Mindscape Ask Me Anything, Sean Carroll | August 2024

[@akumar7366]

I never graduated and have always worked in manual jobs but the last four years, I've been absorbed by Science find the topic so exciting.

[@jayclarke6671]

Go back and finish your degree

[@DeclanMBrennan]

@@jayclarke6671 Or become a technician in a lab. The adventure is ongoing.

[@PeterManger]

Very awesome

[@RealQinnMalloryu4]

Congratulations absorbed by science find topics exciting in practice areas key find success.

[@r4v4g3r]

@@jayclarke6671 I think he means high school

[@jwvandegronden]

I woke up to the gauge field... Damn, electromagnetism isn't a fundamental law/element, further down the rabbit hole we go! What an amazing brain this speaker has! not only open to more fundamental components, but even able to express why and how, the curvature of the gauge field. I love science!

[@BrianFedirko]

Sean's description of Belief and evidence here is genius, and calming. Alleviated so much frustration in my own worldview that I can't thank him enough. I value these talks every month. The AMA might even save me money on Dr. visits (oh, I guess he is a doctor at that). Thank you, Sean!!!. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love

[@PhilosophicalTrials]

21:55 What Tarski showed was that you cannot write down an open formula in the language of arithmetic which applies to all and only those natural numbers which encode arithmetical sentences which are true (in the standard model of arithmetic). Hence, arithmetical truth is not arithmetically definable: this is what logicians typically understand by Tarski’s Theorem. What was said in the video is different, but also wrong. To give an idea of what it means for a numerical property to be arithmetically definable, let's consider the property of being an even number, which can be defined in the language of arithmetic as follows: ϕ(x) = ∃y(x=y+y). The only items from our domain of discourse, namely N={0, 1, 2, ...}, which satisfy this predicate are the even numbers (0, 2, 4, 6,...) and nothing else. Coming back to Tarski, he has shown that you can't come up with a formula Ψ(x) of this kind which is only true of the (Gödel-)codes of true sentences, e.g. the code of ∀x∀y(x+y=y+x). [Note for the next paragraph concerning notation: For any sentenceϕ, by I will mean the numeral of ϕ's code. Hence, if ϕ has code n, say, then its numeral is the successor function-symbol applied that many times to the constant 0, i.e. S(S(...S(0))...).] The reason why you can't define arithmetical truth is because if a nice predicate T(x) that "disquotes" on all sentences was definable in our chosen language, then it would be impossible to assign a classical truth value to the "fixed-point" L of the related predicate ~T(x), often called "The Liar Sentence" of T. This is because the so-called Diagonal Lemma (which guarantees L's existence) tells you that L and ~T() must have matching truth values in the standard model, but since we also have the disquotational desideratum on T(x) for all sentences, L and T(x) must also have the same truth value as well. Since it is impossible to meet both of these constraints at once (via classical models), there can't be any defined formula like T(x) in the first place. I want to stress that it is not correct that you cannot have a truth-predicate which doesn't disquote on any sentence whatsoever. For example, we can have "modest" arithmetical truth-predicates T'(x) which are restricted to, say, Σ1 sentences (and which *is* definable). So for any Σ1-sentence ϕ, a system like Peano Arithmetic (PA) *will have* the biconditional T'() ϕ as a theorem, i.e. PA ⊢ T'() ϕ. Likewise for other complexity classes. What we *cannot* have is a "global" truth-predicate T(x) which will do the job for all arithmetical sentences simultaneously, because of Liar-like phenomena. Restricting ourselves to PA, this is connected to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, because the numerical property of encoding a PA-theorem is actually definable, whilst the property of being a true sentence formulated in PA's language is not definable. Hence, the set of provable arithmetical sentences and the set of true arithmetical sentences are not the same set. Since the former is a subset of the latter, it must be a proper subset, so there is at least one true sentence ϕ which is not a PA-theorem. (Also, at 17:35, Russell's Paradox is not something that besets Principia Mathematica, which was explicitly designed to be immune from it.)

[@Pr1marySourc3]

do we get the reading list for complexity class

[@GoatOfTheWoods]

2:13:00 Sean, I'm certain that me and the majority of the audience would gladly listen to more of you, even if you don't have a guest. AMAs and Solos are great.

[@keatonb1zarr0]

💯 Good sir, or lady, keep spittin' dem facts!!!

[@hopperpeace]

thanks Sean Carroll

[@ABARANOWSKISKI]

Hey Sean. Love the podcast! I heard you say on one of your podcasts that you're interested in talking to historians. Have you ever considered having a conversation with Bart Ehrman? Bart Ehrman is one of my favourite historians, and the two of you would have a lot in common, despite working in very different fields. It would be great to hear an episode of the show where you talk to him, the two of you are two of my favourite people, so I hope it happens one day!

