On the quest for the theory of everything | Sabine Hossenfelder, Eric Weinstein, Brian Greene...

Sabine Hossenfelder, Eric Weinstein, Brian Greene and Michael Shermer discuss whether it is possible to find a theory that explains it all.
00:00 Introduction
03:00 Brian Greene
06:20 Sabine Hossenfelder
08:40 Eric Weinstein
09:00 Michael Shermer
12:05 Would such a theory answer all our fundamental questions about the universe?
26:16 Why are we fixated on searching for a theory of everything?
36:00 Where will this theory come from?
Explore more content here: iai.tv/player?YouT...
Philosophy has often been seen as a hunt for a theory of everything, a single grand narrative that explains it all. In recent times science has had its own supporters for a theory of everything. Yet no theory of everything in philosophy or science has been forthcoming. And is it even possible? It would after all, have to include itself. Can we conceive of a universe that also includes its causes and laws? Can a universe have no before and after, no 'outside'? And isn't a theory of everything itself bounded by its particular culture, language and mode of thinking?
Should we abandon the dream of a theory of everything and see it as an illusion born of hubris? Is the mistake not with the idea of a full explanation, but with the idea of 'everything', or as the Greeks would have said 'the One'? Or is it just possible that as Stephen Hawking once believed a theory of everything is just round the corner?
World-leading string theorist Brian Greene, famed historian of science Michael Shermer, ground breaking particle physicist Sabine Hossenfelder and radical mathematical physicist and podcast host Eric Weinstein lock horns over whether it's possible to find a theory of everything. Astronomer Royal for Scotland, Catherine Heymans, hosts.
#OnTheQuestForTheTheoryOfEverything #QuantumPhysicsDebate #StringTheoryCulture
Sabine Hossenfelder is a research fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray and regular contributor to Forbes. She is known for her popular KZbin channel Science Without The Gobbledygook.
Eric Weinstein is an American podcast host, managing director of Thiel Capital, doctor of mathematical physics and member of the "intellectual dark web".
Brian Greene is renowned for his groundbreaking discoveries in superstring theory and best-selling books. He has been chairman of the World Science Festival since co-founding it in 2008.
Michael Shermer is a famous science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and editor-in-chief of its magazine 'Skeptic'
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

What do you think? Can we still dream about a theory of everything? Let us know in the comments below! To watch more science debates, you can head over to iai.tv/player?KZbin&+comment

[@violent_bebop9687]

Is the work of Christopher Langan relevant here? Thanks!

[@normanvanrooy3113]

Yes indeed we can and should dream of a theory of everything as it seems we (all life) are being “formed” by a continuous refinement of complexity. To a point we will understand that the theory of everything will never be reduced to a mathematical formula but will reside in consciousness itself. Not brain stuff. Beyond our understanding at our current level, but as we put this in the crucible of suffering and catastrophic stress we will emerge anew to a universe we understand and are in harmony with.

[@ZeroOskul]

The IAI is a philosophocal thinktank, not a scientific institution, intent to make scientists look more confused than philosophers, like Weinstein and Shermer, who know nothing about reality, to sell fantasy ideas as potential facts. This whole thing is a trashy ad for books. No clue why Sabine Hossenfelder, an actual scientist and researcher, is there.

[@curiouscat8396]

Yes, of course, and I (have) found it, some farty-two years ago, but/t U/s don't really want to know. Oh, I thought so.

[@robertm3561]

Imo there can never be a ..theory of everything.., as it should describe etc explain the whole universe and that is not possible in light of the fact, that the one universe there is, it is infinite in space and time independent of the amount of materia(limited/infinite amount, which can never be proven due to a fact that one can never observe infinity). So imo its maybe possible to have a local theory for the matter, what it really is in the deepest sense, but today there is just too many absurd infinities surrounding the concept of elementary particle(for ex.), that we could say that it is for ex. likely, that humans can never explain all the functions etc. properties of matter.

[@CapnSnackbeard]

I'd like to see Sabine and Eric argue for a few hours and see what pops out.

[@MillzTheAthlete]

Eric's body parts

[@MrVaypour]

Probably a Boson.

[@abdullahelshourbagy2764]

YESSSSSS

[@lukebuchwald9252]

Gut feeling tells me Eric has sex with his wife and calls it a "pyschological construct based on flimsy field theories"

[@CapnSnackbeard]

@DSUM that isn't how arguing works

[@john.ellmaker]

Whether or not you agree with all the arguments and ideas presented, I'm thrilled to see this panel connecting on any level. I have admired these thinkers for some time now and I can only think that more interactions will lead to more interesting dialogues and hopefully no hurt feelings, we're all here to improve our understanding of science and the truth. Bravo

[@NondescriptMammal]

It was certainly an interesting discussion which made many good clear worthwhile points, I too like that there was a panel of different disciplines coming together to talk outside their own comfortable wombs of their respective specialties, without devolving too far into philosophy, although philosophy does play a central role in science and shouldn't be completely ignored.

