Why the universe seems so strange | Richard Dawkins

www.ted.com Biologist Richard Dawkins makes a case for "thinking the improbable" by looking at how the human frame of reference limits our understanding of the universe.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at www.ted.com/tra....
Follow us on Twitter
/ tednews

Checkout our Facebook page for TED exclusives
/ ted

[@StambeccoAllaFragola]

Almost everything he says is pretty obvious science, but the way he's able to put things in connection between them is amazing. All stuffed with smart and comic interludes that helps who's listening to really understand what he's communicating. In a word: a Teacher.

[@K-A5]

"I was only reading Play Boy because I, myself, had an article..in it." Oh, you!

[@tennisbum3686]

Richard, I too collected Playboys solely for the purpose of reading the articles!

[@gwenjackson7458]

P

[@infinatiAM]

Can someone send me the link of Dawkins' Playboy articles, please!

[@erniehudson1]

I just love the guy with the mega loud laughter in the audience

[@FantastyckplastycK]

haha me too, nice one

[@stratcorvette]

Ernie Hudson It’s like he’s waving a flag....somethings going on there! Lol

[@stonks_and_benks]

His name was Michael Grey. He was a biologist too and him-selves was a quite funny man .

[@PonteRyuurui]

@Jay Z probably a yank who does not know the true meaning of queer

[@Mark.McLaren]

Ernie Hudson me too .. he is a circus freak who was born in 1896 his mother sold him for a goat, to feed her 32 offspring .. he lived till 111 and wrote 42 books on shoes..Ironically never wore any.

[@oscill8ocelot]

I met Richard Dawkins at a talk he gave in Charleston SC a few years back. Truly an inspirational, intelligent, and friendly man.

[@jackwarren1687]

I met him once in CA years ago, when hitch was still with us...he was such a warm presence and took the time to talk with us and take some pics, he even kissed my mom on the cheek and she talks about it to this day:) love this man

[@jackwarren1687]

@Harry Orchard yea saying a nice guy is a nice guy is uber cultish...praying to an invisible man in the sky tho, that’s totally normal 🙄

[@kylec8950]

The guys a moronic fool

[@jackwarren1687]

@Harry Orchard it’s like watching simpletons practice using words...keep praying, bud, I’m sure one of these days he might answer you lmao

[@jackwarren1687]

@Harry Orchard I rest my case LMAO Gotta love the “nu uh, YOU are!” defense 🤣😂🤣😂🤣

[@tbrowniscool]

Such an amazing and eye opening TED. So what he read it off a screen. If it were in a book it would be just as compelling. If anything he understood that off the wall presentation wouldn't cut it. Hats off to him. A true man of reason and science. And throughly consistent.

[@brostepisthebest]

i WATCH creepypasta videos that just have pictures with someone narrating and get to tears and i am glad ideas can have that effect on me because it fuels my curiosity.

[@francf4840]

If anyone complains that he's reading from a screen they need to realise he's probably reading his own speech notes.

[@HighestRank]

Frank A which additionally fuels the trolls homing in on his selfish gene because they cannot see those notes except once: the rest only from their shared venue.

[@MarttiSuomivuori]

I love this man. I owe him the realization that I know very little but also to the fact that quite a lot can be done about it.

[@HighestRank]

Dawkings!

[@marklondon2008]

J Scotland perhaps you should have done it

[@CaesarNeverSaidThat]

J Scotland What is the evidence suggesting that the reason for not participating in the debate was cowardice?

[@williamfitzpatrick6369]

I consider listening to Richard Dawkins one of the greatest pleasures life has to offer.

[@williamfitzpatrick6369]

@Zfast4you , on the contrary. I've had a ton of sexual partners, owned a stereo store. skied, programmed computers, had about 20 websites, was into photography when I was 12, play a mean game of pool, repaired electronics systems in B52s and have an IQ of 156 . . . shall I go on? I think you may be a moron. Have you ever been evaluated?

[@afreenjamal4045]

Me too. Me too!!

[@curtislacy579]

I quite agree. Others in his class might be Christopher Hitchens (requiescat in pace), Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris, but Dawkins, with his beautiful, highly cultured English accent, rises to the top.

[@boombox3819]

@@williamfitzpatrick6369 did you really just try to prove some troll on the internet wrong?

[@RAF33Strike]

Great and humble speech. A very terrifying thought, that most people inherently would want to throw away, is that our lives are insignificant. We strive to put purpose to our reality, our sheer existence. We use religion, social status, career, wealth, health, nationalities and all other kinds of social status to find meaning in life. Ever since I was a kid. I questioned everything. Why? How? What? Where? When? However, as I grew older people would tell me to not ask certain questions. What if there isn't a god? "Oh don't say that! That's a bad thing". Why is there a universe? "Someone created it!". Yeah but why? "That's up to someone to say, you will know when you die". I hope that in the future, humans will learn to embrace and encourage the children, teenagers and adults that dare ask these questions so that we will never stop wondering about the mystery of the cosmos.The moment we "settle" for some "possible explanation", then humanity ceases to evolve. Do you think we would have re-usable rockets if Musk listened to the critics? Heck, we may not even have had the special theory of relativity if Einstein didn't come along. We could have been content with Newton and remained at that. Dawkins makes a point that our reality is confined by the limit of our senses and our brains ability to interpret and make use of them. These brain patterns have been useful to us to ensure our survival, but now that we have the ability to sustain humanity through our technology, these senses limit our ability to grasp beyond the middle world. However, I like how he suggests some probable ways of breaking free of these ways of though. Perhaps through video games that replicate feats of quantum mechanics. Randomness. Unpredictable, illogical things. Our brains did evolve to find and appreciate patterns. What if they can be trained to interpret chaos and disorder? A really fun thought that keeps me up at night is that I so badly want to know how the universe works. How it exists, in simple terms. Yet, I am terrified to know that if I did learn this, it would be the most horrifying knowledge to have. Because, it would essentially be the universe telling you to stop asking questions, and settling for what it is. It would mean that, as a baby - the universe is at its most mysterious. As you grow older and learn about it, it becomes familiar. Once you learned everything there is to know about it, there is no mystery perhaps besides exploration of space. No reason to wonder, just wait for death - the end of our relatively brief window of reality.

