Purpose and the Universe : Sean M. Carroll

For HD slides -
www.slideshare....
Here’s another talk by Sean Carroll back in 2013. In this presentation, Sean Carroll discuses how universe works and how it is related to philosophy. In particular, he discusses of whether is possible to find a purpose of existence by studying the principles of physics. Along the day, Carroll briefly discusses the views of the philosophers and scientists from the past. Finally, the talk is concluded by arguing that purposes can be created even if they do not come from fundamental physics.
Some other useful videos -
• Harsh Truth about Univ...
• Does the universe have...
• Does the Universe Have...
Some other useful articles -
www.preposterou...
www.huffingtonp...
www.pantheism.n...

[@justinmallaiz4549]

Sean Carroll is being put on my short list of 'Greatest of all time'. (Up there with Elon Musk, Albert Einstein ect).. Besides doing a wonderful job of sharing, teaching and furthering scientific knowledge (esp with the general public). He manages to address religious questions and mindsets in such a respectable, logical and factual manner. He shines when most would simply shy away or fail. Impressive ! (- Still not convinced on string theory though)

[@David_Last_Name]

+Justin Mallaiz Same here. Sean is right up there with Feynman in my book.

[@ronaldderooij1774]

I agree, but I would delete Elon Musk. He is just over the top with his Mars fantasies. Also Tesla is a fantasy that never made any profit. And I am not convinced on string theory either, by the way.

[@frederickj.7702]

Hey, guys, no sober string theorist would tell you that you're *supposed* to be "convinced on string theory"... whatever that's supposed to mean in your own minds; and I don't think any of the three of you have much of a clue where to even *start* "falsifying" superstring theory... or *what* aspect to start with in the falsifying. BTW, a hint and implicit suggestion: Almost no one citing Karl Popper in KZbin Comments understands what Popper was addressing, specifically, and that even so, key parts of that philosophical model took a widely agreed upon dismantling hit of *refutation* in philosophical circles all the way back in the 1970's! Sorry 'bout that. Just for starters, superstring theory at the core consists of one of the most rigorously conceived, solidly logical, most highly developed and most thoroughly vetted mathematical formalisms you could ever hope to find in the sciences, or anywhere else, for that matter. This rigorous framework is *already* highly useful in many areas of physics, including *practical* applications in solid state physics (i.e., "stuff"), as well as being the *only* known convincing path forward from a foundation already solidly connected to the subject at hand toward a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity. As critics, gentlemen, please demonstrate that your opinions are not *empty crackpottery* by: 1st, demonstrating the errors you find in said mathematical formalism. Take as many pages as you like; or refer us to your peer reviewed published papers... and 2nd (still, just for starters), demonstrate why the extensively cited string theory based paper on the AdS/CFT duality by Princeton's Juan Maldecena (circa 1998) which has probably been the most far reachingly influential of *ALL* papers in all of fundamental physics and cosmology for more than the past two *decades* is based on some wobbly thinking. Go ahead, gentlemen, show Dr. Maldecena, Ed Whitten, Lenny Suskind, et.al., where they're slipping up intellectually and leading science away from being science. Very interested to read your treatises... A Nobel Prize awaits, who knows?!

[@tommyheron464]

An amazingly clear and concise way Sean has of conveying his points. An intellectual giant.

[@thebaconized4733]

Carroll is incredible. People need to wake up and stop living in the dark ages. Scientific thought is the best ticket to understanding our most profound questions and needs. Nothing comes even close.

[@coolhat8517]

+The baconized "Nothing comes even close." ....except bacon. bacon solves everything. xD

[@mindmix3836]

You're right. How fellas like Carroll and Krauss ignore the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant is misled at best and dishonest at worst. They are actually a minority even among fellow atheist physicists. Leonard Susskind is quoted as saying that to believe anything fine-tuned to 120 decimal places is just an accident is not a reasonable idea. In effect, he's inadvertently saying that Carroll and others like him-Victor Stenger, Krauss etc.-are not reasonable men. Hawking recognizes it and so does Martin Rees and virtually all other leading physicists today. In the case of Carroll and Krauss, their science follows their atheism rather than their atheism following their science.

Yeah a bunch of fucking retards who think magic is real are obviously right.

[@terrypussypower]

+Hipityhobitis Oh, RIGHT! So there's magic involved in consciousness? After all, what's left if there isn't a naturalistic cause BUT magic? Jeezus?

[@JeroenBaxexm]

+ cowbells

[@davidroberts1689]

I could listen to this teacher forever. He has a way of explaining that is interesting and revealing.

[@mylgphoneelgee162]

Sean Carroll is by far the best at explaining/teaching how physics works he's cleared up most of the questions I've ever had after listening to other astrophysicist and not getting it.

[@tedgrant2]

The best sermon I've ever heard. Thanks for supporting my opinions.

[@pakmans]

Is that Richard Dawkins @56:30?

[@terrypussypower]

Yes, it is! You couldn't mistake that voice, could you.

