Will we ever know the origins of the universe? | Scott Aaronson, Joscha Bach, and Priya Natarajan

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Do we fundamentally lack the tools to uncover the secrets of the universe? Are language and logic only useful for understanding our current world, and not whatever came before the Big Bang? Let us know what you think in the comments! To see the whole debate with a free trial, visit iai.tv/video/the-riddle-of-the-beginning?KZbin&+comment&

[@danterosati]

the origin of both the universe and the consciousness that asks about origins is in the that which is beyond language and concepts.

[@andrewdewit4711]

Infinitely better than a TED talk...

[@noelwass4738]

There are some questions we can know the answer to and other questions we can never know the answer. It is important to recognize given a question into which of the two categories the question fits. Those questions that ask about other universes or what happened before our universe came into being fit into the category of those questions that we can never know the answer to. What we are doing is trying to imagine something that is unimaginable and calling it real just because it exists in our imagination. We might think our imagination is sufficient, but it is not. Those questions that we think we know the answer to it is important also to recognize that we may be wrong.

[@audiodead7302]

I suspect the very question "Will we ever know the origins of the universe?" is a 'category error'. I think it presumes that the flow of time (and causality itself) is fundamental. Whereas I think the question is a function of the 'observer'. The human mind is a 'meaning making machine'. It asks questions and searches for answers. But the universe does not owe it an answer.

[@aeaf123]

The only "Logical" explanation is everything is being created in every moment. It's why the best model we have is some infinite fractal. There wasn't ever a beginning, but rather a perpetual living beginning. It's hard to think this way because we are all born and we all die... Therefore, we always look at things in the wrong frame of beginnings and endings.

[@mikel4879]

aeaf123 • All you say in your text is correct with one exception: the word "beginning". When talking about the Universe there's no beginning of any kind, and evidently no end of any kind. Instead of the word "beginning" that you use there, you try "becoming". 'Infinite fractal' is just a model, like you say. A mathematical model But the true reality is not a mathematical fractal. It can be approximated in one of its theoretical models as "fractal", but only for useful practical reasons.

[@JamaicaWhiteMan]

Turtles - all the way down.

[@RecycledBikes-jj]

@@JamaicaWhiteMan oh, yes!!

[@jbangz2023]

Genesis 1:1 KJ21 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

[@RecycledBikes-jj]

@jbangz2023 They are round and they bounce!...

[@aku7598]

​@jbangz2023 ...human is not as smart as God that creates very complex things. But the religous people know well about god that must be complex than things he created that we still don't understand yet.

[@BSPoK]

Beautiful! 😇

[@edwardpetersen4309]

How can there be anything at all, but conversely, how could there be nothing at all? Methinks that "anything" and "nothing" are concepts and Truth is beyond what we can comprehend.

[@arnihw]

I think that we have no proof whatsoever that absolute nothingness can exist in principle. For all we know, the vacuum itself-the closest we can infer with our models to the imagined concept of nothingness-has fluctuations.

[@EverythingCameFromNothing]

I can conceive of complete non-existence/nothing. In fact, Nothing is the only state that doesn’t need an explanation of how it came into existence. All other states must have had a moment before to explain how they arose

[@arnihw]

Conceivability, however, has nothing to do with evidence. It is entirely possible that absolute nothingness exists only in the imagination of humans, as we possess the capacity to contemplate a world without ourselves. At present, we don't even know how the initial state of the universe came to be. Many of the possible explanations derived from our models involve concepts such as a multiverse or a cyclic universe, like the one proposed by Penrose. In all these cases, the notion of a definitive "beginning" becomes irrelevant, as something might have always existed. We cannot observe nothingness, predict it (even after the so-called 'heat death' of the universe, quantum fluctuations cannot be ruled out), or infer it from the initial state of the universe or the singularity. While the concept of infinite regress may have troubled philosophers in the past, it seems to be more an issue of conceivability for sentient beings with finite lifespans than a plausible feature of reality itself.

[@edwardpetersen4309]

​@@EverythingCameFromNothing I disagree. If only nothing existed (an oxymoron), how could that be? A state of nothing is just another concept.

[@deecee10000]

@@EverythingCameFromNothing Explain how "nothing" can have existence.

[@Ndo01]

If we say time had a beginning or say that it stretches back infinitely then we will always have a causal problem. If instead we say that time is an illusion then there is simply 'what is' being perceived in sequence, which dissolves the causal problem.

