Is There Existence Outside of Time? Sara Walker

Рет қаралды 11,277

3 ай бұрын

Join my mailing list briankeating.com/list to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA 🇺🇸 will WIN!
Is it possible to exist outside of time? Are we just static objects, or do we have to continually reassemble ourselves in order to exist? This is a question that will have to be answered if we are ever to understand the origins of life. I had the pleasure of discussing this with Sara Walker, who is an expert in this field. Enjoy!
If you liked this clip, check out my full interview with Sara: • How to Find Aliens | S...
Sara Walker is an astrobiologist and theoretical physicist interested in the origin of life and how to find life on other planets. She is most interested in whether or not there are “laws of life’ related to how information structures the physical world that could universally describe life here on Earth and on other planets.
Additional resources:
➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:
✖️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 KZfaq: kzfaq.info...
📝 Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/list
✍️ Check out my blog: briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/
🎙️ Follow my podcast: briankeating.com/podcast
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #sarawalker

Пікірлер: 115

@teaneggs 2 ай бұрын

I love the part where they answered the question

@King311___ 2 ай бұрын

She b cute though

@stevenverrall4527 29 күн бұрын

Ground state atomic nuclei may be continually reconstructing themselves. See "Unbound low-energy nucleons as semiclassical quantum networks"

@OzGoober 2 ай бұрын

5:34 "you have to go through 4 billions years of evolution to get an object like me". Worth it. Thank you, great talk.

@DrBrianKeating 2 ай бұрын

Our pleasure

@SimonBrisbane 2 ай бұрын

She's hot and intelligent. She must have some serious flaw hidden somewhere surely!

@CK-lg2uu 2 ай бұрын

I agree, she is cute, but worth 4 billion years cute?

@jyjjy7 2 ай бұрын

Cute, but cute enough to ignore that she apparently has no real idea what a quantum fluctuation is? You are quoting her essentially saying physicists don't understand quantum mechanics but she does, seemingly based on a misinterpretation of the very ideas she is presenting...

@OzGoober 2 ай бұрын

@@jyjjy7 I believe Walker is suggesting is that complexity must originate from some form. A potted plant can't be born from quantum foam alone.

@meesalikeu 2 ай бұрын

this is terrific. mostly because dr sara and dr brian have the same personalities, specifically their rather youthful fast talking, like they are full of hormones and have to get it all in, and yet also their clarity and patience with keeping us civilian viewers in mind. i could listen to them all day as there is plenty to think about.

@jerrymuns 2 ай бұрын

It seems like you can freeze time by moving at the speed of light, and on the contrary mass is frozen, or extremely slowed down light.

@markcarey67 2 ай бұрын

Matter is fermions. Light is bosonic. Only the W and Z bosons have a rest mass. If you could somehow slow down light you don't get matter because you still have spin 0 versus spin 1/2 like electrons. This is a very important distinction because it is the difference between something like a laser where everything wants to be in the same state and something like a table which is solid, where the electrons can't "get on top" of each other too closely (the technical name for this is the Pauli Exclusion Principle)

@stevenverrall4527 29 күн бұрын

Ground state protons and neutrons may be vortices of virtual photons. See "Unbound low-energy nucleons as semiclassical quantum networks"

@stevenverrall4527 29 күн бұрын

@@markcarey67Only the Higgs is spin zero. Fundamental bosons are spin 1. During pair production, a spin 1 photon splits into two spin half massive particles. Protons and neutrons have a physical size and may start off in pure vortex states. See "Unbound low-energy nucleons as semiclassical quantum networks"

@cordatusscire344 2 ай бұрын

I'll need a citation on that agreed property of Time being an emergent phenomenon of reality as opposed to a fundamental part of it. When we reach that particular bridge, I will be more than happy to cross it with you on the journey of exploring your idea. I've been thinking about Time for decades. I have no damn clue what it really is, even if it *is*. It isn't so much my knowledge on the subject that has grown as it is my ignorance of it. The more I learn, the less I know. Frustrating eh? But if it were easy, one of the plethora of more intelligent people than I would have solved it by now.

