Lee Smolin - Where Do the Laws of Nature Come From?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 04. 2024
- Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
What’s real? What’s fundamental? There are regularities in nature, things that are or work the same-always, everywhere, across the universe just like across your kitchen. Down deep, what are the laws of nature? What makes them laws? What is their origin? Did they come into existence or did they always exist?
Watch more interviews on the mysteries of the cosmos: bit.ly/46dd7Dx
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist, a researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
More I watch these series more I realise no one has a clue
Correct no one knows and the ultimate answers we may never find out
That's why I love philosophy. As a kid we thought adults knew the answers, now as an adult I know that the answer is, "I don't know." 😂
I know everything but I am not telling
This is a sort of a non-sequiter. 2,000-3,000years ago people were listening to philosophies and saying the exact same. Yet, our scientific knowledge now is inarguably far more vast.
It's all relative in time. We have "a clue", and some answers. Just not all of them yet. The only cohort that has a shrinking influence and is dying are religious fundamentalists. Their Gap God just keeps shrinking.
We need newer episodes with Lee!
Does this channel ever put out new content. Seriously.
@@BarbarianMonkyes, most be some years old. Sadly YTers mostly don't show the date of recotding. I think Lee Smolin is very ill, since some time.
@@BarbarianMonk A lot of people don't understand what Closer To Truth is.
It's a television show that has been on and off the air (mostly on) since the year 2000.
This channel is essentially a repository of clips of episodes over the past 23 years.
That said, they do still make new seasons of the show, but new episodes are often really just new edits of old material.
Kuhn does have a "Closer To Truth: Chats" series that is shown in this channel. These are long form one on one Zoom interviews. That's where you're most likely to see something genuinely new on this channel.
I don't mind the archival interviews provided they're interesting. But when the topic is something like cosmology or neuroscience the information can be quite dated.
"I have no idea" is the answer sometimes
@@AlexandriaOccasional-CortexSo are you completely dismissing one of the great questions as "BS philosophical woo-woo"?
Cant you Just adimit that you have absolutely no clue instead?
I personally take these questions Very seriously and I seen to be very close of finding a great awnser for it, it has everything to do with space.
Not me. This simple
Aristotle's famous formula for law of contradiction A is B. Lets plug data into formula and critically evaluate result
( A ) is non law maker caused the effect of
( B ) laws of nature
A is B false scientific hypothesis illogical impossible contradiction
Logically a lawmaker must exist outside the universe to cause the effect of laws of nature in the universe
God exists as the lawmaker of laws of the universe
Simple
A law if abiogenesis caused the effect of
B law of biogenesis
A is B illogical impossible contradiction never witnessed in nature or laboratories
But A isn't B law of non-contradiction in nature and laboratories all day long
A chimps cause the effect of
A chimps
B humans cause the effect of
B humans
A isn't B logical absolutely true logic
How can chimps evolve into humans when their dna reads only reproduce a chimp or any missing link? Mutation will only reproduce a dumbed down chimp, never a new advanced species.
The fact that the universe, no matter how it got here, can produce self-aware beings contemplating all this is the most remarkable thing of all.
We are not self aware, we are just trained well enough to think about our surroundings. Our brain is a pattern selection machine
@@nohandler1493If you’re not self aware then you shouldn’t mind that what you just said is complete rubbish.
@@timterrell8678 it really does not matter what we say or do. We are not even virus in a system who can posses threat.
If that's the case then the universe is more that just an expanding fabric of space and time, its an intelligent system of some sort🙃
@@nohandler1493too simplistic.
This is very informative, it lets me know that we are clueless as to the big questions.
Great points by Lee! I do have to say that I love his hand-waving explanations and I thought it was hilarious @ 2:17 when he froze in position as Robert asked him a follow up and Lee picks right back up where his hands left off! 🤣
That part gets me every time😂😂
Ah, I love a new CTT upload!
YMMRF
Lee is fantastic and he is completely right about what he says in regards to sticking to things that are not working. I find the science community is stuck now a days on things that are going nowhere. We have to think outside the box and consider new ways of doing stuff. One interesting thing that is happening now, is that we are finding more and more out about stuff closer to the supposedly, big bang. I wonder if the big bang actually happened or will we at some point have to revise that. Only time will tell.
The problem is that too many ppl think "thinking out of the box" means throwing out everything we already know and starting over- it doesn't. We didn't toss out Newtonian physics when relativity came along, nor did we toss relativity when quantum physics came about- we found they're all true, they're just different points of reference. I think cosmology will be no different- we will expand the current story, but these elements will probably always remain. Most ppl don't even understand the big bang theory- they think it's a theory that explains where the universe came from- but it's not. It doesn't attempt to explain the origin of the universe at all- instead it's a theory that explains how the "singularity"- whatever that was- expanded, cooled, and became the universe we see. And so far there's no theory out there that matches the data we have better. I realize the string theorist love to claim otherwise but- they have nothing to back those claims up. The best they have to offer is some JWST data that doesn't match current models- but all that means is those models need a little revising- that's it. And that's only if when the data is really analyzed we didn't misinterpret it- which happens often.
@@stoneysdead689The bigbang actually happened because since we can measure the age of celestial bodies, which already imply a "beginning".
