If you feel like you're experiencing déjà vu, you're partly correct. This video is a revised version of our previous upload on the same topic. We've refined and improved certain segments of the storyline.

The late Halton C. Arp pointed out there were problems with the Doppler effect, he found there were stars in galaxies that were older than the galaxies. The expansion of the Universe must be some sort of illusion.

Not sure why a "recycling" universe is such a weird idea. Literally everything IN the universe seems to recycle itself.

Maybe we will get sucked into a black hole, where everything gets so compressed it explodes and it all starts again?

The endless pursuit for meaning and In the end we're still left scratching our heads. Is it this or is it that? Someone somewhere must surely be enjoying the show.

Infinite intelligence existing within the so-called first intelligence existing as far as we know🤔 simultaneously evolving‼️👀 co-evolution🙏🏿

This is an interesting video, but it is totally spoiled by its deceptive heading 'There is an Eternal God who Began All of This' ft. Roger Penrose. The quote was actual from Steven Meyer a Christian/Intelligent Design , some might say pseudoscientist, not Penrose who specifically denies the existence of God.

"While answers are successfully evading, the foolishness of those who think they know." -Michael Nesmith, Wisdom Has Its Way, From a Radio Engine to a Photon Wing.

Here is how I think Roger's transition from one universe to another works: Entropy is commonly taken to be order proceeding to disorder, which is adequate for this explanation. As the Universe expands, energy becomes more and more randomly distributed, stars die out and there is less and less concentrations of gas in quantities to form new stars. Far enough in the future and the expansion will tear apart all matter, right down to the atoms, and at that point there is nothing but radiation in the Universe. Once this is the case, the nature of radiation becomes the point Roger is trying to make: radiation is photons, and travels at the speed of light, in which case there is no longer time (in a relative universe radiation does not experience time, and so a universe of pure radiation is effectively static as nothing can change without time). Without time, there is also no "space", which is to say distance; remember, radiation does not experience any "crossing" of space because from its point of view that crossing is instantaneous. With no distance, everything in the Universe is once again all in the same spot; distance has disappeared and all the energy in the Universe is back together again. No particles have to "travel" anywhere for this to be the case. Nor is a singularity necessary, as "size" has also lost all meaning. What's more, because its distribution is/was completely uniform throughout the cosmos--or at least it is now because it's all in one place, entropy is back where it began, with everything uniform (in order). At this point, if it is not obvious, all the "laws of physics" are no longer applicable, if they can still be said to exist at all. If it were totally uniform, then probably there would be no Big Bang because there are no longer laws of physics to cause it to happen. But if there is any imbalance, any non-conformities within the energy distribution--which I think Roger has intimated might be caused by the last explosions of the last black holes creating gravity waves that last into the radiation era--then because of these imbalances the laws of physics re-emerge, with space, time, distance and size coming back into play, and this causes the Big Bang. The one thing that carries over from universe to universe is energy (whatever that is). The laws of physics are based around this, and so the argument that there is some "probability" about how the Universe may behave after the Big Bang may be moot. Every universe may begin with the same impetus and have the same constants, and so be essentially identical to our current iteration. On the other hand, maybe only 1 in a million is like ours, but obviously if there is going to be life "as we know it", it has to be like this, and so here we are (although it could be a universe more amenable to life than this one). It doesn't really matter, because the "probability" argument is an argument from incredulity, and we have only the one data point of this universe to speculate from, so the argument is without merit. The video is right to say that we can't rule out a creator, but it's a nonsense statement, and just as nonsensical to say we can rule one in. It's a non-sequitur that has nothing to do with science or physics, and it's a discourtesy to try to drag a physicist into such a discussion--props to the video for eventually quoting his views correctly, though. Frankly, however, whether a scientist believes there is an intelligent designer or not is immaterial (sorry), as this too has nothing to do with the science, and never should.

Edwin Hubble did not discover an expanding Universe he only took cred for it. George Lemaitre first hypothesized it and Hubble later confirmed it. Ironically, given the title of this piece, Lemaitre was a Catholic priest.

