The Intersection of Science and Meaning | Dr. Brian Greene | EP 486

[@NightsideOfParadise]

Dude. This interview just sits here on the internet. At the cost of couple commercial breaks. All the cultural decay aside what a wonderful time to be alive.

[@ironjamesflint]

I appreciate your comment. Gratitude inoculates us from resentment and cynicism.

[@bakalimasudi393]

Yeah

[@juntus89]

Lol you can't afford KZbin premium??!

[@patrickwatkins7572]

NightsideOfParadise 1 day ago . i was going to be gracious, but i prefer the sarcaststic comment under yours. get a life

[@juntus89]

@@patrickwatkins7572 Bro, what? Lol your comment is so incoherent 😵‍💫

[@lailaknight6620]

Oh my God, Brian Greene, as guest ! Two people so dear to my heart! Two people who shaped my perspective of the world. Such a treat!

[@fletchergull4825]

Big agree

[@riphopfer5816]

Agreed! Brian Greene’s *The Elegant Universe* inspired to independently study advanced mathematics again in my early 20s after several very uninspiring teachers turned me off to mathematics almost entirely in high school. I became a (promising) short fiction author and was a Philosophy/Creative Writing double major at University, until I realised that my planned career path (teaching English or Philosophy at the university level whilst I tried to make a living as an author) had one fatal flaw: I hate the system of academics; I would not compromise my integrity and kiss arses for grants….and that was back in 2000-before I saw the great Woke Revolution looming on the horizon. Back then, they were still just a few nuts, here and there. But, obviously, now, I’d have to not merely compromise my integrity but literally sell my soul for success in academia. So I dropped out, went to a school with an accelerated degree programme in which I was able to earn a baccalaureate in Audio Engineering in 2 years. I worked as a mixing engineer in Nashville, TN, where my politics were irrelevant.

[@ScienceRevised]

Oh my god, two great stupids, both identified to their respective orthodox religions of their field, one to Christianity and other one to string theory with none of them having any real understanding of anything whatsoever.

[@rohanmisra7183]

As someone who has benefitted from Peterson's psychological work personally while disagreeing with him politically, and as a PhD candidate in Physics, this interview fills me with gratitude.

[@CompassIIDX]

@KaijuJeshi He won't be able to name anything. He has just been conditioned to believe he must disagree with anyone professing supposedly "right wing" ideas.

[@MCharlesPainting]

I'd be interested to know how you agree with him psychologically but not politically, given that we know politics is downstream from or directly caused by personality/psychology.

[@FINALB]

@@CompassIIDX Everyone is technically biased because we are humans, no one should agreed 100% with its political views.

[@lukedmoss]

Same. Gratitude and also heartbreak for me. Such is life.

[@mikemckelvey5062]

Please find a different field of study

[@beatsbysam-e3253]

These are my some of my favorite types of podcasts!! And just in time for the drive home from work

[@thermalrain_yt9725]

Same here! Just got home. Now hopefully I don't forget about it like I usually do

[@PR.Gokulnath]

Brian Green explain complex things in simple language which anybody can understand. A sign of genious!!

[@fterthoughts]

Peterson and Greene, what a duo. It always surprises me to see the depth of Jordan's knowledge it's as though he's addicted to the acquisition of understanding. Brian not only speaks flawlessly about his expertise but also has a deep understanding of existential ideas. I particularly loved the free will segment of this discourse. Many great ideas to be thought over. Thank you gentlemen!

[@Richard-gw2lr]

Listening to Brian Greene speak is like filling my brain with knowledge. He helps me understand so much I get stuck on as far as understanding certain things. Dude is amazing. His voice works perfectly as well.

[@shaolin89]

Brian Greene is one of the smartest people currently alive. So hyped to watch this one.

[@dimitriosfromgreece4227]

Love ❤️

[@tkwu2180]

lol. Not at all. Live him, great communicator but a million miles from the top in his field. Bless.

[@robertcapetola3986]

he’s smart, but nowhere near the raw IQ of Ed Witten or Eric Weinstein

[@pdx5744]

@@robertcapetola3986 so what about Roger Penrose?

[@pdx5744]

@@robertcapetola3986 Also who are your top 10 smartest people across all intellectual fields? In no specific order.

[@zeenkosis]

Here for Jordan’s blazer 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@mommaboombam3764]

Followed Dr Greene for few years. Nice to see science and psychology coming together. Fantastic

[@sharonrogers6541]

Spelled psychology. Thank you.❤😂🎉😅

[@pauliewalsh6875]

Do you believe I spelt 'unessecary oneupmanship' correctly? ​@sharonrogers6541

[@mommaboombam3764]

@@sharonrogers6541 ty for the correction

[@odmorzadomorza]

hard time IT produces

[@EelInggard]

Thank you so much, Dr. Peterson, for being a light in the darkness for us all.

[@V3NOMOUS22]

Brian Greene is perhaps the greatest intellectual mind of our time. I absolutely admire this man to the highest degree imaginable.

[@JJBerthume]

Not sure if I would go that far but in any case he's one of the best orators I've ever heard, very clear and captivating and simple but without even a hint of dumbing down. Just a fantastic communicator. It's interesting how not every great mind is a great communicator - it's always impressive and captivating to see both qualities present in a single human being. Rory Sutherland is another example of brilliant mind + fantastic oration

[@dustanhoff9292]

I’d say he is the greatest salesman of string theory, and is more well known for his books than his contribution to progress in physics!

[@davidb.e.6450]

In my opinion, that would be Roger Penrose.

[@DittyDafku]

@@JJBerthumehe is also just extremely likable as a person.

[@doctorzeuss5789]

​@@dustanhoff9292 He's had more scientific input than any of the other "science communicators." Unless you count Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose as communicators. But Brian Greene's work on Calabi-Yau manifolds and mirror symmetry laid the groundwork for how strong theory can be integrated into 10 dimensions. Whether string theory is real outside of theory or not, without Brian Greene it would not be nearly as fleshed out as it is now. Though his insights may never be realised experimentally, they are among the upper echelons of theoretical physics

[@rocketproductions1441]

These are two of the most articulate teachers on Earth, gaining insight through their respective fields, for free in front of all of us. I LOVE IT

[@PoolNabil]

Dude yes. I knew Brian Greene was articulate, but god damn his fluidity and command of language is awesome

[@connorkokora3014]

Watching Dr. Peterson recall the contents of the conversation is a perfect example of someone recalling the contents of a conversation.

