The Other Side of Physics | Sabine Hossenfelder | TEDxNewcastle

For some physics is all about helping us nail down how the natural world works. And of course this is a hugely valuable and important effort.
In Sabine’s talk, however, she wants to discuss how physics is a catalyst and inspiration for deeper discussion on some of the big, and often unanswerable, questions in life. For example, does a ‘multiverse’ really exist? Can the Universe think?
As part of her talk she wants to distinguish between the ‘unscientific’ and the ‘ascientific’ to help us understand the difference between bad science and important questions that science simply cannot answer, at least not yet. Sabine has a Bachelor’s degree in mathematics and a PhD in physics. Her current work is mostly in the foundation of physics. She has written over 80 research papers on topics ranging from quantum gravity to particle physics, cosmology, astrophysics, statistical mechanics, and quantum foundations.
Sabine’s writing has appeared, among others, in Scientific American, Nautilus, The New York Times, and The Guardian. Her new book ‘Existential Physics: A Scientist’s Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions’ will be published in August 2022. She is also Creative Director of the KZbin channel “Science without the gobbledygook” where she talks about recent scientific developments and sets the record straight on scientific myths. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx

[@SeanRJohnson]

I'm so happy to live in a universe capable of producing Sabine Hossenfelder.

[@kgbstudio]

Amen , good sir!

[@TeaParty1776]

The universe produced volitional determinism. SH used that to produce herself.

[@ivangohome]

She's annoying and pretentious.

[@TheEndPhase]

Me too - don't care what it reveals. :D

[@ivangohome]

@@SeanRJohnson she puts Maxwell against Einstein for entertainment claiming that she can judge who is superior

[@DJWESG1]

Rare this.. an expert giving a Ted talk..

[@happyelephant5384]

Aren't ted talk made for experts to give

[@DJWESG1]

@@happyelephant5384 maybe

[@mysterC58]

​@@happyelephant5384 Just seems like random *ss people to me. I guess maybe they're experts to somebody.

[@doctorpex6862]

@@happyelephant5384 mostly no

[@zyansheep]

*TedX talk

[@hawkerdoo]

When I was a youngster I was completely captivated by Professor Carl Sagan, and here I am having that same experience with Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder in my Senior years.

[@amphibiousone7972]

Sabine gives outstanding lectures. Thank You Dr.Sabine

[@nyworker]

She's got humility which is a great foundational trait for all great thinker's.

[@butwhoasked1821]

@@nyworker "Have the arrogance to believe you can do it, and the humility to recognize you might be wrong"

[@ivangohome]

She's annoying and pretentious.

[@lennyvlaminov9480]

Sabine is brilliant, a whole universe of insights and analysis

[@eric9615]

Fantastic talk, Sabine Hossenfelder has introduced physics and concepts in digestible bits for folks like myself trying to learn a little bit more every day

[@Bengt.Lueers]

Sabine straying out of the circle she is supposed to stay inside of. How poetic.

[@Xamy-]

Haha

[@michaeltrower741]

Like a true scientist, she's thinking outside the circle.

[@emalee8366]

She's wonderful! Smart, humorous, and good at teaching. Follow her science news channel. Oh, and she also creates music. 🙂

[@thej3799]

🌻

[@brianhadley527]

Clear presentation of somewhat difficult to comprehend ideas. Informative and educational in an interesting way. Gotta love this intelligent woman.

[@hyrocoaster]

11:26 I find the idea of a thinking universe on a large scale interesting and I hadn't known before that physicists have started to think about it. However, what I thought she would say, and this would have appeared rather self-evident to me, is that we know already that the universe can think through us. This wouldn't mean that the thinking is everywhere (in the sense of the idea that the whole universe can think), but as Sabine said herself we are part of the same universe, so apparently at least parts of it can think? So the question for me would be whether there is, in addition to the thinking that the universe already does, further thinking: among galaxies, tiny wormholes, etc.