[@MarkusBohunovsky]

First of all: 43 Second: Since entropy is certainly a big part of the story going forward from the first moment, here is something that I either have never properly understood or that may be an important question about the beginning that should have some way to be explored: The best explanations of entropy that I have heard, essentially explains it as a statistical phenomenon: High entropy states are essentially so infinitely more probable than low entropy states that even, given the tremendous timeframe of the existence of the universe, entropy will never move from higher to lower: It will always increase (or at best stay the same). This is easy to see if we construct a limited size "isolated" system (which, technically of course there isn't one). We put the milk on one side of the cup and the coffee on the other, eventually they will mix. In that case, we purposefully started out with a low entropy initial state. (and because we created more entropy somewhere else by creating that initial state, the whole thing works out just fine within the 2nd law of thermodynamics.) However, how does this work for the beginning of the Universe? It seems to me that the Universe started out in an extremely low entropy state. If it had not, then entropy should really not always increase, but basically stay at the same maximum value which it would have had from the very beginning, with at best some extremely minor fluctuations in either direction. BUT: If, given the long timeframe, it is unbelievably unlikely that a state of overall lower entropy will ever occur in the Universe, then shouldn't it be infinitely more unlikely that between all the possible initial states of the Universe, one with an extremely low entropy was the one that actually occurred? That has never made any sense to me. ...and no: I am not trying to make a religious argument.

[@amarnetajipendyala3521]

A few things come to mind: A. What if the lowest entropy state we refer to as the initial state (at the Big Bang) is not truly the lowest? Could the granularity (or resolution) of the initial state of matter still have been coarser than an even finer configuration that existed before? In that case, lower entropy might have existed at an even finer granularity (beyond our observability) and experienced a sudden phase shift resembling the Big Bang. But again, one could question where that came from. :) B. What if ever-growing entropy is a 'given' (as per simulation theory), an 'emergent' property (like in the Ruliad/Mathematical Universe), or a 'probabilistic' property (as in Hilbert space), coupled with a non-causal initial state? But once more, where did the movement or change in these foundational systems originate to start the causal chain? C. What if the phenomenon of increasing entropy holds true only within a local pocket of the universe, while in a much larger universe, it does not? Or perhaps there exists a mirror universe where time runs backward, and entropy decreases instead? There are quite a few theories floating around, but ultimately, as Scott mentioned in the video, some unconventional or metaphysical theory may be needed I reckon. ...and no: I am not trying to make a religious argument either. ;)

[@SandipChitale]

- Existence is time. Therefore non-existence - i.e. nothing - means no time. BTW this is consistent with the commonly understood meaning of nothing. - Change is flow of time. Any change will do. Even if entropy decreases. - Time only flows in one direction. Original use of "forward" was a mistake and misleads us to think of "reverse" flowing time is a meaningful idea. - We can measure the rate of flow only if there is a reference cyclic subpart of the universe - which we basically call clock. If not we cannot measure the rate of flow, we can only say time is flowing i.e. there is change.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Joscha Bach´s billiard example sounds valid and somewhat superdeterministc.

[@antoniopacelli]

3:01 This metaphor is quite significant even in other Scenarios...

[@jasonkinzie8835]

"Why is there something rather than nothing?", is not a scientific question because a definitive empirical answer is not possible. Its a metaphysical question. And as a philosophy student I don't think metaphysic is capable of answering it either. But I don't think metaphysics can really answer any of it own questions anyway, (at least for the most part) so this a mystery that will never go away. And that's a perfectly fine situation to be in.

[@vickydixon7512]

The system is a closed circuit, when you connect a battery to a wire and you allow the electricity to flow through the wire it doesn't disappear, it moves based off the resistances in the area that it exists in. Hence why the planet is circular and why the word circuit and circular has five straight letters in a row five letters is a lot dude, it contains the root c i r c u, the only difference between the two words is l a r and it. It has more similarities than it has differences, by more than 70% of its linguistical/ geometrical syntax. O forms a closed shape and this is the exact path the waves of radiation take. With D being a foundational constant for fluid dynamics because it you look at D, you can see that the diameter is cut right down a whole circle, signifying that the diameter is proportionate to circumference. (Which you can use the fact that diameter being proportionate to circumference means that the wavelength and it's circumference depends on it's diameter), showing that "GOD" was a mathematical equation that was retained through history that contains all information in the world within itself. This shows that the periodic table of elements is 1/7 of the electromagnetic spectrum, and that the electromagnetic spectrum and the periodic table of elements forms a closed system where elements can be pressurized into heavier elements and decay into weaker elements. All family trees are connected through the mathematical equation "GOD".