[@jbarkerhill92]

Great talk He remains unwaveringly logical and clear, while still painting a hopeful picture of defining personal meaning in an inherently meaningless universe

[@augustadawber4378]

“I don’t know what caused the Big Bang and I don’t know why there is something instead of nothing and that means you don’t know either” - Bill Maher. “I prefer Rationalism over Atheism because the question of God is unknowable. As a Rationalist you don’t have to waste your time either attacking or defending either position” - Issac Asimov. “You should be skeptical of everything, including yourself” - Bertrand Russell. I had to preface this article with the above quotes because, although I am a Buddhist and believe in a Supreme Being, I am a great admirer of the above people. My two B.A.’s are not in Philosophy or Physics, so feel free to tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about. You may be right. But I would like to open a discourse with my Atheist friends who have a Philosophy that I also admire. That philosophy is: ‘Your Heart should not accept what your Mind rejects’. One of the tenants of Buddhism is that you should not accept anything without thinking. But, I do have a rebuttal for at least two of the statements by some well known, highly intelligent, Atheists: “If God did not require being created, logic dictates that the Universe did not require being created either” - Michael Shermer. My rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created. Consciousness however is still a mystery. In fact, if you’re a follower of the Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is Consciousness that creates Matter. A Supreme Consciousness may very well indeed not have required being created. To those whose explanation of Consciousness is that the Human Brain is so complex that Consciousness ‘somehow’ evolved; you should know that using the word ‘somehow’ poses a lot of philosophical problems and questions. For example, Immanuel Kant in ‘The Critique Of Pure Reason’ surmised that Space and Time are only the relationship of one object to another; but, if we did not have the concept of Space and Time ‘A Priori’ in our Minds before we were born, we would not have been able to relate one sense impression to another. There would be no Awareness or Consciousness. “Quantum Mechanics allows for a Universe to come into existence out of Nothing” - Lawrence Krauss. I have several rebuttals for this. First, Quantum Mechanics has become all things to all people. Physicist Fred Alan Wolfe in ‘The Spiritual Universe’ claims that Quantum Physics proves the existence of the Human Soul. John Wheeler believes that the strange results in QP experiments suggest that someone is observing the Universe. Secondly, when Dr. Krauss (if I understand him correctly) talks of something coming from nothing - He is talking about Gravity affecting Negative Energy is such a way that virtual particles ‘pop’ into existence which then become real particles. The problem with this, as even physicists who are atheists have pointed out, is that this occurs in Space and in Time within the Universe. The Big Bang occurred in a no-when, no-place, no-gravity. Krauss’s reply is that a true Nothing (no space, no time, no gravity) is unstable. And like all unstable systems, it will eventually collapse in on itself and produce something. I’m not sure how to answer that. In a no-time, how does nothing ‘eventually’ collapse. It should be noted that by the year 2017, there may be satellites in place (according to the Science Channel - ‘How The Universe Works’) that might be able to detect Gravity Waves from a Universe that existed before the Big Bang. One theory is that a part of 2 separate Universes (each as a wave-like membrane) in a Multi-verse, collided, causing the Big Bang. If these Gravity Waves from a previous Universe are detected, that would obliterate Stephen Hawkings and Lawrence Krauss’s assertion that the Big Bang came from nothing. Of course, that still leaves the question: ‘What caused the first Big Bang ?’. And if the continuous Big Bangs go back in Infinite Regression - the question is: ‘Why is there something instead of nothing ?’ When I talk with some of my Atheist friends, who I highly regard, I always assert that both positions on the existence of God require a Leap of Faith. Whenever I state that I always get what I call ‘The Tooth-Fairy’ rebuttal. My friends will state that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. However, they are still not going to believe in the existence of the tooth fairy until there is substantive scientific evidence. My answer to that is: If you want to stay up all night outside your kid’s bedroom after one of them loses a tooth; and the tooth fairy never shows up - you can reasonably assert that there is no tooth fairy. What you can’t do is to go back in Time to the Big Bang and from a position outside the Universe observe the Big Bang and then state: ‘I was there at the Big Bang and I can tell you that there was no Supreme Consciousness. The whole thing was a product of Spontaneous Creation’. Since you can’t do that, comparing the question of God with the question of the tooth fairy or the spaghetti monster, or whatever, is quite disingenuous. This is why Issac Asimov preferred Rationalism over Atheism and why Buddhists, although they believe in God, assert that the Nature of God is unknowable. The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don’t belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a Religious fanatic. If the Question of God or the Nature of God is unknowable, then why do I believe in God ? Well, for me, God is not something I believe in, God is a Supreme Being that my Consciousness is aware of. Of course, what I think I am aware of is not Scientific Proof. So, as a Rationalist, I am willing to place this ‘Awareness’ down as a Belief and put it down in the category of Faith.

[@udaybhanuchitrakar8812]

+Augusta Dawber sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/how-the-concept-of-the-whole-helps-us-prove-the-existence-of-god/

[@udaybhanuchitrakar8812]

+Augusta Dawber sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/how-the-concept-of-the-whole-helps-us-prove-the-existence-of-god/

[@udaybhanuchitrakar8812]

+Augusta Dawber sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/how-the-concept-of-the-whole-helps-us-prove-the-existence-of-god/

[@frederickj.7702]

@ Augusta Dabbler... My, what an exhaustive, meticulously wraught exercise in contrived misdirection! And citing such consensus science killing *authorities* as Bill Maher and Fred Allan Wolf, too! But back from the Twilight Zone to earth now... 1) *Show us exactly how and why quantum mechanics and General Relativity -- both 100% in PRECISE agreement with 100% of all experiments ever done and all observations within their regimes for about a CENTURY now each (!) -- and these pillars of physics' modern expression in quantum field theory (QFT) are WRONG* ... and *cite your evidence!* 2) Demonstrate precisely how *all* of concordance science has missed finding one single shred of evidence for, or has even sussed out one CLUE concerning, *how ANY non-material soul or "you-ness" can escape from an expired human body (or dead parrot!), "fly" away to some perfect place which must be, perhaps, some 40 billion light years or more distant... with no energy source, toward some direction through space which has no meaning... and persist for all eternity* (gawd, what a horrible thought!). Anything else you might have to say in criticism of Dr. Carroll's *actual* rationale and explicit set of qualifications is, of course, *entirely* irrelevant!

