Leonard Susskind - Must the Universe Contain Consciousness?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 03. 2020
- Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Our universe seems fine-tuned for life, with the constants of physical laws having to be within tight boundaries. Does this mean that the #universe has a goal of #consciousness? Is there a directedness of the universe toward consciousness? Is consciousness entirely contingent or is it something special, even a ultimate object of universal development?
Watch more interviews on whether the universe contains consciousness: bit.ly/2TgpdrI
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth 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.
If you missed the big news, Closer To Truth is bringing more content to CZcams! Starting this week, we will be posting an interview every day at 11 AM EST. We are uploading our entire library of over 5,000 interviews as well as new material from Season 19. Subscribe to stay up on the latest posts!
Fantastic news! I have always enjoyed your interviews, whether I agree with your guests, or not.. They are fascinating, AND thought-provoking..The only downside is, there goes my poker night..
yea!
A great series of stimulating conversations!
Fantastic news.. Can you give GMT as well (for the rest of us outside of the US). Thanks
Can a universe exist without a consciousness being aware of it?
I don't think consciousness was mentioned in this video.
Indeed. If it was mentioned, it was couched in words too far down into the realm of physicists' language and theory. Maybe have to listen to it again and dig for to find a connection to the "advertised" subject. (Why do they make it so darn hard?!!)
It was inferred from the Anthropic Principle argument.
Indeed, the title is answered by the mention of the anthropic principle: basically *our* universe must contain consciousness (otherwise we could not wonder this question), but any other universe must not.
In other words, click bait.
I am easily irritated by clickbaity titles, although I was not by this title. I see how it is clickbaity in that it is a question, while the content is actually an answer. The title could have mentioned the answer instead, to better reflect the content. My bet is that this clip is part of a series of other clips, all with the same title, which is meant to summarize the general topic (most clips having a different answer to that question).
Fantastic interviewer. Asking great questions to let his interviewee talk about deeply complex things and make them digestible. Well done!
Exactly, He's understanding him, or 'standing under'.
@tate rosemary All I meant was that the interviewer is 'standing under' or 'serving tea' to the master.
Essentially people take turns in playing the master and pupil. Your attitude comes across as super hostile, it wouldn't hurt you be the pupil once in a while. Why not give it a shot?
It's so hard to tell what reality is, this scientist is giving it their best go based on what they observe.
Its fantastic for you because your brain is incredibly small.
Would enjoy a conversation with Bernardo Kastrup for an alternative theory
I love how well Prof. Susskind explains incredibly hard subjects, may I say: as well as Feynman did. Also, I love this interviewer. He asks relevant questions and he understands both what he is asking and Susskind's answer to it.
“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”
― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
In the same why a Man got to sit and wonder "why, why, why" - a Tiger could typically do the same.
In the same way a Man hunts, so does a Tiger.
In the same way a bird can fly, a Man can.. which means technically, a Tiger can.
There are INFINITE outcomes/possibilities. Including an infinite amount of ways you can interpret ALL of these ideas. Ideas themselves are infinite.
Tiger hunt, bird lift, and man lie.
Tiger sleep, bird land, and man die.
Ask how and not why, it will make you wise.
There are two kinds of men,
Some believe they will die one day,
My day never happens,
My body? I live outside of this body, that body,
I am an infinite kind.
@@thevulture5750 Prove it. Prove that God exists.
The Vulture - God is infinite. I am infinite. God is not a man-person. I am inside of God. I am.
He is what I imagine John Malkovich's dad would look like.
Bummer, I cannot _unsee_ this anymore
He is his twin brother.
Why is he talking to a knock off Jeff Goldblum, though...
@@Cynry to manifest string theory and the appropriate universe where your comment appears.
Well, that's totally distracted me from the deep subject in the video!
Let me assure you that your work is very much appreciated by many people I know. You are asking the right people the right questions and have established a very valuable archive of contemporary metaphysical consensus. Not hiding it all behind a pay wall will only help you achieve more long term if only bc Karma is definitely favouring the democratic availability of knowledge approach you chose.
Very well said.
Love the sentiment, hate the supernatural invocation.
well la d daaaaa mr. Ph. D.. lmao.. who puts phd behind their youtube name? comical.
@@thevulture5750 The first cause could just as easily be non-conscious, an 'eternally existing' mechanism that happens to generate universes. You haven't demonstrated that only a conscious God could have been the first cause.
Your discussion on good/evil is a bit confusing. First of all are you sure evil is just the lack of good? In many cases people can be in excruciating pain. Being tortured, for example, is not just "lacking love", its the polar opposite, when someone is giving you harm. Negative emotions are not just the absence of positive emotions; the absence of positive emotion would be no emotions. And so to the extent that evil is not just the "lack of" good, it also doesn't make sense that God simply knowing something makes God that thing. Because then God would know evil, so by your argument he'd have to be evil, which contradicts the fact that he'd have to be good. Moreover, it seems like a fallacy to say that because you know what a moral action is, therefore you are moral - that's just a category error. I know what it is to be extremely generous - to give all one's money to the poor. It doesn't mean I am that way. Those are two logically distinct concepts, and you are combining them together without providing any justification.
Even if you could argue for the existence of God, the specific Christian God you are arguing for does not follow. The bible contains references to entire towns rising from the dead, the world being flooded despite no evidence for that flood being visible, and a story of man's creation that contradicts what we understand as our origins from evolution today. Not to mention New Testament scholars openly admit the bible contains contradictions. It makes me think that the whole thing, or at least large parts were made up by man, instead of a perfect God.
Beyond that, the justification for sin is still nonsensical. So God creates man, gives him free will, but then creates a situation where man is not at all clear that God exists, in spite of your comments on youtube, and many die never having known if he was ever there at all. According to the Christian religion, they end up going to hell? Please explain to me how that makes any sense at all?? Even more bizarre...why does God need his son to be tortured to death on a cross to forgive people of sin? Why couldn't he have done that without the torture, if he's a perfect, infinitely powerful being with infinite love and all the other infinites? Doesn't that seem like a more moral thing to do? And then again, why are people born sinful for the actions of the first man who supposedly ate an apple from a tree. How does it make any sense to punish generations of future ancestors for the actions of one dude. Would it be moral to punish you for the actions of your great, great, great, great (x 100 or more) grandfather??
