New Physics Theory Describes The Universe (Featuring Sara Walker)

Main Episode with Sara Walker (2024): • Earth Holds The Key To...
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything

[@L2p2]

I chanced upon your channel a few months ago and it has been an eye opening experience. I love your interview style which allows the guests to really open up. I have heard a few of LEx Friedmans Podcasts as well, which are also very cool. But What I like about your is that in most cases you have some high level knowledge of the subject matter or some questions about it that you want to pose the guest and allow the guest to explore that subject with prompts from you. Sort of ChatGPT prompts like but her its an actual intelligent human begin. Well that how I looked at it anyway way. But besides that, I have discovered the likes of genius likes of John Vervaeke, Bernard Kastrup, Sarah Emira Walker, Terrence Deacon thanks to your channel.

[@blingpup21]

Please try to interview her!!!! Her book comes out in august…pre-order it.

[@beardordie5308]

Should have memcculloch on for Quantised Inertia

[@vagabondcaleb8915]

More Sara/Lee! I'm partial to chocolate.

[@SpotterVideo]

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force.

[@PeterRice-xh9cj]

We could be part of one zero dimensional point where one second seems like one second. A physical system like a hurricane or falling line of dominos could be an intelligent being and be part of another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second. The zero dimensional points we are part of and the zero dimensional point the physical system are part of can be two seperate zero dimensional points both separated by time, but both still existing simultaneously. If we are a zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, and another intelligence is part of another zero dimensional point separated by time, where one week feels like one second, it makes sense for both points to be separated by time but still both exist simultaneously.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

As someone who made a living incorporating such formalism its a great tool & flexible but we are still left with major stress mirroring each other where we seek to reduce evidence into a single back in time with galaxies young & old ,metless and enriched very remenecent of Cambrian explosion & different genetic codes = different collapsed nebula explanations needed. It can't be anything other than how we are trying to manipulate evidence to evolve how we see fit, and even then, it's telling us something is wrong on both ends with what our approach .

[@PeterRice-xh9cj]