[@shirleymason7697]

Does sound exactly like Dawkins in the question segment at the end

[@tommyheron464]

It is Richard. He listens to people like the rest of us do.

[@RonJohn63]

I've seen this video before on YT, but on a different channel (and IIRC with better quality).

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

3:50 So what are some examples of exceptions to the Principle of Sufficient Reason besides the Big Bang?

[@QuantumAstrophile]

To limit our understanding of QFT to only waves which fall into our field of reception (natural or technologically enhanced) limits the perception of waves yet discoved. Beware of absolute statements, Mr Carrol. Nothing found does not imply nothing exists. To state ignorance of waves beyond the scope of our technology is a far more accurate depiction of reality. What we know is great. What we don't know is great. What we dont yet know enough about to know to look is far better than simply not knowing. It is this area of unknown which have inspired enormous leaps in human understamding by the very greatest humans of our history and embedded into our unknown future.

[@edwardlee2794]

Thank you Mr Carroll. It's entertainingly . Bringing science n philosophy in a intoxicating n refreshing cocktail. Thanks and keep up with the good work.

[@drollere]

i'm really astonished to see carroll attribute a false claim to spinoza (3:45) that "everything in the universe happens for a reason", when spinoza clearly and repeatedly states that "everything happens from a cause", and then goes on clearly and repeatedly to state that all the causes follow "natural laws" (and denied the existence of miracles from that claim) and, indeed, said that everything that is, is perfect as it is, because it is an outcome of natural laws. i can't speak for leibnitz, who was merely a christian apologist, but this betrays a huge ignorance of spinoza and of his foundational role in the enlightenment.

[@EneriGiilaan]

I think Carroll was implicitly referring to Quantum Mechanics here - in that very fundamental level of reality "everything happens from a cause" indeed seems to be wrong.

[@drollere]

you didn't listen to the video. carroll doesn't attribute to spinoza the claim that "everything happens from a cause", which can still be true even when the cause is probabilistic and diffuse; he said spinoza argued that "everything happens for a *reason*", and that's a teleology that spinoza emphatically rejected.

[@EneriGiilaan]

Well actually I did. According to my 'interpretation' Carroll is at that point using 'reason' and 'cause' as synonyms - and I think he makes that quite obvious at about 4:05. We can perhaps agree that he could/should have been more careful with his terminology. I don't know enough of Spinoza's philosophy (or any other philosophy for the matter) to start actually arguing about this. However, what I think I understand is that according to Spinoza the causal chains are infinite (no 'prime mover'). This still implies that every event has a prior cause (or causes) - AFAICT this is contrary to the view of the QM where events *really* do happen without any cause.

[@drollere]

sincerely, you need to learn how to listen. the talk begins with the trial of a dutch nurse for murder. why is that relevant? because "we always want to find something to BLAME. we want to find a *reason why* things happen." (2:10). "you find THIS KIND OF REASONING over and over again," (2:30), for example in an evangelical blowhard (2:50 -- slide title, "the urge to find REASONS"). for every natural disaster, "people want to BLAME somebody" (3:20). "and it's not just evangelical preachers, THIS KIND OF THINKING goes back ... famously to a set of works by the philosophers" spinoza and leibnitz. at no point does carroll indicate that he has any other interpretation in mind; "everything can be blamed or credited" to something else happening (4:05). clearly, "finding reasons" as a pretext to fix "blame" is the governing context up to this point. (we started with a trial.) as i said: spinoza thoroughly mocked "this kind of thinking" in his ethics; yet "this kind of thinking" is directly attributed to him by carroll.

[@EneriGiilaan]

Fair enough. As I said I'm totally out of my depth when arguing/discussing philosophy - but I can do perhaps a bit better in Physics. If I understood at all, your problem is that in Carroll's examples the 'reason' implies an intelligent agent behind any event or some teleological goal. And this is not at all what Spinoza means by the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason'? Approaching this from physics - I indeed did not recognize the (valid) issue you raised - I took his examples as just easy to explain demonstrations for our natural tendency to try to require a reason/cause for all the events. And I still think that his actual point is how this kind of thinking about causes seems to affect even the deeper philosophical views pertaining to the physical reality. And to me it still seems that PSR and the infinite causal chain are at odds with the view of the QM. That said I concur that my understanding of what the PSR actually says might be much too naive. BTW I mislabeled the point of interest previously as 4:05 - should have been about 4:20.

[@joshuanicholls2692]

You are your own purpose. We are our purpose. Done.

[@profesorXa]

XDDDDD

[@joshuanicholls2692]

Don't you agree that you are your own purpose?

[@vidyanandbapat8032]

What Dawkins basically states is the why question is only relevant in the sense of how and not what we mean by why in our day to day lives.