That's why I say, the story you want me to believe is so illogical, combined with the historical problems with the bible, combined with the fundamental problems in your "first cause" arguments. I have no cause to believe in the Christian God whatsoever. Ironically, I have had incredible personal experiences that suggest something *may* exist beyond the physical world, but if I were to believe in anything it definitely would not be the Christian God.
@@Daniel-yo5es lol :P.
Can we just appreciate how good this dude looks for 81 years old! Still looks like he’s in his 60’s! And he’s as sharp as ever
Thought induced youth ?
Thank you Prof. Leonard Susskind for being conscious for us and explaining that transcendent reality. 💐💕
An excellent interview and so refreshing to see a person being allowed to speak and impart their knowledge without being constantly interrupted 👏👍.
I like your initials
Finally billions of years in conciousness growing and expanding to finally create the ultimate expression of consciousness.....I give you ,
The Internet Troll !
Internet troll? You should not talk about Professor Susskind like that. He means well. Give him another hundred years and he might figure out what those pockets of information are. HINT: Everything is just information which according to the Minus one law of the conservation of information demands our universe keep expanding as it records and stores the action reaction information within our universe.
Hahahahahahahaha!!
The Vulture I thought I answered this.
The universe does not exist. Look at it. Talk to Ray Kurzweil. The universe is a virtual reality,. Science looked into this and discovered what you think is substance consists of molecules which are composed of Atoms which are made up of sub atomic particles called quarks , charms bosons etc.
They built a 27 mile long Hadron Collider because they want evidence of a singularity. They wasted their money. I could have a planned the fact. That the past does not exist .... it’s over zero 0.... the future does not exist, yet either..... it’s zero 0..... all that exists is NOW .. one 1.
The Bible explained it 1 cor 13:13
We use our FAITH in memories of a past which is over and gone to create
HOPE in plans and expectations of a future does not exist yet... but...only NOW will ever exist.... so we just keep making stuff we want .... here is how it works.... we take now and decide what we want based on what had. Then we make it NOW. We make the future now... we also make the past now.... Now is all that ever exists.
1010101010101010 we are creating nows ONE AT A TIME.... when they are over , they do not exist anymore.. now here is what we create them out of... INFORMATION -- that’s all that exists. I think therefore I exist. Who what where why how when” NOW
WHAT? I keep changing. That’s why those virtual particles seem to appear and disappear. They are NOT violating the laws of physics, they are simply constantly changing form. We take those disturbances in the quantum wave fields and we give them meaning, angstroms decibels wave pressures... those light frequencies are the sights and sounds and life experiences Einstein was talking about when he said “It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”...... THINK ... we are the ones who assign the attribute “mass” to those virtual particles... suddenly magically a massless photon, a wave pressure acquired mass....??? FROM WHERE ????? there is no mass... it is just a label used to described the information of that disturbance in the quantum wave field... it is then stored as DARK MATTER... until we decide to use it to create the sights and sounds and experiences that GIVE LIFE MEANING... and we can only do that ONE NOW AT A TIME!!! Love is a good tool to use to create good things. We enjoy love belonging purpose esteem self actualization and self ascendancy.. yes by getting those things we satisfy the Purpose of Life which is the Pursuit of Happiness ... we created a perception of physical needs of food shelter and security... and by meeting the physical NEEDS OF OTHERS.... that’s how we satisfy our own needs of love belonging purpose esteem self actualization and self ascendancy....
That’s the purpose of life because ... nothingness is a very boring and lonely place to be ....
The Vulture great question. Let me explain life to you. Of course Jesus of the New Testament is the son of his Heavenly Father, in fact to them gave he the power to become sons of god.
To who? Even unto those who believe on his name. Are you illiterate? Who is god? The spirit of loving the TRUTH and doing RIGHT....anyone who loves the truth and does right SINCERELY is a sin of god.... now the fun part... explaining how truth and right are god.
No matter what subjective humans choose to believe, as Carl Sagan put it “But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God” the absolute truth of the physical laws is the god that will have authority when our sapient human universe intersects with our sentient human universe. Science seems to forget
Humans are the authors of their own fate, based on the decisions we make. Relative to the physical laws of the universe. Truth is VERY important when making these decisions. It can mean the difference between life and death. Intent right or wrong can also mean the difference between life and death...... funny how that works isn’t it?... GOD life and death depend not on some supernatural entity but the spirit as defined as “those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person”.. because THAT is what decides your fate... I can point you to the TRUE GOD that created the universe and tell you exactly how that God created this universe. I figured it out based on the scientific evidence.
The Vulture I would love to answer any questions you have about God. I am serious. God is very real ... as
1: creator- where did this existence come from ? What is it ? I can tell you
2: ruler controller laws of physics
3: highest authority ... simply put subjective understanding must yield to absolute fact... IOW
What Einstein constantly pointed out is that “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”... because .....”Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.”..and “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”...
Leonard Susskind is my favorite, hard to describe why, but his attitude is so relatable isn't it, he's one of us who looks at the Universe and sees how crazy everything is, how does it all work, where does it come from, how, why, he's just so eager to get answers, and the best thing is that he has the intelligence and fascination to understand it scientifically so he can teach us other dummies.
Thank you!!! These videos are always very thought provoking and fascinating.
I don’t pretend to understand most of what they’re talking about, but I totally respect intellectual honesty from people far smarter than I. This is why I love this channel!❤
they are not smart they r mentally screwed up
Great dialogue! We sould not give up and that's great. We must begin to appreciate with humility that the creation as such is perhaps beyond the understanding of our intellect. It appears sometimes that the very purpose of intellect seems to transcend it!
Best "Closer To Truth" interview yet!!!! :D
"Must the universe contain consciousness?" What if the universe IS consciousness?
What if it is not? What that question eliminates all other possibilities to the detriment of finding the correct answer?