[@sghantous]

Thank you, Sabine, for keeping the science grounded in science 🙂

[@NondescriptMammal]

Sabine seems to be the most consistently grounded among qualified scientists who are engaged in popularizing science to lay people. I was fairly impressed with Brian Greene too, as his points were lucid and well stated.

[@eccentricaste3232]

Too conservative.

[@vinigretzky97]

@@NondescriptMammal Yet she has by far accomplished the least out of those people in the video.

[@wvltjr2934]

@@vinigretzky97 depends on what you count as an “accomplishment”

[@tbunreall]

@@NondescriptMammal Being so grounded is probably why our theories are incomplete and why we are stuck.

[@maskotep]

Really enjoyed this discussion. Hope you all had a good time as well, and hope to see another talk soon!

[@IvanMorenoPlus]

Didn't know Eric Weinstein until this conversation. What a great first impact he made. Thank you.

[@ryanseitz3305]

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! ;) But yeah, he's right...

[@kylork0]

Eric is a Math PhD but speaks like a philosopher-poet physicist.

[@vangelisrocks]

Catherines Heymen was a great host. Thank you for putting this together.

[@bruce1437]

It's great that we get more content with your KZbin and separate podcast, love it all

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

34:22 - When I see Doctors Hossenfelder and Weinstein agree, it gives me hope.

[@Bobo-de3il]

Great panel. Great discussion. Left with wanting more though. 🙂

[@King-jq5vt]

I love Eric and Sabine because they actually give opinions. Brian is awesome but he never wants to draw a line in the sand.

[@nihlify]

Drawing a line in the sand isn't a virtue... If anything that's what you DON'T want as a scientist.

[@indio007]

Why leave out Shermer? The least skeptical skeptic to ever exist. He's never seen a consensus claim he didn't parrot as truth.

[@billyt8868]

eric is a shill he’s there because people on the internet know who he is

[@lukebuchwald9252]

"Draw a line in the sand" sounds like Trumpism has invaded science --- a very sad day for humanity

[@ZeroOskul]

Brian Greene uses little "g" gravity and big "G" Gravitation as interchangeable terms. He teaches General Relativity. He is a total phony.

[@jootsing62]

I greatly admire Sabine. She's such an inspirational person. Tough honest cookie. I would love to have an in-depth discussion with her. She has a beautiful mind.

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

Doctor Hossenfelder don’t take no guff! ^.^

[@power9k470]

What achievements of her do you admire?

[@GlassEyedDetectives]

Great conversation, thank you. Speaking personally, when i reflect on all the 'decisions' i think i made in the past, i really didn't conscientiously 'choose' but rather, i was either following my desire or my destiny as i projected it or both simultaneously. Some of these motivations led to good outcomes and some led to disastrous outcomes...thats life and i'm still learning. So, as far as 'Free Will' goes, i doubt of it's actual existence.

[@havenbastion]

We exist in the office gap between chaos and causality. In other words, to the extent we are ignorant of causality we may feel free.

[@GlassEyedDetectives]

@@havenbastion i sense you're right Kaiser B, 'Free Will' is really a lack of hindsight/foresight and the inability to discern patterns.

[@DjordjeRomanic]

Very nice discussion. There are "reasonable" reasons to continue working on string theory, but we also desperately need fresh ideas and different approaches in fundamental physics.

[@ZeroOskul]

Um... string "theory" does not permit positrons.

[@cmdrfun1]

This is the best panel I've seen yet

[@nmc8931]

What an INSANELY RIDICULOUS group of highly intelligent people. Just amazing seriously. I cant wait to listen to this thank you!!

[@SnoopyisCool007]

Thanks for this discussion. Sabine seems the most rational person on the panel but enjoyed the discussion.

[@CapnSnackbeard]

I appreciate Eric's focus not just on material outcomes, but on the outcomes of those outcomes.

[@HahaDamn]

He’s literally Graham Hancock esque sooking about culture and treatment - the only difference is Hancock actually has some substance to add

[@JohnSmith-vm8rx]

This was such a good conversation between brilliant minds and we get an aftershow hosted by another brilliant mind! I feel spoiled!

[@rob.j.g]

Catherine: “Can a theory of everything explain itself?” Eric: “WE’RE ALL GONNA FUCKIN DIE!”