[@cheangleng7617]

Every scientist always talks about gravity but nobody knows what gravity is. Gravity is gravipush. What is gravipush? (Gauv Grauv's top science theory) In the multiverse big bang, bang everywhere when it is ready. It doesn’t matter big bang or small bang or tiny bang or hand clap bang, all the bang are energy that have release into the universe everywhere in space and bothers to all objects even atom or particle that I call: “stress pressure of the universe”. Those stress pressure travel straight line in space to all direction in speed of light without block each other and push to all objects form together even atom call “gravipush” (old word call gravity). All objects in space have blocked each other stress pressure of the universe made the stress pressure unbalance so those objects will run toward low pressure to each other by gravipush. Bigger object has bigger mass, bigger mass has more gravinet, more gravinet can block more stress pressure and get more gravipush. So I announce publicly: From now on no more gravity but gravipush to all scientists all over around the world. Thank you Written December 23, 2015

[@amitgurung8739]

Sir please explain goal achieving technique by physics.

[@elfootman]

I understood the conservation of information stuff thanks to Sean!

[@dwolff4127]

So I have a Question. My body and yours, along with every other matter/energy in the universe were compressed to an infinitely small point. we were all indistinguishable. The same plasma energy singularity. I am not IN the universe. I AM the universe. Simply a different arrangement of atoms then an asteroid, star, or planet. When playing chess I have a purpose or I have the self assigned illusion of purpose. This is True OR it is non random. I (the universe) have a purpose as defined by me (the universe). Another Part of the universe (Shawn Carroll) is communicating that my purpose is an illusion...at least that is the purpose of his communication...heh, heh, heh.

Yeah, that's not what purpose means.

[@adamzandarski8546]

D Wolff That's not how to formulate a question.

[@thulyblu5486]

Carroll was not communicating that your purpose is an illusion, quite the opposite :/

[@Domispitaletti]

Tbf with you we were all entangled in the early universe.

[@andeez4663]

The more we learn of the natural world the more religion needs indoctrination of the young to survive. Protect your children from illogical myth!

[@zatoichiable]

The universe is the work of art of the Greatest Artist, to share the beauty of his work for all his creation to see.

[@bobbyboywonder12]

I agree, Odin is a wonderful, all powerful, creator of the universe. The one true God, none else being true gods

[@zatoichiable]

Stevie Wee So true.

[@dennistedder3384]

Do you realise how stupid that is? There are over 2000 "one true gods" out there so say the worshipers of "those" gods. "Saying" you are the one true god does not make you the one true god, moron. And by the way, without all the bullshit talk that you "feel" it, how do you know there "is" a god? Do you have physical evidence more than just because he visits you at the foot of your bed each night? Stupid?

[@dennistedder3384]

Moron

[@zatoichiable]

Well believe them all if you have problem picking only one.

[@JanaPersson]

In the big equation of everything - What does the W stand for?

[@davidwilkie9551]

Mechanism supports a reason, but the reverse requires intent to use a particular mechanism. "The bullet doesn't kill, the person pulling the trigger does", the bullet transfers energy, so it's part of the mechanism of the universe. Philosophy on the subject questions if the intent is also part of the universe or a random act newly created out of unreasonable imagination. So the "eternal" question is, "Is humanity a living example of self-creating independent philosophy?", or the accidental result of a mechanism of compounded quantum resonance? The word is not the thing.

[@serbanmike]

If we admit Einstein E=m c^2 that matter is energy , and energy is matter and we agree that energy creates a gravitational field, Can we theorize that gravity is ultimately an electrical force?

[@ronaldderooij1774]

No. Gravity does not exist as a fundamental force or even as a force. It is an emerging property stemming from the interaction between energy (in the form of mass, photons, acceleration etc) and the vacuum we call empty space.

[@xxnotmuchxx]

I have a question. Why is it that the current configuration of dominant culture is unsustainable when there are many smart people in the world? And in case you didn't know we have global warming, deforestation (about 1 acre per second), topsoil depletion, more debt than money in the world, etc.

[@PeterMcLoughlinStargazer1877]

+Topsoil Depletion Awareness We are smart but not perfectly rational in case you didn't notice.

[@joanac.ventura9036]

Read Francis Fukuyama's thoughts on political decay

[@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164]

Because stupid people are voted into public office by stupid LAZY people.

[@ronaldderooij1774]

Because people in their 2 million year evolution never had to look so far into the future. We are programmed for one year ahead.

[@channingbartlett8139]

Sheldrake (e.g. his TED talk) is a good companion piece for this.

[@ronaldderooij1774]

Sheldrake deserves praise that he put his theory of morphological fields to scientific tests. The tests showe that they do not exist. Now, he should look into something else.

[@new-knowledge8040]

Come on guys. An apple has both an inside, and an outside. So does the universe. One side is different from the other, thus you have 2 different sets of laws of physics. If you view a spinning particle, such as a photon, and view it from the inside of reality, you see a particle. If you view it from the outside, you see a completely filled corkscrew wave-like path, a path that is extending from the source all the way to the destination. A complete corkscrew wave-like path will interfere with another complete corkscrew wave-like path if they cross each others paths, and they will do so in a manner that will obviously create a visible interference pattern, assuming of course that the quantity of these paths is large in number. A good example of this is the famous 2 slit light experiment. If the experiment is allowed to run for say 5 minutes, it is seen as being a single 4D 5 minute event from the outside. However, if we continue to detect and detect photons that are present within the experiment, each detection is an event in itself. Thus in detecting the photons we break the experiment down into real time events. Thus the experiment can no longer be governed from the outside as a large single 4D event. Thus these complete photon corkscrew wave-like paths, each extending all the way from the source to the destination, are no longer being taken into account. Thus the wave interference pattern, collapses. Also, from the outside, an entangled pair of photons, would not appear to be separate from each other since there entire paths are being viewed. This measuring of the properties of one of the photons would simply be one particular component of a single 4D event, rather than it be the cause of some inexplicable "spooky action at a distance".

