Steven Weinberg: To Explain the World

[@WorldScienceFestival]

Hello, KZbinrs. The World Science Festival is looking for enthusiastic translation ambassadors for its KZbin translation project. To get started, all you need is a Google account. Check out Steven Weinberg: To Explain the World to see how the process works: kzbin.info_video?ref=share&v=g-y3DPJRVhE To create your translation, just type along with the video and save when done. Check out the full list of programs that you can contribute to here: kzbin.info_cs_panel?c=UCShHFwKyhcDo3g7hr4f1R8A&tab=2 The World Science Festival strives to cultivate a general public that's informed and awed by science. Thanks to your contributions, we can continue to share the wonder of scientific discoveries with the world.

[@BasemSayej]

will try to add arabic soon

[@bozo5632]

If I understood this stuff better I might offer to translate it into English.

[@cosminvisan520]

For consciousness, see my papers, like "Meaning and Context: A Brief Introduction".

[@ArtstradaMagazine]

sorry to hear of this remarkable man's passing today

[@leonm4810]

COVID?

[@janna6539]

No :(

[@DB-MH11]

RIP

[@pjb8848]

RIP to one of few brilliant minds of mankind.

[@heartofthunder1440]

While this guy is full of mathematical knowledge, I tend to see things in patterns, in the Bible it clearly states God made man in his own image. It very well could be that the study of space is virtually the same as the study of the brain 🧠. Therefore explains the box theory, and as individuals on this planet also have the same universal brain 🧠, it’s how we communicate with each other, without and within, this can also explain the multiverse.

[@miramarensis]

Whenever Professor Weinberg exposes, I know a good experience will follow. I never tire of hearing his lectures and most of them I watch more than once. A real pleasure.

[@charlescouch5200]

I’ve been reading and studying Dr. Weinberg’s work for decades. In fact i share some of his great physics ideas with my high school and AP physics students. What great accomplishments you have had. Well Done Sir!!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

I read Steven Weinberg's book, "Dreams of a Final Theory" in 1993, when I was still in High School. Although I strongly disagreed with some of his opinions in that book, and still do, that book nevertheless had a very profound impact on my outlook on the world.

[@carryall69]

Eugene Khutoryansky oh, i want to read it. which are the strongly disagreeable opinions in that book?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

carryall69, I now believe that in many cases, drilling further and further into the subatomic nature of matter takes us further away from the answering the question we are asking. For example, understanding the properties of wave propagation is accomplished without understanding the subatomic nature of the medium through which the waves are traveling. Another point of disagreement is that Steven Wienberg says in that book that no scientist should ever waste their time examining the evidence for phenomena such as ESP, ghosts, etc. I believe no topic should ever be shut off from scientific inquiry.

[@carryall69]

Eugene Khutoryansky i agree, you don't have to really dig deep into the nature of phenomena to wittness them, but i would have thought that that's what physics is all about. ESP for extra sensory perception as in paranormal psychic studies?

[@macmos1]

I agree with your statements, Eugene Khutoryansky

[@itaialter]

Eugene Khutoryansky I disagree with your first statement, but I agree with the second. I think that the question we are asking is "what is the universe, really?", and drilling further into the subatomic world can only help our quest. And with that in mind, it's easy to agree with your second statement, that no topic should be shut off.

[@Jipzorowns]

Sad to hear that he died... Rest in peace Steven Weinberg.

[@drblaneyphysics]

@Brad Watson or buddhist or islam.

[@JthElement]

@@drblaneyphysics What?? What are you smoking? Bloody clown.

[@barbi520]

Wonderful spending time with such a great and brilliant man

[@vaibhavbhasin3861]

Rip ❤️🔥 May more like him, come and enlighten us.

[@frankciborski835]

It has been said that "to learn well, one must learn to listen well." To the mind receptive to the subject-matter, listening to someone as learned, knowledgeable, intelligently insightful and well spoken as Mr. Weinberg, comes as easily and naturally as breathing.

[@Boballoo]

Exactly! Everyone has something to say that I have never heard before. There is so much to be learned from those around us, and they will thank you for the privilege of letting you know. Later when I play it back, I wonder if it wasn't those who were silent to whom I should have listened to more.