[@azuregriffin1116]

Str|ke and the existential crisis begins. Thanks.

[@RAF33Strike]

No problem man, got you covered. The best thing to think about is that science is a fantastic tool, and while it may not eliminate "afterlife" because it simply cannot be disproven, it makes some really strong cases that allow us to reasonably doubt it. I think the whole concept of "something rather than nothing" is absolutely mind-blowing. That our universe even exists. What is time? Why are we locked to a timeline, but can move in all other directions? To me, it's equally plausible that the whole universe is random, as it is intentionally there. For some reason. Its existence may not serve us a purpose, but maybe something else? Who knows. I finally, after years of grinding my thoughts on it, came to the conclusion that death is unknown to all living beings, and therefore nobody can share the experience with us. Therefore, I fear not death itself, but dying. Whatever happens when you die, you will actually have to "wait and see". Thinking about it in this way is comforting to me, that death is a new form, new experience, the unknown. In fact, if we KNEW what would happen. Life would become meaningless, as there was always something else to latch on to afterwards. Just live life to the fullest, enjoy it, learn to love, share and value things, people. The only guarantee is that it doesn't last forever and you have to make the most out of it :)

[@sovietwombat8194]

Str|ke The Universe is so perfect...it can’t be real right? That us humans and animals who live here on earth are part of the universe.How come our earth can support life? And how come I am here? Why not that other sperm cell that came behind me? Is he never going to be alive now because of me? Its all things I ask myself and drive me crazy.I just accepted that I am nothing more then a human on earth that doesn’t have the power to fly to space and explore it xd.

[@dddux]

@Str|ke I wonder why you've gotten not so many likes. Your thoughts are very similar to mine about this Dawkins' talk, and really good.

[@maruchannuudle657]

What an awesome thought provoking post.

[@catkeys6911]

That was so incredibly comprehensive and coherent! That was a great way to do that; collect all thoughts and ideas and put them forth in a clear and naturally progressing fashion. This is something that Dawkins already does quite naturally in real time, but with the advantage of being able to compile, possibly reorganize, and clarify wherever he felt necessary, in advance, and then put it out to his audience fully refined, Dawkins hits a new plateau in the communication of impeccable reason.

[@thomassby7139]

Spot on Cat Keys. Mr Dawkins is a fabulous teacher :)

[@Messi10947]

So very well put yourself

[@ninjasensei9834]

Was just thinking about how strange it is that I exist in the universe. Thanks for this video.

[@dragoncurveenthusiast]

I love the idea of the marble statue waving his hand. Not impossible, just extremely improbable

[@willlee465]

That guy who bursts out laughing at 8:02 made me spit salsa on my keyboard.

[@Dr.hollowman]

unfortunately , its been 12 years from now ,,, and i replied to your comment after a five years

[@ramesh.programming]

@@Dr.hollowman yeah and after 1 month i replied to your comment. This process gonna go forever

[@staja_3579]

@@arthurmorgan3761 ThE CiIiIiRcLe Of LiFe

[@kaz287]

What meal were you eating?

[@kaz287]

@ maybe with Doritos

[@Isaelcho]

Marvellous talk, always admired his eloquence. I think Dawkins shall remain an inspiration for many biologists and scientists or laymen alike, for several generations to come.

[@72daystar]

I've heard from naysayers that Dawkins doesn't communicate the limits of science well. Some go so far as to accuse him of scientism. I think this talk exposes the baselessness of that accusation.

[@72daystar]

***** I partially agree with you. But good science should always be willing to reexamine itself.

[@jeanpierreaumont53]

+72daystar science has changed its concepts 5.000 times in the course of the XX century.

[@72daystar]

Jean Pierre Aumont Right, it's anti-dogmatic and progressive. Good point.

[@smokestakz]

+72daystar its a litttttle dogmatic to the scientists that create/follow the theories...take qm for example. ask me if I BELIEVE that there are infinite possible universes based on the findings or theoretics of qm...im going to say no, I don't have FAITH in that information...but when you hear someone like Dawkins speak on qm and parallels etc he speaks as if he lives in one. and to the point of scientism. I think nowadays there is a ton of it going on. when there aren't even hypothesis' to give a scientist a single idea of what to expect from a experiment yet the scientists quote the results as fact I believe that would be scientism....theres nothing wrong with calling out unfounded garbage when its there......the atheists want to be militant about Christians having faith in yeshua and heaven but if anyone is skeptical about parallel universes or dark matter its "you don't understand the science"...but until proven its all faith in a theory.

[@72daystar]

Synapsis I disagree. I think i would require some well referenced quote (i.e. quotes that I could track down) that made assertions to the effect that Dawkins dogmatically "speaks as if he lives in one." I'm doing research myself and I've been reading science journals almost everyday for the last three. I do not get this dogmatism. Quite the contrary. I would concede that dawkins and others may appear aggressive when defending evolution for example, mainly because it IS under attack and it IS a fact.

[@vividhkothari1]

Man, that was trippy. One of the best talks on Ted. What I liked the most is ending it on a social note. And also in the end that sounded very much like a discussion on MORALITY without actually saying the word. That was awesome.

[@marcosalfonzo3787]

From time to time, for more than ten years, I come to this video and listen to it. I wish I could thank Professor Dawkins. I feel that these words are a personal treasure, like some of my favorite books or records.

[@konstantinsverdlov84]

I wish everyone were obligated to listen to this talk, especially our all-knowing politicians, preachers and teachers. Obligated to listen and understand and prove that they understood before returning to their job.