[@LackeysVinyls]

Didn't think I'd see J.B. Peterson discussing quantum mechanichs but hyped to see it

[@vicp7124]

He did a joint interview with Roger Penrose earlier this year.

[@storyahee]

Roger Penrose and JP is one of my all time favorite. I totally get what Sir Roger claiming about why understanding is non-computational.

[@7alken]

@@vicp7124 then thats clear, okay ))

[@chilledadvocate8502]

Ain't it. I seen JP and Greene on the same video and went ..wait wtf.

[@MCharlesPainting]

He spoke about QM and QFT many times. He normally says that this proves that the future is unknown and the atheistic determinism of Sam Harris is wrong (meaning, free will is real). Seems to be the case, based on QM.

[@frankcandalisa3544]

Thanks!

[@julietbowden6189]

Religion, human behavior and theoretical physics are my absolute favorite subjects!

[@TheGavameck]

When I woke up today, I really hoped to find something entertaining to watch, but I didn't have high hopes. Then I saw Dr. Brian Greene and Dr. Peterson in the same photo. I couldn't believe it. KZbin didn't have to go that hard😂.

[@itsgalf]

I just finished watching Tenet for the first time and now this comes up in the feed. Excited to watch

[@Ch0pper]

Great discussion guys! ( I didn’t understand any of it)

[@skywalkergreen9012]

Dr. Peterson, please invite Dr. Eric Weinstein on your podcast soon. Thanks for all of the free videos you provide. I have learned so much from them. 1:50

[@אליאלבן-דן]

Eric is very interesting.

[@gsutherland3614]

that was one of my first thoughts first too! esp following his recent, very compelling, interview in which he discussed string theory

[@marcc16]

Should watch professor Dave’s recent video debunking those two brothers nonsense

[@pomtubes1205]

​@@marcc16the duality of petersons audiences

[@Gallowglass7]

Eric is flawed but also extremely important. I'd love to see a long podcast between the two.

[@jennifermommy9373]

Noice!!!!! Love that Brian Green is intelligent enough to see that Jordan isnt the monster the woke claim him to be and was able to come on the podcast and have a wonderful conversation

[@Kataleya-q8m]

What did they say?

[@zimzob]

I’ve never seen someone so vilified for things he’s never said nor done as much as Jordan Peterson has been.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

@@zimzob I know of some others, in particular Elon Musk. The lies about him are rampant.

[@alenaadamkova5322]

Intelligence isnt highest value, but highest virtue is the attitude, the willingness. He has the wiillingness, open mind etc.

[@adamthemyth]

Unlike Neil deGrasse Tyson.

[@kensears5099]

You inspired me to this meditation, which I posted on my Facebook page today: Where is time? To me that's a more interesting, even efficient, question than the more common "What is time?" I'm in a kitchen right now. It's a space, an environment, an enclosure. I can stand at the sink, oven or fridge, or sit at the table and have my morning tea, but in all these spots I'm still enclosed by the kitchen, I'm *in* it. The kitchen is neatly defined by its four walls, so that I'm either in it or outside it. You might say that everything I do in the kitchen is happening "in kitchen," just like we say that absolutely everything that happens anywhere in the universe is happening "in time." But where *is* this thing called time? I know where the kitchen is, but where's the Time-room everything's supposed to be happening inside of? How is it enclosing us? Has anybody ever observed its walls, put them under a microscope? Maybe changed the wallpaper? 😏 Has anybody photographed it from the inside and out? It seems to me, not. What if there is no such room? Which is not to suggest that Time doesn't exist. Just that it's not the sort of enclosure-space we imagine. Perhaps it's not even remotely a place *in which* things happen, move, change, develop while the place itself statically remains an enclosure... like a kitchen. "Space-time" is famously recognized as the dimension that makes our 3D universe actually a 4D one. Isn't that an interesting term, space-time? The way that physics tantalizingly unites the two notions without committing to either their identity or distinction? The term is more a question than a definition, isn't it, i.e., what are space and time and how are they inextricable from each other yet different? Definitions have a way of revealing how much we don't know as much as what we do. In that vein it's telling how we use space to define (extrapolate, metaphorize) time. How long does it take for me to move the tip of my index finger from one ear to the other? Well, let's measure it--go get a watch. Okay, go. I'm moving my finger now a-a-and, stop! Ah, it took four seconds. But what are four seconds? Four seconds are the distance (space) covered by the watch's second hand. You may in fact, precisely as logically say that the second hand's movement was timed by my hand as vice versa. How long does it take for a second hand to move across four second marks on a watch face? Let's time it--go. Okay, I'm moving my finger from one ear toward the other--stop. It takes that long. Both are the same thing, the movement of an object between two points. One we arbitrarilty call "motion" and the other "time," when really both are just motion. Or... both are just time. By an arbitrary calibration of distance and speed, i.e., distance covered by the hands of a clock at a certain speed across a field of marks, we've standardized this phenomenon of distance and velocity as Time, or at least the closest thing to an "enclosure" as we can dream up. So that now we find ourselves "within" the space of one hour as opposed to the next. Moreover we extrapolate this sense of enclosure and objectify it as a Time-room,--say, a tunnel or corridor--inside which everything that ever happens happens. Yet, stil, nobody has ever seen the room. All we SEE is distance, velocity, motion, change, development. I have a compelling sense the room isn't there at all. What we call Time is indeed the combined manifestation of distance, velocity, motion, development, change. At root, Time is change. Change doesn't happen "in time," rather change spawns time. No change, no Time. What time is ever measured, anywhere ever, in isolation from motion/change? So what, then, are you really measuring? Which is why a watch is the perfect metaphor, since we look at the motion and change going on there and name it Time: "Oh, look at the time! I have no time! It's time to go!" Which is subtly humorous, isn't it: because nothing is happening there that we humans haven't rigged to happen by our own devices, this prosaic, rudimentary turning of gears compelling a tiny metal bar to rotate. Yet we gaze at this creation of our hands (*on* our hands 😏) and it's a kind of hierarch--if not a god itself then summoning us to the altar of a Power transcending yet enclosing us in a merciless, frequently suffocating embrace: Time. And we hop at its bark...even though we programmed it to bark at us. 😄 We've objectified the combined phenomenon of motion, distance, speed and development into a thing, a place, greater than the sum of its parts. But maybe the parts really are just "parts," not a place enclosing them. Perhaps "Time" isn't the "unknown god" conferring on the parts their ultimate instantiation. Perhaps the "unknown god" is Another. "Time" isn't our environment. Our environment is Another. "For in him we live and move and have our being...." "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together...." "...sustaining all things by his powerful word...."

