Can philosophy of science have an impact on physics? | Sabine Hossenfelder

Interview with Sabine Hossenfelder discussing creativity in physics, physics and philosophy of science, new developments in cosmology, and more.
For more content on physics and philosophy visit iai.tv/player?YouT...
00:00 Do you have a feeling of awe and admiration towards the universe?
01:37 Is there a place for creativity in physics?
03:36 Is it misguided to look for simplicity and singularity in physics?
06:11 Do you think science will be able to accommodate human subjectivity?
07:40 Do you think philosophy of science can have an impact on physics?
11:11 How has philosophy influenced your work as a physicist?
12:09 Are there exciting recent developments in cosmology?
13:30 What is the best medium to communicate science ideas to the public?
15:03 What are you currently working on?
15:52 What is the biggest question on the intersection between physics and philosophy?
In this interview, leading physicist and author, Sabine Hossenfelder, discusses the relationship between physics and philosophy. She examines the scientific community’s desire to find a unified theory of everything, and contemplates how science can accommodate human subjectivity. She also considers the role of physics in helping us tackle major philosophical issues involving time, free will, and consciousness.
#SabineHossenfelder #PhilosophyOfScienceAndPhysics #TheoreticalPhysicistInterview
Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist who specialises in the foundations of physics. She is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies where she leads the group on Superfluid Dark Matter. She is the author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, and the forthcoming Existential Physics: A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions. Hossenfelder also has a popular KZbin channel called "Science without the gobbledygook".
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[The Institute of Art and Ideas]

What did you think fo this interview? Do you agree with Sabine Hossenfelder? Leave a comment below! For more science content visit iai.tv/player?KZbin&

[G.R. Tamayo]

She looks like from the Jores-Tamayo geniuses side. She went to me in Dimasalang, MasbatePH and consulted me in the 1980s when I was still kinda prolific. Perhaps it was the last effort of the British Monarchy that time (bringing top scientists) to extract knowledge from the Jores-Tamayos relating to Physics, (our) Tokamak and ITER, and Star Trek technologies.

[Steve DeHaven]

Since you asked what we think of the interview, I'll tell you: I think it would have been much better without all the background noise. That was very distracting, and made it harder to concentrate on what Dr. Hossenfelder was saying.

[MrWildbill47]

@Steve DeHaven -- Whew, I thought it must just be me, that noise was annoying and distracting.

[Jonathan Jollimore]

You need philosophy to form coherent ideas and its hard to do science without coherent ideas.

[Charles Brightman]

GRAVITY: (copy and paste from my files): Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Direct a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results, cancelling out the em modalities of the laser, thereby leaving behind the gravity modality.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.) (An alternative to the above would be to direct 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward. * And note: Whether my gravity test or another's, a gravitational black hole would have to be formed to prove the concept as being really true. A gravitational black hole that 'if' self fed itself, could literally wipe out this Earth and all on it, possibly this solar system, possibly put a black hole in this section of our galaxy, and potentially even causing a ripple effect in this galaxy and surrounding universe. But hey, if it does, no worries. Nobody would be left to prosecute those who did so. (Possibly famous last words: "Hey, it worked. Ooooppppssss.................) But as NASA has already proven that low gravity conditions over a prolonged period of time is harmful to the human species, and large rotating space ships won't really work for space bases on planets and moons, those space bases probably being needed somewhere along the way out of this solar system and galaxy, we need to figure out what gravity truly is and see if we can generate artificial gravity so as to have smaller space ships and proper gravity conditions for space bases on planets and moons. Otherwise, at least all human life will most probably die and go extinct one day. Currently, no exceptions. ** Added note: Just trying to save at least 1 single species from this Earth to exist beyond this Earth so that life itself from this Earth has continued meaning and purpose to. Gives me something to do while I exist, otherwise, what is it all and everything for? Even if my TOE idea were correct, but if it did not help species survive beyond this Earth, what good would it ultimately be? So, are you feeling lucky? Doing nothing and at least the entire human species eventually dies and goes extinct with a high degree of certainty. Doing a gravity test, (mine and/or another's), and there is at least a slim chance of literally wiping out this entire Earth and all on it, and possibly more. Do you and other's truly want me to prove my TOE idea as being really true?

[woufff]

Sabine is a very inspiring person and I am full of admiration about the way she arrives to transmit complicated stuff in a easy and simple way on her own channel. Thank you for this video

[radu popescu]

I enterely agree!

[ytrebiLeurT]

Is your "admiration" your only "inspiration"? lol

[Berni V]

@radu popescu And me. Thank you for the video.🌱

[Clorox Bleach]

Yeah frankly she should just pursue her career in music, it’s clearly where her talents lie. That and her contributions to string theory are mind blowing; she’s just an all around rock star, it really is astounding.

[Wade]

I love Sabine! I hope to see more and more of her.

[L. M.]

