- Видео 127
- Просмотров 2 667 556
PhilosophyCosmology
Добавлен 29 май 2013
In a new partnership between Oxford and Cambridge, researchers in physics and philosophy Simon Saunders, Joe Silk, and David Wallace at Oxford University, and John Barrow and Jeremy Butterfield at Cambridge, join researchers at a cluster of US universities including Columbia University, Yale University, and New York University, to establish the field of philosophy of cosmology as a new branch of philosophy of physics.
Videos produced by Distant Object Productions - www.distantobject.com
Videos produced by Distant Object Productions - www.distantobject.com
Philosophy of Cosmology
"The preferred time direction in the dynamics of the full universe"
Просмотров: 10 672
Oh my God, did you go to Dull School?!
atheism is a total waste of space and time
The questions are wrong. You should be giving us evidence, not explanations.
Sorry had to skip through this lecture because it was hard to listen to and follow.
Kaalam
Positing a whole new ontology. Opens the door to simply using imagination and assertions. We have tried this in the past and it hasn't been seen to work.
There Is A HUGE PROBLEM, his emergent God idea is actually closer to the Real God utterly transcendent , not in or of space time. So he leaves out the most real ideas concerning our Spiritual Source not something which can define his arguments are clever but untrue.
"God is a necessary being" CANNOT be refuted by imagining hypothetically universes. We have no EVIDENCE that these universes exist, and therefore their hypothetical universes cannot be used to argue that God is necessary for THIS universe.
God is not a "theory." Calling God a theory elevates the idea of God beyond where it deserves to be.
I wish Sean would run some of his quantum measuring experiments on me 😉 You sure can make a woman dream Sean. 😍🥰 Mr. Big sexy Science man 😘 Gosh he’s so tall too 🤭
PS. I witnessed a man unable to speak, only make unintelligible sounds for 7 years after a brainstem stroke, could not move, who was struggling to convey something very important about his health condtions suddenly regain his speech 5 to 10 minutes after a nurse and i prayed fervently, asking God, if was within His Will in another room where he could not hear us, that the man might talk to us and tell us his need. Coincidence? maybe. But in my life, and the lives of "believers," we have seen similar, and more. No one keeps "believing"unless they witness such events. No impotent non-Being here.
The digital nature of life on Earth ( Dawkins, et al) is insanely complex. The code table itself, considering stop codons can appear anywhere on it, is 64^(n-3)! where n is the number of amino acids in a chain. Watch the video "The Number 52! Does Not Fit in Our Universe. For life to occur (and it did at least twice,) both code and encoded structures must occur simultaneously. Why? Because there is no back-coding from structure. A few to thousands of copies of keyv strucures must existvand match the code, in a cell membrane < 1 mm^3. Consider tRNAs-they must be pre-loaded with the correct amino acids in thousands of copies at the time of first life. The odds of that almost can't be calculated but at minimum of 1 in 20^32. Only a God,-like Superintelligence can make a self-copying /sysrem. Complexification, equally unlikely. Why? To make a new piece which interacts with another to improve its function with a completely different structure dr novo from code duplication and mutation, becomes successively infinitely smaller with each new piece added by random changes in code. The most complex multi-subunit bacterial protein complex enzyme system contains 64 different peptides working as active sites or scaffolding. Ribosomes- you look up their structure and function. Bottom line- 10^120 is a small number, but it is the number of atoms in 10^10 galaxies visible by the James Webb telescope. You who grasp this, think. If a critical process above occurs randomly with odds of 1:10^120, the scientific laws of probability say, "It cannot happen by random processes even given 10^2000 copies of each pieces of all the proteins and tRNA needed for living cells to copy themselves, unless the DNA (or RNA (RNA world hypothesis) encodes for the whole systems..
