Carlo Rovelli on physics and philosophy

Theoretical physicist, philosopher, and international bestselling author Carlo Rovelli joins Lauren and Colin for a conversation about the quest for quantum gravity, the importance of unlearning outdated ideas, and a very unique way to get out of a speeding ticket. Rovelli is a Distinguished Visiting Research Chair at Perimeter Institute. He is also the author of seven popular science books, including The Order of Time, Reality is Not What it Seems, and the breakout bestseller Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, which has been translated into more than 40 languages.
Conversations at the Perimeter is co-hosted by Perimeter Teaching Faculty member Lauren Hayward and journalist-turned-science communicator Colin Hunter. In each episode, they chat with a guest scientist about their research, their motivations, the challenges they encounter, and the drive that keeps them searching for answers.
The podcast is produced by the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, a not-for-profit, charitable organization supported by a unique public-private model, including the Governments of Ontario and Canada. Perimeter’s educational outreach initiatives, including Conversations at the Perimeter, are made possible in part by the support of donors like you. Be part of the equation: perimeterinstitute.ca/donate
conversationsattheperimeter.p...
/ perimeter
/ perimeter-institute
/ perimeterinstitute
/ pioutreach

[@JimGobetz]

Dr Rovelli is one of the truly good people in science, genuinely likeable. Fun to listen to him. Thanks for this great content

[@ClayFarrisNaff]

I've long been a fan of Carlo Rovelli's books, but to hear him speak at length extemporaneously this way is an edifying delight.

[@montymonto6430]

Excellent conversation. Dr Rovelli is clear and genuine. No hyperbole,no Neil de Grass Tyson, no MK, no BS!

[@stevennovakovich2525]

I love this humble man. He's brilliant in every way, and most importantly, very wise.

[@ezza88ster]

A true 'natural philosopher' in step with Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Heinsenberg, Bohr, Bohm et al, so refreshing in comparison to all the false certainty of scientism. Thank you Carlo. Great interview, thanks guys.

[@williamjmccartan8879]

Thank you all very much Carlo, Lauren and Colin for a great conversation, it was nice to hear someone wanting to communicate their message to a wider audience. Peace

[@Ebenezer456]

I love his ability to explain complex concepts clearly to non-experts. Definitely interested in hearing more from Carlo.

[@franksock9184]

Stumbled on this interview because I just finished his book Anaximander and it was legitimately one of the best books I have ever read. If you liked this interview and like Dr. Rovelli I can not emphasize enough how much you will enjoy Anaximander, and I am sure his other books which I will be reading as soon as possible.

[@kent-runesjoholm5200]

Prof. Rovelli gives us valuable recommendations - leave certain premises and change perspective like Anaximander, Copernicus, Kepler, and others.

[@EsmeClutterbuck-xi9uk]

Yes I really agree. I know nothing about science but find Dr Rovelli's writing fascinating.

[@craigreedtcr9523]

Rovelli is great. Far more lucid and easier to understand then most well known physicists. Lol. Great video!

[@rolfseringhaus7647]

Professor Rovelli is a most compelling, sensitive, vastly erudite, writer with an openness and insight and a superlative talent to weave physics, philosophy and his own personal views into his work. He embodies a very rare if not unique combination of knowledge, wisdom and humanity. I just read his 'Order of Time' Rolf Seringhaus, Professor Emeritus, Wilfrid Laurier University

[@SoleSolSoul]

One of the best thinkers that we can witness in our time .. right here❤

[@deeliciousplum]

Wonderful talk. Deeply bitten to explore Carlo Rovelli's writings. Thank you for sharing this discussion/interview.

[@SoleSolSoul]

I was going on about the very exact things he is saying at the beginning here!! Love Carlo R. And so thankful him:)!!

[@matthewharrison3265]

Dr Rovelli (out of all of humanity) saying "my competency if I have one"

[@bzkl6055]

12:15 "I hear whawhawha and I said shit. I looked at the speedometer...and I'm going you know 180km/h on the highway." Best Perimeter interview ever lmao.

