Can we understand the universe? | Sheldrake & Hossenfelder go head to head on dark matter IN FULL

Sabine Hossenfelder, Rupert Sheldrake and Bjorn Ekeberg go head to head on consciousness, panpsychism, physics and dark matter.
To watch Sabine debate dark matter more, visit iai.tv/video/the-dark-univers...
To watch Rupert discuss consciousness, visit iai.tv/video/mind-and-the-uni...
Find more fiery content with a variety of speakers and topics at iai.tv/player/?You...
"Not only is the universe stranger than we think. It is stranger than we can think." So argued Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum theory. We imagine our theories uncover how things are but, from quantum particles to dark matter, at fundamental levels the closer we get to what we imagine to be reality the stranger and more incomprehensible it appears to become.
Might science, and philosophy one day stretch to meet the universe's strangeness? Or is the universe not so strange after all? Or should we give up the idea that we can uncover the essential character of the world, and with Bohr conclude that the strangeness of the universe and the quantum world transcend the limits of the human mind?
#DarkMatter #RupertSheldrake #SabineHossenfelder
Influential scientist Rupert Sheldrake, prominent physicist Sabine Hossenfelder and esteemed philosopher Bjørn Ekeberg get to grips with whether the universe is stranger than we can imagine. Johnjoe McFadden hosts.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...[IAI TV URL]
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@SykPaul]

Watching Dr Sabine debate topics like "is the sun conscious?" is one of my favorite forms of entertainment

[@Thomas-gk42]

she talks the least, but says the most

[@Joseph-fw6xx]

She's a smart little lady

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@n.p.mackenzie Rupert is totally crazy my best, nothing is to verify about the claim, that the sun is conscious, it's a gigantic ball of hot plasma, constantly whirled, with very few structures and without any possibility to form complex ones. You also could claim, that your dirty underwear is conscious in the same way. Of course, you may believe it like the indian people, he talked about, but if you come with that in a scientific disguise, it's pseudoscience. And Sabine is not arrogant, she just says clearly what she thinks is right. Better than blabla.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@Joseph-fw6xx No doubt, she is!

[@UAPrich]

I believe each galaxy is a form of conscious - too many very intelligent people seem to think so.

[@TorMax9]

The quote "Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think“ is by Werner Heisenberg in his book 'Across the Frontiers' (1974), not by Niels Bohr, as the presenter says at the beginning and as is written in the description.

[@VijayGupta-lw7qz]

PicoPhysics: In PicoPhysics Universe appears to be very simple. Amulgamated (or Free) Quants of Kenergy in Space.

[@rodschmidt8952]

It's also attributed to J.B.S. Haldane "queerer than we can suppose"

[@christopherellis2663]

Stating an opinion is not making an argument. Poor fellow needs a long holiday.

[@user-hy9nh4yk3p]

What does this mean - never heard this puzzling - stuff before - it better make things - more understood.? Fare thee well.@@VijayGupta-lw7qz

[@tim40gabby25]

'Owt as queer as folk'. I wonder if the Universe will simply prove inexplicable to us ?

[@AdelaeR]

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” - Douglas Adams

[@cookymonstr7918]

Anything that happens, happens.

[@verfassungspatriot]

Sounds like a bold claim lol

[@henrym.7858]

If only that could happen then it would be a result of Murphy's Law which says that anything that can happen will happen .

[@VijayGupta-lw7qz]

PicoPhysics: In PicoPhysics Universe appears to be very simple. Amulgamated (or Free) Quants of Kenergy in Space.

[@eugenecampbellutube]

There is a theory that what Douglas Adams says, makes no sense.

[@NotSoNormal1987]

I'm not sure that we will ever understand everything. But I feel that the persuit of understanding is a fundamental part of humanity. Humans love to learn, explore, and discover. I don't imagine humanity would be able to stop trying to understand things.

[@ogi22]

And this is where i agree with Bjorn and Sabine. If the universe is infinite (or so big, that for our human minds can be treated as such), our small and finite brains will never be able to understand it all. Not in todays configuration. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try!!! This is exactly the same thing with free will and decision making. I'm all for those who say we don't have free will (just an illusion). But it doesn't mean we can't make decisions. And i as a human being, I decided I'd love to find out as much as i can before i pass away. I have no idea what will be in a few hundred, thousands or more years. Perheaps we will evolve into something much more capable than humans? Personally i really hope so. And i also hope that this one particular character trait - curiosity, will remain in our grand, grand, grand.... children.

[@morphixnm]

Aristotle: “All men by nature desire knowledge.”

[@MarsLonsen]

We will never understand everything.

[@kuswanto6488]

This universe is the breath of God through his angel, he created and ended nature with three trumpet blasts. Humans as God's most perfect creation are given the highest gift, namely being able to speak and reason. There is only one weakness of the human mind, that is, the human mind cannot find the limits of its own mind. There are two most important parts of man, namely the spirit (spirit/consciousness) and his heart. The human spirit experiences seven phases ( 1. the eternal age 2. the mother's womb 3. birth into the world 4. life in the grave 5 in the plains of society (flat earth) 6. the day of judgment 7. Heaven or Hell. While the human heart is like a King for the Body man.

[@kuswanto6488]

​@@MarsLonsenin our spirit realm there is no three-dimensional space yet or only in the form of writing, in our mother's womb we already exist in three dimensions but there is no time dimension yet, in the natural world we live in 4 dimensions, space and time, in the grave we live in five dimensions , time space and memory of our actions, in the realm of resurrection we live in six dimensions while in the afterlife we ​​live in seven dimensions. but mathematically those dimensions could be primes. 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17.

[@faulypi]

Sabine's face when the whole conscious sun story was going on showed a struggle to not scream.

[@apophisxo4480]

LOL!

[@paulpinecone2464]

I screamed for her.

[@DanielJones-wj7mm]

Because she thinks and behaves as if she is the only smart person in the room. Sad.

[@apophisxo4480]

@@DanielJones-wj7mm She may well have been...Love her!

[@TheBiggreenpig]

@@DanielJones-wj7mm Nah, besides Sabine, there was conscious sunlight there too.

[@TennesseeJed]

"Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think." -Werner Heisenberg

[@kipponi]

Yes it is beyond our understand, but why?

[@VaughanMcCue]

I am uncertain about that.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@kipponi Because my cat scratched at the flywire and wanted to go out. As soon as I opened the door, it changed its mind. That has to be as good as any other why question you can conjure up.

[@Thomas-gk42]

No, Nils Bohr, right? But anyway just nice words, no meaning

[@TennesseeJed]

@@kipponi Haw!

[@3hijos5nietos]

Rupert Sheldrake: "as soon as things become in a structure--(like in the human body)-- the randomness is replace by an order...." Nobody notice that? And that is a truth as big as a cathedral, people. Greetings from Chile.

[@HighCountryStudio]

Absolutely love this juxtaposition of fine minds considering essential questions from different perspectives. Thanks so much!

[@Farmfield]

Sabine looks like someone who mistakenly walked into the Furries convention and is trying to figure out wtf is going on... 😂

[@cliveadams7629]

Now that is a pretty damned good analogy.

[@AsifBooks]

@@cliveadams7629 Agreed, She's great when speaking, but when anyone else is speaking, she shuts down and just sits there looking slightly uncomfortable.

[@user-sl6gn1ss8p]

@@AsifBooks I mean, I don't know how much she knew beforehand about the other panelists, but I could see the whole conscious sun angle being hard to interact with on the spot

[@Corteum]

@@AsifBooks That's her couping mechanism for the discomfort she feels at having her assumptions challenged and being unable to respond in a raitonal manner 😂lol

[@robertthiesen2687]

@@AsifBooks She seemed to appreciate Bjorn's perspective. She even looked at him when he was talking 😂😂

[@scottcameron5358]

Very entertaining and stimulating in the best of ways. Thanks for sharing.

[@srglepore]

Just started listening. So far so good!

[@jonathaneffemey944]

Thanks so much for posting.

[@57boomer44]

"plenty of strangeness here on earth if you think about it" . Agreed.

[@proto-geek248]

Yea, like Hollywood 🙄

[@srobertweiser]

''People are strange, when you're a stranger.''

[@DarkSkay]

Plenty of marvel as well. At the source of this marvel, many see the generosity of the Gods.

