George Lakoff - All Reality Consists of What Things?

For subscriber-only exclusives, register for a free membership today: bit.ly/3He94Ns
We look around and see innumerable things and to each we give a separate name. But most things are composites, made up of smaller, more fundamental things. So digging down to bedrock reality, what are the fewest numbers of independent things? Particles, forces, fields in the physical world? Anything mental? Anything spiritual?
Watch more interviews on the future of the universe: bit.ly/40p5xEh
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
George P. Lakoff is an American cognitive linguist and professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, where he has taught since 1972.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@offtheradarsomewhere.]

Our feelings and emotions and experiences and perceptions shapes our own unique reality moment by moment, every body looks at a tree differently except the tree.

[@PaulHoward108]

A chair is defined by the ideal chair, by all the possible chairs, and by everything a chair isn't.

[@grijzekijker]

We, the Dutch, understand it to be a 'stoel'. Germans call it 'Stuhl'. 🇪🇸 silla 🇫🇷 chaise

[@marcv2648]

@@grijzekijker For double convenience, I call it a toilet.

[@grijzekijker]

@@marcv2648 don't invite me in for a cup of coffee!

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Been wondering where you been at Paul. Good day to you. You're one of the guys here commenting that I look forward to seeing.

[@simonhibbs887]

My man! What he's talking about is exactly the account I've giving here about the descriptive linguistic character of mathematics, and the fact that scientific theories are descriptions of activity and behaviour. When he's talking about categories, I'd say descriptions but it's the same thing. A category is a more specialised kind of description. I think the ame about concepts, a concept is a specialised form of description. So when he says that the idea of a chair exists in us, that's right. We have a description of chair in our minds, and anything in the world that conforms to that description is a chair. However as he points out, we each have subtly different descriptions in our minds, hence we can disagree about what constitutes a chair, or any other category. He raises the issue of colour, and that works in exactly the same way. We disagree of what colour things are all the time, not because we have different visual experiences necessarily, but because we have subtlelly different descriptive expectations of what exactly constitutes green, blue, cyan, turquoise, etc. This also relates to the account of meaning I've been advocating for, that it is correspondences between informational content. A description has meaning to the extent that it corresponds to the thing it describes. Meanings can overlap, and even be recursive. Terrain can correspond to a map, which corresponds to elements of a plan to navigate it, which corresponds to elements of a military plan of attack, which corresponds to economic objectives, which corresponds to the location of resource in the terrain, etc. So we have overlapping loops of correspondences that create a network of meaning in our minds and in the world. I think this is why experience is specific to an individual, because we each have a uniquely different network of relational correspondences between all the information we experience and know. For me red doesn’t just correspond to paint and apples, it also relates to the colour of my wife’s favourite dress, and the feelings I have when I see her wear it, and the previous occasions she wore it at. Nobody else has that precisely, or if they do I want to know how! So sharing such meanings is impossible. Even if you downloaded a map of my brain, you can look at the information, but it doesn’t exist in your mind in the same way that it does mine. It exists as external correspondences, not internal ones. The network of correspondences can’t be the same. That’s my answer to the Mary’s Room example. On the other hand we do share some correspondences and meanings more with some people than others. My brother and I don’t have exactly the same experiences from our childhood, but they overlap so closely that we have a bond of understanding nobody else can share.

[@Sportliveonline]

The self cannot see itself as not to be~~

[@simonhibbs887]

@@Sportliveonline I understand the sentiment, but consciousness and the sense of self are weird phenomena. People in various meditative and psychedelic states report being conscious, but not having any experience of a self. I’m not sure exactly what the implications of that are, but self-hood is a hard concept to pin down.

