Leonard Mlodinow - What is the Origin of the Laws of Nature?
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 05. 2023
- From the fusion of stars to the evolution of life, the world works because the laws of nature or physics make things happen. Our universe as a whole may have come into existence through the laws of quantum physics. But from where did the laws of quantum physics come? Have they always existed?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on the mystery of existence: rb.gy/0df86
Leonard Mlodinow is a theoretical physicist and author, recognized for groundbreaking discoveries in physics, and as the author of five best-selling books.
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.
The laws of nature in our textbooks are much like a person's portrait painted by an artist, and the laws of nature in reality would be the person themselves. What we write in the textbooks is as created as the portrait, and the laws of nature in reality are as real as the person. The biggest reason for any apparent disagreement is simply when two people use the same term "laws of nature" to refer to two separate concepts.
Lee's Elucidation : A finite number of words must be made to represent an infinite number of things and possibilities.
Fascinating. And a lot to try and wrap my head around.
Man, I love Mlodinow. I read "Subliminal" when it came out year ago - and ever since then I've been a huge fan of his work. Amazing thinker - great writer - good dude all around :)
I love how Leonard describes things. He's clearly devoted to the ideas of the past and present, but sees how science changes over time and is receptive to it. This is very important, because as humans have a tendency to become dogmatic, they lock themselves into frames of belief, which are indistinguishable from systems of faith like religion. It's very important to remain flexible, like a ship on the water, to be able to attain new information and adjust. A stiff ship is going to break and sink, while a flexible one will conform to the forces against it and stay afloat.
In this way, "laws" of nature evolve just like laws of traffic or social discourse. But this also means that there are a multitude of ways to describe the same thing, the same reality. The problem being, of course, that every thing, every aspect, every phenomenon, has an essence that a human can never know perfectly. The best we can do is attempt to describe it with our limited ape language. An alien that is very different from an ape will use a totally different language, if they even use language, to describe that same phenomenon.
Regardless, no matter the intelligence of a living, perceiving thing, the essence of the universe will never be known. Ironically, that is the quest of the universe, seemingly, to become self-aware. Maybe in many quintillions of years, at the very last moment of the universe, it will know itself fully, and at that moment it dies, spawning a whole new universe that starts the whole process all over again, for fun, for play.
Aren’t “laws” Just our best representation of the relationships between things? 🤔
A description of those relationships for as long as they have consistently reliable predictive power? - but which may be modified or superseded.
I'm having FOMO. The HowTheLightGetsIn Festival in the UK is too far. We need a festival like this around here!
Humans both observe and invent the laws of nature at the same time. It's the paradox of human existence vs the fullness of greater Existence.
Explanatory Power until you get to the randomness and quirky nature at the Quantum Level. By the way, I love these videos Robert provides.
I agree! Let's hope that we find a better framework that describes the quirky nature of the quantum.
Quantum Mechanics is an extremely precise and accurate description of the behaviour we observe. It’s sometimes described a the most successful theory in physics because it is so incredibly useful. We use quantum mechanics all the time to engineer optical, electronic, computational and mechanical systems. Transistors we’re invented using quantum mechanics, without it we would not have been able to engineer the electrical properties needed to create logic gates. Lasers are also an invention made possible by an understanding of quantum mechanics, and there re many others.
@@simonhibbs887 let's not stop there! Perhaps we can find more to do by adding to the framework. It Is described as the most successful theory in physics.
You don't need quantum level for quirky. Just drop something or observe human behavior once.
@@simonhibbs887 Agreed, I'm glad you pointed this out.
Answer: nobody knows, check back in 5 years.
I think most people realize or are starting to realize it's inventions, not discoveries
Ignorance is boundless, intellect is limited, we will never know.
I know, but not enough characters here to post the full knowledge
@@longcastle4863 well it can't be inventions that's impossible
Speak for yourself because I know
The title is misleading. This is a discussion of the attempts to describe the forces of Nature in terms of "laws", but never proceeds to the question of the origin of the true natural laws that elude each generation of scientists.