[@liamhickey359]

@@DarkSkay generosity , gods. What is the opposite of generosity and what is the opposite of gods.

[@DarkSkay]

@@liamhickey359 At the opposite side of a mirror, sometimes another mirror. Opposite a lush forest nourished by rivers, clouds travelling with the wind; casting shadows traced by distant stars.

[@picksalot1]

Diverse panel, and interesting discussion. Much better than I expected, as the panelists did not get bogged down by their own disciplines and personal views. They were still able to present their perspectives and recognize their limitations.

[@ebog4841]

Sheldrake has no perspective. Not even within his own ... uh.... "discipline"

[@Phariseehunter]

​@@ebog4841could argue that 'discipline' is a large part of the problem of early conditioned reactivity to causal naivety that brings forth the protectively self-centric individualised mind that, neccesarily, forms psuedo-protective, stubborn thinking patterns and consequent behavioural loops.

[@babiekoala7643]

Why not argue respectfully with a Delusional patient in Asylum, as to why he believes Unicorns will eat all humans next Monday... because the process of mind believing something purely based on assumptions rather than full knowledge/complete observations... is literally called Delusion... Please stop baby sitting these God believers because they can cut your head if they have done that in the past, for literally not believing in a delusion... Christianity like any other religion is Delusion... Delusion have two components: one that is practical (like human extinction) + one that is impractical (Unicorn made human extinct)... understand that your mind can make impractical blend in with Practical and make whole thing believable... But you should always keep questioning things... and that's only Science's capability... neither religion, nor philosophy have capabilities of accepting that they are taking a huge Risky leap of faith in the middle to connect Impractical to Practical world...

[@josephgrace4725]

​@@ebog4841some of Rupert's work on plant biology is school-coursebook standard worldwide...

[@firstal3799]

Agrees

[@davidasher22]

This conversation reminds me how we are all trying to explain the same thing, just using different words.

[@bicivelo]

No. The guy on the left is using claims and unfalsifiable methods to try and prove his quackery.

[@philipswain4122]

A wonderful discussion. Polite and deeply intellectual. Thank you for posting.

[@ambitiousdentist6076]

sabina's face when he's talking about talking to the sun. yes.

[@bengeurden1272]

I am so glad he didn't get into Flat earth stuff He is already active in the pseudoscience area after all

[@pythIV]

​@@bengeurden1272he is ? how come?

[@natanaellizama6559]

Yeah. She is limited by her own unchallenged and limited conceptions.

[@rlustemberg]

@@natanaellizama6559just an exponent of naive materialism

[@datapro007]

Entertaining discussion, thank you.

[@apertureinfog]

Three of my favorite thinkers. Just a fantastic conversation

[@shinoraze]

Kudos to Sabine for not bursting like a solar flare when the topic turned to if the Sun is conscious 😂😂😂

[@patinho5589]

The Sun is conscious. Any scientist who will rightly call themselves a scientist, having now read my post will investigate the veracity (or not) of the Aetherius society recordings.

[@timbeck6726]

Consciousness(the term) has,in modernity, been diluted,enhanced,manipulated,commodified to the point of loosing an agreed upon objective meaning...so sad.

[@iphaze]

I studied her face carefully when that came up, I half expected her to laugh or stop that gentleman mid-way through his speech 😅

[@danlindy9670]

Yes. Her expression is priceless.

[@robr177]

And for not cringing when the presenter mispronounced her name at the beginning.

[@rozzgrey801]

The universe is not incomprehensible, but Rupert Sheldrake's approach to science is.

[@ihatespam2]

That’s how he keeps going, living off the mystery, and others ignorance and gullibility.

[@Corteum]

Curious! What the single most incomprehensible thing you find about Sheldrake's approach to science?

[@vaibhavsati538]

@@Corteum the sun

[@Corteum]

@@vaibhavsati538 lol I dont think he should have started with the sun. He could have just talked about consciousness itself... since we havent even figured that out yet, ,let alone going straight to the sun. That's a huge leap for most scientists right now.

[@DarkSkay]

Two approaches I'm not familiar with, but I'd very much enjoy reading your philosophy about the one you perceive as "not incomprehensible".

[@aldofromsf]

Loved the discussion, thank ya'll.

[@pamelamulready1279]

Great to hear this open and more expansive discussion.

[@MattWhatsGoinOn]

Good thing, too, because the universe is expanding.

[@amihart9269]

I don't think I gained much listening to a guy talking about conscious suns that can fire jets to move around and that humans can apparently communicate with it lmao

[@bjd798]

Rupert Sheldrake and Sabine Hossenfelder both did very well! A great discussion!!

[@RWin-fp5jn]

I agree! Educated like Sabine, I yet like Sheldrake's argumentation of things. Sheldrake may not have the math skills of Sabine, but at least he is deeply committed to understanding the REAL phenomenon of consciousness, whilst Sabine is committed to understanding a purely IMAGINARY phenomenon of Quantum Gravity (which even Penrose has to admit is nonsensical). Yes I get the raised eye-brows when suggesting the Sun may be conscious. But think it through please. Take the example of cockroaches; They are successful in survival, quite aware of their surroundings and relative smart in their strategies. By any standards that qualifies as some level of consciousness. The fact they can't communicate with us is due to what we consider to be an 'inferior' level of consciousness. Well ok. All Sheldrake says is that this may apply in reverse as well; that there might be higher fractal levels of consciousness our Sun is part of, that likewise we can't recognize or communicate with due to our own relative inferior consciousness level. That is a very reasonable line of thought. As for Sheldrakes' suggestions of the existence of a medium through which consciousness may be 'uploaded and downloaded' manifesting in living organisms; We may again laugh and hold the view our consciousness is confined to only the working of neurons in brain activity. Ok. laugh all we want. But then take a look at KZbin at the very tenacious tiny creature called 'lacrymaria'. Watch it being aware and conscious of its surroundings, hunt for food, avoid enemies. And next realize you are looking at a single cell creature. Not having a single neuron. How on Earth is this intricate behavior coming from the suggested confinement of its limited biology? Until anyone can explain that to me, I don't exclude Sheldrake again has a very valid point. Sabine needs to open her mind a bit. She should be intelligent enough to yet see the merit of what Sheldrake is proposing.

[@coreyleander7911]

@@RWin-fp5jn yes the “imaginary” phenomenon of QG, which you emphasize in capital letters confidently. This gets 3 likes. Incredible stuff. The world is in so much trouble.

[@coreyleander7911]

@@RWin-fp5jn I also saw elsewhere in these comments that you’ve stuck in there for psychological effect that Penrose called quantum gravity nonsensical. Just a complete lie. You’re quite the propagandist and liar, huh?

[@suecondon1685]

@@RWin-fp5jn I like this, great comment. I've followed Sheldrake for ages, his concepts make a lot of sense to me. Your analogy of the Lacrymaria is the way I feel about a lot of things, including viruses. A virus is not considered to be alive, but it will somehow adapt as a 'species/strain' to suit its needs, mutate without communicating. The mechanism for this seems to be a riddle. I think there's something in this pansychism theory. I just feel there's an inherent reason behind every action of a system that is 'non-living' which could be explained if that entity had some kind of awareness. If an alien observed a bunch of humans going about their daily business it would all seem like we were all a shower of brainless nutters. 😏

[@suecondon1685]

@@coreyleander7911 I've also seen Sir Penrose say it is nonsensical.

[@elmersbalm5219]

On the last question, there are two different kinds of understanding when it comes to the universe: 1 getting deeper into the fabric, down to an understanding of aether or quantum foam. 2 finding useful laws that describe chaotic behaviour at all levels of physics, from quantum foam up. Including complex chemical reactions and interactions, aerodynamics at hypersonic speeds, weather, plasma fields etc… The former can have a finite depth of understanding. That is the foam is made of discrete particles and forces that can be mapped mathematically. The latter is infinitely complex as chaos is what it is. After all we can easily map the trajectory of a cannon ball as it falls through the air but it is incredibly hard to predict the path of a feather doing the same thing, in the same conditions, under the same laws of physics. If it is worth finding useful rules that describe the probabilistic oath of the feather, then it is worth exploring.

[@rogerjohnson2562]

When physics laws explain chaos, it wont be chaos anymore.