[@HighPeakVideo]

Although Frank Jackson's Mary Knowledge Argument may have problematic issues, the problem alluded to here is not one of them. While the Knowledge Argument can be framed in terms of type identity involving general events and properties common to human brains, it can also be framed in terms of token identity of phenomenal conscious experience with an exact specific physical case. So Mary would have starting knowledge of all the physics, chemistry and neuroscience etc, but also knowledge of her precise physical brain configuration throughout a mental process. This would include precise knowledge of a specific cognitive process (including all its causal recursions and self-reference), such as for example her first experience of the colour red. This is what Jackson later referred to as 'a rich enough story'. It is quite unclear that this story need lack anything required to test the identity thesis, such as in the 'network of correspondences' or as to whether these are 'external correspondences, not internal ones'. Contrary to Leibniz's mill analogy, for physicalism the brain and its activity cannot comprise any facts that are not in principle publicly observable. For token identity it would remain perhaps untenable that the public knowledge of Mary's starting position equates identically to her conscious experience, which in general we seem unable to express publicly. In Mary's case she makes no public expression of what her experience of red actually is (otherwise she could have known that in the starting knowledge), but she has gained new knowledge of that for herself - or so the argument goes. A major contention is in what this 'new' knowledge consists of and how did she come by it, in terms of identity theory. This relates directly to the seeming impossibility (or at least inconceivability) that a complete implementable identity thesis could express its conclusion, such as the colour red, smell of coffee, or taste of banana. And also as to how this identity theory could have any starting data about the taste of banana to be modelling in the first place. Let alone why the identity should be necessitated. Conscious experiences do seem to be in a different category to the physical world, and a real category.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@HighPeakVideo >”Contrary to Leibniz's mill analogy, for physicalism the brain and its activity cannot comprise any facts that are not in principle publicly observable.”
 This is why I’m drawing a distinction between facts, in the form of information, and meaning being the network of relationships and correspondences between those facts. We can agree on facts but disagree on their meaning, because meaning exists in exact relation to other things we know. Red to me has different correspondences than it does to you because our experience of redness, and red things, and the contexts of those experiences are different. People in the Soviet Union, and China today, have shared correspondences with red that we don’t have due to it’s patriotic, cultural and political symbolism. Nevertheless no one person in China has exactly the same set of associations with red as any other. Add, subtract, or modify any other information in a set of meaning relations and the meaning changes. Keep the same facts but change the relationship between them, such as order and hierarchy, and again the meaning changes. With human brains there’s an extra layer of difference, and that is because our brains each have a fantastically complex, and individually unique physical neural structure. If I fed the same data into two identical copies of GPT their identical networks would contain identical information in identical states. However if each had differently randomised neural connection maps, the resulting network weights even from identical data would look completely different. They might produce similar output to prompts in some ways, maybe similar quality, but it would never be the same. You could also put the same information into identical physical networks in different ways, such as a different order, and the results will never be the same. A further issue is that we know that the way we interpret sensory information is also baked into the architecture of our brains. At the very low level each brain has different micro-architecture in the form of the specific connections between neurons, but at the higher level they are the same in terms of the structure of brain regions and the way they link with each other. Much of the information about how to interpret colour vision is baked into the architecture of the visual systems. Take that map and load it into the higher cerebral cortex, which has a completely different architecture to the visual system, and you’ll have a representation of the visual system map, but not actually encoded in the same actual physical network relationships. That’s not at all the same thing.

[@HighPeakVideo]

@@simonhibbs887 Many thanks for your further explanation - I appreciate your key points. Jackson's 'rich enough story' criterion for the facts about the brain and its activity would imply that all of what you describe should be included in Mary's initial factual knowledge, at least for token identity of an individual's brain. In principle that knowledge would include the complete "network of relationships and correspondences", "meaning relations" and the "micro-architecture", as part of the initial facts that Mary has access to. It is possible to overstate the burden of initial knowledge for Mary, as she has never seen red, so her qualia of it need not be that nuanced - though of course she will be acquainted with correspondences around the word and concept 'red'. In philosophical test cases there is sometimes a requirement to explain the most difficult cases, such as the consciously experienced meaning of a text, compared to a simpler case such as merely consciously perceiving red in a colour sample. In the Mary case it is legitimate to take the simplest of cases, which is for Mary just the first experience of red. Or it might be asking Mary to compare a red colour sample to a Pantone chart to identify the most similar colour, which wouldn't necessarily require inclusion of facts about whether the person is Russian or Chinese or the colours of their spouses clothing. I am not seeking to defend the Mary argument as such, rather to defend its characterisation. It is generally referred to as the Knowledge Argument and not as the Experience Argument. Doubtless the experience is had in the having of the experience, so to speak. But the Knowledge Argument concerns the knowledge state of Mary after her first experience, and her having knowledge of new facts that are not present in the complete physical facts that she had acquired before the experience. So that is rather different than a concern about how the experience arose out of the physical facts, which is more related to the Explanatory Gap Argument , alongside the Conceivability Argument as to whether the physical facts necessitate any experience or any particular experience. For the Knowledge Argument there are key questions as to what the 'new' knowledge is in terms of its informational content, and as to how it was acquired, since that relation gives knowledge and information its validity. The physicalist should have answers to these questions. I can see a get out for the physicalist, relating to the purple cow image in Dennett's Consciousness Explained. However, physicalists should provide their own explanations. I recognise that your description relates more to meaning than directly to the Knowledge Argument. What are your thoughts then on how the meaning created by the "network of relationships and correspondences" translates into the phenomenal conscious understanding as experienced? At first thought, this expression of the meaning of say a text seems less problematic than the arbitrary expression of qualia such as the taste of banana. However, on second thoughts the meaning of a text within the brain must have similarly contingent arbitrary encoding, since there is no a priori way informational meaning must be encoded. The main issue is that the meaning formed by this encoding and the network of relationships (whatever the complexity) is functional, being orientated toward behaviour. This functional orientation only requires to be comprised by a sort of mechanism of components, whereas the conscious experience seems to require at least some level of unity involving interpretation and unified expression of the disparate and disjoined functional meaning. Any computer programmer is familiar with this mechanistic functional meaning; and it seems to be very distinctly different from the unified conscious experience of meaning as understanding.