@@Chaxar -- Sorry.
@@Chaxar
But that makes only sense, because consciousness is too powerful to be formed by unconscious matter
@@justaguywithaturban6773 How do you know that?!?
What power are you talking about?
Do you know that DNA is not conscious?
Do you even know what consciousness is?
How much more powerful is consciousness than say the fusion power of the sun?
Stars = unconscious, yet their existence is responsible for all the heavy atoms in the universe. Without which, humans would not be possible. (Atoms which are released when stars explode, in case you didn't know...)
@@Chaxar
If consciousness is fundamental (which it most likely is) then stars and the whole universe is conscious. I know this because like you I’m experiencing consciousness. And that combined with common sense tells me that unconscious dead matter cannot create consciousness, if it did it wouldn’t be like right now, we would be mindless robots without free will. Or we would have millions if not billions of personalities in one person.
Thanks for all of the content over the years. Great insights from many of the greatest intellectuals alive today.
And the insights ain't bad either!
"Assuming that my view is right" Assuming
String Theory. Theory
bring Possibilities to reality. Possibility.
words is closer to truth are "Expectation is that universe is full of different environments"
Leonard Susskind has been my favorite lecturer on physics for years.
@BLUE SKY PUZZLE Part of it is because he’s got a lot of content online. He also has a way presenting things that’s pretty accessible to people without a math background.
Very interesting and rich conversation, I want to see the full interview, but they didn't talked about consciousness, just about the fine tuning being explained by the multiverse created by quantum posibilities... I think the problem of consiousness is even harder to answer than the fine tuning, even when neuroscientist think it "arises" in a particular region of the brain... maybe consciousness is fundamental, and all the landscape of posibilities are derivated from it, much like the notion of a creator, God, etc...
This is fascinating but also a bit defeatist. I think we need to keep all options open to explain consciousness.
I ask the same question about my work place!
love Prof Susskind, his way of explaining is simply elegant and tasteful, and of course Robert Kuhn is always a delightful and intelligent host who asks the right questions and above all sums it up nicely so we are all on track. Thank you Robert Kuhn
I always appreciate what Leonard Susskind says. I came to this video because of the question posed. Surely, the debate about the meaning of the essential formulas of the universe is of long standing. I can see it continuing for decades ahead. Still, whether the universe ''...must contain consciousness'' is one I hoped to explore. I feel like this video only lightly brushed the stated question.
He is like the world's cleverest barman.
Consciousness is not only an aspect of the universe, consciousness is the very fabric that holds the string theory together and makes the universe a practical interactive reality. Neil Fulcher in his book 'phenomenon' (Amazon) takes this concept one stage further about accessing this dimensional reality using one's Soul and Spirit. Absolutely Amazing Revelations.
Dr Susskind is a good example of human intelligence at its pinnacle.
So happy to find a new enriching channel to sub, I'm putting it out on Twitter for my geek friends for sure.
One of the most perfect physicist interviews I had ever seen. Humbly suggesting what seems as a world of possibilities, all packed into an anthropic fact (if we can call anything fact)! Great :)
Fact require evidence.
The very idea that this environment was created for us is ludicrous and the height of hubris. We arose from the universe that's here. If it was a different universe, there'd be a different "us", or maybe nothing at all. I always enjoy hearing Leonard speak, and like his lectures too.
Not so sure 😁.
You're so right. I don't consider the fine tuning question to be a challenge at all. It raises the issue that our present phenomenal universe could not exist if the constants of nature were even minutely different than what they are. So what? It presumes that complex, self replicating forms could not arise or exist in any other phenomenal universe. There is simply no basis for any such presumption. There could be any number of possibilities for other universes with different particles and different forces to create complex, self replicating forms. We humans, and the rest of biological life, are simply the forms that were possible and arose in this particular universe, as you stated.
I was surprised that Dr. Susskind even considers the fine tuning conjecture to be something that theoretical physicists need to get their panties in a twist over. General logic has wiped it off the board, with no need to go into arcane theoretical concepts, like positing string theory, to deal with it. There's no telling how many popular philosophical channels, like Atheist Experience and whatnot, have redundantly disposed of this lame argument.
The discussion in this video provides an excellent example of why the contempt some physicists have for philosophy is so misguided. Any half-assed philosopher could have told Dr. Susskind that the fine tuning "problem" doesn't rise to the level that he needs to waste his time over. If a significant number of high level physicists are bamboozled over this non-problem, that's dismaying, but I'm skeptical about that. I'm pretty sure that Sean Carroll is not straining his brain over it.
As for the host of this channel, Robert Kuhn-- I never tune into his channel unless I'm particularly interested in the views of the person he's interviewing. It's so obvious that his actual quest is shopping around among physicists in the forlorn and wistful hope that he'll hear something that suggests the theoretical need for a God. It's so cringey, it just makes my butt itch. His problem seems to be that he thinks all philosophical problems must be addressable through high level physics, or otherwise must have some kind of supernatural basis. He isn't explicit about this idea, but I can just smell it in every video of his that I've ever seen. Having that idea is a product of philosophical ignorance.
@@donnievance1942 agreed
> maybe nothing
Impossible. Existence exists.
@@donnievance1942 First we have to prove that other universes can actually exist outside of mathematical form, then we have to discover wether other universes actually do exist. We know neither of those to be true. Then we have to explain the mechanism by which these other universes form, and then we have to explain how that mechanism is tuned to the right parameters in order to spit out universes. Explaining fine tuning via a multiverse is akin to saying God did it. It's an idea that could be plausible, but we haven't a single shred of evidence that a multiverse exists, let alone proof.
Also, if you look up the history of the fine tuning problem you'll discover that the idea of a multiverse was explicitly and intentionally created as an alternative to the God hypothesis. There were two camps of physicists, religious and atheist, and the atheists had to come up with some solution to the fine tuning problem that didn't involve a deity. Thus the multiverse hypothesis was born. Ironically the atheists came up with what is essentially a religious idea, in the sense that it's unfalsifiable, and can't be tested, at least with our current understanding of physics and technology. Maybe we'll come up with some way to test for the existence of other universes, but then again maybe we'll come up with some way to test for the existence of God. In any case, that's why I don't buy the multiverse hypothesis.
susskind is my favorite intellectual alive
What if string theory is wrong. It is not even wrong at the moment.