Let's talk science. Religion and science are not on the same axes, they are orthogonal. The dominant hemisphere cannot grasp non-dominant hemispheric activity. It looks at the words religious philosophy uses to attempt to describe what cannot be put into words. So the words used to describe the wordless truths of religion are examined, and found nonsensical, ridiculous. Most of the "self," is neural activity which repeats a story continuously to hold itself together to calm the uncertainty of a messy, unpredictable reality, and provides a "self which acts, plans for "itself" i n future events. Does this make scientific sense? "Ego" is part of self. Ego constantly evaluates it's place in the dominance hierarchy. The Ego seeks a certain level of superiority over others, often invisible to its functioning. The radical Anti-theist Ego accomplishes two agendas- it can "feel better" in its ridicule and anger towards the "airy-fairy folk who actually believe that Flying Spaghetti Monsters exist." And, that the ego is then freed from any moral restraint it chooses not to accept. This is the "You must believe in God" the Ego hates, but, as Jordan Peterson aptly points out, the consequences of rebellion against the societal narrative and ethics ( sorry, Islam, you do not make the cut, here!) embodied in religion and its practice within a majority of any society. And, as JP points out, if you get rid of these culturally embodied moral constraints , "There will be hell to pay." Doubt me on that last statement? Look up what the CDC statistics say about the health effects of "immoral sexual practices, and especially in MSM. The HIV epidemic was scientifically understandable when the practices of MSM, promiscuity of any non-monogamous relationship. Shall we ignore the scientific evidence? The concept of God is rational to children who's non-dominant hemisphere grasps how all things seen to work together purposefully as gestalt. Any questions?
We are still discussing god in the 21st century?! Oh God!
God is not a good "scientific" theory????? Yay! You get a candy for the right answer sean. Well, no one claims it to be an empirical/scientific theory. It is a meta-physical theory and certainly a really good one at that. In fact so good, that even THE modern science can't really defeat it. Scientists rarely study theology, even if they do, it is a reading from scientific critical perspective, then construct a punching bag from THEIR interpretation of theology and enjoy punching their imaginary punching bag and feel good about it. Lol. Well, cheap thrills I guess.
@lawrencegreen8952 0 seconds ago There is nothing profound about God. He is a simple intellectual construct created and impersonated by the clergy! All Gods are artifacts; none are supernatural. ANY GOD CONSISTENT WITH THE ORTHODOX DEFINITION WOULD BE NON-CONTINGENT, i.e., dependant on nothing else in its existence. Man-made gods are dependent on human beings for their existence, as I will show you is the case with Wahweh. Religion is a con game for the clergy. Heaven is the carrot; hell is the stick. Christianity’s Cross is a psychological symbol of death and torture. The clergy’s game is fraud and extortion. ON THE PERSONAL LEVEL, lying to obtain money or other benefits is a felony punishable by prison. ON THE SOCIETAL LEVEL, lying by the clergy to obtain money or other benefits is protected under Constitutionally protected religious rights, and the wealth and income derived from such fraud and extortion is given tax-free status. Among the 18,000 gods worshipped in man’s history and the 3,000 gods worshipped today, there are no gods other than man-made gods, and those gods were curated and monetized by the clergy, whose behavior as grifters involved fooling their weaker, slower, and more fearful fellow human beings by stealing their money or other valuables under false pretenses. Man-made gods are purpose-made for fraud and extortion and have no more supernaturalism than the clergy. Yahweh (check out the hyperlink below), the original and current name of the Christian God, was one of three Gods, along with El and Baal (all mentioned in Genesis) and three Goddess consorts in a Canaanite Pantheon. About the time the Jews returned to Isreal from exile, under the influence of the sophisticated culture and mythology of Mesopotamia, the Jewish clergy demoted the more senior Gods, El and Baal, and killed off the Goddesses altogether. They declared the junior God Yahweh the storm God, the "ONE TRUE LIVING GOD,” and incorporated many Mesopotamian myths into the Bible, such as the Garden of Eden, the Tower of Babel, and Noah's Flood. This altering of the status of various gods proves that MEN, I.E., THE CLERGY, MADE LIFE, DEATH, AND CAREER DECISIONS FOR GODS (probably typical clergy control for all Gods). THIS PROVES THAT THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS NOT A NON-CONTINGENT BEING AND IS THUS NOT SUPERNATURAL WHEN THE VERY ESSENCE OF GODHOOD WAS AND IS SUPERNATURALISM. THIS PROVES THAT YOUR GOD IS A CONCEPT, NOT AN VIABLE ENTITY, AND SO HAS ZERO INHERENT POWER. THIS PROVES THAT THE CLERGY DOESN’T JUST INVENT GODS; THEY MANIPULATE THEM FOR THE CLERGY’S CONVENIENCE. THIS PROVES THAT YOUR MANIPULATED YAHWEH GOD IS FAKE, AND THE CLERGY ARE PUPPETIERS MANIPULATING THEIR GULLIBLE BELIEVERS BY MANIPULATING THEIR PUPPET GODS AND THE FICTICIOUS HISTORIES THEY WRITE ABOUT THEM. SINCE THEY MADE UP THE GODS, YOU WOULD BE A FOOL NOT TO REALIZE THEY ALSO MADE UP THE STORIES AND “FACTS” WITH WHICH THE CLERGY CONJURED THESE FAKE GODS. Appreciate the moment. I just proved that your God, Yahweh, is a puppet controlled by human beings and is thus no God at all. My refutation is consistent with logic, history, and Biblical scripture. I challenge all you Bible-Thumpers, Evangelicals, Mainliners, Anyone! Do you think you can prove I’m wrong? Show me, but stick to the facts. Bring it on! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh www.christianity.com/wiki/god/how-does-god-differ-from-man-made-gods.html#google_vignette www.abc.net.au/religion/who-invented-the-idea-that-man-made-god/10101104 www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2011-jul-18-la-oe-thompson-atheism-20110718-story.html
Let's talk science. Religion and science are not on the same axes, they are orthogonal. The dominant hemisphere cannot grasp non-dominant hemispheric activity. It looks at the words religious philosophy uses to attempt to describe what cannot be put into words. So the words used to describe the wordless truths of religion are examined, and found nonsensical, ridiculous. Most of the "self," is neural activity which repeats a story continuously to hold itself together to calm the uncertainty of a messy, unpredictable reality, and provides a "self which acts, plans for "itself" i n future events. Does this make scientific sense? "Ego" is part of self. Ego constantly evaluates it's place in the dominance hierarchy. The Ego seeks a certain level of superiority over others, often invisible to its functioning. The radical Anti-theist Ego accomplishes two agendas- it can "feel better" in its ridicule and anger towards the "airy-fairy folk who actually believe that Flying Spaghetti Monsters exist." And, that the ego is then freed from any moral restraint it chooses not to accept. This is the "You must believe in God" the Ego hates, but, as Jordan Peterson aptly points out, the consequences of rebellion against the societal narrative and ethics ( sorry, Islam, you do not make the cut, here!) embodied in religion and its practice within a majority of any society. And, as JP points out, if you get rid of these culturally embodied moral constraints , "There will be hell to pay." Doubt me on that last statement? Look up what the CDC statistics say about the health effects of "immoral sexual practices, and especially in MSM. The HIV epidemic was scientifically understandable when the practices of MSM, promiscuity of any non-monogamous relationship. Shall we ignore the scientific evidence? The concept of God is rational to children who's non-dominant hemisphere grasps how all things seen to work together purposefully as gestalt. Intellectual arguments cannot defeat the existence of a Transcendent Superintelligence (T.S.) All anyone can say is that they do not believe in one, that they do not believe anyone's conception of one, and recognize that any description of one is still rejecting a conception of one, because the Being Itself is too large to fit within a mind.
Religion may, for some, be a clergy con game, but none of us who worship a TS are conned. We do not care what clergy say. We do not live in fear of going to hell, because God's nature is Love Itself. This can be its own debate if you wish, but, you read the words, apply dominant hemisphere logic, and, of course, by the nature of words being used to describe the Ineffable, it is ridiculous. Welcome to the limitations of the dominant hemisphere to grasp what lies beyond language that the non-dominant hemisphere has no problems with. Are you with me? Again, any attempt to describe God is like an attempt to stick a label on any being, even your dog, if you have one. Yes, your dog has a beginning and ending, and you can destroy it. My point is, though it is temporal, no label can do justice to its organization from quarks up. Such a description will never be your dog. Your dog is a process, ever changing, femtosecond to femtosecond, pattern of interaction with environment never to be repeated, never the same. Your dominant hemisphere lies to itself, with the delusion that by sticking into a box labeled, "dog" you have actually captured its essence. The dominant hemisphere creates boxes with semi-transparent mirrors on 3 sides, and it's internal processes of generating concept and verbiage mistakes what it enables you to perceive. This being the case, even the non-dominant hemisphere is limited by its ability to take in and process reality. But at least it can accommodate paradox and limitlessness and impermanence, understanding these concepts without words. The concept of gods evolve. The words for, not being the thing itself, and the language used, still false short
Start with the Tao te Ching s first sentence. Only when you get past your dominant hemispheres ridicule of it can you begin to see the wisdom there that points to the mind's limitations, though it does not describe a T.S.