[@veiltricks2947]

I think one of the odd things people will perceive from our current era in the world is the fact that we take science as fact. Anything we know in the world when you ask enough questions the answer will be “because that’s what it does”. Outside of philosophy, art and the stories we tell ourselves we are nothing more than chimpanzees throwing a apple in the air because we know it’ll come down.

[@panmichael5271]

What does Zeus have to say about this?

[@vickydixon7512]

(The Electromagnetic Field Forms a Perfect Closed Loop: The electromagnetic field operates as a self-sustaining system where electric and magnetic fields perpetuate each other indefinitely (as described by Maxwell’s equations). This closed-loop behavior suggests that the field is self-contained and does not require external input or creation.)

[@endofdaysprophet]

The answer to these questions have been answered 6000 years ago!!!

[@ciarandevine8490]

As time is not linear, there was no beginning nor end and certainly n9 big bang.

[@flikkie72]

7:28 I personally don't think it's conceivable that we'll be able to rule out "all alternatives" and be left with a single model that is most likely the way the universe has come into existence. I mean, as long as there is 1 alternative, you're only going to be correct 50% of the time - and I don't think we have any way of ruling out Simulation theory, as it completely obliterates all rhyme or reason when there is an external 'decision maker' which can interfere with the simulation, and can therefore never be ruled out.

[@veiltricks2947]

Simulation theory, religious or intelligent design is essentially the same theory and I find that funny😂

[@melstricker8211]

I am not a physicist and yet I have a few questions that may seem not so smart but it seems to not have answers. Here is one question. In physics, do scientists add an explanation that fits an observation because it fits that observation and for which, at the moment, there seems to be no other explanation? For example. Physicists say there was a start (a big Bang, if you will) because there is inflation of the universe and if there is inflation of the universe then can a formula (made up by these scientists) be used to calculate inflation in reverse, and there you have it. We can say, 14 or so billion years ago there was a condensed universe where time did not yet exist. So are scientists fitting their science into a theory because it fits and not because it is correct, knowing , at the moment, there can be no proof? To me this is not science, this is philosophy.

[@seanhewitt603]

Yet another philosophical discussion breaks out.

[@mba321]

That's.....kind of what IAI is for.

[@seanhewitt603]

@mba321 huh, I figured with all the physicists sitting around, something more...world changing would happen. You know, science...

[@sonarbangla8711]

What if all processes are all interdepended in a coherent fashion, like evolving out of an universal quantum soup?

[@ekurisona663]

origin of everything is nothing, origin of nothing is everything

[@ciarandevine8490]

Time itself ceases to have any operational meaning at 10 - 43 seconds.

[@vickydixon7512]

The system is a closed circuit, when you connect a battery to a wire, and you allow the electricity to flow through the wire, it doesn't disappear, it moves based off the resistances in the area that it exists in. Hence why the planet is circular and why the word circuit and circular has five straight letters in a row five letters is a lot dude, it contains the root c i r c u, the only difference between the two words is l a r and it. It has more similarities than it has differences, by more than 70% of its linguistical/ geometrical syntax. O forms a closed shape and this is the exact path the waves of radiation take. With D being a foundational constant for fluid dynamics because it you look at D, you can see that the diameter is cut right down a whole circle, signifying that the diameter is proportionate to circumference. (Which you can use the fact that diameter being proportionate to circumference means that the wavelength and it's circumference depends on it's diameter), showing that "GOD" was a mathematical equation that was retained through history that contains all information in the world within itself. This shows that the periodic table of elements is 1/7 of the electromagnetic spectrum, and that the electromagnetic spectrum and the periodic table of elements forms a closed system where elements can be pressurized into heavier elements and decay into weaker elements. All family trees are connected through the mathematical equation "GOD".

[@quixodian]

not for nothing was the origin of the cosmos both one of Kant's antinomies of reason and the Buddha's unanswerable questions.

[@docholiday8029]

Yes String theory: Michio Kaka Proof incoming

[@rorixaviertolentino3610]

would things get more interesting if they were in a hotbox?

[@jairofonseca1597]

Someone said: Fiat Lux !!