[@vladvalentinov]

Weird, he is saying that you can't change the rules of chess, and at the same time he is saying that morality is not to find it but to invent. Gay "marriage" as his example: original law was flawed so we need to redefine it. Why? How come you are changing rules right after you have said that rules of chess are not to mess with?

The rules of chess are not flawed.

[@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164]

.

[@vladvalentinov]

Old Man from Scene Twenty Four so do you agree that the video has contradiction? And what kind of "real knowledge" can prohibit one person from killing another?

[@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164]

Vladislav Valentinov.

[@vladvalentinov]

Old Man from Scene Twenty Four That is what I was talking about. Morality is subjective! And if so, you can't judge Hitler for killing people, because "his group of people" agreed that it is a good thing.

[@SampleroftheMultiverse]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/raOlpKSfepWpfZY Observe this effect where the induced buckling of a field produces quantized waves that are reminiscent to the “particle in a box” wave solutions. The buckled material produces a bell shape curve. The process works only when initial buckle is stop just after it began. The rapidly increasing area under the curve is contained. The pressure from the containing sides is then used to produce sine waves of higher and higher frequency. If you bond the crest and trough to the containing field they then produced fundamental structures in the form of trusses or hadrons or atoms or molecules or bridges.

[@theophilus749]

Carroll's point about always wanting someone to blame is well taken. It is a sad and common enough flaw among we humans. Some events do indeed happen 'by accident' (though in accord with the laws of physics) and no one is to blame. But Carroll goes wrong when he hauls in the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason' (PSR) as his witness for the prosecution against our thinking in all this. Leibniz presents the PSR thus: it is that "by virtue of which we consider that we can find no true or existent fact, no true assertion, without there being a sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise". (Other formulations exist.) Blame or credit really may not have anything to do with this. If a wave knocks down a house then the fact that the wave has sufficient momentum to do this combined with the fact that it struck the house could be held to the 'sufficient reason' for the house being knocked down. Why? Because the momentum of the wave and its striking the house _is_ that "by virtue of which" the house _was_ knocked down. Carroll simply misinterprets here the use of the word 'reason' as it is employed in the PSR. It need not be restricted to any one domain of thinking (human blame and thinking, for instance). PSR can allow that the laws of physics combined with some set of initial conditions, for example, constitute a sufficient reason for an event. (Though what kinds of thing exactly may constitute a sufficient reason is itself a controversial matter.) PSR does not necessarily have anything to do with getting "to place demands on the universe". (_Who_ exactly does this anyway?) But however it is to be more precisely understood, and whether or not we are in any position to check up on particular cases of alleged sufficient reasons for this, that or the other, PSR itself is simply a principle of _reasoning_, like the law that we should avoid contradiction. Like the latter (though perhaps more controversially) it makes demands on our thinking _not_ on the behaviour of the universe. PSR does indeed face some philosophical problems all its own (the problem of there arising an infinite regress of sufficient reasons, for example and the worry whether that would mean we could never have a truly sufficient reason for anything) but these have nothing to do with Carroll's rant. This, though, brings me to a deeper worry. I have the impression that Carroll is a cosmologist who often wanders into Philosophy. There are others who freely do the same - Hawking and Krauss, for instance. This is understandable. It is often difficult to see where science leaves off and philosophy starts. That acknowledged, all too often cosmologists fall to the temptation of using their legitimate public authority in science to give backing to their views on philosophical matters. Yet often they make simple mistakes when they do so. Speakers and writers in general, I feel, should take extra care, and perhaps exhibit a little more readiness to admit ignorance and just plain unfamiliarity with the relevant literature, when they move into disciplines in which they clearly have no specialism.

[@VYDZ]

Is it possible that organisms create their environments, and that environments do not exist apart from organisms? Is Lewontin done with Darwinism? He says: `It is also necessary to realize that life as a whole is evolving in external conditions that are the consequence of the biological activities of that life.’ ---- The organism `selects’ the fittest environment for its theories and life strategies by means of its `environment collapser,’ its body. This is in total contradistinction to the Darwinian idea that the environment selects the organism by some form inherent in the environment. This inversion of the Darwinian paradigm is extremely profound. It turns Darwinism, induction, and the whole paradigm of the scientific materialist on its head!!

[@machintelligence]

"environments do not exist apart from organisms?" Who ever said that? Other organisms, especially conspecifics, are a major part of the environment in which an organism finds itself. Natural selection operates there in a perfectly Darwinian manner.

[@das250250]

Morality isn't rules its a range , its not riles from a god but a designed construct , a zone . The morality inside this zone can be defined as social philosophy that sustains life with emphasis on reducing suffering . In other words , morality is reasoning designed to reduce suffering and can be seen in animals to avoid unnecessary suffering . Alpha males occupy the throne to mate because others choose not to suffer uneccesarily for that right because they know they do not have the strength nor the emotional strength to gain it. Range allows for observations that different cultures have different moral code. To live outside that moral zone is certainly possible and happens but the further away you get from societies centre the more likely you are to be dealt with. There is no right or wrong just a measurement of how far you are from the cultures moral zone centre.

[@profesorXa]

Stop stealing from God to dosproove him. FFS

[@1800cgrisbaca]

Could not help but think that there's no way of knowing if the Highs Boson discovery may yet prove useful. Electromagnetism was not seen as having useful application at first. And quantum mechanics may help us explain some biological processes, for example photosynthesis. Just saying.