[@denysvlasenko1865]

@@rogerjohnson2562 > When physics laws explain chaos, it wont be chaos anymore. "Chaos" in physics does not mean "behavior which follows no rules and thus can't be predicted by any theory". "Chaotic system" merely means a system where even tiny changes of initial conditions lead to significantly divergent later states.

[@____uncompetative]

@@denysvlasenko1865 > tiny changes of initial conditions How do meterologists keep track of where all the butterflies are?

[@Elrog3]

"The former can have a finite depth of understanding." - It could, but there's also no reason to think that that is the case.

[@coreyleander7911]

*buzzwords* *buzzwords* *buzzwords*

[@dr.satishsharma1362]

Excellent.... thanks 🙏.

[@maryammobasser7262]

This is good conversation!👏👏

[@GlobeHackers]

I love the idea that we may never know, but we will keep asking questions and trying to find out. It's perfectly OK to not know things, and exercising one's imagination and solving puzzles is wonderful. I cherish all three speakers. BIG FAN

[@stevengordon3271]

Not sure if everybody caught that there was general agreement that mathematics requires an agreement on axioms. Theoretical physics is really about what is the simplest set of axioms that would explain what we observe. The mathematics is just computing what would happen if we start from a hypothetical set of axioms so we can then compare that to observations.

[@stevengordon3271]

In my mind "understanding" is justifying a choice of axioms beyond "hey, they give us the right results".

[@carlosgaspar8447]

in physics, the axioms can be hypothetical. in mathematics and philosophy of logic, axioms just are. they are a set which combined with logical operators lead to another set of statements.

[@____uncompetative]

I would be happier to have physics without a multiverse (it seems like a cop out), physics without the odd notion of the 'many worlds hypothesis' (again, dubious), physics without a swampland of 10²⁷²·²⁰⁰ initial conditions (Cumrun Vafa's _F-theory_ which can F-off as far as I am concerned). Maybe something can be "smuggled in" underneath spacetime using various forms and combinations of Imaginary Numbers. Maybe it is as simple as everything we perceive as having mass in what we comprehend as spacetime (which may well not exist in the way we assume as it could be something wildly transformed yet still be mathematically consistent: such as a single electron/positron weaving forward/backward throughout what we think of as spacetime ~ with our sampling of reality being turned inside out so that the distant entanglements were proximal and our Free Will was neurologically coupled with it, so that in a relatable sense, but from an atheistic perspective, we are a part of a God which constitutes the cosmos who has a Disassociative Identity Disorder and rarely experiences an awareness of oneness except when the brain chemistry changes due to some hallucinogens and hypomanic psychosis ~ all this is speculative and is not even a worthy hypothesis for scientific enquiry as there would be no experiment that can be devised to determine whether one person is a fragment of the divine, yes, you might fool around with some cards with squiggly lines and try to see if one person can read the mind of God that is trapped within another person's brain, but ESP is about as discredited as staring at goats these days), is representable by Real Numbers, and everything that we perceive as quantised energy waves is represented by various forms of Imaginary Numbers, which is so tempting in its simplicity given that a Spinor is a square root of a Vector and a square root has +ve and -ve solutions, which is why Paul Dirac came up with antimatter in the form of the positron and the rest of _Quantum Field Theory_ can be seen as an elaboration of his ocean of Spinors that are the host to phenomena within our psuedo-Riemannian manifold, but it could be that the inability to tie a persistent knot in anything other than a Lorentzian (1, 3) Metric is a mathematical reason which recovers our 4-dimensional spacetime, not as some arbitrary parameterisation of a set of physical multiverses where other exouniverses of different combinations of dimensions exist, or a number lazily pasted in from our solipsistic observations which lack the introspection to accept these are tainted by a privileged quasi-"God's children" mindset, but one which could be proven through _Knot Theory_ to be the only tenable topology given the alternatives are either lacking in sufficient spatial dimensions to have the knot pass over and under itself as it is (1, 2) or (1, 1) or (1, 0), or no time in which to tie the knot (0, n), or too many spatial dimensions allowing the (1, 4) knot to slip past its own bounds through an adjacent hyperspace, which is the same for any (1, m) where m > 3. Why knots? Well Lord Kelvin once put forward _Vortex Theory_ to explain atoms as knots in the aether, but at a level of a _Theory of Everything_ it will move beneath physical observations to mathematical consistency which synthetically generates reality a sample of which we experience ~ to ask the question: "What happened before the Big Bang?" ceases to be about physics and increasingly becomes one of meta mathematics (the mathematics where axioms are not taken for granted as there are multiple foundational choices for mathematical systems based on different axioms). Consequently, I was pleased to see Cohl Furey's video entitled as being fresh thinking: _Summary (Video 13/14)._

[@karlbarlow8040]

Well summed up, thanks.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Sabine is the garanty for an interesting and pointed debate. Thanks

[@Thomas-gk42]

​@@terreschill461 don't know much about him so I'm looking forward to this. Love Sabine's critical and brave sight on the world. Ekberg is a nice guy too

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@terreschill461 thank you. Ekberg is a science philosopher. Sabine discusses in her book 'existential physics' the possibility of a "thinking universe". Though she doesn't see much chance in it, I got the feeling by reading that chapter, she simpathisizes with that. Perhaps here is a common point to Sheldrake. Let's see...

[@ShonMardani]

Soon we will know everything in the world at its atomic level, so fake scientists out there get ready to go down.

[@raajnivas2550]

It is possible that we may harmonize our understanding to our perceptions - though it may depend on each's view of what we understand or how total it's domain.

[@md.noorulkarim5542]

Interesting discussions.

[@guywren4801]

Sabine did well to keep a straight face

[@DrDeuteron]

I’m just glad the sun kept cool and shined on.

[@Phariseehunter]

Her face is most often straight that's the hyper-rationalists issue.

[@tytyterrell]

Hossenfelder always looks like she's about to enter a boxing match. Love it!

[@Thomas-gk42]

She looks marvelous, and she´s funny

[@enigma7791]

People always get aggressive when they have reached the end of their knowledge and it no longer explains what is taking place

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@enigma7791 what do you mean, no one was aggressive in this talk?

[@enigma7791]

@@Thomas-gk42 The original post was "Hossenfelder always looks like she's about to enter a boxing match." Are people who look such a way not aggressive? Are they not ready for a fight because they feel threatened?

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@enigma7791 you might be a great psychologist than.

[@jonb5493]

I love Sabine's face! She's so expressive!

[@tinkletink1403]

she has arrested emotional development i think

[@perryedwards4746]

interesting.. thanks!

[@andreassumerauer5028]

When I read the names Sheldrake and Hossenfelder, I knew the panel would not necessarily be fruitful, but it would very entertaining. As I expected, it was a true delight to see how Dr. Hossenfelder's bs-o-meter several times in the course of the discussion crossed the upper limit of the measuring range .

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

She's going to have to have it serviced now from it having to go off so often!! Daaaaaaaang!

[@johnarnold893]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@Thomas-gk42]

Thanks for the funny comment. Is her bs-o-meter already available in her online-shop? Pay my monthly income for that.

[@fragileomniscience7647]

If people stuck more to proper logic and less to ego driven word salad, that would be great.

[@carefir]

My own bs-o-meter went off so many times I thought my house was on fire

[@aidanlefebvre3959]

Brilliant. Deep Respect for all of these Thinkers.

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

Ruben Sheldrake deserves no respect.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Two speakers!

[@ximono]

@@Bob-of-Zoid That attitude says a lot about the current state of the science community. Paradoxically unscientific.

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

@@ximono Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse Meeeeeeeeee! Sheldrake is a philosopher, not a scientist! Besides that since when has serious science ever followed no evidence whatsoever as vigorously as religion? Not fo r long at all, and then only under the threat of death by religious zealots! But please explain to me what the F you mean by that exactly and where doing so has ever brought facts to light, good evidence worth following, let alone irrefutable proof for anything: Give it your best shot!

[@coreyleander7911]

@@ximono It's exactly the opposite: when someone provides evidence through their false claims that they are not credible, one should increase your credence like a good Bayesian that said someone is likely generally not credible, right? It's like you Sheldrake's universe of demonstrated false claims over the years gets to be forgotten to you.

[@pietbuizer1686]

tuning in

[@clintcalvert9250]

I needed this.