There must be a Creator's aim so that our feet touch the ground precisely ! Imagine the world if that wasn’t the case !

I have compassion for the human mind. Its craziness is at all levels.

To my limited yet observant mind, Roger Penrose is the luckiest guy ever. He got effectively a second (or third) life, where he gets to imagine things to his heart's content, has followers in droves, is a social media star and is having basically the time of his life at age 85+ - he is especially lucky to have a fully working brain at this late stage along with good general health. He is no longer having to battle the Publish or perish plague of academia, or having to justify everything with infinitely complex mathematical derivations. Frankly, he must have done something right in a previous life to have been so lucky in this one. Frankly, I can almost see him smirking sometimes enjoying a secret delight. That while his contemporaries, if not gone already, are just barely hanging in there, tubes coming out of everywhere, captive to nurses, who, if they are lucky are caring enough to listen to their occasional rumblings. OTOH, I am not sure we are quite so lucky as we are exposed to this brand of the ageing theoretical Physicist. I dread a world in which there will be many more of them (Imagining some aging ex String Theorist and shivering with apprehension). Yet, even I say thing, I did listen to the video and found it fun. Universes begetting universes, I mean, why not? it's possible. may be even there's mathematics behind it. There's after all, mathematics for almost anything. we are THAT imaginative as a mathematical species (OK, that's Wolfram and bret Weinstein territory, but never mind). PS off to work some more on my very own, highly imaginative Simulation Theory. the beauty of which is that it begets several singularities like Roger penrose in evry "generation".

Traditionally, logic, math, and physics have been approached from a third-person, objective standpoint. They aim to describe the universal, mind-independent structures and laws that govern reality, without reference to any particular subjective viewpoint. In this sense, they strive for a kind of "view from nowhere," a perspective that transcends any individual's specific location or experience. However, as most will point out, we don't actually live in this third-person realm. Our experience of reality is inherently first-person, grounded in our individual perspective and subjective awareness. We encounter the world not as a detached, objective observer, but as an embodied, situated agent, navigating a landscape of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. From this view, metaphysics could be seen as the attempt to understand the deep structure of reality from this first-person standpoint. Rather than trying to step outside of our subjective experience, it would seek to dive deeply into it, to uncover the fundamental categories, principles, and relationships that shape our encounter with the world. This first-person approach to metaphysics would not necessarily reject the insights of logic, math, and physics, but rather reinterpret them through the lens of subjective experience. It would ask how these abstract, third-person descriptions of reality translate into the concrete, lived reality of the first-person perspective. For example, the logical principle of non-contradiction - that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time - could be understood not just as an abstract rule, but as a deep feature of how we experience the world. The fact that we cannot simultaneously affirm and deny the same proposition would be seen as a fundamental structure of our cognitive and perceptual apparatus, a necessary condition for coherent thought and action. Similarly, mathematical concepts like number, shape, and pattern could be investigated as basic categories of subjective experience, the ways in which we carve up and make sense of the blooming, buzzing confusion of sensory input. And physical laws and constants could be understood not just as objective features of an external world, but as the stable regularities and constraints that shape our embodied interaction with our environment. The key advantage of this first-person approach to metaphysics would be its grounding in the actual, lived reality of human experience. By starting from the irreducible fact of subjectivity, it would aim to construct a framework that is faithful to the way the world actually presents itself to us, rather than an abstract, idealized model that may or may not correspond to our direct experience. Moreover, as has been suggested, this first-person perspective could potentially help to avoid some of the paradoxes and contradictions that arise from a purely third-person, objective stance. By recognizing the ineliminable role of the subject in constituting reality, it would provide a more complete and integrated picture, one that doesn't try to separate the observer from the observed in an artificial or absolute way.

Remeber when "science" was about things that could be verified? The good old days.

I appreciate this a lot. Being critical is no small thing in holding companies like this accountable

It is entirely possible that the Penrose CCC is a single aeon that loops!

Roger Penrose is right. The moment he says 'creator', the masses jump to an anthropomorphic creator. This is the fatal flaw that institutionalized religions have committed and promoted, with each one having his/her favourite god, which is a projected image of their cultures. It is so ingrained in our brains we keep making the same mistake over and over again.

