Scientists Propose 3 New Laws of Nature that Explain Complexity

[@SabineHossenfelder]

The quiz for this video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1697366102073x432282544378655300

[@osmosisjones4912]

If you can create a simulation so accurate down to last subatomic particle. Wouldn't they be recreation. An artificial parwell universe away for time travel

[@osmosisjones4912]

Climatologist said by 2018 the Maldives will be under water

[@babyoda1973]

Love you keeping science honest

[@smlanka4u]

The simulation theory is childish. The theory called 'Binary Physics and Buddhism' is better.

[@srobertweiser]

Sabine, next time you talk to Elon ask him if he'd be interested in owning an original copy of Das Marsprojekt personally inscribed by Werner von Braun to Wolfgang B. Klemperer. I'm still trying to get my uncle to scan the pages so I can send them to you, it's all in German and I'd love to hear your translation and thoughts about it. He found it at a flea market while he was at flight school in Pensacola back in the early 70s.

[@todrichards1105]

Physical law # 42. The number of socks that come out of the dryer is precisely 1 less than socks that go in.

[@MartinClausen]

Would love a video specifically on the assembly theory paper.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks for the feedback!

[@meierandre1313]

Me, too.

[@jamesdriscoll_tmp1515]

Please don't If the sysadmin catches you it's rm /*.* for you 😮

[@asdasdaee2232]

@@SabineHossenfelder Same here! I love your work!

[@rgm2527]

Yes, I'd love to hear more from you on the Assembly Theory paper. Also this paper seems to have sparked some controversy so it would be helpful to hear your take on that as well.

[@anthonycarbone3826]

The mars flyover video footage gives a great idea. Place a bigfoot running over the mars landscape for a good laugh.

[@mbmillermo]

I would love to see more about the complexity evolution and assembly theory ideas. Thanks for all that you do!

[@hyperduality2838]

Real is dual to not real (imaginary, virtual, simulated) -- complex numbers. Complex numbers are dual. Photons are modelled with complex or imaginary numbers -- photons or pure energy is therefore dual. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Functions are teleological as they have a goal or target. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Complexity is dual to simplicity.

[@NeonVisual]

Law number 1 - Please do not leave your rubbish in nature.

[@RGBmode]

law number 2 please do not feed nature

[@yourguard4]

Law of natur number 1 - We don't talk about nature. But seriously.... Wouldn't number 1 be: You can't violate the laws of nature, even if you tried.

[@assburgers3457]

This rings true on so many levels

[@tinkerstrade3553]

In theory, you can violate the laws of Nature. But in less than a picosecond Nature violates you. 😁

[@alisav8394]

Also true if you mean Nature as in journal

[@creamybusiness1200]

Yes please more about those papers in the beginning!

[@ObservingLibertarian]

12:01 That could open up an entirely new era of automated welding. Instead of pulsed laser: you use a standard laser at full output and then use sound vibration to pulse the beam itself in order to modulate the amount of energy hitting the material and give it the opportunity to melt and pool rather than vaporize.

[@ObservingLibertarian]

@@O-es2zn If you can interrupt the beam at regular intervals though: you can intentionally moderate not the beam - but how much energy the beam actually transfers to the material. Shutters don't modulate the sun's radiation output - they moderate how much of it enters your house. By creating an interference pattern in the beam you could not only liquefy the base metal of the directed zone in an intentional way. Such as using a very precise beam which dances side to side between the edges of the would be joint in order to very effectively pool the seam, very rapidly, with almost no heat-transfer or heat migration to the rest of the material. Precise, very small welds with vastly less heat migration would be an astonishing advancement for the currently emerging micro/nano technologies. Edit: I had another idea - but instead of micro-tech: industrial. Imagine a wave interference system on the end of a powerful laser emitter guide similar to current welding torch. No more need for noble gas tanks or attaching electrodes to the work piece. You use the interference to distort the beam over a wider surface where you're welding to blast away dirt, rust, impurities and in less than a fraction of a second after that wider beam strike the beam dances to nearly instantly pool the material of the joint and create the weld: then continues to traverse those differing interference patterns very rapidly, perhaps thousands of times per second: and the welder just moves the torch head along the seam - creating a clean weld free of impurities or contaminates in spite of not doing the usual grinding/polishing prep work and not needing a noble gas or flux. *And* still do so without having to change the area being welded on either - because he wouldn't have to deal with the possibility of heat migration warping the material. This could make even industrial welding several times more efficient.

[@joskeguereza3714]

yes, please do make a longer video about assembly theory, i would love to hear more about it. About all three actually :)

[@hyperduality2838]

Assembly is a syntropic process -- teleological. Real is dual to not real (imaginary, virtual, simulated) -- complex numbers. Complex numbers are dual. Photons are modelled with complex or imaginary numbers -- photons or pure energy is therefore dual. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Functions are teleological as they have a goal or target. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Complexity is dual to simplicity.

[@Eric-zo8wo]

0:41: 🌌 This week's science news covers three new laws of nature, including one suggesting we live in a computer simulation. 3:54: 🔬 Scientists have observed intergalactic gas filaments for the first time, confirming our model of the universe. 6:54: 🌑 Scientists have developed a method using concentrated light to melt moon dust into a solid structure strong enough to carry vehicles. 10:38: 🔬 Researchers observe sound waves spreading in crystals and redirect laser beams with air. 14:05: 🌀 A group from two UK universities is launching the world's first hurricane prediction market. Recapped using Tammy AI

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

I think making a theory on these three papers will be a very good idea. At least a video on assembly theory is a must.

[@josephstaton4820]

Thank you so much Sabine for delivering the science news without any of the hype and bullshit. I'm glad you didn't have to suffer through yet another segment on room temperature superconductors.

[@xsk8rat]

The photo from the Harvard quantum lab is hilarious! 🤣(Lead author pretends to tweak alignment while Post Doc grimly looks forward to an all night re-alignment session).

[@tim57243]

The image is at 9:16, but the subtext of the guy on the left having a difficult realignment session ahead of him isn't obvious to me. Also, losing sleep over realignment doesn't seem worth it.