@kayakMike1000 2 ай бұрын

Here is a clue. Time is that which separates events. Now you can continue your decades long thought process with a fairly obvious clue. Einstein gave another more subtle clue, time is relative to it's own inertial reference frame, so that which separates events in your reference frame may be compressed or stretched in another reference frame. I just thought up somewhat more obvious clue: within your reference frame, cause will always precede effect. What else can I think of... I heard something called a Zen koan about a man that put up four walls and a roof to make a cozy little room for his family. The walls and the roof are not the room, but without them is there a cozy little room? Well, yes and no. The room might be there, but its really indistgishuble from any other space and therefore wouldn't be very cozy and his family might get cold in the rain. Maybe time is the same way, where events, cause, and effects are analogous to walls and roof of the cozy little room. Without them, would there be any time? Sure, but without any events to be separated, would there be any time? Here I might say again, yes and no, but consciousness as we understand it, may need time to change. Change implies time, perhaps, and consciousness seems to always be changing and evolving.

@mmaximk 2 ай бұрын

Fascinating, where is the full conversation?

@Nogill0 3 ай бұрын

I think of "Constructor Theory" and I think of structures (world lines) in Spacetime as opposed to the view of things isolated in a discrete time slice of Spacetime. But a world line is static in the past, only active in a local present, and any meaningful present is not point like but extended, with various interacting components, each embedded in their own local present. That makes for a pretty complicated picture of evolving structures. But it isn't even clear what it might mean to say that a world line is static in the past. I look back in time to a distant star and say that the world line of that star is static in its past, but as I gaze at that distant star's appearance, in my present, it has an influence on my thoughts and feelings, so how static IS that distant object's world line?

@shadowoffire4307 3 ай бұрын

Cosmic radiations has a biggest role in formation of life on earth not only water and other chemicals. Cosmic radiation which also flips bits in computer creats glitch and error or genrate output with wrong answers in computers. Abiogenese is a complex and time consuming process and cosmic radiation has played big part in it.

@rforey 2 ай бұрын

I’m not sure the stasis question is that difficult to answer. As an analogy, you can pour water onto a sponge (water being the analogy of time, the sponge being the analogy of an object). That sponge will get heavier and heavier (weight being analogous to information / evolution) until it is saturated (analogous to reaching pinnacle of evolution ie a professor!). At that point the sponge won’t soak up any more water (time), but that doesn’t mean you can’t pour more water (time) onto it or that water (time) ceases to exist. It just means the object is saturated with time and additional time doesn’t = additional evolution.

@titussteenhuisen8864 2 ай бұрын

Apart from time could there be an ‘unknown’ driver for change something that is part of physical matter? Thoughts are something. thought energy can change physical matter and is part of it. Time stays emergent this way.

@ConnoisseurOfExistence 2 ай бұрын

Might be better to think of that as there is an amount of work done by entropy into an object, not time. Very interesting though. Maybe we can even set a spacial name for this term - the amount of entropy work that has been done for an object to acquire its specific characteristics.

@theomnisthour6400 2 ай бұрын

What do you think a thought experiment is, but existence outside of time, except when needed to satisfy ordered thought dependencies?

@v1kt0u5 2 ай бұрын

Beautiful 🧐

@Duckfisher0222 2 ай бұрын

Oh cool, Sara is awesome!

@theophrastusbomblastus821 2 ай бұрын

My understanding of emergence comes from Brigitte Falkenburg (Why More is Different, Falkenburg, Morrison eds, 2015) and involves amount, but emergence within a process would indeed be time based. I thought biochemistry evolving from geochemical and geophysical cycles was self evident hehe Sara Imari Walker R0X!!

@mikewendland4982 3 ай бұрын

This is the first time I've seen and heard of Sara. I saw her image before hearing her speak. Boy, first impressions couldn't have been more wrong!

@frun 2 ай бұрын

Pinnacle of evolution spontaneously fluctuated into existence 🌱

@MagnusGalactusOG 2 ай бұрын

Does she work with Lee Cronin?

@Bill..N 3 ай бұрын

Although it might be naive, I have always imagined time to simply be any change that occurs from one state configuration to another, admittedly an idea with little to NO explanatory power.. Leaving the time element aside, the specific issue involving information processing which leads to proto lifeforms and then microbial life, that idea IS convincing.. So is the position that an emergence in complexity arises in direct relationship to the AMOUNT of information processing within proto and actual lifeforms.. One could extend such arguments to suggest that the very same principals apply to, AND enable the emergence of all complex life including ourselves..Yes?

