Sabine Hossenfelder on Physics and the Big Questions | Closer To Truth Chats

Sabine Hossenfelder talks about if the past exists, how the universe began and how it will end, information, math as reality, time, and consciousness. She also discusses her new book, Existential Physics: A Scientist’s Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions.
Order Existential Physics: A Scientist’s Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions: bookshop.org/a/86576/97819848...
Check out Sabine Hossenfelder's channel: / sabinehossenfelder
Sabine Hossenfelder is an author and theoretical physicist who researches quantum gravity. She is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies where she leads the Analog Systems for Gravity Duals group.
Register for free at www.closertotruth.com for subscriber-only exclusives.
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and produced and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@wolfgangpetersun2730]

WOW ! Two of my favorite scientific and philosophical channels discussing with each other, thats great. I love how Sabine challenges the sometimes existing mainstream thinking in science and how Robert opened the world up to many philosophical and religious questions for me and introduced me to great people in that field. Thank you both. Dankeschön. A physicist.

[@Baba-fy1jc]

I find this two Channels too very good. She is one from the best here so Far it here so Visble is. I work a long Time with all this Stuff here and with more ,and think she lives not so extrem in a Bubble how so many People here. The Determinisem Plays a Important Role here,more as that die the most People so Vosible is. The Life moves his self more through us ,as many People taht so belive. For me is it extrem Visible how the Life the People so Moves or drive or how Fast the Subconscious here so works. Here is the Awerness a big theme or Topic ,or the Consciousness, but the Role from the Subconscious,that is here for the most People not so Important. The most People Understand that not ,how the Self esteem or the Inferiority complexes in the Mass here so work, or how that the People so moves, or what taht with us so made. My Englisch is not the best, but it is Visible for me, that the Human here not so extrem the Control have ,as the most People that here so belive. The People here lifes with to much Mental Problems and that is more as big Problem. That is good here but, many from the People that we can see here, have self more Psychologic Problems with Psychologic Disorders as many People taht here so belive. The People or the Mass has here more Problems with the Subconscious and with the Inferiority complexes as the Most People taht here belive. The Nature made this Errors from us, in the Next Time more Visible for us. The Human brings a Chaos in or on this World and that comes Back als this Chaos knows no mercy. The Human works Visible very bad with the Logik on Spezial Places or very Important Places ,and that makes here the Mass ,more as good Visible. I belive the Mass must more talk About so Themes waht the Nature through us so made or the Life. The Problems here with the Mony or the Greed or the Nature or the different to the Poor and to the Rich,that all made here ,a bigger and a depper Problem Visible. That made can made a Line to the other Problems Visible. Then the Self esteem and the Inferiority complexes is a mover from the Problems with the Mony. The Human likes the Materialism to give his self a better Feeling or the Kapitalism or the Brand Fetischism. The live give bis self through the Human Mass his own Dopamin und Seratonin kicks,that it so loves or so Need. I belive the Mass work not so much with his Consciousness how so many People that so belive. I belive for her is here more Visible from the Determinisem as for many other People here.

[@chrisgriffiths2533]

Wolfgang Petersun, Have You Visited Wolfgang Peak in Central Queensland Australia ?. Apparently this Peak is the Core of an Extinct Volcano.

[@rodrigolabarre]

I was going to say the same! I need Sean Carroll to have the whole crew.

[@scoreprinceton]

The anatomical brain and its resources might limit what might be explored scientifically, philosophically, linguistically and hence the need for AI like technologies. Even with those, we might create consciousness and yet be without a clue about the purpose or meaning for anything and everything. In the end, after all is said and done multiverse might just be without any explanations, reasons, cause or causeless.

[@spiralsun1]

Wow is right. 11 seconds in, Sabine nails it 💅🏻 ❤️‍🔥👍🏻

[@infcreate]

Such a good interviewer. Some of the experience I have listening to Sabine is getting ruined by terrible questions or people around her who don't seem to understand what's going on. Robert is following her thoughts very attentively, and always seems to articulate his questions in a profound and elaborate way, very close to the manner in which Sabine is used to answer. All I'm saying is, I think the interviewer is worth the interviewed here, and I think that doesn't happen often

[@danielm5161]

Yeah he is one of the best

[@truthbsaid1600]

Dr. Kuhn must be one of the best science interviewers ever and Dr. Hossenfelder has the spark of genius in her eyes. What a pleasure to watch even though I do not understand some of the deeper arguments discussed.