[@SpankyK]

This is wonderful! Sabine is a treasure of humanity and i hope to get to know Rupert's and Bjorn's work more!

[@rogerphelps9939]

Don't bother with Sheldrake.

[@runePV]

😄@@rogerphelps9939 true: i wonder if it is testable that you can see in one's eyes that he/she is not able to create a certain truth out of some known and proven truths without wondering of in fantasy and religion

[@jgunther3398]

@@runePV fantasy and religion are your reminder that on a cosmic scale all your knowledge might as well be produced by the brain of an ant. which i think you need reminding of

[@Phariseehunter]

​@@runePVtry some kykeon worked wonders for the Greek Philosophers to shake to your core that cult-urally conditioned, pseudo-protective mind veil of causally naive reactivity that began in late infancy.

[@jflaplaylistchannelunoffic3951]

Sheldrake is a true (i.e. undogmatic) scientist, comparable with e.g. Michael Faraday. Sabine and Bjorn I found also undogmatic, as it should be.

[@IamPoob]

I feel like the "observer effect" needs to be looked at more closely. The "observer effect" doesn't necessarily imply a subjective entity to trigger its effect but, rather it's the process of extracting information, which I think confuses a lot of people when it comes to this phenomenon. This mechanism coupled with quantum information theory could imply a theoretical observer at work within the system. The one place I can immediately think of as to where to apply this principle would be during the Planck era, a small mass of condensed energy would be perfect for quantum phenomena to occur.

[@timhaldane7588]

I like to call it nature's internal consistency-checking mechanism: it only commits to a particular detail about reality once it's sure it's not contradicting itself.

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

Not only not necessarily, but not at all, and it never implied an entity, or conscious, agency..! That is and always was a deliberate misreprisentation of science by freaking religious apologist creationists! The observer refers to the equipment, and the fact that it too has effects and influences the outcome of the experiments, and we have no way of observing the quantum realm, without influencing it! Hence "The observer effect"!

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

@@timhaldane7588 Sounds cute, but it's really just Nonsense!

[@melgross]

Early on in physics the wording of “observer” was misconstrued. It wasn’t meant to be a conscious entity, but just anything that “measured” something. By measure, it’s meant that anything that impinges on something else, such as a particle that hits another particle has taken a “measurement” and therefore is an “observer”. It doesn’t require anything conscious.

[@amihart9269]

I think most physicists probably already implicit assume the observer effect is the cause of the wave function collapse. It's already orthodoxy that decoherence occurs through the observer effect, so it's not really a stretch to assume a similar process is what causes the wave function to collapse. Although the exact way this happens is not known, a popular idea is that it's caused by gravity, if you get a lot of energy into a single location the curvature of spacetime collapse the wave function, Roger Penrose talks a lot about that.

[@sleethmitchell]

the first things we see and touch become the basis for our comfortable metaphors. when i say, "i cannot understand this." it is that i can't apply the comfortable metaphors of my childhood. but, as sabine alludes to, there are other types of understanding that we can learn and apply. still, i expect that there are limits to how much i can cram into a container the size of the human head.

[@pmhwoodcraft9934]

Personally I believe we could eventually be able to understand the basic makeup of the universe through science, however, there will always be further questions and concerns to understand (e.g., how to better integrate ourselves into fragile, complex ecosystems). I also think philosophy causes more trouble than it helps and consciousness in the sense that it is normally defined is due to the unique configurations of the systems in the human brain that give rise to the formation of transitive relationships (in research referred to as transitive inference). It is, in my opinion, transitive relationships that make it possible to do the things that are considered human like language, theory of mind, self-reflection, etc. I recently watched a video by Sabine Hassenfelder describing her grad student’s work on dark matter. This as well as all the other videos on gravity out there I have seen and the books/research papers I have read gives me hope that something like what I describe here has a potential to reconcile general relativity and the standard model via a hybrid classical-quantum theory of physics to describe the universe. My only regret is that it is quite boring when it comes to the fantastical possibilities offered by the existing models. I love my sci-fi books, movies, and series. From Sabine’s video above, she describes a phase transition to super fluid dark matter within a black hole and I suggest while under increasing pressure, diffuses or undergoes another phase transition to dark solid (dark energy) accounting for information loss. So here is a descriptive view of the universe with no need for something from nothing, time travel, worm holes, or any other fantastical mathematical artifacts and I believe could satisfy both the standard model as well as general relativity although there is still the hard work of reconciling both. I prefer a view that doesn’t have all of the magical conclusions from the existing models. So if someone could come up with the mathematics for the following or show that it is not possible, or at least could come up with a cogent argument why this or something similar couldn’t be the case, I would appreciate it. What if the universe’s zero point energy (dark energy) were an elastic solid with a viscoelastic liquid suspended in it due to ripping energy apart from the underlying solid and coalescing into quanta from a Planck scale event (a big bang) - similar to an elastic solid/viscous liquid colloidal suspension with gravity being the relationship between the analog energy of the elastic solid and the quantized viscoelastic liquid? Could then gravity be just a matter of conservation of energy at the analog scale appearing to be quantized due to the influence of the relative energies of the quantized liquid? Could that not make space-time the superfluid (with respect to viscosity of the viscoelastic liquid [i.e., viscosity comes between the quanta within the liquid]) and superconducting elastic solid (dark energy) and the source for quantum fields, possibly account for the energies attributed to anti-particles, account for the randomness of black hole evaporation as energy dissipates back into the solid, account for effects attributed to dark matter, account for wave-particle duality, account for the expansion of the universe accounting for the redshift as well as potentially be the source of another big bang as quanta become unstable and then critical due to energy dissipation? One can imagine the elastic solid loosely as a perfectly smooth sponge (not a foam or any bubbles or anything ‘in-between’). When you pinch a portion of the sponge to simulate taking energy away from this sponge, you create negative pressure through contraction and the source of gravity as well as the symmetry necessary for the other forces. I can’t see why this descriptive view couldn’t accommodate the standard model as (mainly) applied to the viscoelastic liquid and general relativity (mainly) applying to the relationship between the elastic solid and the viscoelastic liquid. I've seen papers using "elastic solid" as a model and papers using "viscoelastic liquid", but not both at the same time in a hybrid classical-quantum theory. So how could we put this into a mathematical framework? For general relativity, I think we would need to translate the “curvature” of space-time to “contraction” of spacetime. I’m not sure how or whether that would actually be necessary or not (I think it would have to take place in order to translate to a conservation of energy framework). I have no idea what this would do to quantum theory; however, I do believe it could account for many of the unknowns. Any formulation would of course have to satisfy both theoretical predictions. What a beautifully elegant and consistent picture where conservation of energy (Emmy Noether) and dissipative structures (Ilya Prigogine) define everything at every scale including evolution and maintenance of life itself (Jeremy England).

[@jimgraham6722]

Spacetime does have some elemental characteristics we can measure, so there is progress to be had in finding more of these.

[@axle.australian.patriot]

Very interesting discussion. Thank you :) [edit] Everyone here makes very valid points even if they appear to be a little conflicting. Can we understand the universe? I think words like Knowledge or understand are the wrong words and question. Can we experience the universe? Yes, in every way even if we cant understand it or offer explanation of it. > My 20 cents worth. I still think we are excessively prone to subjectively superimposing our own creative idea of knowledge and language over the reality of the universe. The universe is what it is and we just haven't yet found the best language to describe the reality of it... When I say language I also include math as we currently use it. All our tools of description are made/created by man, not the universe :)

[@user-yu8cg7lz2h]

mathematics has been waiting to be discovered and is primely needed to find out dimenmsions and reltive constructions

[@TheWorldTeacher]

The Aussie government is a violent CRIMINAL organization. 🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe that can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (i.e. the observer of all phenomena) - is unknowingly to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of Ultimate Reality as being the Perfect Person, and “God” is a personal epithet of the Impersonal Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Monad is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every fully-enlightened sage in the history of this planet, Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, consubstantially and simultaneously, Absolutely NOTHING and Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “(Param) Brahman”, “Cosmic Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “Unconditioned Truth”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Universal Self”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). Subsequent chapters expand on this axiom. In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself, or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! This understanding can be factually-realized by studying a systematic method of introspection, called “gnosticism” (“jñāna yogaḥ”, in Sanskrit). Because the Unmanifested Absolute (i.e. NO-THING) is infinite creative potentiality, “It” perpetually actualizes as the manifest creation (i.e. EVERY-THING), in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes/multiverses. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, and because phenomenal existence is dualistic, there cannot be a single object without at least one subject. Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person’s sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. PURPORTEDLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created from the initial event (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of immeasurably-dense light, which in turn, was ultimately instigated by Extra-Temporal Supra-Conscious Bliss. From that primal event, every motion or action that has ever occurred, has been a direct or indirect result of that expansion. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are, essentially, this Eternally-Aware-Bliss, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn’t normally mistake the reflected image to be one’s real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating forms. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything that can presently be perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of the primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every subsequent action has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit”, is largely a fallacious belief. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they desire. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of but two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic sequence). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. Cont...