[@SweatyShivers]

Well it is the mechanism that gives mass...well, mass. Leave to the engineers to apply it to the every day world.

[@gyro5d]

Aren't we living, an amount of time, in the past. By the time we realize the present. By then, we are living, an amount of time, in the future, of our present. If, we could realise our present sooner, than that amount of time, we would be living in the future.

[@snuzebuster]

If the arrow of time is arbitrary why is there any more sense in thinking that consciousness exists because of physical brains than to think that physical brains exist because of consciousness? Because the latter smacks of teleology?

[@snuzebuster]

+Tom Paine Oh. OK, so he isn't ruling out teleology. He's just saying that it is also an emergent feature of the universe.

[@snuzebuster]

***** Hmmmm. I can't argue with that. Actually, it's all rather unintelligible to me...i.e., the arrow of time being arbitrary. Whatever, the good thing is it eliminates the reasoning for the concept of a "Creator" that is so useful to various mind control projects known as "revealed" religions.

[@frederickj.7136]

...Also because the latter smacks of a long line of crackpots, hucksters, fake gurus, "psychics", and indifferently or cruelly exploitative self-enriching religious opportunists. Deepak, Dr. Alexander, et.al., you know who you are...

[@JanaPersson]

Now, wait a minute.... 40:20 - "The universe started in a very very delicately arranged state"? :-)

[@frederickj.7136]

That state -- Super low entropy for initial conditions, superfluous by some twelve orders of magnitude to that necessary to have produced the complexity and order we observe in the universe today: 💥🔥💫

[@giuseppevianello9288]

Brilliant!

[@sergeynovikov9424]

life itself hasn't been explained by modern physics -- it's a very specific physical processes which is far from fundamental understanding. but what we can see now is that life has a fundamentaly quantum nature. it's non-local and evolution of life is deeply related with evolution of the whole entire observable universe. it's all single quantum system - the universe and its observer. that's why our present knowledge of physics is not enough to understand and describe all things we have here on Earth - life is out of our present explanations and has direct connections with TOE which we hasn't invented till now, as well as hasn't decided which of many interpretations of QM is correct)

[@SampleroftheMultiverse]

So simple a child could understand it and so complex it cant be mastered.

[@das250250]

Let us not be confused intent versus reason. There can be reasons for particles to do things explained approximately by math and models but intent is acknowledgment that there is purpose to these mechanisms .

[@vidyanandbapat8032]

The Kaveman That purpose is the answer to the how question, not the why question.

[@user-lu9hq6jv4v]

Information is everything, death is a realization of consciousness no longer in a body. It is old fashion thinking to say there needs to be a process to transfer the information into another body... to reflect a continued awareness. Our brains do not create consciousness.

[@kennethchemabers1170]

Too bad Carol let the Socratic charity loose and didn't follow through with the punch (I'm referring to that last bit on refuting the fine tuning argument) Feynman said it still sound too provincial. I'll stick to that. Because in that light, it does seem like baby talk.

[@viswagsena108]

Identity crisis-Cause and Effect-cosmological index-cosmoc Function of the Universe-Cosmology definition in consonance with nature and philosophy.Space Cosmology Vedas Interlinks-Cosmology Definition-1 By Vidyardhi Nanduri kzbin.info/www/bejne/iJDYon59rbWVbcU Introduces Cosmology Defintion, coverpages of 7 books,Purpose of interlinks -all in brief 15 Books at LULU

[@SkyDarmos]

It is funny how he tries to critisize attempts for a physics of consciousness, by saying that there are no new particles. New particles would be a mechanical explaination. In no means would that help to explain consciousness. And that shows that Sean Carroll never really looked seriously into consciousness research, which is really mainly emphasizing quantum coherence and the reduction of the wavefunction.

[@Animuldok]

you tube is not the place to publish your findings, try a peer reviewed journal.

[@SkyDarmos]

Yeah, I will try that soon.

[@SkyDarmos]

That is the materialist deception in science. It will stop one day. For example when people stop thinking that all parapsychologists are liers. Materialists can only survive by calling not only parapsychologist liers, but also mathematicians who point out that Goedels incompleteness theorem doesnt allow AI. All those guys you quote are part of this big show of ignorance.

[@SkyDarmos]

I misappropriatly interprete the incompleteness theorem. That is what they want to make you believe. However, not interested to argue about this. Have a good day/night.

[@terrypussypower]

+Sky Darmos Parapsychologists are LIARS, not "liers".

[@cuzned1375]

Somewhere in America, there is a brilliant physicist who’s dedicated their career to discovering a new particle, just so they can name it the xilbot.

[@SkyDarmos]

Quantum gravity is not only important for cosmology, black holes, but also for the brain and consciousness. So Sean Carroll is quite wrong here.

[@frederickj.7136]

Show us the evidence for that fantastical assertion and for Dr. Carroll's apparently quite definite purported shortcomings relative to your more penetrating intellect. Oh, wait, mega-presumptuous crackpots such as yourself NEVER come across with meaningful evidence. Oh, well, never mind then.

[@onlythetruth62]

What makes Sean Carroll Lord over so many of you?

[@PhrontDoor]

We simply accept the logic and evidence-backed assessments he proffers. The entirety of the model that he offers is based on innumerable testable known and understood mechanisms of function.

[@David_Last_Name]

+Only The Truth Well for starters Sean knows more about the universe then the "god" that supposedly created it.

[@ronaldderooij1774]

Because he tells us that there is no Lord, so he tells us also that he is not the Lord.