[@JJBerthume]

That was absolutely fascinating, I've had similar intimations on psychedelics particularly, but you put it very insightfully and beautifully. You may already be, but you should consider being a writer. I'd read your book!

[@romanavrana1782]

You obviously have much time to write a long comment like this 😂

[@moonmagnolia7]

Time can be perceived as a series of linear points in the various states of the multi dimensional universe we live in. Most people think of the universe or the space we live in as being 3 dimensional (height, width, and depth) or 4 dimensional, if you add time. However, I propose it has at least 5 dimensions, the spiritual dimension being the 5th. Most people leave this dimension off because most people can’t perceive that dimension. In response to your pondering about the enclosure or container of time, I suggest that this material Universe is the container of time. Imagine, if you will, that you are living in a higher dimension, perhaps a 6th dimension which is above our space-time (and spiritual) continuum universe and you’re looking down on our universe which can be seen as a flat scroll spread out that has a beginning and an end. From this vantage point, you know the beginning from the end, and everything that is happening in between simultaneously from your higher perspective. You are above time and time does not exist in your dimension or realm. In your higher state, you have the power to enter the lower dimensional space-time universe at any point, but you’d have to leave your higher dimensional quality behind to do so. Sort of reminds me of an ancient text I read, the same one I believe you quoted.

[@zivc]

Dr Brian Greene does say it in a way where it just blows your freaking mind, again. Pure conviction but without emotion ❤

[@lauraquigley6403]

Love this man! Nothing like two intelligent people talking TRUTH 🙏🙏🙏Blessing’s

[@Mk-qb2ny]

Quite surprising to see Dr Peterson having such good grasp of a complex field completely separate from his own. Those were great questions. And although I don't subscribe to the string theory, Dr Green is always a fantastic and informative guest

[@CaptainSurfy]

Not surprising, Jordan’s processing ability is insane

[@KirbyTheKirb]

Yay Brian Greene, love him glad seeing him on the podcast.

[@splitviewabu]

Amazing discussion. He's so masterful at simplifying big ideas and theories so that everyone can understand.

[@Venator1230]

Thank you both for the invigorating conversation, thank you Daily Wire for hosting.

[@ryanbaker7404]

Thank you for this, Jordan. Brian Greene is an ambassador of science, reason, and physics. What an enlightening discussion! Thank you both, so much.

[@Chertoff88]

I appreciate the respect shown to Brian Greene, love watching Dr. Peterson talk but when one has a guest its so much more interesting if the host does less talking than the guest. This was a great one.

[@seanthomas85]

Dr. Peterson's podcasts are almost never framed as interviews. They are explicitly framed as dialectical conversations. We should expect something approximating 50/50 talk time. I find it boring when he does podcast that feels more like an interview like his recent one with RFK. RFK did 80% of the talking. He challenged him less than he should have.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

37:00 First time I've heard him say "Oh that's so cool" and it was about cosmology. That's so cool!

[@COWBOY72ify]

I'm a new fan of All you produce Mr P. Thank you for your zeal and your ability to share and explain what you know. GOD truely has Blessed you beyond what most people could phantom to understand. I am using your material to Grow up as a 52 yr old man,I have issues that needs Loud confrontation. Thanks to you it's more likely to evolve into something great. I will be joining your academy as soon as I am able to commit the cost into my budget,which is very small at the moment. God willing I will not be down long. Also began exercising into wk 3,never did that before,shooting for 50lbs.....Again Thank you sir. May your desired and hearts will be fulfilled By HIM who rules all to HIS GLORY AND PURPOSE.AMEN

[@cahlendavidson2921]

Oh my God you finally had one of my favorite physicists on! Been waiting for years! ❤❤❤

[@GengarOP]

Brian Greene yes! Have him on again, this was great

[@LisaAntonelli-bz7ly]

This is the first time I've been exposed to Dr. Green. I found this conversation very interesting and edifying. I came to the same conclusion about determinism years ago but when I try to explain it to others I often fail. I'll refer people to this video in the future. However, I do think it's silly to look to particle physics and quantum mechanics for answers about human behavior. There may be parallels but I think that's due to the biological constraints of human understanding. We do not have a limitless ability to conceptualize (in my opinion) so we try to impose the same paradigms on very different phenomena.

[@matthewchrist9082]

I agree. Humans tend to try to overlay their own experiences and knowledge of things to unknown or undiscovered things. The origin of the universe, to which a lot of people assume it must have been made by a creator (which I personally do not believe nor disavow, as there is no way to really know at this point.) another is aliens, many assume they would look or behave similarly to us but most likely that would not be the case. For instance a bowl of jelly might be intelligent life somewhere in the universe. It’s all fascinating to ponder

[@Chillnel]

There is straight up like 7 hour long videos of him doing master class type things on youtube, not like a cam quarter in a class room like a properly edited documentary, check it out on a lazy Sunday

[@evanthestoic]

This is what the internet should be used for. Thank you Dr. Peterson!

[@autumnleaves2766]

Well, it was all above my head of course but Dr Peterson asked good questions and Dr Greene is an engaging speaker. I've always felt that there must have been something there before the big bang. Something does not come out of nothing.

[@walterp773]

I’m afraid it’s been demonstrated that particles do spring out of the nothingness. Similarly they also disappear.

[@CompassIIDX]

If you assert something cannot spring from nothing therefore there must have been something before the big bang, all you've done is shift the problem backwards one step. Now you have to explain where the thing before the big bang came from. And so on.

[@danielknull6086]

What a master class from Brian, did not expect Jordan to be such an astute student here either. This video was very impressive all around!

[@MrHugemoth]

I want another "Elegant Universe" TV series with updated science.

[@sean658]

The updated science is hidden behind the black budget/off the books programs of the government and are slowly released out to the public as they see fit

[@IdaaRamzi]

I’ve long awaited the collaboration between these two, two of my absolute favorites.

[@jamesmonty2963]

Anybody else love falling asleep to these two guys voices ???