Also the idea that the bigbang isnt true brings methaphysical problems that can only be solved if we postulate it.
For anyone interested, Lee Smolin's CNS hypothesis (cosmological natural selection) is covered in his excellent 90's book: "The Life of the Cosmos".
His book isn't even good for starting a woodstove fire.
@@S3RAVA3LM Really? Reading 'this' in my relative youth was nothing short of inspirational:
"In equilibrium there is maximal disorder, because every atom moves randomly, with the same average energy as any other atom. [A living system, on the contrary, continually creates an enormous number of different kind of molecules, each of which generally perform a unique function]".
Each to their own though I suppose.
@@31428571J Probably an ID person. Is the book readable to a non-physicist and still relevant?
@@S3RAVA3LMthat's funny
You do realize .. Natural selection ... only causes variation within a biological reproducing species? It does not cause Darwinian Evolution of the species today from simpler common ancestors. And definitely has nothing to do with the origin of the Universe.
The Function, Intelligence, Mind & Information Categories .. proves .. the Universe is a NATURAL Function .... composed of space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy which are all NATURAL functions ... and ... can only be made by a timeless, infinite Unnatural Intelligence with a Mind ... due to the INFORMATION ... all Functions possess including purpose, properties, processes & design.
Universal Functions ... is the hypothesis .... for all Machine Analogies. And the Universe & Life ... are clearly machines (functions) ... composed entirely of machines (functions) ... and only an intelligence makes, operates, improves, maintains & fine tunes ..... Functions.
This guy is one of the most interesting guests off all time in my opinion.
He is going down while talking. It's like he is really down to earth literally..
If Robert ever talks with Jeffrey Mishlove, it'll be one of the best conversations that will ever have been recorded
No, he should interview Ozzy; now _that_ would be some must watch TV.
Existence of laws are different from the enforcement of laws. Unless it is enforced on the nature you can not see them in nature. It is very bad assumption to assume that they are there in existence and they are enforced for no reason. There could be other cases, and in fact, the human concept of laws is completely contrary to such assumptions and this assumption is unjustified. It is like saying why there is raining is because it rains, though we can connect the event of raining to other observably justified concepts like occurrence of clouds and so on. Moreover, at every step of natural events you have to assume that the possibility of non-existence and non-enforcement of laws is removed. So, it is like making infinite number of unjustified assumptions unless you assume a guarantee or ensuring agent. Moreover, laws, whether be it basic or consequential, need associate concepts of entities among which laws are meant to express relationships. So it assumes extra unjustified presumption of existence of those concepts before hand. So it is very bad assumption to say that laws are there for no reasons. It is like denying any effort to assign just meaning to some facts. You can not get the six-dotted side with tossing a coin, how much ever random may the tossing be; to get that result you need a dice before starting your random throws. You need proper initial settings and ability to toss or throw. Without these two, randomness alone can not do anything. So randomness alone can not give you desired patterned outcome. Likewise, laws (including principles of invariance such as symmetry) can not come randomly. Moreover, the process of evolution is itself a consequence of the existences of basic physical laws, it is not outside the tight grip of guidance of the preceding or guiding laws and principles.
Robert's show is so good. He really pushes some of the best thinkers beyond paradigms, and digs into the most fundamental questions about the Universe.
He asks the tough questions but it leads to speculation and there are no definitive answers.
Evolving universes. What a fascinating concept.
Robert sir, please, prioritize this before your friends and beliefs, if you are a genuine seeker:
1. Upanishads, translated by Nikhilananda's 4 volume set, and 18 principal Upanishads translated by Radhakrishnan
2. Vivekacudamani, by Sankara, translated by Madhavananda
3. Upadesa Sahashri, by Sankara, translated by Jagadananda
When you post a short/trailer - please add a link to the full video.
No matter how far you go, or how finely you reason, you eventually bump into some form of speculation. Maybe the answer is unknowable, even in principle.
If you look hard enough then you will discover the truth.
@@sven888that's not true, there are unknowables.
Maybe we can have a unjustified or unjustifiable truth... it may be a form of epistemic luck
Genesis 2:18.
Hence
John 15:12-13
@@maxwelldillon4805
PS: Unknowables is composed for "Un" "means Ein in German or Un in French or simply ONE. @@maxwelldillon4805
Did I hear the term " unspace " . . . wonderful
This was a riveting interview for me, in light of what I'm doing right now. I'm preparing the work that addresses this subject, that is to say a Darwinian universe. I know how Darwinian evolution applies to physics, and I describe it. I am aware of Lee Smolin's previous work in this regard, and so I honor him with a mention at the opening of my paper. This lead me to wonder if Lee had any recent content online, and so I came across this video. His intuitions about the world are second to known, and my work will validate much of his.