[@spiralsun1]

Well said indeed 🙏🏻👍🏻

[@BriarLeaf00]

Honestly while I have some issues with the overall approach of the show he is very charismatic, intelligent, witty, and with a voice you could sit down and listen to until the end of the universe. I've been a longtime subscriber and love this channel despite my small issues with it (who doesn't have issues with everything though in the end?)

[@missusbarkdog]

I don't agree. She fails to answer nearly 50% of what she is asked. How is that intelligent? I mean, Wittgenstein at least said 'let's just pass over it" instead of "not necessary". My two cents.

[@ReynaSingh]

Great to see Sabine on here!

[@christopherstanford5599]

🤗

[@fistandantilusdarkone2684]

Wow! My two favorite! Thank you both look forward to reading your book!

[@Mutual_Information]

I appreciate how Sabine consistently advocates for Occam’s Razor. As she says, she’s skeptical of any theory of the early universe that introduces complexity that isn’t necessary to explain observations. It’s a principle that holds true almost everywhere, but is often abandoned because it can deal devastating blows to otherwise respected theories. (I think everyone knows what theory I’m thinking of)

[@TurinTuramber]

Exactly, let the data write the conclusions. Too many people try to write whatever story best fits their preconceived (theological) conclusion.

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

@@TurinTuramber I'm not atheist, just strongly agnostic, but i fully agree with you Geralt, btw i subscribed to your channel many many months ago

[@abelincoln8885]

Because you have no proof of what happened 13.7 billion years ago that you are using to explain natural phenomena today. She says she starts with with what we know ... but we have known for over 120 years that the Universe, Galaxy, Sun, Earth Atmosphere, life and machines are thermodynamic Systems and with increasing entropy. We have known the Universe is an ISOLATED thermodynamic system with finite matter & energy & increasing entropy. All thermodynamic systems ... are Functions ... and originate from the surrounding System(s) which must provide the matter & energy and time, space & Laws of physics to exist & to Function. Man has known for thousands of years what a "function" is and who makes them. A Function is simply ... a system that PROCESSES inputs into outputs and has clear PURPOSE & FORM which is information that every Function possesses to exist & to function. How long have we known the three types of physical machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ) and that nature can never make or operate the simplest machine(Function) made by Man ( intelligence)? The simplest mechanical machines ... include the stone wheel, axe head, lever, wedge, nail, screw, spring, spoon, fork, cup, plate ... which are single homogeneous objects ... with clear purpose, form & design to exist and to function. Quantum particles are the simplest single homogeneous objects with clear purpose, form & design and properties. Protons, neutrons & electrons are functions composed of Elemental particles(functions). The Elements are functions composed of Functions. Molecules are Functions composed of Functions. Everything in the Universe is a Function and every complex function ... is composed of simpler Functions. Again. How long has Sabine and all the rest of you known that the Universe is an Isolation Thermodynamic FUNCTION ... and that Nature can never make & operate the simplest PHYSICAL FUNCTION made by an intelligence ... like Man? You are cherry picking what you know to explain natural phenomena and supposedly "confirm" your materialist beliefs Universal Functions is the Hypothesis for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago. The Machine Analogy is just an OBSERVATION. Newton was saying everything is a Function ... that can only be made by an intelligence. And Universal Functions can be easily tested and confirmed ... by simply fully defining the Function & Intelligence Categories using information from known natural & unnatural phenomena which a subcategory types. You use the Function Category to identify anything that is a Function ... and you immediately will know the origin of that Function. Only an intelligence makes Functions which possess information. Only an intelligence extracts information from a Function. The Laws of nature and all scientific knowledge .. is information .... extracted from various types of functions ... by an intelligence called Man. Sabine claims that "we don't know" what happened with the early Universe is BS because she does know what a thermodynamic system is, and only an intelligence makes Functions. She KNOWS the Universe was created by God over 4 days less than 6000 years ago but by some "unknown" UNNATURAL process 13.7 billions years ago. Again. An elemental particle is the simplest Function. There is zero evidence that nature can make & operate the simplest Function.

[@mikel5582]

@@adriancioroianu1704 At the fundamental level I don't disagree with your argument. So how do you propose we proceed as a civilization? Do we throw in the towel and concede that nothing is knowable and therefore every explanation/viewpoint is as credible as the next? Before scientific inquiry, and before theism, human success and progress was probably dominated by some very different mode of thinking that is now relegated to the trash heap of human evolution. Who knows, rationalism may eventually give way to something better but, for now, it seems to me to be the best approach for human ecological fitness.

