Will Kinney on Cosmic Inflation and the Beginning of the Universe | Closer To Truth Chats

[@brothermine2292]

Kinney made four mistakes in this video: 1. At 47:07 he claimed no one can explain the difference between the "laws" of mathematics and physical laws (such as the strength of the electromagnetic force). But there are obvious differences. Mathematics has only an abstract existence... it has no energy or mass or interaction with the world, and its conclusions are deduced logically from axioms that do not need to be true of this universe. Different sets of axioms lead to different mathematical "laws," for example Euclidean geometry versus non-Euclidean geometry. The strength of the electromagnetic force, on the other hand, is an empirical fact of the universe. Laws of math are contingent on arbitrary choices of axioms, whereas laws of physics are contingent on empirical facts of a universe. 2. At 48:22 he claimed the Anthropic Principle depends on life being rare. It doesn't. It works the same even if life isn't rare... but it's superfluous if life isn't rare. In other words, it's the "need" for the Anthropic Principle that depends on life (and fertile universes) being rare or unlikely. 3. At 48:38 Kinney claimed the Anthropic Principle repudiates the Copernican Principle, which he claims says "we aren't special in any way." But he admits that's a radical exaggeration of the Copernican Principle, which actually says the Earth isn't the center of the universe and the universe is (on average) the same everywhere. Kuhn caught this mistake. 4. At 51:28 he claimed natural selection depends on a scarcity of resources, so Eternal Inflation lacks a natural selection mechanism. But what matters for a selection mechanism that would explain the "tuning" of most universes for life (life as we know it) is the differential rate of reproduction of universes depending on the different properties of the parent universes. Different rates of reproduction of universes do NOT require scarcity of resources or competition for resources. There's no need for barren universes to "die out" in order for them to become greatly outnumbered by fertile universes, since fertile universes don't compete with barren universes for the same space or energy. Eternal Inflation may lack a known selection mechanism that promotes "tuning for life" in a large proportion of the universe bubbles, but that's not due to a scarcity requirement.

[@diegoalejandrosanchezherre4788]

Absolutely an amazing talk!!!! Thanks You for that one Robert!!🙌🤝

[@CloserToTruthTV]

Thank you so much for watching 💫

[@erichabegger9895]

I view the cosmic inflation remedy to cosmological problems as a solution worse than the disease itself. These individuals are navigating by GPS coordinates and refusing to deviate from the instructions given to them even when a house appears directly in their path of travel. That house is the first law of thermodynamics when applied to the universe as a whole.

[@longcastle4863]

This one of the best CTT interviews imo. And love the snowmobile story.

[@CloserToTruthTV]

We're so glad you enjoyed it 💫

[@peweegangloku6428]

I have a deep respect for this guest because of his concluding statements. Traveling this path will lead to an endless acquisition of knowledge and wisdom unlike those who limit their knowledge to what they presently perceive. When we objectively scrutinize the origin of the most talked about "singularity," it becomes increasingly clearer that some things exist beyond the detectable range of our conscious awareness.

[@davidbrydon4288]

Yes but his comments on the density of black holes decreasing as they grow I assume is linked to the event horizon and the edge of the gravity well. However the ‘surface’ of the black hole aka the singularity aka where matter and energy hang out, would be smaller and keep its black hole density. It's only the black hole effects that would be the size of the universe if it had the mass/energy of that universe condensed in one spot. Am I making sense?

[@peweegangloku6428]

@@davidbrydon4288 The exact nature of black holes is still being theorized and there are different schools of thought. No one thought or theory is hundred percent correct. We are just beginning to tinker with the fringes of the amazing knowledge Contained within the awesome universe we find ourselves. Having said that, my point of deep respect stems from his concluding statements. The postulated and accepted "singularity" that gave rise to the universe must have been caused by something. The question is, what thing? To this he modestly admitted that we may never get to find out. Every other theory about the origin of the universe will have to face the question of, 'What gave rise to the singularity? On this, it becomes clearer that something exists beyond our grasp, our range of instrumental and mental detection.

[@lesliegreenhill2389]

Reading "Flatland" can help one come to grips with truly challenging ideas. Well done Edwin Abbott.

[@arimalzbeil844]

The book "Many Worlds in One" by Alexander Vilenkin changed my view on the world completely. Thank You for this substantial discussion.