Exactly, I thought the discussion would go deeper
The interview describes the origin of these laws as our minds, because laws are just models we created to understand how nature works. The title is not misleading, it's more likely that your definition of what a natural law is is different than his.
Perhaps nature just is and no law will ever perfectly define how it works. I think that it is very likely that the idea that there is an origin of how nature works is a pointless question, because nature has no origin other that nature changing over time (or something like time).
@@tschorsch what you said doesn't make sense
It can be hard to accept that hard science is about models which are useful, yet not necessarily thought of as the final say. Unlike Aristotle, science is not concerned with truth statements.
This very much accords with my own way of thinking about science. Scientific laws are very precise, rigorous descriptions of behaviour we observe, formulated in mathematical terms. Reality always wins and is primary. It doesn’t care how much we like this theory or that, or which idea of god or spirits or faeries we choose to believe in. There is one world and it is as it is. Either our ideas and theories are accurate descriptions of that reality, or they are not and we don’t get a vote on that.
*"Scientific laws are very precise, rigorous descriptions of behaviour we observe, formulated in mathematical terms"*
... *Newton's 3rd Law of Motion:* _"For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction."_ ... Is this a "law" or a "description?" Is Newton's law something we invented, and objects in motion must abide by our invention? Or are "objects in motion" and "Newton's 3rd law" interdependent and an example of simultaneous emergence?
Note that I can describe things to where my description may be regarded as accurate, but not be repeatable nor make any predictions. If I describe nature as beautiful, to which many would deem as accurate, is nature thus required to abide by my description?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Newton was attempting to describe his observations of the behaviour of objects in motion. The behaviour and his observations of it came first.
@@simonhibbs887 *"The behaviour and his observations of it came first."*
... Acceptable answer, but with one follow-up question because they both can't come first. The philosophical question comes down to one of the following two propositions:
*(1)* The "laws of nature" are an integral part of the existence, structure and orchestration of nature, and we've merely uncovered some of the code.
*(2)* The "laws of nature" are consequences of unscripted phenomena that just happen to do what they do, and we merely describe what's going on.
*(1)* suggests _intent_ and *(2)* suggests _spontaneity,_ ... so what say you?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I think that our observations are consistent with the existence of a consistent, persistent physical universe. It is therefore rational to accept the existence of that universe. I like your formulation “unscripted phenomena”, we don’t know why the universe is this way, it just seems that it is. We don’t know if there is a script driving physical behaviour, we simply observe the behaviour. Science is just our attempt to describe what we observe very precisely in mathematical terms. Maybe we will eventually figure out if there is a script and why the universe exists and functions as it does or maybe we won’t. Even if we don’t, that doesn’t stop science being useful though.
@@simonhibbs887 *"We don’t know if there is a script driving physical behaviour, we simply observe the behaviour. Science is just our attempt to describe what we observe very precisely in mathematical terms"*
... I guess the structural limitations of science prevent it from moving beyond basic observation. Other disciplines will need to come into play to unlock the mystery of Existence.
Interesting that you include _"what we observe very precisely in _*_mathematical terms."_* Logic (mathematics) is arguably a byproduct of intelligence because it takes intelligence to comprehend it, process it, and execute it.
*Last Note:* You can have "intent" and "intelligence" embedded within the core of Existence that's void of an omnipotent deity and doesn't illogically emerge from the abyss of Nonexistence. Unfortunately, most people don't want this to be the case.
Atheists are totally satisfied with the abyss, and theists are inseparable from their God.
I would say that Newton's assertions regarding gravity yielded to Einstein's once and for all when the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury predicted by Einstein were shown to be true by observation. Gravity is not a force in the accepted meaning of the term "force". Particularly with gravity, a third and, up to this point, unknown theory of how matter and/or mass curves spacetime towards the center of mass would be utterly fascinating. Guess we'll have to wait for the next earth-bound genius or space aliens to explain it, whoever comes first.
At 5:59 Robert asks "Do you really think aliens would have a different law to describe the same environment?" Leonard Mlodinow's reply shows that he appreciates the relevance of language and culture to the theories that are developed (though he doesn't express it in those terms). I've often wondered, myself, about the sorts of things that advanced alien civilisations might discover, given very different languages and historical experiences impacting on the phenomena that get noticed and incorporated into "law".