[@xsk8rat]

My inference is absurdist and ignorant. It's my comfort zone.

[@jmoney4695]

Please never stop the Science News show. It is a gem and a blessing on KZbin!!

[@alangardner6082]

I wonder what we are really listning to as aposed to hearing

[@AdrianBoyko]

“Do chatbots understand what they chat about?” … To the contrary, chatbots make me wonder if people understand what we chat about. I suspect that our mental processes are more similar to what chatbots do than most people would care to believe. Remember when humans discovered that we are actually just another type of animal?

[@konstantinos777]

Yes of course they do, just like the car understands it needs to turn whenever we turn the steering wheel. If the car was human-like, it would without doubt protest and go crashing on a wall.

[@michaelmichalski4588]

I think the chatbot is a piece of what we are. There is also a part that does recognition. Like a tree or a cat (big or small). There is another part that does understanding. Maybe several other parts. When you hear people taking in word salad, the understanding part is not working. For example because the understanding part does NOT understand the subject. (Different than misunderstanding, if that part has an understanding of the subject, but it's wrong, it's still doing its job just fine. Garbage in garbage out and all). Word salad is the language part doing its job, making sentences that are related to the subject. But they don't convey an idea. Look at where the language centers of the brain are. The parts that causes strange linguistic aberrations when damaged. The executive functions are located in a different area. These are the "higher" brain functions. Where you would expect to find "understanding". There are different levels of understanding too. There's spacial awareness. My cat knows that. When I show him a video of a bird on a tablet, he figures out that the screen is like a window. He can't get to the bird through the window. But unlike the windows in the house he likes to sleep on,it looks like you can get around behind the tabley. So he tries to go around behind the tablet and get in to get the bird that way. But he doesn't have those executive functions in his brain like more advanced primates do. The executive functions stitch all those together and can abstract those concepts. They can even handle abstract concepts that don't connect to any real world situations. For example, abstract mathematical relationships and concepts. Parrots have language ability too. Some have even been known to string words together in original ways. If doing that gets them a treat, they will keep doing it. But it's no different than chat GPT. They DO have controlling functions in their brain. They have to because they can stitch together all the parts. But they don't seem to have the sort of functions that some primates do that are called "executive functions". It should be noted with animals though, it's possible we may find similar things in other more sophisticated animals with large developed brains, in different places than we do with primates, especially if it evolved in an independent lineage from primates. (If say, someone tomorrow found that whales and dolphins had executive functions, but they were tucked in the back somewhere, or something instead of in the part of the brain they are found in in primates, it would not be particularly shocking because the an extra we share with them are far older than the executive functions under discussion. ChatGPT is just a language processor. It needs executive functions that can direct it.

[@radar4763]

Your shooting down papers from the hip skills are quite impressive. Thanks for the hit on the computer simulation paper.

[@stephenknox2346]

Being in a simulation wouldn't make anything "matter" less. In fact I can't even conceive of a reason why it would "matter" at all if we were or weren't in one.

[@jakeaurod]

People get hung up on the realness of reality as if it changes their day to day lives. It won't, unless they have a cheat code or can turn on god-mode. Like the Agents said in The Matrix, "we have no choice but to continue as planned."

[@yvesaugustin912]

But wouldn’t being in a simulation infer a higher dimension running the simulation? And this imply a simulation creator?

[@VoodooMcVee]

@@yvesaugustin912 Yes, it would. But what would that change for us? In my opinion, for us it's completely irrelevant whether the universe is a simulation run by a machine, a creation run by a god or a system that's running by itself. We're in it and we can observe it from within but we don't have any agency in the larger scale of things.

[@sluggo206]

It doesn't matter if we're in a simulation or not. In the past people imagined anthropromorphic gods. Now they're imagining anthropromorphic scientists or gamers. It's like going into other universes or getting information from them. By definition you can't, otherwise they'd be part of this universe.

[@Orzufancylad]

​@yvesaugustin912 The simulation creator doesn't matter though. We would never have any evidence that they even know we exist, as there is a non zero chance the simulation would have nothing to do with us. It could simply be a universe simulation and life showing up was incidental.

[@DeclanMBrennan]

Sabine's "not impressed" face is quite intimidating. If I was her grad student, I'd do an awful lot to ensure I wasn't exposed to it. 🙂

[@matteogirelli1023]

I heard in an interview that she doesn't teach

[@JaiJi-mp7hq]

GET TO THE CHAUPPER .

[@DeclanMBrennan]

@@matteogirelli1023I don't know if she teaches lowly undergrads 🙂, but there is a list of master's students on her website.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

@@matteogirelli1023 She certainly teaches here.

[@DeclanMBrennan]

@@RockBrentwood Hilarious correction. I'll leave my grammar embarrassment in place so that your comment continues to make sense.

[@jimbenge9649]

Sabine, may I make an observation on your videos. Firstly I'd like to point out that I do enjoy them very much and find them very useful and of course entertaining (I love the use of your children's phone, although now I feel a little guilty knowing that you took it from them for my amusement). My point is, the pause between items is often very short. Sometimes so short I hardly notice one item has ended and the next has begun. I think of news broadcasts and, for the first time, I have noticed the deliberate pause they make. I say this only in the spirit of hopefully being helpful. Please keep them coming. 👍

[@patientzerobeat]

It used to be that there wasn't even that musical cue that the topic had changed. I agree that there should be slightly longer gaps in general. It's a little too "wall to wall". I wouldn't mind if a 17' video became a 17'10" video.

[@oliveirlegume3725]

Finally an attempt to understand why nature is complexifying and not Boltzmann picture. I believe one key of understanding will be achieved when we understand why it complexifies while producing much more photons lower energy.