[@shubhanshjain]

Thank you Dr. Hossenfelder for taking time out of your busy schedule to deliver this lecture. I’ve learned some great facts and ideas from your videos.

[@charlesdavis7940]

The best science communicator of our age? It is rare to explain the most complex ideas in a way that is completely understandable.

[@gefginn3699]

Sabine is a Treasure.

[@marcusbeau]

beyond measure

[@glenncurry3041]

Interesting to watch you from another perspective. I watch your youtube channel religiously! And watched you with Penrose and others in discussions. I always learn something and love your, yes, strange humor!

[@TheMarcusrobbins]

When I have heard her before she seemed to lack imagination. Now I see it's just that her imagination is strongly tempered by precise logical thought. That is the mark of a great mind, my respect for her has increased significantly. It is an annoying aspect of a scientific world dominated by sensors, people who do not delve into the subconscious as much, that these insights are frowned upon. I hope as her standing increases she becomes more free to express them.

[@georgesheffield1580]

What ? Learn something ,please .

[@TheMarcusrobbins]

@@georgesheffield1580 The chance that you understand more about the world than I do is very small. And I have very small error bars on that prediction.

[@david_porthouse]

Well she has nailed her colours to the mast of superdeterminism.

[@TheSteakLP]

I am happy to inform you that Sabine exists in my subjective experience of the universe.

[@sparky7915]

Physics can discover the laws of our universe and how we can use them. That is the limit of physics. It can not explain what happened before the big bang. It can not explain how psychics can communicate with the dead. It can not explain how it is that some people can see the future. Physics can not develop equations to explain these kinds of things. Sabine Hossenfelder makes physics so interesting and explains things so well. I think she's the best!

[@lupamartins8830]

Sabine Is such an underrated physics personality

[@das_schnitzel]

She's many things, but she's definitely not underrated by anyone remotely interested in the things she talks about

[@PieterPatrick]

The world needs more Sabine!

[@GerritSchulze]

It is always a pleasure to listen to Sabine Hossenfelder's thoughts. They are easy to grasp and to say in her words 'ascientific', at least for me... I have no evidence against nor do I have evidence supporting the idea behind her thoughts.

[@erickmorales4312]

I’m shocked . I came on here because I have listened to Sabine for over a year now. I actually alway wondered what if the universe itself is a brain trying to understand itself , and it is alive but in a way our brain cant comprehend. The same way we are trying to understand our existence. Now I don’t feel as crazy.

[@davidinkster1296]

If the universe is a brain, is the universe God, and vice versa?

[@erickmorales4312]

@@davidinkster1296 I think you could call it whatever you want. The word “ GOD“ is a word that was created by humans as was religion. We have to name what we don’t understand on our limited cognitive capacity. Personally I think there is a powerful force that pulls this together. Something we are yet to understand. Death might give us that answer. I don’t believe in the common “ someone is watching our sins” , what I believe is with at we are the universe expressing itself , trying to understand Itself in a physical form. I think both a science & spirituality could give us the answer one day. I hope I’m making sense, but as long as it makes sense to me . I’m fine with that

[@davidinkster1296]

@@erickmorales4312 I generally agree with you; I am an agnostic and I fully realize that using the word God will be controversial to some. Personally I like the view (attributed to Einstein) that there is a creator/god, who is not concerned about the day-to-day existence of humans.

[@davidpantoja676]

So good to have this content available, science is cool.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Read her new book, 'Existential Physics',meanwhile, this lecture is about, recommend it very much, great to hear her talking life about it here.😊

[@marcusbeau]

/bow nod yes

[@corrupt1238]

Saline 's just awesome, totally buzzing about her idea that the universe thinks

[@scoobdubious]

Totally absorbing. Well thought out....

[@yinyuejia7]

Sabine, thank you for being so complete and clear!

