George F. R. Ellis - Philosophy of Cosmology

[@MrRandomcommentguy]

George Ellis is one of the few cosmologists who actually says things that make sense.

[@les2997]

George Ellis said a few interesting thigs in this video: * Inflation may go forever, but it requires a beginning. * Not all inflation models result in a multiverse. The multiverse is a possibility, but not a necessity. * The multiverse hypothesis simply pushes the fine-tuning problem back one step. Instead of asking why the universe is fine-tuned for life, we now have to ask why the multiverse itself is fine-tuned to contain at least one universe that is fine-tuned for life. * Any claim involving infinities is not scientific because it's not possible to show that actual infinities exist.

[@kjustkses]

Oom George, still my hero!

[@brudno1333]

Mr. Ellis said, beginning at about the 10:20 mark, that physicists assume that physical causation is the only causation at work in the universe, and then states that such a notion is manifestly a false statement within the universe. Whether it applies to how the universe came into existence, he said, is a separate kind of issue. Can someone please explain what Mr. Ellis means by saying that notion is manifestly false? What is he alluding to as non-physical causation if exclusively physical causation is manifestly incorrect.

[@henrirauhala4335]

He discreetly suggests the last option to be right, that God created the Universe. I suppose it qualifies as a "scientific theory" for him, unlike a cosmological theory dealing with infinity.

[@oluwatimileyinoluwaseyi1210]

He's probably hinting towards the Aristotelian "causes", which actually includes "physical" causation (called "efficient" cause) but is not limited to it. The assumption that only physical causation is at work in the universe is an assumption not provable by its very premise, and, as history shows, in the case of human consciousness (which is still irreducible to neural interactions), and possibly in the big bang (if big bounce theories are disproved and it is decided that there is an absolute beginning), there are other causes at work, and they aren't "physical", except in an analogical sense

[@henrirauhala4335]

@@oluwatimileyinoluwaseyi1210 When it comes to consciousness, you're confusing causality with reductionism. Even if we don't think that consciousness could be reduced to neural interactions, we can't say that there's no causality involved. Actually talking about neural interactions is important, because interactions form higher levels of matter, irreducible to lower levels. Since there are countless of neural interactions in the brain, causal relations in the formation of consciousness are extremely complex. Material reality seems more and more self-sufficient as our knowledge increases, so there's no need for non-physical causes. The "Big Bang", which very few cosmologists consider as the absolute beginning of the Universe in the first place, is on a shaky ground. It's based on metaphysical assumptions, not verified by empirical data. On the contrary, observations of huge cosmic structures fly in the face of the "cosmological principle".

[@brontehauptmann4217]

@@henrirauhala4335 God is a rational explanation, infinity is not.

[@hossamgamal9579]

George Ellis = no Multiverse

[@abhishekshah11]

Weren't these last few guys just in the WSF episode?

[@quantisz4416]

From a pure theoretical point of view, branes can be stretched until infinity. Thus, cyclic cosmology explains very well how a kind of "quintessence" could vanish all the remaining entropy of a dying universe, generating multiple causal patches. The communication between branes only can occur through gravity, but eventually they could collide in an inelastic way, producing matter and radiation. I must admit that this kind of model still sounds very metaphysical to me, however it has great ideas. At least, cyclic models avoid an initial singularity.

[@brontehauptmann4217]

It is metaphysical and btw gravity is nothing but an invention required by Newton to construct the popular solar system paradigm. It is not aforce unto itself but is nothing more than a field effect of electromagnetism.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

When inflation ends and universe(s) start, could a quantum / dark energy background be observable, similar to cosmic microwave background (CMB) when observable radiation start, that can be detected smaller than planck length through quantum field?

[@ronjohnson4566]

i never heard anyone say this before about infinity. I have said it and i think its true. But, i don't have a degree. How can you message anything that is infinite? and of course you can't.

[@ronjohnson4566]

what you said.....is what i attempted to say. infinite is a lot like, hmm. infinite is not like anything.

[@johnbrowne8744]

Pretty good.😊

[@uremove]

Very interesting, especially about “The Infinity Problem”. Prof. Ellis talked mostly about the various forms of inflationary multiverses, but I’m curious whether the infinity problem also applies to the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM? Sean Carroll, David Deutsch and others present MWI as the most parsimonious, and therefore the leading interpretation among Physicists but... it does involve infinite physical realities! Is this a reason to mistrust it?

[@azzylandvanessa5524]

Poor audio

[@derdagian1]

You’re both way ahead of me. Of course, the past group of Cosmology Big Bang Theories, was Ergo Procto’d in 2007. All busted. 95% of the mass missing was just like CANDY! Where’s my new Composition of the Universe P👁?

[@RalphDratman]

Maybe we just need faith? Faith in the multiverse. That would be easier than trying to prove it! Many people apparently find faith constitutes a perfectly adequate raw material with which construct their world. Pray to the multiverse. Ask the multiverse to watch over us. Use the multiverse as a source of humility.

[@RalphDratman]

@Mohamed Taqi Many people have faith and are also ignorant.

[@christophermcewan8065]

Poets and song writers can help Cosmologists in a big way! They also understand the Universe in big ways!

[@myothersoul1953]

What do you mean by "understand"?