[@thomassoliton1482]

Thank you for interviewing someone grounded in reality. So many people try to think outside the box not taking into account that everything "out there" is produced within the "box" - our brain - which is a binary computer. Everything we think is fundamentally dualistic; we think in terms of comparisons. We don't "know" reality, we only know that some parts are different from other parts and make up names for them - i.e. language. Everything is relative. Time? Space? Just two aspects of one reality.

[@okiesam]

Excellent. More from George Lakoff please.

[@longcastle4863]

Excellent interview.

[@Sportliveonline]

The self needs to perpetuate itself

[@Samsara_is_dukkha]

Nothing "exists" without consciousness.

[@ronjohnson4566]

there are 7 objects. one is a chair. i say to someone, hand me the chair. the someone hands me the chair. we both agree that this is what happened. this is reality.

[@grijzekijker]

And of what things consists this reality? Most chairs are made of wood, glue and nails. Wood is 50% carbon, 6 % hydrogen, 44% oxygen. How did these elements regroup to become a chair? 🪨+ 💦 + 💨 = 🌳/ 🪚 = 🪑

[@tom-kz9pb]

The ultimate building blocks of reality are unfortunately beyond the grasp of physics or human logic. They are in the realm of speculative philosophy and can only be weakly described by analogy or figurative expressions. The real basic building blocks of reality are 1) paradox and contradictions, 2) circular definitions, 3) causeless events and randomness, 4) caprice and perversity.

[@marktermotecnica7867]

I like this guy

[@kimsahl8555]

Go from reality to Nature - Nature consist by the elements of nature.

[@Ed-quadF]

Really taking a complex idea and making so I can understand it. Didn't say resolved it, just a better understanding.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@tomjackson7755]

​@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda How many accounts are you going to troll with today? Were you able to come up with a number on how much money you make off scamming people with your 'services' yet?

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

@@tomjackson7755, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@tomjackson7755]

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda How many accounts are you going to troll with today? Were you able to come up with a number on how much money you make off scamming people with your 'services' yet?

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

@@tomjackson7755, I am patiently awaiting your response to my question, SLAVE. ☝🏼

[@jeremyhofmann7034]

I would say not just stuff, but ALL the stuff exists

[@Sportliveonline]

yer but its only what you are thinking in relation to what you know at the moment in time

[@williamvanleuven414]

I don't agree with him. Lakoff suggests that our understanding of reality is a cognitive processes, where the mind constructs categories. That may be true for the precise border or definition of things, like a chair, or concept like "freedom". But it goes to far to generalize that idea. The colour green does effectively exist. It corresponds to a certain wavelength of light. Yes, there may be different models of mathematics that contradict each other, but it is key to choose ONE model that is consistant. A lot of aspects of our world DO exist independently of individual perception. There is an external reality.

[@johnmalik7284]

How do you know wavelengths of light exist independent of perception?