[@diyaroso3806]

Well spoken. And btw you have to address him as Prof. or Dr. Weinberg. Just saying.

[@maxwellsequation4887]

Sir Steven Weinberg Rest In Peace, Legend. You and your work will never be forgotten.

[@a.g.solascriptura.6880]

Ich denke er war gottlos...wie kan er dan in frieden ruhen?

[@truthsocialmedia]

its inspiring that the co-developer of the standard model has the humility to say that it is not the final word.

[@truthsocialmedia]

get some help with coherent sentence writing and paragraph structure.

[@TheXitone]

What do you think happens to them in Amerikkka that they turn out like this character? Mental innit? I mean that's way out there crazy...

[@uploadJ]

Let it be known the two preceding comments make NO sense ...

[@chriskindler10]

Weinbergs books on Quantum field theory are still the gold standard

[@seandonahue8464]

Very humble man! I wish I were as knowledgable. I admire his manner and his drive just to understand the world.

[@oldskeptic1513]

... only for the lack of trying...

[@gaillilly1]

What a lovely, gentle man with such an impressive intellect. His well thought out opinions and his carefully thought out responses show his personal reverence for the truth as he understands it. Admirable. That such unkind and crude verbiage are found in other comments leads me to believe that as a species we have much to work on in order to find peace among ourselves. Just tolerating an alternate view seems very difficult for many of us. Lashing out at a man who is so very tolerant is baffling to me.

[@brucehayman4206]

+gail lilly people are real bigshots under cover of the internet. They say stuff they would never say in person

[@JudeMalachi]

+gail lilly I would say that he has an impressive intellect in terms of the limited set of mental skills physics requires certainly, but he is philosophical and historically naive--to the point of sounding almost stupid. I haven't read the negative comments you refer to but perhaps it is this hubris people are instinctively reacting to.

[@jceepf]

+Aaron Siering I would only say that what made Western science successful is precisely limiting it.....

[@JudeMalachi]

+jceepf I agree that is true, but what happens when because of its success in producing new technology we start to limit the very definition of knowledge, itself, to only that knowledge which can be turn into technology? What happens when we start looking at the people trained in this very limited way of thinking as being exactly those people who best epitomize scholarly education? I think science is important and I think the technology it produces is good, but I put it in its place relative to other ways of being in the world. I value the mythological mindset of literature to reveal truth just as much as I do the experimental confirmation of the numbers produced from mathematical formula...not only is scientism, itself, an obviously self contradicting philosophy, but if science cuts itself off from philosophical investigation more generally then it is cutting its own legs out from under itself, because science depends on the continuing philosophical investigations into areas such as epistemology, induction, mathematics, etc. and in the end is only as trustworthy as our confidence in the those things. So yes science took off exactly when we stopped asking questions about formal and final causation and looked only to material and efficient causation, but this success is not in and of itself a good argument that only material and efficient causation are necessary to give a complete description of a thing--in fact despite many people's best efforts the necessity of formal and final causation keep reappearing even in science. So we should not forget that no matter how successful science is creating new technology that it is still only a limited picture of reality.

[@ind-hawky2515]

+gail lilly Lovely man?? This foolish man pretends to be a Newton fan everywhere he goes, and then he says things like Newton was a bad man, he fought with Hooke and Leibniz and so on. Read his writings carefully and you will know that he doesn't have any clue about historical facts, but he has the audacity to belittle some one like Isaac Newton. It's very well established that Newton responded to his critics only after years of provocation, but Dr. Weinberg didn't bother to update his knowledge and tries to spread these outdated ideas. He doesn't even know how to be humble when discussing giants, so please don't get carried away by his 'impressive intellect'.

[@shirleymason7697]

So very, very much enjoyed hearing Dr. Weinberg's thoughts. Will order "To Explain the World" now, to add it to my collection of physics/cosmology books for the non-scientist; many of which I've read and re-read. Thank you.