[@p0indexter624]

outstanding ! thank you

[@brothermine2292]

At 52:50 I think Kuhn misrepresented Lee Smolin's position on Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection theory, when Kuhn said Smolin "repudiated" it. I heard Smolin discuss it during an interview by Sean Carroll 2 years ago, and although Smolin said he "doesn't believe it's right," that's not the same as believing it's wrong. My impression from the Sean Carroll interview is that Smolin still works on it. The two predictions it makes -- which could potentially have falsified it -- didn't falsify it and were consistent with it. Kuhn might also have exaggerated the degree to which comments he's received about Smolin's theory have expressed belief in it. In my own comments about it, my point was that Kuhn neglected to mention it as a possible explanation of fine-tuning that does NOT need the Anthropic Principle. That doesn't mean I believe it's the right explanation.

[@iscottke]

Fascinating guest!

[@Joseph-fw6xx]

There are two things humans can't comprehend that's something coming from nothing or something that is infinite that is no beginning

[@katherinecooper6159]

One of my favorite programs!

[@feltonhamilton21]

Magnetism is like a uniform operational system between all circles. And all straight lines follow the contraction of the universe in every direction meaning they can travel forever either way.

[@websurfer352]

For a thing to not have a beginning it is either not there, not existing or it always existed?? One way for something to have always existed is for it to not be subject to time, then it would not be subject to change?? For something to be subject to change-time and yet not have begun it would need to be in a closed loop of change as in cyclic big bangs where the universe never really collapses to zero but goes through a never ending contraction-expansion dynamic!!but the thing is that in cyclic the state between the bangs is a timeless no-boundary state or condition, a state with no time would be dimensionless it would amount to total nothing and that is zero!! So, how do you describe a something that appears with a prior of total nothing, it is a beginning regardless of wether or not you knew or could know the mechanism of how it began!! If you had a dog that reverts in time to being a day old puppy then begins to grow and repeats the cycle as it gets to a five year years old dog then if that cycle always has been and always will be you have a dog that never began!! But what if before the dog appears there is a prior condition where there was nothing or no dog then suddenly the puppy appears wouldn’t you call that a beginning regardless of wether or not you knew or could know the mechanism for how it began!! And another problem is that our universe is obviously subject to time so the only way for it to never have begun is the cyclic dynamic and as the brightest in science have theorized prior to the universe was total nothing presented as a no-boundary condition!!

[@CurtOntheRadio]

woof

[@leoanthony79]

I don't think the brightest in science as you put it are in agreement about what happened prior to the Big Bang, although the inflation hypothesis seems to be the leading candidate. As Prof Kinney pointed out in this discussion, we still begin with a singularity and we have no idea of the nature of reality prior to that singularity. The cosmologist Ethan Segal who contributes to Forbes' Starts with a Bang series (sorry, I don't have the URL offhand) suggests the possibility that inflation itself is infinite since exponential expansion can be extended backwards arbitrarily forever...

[@zedhedmusic]

thank you

[@catherinemira75]

That translation of the Tao is that of Gia Fu Feng. My favorite too. I humbly confess that I find the Tao Te Ching much more easy to digest than Physics... 🙏

[@B.S...]

A fascinating walk through cosmology and not a mention of dualism or solipsism or souls.

[@K0wface]

Lol what? Why do you think souls exist bro? Your parents told you? 🤗

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(44:00) *RLK: **_"No matter what model you do, you have to have some kind of initial singularity or something initial in the beginning that you can't remove."_* ... And there it is! Forty-four minutes into it and we're finally down to brass tacks. And what is Kinney's response? *WK: **_"You can push that initial singularity arbitrarily back in time, but you can't get rid of it. Some inflation had to come from something else, and we essentially have no idea what that something else was."_*

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@mikejones-vd3fg *"basically saying "there was a creator" someone or something started this all is what they're saying, after 200 years of modern science they come to the same conclusion man 2000 years ago did. Good job!"* ... A "Creator" is one solution offered by theists, but that is not the only possibility. You can have a beginning that involves a "first move" and not a "first cause" or "first causer."

[@quantumkath]

Or, eternal inflation can cause Big Bangs.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@quantumkath *"Or, eternal inflation can cause Big Bangs."* ... Where did inflation come from? ... Magic? ... Is it "magic inflation?"

