" We"re in territory where we cannot obtain certainty". Love the way Prof.Ellis quickly establishes the difficulty in acquiring answers in laws of nature/physics. Profound conversation.
"The problem is that we don't know what the laws of physics are " Thank you Sir. This is the issue with science being projected and accepted as facts amongst society in relation to all aspects of life. We know what's available to us and the rest is pure speculation based on our understanding of what already exists. We merely observe and interpret creation as we are not in control
The purpose is boost your ego, create for vanity, love your narcissism, achieve your caprices, and satisfy your megalomania by means of mankind!!!!!!!!
Not the first time I've seen this video. Professor Ellis is brilliant in defining a legitimate philosophical question: Are the Laws of Physics ---> Prescript or Descript? He's not an Emeritus for nothing. Awesome conversation.
And yet to didn't errors in his reasoning. Science relies on the fixed laws of physics to explain natural phenomena, ... and is limited to things of our Universe. We do not know all the Laws of Physics, but what we do know clearly supports the Universe & Life being unnaturally made by an intelligence. Matter, energy, space, time and the Laws of physics are Functions, with set purpose & rules, and will PROCESSES inputs into outputs. A Function(Process) can be abstract (time, space, laws of physics) or concrete( matter, energy). And all Functions are unnaturally made by an intelligence. There is no evidence proving Natural processes under the fixed laws of physics can make a quantum particle, electron, neutron, proton, atom, element, compound, molecule ... life, planet, star ... or laws of physics. The Laws of physics are prescriptive ... according to what the Function maker has determined. There are no other worlds or Universes ... without a Function Maker/Creator.
Agreed, this was a exceptionally thought provoking conversation. I've never heard the question of physical laws framed in quite those terms at 5:00. Dr. Kuhn took notice of that conceptual leap, and he has heard many takes on the subject. The concept of platonic possibility space, for me, brings to mind a line from the bible... "In the beginning was the Word". I am no theist, but wouldn't god be included in "possibility space", or be the possibility space itself? This seems self evident.
@@abelincoln8885 I think you make too many assumptions in your assessment, especially this one... " We do not know all the Laws of Physics, but what we do know clearly supports the Universe & Life being unnaturally made by an intelligence."
I can’t help but think of possibility spaces in the context of the anthropic principle that all of our possibilities lie within an apparently brief and unique period as viewed from what we believe to be true on a cosmological timescale. And secondly, what might yet be for our posterity’s possibility spaces during the time that remains if the consciousness evolved on planet earth survives.
Sean Carroll has said some positive things about George Ellis - I can now see why. I learnt quite a bit in a few minutes …..probably more than ever before. …..how us that possible?
Even if there are multiple realaties with different laws of physics, this probably is going to get us into infinite possibilities also. With all available tools we may fall for a trap or an illusion.
In Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy there is a race of creatures (I use that term biologically, rather than theologically) that has evolved to use large disc-shaped seeds as an aid to locomotion. This provides a possible answer to one of the professor's impossibilities.
Thanks for this interessting video. If we do not follow the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, but the many-worlds interpretation, then even all 'possible worlds' in this possibility space are realised, and it is pure random into which we are thrown in each case. Or am I wrong?
The laws of physics are predictive or are they descriptive? What a fascinating question, love it. Thinking about it, i see no reason why the laws of physics could not be both predictive and descriptive.???
When we populate possibility spaces, how do we draw the line between "possible" and "impossible"? If I were to think of the possibility space of my location 5 minutes from now, it might include my basement, my living room, on the street, and so on, but for each of those scenarios some precondition would need to be in place, such as "I had to turn on the dryer," "I wanted to watch TV," "I saw my mail lying in tge street," which themselves form a possibility space descibing where I might be some time before 5 minutes from now. I can repeat this process back to my current state, but of the possibility space of my current state, only one can be truly possibile, and that is the reality that I'm now observing. If we live in a causal universe where every cause has a definite effrct, I don't see how we can talk about some states which are "possibile" and some which are "impossible." We might say a state "might be possible" because we just lack omniscience and don't know the complete state of reality at any given time, but the more we uncover, the narrower our set gets. The interviewee said something to this effect in the video about the rationality of pi, but went on to say there is a real possibility space, the scale of which dwarfs our observed reality. So, to me this concept presupposes non-causal, chance outcomes.