I see Sabine doing a great job of pushing the boundaries of science. Being critical of the status quo is something most scientists will not do. She is a brave soul, in my mind, capable of understanding the conceptual dynamics and voicing concerns without the trappings of emotional overtones. Pushing the limits of what we know sometimes involves questioning what we know.

[Paul Oksnee]

What you say is true. Sabine is a breath of fresh air...a free thinker.

[C U]

Definitely admire Sabine. It's great to see someone that can make science legible and have a decent amount of people listen. It gives me hope.

[AudioJunky]

I agree a lot with Sabine here. I'm an engineer, but I also studied philosophy and psychology, and both have proven very helpful to me as an engineer. Philosophy essentially teaches you how to evaluate abstract concepts which have no yes/no right/wrong answer and apply logic to these situations, as well as establish a framework for what constitutes knowledge and how people approach problems based on their theory of knowledge. Psychology has similar benefits in terms of understanding others' viewpoints and why they do the things they do. Being aware of human frameworks and limitations, being taught to question the foundations of knowledge, and being taught to formalize complex, abstract problems are all useful for scientists and engineers.

[Peter Codner]

Define knowledge and consider *whose* knowledge. At least engineers are useful

[Stank Faust]

@Peter Codner knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject: Whose knowledge, or whether it's accurately informing decisions is another story altogether

[Graîne]

@Peter Codner Define useful.

[Bob S]

Yes, we must understand that which(brain/mind) is doing the understanding of the world if we are to understand our world. Our brain/mind is structured making knowledge possible while the structure limits what we know.

[Littleprinceleon]

@Bob S the world around us is structured also... So it has it's limitations, too... Biological/evolutionary requirements/constraints are physical ones at the basic level: we should develop a good understanding of the boundaries but also of the connections between living systems and other natural systems. Abandoning static pictures of processes, instead thinking of causes and effects (inputs/outputs...) as guiding principles of stable systems will leade us to reveal answers to one of the major questions: to what extent the deterministic nature of cognitive processes limits the area of possible knowledge...

[Thøger Emil Rivera-Thorsen]

The more I watch and listen to Sabine, the more my respect for her grows, both as a physicist and a general thinker.

[Schmetter Ling]

Why are you telling us that you have bad taste in the saints you venerate? :-)

[yout ube]

I've recently read a book on AI from the 70s, written by mathematicians, and they criticize physicist for viewing "more accurate" as always strictly superior to "more understandable" (which is not necessarily the same as simpler). The discussion on how philosophy can impact physics reminded me of that, even though it's not the same point being made.

[Richard Lucas]

Well, and we're not even talking about "more useful" because then it's got to be appended with "for whom?"

[omaima ma]

Could you tell me the name of the book please?

[Petra Kann]

Philosophy is perhaps the only disciplinary field that intersects and can inform all other human endeavours. In fact it was not that long ago that British Universities inserted what they called the "classics" into ALL University qualifications. Irrespective of what studies a student undertook, Physics, language, Medicine, Accounting, Art, Economics etc, within your course was an introduction in Philosophy and music etc. Over the past 3 or 4 decades this requirement and educational culture has been phased out. And I think it has been to the detriment of all studies, including Philosophy itself, which fed off external problems and themes. Compare the graduates today to previous years. They are Ultra specialised in their field today. You can see it in the Nobel Prize winners in Physics: compare the first 60 years to the previous 60 years. The Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to a few researchers for inventing the Blue LED about a decade ago. Compare that to say Paul Dirac's Nobel Prize for theoretically predicting the existence of the anti-electron in his 80 page PhD thesis that he hand wrote in his 20s. Fundamental Physics has stagnated since about the mid 1970s. Technology and innovation has increased due to the demands of short term corporate profit or fueling the military machine. But overall Physics has stagnated: Physicists were even afraid to talk about Hugh Everritt III's work. "Shut up and calculate" is not a healthy catch cry for Physicist to adopt. For any scientists to adopt for that matter. It will turn around - I see positive healthy signs emerging from Physics and Philosophical discussions have played a big role in that turn around. Just my opinion - what the hell would I know folks?

[Gerald Palmer]

The more she learns the skill of getting complicated ideas across to those w/o the math background the more fascinating are the depths and reaches of her awesome universe of a mind to those less gifted and unschooled. Excited about the new book.

[Aaron]

It is a mixed blessing because without the math the ideas never truly get across. I thought I understood so much as a fan of pop physics, until I took higher math and physics courses. Then realize I had only understood extremely simplified versions or analogizes.

[Gerald Palmer]

@Aaron My intuition is that is probably correct. Ideas whose comprehension perhaps surpasses what is available through ordinary spoken language-- which could say something maybe about math and realism. Thanks.

[Péter Áder]

There is really no reason for a layman who is unable or unwilling to do the work to know these things, they’ll simply misuse it. See quantum mystics like Deepak Chopra.