[@jeromerodriguez684]

humble and so intelligent. thx M. Weinberg

[@auto_math]

Such a beautiful mind, this man's brain is a treasure.

[@thomasp.crenshaw185]

He's a GlobeTard! Watch KZbin Santos Bonacci! Santos will show you the eart is flat. This jew is part of the Vatican Jesuits who have suppresed the truth about the flat earth for years!!! His brain is a rotting treasure!!

[@mushkamusic]

Absolute legend. He will be missed.

[@cirusrome4086]

Such a pleasure to listen to Dr. Weinberg. RIP

[@FingersKungfu]

One of the greatest and most insightful scientists of our time. May he rest in peace.

[@litestuf]

Such humility from such a great mind and great human being is a lesson not lost on many who recognize his greatness.

[@blakemirabito9563]

I couldn’t have a beer with this man and listen to him talk all day. Truly a smart man

[@ggrthemostgodless8713]

This pisses me off so much: why couldn't my professors in university be this humble and clear and patient and informed?? I had bitter assholes who didn't like questions or didn't like when you questioned THEIR answers, and definitely didn't like to spend time out of the classroom explaining things, in private (when you CORNER them) they gave you the same answers they gave in class, what made them think the same words would be clearer in private if they didn't work in class?? I had to make my small way into books of this sort by myself and they hated what they called "science books for the LAY person" as if writing for someone other than other professors was beneath them, and yet they they were eating from students' dish at universities. Most math teachers were like that too... why couldn't I have at least ONE of these guys as professors, the ones I had tried to discourage you from continuing with the field, they say This is good enough for now, from here on out it gets much harder so think hard if you want to pursue it... and shit like that.

[@Raptorel]

Because not everybody is as smart as Mr. Weinberg, here. I've always watched, during my life, how really, actually smart people behave and what is their demeanor. What I found out is that really smart people are funny and kind, meaning, they also have the empathy to double down their intellectual prowess. These are the true geniuses, in my opinion. Not some weird, computer-like kind of guy that you can't talk to because he's either too arrogant or can't put two words together.

[@shirleymason7697]

G. G. Much like teachers of art, as in painting. They become arrogant. Some have been known to enjoy denigrating to the point of tears a student's work.

[@dbrad5197]

Sounds like they are there just to get a wage. Such a shame

[@bendavis2234]

RIP to this brilliant mind! Rest easy Dr. Weinberg

[@rubenanthonymartinez7034]

Rest in peace? That my friend is a pointless statement!

[@hyunsikjung387]

Humanity needs more ppl like Weinberg.

[@vgrof2315]

What wonderful wisdom. RIP.

[@georgeangles6542]

We're the universe realizing itself. Weinberg is not wrong in knowing we don't need an external source for purpose.

[@russellalesi5715]

Beautiful brother...

[@maheshanigol8657]

Always a pleasure to listen to Weinberg

[@gerrynightingale9045]

"All of the energy and matter that existed still exists. Matter does not create energy of itself. It is the actions of matter that enable energy to become manifest".

[@ferdinandoclarelli1447]

Riposa in pace Steven Weinberg, grandissimo fisico ed intellettuale, e grazie del tuo magnifico "I primi tre minuti" che ha segnato la mia gioventù

[@robertmcclintock8701]

Everytime an artist make something social and intelligent it has artistic integrity. That only possible in a created universe.

[@danielash1704]

When I look back on my life I have been lucky enough to be alive to be present in something like magical world of mystery.

[@mattychase]

He's such a lovely person. So humble.

[@naimulhaq9626]