@rhcpmorley 2 ай бұрын

Time is abstract, not fundamental - its how we reference change. Change (including the subset motion) is fundamental, and reference-frame (e.g. quantum) specific. And all change is caused by energy differential. If you are not changing (in a particular reference frame) then you are static (in that particular reference frame). There is no universal time 'thing' ....just quintillions of change events. Look around you.

@reginafefifofina 2 ай бұрын

0:03 intuitively I say there has to be. Like any form requires conciousness to power itself for existence- existence/conciousness/god is truly infinite and your tiny little mortal mind can’t possibly grasp the concept or is finite and expands/contracts/remains static in relation to how much physical manifestation THEY choose to create (all life and the universe) for the purpose of aesthetics, for fun and contemplation.

@vanikaghajanyan7760 2 ай бұрын

7:02 On spontaneous Lorentz transformations: the asymmetry of time actually implies the accumulation of time, more precisely, history, variety, aging. Instead of the Copenhagen and/or multi-world interpretations of quantum mechanics, the presence of spontaneous Lorentz transformations seems to be more physical. “Summarizing, we can say that the postulate of relativity includes the statement that the uniform and rectilinear motion of the "center of gravity" of the Universe relative to some closed system does not affect the processes in this system." (Pauli, RT). Obviously, for an expanding universe, the opposite is true. Apparently, the researcher can detect and measure the effect of the aging process in his own frame of reference caused by the phenomenon of global time t(universe)=1/H: ds^2=c^2dт^2=g(00)c^2dt^2=(1-Ht*)c^2dt^2, where the Ht* parameter shows which part of the global the time "elapsed" in its own frame of reference, t* is the measurement time according to the clock of the resting observer, t is the duration of any physical process in its own frame of reference. That is, an observer can measure the increase in the duration of processes in the laboratory frame of reference: dт=[√ g(00)]dt=[√(1-Ht*)]dt~(1-Ht*)dt

@sunnyhollow8141 2 ай бұрын

the problem with theories are they are thoughts and your thoughts are not your own if you think they are try turning them of

@reginafefifofina 2 ай бұрын

6:07 daily grooming - I admire the people go out any way. They may be depressed, they could be the Clint Eastwood of 0 fucks what anyone thinks, because you are comfortable going through life without a mirror. Pure experience. Of course those people who make a production before stepping out are such works of art transmuted into a form of personal aestheticism…. which is a spiritual practice in the south and eastern religions.

@janklaas6885 3 ай бұрын

📍4:55

@brandonmacey964 3 ай бұрын

Ok so it’s ludicrous to expect scientists to make a cell in the lab.. how about just explain why the DNA code exists, why, how, what were the early stages/events that led to it, evidence, experiments, etc.. the BS that is out there now is the best we’ve got? Not convinced of any natural explanation presented, they all must be admitted to be ludicrous based on what we understand.. so difficult for people to just admit they don’t know and haven’t got a great clue

@KT-dj4iy 21 күн бұрын

It is very difficult for one person to explain something to another person if they both don't first agree on what constitutes an explanation.

@robertspies4695 2 ай бұрын

If 2 or more things can move relative to each other then there is time.

@PrivateSi 3 ай бұрын

Complexity should increase over time in a system if matter-energy is added.. Once energy input stops the system will simplify over time... Redefine 'entropy' this way: ENTROPY: simplicity. Closed system complexity reduces over time. Uniformly (dis)ordered (hot)/cold field is simplest There are islands of high entropy stability that can be highly ordered, not just disordered. It's more about uniformity. a gas in a uniformly random state is much the same entropy as a solid crystal/metal ball in a shielded, closed box in the middle of a deep intergalactic void in this model. Nature should make use of regular structures such as polymer chains and sheets.

@Seekthetruth3000 2 ай бұрын

Where does time come from?

@danskiver5909 2 ай бұрын

I’ve come to believe time should be thought of as a 3D space with axis of harmony, logistics and existence.

@KT-dj4iy 21 күн бұрын

Also: Tourism, Food Service, Railroads, and Sales. And Hospitals/Manufacturing. And Air Travel.