[@kierenmoore3236]

By ‘theory’, are you referring to all the many god(dess) hypotheses (even this term seems generous) … ? ☺️

[@Robinson8491]

Thank you for tackling time and eternalism and presentism in the first chapter, now I'll definitely finish the entire video and buy her book

[@Boudica234]

What a discussion! The thing I love about Robert is he really listens to his guests and admits when he doesn't understand a particular argument. The high quality and relevance of his questions demonstrate how open minded and incisive the man truly is. I love Robert and Sabine and could listen to them for days

[@rckflmg94]

@@ROForeverMan Trollboy

[@rckflmg94]

@@ROForeverMan you've demonstrated a sad yet hilarious example of projection. Good luck in your search.

[@woufff_]

Great, thank you for this Robert and Sabine 💖

[@marcco44]

fantastic times we are living in! love your channel!!😊

[@pandemicentitlements5198]

Robert Lawrence Kuhn, the David Letterman of the world of physics and philosophy. Sabine, you know you've made it, when you're on with Mr. Kuhn.

[@Scroticus_Maximus]

I would say the counter is true. You know you've made it when Sabine is willing to talk to you.

[@NeverTakeNoShortcuts]

Mr. Kuhn, you finally made it. You have Sabine on!!!

[@rckflmg94]

@@NeverTakeNoShortcuts Kuhn is much better known and established as a KZbin personality than Sabine.

[@fluffysheap]

@@rckflmg94 I'm not sure. He's been around longer but they have about the same number of subscribers. But Hossenfelder posts new content every week, while most of the content here is recycled.

[@E-Kat]

You'll only know you've made it when you see God!

[@adamnoble1689]

Aaawww YES. One of my fav channels and my fav Physics communicators. Thank you!

[@slsteinman292]

Excellent. Thank you, both.

[@gingrai00]

I loved this interview!

[@johnmanetas1504]

Thank you Robert and Sabine, for this beautiful presentation of philosophical and scientific ideas. I'm sure I will dream tonight the big Nothing full of small everythings.

[@andrew3xuk346]

Sabine, I have studied much of your work (you tube) & enjoyed the interview.

[@johnrowson2253]

I love to watch Sabina talk, and Robert has a wonderful voice !

[@johneonas6628]

Thank you for the video.

[@cgmp5764]

A great communicator with a very logical analytical mind (and sense of humour in her videos).

[@biedl86]

This was a very interesting chat. When Sabinə (don't ditch the schwa sound, if you want to pronounce her like she'd be pronounced in Germany) first uploaded her freewill video, I didn't believe her assessment. It caught me off guard how she spoke about it, in this seemingly dismissive tone. But really, it wasn't dismissive. Since, I've seen many talks and debates about freewill, looked into the topic deeper and I even went back to her video and deleted my comment, where I was originally accusing her of arrogance. How would she know, was what I asked, that she should stick to physics instead of diverging to armchair philosophy. I took it personally allegedly not having freewill. Today, I do believe it's a mode of thinking you have to develop, to assess the things the way she does. It's not really assessing, it's rather postponing the assessment if you lack sufficient knowledge. And really, if you get used to it, it's like that thing you can't make unseen anymore. Since I'm very familiar with this mode of thinking when it comes to God, it wasn't all too hard to stick to the data and re-evaluate my stance on freewill. The difference is, the data suggests, that there is no freewill, while it suggest that we can't know anything about God, because there is no data to be gathered. So, ye, it's the same mode. Stick to the data. Don't be afraid to say, that you don't know. Don't let your emotions influence the data. Don't add unnecessary assumptions. Then you should come closer to truth.

[@MeissnerEffect]

That was fantastic and much appreciated 😊

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

Love Sabine's channel!

[@mrbamfo5000]

@@ROForeverMan How do you know J5 is a male? Could be fangirl.

[@loushark6722]

Enjoyed this a lot

[@mariavm9178]

Dr. Hossenfelder is so brilliant. I look forward to reading her book. This channel and hers are two of the best. What a great chat. Thank you, Robert and Sabine.

[@firstal3799]

Agree

[@spiralsun1]

Thank you for this ❤️‍🔥. That intro is the best thing I have heard all year and it actually made me cry tears of joy. I love both you guys so much. 🥰🤩 The questions asked and what Sabine said I am in love. ❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥 I never enter any conversation on free will. It is a mark of deep confusion and an eruption of the intersection of what we call “ego” or the need for control with a dangerous ignorance about ourselves and the universe. Simply asking the question is the answer. In the past they asked the wrong questions too. Like: “what quantity of phlogiston would incinerate the universe when ignited”. Phlogiston is a placeholder for ignorance. When you don’t understand that happens. Note that the universe doesn’t have “free will” except within the parameters which keep it existing. You have to understand why that is necessary.