[@micnorton9487]

AH the "God In Science" concept,, it's as good of an explanation as any and when you look at the atheists creation myth,, it's so sterile and hypothetical that the only reason for doing it is egoism... as good a motivation as any I guess but that way lies megalomania and while most scientists who are atheist have morals a lot don't but I also suppose there's a lot of people who believe in God who are immoral... POINT is that imo the universe DOES have purpose,, I've speculated that consciousness itself IS a form of macro-energy or something,, there's no words to describe these things but the physical law of entropy means everything decays or breaks down or goes to a low energy state, whereas life is opposite to that... The forms get more complex and now, this organism we call humanity is powerful enough to actually change the shape of the surface of the planet and even alter the composition of the atmosphere and oceans... I don't think it can be mathematically explained but ideas have power and while the actual energy to accomplish these things ISN'T "created" by us the WAY these energies are produced ARE novel,, like artificial light and nuclear fission... But the thing is,, this STILL doesn't necessarily mean a "God" that has humanity's interests in mind because that would require a personal God for every gnat and minnow that ever lived... because THE POTENTIAL for superior development IS STILL IN those gnats and minnows,, which I see what you mean by it's all too beautiful lol to recall a tune about LSD tripping,, but it's ALSO very horrible because even though life is grand,, death awaits us all and NO ONE HERE gets out alive...

[@sergeynovikov9424]

thnx Sabine, nice news this time! btw, the Kolmogorov informational complexity as well as computational complexity are much more relevant for making estimations of complex physical things.)

[@hyperduality2838]

Assembly is a syntropic process -- teleological. Real is dual to not real (imaginary, virtual, simulated) -- complex numbers. Complex numbers are dual. Photons are modelled with complex or imaginary numbers -- photons or pure energy is therefore dual. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Functions are teleological as they have a goal or target. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Complexity is dual to simplicity.

[@amanefujimiyasan]

​@@hyperduality2838 What the hell are you yapping about?

[@hyperduality2838]

@@amanefujimiyasan Your mind/brain has the function or goal, target, objective of creating or synthesizing reality hence it is teleological or syntropic. Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line. Integrating information (assembly) to create predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Hence there is a 4th law of thermodynamics! Analog is dual to digital -- all information is dual. Signals (mutual information, syntropy) is dual to noise (information, entropy) -- the signal to noise ratio in electronics. "Entropy is a measure of randomness (noise)" -- Roger Penrose. Syntropy is a measure of order -- certainty. Syntax is dual to semantics -- information, languages. All information is dual hence your mind/brain is syntropic! Converting average information (entropy) into mutual or co-information is a syntropic process (assembly, integration). "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.

[@MCsCreations]

Thanks for all the news, Sabine! 😊 Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

[@joshuascholar3220]

The old explanation for we get more order rather than less, is that it happens in systems through which energy is flowing, such as a laser or the earth. If you count the energy radiated away, entropy is still increasing. It's just that some of the energy "did work" and thus lowered the entropy in part of a larger system.

[@anywallsocket]

the change in entropy and the change in complexity are not obviously related

[@Sanquinity]

Yea was thinking something similar. Like, any "systems" in the universe aren't enclosed. Energy/information/stuff can leave and enter. From planets, to solar systems, to galaxies, etc. But the entire universe as a whole can be considered a "closed off system". (unless other universes exist, AND one is interacting with ours of course) And I thought it was already established that the universe as a whole is (very VERY slowly) heading towards higher entropy.

[@glennbabic5954]

I think autocatalytic sets explain emergent complexity nicely and Sabine already did a video discussing it.

[@numbersix8919]

It's the evolution of complexity to the extreme (specifically, us meatbags) that is the mystery here.

[@numbersix8919]

​@Sanquinity The universe is absolutely heading toward maximum entropy but is very young still.

[@Deepthought-42]

11:18 I would love to be a fly on the wall of one of those conversations. 🤣

[@MartinzW]

It's possible that a defined complexity law can exist. We do see how some things become unpredictable as we study them much more closely, never really reaching end of how close we can get at it - instead more variables are found. However, if it can exist, whether such law is useful will depend how it can be used. Maybe as a measure? In any case, it's too soon to assume there is such law.

[@justinhunt3141]

I wonder how well the laser melted moon method would actually work considering the much lower gravity and atmosphere. There would be a lot less surface pressure on the liquid and when it cools it wouldn’t necessarily form the same lattice and could potentially be much weaker

[@berniv7375]

Dust in space is a big problem to overcome for space explorers.🤖

[@riverground]

Yes those papers do sound interesting, I would love a longer video

[@Oler-yx7xj]

I'm reading through the "Mind within the net", which tries to describe the human brain using neural network models, and now the scientists seem to do the inverse of that, what a progress

[@Earthgazer]

this idea is at least 60 years old

[@Oler-yx7xj]

@@EarthgazerYeah, of course. I'm talking about humans using methods previously used to study real brains (and to verify predictions of the neural network model of the brain) to study artificial neural networks

[@youonlytubeonce]

fMRI? 😂

[@ZahraLowzley]

@@youonlytubeonce Did you read the new cutting edge research in Neuroscience? Memory is now totally understood. A test subject thought about a memory and a pixel lit up on the fMRI screen , so it's confirmed that the brain almost certainly has something to do with thinking, but thoughts are an illusion it creates to fool us . Reality is a invention of humanity to ignore the fact that we don't exist. Scientists are currently drawing more lines on a ruler to make the measurements of reality more precise.

[@thiagomfdn]

A longer video on the "three new laws" of nature would be awesome!! Btw, wonderful work @SabineHossenfelder

[@michoxi]

Would love a video about the Wolfram physics project!

[@matterasmachine]

there is nothing there. No predictions

[@michoxi]

@@matterasmachine there actually are :) for example a speed limit for quantum entanglement reactions, many orders of magnitude above the speed of light and not within our current measurement capabilities

[@matterasmachine]

@@michoxi so what is the test??? Bell inequalities just prove observer effect and that’s it.

[@MaryMary-ek1mu]

Thank you!! I would certainly like the video on "infodynamics" and how exactly it might collerate with simulation theory.

[@markedis5902]

If we live in a simulation, someone needs to have words with the programmers.