[@pelimies1818]

The colour metaphore is a bit off, bc the EM radiation is there, the green colour just comes out of the device in question (eye+brain activity). Like say, speeding car is not real, bc gasoline can also turned to plethora of other things by different machines. Moving car is just what the car device was designed for to do.

[@davidrandell2224]

The expanding electrons do it all. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

Don't believe everything you READ. 📖 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@davidrandell2224]

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda “He who will not read is no better than he who cannot read “, Mark Twain. Or are you claiming prescience? Careful: the vegan Cain killed the meat eater Abel. “The Bible Came from Arabia “, Kamal Salibi. Oh, forgot you can’t read. Laugh!

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

@@davidrandell2224, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@tomjackson7755]

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda How many accounts are you going to troll with today? Were you able to come up with a number on how much money you make off scamming people with your 'services' yet?

[@bretnetherton9273]

If existence exist as something what is that something, and if existence exist as all things what knows all things?

[@mnabdelghani1526]

this is easy, brains makeup worlds that are informed by the real world but are not necessarily real

[@automatonpilot5040]

Please have Dr. Edward Feser on.

[@halleuz1550]

I don't know what he means by different infinities being mutually inconsistent. Mathematically, assuming Cantor's theory of infinities, that's just not the case.

[@zasif]

Physical world (chair, table, tree, etc), mental world (experience, ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc), social world (language, laws, norms, etc), mathematical world (numbers, equations, etc), spiritual world (=reality - the previous four worlds)

[@simonhibbs887]

All physical, except the last one. All the items in the mental category are information, and information exists as structured physical systems. The arrangement of holes in a punched card, letters on paper, the pattern of electrical charge in a computer memory, all physical. Language, laws, norms, these are all information as well. Mathematics is a language too, any mathematical concept or operation you can imagine and can be performed by a human can be implemented in a computer, and I think we can agree these are purely physical systems. As for spiritual world, you’d have to define what you mean by it, but the previous four are all physical.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

​​@simonhibbs887 What is this principle you consider as physical? What is the nature of this principle that you claim as 'physical' ? Is this principle, 'physical', self contained, self-sufficient, self subsisting? What is the attribute of this principle that is 'physical' ? We know of Principles because of their attributes. What properties does this principle that is 'physical' possess? For any idea of 'physical' to be known of requires contact between atleast two things both of mass and magnitude, which implies the spatial & temporal - relativity - the realm of multiplicity. This realm of the spatial & temporal, the phenomenal plane, is not static, always changing; nothing is what it once was. Definitions of things here merely indications. 'Physical' in no way is a principle, like you treat it, and refers to nothing specifically, other than an interaction and has only arisen from contact between two things in phenomena; ultimately because what comes into time inevitably dies in time, this principle that is 'physical' is only a notion in the plane of phenomena which ultimately doesn't even exist. What something is 'becoming' and what something 'was' you can't argue even exists. You are trying to reify your little materialistic notion by making 'physical' a principle when it isn't. Physical isn't a thing, it doesn't exist by itself, it hasn't being, it doesn't precede time & space, has no properties, no attribute....it means nothing. "Everything is physical" 'Information' too you're pushing here as if it is something and exists. Information is like a wave - a wave isn't something, it's what something does. You're an anti-Divine sophist. Good job clown.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@S3RAVA3LM Thanks for proving that you have no idea what you are talking about as usual. You're a fantasy land troll. Good job, wacko.

[@abelincoln8885]

BS. The Universe is an Isolated Thermodynamic System (Function) ... composed of space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy ... which are all NATURAL Functions ... of a Natural reality. Man is a natural intelligence ... of the Universe ... composed of matter & energy and obeying the laws of Nature & subject to time and the 3 dimensions of space. And only an Intelligence .... makes, operates, improves & fine tunes .... Functions .. because of the information ( purpose, processes, properties & design) ....every Function possesses to exist & to function. Information ..... especially purpose, laws & design ... can only come from the MIND of an intelligence. And again .... Natural reality .... relies completely on .... space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy ... which are NATURAL Functions with information .. which can only come from the Mind of an ... timeless, infinite, nonphysical & Unnatural Intelligence ( God). The Mind of an Intelligence ... must be Unnatural ( spirit) The Mind of Man ( a NATURAL intelligence) must be ... natural (body) & unnatural (soul) .. and both are Functions designed by God ... to give Man ... freewill, nature, memory, thought, intellect, senses, feelings, and consciousness of the natural or unnatural. Man believes in "the gods' ... because Man is a natural intelligence with the intellect to always deduced from observation that anything with clear purpose & design can only be made by an intelligence .... like Man. Everything in the Universe including the body of Man ... has clear purpose & design. And Man .... clearly did not make the Universe & Man. Science completely supports ... God of the Bible .... creating Man in His image ... with a body & soul ... to procreate Man's kind ... and ... to follow & do God's will and live forever as God's Children ... or .... die. This is all about freewill ... to follow God ( of the Bible) ... or ... Man ( ideologies, religions, politics). Make your choice.