[@quantumkath]

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I don't know! Maybe it's eternal... no beginning, no ending, no boundaries.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@quantumkath *"I don't know! Maybe it's eternal... no beginning, no ending, no boundaries."* ... How can something exist without first coming into existence? *"Happy bd 0-by-1"* ... Not my birthday, sorry. Also, my channel's birth date was March 4, 2021.

[@ArtVandelayLTEX]

Robert, please buy a decent microphone.

[@davidkennerly]

And place it as close to the mouth as possible, but not too close. Overly-brright "room tone" and echo are the bane of KZbin videos.

[@abelmedina7879]

52:40 It could be the production of black holes, because we know that black holes are responsible for more or less life in our universe. This point is only relevant and true if black holes create other universes. If not then I stand corrected and agree with what you guys are saying. Which is there is no trait that could be picked out as a "fitness"

[@quantumkath]

I read the book.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Hi. Whatever you do, never read the 'Periphyseon', the definitive edition translated by O'meara, because it sharpens ones mind and to such an extent, that they become hyper-intelligent, all knowing, impossible to defeat in debate, a dialectic magician, immense critical thinking wizard like abilities never before seen, the Supreme power of the entire uni.... This method of apophasis and dialectic is alien, or highly advanced inquiry, not known of today, but a mere artifact of the ancient past soon to be forgotten. I wish I could implore people to study it as my teacher admonished me too. If one aspires to be good at anything, they have to work on it - the Periphyseon is just that, the very training of the mind. ^^

[@quantumkath]

@@S3RAVA3LM I'll let you know.

[@ludviglidstrom6924]

Very interesting

[@walternullifidian]

Indeed, with numbers like 10^10,000,000, the units don't mean much of anything.

[@pazitor]

Inflation must be its own fundamental force in order to expand without a universe and its particle-related forces. But what was the empty structure so created? Does spacetime have texture, a form of scaffolding?

[@longcastle4863]

Kind of raises questions about a physics behind our physics, it seems to me.

[@blijebij]

@@longcastle4863 Bingo!

[@K0wface]

No, the universe never wasn’t

[@stephenzhao5809]

1:25 ... 1:54 that doesn't that challenges the idea of structure formation that we have based on cold Dark Matter it doesn't challenge at all the idea Big Bang itself in fact it doesn't really have any relevance at all for Cosmic inflation per se 2:09 have you ... 4:18 ... all right well let's ... and I'm going start to really right at the top uh with your title and the driving word of your title is infinity so wjat do you mean by infinity and how does it apply to cosmology. 4:32 Bruno wrote talking about so Giordano Bruno was a died in the wolf copernican and in fact paid with his life partily because of his advocacy for copernican ideas and he was even more copernican than Capernicus he was the first person to really take copernicus's idea that we're not special that the Earth is not special and really take it to its logical conclusion and 5:11 and Bruno wrote God is infinite so his universe must be too he's glorified not in one but in countless Sons not in a single Earth a single world but in a thousand thousand I say in an infinity of worlds. 5:24 ... 6:30 ... but the bubble of universes ... for uh within the context of a bubble universe which is this tiny one bubble amongst these the zillions of bubbles uh there's infinite space within that one bubble (yes) when looked at from the inside but not from the outside is ... if you're inside it you think it's infinite if you're outside you know it's not. ... now there's a second question about infinity because you have to talk about Cosmic inflation and uh the infinite numbers of worlds that it creates 7:22 but um what is that infinity because uh we know inflation has to start so to be a real infinity it has to have always been there because if it's started and then it's going on to any number that would be you know name any number of universes you want and what's happening is more than that so that's one kind of definition the other is that there's it's literally accountable infinity but I don't think you can have that if it started at some point. 7:50 WK:

[@anwaypradhan6591]

Well, there is continuous transformation of energy from plasma to gas to liquid to solid and vice versa.

[@Resmith18SR]

The Universe could be eternal, no beginning and no end. And in the end it doesn't really matter. Just enjoy your one short life here if you can.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Wrong its 100% proven that our universe had a beginning

[@Resmith18SR]

@@afsar_gunner5271 And what was in existence before the Big Bang? And for myself I know I'm not wrong about attempting to enjoy my one and only short life here.