I believe most of these old timers are finally giving up on string quackery.
@@scottyandell3644 What do you say about quantum loop gravity? I like it… 🤷♀️😂
But the idea of strings as “DNA” definitely to me is evidence of its veracity. The way he describes it in the video. Frickin awesome. I love hearing him talk. A great mind.
Dr Susskind really understands the issues. I could listen to him talk all day. The mechanism for me is the issue as well. Been working on that for many decades. I do have a degree in psychology with honors. Lol 😂 Also epistemology and the nature of knowledge is my big-questions field. I feel like it would be very fruitful for Leonard and I to talk. I moved to Sunnyvale partly for those kinds of reasons, but the coronavirus interferes with everything…. 🤔
Well, I feel his described frustration in people about equations not showing how everything arises. We are leaving our large swaths of evidence in the universe and I am writing another book about it now. Like we forgot half the universe. 😳🤷♀️
This was one of my favorite conversations ever. ❤️👁🤔🥰
@@spiralsun1 I agree completely. I get discouraged hearing some of these guys giving up on the theory in its entirety. It's so obvious that things are close, but maybe there is no way to make a connection. There could be two completely different operating systems. It's possible, if not plausible.
Leonard Susskind is a great physicist whom I mostly admire his traditional approach of making it easier to to the average person to understand.
Thanks Robert.
The other explanation, which most physicists will hate, is that the entire physical universe exists as constructs within consciousness, and that consciousness is fundamental. Consciousness constructed a universe within itself (nothing is outside of consciousness) with physical laws which would allow for the evolution of biological organisms, hence the type of universe in which we find ourselves. The father of quantum physics, Max Planck, knew this when he said: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." Robert, I would like you to ask Professor Susskind, as well as the other great physicists that you interview, what he thinks about this statement by Max Planck.
Very good.
Leonard is my favourite provider of explanation where none appears to exist.
Agree, he is like a golden face with his eyes cast down.
I don't know whether the Universe contains consciousness, but that in this 11 minute discussion, is void of the topic 'consciousness'
That is the closest to Truth!
Yes the interviewer asks great questions. And Susskind's pleasant genius is in giving seemingly coherent answers without really explaining anything. It's not his fault, it's just that the further science advances, the less we can agree that we understand ANY of the difficult questions of existence. My assessment is that when they answer by mentioning String Theory, they are really saying "we know nothing and it appears hopeless to expect real explanations, so let us replace all that by the term String Theory".
It’s great they are open to considere others possibilities to try to answer the question of Consciousness
Wow, deep stuff, thanks
A great interview, with a great physicist.. My worry is that string theory has seemed stagnant for 20 years.. It needs re-energized with new evidence. Peace.
@Psychiatrysts This depends how you define proof. Inference is how we "Prove" many things in science. This is not direct proof by definition yet is accepted. Enough inferred data can count and we have no idea what will show itself in the future. I stay hopeful.
As for 20 years of stagnation, 20 years is NOTHING when considering the results of scientific study and the time it takes.
As far as string theory or M theory in general..... I still don't buy it yet.
@Psychiatrysts With all due respect friend, you are wrong.. Perhaps you dont have a mathematical background, OR expertise in this matter.. Out of STRING THEORY equations, general relativity just POP'S out.. Added to that, the BEST mechanism for explaining quantum gravity NATURALLY emerges.. This IS evidence.. Curiously the Multiverse MAY also be predicted, including the NUMBER of possible universes, (10 to the 500th power ). The explanatory powers of string theory to unify the four fundamental forces, are unparalleled in physics.. In my opinion equating string theory to a RELIGIOUS belief is naive, or reflects a bias.. Definitely no personal offense intended friend.
@@robertseeley1808 He never said proof, just evidence, and that is incorrect.. There IS evidence.
Obviously we need MORE.
Yes I want it to have the same criteria of evidence for the biblical god😂
The perfect and delicious opportunity to talk about world and the universe fantastic. Thank you for your time and I look forward to yours fascinating. The humankind stops to listen you. Thank you. Pena Gil
What I admire about Leonard Susskind is his ability to break down & explain very complex matters in simple, almost layman's terms. It's the first time I've heard an expert explaining the "world of possibilities", as defined by physics, and deliberating on the tiny pocket of the universe with its specific physical laws that we as humans live in. Are there other universes, pockets of space, world with its own laws out there - definitely, anything else would not make sense from a cosmological point of view. But how to find, observe and get in touch with them remains the billion dollar question, apart from whether it is indeed possible in principle to establish contacts netween universes operating on different sets of physical laws. Maybe we're only able to make new discoveries within our own universe, within its set of physical laws to which we abide as well. And it also begs the question of "what is life ?" in a much broader context - different sets of physical laws in different universes very likely facilitate the evolution of different "lifes". So it's probably more correct to ask " what is life, as we know it, and how can we find it within our universe's probably unique set of physical laws ?"
The future will be very exciting - always was, and always will be.
It is consciousness that contains the universe.
Why do you think that friend?
Bill Norris Because only consciousness exists.
That's what I'm asking you. Why do you think that? I'm curious.
Idealism gang assemble!
@@Dht1kna Here here ! A modern monistic idealism such as "Kastrup's alters" is exactly what currently seems to connect the most dots & by far, imo of course.
Mine is a simple question
(I'm only an engineer, not a physicist)
If the Universe started with the Big Bang,
How is it that some would posit that the Universe as a whole can possibly be infinite (far beyond the Observable Universe)?
Can a Universe grow to be infinite when it began finite, during a finite span of time? I can't imagine how it can.
You're right yes, but if for example you went from a flat (infinite) geometry to a curved (finite) one like we have now, you could the produce the effect of a big bang. And that would also provide the energy for it. The big bang we know isn't necessarily the beginning either. If the proton turns out to be unstable on long timescales, that could affect the geometry of the universe, flatten it over a finite time. You're asking way outside what's been proven though.
