I think it needs to be 2, 3 times longer for him to get to the point.

💯💯

🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent). Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature: 1. Guilt 2. Blame 3. Pride 4. Anxiety 5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above. Cont...

Mooi gezegd! Ik denk dat wij mensen in dit leven de “ultimate answer” nooit hebben. We kunnen dichtbij de “ultimate answer” zitten.

The concept of the "ultimate answer" varies based on context. In philosophical or existential discussions, it often refers to a hypothetical answer to life's fundamental questions, such as the purpose of existence, the nature of reality, or the meaning of life. It's a subjective concept, and different individuals or cultures may attribute different meanings to this notion. Some see it as an unattainable, elusive truth, while others seek it through spirituality, science, or personal beliefs.

I think that we, as humans, never truly possess the "ultimate answer" in this life. We might come close to it, but the "ultimate answer" remains elusive (in this life)

@@AppenArrow Precies, onze visie zal altijd maar een beperkte resolutie zijn van wat is.

Fortunately, every bit of evidence argues against your claim.

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

> 'Science "exists" for a reason and obviously lives up to its purpose, but it still must be conjoined with other data processing disciplines in order to comprehend the big picture. ' I think that's right. Science is appropriate to certain kinds of inquiry, and not others. I think at some level it's applicable to pretty much any inquiry, after all it's really just a general process for systematic study, and what phenomena aren't worth investigating systematically? However there are other levels of analysis and lenses through which we can view and understand things. I know why gold has it's particular shine, it's due to a peculiar combination of unique relativistic and quantum effects on it's electrons. I think our brains are physical and our behaviour and emotional processes are physical. I think they developed through a process of evolution. But we've only known that stuff for a few generations, and humanity got by perfectly well wearing and admiring gold jewellery without it. I don't think about that at all when I see my wife wearing her wedding ring (Well alright, sometimes), and it doesn't make any difference to the meaning of that ring to us and how I feel about our relationship. It's just a different level of consideration, like the appreciation of art. There's a lot of science that goes into creating great art, and in fact also into various aspects of aesthetics, but not all of it. Sometimes you just get lost in the beauty or creativity of it, and that's fine.

Hello 0-1 and Simon. What does he mean by "niche"?

@@missh1774 This is a concept in evolutionary biology. Put simply it's a particular strategy for survival in a given environment. You could call it a strategy, role or way of life. An environment contains various resources and hazards. An organism might have various adaptations that suit it to take more or less effective advantage of some of those resources, and avoid or protect itself from the hazards. A particular strategy for survival, comprising physical and behavioural adaptations, is a niche. Most ecological environments have plants, they fill a niche that takes advantage of nutrients and sunlight. There are herbivores that eat the plants. There are predators that eat the herbivores. Within those categories (there are many more high level categories than that, eg parasites) there are various kinds of predators such as chasers, trappers, ambushers, carrion feeders, etc.

@@simonhibbs887 thanks Simon. would it be in a nested format or is there no specific style of pattern?

@@missh1774 We can think of them in terms of a hierarchy. I wouldn't put animals, plants, fungi and such as categories here strictly speaking. They aren't niches, they are approaches to solving biological problems. However carnivore is a nice because there are biological resources available in the environment in the from of other animals, and eating them is definitely a survival strategy. Then within that, depending on the environment, there may be sub-categories of strategy. An important point is that a niche is more defined by the organisms that exploit it than any objective criteria. We could say that a large island with only plants, including grass, but no animals has an unoccupied ecological niche for grazing herbivores I suppose. Also note that the existence of some organisms creates niches for other organisms. Without plants you can't have herbivores, and without those you can't have carnivores, and plants get nutrients from dead animals. So you can think in terms of categories and hierarchies, but also in terms of cycles. One of my daughters suggested that flies have no useful purpose, and I explained they're incredibly important. They spread bacteria promoting decay, which helps recycle biological material. But also consider what happens if an animal dies in an inaccessible location, such as under a shed, or in a cave, it will dessicate and the biological material in it's body will be wasted. However if flies find it their larvae will consume the caracass turning it into flies. These disperse through the environment and get eaten by birds and such, so they're very good at recycling.