[@vitriolicangst1621]

Konstantin Sverdlov too bad they're too busy to listen

[@effingright3045]

Most of the people you are referring to are highly educated people who understand this material far better than you do. You don't have an effing clue what politicians, preachers and teachers really do for a living. Nor how hard their jobs are and how incredibly stupid the people are they have to deal with on a daily basis. What a guy like Hawkins does for a living is trivial in comparison.

[@MikeS-um1nm]

Konstantin Sverdlov I agree with you, BUT the sad truth is that there would be a lot of people who would NOT be able to return to their jobs! Very sad and very true! It is absolutely ASTOUNDING to me, how many people there are out there, driving cars, working jobs, making things, doing things, etc., who are really and truly just plain stupid. I happen to know for a fact, that I work with and interact with people who could NEVER comprehend what Professor Dawkins said in this talk. How sad is that? Can you imagine NOT being able to understand THIS, and enjoy and appreciate it? Sad. I don't know if you read Dawkins' books, but if you liked this presentation, I'm sure you would love his books. Much of THIS talk is in: "The God Delusion". I've devoured that book, from cover to cover FOUR TIMES, and I'm sure I'll read it again!

[@thomassby7139]

@@effingright3045 Why presume that OP has no clue? And calling Dawkins merits trivial is hardly fair, since he is in veritas teaching with a very comprehensive insight. I enjoyed it a lot. As for the rest: I personally know teachers that haven't got a clue of the world they live in and who could use this experience, preachers are in my opinion indoctrinated storytellers, and politicians too often seem to me to regulate with a disregard to science. I tend to agree with OP.

[@thomassby7139]

@@MikeS-um1nm It isn't sad IMO. It is a fact and calls for you to educate the people around you. Not indoctrinate, but encourage them to seek the answers themselves. Yes, there are people less educated, but that doesn't make them stupid. I'd personally like to encourage you to read some of the other books Mr Dawkins has written and also other writers.

[@JosephNordenbrockartistraction]

I'm glad my mother insisted I get an education so I can understand clearly what Richard Dawkins is talking about. He's a very good man.

[@mkendall68]

But if you understand it you don't really understand it

[@Mekratrig]

Mkendall68 - You do, if the hair on the back of your neck stands up.

[@keithsolloway9544]

Just make sure that what you call education is not indoctrination, question everything without exception.

[@hannahpumpkins4359]

My mother taught me all about how the Earth is flat, that we are covered by a clear dome, that we never went to the Moon, that the Sun is only 3,000 up in the sky, all islands float, and there is only a limited amount of wind...

[@HighestRank]

mkendall68 but if you really did understand it, it can’t really be quantum physics, can it?

[@chrisberger6987]

One of the great minds of our time. He is SO skilled at making lofty concepts understandable. He has also been a soldier of rational thought.

[@islandsedition]

Not really, he uses simplistic arguments and his own straw men to ridicule bronze age belief systems. He's not eloquent, none of his "ideas" are his own, at least concerning the likelihood of a God or the superiority of science. With the former, his certainty is fanatical and his basis no stronger than the claims of those more moderate believers of deities. With the latter he is only capable of preaching to the converted. He doesn't really spend any time trying to understand and convert those who don't appreciate the value of science. That's because he is an entertainer, with an obnoxious and arrogant ego.

[@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid]

Oh ffs 🙄

[@keithsolloway9544]

You got to be joking the man's a fraud can't even give a talk without looking at his computer 80% of the time.

[@myalterego6994]

@@keithsolloway9544can you do it the way he does with lookin on the computer screen?

[@theali8oras274]

Man , I love the biological perspective. I ve never studied biology in my life but I ve always found it immensely interesting. Its explanations are of the most satisfying amongst the sciences!

[@playmesalsa]

Big fan of Richard Dawkins here... in this video he sounds like a Buddhist Philosopher; which from my point of view only adds to his greatness.

[@HAL-nt6vy]

Do you believe that every atom of your teeth has been replaced? Bones? Nerve and muscle cells?

[@bruceblake9942]

I am impressed to see/hear dear Richard, a biologist/evolutionist, branch out into maths, physics, biology and anthropology. Thank you and well done. [Aussie in BC]

[@Nognamogo]

Dawkins. You're my new favorite scientist. I got that feeling of awe listening to this. Love getting that feeling.

[@GW-tr8xn]

I first watched this when I was 13 or 14 and now I'm 18y11m I would say this very speech had a pround impact on my way of understanding the world

[@aaronwhiting7725]

My mind is blown. 23 minutes of profound 1-liners will have to be watched many times to grasp.

[@wcsxwcsx]

It is good that science humbles us about our understanding of reality. It shows that we're on the right track.

[@user-ed1mj5zk6f]

Admirable clarity of thoughts!

[@stewy1109]

Insight beyond compare. cheers mate.

[@justinh8810]

One of the best talks ever given.

[@boomelyh3llik]

i notice the good people at TED did not have the maturity, (or presume us mature enough) to give this piece its natural/deserved title: 'Why the universe seems so QUEER". I find it more offensive to have such words edited out for me in order to placate the immature. Good talk though; I now appreciate Dawkins more dense and less 'showbiz' type style.

[@Someguy-my3he]

While I can already hear the counterargument that using a word with such a strong association with an unrelated subject (homosexuality) may obscure the meaning of this title, I do agree with you. I'm pretty sure we can handle it.

[@EebstertheGreat]

I kind of agree with you, but I wouldn't assign so much baseless blame to the people who edited and uploaded this talk. There are a number of valid reasons why they might have chosen this title. For one, the Sapling Foundation that runs TED talks is an American organization, and while its audience is global and very diverse, it tends to default to American styles, which is inevitable anyway with an American staff. Clearly the word "queer" is not commonly used anymore by Americans to mean "strange," and even in England, Dawkins's home, "strange" is substantially more common. For another thing, using "queer" in such limited context as this title is very ambiguous. "Strange" has a relatively clearly-understood meaning, and it is not TED's intent to misdirect people to videos by confusing the subject matter. The title is accurate after all, and if I had wanted to watch a video about how the universe was sexually complex, and gotten this instead, I might be upset. And finally, it could easily have been an honest mistake. Personally, I agree that they ought to have stuck to the exact wording used in this talk for several reasons, but I don't think people changed it deliberately to satisfy some agenda or irrational fear.