[@willjames6609]

Skip the first 18, Eric finally gets the real discussion going then

[@davidbrosius7518]

Really quite good. Clearly VERY divergent personalities and strong disagreements, but it was all well personally controlled.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

Wolfram's Theory is definitely the real Theory of Everything, and it deserves to be explored by academia...It turns a lot of intuitions we think we know to be true upside down...but in doing so it is able to unify everything...and not just QM and GR...Wolfram's theory unites *everything* : Biology, economics, computation, mathematics and physics... under a single and VERY simple framework. It is the ideal "single equation" that physicists have been looking for, for centuries...but it's even more beautiful than that. Even better, is that Wolfram's theory IS TESTABLE. I have done my own personal tests...modeling things just as you would in Wolfram's Theory and I have gotten amazing...mind blowing results. There are no more questions any more...no more doubts to me about how things work, and on top of it is going to change how we do things in technology, which is where Shermer is wrong. Multi-computation is the next paradigm for how to approach modeling of all systems...and I say this without reserve. Once you understand the intuition behind his theory, you'll understand how everything falls into place. One of the things that hit me hardest was connecting Wolfram's theory with symmetry preservation in permutation. Say I present you three letters: ABC. You see, because you are likely an American you read this as well... ABC, from left to right. But that's not the only "way" to look at these three letters. You could have read that sequence of letters from right to left...as CBA...or perhaps you could have read it according to some other logic. There's 6 possible permutations or "ways" you could have read those three letters : ABC, ACB, BCA, BAC, CAB, CBA. You see the information content is arbitrary based on how we decided to parse it in a sequence but what is "real" is that we had 3 "things." Those things that we have act as a sort of "vessel" for information. Those letters could have been numbers...like 001, 110 and so on...or they could have been...well any symbol you wanted to pick really... so information is not contained in what the letters actually are...the information is how we DECIDED to permute what is there..."three things"...and the permutation we chose, will create a logic that makes sense to other observers that ALSO chose that permutation, and further logic based on the sequence that we chose. When you graph out these relationships of these permutations of informational things, the graph is isomorphic obviously...meaning all symmetries are preserved...that includes Lorentz transformations. It's an understatement that this is critical to how Wolfram derives discrete relativity that preservers Lorentz transformations with graph isomorphism...which is just permutations like described above ...the same permutations you obey in group theory when we talk about SU2 SU3 symmetry guys (Look up Lie Groups)... are you seeing the connection here yet? Anyway, just wanted to share why this theory deserves more attention from academia...and that it requires a shift in how we currently understand information theory in the framework described by Wolfram, Cheers.

[@howiegruwitz3173]

I did a bunch of shrooms and what I saw kinda looked like wolframs website so I agree.

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

@@howiegruwitz3173 Were those "Computational Irreducibility" shrooms?

[@MetalMonkey9]

These guys should review Per Bak's "How Nature Works"...The problem with the hierarchy problem is to believe that there is a hierarchical drive towards hierarchy. Furthermore, most physicists are working with linear mathematics because non-linear mathematics are simply harder. No wonder they are trapped in a deterministic framework…

[@sghantous]

Brian Greene's depressing tangent is right on and reflects Hawking's view that our future is here on Earth and we urgently need to address the climate and environment. Space is an unlikely path to survival anywhere else.

[@life42theuniverse]

49:00 As Eric said the ideas of a scientist are often tied with the ego... even with proof it is difficult for a human to let go. It is also the economics of being paid.

[@jootsing62]

Shermer's big mental block with understanding freewill (or emergence) is that you don't need to know how you're making a decision to make a decision. We make decisions and some people would be warranted to call this freewill (if they choose to argue for the compatibilist approach), but this decision making doesn't in any way conflict with a deterministic model of the universe in which "magical" libertarian freewill doesn't exist.

[@nycpaull]

This was a "stop, rewind and play that again" presentation. It seems that while searching for the TofE, as an "active agent in causal net in the universe" we humans have screwed up and have lessened the time available to discover the theory. In that time, could you bring back this group for a Part 2.

[@mraarone]

100% agree, minus the social scientist. He is brilliant and needs his own offshoot. There needs to be a naysayer to GU, and at least some other physicist who agrees with the possibilities of GU to join into part 2. I would love to be a part of this.

[@mrmass144]

I'm physicist , teaching physics for last 20 years. I have proposed a model "Noor model of matter". This can explain the expanding universe ,the photosynthesis ,the gyroscopic effects attraction and repulsion between magnetic poles and charges. I have a feeling that with this model we can explain much of natural phenomena.

[@justanotherfella4585]

I mean fair enough I had to rewind this at several points to replay so I could keep up but Eric was very restrained whilst still smokin’ (as the kids say) hot & sticking to his often cited truism that you really shouldn’t underestimate how small the general public are. Nice one people.

[@billyt8868]

eric doesn’t even know what he’s saying… he thinks speaking in irrelevant analogies make him sound smart but in reality he just has nothing of value to add.

[@CryptoChanakya]

Dude the entire nation of Pakistan is being taught that allah created physics and jinns exist. The general public is atrociously I'll educated.