[@xenphoton5833]

Sabine, you rock girl! 👍

[@strangevision99]

Wow, this was really close to where I live and I had no idea. It'd have been great to go along and watch one of my favourite science people on KZbin, in real life.

[@berniv7375]

Newcastle is a bonnie city. It used to be part of Scotland and for a time it was the capitol of Scotland. Well. I do not believe in the multiverse and I think the theory was born out of arrogance and fear. The universe is vast and incomprehensible and we belittle the universe by stating there are many. This makes us feel safe. My theory is that there is some kind of subconscious interaction between the brain and the universe and that computers are evolving our brains. If the universe was a gigantic brain it would send and receive messages through thought which is instantaneous and faster than the speed of light. Obviously if it is the universe that is thinking it will not be subject to the rules of time and space as we perceive them.🌱

[@arijitsinha2263]

There are some recorded talks like this, which after ending deserves clapping👏👏 excellent!

[@thee_ms_enthusiast6030]

I don’t know if it’s the same experience with others. Being taught and given empirical meaning to what’s being taught, gives me liking and an opportunity to better interpret “stuff” and even maybe make advancement on them. I’m usually lost if I cannot pair what is taught with empirical meaning. This is why I like Sabine. She dangles these two so well. In undergraduate physics, I didn’t understand geometrical meanings of the cones in special relativity. And here she opens up so well to it.

[@enockmarere3113]

Love her honesty

[@benmcreynolds8581]

In a way, she is giving motivation. Just like how dark humor can be therapeutic for a individual; being able to be self aware enough to realize when certain things get off track and it can motivate you/anyone to attempt to look at these things and try and find a new perspective/approach to solve a problem. The best inventors, philosophers, artists seem to be able to be comfortable with facing things and learning to harness the ability of how you observe things as a tool and through perspective experimenting, you can sometimes stumble upon new methods/manner's on how to solve problems in ways that others didn't notice/see/or understand. (Just like how Einstein had the ability to get lost in hypothetical thought and imagine different perspectives and then it stumbled upon his path towards learning about light/energy/physics etc.) That came from Einstein taking a category that previously was in a state of limbo, but he was willing to look at it and see if he could find anything else out about it. So if you get demotivated, or down, try and remember that even things we think we fully understand; have the total possibility that you can look at it/observe it in a new light that others haven't and totally find a new layer of complexity or depth to a topic. So even if we are faced with a lot of difficult situations, roadblock's, the best thing is the universe is full of amazing intracity so the chance of further understanding the world around us is profoundly possible and to me that's very motivational and Nature itself some how seems to have a way of always keeping that inner child like curiosity alive with-in my Life.

[@stratovation1474]

Yes. That's why most Ted talks follow cookie cutter formulae and are way overrehearsed and over simplified.

[@tevatronlhc244]

i love the definiton of ascientific and the distinction to unscietific. if u dont mind, i will use if someone askes me about the multiverse idea

[@johnjennings8500]

Very interesting talk. Thanks for making this available.

[@juancuelloespinosa]

Yes, that guy again 😆 Sabine must be so proud he was German

[@monad_tcp]

13:26 that means spacetime isn't the most basic property, information is, if two particles are in the same space that only means they are strongly correlated in a information point of view, and the biggest correlation between specific particles is what creates gravity, not the spacetime. Which is why theories can't be reconciled. one of them is basically missing "hidden variables". With general relativity its too easy to confuse an useful abstraction with the real thing itself. The real thing is information, not the space that information represents. Information can be duplicated, and information don't occupy space, but information can correlate with itself, that creates Shannon entropy, and that creates the effects of "gravity". Yes, I subscribe to the information-theoretic foundations of physics (for obvious reasons, I'm a computing scientist).

[@TeaParty1776]

>if two particles are in the same space that only means they are strongly correlated in a information point of view, Right! Reality is not information about reality.

[@ConnoisseurOfExistence]

Nice! Need to listen to this again, to remember some points that I noticed and share this video with some questions here and there...