If God did all this. The next question is 'why'?

What is not getting through in these brilliant and yet hard headed scientists is that for life to exist, conditions have to be precise, but for universe to exist conditions cannot be precise zero. Zero state does exist but is unstable. The mystery is: Why?

This is pure sophistry

Who started the first Aeon then?

I feels like I'm sooo at ease and peace and so... very calming...

how can a shotgun blast point blank my head be converted into theory of make-believe thanks for the brain injury too btw

So if Aeons are the big bang firecrackers in succession that continue into infinity, who or what lit the first fuse? Was it a closed loop generation after a universal heat death (universe out of nothing), or linear prescribed event?

The universe isn't a loving peaceful place its total madness

When sir roger penrose speaks the science community listens 👌💯

Suffering sufferin suffering. That is the aim of this universe !

Idk if it gets addressed but... A universe capable of producing life that could even ask the question and quantify the parameters of the universe, would HAVE to have the correct parameters to create said life in the first place. The universe is REQUIRED to have the exact correct parameters to question itself, in order to propose said question. No chance involved.

Question is where did did this entity come from 🤔natures mother the being that is human

The compensating offset to expansion is known as the orbit where new expansions are continuously reborn in every subatomic particle.

If the future is a Bootstrap paradox of the past, how do I get where I should be? The answer is quantum mechanics.

Imagine a universe that is shrinking right now and that we, or Earth is being sucked into a ultra dense black hole. Through the law of physics we would be moving faster towards the center than those objects farther away due to the inverse square gravitational law. To us it would look like space is expanding beyond the Hubble space. Expansion could be a relative thing.

No matter how much scientists spin it you still need a creator 💥 ☝🏽

We have very little chance of approaching the question of all questions - why does anything exist at all? - other than to acknowledge and accept existence as a phenomenon. All answers that we can attempt at present and for an unforeseeably long time to come are speculations. From a purely logical point of view, there are not so many possibilities for a beginning; we have an eternal Creator plus natural laws, the eternal existence of energy and matter plus emergent consistent natural regularities as well as various cyclical forms of the existence of matter and energy. I only mention the creator for the sake of completeness, because of course a creator doesn't answer anything. Rather, it is subject to the same questions that must otherwise be asked about the existence of matter/energy. As far as our consciousness is concerned, this question is unresolved, but much easier to access. If we live in a universe - which we can again perceive as a phenomenon - that supports evolutionary developments due to extreme imbalances in the distribution of energy, it is not surprising that something will emerge. If something emerges long enough, there will also be something that can develop consciousness. The rest is an optimization problem. And yes, this also implies that our existence is not necessary in any way at all, neither in our specific way as a species nor in our individuality. We are beings of randomness.

How a expanding universe becomes so densely packed again for another big bang to occur?

This was fascinating i got hit upset the head and had to laugh at myself when ALL the zeros was explained then Roger broke it down absolutely thoroughly. This totally made sense and showed me why im so weird! (And quite smart to the point i forget things) .... oh my. So much aligns with future, present, and past. Interesting. I received an A- on my paper in my Senior year which i wrote and described a rose and titled as such 'The Rose' by Lisa Bordeaux in 1990 -91.All the more reasons i can agree with predictability and in some fashion of remote views as well?! Of course I struggle more on conversing things. The give and take applies in definite reality. Will explain farther, with help, if need be. I encourage collaboration.

Facebook woyld not let me share this link. Curious!

This idea about a cyclical universe is also detailed in mythological form in the vedanta.

1:59 a finite universe can exist within existence but existence can have no beginning or end. This is self-evident.

I think the large numbers you mention are incorrect. (10^10)^123 ~= 10^(10^123). I believe the RHS is what Penrose was meaning while your discussion treats it as if it is the LHS.

In medieval times Penrose’s theory would be the equivalent of the Phoenix theory. Visuals can be found in the art of 14 th century Europe, ie pre renaissance cosmology and the rediscovery of Greek and Roman eras.