[@aim00ver]

Being short - is that correct that the purpose of the Universe - to let gays marry?

[@nontheistdavid]

SANITY!

[@evilcam]

Dawkins' comment about morality requiring intelligent design was great.

[@user-hi2ot1ex3r]

Peace, mercy and blessings of God be upon you .... Are you looking for happiness in this world? Do you want to know the meaning behind this life? Do you have questions that you did not find an answer to about the universe and how it came? Do you want to make your life a worthy goal to strive for? If you are, let's go together and learn about the Islamic religion that will answer all your questions and guide you on the path of truth 🤗

[@CraigReukers]

Poor Richard. He does try so hard. Why can't morality just be produced by the same mechanism that produces intelligence? Or the other way around - morality produces intelligence? I don't know personally, but they do often seem to correlate. Does intelligence produce morality because it is the right thing to do? Or because it didn't have a choice - morality being the intelligent choice and all? That is funny, if I say so myself!

[@mykaterface1933]

*Lucia de Berk turned out to be innocent.

[@ronaldderooij1774]

Yes and Sean said so.

[@frederickj.7136]

...AND pretty good looking, court sketch artists not withstanding.

[@MtnTow]

59:25

[@barnabyrt1012]

1:03:42, what a silly old man! hahaha...

[@josuejumalon]

I just can't understand why reasoning has to be limited to his own reasoning? in my own reasoning this guy is so inconsistent.

[@ongvalcot6873]

Universe was created so Sean M. Carroll can make money talking about it.

[@checkmilu]

Scientists don't pursue money, only stupid people chasing money.

[@SkyDarmos]

The big bang was not special. It had high entropy (many primordial black holes).

[@frederickj.7136]

...Which have so far avoided all attempts to observe or to "weigh" as a fraction of the universe's total matter-energy content. Where, pray tell, do you get *your* information? Drug trips?

[@tookie36]

a theist and an atheist walk into a bar and start debating God... Sean Carroll shakes his head and says Jesus Christ do something helpful

[@Cindy-ls3dj]

Your purpose in life is simple. Reproduce. It's just that simple. All other animals/plants are the same. Reproduce so the chain of life can continue. End of story. How you enjoy/use the other time surrounding your purpose is up to you.

[@vidyanandbapat8032]

Cindy Not to reproduce. Its just The Pursuit of your own happiness. Founders have already stated this in the Declaration of Independence.

[@johnwillis7063]

It’s ironic that with every single topic, especially concerning theories, Carroll is completely 2 sided. “That’s probable”, “that’s possible”. Yet when it comes to God, he talks with upmost certainty. Which is exactly his own reasoning for not trusting in what others say, when they speak in certainty and don’t ask questions. I don’t think you have it all figured out there buddy. I’ve heard many wrong things come out of your mouth on this topic. Maybe ask some questions.

[@frederickj.7702]

@ John Willis... You obviously are either too irrationally biased and emotional... or too ignorant to have comprehended (or care) what Dr. Carroll *actually said* and explicated in quite some detail. Your implicitly counter-factual *straw man* argument will impress no thinking person who could be bothered to pay attention and isn't too dumb to "get" it. Yours is example No. 9,786,453 why religious apologetics in KZbin Comments almost uniformly *never* address directly or in any way, shape, or form refute the *actual assertions* purportedly due criticism (cowardice & incompetence)... and *so* typically reflect the abysmal sense of ethics and personal responsibility of the politically religious critic (institutionalized moral compromise, or worse, depravity, and endless hypocrisy). Your ludicrously chest-puffing, puerilely snotty wind up just seals *that* deal. Pathetic attempt... as usual.

[@darkdragonite1419]

@@thevulture5750 meaning it doesn't need God.

[@vencheock4233]

All rational being are imaginary ........very amusing !

[@elfootman]

Hahahahaha 1:09:45

[@omo3tayo]

