How to Build a Universe: A Conversation with Frank Wilczek (Episode

In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Frank Wilczek about the fundamental nature of reality.
Released: February 22, 2021
SUBSCRIBE to listen to the rest of this episode and gain access to all full-length episodes of the podcast at samharris.org/subscribe.
Subscribe to the YT channel: kzbin.info_c...
Follow Making Sense on Twitter: / makingsensehq
Follow Sam on Facebook: / samharrisorg
Follow Sam on Instagram: / samharrisorg
For more information about Sam Harris: www.samharris.org

[@IvanusPrime]

I know it's been a while but I'm so thankful the old intro music is restored.

[@daniellove162]

I think it’s hilarious that people have such a powerful emotional response to intro music. It’s like that temp music was insulting people’s intelligence. I was surprised about the choice but then moved on.

[@IvanusPrime]

@@daniellove162 I'm actually proud enough people cared about a silly thing like that and made Sam recognize the overwhelming amount of response

[@daniellove162]

@@IvanusPrime - I bet if Sam’s voice changed and he sounded like Ben Shapiro; the same people who complained about the music would jump off of a cliff before listening to Sam again.

[@chaitanyagaur7928]

@@daniellove162 lol....yes

[@2bannedaccountscountingblo99]

Got tired of politics & remembered I used to listen to Sam Harris back in the day all the time. Man am I sick of politics.

[@ifh4030]

Stopped supporting him after 4 years as I got tired of the politics. If he continues to lay-off the topic I might start again.

[@TheSteinbitt]

@@ifh4030 Same here. It got old.

[@twt1524]

@@ifh4030 I wander what 4 years that was 🙄

[@devinbryant2423]

Your seriously going to try and convince me that every single female on tinder is wrong about astrology?

[@Firuzeh]

😁

[@mikhailfranco]

The most extreme correlation of self-selection in the known universe. Claim the _Social Media_ Nobel Prize. Then run. Fast.

[@twt1524]

Astrology is pseudoscience... did you mean astronomy?

[@martinjnagy]

I love a non-political Making Sense episode...been getting a few recently...long may it continue

[@seantalksalot4018]

I agree, I love most of Sam's opinions but some of the political stuff is getting old, in my opinion.

[@bladeswillxbleed]

Our society has come to a political burnout. Those topics of discussion will sway from us for a while. Its dangerously delightful.

[@trackstar6742]

Agreed. It's so nice to have a sane president who is not everyday dangerously cuckoo for coco puffs. Sam, as always, matches the moment.

[@sunnyla2835]

Politics affects every aspect of our lives🤷🏻‍♀️

[@mrm2709]

Try the waking up series. Very interesting discussions

[@q.bandit9612]

Great to have Frank Wilczek on your podcast. He has a brilliant mind. In my opinion one of the most intelligent human beings.

[@wertytrewqa]

This is so random but I have been a huge follower of frank wilczek for a while. I went into a theoretical physics rabbit hole on youtube in 2015 and ive been following frank on twitter ever since. Cant wait to listen!

[@toby9999]

I might have to go down that rabbit hole.

[@parrogakaparadise9477]

Me too, since 2018. I love it.

[@Turandot29]

I am grateful that Sam gives us about half of his terrific podcasts for free. I don’t get to listen to the second half, though.

[@tonynewton5713]

this is likely THE BEST PODCAST EVER. unreal. Great work Sam. Mega brains deserve FAR MORE attention than they get.

[@jimmybolton8473]

Have you guys tried listening to this podcast this exact one as you’re falling asleep you will start building the universe as they’re talking it’s awesome

[@renanbelli]

That joke about the mirror-time… „every time i look at that mirror, i know what time it is… its later.“ was spontaneously fantastic!

[@SashaXXY]

As a (sometimes sloppy?) coder, especially when coding things where computational performance or efficiency is unimportant, I have in fact written plenty of programs where the runtime complexity of the program was a huge overkill for accomplishing the task at hand. The savings were external -- I could re-use or adapt already existing code instead of having to write entirely new software. So IF I had the computing power of a matrioshka-brain at my fingertips and was feeling like re-using a bunch of code, there is no reason to assume that I wouldn't have the program simulate the wave function of every sub-atomic particle in order to observe some primates building a civilization on a wet rock. Thus, again as a (sometimes sloppy?) coder, the argument that the runtime is too complex or too wasteful to be designed for our simulation is a bit lackluster. But I guess that's as good an answer to this speculation as any other that we have at this time :-) Thank you for the upload!

[@kylebowles9820]

Aaah that cut at the end was so perfect I might sign up for the podcast

[@JamyOats]

"So, now tell me the most interesting thing about the universe, and feel free to throw in some flawless tips for getting laid by hot chicks" "Well Sam, I'm glad you asked. The secrets to both those things are... Dummm. Dummm Dummm Dummm "If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation..."

[@dylonlarue8350]

Picked up Fundamentals and The Moral Landscape yesterday this is amazing

[@akashmurthy7464]

When can we get Edward Witten?

[@richardavery2894]

Yeah I've been waiting for someone to interview him for ages!!! (Although he is very soft spoken lol)...