[@eugenecampbellutube]

"Everyone here makes very valid points even if they appear to be a little conflicting." I agree, although underlying everything in this debate is more than a little disagreement between Sabina and Rupert regarding mechanistic determinism. I drink up her no-gobbledygook reports and almost everything she has published online, though don't buy her deterministic take on the way things are. I loved her astute point about fantasy literature's being based to some degree on knowledge derived through science, and hope it wasn't a dig against that which she doesn't agree. But @axle.australian.patriot -- I wonder what you mean by "experience the universe...in every way" if there exist aspects of it we are completely unaware of. Could you unpack that somewhat?

[@axle.australian.patriot]

@@eugenecampbellutube ""experience the universe...in every way" I struggle myself to offer an easy explanation of that. Experience in the sense of being the raw observer without concepts of knowledge, belief or prejudice. This is a philosophical or even Metaphysical expression. Like the unborn child experiencing the stimuli that it is subjected to without knowledge of what it is and without a need to describe it. Maybe thinking as "Raw Awareness or consciousness". > Can we experience the full extent of the universe like that in a natural human way? Metaphysasists and theolagists may argue yes, mechanical physics would likely argue no, mathematical physics and theoretical physics boarders at times upon metaphysics. Can we experience the universe in full (as a raw awareness) with our human made extension of our senses. Through cautious reason quite possibly. But many would argue that it is impossible to be a truly objective observer having been born a subject human being and a lifetime of reinforcing our subject instinct. > See the universe as it is and let it form it's own description of itself rather than imposing our neat subjective human rules over it. We can explain it in our own terms after we see it for what it really is.. > Yeah, I know I'm a bit out there lol

[@Fuzbo_]

Ooh my lucky day! I just rewatched the one with Hossenfelder, Penrose, and Kaku and still couldn’t get enough of Sabine keeping things grounded in reality. This is just what I needed today! 😁

[@theprasun]

You mean it was way past Sabine's league

[@Farmfield]

I love it when Sabine says "I know string theorists, ehm, serious string theorists..." 😂

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

I used to like Kaku, but now he's getting ever more KooKoo, and just breeding more of the same!

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

@@theprasun Not even close! She's truly brilliant, and a true scientist who will not cater to absurd beliefs like religion! I myself will challenge anyone too in that regard, I don't care how much science thy have studied and worked with: If you can't show it, you don't know it, and faith is not a viable nor working method to derive knowledge, and has always and will only fail miserably!

[@andrewr311]

Yes 'reality.'

[@Mike-yt4jq]

Wow this is such a treat for me. I am more than interested in Rupert Sheldrake especially his ideas on consciousness and I so enjoy Sabine Hossenfelder in every way. This was a great experience for me. Thank you. 🙏🤓✨

[@linuxrant]

I am grateful, that people which can discuss with good manners were guests on this panel, not some of people from this comment section. I would like this debate be much longer and let those smart people get dirty with some nitty gritties...

[@milanpintar]

I'm so glad that Sabina exists and has a voice!

[@Thomas-gk42]

Had you any doubt? She's a great and soulful human

[@BalvinderSingh-uh3my]

Sabine Hossenfelder, I love that woman she has one my favorite channel's very informative.

[@Eric-zo8wo]

0:33: 🌌 The universe's strangeness is a source of inspiration for science and philosophy, and they should continue to explore it. 6:40: 🌌 The speaker discusses the existence of consciousness in the universe and suggests that the sun and other celestial bodies may have conscious interfaces. 12:59: 🌟 There are limits to what humans can understand, but the connection between human minds and the universe is deep. 17:59: 🌍 There are limits to human understanding, particularly in managing complex ecosystems, but we can extend our minds through technology. 23:24: 🌟 The discussion explores the possibility of dark matter and the alternative theory of stars having autonomy in galaxy structure. 28:38: 🔬 Physics is full of improbable and untestable speculations, but some aspects like randomness in quantum mechanics may have a deeper explanation. 34:04: 📚 Science is a highly creative force that constructs reality and solves problems, rather than revealing a total view of the universe. 39:33: 🧮 The panel discusses the need to explain mathematics and its relationship to the universe. Recap by Tammy AI

[@rebokfleetfoot]

Hossenfelder always adds a fresh perspective to things

[@Thomas-gk42]

and she´s a poet here too: "...and in that case, there will be some strangeness left for us forever."

[@Joseph-fw6xx]

I like her also

[@dianablackman4528]

She may be a competent scientist but she is a fanatical "climate change crisis" promoter.

[@Inpreesme]

I wouldn’t have watched this without Dr. Sabine

[@eudaenomic]

I agree with Hossenfelder we won't know until we know. Our lives have changed so much but as we opened our fields of vision we see more. I do find the question of consciousness appropriate as we do not know what an alien being is and at this point we seem to be stuck in a terracentric opinion. As far as the big bang - this cycle.

[@gerardmoloney433]

Sorry, the more we know, the more we know we don't know. That's because nobody knows the mind of God. Atheists by their own admission are not intelligently designed. Enough said about atheism. The Bible is the truth and it is undeniable. It is filled with prophesies that came to pass exactly as prophesied. Only God knows the end from the beginning. Maranatha

[@xodarap]

With respect, I recommend probing the following idea: that your consciousness (C) is what it is like to be the updating of the model of self in the world (UMSITW) which your brain creates and maintains all the while that you are awake. What this means is that your brain, which exists in order to make your muscles move in the right way at the right time, needs a model of the world with you in it in order for you to be able to navigate your physical and social environments. The model is always a set of predictions created out of memories appropriate to current location and circumstances. This must be so otherwise it would be impossible for you to make any plans or have any useful expectations. The world is always changing however so we need to be updating relevant parts of our model of the world, and/or self, wherever a significant change has occurred. This entails the creation of new memories, and our emotional response to the _novelty each time_ determines the degree of significance. The beauty, and the power, of this description is that it provides a coherent explanation of C, which I like to characterise as _rememberable awareness_, which is not contradicted by any discoveries of neuroscience or psychology that I have read about *and* allows us to understand to what extent other animals may be experiencing awareness similar to our own. Extraterrestrial animals will be endowed in analogous, even if not very similar, manner because the underlying logical requirements of autonomous navigation through variable environments will always apply. 😉

[@firstal3799]

Very interesting

[@trevorgwelch7412]

Einstein " The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is , that it's comprehensible " 😵‍💫

[@summerclubs9064]

I love Sheldrake's ability to be science-minded while retaining the open-mindedness to understand the deeper nature of Science- Science is never settled as the universe is no static.

[@billbaggins1688]

open mindedness .. lol ... you mean open to ideas that make no sense. This is not something to be admired.

[@summerclubs9064]

Those who spend time in the Sciences and lack exposure to less rigourous thinking processes often find "right-brained" divergent thinking to be flaky. Those who spend no time in the Sciences sometimes are. The balanced Renaissance mind uses both adeptly. Sheldrake is such a person.

[@Thomas-gk42]

you mean pseudoscience?

[@bodeeangus9957]

Sheldrake is a proponent of pseudoscientific ideas, I wouldn’t even say that his arguments make any kind of sense in philosophy either.

[@firstal3799]

He is very open

[@thetinkerist]

I really liked Sabine and Bjorn!

[@B_Ruphe]

My sister really liked Sabine and Rupert. She said her mum didn't like anyone.

[@mandystuart4909]

Dear Rupert Sheldrake, if you are ever looking for volunteers to take part in a 'talking to the sun' experiment, I'm in!!