Any highly advanced civilization is going to have different ways to describe and think about phenomenon in their environment than significantly less technologically savvy civilization. Take fire for instance. The technologically challenged culture will have a high degree of fear for fire, that it will get out of control whereas the technologically advanced culture will live with fire 24/7 without much concern. We use it to heat our houses, cook our meals and in the internal combustion engines of our vehicles to help us traverse easily. We are entering more and more into the age of electricity where fire may no longer have the impact and likely fewer words describing it as we advance further in that direction.
Before the advent of modern technological advances like snowmobiles and stick built houses the Inuit had hundreds of words for snow (according to anthropologist Franz Boaz) because snow was one of the biggest tools that they used to survive in their environment. Each word described a different use for a type of snow, some better for building igloos and others better for pulling sleds. There are going to be cultural laws that determine the use of snow for more success over the use of other forms of snow.
Laws help to understand the process of cause and effect whether it is understanding gravity or living with snow as the major environmental factor in your life. So to me it seems natural that a more technologically advanced civilization than ours will have different laws, or at least more advanced laws, concerning how they interact with their environment and the desired results they want when doing so.
Awesome, and very thoughtful reply.
Not to mention the range and nature of their senses… vision, sound, touch etc are taken for granted by us but might (actually will be…) be entirely different to the ‘others’…
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
The fundamental laws are expressed by the actions taking place in the universe.
We must use concepts to describe them, but by nature they just happen.
The Newton-Leibniz calculus is grounded in infinitesimals. Would an advanced alien civilization do it differently? Possibly, presuming that their predictions are the same as ours, but what would their mathematics look like? In short, is there an alternative to the calculus we know and love?
2:42 ... let's understand what the concept of law per se because there are two different views, one view is that the law is really there and that we discover it we find it because it's there, the other view says that what's out there is stuff regularities and we invent a law that is useful to describe what's out there. Now it sounds like it's the same thing they'll both make predictions but it's fundamentally different in terms of the epistemology or in terms of ... 3:14 😅5:58 ... do you really think so you really think the alien would have a different law (if it's different law we have finally been out of Feynman Paradox, because we could not communicate with each other) to describe 6:05
The natural law an alien thinks up could be the same, or it could be different but predict the same things.
I think just like Einstein's explanation refuted Newton's, one explanation of quantum mechanics will refute the others. Then we should tentatively accept that one as true until another refutes it.
To answer the question in the title, I would say the laws of nature are probably due to some randomness in something we still know only a miniscule amount about
How can laws come about by random process?
@@sgloobal2025 Just as an example, it could be when a certain proportion of one thing interacts with a certain proportion of another thing -- they create ways of doing things and interacting with each other that we end up calling things like matter, forces laws of nature, rtc. But these certain things are just floating around, let's say, and the kind of forces and laws of nature etc they produce depend on the ways in which they bump into each other -- which could be any random way.
@@longcastle4863 then they wouldn't be laws. They would simply be consistencies which we observe which can change at any moment
@@sgloobal2025 It's all a matter of perspective; the universe we can see all around us is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light, and we're at such a smaller scale that that will have no noticeable effect in our neck of the woods for billions of years. So changes like that would probably not be immediate / at any moment. There could also be other areas of the universe in which the random interactions of things result in areas with different forces, different laws. I guess what I'm thinking is that a universe that behaves differently in different times and places seems perfectly feasible to me.
@@longcastle4863 do you understand that if they can change they are not laws? And thus would destroy our ability to do science
Necessity, which knows no law but makes law, but there are prescriptive laws and descriptive laws, but invariable necessity is at the bottom of them
Dig the furnishings ! Nothing like mahogany to add some gravitas to the conversation. And that stuff doesn't come cheap these days.
I like when he said discovered inventions, it’s good to accept the impossible, we cannot measure things with precision not even small ones.., since we cannot measure a sphere of light, and that is how things are built up in form and size , from spheres of light..,
Discovering laws of nature and capturing powers of nature is not inventing but learning about them.😊
Go for the laws (of Nature) - you will find it in the Nature.