[@hystericheretic7678]

They dont talk to me anymore 😁 last thing he told me was "bye (name) it will be over before you know it and you are being cared for by us" yea wicked

[@waynerobertson511]

I am pretty sure I was lagging last week.

[@DR_1_1]

And who are these programmers? Let's face it, this simulation theory is basically creationism. Atheists possessed by the very archetypes they reject! as Jung would say...

[@another3997]

The "programmer" was probably just some random AI, run by a big company, asked to make a little simulation of life by a teenager with too much time on their hands and who likes playing games. They're doing it as part of a school project. It would be funny if that kid told the AI to communicate that to the simulated life, just before ending the program and finishing their class presentation. 😂

[@hystericheretic7678]

@another3997 bro we eat flesh like monsters. Our sperm is living and they eat it in porn becoming essentially cannabils. We in the federal government simulation of the real world for a criminal and I'm sure he going through it.

[@yzz9833]

Please make a longer video about the first three papers!! I’d love to hear your critiques of Vopsons paper.

[@hyperduality2838]

Assembly is a syntropic process -- teleological. Real is dual to not real (imaginary, virtual, simulated) -- complex numbers. Complex numbers are dual. Photons are modelled with complex or imaginary numbers -- photons or pure energy is therefore dual. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Functions are teleological as they have a goal or target. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Complexity is dual to simplicity.

[@the-quintessenz]

I think that ropeways with cabins would work best on the moon.

[@aarondavis8943]

I think pogoing from one spot to another.

[@rael5469]

I love it when I open the KZbin page and see a new video by Sabine. That's always the first one I click on.

[@victoramezcua4713]

I'd love you to make a more in-depth video about the 3 "new" laws of nature

[@hyperduality2838]

Real is dual to not real (imaginary, virtual, simulated) -- complex numbers. Complex numbers are dual. Photons are modelled with complex or imaginary numbers -- photons or pure energy is therefore dual. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Functions are teleological as they have a goal or target. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Complexity is dual to simplicity.

[@GearGo]

Thanks for the video; please go deeper into the new information laws.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Hello Sabine, thank you 👍💚

[@RealBrokoli]

👍

[@hoggif]

Oh, it was this day of the week already. Looking forward to what I learn now and if the phone will ring or not!

[@Username_556]

I would appreciate a longer video on the papers please! Your content is greatly appreciated

[@hyperduality2838]

Real is dual to not real (imaginary, virtual, simulated) -- complex numbers. Complex numbers are dual. Photons are modelled with complex or imaginary numbers -- photons or pure energy is therefore dual. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Functions are teleological as they have a goal or target. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Complexity is dual to simplicity.

[@janbormans3913]

I am afraid Apollo 11 had no rover. Excellent video as usual otherwise.

[@Vichama]

Yea, I saw that too and had a "hold up a minute" moment.

[@davidroddini1512]

You think they would be a little more creative with the name of the canines instead of calling them all Rover.

[@skyemac8]

The verb to rove?

[@lynandrews4160]

Goodness me, the universe is a busy place. All those particles and forces dancing around separately and together, and popping in and out of existence. The breathtaking beauty and brilliance of it brings tears to my eyes. It also gets me thinking about gravitons, which I previously proposed was another name for 'gravity-energy bubbles.' The inference from the Standard Model is that each force has an associated force-mediating or carrier particle. Together, the matter particles, the fermions, and the force-mediating particles, the Bosons, need to be 'in relationship' in order for the different generations of sub-atomic, and subsequently, atomic particles, to occur. The Higgs Boson, being that which gives mass to the fundamental particles to 'manufacture' matter. This suggests to me, that in the short, post-Big Bang epoch, the massless fundamental particles, both fermions and Bosons, and the Higgs Boson, must have been either supplied to the newly forming universe and/or created. It is my contention that the force-carriers, the Bosons, were supplied to the evolving universe from the Trinity, whereas matter evolved from the energy which was supplied to the evolving universe from the Trinity. The timeline, as I see it, so far. 1. Big Bang = Creative Spirit + Mind + energy-bubbles originating in the Trinity. 2. Short, post Big Bang epoch = Creative Spirit + Mind + energy-bubbles (energy) + gravity-energy bubbles (gravity) + Higgs Bosons + other Bosons. 3. Post Big-Bang (Universe/foundational realm-building phase) = Creative Spirit + Mind + energy-bubbles (energy) + gravity-energy bubbles (gravity) + Higgs Bosons + other Bosons + fermions, now appearing due to the presence of the Higgs Boson and the contextualisation/creative activity of Creative Spirit on energy. Phase 3 constitutes the beginning of the material realm, summarised by parts of Genesis and which scientists have been so adept at observing, recognising, describing and putting to use in the service of humanity, whereas Phases 1 and 2 belong to that phase of universe-building summarised by the early parts of Genesis. The role of Creative Spirit in the building of the foundational/classical realm. Complexity Theory, which I have previously referred to, is of vital importance in the evolution of the universe. Indeed, I believe it is the scientific theory which best describes the activity of Creative Spirit that we have so far. In the presence of Creative Spirit, another name for which is the 'Original Pattern of Creation,' 'energy-bubbles' or energy can evolve into gravity-energy bubbles' or gravity. Recall the image of the Venn diagram with three, intersecting circles. One circle constitutes the initial conditions while the other constitutes the observer. The third circle constitutes the outcome of the creation. Contextualisation has taken place. The presence of energy-bubbles in the newly evolving universe constitutes the initial conditions while the presence of Creative Spirit constitutes the observer. The observer, in the case of the Creator has an agenda. In the case of a scientific experiment, there would be an experimental aim. The result will reflect an unpredictable outcome that is more complex that the sum of its parts. In other words, it will be a new creation. This is what the Creator does and how He does it. Once gravity has been created, the function of the Higgs Boson becomes pronounced since it can accord mass to the energy-bubbles. This happens in much the same way as the creation of gravity. Matter begins to evolve in the presence of Creative Spirit, the observer, and who has an agenda, and the initial conditions of energy, the Higgs Boson and gravity. Suddenly, the process is becoming more complex and detailed. As this process continues, the emergent properties of the process, which were actually intended by the Creator, become harder and harder to understand and track. To do so, one would have to go back to the beginning of the universe to understand how the process got started in the first place or have it revealed to you. This is what happened to me in 1996. However, to be frank, I did not understand until recently when I read about the Standard Particle Model that Bosons were force mediating particles. I thought they were merely sub-atomic particles. When I learnt that, I realised that they too would have been supplied to the system by the Trinity at the start along with energy and mind. I have previously described force as a relationship between entities such as a bat and ball. Such a description, which reflects the nature of complexity, could remain valid on the large scale. Whereas, at the atomic level, the relationships between energy and the Bosons may be necessary. I would love to discuss this with other interested parties to help clarify the situation. See scienceofspirit.blog