Because the big bang doesn't mean an explosion from nothing. It's a transition from one state to another. So it may well have been infinite - the big bang does not preclude that. Also think of the big bang as an expansion, not an explosion.
@@zoeherriot My Dad yells "I heard a frikkin loud explosion in the back yard! Dammit Steve, are you shooting fireworks?"!
Me: "It was not an explosion, but an expansion. No law against that."
The big bang model (expansion of space) and the big bang event (origin) are not one and the same. The former has been proven (microwave backround radiation, red-shift) the latter if taken to be (singularity) is false. The origin (beginning event) of the Universe is unknown, singularity prediction based on general relativity that does not take quantum mechanics into account. 10 to the minus 23 seconds "before" model event all of the known laws of physics and equations break down. You have to keep this distinctions in mind to find the answers to your "simple" questions. (Continued >)
Q. Can Universe grow to be infinite when it began finite, in a finite span of time?
A. No. If the Universe is infinite today then it was always infinite. Expansion of "space" refers to relative distance between objects in observable Universe, not the size of the Universe in its totality. Big Bang expansion model was not a position in space, it was a moment in time. Notion that Universe grew from size of golf ball to what we see today refers to relative density of objects in observable Universe.
Q. How can we posit Infinite Universe where objects exist beyond observable Universe?
A.The speed of light is finite and the accelerating expansion of space means there is a finite distance light can travel in 14 billion years. We can not see anything beyond this point hence the term observable Universe
That was incredible I'm glad I watched to the end. I think it's more likely that we exist for a reason if the odds are that low and that there'd be life. The multiverse or "Mega-verse" that's diverse - but there was no speculation like that in physics before obvious fine tuning.
Consciousness is a pre existing thing, it is eternal. The Universe we experiment is a manifestation of the Consciusness
What are you talking about ,complete nonsense
loved this guy in con air
Haha 👉
Was he the one flying the chopper?
"Must the universe contain consciousness"? What do people think the human consciousness is connected to, of course the universe contains consciousness.
The Grand Design - where the many smaller parts makes up the greater whole. This formula exist within the confines of everything in existence without exception, why do people think that this process ends with consciousness?
We are the smaller parts of a greater whole, pretty simple stuff really.
Great video.
Agreed. well said
Hmm. I think they were talking more about whether or not consciousness is a fundamental part of the fabric of reality. Could there be universes without consciousness? Why is it that our universe is set up so that consciousness arises? I don't think it's simple stuff, really. My own view is in line with Susskind, in that there is nothing particularly special or fundamental about consciousness; we just happen to exist in one of the huge number of universes whose physical characteristics give rise to the thing we think of as consciousness.
@Maitreya Huisintveld What's your expertise in understanding design, if you want me to believe your claim you're going to need the proper evidence to back it up. I'm willing to listen to whatever ideas you might have against design, but just saying it's BS doesn't really prove anything.
@@alistairmaleficent8776 Ya, I think it might be talking about something different.
@@SongWhisperer Ha.. wow. We're really doing this whole thing? Show me the evidence of the "designer"!
Absolutely fascinating 🧐
Great discussion…and program….both these fellows are wonderful to listen to…and their interjection of humor also make this a fun listen…DR Suskind has a way of making complex subjects understandable…His story regarding early string theory is remarkable…
To my thoughts….and with only a poetic understanding of physics and biology ….first , quantum theory postulates the observer as a central player in the grand scheme…as I understand it…
So, say we live in a pocket/bubble that happens to facilitate life and consciousness …Some may not….But my point is…The infinite universe, with all these bubble/pockets of necessity gives rise to the observer…or rather has the observer built in as fundamental…I suspect this, apart from what quantum mechanics tells us, an infinite “Thing” or Universe devoid of Any consciousness or awareness or self awareness as a fundamental component is equal to non-existence…
Consciousness is a necessary part of existence…in fact I believe it’s the whole point….not some accidental unlikely fluke….I understand that in the early universe their was no developed self-awareness but the foundation and blueprint for it was always there…of necessity…otherwise an infinite anything/Universe etc is impossible…Consciousness ultimately Is existence….I believe😄🍻🌌
This may sound trivial, but I like the way Spock, very simply, put it in a star trek episode: "There are always possibilities." It's a statement with more weight than can ever be measured.
agreed
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” -American astrophysicist Robert Jastrow
Eh ??
Creating in the process and making form as a result.
Great interview...thank you!
Worthless interview. Didn't even interrupt when Susskind wrongfully stated Darwinian evolution acts on oxygen and carbon. I was like WTF when I heared him say that but the interviewer seemed fine with it.
@@anonymous-rj6ok Not really what he said. The remark needs to be interpreted in the context of what he was saying immediately before that about DNA. The context is that Darwinian evolution is acting upon the molecules that make up DNA, which in turn are made up of: carbon, oxygen... and I might have thrown hydrogen in there, too, but Susskind's hand gesture at that moment implies a continuation of all of the other things that go into organic molecules. There are other elements in organic molecules, of course, but those are the big three.
This guy, is very interesting. He is like the BFG of physics. It's almost unbelievable that he is in his 80's. Just remarkable really.
BFG? Its the fi fi fo fum blood of englishmen that sustains his youthful looks XD
This fragment is from a Closer to Truth episode from 2008 when he was around 68 years old.
The more we know, the less we know.
I think it ought to be: “the more we know, the less we understand.”
I know more than I understand.
If you are knowing things with a sharp analytical mind then it is not very surprising that the beautiful flower of existence is cut into endless pieces.
When a man is dying of thirst and someone brings a cup of water, he does not talk about the wonderful design of the cup, the flourishes around the rim, what the cup is made of, no he drinks the contents. When someone is on their last breath, what is it that they really want.....another breath.
It’s funny.. I dealt with fine tuning and the idea of the landscape of possible universes, as a counter-argument to the design argument from fine-tuning, in 1996 in my theology class.
