Glad we're sticking to physics and not vaccines. COC and all that.

26:42 it is hubristic to say we won't find a way to overcome the laws of thermodynamics? What the fuck are you talking about?

Hey Liv, David Deutsch next

One massive problem with these statistics is that they don't capture the system. Anyone who has listened to donella meadows lectures about systems knows that a system can look perfectly healthy right up to the point where it collapses. Yes of course all these superficial metrics have improved, but what about nuclear threat. Did that metric improve? How do you even measure it? What about climate change? The damages from climate change are just starting, so they won't show up in the metrics, even though we have to act now to adress them. The optimism from Hans Rosling is very dangerous especially if one understands that all these metrics only improved because of the use of fossile fuels. What happens when we are out of fossile resources? What happens when the pollution caused by their use catches up to us? All these things you won't see in his very narrow metrics. Humanity is at a critical point and we shouldn't be fooled to think everything is going to be alright based of very narrow metrics that don't comprehensibly reflect our current situation. Even hans Rosling himself knew that there are still many metric missing to measure progress of the sdgs. He even knew that we are not on track to achieve them even by the few metrics we do have.

Great interview! You actually let the guest speak his mind. Sean, you know we always love hearing your thoughts, thanks to both.

Is this "physics - the musical"? Why is this guy singing?

Atheist scientists are scary, if they found God's artery they would cut it.

Brand new viewer and I'm loving this conversation! I can't wait to check out more here.

1:50:10 SHE SAID THE THING!

We need this positivity to spread it's wing.

I feel like a crazy person for saying this but I posed Sean a question about the relationship between Complexity and Entropy just after the outset of COVID in the comments of one of his youtube videos which he answered in a subsequent one. (That was kind of how the series he did worked) IIRC, in a sort of diplomatic but condescending way he made it out like I misunderstood the concept of Entropy (I didn't, but I will give him I am not so literate and articulate in this area and very likely came off as a bit of a rambling layperson,) and didn't really acknowledge the depth of the question I was asking. I am slightly jarred, but also grateful that he has turned that question into his own and considers it worth getting answers for since the whole reason I asked it was because I wasn't smart enough to answer it in the first place. I suppose also if we are to accept his multiverse interpretation it should be no surprise that the universe against all likelihood seems finely tuned, with a tendency towards complexity necessary for us to even be asking these questions. Now I guess my question would be (again probably coming off as a rambling layperson,) does that quantum process that is spinning off universes somehow have within it a selection process that selects for complexity? Is it possible that's what a "measurement," is?

If Consciousness=PHI THEN "NOTHING"=PHIbar Quantum Foam = PHI XOR PHIbar Universe = PHI AND PHIbar The 'Vast Computer" running this TEST UNIVERSE hooks in here

It's worrying when a scientist says "When they say X, don't listen to them" that is the opposite of science, it's ignorance.

2:35 Isn't it amazing that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, our galaxy 13.6 and our solar system 4.5 and now we have the JWST galaxies!! Something wrong?!

would be great to have a talk with David Albert but without the long haired guy he does not seem to belong to these kind of talks but it depends on what level of intellectual talk is the purpose.

Space isn’t static. This was disproved century ago. It’s also an assumption to say it’s empty. Particles don’t come into existence from the vacuum? What is Hawking radiation then? Most modern black hole physics is based on the existence of hawking radiation. Space is not empty. It contains energy, therefore mass and thus it’s plausible that at heat death where there’s more and more space there’s going to be more energy and thus more particles that will come into existence.

Algorithmic Complexity. Sound-->Light-->Matter. Condensed Matter Physics. Statistical mechanics.💦

I didn't know Sean Carroll had large purple batwings.

It's always so frustrating when intelligent people can't just come out and speak plainly about what our political problems are: namely MAGA, racism, bigotry, Trump cult, Putin's infiltration of American politics, fascism, rabid anti-intellectualism, Electoral College focusing power to a minority vote, radical conservatives chomping at the bit to strip us of all our hard fought freedoms, etc. They have to keep dancing around the bush with both-siderism allusions. Clearly one side exists within the realm of normalcy. The other side has gone off the deep end into dangerous radical extremism. Pretending this isn't our reality is delusional thinking.

I hope you have a wonderful day.

Or if a boy is a girl.

At the end Shiva will win, I mean, Entropy

18min in and wondering if it's only me that can see a beardy man on the couch :)

Great pod.