[@micnorton9487]

AH the "God In Science" concept,, it's as good of an explanation as any and when you look at the atheists creation myth,, it's so sterile and hypothetical that the only reason for doing it is egoism... as good a motivation as any I guess but that way lies megalomania and while most scientists who are atheist have morals a lot don't but I also suppose there's a lot of people who believe in God who are immoral... POINT is that imo the universe DOES have purpose,, I've speculated that consciousness itself IS a form of macro-energy or something,, there's no words to describe these things but the physical law of entropy means everything decays or breaks down or goes to a low energy state, whereas life is opposite to that... The forms get more complex and now, this organism we call humanity is powerful enough to actually change the shape of the surface of the planet and even alter the composition of the atmosphere and oceans... I don't think it can be mathematically explained but ideas have power and while the actual energy to accomplish these things ISN'T "created" by us the WAY these energies are produced ARE novel,, like artificial light produced by electricity and nuclear fission... But the thing is,, this STILL doesn't necessarily mean a "God" that has humanity's interests in mind because that would require a personal God for every gnat and minnow that ever lived... because THE POTENTIAL for superior development IS STILL IN those gnats and minnows,, which I see what you mean by it's all too beautiful lol to recall a tune about LSD tripping,, but it's ALSO very horrible because even though life is grand,, death awaits us all and NO ONE HERE gets out alive...

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

YES, Sabine! I, at least, would be very interested to see a video on those 3 papers with the "new laws" of nature!

[@hyperduality2838]

Assembly is a syntropic process -- teleological. Real is dual to not real (imaginary, virtual, simulated) -- complex numbers. Complex numbers are dual. Photons are modelled with complex or imaginary numbers -- photons or pure energy is therefore dual. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Functions are teleological as they have a goal or target. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Complexity is dual to simplicity.

[@my-tschischlak]

Intresting, as always! Thank you very much.

[@cmilkau]

The fact that the first paper doesn't contain anything new actually makes it interesting, because that would mean there is a well-known connection between physical entropy and information theory and/or complexity theory. For someone interested in both physics and computer science, that's definitely an interesting connection.

[@hyperduality2838]

Real is dual to not real (imaginary, virtual, simulated) -- complex numbers. Complex numbers are dual. Photons are modelled with complex or imaginary numbers -- photons or pure energy is therefore dual. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Functions are teleological as they have a goal or target. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Complexity is dual to simplicity.

[@Hydroverse]

Using refraction to bend light in air was quite fascinating.

[@thesoundsmith]

Sabine, I am VERY interested in ideas relating to the idea that the Universe is a simulation or construct and that matter is vibrating energy/string stuff. (Because you asked you asked.)

[@anywallsocket]

your brain is simulating your embeddedness in reality, is that not enough for you?

[@hyperduality2838]

Assembly is a syntropic process -- teleological. Real is dual to not real (imaginary, virtual, simulated) -- complex numbers. Complex numbers are dual. Photons are modelled with complex or imaginary numbers -- photons or pure energy is therefore dual. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Functions are teleological as they have a goal or target. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Complexity is dual to simplicity.

[@anywallsocket]

@@hyperduality2838 is dual to getting laid

[@Will-fj9gy]

Please do a video about the 3 papers, or the idea that the universe creates complexity

[@blackshard641]

When Sabine says something is mathematically vague, I take her word for it.

[@anywallsocket]

that's a bad habit

[@blackshard641]

@@anywallsocket don't be silly. She has a degree in mathematics and a doctorate in theoretical physics and several years of experience in science writing and education. I, on the other hand, have a degree in film production and a minor in philosophy (with a focus on science and epistemology), and I'm only moderately good at math. Taking her word doesn't mean assuming she's infallible; it isn't argument from authority, it's a rational heuristic. In the absence of contradictory evidence, the odds that she is correct about a subject she has expertise in is greater than the odds that a nonexpert, including myself, is correct.

[@anywallsocket]

@@blackshard641 A rational heuristic would be to not develop an opinion on something you’re unfamiliar with. Or if you feel the need, then be sure to bring along with it your own doubts. And if you’re just out here collecting opinions you should at least do so from multiple sources. Everything else you said I agree with.

[@blackshard641]

@@anywallsocket doubt comes with me everywhere, my friend. That's the nature of philosophy, or at least the nature of honest philosophy. But doubt is a double edged sword. Experts are fallible, and so am I (hence the probabalistic approach). This is why your description of a rational heuristic seems to have a bit of a bootstrap / chicken and egg problem (and that's coming from a died-in-the-wool fence-sitting hard agnostic). Namely, how are you supposed to judge your familiarity with a subject without making some implicit assumptions about what is both relevant and correct? You make a provisional guess. I'm just saying, hey, Sabine says something about a subject she's an expert in and I'm not, and nothing sticks out as an obvious flaw in her reasoning, so her take sounds like a reasonable starting point. If she's wrong, so be it, I didn't plan on dying on that hill anyway.

[@anywallsocket]

@@blackshard641 ain't gotta tie yourself up in knots there my friend, i'm just saying taking people's word for things is a bad habit

[@mryan2010]

Please create a longer video on complexity. Thank you Sabine.

