Calling something New Age is not a winning argument for a materialist, because it is based on his a priory beliefs.

Fun but the real sparring match we want to see is Kaku vs Weinstein! "You are out of control!" " Stay out of the kitchen!"

Physics is simple. In essence we only have 4 continuum functions (Grid, Clock, Potential, Inertia) and 4 measures (Space, Time, Energy, Mass). What we need to realize is that the relation between functions and measures is dual and inverse in order to keep an over-all zero change, while yet allowing change in either grid. Space and Energy are inversely related as are Time and Mass. Unless we understand this (and understand Einstein gave us incorrect fundamental equivalence relations) we will not understand the essence of physics. Physics is not hard. Eric is right; it is very easy to grasp all. We are just not looking under our feet.

Doesn't anyone get that when Hilary Lawson asserts that we can't know reality, he's stating it as a reality he knows for certain! Time to retake that upper division college logic class again, Hilary.

In a deterministic universe, described by deterministic mathematics, the uncertainty principle appears to be the closest thing to a universal law we have. Heisenberg may be too simple for Eric, but the universe appears to agree with the simplicity of universal observational uncertainty. At the intersection of theory and reality lies the measurement. Uncertainty, then, is a byproduct of being unable to differentiate between theory and reality. We never solved that one (it turns out they're the same thing, and we needed to make a paradoxical assumption to begin the scientific analysis in the first place). I don't know what to make of realism when all the measurements appear surreal!

A model is a prediction tool, to predict everything the model would have to model the state of the entire universe, not just a slice out of context, such a model would need a computer the size of several universes to be able to do this effectively, and why would we even want to do that?

Yikes 😳 I have not historically believed in possession, until I witnessed Lawson here possessed by Kant.

Only the 'truth' can get to the 'truth'.

Have you ever had a kid? "Why? You answer. Why? You answer. Why? You answer. Why? You answer. Why? You say you don't know.... Why?" There will always be a question to ask.

"We have suggested that Dewey was right when he observed that the poles of any dualism indicate dimensions or characteristics of a continuum of functional processes, and not distinct ontological kinds of things. The dualistic error is thus the turning of what is a functional organization of organism-environment interactions into metaphysical entities or causes. Once you do that, you become locked into a dualism from which you can never extricate yourself, insofar as the very terms by which you have defined the problem to be solved assume a radical metaphysical and epistemological dichotomy." - Johnson, Mark L. and Schulkin, Jay. 2023. "Mind in Nature: John Dewey, Cognitive Science, and a Naturalistic Philosophy for Living." Cambridge, Massachusetts MIT Press.

I think think the only way in which science won't close is that changes in human needs and desires will always try to push past whatever we have and solve whatever annoyances confront us. I think Eric's obviously right that some things in nature are closed, it's us shifting goal posts for our own reasons that'll lead to new explorations. For example right now - I don't know how many people have thought explicitly about issues like social technology and ways to keep pro-social incentive structures by way of technology but - there are a lot of people thinking about that now, just like there are a lot of people thinking about environmental and renewables, and these are quite new concerns relative to our historical climb.

I am a physicist and I will explain why physics can never explain the nature of consciousness and why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini

I like poetry.

The basics of our reality is a place to start a debate like this.

Which layer of truth do you prefer?

Please sell the full videos on KZfaq. I don't want to give you my credit card number.

"With the exception of the artificial and abstract thinker in you, you are pure Nature". This is a phrase from a book titled Toward your Real Self.

I've listened to Lawson several times and the one questions always comes to mind, "What is the utility of your argument? Supposing you're right...how should or must the scientific enterprise change?" So much "useless" criticism...?

This is a fun sparring match

The universe only has a finite amount of laws; therefore, the sum total of functional laws is truth. It's physics and mathmatics that will provide this answer, not philosophy.

The "Dominant Story" for the last 30 years in physics is NOT "String Theory" or the ideas on how to make String Theory fit Reality...

to continue watching this video click the link yea right! to find out its behind a paywall

Closures must be embraced as the rule upon which Kuhn's normal science advances, and it is also true that lack of closure must also be embraced to allow revolutionary paradigm shifts to also occur. (as well as minor updates that may be needed) Settling upon one or the other as inherently true is a false dichotomy. Knowledge is a process because reality is a process. As for the Gilligan example of uncharted islands, I give you Niijima island.

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

We need to define first the Truth. Otherwise, this discussion is not valid. Can we ask "why there is a Universe"? Will we ever know the answer the why questions? All we know so far is How based on observation only. Our knowledge is limited by the capacity of our brain which is limited in space time fabric. If there are higher dimensions we are trapped and probably we would never be able to uncover the true reality.

Physics always finds truth. These people don't know "the truth". Therefore this debate is pointless. They should know this. What is their definition of "the truth"?

Any truth that science arrives at will ultimately still be relative to the arbitrariness of the way the sense data represents reality.

Hilary is exactly what i would have thought a philosopher would look like

I think we need to go back to r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry Huygens’ Principle of 1670. The Universe could be based on the most simple geometry that forms the potential for evermore complexity. Forming not just physical complexity, but also the potential for evermore-abstract mathematics. It might be ‘cool’ but it stops us finding a fundamental theory.

Eric in slay mode fun to watch... Wish i could comprehend what he said.

We really created exceptional things like time and space

Why are philosophers invited to speak on things they don't understand? They should stick to their philosophy nonsense and leave the science to scientists.