Spot on! The thought of multiple possibilities are real but some of those possibilities aren't possible as coming to existence. For instance there's a multitude beliefs systems and as a thought all of them are real although they don't compliance with those space possibilities that in the end of the day can came into existence. Most of all because epistemological reasons than ontological ones.
Interesting discussion! But either prescriptive or descriptive law of physics can only solve half of the problem. Assuming the law of physics is true (including the probability theory), the set of events (E) that you experience in your life must follow the conditional probability rule. Giving condition A (law of physics), the probability of the world we know (set of events in your life) is P(E|A). But there is another pre-condition in the equation: Giving condition B (human brain and perceptions), the probability of "condition A" is p(A|B). Now the real question is: Are condition A and condition B independent? All scientist suddenly become philosopher :D lol
When you posit other possible worlds, would you allow for "supernatural" worlds, i.e. spiritual realms? It seems, even in physics, we are getting into the realms of entities which are ethereal, multiverses which are somehow co-terminal with our universe and yet invisible to us.
A great discussion with philosophy. Am no overseer, nor would I want to be although philosophy digresses in all avenues to a certain degree, the lack of reverence for Philosophy & metaphysics & theology today is a direction I will not be part of. Philosopher is the most revered Appalachian and position of the utmost straneous work to achieve, and today although its true essence seems lost, the position is not. If you cannot interpret sacred texts you cannot interpret what science reveals -- some of these people know the prices of everything and the value of nothing. If you do not know somethings true value you do not understand or can see the true meaning and purpose.
@@mozzerianmisanthrope406 not at all.. did somebody have a rough and lonely Valentines day with their cats at home? I sure hope your single, I feel for the poor soul that has to spend their life putting up with you and your bitter attitude..
@@Jonnygurudesigns Lmao, I guess jumping to conclusions is the only exercise you get, honey. I just don't run my life or my mood off of capitalist bullshit dates like valentines day. Read more so you can learn basic grammar; your indicates possession, you’re is a contraction of you and are. You haven't grasped grammar that even 5-year-olds understand. Says a lot about you. You need to go back to school, obtuse Jonny...
But if you attempt to define a possibility space, you end up with a physical law. Perhaps it gives you a route into emergent phenomena..certainly for biologists, I think they already do something similar
this channel became like an old cassette player in rewind state or video in auto-play mode belongs to someone passed away or old lady retrieves her old memories, there is something wrong !
The host Robert Lawrence Kuhn always appears more confident than his guests in knowing what is being talked about and how to tackle the issues! The guests at time sort of tremble as if they were not fully knowledgeable of the issues talked about!!
I think RLK is naively confident in many things he says and that many of the people he interviews are reluctant to be rude to RLK's face. If you keep watching them you will stumble on the awkward video's where these guests challenge RLK to his face.
(3:50) *GE: **_"Why didn't nature give us eyes in the back of our head?"_* ... That is a great way to describe another "possible" world. Consciousness (Existence) has a single, primary objective. It will use all means available to achieve that objective. Existence is logical, experimental, and highly efficient. Existence will only execute logic-based experiments in the most efficient manner to move closer to achieving that objective. As far as *"eyes in the back of our head"* goes, Existence did not logically conclude that this was necessary to get the job done. Two frontally positioned, binocular eyes were deemed all that was required based on our physiology. *(1)* One wheel is all that is logically required for a unicycle *(2)* Two wheels are all that is logically required for a bicycle. *(3)* Three wheels are all that is logically required for a tricycle *(4)* Four wheels are all that is logically required for an automobile. All of these examples demonstrate how humans logically address transportation. At the end of the day, humans mimic "Existence" in everything we do.
@@tomjackson7755 *"Is this a sample of complete nonsense that can be expected from your book?"* ... At the core of my comment is this: _"Consciousness (Existence) has a _*_single, primary objective._*_ It will use _*_all means available_*_ to achieve that objective." ... "At the end of the day, _*_humans mimic "Existence"_*_ in everything we do."_ Your "primary objective" is to marginalize every comment I make, and you will use all means available to fulfil that objective. You are unknowingly mimicking how Existence operates in your personal quest to fulfill your objective. If it's such nonsense, ... _then why are you mimicking it?_
This was a exceptionally thought provoking conversation. I've never heard the question of physical laws framed in quite those terms at 5:00. Dr. Kuhn took notice of that conceptual leap, and he has heard many takes on the subject. The concept of platonic possibility space, for me, brings to mind a line from the bible... "In the beginning was the Word". I am no theist, but wouldn't god be included in "possibility space", or be the possibility space itself? This seems self evident.
