I Believe The Universe Might Be Able To Think.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

In case you found this interesting, I wrote about this in somewhat more detail in my book "Existential Physics" (in which I also discuss whether atoms can contain universes, or whether we can create a new universe) www.amazon.com/Existential-Physics-Scientists-Biggest-Questions/dp/1984879456

[@Thomas-gk42]

Excellent book, scientific and spiritual, serious and entertaining, realistic and hopeful at the same time.

[@srobertweiser]

I've started to believe years ago, that the human mind probably goes as deep as the universe is wide. I think everybody's brain is its own universe, and they are the 'god' of that universe.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@srobertweiser Well, we are all closed in our own mind, so that´s quite natural.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent). Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature: 1. Guilt 2. Blame 3. Pride 4. Anxiety 5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above. Cont...

[@osmosisjones4912]

So it just thinks slowly

[@jeffryborror4883]

I'm still wondering if politicians can think. Evidence is lacking.

[@alieninmybeverage]

Evidence abounds. That the thinking is absent.

[@Thomas-gk42]

But would we do better? Or does politics gather the worst?

[@marvinlutz9028]

we elect them - so who is at fault?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

😂

[@NottoriousGG]

Then you don't understand power, on a fundamental enough level.

[@DataIsBeautifulOfficial]

Sabine: The universe might think. Universe: Sabine, I’m just trying to expand in peace.

[@LyleAshbaugh]

😂😂

[@CoNteMpTone]

😂😂

[@MrTrancelator]

Eternal Flatulence model confirmed.

[@ArchonOne]

I don’t think it’s expanding. Red shift is misleading. Halton Arp showed extensively that objects perceived to be billions of light years away from each other are actually close and connected by visible plasma bridges. Red shift has more to do with the age and energetic quality of galaxies than their direction of movement. One of many, many misconceptions presented as fact in the broken, non-predictive standard models of space.

[@BebopKoala]

Halton Arp has demonstrated that the observed red shift is intrinsic. There is no evidence the universe is expanding.

[@kylarstern7627]

The first time i layed eyes on the Galactic Filament it reminded me of neurones firing in a brain.

[@frankshailes3205]

We live in a big expanding brain. Or maybe we're just shrinking, and think it's expanding.

[@aholland20132]

I am so very much impressed by Sabine's lack of dogmatic approaches to physics. Thank you for sharing that mindset with us1

[@Potencyfunction]

I am also very much .

[@cuthbertallgood7781]

I'm am, unfortunately, unimpressed when Sabine talks about anything other than physics. This is late-night philosopher drunk nonsense. Is it possible? Sure. Is it possible magic is real? Sure. So what? There are an infinite number of things that "could" be real, but you have to start with some kind of evidence. The biggest issue is that evidence would suggest that intelligence requires an evolutionary process to create it, and there's no evidence the universe has that.

[@Seriksy]

Dogmatism if that's even a word, is a hinder to progress

[@95maferisturiz]

I love her rational open-minded approaches. She doesn't support pseudo-science or things she believes are straight-up wrong, but she's also aware that for science to evolve and grow, one needs to think outside of the conventional box once in a while.

[@MaTheRaptor]

I'm drawn to this mindset. I have so much fondness for other people having it and I thank each one for existing.

[@Taomantom]

We are the Universe studying itself.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Indeed!

[@SORI2024]

Some other people thought about this a long time ago. "Advaita Vedanta, a philosophical school founded by Adi Shankaracharya, suggests that all existence is a manifestation of Brahman (the ultimate reality, not the personal Brahma). The universe is an expression of Brahman attempting to experience itself through Maya (illusion) and the diversity of forms. The gods, beings, and the physical universe are projections of this singular consciousness seeking self-awareness." Also, others had similar forgotten ideas.

[@delphinazizumbo8674]

I think the Real Question is: "Can the Universe please stop touching itself? It's gonna go blind."

[@tomkerruish2982]

John Wheeler mused that the universe may be a self-excited circuit.

[@gadget4047]

Absolutely and it has been self aware for a very long time. :-)

[@humanodaterra]

If the universe does think, wouldn't that be called a God? I mean, the universe can pretty much do anything, as Boltzman said. The universe stores the data of everything, so it is omniscient, and its everywhere i always thought about the debate of "is God real?" as "is the universe conscious?". Im just happi im not the only one thinking it may be alive

[@keithnicholas]

If it could think (which we have zero evidence of and I'm not even close to believing it "might" do) it doesn't mean it can do whatever it wants. Just like you can't control what your neurons do. It might have no ability to change anything, or even be introspective of its own thinking apparatus ie, blissfully unaware of our existence

[@thomasvconti]

The open question is what is largest structure of the universe that could theoretically think, and if it could be as big as the universe itself. "Can the universe think?" has a clear answer: yes, of course. We are part of the universe and we can think, so we have undeniable evidence that at least parts of the universe can think. How big they can get is a much less outrageous question once we acknowledge the extraordinary nature of our own place as thinking clumps of matter.

[@June-1980]

How beautifully Said 😊

[@somefuckstolemynick]

Hear hear!

[@zerkig9058]

That sounds plausible 🤔

[@delphinazizumbo8674]

What if we discover the Universe thinks, and it can READ, but only buys trashy romance novellas?

[@clorofilaazul]

“The clear answer is yes”. What an amazing religious answer. Yes, I’m being sarcastic. You people seem to need so much of an higher being or thinker… I wonder why…

[@ingramfry7179]

If the universe is so big, why won't it fight me?

[@Thomas-gk42]

Maybe it´s just big enough to create us?

[@soundsoflife9549]

You would be akin to a quark in it's brain!

[@SimonWad]

It has. And you've already lost. You just haven't found out, yet.

[@tru-b1o]

Ask again when you learn a meteorite has headed our way.

[@pashabolokhov]

It could hit you with Andromeda Galaxy for example, or whip you with one of the "spiral arms" of our Galaxy

[@FrancoAmorto]

I am neither a physicist, nor an astrophysicist, and even less an expert in elementary particles... I’m just a passionate individual trying, as best as I can, to educate myself on these subjects-at least within the limits of my rather small brain. But I have an intuition... a deep intuition that I’ve never heard discussed anywhere: information! (I mean pure information...) In fact, this intuition is so strong within me that it almost feels like an intimate conviction. Every object, whatever it may be, can be described by its shape, color, energy, mass, matter, and so many other different parameters... Whether it is observed or not, whether it is described or not, this "pure information" characterizing the object remains an "emanation" of the "properties" of that object. Could it be that this "pure information" is an inherent dimension emitted by the object at every moment? Could it be that, at every moment, this object "radiates" or "informs" its inherent properties, regardless of its state, location, distance, or even the time in which it exists? This flow of information is immaterial and invisible, but constant... Could it be that this flow of information represents a new, unexplored dimension? And more intriguingly, could this information, emanating from every object in the cosmos, propagate faster than the speed of light? Are there any theories about pure information as I describe it? Are there any scientific studies on this topic? We know that the universe is constantly evolving, every single moment. We also know that this universe, which seems so static to us, is actually in constant chaos and must generate information at every moment... Could this explain its expansion? And even the acceleration of this expansion? (This seems logical to me, since it would intrinsically generate new additional information at every instant.) Could dark matter find its existence within this flow of information? So many questions occupy my thoughts, and yet I have no answers, no formulas, no embryonic scientific theory to develop... And yet, I remain convinced that there is something here worth exploring. If anyone reads this and can shed light on my thoughts, I would be happy to discuss it. (But please note, I am French, and my English is limited, so kindly take that into account if you reply... Thank you.)