​​Is that Mr. Dikovitch from Spider-Man? the philosopher guy

My best friends think reality is a possibility of nothing

2:20 who is so inconsiderate to bring a crying baby to a panel discussion such as this?

Knowledge is self a full filling prophecy isn’t it?

What is truth? Truth is what you did yesterday and who you did it with. Hey, I don't know about that.

Admiral Byrd found new land please let Eric know.

Ditching Einstein’s theories is a great start to remedying the ‘Crisis’ in Physics.

IQ guess? I’ll go with 166.

I wish that Roger Penrose and Avshalom Elitzur had been on this panel. And the ghost of David Hume.

Life have a Life-side and a Stuff-side, Life-Science and Stuff-science. Life-Science explain nature of Life, Stuff-Science, try to explain Stuff-side.

Why do they keep dragging Weinstein into these things? He is full of hot air

We are always in the here and now that is our reality. Science is a sideshow.

144 grand unified theory now pay up

There is no theory, problem solved. Math describes nature. Nature is math, the physical.

Cash for cardinals

Although he started asking for a fair conversation, the math guy puts too many stingy points and comments, dropping barely-in-context notions, to compensate for lack of actual concrete arguments. His opinion is purely based on speculations, as much as the opinion of the philosophy guy in front of him. But.. as scientist is a bit embarrassing to act the same way, making claims with zero evidence (apart for a weak correlation with land exploration). I’m sure there are better scientists than that (and better philosophers too), that can discuss such an interesting topic in a less biased way.

It's OK to have universal modeling needed we are talking about absolute reality lol For me it's enough arbitrary evidence telling us this reality generator on the smallest scales is infinite degree of freedom yet uniformity timelessness without linear direction just perfect building blocks perculating permutations that can't and won't be precise until it emerges so. This ground zero of reality just seems to be something old world minds still can't condition themselves on enough to grant nature it's 1st position orientation and direction enough to have the conversation & modeling this way. It's okay use mri machine point of view. It is very sensible to sigma 6 subjective properties like hamiltonian oscillating waves correlated with idealized time but once you top down physical measure, 1st newton,2nd Einstein,3rd hiesenberg approach the physical mystification yoo hoo woo hoo uncertainty emerges. As identifiers it's perfectly fine to say here is physical form & shape the reduce now dig out the core emerged energetic actor code of nature 1st position. Then 2nd is lattus structure body 3rd Is an emerging critical extreme state or environment. This is what it tells us.

If its gods word then is it the devils mumber or gesus christy what abook symbols🍀🦍👀

Day n+1 of trying to correct modern physics of the correct interpretation of penrose diagrams 😂

4Chan500 members

NO! Causality of David Hume!

I hate to break it to yall, but the apple didn't fall from the tree. Why? Cause in the vacuum space there aren't many tree's. So what's that tell you? That the property is different. Ones planetary science, Ones galacty science closed environment, and the last is the infinite ♾️ vacuum space. So the galacty system is born from the sphere the planetary or solar system is born from a star, which in itself a closed environment inside a much bigger closed environment. Gravity is weighted mass at the bottom of the systems, it's local to its environment. It trickles down and up. I wonder sometimes if people have any idea of how this shite actually works. Gravity is always local that's why its weak. It's a phenomenon that only shows up inside closed systems if the conditions are right ✅️. It emerges from local planetary systems. Sorry but that's reality. Otherwise it's EMFSYSTEMS and VEM =0Msquared. And that's that. Peace ✌️ 😎. Eric great to see ya back on the stage. Tickets? Send some next time and I'll have a listen. Peace ✌️ 😎. Ready to Rock@Roll.

“You can t find the laws (…) you can t look through a telescope and find the laws (…)” literally what galileo, newton and Kepler did

I love when scientists declare that everything is sewn up and there's nothing else to know about a subject. He stated twice that nobody is looking for land anymore, yet new volcanic islands pop up all the time.

Eric Weinstein is misunderstanding the point. The rules of chess are conventions not absolute reality. In a pedantic sense but none less indisputable, it is the same with the Earth. New Islands are formed and destroyed all the time. Besides, he is not aware that he is claiming something using language; in itself a convention. This is the problem of those who don't study philosophy which is about knowledge. There is a starting point or a maxim in philoophy if you like that sets the bar: It says that knowledge is impossible because knowledge is interdependent. You arrive at a conclusion based on knowing something else. Therefore, what can be the first thing to know upon which everything else is built on? Except belief I can't think of anything else, can anyone else? This is like believing in God requiring no evidence which is also called a leap of faith by another philosopher. In order to give knowledge currency, conventions were born as points of common ground through observations. For example, no one knows if the colour red is the same to everyone's interpetive (not sensory) perception. But it was agreed by convention. You can talk about measuring the wavelength of red light and the rest of it but that will only make the problem worse because you will need to use language that has its own problems going back to empirical names and discussed by Wittgenstein such as names of object. It will become a circular argument that is not philosophy. So, this is what is meant by our inability to see reality not what Mr. Weinstein claims. Of course, the fact that we are constntly faced with observations that shatter our previous conclusions also gives this concept credence and should keep us humble about what we claim to know. Tectonic plates were taught as fantasy is Cambridge until 70s as David Attenborough keeps reminding everyone in his anecdotes about his geology professor in Cambridge.

Eric Weinstein talking about how great Eric Weinstein is

Eric's mind is a powerhouse