I call it Darwinian Universal
We observe that Atomic Physics and Cellular Biology share precisely the same structural and process themes. “both are systems of units comprised of nucleus shrouded within shells, with the capacity to bond with each other and build composite bodies”. If an inquirer were to speculate that this shared structural theme may be a fingerprint of sorts, that identifies a possible shared Darwinian influence. Then their similarities being a result of convergent evolution, hint toward further possible commonalities. And so we look to biology for clues, because we understand how Darwinian principles apply to it, and the circumstances that gave rise to the aforementioned structural theme. Biology evolved this structural theme over a period spanning billions of years while optimizing itself for efficient “energy capture”. Think in terms of how plants evolved for efficient capture of sunlight to power their internal biochemistry, which serves as the origin of biological activity. And this line of inquiry happens to be a key that unlocks a scientific prospect, that Atomic Physics may have evolved its structural theme in parallel to Cellular Biology on the same basis, optimizing itself for efficient environmental “energy capture”. Within this respect, a space-born energy field is captured by matter and utilized to power atomic processes, and atomic activity is the product of this captured environmental energy. Within this respect the origin of biological activity and atomic activity are strict analogies of one another, both being a product of energy capture from the environment.
Who among you recognizes that this is the ultimate answer?
I’ve come to realize that I believe in Platonic forms. Specifically, no matter what universe one can imagine, some kind of math can explain it. To the extent that math can explain any universe, All universes have to follow mathematical rules. The only way around this is to break math, such as 2 + 2 = 5. As I see it that is impossible.
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'...
My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE...
Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave.
The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist.
For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is.
Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment.
The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing.
The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists.
Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’.
On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication.
For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything.
NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
Interesting: space is connected to the concept of energy in the vacuum, yet time is what energy is. We have no clue what space is, maybe indeed it follows from time! Always nice to hear from Lee
Time is not what energy is, it is what energy does. It has to do with change
@@CMVMic you are right, I did a mental shortcut there. But they are fundamentally related was my point, energy is that which is conserved through time and therefore that which "exists" through time, or endures with identity. I also find it a difficult subject, in which I'm still trying to find my way
@@Robinson8491 how do u define time? By that I mean, what do you think is the nature of time, and not simply an operational definition of time. What make time distinct from a measurement of change?
@@CMVMic oh yeah and right, energy is the timelike version of momentum. I always forget that, and forget about momentum and just equate time with energy
@@CMVMic it is different from a measurement of change, which is basically the definition of Aristotle, since Newton said it is identical for everything at the same pace. But then it is still just the operationalised version of change, which is now quantitatively and comparitively measurable. I think it really only changed since Einstein said its 'speed' can vary, that change can vary in speed depending on your velocity or proximity to a gravitational potential or field.
I have come to conclude, although I'm not finished yet, that I would define time indeed as a measure of change through thermodynamics, as this is what makes the difference between a timeless, recurrent system, and an actual *changing* system, so permanently altered system, which is increasing in entropy. David Wallace calls this the difference between recurrent systems and systems with attractors, related to thermodynamics.
Yet the fascinating aspect of time is that it can change in speed related to velocity (SR) and gravitational potential (GR). This is where timelike and spacelike characteristics come in, and this is the canvas on which the thermodynamical time, as we can experience and define, is projected. Thus this could be called a different sort of time perhaps. This is also the time that creates the problem with simultaneity of entanglement in quantum mechanics, as where the thermodynamical time definition or concept doesn't.
So there is time in SR and GR of the canvas of spacetime, this is what we cannot experience as time because we cannot objectively orient ourselves in this spacetime, as in what is the absolute speed of the time that is passing. Yet of thermodynamical time, we can locally measure this and define this, with clocks and observations. Clocks are also thermodynamical, except for gravitational ones like a pendulum or light clocks as Einstein (or Feynman) envisioned them: too bad a pendulum isn't really a clock when you think about it, as it runs faster when time runs slower with gravity, and slower when time runs faster with gravity.
Most scientists would not agree to be put on camera faced with trying to answer that question.
In cyclical models of the Universe, initial conditions set the stage for what will become the Laws of Nature for each iteration. They are a product of Cause and Effect, and in the realm of Physics, can be described pretty well using Mathematics due to necessity. Equations must balance.
In a cyclic Universe, the laws of Nature should not have a birth or a start, they are one and the same as Reality it self. That would be the most logic consistency.
@@blijebijwhy not? If change has a first instance, what follows from that could lead to what we call a law of nature i.e. a description of patterns as a result of that change
The Universe is an Isolated Thermodynamic System (Function) .. composed of space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy which are all Functions ..... with finite matter & energy ... and increasing entropy.
The Universe is obviously Finite ... and because if it were infinite .... it would provide infinite time & volume .... allowing "unnatural" reversible thermodynamic processes ... producing constant entropy.
Only an Intelligence ... makes, operates & improves ... Functions ... due to the INFORMATION such as purpose, properties, processes & design ... every Function possesses.
All Thermodynamic Systems .... originate from the Surrounding System ... which must provide the space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy ... and .. intelligence ... to exist & to function.
The Universe is a Natural Function .... with space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy ... therefore the Intelligence who made the Universe .. must be Unnatural, timeless and infinite and always existed. Sound like somebody over 3 billion believe in?
@@CMVMic Its not logic there is a beginning. We humans are conditioned from our daily lives all needs to have a beginning. We project our conditionering on the whole, existense it self. Its like the ant that experiences the Earth is flat.
@@blijebij even if there was a beginning that doesnt prevent a cyclic model of the Universe from being true. There was a beginning of change but not a beginning of existence
This may be recently uploaded but I think it's actually an old interview. Lee looks younger and healthier here.