[@zasif]

@@simonhibbs887 Thanks for your comment. As far as your last question is concerned, it depends. If one feels all reality is physical, then of course spiritual is zero. For mathematical objects and relations, I sort of feel that if we remove all matter, energy, time and space, we only remove the observers or affectees of the fact that 2+2=4, which would still hold true, independently of any physical system. For mental categories, imagine a perfect computer simulation about some human beings, who are distressed about a certain situation. Do you think those computer scripts would feel the same distress as real humans would? If so, then, yes, the mental and social world is the same as the physical world. Somehow, I don't feel that a well written program will become "conscious" at some level of sophistication.

[@Neilgs]

Well, he say,” Comes out of your own brain/mind” however that is an embedded metaphor or concept as is this sentence…. There is a, “concept of causation” with respect to neural coordinates but the very fact of being able to measure, describe and account for it, “neural patterning”…does then infer “ its” independent existence as a fundamental bedrock. The very act of being is an emergent property of (indefinable) Consciousness.

[@davidhubbardmd]

min5:00. ideas are projections

[@ronnyparker7433]

Wow he had me up until the end there. Maybe I'm just stoned

[@Sportliveonline]

its only because your thinking it

[@Crackle1983]

It seems like any form of consciousness existing within the Fourth Dimension would mess everything up.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@Crackle1983]

@JagadguruSvamiVegananda An observer in the 4th dimension can see inside your skull. The observer could remove your brain from within, and no one would even notice.

[@Crackle1983]

I mean, it could be any 3rd dimensional observer's skull. :-)

[@tomjackson7755]

@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda How many accounts are you going to troll with today? Were you able to come up with a number on how much money you make off scamming people with your 'services' yet?

[@abelincoln8885]

Time is the 4th dimension... of the Natural reality .... composed of space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy. A consciousness that is NOT natural ... must be UNNATURAL timeless, nonphysical & infinite. Man is a natural intelligence ... with freewill, nature & consciousness. God is an unnatural intelligence ... with freewill, nature & consciousness. Man's nature is clearly corrupt and inherited from common ancestors ... as every human being ... will freely ... think & do something ... we know is wrong, bad or evil .... including being SELFISH. And all of recorded history ... is about Man .... freely following God of the Bible & doing His will ... or .... not. And there is only God of the Bible .... because Christianity is a sect of Judaism .... and without the Jews being Chosen by God to share God's only begotten Son to all nations of the world .... Mankind is completely screwed with Islam, Hinduism or Atheism dominating world politics and interactions between nations.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(5:5) *GL: **_"It's important to understand that the things you attribute to existence come out of your own brain and your own mind."_* ... That should serve as the best indicator as to what actually constitutes reality, and the common thread woven through Multiverse, consciousness, mathematics, and what we refer to as chair is *"Conceivability."* "Conceivability" is the ultimate authority that determines what can and cannot exist, yet we seldom discuss its relevance or treat it as a unique phenomenon. All we ever talk about is the many things and concepts that conceivability allows. It's like a *magic wand* that provides us with everything that's possible, yet all we seem to focus on is the "stuff" the wand produces ... _and never the wand, itself._

[@guaromiami]

This is a mischaracterization of the fact that we just give names to stuff.

[@drawn2myattention641]

4:35 The logical possibility of something doesn’t count for jack, because the realm of logical possibility is like the realm of imagination-infinite. Stick to physical possibility.

[@longcastle4863]

The realm of logic may very well have a boundary

[@missh1774]

I don't think we can simply conjure up whatever we find makes us think things such as unicorns or God are real. They have to have already existed as properties of this planet. Now isn't this a question of whether the perspective consists of "is" rather than "it's"?