[@Entrainant]

Ebook: 'Entrained Universe' explains what you are talking about.

[@BigMTBrain]

All objects and states in a game or simulation are information, which relate to, affect, and are affected by other objects (information), so if the simulation hypothesis is true - if our existence is a simulation - then indeed, underlying everything is information. I think these days, most physicists agree on this foundational information theory, even if they don't associate it with a simulation hypothesis.

[@rlstine4982]

I have a metaphor: the smartest living entity looks dead to us. Because it is so big that it takes so much time for it to process an input and deliver its output, that it would appear to do absolutely nothing from an external bystander's point of view.

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

I mean, a lot of plants start looking as intelligent as many animals once you watch them growing and exploring and climbing and fighting each other in time laps videos. Our perception isn't just limited by seeing a narrow band of the light spectrum or hearing limited ranges of sound, it's also limited to rather narrow bandwidths for the speed of time as well as scale of stuff around us. We evolved to perceive stuff roughly between the sizes of a mountain and a grain of sand, and speeds approximately between that of a snail and a cheetah. Outside of these ranges our perceptions aren't very good, or even pretty much impossible. I think the only reason we can drive cars at speed is because relevant roads are generally long and straight, and other traffic is moving about the same speed as we are. So if you follow basic defensive driving rules, other cars seem to slowly drift around you despite in reality hurling along at instantly lethal speeds for your little meat shell. But if you DON'T use effective defensive driving, your reaction times are way too slow to be workable, and that's for traffic moving more or less the same relative to you. You pretty much can't comprehend the relative speed of cars going the opposite direction in the other lane, that go from kinda distant and slowish moving to whooshing past you almost instantaneously. We basically have no way to mentally comprehend the relative sizes and distances of our solar system with any degree of relative accuracy. I've tried while looking into making computer simulations of it.

[@garbarekw]

The smartest living thing by our standards is not alive. For a start, it exists at every point in time simultaneously. For humans, this contradicts the definition of life.

[@rogerphelps9939]

We are part of he universe. We can think. Therefore he universe can think, sort of.

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

@rogerphelps9939 That's what I always say, but without the "sort of", and in it's place the observation that I am the universe, or part of it anways, which means that the universe thinks. I can't say about it on some grand scale, but right here right now at this scale, it's doing so in the form of you and I.

[@Marvin-tpa]

It would probably take seven and a half million years

[@tyresefarrell]

I believe it’s something like flies to us, they seem so fast because their electrical signals in their brains take so little time as the distance is small, a being with a galaxy wide neurone might take 6 billion years to form a thought but to them time is relative so it feels like everything else is going very fast and to us the opposite.

[@johnboucher3795]

You might have missed the point about non-locality

[@tyresefarrell]

@ I know what non locality is, but if its a signal that potentially travels faster than light then either non locality doesn’t really matter or it’s works within non locality, and either way a mind like that would work at one set speed, and considering the size of things it would be considerably slower, so we’d be like flies thinking faster. It would probs be the best idea of a 4d being in our universe , it’s body would be in different points of time in a 3d space.

[@garyfilmer382]

We are part of the universe, we are conscious, thinking beings, a very small part of a greater, huge universe, perhaps a conscious and thinking universe, communicating by those ‘portals’ you speak of, Sabine. These are mind expanding things to think of! Thank you for another intriguing video talk, Sabine.

[@igoldenknight2169]

I’m a little voice in a vast space but I 100% want to hear MORE about this.

[@leoborgelin5954]

Watch the video again. It sums up nicely some of the research she's been pointing to for years. Hallmarking videos are worth it.

[@dmikelyn]

The more we learn about the universe, the weirder it gets. More to the point, the more we know the more evident it becomes that we don’t know much! I’ve been an amateur astronomer for over 50 years and it’s been a trip. It’s getting trippier. I’ve always been open to new possibilities but I’ve gotten more open as I have age. Clearly this is happening for you as well Sabine. Dare I say that if this happens for enough of us, there may be hope for all of us. :-)

[@Thomas-gk42]

That´s nice, thank you.

[@ashxoxo]

Doubt it though. By the looks of it.

[@christianfaust5141]

You are absolutely right

[@StealthTheUnknown]

The universe peoples (as a verb,) so personhood despite its apparently dissipative nature is an intrinsic property of existence. And if the universe can BE or even THINK, isn’t that basically the same thing as God? The transcendent eternal “personhood or thinking” that is existence and the cosmos and its energy

[@luizmonad777]

@@StealthTheUnknown Yes, it is the same thing as God, we don't have consciousness, we don't think. The universe is a perfect mechanistic machine, except when you get very closer, then it becomes all nebulous as you can't predict what God is thinking. Its God that's doing the thinking, the computer that does the computation, we're just programs, algorithms and data, the human brain is a pattern seeking machine, if we think we're thinking that's because we're replicating a pattern, thus the universe is actually thinking, not us, we're mere meat machines. Also, if you go for a more practical approach, who collapses the wave function ? something does, as we observe only 1 reality, not all of the possible outcomes ? we only observe weird quantum effects when we disconnect cause-effect of a smaller system, aka, a single photon for ex, thus we observe the wave-function collapsing, thus if we consider the entire universe entangled, something must be collapsing it, what it is ? Intelligence, that's what collapses the wave function. Intelligence is outside brains, everything has intelligence, any information system is capable of doing it, its an universal property of the universe, maybe the only property, all the others can be built as algorithms and data on top of it. (we can almost do that with the entirety of mathematics) . Brain is merely an organ to concentrate information and create coherency, the rest is emergent behavior that comes from the laws of the universe.

[@KipIngram]

Baumgarten's paper explains this non-locality thing perfectly too. Space is not fundamental. Some relationships have to do with the emergent spatial dimensions, and those are restricted to speeds less than light (the paper produces this result too). But not ALL relationships have to do with the spatial dimensions, and the ones that don't have no speed at all - they're just connections between degrees of freedom. Perfect explanation for entanglement, wormholes, etc.

[@anthonyx916]

Thinking is much more than the transmission of information; it is also the processing of information - storage (persistence of state), retrieval, and the application of some sort of logic... assigning weights to inputs and evaluating them to produce some output which could then be the input to some other evaluation. It doesn't rule out the possibility that the universe might think, but certainly "raises the bar" on prerequisites.

[@TehJumpingJawa]

Those are all higher complexity constructs built upon the fundamental requirement of information transfer.

[@pilgrim4768]

Thinking is an illusion. The transmission, dissemination, evaluation, and storage of information via the bodies sensory inputs is all done before you even begin to think. Logic, reason, intuition are the steps we take to ensure survival and reinforce our experiences in the environment we are bound to.

[@ronnykarlstetter6734]

@@TehJumpingJawa Yeah, like the different components of a computer: specialised, modular task assignment.

[@replica1052]

what can foresee movement is intelligence -as in from where brains origin (earth as an entity is alive -by follows the galaxy and the universe )

[@chiaracoetzee]

As far as I can see, locality and size don't create any special problems for storage and processing. Pretty much any time that a photon hits a hydrogen atom in deep space and gets absorbed, transitioning to another state, that's storage. And there are lots of physical phenomena that could perform thresholding and activation mechanisms (notably in the energy required to move electrons between orbitals). The fact that these *could* be used to assemble a computer doesn't mean that they are doing computation, but the potential is there.

[@DThron]

That the universe can think is directly observable - we think, and we are not separate from it, but made of it and run by its systems. Not to mention we can’t exist at all without all of the rest of the universe existing exactly as it does, so humans might be the thinky tip of the iceberg, but the rest of the universe is what is pushing our awareness above the waves.