[@lucasthompson1650]

@@richardavery2894 True, but he CAN get quite engaged sometimes - maybe not “loud”, per se, but “genuinely excited”. I once saw him at one of those university fundraiser type events, holding court with 5 other scientists (all physicists, I think, at least by education if not vocation) in a tucked away little alcove:room, avoiding the party entirely. It was quite the spectacle to behold, as they only had a stack of 4 or 5 sheets of paper and a single ballpoint pen, and as each one of them “took the floor” in the conversation they would slide the paper towards themselves, box off a blank area on the page, and use that space for equations, diagrams, graphs, etc… as they talked. I often regret not attempting to record that conversation, but instead I was completely wonderstruck by the sheer depth of comprehension and intellect displayed by each speaker, and Ed Witten was another head and shoulders above the others.

[@billdrumming]

I had lunch with Juan Maldecena, even more renowned

[@mikhailfranco]

Be careful what you wish for.

[@mikhailfranco]

@@billdrumming Did he think that his lunch on the plate could be explained by a lunch-like hologram around the rim of the plate?

[@Mark1Mach2]

Awesome stuff. I am planning to subscribe if not for the Meditations then for the talks Sam has...and his thoughts.

[@adriancioroianu1704]

I recommend the full conversation, excellent job as usual Sam! Keep up the content.

[@tyboogy1066]

Listening to these two fellas talk about things that I have absolutely no clue about and sitting through all of it, surprises me. When did I become such a nerd lol?

[@ctakitimu]

Technically you probably aren't a nerd just by listening - Google offers a definition of the noun 'Nerd' : a foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious I'm guessing you enjoy learning how things work and that your social circle doesn't go into this much depth about these topics. Mine doesn't anyway

[@ghostofgames11]

Damn this looks like an interesting one, idk why but I always associated Sam with the cosmos and universe, he just kinda gives off astronomy vibes

[@peterhardie4151]

He sounds like an AI.

[@richardavery2894]

Hey Shigaraki! You're right I do the same thing!

[@ghostofgames11]

@@richardavery2894 for real! And thanks for recognizing the pfp 😂

[@xeroeddie]

It's easy to create a universe in Minecraft. In fact, Sam Harris should do a hardcore Minecraft let's play. He will probably just build a small hut to meditate in. 😁

[@vascoamaralgrilo]

Thanks!

[@chrisdaniel2759]

A while back Sam had on a physicist who dismissed the idea that we live in a simulation by pointing out that the 2nd assumption, that 'most universes would be virtual,' bends into infinity (which seemed to end that point). But... doesn't that dovetail perfectly with the 'many worlds' hypothesis multi-verse idea? It kinda seems like different thinkers are feeling different parts of an elephant in the dark.

[@slowhandsoff]

I like to the imagine Spacetime as the medium for the transmission of everything that was , is and will be.

[@tiborkoos188]

It's important to remember that all observers agree on the order of those events which can causally affect each other (there is enough time for light to reach from one event to the other). The elapsed time between the events of course depends on the relatively motion of the frames of reference. The order of events can flip between inertial observers only if these events are causally disconnected. This means that observers never disagree on causality.

[@sunnyla2835]

Would you please interview Stanford Dr. Jay Battacharya (sp) re covid response and censorship of science? Or (serious question) are you afraid to? Thanks. I love your podcast 💕

[@Robinexs]

Finally something that has nothing to do with politics

[@billymarino5181]

Actually this is about the nature of reality, so in a way, this is technically Stoll about politics.

[@wearemany73]

That’s something a conservative would say..😉

[@edotis3389]

Unless the Dems build the galaxy, then I really don't want to live there. If the sun was too hot they would stop everything they're doing just to impeach it.

[@martinjnagy]

I just posted the same thing.... refreshing is t it mate

[@ctakitimu]

I'm a believer of everything occurring at once, but we perceive it as linear time.

[@NonDelusional74611]

2:03 Intuition plays such a vital role in nonreligious thinking. It just doesn’t stop there. If you have a strong feeling that something is true, you have to demonstrate that it is true. So, my gut feeling is that humans can traverse space left/right up/down to/fro AND we can envision an axis of before/after too. These are commonly known. The three axes of spatial dimensions and the dimension of time. I have a gut feeling that more axes than these exist. Why do I have that gut feeling? Cuz I lost my entire family when I shifted here, and I didn’t get here by moving in any of the three spatial dimensions nor the time dimension. I moved on a completely different axis of rotation. I lost my wife, I eventually lost my children, I lost the beautiful dog. All after shifting here. But I didn’t publish a book titled The Fifth Way to Move Through the Multiverse, because I don’t have data nor proof that this is what happened to me. I may never have that proof. But notice. Notice that lacking any evidence, I’m not starting up a new religion based on this hypothetical mode of motion. Also, I’m concerned because despite repeated attempts, I have not been able to return to my original timeline along this axis.

[@johnbuckner2828]

Love that part about "time"; very interesting stuff. I've heard you have to go to Mexico and smoke a frog though to really understand it.

[@mikhailfranco]

There's a reason the Santa Fe Institute is close to the border. Some would say close to the edge. Others would say _happy hippies in the desert._

[@jeanineruggeri4573]

I wish u would let the guest speak in this episode. It’s what I would like to hear.