I am a simple man: see name Penrose in titles hit like button automatically. Btw, fairly good video 👍

Just because we can explain how a loaf of bread is made, does not negate the need for a Baker!

Thanks Prof Penrose it is really interesting to observe that his ideas reflect a progressive mind and prudent intelligence of going beyond without denying something but interpreting it in a comprehensive way

If you forget the time, which is a human invention, everything is natural. An Eternal cycle of birth and destruction.

The anthropics strike back 🤣🤣🤣. Sad.

Let's focus on better medicine for ALL, better dental FOR ALL, better housing for ALL, AND HOW TO WORK TOGETHER FOR THE BENEFIT IF ALL?! Not just a few so they can FEEL SUPERIOR.🎉

The concept of the universe's creation in Vedic texts, particularly the Srimad Bhagavatam, contrasts significantly with the Big Bang theory. According to the Srimad Bhagavatam, Maha Vishnu, an expansion of Lord Vishnu, is the original source of the universe. The process begins when Maha Vishnu, lying in the Causal Ocean (Karana Ocean), exhales, creating innumerable universes from the pores of His skin. Each universe is like a bubble that eventually expands and forms its own cosmic structure. God does exist. We and the universe exist only because of Him. In each universe, Maha Vishnu enters as Garbhodakasayi Vishnu and creates Brahma, the first living being. Brahma then takes on the role of the creator within that universe, further shaping and organizing it. This process is described as eternal and cyclic, with universes being created, maintained, and eventually dissolved back into Maha Vishnu's body, only to be created again. In contrast, the Big Bang theory is a scientific explanation that suggests the universe began from a singular, extremely dense and hot point about 13.8 billion years ago. It then expanded and cooled to form galaxies, stars, and planets. This theory is supported by empirical evidence such as the cosmic microwave backgroundThe Vedic perspective sees the creation by Maha Vishnu as complete and perfect, understood through spiritual insight and revelation by great yogis and mystics. This is in contrast to the Big Bang theory, widely accepted in the scientific community but remaining a theoretical framework subject to ongoing research and refinement. The Vedic view emphasizes a divine and purposeful creation, while the Big Bang theory is based on imperfect observable phenomena and physical laws that are subject to change as our understanding of the universe continues to evolve. This is like ants trying to understand how a rocket ship works. Vedic knowledge explains creation in great detail. Why do we assume that our brief time here in modern civilization is the epitome of knowledge, when only a few years ago people believed that Earth was the center of the universe and anyone who disagreed with the church's theory was burned at the stake? #VedicPerspective #BigBangTheory #ScientificCommunity #Creation #UniverseUnderstanding

It is always fascinating to hear from Roger Penrose and his theories which really sound very sensible.

What Penrose called 'dark energy' I call electromagnetic resonance. It's this resonance that holds everything together and binds one end of the universe to the other. That is why a molecule can exist in two places at once no matter the distance.

Some scientists are audacious ,aggressive and stubborn to deny the creator. They deny the conceived scientific understanding just by denying it, as accepting God is something shameful for them. Pity for them.