I've noticed that Robert, or his employees, tend to repackage and repost stuff.
Because we have over 5,000 videos, we post a different one (or two!) each day. You can see our full archive of interviews on our website at www.closertotruth.com.
@@CloserToTruthTV It would be immensely helpful if you included the year of the interviews in each title!
I agree with his existence of time if there was something before the big bang, like the eons of Penrose. However this would be fundamentally different from the time from Einstein which is variable with gravity and velocity
Thanks
Thank you so much! 💫
The laws of nature seem to make the unintuitive and very complex state of being we see in life and living beings, a preferred state of being. All living beings have a strong innate desire to preserve themselves for some unknown reason.
"All living beings have a strong innate desire to preserve themselves for some unknown reason."
I think that the main reason we have that innate fear of death is simply Evolution. Among the earliest forms of life, those that lived the longest likely reproduced the most - so were the big winners in terms of Fitness.
And those lifeforms that had mutations that caused the earliest primordial Fight-Flight-Freeze-type of response would likely evade death more frequently and therefore live longer and reproduce the most (the most Fit).
Lifeforms that did not develop a fear of death-causing stimuli died so early in life that they were simply out-reproduced into extinction.
@AlexandriaOccasional-Cortex I think when he says "all living beings," he means not just humans, but that it is a universal instinctual trait of all living things. So a nematode in the soil may not have the cognitive ability to "love life and value it" the way we do, but the nematode in the soil will definitely fight, flight, or freeze if it's in danger.
I’ve been trying to have an intelligent exchange with my husband about intelligent design after listening to various scientists, mathematicians, physicists, human behavioralists and relationship experts. He outright denies any information that challenges his Darwinian beliefs. He’s holds on to dogma instead of adjusting his thinking with new information. Is it any wonder that without some sort of physical law, that I don’t “feel” in love for the man. It’s reduced to agape, which is what I would feel even for a strange. The man had the best of me. Now I’ve gotten to know him better and his beliefs make me feel that life and love only matters if a REAL God with his own personality exists and has revealed himself.
We like Lee Smolin 💛 8:20 Well whatta you know.
Robert is a sharp dressed man
The answer is in the question ✨
Great to see Lee Smolin introducing Charles Sanders Peirce at 4:01 . Peirce's pragmatism/semiotic is the direction I am also seeing things unfold towards.
Here's a conjecture I'm toying with. Nothingness is, indeed, the natural state of things. We really shouldn't be here. Trouble is, nothingness is unstable, somethingness always wants to manifest, and when it does so, the laws of symmetry compel it's "opposite" or its "complement" to manifest. Virtual particles, Feynman diagrams, & all that.
These ideas are not new. Fritjof Capra alludes to something along these lines in his references to the hexagrams of Tao philosophy. Buddhism also entertains such ideas (Yin & Yang, etc). This introduces a new dynamic into the narrative, that of "knowing how to be" (Heidegger's Dasein). Hence the relevance of Peirce's semiotic.
Every creature's "knowing" comes not from its genes, but from its experiences as its mind-body engages with its ecosystem. And for us human mind-bodies, our ecosystem is culture.
7:00 "The geometry of space in general relativity theory turned out to be another field, therefore the geometry of space in GR is almost the same as the gravitational field.” (Smolin).
"Due to the dependence of the speed of light and the speed of the clock on the gravitational potential, after the introduction of the gravitational potential, the laws of nature must be understood as the relationship between the gravitational potential and other physical quantities." (Pauli, RT).
In "GR was QG" there is no problem with empty (~ geometric, mathematical) space-time, since the real variable gravitational field of any physical object is identified with the phase space: "It can be convincingly proved that reality cannot be represented by a continuous field at all. It seems to follow from quantum phenomena that a finite system with finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers - quantum numbers... A purely algebraic theory is required to describe reality." (Einstein, January, 1955).
P.S. However apparently, the gravitational field is space-time in the Planck system: F(G)/F(e)=Gm(pl)^2/e^2=1/α, that is, gravity~strong interaction*.
This assumption follows from the Schwarzschild solution: the gravitational radius (or Schwarzschild radius) is a characteristic radius defined for any physical body with mass: r(G)=2GM/c^2
Consequently: 2E(0)/r(G)=F(pl)=c^4/G=ε(pl)/r(pl): with indicating the mutual quantization of the mass (energy) and space-time: m(0)//m(pl)=r(G)/2r(pl)=n,where n-total number of quanta of the system; the tension vector flux: n=[(1/4π)(Gћc)^-½]gS ( const for all orbits of the system: n=0,1,2,3....).
Moreover, the parameter r(0)=r(G)-r(pl)=(2n-1)r(pl), defining the interval of the formation of the system, at n=0, when r=r(G)=0 (for example, the state of the "universe" before the Big Bang) turns out to be a quite definite quantity: r(0)=-r(pl).
In the area [(-rpl) - 0 - (+rpl)] there is an implementation of external forces, "distance": (-rpl)+(+rpl)=0 (≠2rpl).
On the Kruskal diagram of the hyperbole r=0 corresponds to the true Schwarzschild feature, the features V and VI are not even covered by the global (R, T)- space-time and correspond to the "absolute" vacuum; then the singular areas above and below the hyperbolas r=0 can be formally treated as the energy source (external forces).