[@ailblentyn]

@@afsar_gunner5271I don’t think so. The Big Bang is an extrapolation that tells us that everything we can see must have been at some point so densely packed together that our physical understanding fails. But even so, the universe could still have been infinte in size at that point in time.

[@K0wface]

@@afsar_gunner5271I found someone who didn’t listen to the video lol

[@Atmanyatri]

Why didn’t he ask more about the state of the universe before the Big Bang? The infaton field? Quantum fluctuations stopped this inflation and caused a local region to decay? I wish he asked more

[@sonarbangla8711]

An infinity of worlds speaks of the incompleteness of the theory of QM, that is result of unitary evolution of Schrodinger's single wave QC function.

[@SP...459]

From India

[@techo477]

Same

[@science212]

Alan Guth is a good science man.

[@Mark1Mach2]

Long before Copernicus, Indians had figured out that Earth rotates around the Sun in a Solar system.

[@stellarwind1946]

Copernicus was the first mathematical model.

[@peweegangloku6428]

If all the laws of physics break down at singularity, before the beginning of inflation, why do some physicists postulate that the laws of physics are the most fundamental, the ultimate reality and have always existed? How is that possible? "Virtual particles pop out of vacuum," and that is not "magic"? Something coming out of nothing? And yet that is scientific! To those who want to believe in fairy tales, that is interesting.

[@longcastle4863]

I think the the laws, materials and forces of physics will be found to be fundamental (and therefore useful) “for all practical purposes”, but are likely to eventually be understood as just a phase (the current state of its ever changing morphology) of the particular time and space we are going through and have to work with.

[@peweegangloku6428]

@@longcastle4863 "Materials," the physical particles and forces that make up the universe(s) evidently did not exist at some point in time past. Therefore they cannot be fundamental. Space is a vacuum and time is a concept, therefore it is implausible for emptiness (space) and an intangible (time) to manufacture particles and forces of nature.

[@tonyb300]

Anyone else hear a blend of Sam Harris/Nic Cage in the guest's voice? Regardless, fascinating interview and content!

[@dr_shrinker]

Where the hell is my superchat? My comment disappeared

[@paulkhoo2291]

Game of Thrones made more sense. I still think that Inflation is a convenient patch for a faulty concept. Especially he says there are no boundaries to our universe which is one of many!

[@feltonhamilton21]

Electrons are the gods of of all circles without electrons there would be no universe.

[@longcastle4863]

So matter and antimatter particles are getting irretrievably separated from each other throughout the process of eternal inflation? Meaning new matter is continually being fed into this system we recognize as (our) universe / reality. This could almost seem like the property of a perpetual motion machine, except we don’t know much yet about the physics beneath our physics; that is, the physics within or beneath the so-called vacuum or quantum foam level where the constituents and properties of these particles and antiparticles presumably exist before before making an actual appearance in our universe / reality. Questions: 1) can particles and antiparticles from different events still meet and annihilate into nothingness? 2) do physicists consider the world of the quantum foam (where the constituents of matter and antimatter presumably exist before “popping into existence”) as part of this reality or separate from it?!

[@pyrsmainwaring-smith1057]

Is this article true or an opinion? The universe began with a bang, not a bounce, new studies find Published May 24, 2023| ≤ Share This Scientific American reports on new studies which found that the universe likely began with a bang, not a bounce. The article quotes one of the studies co-authors, Will Kinney, professor of physics, and an expert on cosmology. "I feel like we've demonstrated something fundamental about the universe," Kinney says, "which is that it probably had a beginning." That implies a big bang occurred at some point, even if that event happened many bouncing universes ago, which in turn suggests that it took a singularity to get everything going in the first place.

[@NobbirAhmed19]

There was something (if not nothing).

[@longcastle4863]

So black holes are made mostly of dark matter?

[@cuantin2011]

The theory of relativity lacks causal mechanisms, and this is because general relativity is merely descriptive; it does not have demonstrative causal mechanisms and is a description of a system that was already functioning and considered eternal. What needs to be done is to try to scale the formation and stability of a galaxy or solar system to see if only the curvature of space-time is truly responsible for the formation and stability of systems. It is clear that this will not be replicated because if space-time curvature were the only factor, then planets and suns could orbit in any plane and direction, and so far, all solar and galactic systems orbit in specific directions and planes. General relativity also cannot explain the expansion of the universe; it can more or less describe it but lacks a mechanism to produce it. Imagine, we have a theory of the universe that cannot provide a mechanism for expansion, cannot explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry, cannot explain the universe's low entropy, cannot explain the beginning of the universe or the third dimension, does not know what space-time or gravitation is, does not know what dark matter and dark energy are, nor did it predict them, has not been able to demonstrate dubious inflation, and operates with the ideology of a single totalitarian party in power. Yet we are told and repeatedly propagandized, similar to the methods used by the Nazis or communists, that it is the best theory of the universe.