[@Astronist]

13:00: "That they have quantum properties means among other things that they can be in two places at the same time. We also know that those particles have masses, and mass generates a gravitational pull, which brings up the question: if you have a particle that's in two places at the same time, where does the gravitational pull go?" - Interesting point that I've not thought about before. The obvious answer would be that gravity behaves like the particle's electric charge. If a charged particle interacts with another charged particle in some observable way, then that constitutes an observation and the wave function collapses; the particle is no longer in two places at once (or rather, the amplitude of its probability distribution no longer has two peaks at different points in space). So with gravity: if the particle exchanges a graviton with another particle, then again the wave function collapses. But it's a long time since I studied quantum mechanics (and not very successfully even then), so it's probably not that at all.

[@monad_tcp]

11:31 I agree with that from principles, I'm a computing scientist and its nice to hear from physicists that we converge on that.

[@Adam-rh1gf]

Are we not thinking? Are we not made of the universe? Why is this even a question? The fact that it is debated only shows that even the smartest of us are completely deluded. Laughable! Haha!

[@ihatethesensors]

Wow! That was amazing!

[@charlesmanning6489]

Physics might be the most powerful tool we have to make sense of our own existence but it is not powerful enough. Even if physics came up with a perfectly complete set of theories that precisely describe existence and for which no violations could be found we would still be asking "why universe is that way?" The answer to that question seems to be important for making sense of existence yet it is a question which no answer could completely satisfy.

[@dhayes907]

You cannot know everything about a system you are a part of.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

Love Sabine. For the algorithm

[@binbots]

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

[@sparky7915]

In Edgar Cayce's readings he states things that agree with physics observations. For example are we in a multiverse? It is fascinating!

[@TennesseeJed]

Love her!

[@danielvarga_p]

Shared by free so wonderful!

[@GururajBN]

This point is very interesting: that we always see everything as it was in the past because of finet speed of light. We can never know the present, no matter how tiny a fraction of second the time lag is. Reality we experience is always in the past, never in the present. Raises interesting philosophical questions.

[@machintelligence]

There is also the time lag introduced by the speed of neural transmitters and cognition which dwarfs the physics time lag. You “see” things long after the photons strike your cone cells.

[@TeaParty1776]

>Reality we experience is always in the past, We experience that in the present. And the past that we experience is typically so short that it makes no practical difference. If chased by a tiger, dont tell yourself that its in the past or you will be in the past for eternity.

[@georgeb.wolffsohn30]

This talk reminds me of the book "Flatland".

[@Gottfried1983]

We are absolutely not made of matter, matter is created inside us as infinite beings.

[@waltergith6535]

Dear Sabine (I hope you read the comments), I like your work a lot! I would appreciate if you would also tell people that what you call "compatible" indeed means that our philosophical speculations are at least 50% about our own theories and not about what we call "reality". In my eyes all our theories are "compatible theories". As the observer problem clearly shows, the reality itself is and will always be beyond our knowledge. I think the works of Donald Hoffman show this very impressively.

[@donmcatee45]

I have always thought that we only see past events, not only the speed of light but the speed in which we process the images.

[@tarmaque]

“Alone of all the creatures in the world, trolls believe that all living things go through Time backwards. 'If the past is visible and the future is hidden,' they say, 'then it means you must be facing the wrong way. Everything alive is going through life back to front.” ― Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_ 1991

[@Nocontextturkishboi]

I’ve been following sabine since 2020. Biggest fan of her 😍

[@tarmaque]

You _can't_ be the biggest fan of her, because _I'm_ a biggest fan of her and you're never at any of the meetings. 🤪

[@bjorntantau194]

You can only be her biggest fan if you keep sending her your theory of everything.

