why are they in front of an MRI machine?

@no further west - Probably because they were talking about consciousness in an earlier part of the interview.

@@BugRib what does that have to do with mri

is the universe subject to bit-rot?

Fuckin shreds electric guitar

I think it's more like an 80s syntheziser

that's an old interview, he finally realized he was never gonna be a rock star and got rid of the moptop in recent years

“We all know what Dave does in his free time” Funny because it’s probably true!! Although I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a classical pianist as well… “If a physicist wants to take a step away from the equations then ultimately they are doing philosophy. There’s no avoiding it if you really want to figure out what the ultimate nature of reality really is.” (David Chalmers). Similarly according to Jimmy Page from Led Zeppelin…. "You can't overthink the music. Mood and intensity can't be manufactured. The blues isn't about structure; it's what you bring to it. The spontaneity of capturing a specific moment is what drives it." “I have a voracious appetite for all things, worldly and unworldly." (Jimmy Page). Similarly, according to the physicist William Bragg.. “Religion and science are opposed ... but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything. - (Sir William Bragg, Nobel Prize in Physics 1915). Ha ha Iv just just done a search and David Chalmers is actually in a rock band called Zombie Blues taken from his thought experiment for the (Hard problem of consciousness) using a Zombie. Brilliant! 👍👍

Chalmers is the lead singer of the Zombie Blues band, which performed at the music festival Qualia Fest in 2012 in New York

LMAO

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

That’s disrespectful. He’s Robert Plant

Brian May got young again.

Brian May is a physicist. So not a stupid idea.

Same. Robert Lawrence Kuhn is truly a brilliant interviewer. Who else could discuss highly abstract concepts with so many highly intelligent people across diverse fields of the hard sciences? Yet when I google RLK all I read about is his association with China!?

Thanks. I never heard of the "hard problem of life", just of consciousness. Clearly, they're interrelated on some level and both are likely unapproachable by the framework and constraints of physics.

Thanks, Katherine, for sharing this. Very interesting. And you edited it well, showing you have skill in writing.

It's already been solved Katherine Stone, but Like anything this radical it's ridiculed and deemed Fantasy, in the beginning, due to its trows to fare into question the current reality paradigm. Jest look at our scientific history but rest assured that the data is here and available to those who are open to and will look at it. Hers a hint “What is true for you is what you have observed yourself. And when you lose that, you have lost everything.”

This. That's right. And it was philosophy which led to more and more information. So the rationale is there not for no reason. It is fundamental and one can't even do science or physics without it. But somehow that's supposed to dissappear and stop at whatever those in academia say. Where there's just a cold clinical answer to everything.

@@adamburling9551 In the end, it will be philosophy again as there is a high probability that spacetime is just one compartment within reality. Science will never be able to measure all outside of spacetime (spacetime is likely emergent). We are caught as humans with our devices to measure within spacetime. We are limited with the reach of our machines. human scale also plays a big role. Take pacman the game, you can not expect pacman to reach its own program lines of machine code from out its screenworld.

The first sentence makes sense, but the second??......

physics has little to nothing to do with consciousness. We need a new widely excepted paradigm altogether. Awareness and Consciousness + the consideration of a thing yields a byproduct, "Solidity". Mind or thought over matter sort of speak. As a being, not your body is senior to the material universe.

@@ericswain4177 What about quantum entanglement? And what about the fact by measuring where a particle is, say an electron, it changes that particles momentum.? Both anomalies seem to point to a type of consciousness.

@@rl7012 Maybe in part but it's extremely limited in scope.

physics has little to nothing to do with consciousness. We need a new widely excepted paradigm altogether. Awareness and Consciousness + the consideration of a thing yields a byproduct, "Solidity". Mind or thought over matter sort of speak. As a being, not your body is senior to the material universe.

"Well, there it is" Dr. Ian Malcolm

The journey is the point, though. What we have uncovered in our pursuit of "the answers to the universe" has transformed the world by lifting the veil of ignorance and superstition. We'll never know everything, but we should try nonetheless.

so we should stop and do nothing instead? humans have to do something on a daily basis to keep busy we cant just sit and live in a cave...you are just projecting your incapabilities on others (because you don't know you also want others to not know or even try , lazy religious people do this) and i see these types of remarks on every comment section...this is what lame people do to control others...people can try...whether they understanding something or not is different...its fun to be curious...and you are human too...you are not excluded from your statement...why did you come to the video if you don't care about knowing anything?

I’ve seen dogs catch their tail before. Not saying you’re wrong.. just poor analogy

Good evening My freind. I always say to all of you, the more turste you got even if you drinks all water in this world as far your right comprention is on the good road the worst your turste get and the feeling of geting so far from the true anwser get, I say Bravo 3times to you guys and I am so proud. At this point, of your comprention I have to say I will get Littell secret for Me. Juste in case. But we still have lots to understand.😎 I will keep helping the best I can

​@@arpitthakur45 You seem to be the one projecting all your presuppositions onto him in the form of opinions you brought to this conversation. You may be right, his comment certainly has anti-intellectual undertones, but you can't stick your readymade labels on someone and saddle them with all the associated ideological baggage based on something as scant as what he wrote. You can counter his point like I did without strawmanning the living fuck out of him.