Time is such a sublime realm, in which what you call past, present, and future exists inter-relationally. That is, they are not opposites, but rather parts of the same whole; progressions of the same idea; cycles of the same energy; aspects of the same immutable Truth. If you conclude from this that past, present, and future exist at one and the same "time," you are right. (Yet now is not the moment to discuss that. We can get into this in much greater detail when we explore the whole concept of time - which we will do late.) The world is the way it is because it could not be any other way and still exist in the gross realm of physicality. Earthquakes and hurricanes, floods and tornadoes, and events that you call natural disasters are but movements of the elements from one polarity to the other. The whole birth-death cycle is part of this movement. These are the rhythms of life, and everything in gross reality is subject to them, because life itself is a rhythm. It is a wave, a vibration, a pulsation at the very heart of the All That Is. Imagination - Process of Pure Creation The process of creation starts with thought - an idea, conception, visualization. Everything you see was once someone's idea. Nothing exists in your world that did not first exist as pure thought. This is true of the universe as well. Thought is the first level of creation. Next comes the word. Everything you say is a thought expressed. It is creative and sends forth creative energy into the universe. Words are more dynamic (thus, some might say more creative) than thought, because words are a different level of vibration from thought. They disrupt (change, alter, affect) the universe with greater impact. Words are the second level of creation. Next comes action. Actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. Forces are elements existent. Elements are particles of God, portions of ALL, the stuff of everything. The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating - or God experienced. Conversation With God - The Holy Trinity You are a tree-fold being. You consist of body, mind, and spirit. You could also call these the physical, the non-physical, and the meta-physical. This is the Holy Trinity, and it has been called by many names. That which you are, I am. I am manifested as Three-In-One. Some of your theologians have called this Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Your psychiatrists have recognized the triumvirate and called it conscious, subconscious, and super-conscious. Your philosophers have called it the id, the ego, and the super ego. Science calls this energy, matter, and antimatter. Poets speak of mind, heart, and soul. New Age thinkers refer to body, mind, and spirit. Your time is divided into past, present, and future. Could this not be the same as subconscious, conscious, and superconscious? Space is likewise divided into three: here, there, and the space between. It is defining and describing this "space between" that becomes difficult, elusive. The moment you begin defining or describing, the space you describe becomes "here" or "there." Yet we know this "space between" exists. It is what holds "here" and "there" in place - just as the eternal now holds "before" and "after" in place. These three aspects of you are actually three energies. You might call them Thought, Word, and Action. All three put together produce a result - which in your language and understanding is called a feeling, or experience. Your soul (subconscious, id, spirit, past, etc.) is the sum total of every feeling you've ever had (created). Your awareness of some of these is called your memory. When you have a memory, you are said to re-member. That is, to put back together. To reassemble the parts. When you reassemble all the parts of you, you will have re-membered Who You Really Are. GOD THE FATHER is knowing - the parent of all understanding, the begetter of all experience, for you cannot experience that which you do not know. GOD THE SON is experiencing - the embodiment, the acting out, of all that the Father knows of Itself, for you cannot be that which you have not experienced. GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT is being - the disembodiment of all that the Son has experienced of Itself; the simple, exquisite is-ness possible only through the memory of knowing and experiencing. This simple being is bliss. It is God-state, after knowing and experiencing Itself. It is that for which God yearned in the beginning. Of course, you are well past the point where you must have it explained to you that the father-son descriptions of God have nothing to do with gender. I use here the picturesque speech of your most recent scriptures. Much earlier holy writings placed this metaphor in a mother-daughter context. Neither is correct. Your mind can best hold the relationship as: parent-offspring. Or: that-which-gives-rise-to, and that-which-is-risen. Adding the third part of the Trinity produces this relationship: That which gives rise to / That which is risen / That which is. This Triune Reality is God's signature. It is the divine pattern. The three-in-one is everywhere found in the realms of the sublime. You cannot escape it in matters dealing with time and space, God and consciousness, or any of the subtle relationships. On the other hand, you will not find the Triune Truth in any of life's gross relationships. The Triune Truth is recognized in life's subtle relationships by everyone dealing with such relationships. Some of your religions have described the Triune Truth as Father, Son. and Holy Ghost. Some of your psychiatrists use the term super-conscious, conscious, and subconscious. Some of your spiritualists say mind, body, and spirit. Some of your philosophers say a thing is not true for you until it is true in thought, word, and deed. When discussing time, you speak of three times only: past, present, future. Similarly, there are three moments in your perception - before, now, and after. In terms of spatial relationships, whether considering the points in the universe, or various points in your own room, you recognize here, there, and the space in between. In matters of gross relationships, you recognize no "in-between." That is because gross relationships are always dyads, whereas relationships of the higher realm are invariably triads. Hence, there is left-right, up-down, big-small, fast-slow, hot-cold, and the greatest dyad ever created: Male-Female. There are no in-between in these dyads. A thing is either one thing or the other, or some greater or lesser version in relationship to one of these polarities. Within the realm of gross relationships, nothing conceptualized can exist without a conceptualization of its opposite. Most of your day-to-day experience is foundationed in this reality. Within the realm of sublime relationships nothing which exists has an opposite. All is One, and everything progresses from one to the other in a never-ending circle.