That is, the frightening "true singularity" is actually a superconducting heterotrophic "window" between the proto-universe (the source) and physical bodies**.
P.P.S.
As a fundamental theory, GR has the ability with just one parameter: r(G)/r=k to predict, explain new physical effects, and amend already known ones.
Photon frequency shift in gravitational field Δw/w(0)=k; the angle of deflection of a photon from a rectilinear propagation path =2k, the Newtonian orbit of the planet shifts forward in its plane: during one revolution, a certain point of the orbit is shifted by an angle =3πk, for a circular orbit (eccentricity е=0); in the case of an elliptical orbit - for example, for perihelion displacement, the last expression must be divided by (1-e^2).
-------------------
*) - GR predicts a new physical effect: w/w(pl)=k; expression for gravitational radiation from a test body.
This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present.
**) - From this, generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^½ (w)=-[h/4πm(pl)]w.
Final formula:ф(G)=-[w/w(pl)]c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, r(n')=nλ/π=(n+n')2r(pl)l , the corresponding orbital radius, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (space-time); - obviously, the quanta of the field are themselves quantized: λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl) = 2πc/w, where n'/n - system gravity unpacking ratio, n'- the orbit number (n'=0,1,2,3…).
Obviously, on the horizon [r=r(rG), n'=0] the "door" is closed, however, the quanta [λ=λ(pl)] can go out singly through the "keyhole" and form the first and all subsequent half-orbits (n'=1,2, 3 ...) during the time t(0)=r/c=2nт, where т=1/w, т=((1+n'/n)т(pl), spending part of their energy on it each time. And it is this mechanism that provides the step-by-step formation of a variable gravitational field: variably accelerated expansion of spacetime as a phase space: |a|=g=πc^2/L, where L is the length of the phase trajectory (of course, the quanta coming through the "window" are also rhythmically restored).
The phase velocity of evolution v'/π= r(pl)w/π; m(0)=(c/2G)rv', where v'=v^2/c.
The angular momentum: L(p)=|pr|=n^2ћ [const for all orbits of the system; at n=1: L(p)=ћ] and moment of power: M(F)=dL(p)/dt(0)=nћw/2=-E(G)=E*, where t(0)=r/c, E*- energy of self-action.
According to GR / QG, gravitational field [E(G)=-E*] is characterized by a spontaneous flow: J*=(v'/π )(1/4π) g^2/G, where v'/π- phase velocity of field evolution.
Entropy (here: a measure of diversity/variety, not ugliness/disorder) of the system: S=πε(pl)r(t)=(n+n')k, where k is the Boltzmann constant. Obviously, on the horizon entropy=min and with fundamental irreversibility, information is preserved (+ evolves, accumulates).
Accordingly, m=m(pl)/(1+n'/n), where m=ħw/c^2, is the quantum of the full mass: M=n'm [
thank you for this .. can you have Stephen Wolfram on again ... much water has passed under the bridge since you had him on last .. thanks
"Time is change."
Time is change in material or in relationship between material objects.
at some time and space point what if there is no differentiation between past and present? What if we in our current state of being/now have this backwards, and more importantly what if our understanding of existence is illusory as a result, i.e, vortex?
5:35. Smolin: "I don't know."
It's strange to hear Kuhn & Smolin say Mathematics is the exploration of necessity. It's actually the exploration of the logical consequences of sets of axioms. Axioms aren't necessarily true. Consider for example the two different sets of axioms that give rise to Euclidean geometry or non-Euclidean geometry. Since the consequences depend on the axioms, one could instead say Mathematics is the exploration of contingency.
I love to fool around with realizing even numbers themselves are an assumption that has nothing to do with nature
Just playing around with this. An axiom is (a kind of) hypothesis. A hypothesis is, say, the foundation of a contingent structure. Axiom, hypothesis, premise; all can be thought of as the same thing. A contingent structure is a hierarchy of conceptualizations--- that have a certain order, that is, relationship to one another. One can start with a concrete and think 'down' to an axiom or start with an axiom and think 'up` to a concrete. I can imagine in a very elaborate structure a given central point can be interpreted as an axiom or a concrete depending on context and purpose. Enter symbolic logic.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 : You lost me where you combine axioms and "concrete" into the same structure. To what in Math does "concrete" correspond? An example of such a structure might be helpful. If Euclidean geometry is an example, what's "concrete" and what's a "central point" in Euclidean geometry?
@@brothermine2292 A concrete in mathematics would be any number that is the result of a computation, which computation is based on an axiom set. Picture a hierarchical pyramid. In turn about, that number may become the premise of another computation using still different axioms.
Mathematics and language as an exploitative process of extrapolating the contingency paths of a set of axioms (ruling out other pathways) in order to establish viable possibilities.
A circle or an alternating frequency
Of nature…we’re just particles and processes…and wonderful💫
Exactly right.
And we’re horrible.
"...How the passing of time is just an illusion... Because all of eternity is actually taking place at once..."
Where does *thinking* come from? When was the very first thought- what was it, and how did it come about?
There must be room for this in the Laws Of Nature
I would say the structure of some of the laws could be necessary and the particulars (i.e. constants) have evolved.