[@petemccutchen3266]

I wanted Sabine to break into song.

[@winstonsabellona2204]

There’s the Institute making us feel excited through the theme of the event, and then we have Brian right in the beginning bombs that theme and phrasing “theory of everything”

[@Floxflow]

Great points by Brian at 27:05. "To a religious person, religion is the unifying force in the universe, and that relativity, quantum mechanics and the standard model are incompatible."

[@ZeroOskul]

This says that everything Brian Greene says is totally wrong: Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field, Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac Published:01 September, 1931 Abstract "The steady progress of physics requires for its theoretical formulation a mathematics that gets continually more advanced. This is only natural and to be expected. What, however, was not expected by the scientific workers of the last century was the particular form that the line of advancement of the mathematics would take, namely, it was expected that the mathematics would get more and more complicated, but would rest on a permanent basis of axioms and definitions, while actually the modern physical developments have required a mathematics that continually shifts its foundations and gets more abstract."

[@SpotterVideo]

Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature) 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 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. ------------------------ String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .

[@SubTroppo]

I am surprised that Douglas Adam's satire on the theory of everything [Number 42] didn't get a mention.

[@lukasz_mroz]

"The Ponzi scheme meets the hunger games" - brilliant!

[@hochathanfire0001]

In principle, everything is possible. In reality, not so much. I very much appreciate the process of science to provide clarity in issues it can handle.

[@jimk4874]

Feels like a lot filibustering happening in this dialogue. Mostly on behalf of Greene and Shermer.

[@jootsing62]

I agree with Sabine and Eric. Certainly I have nothing to say about the specific arguments in fields I barely completed a BA in... instead I switched to Neuroscience and Philosophy of Mind, another area begging for a so-called grand theory, and I observed a lot of gatekeeping and deflection from difficult conversations because many working in the field have melded their ideas and their sense of identity. Many play the "being polite" game when taken to task. They confuse agreeableness with professionalism. When it comes to consciousness and freewill, there are perfectly reasonable ideas that have been around for a while which do the job, but you cannot convince a man to question a belief on which his job, and ego, depends. In science and philosophy, like anywhere else, it's best if people get along. Ideas are not meant to "get along". That leads to impasses and humoring reductio ad absurdums.

[@dlbugge]

Where was the exchange between Eric and Dan? Was it edited out? Why?

[@georgeliverpudlio1258]

Eric was talking sense here big time. Although, let's save the planet first before some of us leave. 🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@views8962]

I thought he said we need to diversify by that one experiement try to save the planet and another experiment try to leave the planet.

[@tommitchell7294]

Eric isn't really a scientist-inquisitor anymore like Brian --- he's just a socio-political commentator with a podcast

[@georgeliverpudlio1258]

@@tommitchell7294 Oh. Is he right, left or centre?

[@tommitchell7294]

@@georgeliverpudlio1258 unfortunately he has the snarky arrogance of a right wing propagandist like Fucker Carlson or Lying Hannity --- it's sad to see a good mind succumb to a loser ideology

[@eswn1816]

I always wonder WHY people think that life would be better (or even possible) on Mars?!?! Does anyone really know the conditions on that most inhospitable planet! Earth is paradise in comparison. 🌍

[@leematthews6812]

I recommend Sabine's youtube channel if you've not checked it out yet. Not just for the interesting topics - she's pretty funny too.

[@colleenthompson888]

She's got some great threads too.

[@polymathpark]

It's not that someone's scientific theories don't go anywhere, they leave a useful gap as to what works in certain situations and what doesn't. That's always contributing to meta-science.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

If could describe emergence of different levels of reality, such as subatomic, physics, chemistry, biology and so on; might be a way to unify reality into theory of everything?

[@tedviens1]

This is a conundrum. The Laws of Gravity are specific, exact, and universal. Howver. Gravity does not exist as a primary force. Gravity is evident only as an artifact of the interplay between the Space/Time Continuum and concentrations of particles we call Mass. Oh, did I neglect to mention that particles are not real objects? Each particle is actually a highly concentrated form of energy as expressed in the well supported equation E=MCsquared. How a parrticle flies in a magnetic field and for how long, are less significant characteristics of the particle. The particle is really defined by the nature of the energies and the process of how they combine to form the particle. And on the other end is the process of how the energies release their form and what is the nature of the energies released. These are the yet unexplored characteristics that actually define the particle. With simply a shift of the data collected and how it is interpreted, CERN will still prove invaluable.