Simply brilliant. Steven Weinberg beautifully exposes the contributions of the Greeks (Alexandrians), Arabs (Abbasids), up to the modern age. But, he doesn't discuss in length the quantum interpretation (of which he is a master), except that QM does not provide a complete picture, he did in fact emphasise that consciousness and quantum nonlocality does not need divine intervention, claiming instead that the atheistic attitude provides 'free will' and is glad it is so. Even as he fails to explain 'fine tuning', thinks self-organization and self-simulation made fine tuning (FT) possible naturally, perhaps. He even went on to appreciate Everette's multiverse or consciousness, but like Einstein and Schrodinger thinks QM still needs perfect formulation, like Lindblad equation. Elsewhere, Steven admits simplicity and symmetry, must have a limit as a lower bound of our quest to explain the world as against complexity that may have no bound. QM does open the possibility of a self-simulating intelligent conscious 'observer' that collapses the quantum field (QF) into fine tuned (FT) particles, producing phase transition of life out of non-life matter, implying divine purpose or proving the Anthropic Principle, as Everette suspected by did not quite reach the conclusion. QM leads not only to QC, multiverse, consciousness but much more. As for multidimensional aspect of quantum computation of superposition of states, Steven suspect a connection with reality, but thinks QM is not quite there, although Maldecena claims, and many physicists agree with him, that the universe is a QC, just like life is a QC (we repair and regenerate 50-70 billion damaged cells daily, with 99.99 % efficiency and at lightning speed), what Steven agrees as an unknown aspect of reality. His idea however, implies not only free will (which he treasures), but holds that mathematical reality exists independent of us, implying reality is independent (perhaps indicating, but not recognizing the 'mind of god'). Steven believes god is assumed by the humans. I would like to 'assume' ID is responsible for FT and divine purpose. Man and god are entangled.

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

More public and charismatic scientists, such as Tyson, Greene, Kaku are great in their own ways, but for the most clear and deep, accurate but understandable, talks about science: Weinberg and Sean Carroll are the best to learn from.

[@joed2857]

Dr. Winberg, in great memory of you

[@TheSWolfe]

Rest in Peace and Blessed Be, Dr. Weinberg.

[@rossco12]

What a fantastic and inspirational human being 😊👍🏻

[@WatchfulHunter]

Skepticism is the only bridge to truth.

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all. Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind. Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini

[@writteninthesky]

so our brain just tunes us in, in various "levels/dimensions" of consciousness, like an antena? energy 》 vibration and frequency ...

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@writteninthesky My point is that if we rationally analize our scientific knowledges about cerebral processes, on the basis of the laws of physics, we understand that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property of such processes is inconsistent. It is worth considering that the current laws of physics explain with great accuracy all chemical and biological processes, including cerebral processes. Devolopments in physics are expected to refer to high energy processes or cosmology, but it is unreasonable to hypothesize that we will find new laws of physics that will change our descriptions of biological processes. The point is that we do not need new laws of physics to explain biological and cerebral processes, because such processes are perfectly reducible to the current laws of physics, while consciousness is not. Since consciousness is irreducible to cerebral processes and to the laws of physics, the only rational explanation for the existence of consciousness is that an immaterial/unphysical element exists in us and interacts with cerebral processes, and our mind is the result of such interaction. The nature of such non-physical element and of its interaction with the brain cannot be investigated through the scientific method, since it is not physical. Therefore, the problem to establish the nature of such non-physical element does not belong to the scientific domain, but to the metaphysical domain, and it is a matter of personal beliefs. In conclusion, an honest scientist must recognize that science has some intrinsic limits and that consciousness is certainly beyond such limits.

[@writteninthesky]

@@marcobiagini1878 I like your reply a lot 🤗... it has been said that the greatest discoveries yet to be made will emerge from the confluence of mysticism and physics... no serious scientist wants to get even close to mysticism...maybe this will change...soon.

[@lepidoptera9337]

So you are not a physicist. So what? So nothing.

[@chrisms6446]

Good stuff Mr. Weinberg

[@Al.Mo.]

R.I.P. great mind, the world is little darker today

[@The22on]

If they ever did a poll of "who would you like as a neighbor?" I suspect that Weinberg would come out on top. I don't think I ever heard a nicer, gentler, more reasonable sounding person. The tone of his voice, the words he uses, his body language all shout "Nice Guy!" It's quite startling, given his strong beliefs and disagreements with most of the world on science vs religion.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

Great interview. I would disagree on there being no purpose. Our purpose is to become fully conscious in living life and the way to do that is to align ourselves with reality. We can misalign ourselves with reality or oppose it but that gets us nowhere. Aligning ourselves reveals the nature of reality. We can do observation, although important to do, until the cows come home but using that route only we will never understand the nature of reality. It will always be a mystery to science as is consciousness. It is however the route science must take in a dual system that consists of good and bad outcomes. Science does not have the power to get a good outcome only, it is not going to happen in a dual system. Only in unity, the eye of the storm, is the turbulence of duality overcome and we are nowhere there yet. Let’s hope we get there.