[@SanjayRoy-vz5ih]

The discussion is a gem in the annals of many such discussion on philosophy of science or rather Philosophy and Science, coz it's so grounded for mere mortals like me❤...I still feel we are still far way from understanding the concept of consciousness from traditional physics aspect and would probably be solved or understood partially by Quantum physics

[@VijayGupta-lw7qz]

PicoPhysics; We believe in deterministic universe. Presence or absence of observation does not alter reality / but observation itself being part of reality which impacts the result. Universe appears to be very simple. Amulgamated (or Free) Quants of Kenergy in Space.

[@PorGaymer]

such a greate talk, im so glad to see sabine talk to rupert.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@terreschill461 Hi again, yes that´s what I imagined.👌

[@The_Primary_Axiom]

I first saw Rupert Sheldrake when he was a young man. He was talking to Jiddu krishnamurti and David Bohm. There’s a video on here of that talk back in like 70s or 80s I believe it was. God I loved Bohm and Krishnamurti

[@richardchapman1592]

They did fall out as friends when it came to living pantheism

[@transformlikeaphoenix]

And talks with Terence McKenna

[@richardchapman1592]

Never did understand those exceptionals too well. Was busy getting the necessaries for me and my lady. Glad to talk about the granular nature of matter at Planck length now tho.

[@richardchapman1592]

Well if I must, at Planck length there are vibrations that seem random at the tiny local scale causing the unmeasurable. These happen such that pressures of eg gravity can be transmitted between the resulting granules to give spacetime it's shapes. The granules also transmit quanta of light in a way that looks similar to Feynman's electro dynamics due to a random nature of interior's of the granules. This would be caused by unknown influences acting from all directions giving a pseudo randomness for our macro observations. Thus we would have transmission of light and gravity in different ways through the granules giving overall different seemingly wavelike propagation on the cosmic scale. Hardly testable until more data re light and gravitational propagation comparison gathered but conceptually graspable.

[@surfingonmars8979]

I once asked Ed Witten the following question: “If there was no life in the universe - none; no animal, plant or other life including bacteria, viruses, etc. NONE - would it make any sense to speak of the universe existing at all.” Dr. Witten shrugged, and said words to the effect: ‘…that is a meaningless question.’ I was trying to engage him in a discussion of bishop Berkeley’s “esse es percipi,” but he was not having any of it……

[@pn2543]

haha, nice try, 'I refute it thus!' - Dr Johnson

[@surfingonmars8979]

@@pn2543 can’t argue with the man…..

[@compateur]

I like the explanation of Stephen Wolfram related to randomness (entropy). It also illustrates our limitation. He would have been a perfect addition to this panel.

[@rajeevgangal542]

Nope. He will just go on about hypergraphs, simple rules and complexity and principle of computational equivalence.

[@timfahey7127]

Sabine....something is missing.....hmmmm......where is the red phone and bobblehead? Heading over for your latest upload next........Bjorn is 66?!👌 This was incredible. Thanks to the four of you👍👍👍👍👍

[@trunoholdaway2114]

This is exactly why I like to describe math as a language, you recognize that there are limits to language, that it can evolve and change over time, and there are multiple ways to come to the same conclusion. The power and weakness of scientific thought is rigid definition, this rigidity also exists within western philosophy. Eastern philosophy on the other had embraces and encouraged fluid thinking, a core tenant of Buddhism is accepting that you cannot understand everything.

[@ani-tv4yt]

As long as they can debate each other respectfully, it's fascinating to listen to people with vastly different perspectives.

[@danielash1704]

Yes the number one thing to realise is that size doesn't matter if you are a a spec of a galaxy in a multi galaxy environment. Maybe there is places that are microscopicgalaxies in a separate part of this one until we search for those hypothesis and then we come up with a shrink ray's or enlarging ray of atomic numerator the spaces between atoms of densities are entanglement to the rules of many different quantum

[@firstal3799]

Good point

[@yp77738yp77739]

A wonderful panel. We all want definitive answers to alleviate our existential angst. The reality is that we are we are very early in our journey, but eventually, after several millennia, the atomist approach should bear fruit and we will know. It’s not until we have reached the truly indivisible that we can start to understand the hows and the whys become irrelevant. Although it is almost certain we will have destroyed ourselves before reaching that point.

[@daarom3472]

it's also not certain that we will ever get there as it might be that the level at which human brains are entangled with the universe will yield an efficiently computable theory of the ultra microscopic, that is if we can even measure it.

[@yp77738yp77739]

@@daarom3472 I suppose anything is possible until you can verify it’s not. If you compare and contrast an ant to a human, at a functional level we are largely identical, I don’t foresee the ant ever moving towards a full understanding of metaphysics, so it’s quite possible neither will we.

[@jimgraham6722]

The average duration of a mammalian species is about 3.8m years. So one day humans will be gone. But let's hope this is due to genetic exhaustion rather than by destroying ourselves.

[@yp77738yp77739]

@@jimgraham6722 I’m probably a few decades out of date, but wasn’t aware of any documented evidence that could be described as genetic exhaustion. With global movement, Heterosis has become more frequent in humans than previously, so that reshuffling of genes should assure the vigour of the species, even the inbred royalty now understands this is important to their survival.

[@ximono]

When we find the bottom-most subatomic particle and crack it open, it will read: 42

[@wicekwickowski3798]

Excellent discussion. An excellent exchange of scientific ideas and views. Superbly conducted and only a pity that it was so short. But how succinct!

[@rogerjohnson2562]

'excellent' chat about intelligent stars... really...

[@auturgicflosculator2183]

@@rogerjohnson2562 I for one quite enjoy speculative fiction, and I think that funny questions provide interesting answers, and infinite more questions. About people, about our environment, about everything we can conceive of.

[@Phariseehunter]

Find it interesting if they had the same meeting again, but changed the seating arrangement.

[@wicekwickowski3798]

@@Phariseehunter -The fact that this discussion was very good does not mean that we agree with all theses, eg Dr. Hossenfelder! One can have many reservations about her way of seeing and understanding the world. I could immediately put forward completely different assumptions, equally logical. In general, discussions of this type show how these scientists have limited scientific horizons and are stuck in errors learned from elementary schools.

[@Phariseehunter]

@@wicekwickowski3798 Yes totally, early reactions in being naive of causality and becoming conditioned, naturally, in wanting to feel safe so being appropriated by and attached to culture. Here there can be the multiple comfort associations, two by example, status and tenure with scientific cult'ure.

[@mikenine1962]

@RogerPenrose5 (From a Layman) is the sequence cycle: Black hole forms a Universe which generates a Galaxy who's stars decay absorbed back into the Black hole.

[@cookymonstr7918]

14:17 "FRACTAIL" (sic!) is another good one.

[@allwheeldrive]

Wow, loved this! More, please! There will be something we won't understand, let alone be unable to measure. We will understand the origin of the universe because we are an infinitesimal byproduct of it. We carry only of the characteristics that make it up for a specific reason that is a part of the truly fundamental rules and mechanics of what actually drives the universe. Randomness needs to be parsed out to take into account the levels of the universe's infinite activities. What happens "randomly" is always within some pretty tight bounds, only happening in within a broader, but context. That randomness is an integral driving force of the overall path/lifecycle of any entity; without it we wouldn't see the structured systems (plants, animals, planets, solar systems, and all the way further and back infinitely) all around us. We are coded to be only what we are and that determines what we need and what we don't: We can only see a very small part of the light spectrum because the no-doubt-infinite other spectra would only get in the way of our existence. And will never see a man with fire for an arm or a body of water suddenly morph into an apple: randomness clearly has limits, and rules. Even if we marry-up to human-developed computers that expand our understandings (or at least provide more and better access to the entire repository of what we know) the next limit is certainly how much more within our self-and uniquely human-developed measuring system technologies we tightly-defined humans can provide that AI, imbuing it with the ability to go outside of the universe they were taught exists through the only language they truly understand: math. The limits of understanding will always be there because we are able to use tools of our making. Our conscious mind is - if anyone hasn't noticed - uniquely human, but clearly not uniquely animal; but when you necessarily stretch way out the definition of conscious, it is not at all probable conscious to us is what conscious is, and how it acts and communicates in, say, a rock or the sun. Talking to the sun would clearly not be the same kind of task an English speaker has in learning Japanese. A Brit could get really close to becoming Japanese (we all share a whack of DNA), but a human or one of it's machines will forever be simply unable to even "hear" the sun trying to communicate, never mind have some kind of connection with it because it was not in the cosmic rules for us to exist. If we could communicate with the sun, we should've already been able to communicate with gourds, dandelions, water, ants, the moon, and everything else. In the context of these thoughts, there is a lot (relatively speaking) we can perceive and measure that at least show us a glimpse of how everything is connected. Our atmosphere does for us what we see space does for the bodies and activities in it. Same idea, same blueprint, but at an insignificant scale and with obviously different attributes. Dark matter for the infinite number of heavenly bodies could be as oxygen is for us; "allows" stars to do their radiation thing. But if we hope to have discussions like this for the next few thousand years, progress really needs to be redefined. What we like to call progress created what could actually be our significantly premature demise. As boring as it would be, maybe the best thing we can do for humanity is to hit the progress brakes, take stock, and redetermine what it will take for us to progress and survive a while longer.