[@paulmicks7097]

I love all of Dr. Hasenpfeffer's theories of science. When we think of God, the last man made theory of everything before the scientific methods were developed. What is in most human minds is still the pre-scientific theory of everything, a God, a single consciousness, a designer responsible for everything which may not be too far off from explaining everything. Where religion fails is when human writers tried connect this consciousness to the daily life and political control of humans to causes to generate surplus and amass this surplus to wealth nodes which benefit the writers and their entourage. Most scientific humans don't believe in man-made religion but all would agree that something is at work that can be explained in a single theory of everything. Experience could show us anything needs parts to create a working machine or environment so to create what we observe we must understand all the parts. We've gotten to a point where we don't understand dark mass and energy so a theory of everything cannot be developed until those parts are fully understood, but guessing is fun mind game, pin the tail on the donkey is my favorite especially in today's political environment. I once told my young son asked "why are we here?" , dad always was able to answer his questions. A good bail out answer could be "because God wants us here", the religious theory of everything and since current science has not provided an answer, I fell back on nature and biology, anyone observing biology sees how nature manipulates elements and molecules to give life for the many creatures. But it's spooky, how does nature create these molecule machines and give running programs on their individual tasks? Where is this programming coming from? It seems it comes from a dimension or field that must be everywhere. So the answer I gave to my son was first about what consciousness is , how human have a special consciousness that asks 'why are we here', so logically I assumed that consciousness wanted to take a physical form and look upon it's own creations, that through our eyes of observation report to this consciousness, and that's the basic reason why we are here, and hopefully are able to enjoy the gift as we are gifts too.

[@thickdickwad7736]

Good talks

[@carlocoppola3166]

What an amazing video, I didn't understand a word of it

[@fifikusz]

🤣

[@christhorne116]

Is it rude of me to fast forward Brian and Michael?

[@robbie_]

Eric claims the equations of string theory aren't going to hurt us. He's WRONG on that. I've got a bloody headache.

[@ZeroOskul]

1:06 Who is Stephen Hawkins?

[@alex79suited]

If you find the starting position, what I mean is the point of contact can be anywhere or everywhere. But it needs to begin. Begin naturally.what is the initial E points and that's the vacuum itself. The vacuum is providing the means from which the E can manifest itself. Seems to be self evident? Doesn't it?

[@____uncompetative]

Logically, if a _Theory of Everything_ is possible for sentient beings to discover then it would explain why it had to be the way it was. It is not merely the rules of Chess inferred from the observation of games of Chess being played that conform to those rules, but every game that could be created by every combination of rules, e.g. Snakes & Ladders and Monopoly and Go and Checkers and Battleship and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, etc. No game could coexist in the same gamespace. You can't put Monopoly money on a Chess table and keep it being a game of Chess. You can substitute a Queen for the Sportscar if it goes missing from the Monopoly set, but the Queen does not get to move backwards or on the diagonal and can only move sideways at the corners of the board in a clockwise direction. It has to conform to the rules that governed the Sportscar lost between the sofa cushions. So this analogy implies that a _Theory of Everything_ would describe our known universe as being derived from underlying mathematical equations which were themselves restricted as being part of a local set of metamathematical rules and there would be an infinite metamathematical multiverse in which there could be other local metamathematical realms with totally different rules in which exouniverses may exist unlike our own, some of which may not have broken C, P, or even T symmetries (i.e. there would be no entropy, or life, in an unbroken T realm with bidirectional time). How could we know if there is something about our local universe restricts our mathematics from defining an exceptionally simple Lie group that is larger than E8? Can a mathematical proof be constructed that confirms that mathematics is general to the infinite metamathematical multiverse? How could we be sure that this proof wasn't a local delusion based on the rules of our exouniverse? One consequence of pragmatically accepting that there may be other mathematical exouniverses is that it gets around the fine tuning issue as our universe is the way it is not for us, but merely because we are here to witness it - i.e. the Weak Anthropic Principle. If it were a different way and didn't support life, or very alien life unlike us, we wouldn't be in that universe to see it and assume it had been made that way specially for us by some form of benevolent but occassionally irrationally angry bipolar bored diety. However, aside from this very general case, the _Theory of Everything_ would be primarily concerned with our known universe's rules.

[@havenbastion]

Coherence may be required of any theory but exhaustive completeness may not be required of any theory. A theory of everything can never mean literally everything, but what it can and does mean is everything at the bottom - everything necessary to work out everything else.

[@____uncompetative]

@@havenbastion Good point about Godel.

[@wulphstein]

The concept of an Expanding Graviton is meant to suggest that events occur at points, and the universe is updated by the effects of the event at the speed of light in all directions. If nothing happens that is worthy of being called an event, then an Expanding Graviton is still generated and it expands spherically at the speed of light. At extreme temperatures associated with the big bang, Expanding Gravitons are generated much more quickly, and are the reason why spacetime underwent an inflationary epoch.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

Damn, drop the circle below the electromagnetic Force, 0°K

[@nunomaroco583]

Amazing, hope LISA, experiment can prove or disprove, strings existence, and congratulations to that great minds, that for that time, can make a good conversation whidout turn in a total confusion. ....