Quote the PhD : " the problem is, we don't know what the laws of Physics are." 👏👏👏 All decent scientists should be Agnostic and not Conclude anything for now. String theory may just be flawed or totally false
5:02 If we can predict certain future events based on physical laws then why is it wrong to equate such values to a common or similar source... the eyelids use this mechanism to close automatically and prevent most flying insect or object entering the eye... in this case the laws of motion are already accepted to have a real value...
"Possibility space" A nice concept theists use to make their invisible fantasy friend seem more real. I love it when theists use crutches like modal logic. It betrays their utter desperation, because of the glaring absence of their invisible magical god-friend.
The actions of physics made the universe into what we see today. . The math we use too describe physics makes it possible to use it. So we seem too have a pretty good handle on the physics that we know of so far. And what is the point of asking why don't we have eyes in the back of our heads ? I don't see the value in that kind of speculation.
@@abelincoln8885 I didn't have an issue with your comment until you added that it "needs" a watchmaker. Like it really matters. Since we will never know the truth of our beginning. It's lost in a wall of radiation we can't see past. Resulting in an overabundance of endless speculation. That leads us nowhere.
@@abelincoln8885 You just want too put your personal god stamp on reality. Just like everyone else. Whether it's true or not isn't even part of the equation. It must be just accepted as a fact. Since an open minded ( no god glasses) examination might break down your confidence. And you can't have that. And that you of all the people know the truth would be hilarious. If it wasn't so dangerous.
Truth is not something to be closer to. You experience to be inside a body, but there is not a body. You are not inside the Cosmos, but the Cosmos is inside of you. Everything is spirit. There is no such thing as matter. May God bless you all.
@@Graewulfe *"If your comments are being deleted then check your wording for algorithm triggers. Try re-wording your comment to remove those."* ... It remains unknown why some comments (even my own) suddenly disappear. It's frustrating! The CZcams algorithm serves as one filter, and CTT has their own set of comment filters. Unfortunately, we never know what words will trigger the censorship. After enough people get tired of the giant corporate entity known as "CZcams" deciding for everyone what is good and bad, then a new, free-speech platform will emerge to balance it all out.
@@Graewulfe I have done the same. It got to the point where I would always copy my comments to the clipboard prior to submission out of fear they would be deleted. I started deleting sentences from the bottom-up and re-posting until they survived. What is confusing is that I could never isolate the trigger words. They all looked like normal sentence to me, with nothing controversial. I could post the same "deleted" sentences in a follow-up comment and it would work just fine. In the "best of all possible worlds" CZcams would let us all simply post our content without any censorship. Let the mob sort out what is right and wrong.
The square root of two has a value, but that value cannot be expressed precisely in accordance with a counting system that operates on base ten; that's all it's irrationality means.
Read the Holy books and the Bible and then maybe very much happy to hear about this subject from your news about what ever happened with the people who believe in the past universe of the year of the past End Time comes out of the house of the Lord thy God. Please let us know what time it is going on with the things that are happening now a day's work for the people who believe in the truthfully.
What are reality happen RIGHT NOW are impossble. First of all reality are unpredicted. Concieness cant picture unpredicted. What Science knows RIGHT NOW are possible hipotesy.
This is all sorts of wrong I don't even know were to start here...domains in Reality include REAL "imaginary" (conceivable) worlds. Possible spaces are actual spaces period. A domain within a domain...for all that I know it might even be fractal! These guys are getting Set theory all wrong...playing with obscure concepts is the best way to characterize this bull! PS: As you can see I am getting fed up with the constant misuse of the word "Real"!