[@septicwomb4394]

sitting in my kitchen eating soup with the washing machine running watching steven weinberg talking; when he's talking about reality as fluctuating quantum fields i look around and think "what the fuck *is* this reality i'm living in?"

[@ktxed]

quantum boredom

[@inkland2003]

the presenter did a great job for this interview.

[@Crazy__Canuck]

Stand up and give Steven Weinberg a round of applause!!! Oh, wait....

[@mysticalglowtv1796]

You spend so much time searching for the truth without realizing that the truth has also been looking for you.. We get such a small window of time in this world. We are confronted with the reality of darkness and Light, Good and evil, curses or Blessing, Life or death. It really is a perfect setting to choose which one we want. For some they dont choose and time seems to make the choice for them. Jesus Christ loves you more than words can describe. For greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. He died for you so that you may be born of God and overcome this evil world and enter into the kingdom of God. If you dont know him already, pray to him that he will come into your heart and life and save you from sin and death. May God bless you.

[@oldskeptic1513]

... just like predicted... a lover of a man who never left a single word written but was thought to be god.. pulling the stuff out of your butt... read a book or go back to school you ingrate...

[@VipulCrGames]

Genius!

[@anamika287]

+VCR Games Indeed :)

[@mytaichi5945]

God bless you all!!

[@ericjane747]

Thank you both

[@runningbob]

Sorry Steve, but a catenary is the shape of a free hanging cable. A uniformly loaded cable, like a suspension bridge, is a parabola. But I remember the epiphany I also had at 14 when I started learning the power of math and physics.

[@qualquan]

At 57:04 he says we are inventing, presumably principals of nature. We are discovering, not inventing.

[@MrBendybruce]

RIP Steven ✨

[@majorravindran8084]

Very insightful talk,,,Thank you for posting this

[@wackyfours]

Rest In Peace Mr. Weinberg

[@Aiakaksjjajaj]

Don't let people wash your mind with their thoughts

[@StaticBlaster]

Rest in peace, Mr. Weinberg. The physics community will miss you greatly.

[@mdwoods100]

What an amazing person he was.

[@NEWDAWNrealizingself]

I SALUTE THE MAN OF THE STANDARD MODEL . THANKS !

[@javiergonzales8487]

IMPRESSIVE, one of our Greatest Minds of our times !

[@neuralvibes]