We didn’t deal with the mechanism to make the blueprints of possibilities into reality. It does sound like a lot of conjecture on the physicists part.. though Susskind they have mathematical models which which show that a formulation with internal consistency can be done on their conjectures.
There is actually a universe out there that is very similar to our own. But in this one the internet Troll never evolved.
The very first guy that wrote: "first" in a comment section was also the last one.
Our languages describe (but fail to explain) our 3D Cosmic reality - Somethingness. But with Nothingness our languages fail even in description department. That is indication of complete ignorance of Nothingness. We presume that Somethingness (active) comes "out of" Nothingness (passive), but equally logical is presumption that Nothingness comes "out of" - or, as an idea of absence, "with" - Somethingness.
Yet most logical explanation is that Nothing ... and ... Somethingness/Nothingness quasi duality - S/NQD (quasi because Nothingness as an idea is just absence and not negation of Somethingness) - are complementary. Nothing - 0 time and 0 dimension - is "created" by being forced/squeezed into non-existence continuously by Somethingness. Only when Nothing is constantly "non-existed", the Nothingness part of S/NQD ceases to be just an "shadow under the light" of Somethingness and finds it's refuge in "real/pure/non-existing" Nothing. So, we have an active Somethingness "creating" true Nothing, where Nothingness finds it's true domicile and anchors itself as passive idea/thought/consciousness becoming true duality with Somethingness without in 3D-time realm. In other words: Nothing is a house, built and maintained by Somethingness, for Nothingness to reside in and keep record of all that is happening, has or will have, out there in "real" world. There is all time stored in that house and all space in form of idea and thought, yet there is no time nor space present.
And our brain - out here in this loud, pressurized "sandbox" - is like an antenna that has been tuned to (or better said filters out) certain ideas and thoughts - past, present and future -, emotes on them, recycles them and creates new ones that add to those stored in the house of pure potential and maximum inertia. Pressure of thought/idea potential is thus always higher in Nothingness then out here in this imploded Cosmic Somethingness. And this thought/idea pressure differential defusion "runs" Somethingness and Fullness of Nothing.
There is a great idea! For the dark side of the Universe - suppose that it consists of short-term interactions in long-lived fractal networks, the smallest quantum operators in energy, spherical rosebuds, consisting of a large set; 1 - rolled into a sphere, 2 - half collapsed into a sphere and 3 - flat, vibrating quantum membranes relative to their working centers in the sphere
Conciousness of all living things are in essence the conciousness of the universe if it goes deeper into quantum, well that remains to be discovered. I believe Sagan stated something along same line long ago.
I love that this looks like it was filmed in the mid 90s
Jewish people are nostalgic
What created the multiverses? One universe or a trillion this just kicks the can down the road. Like it or not this is not any better an explanation then a intelligent creator. All of it still has to come from a source that exists prior.
No offense, but it's clearly YOUR idea that kicks the can further down the road.. WHERE did god come from? Nice try to oddly reverse who's doing the real can kicking friend.
@@billnorris1264 God is eternal and therefore doesn't come from anywhere or anywhen. Hard to grasp? Of course it is for the extremely limited human mind.
@@suncat9 To which of the 6,000 plus gods that exist in the human pantheon are you referring? Or are you saying the universe is cause/effect?
I suppose if you create a god you can give it whatever magic powers you want it to have. If your answer as to why the universe exists is a magical alien, you have no business "informing" anyone of facts.
If the multiverse is real, so is infinity and consciousness and infinite consciousness which means you're eternal in that sense since you'll always exist in some physical Space time. Which ultimately means you're fundamental. Space time is only the approximation and substrate for which you're expressed.
@Psychiatrysts Its my habit friend to avoid negatively personalizing any debate.. I only criticize IDEAS, not people.. You have done the same.. In that regard, the notion that God is the only LOGICAL choice for explaining what we observe in nature is patently ILLOGICAL.. A discredited "God in the gaps" argument.. The trouble is, as the gaps of scientific understanding continually narrow, correspondingly so too does the space allotted for Gods to exist in..
I'd say that if what's ultimate in reality isn't mind like, then propositions wouldn't be possible. Propositions are mind dependent abstractions, or conceptualizations that entail declarative conclusions . Which either correspond with reality or not.
It's elegant in the way it comes together through mind boggling complexity while it hides its tracks of process through time.
reverse engineering life ls intellectual theft .. as then Gods monopoly is over.... Divine copy right law sucks!!!
The universe IS consciousness. I see consciousness as the database backbone of the mindverse. Its a collection of every thing and every experience ever had.
I learned this through a long journey with acid and ketamine.
@@thevulture5750 why “ him“ ... omnipotence is genderless
@@thevulture5750 I like using IT.
@@thevulture5750 it depends what you are referring to as Jesus. I have been informed that the historical figure of Jesus was an incarnation in 4th aspect consciousness of a cosmic master from the Venusian life cycle.
As consciousness was not mentioned once in this video, the title of this video was obviously misplaced.
I could listen to Leonard all day, what a pleasure!
> Must the Universe Contain Consciousness?
Invalid question. The universe is what it is. Attempting to judge it requires a standard beyond the universe, ie, the supernatural or the subjective. The universe, known by a focused mind, is the standard for everything.
We ARE Conscious.
We are in the Universe.
The Universe cointains Consciousness.
THIS IS OBVIOUS.
The same way as Universe has Holographic properties because it can contain Holograms!!!!!!!!
The other way up... We can make hologams, beacause the universe has holographic properties!!!
How come we can produce holograms if the Universe can't?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!??
That means that the Universe itself is consciousness as consciousness contains and is contained by the universe, as consciousness contains itself. Right?
We are part of the universe
We are aware of the universe
The universe is self-aware
I am Conscious.
All I know/see/fell/perceive is in my Consciousness.
My Consciousness contains all that Universe.
This man is a national treasure!
global!
We ARE the universes consciousness, just like the little voice that's always in your head. It had to manifest us to realize itself.
Good explanation ,I never thought that the science should have come down to the odds of this or that but to a definitive answer . Even if it means that it could be this or that or even both . I found in my research shrodingers cat can be also dead and alive at the same time when you open the box
Must the Universe Contain Consciousness?