A level occurs somewhat arbitrarily, but we can say when it's when a small amount of information tells us a lot about a whole system. Like when you measure a gas in a box, it has trillions of atoms, but it can be approximated with 4 or 5 unique values you can measure - given that you have the right equations to let you understand how all those trillions of atoms will roughly behave. I can say "there's a fire, run!" - now do you need the billions of years of geology and biology and thousands of years of sociology and civil engineering to understand how there is a building around you and why it is on fire? or do you need to know exactly how fire releases the energy in chemical bonds in a runaway process? And the exact way in which smoke inhalation or tissue damage will harm you?? No!!!!!! You just need to know there is a fire! And to run!

I wrote a long response to this on this forum, and i'll have to refer others there on the long story, in my opinion of course. In the short version i believe we have identified molecules, atoms, quarks, because we had to create metaphysical structures to house our experience of these things. We don't actually see these things, outside of interpreting data. Even the light that hits our eyes is interpreted data. We just tend to rank things in tangibility based on our senses. None of our senses are actual realities however, and need to be converted to something our intelligence can frame into a metaphysical reality. If a person cannot feel, then you cannot communicate temperature outside of presenting them with some other metaphysical structure for it, like showing them temperature readings. Well, then both of you will need to go deeper, and explain why temperature means anything, and then you get into thermodynamics, which needs to be further explained by the existence of so called 'atoms', and then further quantum mechanics. Essentially, all of these things are not realities, but are metaphysical constructs that give shape to what our minds are collectively experiencing. The thing we are experiencing has no real form to it, but has an intuition to it, which we try to capture as laws of nature. It feels weird to think of something as infinitely reducible, when you mind is stuck thinking in numbers or physical things, because having infinite amount of things to explain a single thing is actually nonsensical. That is why it isn't real, and should be evidence of fallacious thinking. Obviously the infinite structure is the made up thing, and there must actually only be one thing that is indescribable, that for a moment in time has enough shape to it to make sense to us in an indescribable way. The phrase 'words cannot express it' is very well applied here. It would be similar to trying to describe your consciousness. An infinite structure of metaphor or symbolism would be required. 'I am Mark' , one might say. Yes, your name is mark, but what does that mean? What are you? Well, I'm like.... Then that will be the beginning of a infinite cascade of reduction of what he is, that never ends., when in actuality Mark does not experience any such a thing. Mark is just Mark. The bible, is one of the few sources, that describes the cause of this reality as 'I AM' and doesn't go further than that. I think there is a lot of wisdom to that way of thinking. Not because we should abandon science, but because that mindset leads to understanding of reality more than the idea that the things we are classifying as layers to reality, are actually real. There are no atoms, but there is only what is consistently experienced at the level of the so called 'atom'. Quantum mechanics will continue to baffle us unless we start to understand this. Obviously things become 'fuzzy', once we start defining things beyond our senses. Not understanding this leads to things like Alternate universes, which to me are as about as real as Santa Clause. There are no alternate realities, or universes, but there is the very very real fact, that this reality doesn't have to be what it is, and could be just about anything else. Since, anything else is immaterial, and this very universe is immaterial. No basic shape or form, means endless possibility. Again, the Torah, Bible, etc. are spot on in this regard. Calling the universe formless, and something needing to be shaped out of nothing, is to me the truth of what we are experiencing. It is also the truth about what we experience in our minds as thoughts concepts.

Yes it can. The Mandelbrot set can show fractals are within nature everywhere that's because the Mandelbrot set is nature in the form of mathematics. The universe in my view is a fractal it's so obvious if you study fractals. Not just from tree branches, rivers, and coastlines but the homogenous nature of the stars and galaxies. So, if the universe really is a fractal then such levels should just go on and on and on. It could also mean that the universe had no beginning, rather it always existed and something always had to exist, so nothing doesn't exist either. It's a hard concept to grasp but maybe beginnings and endings are just concepts. If we look around, we always see something especially when we look up at the stars and galaxies, just endless sea of somethings. Even when we're sleeping something occurs, dreaming. It's a constant going on of somethings which is quite odd. I'm totally convinced that the universe is a fractal. It it really is though then we can use the likes of the Mandelbrot set to study it since the set is using the language of the universe.

“Could fractal analysis be applied to this” Good point!! Chalmers did mention the prescriptive nature of mathematics and mathematics is used in modal logic. Furthermore, (Mandelbrot Fractals) which have only been discovered fairly recently have been described by mathematicians as “the thumb print of God” as they appear to transcend infinite levels and dimensions of reality. The images generated by the (Mandelbrot Fractal) are beautiful and fascinating but also create a sense of awe and humility and even fear to be honest!!