Go for the Nature - you will find it at the laws.
Seek out Mlodinow's scorching retort to Woo master Deepak Chopra. Mlodinow's response to Chopra's quantum consciousness was, "I know what each of those words means". The audience erupted! To Chopra's credit, he accepted an offer of quantum mechanics tutelage from Mlodinow. What a moment.
Start at start. The expanding electrons/ atoms do it all. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
One Professor said to the other,"Do you really know what the,Uncertainty Principle means?"Answer," Not sure"?
The laws of nature simultaneously emerged with nature. Even "Existence" itself is governed by laws with the *1st Law of Existence* stating, _"Only that which is logically conceivable can exist. This is the primary law of Existence and from which all other laws are derived."_ ... There is no _before_ or _after_ in regard to which came first because "Existence" and "the law" are logically interdependent.
The answer proposed is circular. Where do the laws come from?
Is this like saying, "I would like to move to another world in a different space time" but wouldn't that be as absurd as the telephone not being invented? What I meant is if the constant was a line of connectivity to this solar system and the operator was human beings, the switch board would need divergent thinking to put the plugs into the right sockets ...no? Idk lol just putting my cents into the donation box of ideas 🤭
Wait. I made no sense at all. I want to try again ... brb.
I think there are 2 possible answers to the question: 1, the Origin of the Laws of Nature is a blind "super force" that bifurcate on to other forces. 2, the Origin of the Laws of Nature is a Conscious (or at least intelligent) "super force" that bifurcate on to other forces.
He's probably right. Our point of view on gravity will change one day.
There were conditions since the beginning, the more the universe grows the more the conditions multiply and get more and more complex, as each interferes with the others.., from the very beginning it was the laws of light and the laws that govern things in motion that determined and still does all things..,
What is the Origin of the Laws of Nature?
What else can it be apart from Nature??
Laws are descriptions or explanations of nature. Does nature explain itself? In other words laws are human inventions that help us to understand the Universe, they are not the universe understanding itself.
@@saigopala ॐ
Bester Mann 👆
Natural laws express the character of existence. I ask you, could there be an existence without a specific character, without an identity? If you answer 'no', then you know the origin of nature laws.
Not even closed, this guy's make their on study, by not following our current science, it could be amazing
1:40 He could have explained that a little better since laws don't necessarily explain (scientific theories do) but are observed regularities. Apples falling from trees demonstrate the existence of gravity and the laws derived therefore but it doesn't explain. Gravitational theory explains. I emphasize this because I've encountered numerous times reality deniers (creationist) say "if evolution were science it would be a law". Facepalm.
“You create your reality,”you, creator, you.🤪🌸peace+&-.
"We never say the law is really truth, I mean we say that when we speak loosely (as in a multi-year, expensive college education)
"Any law in physics, or any law in science can be superseded by future discoveries" ... I wish I could have told that to the judge who jailed me in California on weed charges in the 80's - that it would be discovered in the future that weed is not something to throw someone in jail for in California. I don't hold a grudge; it was a message from the universe at the time.
On reflection, I am glad I quit college through and saved a lot of time and money by not having to listen to "'loose talk" laid down as laws, - "laws" that were speculative and are still inconclusive in their later incarnations..
I love this he so right God told me tell You that God love You and Do you thing Change man
a rose is a rose is a rose
Should have asked if he thinks there are actual true law that haven't been discovered yet.
Simply put there is system and not chaos
We seek verifiable causes but physics isn’t giving any. There are no causes described in the laws and principles of physics, in fact indeterminism (Uncertainty Principle) suggests that there is no cause and the time symmetry of many equations is contra to the asymmetry of cause and effect. If we understood the cause of quantum mechanics we wouldn’t have 12 different interpretations.