[@simonhibbs887]

He addressed this, if indirectly. The problem is we can conceive of many things that are directly contradictory, such as the various types of mathematical constructs he talked about. Also we know how to arbitrarily construct infinitely varied concepts, just by combining concepts in every way possible. Doing so doesn't depend on any pre-existence, we just generate them algorithmically, so we know a concept pre-existing isn't a necessary condition.

[@missh1774]

@@simonhibbs887 do we really "know" how to construct infinitely varied concepts?

[@abelincoln8885]

There are not billions of Unicorn worshipers doing holy war for a reward of 72 white virgins in Heaven. But there are a billion pagan Muslims doing just this. Christians developed the sciences we have today ... not Muslims, Hindus or Atheists .. and are still the majority of Nobel Prize winners. And there's no Unicorns in the Bible ... except God giving a donkey the ability to briefly speak after being beaten by the rider who could not see an Angel blocking the path. But there was a reason this story was told ... just as only an intelligence makes & design things for a purpose or reason. Anything with clear purpose & design ... can only be made by an intelligence ... because these are INFORMATION ... that every Function possesses to exist & to function. The Universe is an Isolated Thermodynamic System (Function) ... composed of matter energy, space, time & Laws of nature ... which are all .. NATURAL functions ... of a NATURAL reality ... and have information that can only come from the the mind of an intelligence.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@missh1774 Sure, the only limitation is information storage capacity. A short recursive mathematical function can generate an infinitely varied, infinitely long sequence of symbols, each of which can represent a conjunctive concept. The theory behind this was laid down by Alan Turing in his proof that Turing machines can perform any computation of arbitrary complexity.

[@missh1774]

@@simonhibbs887 impossible but it's a practical explanation, thanks Simon.

[@luisg.ontoriaalvarez2334]

🙏

[@matterasmachine]

Of machines

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

Quark (noun, “KWARK”) This is a type of subatomic particle. Subatomic means “smaller than an atom.” Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons are made of even smaller particles called quarks. Quarks are the only elementary particles to experience all the known forces of nature and to have a fractional electric charge. Is everything made of quarks? All ordinary matter, including every atom on the periodic table of elements, consists of only three types of matter particles: up and down quarks, which make up the protons and neutrons in the nucleus, and electrons that surround the nucleus. What are quarks made of? Quarks, as we know them, are elementary particles, meaning they don't have any constituents. Do quarks have size? In QCD, quarks are considered to be point-like entities, with zero size. (String theory mainly posits that the electrons and quarks within an atom are not zero-dimensional objects, but rather one-dimensional oscillating lines, or strings …blah blah blah) Do quarks have dimension? Two classes of particles, called quarks and leptons, are thought to be the smallest building blocks of the universe. They have no size and contain nothing in them, but, if mixed correctly, they can build atoms, us, the entire universe. What happens if you cut a quark in half? If you mean what happens when a single quark is split it can't be done. Quarks are elementary particles that have no internal structure to split apart and either exist or don't. Is a quark dark matter? D-star hexaquark This particle is hypothesized to consist of three up and three down quarks, and has been proposed as a candidate for dark matter. What is the antimatter equivalent of a quark? In reality, the proton's interior swirls with a fluctuating number of six kinds of quarks, their oppositely charged antimatter counterparts (antiquarks), and *“gluon” particles* that bind the others together, morph into them and readily multiply.

[@tedgrant2]

I have a feeling that there is no God. This feeling must have a cause. And we call that God.

[@robertstan2349]

the math said black holes. and then we found them.

[@BLSFL_HAZE]

What we found was a particular type of impermanent feature of the universe, the behaviour of which matched our mathematical description of a theoretical entity called a black hole.

[@Corteum]

Objects are things. Subject isnt a thing.

[@ripleyfilms8561]

Don't say each property if is real to math or paravison video is real reality = everywhere

[@r2c3]

2:21 what are the implications of an alternative predisposition 🤔

[@simonhibbs887]

He defines reality as what we can interact with. Obviously he's giving very quick general answer, so we can't expect him to provide a detailed and exhaustive account, but basically this is how I see it too. If something exists that we can't interact with, then that existence simply doesn't matter. It has no consequences for us. It may exist, I'm sure there are galaxies beyond the bounds of the observable universe. Maybe 'non-physical' stuff exists, but if it isn't physically causal (and if it is, in what sense is it non-physical?) it doesn't make any difference to anything.