[@SoftBreadSoft]

This is partly the reasoning why I stopped being 'so atheist' in my early adult years and eventually reasoned that, whether the universe itself or a nature of intelligence/life that precedes the universe itself, there must be what can be defined as a God. and with that lens a lot of things started making sense. So I decided I was panentheist. I know people on science pages generally don't appreciate religious texts but after that, these particularly struck me, as well as similar concepts in other religions like buddhism and hinduism. Philipians 2:~ 5 For, let this mind be in you that is also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God, 7 but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, 8 and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross~ John 17:~ 21 that they all may be one, as Thou Father [art] in me, and I in Thee; that they also in us may be one, that the world may believe that Thou didst send me. 22 `And I, the glory that thou hast given to me, have given to them, that they may be one as we are one; 23 I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be perfected into one, and that the world may know that Thou didst send me, and didst love them as Thou didst love me. 24 `Father, those whom Thou hast given to me, I will that where I am they also may be with me, that they may behold my glory that Thou didst give to me, because Thou didst love me before the foundation of the world.

[@max0x7ba]

More to Panspermia, There is understanding that spirit is anterior to form and shape, and the former gives rise to the latter. Forms and shapes are expressions of spirit. And that light waves/spirals carry information - its phase and frequency. The phase and frequency form structures and shapes in the quantum vacuum / aether - the waves/spirals cause density gradients that form mini-vortexes or tornados that escalate into far from equilibrium self-sustaining denser structures - giving rise to matter as we know it. That animating spirit affects phase and frequency of the light waves travelling through the quantum vacuum causing formation of denser structures in water, which are RNAs and DNAs. In other words, Sun shining on a distant rock with a drop of water is enough condition for life to form on that rock. Entangled photons and particles form instantaneous feedback loops that enable rapid adaptation and evolution.

[@melaniedeare5427]

Thinky tip. I like it. I'm a thinky tip, therefore I am. 😉

[@ronnykarlstetter6734]

@@max0x7ba ...not sure about the last line, but pretty much on-page. Maybe more like induction between higher-to-lower dimensions, but the mystery nevertheless!

[@max0x7ba]

@@ronnykarlstetter6734 I may not be entirely right, this is still an ongoing self error-correcting process.

[@EngineeredOutdoors]

I often wonder if we are just cells in a much larger life!! This is an amazing thought experiment.

[@JohnSmith-b4w]

1:02 "The universe is about 10 billion light years wide" I thought the (observable) universe was about 93 billion light years in diameter.

[@lemmingdot]

It is, Sabine made a mistake, but it's forgivable. :)

[@RichardJohn-u3w]

It is.

[@XionosOrigin]

Maybe she is reading from a prompter and misread "about 100 billion" or simply mistyped the prompt?

[@TombstoneBlues]

I was thinking the same thing and was very confused.

[@Thomas-gk42]

We just observe 10billion in the moment, 93 is an estimation about what we can calculate.

[@Alexandra_Fuller]

This is why you should spend time watching your videos. You are a non-dogmatic thinker, which is really great.

[@guitarslim56]

Why should Sabine watch her own videos?

[@cdprince768]

@@guitarslim56 Because that comment is from a p*rn spammer who only posts so that you click on their username and find their link.

[@FOWST]

​@@guitarslim56 The porn bot won't answer this question. It's programmed to copy bits of other people's comments and post under as many videos as possible before getting banned. Then repeat.

[@turtled361]

@@guitarslim56 you're responding to a bot fyi. Idk if these things just copy+paste real comments or are on some chatgpt thing that responds to closed caption data, but they seem to be everywhere

[@jamesisaperson9600]

I genuinely love that you make videos about physics and science in general in such a clear and informative way. No alternative motives, just the spread of cool/fun information. Thank you!

[@gofigur123]

Truly, would love to hear more about this and like theories and possibilities. Whether they end up being true or not, its about discussion and thinking. Both of which move us forward.

[@ErinMagner82]

Apparently we do know how to create wormholes; we've been building them for as long as we've been manufacturing spin dryers.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Heehee...

[@MyName-tb9oz]

LOL!

[@Easyrecliner]

In another part of the galaxy, there’s a planet covered in socks.

[@MyName-tb9oz]

@@Easyrecliner According to Douglas Adams in the rest of the universe no one manufactures anything any more because everything grows somewhere. Including nice mattresses.

[@cherylmockotr]

Spin dryers are not wormholes, they're the traps that keep everything in this dimension. It's the washing machines that are the wormholes, requiring a tithe every other cycle!

[@djanitatiana]

There's a beautiful concept in Zen called "Beginner's Mind" which recognises the flexibility and learning power of one's mind when first beginning to learn anything, and the subsequent loss of possibility once we contentedly classify a subject or fact as know. It doesn't mean letting your brains drop out by thinking that all things are possible all the time, but recognising and preserving the power of the initial mind state. I think your determination to keep an open and fluid mind on the big questions is wholly admirable and the path to great things.

[@andreasschroeder2873]

Wonderful❤ No purely subjective spiritual speculations (I experience it, so it must be real), no dogmatic "NO!" nicely cemented in the actual scientific understanding but using what we can know and don't know and opening just a space of potentiality. Yes, please more of that🤩🤩🤩

[@jaroslavkyprianpolak]

Untestable speculation is untestable speculation even if it is not spiritual. What good is it? If Sabine did a "science fiction themes" column, OK, I'd love that. But this way I don't know if she's serious about it as science (then have her suggest a method of testing), philosophy (then have her say what such a premise is good for), or spirituality (then have her say where there's any salvation in it). I like Sabine very much, but this disappoints me. I was about to buy the book, but changed my mind. BTW: Lost in Math is a very good book.

[@iambugking]

@@jaroslavkyprianpolakI am not sure if I am willing to say it in as strong a terms as you are, but do I find it worrisome the amount of baseless speculation this video is prompting in the comments… It seems like people see it as giving the go-ahead (even if not intended) for some very loosey goosey ideas

[@jaroslavkyprianpolak]

@@iambugking Precisely. If Sabine announced it as a sci-fi theme for an interesting book she does not want to write but likes to read, it would be absolutely OK.

[@carlbrenninkmeijer8925]

This stimulates Thought !!!! Thanks

[@FlammenherzHD]

I imagine it is similar to how mushrooms communicate with each other... the idea was unimaginable to people at the beginning. Even before the invention of the microscope, people initially made fun of the fact that there were small organisms that interact with each other until they got their own picture.

[@jcriley7695]

Close friend, I think I know what you may be trying to convey... "Mycelium, not mushroom, is nature's in ground internet, ancient, intelligent network connecting plants and trees, enabling them to share water, nutrients, and even warnings about threats. It’s a circulatory system for ecosystems, redistributing resources across vast distances and acting like the brain of the forest, ensuring life thrives in balance.. If you think about rainforests, they are so dense that an entire rainforest its literally a living, breathing biological sensory super-organism. That really is hard to believe to me but its true.

[@werner.x]

Since Alexander Niklitschek's book, Im Zaubergarten der Mathematik, told me, that we wouldn't realize a fourth dimension any other way than spheres in a threedimensional room, i tend to believe, that we're quite clueless about the room behind our own universe bubble and so we may very well just be a tiny, tiny part of a living body, like a microbe in our own body. Besides - a thinking universe is a well known theme in science fiction literature.

[@annavonarbor]

And we all know how often science fiction predicts future discoveries :)

[@gregorygant4242]

@@annavonarbor It has many times like from Arthur C. Clark ,Philip K. Dick (maybe) with the AI , Mind Control deception going on now, , etc etc . So don't ignore it man it can be so .