[@tonycorrigan3719]

No

[@graydaniels8504]

Dr Peterson, thank you for this interview. I’m most grateful. As someone with a background in theoretical physics I felt compelled to put in the comments, a question that has long been in my mind. You triggered it when you mentioned in the interview our axiomatic presuppositions based on our macroscopic experience. The absurdities, we often refer to in physics that emerge certain scales come in the form of contradictions or violations of the law of the excluded middle. Logical structure, that we long assume to be true, such as the law of the excluded middle, is logical structure that’s derived from the very microscopic experience we state is incomplete. There’s been no defence of the law of the excluded middle that I’ve ever read that doesnt implicitly refer to experience for its defence. However, there are domains of logic, such as paraconsistent logic that admit certain contradictions can “exist” (whatever that means) and acknowledge them as being true. The question that is long been in my mind is to what extent do we import the logical structure derived from out macroscopic experience (ie law of excluded middle etc) and try to a apply it to so called quantum level where that logical structure may not apply. Or to say another way, how do we know that the so-called absurdities that we point to aren’t merely an artifact of the importing of our logical prejudice. Contradictions being absolutely false is a logical point of view rooted in classical logical structure derived ultimately from experience. So a circularity seems to emerge. Perhaps logics such as paraconsistent logics in which some contractions can be true, are the more appropriate at certain “levels” of reality. I’ve got no answer but felt compelled to ask the question. Maybe it is something you or another has pondered. Thanks for the space to comment and for everything you do.

[@moonmagnolia7]

Perhaps the contradictions exist because of our inabilities to perceive the microscopic quantum realties from our seemingly macro scale. If you could see that bodies of mass we typically see in day to day life as actually being energy or collections of atoms loosely bound with lots of space in between them and all the qualities of quantum mechanics available to them then it might make more sense. Just a thought from an energetic collection of ever changing entangled atoms. 😊

[@paykm]

Great to see Brian speak without interruptions.

[@Richard-gw2lr]

I've only seen Niel not interrupt 1 person. It was a woman who was infinitely smarter than him. She was older. Dude asked and shut up so she could talk. Even told him he was wrong a few times. Stopped him in the middle of his speach lol.

[@paykm]

@@Richard-gw2lr I really wish he didn’t interrupt so much. We would also like to hear from the guests he brings on his show. I get there are time constraints but let the guy get a response in. I have never seen that interview with the lady you speak of. I like Neil but I wish he could not interrupt people so much

[@nickmarzano7406]

First off, I have to say this interview is amazing. It's like a perfect meeting between two ends of the spectrum of reality. On one end, you have the expert physicist who deals in the fundamental laws and constituents of reality. On the other you have an expert who deals in the culmination of those constituents and laws: the human brain/consciousness/intelligence and how these brains interact/react to the laws and constituents as well as to other brains. It's great stuff seeing them trying to interface their respective intuitions about reality in relation to each others expertise. Anyway... I'm hoping I can get an actual physicist to read this and respond. I've posed this question and others many, many times on various science related videos, haha. I have to kind of go on a tangent to flesh out the question and my reasoning behind it, so forgive the word count. One thing I've always wondered, in regards to the "nonsensical answers" that arrive out of trying to blend QM and GR... the answers being "infinity." My question is... why is that answer nonsensical? What if that IS the answer? How certain are we that we aren't making assumptions about what we think the answer should be and aren't disregarding the correct answer all because we are misinterpreting what it means? For example... Based on pondering physics my whole life I've come to the conclusion that its a safe bet to make an educated guess that we exist within some sort of infinite multiverse. It simply has to be if you give it serious thought. I think the idea of "nothing" is simply an abstract idea that doesn't actually exist, except within certain parameters. Like asking what do I have in my pocket? Nothing. Well that isn't true because there is heat, space, air etc in my pocket. True nothingness can't be real. To imagine that the big bang arose out of pure, true nothingness seems to be a paradox. How can there be an effect without a cause? Quantum fluctuations bubbling up from out of nothingness? Those flucuations are something... and they're fluctuating within something.. and something has to be causing them to fluctuate etc. All that is to simply say that there has to be a multiverse.. and that reality, existence or whatever has to have always existed, if you really think about it. If there was ever truly NOTHING. Then how could there ever be anything? And since there clearly is something... it seems like simple logic to say that is enough to prove beyond any doubt that we are within something that has always, ALWAYS existed and always will. There are just eras, epochs etc of all different types that begin and end, but the overarching existence itself has always been. I believe just like there are different kinds of infinities, and some are larger than others... there are different kinds of infinite multiverses... and we happen to reside in one such multiverse that perpetuates itself using the mechanism of singularities/black holes etc. To put it simply, I believe our universe is one such result of a random dice role that happens within a black hole singularity. There are an infinite number of black holes forming. Ours is one that had just the right parameters to allow for matter to form. One in a trillion jack pot of stable balance. Most probably recollapse or become diffuse. Think about it, the universe seems to have sprang forth from a singularity. Imagine standing on a singularity within a collapsing star, as it collapses down, down, down, beyond even the smallest unit possible in our universe, beyond the planck length or what have you. From your perspective, you're close enough to it, that it doesn't just appear to be a non-descript point because you're collapsing along with it. The "POINT" is just what it becomes from the POV of our universe, our physics. I believe that if you could stand on one, you'd find that the point isn't the end of the story. If you think about it.. the collapsing matter cant just collapse inward, keep shrinking inward forever. Right? There must be a point at which that collapsing inward force meets an equal or greater outward force. What might that look like? I believe we have an example. The big bang. I think it's too strong a coincidence that there are singularities are both ends of line when it comes to the existence of matter in this universe. I believe that the mystery of how our universe can have so much stuff in it and become so vast is solved if you imagine taking a super massive star worth of pure information and "stuff" and inject it into a space that would be considered sub-atomic even to sub atomic particles. It also explains where a big bang could come from. So the collapse happens at I assume a speed near or perhaps beyond the speed of light, then it slams into some outward force: big bang. If you think about it, it's a perfectly dense object slamming and bouncing off of what is already a formidable outward force, making the collapsing singularity suddenly less dense. In other words creating space between collapsed matter. This allows that formidable outward force to seep into the space the lower density creates, the "cracks" if you will... with violent power and overcome the collapsing force of gravity, blowing it apart instantly: inflation. Then, if you just use a little imagination, it's not hard to picture how something like dark matter could arise out of such an event. Perhaps "matter" as we know it is simply the successful result of the collision between two separate universes, kind of like the sparks of the collision, made up of different physics than either of the two colliding universes or something like that. And then dark matter would be the remnants of the collapsing matter from the universe "above" or "before." It can't possibly interact, because it just isn't made of the same stuff. Completely alien physics. But it does share one thing in common with our matter, the very thing that brought it here in the first place: gravity. Then you could make another leap of imagination when it comes to dark energy. If the big bang is simply what happens inside a black hole, that means our universe is inside a higher dimensional black hole that still exists in the prior, outer universe. What would happen if more matter fell into that black hole? Maybe it expands? I mean black holes do get bigger. Also the collapsing singularity inside a black hole at the first instant of its creation has to be different than matter falling in after the fact, right? As matter falling in after would be squeezed and shredded down to it's purest form, just energy or information or what have you, not necessarily affecting anything within. Which is to say, it's not like matter will fall in and then land on top of us or something. Our matter was formed in very precise conditions of the collision of our big bang. Anything falling in afterwards wouldn't be made of the same stuff and probably couldn't interact directly. And perhaps the only effect it'd have is simply... MORE. More information. More space. None of this will EVER be close to proven. But if we can never know, I choose to make an educated guess that makes sense based on what we do know. So back to my question... if the answer we get blending QM and GR is infinity. Maybe that's the correct answer. Maybe the equations are simply telling us that you get a literal infinite amount of possible rolls of the dice for and infinite amount of different universes. In other words, we punch in the equations and ask it what is happening inside the black hole... the equation tells us INFINITY! Like... its saying an infnite cascading multiverse of infinite variation and possibility is the answer! And we think, nah that makes no sense. We do the same for the big bang. What happened before the big bang? INFINITY it tells us. Makes no sense, we say. What if that answer is as good as it gets? We cant possibly know any more detail than that because the answer is uncountable, so the equation defaults to infinity. We think it makes no sense, but the equation is giving us a clue that existence is literally infinite and we write it off as nonsense. And yes, I'm high.