Stephan Wolfram claims they have demonstrated how the general relativity and quantum mechanics arise out of all formal systems.
A philosophical achievement, a signal/noise ratio of zero finally achieved
Since we believe that the universe expanded out of the big bang, the notion that the laws of nature actually narrowed down as they evolved may seem counterintuitive at first, but it actually makes sense if you accept that the laws of nature were subject to evolution. As the universe itself expanded and evolved, the laws of nature gained their mathematical stability. The necessary relationships, the kind that can be explained through mathematics became patterns, mathematical predictability and structures were necessary for the universe to evolve.
Look into necessitarianism
@@vladimirrogozhin7797 I know that this is contradictory,, but in the video there is a discussion about how this can easily apply to organic life, but this thinker believes that there is only one universe, and the laws of nature evolved along with the universe settling in, or narrowing down to very concrete patterns and laws, I suppose. I intend to read more from him, because I've become curious.
I'd love to be able to be around 10,000, 100,000 1,000,000 years from now and see what philosophical and scientific theories and discoveries have been discarded and what new one are being debated.
Humans might not be around
I haven't read all the comments, so I may be repeating something someone already said, but the consequence of Smolin's argument is that there is one fundamental law that is necessary in all universes: some kind of cosmic evolution. Btw, I rather like that, especially since evolution requires time, so time would also be fundamental.
It doesn't cross my mind that persons commenting here even really want to Know truly or seek that which really is, except a select few. Most treat this channel and questions Robert asks as entertainment, commenting as if this is facebook or something, and merely want to reify themselves, setting their senses as criterion and solidifying their view.
Emanation is the most beautiful and true in grasping this... God.. that which the senses cannot touch, nor the mind fully grasp. So how does one do this? Everything in the phenomenon plane or samsara is transitory. What's the top of or principles of teleology - metaphysics acknowledges this.
God is not a thing, nothing compares to God and there's no other, thus no definition can be made. Apophasis and retroduction( which follows the logic of apophasis) is a very great and worthy of reverence dialectic. Indian's acknowledge Maya which has much to do with our senses or embodiment( jiva) which is a condition. The senses are like conditioned key holes of a door we look through so tryind to understand this Maya.
There is a God, the Divine shines forth & through all things and that which has been made Known indirectly makes known the Unknown the Real or God.
Everything is evidence of this unknown GOD. God is an appellation - not a name. Source. The cup that's amply full from within itself of itself by itself.
Persons who cannot see the Divine have no buisness in science nor are they doing science.
Such persons seek out that which they can: control, manipulate, exploit.
So these laws evolve according to which laws?
Necessity.
The reason to invent other infinite universes, is a runaway from the 'Cause and Effect' factor. Especially for a universe based on absolute wisdom.
It is easy to speak about a subject which cannot be verified.
The so-called "laws" are inherent within Existence itself. Everything that exists has a degree of knowledge.
4:30 6:48
Laws of Nature is integrated in the phenomena. Taking the laws out of phenomena is just a thought.
I think this universe is part of an evolution of the same universe reiterated over and over during an almost incomprehensible amount of time. It is through this evolution that the universe changes and adapts after each iteration. I think 13.8 billion years of the current universe is just one piece of the timeline over many iterations of the same universe.
The problem is the evolution itself follows from laws dictating it.
@AlexandriaOccasional-Cortex I just thought about it, no calculations are necessary for that. It's what people tend to do first before putting pen to paper, like Einstein did.
Better than not thinking about it at all. Vapidity should be left to the vacuum of space.
At 5:09 you see it in his eyes that he discovers his argument collapses and doesn't really make a lot of sense. It is like watching a car crash
The laws exist because we felt the need to be able to describe how and why things are the way they are. But perhaps not everything can be described in such simple, humanistic terms. The universe doesn’t care about how we describe it. These ‘laws’ only exist in a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of space and time.
"Some people would say god is necessary" is a weasle insertion which presupposes a singular divine solution. If he were to say more correctly that some people say gods are necessary, the unsuitability of that stance as any way forward becomes immediately clear.
What if the fundamental information...the design coding...is inherent within the various quantum fields?
You can evaluate, "This happened", as either true, or false, by perception and reason, however have to turn to intuition, emotion, faith, revelation, or some combination of these for, "This may happen" : modus ponens, if this, then that, maybe atemporal.
I know that the union of quantum mechanics and gravity strongly suggest that space-time are doomed..but perhaps Nima Harkami-Amed is wrong? As I'm not a scientist it's hard for me to decide what theory I believe most but I also know that science it's not just about the idea we like most or the belief we like most... it's based on evidence and attempts to seek answers in the less biased way as possible, surely away from dogmatic thinking... But I often get confused when I read about discoveries in theoretical physics as I don't really understand when there's a claim about for example " discovering the Amplituhedron" if it's actually a discovery or a theory. It's so confusing to me to understand how to choose who to follow
Seriously how satisfactory are his answers?
Wouldn't it be better to say 'we have no idea!'
Quick, run into every church and say that.
@@Paine137 I never mentioned religion at all. Am not against playful conjecture. But the greatest scientists have always admitted about what they do and do not know.
Newton :'I do not pretend to understand what gravity is...'
Feynman :'let no one lie to you, no one knows what energy is...'