[@annavonarbor]

@@gregorygant4242 yeah, that was literally my point.

[@A1-ultra]

I have a hard time believing there would be a selection pressure of any kind, that would self-organize the universe into a thinking machine, unless there would be some way to translate those thoughts into actions. How would you propose the thoughts be translated into actions that would effect the universe? It would need to affect the universe recursively, in order to benefit the ability to think.

[@citizenwolf8720]

I agree with your position that there would need to be some type of selection pressure to result in a universe that could 'think'. Perhaps a universe that thinks could result after a long line or transitions (perhaps Big-Bang type events) whereby the conditions in universes that survive the transition event, favor an increasing possibility of thinking/information transfer. Note: I'm not necessarily agreeing with Sabines proposition; I'm just discussing your post. Also, I have no idea what factors would or might be in play that would select for successive universes with an increasing possibility of thinking. Or, to put it another way, I would agree with you in what you said. And I also wouldn't see a reasonable way for thought to emerge within a single universe. I think there would have to be some sort of selection pressure acting upon a sucession of universes.

[@Melechtna]

Given we have absolutely 0 ability to know what's outside, before, or after the universe, and likely never will, we have absolutely no idea the selection pressures, if any, that got us here to begin with. Even the assumption that selectrion pressures are strictly needed to reach a point of a thing thinking, as this could quite honestly occur inspite of a lack of selectrion pressures. This makes an unending number of assumptions. Human bias will get you no where.

[@samwellboy]

@@Melechtna In a sense we're talking almost pure metaphysics here anyway, in the sense that we're talking about things so far out of our ability to comprehend or measure, we almost might as well be talking about God. Seen from that perspective - assumptions, bias, self-awareness of that bias, and a certain playfulness with the theories we have, seems to me like all we have to go by. Which is fine by me cause it's fun and inspiring

[@samuelloncarbecominghumanproj]

This is profoundly interesting and I would love more episodes on this. Plato, who helped found the idea of mathematical physics in the Timeaus, thought the cosmos was a living being, and this yielded the idea of the World Soul, which the precursors of the scientific revolution believed in as the rational unity of the universe. Newton himself thought his absolute space was the "sensorium dei," or sense organ of God. If you consider the brain as microcosm of the universe, we know the brain functions as a whole, and that it is partitioned, and the two hemispheres can both ignore each other and work together via the corpus collosum. The simultaneity of the brain's self-interaction, on a cosmic analogy, would imply that the universe as a whole, or at scales that are relative wholes, like galaxies, may both be locally aware of other parts of itself and also capable of a total form of agency, the same way the human body as a whole is what acts, via its component parts, to produce a relative sense of singular, simultaneous because smoothly and rapidly coordinated, action. The medieval philosophers/scientists, who did a lot to found scientific cosmology, thus thought the cosmos was a real unity, and this implied intelligence, because the system is both in motion and seems somehow self-coordinated and interacting. It is fascinating Dr. Hossenfelder is exploring ideas related to the origin of modern physics in forms of Platonism.

[@jahbini]

I'd love to see Sabine interview a proton. Or maybe be sent in by Upper Management to repair a broken quark.

[@ronnykarlstetter6734]

Think of the stories they'd tell, of where they've been!

[@magilviamax8346]

6:12 I never got why so many physicists today define time as entropy increase. Entropy can inbeed decrease, it's just so immensely improbable in complex system. I read about a paper where scientists actually observed entropy decrease in really small systems. So truly the direction of time is defined by the direction in which entropy is more probable to increase, but time itself has nothing to do with entropy, I think.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

It's not time that is related to entropy increase, it's the arrow of time. The arrow of time is an emergent property that we observe in large systems, just like entropy!

[@alexwood9941]

@@SabineHossenfelderbut how can you use this fact to claim that time travel causality paradoxes can’t be produced from FTL? Surely relativity tells us in a more concrete way, that an effect could paradoxically precede its cause in a reference frame moving at FTL relative to the event, than thermodynamics tells us that time must flow in 1 direction, right?

[@drewdaly61]

Time is how we experience causality. We can measure it and give it value.

[@colinfreeth3762]

I’m reminded of Schrodinger’s negentropy and life, and the FEP. Got a reference for that paper?

[@colinfreeth3762]

Also the phenomena of elderly scientists getting too entrained into their patterns of thought must in some way be related to neural pruning? Increases in efficiency at the cost of efficacy. On the flip side there’s also the phenomena of psychedelic loving thinkers becoming overfitted in their neural networks, to follow Joscha Bach’s thought. Alas, philosophy is the subtle art of learning how to die.

[@NeoIrani]

This is one of Sabine's best videos! It's impressive that she does her best to remain a scientist (in the conventional sense today, summed up by falsifiability) while still exploring the idea that consciousness (she used the word "thinking") could be universal. Thank you, Sabine, for your wisdom and openness!

[@TRae7215]

I talk to rocks, so you know my opinion.

[@GabeBlack]

Geology Department? Those guys have all their drinks on the rocks.

[@delphinazizumbo8674]

Do they talk back, is the real question.

[@MrDirtclodfight]

You should run for political office!

[@nikolas4347]

If they are not talking back, you are okay my friend. For now.

[@-Nastika]

@@delphinazizumbo8674 wondering the same thing.

[@aaronjennings8385]

It's like asking if an electrical storm will toast bread.

[@Marvin-tpa]

Interesting. and what was the storms reply?

[@aaronjennings8385]

@Marvin-tpa something pareidolia-ish? It's a face in the clouds, not a toaster.

[@santyclause8034]

Burnt toast that glows like a lightbulb filament...

[@calvinsweet3400]

I think i saw that once on an episode of Gilligan's Island.

[@KelliAnnWinkler]

That is actually a fair analogy.

[@Epiphone1964]

I like this idea. It seems to fit nicely with Sagan's classic "We are a way for the universe to know itself."

[@slim5816]

'Thinking' at this point becomes very abstract. There are so many emergent phenomenon out there we cant imagine and would be blind to its deeper inner world even by direct observation. There could for sure be things of that nature going on. Especially within realms that extrapolate our current knowledge and limitations. I do have my own ideas of that nature. As long as you practice intellectual honesty to keep yourself in a realistic framework and dont start to actually believe those ideas despite potential bias I think this is perfectly fine and more scientists should do it.

[@noelwass4738]

I do agree with your comment on emergent phenomena that we cannot understand. On the other hand, I don't see any problem with some but not all scientists believing some ideas that are out of whack with most in the scientific community. The trend is to follow mainstream science and always there will be some with unorthodox ideas. People make up their own minds and scientists are generally very critical of anything unorthodox and particularly ideas that cannot be tested.

[@slim5816]

@@noelwass4738 Yeah most of these ideas are unfalsifiable which makes them pretty much impossible to work with. Really hard to come up with experiments for those.

[@That1SupportiveFriend]

If you zoom out far enough, the stars and galaxies starts to form filaments and clusters that looks similar to a brain. So in a cosmic sense, we’re the universe looking in on itself and to think about itself.

[@maryhuckaby2239]

I've noticed that resemblance, too. It's striking.

[@iambugking]

It seems like the idea proposed in the video would render this similarity irrelevant, as it is built upon the idea that locality is not as important as we think. It is a provocative image, but it muddies more serious considerations.

[@centerfield6339]

We aren't the universe. You're confusing part and whole.

[@andregustavolr2k22]

These filaments look like neurons, yet the exchange of information would take an eternity, so intelligence would be impossible at this scale.