And God only knows.😂

Mathematics doesn’t break down at the edges of science . Our ability to apply nether teams down at these points because we don’t know how to apply it correctly

*"If it takes more than 1 minute to answer an straight question you don’t know the answer or there is no answer."* .. . What if the question is _"How long exactly is 61 seconds?"_

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC 🤯

How does nuclear fusion work?

bullshit. time is definitely bot cyclic. And scientists do look for syntesis (holism) . But to understand the whole you need to understand the parts.

@@matswessling6600 "to understand the whole you need to understand the parts." Does understanding the cardiovascular system provide any clue about a human being or any organism that has such a system? Does understanding the parts of a brain provide any clue about the unity of the conscious experience? Does understanding the motion of the solar system provide any clue about the whole Universe? Isn't it the reverse I.E.: to understand the parts (smaller wholes), you need to understand the (bigger) whole first?

@@Samsara_is_dukkha absolutely.

@@matswessling6600 Absolutely what? How does understanding a kidney help understand the organism it came from?

@@Samsara_is_dukkha is this som kind of joke? you will never learn how the organism works if you don't understand its parts.

Evolution isn't just random assembly, it's also environmental selection. It would be as accurate to ask how can polystructures selected due to fitness for their environment achieve self-preservation. This is where Kauffman goes astray. Se says evolution is neither random nor deterministic. In fact it is both, because being a process, different stages of the process can work differently.

@@simonhibbs887 *"In fact it is both, because being a process, different stages of the process can work differently."* ... If I randomly toss a hundred thousand seeds into a field with the understanding that only 2% of them will grow into plants, is this considered a random process, an orchestrated process, or both?

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC It's both, in that some aspects of the situation ware random and some deterministic. Each seed has slight random variations in it's genetics (unless they are engineered Monsanto clones). It's random where each seed falls. Some seeds will fall on stones, or in a soggy patch, or in the shade of a tree. Others will fall on good soil that contains the best nutrients and gets good sunlight. The real competition is between seeds in similar conditions to each other, but that have different genetics. Some of the seeds that fall in shade or wet ground will have genetics well suited to those environments, and will produce more seed of their own than the other seed around them. The same is true of seed that falls in good conditions, some will do better there than others due to genetics that suit them to that environment. So the environment they land in and their genetics are randomly varied. However it's a fact that seeds with genetics that better suit them to their environment will, all other factors being equal, do better and produce more healthier seeds than those that don't.

​@@simonhibbs887 *"It's both, in that some aspects of the situation ware random and some deterministic."* ... Interesting that you addressed the seeds, the soil, the genetics of the seeds, and their proximity to each other, ... but not the *outside agent* who tossed them. I was not trying to be sneaky, but one of my arguments about "Existence" is that there is a minimum amount of intelligence that facilitates the evolution of everything into higher complexity (no more - no less). I argue that from our perspective, we could easily misconstrue a particular evolutionary process as being totally benign because we cannot isolate a level of intelligence that merely matches the level of complexity involved. This is why you were able to explain the random and nonrandom parts of this scenario without referencing the outside agent ... _even though one was involved!_ In my "seeded field" example, there was a *minimum amount of intelligence* present that facilitated what can be easily confused with a completely random event. The minimum amount of intelligence was the knowledge that there was a 2% likelihood of successful plant emergence based on the number of seeds involved ... and that 2% success rate was deemed satisfactory to keep "Existence" pushing forward. ... Therefore, the seeds were tossed.

selection is a complex process that goes against both emergence and randomness... self-preservation can't be possible without a selective process, unless all variables were part of some kind of a cycle that enabled their reassembly at enogh precision as to maintain a particular functionality stable for a specific time period... and only if such cycle was possible then natural selection explains why the most functionally robust options are looped back in the same deterministic cycle... but such cycle resembles more to an intelligent process rather than a random outcome...

There's a nice article on that on the PNAS web site. "Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system".

There is nothing about the flagellum that is irreducible. This was debunked decades ago

He came up with a particular autocatalytic set construction, but the general concept has been around for a long time. There are autocatalytic sets based on various inorganic as well as organic chemical cycles, many of which can occur naturally, and they have been demonstrated to be subject to evolutionary adaptation.