[@SebaBuenoHaceMusiquitaJijiji]

You cant be her biggest fan because you haven't heard her song "When they ask us" while crying :'o

[@XEinstein]

It amazes me how much her ability to speak English has grown over the years since she first started appearing on my KZbin streams. Nowadays you can clearly hear a person that speaks and possibly even dreams English on a daily rate. Few years ago it was very typical heavily German inflected English. Makes me wonder if she can already make Germans believe she's not German.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Know her video "talking English like Einstein"?

[@XEinstein]

@@Thomas-gk42 I know it exists, but I haven't seen it. I speak both German and English so I thought I'd understand the video also without seeing it

[@singin4free]

Interesting and thoughtful! I think what I heard you imply is that since the concept of a thinking universe is compatible with what we know, though there's no evidence , one might say it takes faith to believe in it. Personally, I can't argue against having faith in that which is compatible yet unprovable. So, why not faith in a creator outside the universe?

[@MonsterSound]

experience Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder

[@jimboswell4818]

There are many things in physics we have yet to understand, things we have yet to change our minds about, Things such as consciousness and spiritual physics.

[@jgeur]

2 points....one, the universe doesn't have to think, it already knows everything, and, i love how Sabine refuses to stand in the red speaker's circle, she seems to prefer to stand to the side, in the shadows.

[@Thomas-gk42]

The way a rebel does?

[@EmanuelGaldr]

Watching her videos I feel like a curious elementary school student again.

[@michaeltrower741]

I love her proper pronunciation of Einstein.

[@markmcd2780]

SoL is not the main reason we do not live in NOW. The delay in processing the signal is. Reception of event via senses, transmission of impulse along nerves, processing in the brain, presentation of dataset to the 'I' who is watching it all.

[@michaeltrower741]

well put

[@frun]

The general audience is unaware of Sabine's important work on superdeterminism.

[@arielhernandez1638]

I've wondered if the universe was like a brain, with all those interconnecting filaments, made of galaxies, that look like the neural networks of a brain. Then I realized, that everything my consciousness interacts with comes from my brain, and when I interact with my environment, I'm not really interacting with it, but with a copy of my environment that lives in my brain. I'm probably an imperfect copier, who copies the universe and tries to fit it into my brain. Then we make A.I. and we make copies of copies of the universe, and so on and so forth, like a fractal or an infinite mirror.

[@jho2646]

Sabine deserves better lighting

[@Al-po2oh]

Very Cool!

[@PaulisimaSpringSpanish]

I LOVE Sabine!!!!!!!! :D

[@TeaParty1776]

>how physics is a catalyst and inspiration for deeper discussion on some of the big, and often unanswerable, questions in life. For example, does a ‘multiverse’ really exist? Can the Universe think? In _The DIM Hypothesis_, philosopher, Leonard Peikoff, says that philosophy influences cultural institutions, eg, physics, that influence the whole culture. Every claim in physics, true or false, reasonable or absurd, is implicitly a view of common human experience that, explicitly or implicitly, influences everyone, including people who ignore physics. In Greece, physics provided scientific method. In the Medieval era, physics provided divine teleology. Etc.

[@forbidden-cyrillic-handle]

There are a lot of parts of the universe who show no signs of logical thinking. But I agree. If even one human can think then the Universe can as well. The only debate will be if the human is the part of the Universe that can think, or there are bigger (or smaller) structures capable of thinking.

[@SampleroftheMultiverse]

Yes you can sample the multi verse but you can only see one verse at a time which is what we see as our single verse.

[@nanumanu13]

How do we know that we aren't already constantly jumping between universes?

[@lenpalmeri6228]

thought provoking.

[@rolomartinez2]

Eres un científica increíble ! Me has hecho cambiar la manera en que veo la ciencia❤

[@SebaBuenoHaceMusiquitaJijiji]

Yo ya estoy convencido del determinismo después de tanto Sabine

[@egnielson]

Congrats Sabine!!!

[@crawkn]

_My_ past present and future don't exist simultaneously in my own reference frame, only in some combinations of other reference frames. No _individual_ reference frame would perceive them _all_ as simultaneous, excepting the reference frames of some photons, were they capable of perception.