[@Inpreesme]

Sabine 👍

[@hihihihihihihihihihi323]

it was nice to hear sabine and eric agree with each other for once. these conversations give me hope for the future of science and technology.

[@johnreder8167]

sabine has shown great respect for eric in the past many times. They will always agree witch each other to a certain extant.

[@hochathanfire0001]

Can we have a catalogue or journal for discarded ideas? Bet it would be as voluminous, as entertaining, and more than surprisingly fruitful.

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

19:45 - Totally agree! ^.^

[@OrenBlau]

Recoil test to real world problems made a lot of good data to estimate the constants of cause and effect in complex\ opened systems.

[@cosalidra759]

Should have had Donald Hoffman in this panel, to spice things up. 😁 Also, i didn't know about Eric Weinstein before. This is my first intro to him. I am watching this on March 28th 2022 and I suppose this was recorded sometime before Putin waged war on Ukraine. Eric Weinstein has me tongue-tied, tbh.

[@alex79suited]

It's really just about figuring out how the matter-water got there. We know it's EMFS theory underlying all others. There is no argument there if there is I'm listening, didn't think so. So how did the water-matter get here from an epoch prior to ours makes most sense. Thank you Prof Penrose.

[@ZeroOskul]

11:15 J Gregory Moxness, who owns the website Shermer mentions is an electrical engineer whose training is in the development of weapons systems, half the links on his site's front page are dead and at least one of the downloads on on that page is a virus. If you're skeptical, unlike Shermer, go check.

[@scientistcraft]

Yes. We will have the theory that explain 4 forces with a new math formula that combine those unified forces with consciousness

[@Baleur]

13:30 everyone is forgetting about language... Language is part of the "real world", thus part of any theory of everything. Brian just described a baseball flying through the air using words, instead of describing each individual particle. So then, we're already there. We can describe a baseball flying through the air without calculating every individual atom. He just did it, with language.

[@andregomesdasilva]

Why keeping only 50min for a debate with such deep subject?

[@wulphstein]

Gravitational redshift suggests there is a connection between gravity and photon frequency (wave functions).

[@mikes9012]

Uh, no.

[@wulphstein]

@@mikes9012 Uh, go learn some physics.

[@mikes9012]

@@wulphstein go unlearn some nonsense. I'm guessing you're an 'inventor'? Undiscovered genius in your garage. Sad.

[@GerSHAK]

Is the "third habitable sphere" Eric refers to Moon, Titan or Europa?

[@peterbroderson6080]

The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration” Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and creates our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!

[@PhillipChalabi]

Sabine and Eric to spar over grand unification? Popcorn is ready!

[@binbots]

The arrow of time points forward in time because of the wave function collapse. Because causality has a speed limit every point in space sees itself as the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles. When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment. The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past.

[@cuthbertallgood7781]

The arrow of time is the way it is because time is an illusion. It's just how we measure the rate of cause and effect. Causality has a speed limit because that's the propagation rate of cause and effect. "Probabilistic" is just a measure of hidden properties that we don't understand. There's no such thing as truly random, just a lack of information about cause and effect. There are no hidden demons in the underworld determining probability and wave function collapses. There is a logic to everything -- which may end up being eternally hidden from us because it's at another level of reality, but so far, everything in our experience has had a mechanistic explanation (that people thought was mysterious, until it wasn't). Mechanistic cause and effect is the default until we any evidence otherwise.

[@havenbastion]

A wave function is a field theory of ignorance, not knowledge.

[@LetsTalkAboutIt24-7]

I don't think we have discovered all the types of particles or elements in the universe or the fundamental laws of the universe. Things may operate vastly different in other galaxies. My own theory of the "Big Bang" is that it was the product of a "white hole" "opening." Maybe a "black hole" in a different universe reached a critical energy level and began to revert to its lowest form of entropy by acting as a pressure release value and the discharge came in the form of a "white hole" or (bing bang) and the expansion of the universe is the discharge of energetic entropy of the "black hole". Black holes in our universe might be creating new universes or dumping energy into other universes

[@LetsTalkAboutIt24-7]

Our universe could hypothetically be like our own solar system in our galaxy or our galaxy in the universe. Our universe could be a microverse inside a macroverse. This would mean we don't live in a Uni-verse because there are more than one universe.

[@thomastmc]

The one thing that seems clear is that it isn't clear what comes next to explain what we already understand 😉

[@kevincronin464]

the biggest question is why wasn't this online conference 3 hours instead of a piddly 50 mins

[@Augustus_Imperator]

On free will I have to agree with Brian Greene, everything is the result of what came before and of the rules of physics that governs it, we all are the result of everything we've seen, experienced and learned, there isn't a single thought or a single grain of sand in the universe that isn't where it is supposed to be.