@@simonhibbs887 autocatalytic sets, yes. Autocatalytic proteins, no.

@@mikedoesstuff4222 Some autocatalytic sets consist of proteins, or include some proteins. Kauffman proposed a cycle consisting of proteins (lipids) that has subsequently been experimentally validated. He says so in the interview. I can look up the paper again if you like, or you can do a google, I tracked it down after he mentioned it in another clip a while back.

@@simonhibbs887 lipids are not proteins.

@@mikedoesstuff4222 I’m not a biologist so I get confused about that stuff. I think what he means is he originally proposed autocatalytic sets in generic mathematical terms and suggested they might exist in terms of proteins, but later the effect was demonstrated using lipids. Nowadays there are many such sets that have been verified, including sets that are comprised of inorganic salts. If you’re interested there’s plenty of info online, including summaries of research, journal articles and peer reviewed papers. It’s amazing how much is just a search and a few clicks away these days.

*"So the process is actually both determinate and random. It’s a process, so different parts or stages can work different ways."* ... How can you state this and also be a proponent of hard determinism?

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Because randomness exists in several different senses. There's fundamental randomness as in quantum mechanics. This is 'true' randomness in that it is impossible even in principle to certainly predict an outcome. I'm not entirely sure this is real, if superdeterminism is correct then it isn't, but there are good arguments either way. Then there is emergent or apparent randomness, which is an artefact of complexity and lack of information. Even if we live in an entirely deterministic universe, in which every low level physical interaction is entirely deterministic as in Newtonian physics, you and I would still not be able to certainly predict the result of rolling a fair die. We just don't have enough information, or the computational power, to do the calculations, even if in principle they could be done. This kind of randomness, unpredictable distributions of outcomes, is sufficient for evolution to work. In fact technically you don't actually need randomisation for evolution to work, you just need a distribution of variations in each generation across the possibility space. In principle that could be deterministic, but in practice random variations work perfectly well.

What is the mechanism which new evolutionary adaptations are made that seem to be well suited to an environment moreso than expected. Evolution occurs faster in enviroments where conditions are unstable. Can you explain the randomness aspect of evolution better? @@simonhibbs887

@@simonhibbs887 *"Then there is emergent or apparent randomness, which is an artefact of complexity and lack of information."* ... If randomness is an "artefact of complexity" then where did the initial complexity come from that produces the random artefacts? Does complexity predate randomness? *"In fact technically you don't actually need randomisation for evolution to work, you just need a distribution of variations in each generation across the possibility space."* ... What's the difference?

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC There’s an interview with Seth Lloyd on the channel on “is information fundamental”, I think that’s the one that covers some of it although there are several chats with him that bear on this. Stephen Wolfram is good on this as well. Basically it’s an interplay between how the progression towards thermodynamic equilibrium leads physical systems to search the probability space towards the highest possible number of configuration states, combined with the way gravity imposed order on the universe by collapsing the environment into dense regularly ordered structures that release energy. >”what’s the difference” The important input into evolution is variation, which means some individuals become better suited to their environment than others. That variation could be by design. We could genetically engineer an organism to be fitter to survive, and in fact we do this. However variation could be through a predictable procedural process of selecting new traits, such as trying possible new traits one by one in some sort of sequence, or a random process. It’s just that in nature there aren’t mechanisms to procedurally try traits one by one, but there are (pseudo) random processes and so that what happens in the wild.

When is he picking up his Nobel prize ?

@@tonyatkinson2210 All Standard Theory/Model is wrong. Those prizes are awarded for “nonsense on stilts”: why pretend they are important?

@@davidrandell2224 such confidence, Mr Dunning Kruger , such confidence . A confidence that can only come from a necessary specialist expertise , where did you get your advanced PHD in theoretical physics from?

@@tonyatkinson2210 Any accelerometer- slinky,water balloon,phone app- experiment ( remember those) PROVES the earth is expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration. Try it yourself. Only an honest brain required ,or do you lack even that?

@@davidrandell2224firstly , nothing is proven in science . What you’ve done is made an observation . Now you need to make a hypothesis and then test it . What novel predictions does your hypothesis make that you can test ?