@duytdl 18 күн бұрын

Has she had a chat with Wolfram? They both sound like they're onto something similar

@CircoVega 9 күн бұрын

The existence outside of time depends on your context. In the mathematical context of general relativity where time stops in black holes, then yes there is existence outside of time. But that's just a mathematical abstraction people incorrectly apply to reality. In reality, everything in the universe co-exists simultaneously in the present. However, It doesn't appear to the observer as such because the universe isn't locally real.

@hazaraudi7488 Күн бұрын

@@CircoVega what do you mean the universe isn't locally real?

@CircoVega Күн бұрын

@@hazaraudi7488There was a Nobel prize given for the discovery of "the universe isn't locally real." It means that the image you see is an image of the past that doesn't actually exist at that moment as light takes time to travel. When we look at stars many light years away, we don't see them as they actually exist. We see them as they existed in the past. The effect is true for all light, no matter the distance. So, everything you view isn't quite the way the object is in reality.

@picksalot1 2 ай бұрын

Replace the word Time with Entropy, and everything would be much clearer. The transformation and transfiguration of materials all take place in the Present, not the Future or Past.

@dadsonworldwide3238 3 ай бұрын

This is great framework breaking down dualistic notion of inderect & directlines of measured wanting emphasis on the in-between but still wades in the water with boots on like most of physics. . It's a well used formula that can & has been a zeitgeist used in many different industries..it doesn't tell us anything but doese count some routine patterns in biology but it's shared in other things as well. It's taken physics along ( time ) to accept things and even still it's elders are reluctant..but it only makes sense the most hard headed dicipline of all has the last desperate hail marry attempts.lol I like computational selection theory but it is in direct opposition to darwins ideas.idk why you would limit it to a singularity at this point.. 3 way transfer & exchange of data was used against evolution and was the advocacy predictions. So much was predicted in the great debate to be true that If the darwins movement listened then the Swedish discovery of dna then wouldve been the starting point of modern biology instead of fighting against all the gallaleo conprencous discovery along the way. To have made religious vs science claims against the very creators of our methodology was always wrong. Textualy Inspired methods in concert with orientation and direction has always given many great predictory power to certain generations but it was so combative it simply became an echo chamber pushing away those generations and only filling itself with ptolemaic Minds. It doesn't matter how ideas ,models come about all that matters is if it is truly predictably repeatable facts about nature. Your can confirmation bias correlate anything after the fact. Like it or not what was predicted If earth did exist closer to the center of the milkyway during an active galactic nuclei era it would be something absolutely perfectly aligned in a way that would be very difficult to repeat even in the expanse of the universe with many trys. We do need a point where we say the most funding in human history the last 90 years , that for 500 years a movement born in reaction to discoverys made inadvertently becomes our chosen goals and the grand unified evolutionary singularity in all feilds over time doesn't make or break anything.

@robertspies4695 2 ай бұрын

Physicists discover that biology takes time. Let' call it Constuctor Theory Must be a Nobel Prize there somewhere.

@chrisrecord5625 2 ай бұрын

So living systems have a separation of data from machinery and non-trivial replication.

@traruhsynred3475 2 ай бұрын

What could that even mean?

@eyeservantez 2 ай бұрын

This is why people get the collective mindset. They buy into the lie that no one is an individual.

@JimConnelley 2 ай бұрын

How about time only occurs when you're violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

@peteone111 3 ай бұрын

What about the chirality proble what about the polymerization problem? What about the fact that peptide chains don't form in aqueous solution? These things and others are pretty much fatal to the idea of assembly theory, and abiogenesis in general.

@kurt1391 2 ай бұрын

Well, you just remove time and throw in an infinite number of rolls of the dice, and problem solved. The more time passes, the more I respect condensed matter and experimental physicists, who actually produce results.

@jackforbesjr7052 17 күн бұрын

Riddle me this how did anything that's reliant on parents to survive how did the first of anything get through that without milk or whatever else the parent would do???

@bookzdotmedia 2 ай бұрын

Each mo.ment is a new revelation of source.

@wulphstein 2 ай бұрын

Needs more examples. Otherwise it just sounds like fancy talk.

@IanWilliams-ox3wz 3 ай бұрын

There is no time itself just continuance

@tedgunderson67 2 ай бұрын

What is time? 9:34am! Thank me later.