[@Jack-yq6ui]

*I'm an idiot but bare with me for 2 minutes? Here's something I find interesting to think about, since they brought up the concept of "atoms of time" or some physical force carrier, which has plagued me for as long as I can remember. :* *IF time were to have some physicality, and we know time is relative, how could this relativity mechanism be applied physically? well, the faster/more you move through space, the slower/less you move through time, okay, imagine the very physical concept of a bow-wave, when a ship sails through water, it creates a bow-wave at its front, if you were to place "particles" in the water, you would see how a ships bow-wave pushes these particles out of the way, if Space and time are linked, and both space and time have to be physical, then it follows that, the faster you move through space, just like water, the bigger your "bow-wave", this bow-wave pushes more "time particles" out of your way, so you interact with them less, therefore your time changes.* *Obviously I havent done the math, im a fucking moron, and this is KZbin, but... this kinda works doesnt it?* edit: eventhough I dont know you, I do love you :) have a nice day!

[@NonDelusional74611]

I could possibly ask the question how How do we interact with time particles? How does interacting with them cause aging? I fear we may have to postulate a time particle field to explain where all the time particles are. Does the human body contain cannabinoid receptors? We’ll have to identify the time particloid receptors. Experimentation? I think we secure funding and then every single day get people stoned off their asses - NO. NO. I went the cannabinoid route again. Sorry. So what we do is get people really fuckkn high, and then while they’re stoned we prod them until we find (my guess would be somewhere around the eye wrinkles) time particle receptors!! Publish our findings. Others will perform peer review. (Can you imagine how much fun peer review will be for these poor laboratory dexters?) Luke and nov nov go down in history. They’ll- get this They’ll teach our methods in high schools across the nation.

[@CandidDate]

I like how physicists rely heavily on taking the "I know something that you don't" stance and "ask me anything and I'll give you a run around answer, but hey, in the end the universe is a mystery because probability." Sam could easily understand what this guy was saying, yet we don't call Sam a physicist. It's the same with your average doctor. It is all posturing. I'm not saying surgeons are imbeciles, but experience does count in that field. Some call them "sawbones" and quite rightly. Why do you think we call hospitals campuses? So if it isn't knowledge that makes you a genius, and experience is something understood only subjectively, what is the point of higher education other than collective mental intercourse and passing out awards?

[@Skiddla]

fair point, i agree that some people do the posturing routine and it is annoying. tbh though i didnt get any vibes like that while listening and im curious what made you have that thought. sounds like a bias against educational institutions. tbh i feel that bias too and im certain it is warranted in plenty of cases but im not about to say hold my beer, im a doctor/physicist/mathmagician etc. i don't know enough to make such a claim. maybe you do though, in that case i'm sure it is frustrating to not have all those titles when the fields are common knowledge to you. then again at that level of knowledge you probably dont have need for such titles/social status since you are beyond the need for validation and you are the source of your own confidence.

[@CandidDate]

@@Skiddla Consider the invention of the nuclear bomb. It was a collaboration of the world's finest minds and what it came down to was an engineering marvel of physical methods of distilling the right form of Uranium. Now consider cold fusion. Again, the finest minds, but for some reason it is still 20 years away. Could it be that knowledge has limits? Or is it that the physical world is guiding us toward oblivion? If we continue using fossil fuels we will destroy the planet. I know I'm not answering your question, but I thought I'd share my concern.

[@australianpatriot]

IQ is what makes someone a genius and the point of higher education differs for everyone, for some there is no point if the constructs of employment wasn't built upon it's engineered importance

[@84OscarOscar84]

Does the "many worlds"/"multiverse" hypothesis cancel the argument for free will? Are these to compatible with each other?

[@Oraelius]

If there are many worlds, a conscious entity could conceivable enter and experience any extant possible reality...possibly.

[@chrisdaniel2759]

I don't intuitively see why they would cancel out? I suppose you could have an infinite number of universes where people have free will. Heck, under some fractal concepts of 'infinite', it would require it. There'd be an infinite number of free will universes and an infinite number of non-free will universes, and an infinite number of everything else as well.

[@freesk8]

500K subscribers is not far away! :)

[@monkerud2108]

good stuff :). astrology is in some sense true is the sense that you could in principle read of someone’s personality by analyzing the environment(not really tho due to irreducible uncertainty in the description). the problem is really how, what details in the environment would have to be looked at to determine personality, frankly i think you end up either having to know more than is physically possible anyway. if fun to run with these kinds of ideas, but astrology is a good example of a reductionism gone wrong, the night sky observables like planets and stars have such a wide number of microstates that essentially look exactly the same through the lense of astrology, therefore for the astrological hypothesis to be true, the planets positions would have to reach down into the chaos of the ground level system and somehow every time someone is born perform an infinite ball billiards shot to cement the correlation, that would be insane. it would be like a certain book being in a room somehow reduced the measured preassure in certain volumes of air around the book, just because the book says it does, well to stretch imagination to its limit even this would technically be possible, if someone duped you by constructing the world as such or by you being so lucky its irrational by any standard to belive it. bottom line is we are lucky enough to live in a world that seems to give reasonable results :) i’m happy with that.

[@doma3554]

The other thing too is that some folks are not making a claim of astrology being true, wholesale. They're only claiming that certain parts of personalities are definitely correlated to dates of birth. They are not saying the whole personality is predictable, nor that the personality can't give appearances of other personalities at times, but that the default personality without many stressors on it matches some particular description. The other thing is that the claim might also not have an explanation for why there is a correlation between date of birth and personality. Nothing about stars or planets, etc. Which also partitions the claim away from horoscopes and birth chart readings. Some folks are merely observing and stating that there is a correlation. It also takes some honesty with one's self to see that they are exhibiting a behavior repeatedly. And even more, that they are exhibiting a behavior that many others are doing repeatedly. And then to admit that that set of behaviors is distinct among the crowd of repeated behaviors. And it actually fits in with the no-free-will hypothesis, that such behaviors are tied to something measurable outside the self. The Darkhorse Podcast showed recently that there was a large-scale study that showed there were correlations between types of diseases based on ranges of dates of birth, for a particular fixed locale. All that some "astrologers" are claiming is that there is a strong correlation, but they are not attributing "magical" causes for that correlation.