[@vacaloca5575]

I think you can understand it through its fractal nature: the universe was BORN like a baby, from a parent universe (Kant is wrong).

[@mrtienphysics666]

Ask Roger Penrose

[@aeaf123]

Just replace "Universe" with "God" in the same way you can replace "baby" in a pop song with "Jesus" in Christian music. The overarching theme is what matters... A yearning for connection and completion. And we dance with that day in and day out, whether it is through logic and reason, faith, our hobbies, professions, etc. Like dew that comes down for us but will never cease in its meaning because the dew is always for us, to keep us in the dance of proverbial meaning so to speak.

[@Ndo01]

Based

[@MS-od7je]

Why? What have I done such that I deserve this? The spiders will teach you.

[@georgecoville965]

I don't know why itis so hard for people think the universe is eternal. Does it have to have beginning? All of your thought is this big bang was the beginning. It's absurd. What was before? Do you really have to think so limited?

[@MandelbrotBrain]

In the beginning I am that I am Created that which is From that which is not The spirit of I am who I am Moved on the depths Of the formless and void Moving by spirit The essence of pattern The image of existence Onto which all things Kinds and likenesses Are called to map All meaning and purpose I am what I am Spoke in fractal terms The geometric shapes of All things real, material Being the observer Collapsing the wave Of non being function Of all created things Kinds and likenesses of being In the simultaneity of the pattern Of being I am that I am Divided light from darkness A cosmological constant Of darkness moving Faster than light And light moving At least time Through the pattern Now known as the face Of the deep I am that I am Thus created by moving Speaking and observing Calling to meaning Dividing time-space-energy To form the kinds Likenesses and images Of all being

[@rob.parsnips]

Can we let Scott go to the bathroom, geez 😔

[@aeaf123]

Lol. I think he is actually deeply spiritual. That motion he makes is very common among Jewish people contemplating deeply about God.

[@AurelienCarnoy]

You assume that there is a bigining. It's always the present. 😅

[@mjhzen8313]

The universe is both infinite and eternal. Humans are not.

[@MandelbrotBrain]

Wigner’s box and Schrodinger‘s cat. The subjective reality of God is our objective reality ( observation)( the observation of God , God saw that it was good )

[@Addydolphin]

It’s very simple, God created the universe, showed his spirit angels his new creation, one angel took the chance to rebel against God and doomed humanity with sin and death, which is why you grow old and die…..

[@Tititototo]

Again stars “fighting intellectually” ? Even the old Roman strategy of 'circus and bread' was better :)

[@DorJinTan]

It's all just storytelling. Better and better stories...

[@robertm3561]

Aaronson doesn’t understand that there are things(thing..) in this world, that really don’t have any casual reason. No initial i.e. no reason i.e. doesn’t make any sense to ask why etc.

[@zeroonetime]

Creation, evolution, Entropy. 1 2 3 a b c 010

[@jbangz2023]

Genesis 1:1 KJ21 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

[@alex79suited]

Maybe, maybe not, but there are clues hiding in plain sight. We know how galacty are born and knowing that should be a clue to how things work on a universal scale. Just sayin 🤷. Peace ✌️ 😎.

[@zeroonetime]

010 ~ from 0 we come to 0 we go, in between vastness on nothingness ~ Time I.S. infinite. something from nothing~ X Nihilo ~ Yesh meAiin ~ H. Ephemeral Reality, 010 Here and gone Realistic Illusions. Belief Systems R. B.S.

[@spiralsun1]

Speak for yourself. I do clearly see, clearly have memories of before the Big Bang. I’m totally serious. See my book: “Eye of God: Language of Universal Mind”. It’sa whole new world… this group of people has no idea what they are talking about. I can answer all these questions. There is an answer. You have to let go of all your basic assumptions in favor of a higher degree of coherence.

[@yelkley]

NO

[@runelund5600]

If God exists, some will. 🙂

[@yelkley]

@ NO

[@runelund5600]

@@yelkley Is that your final answer ? 😐

[@yelkley]

@ you will never find the origin of life. It is literally not possible. When the sensical logistics of reality suggest reason you should question hence giving no validation to anything thus suggesting yet again question. Answer suggests knowledge. Knowledge suggests understanding and all of this is suggested through “fact”. Again this matter is linguistic. We need to stop focus on things like this and move forward in space travel. Employ people with valid experiential success rather than doctrined theorizing.

[@pompousprick6143]

We've know the origins of the universe for thousands of years.