[@hyperduality2838]

Assembly is a syntropic process -- teleological. Real is dual to not real (imaginary, virtual, simulated) -- complex numbers. Complex numbers are dual. Photons are modelled with complex or imaginary numbers -- photons or pure energy is therefore dual. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Functions are teleological as they have a goal or target. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Complexity is dual to simplicity.

[@brianstevens3858]

I think the key to complexity lays in the fact that no matter how high the statistical probability is, an outlier could occur. Introducing factors that seem to violate the rule.

[@kwantowy_prokrastynator]

I agree, it's like with a lottery: the probability of winning is super small, and the general "law" is that you lose. But sooner or later, a guy wins, and there's no special law that caused that particular guy to win. Similarly, there doesn't have to be a special reason for local complexity increase (Earth "won the lottery").

[@brianstevens3858]

@@skunkfarmcanada Such as the one given by groin_stomper above.

[@brianstevens3858]

@@skunkfarmcanada Stats say there must somewhere be one, BUT it does in no way specify it must be "ours". You seemed to have missed the entire point.

[@brianstevens3858]

@@skunkfarmcanada I did not intend to "insult" and I in no way implied/said or indicated that you were wrong by saying that the law was statistics, it was that the point was that "complexity being special" is merely the luck of the draw as it were, it's the outlier, not the mean and doesn't violate the laws of statistics since outliers occur. PSA::: Saying someone missed the point is not of nesc. an insult. Nobody gets everyone else's view all the time, let alone it's exact and precise meaning, it should not be insulting or taken as an insult to imply/state or outright say a human did a thing all humans do. That being said again I am sorry you took it as an insult when it was intended to just state a communicative data point.

[@volkerkoenigsbuescher2394]

Yes, I would love to hear more about the physics of complexity! Maybe it is possible to look also at the "older" theories, e.g. Helmut Haken, Manfred Eigen, Ilya Prigogine and even Humberto Maturana?

[@hyperduality2838]

Real is dual to not real (imaginary, virtual, simulated) -- complex numbers. Complex numbers are dual. Photons are modelled with complex or imaginary numbers -- photons or pure energy is therefore dual. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Functions are teleological as they have a goal or target. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Complexity is dual to simplicity.

[@bjornrie]

Are you German(your name)? Reading your comment(especially mentioning Maturana) I just had to think about a lecture of Niklas Luhmann about the theory of open systems that I recently watched on KZbin(recorded in 1992). It's really, really good but unfortunetely only available in German as far as I know.

[@srobertweiser]

If Llama analyzed the song California Uber Alles, would Jerry Brown be the president of the world? And all I've learned about optical tweezers is that they're not very good for tweezing your eyebrows. You see Sabine, I do learn something from your videos.

[@petegalvs]

Yes, definitely would like a longer video on the topic of the new "fundamental laws of nature!"

[@hyperduality2838]

Real is dual to not real (imaginary, virtual, simulated) -- complex numbers. Complex numbers are dual. Photons are modelled with complex or imaginary numbers -- photons or pure energy is therefore dual. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Functions are teleological as they have a goal or target. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Complexity is dual to simplicity.

[@Barefoot-Jaycee]

Trying to wrestle the math out of philisophical ideas seems to be a trend these days.

[@ygursivad9921]

First!!!

[@ChadLangford-US]

I joined Nautilus about a year ago from your suggestion and I’ve really been enjoying it!

[@HagenvonEitzen]

14:05 Somehow your associating hurricanes and fish makes me think of the cineastic highlights of the "Sharknado" frnachise ...

[@QuikMaffzTTV]

Would love to see a longer video breaking down the topics in the beginning of the video. Melvin Vopson has an interesting paper where he proposes a mass-energy-information equivalence principle. And I remember you saying to pay attention to complexity and condensed matter physics not too long ago.

[@hyperduality2838]

Real is dual to not real (imaginary, virtual, simulated) -- complex numbers. Complex numbers are dual. Photons are modelled with complex or imaginary numbers -- photons or pure energy is therefore dual. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Functions are teleological as they have a goal or target. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Complexity is dual to simplicity.

[@Vastin]

I'd say that complexity is pretty much 'ordered chaos' - which is about as helpful a term as it sounds, but in more useful terms it seems very likely that it's a boundary transition state that should arise as a highly ordered system gradually increases in disorder. The amount of energy being shuffled around in this transition is enormous (think: stars), and in the boundary state between highly ordered and simple regions (extremely dense clumps of matter: ie stars, black holes, etc), and extremely disordered and simple regions (empty vacuum of interstellar space), there are boundary regions of moderate density through which large amounts of energy flow from those ordered to disordered states (Earth & probably a number of other places). Matter in these regions can take advantage of that energy flow to temporarily organize itself in complex ways (life), for as long as that flow persists. Eventually the flow will slow and stop as the universe becomes generally disordered, and complexity of this sort will become scarce and then stop occurring. I imagine that ALL complexity of the sort we are interested in exists in these transitional states and relies on the difference in energy between highly ordered and highly disordered regions. I mean, honestly this seems very straightforward. It's just a standard application of thermodynamics, and I don't know why anyone would expect it to behave differently?

[@hyperduality2838]

Assembly is a syntropic process -- teleological. Real is dual to not real (imaginary, virtual, simulated) -- complex numbers. Complex numbers are dual. Photons are modelled with complex or imaginary numbers -- photons or pure energy is therefore dual. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Functions are teleological as they have a goal or target. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Positive is dual to negative -- electric charge or numbers. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Complexity is dual to simplicity.

[@srussifordwilliams]

I love this channel thank you!!!!

[@RaulSuarez-re9sg]

Yes, please do make a longer video concerning the rise of complexity and these new papers. Many thanks!