Nice talk, but I have to interject regarding the issue of the decline of science in the Byzantine world... The Byzantines were not in the least anti-scientific, they were simply bad at keeping their bastions of science (and culture in general) from falling into the hands of Muslims. Alexandria was the preeminent center of Greek science, Beirut was an important center for the study of Roman law, etc, while Constantinople (being a relatively new metropolis) was primarily designated the role of an administrative center for the empire as a whole. The decline of Byzantine science and culture was thus directly caused by the loss of many of these major centers of learning in the Near East, add to that the fact that survival of the empire became a far more pressing concern than patronage of the arts for what little remained of Byzantium after the Muslim conquests. The 5th and 6th centuries AD were actually chock-full of intellectual activity and learning. The early 6th century Christian Neoplatonic philosopher-theologian John Philoponus is a great case in point of what might have been, had Byzantium successfully defended Alexandria and the Levant from the Muslim onslaught and had this burgeoning Christian Neoplatonic tradition not been abruptly interrupted by these other historic events. Philoponus, who was the first Christian head of the Neoplatonic academy in Alexandria, had to deal with the complicated issue of reconciling Christian and Neoplatonic doctrines in a time of increased tensions between the two world views. In response to this task, he formulated (among other things) the first major critique of Aristotelian physics in antiquity, in which he rejected Aristotle's concept of aether, arguing instead that the same laws applied both in the heavens and on Earth as well as proposing a theory of impetus which was a precursor to and an important first step towards the law of inertia (i.e. Newton's first law of motion). Philoponus in true scientific spirit even dropped objects from a tall tower in order to refute Aristotle's notion that heavier objects fall at higher velocities, something which has since incorrectly attributed to Galileo who was very familiar with Philoponus' writings and who extensively quoted him in his own writings. Another example of the scientific spirit in 6th century Byzantium is Anthemius of Tralles, who was one of the two main architects behind the construction of the Hagia Sophia. Apart from partaking in the construction of the largest domed structure until the 16th century, he also experimented with steam power and derived important new mathematical formulas for elliptic and parabolic surfaces. His architect colleague in the construction of the Hagia Sophia, Isidore of Miletus, was also an important mathematician who made the first comprehensive compilation of the works of Archimedes and whom we have to thank for the survival of the majority of Archimedes' works. A few decades earlier, in the late 5th century, there was also the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus who among other things constructed an important mathematical device for astronomy that we've come to know as the Tusi couple, after the Muslim astronomer Al-Tusi. This mathematical device was later used by Copernicus in his formulation of his heliocentric system and some modern historians have used this fact as a point to highlight the advances made by Muslim astronomers and their influence on later European astronomers, yet this method originated with Proclus and not Al-Tusi. So, to summarize, there was nothing inherently anti-scientific about late Roman / Byzantine Christian culture, quite the contrary, it just didn't get the opportunity to evolve in peace.

[@SteveFergBitbucket]

+neuralvibes Wonderful comment! Thanks!! I'd like to learn more about Byzantine science. Any suggestions?

[@bostonseeker]

Yes, I just finished a book on Byzantium, and it became clear to me that its later history largely disproves the Enlightenment paradigm that Weinberg pushes of the necessary opposition of religion and science. The final decline in the remains of the scientific culture of later antiquity is due to the rise of Islam and, in particular, the militant and mystical form that it took in the 1200s and 1300s. Within a century or two, the scientific and philosophical culture that the early classical Arabic civilization had inherited from the late Hellenistic-Greek Christian culture permanently evaporated, leaving the Islamic part of the Mediterranean and Levant the stagnant backwater that it has been ever since. The leadership of the Islamic world passed to the Turks and Persians, who had no interest in science and looked on philosophy with suspicion and contempt. OTOH, the remaining figures of the later Greek-Byzantine humanistic culture took their knowledge and manuscripts west, to Venice and other cities, in the 1400s, where they seeded the Renaissance, amplified by the printing press. The Byzantine philosophical/scientific culture was vibrant until it was crushed and eventually destroyed by the pressure of Islamic conquest (and let's not forget the western Christian army of crusaders sacking Constantinople during the third crusade).

[@neuralvibes]

+Stephen R Ferg I seem to somehow have missed your question, so this will be a late response... Well, I think that the key here is to reject the artificial "Byzantine" classification of science and instead look into philosophical and scientific developments of the entire era of Late Antiquity. While the term "Byzantine" does make a lot of sense for explaining political developments that followed the breakup of the Roman Empire, it's completely misplaced when it comes to dealing with issues of science and philosophy. Even the term "Late Antiquity" is somewhat hard to pin down but it deals roughly with developments from the 3rd to the 6th or 7th century AD and, unlike the term "Byzantine", the term "Late Antiquity" actually coincides with certain new intellectual developments and schools of thought of that time. The period of Late Antiquity has often been characterized in terms of science as having a commentary tradition on classical works of science and philosophy without producing many original works. There is some truth to this in the sense that most intellectual activity of Late Antiquity did indeed take the form of commentaries on earlier texts but the value of these commentaries has been reappraised by at least some historians of science who recognize that these commentaries were not mere reworkings of existing knowledge but that at least some of these commentaries provided important new scientific tools and insights, some of these commentaries proved absolutely vital and formative for later developments during the Scientific Revolution. Most of these commentaries were written within the Neoplatonic tradition which was a distinctly Late Antique development of the earlier Platonic tradition. The Neoplatonists tried to combine Platonic and Aristotelian ideas into one harmonious whole but, whether despite or because of this, they also produced some original strands of thought that went outside or beyond what either Plato or Aristotle . It's within this tradition that for instance John Philoponus produce his theory of impetus, the precursor to the concept of inertia. As for books, well, there's a 3 volume set on these Late Antique commentaries called "The Philosophy of the Commentators, 200-600 AD" which features modern translations and commentaries on these works and which puts them in context of both earlier and later developments. This 3 volume set is however not a treatment for the lay audience, you would need to have pretty good knowledge of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy as well as some contextual understanding of the developments preceding and following these commentaries in order to fully appreciate these works.