[@bentationfunkiloglio]

If I may be gratuitously pedantic… Well, actually, every computer program can be written in assembly. Yes, assembly, might not be the best choice, however. To see this is true consider 2 things. Modern compilers transform programs to an intermediate, assembly-like language before lowering code to machine language. All compiled programs can be disassembled and analyzed in assembly.

[@HunterYavitz]

Prof Carroll, I've enjoyed your work since the early days of your debates. I'd like to see more interactive content like this. Would you consider a call-in episode?

[@JohnChampagne]

A question from someone who didn't pay to ask a question: Do you have a favorite policy proposal for how to account for externalities in an efficient and fair way? I think it's the same question ass, "How can we end poverty and promote sustainability?". Maybe not the same question, but I think they have the same answer: Charge fees to industries proportional to pollution emitted, resources extracted or habitat disturbed or destroyed; Share fee proceeds to all people. We can raise fees if random polls show that most people think there's too much of this or that kind of impact. (We'd have a true democracy if conditions match what people want.) We should make this a global policy.

[@marierausku9292]

I love the answer to my question and so cute pronunciation of my surname 😊

[@cyruskalantari6581]

Amazing work

[@savasgen1]

Is it possible that in the bottom of black holes ,after a supernova explotion ,the matter that bent the spacetime it's Nickel,that doesn't have the oxydation of iron?

[@e-t-y237]

I checked out your paper "Consciousness and the Laws of Physics," after an interview in which you referenced it. In it, you're making the case (against) introducing mental concepts into fundamental ontology. In attempting to discount consciousness as fundamental, this seems to skip a key step. It is more "sensory experience" (not consciousness per se) that is being claimed as fundamental to all matter and energy, so therefore as fundamental. Mentation, actual consciousness and self-consciousness are evolving elaborations on this sensory experiencing nature, and can be thought of as a "meta sense," that is the framework within which the senses function and elaborate. Even the sense-of-self itself is an elaboration of this meta-sensor, which goes all the way down in its origins to the fundamental particles, to energy, and to fields. So we don't get to leap straight to "mental concepts" as the framework of introducing consciousness into the ontology of the universe. It isn't mentation, it is discriminating interactions between all existing things and their environment, which evolved into elaborate forms of mental activity, including self-consciousness.

[@Getexposedddddd]

Best time of the month

[@savasgen1]

Is it possible ,that the 'elastic fabric' for spacetime is not a human mathematical constructor that deals with distance, time, matter, energy,but actually exists,and can we messure it ,by how the time response differently in a 'standar' model like our solar system ,combine the mass,size ,weight and density of every planet?

[@jayvincent1865]

44:18 Why do people come up with every example except (Conserve Our Natural Resources) .. Over production of goods are the reason you get sale pricing at the grocery stores. Pump that product..

[@e-t-y237]

Information being lost to other human beings isn't the same as it actually being lost, right? Is it not there in the quantum fields once it is thought?

[@mraarone]

I’ve been wanting to ask you specifically that black hole question for at least a couple of months!

[@RinkuJha-wy6xs]

Hello

[@mraarone]

How does Emergence play in Wolfram’s World?

[@jyjjy7]

The theory is literally about everything being emergent from hypergraphs

[@lennyg47]

So it's not "information", it's "matter"?

[@dangerdingle900]

If dark energy separates things and the strong force gets stronger as quarks separate, won't exponential dark energy inevitably start separating the quarks, leading to the production of more and more quarks fueled by the dark energy?

[@christopherknight4908]

If that's what happens, I would imagine the result would be a more and more spread out, uniform distribution of individual particles in thermal equilibrium.

[@MNbenMN]

​@@christopherknight4908It wouldn't get uniformly more spread out if dangerdingle900's proposition is solid. A single neutron getting stretched out would convert dark energy into more and more quarks, and I wonder if that means more real energy, so more gravitation, resisting expansion? I have no idea if that could outpace expansion enough to reverse it... this is interesting to think about, but I don't know the math to crunch the numbers.

[@sarveshpadav2881]

Is Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem a mathematical analogue of self-referential paradox like the liar's paradox?

[@rv706]

The particular "Goedel sentence" G used in the proof of Goedel's theorem is a self-referential sentence similar to the one appearing in the liar's paradox.

[@czerskip]

Correction: Google didn't give up on anything because they never cared about anything else than their profit. They'll do and say literally anything that'll make them more money.

[@LucGendrot]

Don't anthropomorphize the giant conglomerate please. Google cannot "care" about anything, but the people who work there surely can and do.

[@kreuzritter7734]

You cana produce matter or energysources with specific constracted hologramms. No resource problems or energy insufficiens in the future of any kind. 😎 just use it responsible and for the good of all!

[@kadourimdou43]

If String Theory has 10 to 500 solutions, or whatever the number is.....and one might be our Universe, with also the problem it might be untestable. Would that mean you need faith in String Theory to think it’s the answer.