One billionth of a second is to fast for us to experience, so I guess it’s fair to say that in that amount of time time we are not conscious. Matter and atoms move a distance that is so small, that we are not conscious while they are covering that tiny distance. The time frame we are conscious of is made up of time frames where we are not conscious, so how can we be conscious at all. Now let’s imagine that we are forever looking at a screen that never change’s colour. That screen would continuously be in the present, or would it. You see, our consciousness involves time, like a moving environment or clock. We get a personal sense of how long we’ve been staring at this unchanging screen, and our thoughts are changing. So now this is the opposite as mentioned above. Our consciousness is moving forward in time, but the screen we are staring at is unchanging, nonetheless the screen has to be moving forward in time because our consciousness is. We also need to visualise a colour to be a conscious being, whether we look at or imagine it. Now let’s say this screen we are looking at is what we are imagining and there’s no physical thing we are looking at. If so, then this screen we are imagining becomes the physical thing we are looking at. If for the whole time we are looking at this unchanging screen we were not conscious, it would seem to us that the screen would change to another colour in the blink of an eye, because we don’t have any memory of being unconscious (such as in a billionth of a second). If a number of people were zero dimensional points that were mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point, every one would agree with what number they are looking at because every one would be all one zero dimensional point. No one could have a different opinion. Imagine if you keep mixing an infinite number of pinballs that are the same size forever, and you still end up with one pinball that is the same size. That’s what it would be like if you kept mixing zero dimensional points together, you would still end up with one zero dimensional point without any dimensions. These zero dimensional points may not be in any space, or separated by any space, but be separated by time. One way to leave the point that you and the other points are part of and enter the other multi point point would be to disagree with the other points you’re mixed with on what number you are looking at. Or another way would be to just forget the number. If one individual point mixed in with another point composed of a number of points, it would still be like two individual points mixing together, so this individual point would make the multi point point its mixing into half as different then the individual point would become meaningless because it would now be part of one point. Or could this individual point completely take over the multi point point so the multi point point becomes as meaningless as one point mixed in with a multi point point, following by the individual point that is taking over (as it to is now part of a multi point point. What makes four four or what makes nine nine. Four is made of two twos, so are you looking at four or two. Nine is made of three threes so are you looking at nine or three. All numbers are really just the digit one that is a certain length up the number line. What if all colours were the digit one a certain way up the colour line. If every point in the multi point point agreed on a number, but switched the number for the colours of the number and background. Our sense of being zero dimensional, so could we theoretically be zero dimensional points. Would we be one individual point. Or would we be a number of points scattered around mixed in with other points and separated at the same time. We can not experience a billionth of a second, so during this short time frame we don’t exist. We need to be focusing on a colour to have a sense of being, wether we are imagining it or looking at it physically. If we were not focusing on a colour, or did not have a sense of being for 100 years, the 100 years would go by like a flash, because we wouldn’t have any memory of not having a sense of being (such as a billionth of a second). If you had say 9 different thing, the reason they would not be different is because they would all be in the same category of being a different thing. To escape this and get something that is a different category, you have to look at the gaps or boundaries in between numbers, the are different than the digit ones each side of them that make numbers. Could we just have two multi point points, one being a digit one, and the other being a boundary in between numbers. Could you really count boundaries in between numbers, could we develop a new kind of logic based on boundaries in between numbers. You can’t see what space is made of because the blocks or material the make space would not contain space. Imagine a nut and jellybean made one. You can’t see what the jellybean and nut are made from because the stuff that makes the jellybean doesn’t make the nut, and the stuff that makes the nut doesn’t make the jellybean. What if the jellybean and nut was overall space, not mattering them both being next to each other, or miles or light years apart. Just as the building blocks that make space wouldn’t contain space (making you blind towards them), you can’t see what both the jellybean and nut are made from, because the stuff that makes the jellybean doesn’t make the nut and the stuff that makes the nut doesn’t make the jellybean. Think of a tank filled with jellybeans and nuts. The jellybeans and nuts would be the cause of the stuff inside the tank to exist, at the same time the jellybeans and nuts (being overall space) could be outside the tank, each ones existence being caused by what ever they are made out of. So if time stops, and every thing freezes, the cause of something doesn’t stop because the existence of things is caused by whatever they are made out of. Imagine if you keep mixing hundreds or an infinite amount of pinballs together that are exactly the same size, and you still end up with one pinball the same size. That is what would happen if you kept mixing zero dimensional points together. Our sense of being is zero dimensional, so would it be theoretically possible to all be mixed together not physically, but as zero dimensional points. Say you have one zero dimensional point composed of a large number of zero dimensional points which is still one point , and one individual point is mixed in. That individual point would make that group of points half as different, and then be countless as it is now mixed in with the group of points. Or would this one point devour the group of points making them twice as different and take over so the group of points become countless along with the individual point. If these two points were the only two colours that existed, they would have to each become twice as different to turn into each other, and have to both become half as different to turn into two colours that don’t exist. If there’s a red square on the left and blue square on the right, and both squares switch places infinitely fast, both squares would be on opposite sides infinitely fast before being on opposite sides continuously. Would it be possible for the squares to stay on the sides they are on, then suddenly be on the sides they are on infinitely fast without switching sides in the first place. If they did that it would be like they had suddenly switched sides even though they haven’t, like a sort of lie.

[@vedametatron]

That one billionth of a second is happening in Planck time and if consciousness is unquantifiable who know what we can experience in that small of a time scale & I believe that if your looking at a screen from an out side of spacetime perspective that doesn’t change your infinitely in the now a never changing reality where measurement and observation may be irrelevant . To me it’s like particle / wave duality it took me years to comprehend and accept . You’ve got a good perspective & a lot of good information and data there my friend .