[@user-qb3tk8rs8t]

Seamus Mac maybe because they knew you'd all make a big deal out of it, like you are now

[@boomelyh3llik]

Quinn Rogers makes a lot of sense... I see it now - they did it in an incredibly benign scheme to provoke a 'big deal', involving one whole comment with a few mundane replies. Genius. I also really like the general philosophical implications of your comment, i.e shut up and watch without any of that pesky 'thinking' or 'commenting' nonsense. You seem like a real cool, intelligent and interesting... oh... no... I drifted... was daydreaming... about... Marina Sirtis for a sec. Sorry. Anyway, thanks for clarifying Quinn

[@user-qb3tk8rs8t]

i didnt read this

[@JFrazer4303]

4:37 "The nucleus of the atom is as a fly in the middle of a sports stadium."

[@gensara1]

John Frazer ... and the next nucleus is a stadium away.

[@Anandkshivanna]

I been watching this video multiple time, each time I listen my understanding is bettering. Can watch it 100's of time ...

[@joskokustura8854]

Richard Dawkins is one of the most intelligent man on the world, thanks to mother nature!

[@Blablablarandomguy]

Richard Dawkins is my hero.

[@unstoppablezone4980]

Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level. :)

[@michellebiland5163]

Advaita63 Vedanta99 Ha ha ha

[@thanujaa8492]

probably one of the moto searched TED talk ever, thanks Richard. you always inspire us

[@sumdeo23]

I came back to this after watching the results of US Elections 2016... "Queerer than we can suppose. The strangeness of the universe." :o

[@HAL-nt6vy]

Yeah, we dodged a bullet. I refuse to even contemplate the horror of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

[@BillFromTheHill100]

Go TRUMP

[@andrewstang-green3107]

Thank you, very good information.

[@EebstertheGreat]

OK I get Dawkins's point, but it's clearly not exactly right that "not a single atom" from my childhood is still present in my body. Most aren't of course, but there are _a lot_ of atoms in my body, and while only a small fraction from my childhood may still remain, that tiny fraction is still an enormous integer in ordinary terms.

[@Monocerus90]

What integer?

[@BowerBomB]

EebstertheGreat why is it not exactly right? the rate of exchange lends them to think a complete exchange takes around 7 years....

[@EebstertheGreat]

BowerBomB That is an average for certain cell types. But there are something like 10^28 atoms in a typical person. If the median atom is replaced every 7 years, there are still 5*10^27 left. If the median atom is replaced every year, there are still 8*10^25 left at the end. If the median atom is replaced every month, there are still around 500 left after 7 years. It does not seem likely that every single atom gets replaced. Apart from that, not all cells or parts of cells grow in the same way or at the same rate. Atoms trapped in bone minerals far from living bone tissue will probably _never_ be replaced. Atoms in enamel will only be replaced if they are worn away. Atoms in parts of the chromatin in aplastic neurons that are never expressed will usually never be replaced. That's my point. While _most_ atoms from my childhood are gone, there were so many atoms to begin with, and exchange is sufficiently random, that it is very unlikely not a single one survived.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Bill Gates' bank account. No. Wait. Mathematicians have not yet invented a name for an integer that big.

[@vampyricon7026]

The Ultimate Reductionist googol? Graham's number?

[@marianaleibniz3783]

Once upon a long time ago ,I was travelling with a friend, and a dog friend in the car, and observing how happy and concentrated the dog was, with his nose out the window and sniffing, with eyes almost shut. I said to my (not dog) friend: it is like, dog appreciates the journey, experiencing what we see, with theirs nose; smelling the landscapes, instead of seeing with the eyes. What a joy to see Dawkins identifying with this at 14:35

[@mikevieira8583]

Love you, Richard. Thanks for being an important part of my liberation from religion!

[@kristijanakristijanic]

Me too!❤ Thank you, prof. Dawkins!❤😊

[@bebo91body32]

if we took this video back in time, say 100 years, what would they have thought of this man, surrounded by computers, using them for info to give a public speech. They would call it science fiction

[@missinformation3449]

Go back another 100 years, and they'd call it witchcraft.

[@iAMJaws]

jl lancerz89 they might even call him a god with all of the things he knows.

[@jobhunter5090]

the problem with calling him a god is a being a god isn't about knowing (though knowledge is proscribed to the ficticious deities), but rather doing. A grenade and a gun or modern medicine would make someone look far more godlike than a computer or knowing things (that would contradict with current practice)

[@danielharrington5690]

@@jobhunter5090 I couldn't disagree more

[@jobhunter5090]

Care to elaborate, because if I was playing devil's advocate i could have disagreed a lot more with myself than you did. All you did was state your opinion.

[@shananagans5]

Come on Ted, you can't use the word queer?

[@isaiahbaker3597]

language police wee-oo-wee-oo

[@timm6175]

Isaiah Moorehead hes saying this videos title should've used the word queer instead of strange

[@isaiahbaker3597]

Timothy Marinaccio Oh I see, probably

[@zeishei5649]

shananagans5 lol.

[@vincerussett7922]

Well, it can: whatever current sexual politics decide, he was quoting a mid-2oth century scientist (Haldane), who was using the word in its then current meaning of 'very strange'. The word spread to describe gay individuals because they were also perceived *at that time* and in the mainstream as 'very odd', and acquired a pejorative ring, as well. We've all come a long way in 70 years...