[@89gregpalmer]

Sabine’s take on entropy is beautiful.

[@stuartjohnson6143]

Excellent, a proper intellectual discussion all the way through.

[@boydhooper4080]

Great interview and discussion

[@Northwind82]

This is one of his best interviews. I also love his interviews with David Chalmers which is funny because because he said to Sabine that he believes in weak and strong emergence. I am pretty sure David Chalmers introduces Robert to the idea in another interview.

[@bradstephan7886]

If time is an illusion, which it must be, as is all creation (everything we experience is only experienced in the mind, which is the very definition of 'imaginary'), then everything happens all at once, meaning past, present and future are always right 'here', right 'now'. A very enjoyable, thought-provoking discussion, thanks to Robert's excellent knowledge base and interviewing skills and, of course, Sabine's incisive, inquisitive mind.

[@Life_42]

Two of the best humans that ever exist in one conversation!!!

[@ericstorey1864]

As an outsider I love physics and especially the history of physics, it’s all about the progress of thought with me, so these discussion’s are brilliant to listen to and what I like about Sabine is that she dares ask major questions, she is by her own admission a contrarian and questions the direction of the physics community is taking. I have two of her books, Lost in Math and Existential Physics and they are both a joy for me simply because of her ability to explain difficult concepts with utter simplicity.

[@Thomas-gk42]

entirly right, her books belong the best, I read in public science communication

[@ithaca3929]

Fantastic dialogue. Two great people !

[@jeffamos9854]

@@ROForeverMan sorry your woowoo is irreievant. maybe a girlfriend will help

[@martymerkler5472]

Great conversation.

[@existncdotcom5277]

Extraordinary interview

[@NEWNEON]

Awesome! Riveting & fun. Two brilliant minds.

[@ashroskell]

Her KZbin channel is one of the best on physics out there.

[@herbertdarick7693]

Great conversation 👍

[@JAYMOAP]

Sabine very good to try to keep it deterministic. Also most things she said very much on point. Including the universal computational potential, strings, holographic superconductor, and emergence of different level of computation ylup to coherent living matter states. Nice conversation 👌

[@Thomas-gk42]

Every interview with Sabine is a garanty for an intelligent, pointed, couraged and refreshing talk. This here is, wow, one of the best. Many thanks

[@Scroticus_Maximus]

Everybody loves Sabine!

[@joehelsley8321]

You're 2 of my favorite online people but most of the discussion is predictable simply because Sabine is an absolute physicalist. I nevertheless love her discussion of physics. I've read 1 of her other books but will buy this one as well. Thank you both for your contributions!

[@fluffysheap]

Well, according to physicalist theory, it should have been entirely predictable! 🤣

[@tomingrassiaimages8776]

She is fantastic.

[@MrSuperduperpj]

Sabine is super brilliant.

[@PurnamadaPurnamidam]

Sabine is here also now thats a GREAT news. She explain things very well. I like here talks very much. Thanks Lawrence keep the good work as ALWAYS Sir.

[@PurnamadaPurnamidam]

@@ROForeverMan Indeed 😉

[@stephenlawrence4821]

Good discussion. On free will, which is the main thing I'm interested in I think we do know what it is. It begins with a concept of what having options is. The idea is we can select anyone of them in the actual circumstances with exactly the same past. But that's not what options appear to be like at all. What it seems like is we have options we can select if... So having options is compatible with determinism. Not so free will and there is no reason from theory or experience to think we have free will.

[@orhallurkristjansson223]

After been watching almost every episode of Closer to truth and listen to the greatest mind in science I am not one inch closer to the truth. I am still going to watch but no one know the answers to the most fundament questions.

[@todddavidson3192]

Of all the exclusively bonded group of particle, fields, etc, the one we(or at least I do) understand as the person Sabine is my favorite.

[@mintakan003]

She has a wonderful YT channel, where she is a very clear science explainer. Love it. Clear explanations calm my mind (lol). Her position on super-determinism is a minority view. I've now gotten used to the probabilistic view of quantum mechanics. This is the mainstream view (e.g. as presented in PBS Space time). But I really don't have a dog in this fight. It would be interesting to see if we can make progress on this question, e.g. her suggesting the quantum mechanics is still a proximal theory, that there is a testable way to move towards a more deterministic theory, though it would involve non-linearities, and making progress on measurement problem.

[@mrbamfo5000]

@@ROForeverMan did you seriously go through and write "fanboy" after every comment?

