming something using language; in itself a convention. This is the problem of those who don't study philosophy which is about knowledge. There is a starting point or a maxim in philoophy if you like that sets the bar: It says that knowledge is impossible because knowledge is interdependent. You arrive at a conclusion based on knowing something else. Therefore, what can be the first thing to know upon which everything else is built on? Except belief I can't think of anything else, can anyone else? This is like believing in God requiring no evidence which is also called a leap of faith by another philosopher.
In order to give knowledge currency, conventions were born as points of common ground through observations. For example, no one knows if the colour red is the same to everyone's interpetive (not sensory) perception. But it was agreed by convention. You can talk about measuring the wavelength of red light and the rest of it but that will only make the problem worse because you will need to use language that has its own problems going back to empirical names and discussed by Wittgenstein such as names of object. It will become a circular argument that is not philosophy.
So, this is what is meant by our inability to see reality not what Mr. Weinstein claims. Of course, the fact that we are constntly faced with observations that shatter our previous conclusions also gives this concept credence and should keep us humble about what we claim to know. Tectonic plates were taught as fantasy is Cambridge until 70s as David Attenborough keeps reminding everyone in his anecdotes about his geology professor in Cambridge.
Well said, and eventually western philosophy will catch up with mystics of the past.
Eric's mind is a powerhouse
True but his true calling is that of a contrarian.
Eric does appeal to a certain type of person.
@@STR82DVD a very much needed trait in today's field, academia is collapsed, we need to do things the old way without morals if we want to transcend
@@EsdrasOlivaresPcmasterrace Interesting position. Isn't that how we ended up with eugenics? While that obviously represents the extreme form of your position, your position is a slippery slope to transcendence.
@@Mentaculus42 Agreed.