[@user-th7tf2hy4s]

Assembly theory = theory of Systems

[@davidlasoff8261]

We keep hearing that all of our so-called atoms and tissues get replaced over our lifetime multiple times without exception but is this really true? For example, I have scars that have lasted over 60 years on my body. One might surmise that if all our tissues are replaced then scar tissues would disappear and would be replaced by normal tissue rather than a scar retaining its morphology over time.

[@BartvandenDonk]

Well I think you're reasoning omitted the abondance part. For instance rattlesnakes have a scare that has become part of their DNA. So a scar that has no function until it is part of DNA. A scar is just a sign that your DNA has given your body the option to repair itself (not fully that is only known by amfibian lifeform). So it is more a sign that repairs are an evolutionary winner.

[@guillermobrand8458]

It would be very useful for Sara, to adapt her model to Reality, to know that “evolution evolves” according to a function whose relevant variable is Information.

[@justanotherguy469]

“Evolution evolves” is redundant. It would be useful for all involved to learn to speak the English language correctly, as language is a verbal communicative representation of reality, especially when it pertains to fundamental mathematical constructs.

[@guillermobrand8458]

@@justanotherguy469 I appreciate your concern for wanting to correct what you consider to be a mistake I made. I was careful to put in quotation marks the term that refers to the existence of a particular pattern that follows evolution over time, precisely so that a reader who knew the importance of good use of language would know how to assign an adequate meaning to the text. between quotation marks. I suggest you read the text that refers to the aforementioned “evolutionary pattern”, whose link I also sent “as a gift” to Sara, in another comment.

[@justanotherguy469]

@@guillermobrand8458 I know you did not make a mistake, but not everyone is as astute as you are. This way of communicating has imparted into many disciplines and have obscured the correct intellectual assimilation of the topic at hand. Think “imaginary” numbers.

[@nedthemumbler9942]

Instead of the big bank theory what if we’re are bien sucked in to a black hole . Maybe we’re just in this giant loop.

[@coomservative]

atoms are the smallest component of a macro substance that are shared with the rest of that macro substance, technically this isn’t true of compounds and so molecular structure is what is truly fundamental

[@Mikeduffey_]

Love this content.

[@psybranet]

Indeed

[@nyworker]

True .not everything in science has to violate intuition and common sense 😂

[@samdanner6806]

Thank you Curt for friending mevon LinkedIn.

[@Muldoonite]

Why do I have the sudden urge to build a Lego model......?

[@dnavas7719]

dayummm

[@psybranet]

Indeed

[@user-cg3tx8zv1h]

I second that with great enthusiasm...

[@jamesjimlamont9365]

Thank you! I learned some new stuff from that lecture. Very enjoyable.

[@kanteshlamani4847]

I have written a theory which unifies all forces and explains all phenomena with one law. Can you help me sir.

[@matterasmachine]

Why not just name it? "Assembly theory"

[@Mikeduffey_]

Thumbnail in GIANT font 😅

[@matterasmachine]

@@Mikeduffey_ And how to get it?

[@dylan_curious]

Maybe the most fundamental “thing” can’t really be a thing. It’s gotta just end up being some sort of mathematical asymmetry.

[@TheMeaningCode]

She’s using selection in the same way that Jonathan Pageau uses attention.

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini

[@guillermobrand8458]