But we do know that the Laws of physics are prescriptive. The Theory of Universal Functions is the science behind the OBSERVATION that natural processes are like ... unnatural processes. There is a scientific explanation why the Universe & Life are like ... a machine. Everything is a Function. Matter, Energy, space, time and the Laws of physics are Functions. A Function can be Abstract ( Time, space, Laws of physics) or concrete(matter, energy). All functions have a set purpose, role, or rules .... and will PROCESS inputs into outputs. All Functions are unnaturally made by an intelligence who must provide the INFORMATION for a function to exist & operate. Science relies on the Laws of Physics which are Abstract Functions, and can only explain natural phenomena because of these fixed Laws. The scope of Science is limited to our Universe & everything that belongs to it. The Laws of physics ... determine ... what is or isn't possible ONLY within our Universe. And our Universe is a Function composed entirely of Functions ... that was UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence not of our Universe. Earth is a Function, composed entirely of functions ... that was UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence not of our Universe. Life are Functions composed entirely of functions ... that was UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence not of our Universe. Science & the Laws of Physics ... tell us there is ZERO possibility of other Worlds or Universes without an intelligent Function maker. To say otherwise is simply science FICTION.
" We"re in territory where we cannot obtain certainty". Love the way Prof.Ellis quickly establishes the difficulty in acquiring answers in laws of nature/physics. Profound conversation.
Is that certain though? 🤪🤪🤪
BEST CHANNEL ON CZcams
"The problem is that we don't know what the laws of physics are " Thank you Sir. This is the issue with science being projected and accepted as facts amongst society in relation to all aspects of life. We know what's available to us and the rest is pure speculation based on our understanding of what already exists. We merely observe and interpret creation as we are not in control
the word is one and the purpose is love
The purpose is boost your ego, create for vanity, love your narcissism, achieve your caprices, and satisfy your megalomania by means of mankind!!!!!!!!
Not the first time I've seen this video. Professor Ellis is brilliant in defining a legitimate philosophical question: Are the Laws of Physics ---> Prescript or Descript?
He's not an Emeritus for nothing. Awesome conversation.
Amazing to me RLK never thought of that question before.
Agree enthusiastically. What a profound internal reflection awaits tonight as I fall off to sleep.
And yet to didn't errors in his reasoning.
Science relies on the fixed laws of physics to explain natural phenomena, ... and is limited to things of our Universe.
We do not know all the Laws of Physics, but what we do know clearly supports the Universe & Life being unnaturally made by an intelligence.
Matter, energy, space, time and the Laws of physics are Functions, with set purpose & rules, and will PROCESSES inputs into outputs.
A Function(Process) can be abstract (time, space, laws of physics) or concrete( matter, energy).
And all Functions are unnaturally made by an intelligence. There is no evidence proving Natural processes under the fixed laws of physics can make a quantum particle, electron, neutron, proton, atom, element, compound, molecule ... life, planet, star ... or laws of physics.
The Laws of physics are prescriptive ... according to what the Function maker has determined.
There are no other worlds or Universes ... without a Function Maker/Creator.
Agreed, this was a exceptionally thought provoking conversation. I've never heard the question of physical laws framed in quite those terms at 5:00. Dr. Kuhn took notice of that conceptual leap, and he has heard many takes on the subject. The concept of platonic possibility space, for me, brings to mind a line from the bible... "In the beginning was the Word". I am no theist, but wouldn't god be included in "possibility space", or be the possibility space itself? This seems self evident.
@@abelincoln8885 I think you make too many assumptions in your assessment, especially this one... " We do not know all the Laws of Physics, but what we do know clearly supports the Universe & Life being unnaturally made by an intelligence."
"possibility space"... In Missouri, we used to say, that if you walk across that pasture everyday, sooner or later you're gonna step in a pile...
Infinite number of possibilities
I can't decide but this was maybe closer to the truth one of best interviews.
Which I struggle to understand...
Sky Dadda created all worlds, possible and impossible from the primordial cesspool!
I can’t help but think of possibility spaces in the context of the anthropic principle that all of our possibilities lie within an apparently brief and unique period as viewed from what we believe to be true on a cosmological timescale. And secondly, what might yet be for our posterity’s possibility spaces during the time that remains if the consciousness evolved on planet earth survives.
"Like Kevin Garnett, anything is possible." - The Lonely Island
Sean Carroll has said some positive things about George Ellis - I can now see why.
I learnt quite a bit in a few minutes …..probably more than ever before.
…..how us that possible?
5:09 I quite don't understand these two options (prescriptive and descriptive). I would someone to explain these more in detail and what they mean.
Even if there are multiple realaties with different laws of physics, this probably is going to get us into infinite possibilities also. With all available tools we may fall for a trap or an illusion.
In Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy there is a race of creatures (I use that term biologically, rather than theologically) that has evolved to use large disc-shaped seeds as an aid to locomotion. This provides a possible answer to one of the professor's impossibilities.