[Gerald Palmer]

@Péter Áder Brian Greene did a funny bit (I think it was Prof. Greene) as do others on folk quantum whacko-ness. On that score, it is hard to disagree. It is sad if not often tragic how the laughing primate insists on finding ghosts in the machine.

[ProfessorBeautiful]

The book is excellent. I swallowed it up pretty quick. Tackling great questions. Common sense to the nth.

[Pata_Potata]

So I am in the company of Sabine again ... and she is clear, distinct and to me she shines like the sunflowers of the decor.❤

[Alex]

Hello so Sabina I watched a video earlier and I'm interested in your thoughts on why things need a fresh perspective. If everybody reads the same books and uses the same techniques then you will get the same wrong outcome. No matter how beautiful a theory is its in the eye of the person looking. And I agree with what your saying. I've been saying the same thing for quite some time.

[Jon Barnard]

Nice interview. Sabine is one of the most interesting educators on KZbin. I always enjoy watching her. She's always got something interesting to say.

[Ellen Gran]

Watching a tree grow and a bonfire tell you a lot about the forces in nature. Also watching how humans create societies, fight wars and fall in love, gives you information on the same forces. Our modern science tells us a lot about individual forces and makes us able to create all kind of tools. In my view, our old knowledge made us able to understand complex systems of life and create wisdom in our minds.

[Mick Hurley]

well said.

[annelbe ab]

Curiosity and compassion with all their is rather than "old knowledge". What you are pointing at is that we lost the awe in which open questions pend and the courage to bear with it. We ran from complexity towards detail as it's easier, even when challenging. We define all by what we know and boast about it, looking down on less knowledgeable previous generations which did exactly the same with their predecessors. This arrogance is our down fall as we miss to see the space and the natural limitedness of gathered knowledge. Unless we correct this initial mistake, all scientific and technological endeavours will continue to be a very risky business for human kind. It's ignorant of us not to see how we are driving a dangerous zickzack and call it progress. It's repetitive clouded by inevitable findings, but our view of life and ourselves remains...."old" and underdeveloped. After more than one shove close to full disaster in the 20th century, we should come to our senses and see that technological findings are a great pastime and sometimes quite practical, but yet kid's play compared to really unfolding our intelligence beyond just explorimg every grain of sand in the box we played in so far.

[Ol' Bluelips]

I really respect Sabine for this! Just because she's very skeptical and down to earth doesn't mean she doesn't recognize the value of philosophy. Some people seem to outright dismiss any aspect of reality not discoverable by the scientific method as religious, simply unknowable, dishonest, etc

[Patrick]

Sabine Hossenfelder, you've just become my home of ontological security. Thanks for this interview

[John Maynard]

The role of mathematics in modern physical science is undeniable, making measurements of objects in the natural world, and the ability to make predictions require skills in mathematics and a method to communicate limits.

[Joseph Tangredi]

Would like to hear Dr. Hossenfelder have a discussion/debate with Dr. Sean Carroll. Both are brilliant. I understand they are friends, but they differ quite a bit on theory. Dr. Carroll will be teaching Philosophy of Physics soon on the faculty at Johns Hopkins.

[nly89]

Cant wait to read her new book she mentions coming out this summer about the intersection between philosophy and the foundations of physics!

[Thomas Trotter]

Good interview and discussion. I like the way Sabine Hossenfelder phrases most of the stuff she says. My take on the title question is that there's a necessary philosophical component to physics which necessarily impacts physics. Then there's the philosophy of science, which is a separate field, and which is not necessarily, or very often, impactful. The idea that time is an illusion is one of the least interesting philosophical views, imho. Good channel. Thanks

[i]

I like her view on how philosophy’s role could be more proactive and useful by critically examining it @8:30

[New Moon]

Physicists should absolutely study Epistemology, Etymology & Arithmetic, at the very least to a degree that they aren't making huge assumptions about the limits of human perception. The cutting edge of science will always be limited by our ability to interact with and process the universe.

[Streaming Analytics]

Why? Philosophy has made zero discoveries relating to the physical world.

[Edwin Agnew]

@Streaming Analytics 1. physics used to be a part of philosophy (and was called natural philosophy). This happens a lot where as soon as a part of philosophy becomes tangibly useful, it ceases to be part of philosophy (see also maths, logic, etc.) 2. your assumption that something is useful only in so far as it produces discoveries about the physical world is itself a philosophical claim (and therefore not a discovery relating to the physical world, by your claim). Don’t you think it was still worth mentioning? Questions about the physical world fall into the realm of science. But questions about science fall into the realm of philosophy. Shouldn’t we be able to ask questions about science?

[Vaucho Marx]

@Streaming Analytics except the most accurate theories about the physical world were explicitly constructed on the basis of philosophical assumptions, and the whole scientific methodology came out of epistemology.

[Dtox]

@Vaucho Marx shhh! dont ruin their fantasy!