[@Namdor2012]

STRING THEORY IS BRILLIANT!! look at all the grants and book sales....

[@fernie51296]

Would’ve preferred an interview with Penrose…

[@gungadin1389]

ouch

[@stephaniegagne1710]

Thanks to both of you, collaborators, colleagues, family, friends.

[@AFringedGentianToEnnien]

Now this. THIS is catnip for this science fiction reader and writer! I don’t understand it, but I love trying to understand and grapple with concepts just beyond my grasp, and I think it is very good for me to do that. “String theory” makes me smile because of the many associations I have with favorite science fiction books. My own work is very heavy on interpersonal relationships and how the dynamics of living, working, and serving together in space affect those relationships. But it’s good to have a background of some scientific understanding, as well.

[@sabotagesabotage7927]

From studying Topology and differential mechanics, I found the concept discussed here on entropy very insightful.

[@GeraldBaltimore-s1s]

Centuries from now Historians will use this as an example of one of the greatest comedy teams of the 21st Century, Peterson deftly setting up every punch line and Greene delivering with stone cold resolve. For right now a fantastic conversation between two of the smartest men alive.

[@CYBERJITH]

Great questions from Jordan Peterson,And great reply from Brain Green.

[@ravenptl]

Nice, love Brian Greene.

[@AurielArizola]

This gave me chills. I started taking care for my maternal grandmother, well I take turns with my step dad and mom, and one thing I've realized is that she likes to make us suffer consciously and when it no longer works, she feels like she has no life, as if her life is to make others suffer. I'm not perfect, and after awhile I meditated on my granny's situation, I realized that I grew up wanting to make my ex girls suffer, but now I feel conscious of what I was doing immaturely and what I'm not supposed to do because like they say: "Life is a restaurant and everybody's going to pay before the exist."

[@peterfaber7124]

I would love to see you interview Sabine Hossenfelder. That would also touch on a lot of psychology as she talks a lot about why so many physicists are going after dead end science

[@Mk-qb2ny]

Yeah she'd be a fantastic guest

[@MrChipMC]

She would explain some practical aspects of being a physicist 😅

[@zahighobeira]

Brian Greene and JBP in one episode? That's wild, even a dream come true.

[@TheFringedGentian]

As I am listening, I keep coming back to Carl Sagan: “We are a way for the universe to know itself. We are all made of star stuff.” And I realize that although I’m not a scientist because I have the mind of an artist and a poet and not a scientist, I understand time and eternity and matter and space from a profoundly theological perspective. I was raised in a fairly science-shy and science-skeptical religious culture, but the more I hear arguments from people like Spencer Klavan that the dichotomy between religion and science is a false one, that true science and true theology will always be hand in hand, and it is only false science and false theology that clash, the more I am just filled with wonder. The world is in such an awful state right now that I’ve been reading the Psalms for comfort, and the Psalms are full of this: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.” And with regard to time, I think of St. Peter: “For one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” And then Lewis says that we are born into Time but we are made for Eternity, and I think that speaking of timelessness without the theological understanding of Eternity is a bit out of our grasp as finite humans. Just some thoughts From completely out of her depth Ruth Anne

[@TrevorsRoom]

I been waiting for this Brian Green is one of my favorite physicists I've learned so much from the world science festival episodes, as well as Jordan Petetsons videos, you gotta love Jordan Petersons open mind in relation to all the different experts he has an open doorfor im excited🎉

[@rezadaneshi]

I'm 73. I have been a particle physics enthusiast for 40+ years. String theory was invented from the work of Gabriele Veneziano in 1968 as he was researching for his Dissertation and run into a 200 year old math book with a function written over 200 years ago by Euler, called the Gamma function that looked a lot like our existing theory's formulation for strong force. Fast forward, I have followed professor Green for over 30 years, but didn't become prisoner to string theory. I know nothing at all compare to Bryan green and Dr Susskind's math ... but it all came to a sudden stop in my know nothing brain when I concluded there are no singularities and I can forever tell you why and how... no quantum gravity and 40 years of funding renewed every ten years with a side note promise to give them 10 more years of funding and they'll prove there is a graviton. Respectfully and thank you for reading. I admire Bryan Greene 💜

[@Javed6129]

As a nobody, I also agree there are no singularities, since if there were they wouldn't be having this discussion. The only singularity I understand is God, he is the singular - the One, the eternal, the absolute. God bless you, such a great insightful comment - thank you!

[@rezadaneshi]

@@Javed6129 You're very kind. Thank you and since no good deed shall go unpunished, I suggest causality places change as an emergent of entropy, and entropy as an emergent of time. Maybe whatever we embody in the meaning of time, can not stop but it can dilate infinitely and that's enough time for it to break through perfect symmetry and Big Bang; bringing about entropy to take the universe to its infinite complexity and back towards perfect symmetry in a multi cyclic universe. We need nothing but time to create a multi cyclic finite universe. However if the universe is infinite, it didn't even need time and time becomes an emergent of an infinite universe. All heartfelt expressions of universe in all forms are of the living god, but not the end, since we still have time in our future to find more reasons to thank god.