[@spybubbble]

The guy’s laugh in 8:02 is so contagious! 😂😂😂

[@ShriRameducation13]

That's what i was thinking since last few days. Mind blowing talk . Thank you so much

[@mikaelnoone7304]

A brilliant and mind blowing experience to hear Dawkins speak, however there is one critical point towards the end: "Treating people as machines may be scientifically and philosophically accurate" A self-contradictary statement if taken literally, but I wonder if anyone with an educated opinion would agree with this. The field of human action is in no way predictable with fully mechanistic degrees, for the action of conscious being in itself is never throughoutly calculated with binary logic or mechanistic laws (which in themselves stop being correct when applied to certain areas of reality) - so in contradiction with Dawkins' attitude, the idea of a human as a machine seems more likely to be the useful fiction here rather than the personification of human beings

[@sngscratcher]

Because it is strange. Mind-boggling, to say the least. And being alive, conscious and aware of this astonishing reality is the most bizarre of all. "This is the strangest life I've ever known" - Jimbo!

[@michaelmisanthrope]

I have heard and read much from this man. I can't explain why, but this particular lecture moves me more than any other. Thank you TED

[@bunney3272]

I just drank a bottle of water.

[@n3nshat11]

Sir George Severn Water is a gift from our creator. It sustains all life.

[@bunney3272]

Sorry, for you to think there is a creator, you are absolutely deluded!

[@cerverg]

n3nshat11 I just farted is that a gift as well?

[@n3nshat11]

cerverg indeed your body is a temple of God. that is simply a sign that your body is processing the necessary functions it needs.

[@bunney3272]

In the eyes of the 'God' who isn't there your fart is his gift.

[@philipose66]

well thought out presentation---not easy to understand because the science is deep and the references are complex. Also, he is reading and the cadence can throw some of the meaning 'off'. He 'desperately' is trying to convey to us in WORDS what he deeply grasps---not easy to do.

[@johnsalmond]

yes, it is pretty rich in info and references which one needs to pick up. A couple of runthroughs might help. As we not studying a structured course that problem is inevitable for us amateurs

[@shubhamparashar3540]

Philip SIXTY SIX "cadence can throw some of the meaning 'off" - What the do you mean by that ? From your comment I seem to think you mean to say that for amateurs it might be that they take the wrong meaning instead of the one Dawkins intended. There are no euphemisms in the talk, if thats what you mean. Dawkins is known for elucidating scientific facts in a manner as clear as possible. (as clear as possible is the supremum of all the ways clarity can be expressed)

[@Nyt250]

what a smart guy

[@domcasmurro2417]

Mudkipp2 Not smart enough to know that atoms are not majority of empty space..that "empty space" is 100% filled by the wave function. Eletrons are not like moons surrounding the center of the atom, like he apparently believe.

[@AlmostBipedal]

DR GREEN - He actually said "almost entirely empty space", and not what you said. Did he actually say like moons surrounding the centre of the atom? I don't recall that either?

[@politicallyincorrect9607]

along with these 'smarts' comes an arrogance that limits one's potential to know more.

[@runenight280]

Except that's not true at all. A lot of these 'smarts' are smart enough to realize how little they know and are humbled by it. Arrogance is a result of pseudo-intelligence.

[@thomasf.9717]

Counting Strings Dawkins is one of the most humble people I've seen. I guess intelligence does look like arrogance if you look at it from below.

[@alvaromd3203]

This talk is So poetic, so deep and beautiful. I’m truly thankful for the experience of dreaming along these ideas and awakening so many perceptions during the journey.

[@greganton9639]

Richard Dawkins is a great man who does great work

[@dinkyman8591]

He is an educated idiot nothing more.

[@CutcliffePaul]

Brilliant, as ever.

[@IsaacAsimov1992]

RD would get my vote for Educator of the Century.

[@boraxsopanic2670]

John F Kennedy

[@dowehavetodothis]

whenever I feel anxious, I listen to this soothing lecture

[@Strype13]

I never thought I'd see the day Richard Dawkins would make a penis joke during a recorded lecture. That fella is usually busy taking life far too seriously. Regardless, today is a good day. Hope to see him continue to wind down like that. He's an incredibly smart man, but he seems like he could benefit from more humor.

[@barbaramack2897]

Yet, that Playboy thing took me a minute to get and it was funny in a suitable manner. Have you heard him read of how he met his wife. That's a wonderful story and speaks of the man as a bit more that an ultra intellectual. He appears to be a very well-rounded and grounded individual.

[@Fransamsterdam]

I am not a native English speaker, so maybe that's why I don't see the problem with the word 'queer'. Could anyone explain? I like his sense of humor and open mindness. Not a waste of time.

[@marcusrosales3344]

Queer is usually used in a derogatory way towards homosexuals in this day and age. The way he is using it has no problem though.

[@ConnorGunn]

To add to your point, it should be noted that the word "Queer" has been recently taken back by the LGBT community to represent an ambiguous sexuality (for people that aren't comfortable with the label "Bisexual" for various reasons.) It's a bit of a sensitive word to use, due to its history.

[@paulrobert9286]

Whoa...I'm trippin out....man!

[@mael-strom9707]

Those dang psilocybin mushrooms! ^^

[@AlbertGuilmont]

Finally, a rare occasion when a video produced in 2007 is not advertised on KZbin as "NEW!!! 2018 RICHARD DAWKINS SCIENCE DEBATE!!!"

[@billsny9243]

Everyone should watch this coming down from shrooms. It makes so much more sense

[@HighestRank]

bill sny the English attempts at avoiding creating offense is somehow countered by a detoxification, during which every little thing is offensive. Also applicable to smoking cessation.

[@RevBobAldo]

He asks if anything is inherently ungraspable. That is a question all too rarely asked by science.

[@HAL-nt6vy]

Joe Biden has investigated widely and found that everything can be grasped. And sniffed. And Mouthed.

[@jeschinstad]

It is a question that by definition cannot be solved by science and isn't scientific. Science can only prove that graspable things are graspable. It cannot prove that ungraspable things are ungraspable.

[@unclemunch]

I went to Tiny World once and bought a t-shirt. When I returned to Middle World, the t-shirt didn't fit. What a ripoff.