[@luck484]

This is objectively true. The structure does appear to exist on these two size scales and others. The structure appears to be useful. In biology there is debate about sensory organs such as eyes and why they came to exist, what problem did they solve, assistance in escaping predators or assistance in finding food. I am guessing the question is not useful. There is an assumption that a human point of view might have relevance. The big five who, what, when, where, why and how, all have an implicit observer. That feels like a bias which is the foundation of confirmation bias. Humans can figure out when an answer to a question is true, correct, complete, accurate, precise, etc., however the questions result from perception.

[@jonbmia]

I always love every video you make. You are one of the greatest science communicators, and one of the few who is also a deep thinker. Keep shining that light... 💯💗

[@metchoumetch3176]

As a biologist i've always been surprised by the "glial" structure of the universe. But i think "comparison is not reason"

[@Elisabeth-id6lc]

Maybe because both structures seem to be fractal , even at so different scales.

[@MyName-tb9oz]

I've always thought it was hilarious that people love to speculate about the existence of alien life forms and yet they refuse to accept that life could come in varieties that are so different from what we know that we wouldn't even recognize them as being alive. Simple people like simple answers. Complexity make them confused and angry. They fear what they do not understand.

[@MrBottlecapBill]

@@MyName-tb9oz You can't blame them. As of yet nothing like that has been discovered by us OR discovered us. All the wishful thinking and theories have proven fruitless so far. Of course.......we still can't actually go anywhere to look so speculation will keep us in the grey until we change that. I wish they'd cut back on the funding for theories of everything and spend that money for direct space travel technology. I'm tired of guessing.........I'd rather know.

[@MyName-tb9oz]

@@MrBottlecapBill I certainly don't blame anyone for approaching the idea with a reasonable level of skepticism. But, as a poster in another thread has done, to immediately dismiss the idea with no good evidence either way simply because they think it is some elaborate disguised argument for the existence of God? Well... That is religious thinking under a different name. I think there would be an abundant amount of funding for both areas of research if the psychopaths would stop trying to kill everyone who isn't them. Honestly, at this point I'm beginning to wonder if the lack of progress in science isn't intentional. Someone should have made some kind of significant discovery in the last few decades, no? Even if just by chance! It's as though the only people getting funding are people working on theories of underwater basket weaving.

[@reekinronald6776]

@@MyName-tb9oz I think it's probably a greater chance that life is actually reasonably similar to what we find on earth, especially intelligent life. There are certain strict limitations to life, were ever in the Universe, certain elements will be better suited to reactions and complexities of live, for example Carbon. To cold an environment for life growth and mutation would be too slow, to hot an environment elements would quickly react. Evolution will always be a necessity to push the organism farther. For evolution to work you must have a life span of the individual not too long but not too short. Intelligent life will need appendages to hold things. It will need just the correct number of appendages, too many and it's a waste of energy, to few and it's handling ability will be limited....etc...etc.

[@MrLocokrang]

This is beautiful, most egos can not fathom to be compressed into an infinitely small unit of function of the perfect oneness, many are not ready

[@frankshailes3205]

And the oneness is a multiplicity.

[@WaelKasimDesignStudio]

The 'universe thinking' is an understatement, dare we go even further and say 'the universe is conscious' ? Thank goodness for mad scientists and the ones who never stay or get sane as they flourish (don't want to call it aging) .. Bravo Sabine!

[@AilantdSikowsky]

I think consciousness, as the feeling of oneself, is easier, and more common than intelligence in nature.

[@WaelKasimDesignStudio]

@@AilantdSikowsky So, we have 3 concepts to distinguish, in 2 different environments; thinking, consciousness, intelligence and whether they're the same experience in nature (as we know it) and in the universe (which we know much less about) .. I think consciousness is the essence of thought/thinking - if you think you must be conscious, and if you're conscious you must have the ability to think .. intelligence, in my opinion, is a mode of thinking, and all three - thinking, consciousness & intelligence - are bound to our experience of nature .. but in the universe they are probably different .. so yeah, I might agree with your statement, but when I approach it from what Sabine was talking about in the video, I tend to think that the universe is conscious, thinking, and intelligent albeit in ways other than how perceive in nature .. our nature. On a similar note, take the recent perplexity of discovering that the universe somehow stopped expanding - contrary to common belief - which got scientists scratching their heads, perhaps even panicking because it disrupts what needs to be established and normalized so that they can move on to the next piece of the puzzle .. problem is, they tend to think linearly (literally), that if the universe is expanding, it must be doing that continuously and at the same or even faster rate .. but that is not necessarily, well necessary; what if the universe simply pulsates? expands and contracts? akin to breathing! What I liked most about this particular video of Sabine's is that it gave me a glimpse deeper into a somehow obscure mode of thinking - a design thinking of sorts, which is more circular than linear.. perhaps the title of the book she referred to 'Existential Physics' was a reflection of that mode of thinking which we need much more of for science to be scientific again ..!

[@frankshailes3205]

@@WaelKasimDesignStudio Sentient or sapient.

[@arctic_haze]

I would like to see the Universe looking at itself for a first time in a mirror

[@aaronjennings8385]

Self aware?

[@arctic_haze]

@aaronjennings8385 You got it!

[@JK_Vermont]

Reminds me of this quote from Carl Sagan: "The cosmos is within us. We are made of star stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself"

[@DeePPurPleLemoN]

Well, we are literally part of an universe emerged from the universe, and more or less, able to think... So thats allready true :)

[@diga4696]

Looking at itself it's probably thinking: "you can do better"

[@solsticeprojekt1937]

I absolutely want to know more about this!

[@peachsunrise]

This is such an interesting concept, I love your channel

[@blanders98273]

You have the best science channel, Sabine. Thanks so much for keeping it real.

[@symmetrie_bruch]

this video is pretty much the opposite of keeping it real

[@DeclanMBrennan]

@@symmetrie_bruch Agreed. And sadly all this engagement in the comments may tempt her into more ungrounded speculation in the future away from the solid rational skeptic science communication that has been her forte.

[@gregoriomoralesmorales5965]

Quiero felicitar a Sabine por la nítida claridad con la que nos introduce en un tema tan exótico. Enhorabuena.

[@tkthompson9683]

First I want to thank you for providing daily learning opportunities to me for over 3 years now, I am truly grateful! Second, I’ve had a theory about this since I was young. Really a framework of sorts. I’m a very amateur scientist but I’ve put together a full write up of my theory with proposed testable hypothesis in the fields required. I understand that you are a very busy person but if you ever had the time I’d love to share it with you just to get a perspective with more expertise. In any event keep on being an amazing science educator!

[@yeroca]

If the connections are too small for any particle (including photons, presumably) to pass through, how would information travel through it? I can picture a tangled up Universe, but I can't see how the tangles provide a method of thinking without information transfer. Unless the links themselves _are_ the information, and they form spontaneously?

[@markdowning7959]

My perplexity exactly. What use is a wormhole that's so small. How could we measure it even - wouldn't it fall beneath the Planck limit? Sabine, you often emphasise that just because some maths exists doesn't mean that it corresponds to anything real. 🤔

[@nomadicsynth]

That's a great point. I wonder if gravitational waves would go through.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Information doesn't require matter. Think about gravitational waves. They contain information, in a rudimentary sense: they tell us something about the events that created the gravitational waves. So that's not a lot of information, but it is information, and it is entirely a property of space-time, not of matter. If space-time has non-local links you basically get deformations in one location pulling or pushing (sending information) at some place that appears to be very far away.

[@oscargr_]

​@@SabineHossenfelder How do you create a gravitational wave without matter? Isn't it matter that that curves space-time?