[@bronxcheer5985]

​@@rezadaneshi They have Done the Calculations and the Big Crunch is Debunked. As the Universe is Expanding and shaped Like A Donut, Krispey Kreme i think, the Question Begged; What is the Universe expanding in??😇

[@rezadaneshi]

@@bronxcheer5985No one knows. I like relativity because it fits with what I think I know. Every unit of spacetime is made of an enlarging/shrinking ruler working with a slowing/ speeding clock in a seesaw that together total that unit of spacetime. If space grows, time slows down because of gravity associated with that additional mass and vise versus. So, only if universe is finite, it's space is growing with time into infinite space which is named infinitely packed because it's filled with massless charge less dimension less particles that become waves when exposed to time, and astronomically grow in size and get electrical charge, spin and momentum; and god particle (Higgs boson) gives them mass. New spacetime captured by unstoppable time from unclaimed immovable space. It's one possibly fun way of looking at constructive physics with a mindscope. (Einstein's thought experiment) It's a mental simulation without any paradoxes. Yet Sorry, 😇

[@walterp773]

So if I divide something/0, that is a mathematical singularity but because there’s nothing that can assemble 0 in the physical world, there’s no singularity?

[@slother93]

I’ve been a fan of these two for as long as each has been in the public eye. I’m pleasantly impressed with Dr. Peterson’s understanding of the subject and his excellent questions. I have no doubt that one day soon the subjects of cognition, consciousness, and quantum mechanics will interact at a technical level.

[@benjamin9779]

On the analogy between entropy and what Jordan Peterson sees as emotions linked to increased possible paths to get to an objective, funnily enough, I think if you model it mathematically, both come to counting the number of events that can lead to a macro state or the objective, depending on the context. Modeling this as a random variable, we are getting the measure of the events corresponding to the objective. So while I agree with Brian that physics is stripped down of any psychology, I do tend to think that a similar mathematic underlying concept can be used to model both (in some sense, the fact that we define a macroscopic temperature as the particular macro state we are interested in could seem as arbitrary as defining a human goal and ways to achieve it as the state of interest. Funnily enough, this makes me think of category theory, where is letters and arrows follow the same rules, whether their particular instances might be totally different, a lot of their properties and interactions will be the same, as per the corresponding category

[@kennethrobinson9829]

Glad to see a comment about jordan petersons opening question, yes I also agree with Brian on physics and psychology not having any kinds of causation with one another. I do think petersons question may not be totally incorrect. Gosh what a damn good question that was.

[@lilyghassemzadeh]

Thank you very much for this wonderful, thought provoking discussion.

[@spencerwenzel7381]

I know you probably won't see this comment but there are some interesting things here that would be worth adding: 1) Information and Entropy: There is a way to tell if a system is ordered. There is something called Shannon entropy and an ordered system can be compactified into less information than a disordered one. For example the information in a random string of letters would take more information to store than a string of all capital A's. You could compress the second but not the first. The more the information of a system could be compressed, the more ordered. 2) Photon Double Slit: The notion of infinite time and photons all existing at once is an interesting one. However the double slit experiment holds true not only for photons but all sub atomic particles, including electrons and protons. It is not just light speed particles that create an interference pattern. 3) Free will: I have never understood why scientists are so staunch in their declarations of determinism. Cannot conscious indeterminism emerge from determinism? -Atoms are not living but life emerges from non-life. -Atoms are not conscious but consciousness emerges from the unconscious. Atoms do not have free will, cannot free will emerge from the determined? We are atoms perceiving themselves, of course we can change our atoms.

[@jrcolonial98]

I’m not sure that the conscious can emerge from the unconscious. I guess you can “prove” this with induction. Suppose 1 atom is not conscious. If n atoms are not conscious, n+1 atoms are also not conscious because how could one atom make the difference? (This is not rigorous at all I’m aware lol) => if an atom is not conscious, any finite collection of atoms cannot be conscious. I guess that would suggest 2 possibilities 1) we are not conscious, its just an illusion (which seems self-evidently not the case), 2) the atom is conscious ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I dunno

[@JuicyJoy-p6g]

No, conscious indetermenism can’t emerge from determinism

[@Chillnel]

It's not like we don't make choices, or aren't conscious, it's that we were always going to make those choices, like we are following a road with many turns but we weren't ever going to make a turn that we haven't. Don't know if i buy it personally, but i have this odd sense when i look back that i couldn't have changed what i was going to do for sure, not because i can't change my past choices but because i know myself well enough to know those are the choices i made at the time for a host of reasons and who am i to regret or wonder what could have been. it's just the life i lived, could it have ever been different, maybe ? i don't know if math can tell us that. But it's oddly comforting idea anyway, maybe it can't quite relief your regrets, maybe it doesn't change who you are, but it makes you realise you are truly the self you were meant to be.

[@srcochran101]

This is one of the best collabs ever

[@amertlich]

There’s a fascinating tension between consciousness and entropy here. The suggestion that conscious agents-especially embodied ones-resist entropy (to some degree) while alive is accurate from a biological perspective. Your body is in a constant state of maintaining order, resisting the natural tendency toward decay and disorder. This aligns with the idea that consciousness plays a role in this preservation of order. When a conscious agent leaves the body (i.e., death), entropy fully takes over, leading to physical decay. The notion that consciousness ultimately governs the body, even if much of it operates on an autonomic level, reflects a view of humans as more than just their physical processes. From this perspective, consciousness is the organizing force, even if we’re not fully aware of all the ways it operates.

[@metamiz]

51:50

[@GlitchInTheSkatricks]

I love this reflection. Very well articulated as well. Thank you for sharing 🙏

[@TheBlackPS3er]

​@matthewkelso3280 god knew you before you were in the womb.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Not only does the brain require lower entropy(possibly the lowest local entropy in the entire universe) for it to work, the brain is also constantly thinking about how to lower entropy for other things. The entropy of everything on the surface of the earth has been lowered significantly by humans (at the cost of raising it elsewhere), observing the fact it is now full of structured buildings and roads, power network etc.