@@cecilmcintosh864 I guess this is what my questions were leading ya, I agree. It’s difficult to believe all the things we witness and share with each other are just metaphysical constructs when we actually do witness them, or at least I do. It also seems odd that metaphysical constructs would have laws that are testable and govern their interactions and every level, whether we witness them or not. I don’t struggle to believe infinite reducibility (or the opposite even, infinite abstraction?) but I do struggle to believe that this exists with out a reason beyond “eh we just made it all up.”

It does not follow that seeing stuff everywhere means it was always there..

@@rl7012true but this is all we see so it's the most logical interpretation even when physicists talk about nothingness, quantum fluctuations, that is still something. Some theories exist stating that nothing is impossible.

@@SpacePonder Nothingness is impossible. There has to be Something existing eternally outside the dimensions of space and time.. Because the only thing we can be certain of is that the universe did not start from Nothing..

BINGO

Always starting understanding very simple, My freind 😎

When a ‘“particle” magically appears in a “vacuum” of quantum fields, obviously it takes the form of a pattern - fermions or bosons. Obviously “energy” exists, but we can only measure it in the form of a pattern (kinetic or potential, e.g. some temporospatial relative difference). The patterns energy takes on are molded by the quantum fields. But does energy really “exist”, or is it just a reflection of a change in quantum fields - and what the hell are those?

There's a fundamental problem with that though: how do you _ground yourself_ ? We don't just use broad 'empiricism' (i.e. observation), we specifically employ *scientific observation*. Meaning it must be measured, objective, consistent, rules-based, contained/isolated, etc. However, that means you're literally using science to validate science. That's circular reasoning. In the end, all you're really saying is "science is right because it is scientific". What's more is science itself tells us true scientific observation is impossible. Relativity, the Uncertainty Principle, Entanglement, Quantum Nondeterminism, Observation Effect, the Measurement Problem, etc. prohibits true and complete scientific observation. Science is ok for what it is, but it'll always be either inconsistent or incomplete and result in paradoxes. It might be better to ground ourselves with epistemology first.

@@hckytwn3192 Mainly through several independent (trained) observers agree on the same thing, when observing an experimental result. There's no pure objectivity. But if you can get people to agree, even reluctant ones, this would be a major step forward.

@@mintakan003 Right, so like 2+ billion Christians in the world agree, observing through independent prayer, trained by their books of faith and holy priests, that Christ is the Son of God? Does that work? Of course not. 🙂 Once again, what you really mean is scientific observation-which throws you back into the trap of circular logic. “Science is correct because it matches my scientific observations.” (Even though it doesn’t really.)

@@hckytwn3192 I just mean science. I'm open to other things, such as religion, and spirituality. But for a number of reasons, it doesn't have the same status as the more fundamental sciences (physics, chemistry, some of biology). (Not even sociology, psychology, economics, have the same status). There is a bit of tautology in all of this. But I guess one can expand the tautology, when the fields become mature enough. Some may never reach that point. (You do have a chance in breaking some of the tautology, when you discover new evidence, something not expected. E.g., expansion of the universe, at one time.)

@@mintakan003 fair enough… and I agree, science holds a special place and has a great many uses and insights. I’m just saying many times we lose sight of what science is good for, it’s strengths and shortcomings. It’s more than just a matter of tautology. It’s the problem that Godel and Tarski proved out. It’s a fundamental problem in any formal system, they break down during self-referential analysis (e.g. “The set of all sets that doesn’t contain itself”). This means we should be skeptical of finding answers when applying science to certain questions like consciousness or the origin or nature of the universe-they’re highly self referential. Anyway, appreciate the thoughtful dialogue 👍

Good evening, try to watch juste informations comming in, since few decay. And use your brain and your feeling trust your feeling with confidence.😎 You will understand what is your mistake My freind. Please dont take it bad its about helping My freind 😎

Well said.

The printer in the background agrees :D

I was thinking of pictures of Newton. Must be the long hair.

more like a groupie.

Isn't this the guy from Megadeth?

What if every fact is just a fact about something else? And a fact is intrinsically nothing more than what other facts say about it?

Though consideration based on information can interact, affect, create Energy.

Both simultaneously. Energy constrains information and information constrains energy.

Meaning that hell would be the impossibility of reason

You can have an infinite amount of information in a finite space. That’s what a fractal is.

It would take an agent then to interpret then

@@Numberofthings What is "information in a finite space"? If there is nothing containing it, information in empty space isn't much informative.

If we dig deeper and deeper, our logic stops working. Things work counter-intuitively. Information is a state of something on our level, but maybe on deeper levels there's something more than state and matter and energy, or maybe they all the same, and states can exist on their own, without matter and energy or maybe information is a foundation of energy, and energy is a foundation of matter and so on, the possibilities are endless

@@arletottens6349 Maths has its limits: we may know a huge amount but only to reveal that we may never be able to know the depth and the full structure of reality.

Hello Jeremy, thank you about this nice compliment. IT touche Me realy. Every should be on a good mood because things going great, I am happy about all this. Jeremy hope your happy too.😎