[@longcastle4863]

No, I think the Theory of Biological Evolution is our most rock solid theory, as almost all new medicines and medical treatments rely on its continual findings, and we are able to use our accumulating knowledge to even pinpoint locations where we should be able find certain kinds of fossils and we find them. After that comes General Relativity as we use it to guide our GPS systems and understand much about our universe’s appearance and organization of matter. You simply Gish-galloping through a nonsense list of made up complaints doesn’t change anything and I doubt convinces anyone.

[@feltonhamilton21]

Space is a limited field of radiation separated from the vacuum field. The vacuum field is a place where electrons are created before they basically start making a field of circles to full up space and for all other activities in the universe. This is the only way to distinguish the universe from the endless vacuum field.

[@longcastle4863]

So are there two systems of physics? Or does the electron making field follow the same laws as on this side of the quantum foam?

[@TeodorAngelov]

His objections to the anthropic principle are coming from a very weird perspective. I don't get it.

[@feltonhamilton21]

All particles came from electrons through dark matter which is the opposite contraction, other words it's totally different environment from the vacuum itself basically every particle from the electron is the opposite force totally rejective toward the vacuum itself and Carries a pulsating an equally strength that creates a back and forward drive between dark matter and matter itself. This is all true based on watching astronauts floating around in space and in the space station and watching every individual hair on their heads having less than an eighth of an inch of space between them is good evidence that every cell is pulsating in their hair and throughout the entire body, another example water holds together out in space because of pulsating activity and crumbs spread out individually because of pulsating activity and that goes for the spaceship itself because it is made of particles. What I think is really outstanding is how dark matter is compressed by gravity when entering the planet fusion activity it's exactly like letting air out of a balloon. The endless vacuum is a potential damnation effect of potential universes. Electrons or create through pure pressure pockets like seeds throughout the endless vacuum itself.

[@TheTroofSayer]

I applaud Will Kinney's references to Giordano Bruno and his implementation of Copernican universality (earth-centric humans are neither speshul, nor made in God's image). But his references to multiple universes, dark matter and all the other unfalsifiable, untestable assumptions that dominate the contemporary cosmological landscape, leave me cold. I fear a time when the Copenhagen Interpretation, along with our assumptions of the linearity of matter distribution in space (no need to invent dark matter), will be proven wrong. And if and when that should happen, our conjecturing about multiple universes will look especially silly. But that's just me.

[@vikasswaminathan742]

Is he talking to his future self?

[@patientson]

You must think you have the acumen to convince or confuse another being. As a human being, you have many parts of yourself. While your hear you must force patience to be your guide and guard with reasonable patience. You, at the moment, are so sinful, nothing good can come out of you. Your thoughts are filled with blasphemy.

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

Kinney providing ammunition to apologists. Now they can quote another "expert" to support their faith-based claim that the universe had a beginning.

[@B.S...]

There is no real ammunition here, just blanks. No one ever claimed that inflation was past eternal. Do you have a theory on Initial conditions?

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

@@B.S... Watch the entire interview, pal. He said that even the cyclic scenario is geodesically incomplete and therefore needs a beginning. And in a new paper he argued that even Penrose's CCC must have a beginning.

[@B.S...]

@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco So Kinney honestly states that he doesn’t know the cause of the initial conditions. If this is all theism has to ground its argument for a supreme being then there is nothing to worry about. Again, do you have a physical theory?

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

@@B.S... To apologists that's irrelevant. What matters to them is that the universe had a spatio-temporal boundary (viz., the geodesics don't extend to the infinite past). They will say, "Kinney may not know what caused the universe, but we know!" And, please, stop asking me "for theory of initial conditions." Whether I have a theory or not is irrelevant to whether apologists will use Kinney's argument as ammunition or not. What's next? You'll ask if I have a solution to the flatness problem? Come on.