[@bannerlad01]

Beautifully put - I have been trying to articulate these thoughts for a long time

[@BandShoes]

Man brian green is so smart he is a joy to listen to

[@James4201Taylor]

I would love to see Brian Greene debate Eric Weinstein on this topic and have Jordan moderate the thing.

[@thatguybrooke]

Yes! 🎉

[@pjpyenta]

Epic idea

[@BrianHill]

Brian Greene gave a very clear and fundamental explanation of what is an intrinsically hard-to-grasp distinction. I enjoyed Jordan Peterson's self-deprecating reply.

[@enochkambangukalimbwe8099]

I just finished reading 12 rules for life. And Buddhism is that connection between science and belief. (In my opinion) I'd like to enroll in your school ❤

[@ungoyboy2006]

Good lecturer to have in Peterson academy

[@ianyoung6706]

I’m not sure we need string theory for quantum entanglement. At least I haven’t heard that position before.

[@leonardhenry6753]

Loved to see Dr. Greene gradually embracing the observer’s points of view.

[@Underground_Lights]

Dr. Peterson consider having Eric Weinstein on to talk about string theory's hold on the physics community or perhaps Curt Jaimungal from the KZbin channel Theories of Everything. I think both of these conversations would be worthwhile.

[@zimzob]

Curt has had Peterson on his show before

[@grzgrzl]

Jordan Peters can be precise in his speech. His first explanation of entropy can give you an idea of why some people don't like him. Dr. Brian Greene was polite, as always, not to comment too much on his definition. Richard Feynman said If you can't explain an idea to an 8 year old, you don't understand it.

[@djknox2]

I am not a renown physicist, but have a solid science and math education. My opinion is that we have no clue about the true nature of light, time or the origins of space-time. To say that a single photon behaves like a wave because of it's quantum probability distribution is just mathematical gymnastics to explain a reality we can't seem to grasp. I'm not saying quantum mechanics is entirely wrong per se, but rather that quantum mechanics is an attempt to explain something we simply don't understand.

[@andrew148]

We're 3 dimensional beings attempting to explain multidimensional systems and processes. Sadly I think it's very likely that we'll never be able to understand them, even if we could develop AI and quantum computing to a level which it could.

[@tear728]

Also not a physicist, but am an engineer with CS background. This is a reason I don't buy into many-worlds/multiverse hypothesis. Seems strange to interpret every point-mass of likelihood in a probability distribution as being correspondent to a different universe. Seems like a mathematical artifact to me - maybe that's why they decided to go with the Copenhagen interpretation. Why not interpret all probability distributions like that now? 😅

[@odmorzadomorza]

Sir Penrose just admit: QM is wrong

[@zombiejeannie6738]

I’m on wife’s account my name is Mike I agree with you as this is a big stretch I think this one gets disproven in few hundred yrs😂

[@djknox2]

@@tear728 Yeah I've got a nagging feeling that mathematics is a man-made tool to help explain the natural world, but that it falls short. Thus in a way its a low resolution tool trying to explain something that exists in higher resolution. It's kinda like trying to explain a soccer match while sampling every minute, or a great song by sampling every 1 second. For the most part the narrative is correct, but it can miss some very important events. Having said all that, math and physics manages to explain and predict a heck of a lot, and so I don't want to dump on it. i just think our understanding of the very small via QM is still rudimentary. The big question is whether the tools we are using will allow us to eventually get there, or whether we're doomed to not understand simply because we're not speaking the write language? Puzzling to say the least. As for the multi-verse hypothesis, who the heck knows?

[@1halnass]

I could have watched a few more hours of this conversation!

[@anthonypesola3294]

Entropy is time. They are both the irreversible additional of inertial displacement due to two or greater bodies interacting. This displacement, change in the inertial pathway, is always one way. There is no subtraction of interactions, regardless of relative inertial displacement. Two "things" interacting will never "un-interact". This increase in total interactions indefinitely is time. There happens to be a discernable rate.

[@sarahrussell9808]

@@anthonypesola3294 Yes, but also, everything turns over..... Think about dry ice; the entropy has increased to the point that it is so cold, it is actually hot and can burn.

[@anthonypesola3294]

@@sarahrussell9808 We call it a burn, but it technically isn't the same as a burn from heat. Dry ice damages tissue because it is negative 109 degrees as a solid - causes the water in our tissue to freeze instead of expand into a gas. It's frost bite. This has nothing to do with entropy, though. Entropy is often called the total movement in a particular chunk of space/time. It appears chaotic & randomly orderly - but only in the particular resolution of the system. Entropy is more than total moment though - it's not a thing. Entropy is giving us a hint of one of space's mechanics - rate of motion through it & the exchange of information in it. The motions & information of the fundamental things going on are apparently never undone - doing so just adds more movement/information from somewhere else changing the totality again. This ever increase/unchangeability of motions that have occurred at the rate space permits is our experience of time. We are just insanely both zoomed out too far from micro & to close for macro observation.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Great dialogue very good on Brian stepping out and about like this.

[@hollismallory2757]

The theory that entropy, or the tendency to disorder, actually causes the creation and maintenance of ordered systems, such as life, solar systems, to preserve entropy on a macroscopic level, is an interesting one. I remember reading about the idea in Dan Brown’s Origins.

[@alexandermilewski7850]

Makes me think of Novelty theory

[@Mk-qb2ny]

Yes. Nature likes processes that produce maximum entropy which are often achieved by local complexity; in creating something "ordered", immeasurably more disorder (entropy) in grand scale has to be created.

[@MartinBrunoSar]

Love Brian, love Jordan. This will be a treat

[@jessemontano762]

holy shit. This is what KZbin is for. This might be the only podcast worth watching. I will gladly waste my life watching. Podcasts are trash. Podcasts are burnt out

[@sagar696]

Oh the struggle. The struggle to reconcile the irreconcilable. The difficulty of overlapping the objective with the subjective. The struggle to find any gap to squeeze the realm of abstract into the realm of physical. The struggle to find a ground on which 2 very eloquent people from different worlds can talk using words that don't mean different things in their respective worlds. Joy to watch this honest and respectful attempt.