[Tấn Nguyễn]

@Streaming Analytics yes, but philosophy has made huge discoveries relating to the human mind, and as far as i am concerned, physicists are human

[James Mosher]

I love this woman! She understands real science! Math is a tool to explain what reality is. Not the other way around!

[Lipo]

Science requires scientists who are honest and ethical. Philosophy is profoundly important to our future progress.

[John Ellis]

I agree with Sabine, and find her KZbin channel both approachable and informative. Especially impressed that in a challenging interview format like this, Dr. Hossenfelder manages to come back with eloquent, thought-provoking answers at the drop of a hat, that we can all appreciate.

[Frank R]

Honestly, I am in love with this amazing woman and my wife of 39 years completely understands :)

[Cybernetic Butterfly]

It's very dependent on what definition of creativity you use. I would argue that although physics is fundamentally a convergent activity, attempting to find the answer, rather than a divergent activity, one might some times use divergent thinking in order to entertain ideas that wouldn't otherwise occur to you. The big problem comes when crackpots use this as an excuse to base their "physics" in imagination rather than converging on an answer that is corroborated with evidence. Answers that can be reach with other people using different equipment in different places and reaching the same result.

[jim40135]

I love it when I see Sabine in a video because I immediately know I'm out of my depth.

[American Moon (O d y s e e . c o m)]

Thank you Dr. H., I would not have expected this from you. Philosophy is an emergent higher level. Experiment lead by theory (with feedback to theory). Theory being philosophy.

[David Aspinall]

It's a shame the interviewer missed that.

[Michael Axton]

Such a great interview and a great woman. Also, I want to know everything Dr. Hossenfelder thinks about the measurement problem. And I want to know now! :-)

[Günter Sostaric]

creativity and love are the main forces of the whole creation

[Stanislav Stoimenov]

The majority of the notable philosophers were also brilliant mathematicians -- Descartes, Whitehead, Pascal, Aristotle, etc., etc.

[Thomas]

Could add Sabine Hossenfelder on your list

[Christopher Ellis]

Have been subscribed to SH for quite a while. Love how she pokes at the holes in the various hypotheses.

[Günter Sostaric]

there IS a Masterplan of our life, if we followed it all the time, we would gain the utmost of learning. But there are also built in cornerstones, where our path of life could have taken a completly other direction.

[Pierluigi Di Pietro]

The big breakthroughs in science always originates from new philosophical stances

[TeaParty1776]

The philosopher Aristotle discovered the hierarchy of ideas, w/philosopht at the base. He also discovered scientific method and was the first scientist. Even the attempt to deny philosophy rests on philosophy. Leap Of Logic-David Harriman, physicist; science as inductive; a new theory of induction

[Bob Weiram]

Feynman did exactly what Sabine argues for when he developed the Feynman diagrams.

[J M]

I wish I could think like Sabine, but unfortunately I often times get too caught up in wonder to question things.

[Frank R]

I think it's important Sabine, that you have a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) in physics.

[Kristanne Stone]

I would add it also needs psychology and history. We need to see patterns of human behavior, especially deviant and destructive tendencies, and look forward in time to the end products and stages that COULD be acheived...for better or worse.

[Alethea Black]

Sabine Hossenfelder is so brilliant. I am fascinated by the nexus of philosophy and physics. I recently published an article that looks at time with regard to illness, Holographic Universe: Implications for Cancer, Parkinson's, ALS, Autism, and ME/CFS in the peer-review journal Science & Philosophy.

[Agee]

She is so awesome. Love you Sabine!

[Maxwell Dillon]

I hope Sabine does more talks about superdeterminism.

[kashu]

have a look at gerard t’hooft lectures if you want to learn more about it

[Simon Reij]

excellent questions thankyou, I have followed sabine for a few years

[Soully Skienin]

Thank you for your detail, Ms hossenfelder. My philosophy is that everything is the center of infinity. Your curiosity at the forces great and small that centers us here burning daylight is quite enlightening.

[Michael Lochlann]

Philosophy is most useful, IMO when it tries to figure out the best approach to something. For example, how a state should work, how a society should work, how a justice system should work, how an individual should act, etc. Which is I guess all ethics to some extent. So what Sabine is saying here sounds to be like an "ethics of science" or what is the best approach to doing science. Her ideas on the beauty of physics actually constitute a philosophy of science in that regard, in my view. The other core thing about philosophy is questioning whether you are really right about an idea. This is also similar to what she does when she talks about string theory, the measurement problem, etc. Unfortunately if you speak these questions aloud, as she does, it normally gets you in trouble with the people who'd rather just assume they are right.

[Theo Philus]

Even if philosophy of science spent its time exclusively on what emerges from science and then tries to make sense of it and asks what it might mean (which it doesn't) this would hardly be 'useless'. Asking what something might mean or what sense it might make is a crucial activity.