[@B.S...]

@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco Sigh… Let the truth speak for itself. We could be living in a simulation. Theists aren’t going to change their mind based on physical cosmological models no matter what the theory. You have unrealistic expectations. Every theist argument I've ever seen is incoherent.

[@vikasswaminathan742]

Same guy 20 yrs later

[@joqqy8497]

With an infinite amount of universes, anythinh and everything can and will happen, even Boltzmann brain, even a Boltzmann God. Cosmic inflation with infinite universes is ridiculous. Modern science has become absurd.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

Listening to Robert and Will discussing how the unobservable, infinitely infinite Multiverse *magically exists* while artfully dodging all logical barriers reminds me of how the theists attempt to explain how Adam and Eve *magically emerged* from the dust of the Earth. ... It's interesting listening to people's highly sophisticated levels of reasoning when you know all along, they're pushing a total fantasy.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Yeah. The Bible has 7 levels in interpretation. Adam is the Intellect & physical, Eve the Spiritual & emotional; and too adam & eve represent the two brain hemispheres, the mind being the garden and spine the snake. And again, too, Adam is the atom, the splitting of an atom, and there you have two atoms - Eve was made from Adam. Atheist vs. theists nonsense i take no part in. Either people are grown up and courageous enough to seek Truth or they're not. Scriptures are in the mode of mysticism and is absolutely based on metaphysics and science. Anybody who denies the Divine is a coward and evil - should be avoided. By the etymology of evil and where it derives from, is lack of faith.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@S3RAVA3LM *"Yeah. The Bible has 7 levels in interpretation. Adam is the Intellect & physical, Eve the Spiritual & emotional; and too adam & eve represent the two brain hemispheres, the mind being the garden and spine the snake. And again, too, Adam is the atom, the splitting of an atom, and there you have two atoms - Eve was made from Adam. "* ... Many respond to my Multiverse criticisms to remind me that there are many "flavors" of Multiverse (perhaps 7 different flavors?) that don't necessarily posit an _"infinite number of infinitely existing universes with no beginning and no end."_ All of them avoid the question, *_"How can something exist without first coming into existence?"_* *"Anybody who denies the Divine is a coward and evil - should be avoided."* ... I get the same treatment whenever I'm critical of Multiverse Theory / Hypothesis. Neither is an acceptable response to criticism.

[@FAAMS1]

Absence to make sense must always refer to something, that which is absent. Thus it is a relative function. When we take the concept to an absolute it immediately contradicts itself, as there is nothing to Nothingness. Again I insist before anyone else Parmenides understood this well...later Einstein with his block Universe and relativity of spacetime got it to. The only logical solution for the Universe has to be cyclical. For Reality as a whole platonic or abstract and "concrete" whatever that means there is only the "Rock" of all Being. It does not move, it does not grow, it does not expand. Call it the Multiverse or the Hyper Multiverse or whatever you like. That thing is complete and Unified. a Block of Logos. Beyond phenomenology, no mind, never matter!

[@longcastle4863]

So if you never had a girlfriend, her absence doesn’t make the heart grow fonder? _Addendum::_ also, Heraclitus ate Parmenides for lunch, imnsho 😊

[@FAAMS1]

@@longcastle4863 No Heraclitus focused on Phenomenology while Parmenides focused on Ontology...I bet you are Religious do you use Heraclitus for describing God's attributes to or would you rather use Parmenides? Also do you disagree with Einstein's account for spacetime and a block Universe?

[@syz911]

"We have to fine tune the physics of dark matter to understand this..." - hahahaha, this man is a real narcissist.

[@longcastle4863]

Are you a “non sequiturist” ? Or is there a way you actually join those two thoughts together?

[@simesaid]

Considering Mr Kuhn is supposedly on an epic quest of _opening_ his mind to the truth, it never ceases to amaze me just how _closed_ his mind remains.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

What's his mind closed to?

[@K0wface]

@@CurtOntheRadioto whatever @simesaid believes, apparently lmao

[@jamesmontgomery6931]

Ai girlfriend for phone

[@afsar_gunner5271]

I like the honestly and 100% agree that nobody will ever ever ever know who created the universe or multiverse (if that even exist ??) - we can only study data within our own universe and we can never ever go beyond the boundary of this universe - but i put my faith in GOD who is the eternal existence

[@longcastle4863]

Except, the idea of God turns humans into bigots, racists and out and out haters of everything that isn’t them and theirs. And it makes them susceptible to believing propaganda, wild conspiracy theories and anti-scientism. In America, Christians make up the largest voting bloc denying climate change. We’d be much better off as a species without religion or a belief in a god.