[@thstroyur]

Thence, you've went and checked every single thought and single grain of sand in the universe in order to know that they all are where they're supposed to be, huh?

[@Augustus_Imperator]

@@thstroyur Silly question. I don't see any proof or reason to believe that any single grain of sand in the universe is in a different place than where physics put it. Are you able to show me any proof that anything beside physics influences objects anywhere? or that anything beside experience and genetics influeces any thought in anyone mind?

[@elontusk1168]

This is why every time I commit a crime I just sit behind my eyes in horror as I have no choice but to commit such acts

[@Augustus_Imperator]

@@elontusk1168 an other siIIy enough remark; do you reaIIy? truth is probabIy not, why? beacuse you do what you have to do anyway, most certainIy it's not the fact you know that you have no choice to make you a criminaI or not

[@elontusk1168]

@@Augustus_Imperator deadpan is difficult to pick up on when it’s written, eh?

[@BillyJStorm]

Maybe leave Shermer off the invite list next time...

[@Killer_Kovacs]

I think the best we can ask for is to find another one of those areas of the universe have completely evaded cognition.

[@theknowledge.6869]

I think a Theory of Eric Weinstein's Hair would be Pretty Hair Raising, in itself. Theory of Everything = = The Universe ( and how it works / happens / exists ) is the Theory of Everything. If you could do the adaptions necessary to the Special Theory of Relativity so that it could be used on the Universe as it is ~ in its Totality ~ then you would have your ~ ~ Theory of Everything.

[@georgeliverpudlio1258]

Sabine is a legend.

[@bogdanbaudis4099]

In principle also: Brian Green cannot prove that the "emergent" properties are really emergent from the principles. Because some of the calculations are in hist words impossible to be practically done. Unless of course physics stops caring about testability.

[@tanjohnny6511]

I think there are two types of scientist.Scientist who really wants to knows the theory of everything and those who learn science to create new gadgets and stuff.For me ,the leading edge theory is Bernado kastrup.Since the measurement problem has indicated there is the 'observer' in our interaction with fundamental particles,conciousness must be taken seriously.

[@CryptoChanakya]

Or, superdeterminism is correct and the 'observer' is nothing but a device that interacts with the system and is part of it. The experiment is not untethered to it's environment let alone it's long causal past.

[@stefanfreundt4302]

Dear Catherine, I believe in world formulas, the theory of everything. I believe that mankind learns in leaps and bounds. For me, a "world formula" was the transition from the geocentric to the heliocentric world system by Copernicus. This made Kepler, Newton, and the whole mathematics possible which we use today so successfully. Another world formula for me is the structure of DNA - by Watson and Crick. Crick is perhaps the second most famous physicist of the last century. A third world formula is certainly our deep understanding of atoms. Rutherford bombarded a gold foil with alpha particles and found that some were reflected. With the ingenious assumption of tiny alpha particles and tiny atomic nuclei, he was able to explain this in a classical model almost perfectly. With this understanding, atoms can now be sent through a double slit. (My favorite experiment takes fullerenes = C60 molecules flying through a grating.) Actually, you would expect to see a pattern on the screen like shotgun pellets. But you see interference fringes, so something quite different. But it doesn't matter. We physicists simply say objects behave like particles and waves and call this dualism. And then we have this beautiful and, above all, so impressive mathematics of quantum mechanics. And with that, we then impress the whole world. But a clever 12-year-old will make the following argument: In the double-slit experiment, we have only one unknown. Only the object flying through the double slit (light, atoms, molecules,...) is unknown. The double-slit itself is macroscopic and well known. In the Rutherford experiment, we have 2 unknowns: the alpha particles and the gold foil. If the explanation for the Rutherford experiment is so simple, as it is written in every textbook by now, then the explanation for the double-slit experiment should be as simple (or simpler). A brilliant 12 year old will be looking for a 2nd explanation for the Rutherford experiment. I doubt that any of your guests are capable of thinking like a 12-year-old. Best regards and have a successful day Stefan PS: The woman in the background reminds me of the movie Amadeus and the Queen of the Night.

[@johnzientek735]

The correct version of Aether field theory would unify string theory, quantum physics and gravity and also explain non physical phenomena.

[@bogdanbaudis4099]

Besides: the answer is already known: 42. We just need to make this theory testable.