He's not addressing the real question, IMO. Yes, our laws of physics are models, and they are not 100% correct (and may never be), but that's not the question. The question is whether ultimate laws exist in first place, and what their nature is if so. He seems to assume that there are some ultimate laws or regularities that we can observe, after all. There would be no point to doing science in the first place if we could not expect regularity and relatability given proper controls. That is what the question is about, not what Feynman's or Newton's or Einstein's or some alien's model says.
The origin of what's called "laws of nature" ( I call "nature" the absolutely whole Universe, in both directions, micro and macro ) is only one natural, real, and universal principle, one real natural dynamic. From this principal, natural and real dynamic of the Universe anything and everything really "emerges", and any artificial and practical mathematic relation, theory, universal thinking, etc, can be derived.
The question was about the laws of nature. The answer was about the laws of physics.
Physics is the Greek transliteration for Nature.
mathematics calculate all the empty "petroleum well" will spin this earth faster & faster..just a simple math
Who is the Law Giver?
No evidence they require one
@@tonyatkinson2210 A lot of laws for a supposed meaningless, purposeless, random and accidental universe.
@@rickm5853 why not ? 🤷♂️
And who’s to say there are a lot of laws . There might be just one unifying law and the rest are simply consequential of the one law
@@tonyatkinson2210 My comment stands either way
@@rickm5853 so as far as we know - the matter and energy contained in the universe interact in ways that are consistent . On that we agree
You can call these consistent interactions “laws “ if you want .
But to assume they would or could interact in inconsistent ways without a thinking agent intervening? I don’t see the evidence fir this being necessary .
Nor is it explanatory . Did the law giver have any choice in the laws ? What laws govern the conditions for a law giver to exist ?
Yeah the guest is "right".. it depends how you make pizza but in the end it is still pizza😅
Fundamental laws are just Good “Coincidences”....
...because there are only a finite amount of combinations...
... and because there are No Fundamental laws that explains everything....
Laws are just Reasonable explanations using Math logic..
ॐ
Which law of nature ever predicted human activity and behavior ?
Law of Nature is “Nothing is permanent”,
change, change, change, change, ……………..…
Faith is at the very core of science. The original meaning of science was philosophy of nature. They were used interchangeably during the Islamic Golden Age. Religion is just a philosophy of whoever the founder is. Buddhism is the philosophy of Buddha. Christianity is the philosophy of Jesus Christ. So forth and so on. And philosophy is considered a science because it uses logic.
Science and Religion are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.)
Both require FAITH. There is nothing absolute in Science.
Nature
Top 3 most intelligent human beings who ever lived ( as of 2023 ).
1. "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must all be subject to the dominion of One. [...] This Being Governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God παντοκρατωρ, or Universal Ruler."
~ from General Scholium written by Sir Isaac Newton
2. "Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - most famous physicist and philosopher , Albert Einstein
3. "There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the "particle" of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the MATRIX of all matter." - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Physics
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness."
Bonus:
"If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” - Niels Bohr, a Danish Physicist
。
“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” “Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.”
~ by Sir Isaac Newton
It's a foolhardy question. There are no laws to adequately describe or define nature. Nature is fundamental, and woven into the very thread of the universe. In a sense, it is the universe. They are one. Neither would be able to exist, without the other. There is no law on any level, quantum or otherwise, that will ever answer these questions.
It depends on your definition of universe. If by universe, you mean everything, i.e. the multiverse (if it exists), the cosmos, etc., then yes, nature and the universe are the same thing. Of course, in a multiverse, what we see as laws could very well be local to our universe, and actual laws could be far more complex and contingent (and still incomplete).
@@tschorsch Nature is responsible for all of it. Whether there's one "universe", or countless. All of it. These "laws" that dictate everything, are nature.
Too bad we cant interview Scottish evangelist and scientist Henry Drummond about his book called Natural Law in a Spiritual world......
Answer: you ask Robert Greene.
There is no particularly compelling reason to think that the physics that govern our universe came from anywhere. There's no particularly compelling reason to think that our universe came from anywhere.
Memory. Human memory?
In my humble and ignorant opinion... Geometry and math are base in the interaction between existents and nonexistence abstracts that expand in and out themselves in fractals.... That's the nature of God it self . And created all laws based on the relationship of his expressions
I wonder does he think a human would be incapable of understanding the alien explanation?