[@comedyriff5231]

The debate around free will is fundamentally flawed, especially when people claim, "You don’t have free will." But what exactly does "you" refer to here? Are we to believe that subconscious processes aren’t part of you? This notion is not only reductive but also ignores the fact that subconscious actions are often shaped by years of conscious effort and decision-making. The idea that "you" and your conscious self are separate borders on a form of dualism that is more at home in religious thought than in modern science. In reality, you are an integrated being - a complex system where the conscious and subconscious, body and brain, continuously interact. Your conscious mind directly influences subconscious behaviors, from learning a new skill to forming habits. To dismiss free will simply because some decisions originate subconsciously ignores this dynamic relationship. The argument that subconscious processes undermine free will oversimplifies human cognition. Rather than viewing the subconscious as something external to your identity, it should be seen as part of the self, influenced by and built upon conscious choices. The fact that these processes occur without constant conscious awareness doesn’t mean they aren’t "yours." Instead, it reflects how the conscious and subconscious aspects of you collaborate to guide behavior. The free will discussion is trivial, it will lead nowhere.

[@samromeo559]

The fact of the subconscious is not an argument against free will. With all due respect, if you think that is the basis for the argument against free will, you need to do more research.

[@tear728]

Yep I always think this is a funny semantic argument.. if the prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia work together to select next actions on a subconscious level, that's still YOU making a selection.

[@tear728]

​@@samromeo559 it's the basis of Sam Harris's argument lol

[@DenzelHashington]

I heard hardcore determinists use a sort of mechanistic argument. We are all full of biological machinery. And any semblance of control over this machinery is false. Kind of hard to argue against, thh

[@kuribojim3916]

Super interesting conversation. Jordan’s discomfort with the calm takedowns of free will was palpable.

[@fbwthe6]

Let your guests speak

[@guyfraser8157]

Great interview; I think I understand this much better now

[@mayatrash]

I'm a theoretical physicist. And I have to say: I despise nothing more than modern particle physics and string theory (and yes I studied both at some point). So many bad concepts, unintuitive and physically questionable reasonings. I love Greene, but string theory deserves all the criticism it can get. The same is true for most beyond SM physics (I.e. the utterly stupid idea of a graviton). Jonathan Oppenheims new approach is way better and I believe it will pan out at least at parts. Doing quantum mechanics in closed systems is after the invention of the density matrix and the von Neumann eq. a weird way to do quantum mechanics either way. A true theory of nature has to be thermodynamic, statistical and messy. Everything else is wishful thinking. And introducing metric fluctuations like Oppenheim does it, to fully equalize the Einstein equation, namely the Stress Tensor on the operator level with the fluctuating Geometry, has to be the easiest, smartest and funnily most obvious idea in recent decades of theoretical physics.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

I am not a theoretical physicist and I have a few questions. How these "proven" theories works? Why we accepting that the Universe is coming out from "Nothing"?... If Gravity is not a Force, why we have Gravitons? If "We" understand the Physical Attraction mechanism why we have "Gluons'? How "Gluons" explaining attraction of Two Magnets? If Gravity do not exist why we have "Gravitational Field"? and if Space is "Just a Vacuum" how we have a 'Gravitational Waves? If Space not have Physical property now Space is forcing Jupiter to circle the Sun? (By force, or "by assumption"?) How "WE" can construct fundamental theory without understanding of the fundamental elements? like - Space, Time, Energy, Field, Polarity, Attraction, Electromagnetism...?

[@Mk-qb2ny]

@@valentinmalinov8424 Dude you are not understanding your own questions. Singularity and "nothing" are not the same thing. Graviton, sure, that's an interesting one. But vacuum has nothing to do with gravitational waves; they are ripples in the spacetime itself, not in a vacuum as you'd imagine, say atmospheric pressure. Why Jupiter goes around the Sun is also due to spacetime bending itself. We have an excellent understanding of how all that works. If we didn't, you wouldn't have that cell phone and its functions in your pocket. If your questions are honest, go read about them, the answers are there, not in internet memes.

[@stephenholmgren405]

I understood all of this.

[@Theunspokentruth77]

I think time is a product of the beginning of the universe. The universe out of nothing is absurd and illogical without a creator.

[@TalkingwithNari]

Very interesting and insightful convo, cool seeing the connection of physics to psychology

[@PleaseReadTheBible]

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life (present), and shall not come into judgment (future), but has passed from death into life (past).” There are 66 books total. Please read John, Romans, 1 John, and Revelation. Use an accurate translation like the KJV, NKJV, NASB, or LSB. He gave His life so that we could live through Him. He loves us immeasurably.

[@scottm85]

Not real

[@dougmanyole1656]

This might sound odd but it's genuine...... please can you translate that Into simple non biblical terms? I mean..... what does that statement actually mean? I'm sure to you it's crystal clear but I can't get my head around it.

[@zaccrisp9988]

The continually renewing spirit of christ will allow you to ride the best possible path forward by aiming at love, justice and truth while remaining to humble. It can only be done by usurping the self through a higher or external power, because we can never know fully and must keep the door to the unknown open.​@dougmanyole1656

[@MozRocks3000]

He would be fumin if he read that drivel. Revelations Chapter 3 verse 2

[@CSwift-vr1qg]

It means what it said, stop trying to be Jordan Peterson

[@NicolashBarbosa]

this format really suits me

[@alial-jassim2504]

Neil deGrasse Tyson next?

[@franksimonds04]

Nope. He's a leftist kook that's too political and not very bright.

[@bradg4562]

Please, no. That guy is an egotistical wind bag.

[@bradg4562]

Which is too bad because he is obviously quite smart

[@Likexner]

JP better bring a mop for all that slobber :D

[@RouzbehRafie]

Inspiring and mind blowing

[@Dreoilin]

These topics are what should be being discussed with our youth.

[@nerdphysics6402]

Feynman and Jordan would have been the best conversation ever. ❤😮

[@Mountebanksrus]

Wow. Not sure how much I understood but it was an amazing interchange of ideas to witness.

[@bradwest4821]

String theory is interesting, yet there's absolutely zero ability to prove any existence of string theory. One of my favorite interviews ever. Well done! Two of my favs

[@CompassIIDX]

Love this. Big fan of both these thinkers. I've read all of Greene's books. Regarding JP's theory in relation to time stopping for light particles and thus explaining their wave behavior: as I understand it, the interference pattern in the double-slit experiment manifests for all sufficiently small particles, for which time runs as usual, not just photons, for which time uniquely effectively stops.

[@adamh5153]

Great discussion I loved Greens PBS series. I would love if you had Chris Langan on to continue this discussion. Drawing free will from the uncertainty principle may be a stretch but would like to hear his thoughts.

[@lukemacon1]

This was an extremely interesting conversation

[@streglof]

Great podcast! Would love to see a conversation between JBP and Jim Al-Khalili as well!