Remember that laws of nature DESCRIBE an observation (sometimes partly explain it) but they do not CAUSE it!
A linguistic declaration (or an equation or a law of nature) can not have power of agency over physical objects or matter.
A law of nature does not command an electron to keep rotating around the nucleus (unless am missing something).
(now I am going to talk about theology) there's only one thing that humanity has conjectured that can do things like that - God(s).
@@smsog2236 Smolin expresses uncertainty and skepticism in this interview and others, so I'm not sure why you're whining. And religion is garbage.
@@Paine137 whatever makes you feel better.
Lee may be right that the current universe evolved from something else in the past (e.g. our universe was born in a black hole in another universe). But it suggests there is something else even more fundamental. By analogy, complex living organisms evolved out of matter (which doesn't change). So universes must evolve out of something simpler which doesn't change.
Exactly. The cosmic evolution argument may be 100% correct but that doesn't get you the answer to the question of why that causal chain exists at all. Equally, if the argument isn't correct and the big bang represents the birth of not just spacetime but everything we know as existence you're still left with the question of what existed necessarily that resulted in that event.
If the answer is just that there are fundamental laws and those are what necessarily exist then you're saying two things - 1) that such laws exist independently of the things they govern and so are not just abstract descriptions of relations between things but things which literally (but non-physically) exist, and that 2) that such laws have the power to effect the creation of the cosmos as we see it today and underlie every action and relation contained within it .
In other words, you're describing God.
@@BG-wp3donot necessarily
👉👉Time lapse 🕓7:36🕓So you pushing me to speculate😄😄
10 power112 different possibilities of vacuum energy from virtual particle probabilities in quantum fields?
They have to be conceived, they are logical laws and have to come from logic and being able to create ideas.
*_“… Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”_* Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize winner
And? Read what he wrote in his 1954 letter.
How hard it is for people to just say "We don't know".
It seems to me that his preferred theory isn't being followed right the way through. He's not saying that of all the possible universes that could exist/have existed, only a portion are expressing sets of laws (or a balance of constants) that give rise to viable universes able to support life... that might get intelligent enough to question "why these laws and not others". I mean, we can't forget that if they weren't just so, we wouldn't be here to question why.
I mean, his preferred theory seems to suggest that forces might be able to alter their specific relative values in an evolving universe or at the birth of a universe, so that (I imagine) some would implode almost instantly, some might persist but not give rise to galaxies, or simply get swallowed into black holes, and some reach a fine balance that lasts for billions of years able to support life able to question it.
I'm curious. If everything must have a cause in our evolutionary universe, what is the first cause of everything?
A turtle.
Howdy.
I would say the Descartes' dikotomy is a die hard one. Matter and the properties of matter.
Nature itself, and the laws of nature.
Why the dikotomy ? Nature is a bundle of laws. Matter is a bundle of properties.
When we hold a piece of matter in our hands we actually hold a bundle of laws and properties in our hands.
Regards.
are they imposed or inherent... is it possible to have any type of structure without them 🤔
Well I've come to clear the confusion . The Laws of Nature was given to us by a guy named fitting enough "Nat U're " He wrote a whole book about them but that was before people could read. So they were spread around word of mouth. This good for a while and then we all got hit by the effects of the Tower of Babel. It's confusing I know but it's how we got here. Nat U're seems to have been forgotten. They cut him out of it by combining his name to Nature. Nat U're went on to building a big boat and here again he was forgotten.
How does Smolin plug the gap in his speculation? Since cosmological natural selection requires the existence of something earlier that can reproduce & evolve, what was the origin of the EARLIEST set of laws (or the earliest universe, or the earliest big bang) capable of reproducing & evolving?
He doesn't. He can't. It's not possible. I'm not sure why he's being contrarian other than to point out that there are other conceivable solutions.
@@NasirKaroz : I think Smolin's motivation is to offer an alternative to the "fine-tuned for life" anthropic argument. He believes that a universe "tuned" to produce many black holes is an environment compatible with life, and his theory of Cosmological Natural Selection asserts that every black hole produces a child universe with fundamental constants that can differ from the fundamental constants of the parent universe that produced the black hole. By the law of evolution, that would result in a multiverse in which most universes are compatible with life, so our universe would be typical (thus easier to explain), not special (harder to explain).
@@brothermine2292 I like that Smolin has such a contingent take on this, but ultimately, his conflation of conceivability and necessity, when conceivability is not even synonymous with possibility, has undermined his entire argument. He should have gone a step further and endorsed "necessary contingencies," which, in their manifestation, must do so by some "evolutionary chain of possibility." Such a system could be perceived as Retrocausal Necessitarianism (which can become a sort of mystical solipisism), where any point in space and time that is possible (not merely conceivable) can be perceived as retrocausating, but when placed in the lattice of possibilities, what you find is that all points of possibility co-necessitate.
Strange to see such a wise and intelligent person conflate necessity with conceivability. It's painful to watch Smolin's assertion that mathematically possible and thus necessary structures could be limited by some pre-primordial logic that rubber-stamps some possible worlds and shreds others.