[Mountain Fisher]

I have noticed that physicists who deride philosophy engage in poor philosophical constructs. I think of Larry Krauss and his extreme spite of philosophy in any way. Or Stephen Hawking writing that "philosophy is dead." in his book, The Grand Design, it is a self stultifying statement and cannot be true. Hawking's book like Krauss' was full of philosophy, poor philosophy. As for does the Past or Future exist? It does if there is more than one dimension of Time such as a plane of time. It would certainly answer a lot of mysteries like how electrons can be in two places at the same time or why quantum particles cannot be measured in more than one way. I mean we can measure its speed, but then lose its position or measure its position, but not its speed. It would explain how quantum particles pop in and out of existence. To say they come from not anything nowhere is not science, it's just ignorance.

[Handzar]

Not to mention, a large portion of philsophers of science/physics actually have degrees in physics.

[Mountain Fisher]

@Handzar George Ellis comes to mind.

[Handzar]

@Mountain Fisher Yes, and many others.

[ante waso]

fascinating discussion, and to the extent that I can judge the picture of contemporary contributions from philosophy accurate, but this has to do a lot with the abandonment of metaphysics as an ambitious project and the idea that tends to dominate or at least represents the consensus of reasonableness is that metaphysics should be done in the broader context of physics. While there are lots of different ways this idea informs cont metaphysics one clear effect is the sociology of science feel to much phil sci. By contrast reading anything from 17th-18th c metaphysics (say Leibniz) the debates and ideas seem to me very relevant to cont physics - at least the big questions. I realised this listening to different theories of wave function collapse, when expressed in natural language rather than math, they seemed to be positions in a metaphysical landscape that 17th and 18th c metaphysicians and critical metaphysicians would definitely recognise. By contrast in the contemporary philosophical environment this sort of speculative thought does not flourish and there are interesting and important reasons for this I'm just putting this out as n observation.

[RVNSGLCR]

Sabine Hossenfelder is always excellent. Thanks to IAI for bringing this kind of content to the world. Idealism's dominance of contemporary philosophy (rather than Realism) might unfortunately keep this phenomenon alive well into the foreseeable future.

[RVNSGLCR]

@Steven Idealism (Kant, Plato) is the basis of Western culture (including the its current state of entropy). Materialism (Aristotle, Democritus, Marx) has never truly held sway beyond the press it gets as being the source of critique. The scientific disciplines live in the cultural milieu of Idealism and as such, they are affected by its inherent magical thinking. Realism, but especially Speculative Realism & Object Oriented Ontology (Deleuze, Harmon, Morton) takes a dynamicist approach which is decentered from/properly disrespectful of the human subject as prime mover regarding object relationships.

[Ilpo]

Philosophy is not contemplation, reflection or communication - it's about continuous creation of concepts. Contemplation, reflection and communication ought to be already an inherent part of everything, be it science, art, society, politics, social media etc. but since they obviously are not, we need philosophers reflecting on things outside philosophy...

[Gustav Lorenz]

In case you like Sabines interview, you will probably like interviews with or presentations by Markus Gabriel, best selling philosopher from Germany. There are many German and several english videos here on youtube, e.g. "Making sense of thinking" , 7.September.2019 .

[Pasadena Phil]

The beauty of listening to Sabine is that even for those of use who have little understanding of the many issues she discusses, her ability to navigate that ocean in a way that even I can follow and grasp the essence of what she is saying is a marvel. As to philosophy and science, there seems to be a struggle for primacy that should not exist. Science is an outgrowth of philosophy. Science is limited to considering questions that involve empirical evidence. If you it can't be weighed, counted or otherwise measured, you can't apply the mathematics to form a testable hypothesis. Therefore, science has nothing to say. For instance, science has nothing important to say about the existence of God. Therefore, if science and religion are at odds, the conflict comes from religion not science. Unfortunately, too many scientists now choose to present their personal opinions as scientific opinions and this is greatly damaging science. About 50 years ago, CalTech Professor of physics David Goodstein created a multi-part series for PBS called "The Mechanical Universe". It covered the history of science covering the most important scientific discoveries. I have used what I learned from that series as a guide ever since. In his final comments at the conclusion of the series, he addressed the question of whether we will ever know how the universe works. He predicted "no". Because in order to understand the universe, we would have to build a model of it and we already have a universe. Why would we need two? So our pursuit of science is limited to time and funding and the laws of physics themselves. Most money spent in science is targeted to developing more efficient technologies, not answers for philosophical questions. We will never find the final answers to how large the universe is, nor what the smallest component of matter is nor how it all works because we can't afford it, don't have time for it, and it is far from necessary. We need science to focus on doing things more efficiently to improve or lives today. Let the philosophers worry about the meaning of life. We must not allow scientists to become substitutes for the wizards of old. The value of science depends on the quality of the decisions philosophers make regarding what is best for humanity. Nazi philosophy was evil but was based on their "science" and there is a lot of that going on today at the highest levels. I find it comforting to listen to Sabine discuss this is in her own way. I think that is what she is saying about the need for more philosophy in science. I am tired of listening to "scientists" give their "scientific" opinions about everything. I've lived a couple of blocks away from CalTech for over 30 years now have learned to take pleasure in irritating arrogant scientists who insist on conflating their scientific vs personal opinions. It's a plague that is ruining the credibility of science.