[@UkDave3856]

So smart

[@EricAllen8494]

💙

[@johanfynbo5377]

That "now" is not part of our understanding of natural laws may rather be a limitation in our understanding.

[@victoriamakoeng4833]

🔥🔥❤️❤️

[@user-sl6gn1ss8p]

Just because a system would have an unbearably low frequency for our mortal standards, doesn't mean it can't think, just that if it does the timescales involved are much larger. Unless the expansion of the universe rules this out someway I guess?

[@jackcrook4435]

Wish i could give more thumbs up...

[@HxTurtle]

surprisingly, that's kinda what I thought when I was a kid, I "kid" you not 😅 essentially, that we exist inside the brain of one enormous giant and conversely have little beings residing inside our brain which they consider their universe. and that would go one infinitely.

[@philosophy5441]

11:50 the universes size is relative, it might be in a quantum state or superposition.. i think everything in the universe is in superposition if you consider the singularity and the big bang where we were all one and we were all separated and pushed away from each other...so the universes quantum state might be nothing and something or 0 and 1 or inflating and deflating or expanding or contracting and we are measuring the state that exist b/n past and future from the present which is also relative every thing is something and something is every thing... since all matter in the universe is made up of entangled particles what if the communication b/n galaxies and other parallel universes happen instantly, and the universe might thinking.

[@depluribusunum3128]

Is there another way to measure the speed of light. The way it is done now might present a rubber ruler problem.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

is entanglement needed for any object or matter to have quantum properties?

[@PJRiter1]

Can the future influence the past? As my memory gets less good it sometimes seems that I can remember the future in an anticipatory fashion better than I can remember the past...

[@jesperkthomsen]

A role model for all women!

[@michaeltrower741]

and for men too, we can all learn a lot from her.

[@BulentBasaran]

If we run in circles meaning not going anywhere, we age faster. That's why we humans are a mystery to physics 🙂

[@ianhall3822]

There could be an Absolute Time measured not by light, but by entropy. The Universe is 13 billion years old. Everyone in the Universe agrees with this value, and also that the rate of increase of entropy in the Universe is the same for all observers. This rate of increase in entropy could be used as a unit of time.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

does a quantum wave (of particle or any matter) with probability distribution of particle / matter have gravity?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could causation be the present now, with perceptions of that causation varying as described by speed of light and special relativity?

[@WizardSkyth]

Not bad. Good expansion on my position.

[@mountainair]

Wonderful. Thanks Sabine. Existence of the block universe I always found chilling given how dark human history as we know it has been. Are those people stuck suffering for all enternity?

[@randywa]

Yoooooooo Sabiiine!

[@robinhampshire8923]

perhaps it is just SH's analogy, but surely information can ONLY be contained in a mind? Until it is read by a mind, a book is just paper and ink...which I guess reduces ultimately to mind-stuff. So destroying a book destroys no information.

[@FirstLast-tx3yj]

Now did she step of the red circle because she didnt pay attention Or Did she intentionally step out so we pay more attention Or Did she step out unintentionally and the realised so she kept stepping out Or Maybe she was stressed and though moving was a good idea

[@tarmaque]

She was reading her notes from a screen that was not in front of the red circle. Didn't you notice how she kept looking down at it?

[@michaeltrower741]

she's a scientist --- she's allowed to step outside the bounds of anything in order to get a bigger picture

[@charlesbrightman4237]

MATHEMATICS: NUMBERS AND MATHEMATICAL CONSTANTS: Okay, then I ask: a. How do numbers and mathematical constants exist in this existence for math to do what math does in this existence?