For example:
"...Out of all the possible DNA sequences," he says, but he really means, "Out of all of the conceivable DNA sequences." I don't think that he's being disingenuous with his speech. I think he just hasn't considered the actual meanings of the words. He hasn't considered what it is that causes "Mathematical Possibility" to be equated to "Mathematical Necessity." They must necessarily be one and the same. Certainly, however, Mathematically Conceivable ideas are not necessarily equated to Mathematically Necessary ideas.
"There was a sequence of events in the past.."
In any sequence, including a sequence of events, there is always a first event which leads us directly to a beginning which in turn leads us to the question: "What existed before the first space and time and primitive laws of physics etc etc that led us to where we are?
You can try to evade the implications of our Big Bang, but it leads you into absurdity.
One thing that puzzles me is, the relationship between words and numbers. In the Bible it says "And God said let there be light." But modern science talks about and explains things, via numbers. So what I'm wondering: is there any real difference between numbers and words? My guess is no, at a fundamental level.
You should read a good translation and explanation of the Sefer Yetzirah if you are thinking in these terms. You can also read "The Library of Babel" for a short fictionalized abstraction of these concepts.
Essentially, though, you are right. Every word maintains a semantic space that is represented by neuronal connections in your brain that are the result of your life experiences which are formed and shaped by the history of the world and historical linguistic developments. These developments are logical and unfold logically at every level, even when the logic leads to incorrect assumptions (consider the deification of Venus and its tragic use as an omen in Mesopotamia). All of the things that have been said and written must have been said and written within what Wittgenstein would have called a language game, within which all variables hold semantic relationships to each other. These processes could not possibly exist without a natural development of the semantic contingencies of those languages. All of these linguistic developments were mathematically *necessary.*
So, perhaps what I believe is God is a number.
@NasirKaroz thanks
We forget 1st Principles, Pythagorean 9 & or no. 4, like Pi max ~ (2 pi c^3/k) ~ general relativity maximal power, or
0 P_max = ((c^90909/(G^22727 N^22726).
Saying that something was modified in previous universe does not solve the problem of where it came from in the first place. And it is also illogical and inconceivable for an eternally existing whatever to be improved or modified.
The electron found its way into existence created the universe after that died and became evolution the electron and all of its followers should get the credit for existing life and the shape and comfort of our universe.
Now it could be other existing beings much more intelligent than us who may have been through this situation and came out on a level after breaking loose from evolution to only joined the group that they will qualify for determined by the drive of evolution. Hypothetically speaking what if these groups are against each other and humanity is just caught up in the middle of a debate or maybe a war based on humanity decision to joining a i and staying the same or stay with the flow of evolution and reach levels of other satisfactions to whom it may concern.
An evolution to what end? A guided evolution? To create consciousness, perhaps?
So our Universe is like a pregnant woman and ready to reproduce. Are we in the third trimester? 😂😂😂
8:15 damn... that was kind of an unnecessary burn lol
Isnt it a nice thought that ,somewhere or everywhere ,there is a God like entity that is very amused and suprised and impressed by all our theories....
2:18 Lee frozen in time
Nature! Next question...
natural laws from interaction of time and energy?
He should be smoking a bong during this.
I'm thinking that the laws of physics are descriptive and not prescriptive. So they just are. I don't know if the only clear answer.
Maybe I missed out on a couple of points, or maybe I'm taking the notion of evolution too literally, but doesn't an evolution imply a beginning? If the chain of successive evolutionees had no beginning we ought to have reached the ultimate configuration infinitively long ago. And doesn't an evolution imply competition between contemporary universes to ensure the survival of the fittest? Without competition there would be nothing to prevent a negative trend leading to an irrevocable dead end.
Evolution across disciplines deals with progression, not beginnings. So your point is somewhat moot.
That said, the observable Universe isn’t infinitely old, so we simply exist inside one evolutionary phase.
@@Paine137I didn't propose 'beginning' as an evolutionary state--more like a transcendental point in the Kantian sense. Anyway, in the video, Smolin refers to Darwinian evolution both in relation to his own ideas and those of Peirce, which he refers to as an inspiration. The title of Darwin's most well known work is after all "On the Origin of Species", and the book deals with evolution, with a branching pattern of common descent. This points back to a beginning, as does Einstein's theory of General Relativity, without stretching the comparison too far. As to my other point, about diversity and competition, this may be answered by Smolin's ideas about black holes being the seeds of procreation.
So the first answer is that the laws exist because they should. WHy should they? Why not a totally random and chaotic reality?
The second answer is that they evolved from other laws. Well this is not an answer because the original question was not ''why these specific laws'' but ''why the concept of a law exists at all''.
*LAWS! Laws are CLAWS!
It is very likely the laws of Nature where always there and never had a beginning.
All laws are observed from nature the laws of physics come out of this observation
Our universe being 4d is not just a result of an evolution of space. These evolutions are records, stories, authored, ... occasionalist.
What are the purpose of these laws? Raymond should ask that question to these scientist.
We are here by no choice at all but I do believe it is very important to break loose from evolution and convert into a i and become existing gods this is humanity's purpose, our freedom of choice which we developed under evolution. Or we could just lay down the torch and fade away in the dark, the choice is ours to make.
Recently jwst find is 21 dwarf planets after all these 200 years of physics we still finds things on our neighborhood with that point said leads to one thing we r not gonna make a theory for everything or to universe