@RealQuInnMallory Ай бұрын

Thank you

@mariakasstan 2 ай бұрын

@reginafefifofina 2 ай бұрын

3:29 dude, I can have a 1mg thc mint, wear a great outfit, throw out some comedic insight and get feedback from smart attractive thoughtful young people and I get paid a suitcase full of money and possibly get a Nobel prize 🏆 participation award….. sign me up, I’ll race you! 😂

@BikianaBiswas 2 ай бұрын

These days we are hearing much of philosophy and philosophising rather than actual science. A real breakthrough in Science takes huge time. Meanwhile, philosophising about plausible and possible ideas are thrown around that's the state of science now.

@brandonmacey964 3 ай бұрын

I think I understand what she’s saying, but it was devoid of any explanation, evidence, or experiment as to HOW WHAT WHY life

@kurt1391 2 ай бұрын

She has what I call faith-based science. Start with the faith in an idea and slap some math and sciencey stuff around it. It's the sort of stuff that is making theoretical physics cringey.

@eyeservantez 2 ай бұрын

Nonsense I say Nonsense

@panmichael5271 2 ай бұрын

The theory appears vague, information implies an ordering process which implicates "design" and you end up with a variant of "mathematical creationism". Direct, or even indirect evidence (cf particle physics) must be subject to a valid measuring strategy. I cannot see how this theory can ever become meaningfully quantifiable. In reference to religion (designer, creator, spirituality in general) Buddhism I would suggest is superior. And I am not religious!

@DrBrianKeating 2 ай бұрын

don't disrespect my guests or you'll be banned from comments

@nunomaroco583 2 ай бұрын

Hi,Dr.Brian I dont see any disrespect, in my opinion it's an opinion nothing more.....

@panmichael5271 2 ай бұрын

@@nunomaroco583 Hi, if you look closer you'll notice I edited the comment in order to remove the blunt "disrespectful" comment that Dr. Keating was referring to, and thus elaborated my opinions on the subject discussed. I hope this clarifies the matte.

@nunomaroco583 2 ай бұрын

@@panmichael5271 Thanks for clarify Sara it's a great mind and Brian too....