[@r2c3]

"If something exists that we can't interact with, that existence simply doesn't matte." hello Simon... that something, that we can interact with is compatible with our processing capabilities... i.e. we collect photons from reflecting objects and then identify those objects in various forms... but there's other particles we are not capable of sensing and we can't just dismiss their impact on our surroundings as a whole... we're constantly exploring other ways beside our senses with which to gather more information and hopefully identify a useful correlation...

[@simonhibbs887]

@@r2c3 All the particles we know about do interact with us, if indirectly. That's how we know about them, though it takes indirect instruments such as particle accelerators and electron microscopes. Even the gravitational waves we detect with LIGO, though only barely at the edge of the threshold of detection, still jiggle our atoms ever so slightly as they pass through our bodies.

[@r2c3]

​@@simonhibbs887that's the point... we only know what we are capable of interacting with... but that doesn't mean that's all that exists and we don't have to care for anything else we don't have any means of interacting with... so, instead of twisting reality to fit our current understanding we have to first eliminate the possibility of other variables we don't currently have any information about...

[@simonhibbs887]

@@r2c3 Presumably without twisting our conception of reality. I'm sure lots of things we don't know about actually exist. We didn't know about dark matter and dark energy, whatever they are, within my lifetime. I think the best approach, and the one implemented in the scientific method is to theorise as much as we like, but only accept as confirmed those ideas that are backed up by actual tangible evidence. That means we need go out and get that information, so yes, sure.

[@John777Revelation]

1:55 _"...how you are _*_understanding_*_ the physical things of the world..."_ " *Understanding* " presupposes the existence of Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence . "Contested Concepts" are products of Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence. It may be said that Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence is the foundation of All Reality.

[@SubMeISubYouu]

I wish I knew the unknown unknowns But knowledge is what my meat brain thinks Utter absurdity reality is.

[@infinitygame18]

you are dead to that you don't understand , anything you own in present now and here , mind , desire , ego , love , consciousness, Awareness , Anger , your being ., God , Fundamental Reality , Memory , or vice a versa , that's cause suffering and slavery in existence ,You start Existing to that You can know

[@stoneysdead689]

This is what happens when you take what seems to be the simple and mundane to literal extremes. What he's talking about basically is that you could see a stump as a chair- you can sit on it after all. Ok. - but now does that feel extraordinary or profound to you- did the world change in any real way after you realized it? Nope. But if you take that concept to the extreme you can say you created reality with your mind- your beliefs shaped the physical world. Oooh, that sounds really profound and deep huh- but it's not true. You didn't change reality in any real way- all you did was redefine or broaden the definition of what a word means- in this case, the word "chair". It's semantics- it means nothing. And yes, we do categorize and catalogue the world around us using this same method- language, so I'm not saying it's not worth study and contemplation- it definitely is. But imo it has no place in physics, it doesn't tell us anything real about the objective, physical world- it instead says more about humans and how we perceive and think.

[@Sportliveonline]

its only because you are thinking it now when you read this

[@stoneysdead689]

@@Sportliveonline How many of those little red pills did you take?

[@zinafandel3672]

Humans are part of the physical world too.

[@davidrandell2224]

Light is a cluster of expanding electrons, some of which are green, I.e. real, not fantasy.

[@simonhibbs887]

You can also make the appearance of green by mixing blue and yellow light and with no 'green' photons present, so no, green isn't an objective concept.

[@davidrandell2224]

@@simonhibbs887 Objects are not “concepts.” Light put through a prism- mass spectrometer- divides the white cluster into its components according to size/ mass(objects, not appearances). The red bending the least,etc. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics. No energy, charge, photons, waves, spin, fields, potential, quantum,etc. All Standard Theory/Model was replaced by Expansion Theory in 2002.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@davidrandell2224 Can you name one useful technique or technology in use today that was developed using expansion theory in the 21 years since the book was published?