[@freesk8]

Can you interview black economist Thomas Sowell? Thanks! Love your podcasts! :)

[@lilstinker2582]

You can just call him an economist

[@freesk8]

@@lilstinker2582 Good point. He'd be awesome even if he were white. I just think it is cooler that he is black! :)

[@TheSteinbitt]

@@lilstinker2582 Identity politics has ruined us all lol

[@mikhailfranco]

_Can you interview excellent and eloquent economist Thomas Sowell?_ Fixed it for you.

[@ctakitimu]

@@mikhailfranco Thanks, for most of the world we don't care what colour he is. But if he's excellent and eloquent then I'm in!

[@victortorresrojas8203]

Nice Sam

[@misclic2408]

non political stuf = world / self awareness stuf = best policy for self improvment & slowly change the political system

[@ironaan3565]

Richard Tarnas could be an interesting discussion :)

[@akniznik]

How viable is the "one electron" theory?

[@hoptanglishalive4156]

About a year ago my horoscope said I would open my heart to skepticism. It turns out that prediction was garbage.

[@chrisdaniel2759]

I don't understand how we can think we have the operating code or much understanding at all when we have no idea what 80% of matter or energy is?

[@michamichalak6200]

It's ego statement, not representation of reality.

[@spherical89]

Just in case anyone cares, Wilczek (pronounced /veal-check/) means „little wolf” in Polish.

[@Seanus32]

I think it would be pronounced VEAL CHECK as it's a Polish surname. At any rate, this podcast should be fun :)

[@victorvispetto2367]

Sam is one of my favorite listens.

[@deepblack67]

Astrology (the charting of the stars) is not Horoscopy the interpretation of said chart for an individual. Astrology in fact is actual science (which of course horoscopy is not) and that science regards the influence of the EM fields and Birkeland currents on the sun and the suns effect on the planets through the same current - sun spot cycle, magnetic field effects for the planets, and radio interference, and earthquakes which are influenced by the current interaction - all of which is governed by the aspects of the planetary alignments, some having more effect than others. There are many papers on this.

[@freesk8]

Physicists often are at risk of making the mistake of thinking of their mathematical models as reality itself, instead of merely being excellent tools for predicting and understanding physical reality. This is the fundamental debate between the Platonists and Pythagoreans on the one hand, and the Aristotelians and the Empiricists on the other. When we find a mathematical law that is very consistent with our observations, do we think of those equations as fundamental reality, or as good descriptions of fundamental reality? Quantum Theory folks are much more at risk of thinking that nature IS fundamentally math. Some other scientists see their equations as good descriptions in the human language of math.

[@freesk8]

For Plato and Pythagoras, the ultimate reality was the forms, the mathematics. For Aristotle, reality was matter, and math was useful for modelling the real causal interactions between bits of matter.

[@raymondluxury-yacht1638]

About Astrology, I share a birthday with Ozzy Osbourne. 'nuff said!

[@howtheworldworks3]

I really like this Frank guy. He is very aware of what is actually going on in this patch of space we call the universe. Also the idea of this world being a simulation is as valid as any other religion. It's crap. It's not that simulated universes are impossible but it's about the fact that we would actually have plenty of clues if we indeed were in a simulated universe. This is no simulated universe. It's base reality.

[@fat.cat.]

Reported for racism.

[@howtheworldworks3]

@@fat.cat. Huh?

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

I like Frank! ^.^

[@Psnym]

He’s a remarkably likable guy

[@CarlosCMTF]

The problem with the probabilistic notion of simulated worlds is that they depend on the processing power of technology, which in turn depends on the amount of energy available, which is obviously not infinite. The amount of possible simulated worlds therefore cannot be that large and certainly not infinite.

[@chrisdaniel2759]

Would that rule out the popular 'many worlds' hypothesis for you as well?

[@CarlosCMTF]

@@chrisdaniel2759 No because the many words interpretation has nothing to do with computers simulations.

[@chrisdaniel2759]

@@CarlosCMTF But, in a very real sense, many worlds equals infinite energy. All the energy in the universe x infinity. Also, what if many worlds has everything to do with computer simulations, cuz the computer simulations are the many worlds?

[@CarlosCMTF]

@@chrisdaniel2759 Real worlds work different from simulated worlds. Simulated worlds directly depend on the technology and the energy available to the agents who are simulating - it's artificially created to look like the real thing but it doesn't work like the real thing. The many worlds interpretation is a highly speculative theory that depends on complicated features if quantum mechanics and it doesn't have a direct connection to energy available.

[@chrisdaniel2759]

@@CarlosCMTF I think you're assuming you're in a 'real' world in order to make that claim. Everything is highly speculative. If we're going to entertain the idea of many (infinite) worlds, I think the infinite energy they would add up to counters the assertion that energy is non-infinite. Maybe one could assume that each universe contains a non-infinite amount of energy, but that doesn't rule out a more literally defined 'many' simulated universes, if not an infinite amount, and what we perceive as the 'real' world is one of a few, let's say historical weather simulations, being run on a computer in a much larger real world.