Sean Carroll is the perfect example of "the mark of truly understanding a concept is being able to explain it in simple terms."

A geodesic will not converge to a singularity without it being the path of least resistance.

Awesome interview! Giving Bayesian credence to things that depend on the growth of knowledge is incoherent though xD

It's kinda cheating to just shovel lossy compression under the rug of "compression" in general in the same sense that it is kinda cheating to shovel Occam's Chainsaw Massacre under the rug of Occam's Razor. The problem boils down to Hume's Guillotine in the sense that when we choose what to ignore in lossy compression we are making a _value_ judgement. I'm not saying value judgments are avoidable any more than I am saying that science is, in the final analysis, independent of technology. But I _am_ saying that when attempting to form any kind of "meeting of minds" (ie: social constructions) we do need to at least _try_ to identify the boundary between "is" and "ought", relative to which our discourse may proceed in all intellectual honesty. In this respect, I think it important to cease talking about complexity having "aspects" when what we mean is that there are different definitions of of the very word. The word "complexity" is a symbol -- an aspect of a map of Reality. Complexity itself is whatever that symbol refers to in Reality -- and it sometimes refers to different aspects of Reality based on what sub-language we're using at the time. That's why I'd like it if Kolmogorov was given his due without further molestation -- and in particular avoiding things like "computability" when the entire history of science is about finding the most parsimonious algorithm we can _at the moment_ and we don't go around demanding people ignore such algorithms (ie: models) just because they haven't proven the selected model is the best of all possible models. That's just a travesty of the meaning of science and therefore of Kolmogorov Complexity. Just take the models and compare them to each other based on whether their executions actually terminate. If they don't terminate, then this gets back to the Reality that science is dependent on technology hence value judgements.

First time see Sean cool dressed :)

Love Sean but concerning politics he's an utter normie. I hope he collaborates with someone on his democracy book because the system does not work how it theoretically should and how he thinks it does.

Sean Carrol is the best! Hope you pay him millions, he is worth billions!

Who is the Jesus? 😂😇🙏🤭

Is this a Vulcan chair?

long hair guy is about to get laid

re: emergence, it wasn't clear to me how liv thinks about emergence, but at one point she mentioned the 'whole is greater than the sum of its parts' dogma/mantra, which is a buzzphrase, but not quite how it works. more is different, and more can be different in several different ways, and the more can be more parts, more relations, more interactions... it's quite underwhelming, imho; there are phenomena which emerge that simply aren't the properties of a constitutive part, eg. neither fundamental particles, nor atoms have pressure, or volume, or temperature, as no single molecule has wetness. but when you describe the emergent properties, there isn't a greater novel whole, but merely all the parts interacting with each other in some configuration. a relevant book is 'everything must go: metaphysics naturalized' by james ladyman et al., which is extremely influential among philosophers of science, and the information theoretic structural/modal realism in terms of 'real patterns' is an excellent extension to this conversation and for anyone with a deeper interest in complexity theory and the difference between fundamental mathematical physics and the special sciences.

Constructive criticism: just a simple suggestion, replace the 80's music intro with something classical? There's an underlying reason for it...

james ladyman (former mindscape guest & banger philosopher of science) & karoline wiesner have one of the best intermediate level intro books to complexity, and they name the following phenomena to describe complexity; conditions for complexity to arise 1. Numerosity: complex systems involve many interactions among many components. 2. Disorder and diversity: the interactions in a complex system are not coordinated or controlled centrally, and the components may differ. 3. Feedback: the interactions in complex systems are iterated so that there is feedback from previous interactions on a time scale relevant to the system’s emergent dynamics. 4. Non-equilibrium: complex systems are open to the environment and are often driven by something external. results of the conditions---indicative of various kinds of complexity 5. Spontaneous order and self-organisation: complex systems exhibit structure and order that arises out of the interactions among their parts. 6. Nonlinearity: complex systems exhibit nonlinear dependence on parameters or external drivers. 7. Robustness: the structure and function of complex systems is stable under relevant perturbations. 8. Nested structure and modularity: there may be multiple scales of structure, clustering and specialisation of function in complex systems. 9. History and memory: complex systems often require a very long history to exist and often store information about history. 10. Adaptive behaviour: complex systems are often able to modify their behaviour depending on the state of the environment and the predictions they make about it. a nitpicky note; at one point, liv asked whether agential design is better or more optimal in some sense for some goal/aim/value, as opposed to just 'letting the universe evolve', which *could* be misunderstood as implying that what we call 'control' and 'agency' are somehow special phenomena, as if when we are doing them, the universe stops evolving deterministically, and 'we' as separate existents 'govern' somehow what will happen---like harvesting non-actual possibilities or creating ex-nihilo events from a realm of potentiality; but that's entirely empirically ungrounded and incoherent, like libertarian free will 'theories'. i'd guess that liv didn't mean it that way, but it can sound like that, and most people who don't know physics/empirically grounded philosophy tend to embrace intuitive essentialism, dualism and similar obscure 'explanations'.