[@izil1fe]

Sir, thank you for thinking for yourself, not falling to propaganda of the current world events and staying true to the truth, facts and most importantly to yourself. Even when such actions can severely damage your career. (Relating to your post on facebook today, 03 July '22)

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

I cant even fathom how you created that absurd caricature of C.R.

[@kaorik1687]

I love listening to your talking and reading your books (I read "L'ordine del tempo" and now reading "La realta' non e' come ci appare") I know nothing about physics (I got zero point on an exam at high school😅) but I start to be interested in the subject! Thank your very much for helping me to broaden my horizons.

[@obiwankwiegand]

Truth. One of the greatest conversations i had, was the one on one with you. Im lucky.

[@mbarraicua]

Fantastic interview. Thanks Perimeter! Thanks Carlo!

[@massimodtx6547]

A so beautiful interview. Very precious. Thanks at all

[@julesm3576]

There is much wisdom about 'applied science' getting plenty of funding, and the need to offer some broader funding towards things like 'quantum information of space/time' or similar opportunities and grants for other universities and departments to allow scientists to metaphorically 'play with pebbles on the beach' like newton did. I think we can get past the 'barriers' blocking us from bridging the gap between quantum mechanics and general relativity. IDK. One day, without resorting to pseudo sciences, a group of philosophers and scientists will make some breakthroughs. Refreshing to have these folk like Rovelli and Lauren and Colin helping the sciences move forward in interesting ways. My favorite part about this talk, was when Rovelli talked about how important it is to unlearn things, and to be aware of our unconscious biases about our own personal views about these areas of science. - nice humble orientation towards research and toward understanding the universe through the sciences better in general was present throughout this talk, imho. The more I listen to top physicists talk about information and relations giving meaning to physical properties, the more I think Bernardo Kastrup would have an interesting conversation with Rovelli especially Kastrup's 'screen of perception' analogy. And one can have these conversation without needing to agree on a George Berkeley view that "everything is mental" or everything is mind. It's not about agreeing with philosophers who take 'non-physicalist views' , rather to me it's about talking to them and getting multiple contrasting views and these types of conversations can untangle the confusion we have between quantum physics and general relativity. Paradoxical views in dialogue in order to solve a paradoxical problem. (general relativity and quantum mechanics) Sometimes in the tension between opposing ideas comes the answer. Unfortunately string theory and quantum gravity systems were never oppositional. They were just different and that's why the tension between these two paths did not lead to an Einstein level breakthrough. For me, it's the mental vs physicalist sciences, that will reveal to us ways forward. But the discussions must be rigorous and rational, imho. Also Kastrup is a rigorous thinker so that's why people 'like him' would be good for scientists to talk to, imo.

[@ovidiulupu5575]

Must understand action, action quantification, from which rise space, Time, energy, impuls, particles as structure.

[@callievh]

Brilliant! This is how you conduct an interview! Dr Rovelli is a favourite!

[@thomas5982]

A more fitting title would have been: "A personal conversation with the great Carlo Rovelli"

[@andsalomoni]

Carlo Rovelli the Great.

[@V1lk4y]

I love this guy

[@sntk1]

EPR: ...every element of the physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory. Schrödinger: If you ask a physicist what is his idea of yellow light, he will tell you that it is transversal electromagnetic waves of wavelength in the neighborhood of 590 millimicrons. If you ask him: But where does yellow come in? he will say: _In my picture not at all..._ (My emphasis.)

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

🎨 A deeper understanding of the physical world will take things from philosophy and bring them into physics.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

Good luck with that

[@amrmuhammad7527]

philosophy will hold physics back, So *shut up and calculate*.

[@sntk1]

Einstein: The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of a noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Born: I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actually philosophy. [...] I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science, with epistemological signposts.

[@CoreenMontagna]

57:47 “The Earth is spinning and it’s moving around the sun. That’s revolutionary!” OMG, “revolutionary” is such a perfect wordplay there. Wonder if this relationship is why we use revolutionary to mean an amazing new paradigm shift in how we see something?