[@srobertweiser]

Pretty interesting AWD. I don't think we should slam on the brakes, like a Mennonite, but we oughta pump the brakes a little, ''take stock, and re-determine what it will take for us to progress and survive a while longer''.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe that can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (i.e. the observer of all phenomena) - is unknowingly to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of Ultimate Reality as being the Perfect Person, and “God” is a personal epithet of the Impersonal Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Monad is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every fully-enlightened sage in the history of this planet, Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, consubstantially and simultaneously, Absolutely NOTHING and Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “(Param) Brahman”, “Cosmic Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “Unconditioned Truth”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Universal Self”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). Subsequent chapters expand on this axiom. In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself, or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! This understanding can be factually-realized by studying a systematic method of introspection, called “gnosticism” (“jñāna yogaḥ”, in Sanskrit). Because the Unmanifested Absolute (i.e. NO-THING) is infinite creative potentiality, “It” perpetually actualizes as the manifest creation (i.e. EVERY-THING), in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes/multiverses. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, and because phenomenal existence is dualistic, there cannot be a single object without at least one subject. Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person’s sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. PURPORTEDLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created from the initial event (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of immeasurably-dense light, which in turn, was ultimately instigated by Extra-Temporal Supra-Conscious Bliss. From that primal event, every motion or action that has ever occurred, has been a direct or indirect result of that expansion. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are, essentially, this Eternally-Aware-Bliss, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn’t normally mistake the reflected image to be one’s real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating forms. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything that can presently be perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of the primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every subsequent action has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit”, is largely a fallacious belief. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they desire. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of but two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic sequence). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. Cont...

[@theeddorian]

If you consider that no sensor system genuinely "perceives" the "truth," then you must accept that science, and scientific knowledge is a collection of tools intended to extract predictable results. The trouble with that is that the expectation bias is more or less explicitly a foundation stone of science. The limits of mathematics are that they are entirely created, an art. As Kurt Gödel showed, mathematics, in fact any non-trivial logical system, is fundamentally incomplete.

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

So you side with Sheldrake, and we should just make believe? Sorry, sensors are not made to "Perceive" anything but make hard truth factual measurements! And no, Math isn't an art as in the abstract, and Godel showed that one can put any nonsense into mathematical equations, but that's not how science uses it, that would be "Numerology", and it's what the religious, conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience freaks do! Math isn't "Created" it's extrapolated from data we can gain from observance and experimentation!

[@max_mittler]

the intro quote is from J. B. S. Haldane, not Bohr

[@michaelwood3146]

Has any answer to any question ever achieved complete resolution or has it spawned at least one more question?

[@binasharma7128]

What a wonderful discussion! Consciousness is what you’re doing, be aware first and then be able to make decisions. Both come from your conscious efforts.

[@desireco]

Rupert has such amazing mind and creativity, science really needs more people like him who project and extend ideas further then anyone thought possible.

[@101Mant]

Have ideas is nice, but if you are doing science you need more. If you are propsing the sun is conscious how do you test that? Simply having creative speculative ideas isn't science.

[@gr8sparty]

@@101Mant , dark matter is as speculative as the sun being conscious, was the only point Rupert made - he was smiling and joking all along... dark matter , makes the equations correct - was Sabine's response, but remember that Newton's equations were also correct at one point in time (They still are - but only at the scale of this tiny planet)

[@makeadifference4all]

@@101Mant I am skeptical of his proposal, which he surely would acknowledge is speculative, as is the theory of dark matter. However, he proposed an experimental test of the "conscious sun" hypothesis. Then the question becomes whether such a test is worth the time and expense.

[@Thomas-gk42]

What he does, is absolutely not scientific.

[@desireco]

@@Thomas-gk42 there should be room for his views as well

[@maxthemagition]

If all sub atomic particles are in fact waves of energy at different frequencies then the question is what is the mechanism that waves can be particles.? Three wave/ particles exist to produce everything in the Universe apparently?.... The Electron + The Up Quark + The Down Quark. The wave/particle duality is fundamental and everything in existence depends on it. How a packet of energy in the form of a wave becomes a particle. The electron is a good place to start because it exhibits this phonomenon clearly. One moment it is a wave and the next it is a particle and it exists everywhere. Light is the same, one moment it is a wave and has a frequency or frequencies and the next it is a photon. Take a magnifying glass and focus the light from the sun which consists of many frequencies (waves) and focus that light on one spot.....All that energy with different frequencies on one spot and what do we detect....Nothing!...We know that the concentration of frequencies exist at that spot...could be an infinite number of frequencies...but nothing is evident...Until a peice of paper iks placed at the spot and then the obvious....a reaction and a burnt hole in the sheet of paper.....Only at the focus point of light concentration does the waves exhibit particles. So we know for sure that light is both a wave which can be at a single frequence as in a laser (or a spectrum of light as in a rainbow) or a particle or particles as in when it hits a piece of paper or in nature as in photosynthesis.....Energy transfer from a light wave. It is really frustrating to not being able to understand the duality of waves and particles. Waves can exist everywhere and at one spot simultaneously apparently.....how.? So frustrating.....I have not heard any clear explanaion of why or how this is. The whole universe as we see it exists because of this one single fact that nobody understands.

[@user-in2lo4qs9b]

Does superposition of // universe explain dark matter? how much coupling would there be? What magnitude of // universes are possible given a given coupling that explains dark mater dark energy or both.

[@davidsault9698]

A great discussion and I enjoyed all the viewpoints immensely. Thanks.

[@Alan-zf2tt]

It is great to listen to a learned person consider and talk about consciousness in things that are not human.

[@paulm5443]

That's far from a new idea. We know other animals have consciousness and to think of it as a wholly human trait is arrogant to say the least. I do think it's interesting to consider the idea of consciousness in other life forms and weather it exists in a more distributed way.

[@Alan-zf2tt]

@@paulm54432nd reply: human supremacists?

[@paulm5443]

@@Alan-zf2tt time will tell. We've only been around for 200 000 to 300 000 years. We have a long way to go before we consider ourselves a successful species.

[@Alan-zf2tt]

@@paulm5443 I must admit to feeling uncomfortable about "human supremacists and human supremacism". There seems to be a lot of evidence we are anything but supreme

[@firstal3799]

Animals are conscious

[@TheMadmacs]

what was the background noise everytime sabine talked?

[@tekannon7803]

Will we ever understand the universe? My guess is that when we do it will be game over; humanity will have passed the ultimate test and everything will begin again. But one thing a lot of people will agree with and that is Sabine Hossenfelder and Rupert Sheldrake and Bjorn Ekeberg among a host of other great thinkers have helped us understand many, many things about our world because of your wonderful minds. A student of mine---a few years ago I was an English teacher as a side-job to being an artist---was surprised when I asked him what was the purpose of life. "You always ask me the most complex questions," he mused. But then he blurted "The purpose of life is to enjoy my life." Here I was for decades trying to cobble together a fantastic trail of high-brow adjectives to describe what I have been doing since I got here. I thanked him profusely, because for me boys and girls, he hit it right on the nose. You don't have to invent the light bulb as your purpose on life, you have to find the key to enjoying your life all the way through to the end.

[@lfvett725]

I think science can never answer the question "why?".