[@abowlofsalad8812]

ricardo ricky lol

[@dmknight08]

What a lovely way to point out how flawed and insufficient our human perspective is. I hoped that this would be more obvious to all people but it appears not to be so. What I see most is that people think that the human design and the human mind are so perfect and they are not able to see how genuinely lacking we actually are of understanding the world, much less the universe, that we live in.

[@shawnmatthews75]

He's so good at words.

[@RobertHouse101]

Shawn Matthews articulate indeed

[@thoserusskies115]

"The Universe. Queer as a three dollar bill". by Richard Dawkins, 1 billion copies sold.

[@colly3333]

Beautiful.

[@SAM1v0v]

Addicted to listen Sir Richard Dawkins 🙂

[@reviewerman9786]

Is there a transcript of this talk somewhere?

[@reviewerman9786]

Reviewer Man www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_universe/transcript

[@superstringcheese]

To save you some time: We exist on a scale somewhere between the atomic and astronomical, and so our model of reality is oriented to the magnitudes and characteristics of that scale. The entire talk is the repetition of this idea using different analogies.

[@yoso585]

The analogies are for the imagination.

[@noisepuppet]

I'd expect Dawkins to add that in biological terms, cognition, like other capacities, is expensive. It's resource intensive to develop and to use cognitive capacity. Given finite resources, anything an organism spends on one capacity is unavailable for others that might contribute to reproductive success (which is the the driver in evolution by natural selection, not survival). So selection tends to produce capacities that are efficient-- only just adequate for the purpose, no more. More would be a waste, and the wasteful expenditure is selected out. So evolution has equipped us to understand what we need to in order to pass the genes down, and not substantially more. That's the efficiency of our genetic endowment of biological capacities, including cognition.

[@averyjoycelynbarakudablock4139]

Much more than scale. Among other things, nuances of species types and their unique"preloaded" templates. And, much praise is offered for the purported brilliance of the human, many of whose finest features -- such as well-honed nervous systems' applications, genuine intuition and the ability to seek out medicines -- are all but lost though yet actively employed by other species. Primates and cetaceans and most assuredly elephants for example. (The more i observe my fellow animal species in action, the less lofty i find our wondrous wandering and wondering selves).

[@noisepuppet]

Avery Joycelyn Barakuda Block I just heard Donald Hoffman say, "natural selection drives true perception to swift extinction." Not really startling if you get what natural selection fundamentally is. Of course, with our fellow human beings, our observations are complicated by the fact that we are effectively animals living in captivity. But whether it's our genetic endowment or our artificial environment that's to blame, or both, I agree that it's getting harder and harder to be impressed with us.

[@averyjoycelynbarakudablock4139]

@@noisepuppet s0 gRoovn 0nYr wRK spEHshlyQUICKsōte Most assuredly not bad (fra HewMan). Thankyu

[@seanfinkelfuck9935]

A good talk, prevalent then as now, just like science.

[@MikeS-um1nm]

Just in case there's anyone out there who really liked this presentation, but hasn't read Dawkins' books, you really owe it to yourself to read them. Much of what he said here is in: "The God Delusion", and I cannot recommend that book highly enough. You don't have to be an atheist to enjoy it. It's mostly full of awesome, scientific facts, history and evolutionary biology. I've read THAT book FOUR TIMES, and I WILL read it again!! I have a feeling that the 638 people who left a thumbs down on this video (so far) probably don't read his books. Just a WILD GUESS!!! Sad. Sad but true how many people there are in this world who will never open their minds to great stuff like this.

[@1292liam]

8.02 man at the back goes mental !

[@leebennett4117]

The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you,Sorry Humans its not all Me,Me,Me,Me

[@canismagus]

I'd say we should adopt a new Trinity with Carl Sagan as God, Neil DeGrasse Tyson as the Christ and Richard Dawkins as the Holy Ghost and forget about the old one.

[@BlackEpyon]

That would be kinda missing the point :/ But yes, these guys are much more inspiring than the old celestial tyrant we grew up with.

[@tomlxyz]

I'd say we throw the old Trinity away and that's it.

[@BlackEpyon]

tomlxyz Screw that. We'd still be left with the religious baggage. Just throw out religion so we can think rationally for ourselves.

[@tomlxyz]

BlackEpyon I forgot about that. But it would be interesting to see what would happen if you leave that.

[@dave9072000]

I believe that all three would vigorously object to those titles, to say the very least.

[@danielnofal]

I miss the old TED where science and technology was the center.

[@bladeinyoface]

Am I the only one who thinks he sounds like Stewie off of Family Guy?

[@scotty]

+bladeinyoface yes

[@Trinavara]

+bladeinyoface Nope your'e not,I think I made a similar post on another vid,lol..

[@ptt619]

Rindinal stewie sounds like him

[@paulj6662]

Stewie sounds like Noel Coward. quite different. and "off of" is just bad grammar. For which there is no excuse.

[@thomasjensen9745]

Actually, I think Stewie sounds MUCH more like the late, great Rick Mayall

[@darrellabbott8828]

As per usual. Cant. Stop laughing at some comments here. You people crack me up trying to disprove science and scientific method. Dont stop dancing guys, clowns will always be needed on a functional society. Laughter is been proven to be beneficial for health after all.

[@MrCmon113]

I've seen one abominable halfwit claiming that NOT believing in a diety is simple minded. XD Can you believe it...

[@thomassby7139]

Demeaning others that you percieve to be less enlightned or educated than you is not beneficial to our society though. Why not try to help them instead? Surely we can together laugh at Basil's thrashing of his car instead of laughing at the lack of knowledge? Science in itself does not have a beef with non-science ie religion. Science is just pursuing knowledge.

[@Stuart.Branson.]

Earth in 2019 is much Queerer then anyone could have imagined lol

[@Feniso]

Nice try, but this is not Skrillex's channel.

[@frayedendsofsanity1733]

Coronavirus in 2020 says hi.

[@Stuart.Branson.]

Can not imagine what 2021 has in store - assuming we get there.

[@mohitsn519]

fabulous talk Mr Dawkins :) Awesome.