[@fluffysheap]

Progress on quantum interpretation is being made. Bell's inequality has been tested, ruling out most hidden variable theories. So pilot wave is pretty much out. Loop quantum gravity (not a quantum interpretation as such) is on life support as a result of experimental evidence. Objective collapse theory will be tested next, probably within a decade. Nobody is making progress on testing string theory, but that doesn't mean nobody is making progress at all.

[@floriath]

Two of my favorite people at the same time.

[@timothylamont845]

Epic video! Love Prof Hossenfelder! I subscribe to both yours and her channels. Thank you and keep it up.

[@Cameramancan]

Love to listen to her…she is wonderfully intelligent and articulate. She’s down to earth and has no truck with magic fairy dust or pseudoscientific bonkerism!🇨🇦

[@firstal3799]

Down to earth ?

[@siulapwa]

I love Sabine

[@iankane1733]

Hey I watch both of your channels! Nice to see a collaboration!

[@mrsgingernoisette]

Sabine is a literal queen..

[@Memfys]

I love Sabine. Thanks for this great interview!

[@owencampbell4947]

Sabine's conscious mind and her honesty are way advanced. Thankyou RLK for the interview and hopefully we'll be seeing more with interesting topics and Sabine's opinion.

[@TimothyOBrien6]

I appreciate that you take seriously and ask guests the question "why is there something rather than nothing?". My two cents is that it is because mathematics operating on itself truly underlies everything at an ontological level. Always interested to hear what others think.

[@mrbwatson8081]

If there is something rather then nothing, does that imply that there always was something? or that something can come from nothing?

[@cnault3244]

""why is there something rather than nothing?" Unless is can be shown that there was ever a time when there was nothing, the question is moot.

[@cnault3244]

@@mrbwatson8081 Unless is can be shown that there was ever a time when there was nothing, the question is moot.

[@mrbwatson8081]

@@cnault3244 can both exist?

[@TimothyOBrien6]

One way to start thinking about this question is to look at the different ways "nothing" is represented in mathematics.

[@AmitRay47]

Very contesting. I like your mind, Sabine. I am sure you will come out with a new verificable theory, idea or concept beyond that of Einstein.

[@Thedeepseanomad]

Indeed. The point (or att least one of the points) is the universe transforming itself through life. To what, will be up to what life wants it to be through what it learns, wants and what transformations are possible.

[@ElkoJohn]

One of your best . . . the quasi-mystical thinker and the militant scientist.

[@LucharPS]

A bonus - two of my favorite Ytubers together

[@steveclark8538]

Excellent fun TY

[@junkjunk2493]

yay , sabine the queen

[@vm-bz1cd]

Great interview! Sabine certainly dodged the question re consciousness... Hard scientists like her HATE this topic which leaves them totally nonplussed..😀

[@rhqstudio4107]

Sabine is my AMAZON🎉

[@melgross]

I’ve been subscribed to both of their channels since each had about 20k subs. I’m amazed to note that they have both started at about the same time and have grown at the same rate. The numbers are so close so as to be statistically insignificant. I wonder if they both attract mostly the same audience. Both are wonderful channels.

[@TupperWallace]

R L Kuhn has had twenty seasons of talking with the finest minds in science, philosophy and spirituality, so it was fairly easy for him to lead Professor Hossenfelder to the limits of her stolid worldview.

[@wade8518]

I really feel that there was a real discussion instead of just being a agreeable and playing dumb with the subject, or just spewing out history. I want to know where we are in science and be on the edge of discovery. Not a history lesson. So I found this discussion very interesting

[@Edison73100]

Very good.

[@MatthewCleere]

I love you Robert! I have a very personal suggestion: every time(pun intended) you talk about getting closer to truth, bring with you the idea that TIME only exists in Space/Time, so ALL viable arguments MUST remove Time and understand it's emergence in Space/Time. Because I think it is obvious that Time does not exist outside of space/time, and yet SO many arguments you engage in are absolutely dependent on Time. I love you. Never stop!

[@CMVMic]

Sabine!!!

[@fluffysheap]

Quality interview. Dr. Hossenfelder is pretty far from the usual guests on this channel. What I find interesting is that her materialist viewpoint is pretty extreme even for a physicist, but she's not hostile to other views, she just doesn't find them useful. And she's so consistent that there's not a lot of cracks to dig into. Probably a weird interview for Kuhn, too. "So, that's exactly what you believe? No exceptions or hedging?" "Right" "Well, OK then." My only regret is that they discussed Einstein and she didn't say "that guy again" 😉

[@Youtube_Stole_My_Handle_Too]

He's far too weak to interview Hossenfelder - both professionally and verbally. Even when she placed herself wide open for attacks he wasn't able to go for the kill. Hossenfelder's weakness is her reluctance to accept anything outside what she thinks is the core of what we know from experience. This is not the tough mentality we need to discover new experiments we can do to know more. I can't blame him though, even Krauss turns into a softball when meeting her so I guess there must be something about her that makes you want to go agreeable. I was impressed by Kastrup when he basically dressed her naked.