[@shrishtydhiman9889]

Nice

[@slowhandsoff]

To add the capacity of motion to space equals Spacetime.

[@pixxburgh420]

Isnt the most simple definition of time, just simply measuring the motion of things? I mean.. when time "runs" either slow or fast...isnt it because of the gravitational well the matter is located in? So next ro something massive, a clock runs slower than further away it runs faster...this is simply the motion of, things. I mean that's how I define time and it has helped me an awful lot.

[@nicholassekas3060]

Wilcek's objection (50:00) to the Simulation Hypothesis doesn't work. He says that rendering the world in quantum ways would be a waste, but this just doesn't hold up. In contemporary video games, your console doesn't have rendered the entire virtual world all the time. It only renders what the player needs to see. You would only need to simulate detail like atoms and the quantum rules that govern them when the subjects of the simulation go looking through an electron microscope or performing other super high resolution observations. Furthermore, he says that it would be strange for a simulation to have generally 'work either. Besides, if you lend an ear to Bostrom (the best known proponent of the Simulation Hypothesis) he talks about simulations as most likely in the context of ancestral simulation, in which case stuff like time and physicality would be 'normal' anyways.

[@twokidsmovies]

Would love to see you discuse time and perception with Donald Hofmann or Sean Carroll

[@cullenarthur8879]

I love Sean Carrol.

[@Paakku97]

Or Bernando Kastrup

[@bigniftydude]

Lewis Carroll is great

[@teardropsonmyfallen]

If everything stops, does time stop?

[@Skiddla]

if all matter is 0 distance apart, does distance stop?

[@MrSidney9]

Yes. That’s tautological. But that’s impossible as far as we know about subatomic particles. Ex. Électrons.

[@robertbaur3145]

Rick did it to power his car battery

[@sammykays8873]

Insane, but fun to listen to lol.

[@Gabriel-pt6tq]

In every single one of these videos your audio is great but the audio of your guest is always too quiet it's almost like the microphone needs to be a foot closer to their mouths it's really annoying I really wish you would fix this problem

[@slowhandsoff]

Spacetime must expand faster than the speed of light.

[@ctakitimu]

I wonder how it does that if spacetime is a thing and not a concept?

[@sunlightseekerz]

He SOUNDS like Robin Williams !!!!

[@jprsdas]

I'm trying to build my own universe bro

[@bntagkas]

time is not changing, time is change every object is subject to time(change) differently, so theres no time but times do a thought experiment with a guy in a room that has no windows no doors just floor ceiling 4 walls, he has no phone no clocks etc,has 1 lamp always on, think about how he experiences time about the possibility vs actual, if we assume we are in some sort of simulation, and you just copy over this program multiple times without changing anything, due to the inherent chaos in the system all the copies will be slightly different and due to the butterfly effect at some point quite likely they will differ significantly. so technically if there is a higher reality where we are being run as a program, all the possible possibilities can happen with a simple copy paste of the 1 program. you might consider the simulation theory bullshit for various reasons but i consider is the most likely scenario and i like thinking about it on a general level, as someone who is effectively a highschool dropout

[@ZeuzBluez]

I d sub if it s a video podcast.cant stand audio only.

[@slowhandsoff]

I wonder if Spacetime has a surface tension where Spacetime meets a void.

[@mikhailfranco]

Bad metaphor, does not compute.

[@boldandthebeautifulgimbal2881]

I am an idiot and also tired. But isn’t time relative? That if marching on a planet traveling at a different vector and velocity will result in a different ‘relative’ time? If traveling in a craft through space that is either contracting or expanding, wouldn’t the relative time in the craft be different from that of any other point in the know universe? If my question is stupid I apologize.

[@boldandthebeautifulgimbal2881]

Just if we all march to the same time, why do satellites need temporal calibrations, as well as all devices on the ISS?

[@boldandthebeautifulgimbal2881]

Sorry but atoms of time, is time tangible?

[@boldandthebeautifulgimbal2881]

Could the reason quantum physics hasn’t really progressed a great deal lately. Be due to the need to innovate new technologies to study the behavior of quantum particles and inspired/allow new experiments to be performed? Bill Gates invest in this hint hint. It’s like the answers to, well, everything reside in the quantum.

[@kadourimdou43]

There’s some great explanations of Einstein’s Special and General Relativity on You Tube. The key point is that it’s relative. If you move, your position in the Universe is also relative. Wish I was smart enough to give you the in depth Physicists answer.

[@AtTheEast18]

Sam, please have edward witten on.

[@danskiver5909]

We are poorly served with a linear language system, when we’re mapping our understanding to the reality we are apart of.

[@wilyinfidel1091]

Ok

[@Skiddla]

what do you mean by linear language system

[@danskiver5909]

@@Skiddla:

[@executivesteps]

So who chuckles more often while speaking - Bart Ehrman or Frank Wilczek?

[@flumpyhumpy]

It actually reminded me of Feynman.

[@pasqualinapoppa2216]

Every time I look at that picture it seems to move is it just me?🤭🤭

[@mcmchurch]

I wonder if I asked for a free account if any questions will be asked?

[@saganworshipper6062]

nope

[@tyulik]

Astrology shows your vessel personality. Identical twins have same birth chart, but different drivers, aka spirit.