[@tommyhawks856]

@@oscargr_ My thought would be that it took matter to create the gravitational wave, but it is the wave itself that carries the information.

[@501Mobius]

Not only can the universe think it has a sense of humor and can create sarcastic outcomes.

[@davidalexander7896]

Do you mean Elon Musk?

[@ronnykarlstetter6734]

Yeah, looking at Mars podcasts, where either something went seriously wrong according to radiation levels, or at least that terraforming just lost by a hair (no magnetic field/ tide-inducing satellite): reposte to Musk?

[@huwpatt3817]

.... more wry than judgemental )

[@4draven418]

Well, that certainly puts a different perspective on 'I think therefore I am'. Lots of ramifications but a fundamental one (for me that is) might be that if the universe 'thinks' are 'physical laws' the way they have to be or are they a 'choice'.

[@Soguwe]

Die Idee ist wirklich interessant, Sabine. Absurd, aber interessant. Und es ist eine hervorragende Idee einfach mal ein bisschen Absurdität zu leben um dem Alltagstrott zu entweichen

[@symmetrie_bruch]

ist es das? erinnert mich eher an einen bekifften 14 jährigen. und ist auch nicht gerade ne neue idee. kann man ja alles machen. aber dann kann man sich andererseits auch nicht beschweren das stringtheorie nicht weissenschaftlich sei

[@Soguwe]

@symmetrie_bruch als ob ein bekiffter 14jähriger weiß was non-lokalität ist oder sein kann

[@symmetrie_bruch]

@@Soguwe mein 11 jähriger neffe weiß das. und warum auch nicht? 14 jährige sind mit schnellerm internet und smartphones aufgewachsen. und selbst ich mit fast 40 wusste das in dem alter.

[@Soguwe]

@@symmetrie_bruch manche Leute erfinden wirklich den letzten Schwachsinn um klug zu wirken

[@djayjp]

1:03 No, the **observable** universe is about 90 billion light years across.

[@bipmix]

I thought there was something odd about the 10 billion year estimate...

[@djayjp]

@bipmix To be clear, the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years, but space, overall, has expanded faster than the speed of light.

[@KelliAnnWinkler]

Yeah, that one caught my attention also.

[@amihartz]

No idea why anyone would make such a bizarre mistake given that the universe is 13.8 billion years old so it's not possible for the observable universe's radius to be less than 13.8 billion light years. In reality it is much larger due to the rate of expansion, but the idea someone could think it is smaller, that is indeed very strange, even as a mistake.

[@frankshailes3205]

@@djayjp Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (relative to something else). If you think space is nothing, then FLT travel is possible by "deflation".

[@PraxisPrepper]

The universe definitely can think. You and I do it all the time. Wrote this before watching the video, looking forward to seeing it. I generally am impressed by what you put out here. :)

[@dantescalona]

What I take the most out of these conjectures is that in fact we don‘t really truly comprehend what certain processes wholly entail, or at least we are biased in the constrictions of language. In that sense, of course the cosmos cannot „think like a human can think“, but informational integration of some sort is entirely possible in large scales of space with large enough spans of time. And the cosmos has both. It’s Boltzmann brains all the way down!

[@Deletirium]

Very well stated, and I agree. Nice reference too. Lol.

[@cuthbertallgood7781]

Informational processes are almost certain. That is completely different than what we define as "thinking" in human terms. Changing the definition of a word to mean anything we want isn't very interesting. "I define thinking as nuclear fusion. The sun uses fusion, therefore, the sun is thinking."

[@MsHumanOfTheDecade]

@@cuthbertallgood7781 it's more philosophy than science obviously, thinking is a very poorly defined word. so is consciousness and so on.

[@dantescalona]

@@cuthbertallgood7781 I‘m sorry my comment seemed too random for you. In the video, to which these comments are attached, it was argued though how the same fundamental processes which give rise to reality, thinking and everything else as we know it, could also give rise to comparable emergent phenomena on larger levels of organization of matter. I’m quite sure it’s still a hard bargain with anyone who isn’t aligned with (super)determinism anyways. But by all means, please define „thinking“ (in human terms or whichever of your choosing) and then we may carry out the discussion from there.

[@Jsouthwick]

Sabine i really love your courage to educate us all on many topics, you are fair and balanced, will admit when when you are wrong, thank you so much!

[@bentdev]

Thank you Sabine and team. This is one of the best. Felt like it had.. heart put into it. Bravo.

[@Matthew-bz5nw]

This is a wonderful summary, well done being open minded and drawing a clear boundary where our knowledge is instead of using your perspective to potentially limit our future knowledge ❤️

[@lithoidsapient]

From a Photonic perspective, the time required to cross the entire universe - is equal to zero. If the Universe is a sentient system then it has instant access to all the data, and there is no concept of past or future in a time-zero computing.

[@polkad3v]

The universe as a sentient system would be using the photons as something like neurons signaling? The universe would not be the photons in that case, so like us it would have to wait for the signals to travel.

[@oscargr_]

Neither the "sender" nor the "receiver" of the signal are in the reference frame of the photon.

[@cherubin7th]

@@polkad3v Our thinking boils down to electromagnetism (like the chemicals and electrical signals push each other with that), electromagnetism is at the speed of light, but our thinking is not.

[@polkad3v]

@@cherubin7th Yeah.

[@jimmorrison2657]

This is daft. The universe is too big. Let's say one thought is like one photon crossing from one side of the universe to the other. This would take about fifteen billion years. The same time as the age of the universe. So the universe would have had one single thought since it was formed. Some similarities are just coincidences.

[@ravdobikjarb93]

I appreciate your take and willingness to open up to other perspectives. I study biology, but topics like this make me want to go into quantum physics. Thank you.

[@OneLine122]

The Universe told me it wasn't thinking.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Then tell her/him it should shut up.

[@emanuelececcon8946]

really good Sabine, dream or try steps into the unknown is the best way to keep the brain young, anyway the universe with his filaments do resemble a lot a neurons system, if you take a picture at the proper scale. Your book is amazing thanks to have written it

[@Thomas-gk42]

💯

[@Toxicpoolofreekingmascul-lj4yd]

I saw a rock in a river that resembles a penis, can it make babies?

[@myhalong]

If a system uses a transmission method without local transmission, it no longer needs galactic filaments

[@Godwinsname]

I commend you wholeheartedly for your conscious choice to strive for openmindedness. Superb! It's one thing I always admired in my father. He was 85 but could still be totally excited about a new theory about it all and change his mind on things long held.

[@greensombrero3641]

“May day, may day, we are sinking!” “Hello, this is the German coastguard…” “…What are you thinking about?”

[@happyelephant5384]

Classic

[@JohnSmith-op7ls]

“The Universe” is just a term for everything. We’re in that everything. We can think. The Universe can think.

[@tommyhawks856]

Our brains carry and transmit thought, but our foot does not. I will admit that our foot can send a message to others, and the message would be understood, but the foot did not create the thought.

[@ronnykarlstetter6734]

@@tommyhawks856 Actually, they're starting to think general body tissues contribute to dreams, which would make them participants in the thought process. And for the spiritists, I had a dream that vividly presented a cell as experiencing its microscopic life with remarkably similar consciousness to ours (also an incrementally deeper level in Indian meditation).

[@AndiWard]

It's that basic, no idea why some people have to complicate it.