[@Sheblah1]

I think of LLMs this way: Large Language Models are impressive statistical programmes designed to compute rankable probabilistic output in response to an input. There isn't room or 'headspace' for humanlike contemplation or that experiential and (probably soundless!) click moment we get when we suddenly understand something. The fact it demonstrates a nonzero probability of outputting a wrong answer is down to the fact that in calculating, ranking, and building up, step-by-step, the next likeliest morpheme, the next likeliest word, the next likeliest phrase, the next likeliest sentence, it will construct the nearest path of least unintelligibility which in some cases leads it to produce an output which has maximal intelligibility but which deviates from the factual consistencies of the knowledge bases inherent and implied in its training data. In short LLMs are not essentially knowledge-based systems.

[@neovxr]

What Sabine says about the assembly theories, reminds me of a much older theory by some team member of Professor James Dator, univ Hawaii. They had a collection of papers called "Manoa Journal of Half-Baked Ideas" or similar. It said: - there are atoms or entities, floating around. - these begin to build aggregates. - the aggregates begin some form of interaction. - at some point, there will be an explosion of complexity, causing a singularity. = the singularity leads to the evolution of new paradigms that can handle this complexity, and keep the system stable. so this can repeat on the next higher level, aggregation by the aggregates. This idea can be applied on many real world structures like when cities interact (see Germany long before Friedrich List), and eventually form a nation. Then, some nations interact and form the EU. But it always takes new ideas to describe the codes of interaction, to make it work. If this fails, there will be war.

[@bhangrafan4480]

I think a lot of ideas get muddled up: information, entropy, order, complexity. On reflection what really interests us is ORDER. We confuse this with information. In a way order and information have an inverse relationship. Less order means more entropy and more information. What about complexity? Well doesn't complexity increase along with information and entropy? So really we want entropy, information and complexity to be reduced, not increased, so as to create more order. Of course a lot of work was done on this subject years ago by Ilya Prigozhin, who analysed "Dissipative Systems". These create order in one place by increasing disorder in another place.

[@tim57243]

I tried shooting one of the cabbages. Now I have a hole in my phone.

[@thaystress]

Hi Sabine, I am a nurse Who livres in germany and I feel fascinanted by your Videos. Thank you very much, I unterstand such difficult Things when u explain it (well not entirely, cause I am a nurse..but u know)

[@TimothyCahillSSI]

Three years ago you did a talk on weak and strong emergence. You noted that there are no known real, existing examples of strong emergence. Yet complexity and assembly seem, along with emergence, to suggest some continuum. I don't think this line of thinking necessarily must point to "we're computer simulations" or an to invocation of mystical creators. A problem of sticking with just weak emergence as solely explanatory is that it might be too reductive, and isn't really predictive. It just says that any possible characteristic of an assembly can only be a latent characteristic (known or not) of its constituents. We've yet to identify the essential components that give rise to consciousness, just as we've yet to hit on a consensus on a definition of it. You have been a strong proponent of the view that there is, so far, very much about the laws of the universe that we don't understand. Perhaps in that ambiguity there is some hidden law of emergent properties that can predict (statistically?) which combinations/circumstances are "useful" or functional. Said another way, are there general categories of components of functional systems that might possibly hint at general rules that govern what 'works' and what doesn't? Perhaps the human mind is just too feeble to intuit beyond some limited insights into how and why (maybe we never will reconcile Relativity and Quantum), or maybe we just haven't found the right analogies yet. I have a hunch that a better understanding of why some combinations do stuff, and others don't, will be a part of that.

[@eonasjohn]

Thank you for the science news.

[@MisaelCastilloBrenes]

There has been some debate regarding the Assembly Theory Paper. The story is in summary that Data scientist Dr. Hector Zenil explains that the assembly theory proposed in the paper is basically a simple compression algorithm (RLE, run-length enconding one of the first examples of compression that you learn in the first years of Computer Science in College/University), and as such, it doesn't answer the questions that it aims to do. He (Hector) explained that he contacted at least one of the authors and explained the reason why this proposal needs revision (Dr Lee Cronin), but he didn't respond or come back to him. If I'm not mistaken (and forgive me for the vague details, it happened a couple of weeks ago) Dr Zenil is publishing a paper as a response of the AT Paper.

[@kevalan1042]

I vote for more videos on the simulation hypothesis!

[@StephenDTrain]

favorite quote on complexity: "it turned out to be self similarity with a vengeance" - Benoit Mandelbrot

[@lifeschool]

Hi Sabine. I first discovered this channel last week, and most of it went straight over my head. But I give it another try this time, and this video seems to be spoken a bit slower, so it helped me to get into it. I like your sceptical approach and honest opinions. The sense of humour is also great, and there were at least 6 or 7 good jokes in this episode. On the Lunar Laser Roads topic, moondust is apparently very tiny balls of glass, which can cut space suits. But like any sand, it can be made into glass fairly easily. So making roads of glass might sound good, until you come to realize glass roads are not very high on grip. I can imagine glass houses on mars and on the moon, but roads? I'm not sure.

[@SavageOne420]

The laser road samples had a preformed pattern with holes much like a grid, and the whole road wasn't done as a single segment so the triangular path likely creates imperfections or texture that helps give grip

[@lifeschool]

@@SavageOne420 - Thanks for the info. Makes sense. Good point, and lets not forget, if you have sand, you have sandpaper.

[@AnarchistDoc]

Lymen Balmer Paschen Brackett Pfund Nothing just remembered Basic Physics 😂😂

[@Egirl_Slayer]

haha what a golden discovery, this channel is awesome! We need more people like you Sabine

[@XmarkedSpot]

10:34 on a slight tangent; I love how the "yea yea" is transcribed as an authentic "jaja" in the subtitles :D

[@Avokadik13]

New videos about weird mathematical concepts are always cool

[@Chris.Davies]

I have proposed something very similar for many years now. I call it "Big-E Evolution" as opposed to "little-e evolution" which only works on biological systems. It initially uses gravity, electromagnetism, and then fusion to increase complexity until life emerges, and little-e evolution makes its effects felt. And little-e evolution has just about done its dash with humanity: it is no longer possible for an increase in complexity in the human brain, as this would mean many mothers and babies dying in child birth. And so little-e evolution is about to hand off to "Virtual evolution" where uploaded human minds will take over the evolution of their own minds, and with this process complexity will advance many orders of magnitude. I don't know if there is a hard limit on complexity of virtual entities, and I don't know what comes after them, but I hope to survive long enough to be one of them, so I can find out. And, if the universe turns out to be as interesting as I think it is, then one day I'll send an agent of mine back to watch the sun evaporate the earth.