[@andsalomoni]

To think that "Every place in the Universe is the centre of the Universe" is far more revolutionary.

[@CoreenMontagna]

@@andsalomoni I was commenting on the wordplay used there, intentionally or not. Another definition of revolutionary is as a description of something that revolves, like the Earth around the Sun ;)

[@merlepatterson]

How can something be defined as "discrete" without a contrasting background area in which to identify it as defined and absolute?

[@santerisatama5409]

Exactly. Euclidean (end)point cannot exist independent of line. Line cannot exist independently of plane. Etc. According to Alain Badiou, the deep idea of 'number' is a gap/cut in a continuum. Very similar to the meaning of 'quantum'.

[@merlepatterson]

@@santerisatama5409 If a diamond is the size of the universe, one can't place it on a black velvet cloth under the light to see its magnificence. Everything at that point 'is' the diamond, thus the diamond can't be observed to exist as a diamond.

[@obiwankwiegand]

Prof. I sat across from you. When loop quantum gravity was in its infancy. Abhar Ashastkar (spelling) Donna Naples..

[@draxiedru]

Great questions Lauren!

[@roniquebreauxjordan1302]

Interesting discussion...will pass along to my sons

[@johnphil2006]

Time is fundamental. But when it comes with an emergent space , it becomes spacetime which is relative. Then the object exist in that space with reference to the observer frame time.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

Analytical Idealism is the closest fitting, most comprehensive explanation of reality, awareness, and consciousness humanity has to offer. Because the discipline of science is like a horse with blinders on, it will forever chase correlation claiming they have causation. Scientific research is as mind crippling as religion

[@TheMahayanist]

Nothing is fundamental.

[@TheMahayanist]

@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 Yeah sure whatever.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

@@TheMahayanist Imagine a world where your absurd post was meaningful 😆

[@isedairi]

Can you do the same for Smolin!

[@PIOutreach]

Stay tuned! It's coming.

[@fluentpiffle]

We speak in the language of those we are trying to communicate with. If those controllable masses are enamoured with magic tricks.. Algebracadabra!

[@fluentpiffle]

So here is one of the main problems of understanding.. People have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable.. Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!), so we are describing 'eternity' when we apply 'time' concepts. Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily.. All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective. spaceandmotion

[@sub-ce8vr]

this seems to be what is described as sunyata or emptiness in madyamika tibetan buddhism.

[@saraswati999]

May I add the fields of study here are none duality and duality fields and both contemplate one another in research thus yes practical vs none practical must be in balance

[@someonethereto]

Blessing in Disguise

[@amirshojae7402]

It really excited me perfect

[@obiwankwiegand]

Ive met this man.

[@alex79suited]

Philosophy and physics. Well, philosophy is most important it gives you a perspective from which to imagine. Without your imagination, you can't do real physics. I mean, you can right a bunch of equations and feel like you know, but you're really just part of the shadow. I've come to love physics quite a bit, actually. But from here, I don't see anyone really thinking differently than the next. It's always the same, just being told or at least trying to tell it somehow different. There are lots of brilliant folks but no originality. If you can't be good, be great is our family motto. So maybe I will, I think 🤔. Philosophy is the way to solve some issues, get out, and look around. You never know what will get those sparks a flying. Speaking of sparks, I was looking at some leaves the other day and it occurred to myself maybe we are missing something something much bigger. And I looked at the great attractor and thought hold on now. Then I looked at the other great attractors. And in blazing speed my brain went to overdrive the tune I meant. Lol got you, and it was like being shot out of a Canon. Shite, were in an arm not our solar system our galaxy. All the galaxies we can see are in an arm. The great attractors are galacty really big galacty. And what's even more incredible is their merging holyshite. This changes everything. We were way off I believe, haven't looked real hard, but shite. How did we not see this? It's right there in front of our eyes. I'M a bit flabbergasted. Do you know or understand what this could mean. I've always said we have to think bigger, why? I had a feeling way back when. Oh yeah Philosophy. Think much bigger, aim small miss small. Philosophy is the key to opening your mind to what's possible to what can be, to limitless understanding. Don't be afraid to think different and if you get punched in the mouth get up and get back at it it only hurts when you wake up. Peace ✌️ from Canada, eh

[@space-time-somdeep]

❤

[@travisfitzwater8093]

Theory, experimental, applied.