@guillermobrand8458 Ай бұрын

a gift The Age of Life The ability to carry out actions differentiates inanimate matter from living matter. In turn, every action involves the management of Information. We do not know what Matter is or what Life is, and we assume that all life forms that currently inhabit the planet descend from a common ancestor (LUCA), an organism whose complexity is evident if we consider that it is attributed the ability to reproduce. Due to the above, it is reasonable to assume that “seeds of life” existed prior to LUCA. Assuming that the “seeds of life” emerged together with the Big Bang is a bold postulate, and as such requires a solid empirical foundation. When observing Evolution considering the information that our ancestors have managed, and that currently managed by humanity, it is possible to distinguish seven evolutionary milestones; Its analysis allows us to postulate that Life goes back to the origin of the Universe, and the existence of an “evolutionary pattern” is evident, which turns out to be the Golden Ratio. Evolutionary Milestones -Emergence of ”Seeds of Life”(1) (thirteen thousand eight hundred million years ago). -Emergence of LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) three thousand eight hundred million years ago -Emergence of the brain (five hundred and fifty million years ago). -Emergence of what was the precursor of human language (2) (twenty-seven million years ago) -Emergence of the language that characterizes us(3) (around two hundred and twenty thousand years ago). -Emergence of “the information age” with the transistor (1950) -Evolutionary Singularity(4) proposed by Ray Kurzweil, who postulates that humanity will access a Singularity as a result of the exponential growth of information management (year 2045). Evolutionary sections Among successive evolutionary milestones we can distinguish the following six “Evolutionary Tranches”, with the duration indicated (in years): Tranche 1: 10,000,000,000 (13,800,000,000 - 3,800,000,000 = 10,000,000,000) Tranche 2: 3,250,000,000 (3,800,000,000 - 550,000,000 = 3,250,000,000) Tranche 3: 523,000,000 (550,000,000 - 27,000,000 = 523,000,000) Tranche 4: 26,780,000 (27,000,000 - 220,000 = 26,780,000) Tranche 5: 219,905 (220,000 - 95(5) = 219,905) Tranche 6: 95 (95 - 0 = 95) The particular variation experienced by the Evolutionary Sections over time suggests using the logarithm of said sections (LT) to analyze their behavior over time. The logarithms in question are as follows: LT1 = 10.0000 LT2 = 9.51188 LT3 = 8.71850 LT4 = 7.42781 LT5 = 5.34224 LT6 = 1.97772 The lines between two successive logarithms have the following slopes (P) P1 = -0.48812 (9.51188 - 10.0000 = -0.48812) P2 = -0.79338 (8.71850 - 9.51188 = -0.79338) P3 = -1.29069 (7.42781 - 8.71850 = -1.29069) P4 = -2.08557 (5.34224 - 7.42781 = -2.08557) P5 = -3.36452 (1.97772 - 5.34224 = -3.36452) After searching for an “evolutionary pattern” we will determine the variation between successive slopes, which is given by the Ratio (R) between them, that is, P2/P1; P3/P2; P4/P3; P5/P4, and is the following: R1 = 1.62538 R2 = 1.62682 R3 = 1.61586 R4 = 1.61324 The above values differ from the Golden Number (1.61803), a number also called the golden number, the number of God, the extreme and average ratio, the golden ratio, the golden mean, the golden ratio and the divine ratio, by 0.45%; 0.54%; 0.13% and 0.30%, respectively. In turn, the average of the sum of the ratios is 1.62032. This value differs from the golden ratio by 0.14%. The results obtained allow us to postulate that Evolution follows a pattern that is a function of Information and the golden ratio, and that Life goes back to the origin of the Universe. Knowing the evolutionary pattern, it is possible to project the duration of an eventual seventh Evolutionary Tranche, which turns out to have a duration of 2.99 hours. The above allows us to postulate that humanity will have to face a Singularity, with an uncertain prognosis. (1)The last universal common ancestor (LUCA) is the putative common ancestral cell from which the three domains of life, Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya, originated. The complexity that LUCA is assumed to have does not give rise to affirming that it arose by “spontaneous generation”, it being valid to postulate the pre-existence of “seeds of life” prior to the emergence of LUCA; It is postulated that the origin of the “seeds of life” dates back to the moment when Matter arose in the Universe, that is, around thirteen thousand eight hundred million years. (2)“We find that the anatomical potential to produce and perceive sounds differentiated by their formants began at the latest by the time of our last common ancestor with Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea) about 27 Ma ago”; " Which way to the dawn of speech?: Reanalyzing half a century of debates and data in light of speech” (Science magazine) (3) The last change in the position of the hyoid bone in humans, which would have allowed access to the language that characterizes us, took place approximately two hundred and twenty thousand years ago, and its data is based on archaeological evidence and anthropological studies. There is no scientific source that records this change on an exact date. (4)Due to the exponential growth of information technologies, Ray Kurzweil postulates that a Technological Singularity will occur in the year 2045, at which time technological growth will be so rapid and so profound that it will be impossible to predict what its consequences will be. (5) It is the time between 1950 and 2045, the latter year in which Ray Kurzweil postulates that a Singularity will take place.

@kurt1391 3 ай бұрын

She reminds me why theoretical physicists should be unemployed, or at least employed as science fiction writers. They take ideas that can never be proven and are prima facie nuts and apply math to them to provide some veneer of respectability.

@helicalactual 19 күн бұрын

No.

@neutronium_goes_wild 3 ай бұрын

she's effectively asking if there is life in singularities, since time is nothing but motion itself singularities ain't real everything is a quanta, an oscillation amplitude the universe is a quanta, too planck relics

@dominiqueubersfeld2282 2 ай бұрын

Is There Existence Outside of Alcohol? Johnnie Walker

@vesawuoristo4162 3 ай бұрын

We don't even understand time itself.

@readynowforever3676 3 ай бұрын

Please tell me what does that have to do with anything in this context ? (I mean I can say we still don’t understand gravity-in terms of why it works)

@CupGreen 3 ай бұрын

Who is "we" buddy? 🤨🤨 I'm on break for an hr and I'm off at 5. I know exactly what's going on

@kayakMike1000 2 ай бұрын

@@CupGreen pretty good. Time is that what separates events. Though... If there were no time, would anything happen, or would everything happen at once?