The CMB does not indicate the universe had a beginning, only that the universe had a radio source. That's all.

Who began eternal god?

The properties of physics don't care about mythology...

Aadi-Anadi....as Shiva says..! Without Beginning or End.

I am not religious but but I am not an atheist either. I believe, there's a higher realm of consciousness, and there's something that created all this near and far. We call it god, because we just don't know. And for some strange reason, we will never know. I could go on and refer to countless personal experience, but I do belive, the universe have always been and always will be, with or without human beings.

Are these previous universes exactly the same as ours ,if not maybe the "architects" are just doing this until they get it right.

I am a physicist and I will explain 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

Sounds like Penrose is doing a bit of Double Think. He must be with the Inner Party. Lmfao! 😂

I certainly would not have used the Zuckerberg Puppet.

The deepest insight into the cosmic beginnings of our universe was spoken by a somewhat wall-eyed elderly woman who stated that our universe rests on the carapace of an eternal tortoise. But when some smug cosmologist tried to unsettle her by asking "well, what does that turtle sit on??", she snapped back with the definitive and final answer: "Why, it's turtles all the way DOWN!!!"

Is that Grampa from the Munsters?

In infinity every universe will eventually emerge infinite times no matter the improbability.

This guy knows everything. You ask him!

What does "tiny" even mean? If you ask Betelgeuse, the Grand Canyon is tiny. If you ask a bacterium, humans are unimaginably enormous. Once the universe erodes into massless photons and spent energy, scale becomes completely irrelevant.

Maybe its time for you to read the Hindu text "Bhagwatam". It gives a more stable view on the reality that exists around us. It also marries the phenomena of consciousness to the 5 sense reality around us. Whats more, the book is hard to refute philosophically. The book is just holding true for thousands of years, while the modern science perspective about reality is changing every 2 decades.

If the universe is expanding, and creating space time at the horizon of that bubble; well, now that’s a lot of space time being created every second.

Great show. Thank you.

the whole creation shows its makers hand

If we have found out one thing about the universe, it’s the fact that it’s so vast and massive that anything is possible. You put so many zeros in front of your one to say “it just takes too much time for all possibilities to be tried”, not realising that it might have taken way more time for the universe to form than the amount of time needed in the first place. Yes, it’s hard for us humans to imagine that because we are just a flash, a spark compared to the universe’s age, but that is perfectly possible statistically.

There could be many of these linear cycles, in principle.

Well, we wouldn't find ourselves in a universe that was not "fine tuned" now would we? Nope. We simply would not be alive.

Atheist do not accept theists views and the other way around. But one thing is inescapable, all human bodies would eventually perish. Then after that will anyone realize if there is a God with morality and it's consequences or everything in this vast complex cosmos is mere random chance and we're just heaps of dust to be blown away and completely forgotten.

This video lost me when they featured Stephen Meyer, a well-known speaker for the Discovery Institute, which pushes the pseudo-science garbage that the universe is 6,000 years old. They also posit the the great "flood" of Noah's Ark actually occurred as the Bible claims.

Would be interesting to see what is his take on "Janus Cosmological Model" by Jean-Pierre Petit. What do you think? Can we assume negative mass instead of dark matter, i.e. one universe with two metric systems over parallel universes or cyclical universes (Penrose theory) ? Wouldn’t that explain our universe better?

What happens to all the periodic table natural atoms created by creation such that when a new creation starts we only see atoms of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium? Such detail is not addressed in this video and it should be. Nor was there any explanation of how a new creation 'knows' or is triggered to begin itself once the former creation is extremely dispersed, old, dark, dilute and cold. What sparks the spark? Where does the energy to create new simple matter from a singularity come from and what happens to the old dispersed dilute universe? Answers please!

It's like questioning the plausibility of finding ourselves on the surface of a habitable planet, instead of in the random point of space? How does it suggest anything? It's just logical that our location can't be random.