[@anthonybowman3423]

This is such a stoner speech. I think it's awesome that a highly regarded scientist and most stoners have had the same revelations. Specifically, most people are too "smart" and capable of grasping things around them that they are beyond thinking about, or at least giving credence to, thoughts that throw out most of what we know and see as largely incorrect.

[@skram1000]

awesome guy love to learn about/from him, a favorite. Great speaker. Now did that commercial at the end just smbolicly say they were better then Frank lloyd Wright architecture? haha NO. no bmw, you're not worth it. and your not That good.

[@napa8832]

How interesting that the idea of us not being the same people as we were as children, because of the ever changing nature of the material, has never occurred to this way of thinking as exactly the thing that should puzzle an atheist. How do we then in fact identify ourselves as the same person overtime, if nothing really remains the same in us. We couldn't. Unless. And that unless is the key. There must be a certain something inside us that stays constant. Call it consciousness, or whatever you're comfortable calling it. Some dare call it soul. Fact is, it is there. For otherwise, what would be the "I", the self to which the material ever changing body adheres to, or "belongs to." So we say "My arm, My leg, My brain, My mind" not i am body, but My body. Ever wonder what that My is? I find it odd how someone considered by many to be a great thinker of modern time, never seems to ask the real questions, instead choosing to tackle the more trivial things of this material plane. Almost as if he's not so much interested in finding the truth of the nature of reality as much as reassuring himself that religion is bad. Because of his own unfortunate experience with religion in the past. Yes dogma is bad. Fanatical religious thinking that propagates hate and seclusion is bad. No one in their right mind would argue against that. But 1) that is committing the straw man's fallacy, by arguing against a point no one is really claiming in the first place and 2) and this is more important, something most atheists have trouble understanding. Religion does not equal the Divine. And disproving the validity or use of one does nothing to address the other. And so if i could say one thing to Mr. Dawkins. Respectfully. Next time you participate in a debate, Why don't you take on someone knowledgeable for a change and debate a scientist like ones of the Bhaktivedanta school of thought that is the synthesis of science and the Divine as essentially twi branches of the same tree, for they are one. Instead you always seem to debate some rather primitive followers of a Religious culture. No disrespect to those priests but by no means are they knowledgeable enough to argue such things. Just my humble opinion.

[@kevinthomas8554]

Na Pa or perhaps it's just consciousness not supernatural beings

[@robertgraybeard3750]

Na Pa I suggest that you do a Google Search ( the reason we have religion is because we have death ) and spend several years thinking about it. Another interesting search ( every cell in your body is replaced ) led me to askanaturalist.com/do-we-replace-our-cells-every-7-or-10-years/ and www.newscientist.com/article/dn23665-nuclear-bomb-tests-reveal-brain-regeneration-in-humans/ presenting the fact that different cells in our bodies are replaced at different rates. Yes, consciousness is amazing, as is life in general. I appreciate Dr. Dawkins statement that the odds would seem to be against us being the only life in the entire universe. Surely, with every star expected to have planets, a good percentage of them will be conducive to life and we expect, given enough time, life should come to be everywhere the conditions are benign - but consciousness? Are we the only intelligent life in our galaxy? And there is the sobering question, are we really intelligent? It has been predicted that by 2045 we will have built Super General Artificial Intelligence computers - then what?

[@napa8832]

Robert, my point was merely that whatever it is you think about religion is irrelevant to the question of the Divine itself. One does not equal the other. Kevin, and how do you propose to explain consciousness in "natural" terms? I personally dislike the term "supernatural" because whatever exists simply is. And so my sense of "natural" encompasses what you are referring to as "supernatural." Yes, you may call it consciousness but to me, it doesn't end there. One must dig deeper. To the source of all consciousness. My mere point was that Mr. Dawkins spends most of his time criticizing primitive religious rituals and very little time on much else.

[@Cipi96]

What you call "consciousness" is a chemical collection recording past memories and a current emotional/hormonal response to what you remember and what you see in the present. Memories fade over time or they are altered because the way they are chemically recorded may deteriorate (brain cells do in fact slowly lose the ability to replace themselves - this is what causes dying of old age). Nothing remains the same for us throughout life, even consciousness changes as we adapt to new experiences; you can't say you would behave now the same way you did 10 years ago in a similar situation. You might think you are the same person because of the memories you hold in your chemical baggage, however, this is, to term it kindly, an "illusion" created by our ability to imagine, i.e. imagine ourselves as we currently are (in whatever disposition, emotional state, etc.) in the position of a memory, perhaps creating good comebacks to an old argument. Ultimately, all past experiences transformed and changed you, that is why we can never be the same at any two points in time.

[@robertgraybeard3750]

Ciprian Tudor I like your "Ultimately, all past experiences transformed and changed you, that is why we can never be the same at any two points in time." In one of the other videos with Dr. Dawkins he was asked if he could travel back in time, if he could observe some event, where would he go, or if he could have some question answered, what would that be. His immediate reply was what were our ancestors that first learned to speak, to communicate, to pass on knowledge. Then after a moments reflection, the origin of life, when chemistry found a pattern that could reproduce itself and evolution began. As a side point, I must say that our society evolves, and "experiences transformed and changed" it - we made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers and had to invent writing and record keeping to go along with communal storage of grain. Then with writing, thinkers from the past could stockpile and communicate knowledge and society could evolve rapidly. With technology giving us accelerating change, the future will be "interesting".

[@ruthdenova5984]

Long ago I discovered that the beautiful universe is indifferent to our sufferings or our happiness and I love and I am profoundly grateful for the amazing chance of my existence in it and to have a brilliant professor Mr. Richard Dawkins as my brother teaching me of our miracle of evolution, biology, the universe.

[@raistlin2k3]

Richard Dawkins makes me believe that there's still some hope left for our race :-)

[@Sigmund1924]

Yes. But then it occurred to me that if he used the word “queer” in 2022 he would cause many ignorant Leftists to cancel his speaking engagements on college campuses all across America. I once again began to lose hope for our future.