[@PrivateSi]

The problem with the Standard Model and fundy physics is it has ignored or dismissed a century ago far too many alternatives at all levels of QM and elevating TOO MANY MATERIALS to the status of fundamentally very important particles, many of which are still hypothetical / theoretical or poorly evidenced by often uncorroborated, very noisy, highly filtered experiments designed to confirm their theories, ripe for the picking of cherries. -- 2 good examples are hydrogen / proton energy levels... Explanations morphed into whole number wavy orbits with no fractions of waves allowed.. Not a bad idea, but Einstein and Planck combined forms a both pixelate and stretchy matter-energy EM field. -- A field of +ve cells close-packed by free-flowing -ve gas is all that is needed to emerge all the forces and a corrected particle model. 1 force, 2 base particle types, 1 with quantised charge.. +ve cell (gap) size decreases with -ve gas concentration up to a limit (see Planck and Schwarzchild). -- This allows hydrogen / proton energy levels to be modelled as a mostly stationary charge density gradient, a continuously flowing one with straightening inflows and spiralling outflows that mostly collide laterally, cancelling out their sideways force leaving only the inward flow force.. Some magnetic field loops form like a ring magnet with torus shaped field squashed into a sphere. -- Electrons obviously prefer to sit in a shell of +ve cells.. The shells get further apart the close to the atom . But what are Electrons and Positrons.. In this model it's field cell (+ve quanta, +1) with 'total escape energy' forming a positron with the excess charge left behind forming an electron.. They are entangled so play tug-of-war on the -ve gas which vibrates the field back and forth in a flux tube that can get very thin and long. KEEPS THEM IN SYNCH. -- Free electrons and positrons try to shoot their excess charge and suck in charge from the far more balanced field that is having none of it, so repels its load back from all directions.. The fastest way using the least energy to get rid of a field imbalance is in the direction of its motion. It's an INERTIAL FIELD - preserves momentum.. This spherical free electric field disrupts the quantum gravity field stretch so a free electron / positron is 99% electric energy, 1% (more like 0.5%) STRONG MASS ENERGY... -- Positrons and Electrons ALWAYS COME IN PAIRS, this is a well proven universal law, like DOING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITH AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE... Where are all the positrons and where do protons,provably composite particles, get their +ve charge from? There is one ignored solution to the ANTIMATTER PARADOX that does not properly break symmetry or invent very problematic anti-universes and anti-glaxies, and DOES NOT WASTE THE POSITRON - the only other known truly elementary particle.. -- Under certainly conditions (ie. the Big Bang) STRONG FUSION took/TAKES place where new protons are formed by 2 positrons colliding with an electron at opposite angles, or squeezed and held there long enough, with a spare electron left over... This happens more often than 2 electrons hit a positron to form an anti-proton so the net result is a HYDROGEN PLASMA SOUP. -- Beta- radiaiton is a Neutron losing its nucelar bound, not strong-mass-force bound neutralising electron that sits in a proton's +ve energy band or on its MAX-PACKED MASSIVE CORE, rolling round, with its vibes neutralising the proton's vibes.. Those vibes are part of the STRONG REPULSION FORCE too (as well as the core being max-packed).. It's the underlying electrostatic force of the field that bonds electrons and positrons via flux tubes that get thinner and thinner the further away from their connected partner(s) they get.. -- Most of a particle's energy is stored in the centre and will revert back there if the surrounding field warp is causes is diffracted.. No energy is lost by the field or the particle, and its warp field reforms.. This may be the case for photons to a certain extent, and definitely at a base level where photons are the size a single few cells.. -- A PHOTONIC BLIP is quantised.. Blips are like 'elementary photons' or 'photon elements', with photons build from them, effectively.. Energy is stored in the wave peak either way, an it's this that warps the surrounding field.. Photons do spread their energy when diffracted and these chaotic and calm interference bands act as wave guides for photon peaks..A kind of pilot wave theory. -- blah..blah... Everything can be explained and sensibly simplified into a semi-classsic + quantum, quantised space where MATTER TRAPS a finite supply of -ve ELECTRO GAS (like an 'electron gas') away from voids to particles, forming CHARGE DENSITY GRADIENTS = Gravity, with VOIDS EXPANDED and space around matter COMPACTED as the perfectly balanced, tiny, empty crystal turned more and more 'Matter-Energy EM FIELD into MATTER = permanent charge imbalance.. It was a chain reaction of matter creation from an initial parallel e_p pair creation. The universe expanded rapidly but WAS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE.