Oh my, you lot make me feel soooo dumb! And I love it. In a world of so much crass inconsequence of depressing consequence, it's great to be reminded that there are still many who just want to understand. All the best from the UK, Pete.

Sean Carrol should be prosecuted and put in prison for life

The difference between the theoretical basis of a many world theory and a statistical theory, or hidden variables theory, is not that great. Basically what we are doing when we come up with a hidden variable theory is to sum over histories, that comprise the individual initial conditions that lead to one outcome or the other, what you do in many worlds is also summing over histories, only that you considered all the histories real, and you only require one possible history per possible outcome, in a hidden variables theory you only require one set of initial conditions per hidden variable outcome, and there might be an infinite number of them per seperable quantum state or measurement outcome at the end of an experiment. Many worlds could also pick such a set that maps many branches or histories to the same quantum states, even infinite, it doesnt matter. The statistics arise from where the hidden variables histories end up on average, or what branches end up where in many worlds, any number of histories for any unique quantum state is fine as long as the statistics comes out right. In many worlds for example it doesnt matter how many worlds are in a specific state it matters how many transitions exist between identifyable states.

I think sean was talking about that given the laws as we understand it, you cannot in principle live forever, which is true. It is simply a question of a finite entropy gradient, like a skiier going down a hill, eventually you run out of hill. When you get to the heat death part you would have to be able to live of thermal fluctuations that would never go away, and it might be possible to survive forever in principle if there is some system you cosider alive that always has some amplitude to stay as it is and not decay or if you can habe enough energy just from randomly picking up energy from fluctuations, but it is very unlikely such a structure could be considered alive anyway. It also really depends on whether there is a big rip or not, if not then in principle, a molecule could stay together forever, probably also a body, but getting the energy in a form that can sustain you becomes always ever more rare, and unless you can live of thermal fluctuations that are ever smaller on average, then you can probably produce a bpund for how long it is physically possible to stay alive. But things might change, new eras of structure might arise, the vacuum as we know it might decay and produce a new series of complex structures, this could be achived with a transition including a big rip or not, could be more or less smooth as well, but at any rate, whether you could survive such a phase transition even in principle is another really difficult question, and unless there is some specific way to shield yourself from its effects or ride it out, it is pretty unlikely to be survivable. In a case like that, the 2nd law reigns over more or the physical laws anyway, what we consider elastic and fundamental today might not be considered so in the future and then such transitions are a consequence on increasing entropy, not a violation of it, so the 2nd law might allow structure like life to be able to exist as all times in the future on a continual gradient in entropy, but with respect to immortality, it is very unlikely that any of those forms of life could be continuously alive forever, since the core feature of the world that would allow an eternal entropy gradient that would garuantee the viability of life eternally in principle, is that all structure can decay and change, and it seems crazy to suggest that one kind of form can maintain itself forever in such a context, although it would at least be possible in principle to have free energy in some form for as long as you wanted to.