[@paulishism]

Assuming you are in a simulated world conflates possibilities with probabilities. The probability of being in the first simulation is not equal to the probability of being in the last simulation.

[@mikhailfranco]

Yes, there is no solid concept of _probability_ when considering simulations. Technically, there is no _measure_ across the various types of reality and depths of spawned universes. There is no such thing as a _Quantitative Simulation Hypothesis_ and don't let Bostrom or Tegmark try and convince you otherwise.

[@paulishism]

@@mikhailfranco is this the random number problem?

[@paulishism]

Either way every simulation exists in a reality where probability works. Each layer of simulation has a probability less than one that it will form a simulation within the simulation.

[@straizys]

Sam please... for the universe's sake invite Bernardo Kastrup here

[@WeAreShowboat]

With all due respect to Dr. Wilczek, there are plenty of ways the universe can be understood better as a simulation than a base layer reality. 1. Quantum mechanics doesn’t render a reality (definite properties) until you look. Like a video game would not render a distant landscape until you get near. 2. Large clusters of mass (gravity) slow down time, like a lag induced by too much for the GPU to keep track of. Also, fast speeds slow down time, like a lag induced by too much processing. 3. EPR paradox shows the universe is non-local, suggesting a higher level processor (rather than just light speed communication within the universe) The list goes on and on. These don’t prove we are in a simulation, and you can quibble over the details, but I’m shocked that Frank hasn’t already noticed these in pondering these questions.

[@DejanOfRadic]

What if astrology has nothing to do with stars, and more to do with the fact that your month of birth will determine what season it is when your consciousness and memory systems boot up?

[@strawberryinthesky607]

I've had similar thoughts. If that was the case however, then a capricorn in India would be different from a capricorn in Idaho. Similarly, areas that experience greater variation in seasonal weather would have a greater correlation to astrological personality profiles, while steady weather climates would have less correlation. I don't know if anyone has done any studies measuring these, but it would be interesting if they did.

[@DejanOfRadic]

@@strawberryinthesky607 of course, it is just a hypothesis.....but I do believe that there are different astrological systems from different cultures (climates)......suggesting, at least, that if such a study was undertaken, it would only make sense to study inhabitants of the places where the systems were developed. I wouldn't be surprised if a child born in the depths of winter was somehow exposed to different developmental variables as a child born in summer......not simply the climate, but the stress levels in the household etc etc due to the time of year. On the other hand, a brief informal survey of other people I know born in my month doesn't seem to suggest any eerie similarities.....of course, we might argue that this would apply best to societies closer to the land. U of T did an extensive study of astrology, incidentally......the conclusion by the lead scientist was that astrology seems to hold no predictive powers whatsoever.....but he closed by saying that a person of his sign was likely to feel that way lol

[@Skiddla]

this was addressed though, two children born at the same time at the same place are not bound to a certain similar fate. doesnt make astrology any less fun though. idk

[@DejanOfRadic]

@@Skiddla most certainly......my comment was just pondering if a relationship between season of birth produces any interesting data. Perhaps a child born in the depths of a long winter is developmentally different from a child born in the Spring. Absent of predictive or mystical or prescriptive qualities, are there any effects?

[@chrisdaniel2759]

@@DejanOfRadic It's summer somewhere on a planet where it's winter.

[@monkerud2108]

newton was like “i frame no hypothesis” “these are equations of motion as a pattern”, and pop science went with “space is a void”. i guess some things never change :p

[@wearemany73]

23:14 Sam cracks it! (Nobody notices) “causality by another name” 🤓

[@reeseosbornestudios]

I'm fond of your insight on many things, Sam, I'm currently even reading Waking Up, BUT... if you think the new regime is more stable than the last you are the one who is delusional.... The whole union is at risk more than it has ever been, at least since the civil war....sorry.

[@freesk8]

If, at every point, an infinite number of possible worlds are generated, doesn't that require an infinite amount of energy at each point to create these worlds? Spider Man in the Multi-verse seems to violate the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics.

[@mikhailfranco]

No. First, energy is not necessarily conserved, even in theories of one universe, such as General Relativity (see _"Energy Is Not Conserved"_ on Sean Carroll's blog). Second, any conservation law is specified by some bounded spacetime region, together with some comprehensible regime of physics, which documents what energy _is_ and what conservation _means._ For example, maybe multiverses can each have conservation of energy, as long as they cannot communicate causally. Cloned universe could _branch_ with a _copy_ of the energy transferred to each child universe. Nobody would notice (i.e. no observer internal to one path in the branching universes could do an experiment to detect the _'extra'_ energy created in the _other_ universe). Finally, we believe that conservation laws arise from symmetries of the underlying physics (see _"Noether's Law"_ ). If there is no equivalence between locations, directions, motion, spins, reflections, times,... across multiverses (i.e. no equivalence transformations), then all conservation bets are off. Energy is a bit like fiat currency. Governments can print as much as they want, and as long as there are certain sealed economic boundaries, and all the ledgers of double-entry book-keeping accounts balance, and everyone believes money is real, then the disbelief can be maintained for some indefinite period. But as soon as something leaks out, or there's a black market, or arbitrage of fake money for real assets, or gold looks like a better bet ( _Gresham's Law_ ), or there's accounting fraud, or favored channeling of new cash to the elites ( _Cantillon Effect_ ), or accounts that don't balance, or fake fractional reserve _paper_ assets, or any other manipulation of monetary thermodynamics - then faith disappears and reality bites. There is no free lunch. There is no perpetual motion machine. If something is too good to be true, then it is.