[@notanemoprog]

@@KZbin_Stole_My_Handle_Too LOL Kastrup

[@Youtube_Stole_My_Handle_Too]

@@notanemoprog Yes, Bernando Kastrup ripped her appart.

[@steveflorida8699]

@@PrivateSi at the end of your discourse on matter & energy, you did not disclose the origin of Life. And if Life (living organisms) is not inherent in mechanistic atoms and lifeless molecules, then Abiogenesis is a lifeless hypothesis.

[@oldrusty6527]

Will is *free enough.* It is as free as you would ever want it to be. You never experience an inability to will something. You never say, "dang, I wish I could will that." And we have a deterministic physical system to thank for that.

[@michaeljmcguffin]

A few moments of interest: 20:34 Context for her statement in the teaser: "whereas I think what's missing in our theories are the big connections that hold the entire universe together [...] the big mysteries that we have left to solve [...] concern how we are embedded in this entire universe" 28:00 David Deutsch and the existence of universal computers 34:03 consciousness 40:56 free will

[@haroonaverroes6537]

what is really conscious is first-person experience term ! this new term, there is a progress !

[@cannettedebiere]

Sabine is so down to earth in her analysis of the reality, which is good in my opinion, and at the same time brave enough to question the most fundamental laws, conventions and implicite rules of physics. Unfortunatly sometimes it sounds a bit too brave (like the doubt about the 2nd law of thermodynamics). I haven't read her second book but I hope there will be some serious arguments for this one.

[@Thomas-gk42]

yes, and she made an entertaining video about that, but this is smart speculation , and Sabine makes clear, thatit´s not more

[@MikA-db2]

Fantastic discussion. Consciousness seems at times to be made complicated, one being ,,"aware" , being conscious of events and things around self, being apart of those events. But interesting, that pain and pleasure, does influence conscious being. But then, electrons have repellency or attractions So are they not conscious Perhaps consciousness, is the ability to get things done, within limitation!

[@SerenityReceiver]

That's a combo I'd watch more often. Maybe even with a third party with more opposing arguments.

[@LarryFasnacht]

AWESOME! I've watched nearly every video you've produced. I've also been watching Dr. Hossenfelder for a couple of years now. I'm super happy to see you interview her. Good job!

[@WizardSkyth]

Sabine's clarity of mind is rather enjoyable. It would be a blast to get her and Joscha Bach in one interview on some great topic. Another intellectual giant I could suggest is Sergey Pereslegin.

[@WizardSkyth]

Except for the transplanting you into a machine nonsence

[@timoluetk]

I see Sabine, I click.

[@shaikhraisuddin4878]

Consciousness is a name given to management of changes by a physical being. Source of knowing comes from memory known as hysteresis. Source of sentience comes from elastic property of matter of a subject. Qualia are elastic wave patterns

[@Nodalthree]

One cannot present specifics with generalities. Yet it is the specifics that ultimately average to generalities. It is this path that indicates that the foundation of the Universe is not yet understood. Sabine is in line with this understanding it seems meaning that one has to understand the problem before a solution is illuminated.

[@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523]

Sabina es la neta del planeta!

[@franciskingtalksonspiritua1278]

I think you would enjoy interviewing Rupert Spira and Bernardo Kastrup.

[@Maaaaaavah]

You should have Bernardo Kastrup on and also see how Sabine treated him in a debate on TOE!

[@papasmamas1]

The Queen of Physics 🔥🔥🔥 If you want 0 BS, just check her youtube channel.

[@jamesconner8275]

Great to listen to their exchange. But, it's mostly above my pay grade

[@zooologist]

13:25 ! Spot on!

[@oldrusty6527]

46:03 Sabine: "If you really want to hold a position like this, you would have to argue the human brain is not really made out of particles." The appropriate question is not "what is the brain made out of?" The question is "what are qualia made out of?"

[@lightkeeper917]

I think, what we have to do in life, is learn how to ask the right questions and not waste our time, on questions that can never be answered.

[@leojames7331]

It's a fucking travesty that closer to truth doesn't have more subscribers. It's some of the absolute best content available

[@bryanaleigh8503]

Agreed. I think it’s because most people nowadays don’t seem to seek these types of truths!

[@anthonylethbridge458]

Great series. If Sabine thinks that she is living in a block universe (with slight quantum variations of the future) and does not believe in free will then from her point of view her life is entirely deterministic and she is essentially a robot. She does not look like one nor does Robert.