[James Weyringer]

A really interesting perspective. I find the notion of science being an outgrowth of philosophy very familiar. The framework of philosophy I need to ask without boundary, to take every configuration of myself and my experience into account. The framework of science is essentially a method that is strongly utilitarian, but in a way more disconnected from the human mind, and in that, uniquely powerful. In its neutrality, it has brought us wealth and power beyond comparison, but to fulfill our human need to bridge the gap between the rationale and our affections, ourselves, the universe, objective knowledge and subjective experience, we will always need something more all-encompassing.

[thepom88]

Sabine just ROCKS!!!

[Tokaji Leo]

I wish to see a discussion between Sabine and David Albert

[Gist Erme]

IMO, Quantum Mechanics is doing the same for advancement of understanding of the physical world as Roman Numerals did for the advancement of understanding of arithmetic.

[Gist Erme]

OBTW, great interview...

[Luc De Causmaecker]

A theory in itself is never right nor wrong it is at best fitting to explain observations

[Sonar Bangla]

At the beginning of the discussion, Sabine started by mentioning the measurement problem, should we eliminating the human factor. Strange, this simple concept is central to all of physics.

[William David Wallace]

The question I ask my philosopher friend is how to distinguish correlation from causation and I never get a good answer and sometimes no answer at all.

[Schmetter Ling]

You do it again and again and again. :-)

[フᎶフشپんフキん𐡀んフ冰𐡀ん徐冰𐡀んキフんپشフᎶフ]

Everyone needs to philosophize when screw ups inevitably happen.

[foamheart]

The concept of a soul is only important to people who want to live forever.

[Poornakumar Das]

The whole of Mathematics (& its yet to emerge branches) is but a tool to explain the Physical reality of Nature around us.

[Stephen Lawrence]

Yep, definitely. For instance many scientists don't distinguish between causal determinism and predictive determinism. And many are being influenced by their views on free will.

[Streaming Analytics]

The issue is that none of that matters. My views on free will have nothing to do with writing down a number produced by a machine.

[Elrog3]

@Streaming Analytics compatibilist?

[Eric Ephemetherson]

Do you notice how the green plants agree with Sabine by signs of their movements as if nodding from time to time but sunflowers are completely still thereby signifying a complete disagreement with Sabine because she did not forward the definition of time.

[Vitor Bragança]

Those who made real impact on Physics always had profound knowledge of and engaged in philosophical discussions. Aristotle, Descartes, Galileu, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, you name it. When this stopped, Physics pretty much stopped as well. It's common knowledge that we have not made any great leap in Physics after Einstein and the quantum guys. And, mark my words, we won't until physicists start paying attention to Philosophy again.

[Andy Newton]

on the contrary, Aristotle effectively put back science 1500 years, as everybody assumed that because Aristotle had decided something, that was settled, and and disagreement was heresy. It was not until Bacon and Newton that science took off again, as science rather than "natural philosophy"

[callmedeno]

It seems to me a great failing of our time is hyper-specialisation. It seems like great thinkers / scientists of the past were much more well-rounded in general. A simple example being that John Adams was deeply interested in mathematics, the arts, law etc., nowadays he would have done 4 years at The Diplomatic School for Diplomats. It seems trivial to say that now we have experts who spend their whole time thinking in one paradigm, when say mathematics itself takes its greatest leaps forwards when the links from seemingly disconnected areas reveal a deeper truth. I've found in my own life my mind feels more barren when it is focused on one thing. There are obvious counter-examples where someone specialises in a real niche place and does amazing work without reference to anything else, but my sense is that the ones who make the greatest leaps are consciously or subconsciously influenced by (and crucially are interested in) a much wider array of things.

[Vaucho Marx]

@Andy Newton In Western Europe, maybe, but the Islamic world made decent progress in mathematics and astronomy after Aristotle, because they didn't take his metaphysics as dogma. Surely the blame shouldn't be on philosophy, but on the repression by the Catholic Church, right?

[Andy Newton]

@Vaucho Marx partly, but not entirely. It is certainly true that Aristotle had the deadening effect I mentioned, but equally true that the Vatican destroyed science in southern Europe. After the inquisition of Galileo the centre of scientific knowledge moved to northern Europe, away from the dead hand and even deader brain of the Catholic hierarchy. Coincidentally this was about the time the Islamic scholarship and enlightenment was at its peak.