[@scoreprinceton]

Dr.Rovelli perhaps should study words of natural languages (since he is also a writer) while studying quantum gravity. I believe he might discover answers to his questions for a theory of everything. Aren’t “words” quantum-spacetime?

[@sarkarhaider]

Very Exciting angle - kindly elaborate the concept & mechanism

[@scoreprinceton]

@@sarkarhaider Natural language words encapsulate meanings and encode information. These information are transmitted through sound waves or other media to trigger actions. The societal spacetime of individuals and groups react to these signals. What impact do these quantum wave functions have on the behaviors of the members? A theory of everything ought to describe these phenomena as well.

[@sarkarhaider]

@@scoreprinceton thanks very intelligent thinking

[@scoreprinceton]

@@sarkarhaider There are presumably other considerations such as the energy densities and the conservation laws that need apply to the societal spacetime of the literary kind for humanity to travel to the past etc., Could physics not play a role in the development of these solutions and technologies?

[@davidwilkie9551]

All information In-form-ation substantiation must converge around positioning the Centre of Time Duration Timing Conception, a wave-particle coordination-identification idea that in Formal terms is Math-Physics-Philosophy contained in AdS/CFT i-reflection, virtual vector-values of time-timing sync-duration Reciproction-recirculation Singularity repositioning summed up as Correspondence Principle Imagery of superimposed AM-FM resonant probability pulsed-events. This makes the floating point coherence-cohesion module-ation circumstances of Eternity-now superposition Interval log-antilog, pulse-evolution reiteration orientation, continuous Conception. Some Thing in No-thing definable @.dt absolute zero-infinity, by observation, nothing to argue about at instantaneous no difference in pure-math relative-timing ratio-rates Perspective motion-potential. (QED type statement) A POV partially composed of AM-FM e-Pi-i time-timing Spinfoam bubble-modes of sync-duration Elemental e-Pi-i Temporal Totality. Thank you Dr Rovelli.

[@sunroad7228]

Fossil fuels have played havoc with the mind set of the outgoing 20th Century. The 20th Century Physics thought The Tragedy of the Commons is a matter of Social Science and it's better to leave it alone - focusing on what is called Space & Time, instead. Wrong - The Tragedy of the Commons - is at the core of Physics - becoming so for the 21st Century Physics: "Energy, like time, flows from past to future". Wailing.

[@rl7012]

Nonsense

[@Rick1234567S]

So where is the Higg's boson? Well if a point particle is an instantaneous point particle then it should appear on the path of the line the trajectory of mass so I told them in a quantum foam bubble Planck length in diameter, it has to exist on a line from the center to the circumference. Which is wobbly and pulsing in and out against its neighbors. So not a sphere, misshapen due to its pulsing. Newton's bucket, vortexes in a rotating superfluid, rocket sled experiments, the Bosenova, frame dragging, gravitational lensing, all show you that the ether exists. Does a molecule have a gravity well? Of course. Do those spherical waves when they add up or cancel out form the covalent bond of atoms? Of course. Are those bubble that quantum foam are they touching the atom bubble skin? Of course. Is the earth pushing up against your feet? Every physics text book in grade 9 tells you that. What did Einstein mean when a guy fell off a roof and he said no the ground came up to meet him? Why do people refuse to believe that matter can expand? That's like asking why after so many years do they think an instantaneous point particle is a piece of dust? What is outside the universe that we are expanding into? Nothing. Do we know what that means? No space no time. So it is only a skin at best and only if we imagine it is there at all. Yet the universe expands like a loaf of raisin bread into that space. The 5th dimension. Is that accurate and does it represent the real universe? It is a model and useful as a model. DNA molecules execute their code using those vibrations based on the gravity well of molecules. That is how the code is written and how it executes.