[@christophermcewan8065]

@@myothersoul1953 Sometimes they explore the Universe in a very special way. By using love and goodness they resist the multiple evil forces that exist!

[@myothersoul1953]

@@christophermcewan8065 Exploration is great but I want to know what it is they understand? And is it just an empty claim or can it be reliably demonstrated?

[@christophermcewan8065]

@@myothersoul1953 I think that they understand that they are loved by Angels! These Angels try to protect the vulnerable like women and children!

[@xspotbox4400]

We know at least two universes must exist, this one and the old space where inflation took place. Probably this reality is mixture of both.

[@myothersoul1953]

The universe recycles space, the new one just recycled the space of the old by reheating and compressing it in to a hot dense spot.

[@xspotbox4400]

@@myothersoul1953 One set of natural equilibrium giving rise to another, it's an interesting concept.

[@effedrien]

There is no space and no time in that old 'space'. Only consciousness and information. This reality is the result of consciousness, not the other way around. Things can never get more real than this one. But it's still a kind of dream, a self inflicted illusion. This Universe is not even the main illusion. The main illusion is that there are others like you. In the world of god there is only one of us and that sucks. But in this reality we appear to be many and that is a lot more fun.

[@xspotbox4400]

@@effedrien Question is, if this is an illusion, than it's a very persistent illusion, maybe we could learn how to stack those atoms and route enormous energies, so we can create our own worlds and magic.

[@effedrien]

@@xspotbox4400 You did that already, but you were limited to what is mathematically possible. Magic was impossible to implement, only math, sorry. But if science tells you that matter consists of 99.99...9% empty space, that is like magic too, you just don't realise it all the time, that is all.

[@willnzsurf]

🐜

[@willnzsurf]

🎶🎤🎵

[@djtan3313]

Crickets r mating regardless of our theories...

[@azzylandvanessa5524]

Film somewhere without Insects being so loud in the background. Poor from a technical point of view.

[@jeffrourke2322]

It's annoying but I sort of dig it? Either way, Ellis is the best.

[@A13-e3w]

You did not get the point of it.

[@effedrien]

Sometimes the message is more important than the quality of the transmission. Such messages are rare of course. But thankfully, they do exist, even on KZbin.

[@odiupickusclone-1526]

Multiverse theory = utter idiocy!!!

[@Alex-bl6oi]

I think so too. I thought they did a good job of questioning infinity, many scientists don't. I have never understood how someone could speak about infinity so loosely when we obviously live in a finite universe, you know the big bang.

[@odiupickusclone-1526]

​@@Alex-bl6oi If an infinity of days had to pass before today, then today would never had arrived because it's impossible to traverse the infinite. "An actual infinite cannot exist." "An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite." "Thus an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist." --- If the past were infinitely long, an infinite amount of time would have had to pass before today. --- An infinite amount of time can never truly pass (because infinite time would never run out). --- Therefore, the universe cannot be infinitely old. --- Therefore, the universe began to exist. If our souls are immortal, it means that our existence is going to go on infinitely in the future. However, infinitely can't be really infinite only in one (future) direction. That is why Plato claims that our souls are not created (immortal), but eternal. Essentially, in order for the theory of recollection to work, our souls would have had to exist before our earthly incarnation, as well as go on existing after it. Additionally, if the soul is immortal then it must also be eternal, because if something can never come to an end, then it must never have had a beginning in the first place.

[@jordan_8329]

@@odiupickusclone-1526 An infinity of days past doesnt really make sense as a concept to use in arguing for or against anything. The idea of a day only makes sense in terms of the earth turning on its axis as it revolves around the sun. Obviously, there was "time" as in events happening in a particular order long before the earth and sun existed, but using the concepts that only make sense from a human observer's perspective and applying them to speculate about the deepest of questions of cosmology is problematic all the way around.

[@odiupickusclone-1526]

​@@jordan_8329 In May 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen published an argument that quantum mechanics fails to provide a complete description of physical reality. Today, 50 years later, the EPR paper and the theoretical and experimental work it inspired remain remarkable for the vivid illustration they provide of one of the most bizarre aspects of the world revealed to us by the quantum theory. As Pascual Jordan put it : “Observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it....We compel [the electron]to assume a definite position.... We ourselves produce the results of measurements.” Einstein didn’t like this. He wanted things out there to have properties, whether or not they were measured :“We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it.” The most elegant answer I have found to this question comes from one of the great philosophers of our time, whose view of the matter I have taken the liberty of quoting in the form of the poetry it surely is: We have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do,because I’m an old enough man that I havent’ got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me. Okay, I still get nervous with it.... You know how it always is, every new idea, it takes a generation or two until it becomes obvious that there’s no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there’s no real problem, but I’m not sure there’s no real problem. Nobody in the 50 years since Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen has ever put it better than that. What is the moral lesson of the story? If the moon isn't there when nobody looks then there is no universe as such (independent (of our awareness) material object), in the first place. So, we have to reformulate our question. Instead of asking "Is the universe eternal?", we should ask ourselves "What is consciousness?"

[@xspotbox4400]

You are not a solid object but a set of tinny energetic marbles, once atoms pass trough your body form, they can became anything else. And so on and so on.

[@User-jr7vf]

Annoying background noise