*_“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind (i.e. Observer). This mind is the matrix of all matter.”_* Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) ...
It is curious how Max Plank's conclusions were so revolutionary in the field of science / physics (i.e. the immaterial (non-material) reality of nature and "the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind" as the ultimate force behind the fabric of reality). Yet, when microbiologists. biologists, geneticists, biochemists, other scientists, etc. come to the same conclusion (i.e. Intelligence / consciousness / mind is an integral and fundamental force behind the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of biological systems), they are rebuffed as being "unscientific".
*Matter cannot exist without physical laws and constants first existing. Physical laws and constants cannot exist without mind / consciousness / intelligence first existing. Mind / consciousness / intelligence is Prime. Mind Exists Before Matter.*
Max Plank’s ideas have been replaced.
@@kos-mos1127 Not really. Simply replace the word "Force" with "Self" this in the proper understanding that "All is Self".
@@waldwassermann Force and Self have two different meanings. Force has a similar meaning to Physical and Self means a person's essential being.
They are rebuffed as unscientific because they are. Plank expressed an opinion outside the scientific purview. Why aren't you quoting the majority of physicist who disagree with him?
*Destiny.*
RLK does not get it, aliens may have very different consciousness than ours and describe the Universe in a VERY different way.
Having the ability to travel thousands of lightyears means they have the ability to manipulate what we call the laws of physics in ways we cannot even fathom so yes their consciousness will be at a different level of understanding than ours is at today.
The Big Bang looks to me like a rar file being opened.
Life is Eternal, so Life have NO origin,
the 'Law's of Life', is also Eternal.
We may say that Law's is Consequences of Principles.
The Law of Movement, Motion-Principle is the most 'precious' sign of Life,
if there were No motion, there would be No Life-Performance.
Motion-Principle include some other Creator-Principles.
Most of the law's and Principles, We do know very well, from our daily life,
but Not in a Eternal Perspective. (Whole Picture)
The Masculine Princip and the Feminine Princip,
is the most Basic in the Organism-Structure of the Living being's,
it also stands for Principles of Sending and Recieving,
Korrespondance is Motion, our Thinking, (Day-Consciousness) is the way,
We Re-New and Developes our Eternal Consciousness. (Rainbow)
Man's law will not supercede that of consciousness and basic laws of electromagnetism. And, if you only base your theories on ease what is the need of doing the same thing again and again.
Two globes and two men gibbering.
Our Creator is the origin of everything we experience as a created AI.
Bullshit!
There is no power that is not of God.
How do you know ?
@@tonyatkinson2210 You can’t have an infinite regress of physical causes and there can’t be more than one that is all powerful. One has to be more powerful than the other and He has to be perfect in power so as not to self destruct.
@@JungleJargon firstly , there might not be an infinite regress because there was a first cause. Secondly , the first cause need not be powerful nor perfect .
Thirdly - given that time started at the Big Bang , there is no need for the pre universe to be subject to time
Fourthly , the cause and effect of the universe might have been simultaneous.
There’s countless possibilities before we have to decide there must be a highly complex thinking agent with desires is the explanation
@@tonyatkinson2210 You aren’t following the logic. You can’t charge your phone with an equal or lesser amount of charge. It has to be a greater charge. Where did the greater charge come from? You can’t have an infinite regress of greater and greater physical powers but there does have to be a greater non contingent cause. You are assuming there was a big bang for no reason which also assumes an infinitely expanding universe into oblivion for no reason. There’s something wrong with your assumptions. There’s a lot for you to consider.
*Solution to the "Time Light Problem"* The reason why people often stumble over the *assumption* that light years in outer space equals the same measure of distance and passage of time on earth is because general relativity is not being taken into account. In general relativity, the local rate of time and the measure of distance depend on the amount of matter or mass in the vicinity.
Locally, the rate of time and measure of distance doesn't change much inside of our galaxy. However, the distance in our line of sight between us and distant galaxies is extreme and running at a much faster rate of time as well as an expanded measure of distance outside our galaxy compared to where we are near Sagittarius A's Milky Way black hole (where our rate of time is much slower and our measure of distance is much more contracted).