[Jim Buono]

Here's the problem I see with quantum physics today. We are not past the point of describing what it is, let alone why it is the way it is. For example, we can't describe the effect of gravity at the quantum level. We need to be able to describe it before understanding how it works. Another example would be quantum entanglement. We need to describe the process before understanding the how. There's still a debate over particle or wave. But since matter is just energy compressed to what appears to us to be a solid and thus a particle it seems to me that any discrete packet of energy, like a photon, could look like both. The problem comes in when physicists speculate as if they actually know how these things work. Sabine is one of the few who never seems to do this. She says what she knows and also what she doesn't know.

[David H Braun]

Isaac Newton: "I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

[First Al]

It's true philosophy has fallen behind Physics because the later is so technical. And we must give it primacy, that is practically guaranteed. But that's one reason we have so much sloppy theory in physics.

[Günter Sostaric]

the precognitive dreams would let us think that everything is deterministic. But the world of probabilities leave us the free will.

[Paul Wood]

As usual, Sabine is correct 😘

[Robert Overbeeke]

can someone ask Sabine a question without pretending to fully understand the answer right away?

[Cade Mosley]

I would liked to have seen a debate between her and Steven Weinberg who was famously contemptuous of the role of philosophy in physics. I always thought there didn't seem to be many people taking the opposite stance and promoting its role in the physics community. Ironically maybe, I think it's something Hossenfelder & Lee Smolin share, although they disagree on other things.

[Streaming Analytics]

Because philosophy is a waste of time, unless you’re talking to a philosopher.

[Mountain Fisher]

@Streaming Analytics Maybe it is because physicists with little knowledge of Philosophy 101 The Art of Critical Thinking; then come to asinine conclusions like, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist." Or say idiotic things like, "Philosophy is dead." from the same book as the foregoing. I threw the book away.

[Streaming Analytics]

@Mountain Fisher philosophy constrains nothing and can predict nothing. Given those absolute facts, I don’t see any reason for thinking about it.

[Mountain Fisher]

@Streaming Analytics So that's your philosophy are you sure it predicts nothing? Have you thought it through or are you just mimicking a poor philosopher like L. Krauss, Weinberg or Stephen Hawking, because you just said the same thing he did when he made the self stultifying statement that philosophy was dead. I would think someone whose sig is Streaming Analytics would have studied formal logic, but I guess not.

[Streaming Analytics]

@Mountain Fisher I just want to understand the actual use of philosophy. If the use is being able to convince myself that I know something, I don’t feel like I need theoretical help with that.

[Michael M. Ross]

You can't measure consciousness - because it's beyond space and time - that's the hard and absolute problem with physics (and metrology).

[Jaco]

Just subtly blew my mind

[Desert Shadow]

We need to embrace Philosophy Psychology Physics Mathematics Art Music to trend towards a better understanding of Existence. One discipline is not enough.

[lornlynx]

great questions!

[i]

I’m confused. @15:30 she says her new book addresses philosophical intersections and questions like: Is time an illusion? But earlier in the interview she said that topic wasn’t something she studied deeply and therefore couldn’t comment on @9:16

[Bruno Rossi Bonin]

15:38 Now THAT seems to be a great book to read!

[Charles Morgan]

Bravo!!!

[Kaiser Basileus]

Science is rigor. To the extent you can and are studying something righteously, that's science.

[Viktor Blomqvist]

Lovely interview. The choice of sunflowers are a subtle statement also, in these trying times.

[Paul Bloemen]

I like the pursuit of “truth” to be the leading principle of science. Nature as it really is, as far as we humans can know and understand it. Knowing about this truth will help us make better decisions, better predictions. In that pursuit there is some leeway, like trying things out, learning by mistakes: trial and error. Subjects for that leeway are, for instance, beauty and philosophy: walk that path for a while and see what it brings you. But every now and then the question should be asked: how about the truth, are we making progress in its pursuit, or should we step back for a moment and ponder what we have done so far? Is the way promising, or should we look at different angles? Asking and answering these questions should be done explicitly like, once every 1 to 4 years. And the answers to these questions should lead to explicit actions that have to be monitored well, along with the existing actions that may go on for a while until some reasonable end point has been reached. This way, losing sight on what science should be all about is prevented, even if this is an unpleasant mirror to look at for some, sometimes.

[Monika Fibonacci]

Every math model is simplification and approximation of reality, that is source of mathematical "beauty". Reality is much more complex, messy, hence less "beautiful".

[Adam Noble]

Thanks Sabine!

[John McCormick]

The most creative humans ever to live are mathematicians and physicists. This is not widely understood because so few ever bother to study mathematics and physics, and no high school and lower-division courses don't do it.

[Dani]

Are you one?

[Elrog3]

As someone who love's math, describing it as creative really irks me. Creativity is boring. Discovery, on the other hand, is enticing.

[Dani]

@Elrog3 Discovery without creativity is linear problem solving which isn't really the peak of human capabilities nor has been the driving force behind the development of science.