[@charlesbrightman4237]

FOR ME AT THIS TIME: (Subject to the results of my gravity test for my theory of everything idea): NUMBERS: (copy and paste from my files): 'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time, my gravity test has to be done which will help prove or disprove the TOE idea), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, the 'gravity' modality acting 90 degrees from the 'em' modalities, which act 90 degrees to each other, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows: Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction. Then: 1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe. (And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have. This would also be the maximum potential energy point or as some might call it, the 'zero point energy point'.). And also how possibly mathematical constants exist in this universe as well. * Note also: Nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and mathematical constants can exist and do what they do in this universe from the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP). While the SMPP has it's place, I believe we need to move beyond the SMPP to get closer to real reality.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

ALSO CONCERNING NUMBERS: While in bed one morning after a restful nights sleep, and assuming the above is correct, I mentally went 'inside' the 1 (the singular pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon itself). I still saw with my mind the 3 different interacting modalities, the 6 maximum modality points, the '9' including and being the neutral points in the middle which faded into a 6 (as each maximum modality point came towards zero), that 6 fading into a 3 (as each modality came together), which turned into a 1 (which was the '0' point), but '0' wasn't zero. So, '0' is not really '0' but is something, not nothing. '0' is a relative '0'. But then here again, the zero point energy point is the maximum potential energy point for any and all modalities of the 'gem' photon. '0' is '1' and '1' is '0', this is the '1' inside the '1'. Now I just have to come up with some tests to test this idea of the zero point energy point being '1', a maximum potential energy point of the singular pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon itself. The maximum potential energy point not really being potential energy per se, but the neutral point of kinetic energy. Tapping into here would be tapping into the 'zero' point energy point of eternally existent ever flowing energy. But then again, tapping into here, 'if' distorted what makes up space and time itself (assuming that 'space' is energy itself [the 'gem' photon] and that 'time' is the flow of energy), could it alter or even destroy the very fabric of space itself? What would occur if even only a single pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon were to explode? What potential ripple effects could occur with the rest of space and time? Hence also why I try to think some things all the way through so as to try to identify potential issues before the test. Unexpected, unintended, potentially dangerous or even deadly consequences. If nothing else, it keeps my mind active. The mind, use it or lose it, but using it could also lose it, permanently. (My own and other's). Putting the 'zero point energy point' into actual practice could be deadly. Warning: Proceed with Caution. The last words of human existence on this Earth might be, 'Hey it worked, ooooppppppsssssss.............'.

[@chandima8152]

I HAVE READ THAT THEORY IN BUDDHIST CANON.“Don’t run back to the past. don’t hope for the future. What’s past is left behind. the future has not arrived. and phenomena in the present. are clearly seen in every case.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

is it possible for universe to think very slowly, so long as the information needed for thinking is there?

[@andrewbrodis1239]

People are confused because they fail to see the cycle of expansion, transition, contraction. Light only shows us what is in relative expansion. Apparent relative Cosmic Expansion and its acceleration is due to spherical expansion's radial divergence. The radial speed of the universal quantum expansion is the universal constant. Matter fractals are able to exist in this radial expansion by resisting 3 dimensions of expansion and just moving radially. This means energy transfers from atom to surrounding space will expand in radial trajectories of an expanding sphere, away from the transfer point. In the co-moving quantum expansion matter is moving radially @ c whilst Newtonian physics is going on between co-moving matter. One second worth of Newtonian physics happens over 186,000 miles. So trajectory through time in our perspective is constant motion in a straight line. 👌

[@Madayano]

👍

[@tvprich]

How profound that she enlightens us with the thought that the universe can think? What if we ARE just a part of the tiny thinking particles that live on one tiny cell (earth) of our particular creator's brain. What if our universe IS really the brain of a larger being. So big is the being that our perceivable universe is simply the brain cavity of this larger being? And that the reason nothing major has happened to us yet, is that time, being relative, moved much slower in the larger entity's existence. So large it is that our whole conception of our world's existence (billions of years) is but a single breath of the large being, while he or she is simply laying down to take a nap.* *(No I don't take drugs, and am completely sober while writing this) :-)