Penrose is a publicly stated atheist. Rationalizing the existence of god from specific characteristics of a scientific hypothesis or from the lack of a validated scientific theory is specious reasoning predicated on the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance under the broader umbrella of the logical fallacy of confirmation bias. Start off with the conclusion and then try to manufacture excuses to justify the conclusion you started out with in the first place - the very antithesis of rational thinking.

I prefer this ideas, that possibly involve a creator or cosmic will towards other ideas like vsuperdeterminism or random, that negotiate free will or consciousness of the whole.

It still begs the question…. What started the first big bang ? Lol

Roger Penrose does not believe in any God. You are wrong. He is an atheist. No scientist is comfortable with a God who created this universe life. Some scientists are comfortable with Buddhism. It is difficult for scientists to believe that a God did all the calculations and made the universe. Most of us also feel uncomfortable and find it very difficult to believe such a God exists.

Some excessively creative problem solving to get around a much simpler solution: God.

I like this video

All intelligent people know that our earth and the universe has evolved over millions of years, and is still changing daily. No person past or present has been able to prove that there is a god who waved a magic wand and created what is now.

I wonder, is the universe expanding more because life and observers are growing? It would make sense if we are all interdimensional beings, each with their own relative perspective and universe, according to light, we re each the centre of our own universe or the real meaning of the word 'Uni-verse' which means 'One song' 😁

Why is there a weyl curve? why is there anything at all? why do you have axiomatic aspects of reality that cause physicallity to be as such? think axiomatically and question the why of the axioms. To sau that there are axiomatic cualities that cause reality to be as such doesn't explain why are there axioms at all, and what causes those axioms. Fighting to deny metaphysics by making things bigger, longer in duration changes nothing, you still need to accept that those axioms that you discover are being caused to be what they are and how they are.

These exact ideas presented here are true AND they were known to man a long time ago. I might add that the universe on the physical level a like a mere shadow of the universe that IS in the spirit of what is called here " the cause " or " the intelligence " . God.

Interpretation and again - infinitely - only brings complexity of meaning - and words that change constantly. This forms - mountains of dogma - and elites and practitioners of ideas - to protect it. Science - has lost simplicity and essence - through this adventure - and may be eating itself - through egoism - lack of clarity and simply exhaustion. For meaning - one has always tried - the way of mysticism - by the method of meditation. One has followed the heart and mind - in a joyous - yet determined - practice - and even the Real Being - cannot escape - this quest. Good Teachers - along the way (mystics) - are primary and vital. Love has to be evoked - and humour plays its way - in this inner journey - thinking and feeling - working - in humble grateful harmony. May it be so. Fare thee well.

Everything is in constant flux, which creates the idea of separation. Because observing change creates the idea of separate parts or happenings. Whilst in essence everything is transitioning all the time and everywhere.... So in this regard when thinking in terms of a creator it somewhat misses the point Because there is no separation in the first place

We needed an infinity of trials and errors to exist.

The dream time people dream of us, then became us. We analyse and write about the dreamtime people, then became them.

Picking one card out of a billion ani't that difficult if you can start over a billion times. If you only have one chance then yes. But you don't. If you are the universe, then you have an infinite amount of time to start over.

I think the universe has immense potential and human civilization is creating the universe with our potential. It's hard to measure if the universe has a beginning because the expansion happens in all different directions including the past, present, and future. The light years do affect the actual age of the universe.

I think that Roger Penrose actually believes in God, but he does not admit it openly because the scientific establishment would outcry at him.

but but but... Who created the architect!!? 🙂 Or may we drop everything and let him/her/it just be... That's too easy

Excellent.... thanks 🙏.

Quote from the Danish book Spiritual Molecules: "I saw how the singularity was the ultimate ruler in the Universe. The endless repetitions of the Big Bang created the pulse of the Universe. The singularity collected everything in the Universe and re-sent it all out like a gigantic heartbeat into the empty universe. One second in eternity and creation of a new univers i the infinite empty space where everything happens" Man is like an ecological mirror of the universe. The singularity is like a heart that expands and contracts. The sun lives an active life and dies precisely as humans do.

Good video!