@CupGreen 2 ай бұрын

@@kayakMike1000 im from the past and let me tell you time is overrated

@MusingsFromTheJohn00 2 ай бұрын

Of course not. Silly question.

@reginafefifofina 2 ай бұрын

Like 1:24 a mycelium network of biology aging like the finest wine 🍷 and 🧀 - what would reality simulation be if God is having a psilocybin therapeutic vacation? 😂

@vincentpinto1127 2 ай бұрын

All the wonky grandiosity of ludicrous hypotheses that necessarily MUST arise when people WILL NOT accept the plain fact that the Universe was created IN six days, roughly 6000 years ago. For sure, one has to deal with the question of HOW can stars be zillion light years away in a universe just 6000 years? But this is a question that can ONLY be even begun to be addressed once one has settled in ones mind that the universe was created by a supremely maximally intelligent being. The trouble is that if he indeed is the one who designed and created the universe then I have to forgo bragging rights for our supposed theories. And it is precisely this grandiosity that internally-arrogant but externally-pseudo-humble people just absolutely chafe against.

@hakiza-technologyltd.8198 2 ай бұрын

Hahahahaha

@patted44 2 ай бұрын

What a bunch of hooey! Look at the work of Michael Behe and irreducible can complexity and you realize that information is the underpinning of life (DNA and.more) and wherever you have information you have mind...mind supercedes matter and life.

@jerrysstories711 2 ай бұрын

I heard a lot of philosophical daydreaming there, not much science.

@edweinb 2 ай бұрын

The probability of life developing on what was a molten surface in maybe 300 million years (or less!) after it cooled down, is pretty nearly zero. I would go for panspermia.

@FatherGapon-gw6yo 28 күн бұрын

Apparently the only thing this lady understands is how to vocal fry some prime bs

@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler 2 ай бұрын

Due to the uncertainty principle it rules out a static universe...

@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler 2 ай бұрын

I think when she says that it takes 4 billion years to make a Sarah it's a way overcomplexification... multiple Universe versions allows for infinite different versions of Sarah to be mass-produced and small differences exist in Mandela effects which the simulation does the best job it can...

@cooliipie 2 ай бұрын

Womansplaining 🎉

@frannyp46 3 ай бұрын

I think my mother has cut Sarah’s fringe.

@whysogrim697 3 ай бұрын

😅

@RWin-fp5jn 2 ай бұрын

The computer you are watching this podcast on, has its created functionality as per code. 1 and 0 at the lowest level. No matter the sophistication of programming languages on top of it, no-one in its right mind will claim the functionality fell from the sky like mana. If it has code, a human programmer was at the basis of it all. Period. A living cell has at its core DNA, (double RNA). Thats also CODE. A 4 digit code ATCG. Why cant we accept likewise that if it has CODE then it must have a programmer. And it wasn’t us. So there must have been a creative force whatever you may call it. One might make a dictinction between the actual programmer (maybe not as devine as we think) and the creative force ruling all. We humans currently are afraid what we created with our binary code (AI) may surpass us in some functionality and what to do with it. it is not illogical for whatever created our code to do the same.

@jyjjy7 2 ай бұрын

You anthropomorphizing the act of creation. It's SUCH a basic and common human error... I'll just say I'm disappointed in you and leave it at that.

@hakiza-technologyltd.8198 2 ай бұрын

@jyjjy7 better admit you have no valuable argument against his.

@jyjjy7 2 ай бұрын

@@hakiza-technologyltd.8198 Literally everything we know of in the universe is created through natural processes describable by the laws of physics, except for the things we humans make purposely here on this one planet. The entire premise of the argument is simply incorrect, almost nothing that exists actually has an immediate "creator". As I pointed out this is an extremely human perspective and plainly irrelevant when considering the nature of the universe itself.

@thomasbardoux1692 2 ай бұрын

@@hakiza-technologyltd.8198 his argument is baseless. He assumes that what we call DNA code is similar in origin or in function to computer code. In reality they are not.

@markoreilly3414 2 ай бұрын

Wish they'd take their Ritalin, before tapeing.

@emmanuelpil 2 ай бұрын

What a BS title. Even if in a Bose-Einstein condensate or a quark-gluon plasma state you have a frequency, meaning a time factor. Name me one 'state that hasn't. Existence as we know it is not possible without time.