Conscious Action explained Based on the information they capture with their senses, living beings with brains manage a utilitarian mental representation of the conditions that currently take place in their relevant material environment. This Mental Correlate is a kind of “photograph” of what is happening in the Present in the relevant material environment of the Individual, a Mental Correlate that we will call “Reality of the Individual”. Life experience, stored in the brain, allows us to give meaning to what is perceived. At the same time, as Pavlov demonstrated, life experience allows us to project eventual future states of the individual's relevant environment, generating expectations of action. Information from the Past, the Present and an eventual Future is managed by the brain. It is evident that the brain makes a utilitarian distinction between the Past, the Present and the projection of an eventual future. Human language allows us to incorporate into the mental correlate events and entities that are not necessarily part of what happens in the world of matter, which gives an unprecedented “malleability” to the Reality of the Individual. For the unconscious, everything is happening in the Present. When a child, whom I will call Pedrito, listens to the story of Little Red Riding Hood, said entity is integrated into the Reality of the Individual. In turn, for the child, this entity is “very real”; he does not need his eyes to see it to incorporate it into his mental correlate of the relevant environment. Thanks to our particular language, authentic “immaterial and timeless worlds” have a place in the Mental Correlate of the relevant environment. In the first four years of life, the child is immersed in an ocean of words, a cascade of sounds and meanings. At this stage, a child hears between seven thousand and twenty-five thousand words a day, a barrage of information. Many of these words speak of events that occur in the present, in the material world, but others cross the boundaries of time and space. There is no impediment so that, when the words do not find their echo in what is happening at that moment in Pedrito's material environment, these words become threads that weave a segment of the tapestry of the Reality of the Individual. Just as the child's brain grants existence to the young Little Red Riding Hood when the story unfolds before him, similarly, when the voices around him talk about tomorrow and a beach with Pedro, as happens for example when his mother tells him says: -“Pedrito, tomorrow we will go for a walk to the beach”- the child's mind, still in the process of deciphering the mysteries of time, instantly conjures the entity Pedrito, with his feet on the golden sand, in the eternal present of childhood. Although over time a strong association between the entity Pedrito and his body is established in the child's brain, a total fusion between said entity and the child's body can never take place, since for the Unconscious the bodily actions of Pedrito They only take place in the Present, while the entity Pedrito is able to carry out actions in authentic timeless and immaterial worlds. The entity Pedrito is what we call the Being, and we know its action as Conscious Action.

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@guillermobrand8458 My arguments prove that your fundamental assumption (i.e. "living beings with brains manage a utilitarian mental representation") is nonsensical. Best regards.

[@charlesblithfield6182]

I read you tract and copied it to read and think about again later as it is very interesting. Several things come to mind. I do not believe the brain can be considered in any model of consciousness or experience without realizing that brains cannot exist without bodies. The brain does not experience things, a body does. Our guts also after all contain many neurons and there are even some cases of severe encephalitis in people who seem to function normally but who have very little brain in their skulls. I also have trouble understanding individuals as separate conscious entities when any individual organism is a construct that can only exist in an ecosystem, that is the sea of molecules in a constant exchange with any given organism’s body. An organism cannot exist independent of the ecosphere. An organism integrates the molecules it needs to survive into its body and excretes those molecules that do not allow it to maintain homeostasis. Consciousness is part and parcel of this process. Hoffman describes conscious perception as the organism integrating only what is necessary to optimize fitness functions. He states: “One part of this consciousness structure is a set of all possible experiences. When I’m having an experience, based on that experience I may want to change what I’m doing. So I need to have a collection of possible actions I can take and a decision strategy that, given my experiences, allows me to change how I’m acting. That’s the basic idea of the whole thing. I have a space X of experiences, a space G of actions, and an algorithm D that lets me choose a new action given my experiences. Then I posited a W for a world, which is also a probability space. Somehow the world affects my perceptions, so there’s a perception map P from the world to my experiences, and when I act, I change the world, so there’s a map A from the space of actions to the world. That’s the entire structure.” I see life in a related way as a physical process that can be understood through optimization of the dissipation of free energy and life is therefore related to information processing capacities. In turn the behaviours of an organism or cell and even consciousness itself may be an evolutionary adaptation to energy gradients through an ecosystem. I could go on, but honestly my thinking about this is not complete. I would also like to think about what you posted as it may relate.