[@derbygagnant7458]

​@@AndiWard Because it is illogical. What you attribute to the parts cannot be attributed to the whole. With your logic, I am heterosexual so the universe is heterosexual. A piece of the cake is not the cake because the whole cannot be reduced to a part. You can say "don't touch my body" to talk about your arm, because it's simpler, but it does not mean that your arm is literally your body. Your body is by definition the whole. If you isolate/substract something, it is not anymore the whole. A=The Universe B=Your brain. A=A. A≠B. You cannot say if B something, then A something. There is nothing complicated about this, except if you have an IQ lower than 100.

[@RealistReviewer]

I am not separate from the Universe, this is impossible. I think, therefore the Universe thinks, so yes the Universe thinks in billions of minds.

[@MrStevos]

Obviously, I'll have to think about this... !

[@t.c.2776]

The first Possible ERROR Human's make might have been to equate Human's Concept of TIME and Distance to "The Universe" which is probably endless and timeless as we can't see beyond our own limitations of equipment, not being an educated PHD in any science, I have always seen the Universal WEB structures to appear as if they were Neuron connected by Synapses... IF the Universe is Expanding in all directions because of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, or Dark Something Else... then how can there be this grouping that look brain like? Shouldn't The Universe look like Bird Shot shot from a shotgun? AND IF The Universe IS a Brain... that would mean WE are the size of a Proton or even a Quark... which would mean that every one of our atoms could be another universe... so the real question IS: Does Time or Reality, as we know it, outside of our immediate space.

[@brettaspivey]

That was the wildest video so far

[@josephsimpson4295]

I always assumed the socks disappeared in the dryer, having been turned into lint and blown out the vent. I never considered the possibility that they were disappearing in the washing machine. Thanks, Sabine, now I'll be counting the socks between the washing and drying. Great article. Keep up the good work.

[@TheGrassman451]

saying the universe thinks isn't crazy at all, its a beautiful thought

[@davemorris5377]

Well, both of those things can be true.

[@lwmarti]

I actually have a draft of an article that I started many years ago (and then abandoned) in which I speculated about the possibility of life based on gravitational interactions instead of electrical like we use. You could have forms of life that operate on time scales of billions or trillions of years. That sort of thing. They wouldn't even notice life like us gets wiped out by geological processes, gets whacked by a big comet/asteroid, etc, so quickly that we're just a little blip that they don't really notice.

[@MrCyclist]

Who needs Brilliant when we have Sabine. Love your ideas, Sabine.

[@shadw4701]

I heard that if the universe could think it would be unfathomably slow at it

[@georgebarrett7563]

I feel like that some days

[@hunterkudo9832]

Unless the particles it thought with were not made of the same stuff we are. And was faster than light.

[@pataplan]

She does address this point in the video

[@johnturner4400]

Pretty sure the universe is plotting against me.

[@lepidoptera9337]

It's clearly winning. ;-)

[@cherubin7th]

I feel the same way.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@cherubin7th We all do. :-)

[@Br3ntable]

I do enjoy your humor. It's nice to see you in a different garment than your usual.

[@Pinstripe0451]

Oh boy. Sabine is now entering the magical thinking territory.

[@bonmacg3630]

Thats what I was thinking 🤔

[@nicolafiorillo4048]

that's if you only read the title

[@BillyThetit]

I don't think you have anything better or less magical.

[@amihartz]

@@nicolafiorillo4048 The whole video is just a roundabout way of saying she thinks the universe is in some way nonlocal.

[@drednaught608]

No such thing as mystery... That straitjacket is so suffocating. I'm comfortable not knowing, but saying it can't be a certain way doesn't make much sense to me. What, do we suddenly know what's going on?

[@asmodean7239]

Thinking is much more than transmission of information. We can send messages to each others through various devices, but none of them can think really.

[@tomkerruish2982]

True. I believe she's only claiming that thought necessarily involves the transmission of information.

[@olegdragora2557]

She didn't say that the individual node sending / receiving a signal is thinking. The system composed of the nodes sending and receiving signals is thinking, not the nodes.

[@amihartz]

@@olegdragora2557 Does the cellular network think?

[@DragonBane2012]

You have grown. Good to see your mind opening a little towards The Mind. Once we fully embrace Mind (something I like to refer to as Being), we will have the ability to achieve Utopia. Most scientists seem to think they have to rule out the unfalsifiable. If you rule out the unfalsifiable, you rule out the Truth.

[@Jrel]

I never believed anything could entirely disappear until a month and 2 weeks ago. A month ago, a kitchen knife that I only put in either of 2 places disappeared overnight from where I left it in the first place. And 2 weeks ago, at the post office, a small piece of paper (post-it size) flew out between me and another man when I was flipping a couple pieces of paper in my hand over. It flew out from me towards him, and midway between us (2-3 feet from each of us) , it started falling and immediately vanished in midair. I saw it vanish and so did he. Grey carpeted floor so it was impossible for it to hide. We looked for it for a few minutes to see if it was on us or back in or under my papers. It was gone.

[@calebgriffiths9062]

Sabine alluded to this phenomenon when she mentioned washing machines.

[@DanielAriasLR]

Sabine, I think you are ignoring an important point in the comparison: Biology. A brain evolved following a functional path, it is the way it is because there is a role to play for the information that is transferring. We do not see the same happening to the universe, at least not in the "non locality" example that you presented. Let's agree that there may be an infinite amount of minuscule wormholes, they would have been created by random quantum fluctuations (even thought they obey relativistic laws), which may keep them open or may not (meaning connectivity its not always assured), but there is no evolution at play (a process of change that favours one state over other depending on its usefulness to the "being"). So unless there is a similar process driving the creation of new nods and channels of information (of which we have no evidence at this point), it wouldn't be possible. Also there is a philosophical question at hand: Why does a universe need to think? and if it could, there would be no external phenomena that could help it form an idea of what IS, unless we imagine the universe as always looking inwards, experiencing its own expansion. I can't fathom what purpose that would serve though (at least not from a living creature's perspective). Great thought but it needs more data to sustain itself. BTW, You have my admiration, I do not miss your publications, I am a fan of you style of presentation and knowledge. Thank you.

[@underwater5474]

Yes, biology is a story of emergent forces driving events in harmony with physical laws but not so well defined by them. We can't measure the potential energy of a face. Yet there once was one that launched a thousand ships. Reality viewed from a biology chair or a physics chair feels different. Words like "intelligence" or "information" don't sound quite the same. I understand what it's like to share an experience with a human intelligence. But an artificial intelligence? A mind distinct from the stories of our species? Sounds like cold comfort for anyone dying or simply growing old. What force drives humans to write so many songs? Based on their lyrics I would guess: unrequited love. Have the physicists and software engineers considered this profoundly important force in their models of artificial general intelligence?

[@sprightlyrandom1550]

1:04 Surely time dilation shows that the speed of information transfer doesn’t matter anyway, for example: in my 60 years someone elsewhere has only experienced 1 then from my perspective the signals in their brain took so much longer to traverse their regions than mine. It is therefore analogous that from our perspectives the signal that travelled 10 billion light years takes so much more time than signals in our brain.😮

[@Nathan-vt1jz]

This is another case of a scientist climbing a mountain to be greeted by a philosopher, monk, and priest who ask “what took you so long”. It very much akin to pantheism or potentially panenthiesm. This is one of those areas of science which is incredibly interesting, but really more a part of the domain of philosophy. I’m fine with this, but it’s not an experimental scientific theory (like a lot of scientific theories).