Let's suppose the Simulation Hypothesis is true, therefore God the programmer, or any advanced civilization that simulates, could also create life after death. The clue of how life occurs after death in a simulated universe is actually very simple in my mind. You can simply question the mode of dreaming! Unless you believe dreaming is entirely made up of things you experience in real life as we've been told, visually interpreted when you sleep, then consider this hypothesis... So we know photons communicate through the process of entanglement irrespective of distance throughout the universe and indeed it has been measured. What you did not do here, you did in another alternate reality. So if I was God the programmer, simulating life forms in a computer, one of the experiences allowed in my laws of physics, would be your ability to visualize alternate experience through dreaming. Why would photons ever go to sleep because the body? This is a huge area in my novice experience all scientists have left uncovered. We also know there is strong empirical medical evidence of NDE patients, who have been able to recount everything that happened when they have been unconciously operated upon. I greatly admire Sean Carrol, however I've researched from Kurzweil to Kaku, to Professor Brian Greene, Tegmark and Bostrom and one missing piece that puzzles me, is not one single scientist can explain dreaming empirically. Understandably, it is because we simply don't understand dreaming!! However, those of us who have had experiences in dream states and question what may be happening at a quantum level, unfortunately are not scientists. I fail to agree my mind is simply capable of creating blockbuster videos in REM sleep of places I've never been or seen. No scientist can explain what is actually happening when we have OBE's to other dimensions either. Therefore all this is left to be uncovered and considered pseudo science. So my rational explanation relies at near future VR and AI technology at hand and the Simulation Argument. Hence I feel it is 80% likely we live in a simulation and for me that explains Dreaming, OBE's and NDE's far more plausibly. If you disagree with me, consider this...imagine you are God the programmer with all the technology in the world... how would you create your sentient particles with infinite experiences? I feel with VR as the next biggest paradigm and AI, we are going to unravel the mysteries of why we are here within only the next 15 years. It's becoming more and more obvious we are living in a simulation! Not essentially for someone's entertainment per se, but it could be that heaven, if it exists as an advanced civilization post the big bang, got very boring indeed, therefore why not create infinite simulations to have infinite experiences like the matrix? After all, it's not real, but feels real which is the point. You simply enter the simulation in some form to have infinite gaming like experiences. That's one plausible idea. i mean what experience would you like to have if you played my VR game... would you like to experience what is like to be black, white, latin, chinese, a dog, cat, or fish? When you spend a full 16 hours in my simulation VR game, you go to sleep and wake up in the next one through what we call dreaming! Another simulated idea would be if I created the simulation, why couldn't you hack it? Therefore could it be if my simulation was meant to be good and you hacked it with ill intent, that could explain irrational insidious behaviour in this simulation. The point I'm making is, there are so many ways to develop a simulation for all kinds of infinite reasons once computing power allows it. One other reason could be to iterate what my computer beings and entities are doing with infinite outcomes, just so we can make the right decisions in the real more advanced universe through observation. Now that sounds to me like a real simulation! Which explains why past, future and present does not really exist at the quantum level, but time is one. The simulating observer should be able to see all instances of time occurred in our reality, which is probably a nano second in their reality. I should be able to determine every future outcome based on decisions to iterate my real universe. Infact, if I put my simulated universe and sentient beings in an extremely advanced blockchain, not only could I keep records of every event that has ever happened in my simulation, I could design it, in such a way every being in my real universe can use my simulated blockchain, to anonymously iterate outcomes in the real universe based on observations. So that is why dream states in the simulated universe, are just infinite probabilities and outcomes ever possible, for real time observation by the programmer civilization we call God. You get to experience all those alternate realities through dreaming and the reason most don't make sense, is because there is no logical order out of billions of probabilities based on decisions and laws of physics in those realities based on entanglement of photons. To back part of what i'm suggesting here, kindly go and search the following on youtube " Freaky Baby " where a neuroscientist has created a sentient like baby in the computer by reverse engineering the human brain. It takes only 5 minutes to watch. His baby in the computer responds to words and gestures by him the programmer, outside the computer. It's amazing! Therefore if this is possible today, imagine what is possible in only 15 years. Soon his computer baby will learn and respond to all kinds of human innate behaviour, good bad and ugly. Once freaky baby's learning is perfect over X years, he God the programmer, must surely be able to replicate "code" his computer baby and allow it to evolve within the simulation he has created. The baby will cease to have learned communication with God the programmer once he has perfected his technology, thereby he shuts down that communicative experience in freaky baby's cognitive. Baby now fully exists and evolves in the simulated universe... let's call baby EVE lol! But seriously, guys this video was shown on Bloomberg TV as one of the most advanced technologies taking place right now. So the only thing I disagree on in this great Sean Carroll video, is that life after death actually does exist! It's simply a question of interpretation technologically. Unless photons can utterly be destroyed of which we are made of, you exist in infinite forms within a plausible simulation. I'm betting we will soon find out within only 15 years at the acceleration of technology assuming we have blown ourselves up. Actually, one thought that came to mind, is this planet is already observed as dead!! Plausibly in the simulation. Why? My suspicion is based on decisions we made possibly 500 years ago at the advent of gunpowder. God the programmer could already see we blowed ourselves up! That said, I also suspect this may not be the case if we make the right decision, however that looks more and more unlikely in this simulation "plausibly" as it were. I'm not a scientist by any measure whatsoever and I'm not religious either. I'm just suggesting this area has to be explored conclusively. Thanks for helping me raise my level of understanding Sean and I am looking forward to exploring more of your exciting talks, teachings and videos to help me learn more. Cheers! Robert Haastrup-Timmi. Kindly excuse typos, it's very late.

[@Sirrehpotsirch]

This man may be a brilliant cosmologist but he is a dreadful philosopher. The claims he makes can be debunked by any 2nd year philosophy student.

[@SweatyShivers]

Go ahead.

[@VirtuallMcNut]

lol

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

Perhaps he's a 1st year.

[@frederickj.7136]

Go ahead... "make my day... punk". Prove that. Feelin' lucky, hotshot?

[@TomTom-rh5gk]

Carroll is a liar. I say energy can only interact is their is space. So according to Carroll there is a space particle but no one has produced a space particle so space cannot exist.

[@cheangleng7617]

Every scientist always talks about gravity but nobody knows what gravity is. Gravity is gravipush. What is gravipush? (Gauv Grauv's top science theory) In the multiverse big bang, bang everywhere when it is ready. It doesn’t matter big bang or small bang or tiny bang or hand clap bang, all the bang are energy that have release into the universe everywhere in space and bothers to all objects even atom or particle that I call: “stress pressure of the universe”. Those stress pressure travel straight line in space to all direction in speed of light without block each other and push to all objects form together even atom call “gravipush” (old word call gravity). All objects in space have blocked each other stress pressure of the universe made the stress pressure unbalance so those objects will run toward low pressure to each other by gravipush. Bigger object has bigger mass, bigger mass has more gravinet, more gravinet can block more stress pressure and get more gravipush. So I announce publicly: From now on no more gravity but gravipush to all scientists all over around the world. Thank you Written December 23, 2015