As I stated in an alternate thread, according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, without the presence of consciousness, the quantum wavefunction will not collapse, and thus “reality”...
(i.e., separate appearing objects suspended in a spatial dimension)
...will not even take form.
Therefore, the question is: what exactly would a lifeless (consciousness-less) universe even be if it did not contain any separate objects?
In other words, what would qualify it for the title of “universe” and membership in a multiverse if all it consisted of was spread-out waves of some kind of nebulous substance that served no discernible purpose?
_____
Does a tree fall in a forest if there's no one there to see/hear it? Does the wave function decohere without observation? Phenomena [universe(s)] exist independently of perception. The wave function collapse becomes an epistemological, rather than ontological, determinant. At least at the fundamental quantum microcosmic level.
All physicists should be required to study philosophy. This way they will not fall into the trap of trying to answer the big questions which physics will never be able to do.
@HenryDavidT I would surmise that the "atomic arrangement" of your brain is probably fine but the practical use of it is suspect.
@@ericg3810 blistering insult. Bravo. That's gold
HE BASICALLY SAID…someone had to build it. Even random is not actually random. Random has design.WHICH SHOWS INTELLIGENCE 👊🏽
The ultimate reality is consciousness. The universe, including life, is the manifestation of consciousness. How could consciousness manifest as life in a universe that did not allow it to exist? That would be impossible. Life and the universe and consciousness are not separate, they are one.
I never heard consciousness discussed.🤥
See my comment above.
U poor thing
"To create Logic, you need something prior to Logic" - Leo Gura
Unfortunately science is still in the dark ages relative to absolute truth
Yeah probabaly
and since absolute truth hasn't made itself known to anyone, science is the best we have.
@@timq6224 It is love, science will be afraid to admit this for a while, it is infinity, you can't get more true than infinity as it includes all possibilities and is self-contained as the absolute truth/infinity as it is. You can't only use science to find truth because you ARE the Truth. You being able to experience, sitting there, is truth. Collapse infinity and you get pure nothing, pure nothing because the universe never got created in the first place! This IS nothing. Quantum Mechanics seems to be catching up with the mystical world. Reality isn't logical, it is strange, it is magical, and that is painful even for a logical scientifically minded person like me to admit...
"Assuming that my view is right..." Now that is refreshing humility.
I see a striking similarity in the concept of String Theory and Music. Strings are scientifically described as vibrations. So are musical notes. Strings arranged in infinite possibilities can create infinite number of Universes. Musical Notes too, with different arrangements, have the possibilities of producing infinite number of musical compositions. Mr Suskind talked about possibilities of different properties of Physics Laws in those enormous number of possible Universes. Musical notes too have the capacity to produced totally different moods. And don't forget the eternal sound present everywhere in creation is Hmmmmm.......The thoughts goes on and often lead me to a state of mind where nothing exist except consciousness. Without any prejudice to science, I call that feeling not God, but Godliness for the sake of simplicity.
You can say this about anything - there are an infinite number of possibilities of keyboard strokes too.
Susskind sounds like he’s doing his best Walken impersonation.
He's walken here
I wish I could talk to him.
Nothing is easier. Go to get admission to MIT.
Whta
Yeah, the multiverse explanation - or how I've heard what Suskind is describing here termed "eternal inflation" - seems to be the only game in town that actually provides an answer to why the laws of nature that we experience enable the evolution of life and intelligence.
There simply are no other contenders for the answer, that don't create bigger problems than they solve.
Only a multi verse does not get us away from this infinite regress problem, it only covers it up temporarily....and if it just so happens that they finally reach the conclusion that our universe must be infinite, then the second law of thermodynamics tells us the evolutionary process would no longer have the properties to still exist.
Does the distinction between potential and actual breakdown? If so, is it not equally valid/invalid to say that everything is potential, as it is to say that everything is actual?
Or is time, in essence, the movement of the potential actualizing?
It seems in the multiverse view, even the future has already happened somewhere.
It's an amazing feeling better than any other when you realize God is real. I will NEVER forget.
Glad you realized it, now give me a well reasoned logical proof.
@@candletube8607 The bible and its prophecies. Give us proof what came first the egg or the 🐔😘
@@Chriswilcox28 That is not a reasoned logical proof, that's just you pointing at a book.
@@candletube8607 Ok sorry should have been more specific. Isaiah 53 was written 400-500 years before Christ walked the earth. It fortells exactly what happened to Jesus.
@@Chriswilcox28 You're still pointing at a book.
Also, if a book is written about a guy who supposedly did magic 500 years later, it's way less of a stretch to assume that they lied about what he did because it matched well with their prophecies.
You know, that's just a little bit less insane than implying that literal fucking magic is real
I wonder if supernatural stuff actually is an aspect of reality the same way natural stuff is
@@nikokapanen82 NO, it is alleged in some modern stacking together of old myths and legends that HE did:/ Different thing entirely to "facts":/
@@nikokapanen82 Hah, all your beliefs are "faith", not fact:/ What a joke you deluded fools are,lol. Mind you, if i had been one of the thousands burned as witches, or butchered in "crusades" maybe i would not think you and your ilk were so funny:/
@@nikokapanen82 You keep on waiting for your god to reveal himself, you be waiting a loooong time,lol.
@@TheZacdes you are implying that the wait will end???
@@sayamqazi NO, i said you be waiting a looong time, meaning forever,lol
if anything, anthropic principle is the opposite of a religious explanation. It basically tells that we shouldn't be in awe at how marvelous and perfectly tuned for our life the universe is, because if it wasn't that way we (and possibly no other form of life) wouldn't be there to see and ponder the other possibilities.
Life has become posible and Leonard talks about various blueprints on different aspects of how things came together but surely somewhere there must be a blueprint of the universe itself?????
Plot twist: That is actually a talk between Roy Scheider and John Malkovich from an alternate reality.
The will of God is to achieve all possible states.
Im intruiged by your statement actually. A part of me agrees it is a fascinating hypothesis
succinct. I take your point as self evident. All springs from that.