[@antongromek4180]

How to build a Universe in 10 easy lessons

[@mediaaccount8390]

Sam's understanding of the folding newspaper isn't even close either. His estimate of a galaxy is (much) closer to a brick than to the real answer.

[@MrSidney9]

Didn’t he say light years across?

[@spiritchannels]

Timestamp?

[@mediaaccount8390]

14:50. But I was wrong about being close to a brick. It's only about 100,000 times bigger than a galaxy.

[@Danny_6Handford]

The universe is a cycle of birth, existence and death that builds itself and then dies. Within the universe’s cycle there are probably trillions upon trillions of birth, existence and death cycles that build themselves and then die. The universe could even be a cycle of birth, existence and death inside a bigger cycle of birth, existence and death similar to how a sun’s birth, existence and death cycle is inside a galaxy’s birth, existence and death cycle or even similar to how a bacteria’s birth, existence and death cycle exists inside a worm’s birth, existence and death cycle. Like clouds in the sky, the cycles producing the clouds keep repeating but the patterns will never be the same during the birth, existence and death cycle of the earth. The birth, existence and death cycles that build universes will probably keep repeating but, universes will never be the same.

[@Jack-yq6ui]

*I do not understand why anyone would call mathematics "unreasonably" effective, I find mathematics to be exactly as effective as far as it describes reality, otherwise it is not "effective" in describing reality..* *In other words, I do not see how mathematics is anymore "invented" as a tree in the woods is "invented" , well, we invented the word for tree, and branches, leaves, etc, and all of those concepts and words are as effective as far as they describe reality, the word "tree" is not effective in describing "pancakes", both the word "tree" and the word "pancake" are perfectly reasonable in their effectiveness, in exactly the same way that Mathematics and algebraic equations are effective in describing reality and its underlying relationships.* *Take for example 2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks, what is unreasonable about this? the symbol 2 denotes the amount of rocks, and the plus symbol describes adding the two quantities, which is just grabbing 2 rocks and putting them with the other 2 rocks, in which case you have? 4 rocks! how unreasonable! ??? I find it perfectly reasonable, furthermore, once someone becomes accustomed to how math/reality works, one will find that they have intuitions about how to proceed from any given vantage point, how did Einstein find dark matter in his equations? well his equations described reality, in the same way that my equation of 2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks, if I go get 2 rocks and put them with 2 other rocks.. I will have 4 rocks, just like my equation "predicted"* *If anyone can tell me where ANY of this becomes "unreasonable" I would love to understand.*

[@Morenooooooo309]

yeah but i also think its 100% sure that out of the 4 rocks you'd be counting you couldnt find a couple that was exactly the same shape, weight, and color .. and if you were to look inside the rocks with some technology, you would find other differences.. i think mathematics works with approximation when describing the physical word, and in this sense, maybe one could say we re lucky that it works for us with our approximations.. anyway its an interesting subject but i am afraid i wont be able to reply cause when youtube send me notifications pf replies to my comments, and i click on the link, it brings me to the video but not to the specific comment so.. maybe.. bye 👋

[@doma3554]

I think most language, like the word "unreasonably" in this context, is for sensationalism. If we were absolutely honest all the time about everything, there would be hardly any speaking, because for the most part we all know most of the truths of everything in order to survive. Life is not that sensational, but the sensationalism causes us to get up and look and spend attention/money, which is good other's businesses, and so on.

[@miketomlin6040]

Since Horoscopes describe events in consciousness, not events in nature and a chart describes how one interacts with the environment one encounters, which is often radically different for the 2 sapiens born ''in the same hospital, at the same time'', again Sam is talking about a subject he has not studied.

[@DrWeird-zw5dc]

I have requested a subscription twice but never got any response :(

[@richardavery2894]

Same problem here! Sucks!!!

[@DrWeird-zw5dc]

@Colton Catalli Good for you :) Not for me though....

[@DrWeird-zw5dc]

@Colton Catalli I only use a laptop

[@mikebruno1301]

What if as Dinosaurs became extinct over 65 million years, they became super smart. Smart than Huminnns? So smart they were able to leave this planet and find a more natural place to live, that could sustain them AND remove every trace of their existence, just in case some dumb monkeys took over? And then they returned to Earth as part of their exploratory process and realized that monkey men were highly susceptible to suggestion and then could live on Planet Earth via mind melds in Monkey Human's bodies?

[@NonDelusional74611]

So they’re the politicians? Reptiles in monkey human clothing?

[@mikebruno1301]

@@NonDelusional74611 Yes, but not Reptiles. Most were warm blooded. More like intelligent pigeons.

[@NonDelusional74611]

@@mikebruno1301 I mean, hillary. Right?

[@mikebruno1301]

@@NonDelusional74611 Hillary? Just a normal pigeon.

[@NonDelusional74611]

@@mikebruno1301 🤣🤣🤣

[@randygault4564]

"science works" fits nicely into Peterson's definition of truth as that which is useful.

[@Skiddla]

just gotta be careful on what our aim is in defining "useful". imo thats where political conflicts are rooted. all parties have mostly correct plans/methods but they have different goals, hence the miscommunication. theres a fork in the road and some say go left some say go right and they cant see how the others can "be so stupid" to make the wrong choice when perhaps the reality is that both groups had different destinations in mind.