[@vadymkvasha4556]

I really enjoy your humor))

[@bartonjs]

At 6:36 (in Moonroads, Built With Light), the video says it's showing an LRV ("rover") from Apollo 11, but only Apollo 15, 16, and 17 had an LRV. Based on the orientation of the camera to the LM, and things in the background, it looks like Apollo 16.

[@dwinsemius]

OK. I'm sold. Nautilus subscription in my future. Sounds like it might be like Scientific American in the old days, before it became dumbed down. I reiterate my suggestion that you also recommend reading material for bootstrapping ones science education. My immediate recommendation is "The Lazy Universe" which appears to be a popular exposition (with lots of math) of a book by Cornelius Lanczos, "The Variational Principles of Mechanics", now published by Dover. It appears to be a workable replacement for my course notes for my summer school Mechanics course from Ernst Katz in 1968 at the University of Michigan. For some reason I failed to preserve that set of notes, and I continue to mourn that loss.

[@parkesscience]

There is a new model available for those who look, unfortunately not many people are willing to actually look at it because it is a radical departure from the Standard Model and it does change how we think of the Elemental Components of the Universe. It’s called “The Parkes Principle of Attraction and Expansion”. It is a complete understanding of how the Universe is made up of Electromagnetic Energy. From the smallest particle to the largest star and everything in between. "The Parkes Principle of Attraction and Expansion" states that all matter in the universe is constantly Electromagnetically attracting, repelling and sparking at the same time. This creates a balance between the two magnetic forces of Attraction and Repulsion and the Sparking that happens when two opposing Electromagnetic Poles touch each other. This process is both, what ‘creates’ the universe and what ‘holds’ the universe together, while it continues to expand.

[@rJaune]

Yeah, Dr. Paul! Great video, Dr. Sabine!

[@supercommie]

Yes, please make a video about them complexity papers.

[@seabeepirate]

I imagine that the first three dimensions of space time stand perpendicularly to the others and have only one measurable attribute at infinitely many points. If the fourth dimension follows suit, we have to abandon the square model of spacetime. A fourth dimension that stands perpendicularly to all points in space might be thought of as infinitely many lines pointing in every direction. The resulting shape might be a sphere, but spheres are not infinite shapes, the radius determines the maximum length a line could be within that space. A Klein bottle might fit the demands. The oscillation we count as time is vibrating along the surface. With two obvious stable points in the Klein bottle geometry I think matter and antimatter could collect at opposite ends, halfway across the universe and twice as long as the Big Bang.

[@adi63]

Yes, please. New video on complexity about those 3(-4) papers.

[@Inpreesme]

Thank you

[@WilliamBoller]

The telephone rang TWICE?! YES!!!

[@jmcsquared18]

A much better conjecture on complexity is Susskind's 2nd law of complexity. The hypothesis is, black hole interior volume growth is determined by the complexity of its quantum state, not by its entropy, which maximizes quickly since black holes reach thermal equilibrium extremely fast, but their volume grows indefinitey in general relativity. Another beautiful sign that quantum mechanics and spacetime geometry are related.

[@ignasicalvera5637]

Sure I would appreciate furthering up about this!

[@bloopbloopbloops]

Ms Sabine!!! can i just comment on how much i love that your video thumbnail looks so much like a Gameboy game box cover!!! ❤ with the "SCIENCE NEWS" written up sideways on the left... seemingly with the same font and white/indigo color scheme 😉

[@jimsvideos7201]

The moon road thing reminds me of a Prairie Bible Fellowship cartoon called "The Schlorbians Strike Again."

[@brianhillary7469]

Thanks, I always enjoy your humor!

[@lordsqueak]

Re, "moon autobahn" I think they should test the tech out by making roads in snow with it. It's the same principle, and it something they can actually build and test in life size scale. If it works for moon dust, it should work for snow/ice. Sure there might be some differences, like albedo and structural integrity of the molten dust/ice, but the basic idea should work, if it works. Now the reason I suggest this, is because as a kid I remember walking along snow mobile tracks. In warm weather, you get the perfect compacted tracks, but in cold weather it is hard to compress, and you get a brittle surface you could easily just fall through. But even in the best cases, steeping outside of the path would mean sinking down to your waist in deep snow, not ideal for a moon truck. Even untouched snow that has melted a hard crust on top, would be a good analogy for the moon dust tech, and it has been studied. I think, for making a path for the equipment that makes a proper road, it could have potential. but for anything permanent, not so much, because unlike snow which only gets more compacted and solid with "use", dust will just return to dust. And unlike on Earth where the dust can get compacted with moisture to hard mud, that doesn't quite work on the moon.

[@deansmith7163]

The second law of thermodynamics seems to raise various exception. In this example, a laureate used non-equilibrium thermodynamics to imply complexity production in a system. Researchers tend to forget already known physics and even chemistry.

[@GabrielBourke]

Yes please do a deep dive into infodynamics

[@therockinboxer]

yes, please make another video on this proposed change to the laws

[@logaandm]

Great one-liners, fast and furious!

[@burnytech]

Longer video about increasing complexity pls!

[@cobalius]

7:54😂😂 a good one

[@Chronicles_of_Tomorrow]

this is all so incredible... we take as a matter of course these days that lies and hate have jaded us, but how friggin amazing is it that we're also jaded to these marvels?! i mean we're talking about single atoms we hold in place that maybe we can compute with! but that our boring regular computers already seem to have temporal and spacial awareness, whatevs. Oh you need a laser bent? here lemme just squeeze the air with hypersound right quick... the fact this is all in a (admittedly FANTASTIC) random weekly YT video just blows my mind! the immediate future is truly a place of sheer wonder...