[@darwinlaluna3677]

We can't solve everything in just one place, we can't understand if we don't believe in each other, sometimes we have to cross the bridge to seek and explore what's in der, we can find the universe in God and we can find God in the Universe

[@AbsInABox]

I want to learn how to speak.

[@Luca-xr7bs]

wow. he dresses proper shoes

[@seastorm1979]

Being a simple Joe Average I don´t understand a single thing what they are talking about, but I know its important😄

[@andsalomoni]

"Theoretical physicist, philosopher, and international bestselling author Carlo Rovelli" I would erase "philosopher", and I don't think he regards himself as a philosopher. Or we all are philosophers (which is not wrong, indeed).

[@Rick1234567S]

Did you time travel to make this? I was just talking about this. We have quantum gravity and if you just time traveled you know we do. Most of the physicists in the world know we do. We have had it for 30 years. What is the mystery? You are standing on a balloon, with a ruler painted on the balloon. It is expanding. Measure your foot. So where is it expanding into? Into the nothingness where there is no ether since ether makes space and events make time. So how do you get a wave Planck length if you don't have foam balls Planck length or do you think a wave is not a mental construct? Einstein said without an ether Relativity would not work many many years ago he said that. Like little golf balls and most physicists know that. So the atom is pulsing in and out on its natural frequency do we know that? We have clocks that are accurate to a bajillion years now of course we know that. So what happens when they pulse in and out they create a spherical wave that crests at the shell radius. I saw a video today appear in my feed from Sweden showing it in slow motion from 13 years ago. Do we know wave mechanics and what happens after that yes it continues on as ambient pressure in a pressurized universe. So where is quantum gravity? Mass resists expansion. Space is shrinking and those waves keep things apart writ large. The equivalence of mass and gravity So where is mass where is the Higg's bosun? First do people know what a particle is? No they don't. An instantaneous point particle is where you freeze frame and put a point there and measure the energy levels etc in that spot. So now you see there might be a quantum foam bubble there so now it has characteristics which complicates your point. Intrinsic mass when a bubble pulses in and out on a straight line. So a quantum foam bubble is also pulsing in and out it has mass it has energy background radiation. I taught this for 30 years and right away IBM spelled IBM with atoms the month I gave them the formulas with the proper numbers. As a code breaker using the brute force method and a math wiz I calculated new values configuring what we had were approximations and found the exact numbers that fit the existing formulas without remainder. For all elements. If you are not there you probably don't have an industrial patent for microchips right now.

[@stevenk-brooks3459]

Wow!😀

[@whirledpeas3477]

He was awesome in the Lord of the Rings❤

[@ossiedunstan4419]

Philosophy is a personal opinion from a position of deemed authority. quantum gravity, Gravity is the cause of Quantum not the other way around IMO.

[@kennypool]

Aren't they the same thing

[@psmoyer63]

"It’s a mystery, we don’t know and that’s fantastic." Carlo Rovelli. Paraphrased: "How could I make money on books if the mystery disappeared?" It's simple. Gravity is space, fields (particles) are in space. That's pretty much what you said LQG says. You certainly may have digital (quantum) stuff in a smooth (empty space) medium. But then empty space becomes more important than the stuff in it. Is the universe a factory for making empty space? It most certainly is not the other way around. Yeah, I've already written that paper.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Three dimensional space could be emergent forming the variable, time.

[@psmoyer63]

@@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time if QFT shows that particles are the result of fields in space...what is it that's emergent?

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

@@psmoyer63 A probabilistic future emergences photon by photon forming statistical entropy, fields (waves) over a period of time with particle characteristics as the future unfolds.

[@psmoyer63]

@@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time probabilistic photons?

[@andrewgartshore2041]

Your all talking twaddle and haven't a clue!

[@Austria88586]

Wolfgang Smith

[@saimbhat6243]

I can feel the nerd energy. Lol

[@scenFor109]

As a theoretical philosopher I like to believe that the universe is a teleportation device. It may work by recording and translating information into every possible space, by collapse and evaporation of the wave function using a space between the surface of moving letters - nO Where and noW Here.