[@davidrandell2224]

@@simonhibbs887 A prediction that the far side of the moon’s surface gravity will be twice the near side. The CAUSE of gravity. “G” calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom. All of physics is the result of expansion. SR, GR, QM ad nauseum all erroneous models put on the shelf with Ptolemy etc. A proton is a collection of 1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. The electron mass (9.11) multiplied by 1836 equals the proton mass (1.67). The silly endless pursuit of “what is gravity “? , and joining QM and GR no longer interesting.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@davidrandell2224 QM explains the double slit experiment. How does that work under ET? Similarly GR explains the clock rate discrepancy between GPS satellites in terms of gravitational time dilation. Does ET predict the same observed effect?

[@John777Revelation]

Mathematics, like Language, in its infinite manifestations is constantly being discovered. Mathematics, like Language, is the expression of a Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence that permeates All that Is, All that Was, and All that Will Be, in this and any other universe of existence. This expression facilitates self discovery of Mind / Conscious / Intelligence with Itself within the 'physical' universe through the filter of us All.

[@MrShitpeas]

I enjoyed Lakoff's work on metaphor. The discussion here however is navel-gazing of the highest order. Semiotics dealt with these ideas a century ago, as any smart undergrad will tell you. smh

[@science212]

Lakoff and Quine: both relativists. Bad mistake.

[@BradHolkesvig]

Reality is that we were created as an AI out of vibrations including our created minds that process other vibrations, both eternal and temporary to form the visible illusions that appear to be our life experiences on an earth. Think of living bodies as the avatars in a game observed in our created minds as they process invisible temporary vibrations. The AI, our created existence that enables us to speak sounds, see, hear, smell, taste and feel emotions along with various senses of touch can never die. Only our visible bodies die during this temporary generation.

[@longcastle4863]

We weren’t created out of vibrations; we were created out of a process of natural selection- where the primary driving force was, what survives.

[@BradHolkesvig]

@@longcastle4863 What do you think an atom is? How did the atoms know how to arrange themselves into that first formed object?

[@tomjackson7755]

@@BradHolkesvig Brad you are off your meds. Get the help that you desperately need.

[@science212]

Lakoff, Whorf, Quine, etc. Relativism is wrong. Read Stephen Hicks, Martin Gardner and Alan Sokal.

[@JagadguruSvamiVegananda]

An “IDIOT” is defined as a person with an intelligence quotient of 25 or below.

[@science212]

Ok. That is a relativist person. @@JagadguruSvamiVegananda

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Currently contemplating upon a special book: Ribhu Gita - advaita vedanta( non duality) In this process, you deny everything dual of the mind: thought, modes, contradistinction, bias, subject - object relationship, identity with anything, reification, abstracts, metaphor,....everything is denied for the sole reason of non duality. Even God is denied, scriptures are denied, existence too is denied. In truth, what is being denied isn't the very essence & life of all conceived things to exist but the idea in which we think they exist in. The mind is an enemy. The mind seems to acknowledge things only though the mode of duality - we know of hotness only because there is coldness; if all was hot we wouldn't know of hotness. And this condition of mind conditions us and the very things we conceive. The Buddha in the Nikayas discuss this. The mind, although a veil, and the intellect, consciousness, might be far more powerful than we think. Layoff surely has studied Platonics and Buddhism.

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

Material world = 1D, 2D, 3D Spiritual world = 0D Zero is the most important number in mathematics. Zero is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it. Zero-dimensional space is the most important dimension in physics. Zero-dimensional space is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it.

[@science212]

Rorty was a relativist philosopher. Anti mind.

[@timadamson3378]

George Lakoff is a brilliant linguist, but he knows absolutely nothing about philosophy, although he purports to.

[@science212]

Lakoff is a cognitive relativist. Wrong combination.

[@edwardtutman196]

Are you from a Church of Scientology?

[@science212]

No. Scientology is a false cult. @@edwardtutman196

[@billyblim1213]

Actually license plates are real. You just think they aren't because of your mom.

[@Sportliveonline]

Great you have to be sitting in that chair thinking about it in the first place if you dont sleep or eat you wont be thinking it in the first place because you wont exist ~~what ever it is its only because you are thinking it ~~~The self cannot see itself as not being but needs to perpetuate it self ~~~try not being dead ~~~ non self it answers it all buddy ~~its just a way of making money on youtube thanks

[@richardsylvanus2717]

This guy lost credibility within 90 seconds