Thanks for this interessting video. If we do not follow the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, but the many-worlds interpretation, then even all 'possible worlds' in this possibility space are realised, and it is pure random into which we are thrown in each case. Or am I wrong?
You are correct.
You're either and neither correct and/or wrong 🤪🤪🤪
Probably such worlds that even authors of science fiction couldn't imagine
The laws of physics are predictive or are they descriptive? What a fascinating question, love it. Thinking about it, i see no reason why the laws of physics could not be both predictive and descriptive.???
When we populate possibility spaces, how do we draw the line between "possible" and "impossible"? If I were to think of the possibility space of my location 5 minutes from now, it might include my basement, my living room, on the street, and so on, but for each of those scenarios some precondition would need to be in place, such as "I had to turn on the dryer," "I wanted to watch TV," "I saw my mail lying in tge street," which themselves form a possibility space descibing where I might be some time before 5 minutes from now. I can repeat this process back to my current state, but of the possibility space of my current state, only one can be truly possibile, and that is the reality that I'm now observing. If we live in a causal universe where every cause has a definite effrct, I don't see how we can talk about some states which are "possibile" and some which are "impossible." We might say a state "might be possible" because we just lack omniscience and don't know the complete state of reality at any given time, but the more we uncover, the narrower our set gets. The interviewee said something to this effect in the video about the rationality of pi, but went on to say there is a real possibility space, the scale of which dwarfs our observed reality. So, to me this concept presupposes non-causal, chance outcomes.
Spot on! The thought of multiple possibilities are real but some of those possibilities aren't possible as coming to existence. For instance there's a multitude beliefs systems and as a thought all of them are real although they don't compliance with those space possibilities that in the end of the day can came into existence. Most of all because epistemological reasons than ontological ones.
after COVID-19 the epidemic disease accompanied with revelations of the sky there is a lot changed radically, why doesn't he make new interviews !
Within the possible is the probable.
Differently tuned universes for creating singularities
Quantum State
Emergence and Natural Selection
Space-time
Interesting discussion! But either prescriptive or descriptive law of physics can only solve half of the problem. Assuming the law of physics is true (including the probability theory), the set of events (E) that you experience in your life must follow the conditional probability rule. Giving condition A (law of physics), the probability of the world we know (set of events in your life) is P(E|A). But there is another pre-condition in the equation: Giving condition B (human brain and perceptions), the probability of "condition A" is p(A|B). Now the real question is: Are condition A and condition B independent? All scientist suddenly become philosopher :D lol
Could possibility be an observer that uses mathematics to measure physical reality / nature?
Totalitarian principle - Everything not forbidden is compulsory.
rekla bom..zelo zanimivo..ko si iscete razne fizike,matematike,filozofe..
When you posit other possible worlds, would you allow for "supernatural" worlds, i.e. spiritual realms? It seems, even in physics, we are getting into the realms of entities which are ethereal, multiverses which are somehow co-terminal with our universe and yet invisible to us.
I wonder if there’s a possible world where those crickets aren’t screaming during this whole video?!
Or cherrups......
A great discussion with philosophy.
Am no overseer, nor would I want to be although philosophy digresses in all avenues to a certain degree, the lack of reverence for Philosophy & metaphysics & theology today is a direction I will not be part of.
Philosopher is the most revered Appalachian and position of the utmost straneous work to achieve, and today although its true essence seems lost, the position is not.
If you cannot interpret sacred texts you cannot interpret what science reveals -- some of these people know the prices of everything and the value of nothing. If you do not know somethings true value you do not understand or can see the true meaning and purpose.
Is there a way that the laws of physics could come out of possibility space?
Everything is possible for God.
For God IS everything possible.
Can you lower the dialogue? It’s getting in the way of the cicadas.
Possible worlds are mere hypotheticals. Only one world is actually possible. Everything else is a prediction problem.
Pilots call it flying within the envelope. Outside the envelope everything falls apart.
1st comment! That’s a first for me
I’m just kidding. Congrats!
You need to grow up if that's a priority... especially at your age...
@@mozzerianmisanthrope406 not at all.. did somebody have a rough and lonely Valentines day with their cats at home? I sure hope your single, I feel for the poor soul that has to spend their life putting up with you and your bitter attitude..