[@P-zp4qs]

​@@marcobiagini1878What you say is true, the imaginary line that delimits a set does not exist in a physical sense, that line means "all the elements that meet a certain property." You choose the property

[@user-xg8ut5kh9j]

@@guillermobrand8458 I think therefor I am, even when I pass away...where ever you go, there you are.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Here lays the problem where fundamental objectivism did predict in opposition to the quest & journey of evolution it was opposition to this. #1 we knew as a feature of our reality that we can play musical chairs of super positions to get the answer we. #2 it was identified as idealism and subjectivity can in fact hold objective measure sigma 6 just as any physical properties. Observable ,objects are not and ca. Not be just physical but can be idealisticaly physicalized. Here we have an issue where ptolemaic evolution has to be honest as it's opposition has out predicted it. It was combative with the Swedish discovery of dna code of life for 100 years or it wouldve be day one starting task of biology. It is a worthy quest to seek out a way to put time even color back into nature as a standardization that only humans are capable of doing and we do it effortlessly over coming horizon paradoxes manipulating systems to evolve how we see fit. Plagiarize, project ,correlate without even knowing it to the point it even tricked humans for thousands of years. What we can't continue to have is fundamentalist that build in the west while useing this to describe those who blow stuff up in the east. Lol Can't continue to play perception management mind dope games excluding ourselves alienating the very origins. No one understands why the predictive power has been in such eccentric hands but obviously methods have really held feilds back with the approach taken so far while others boom . Take population species for example, no one know what a race ,tribe, nation, people place or thing is since adoption of what appears on paper to be a logical step by step but in practice our taxonomy ordering and categorizing skills have everyone talking past one another even evolutionist. This critical extreme point of emphasis that even within its been recognized for a long time. History has wittenessed its most Radicals ,and it's most extremes. Hyper splitting is the least of its problems as it is also the most taught foundational ordering categorizing skill of all that gets ( Plagiarized, correlated and projected) into the world because this is what humans do

[@Juju--Cat]

I could follow her better if she stayed seated 🤭

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

I like how I watch this entire video and by the very end I'm just like oh that's it... cool. Not a bad video by any means... just a broadened mind describing something very concentrated and small... funny to see this in this other version of WE in the kaleidoscope reality.

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

I don't understand this...? It's just rephrasing entropy. It's like a physicist just discovered biology and chemistry exists. It's immediately obvious for anyone who's studied complex systems. Just entropy; but maybe they finally understood the concept? Entropy is complex. "I have a new theory called "Construction Theory" where heavy objects assemble to form larger ones, but it's not "gravity" I swear, it's new." 😒

[@mygirldarby]

Just because one of the qualifications for something to be considered an object in assembly theory is entropy doesn't mean the entire theory is about the concept of entropy.

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

@@mygirldarby The whole behavior of these "constructor theory" objects is contained within entropy. Papers have been written on why life emerges from entropy (or is "constructed" if you like), and why entropy favors life to be formed because it creates the shortest time path to an entropic universal state. So this to me was all a rehash of existing and known ideas, but with a shiny new label. This is why science should be multi-disciplinary - some people in physics think these ideas are "new" because they haven't study widely in other sciences where these concepts are already being used.

[@illogicmath]

She is a very well assembled theoretical physicist.

[@KaliFissure]

Neutron decay cosmology. A homeostatic universe maintained by the reciprocal processes of electron capture at event horizons and free neutron decay in deep voids.

[@thomaslechner1622]

She does not see that boltzman brains are possible.

[@christianlingurar7085]

wolfram for children

[@madpaul6520]

Hhhhmmmmmmm

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

How can you say something that is a thing is not an object‽ it is an object, it exists therefore it is...

[@saffyjanes8875]

She literally explained what an “object” is in the context of this theory. But yeah, stick to your limited framework and be smug.

[@DanFrederiksen]

Nope

[@johansalvador7289]

Back again for them cakes

[@saffyjanes8875]

Pathetic.

[@johansalvador7289]

@@saffyjanes8875 keep it moving than

[@alex1701waller]

Shake it baby

[@Ronsilk-pu5hr]

I can't listen to her voice and the way she talks

[@LordTempist]

Unsubscribed. I was just here for Phenomenon related content. See you when you are done taking a break. Ciao Bella!

[@mygirldarby]

9:33