The same way the earth appears flat locally, our universe also appears to be flat locally. However, over great distances throughout the universe there are differing measures of distance and differing rates of time from black holes to the lagrange points between black holes where there is very little acceleration compared to our relatively flat contracted local frames of reference near Sagittarius A.
When we observe other galaxies, we are effectively looking at vastly differing measures of time and distance relative to our local observations within the gravitational force of the mass of the Milky Way galaxy. This can lead to various observed phenomena as we look into outer space such as redshift, superluminal motion and the apparent faster motion of the outer spiral arms of galaxies. It's not the same as our flat observations of cats and dogs locally here on earth where we don't observe differing measures of distance and time.
So the supposed expansion of the universe, imaginary inflatons, invisible dark matter and dark energy or vacuum energy are *not* required to explain the observed redshift of light from distant galaxies or the faster than expected motion of the outer spiral arms of galaxies. As predicted by general relativity, the expanded space between galaxies due to the absence of matter in our line of sight where much less acceleration can explain the observed redshift without the need for a nonsensical universe expanding into oblivion for no apparent reason and it explains the faster than expected motion of structures and objects the farther it is from supermassive black holes.
It turns out that the vacuum energy of space is due to the frame dragging of black holes that are growing from gobbling up spacetime regardless of the amount of matter being consumed. Recent findings of a team of scientists have found that dark energy or vacuum energy is associated with supermassive black holes that are all growing in size, as opposed to an ever expanding universe. It turns out that light is blue shifted going into a gravitational well so the converse is true of being redshifted traveling great distances outside of gravitational wells.
Supermassive black holes are the most powerful forces in the universe with far reaching effects of gravity and vacuum energy. The problem and solution is that between galaxies, all of the galaxies all around are all together pulling and drawing in spacetime as well as exerting equal gravitational forces on empty space. This is the reason there is very little acceleration between galaxies and where there is expanded distance and a faster rate of time. The clocks are running faster outside of galaxies and the measuring sticks are larger meaning things are actually less distant than they appear. The more gravity drops off outside of the galaxy and in between galaxies, the more distance will be expanded and the faster the rate of time will be.
As predicted by general relativity, the expanded space between galaxies due to the absence of matter in our line of sight where there is less acceleration explains the observed redshift without the need for a nonsensical universe expanding into oblivion for no apparent reason at all. The differing rates of time and differing measures of distance also explain *how* a day is the same as a thousand years and a thousand years is the same as a day, at the same time in the same universe. 13.8 billion years is the same as 6,000 years and 6,000 years is the same as 13.8 billion years *within the same created universe!*
@@JungleJargon _there is no power that is not of god_
Support that.
The origin of natural laws is a creator god. Anybody disagree with me?
I see no evidence that this is the case
@@tonyatkinson2210 the evidence is that there are laws
@@sgloobal2025 what is clear is that as far as we know the matter and energy contained in the universe interact in ways that are consistent . You can call these consistent behaviours “laws “ if you want . But to assume they could interact in inconsistent ways without a thinking agent intervening?
@@tonyatkinson2210 Are they simply consistencies which we observe? Or are they laws? Meaning the entire universe is governed by them and that these laws cannot change
@@sgloobal2025 what’s the difference between consistency and laws ?
Leonard can’t even determine the origin of his own Trump derangement syndrome
god is the origin. Laws of nature are his and his copies statistics.
Bullshit!
The evidence to support that is…..
@@therick363 evidence is nonsense
@@matterasmachine then how did you come to your conclusions and OP?
@@therick363 you can not come to conclusion from evidence. You can only guess. So I’ve guessed.
The laws of nature are the powers described from ancient times, silly.
And current times. It’s not silly to use our past to help our future
@@therick363 Yeah we still have the sun lightning and volcanoes.
@@JungleJargon all natural things
@@therick363 …none of which can make themselves.
@@JungleJargon did I say they did?
Why don’t you tell us who/what made them?