[@AJZulu]

Middle World? Me thinks Midgard...

[@tortysoft]

He told you not to :-)

[@Smellindamix]

I find it rather sad and wasteful this this is the human we require to debate idiotic religious fools. When any child of speaking age could do

[@stevenaustin8274]

Sooo true that statement

[@Guesswho-x4o]

Amazing: both the subject and the great Richard Dawkins

[@Psygression91]

Back when Apple made real computers!

[@zappa7509]

Smart 🤓

[@effortlessawareness8778]

queerer than we suppose.. queerer than we suppose. guy in the bankground filming starts laughing at how many times dawkins uses the word queerer.

[@vgrof2315]

The man is obviously a world hero. He certainly is my hero.

[@Wutzthedeal]

Sort of weird hearing a biologist explain astronomy, philosophy and physics to me. We may have a credibility issue, here. Next thing you know, he'll be telling me what to think about religion.

[@aminofuel2801]

Biology is a complex sciencr wich in basic and fundamentals is based on chemistry wich are physics at it's core, so in order to understand it you need to understand basic laws of the matter.

[@davidcanning3638]

Haha fantastic point there sir!!

[@atlascms9815]

Wutzthedeal Well, weird things is that theologians talks more about physics than richard dawkins , at least this guy has some serious physics scholars friends

[@taytayski7118]

He didn't make any claims, he offered a perspective. What's more, people like himself with such a standing in the science community tend to have had many conversations and read and thought much about all the topics you just listed.

[@caspermilquetoast411]

Try Dr. Robert Lanza for quantum reality.

[@golden-63]

Since when is Dawkins a cosmologist?

[@landonepperson677]

goldenthroat86 idk I'm not his biographer so I can't say

[@thomasscream4179]

Landon Epperson Ha! good reply

[@pranavflame]

Last night

[@VIRTUOUS_PURCHASE]

The most conceited, pretentious intro, brought to you by BMW!

[@HAL-nt6vy]

BMW once made good honest automobiles.

[@gauravsinha6060]

People like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have always enhanced the way I think about the universe and its very components.

[@gracenote108]

Just hearing him talk, I know I'm a victim of the modern world of stimulating eye-candy content. I can't listen to him without desiring deep slumber.

[@DynamikFactDiffusion]

At least you're aware of that. Stop watching television. That's what I did; I haven't watched a tv show in, I don't know, a long time.. Lol.. I watch what I want to watch, when I want to watch it; I learn what I want, when I want: without all of the distractions! Trust me, you'll be doing yourself a huge favor if you stop watching television.

[@KbcBerlin]

Some people are allergic to knowledge. Sleepiness a defense mechanism. That is; the kind of knowledge which may not support them continuing in a low awareness materialistic egoistic state. Dream on.

[@gracenote108]

KbcBerlin Yes, you're better than me. You have an amazing ability to deduce someones personality by reading two sentences on the Internet. Your ego is also lower than mine, because you don't make any ASSumptions about people. You make all conclusions based on scientific analysis. I hope there are more people like you in the world. The world would be a better place.

[@KbcBerlin]

Interesting.

[@KbcBerlin]

nayius ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[@HansBaier]

Queerer than we can suppose... I wonder why he has such a problem with religion then. Compared to quantum mechanics the effects observed in spirituality start looking quite conservative and entirely in the range of possibilities considering quantum effects.

[@MrCmon113]

Magic is intuitive but demonstrably false. Physics is counter intuitive but demonstrably right.

[@okuno54]

+Taxtro I don't find magic intuitive at all. A good magic trick is fundamentally brain-bending. If "real magic" (odd name, considering only fake magic exists) were the explanation, that would ruin the beauty of tricks. I dunno, maybe I'm weird.

[@TimCrinion]

The big bang was very simple, and the end result (you and me) is very complicated. Evolution has done a marvelous job. However, if you take *all* the causes of the end result (you and me), then all those causes have to be as complicated as the end result, because (being *all* causes) they effectively contain a description of the end result. I'm not claiming this list of causes can be known or written down. I'm just saying that the sum of all the causes effectively describes the thing it eventually produces. Hence you, me and life on earth, can't be more complicated or improbable than the big bang *along with* all the laws that govern the universe. In my opinion there's still design here.

[@GlitchGroove]

The big bang (very simple, according to you) + the laws of physics (also very elegant) + the science of chaos (a branch of pure mathematics) create a descriptive model of a universe that can go from the big bang, to galaxies populated with planets with heavy elements, to organic compounds, to self-replicating molecules. Once you have a lot of those, complexity starts being selected for naturally via evolution. Take a look at mandelbrot's fractal and your argument that causes must be as complex as their effect falls to pieces.

[@TimCrinion]

I don't understand Mandelbrot's fractal. But I'm guessing, like Conway's Game of Life, it shows how complex things can have simple *definitions*. But I still think they need complex *causes*. If I showed you an image of Mandelbrot's fractal, or an evolved organism in Conway's GoL, wouldn't you assume that I had "worked it out" or instructed a computer to do so? Would you think the rules of the Mandelbrot set or Conway's GoL had consistently been applied by accident? This is my reasoning: If a result is avoidable, then one of its causes is absent. Therefore if all the causes are present, it is unavoidable. Therefore all the causes require as much design as their result. Our universe and biological life seem to have simple causes at first glance. (i.e. The Big Bang, or the first self-replicating molecule.) But, just like Conway's GoL or the Mandelbrot fractal, *all* the causes require as much design as their result. The first self-replicating molecule may be one cause, but there are others, like whatever it is that makes time, space and the laws of nature behave in such an ordered way.

[@sean2val]

Tim Crinion there was no big bang its just theory based on a false premise that red shift is an indicated of expanding universe

[@ThePoke151]

sean sullivan So what's the "right" theory?

[@sean2val]

ThePoke151 there is no need for a competing theory just to be critical of a current one

[@NickNgFreelance]

Man, I really like that guy's laugh in the audience. Contagious.