[@muditracks3640]

Rest in peace

[@eternaldoorman5228]

11:22 Aristotle didn't believe in mathematics, didn't use it and didn't believe it had any role in understanding Nature? That's news to me!

[@StermaPerma]

Very kind guy.

[@trinajska]

yo what's up Jesus

[@StermaPerma]

Trinajskaa Not much, kinda boring up here so I watch these videos you guys make.

[@saad.11mmm90]

العرب يحبون ستيفن واينبرج ..!

[@naturally_rob]

I so badly wished I was taught in school that everything connects.

[@panootis729]

Great interview, particularly on the philosophy of science from one of our greatest physicists. Also recommend his interview I think his memory may have slipped a little when giving an example about the intellectual power of mathematics/science (see 43:30). He recalled the the shape the cable of a suspension bridge is a catenary, but it's parabolic. Very thoughtful, well-read scientist.

[@MH-mc3pp]

actually he is right; it is a catenary. why do you say it is a parabola?

[@michaelwalsh9920]

Absolute genius!! Much love RIP

[@djacob7]

He's a walking encyclopedia.

[@SvetlanaKurjak]

It's pleasure me to hear so interesting telling you about reality of world.

[@Dlrealife]

I drove Steven Weinberg to Logan Airport in Boston from Newton, Mass. We had a fascinating conversation while stuck in traffic on the Mass. Pike. I asked him, based upon his research, does he believe that God exists.

[@ozztam]

And what was his reply?

[@Thewerwolf]

Algebra is not an invention of Alexandrian it was Al-Kwarizmi a Persian in Baghdad 100s of years later

[@mohamedmonem9653]

Amazing lecture, unfortunately tho, he repeated the same common misconception about the reasons for the decline of science in the Muslim world around 500 years ago. The misconception is that decline was Algazalli's book, This is especially because of mistranslations of the book that also neglected the context in which it was written. Jim Al-Khalily proposed a much more convincing reason, and that's the invention of the printing press, which the Muslim world has rejected for hundreds of years until very recently. Their rejection had two main reasons: 1) it would've cost scribes their jobs, and scribing was one of the most elite professions for Muslims, and they took a lot of pride in it, and they couldn't imagine that the process of copying a book could be left to an inanimate machine that doesn't comprehend what it types 2) the second reason is that the Arabic writing system would require a much more complex printing press. in Arabic there are 28 letters of the alphabet and each letter can appear in a word in 3 different forms (depending on its position in a word) and there are also like seven markings that signify the tone of each letter in a word. so that printing press would require 28*3*7=588 symbols to write a coherent book in Arabic in the 15th century, whereas in Latin you only need 26. but even with this difficulty, some Italian merchants decided to print the Quran in Arabic to capitalize on the Muslim market, their attempt, however, failed miserably, and their printed Quran was full of errors and misspellings. This made Muslims even more scared of that invention and saw it as a way for the European Christians to change their precious Quran. The absence of the printer from the Muslim world for the following 500 years allowed information to be transmitted and produced much faster in Latin than in Arabic, making Latin languages the largest hub for human knowledge today. I highly recommend Jim Al-khalili's doc about the golden age of Islam

[@makor2817]

At least someone that talks about the past and the "past geniuses" with a centered mind. Textbooks always make them look like God's but they had flaws and as well not so many real contributions as everyone say.

[@andjon3535]

not so many contributions? wow... where would we be if they did not make the mistakes?