[@christopherknight4908]

Only if you, for some reason, had 100% confidence in String Theory, and a complete unwillingness to change your mind. I don't know anyone who fits that description, personally.

[@F1ct10n17]

36:38 simple question, if you know everything then why do these things existing? Gravity,light,darkness,water,air and all things. My answer to my question is because you can't think nothing.

[@boogieman6529]

What you on about

[@F1ct10n17]

@@boogieman6529 always something while living.

[@MNbenMN]

​@@F1ct10n17Why darkness existing?

[@F1ct10n17]

@@MNbenMN because you see it existing.

[@MNbenMN]

@@F1ct10n17 I see light, sometimes nore light and sometimes less light. I don't recall ever seeing darkness

[@DamianReloaded]

Now I am under a massive existential crisis due to the can not doing a 360. Why God? Why didn't you make the can do a 360!

[@mraarone]

Be fair though, professors do not tend to do research in the arctic without specific government funding. There are the deniers and the grant chasers that follow political drivers. Amplification happens on both sides. To non-experts it seems like choosing to buy or sell on the stock market at a certain instrument’s overwhelming probability of truth… that loses. It’s tough for laymen.

[@mraarone]

You get to choose what you believe. Plank space, internal expansion, axions, how black holes become spheres after deforming prior to collisions, what happens inside a black hole, primordial structures of the universe, what is outside of our visible universe, what happened to create our universe? All of these state boundary conditions that in which we do not understand beyond them. When you are utilizing infinities either there is an error or they exist. In this world, we get to choose what we believe.

[@jyjjy7]

Infinity is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one. Even if something infinite were to actually exist it would be impossible to confirm/distinguish from something larger than your ability to measure/perceive but finite

[@Dillon-F]

You dont

[@mraarone]

@@Dillon-F prove it.

[@Dillon-F]

You become convinced of stuff. You dont just say, okay cool i think ill believe the skie is pink because someone said so. Or are you telling me that you could just suddenly believe your gay and just randomly start liking dicks?

[@Dillon-F]

@mraarone r u gay? Honest question? If ur not and we choose what we believe, i would like you to choose to be gay for an hour and start choosing to believe that you find men sexually attractive and have sex with a guy. You will very quickly realize you can't choose what you believe.

[@savasgen1]

Every galaxy has a huge black hole in the middle and plenty of them around ,because they keep the energy level of the galaxy stable ,and the whole universe spins around an enormous black hole that exist in the very middle ...so every galaxy accelerates in an orbit around the enormous black hole,in different orbits ,so every black hole, small or big, exist to keep the DISK of the universe stable ,cool them down ,otherwise the galaxies will overheated ,overpopulated by stars and strike to each other ,so no life can exist...so that's why when we messure distances between our galaxy and some others the number is increasing( because we orbit in a different scale in the Disk of the Universe),and those galaxies that orbit near 'THE' black hole they have more speed and acceleration ,so the argument that we going away faster from galaxies that they are in longer distances from our milky way answers also(not exactly...)! We making Circles ,our milky way and all the billion of galaxies around,probably that's why the hubble telescope is unable to see anything close to 300000 light years from the begining of the universe,because of the present of 'THE' black hole. Maybe the diametre of 'THE' black hole is around 600000 light years I am very sorry for this speculation guys ,but the title said ,ask me anything...is that possible?

[@shanebenlolo3160]

Hi Sean, what is your opinion on Johns Hopkins Whitings School of Engineering?

[@isitme1234]

Great

[@mraarone]

What happens when you accelerate a black hole near light speed?

[@isitme1234]

How? 😂

[@mraarone]

@@isitme1234 gravity ring.

[@mraarone]

Is a bag of true and false logits, true or false? The law of binary truth exclusivity is a randomly chosen axiom.

[@LucGendrot]

I think you're making an apples to oranges comparison, it's not beyond the pale to imagine that a singular object (a logit) and a group of objects (a "bag" of logits) can and indeed should be spoken about completely differently.

[@mraarone]

@@LucGendrot I love it! Beyond the pale. You are a delightful human, sir!

[@RinkuJha-wy6xs]

Why we consider vacuum energy obtained by quantum field theory incorrect as we do not have any theoritical proofs to say it wrong

[@RinkuJha-wy6xs]

Why you guys do not talk about the problem of zero point energy or vacuum catastrophe

[@RealQinnMalloryu4]

Ask Me Anything August 2024. like in thing can happen Thursday on The big bang theory . I mean television series The big bang theory not the actually theory . John Clauser does not if you watch youtube video .

[@AndreluisMachadoloboesilva]

I don't think that God is what Sean describes It to be, that's a shallow christian vision that underestimates other cultures cosmovision. God is a word for the Universe, the Cosmos, the absolute, the eternal, the infinity, the Being, that's Spinoza's point, God is Omni, but not omni-good, that's not the correct teological way of thinking of God. God doesn't exist, God is existence itself