Нам нужен опыт Майкельсона Морли (1887 г) и его популярность , нам нужно улучшить эксперимент Майкельсона Морли с помощью «лазерной рулетки *+опорное расстояние* в 1000000 м» чем возможно и определим, скорость в самолете; 200, 300, 400, 500 метров в секунду. Вопрос к Вам: что изменится в БОЛЬШОЙ НАУКЕ? for 119 years) By determining the constancy of speed of light, all experiments and Michelson-Morley experiments are indirect and incomplete. If the Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out on a bus or airplane and was used to determine speed. only then will this experience be direct. Therefore, Einstein does not rely on the Michelson-Morley experiment. Question. Do you have an example of such direct experience? New technologies, new research tools Let me suggest for schoolchildren and students on one's own to measure the Universe, dark energy, black holes, etc. To do this, I propose two practical devices. «laser tape measure *+reference distance* 1,000,000 m”» and «Michelson-Morley HYBRID Gyroscope». I am writing to you with a proposal for the joint invention of a HYBRID gyroscope from non-circular, TWO coils with a new type of optical fiber with a “hollow core photonic-substituted vacuum zone or (NANF)” where - the light travels 250000 (In a laser tape measure, the length of the optical fiber is fixed at 1000000 ) meters in each arm, while it does not exceed the parameters 84/84/84 cm, and the weight is 24 kg. Manufacturers of “Fiber Optic Gyroscopes” can produce HYBRID gyroscopes for educational and practical use in schools and higher education institutions. Einstein dreamed of measuring the speed of a train, an airplane - through the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1881/2024, and only then would the experiment be more than 70% complete. This can be done using a fiber optic HYBRID gyroscope. Based on the completion of more than 70% of Michelson's experiment, the following postulates can be proven: Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta, and dominant gravitational fields adjust the speed of light in a vacuum. you can make scientific discoveries; in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, higher theoretical physics,... (We are not looking for ether, we will see the work of gravitational quanta) The result is a «theory of everything» in a simple teaching device and a new tape measure for measuring the universe.

Yeah, the part of the big bang that makes us include "then there was a very hot very dense and uniform state" at some very early state in our description of what happened, is very unlikely to go away, no matter what the context for that hot dense state becomes in future theories.

This is very easy under proper language framework English. Old world 500s year removed axioms that we dug out complexity separating modern knowledge from face value 1900s re capped and Like vipers stagnated in all grand diciplines. Well now it's a 3rd final fundamental frontier, so if you're still in big bang great debate denial your 3 degree of separation sway from triangulating eqaul measure to make informed decisions about this new computational paradigm. This is not even a religious statement it's one bringing centuries of our ancestors infighting into my evidently informed testimony. It's simple as once we found the prayer logic keys to the cosmos point between cursed rationalism and blessed common sense eqaul measure ultimate precision instrument ✝️ macro that the Greeks & ancient world lived in of course it was going to be a richard finneman prayer logic holy spirit key asking specific question about steam engine specific prediction of industrial revolution That the micro entangled + / - was going to be found. Newton would've known. American founders would call it keys to cosmos although agnostic on the fence they designed the nation specifically for goerge Washington 3rd company this age and they lived in it despite designed for our own time. A 1945s Smith_mundt act usa laboratory just antithetically defined itself to live out a yoo hoo woo everything physicalism granted determinism pushing complexity upon likeminded word and shared context to try and disprove itself while handing over the keys to old world to try and prove itself. Old world dualism big bang is the wrong place for this affinity to be prescribed. Obviously when decarte dualistic brain left movement arguments over spirit/ soul hamiltonian plagerizing and prescribed occelating feilds and waves set einstein up for prenticious clocklike merger of y axis decarte brain eyes with z/x merger of xyz manmade time hierarchy knowledge of good evil equations . Stop arguing myth & men ! Babylonian dualistic evolutionary cosmogony is the wrong niave platonic old world false interpretation of cmb . It's not just astronomy. All fields of study are single orgin dualistic population species ordering umbrella fails , all see tiny red dots young metaless galaxies mixed in that sat idly by without collapse until more recently while neighbors absolutely did fully seeded & enriched with heavy elements. Math mapping dark matter spirits in the sky with a methusela equation monds theory of lazy light on deck is the exact same statistical anylitical failures made in the ancient world. Just as darwins dualism forces a marduk basisn mind model full stop!!!! Signs and wonders are the exact same over time platonic macro micro problems when creating calendar counting time in the beginning ancient world. Fundamental feature like gravity and eqaul measure keys between determinism and complexity is the 3rd and final frontier underpining it all fabric wrinkles if you will . Why e=Mc idealistic forces faith and physical lawisms works are emerging may be the right way to map but wrong way to order & categorize. Ignore the solar system bodys .put longitude and latitude on both multi verse galaxies & the keys to cosmos macro micro dualistic affinities.

Great talk! New subscriber 😅

Fun discussion and some unique questions & ways of presenting old questions in a new light, might have to check out more from your podcast

Coffee making is really not this complicated

As a retired civil engineer I have concluded Black holes explode and form new galaxies. All the stars in the Milky way will slowly travel into the centre and be absorbed into the black hole. I have detailed calculations to prove this if required.

Love Sean Carrol! also can I say that the set decor is absolutely amazing!

Listening to this while doing spectrographic analyses of pieces of fairy cake.