[@makor2817]

@@andjon3535 somewhere not hiding behind sarcasm

[@77gravity]

"Einstein was not real, he was just a theoretical physicist."

[@GroovismOrg]

What's true is that we're all Groovists, with a purpose to Be One globally!!!

[@dahawk8574]

It is so ironic to read all the ‘Rest In Peace’ comments. 180 out from the worldview he held.

[@arakashmahale1]

Thank you.

[@speculawyer]

RIP Steven Weinberg.

[@ooofuture0970]

great program

[@OwenGuo]

R.I.P. Prof Weinberg.

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of it

[@raycosmic9019]

Our purpose in being here is to experience the completion of Joy in form as co-equal creators in collaboration with the all-inclusive Absolute. That which is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential). Every choice we make generates a corresponding timeline of experience. Each moment of the day is 'both' the fruit of yesterday 'and' the seed of tomorrow. To change the narrative, change perspective. Is it a limit or a creative guideline? No wrong answer - only a choice. Nature only counts up to 3. Centripetal convergence, centrifugal divergence and pressure mediation. Consciousness is what something does, not what something is. What appears as separate is in Reality, Continuum of Being. Wave = right hemisphere = peripheral attention. Particle = left hemisphere = focused attention.

[@Lord_Flashheart_Woof]

RIP Steven Weinberg

[@宣行髙橋-l3n]

おはようございます。大変勉強になります。

[@verdi2310]

Rest in peace, professor.

[@Moronvideos1940]

I love brilliant intellectual people. My dog is very bright as well ... her name is Daily...

[@shirleymason7697]

Moronvideos1940 .......is she/he working on a final theory, along with the other bright guys?

[@FABRIZIOZPH]

If I had a 5th of the IQ of this gentleman I would be a brilliant person

[@blairhakamies4132]

You have at least 3 times 20% of his IQ👏

[@FABRIZIOZPH]

@@blairhakamies4132 I'll take it!

[@MonaLisa-rm3iv]

Max. IQ96 I guess .. wich would be good!! 🤭🤣

[@blairhakamies4132]

@@MonaLisa-rm3iv SW might had similar IQ of LdV so higher than 96😉

[@MonaLisa-rm3iv]

LdV?

[@grahamblack1961]

It's fascinating how different in character, temperament and personality the giants of physics have been: Newton the religious nut, Einstein the eccentric oddball, Dirac the most taciturn man who ever lived, Feynman the wild crazy womaniser, Weinberg the humble gentleman. All totally different people who if weren't physics geniuses would probably have very little to say to each other if they met.

[@ElSmusso]

RIP DR. STEVEN ♥️ ⚛️

[@trinajska]

This host has bad questions for a guy this caliber.

[@x3nn0n]

The presenter just wastes half an hour of Steve's time by mostly asking on historical questions and questions like bars on Samoa..... What a douche !

[@mdzahidansari5746]

History of science is important to science....that's why I guess!

[@erichodge567]

You need Brian Greene for an interview with a Nobel laureate. Just sayin'...

[@walterbishop3668]

Newton remind me of myself minus his intelligence

[@jakelabete7412]

LOL you're not alone.

[@carryall69]

loved it..

[@autogrant7020]

"If you really want to understand the meaning of something you have to understand its purpose" I agree this statement from Aristotle is misleading, but lets recognize that most of the utility of science is in engineering things that improve quality of life, so understanding how something COULD be used, in addition to the properties that explain its behavior, is important. In dire times, studying irrelevant things just for the sake of understanding hinders problem solving ability.

[@TheChiliconkarma]

Dude had a good and strong style as an orator..

[@hongyuzhang5631]

8:11 so smart that he doesn’t even need to open his eyes to perceive the world

[@CoertVisserPF]

Fascinating!

[@tonymessinajr]

At 17 minutes and he mentions Robert Byrd and claiming that the Protestant religion brought about the great industrial revolution in England I would contend that despite protestantism there was a revolution not because of it

[@divisorplot]

k-now hum on this video compared to other please adjust your set worlds science festival 'the limits of understandings' would have been nice to listen to.