[Mireya Jones]

"Science" has a philosophy, it is called empiricism. The next question is whether one is committed to limiting the field of knowledge to that which is derived via positivistic falsification.

[mark hughes]

Socrates: I assume nothing as so…. Science: This is my working hypothesis …..

[Nhan Do]

I think that Objectivism is can fix the mysticism and formalism in physics.

[Dr. Satish Sharma]

Excellent.... thanks.

[Donald Duck]

Philosophy is not ideology. Don’t mix or confuse the two. Ideology is the opposite of science

[Peter Codner]

For ideology read religion?

[mdiem]

@Peter Codner or politics Or any "idea" based system where the idea comes first and is defended without regard for reality.

[Philosophy by Psyche]

the actual collection of the simultaneous mysteries....

[Jeff Neptune]

The reason a lot of scientists despise philosophers is simple. Many scientists want to believe their work can tell us some "truth" about "objective" reality. Philosophers have completely destroyed that project.

[Brad Stephan]

I love her brain! Also, the interviewer was very good, but his identity was not disclosed.

[Zeno Karlsbach]

I want to be as exact as possible, but it gives me the abdabs!

[chrisose]

Deniel Dennett says that the purpose of philosophy is to refine the question but that where it goes astray is when people try to use it to provide "answers". Answers require empirical input.

[Steve Prince]

The Philosopher is a kin to the observer .

[Günter Sostaric]

I have learnt from Seth/Jane Roberts that there are other universes with completly other laws

[Ronald Logan]

I like the part about the constraints to creativity imposed by mathematics. What comes to mind is the taboo of divide by zero. There is a binary divide algorithm that does not check for zero in the denominator and if then produces zero as a result in that case. Since the algorithm works for all other numbers, why not just say that for binary numbers (integers) divide by zero results in zero. Of course this is a totally different way at looking at the number zero as opposed to the quantity of zero. There are many useful cases where divide by zero results in zero without bringing the entire world to a halt and bursting into flames.

[L. M.]

Interesting point. I like the "bursting into flames" comment. If we can have the set of imaginary numbers, why not divide by zero numbers? If it's perfectly OK to multiply by zero, ...

[Streaming Analytics]

It’s not taboo lol. Dividing by zero and getting zero introduces logical contradictions.

[L. M.]

@Streaming Analytics So you say. Add zero. Subtract zero. Multiply by zero. Divide by zero. Where's the contradiction?

[Streaming Analytics]

@L. M. there are contradictions, just not the ones you’re thinking.

[L. M.]

@Streaming Analytics You're saying plural and not giving one good example. Looks like you're trying to read minds. Quite a feat.

[Parrot Raiser]

I'm just wondering what th result would be if Sabine cooperated on a book with Randall Munroe (xkcd)?

[Claude Massé]

Physics need philosophy as well as mathematics, even though both can't be tested experimentally.

[Streaming Analytics]

Physics is how nature works. No philosophy needed.

[Claude Massé]

@Peter Codner Then you can't know whether this is true.

[To Serve Man]

@Claude Massé "Then you can't know whether this is true." And neither can "philosophy." Solipsism is unprovable inherently.

[Claude Massé]

@To Serve Man You can't know whether mathemathics are true.

[Amin Omar]

they have misunderstanding! they give each other titles too! it is about the quality of logic: studying physics alone without good logic will never make a real scientists! what made good scientists such as Newton and Einstein is both: filtered improved knowledge and good logic, mathematics is the most important scientific field but it is a kind of tool in the hands of physicist, even if he is good at maths that will never make him a real scientist "physicist", that is the reason behind what is going on nowadays, they are good at ruminating the theories of previous real scientists and using patching techniques,... but that will never make a real scientists. the same story with so-called philosophy: studying so called philosophy will never make a real good thinker: it needs a huge amount of filtered improved accumulated knowledge and good logic, it is harder work thus there are no real thinkers. they underestimate human mind, all humans have minds, but it is about the quality of logic thus mind.

[Mar Hoc]

„Logic pervades the world: the limits of the world are also its limits.“ - Ludwig Wittgenstein

[Speedo Mars]

Just for fun...explain how logic operates at the quantum level where the measurement problem (wave function collapse) arises?

[Amin Omar]

@Speedo Mars where did you come from? Mars? don't you know that the quality of logic is what make difference ! what made real scientists such as Newton and Einstein ? education alone is not enough, ... wants to make fun ! better to make mind fistly.

[Amin Omar]

They want to imitate Einstein! Bubbles, Strings, ….. etc they think Einstein did it by chance! they said our maths is so beautiful! but ugly defective logic! Hopeless case.

[fifikusz]

" Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don`t know" Bertrand Russel

[Peter Codner]

hard to argue with that, but it is a definition of neither, unless you suppose descriptions to be definitions. it is no more than saying that philosophy is a blue something and science a pink something.