@@Jonnygurudesigns Lmao, I guess jumping to conclusions is the only exercise you get, honey. I just don't run my life or my mood off of capitalist bullshit dates like valentines day.
Read more so you can learn basic grammar; your indicates possession, you’re is a contraction of you and are. You haven't grasped grammar that even 5-year-olds understand. Says a lot about you. You need to go back to school, obtuse Jonny...
But if you attempt to define a possibility space, you end up with a physical law. Perhaps it gives you a route into emergent phenomena..certainly for biologists, I think they already do something similar
Possible worlds would be us manifesting our information maybe we think it and it's possible
Is it where Dark Matter and Dark Energy goes, all the woulda, coulda, shoulda of the quantum wave that never materializes in this universe?
this channel became like an old cassette player in rewind state or video in auto-play mode belongs to someone passed away or old lady retrieves her old memories, there is something wrong !
The host Robert Lawrence Kuhn always appears more confident than his guests in knowing what is being talked about and how to tackle the issues! The guests at time sort of tremble as if they were not fully knowledgeable of the issues talked about!!
I think RLK is naively confident in many things he says and that many of the people he interviews are reluctant to be rude to RLK's face. If you keep watching them you will stumble on the awkward video's where these guests challenge RLK to his face.
(3:50) *GE: **_"Why didn't nature give us eyes in the back of our head?"_* ... That is a great way to describe another "possible" world. Consciousness (Existence) has a single, primary objective. It will use all means available to achieve that objective. Existence is logical, experimental, and highly efficient. Existence will only execute logic-based experiments in the most efficient manner to move closer to achieving that objective.
As far as *"eyes in the back of our head"* goes, Existence did not logically conclude that this was necessary to get the job done. Two frontally positioned, binocular eyes were deemed all that was required based on our physiology.
*(1)* One wheel is all that is logically required for a unicycle
*(2)* Two wheels are all that is logically required for a bicycle.
*(3)* Three wheels are all that is logically required for a tricycle
*(4)* Four wheels are all that is logically required for an automobile.
All of these examples demonstrate how humans logically address transportation. At the end of the day, humans mimic "Existence" in everything we do.
Is this a sample of complete nonsense that can be expected from your book?
@@tomjackson7755 *"Is this a sample of complete nonsense that can be expected from your book?"*
... At the core of my comment is this:
_"Consciousness (Existence) has a _*_single, primary objective._*_ It will use _*_all means available_*_ to achieve that objective." ... "At the end of the day, _*_humans mimic "Existence"_*_ in everything we do."_
Your "primary objective" is to marginalize every comment I make, and you will use all means available to fulfil that objective. You are unknowingly mimicking how Existence operates in your personal quest to fulfill your objective.
If it's such nonsense, ... _then why are you mimicking it?_
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Existence is a property. Your phone exists. Your computer exists. You exist. However, existence is not you.
@@dreyestud123 *"Existence is a property. "*
... A property of what?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Nature/Universe
Holy sh.. those birds
This was a exceptionally thought provoking conversation. I've never heard the question of physical laws framed in quite those terms at 5:00. Dr. Kuhn took notice of that conceptual leap, and he has heard many takes on the subject. The concept of platonic possibility space, for me, brings to mind a line from the bible... "In the beginning was the Word". I am no theist, but wouldn't god be included in "possibility space", or be the possibility space itself? This seems self evident.
Who actually thinks the possible thoughts?
Quote the PhD : " the problem is, we don't know what the laws of Physics are." 👏👏👏 All decent scientists should be Agnostic and not Conclude anything for now. String theory may just be flawed or totally false
Some great comments about the very badly named, so called, "laws of physics".
"The many become one and are increased by one.. " Alfred North Whitehead
What they sayin? 👀
5:02 If we can predict certain future events based on physical laws then why is it wrong to equate such values to a common or similar source... the eyelids use this mechanism to close automatically and prevent most flying insect or object entering the eye... in this case the laws of motion are already accepted to have a real value...
am having trouble understanding this one lol
And you are not only one.
@@kipponi all those big words lol got much to learn. :)
"Possibility space"
A nice concept theists use to make their invisible fantasy friend seem more real.
I love it when theists use crutches like modal logic.
It betrays their utter desperation, because of the glaring absence of their invisible magical god-friend.
The actions of physics made the universe into what we see today. . The math we use too describe physics makes it possible to use it. So we seem too have a pretty good handle on the physics that we know of so far.