[@jaroslavkyprianpolak]

philosophy geek here: No, it's not even philosophy, in the strict sense of the word. What philosophical purpose would such speculation have? Thanks to Kant, philosophers can no longer simply invent speculations. It's just apparently untestable speculation. Philosophy also has standards. Such speculation is fine as a subject for science fiction. Or for fruitless debates ("pub philosophy"), or new age mysticism. If Sabine presented it as the subject of a sci-fi, I'd say "cool!". But this way, after she ripped apart a lot of other people's sterile speculation like all those string theory shenanigans, I was pretty disappointed.

[@robertlemonseed7075]

I don’t like how that Rober Jastrow parable is paraphrased and then used by religious people who don’t understand what science is about. In my head, a scientist reply something like: “Sorry guys, I was busy helping to build civilization via the scientific method approach of problem-solving. I brought you some cool tech to share knowledge on KZbin. BTW, my car kind of broke down… anyone got a spare flux capacitor?” Jokes aside, I share Sabine’s sentiment of this kind of emergence on (currently) untestable and incomprehensible cosmic scales. Looking at the visual structure of Laniakea supercluster, it’s easy to imagine it as a part of some massive organism. But I don’t think we’ll have any practical or scientific benefits from this; the scales are just too big and inconsequential relative to our existence. I just like the solace it can bring to a restless wandering mind.

[@felipeescopelli]

​@@jaroslavkyprianpolak you're bad in philosophy, that's all.

[@jaroslavkyprianpolak]

@@felipeescopelli Yes, I am inferior in philosophy! But I am still good enough to see a meaningless speculation.

[@richt7525]

Metaphysically speaking, in many ancient systems 'thought' is believed to be the movement of 'spirit'. I've always found that interpretation of consciousness interesting. I love the as above so below vibes of that theory- the universe as a giant mind.

[@voscarmv]

This point is reminiscent of Alfred North Whitehead's Process Philosophy (a friend of Bertrand Russell). He's one of the modern philosophers suggesting something as exotic as panpsychism might actually be physically sound.

[@T-bone26]

I'm always impressed when scientists demonstrate the intelligence to self-reflect. The ability to acknowledge you might be wrong and to keep an open mind feels increasingly rare these days, especially as we grow older. This is I watch her videos.

[@lakesuperioraquamanproduct1637]

"You could have a tiny wormhole in front of you but you're too big to go through" -- at first I thought you said "...but you're to BAKED to go through" lol relatable

[@peaceplayinsumgames]

i'm always baked when i watch Sabine

[@mixey01]

It's always good to keep an open mind. It's refreshing to hear that from scientists as well. Personally, I think the universe might be a giant sentient being-a creator of sorts. Who knows? I don't imagine it as a giant, bearded figure sitting on a throne, but something about it gives me a gut feeling. Somewhere, somehow, something deliberately caused the Big Bang and ensured just enough matter remained, slightly outweighing antimatter, to form our incredible material universe.

[@williamblain3969]

In my books, "The Cy Family Chronicles," Books One and Two, which will be released this year (2025), I have a character named Dalwyn Cy who converses with the universe through a complex math language he invented. He told his peers at a conference that the universe was a living, thinking being, and they scoffed at him. When the series is released, you can find out how and who he was “talking” to.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Will have an eye out for it!

[@innuendo70]

@@williamblain3969 Cool. I wrote a story with loosely similar themes a number of years back. In the story an atheist spends his life on a new mathematical model to prove the non existence of God. He develops a theorem and gets as far as proving the non existence of Russel's teapot. Then he dies and finds himself as a guest consciousness inside of multiverse sized brain consisting of mycelium and wormholes. In the end his former protoge uses his mathematical work to prove the existence of this God/afterlife combo, and creates a link to the afterlife through a mycelium internet gateway so people can chat with their diseased loved ones. It's an insane little story with drugs and religious references that got me in a bit of trouble for a bit. Apparently some people really don't like it when you imply that their lord and savior was miraculously conceived through a fungal infection 😬

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

My position is that intelligence is integral to existence. You cannot get order from chaos without orchestration, and orchestration requires intelligence.

[@santyclause8034]

Chaos might be emergent.

[@rayparent1]

Orchestration merely requires rules not intelligence

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@santyclause8034 *"Chaos might be emergent."* ... Emergent from what?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Orchestration merely requires rules not intelligence"* ... Rules are not chaotic. Rules are ordered, structured, repeatable and reliable. Ordering, structuring, repeatability and reliability all require "intelligence."

[@brothermine2292]

Prove it.

[@SuperLocrian]

Thank you, Sabine. As I grow older I also strive to continue to keep an open, sceptical mind.

[@rhqstudio4107]

ITS ONLY HUMANS THAT CANT THINK

[@beefandbarley]

🤣

[@GASNICABRUNATNA]

Sounds like cultist drivel.

[@usr-bin-gcc]

ITS ONLY HUMANS THAT THINK IN ALL-CAPS ;o)

[@ravenmad9225]

Most animals can think.

[@sin2Pi]

Awesome Sabine! Great to see u making such videos, but I feel u brushed over some intermediate steps, e.g.: 1. Tachyons: If they are the candidates for the universe's "thought" transmission, how does that happen? I.e. how would they interact w/ regular particles/matter? Would they lose energy & slow down as a result? But then wouldn't SR/GR prohibit them from doing that? Also, if they can be slowed down below C, then they're done, indefinitely, and without a clear generative process, the universe dumbs down to oblivion. 2. Re non-locality: isn't it true that one cannot use the "spooky" action at a distance to send a message faster than light? So, that means, non-locality wouldn't work for universal thought transmission. 3. Worm holes: ...again? Back to negative mass? If worm holes exist, why haven't we observed them, or negative masses for that matter? 4. Finally, the universe's total energy: Isn't it true, that the average total energy of a large portion of space/whole universe is 0? When it comes to a brain/computer, that is not true, thinking/computing consumes energy. Point is, if the universe is thinking, couldn't we tell by observing that the total energy is negative?

[@Chicmac51]

Galactic consciousness? Maybe. But this video reminded me of an old UK TV AD. A ship was in trouble and the radio operator was trying to make contact. He eventually got through to a German based receiver who asked "How can I help". The ship radio operator said "We are sinking." to which the German radio operator asked "What are you sinking about?" :)

[@henrymartinez2928]

Being open minded doesn't mean accepting irrational ideas, but they do make one think. That's why I like your videos, always makes me think and sometimes I learn something, if I understand the concepts. BTW, the Universe thinks your new outfit is outstanding.

[@seanoneill2098]

Thank you for presenting this information. Keep thinking and growing.

[@RealistReviewer]

There is no Unvierse only fields of energy, that energy is one energy with differing fields, waves, patterns whatever you want to call it, thoughts are just energy, the Universe is thinking and reading this.

[@ronimartin1245]

The universe liked your comment

[@cygnus_zealandia]

Thank you for your courage in discussing such matters. Ken Wilber compiled a book in the mid 1980's called "Quantum Questions" . It discusses matters that the founders of early 20th Century Physics considered, and wrote about, that was not about the "technicalities of what you find in Physics textbooks". There are parallels between their writings and your content in this video, Sabine. Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have also done some interesting collaborative work on quantum events within microtubules in neurons. But you already know all this Sabine, but some of your viewers may not have yet seen your videos about that. It's all interesting content about the "Great Unknown", where many of the most incredible discoveries probably await us. Nikola Tesla made similar statements when he walked on this planet.

[@davesradiorepairs6344]

British ship: "I'm sinking, I'm sinking..." German coastguard: "What are you sinking about..." Hahaha..

[@philipgotthelf642]

“Cogito, ergo sum!” as Rene Descartes said in proving his existence. “I think, therefore I am” when applied to the universe is “It is, therefore it thinks.” All the sciences are a quest to understand how the universe thinks… lol😂.