[@patricksee10]

Are you enjoying it at the end? When there is no more? I think probably not. Or what about a life of stress and strife. No enjoyment there. So avoid stress and strife? I don’t think so, not much to do there. All round the enjoy life philosophy needs to be filled out, perhaps abandoned

[@tekannon7803]

@@patricksee10 GGGGGGGGGGGGreat to hear from you. What is the one thing that makes you or me or anyone for that matter, unique in the universe? Have you ever noticed that even if you wanted to, you can't give away your point of view? It's because it's what you have accumulated from your experience in life and it's why your point of view is unique to you and only you. You have just read mine and it has nothing to do with yours, because it's from my experience and distilled down into my philosophy of life.

[@patricksee10]

@@tekannon7803 of course not friend. You and I are humans. We share 5 senses, moral values and the same needs. You can know a lot about me or anyone else. My truth is yours and everyone else’s

[@ximono]

I always though it an absurd question. Not because I'm a nihilist, but because I think it's merely a symptom of a psychological issue. Only someone who feels life is meaningless would have the need to ask it. I think it's a symptom of being uprooted. If I had to answer it, I'd say: To love. (I actually hit the wrong key when trying to type "live" and was surprised to see "love" appear on the screen. Divine intervention? Serendipity? Freudian slip of the finger? Whatever the cause, I'm keeping it.)

[@cliffjamesmusic]

Very entertaining. Thank you. The dilemma of “knowledge/facts” being potentially an enhancement and a block to learning is clear and awareness of this should form part of our education. Otherwise, an interesting but pointless discussion, given the priorities in the World but far better to be doing this than creating the mayhem which many people are actively involved in, despite us having the resources, knowledge, skills and technology to be able to support a decent quality of life for everyone on the planet - notwithstanding sociopaths, psychopaths and consume-addiction.

[@xodarap]

I think that is a rather gratuitous judgement to make. Everything you say is spot on IMO. My point is that this kind of discussion is an essential part of human life on Earth - however much I might roll my eyes and start tearing at what little remains of my head hair when R Shelldrake starts holding forth [ :-( ] My vote of course is for Sabine H although I think Bjorn.... had some useful things to say.

[@firstal3799]

True

[@annakarl9989]

💐❤ for Rupert Sheldrake 😊, love it . Beautiful speach, and hopefull arguments, thank you Sir. 💝 Thank you very much.

[@Essential4Life]

Just found this video, Rubert has a unique speculation on the consciousness, even the lady held her own. But a wonderful discussion all around

[@aoliveira_]

He's a quack.

[@davidsault9698]

Sabine H. seems satisfied with a mere functional understanding of QM and not the understanding of what it is and how it fits into a larger understanding of the Universe.

[@thepatternforms859]

The universe is totally incomprehensible to us humans. This is the reason to be radically agnostic about essentially everything.

[@absstevens7464]

I am of the belief that if the Turing test was taken to a certain degree of sophistication, that humans would also fail the Turing test

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i would.

[@absstevens7464]

@@HarryNicNicholas It is my belief that you wouldn't but it is academic as they will never get that sophisticated, or more likely humans are too arrogant to try it!

[@BanjoPixelSnack]

Well maybe humans fail the test because we are in a simulation and are therefore all programmes that just think they are human…

[@____uncompetative]

Bot

[@amihart9269]

They already are, given how prevalent AI is these days, sometimes when I talk to people online I second-guess myself because some people sound like ChatGPT how they talk.

[@undaware]

All of what we know now was once strange. At least once we started paying attention.

[@randomkiliinterviews9453]

I laughed hard when Sabine said the solar flares bit :D

[@Thomas-gk42]

She´s a garanty for fun

[@0ptimal]

Sometimes, when pondering things, im hit with the question: "What is this place!" But it's more than a question, it's a realization of sorts, where you become aware of the immensity of the reality you are a part of. It's so beyond anything we can imagine, much less comprehend. I truly think in 100 years or less, humans will have a drastically different understanding and therfore perspective of things. I find it incredibly exciting to think that we likely only have a tiny grasp of what we're in, that whatever the truth it's far beyond what we consider truth now. We become sort of desensitized to the world and ourselves, yet if we examine things we realize we are a part of something shockingly profound, and it's very likely that whatever perception we have of ourselves, whether based on science or the most far out speculation, the truth is something that surpasses it all. My greatest hope is that one day, somehow, these things are revealed to us.

[@Cameramancan]

Stars perambulating the universe of their own volition by sending out jets until they find their right place….I think Sabina almost choked but she’s a very polite person and really didn’t miss a beat…🇨🇦

[@VaughanMcCue]

Celestial flatulence.

[@tristanmules7995]

So, a question to all the skeptics scoffing and chuckling in derision at non-traditional thinking, have any of you ever done any psychonautical exploration?

[@jceepf]

@@VaughanMcCue Newton could not explain why the solar system was stable given his laws. He invoked God. Planet farting is even worse.

[@furtdrven2512]

@@tristanmules7995 ''...non-traditional thinking...'' Creating euphemisms. You are good at it.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

@@tristanmules7995Yes. And we know better than to be enamoured of the rambling thoughts attached thereto. Sheldrake sounds like Terence McKenna in this regard, but worse…

[@anthonylawrence5842]

We need to consider the geometrical relevance of the platonic forms.

[@invictus327]

We do as well to ask if we ourselves and as sentient minds are unintelligible because in the end I suspect that this particular enigma will never be resolved.

[@timothypatrick9476]

Thank you Dr Sabine. I love it when you included philosophy as a necessary tool that should be used to aid science in advancing it's discoveries. But may I add, philosophy should be used to help you how to think but not what to think. Thanks again for keeping science grounded.

[@Wonderer224]

When humans become humble enough and realize their limitations they will understand a lot more about themselves and the universe they live in. But as long as they believe they are smart enough to understand or explain the universe with their mathematics they will remain ignorant. Humility is the key.

[@adrianwright8685]

"But as long as they believe they are smart enough to understand or explain the universe with their mathematics they will remain ignorant" Well they have managed to enable this communication between all of us with their mathematics - not a poor achievement!!

[@bintangdomena]

Great point adrian!! Limited here on earth, yes, but aspiration is the key to unlock the door to the unlimited when our bodies on earth have served their purpose @@adrianwright8685

[@granthurlburt4062]

It has nothing to do with humility. Humility wont take us 1 microset to understanding. Continuting to speculate, hypothesize, and test hypotheses. That's got us this far. It is all taht works. Maybe we'll understand and maybe we won't.

[@sararpi]

As an Indian, I would be mortified if someone took rituals of prayers to sun as actual communication in any way! I am with Dr. Hossenfelder on certain aspects of science not easily explained by analogy. She is a treasure! 😊

[@PrashantParikh]

Hindus, when relating to Surya deva, are not referring to merely the solar orb.

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

Thanks for that sir! I was scared at first when I read "As an Indian" 🤭 To me Sheldrake shouldn't be allowed near science, as he would waste everyone's time, as everyone who took that rout always have, only for nothing but more people believing the absurd with zero evidence to back it up has ever come of it!

[@johnarnold893]

@@Bob-of-Zoid You should rethink that statement. I've never considered stars to have consciousness until now but if you think about it the sun has been around for 4.5 billion years and it very well might have developed some kind of consciousness that is beyond anything we can fathom. After all, our form of consciousness is nothing more than a bunch of electro-chemical reactions.

[@carlosgaspar8447]

@@Bob-of-Zoid at least what sheldrake proposed is very much testable and it would not cost billions like a large hydron collider. sabine said that dark matter does not interact with "light" which is basically a tautology unless she actually meant the electromagnetic spectrum.

[@HereWeGo0o0]

Sheldrake was just talking about shared human consciousness being concentrated on a single message. He could have used a sports analogy, like a stadium praying for the winning field goal of a football game. But then everyone would have been arguing about football vs. futbol, and then chaos. And then a silence like the vacuum of space.

[@richardalf9479]

It seems to me that each of the speakers could agree to the statement that marveling at the universe under all circumstances will never end. Maybe we then could agree that marveling in itself is an intrinsic part of "knowing" the world...

[@gireeshneroth7127]

Guru Vasishta tells Sri Rama swami "seeking from outside the secret of the existence of the universe will never be found because the universe never really came into existence." It is exclusively a consciousness activity about itself.

[@drmosfet]

This seems like the same argument or discussion they would have before alchemy was converted into chemistry.