And what is the point of asking why don't we have eyes in the back of our heads ? I don't see the value in that kind
of speculation.
@@abelincoln8885
I didn't have an issue with your comment until you added that it "needs" a watchmaker. Like it really matters. Since we will never know the truth of our beginning. It's lost in a wall of radiation we can't see past. Resulting in an overabundance of endless speculation. That leads us nowhere.
@@abelincoln8885
You just want too put your personal god stamp on reality. Just like everyone else. Whether it's true or not isn't even part of the equation. It must be just accepted as a fact. Since an open minded ( no god glasses) examination might break down your confidence. And you can't have that.
And that you of all the people know the truth would be hilarious. If it wasn't so dangerous.
Truth is not something to be closer to.
You experience to be inside a body, but there is not a body.
You are not inside the Cosmos, but the Cosmos is inside of you.
Everything is spirit. There is no such thing as matter.
May God bless you all.
Truth is a sanctimonious proclamation in youtube comments.
You cannot comment critical , your comment will be deleted, and that is not very scientifical
wait, what? your comment is hard to understand due to syntax and grammar
@@Graewulfe *"If your comments are being deleted then check your wording for algorithm triggers. Try re-wording your comment to remove those."*
... It remains unknown why some comments (even my own) suddenly disappear. It's frustrating! The CZcams algorithm serves as one filter, and CTT has their own set of comment filters. Unfortunately, we never know what words will trigger the censorship.
After enough people get tired of the giant corporate entity known as "CZcams" deciding for everyone what is good and bad, then a new, free-speech platform will emerge to balance it all out.
@@Graewulfe I have done the same. It got to the point where I would always copy my comments to the clipboard prior to submission out of fear they would be deleted. I started deleting sentences from the bottom-up and re-posting until they survived. What is confusing is that I could never isolate the trigger words. They all looked like normal sentence to me, with nothing controversial.
I could post the same "deleted" sentences in a follow-up comment and it would work just fine.
In the "best of all possible worlds" CZcams would let us all simply post our content without any censorship. Let the mob sort out what is right and wrong.
Excuse my grammar and thnx for the reactions.
Is it “ possible” for Robert to wear something other than black? Probably not I guess.
The square root of two has a value, but that value cannot be expressed precisely in accordance with a counting system that operates on base ten; that's all it's irrationality means.
Read the Holy books and the Bible and then maybe very much happy to hear about this subject from your news about what ever happened with the people who believe in the past universe of the year of the past End Time comes out of the house of the Lord thy God. Please let us know what time it is going on with the things that are happening now a day's work for the people who believe in the truthfully.
What are reality happen RIGHT NOW are impossble. First of all reality are unpredicted. Concieness cant picture unpredicted. What Science knows RIGHT NOW are possible hipotesy.
This is all sorts of wrong I don't even know were to start here...domains in Reality include REAL "imaginary" (conceivable) worlds.
Possible spaces are actual spaces period. A domain within a domain...for all that I know it might even be fractal!
These guys are getting Set theory all wrong...playing with obscure concepts is the best way to characterize this bull!
PS: As you can see I am getting fed up with the constant misuse of the word "Real"!
But we do know that the Laws of physics are prescriptive.
The Theory of Universal Functions is the science behind the OBSERVATION that natural processes are like ... unnatural processes. There is a scientific explanation why the Universe & Life are like ... a machine. Everything is a Function. Matter, Energy, space, time and the Laws of physics are Functions.
A Function can be Abstract ( Time, space, Laws of physics) or concrete(matter, energy).
All functions have a set purpose, role, or rules .... and will PROCESS inputs into outputs.
All Functions are unnaturally made by an intelligence who must provide the INFORMATION for a function to exist & operate.
Science relies on the Laws of Physics which are Abstract Functions, and can only explain natural phenomena because of these fixed Laws. The scope of Science is limited to our Universe & everything that belongs to it.
The Laws of physics ... determine ... what is or isn't possible ONLY within our Universe. And our Universe is a Function composed entirely of Functions ... that was UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence not of our Universe.
Earth is a Function, composed entirely of functions ... that was UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence not of our Universe.
Life are Functions composed entirely of functions ... that was UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence not of our Universe.
Science & the Laws of Physics ... tell us there is ZERO possibility of other Worlds or Universes without an intelligent Function maker. To say otherwise is simply science FICTION.