[@missusbarkdog]

She cannot and would not entertain free will because she denies the reason for it: the Creator. Free will is that question which is posed to all created things to differentiate between believers and non. A great proof in the Quran involves the Sun and the Moon prostrating to Allah and both did so "willingly". In other words...a created being WILL follow the greater WILL of the Creator either voluntarily or involuntarily. When a created thing follows unwillingly they suffer consequences. Of course, all things without free will follow (as if by instinct ...like bees or dogs or volcanoes) and that is what creates the commonality that we see here on the surface of this planet and all the way up to the universe. Of course they do...imagine a bee refusing to be a bee or Sabine refusing to be a human. As such, the bee must do what it does and as a human, she is presented questions that she ignores and creates "ignorance" of her role in this conundrum. Again, thanks for your honesty. How refreshing.

[@SpotterVideo]

Sabine has done an excellent job of asking the hard questions that many others have ignored. Is "Beauty" really necessary? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford 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. (More spatial curvature). 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 Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. 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. 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 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. 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. >>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting 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? =====================

[@ronaldjorgensen6839]

own it thanks

[@ahmedbellankas2549]

Sabine's argument seems something like this: 1-if reductionism ( reducibility to particles ) and determinism (particles are deterministic ) then no free will; 2-reductionism and determinism; C-therefore,no free will. But why should we accept 2,it seems her motivation is: we have studied somethings about nature and we have found them to be deterministic,so we extrapolate that,here's the problem of induction,even if we say it makes true predictions, why not appeal to scientific antirealism,and most models appear to be idealised,and also in the world we have distinct and different objects,so why should we say that the properties of a are the properties of b? And for reductionism,we see that p has some constituent d,but why should we say that p is reducible to d?

[@heresa_notion_6831]

Loved the Deutsch example: google's definition of universal computer: "A universal machine is a general purpose symbol- manipulating machine, capable of solving any problem whose solution can represented by a program-an organized set of logical operations." So I'm wondering if David Deutsch meant something like this (when he brought up the "universal computer as derivable from string theory): There are theories of everything in the physics sense, but there are also theories of everything in a philosophy sense. The latter might explain why science works (not sure). Suppose the universe is a universal machine and the objects in the universe are just programs thereof. Then ontology comes in two basic flavors and science is just the explanation of the two flavors, usually separately, but explaining them jointly is not necessarily disallowed. The first flavor is how things happen. Think analogically about a human-built computer. There is a well-defined "determinism" for the computer and how it computes, which is a physical infrastructure that allows its programs to run. However, what programs are actually run is not (hard) determined by the infrastructure; the infrastructure can run them but how they got there was determined by other factors (e.g. evolution and luck) detachable from the cause/effect pathways of the infrastructure. The second branch of scientific study concerns what things there are in the universe (i.e., the program's that are running in the "universal" machine). Such programs would be everything from people, brontosauri, and chemical reactions. So all science is either physics, or hardware considerations (i.e., the elementary cause/effect paths of basic matter and energy that are possible) and what things there are (i.e., programs running in the physical architecture, and how these change with time, something like software considerations). These programs are emergent in exactly the same sense a computer-program that plays chess with you is emergent from its hardware, but not entailed by its hardware; it's entailed by its software. Software is like an emergent property (e.g., information/behavior, which is transmitted in organized matter). I do not need to posit a programmer for any programs running in the (actual) universal machine, but I do need to specify how chance factors and causal properties of matter/energy, at a fundamental level, may have allowed programmers (e.g. humans) and simpler life-forms (e.g., abiogenesis) to have evolved. However, under this view, non-biological "things", like stars and black holes are "programs" too.

[@shironantony]

Robert: I'd like to check back with you every decade or so. Sabine: (bewildered) "spooky action at a distance"

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

At 12:00 The same objection applies to Superdeterminism, obviously. That infinitely precise fine tuning in the initial conditions that superdeterminism needs is, perhaps, the most unnecessarily complicated thing one could ever imagine as a start for our cosmos.

[@fluffysheap]

Superdeterminism doesn't have any particular requirements on initial conditions at all?

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

@@fluffysheap Without infinitely precise fine tuned initial conditions you don't have any chance to mimic the usual EPR - type correlations of standard QM with local hidden variable theories . If someone rejects " statistical independence" - as in superdeterminism - there is no other option than conspiratorial ( and infinitely precise! ) fine tuned data in any Cauchy hypersurface ( e.g. near the Big Bang etc.) Let's not mention the fact that we're living in a vastly big , old and complicated universe- we' re not living in a simplistic toy model !