Vacuum Energy: The Universe Shouldn't Exist

Our advanced physical theories suggest that the vacuum is not empty. Instead, it is filled with the energy of virtual particles, like a boiling broth. By calculating this energy, scientists have concluded that there is so much of it that the universe should have been crushed under its own weight in the first moments after the Big Bang. Why didn't it? What is hidden from our eyes? How to destroy the Universe with a single cup of coffee?
__________________
00:00 Introduction
03:40 Energy
08:34 The mass of the universe.
14:34 Dark Energy
18:00 Vacuum
25:31 How to destroy the universe.
30:40 Cosmological Constant
36:12 Anthropic principle
#mindworld

[@johnbrimmer9403]

I hope this channel does well, we need more heady content on youtube!

[@hello12229]

The AI voice is unlistenable

[@grantwest3951]

I don't mind the A.I. voice, but I am curious if the content is generated and composed by A.I.

[@MindWorld]

Just the voiceover

[@Ri-ver]

It really seems written by AI too

[@childofkhem1.618]

Quantum bounce is REAL at the micro and macro!!! The ether contains all potential energy.

[@EsotericBibleSecrets]

If the universe created in the past was somehow designed in the present would that mean it has existed until now in a false vacuum state? If so, then would designing the universe now cause the true vacuum state to then reformat the universe for the future? One who dabbles in esoteric numerology needs to know these things.

[@DesmondDaCyborg]

Narrators voice is TiTs where do I find that?

[@Stacee-jx1yz]

I will continue exploring how the both/and logic and monadological framework catalyze new insights and expanded descriptive capacities across various domains: Neuroscience & Theories of Consciousness The logic allows formulating novel integrated perspectives on the mind-body problem and the neural correlates of consciousness that avoid the limitations of classical reductionist, dualist or mysterian views: • Subjective Experience and Objective Description For a conscious state x, let S(x) and O(x) represent the subjective experiential and objective neurophysiological aspects respectively. Classical approaches tend to bifurcate into strictly separating these as S(x) = 1, O(x) = 0 or fully reducing to S(x) = 0, O(x) = 1. But the both/and logic allows: S(x) = 0.7, O(x) = 0.6, ○(S(x), O(x)) = 0.8 Capturing how conscious states involve an irreducible complementarity and tight coherence between the subjective feel and objective dynamics - neither pole is prioritized or eliminable. The synthesis operator ⊕ further models their co-realized gestalt unity: subjective_experience(x) ⊕ objective_neuralcorrelates(x) = conscious_state(x) • First-person and Third-person Perspectives A related issue is how to integrate the first-person introspective perspective with third-person external observations and theories about consciousness. For a set of data D about a conscious process x, we could have: Truth(D matches first-person_report) = 0.6 Truth(D matches third-person_model) = 0.7 ○(first-person, third-person) = 0.5 Capturing a moderate coherence between phenomenological and observational characterizations, which are irreducibly complementary poles synthesized into a unified account: first-person_phenomenology ⊕ third-person_observations = theory_of_consciousness(D) So rather than dissociating and privileging one perspective, the logic allows formalizing their coconstituted integration into holistic theories spanning qualitative experience and quantitative evidence. • Unity of Consciousness and Neural Binding How the unified phenomenology of consciousness relates to distributed neural activities is another puzzle. The logic allows coherence metrics between unity and differentiation: Truth(consciousness_is_unified) = 0.8 Truth(neuralactivities_are_differentiated) = 0.9 ○(unified_consciousness, differentiated_activities) = 0.7 With a synthesis capturing the paradoxical co-operation of integrated/discriminated aspects: unified_subjective_character ⊕ distributed_neural_processes = coherent_conscious_state Avoiding arbitrary prioritizations while modeling their integration as complementary interdependent facets of the same psychoneural Gestalt. Philosophers have long struggled to clearly relate or decisively separate phenomenological unity with neural multiplicity. The paraconsistent both/and logic allows coherently modeling and further theorizing their subtle complementary coconstitution. Philosophy of Logic and Language The logic's expressive capacities allow revisiting classic issues in a new light: • The Liar Paradox In classical logic, the sentence "This sentence is false" is a paradox leading to explosion and triviality. But the both/and logic allows coherent non-trivial treatment: Truth(Liar_sentence) = 0.5 ○(Truth(Liar_sentence, 1), Truth(Liar_sentence, 0)) = 0.5 With a 0.5 truth value representing the sentence's indeterminacy, and moderate coherence between its truth and falsity aspects. The synthesis operation ⊕ expresses its paradoxical self-reference resolving in a higher gestalt: Truth(Liar_sentence) ⊕ ¬Truth(Liar_sentence) = paradoxical_self-reference Providing tools for positively representing and logically operating with paradoxical self-undermining utterances, rather than dodging them through restrictive assumptions. • Vagueness and Fuzzy Boundaries The sorites paradox about the vagueness of fuzzy predicates like "heap" has also resisted classical treatment. But both/and logic allows: Truth(x_is_heap) = [0,1] for objects x With coherences tracking the degree of alignment with prototypical heap properties across a graded spectrum. This avoids bivariate soup/heap boundaries, capturing the nuanced continuities and contextualities underlying vague linguistic categories. So the logic restores accountability to the subtleties of real-world semantics resisting digitization, allowing discourse to resonate with rather than dissimulate the horizonal indeterminacies of language's ontological implicatures. Throughout, the both/and logic's abilities to integrate graded multivalued truths, positive contradictions and self-superseding syntheses allow revisiting paradoxes and singularities not as sheer inconsistencies to be prohibited, but generative disclosures indicating inadequacies of our prior abstractive models - opening new constructive symbolic vistas better aligning with the nuanced complexities of thought, language and reality itself.

[@stevelee5724]

Wank !

[@stevelee5724]

No ! You are incorrect ! At creation, your big bang, everything was Red. But in reality it was blue ! That is why

[@d.g.1986]

Huh?

[@shellybunnii]

It was opaque

[@childofkhem1.618]

You are just a central nervous system away from nirvana