The only real mystery is how people don´t get it for themselves.
Prove your god before implying it...
@@Leispada it's not a hypothesis it's a projection.
@@cartesiancircle As well as you might be - which renders your implied construct invalid... isn't this fun?
thanks.....
(I live on one of those possibilities) Maybe new Porsches should include a copy of this presentation plus Olive Garden prepay. It's merely a suggestion since I keep getting popups blocking 1/2 the video. Who says that chaos can't be fertile? Great presentation and I did subscribe and hit the like button.
Without consciousness there would not be the word universe.
Terence McKenna always talked about how he had a hunch that the universe more or less runs on word creation, language....
@@babywhalecrypto1346 word creation in a higher dimension to define the one we are in.
And without the brain - no consciousness.
Regardless if we were here or not, regardless of consciousness or words, the universe would still be here:/ The universe does not need us to validate it,lol
@@TheZacdes I thought that until I saw this e8 crystal video:
czcams.com/video/w0ztlIAYTCU/video.html
Both consciousness and the universe are connected . Same as with a lock and a key. The ONLY thing to explain the connection is PURPOSE
Creator forbid we say God is the connection ?
What is purpose to you?
@@greenlantern1123 purpose for what we know to be life ? there is only one purpose and that is to record God's Creation. We were obviously designed to witness for God and His Creation. Everything we are as human beings screams recording device and all that we can record is perceived by us as Universe. '
Read my book, on Amazon you can get the E-Book for only $1.99 THE TRUTH The Illumination of Conscience
... and in the many worlds interpretation, all of the the possibilities exist simultaneously, we just happen to be aware of this Universe
There is a sharp distinction between the consciousness of living and nonliving things just an example of the difference between physical properties of sodium element and chloride element and it,s combination sodium chloride.
Must Consciousness contain the Universe?
Excellent question! ... and my answer would be: Not necessarily ... But here, we're already far beyond the scope of anything Suskind discusses ... or, I suspect, has ever considered....
Wait a second! Lenny imagines himself forced at gunpoint to give the answer: "Inflation allows string theory to give us the multiverse because there is no other explanation." When did inflation change from Alan Guth's negative gravity that smoothed out the wave function that is the CMB to the conscious sorter of anthropic strings?
Alan Guth, et al. , originally described inflation as a potential result of the Higgs field, as you know. Since then, dozens of potential theoretical mechanisms have been proposed.. Most physicists now believe that the core concept of inflation is valid. The current debate centers around the nuances of this generally accepted postulate. Choose your favorite. Although string theory is the leading candidate for a Theory of Everything, it doesn't seem to play well with inflation. (Which I'm certain you also know) The LATEST studies for reconciling this difference center around type llA versions of string theory.. Compactification has emerged as a potential candidate to accommodate inflation, but the future validity of string theory Still remains uncertain.. Much work is needed, and only time will tell.. I doubt this is satisfying to many, BUT, string theory is much too elegant to abandon at this point. Peace.
@@billnorris1264 My initial response was simplistic. I appreciate that there are myriad versions of string theory. Thanks for pointing that out. My main issue is that when highly intellectual people like Leonard Susskind are left to their own musings, unfettered by the rules of doing good philosophy, they get sloppy. But...I think that is Robert Lawrence Kuhn’s intention at least to some degree. Not that Leonard Suskind doesn’t have unconstrained ramblings on his own time and in his own head. But perhaps it is not any Closer to the Truth. Put Lenny in a room with the Verlinde twins with a whiteboard and a pile of equations and you get a real discussion of what has meaning in the universe to Leonard Susskind.
@@psmoyer63 Friend, that's fair enough. I don't think your initial comment was simplistic, SUBTLE might be a better word.. As a learned man of philosophy, you have my respect. From your concise word usage and your knowledge of physics, I suspect you are a polymath.. I ASSUME you would say that the nature of reality is beyond the purview of physics.. That's a very reasonable position, and possibly correct.. ignoring the Lenny angle, (Theres more there than meets the eye) I would kindly ask, are you CERTAIN that physics is an impotent line of reasoning in this task? Considering that among philosophers, there are many divergent schools of thought concerning the nature of reality, how can one have confidence that any choice is unassailable? I'm very curious, and I assure you, my motives are not to be contentious.. Peace friend.
@@billnorris1264
Bill, I truly appreciate your considered responses in this discussion. I’m saying that when Lenny, or any scientist, is free of the scientific constraints, i.e., isn’t required to faithfully examine the meaning of the questions that he or she is answering, the results can be somewhat “fanciful” -- what some would erroneously call philosophical. And I do believe the nature of reality is in fact the purview of physics. That an interview with Gerardus ‘t Hooft would certainly get all of us closer to the truth.
@@psmoyer63 You are a complex man.. I'm not necessarily a fan of Susskind, but I would ask what attributes of his you consider fanciful.. Could you expand a little?
Interesting. And this multiverse with its infinite probabilities and possibilities is also explained (but only to a degree we can understand) in the books The Seth Material (1970 and Seth Speaks (1972 now a YT audiobook) .
I put these books down in the 80's and chose to consider there was only this Actual Universe as it appears to my senses and the psychological self was an illusion. So it has amazed me to learn 50 years later that physicists (without mentioning those books) are coming to similar multi dimensional conclusions. But Seth describes how consciousness creates/drives it all.
I got a kick out of reading that as we here in physical consciousness struggle to comprehend infinity, consciousnesses existing in an infinity of multi dimensions (same "landscape" but different frequencies) struggle to comprehend eternity 😁
Also facinating - now that medical equipment is able to resuscitate more people from a 5-15 minute flatline - they are sharing their NDEs that astonishingly describe (albeit from their unique points of view) what the Seth books describe. Although the books have far more technical detail, so much so that the mind tries to resist comprehension of it as tho its too much.
that is inherent to pure numbers, all the reality is already opened by design wether you explore it, or not. The proof of domain and image by deduction, or contradictions, already establishes some properties even without the need to really observe directly an derived phenom!