[@gireeshneroth7127]

It's purely a mind world of consciousness. Exclusively a consciousness activity.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

The subject is nice and important. The guests are bright and surprisingly open to self reflection up to a certain point. However we keep sticking to the same old idea that descriptive math (QP and GR) suffices as provisional 'fundamental physical theories', just waiting for augmentation via some super complex new theory. So how is that working for us after 100 years of fruitless intellectual gymnastics. Sorry. We need to get real. The fundament of all physics is not debatable because it is already clear what it is. The buzz word is DUALITY. More precise: Duality between continuum functions on the one hand (Grid Clock Potential Inertia) and continuum measures on the other (Space Time Energy Mass). The relation between functions and measures is DUAL, not mono. Why do we keep thinking only from our Macro perspective? In the quantum world ST fieldines simply are wound up (twistors anyone?). As such: inverted space becomes the quantized (i.e. integer of windings) object property we call energy and inverted twisted time now becomes a measure of the object's inertia. So, Mass in our macro world may be INERTIA but in the quantum world mass is a CLOCK. Please get that into your brains. Similarly, energy in the macro world is object property of POTENTIAL but in the quantum world it constitutes the GRID. And BOTH functions are valid at the same time. This is why electrons inside atoms move in terms of 'energy quantum leaps'. Is this so hard to understand? Another example we know to be true: Take the double slit experiment; here we see energy as BOTH the object property of potential (in our macro world before the slits) AND as the gird property of spiraled energy (namely between and behind both slits where the ST trajectory is not defined). Since both dual functions are each other's inverse, the act of measuring one function (e.g. measuring energy as potential when we use a sensor) MUST cause the collapse of its dual function (energy as the grid) to its inverse. The in-product has to remain 1 to keep unchanged orthogonal equilibrium. Why looking for complexity when this obviously simply truth is evident? Unless and until our top-physicist accept this basic truth, we will NEVER progress.

[@bogdanbaudis4099]

There is an interesting point to the origin stories: in general, a good origin story is unprovable, but very often when it becomes testable, it turns out to be if not outright false, then at least partly false. This is becoming more and more evident when the nations' origin stories are tested by the archeological and evolutionary applications of DNA technologies. Also funny, some of the elements taught to be fabrications are turning to be at least probable: the Polish nobles' Sarmatism got its share of derision ... but now it appears from DNA that certain Slavic groups might have actually mixed with the actual Sarmatians!

[@kinsleybyrne3399]

Why cannot gravity be emergent like temperature? As the late Freeman Dyson mentiontioned, they are not looking for a 'tempon' to describe the phenomena of temperature, as it arises from vibration. Why can't gravity be emergent from mass?

[@jimk4874]

Intuitively that seems to make more sense doesn't it. I know we're built to make sense of the macro-world, but the question of why are they looking for a particle theory for gravity never really felt right to me either.

[@scientistcraft]

I will say as much as I can continue

[@wetwingnut]

Every time a person claims to be using reason to arrive at determinism its exactly as if they were saying, "two plus two equals banana". Free will is a necessary precondition for reasoning or truth to be valid concepts.

[@moonwater5116]

Go Eric✊

[@janklaas6885]

30:24 i don't even give us 50 years left.

[@Klobbrax]

Love Eric’s ‘eraserhead’ haircut.

[@janklaas6885]

📍36:00

[@generaltheory]

What an introduction! Well, I have the deepest explanation of everything. No one cares, but it is there, it's true, it's simple & based on A SIGNLE PRINCIPLE (contingency of Meillassoux)

[@generaltheory]

Around 300 frameworks and subsetups included. Linking it all together, doing math & coding it all alone now. Not searching for any response. No one communicates anymore, the only way left to make people talk these many years is force.

[@generaltheory]

Guess what. Gravity ia fundamentally quantized. Your theories are wrong.

[@generaltheory]

I wish just about anyone answered my questions about quantum entanglement I ask everywhere.

[@generaltheory]

Psychedelics aren't the fundamental theory of everything, but DMT is named the key to topological core of everywhing for a reason. You don't simply see a perfect circle turning into a perfect tunnel that you then see from a side with spider-like movement evolving from 2D uncertainty blobs for no reason. It's all very simple and lies within evolved humans. Simplify.

[@generaltheory]

*Social works*, insurance, MANNERS, RESPECTFULNESS, INTERESTS, *COMMUNICATIONS*, AWARENESS, CREATIVITY, etc. is how you eviscerate warfulness

[@KaliFissure]

Neutron decay cosmology. Inevitable. The topological solution to baryon asymmetry, electron half spin and conservation as well as fine tuning

[@samhendren1171]

Can anyone recommend some good podcasts staring anyone of these guys? Any hidden gems

[@JeremyHelm]

32:41 this? Found as "Edward Teller's Reply to Szilard's Request" (I tried to post a link, however there seems to be an auto delete for comments containing links) 33:36 yes: tie the toe

[@JeremyHelm]

Of course there's no auto delete on the channels on pinned comment :/

[@francisgeorge7639]

A discussion of this kind that excludes ghosts in the machine isn’t complete.

[@alexwilson8034]

What happened to Stephen Wolfram????

[@TheoriesofEverything]

I'm grateful for this morsel.

[@Mersoit]

you the OG