[@guyrhansen]

So much effort to refuse the existence of a creator!

[@prakashvakil3322]

Aatmiya DIVINITY. HARE KRSNA. Experiencing unexplainable curiosity hearing this talk. One reason being IGNORANCE and both partial AWARENESS of the topic. However, enjoyed. New vocabulary learnt , language improved😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊 Since Consciousness is the fundamental entity all around, Space, Time, Energy are INFINITE providing limitlessness as far as IMAGINATION is concerned and reporting the same.😊 Taking courage to briefly summarise essence of understanding is: - 'Evolution of NATURE- Manifestation of ISHVARA-GOD-KRSNA' Very respectfully Loving ❤️ ING You One and All DIVINE NOW and HERE and FAR MORE in this Light and Moment and Vibrations Experiencing Happiness, Satisfaction and Freedom from desire, fear, anger, greed keeping 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

[@longcastle4863]

Just another religion encouraging people to turn their backs on living this one life they have. But at least it doesn’t stoke the bigotry and racism in people like Christianity and Islam do.

[@OBGynKenobi]

I'm believing less and less on the big bang theory. If nothing existed prior to it then what pushed the "bang" to happen, and if something did then what was it and why at that point and note before or after then? Rather, I like Penrose's conformal cyclism. Where the universe is eternal, but it just keeps recycling itself. So matter eventually stretched into nothing, and black holes sweep everything up then evaporate until there's nothing left at all, at which point a horizon is setup for the next "bang."

[@mikel4879]

There's no begining of the Universe at all, because you can't create anything from nothing.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"There's no begining of the Universe at all, because you can't create anything from nothing"* ... Then where did everything come from?

[@HappyRobotTalk]

Virtual particles?

[@petercheney8316]

not with that attitude

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@HappyRobotTalk *"Virtual particles?"* ... Where did these virtual particles come from and what are they made of?

[@anwaypradhan6591]

Well, we weren't present as human beings, while the bigbang took place, we didn't existed as human beings, during the time of bigbang, so, we cannot be sure about how the bigbang took place. Everything is dependent upon our human consciousness and it's further development. We are always in adventure and exploration of laws of universe and it's principles based upon which the universe works, based upon which the universe and it's phenomenons function, defined by the mechanism of logistic and analytical process of simplification, as mathematics, to simplify the complexities and complications of the universe. We are still in search of such phenomenons and the laws by the virtue of which the bigbang took place.

[@plato7771]

Will Kinney says: We understand the universe pretty well. It was at that moment I stopped watching. He does not know what he is talking about.

[@longcastle4863]

That we can send a unmanned spacecraft on a 9 year mission to Pluto and hit it like a hole in one, probably has something to do with the guest saying we understand the universe “pretty well”.

[@darkdragonite1419]

​@@longcastle4863understanding basic mechanics of space isn't the same as understanding it's problems.

[@longcastle4863]

@@darkdragonite1419 What problems does space have?

[@Naidu-k8m]

Science had to incorporate religious ideologies into it. And so it was done. Now we are struggling with the mess of it all. To appease religious people we messed up our sciences by recreating much of our maths. How sad

[@gkewley42]

It wasn't space expandinsg it was space and time. When time is compressed it appears infinitely tiny to us but it isn't.

[@longcastle4863]

Reality seems to be a perpetual motion machine.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*_"It's like something out of Harry Potter, yah."_* ... My God, what has become of science?

[@longcastle4863]

Yes, it would have been more on point if he had said, _So our particular 13.8 billion year old universe is kind of like the Tardis…_ Missed opportunity there ; _)_

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@longcastle4863 *"Yes, it would have been more on point if he had said, So our particular 13.8 billion year old universe is kind of like the Tardis… Missed opportunity there ; )"* ... Yah, I know. I have yet to watch a Harry Potter movie. You must have kids? The only thing I'm interested in that emerged from the Harry Potter movies is Emma Watson in a bikini. ... She definitely raises my magic wand!