[@amirhosseinahmadi3706]

No. You're clearly misunderstanding what is meant by "science works" here. It doesn't mean that science is necessarily useful to human beings, it just means that science is a useful methodology for finding facts about the world around us. You are equivocating the words "X works" and "utility" here. They are meant in 2 distinct senses. Whenever a hypothesis is tested scientifically and it seems to be confirmed, we can then confidently for example design airplanes, cars, computers, spacecraft. and do things **based on the assumption that that hypothesis is true**, and we can be confident that we're not going to encounter any cases where that assumption that was tested scientifically turns out to not work in practice. That's what we mean when we say "science works", it has absolutely nothing to do with its utility for human well-being, human societies, or things like that, which is what Peterson is talking about.

[@maxa1152]

G'day me brother from another mother, fairedincom mate what don't ya yarn about hay bro 🤙

[@Xsuprio]

50:14 No no no no no.... That's bad programming/optimization. You don't let the simulation render ALL the atoms. In more complex games than Super Mario Bros, objects and effects like lighting and shading, are not rendered unless you look directly at them. So in our "reality"/simulation, atoms don't really exist at all! You only see them on a screen attached to a microscope. Outside of that, objects only BEHAVE like they are made of atoms. We see the EFFECT of the programming. Another example is, that we've had 3D space games for a long time. But we could never actually travel TO a planet. Now that hardware is able to handle it, we CAN travel to planets and land on them and see plants and animals (Spore 2008). The programmers of OUR simulation, conveniently put any livable planet (simulated) light years away. As the hardware we're run on is upgraded, the first DLC available to us, will be "Mars: the next stage". But for now, we can only see IMAGES on a screen. Even what you see through a telescope, is only an image. In short: ... you think that's air your breathing now?

[@Xsuprio]

As far as freeing yourself from constraints like time travel...there's your Multiverse theory! In other Universes/simulations, they did unlock time travel. In some they handled it well and used it for "good". But in others, it was a complete catastrophe and they managed to destroy the entire simulation!!! We just happen to be in a simulation where the programmers made it so we can't.... yet.

[@Skiddla]

cant wait for hot coffee mod Martian style

[@danieldelorme5138]

When you request a free account they don't get back to you.

[@Starclimber]

They hooked me up within a day.

[@danieldelorme5138]

@@Starclimber completely ignored me.

[@Starclimber]

@@danieldelorme5138 Spam filter maybe? Junk mail? Just back from a long walk listening to the private podcast feed of this episode, so I promise you it's worth another try.

[@danieldelorme5138]

@@Starclimber thanks 👍🏻

[@feihcsim7045]

tHe FuNdAmEntAl nAturE OF ReAliTyyYyYy

[@bigniftydude]

Lolol

[@TheRealThirdME]

Having requested a free subscription at least 5 times over the last 2 years or so, without ever getting one.. I call bogus! :D (even tried 2 different mails)

[@Hjephson]

I've been a paid up subscriber for years (well worth it), but 2 friends have requested free accounts and there was no issue with being given one. Certainly doesn't seem bogus to me. They both now pay a few dollars a month btw, which seems pretty easy for most people to do 🤷‍♂️

[@TheRealThirdME]

@@Hjephson As i'm without a job, and because of sickness probably always will be, I don't have a lot of spare cash laying around.. But I guess the issue is on my end, I just have no idea what it might be, sadly.. Enjoy listening to Sam a lot :)

[@benhallo1553]

I got it fine

[@tammyburke9453]

Nah it works. When I finally got $50 I was so happy to pay as I love his podcast I loved his offer and it did work.

[@TheRealThirdME]

can I ask you guys what email you are using? I have tried with both a Gmail and an Outlook.. I have nothing in spam folders related to "Making Sense"

[@richardavery2894]

I requested a free account at your website multiple times and I have not gotten a response 🙃 not happy about it!

[@DanHowardMtl]

I so enjoy these religious discussions, eh Sam? CLOWN

[@subhuman3408]

R=N😀!

[@ultimatereasoning7056]

You are the only one in the universe who limits people from listening to your episodes! Shame shame shame!

[@maurislivi8587]

The powerful softball comparably hover because sunday multivariably hover times a pastoral syria. rotten, jittery lynx

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

For a supposed expert, he is horribly bad at answering Sam's questions. Doesn't even know about Karl Poppper. Doesn't give any examples of basic QM experiments that disprove Sam's "possibilities aren't real" hypothesis, but his worst blunder is telling Sam that special relativity allows for causality to be broken, and this is just factually untrue. I am completely baffled why he would even say such a thing.

[@danielthomas5486]

Awesome No political shit..this is why I got into sam way back, lost me with his leftwing political ideologies ,maybe I'll listen again

[@hokiturmix]

How the hell it got a dislike so fast?

[@911Kongen]

Isn't it more weird that it has 38 likes already??

[@falsexgrindx378]

God disliked it.

[@911Kongen]

@@falsexgrindx378 No, I didn't.

[@falsexgrindx378]

@@911Kongen Are you God?

[@hokiturmix]

@@911Kongen I'm here because of Sam. Somebody got here to dislike? That is my point. Ofc it can be if someone tired of Sam in the recommended videos list. For me Sam's work is insta' like. :D