>"When ever i confront these evil persons " Why is having a different opinion from you, just the opinion, 'evil'?

​@@simonhibbs887anybody who denies the Divine, by metaphysics definition is by default evil - sophists place themselves as the radii, and all else revolves around them; they too place their senses as criterion and erroneously displace the principle of Truth with ignorance instead - they believe Truth only to be what they can understand from their condition, thus delimiting this principle Truth rather than acknowledging they themselves are delimited by their condition and Truth is never circumscribed. To deny the Divine or ignore, preclude, exclude, obscure, is to devalue 'Wisdom'. To value information over Wisdom is antithesis to virtue; he who prefers a shadow over light is a fool. You can damage control if you want: rendering all experience, insight, knowledge, wisdom, realization, and science as merely 'opinion', and too even your own input as opinion, so to come across as "fair" but such sophistry has no substance. Pushing the atomist religion that is a dogma based on quantum bullshit, and too pushing your principle that is 'information' and 'physical' is most certainly an inimical position to life itself, the universe, natural order, the very Divine. You seem to think that you're smarter than Tesla, poincare, Plato, Plotinus...the Greeks, Indians, Egyptians...

Oh he believes evolution through natural selection is real, he just has some rather odd ways to think about it in philosophical and ontological terms. That's why some of what he says about it is hard to interpret.

@simonhibbs887 Yea Simon, I thought it was just me.. I was uncertain of his position, too, despite hearing parts of it twice! Could YOU discern whether or not he accepts abiogenesis? Or the fundamental role played by Rna/DNA ?

@@simonhibbs887 edited for clarity.

@@Bill..N I’ve seen other clips from this interview on the channel, and looked him up, so I think I’ve got a reasonable idea of his position. He’s genius level smart, but as is often the case, that doesn’t stop him falling off the rails a bit, IMHO. He’s always interesting to listen to though.

@simonhibbs887 Yes.. Geniuses are as susceptible to odd and erroneous ideas as ANYONE else..There are NO arbiters of truth.. I am not familiar with this gentleman, but what I could gather in this clip his opinions are vague and indeterminate..

Where is this God? And why have they been hiding for the last 2000 years or so? I wanna see some walking on water and people being raised from the dead (without the help of modern medicine)

@@EverythingCameFromNothing ---- You really need to edjumakate yourself bro! The world is more expansive than your biggoted little mind.

Nope. No god needed.

@@hensonsf2701 --- It isn't a matter of needed; its a matter of science.

@@JohnQPublic11 No, it isn’t. At all. Literally there is no scientific evidence of any gods. Ever. 93-97% of scientists are not believers in any god. You are just FAT wrong.

science is the method how God works

God was behind the bigbang

First causation (God) is still in action & will act till the last.

@@pakistanzindabad9257 i also believe that the first causation can be only some kind of higher consciousness ....

@@francesco5581 so an atheist or a person over whelmed by scientism cant grasp the real source behind all sources....which is the ultimate observer & himself is the genuine reality i.e God

But the answer to your question is obviously 'yes'. Why? Because he's asking if those questions will ever come to a final set of equations that answer everything, and he's been told that the questions themselves are inexhaustible. It goes back to Godel's incompleteness Theorem.

GIT is about mathematics, not physics. In physics, whether or not we arrive at a final theory of everything would depend on whether the universe is governed by a simple finitely expressible theory. Of course, even if we did arrive at such a theory, we wouldn't necessarily be sure of it. It is likely to be aesthetically unsatisfactory to many, and for technical reasons like fundamental stochasticity of certain processes and sensitive independence to initial conditions, prediction may still prove difficult. And of course, the behavior of complex systems like the human brain are governed by their structural complexity, not their physics. And that structural conplexity depends on very intractable mathematics. Also, by the nature of science, we can rely on the quantitative predictions of the best theories up to a point but the qualitative predictions are always open to doubt. Finally of course, the only questions that science can answer are not only those that are well defined but those that are in principle and in practice empirically verifiable. The point is not that so much if science can answer ultimate questions as whether, given that science can't, these questions serve any purpose. Because science alone by definition can give not just an answer but some evidence for that answer

Yea Todd!! A Well defined question is critical!!