[@obiwankwiegand]

University of Pittsburgh

[@DW_Kiwi]

This seems to be happening with physics is just what this video is about. Philosophy. Is Physics at a dead end??

[@KaliFissure]

Great thinker. I can't wait to be back in the golden horseshoe. Neutron Decay Cosmology. Neutrons which contact event horizons become the vacuum flux for a single Planck second then reemerge in lowest density points of space where they decay into amorphous atomic hydrogen. This decay process includes a volume increase of 10^54 times. Expansion, dark energy, lambda. The decay product, amorphous atomic hydrogen, doesn't have stable orbital electron so can't emit or absorb photons. Dark matter. Event horizons act as energy pressure release valves venting from highest energy pressure conditions to lowest. The universe is steady state. Everything falling down the gravity hill until they have been repackaged into most dense form. Then in a blink from highest density to lowest. Neutron decay cosmology is inevitable.

[@ecelsozanato5603]

Natura locuta, causa finita.

[@obiwankwiegand]

B4 9/11

[@obiwankwiegand]

Before 9/11

[@lewisjones2825]

We will need more philosophy and not scientists pretending they can do the job.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

That is simpleton thinking at best.

[@GuitarsnSnooker]

Duh antistringer

[@Rick1234567S]

Newton took F=ma and renamed it to w=mg, then Einstein took F=ma and renamed it to E=mc2 Where E is what? Kinetic energy the same as force. Newton called the ether absolute space, Einstein called it absolute space-time. What is the difference between these two men? Einstein discovered that due to gravity, you have local conditions that are not universal. So not universal gravitation. Example grab a quantum foam bubble here in orbit and grab one close to the sun. They are not the same size but they are both Planck length in diameter. We can understand that is due to the gravity well of the sun. What else? Atoms behave differently in different wells when compared so lift your atomic clock it keeps different time. Do we know why? Of course. The effect of gravity on the atoms as they go about doing their normal business they do it faster or slower, speed them up like mad to almost c, if it has mass it is plowing through that same foam that plants you in the car seat every time you step on the gas. And you aren't going very fast at all. At high rates of acceleration matter stretches as you would expect the distance between the nucleus and the shell radius increases so the distance between nuclei in a molecule increases. Newton didn't know that.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

I wish this guy C.R. was less of a dogmatic closed minded fool. Science is just as crippling to the intellect as religion. Doom ash will waste a lifetime chasing correlation claiming it's causation.

[@BlueGiant69202]

"Can it be that it was all so simple then? Or has time re-written every line? If we had the chance to do it all again Tell me, would we? Could we?" - The Way We Were Majorana and the path-integral approach to Quantum Mechanics by S. Esposito arXiv:physics/0603140 [physics.hist-ph] "Attempts to read the great mystery story are as old as human thought itself." - The Evolution of Physics by A. Einstein and L. Infeld "We have tried to show that use of probability theory in the sense of Laplace, with prior probabilities determined by the principle of maximum entropy, leads to a reasonable method of treating decision problems and to results in good correspondence with common sense. Mathematically, our equations are nothing but the Gibbs formalism in statistical mechanics, the only new feature being the recognition that the Gibbs methods are of far more general applicability than had been supposed. The moral of this is simply that questions about ‘interpretation of a formalism’, which the positivist philosophy tends to reject as meaningless and useless, are, on the contrary, of central importance in scientific work. It is, of course, true that, in an application already established, a different interpretation of the equations cannot lead to any new numerical results. But our judgment as to the range of validity of a formalism can depend entirely on how we interpret it. The interpretation (probability) ≡ (frequency) has led to a great and unnecessary restriction on the kinds of problem where probability theory can be applied. Today, the scientist, engineer, and economist face many problems which require the broader Laplace-Jeffreys interpretation." - Pg. 450, Chapter 14.8 Comments, Probability Theory: The Logic of Science by Edwin T. Jaynes,

[@Markoul11]

28:03