Or minister is underpaid. Our congregation gave or raised $75 -100,000 and gave a tiny portion to pay salaries for 6, building upkeep, power, heat, etc. The monies, 90% went to local charities such as homeless shelters, abused women's shelters, Ukranian refugees, etc , with 10% to the greater Church of our denomination which funds wells in ,Africa, medical missions in Sudan. Please tell me how much your town athiest church equivalents raised, it's corporate ethical training of the young to be moral, not spread STDs, insist on seeing all as having Imago Dei ( no God, and humans bearing His Image is ridiculous) and teach the parable equivalent of The Good Samaritan? Studies have calculated that churches contribute many millions of $ to the economy of the US each year, and closing them all would be incapable in its effects on the increase in STDs, crime, and general loss of societal cohesion when the common stories held by most no longer are taught, simply having each person create their own stories. You are telling the world, in essence, that because no one wants the cost of auto repair, and wishes to stay alive, traffic rules are unnecessary. I disagree. We need commonly agreed upon "stories," of how we need to behave. "Just don't be a jerk," the atheist's sole Commandment, really is not enough. Next time you are robbed at knife-point, or hear of similar, ask yourself, if the fear of consequences is great enough, will it possiby deter some, if not most? So, is the fear of being held accountable after this life is over, by going to Hell, really such a bad common myth? I await your reply
@@glenliesegang233 Your post is a claim that intuition is superior to logic and cognition. Intuition, a form of guesswork, is a remarkable trait possessed by many successful individuals. It is irrational but insightful, but where would humanity be without the crucial role of language and conventional wisdom in our decision-making processes? I do not believe that logic from the left hemisphere is inferior to intuition from the right, as intuition still needs to be confirmed; the accuracy of its insights is far from certain. In fact, the hemispheres, despite their differences, work in harmony, connected by the corpus callosum. So, I don't think it's a case of "either/or," but both. "Oriental wisdom" reminds me of the saying "He who knows cannot speak; He who speaks does not know,," which seems to me a false profundity.
the god delusion is the cancer of mankind
er a scientist at his her base has faith in theories and even for instance newtons laws and absolutely all concur that in fact you would have to equate faith with science at its base - it's framed wrong to begin with so that blows the entire argument to he$ll
Given the choice between God and the multiverse theory, I choose the one with infinitely less excuses.
Im starting to wonder if sean has any phisical proofs . Expirimental proofs . Or just mathmatical fancies as tesla said .
Fine tuning is simple to explain Sean . What if the nuclear strong force was weaker Sean ,Or stronger . Not only could life not exist but a universe could not exist . Scientist these days are purposefully disingenuous..
If James Woods and Matthew Broderick had a baby. lol.
I personally believe god is pi, somehow.
Phases patterns movement moments, lost now?
13:25 When they insist that the Universe needs a reason, that a god is that reason. Fine then, why god? Who created god. God just is, they respond. I finish: how is that any different from the assertion that the universe just is. There is no difference. Occam's Razor: the simplest answer is usually the right one. Introducing a god only creates an unnecessarily complex solution.
Scientists will never find this answer because they can't prove anything, but they don't need to, we don't need them for this type of answer, as the answer is within us all, not in relying on some non creative overly logical nerds.
God is not a good theory , I would agree 100%. Not sure the theories we have now are very good either , but thats not my point. Point is if we ever do get a good theory on how everything works and how it came to be , seems to me that at that point our only achievement will have been the discovery of how God does what God does.
God is the BEST theory. Sean Carroll is just bad at philosophy. I highly recommend the new book The Best Argument for God by Patrick Flynn. He does a masterful job of showing just how badly naturalism does against theism.
sean carrol is not a good theory, no, he's a person, a sentience. God is neither proveable nor falsifiable , therefore God cannot be called a theory except wth sloppy logic. Carrol might want try ignoring his idiot ego and stick to science.
Another butt hurt theist.
God format is to securizevthose who are terryfied of living commando
Then why don't Christians live in this fear you describe? Our Heavenly Father is "Abounding in steadfast love," willing to run towards us and surround us with love and blessings, if we, like Olympic atheletes in training, disappoint our coach by getting drunk the night before, and doing poorly in a pree- Olympic trial? The fear of God is not that He will send us to hell. It is that we will disappoint Him, and he will be angry , but appropriately so.
the problem of a left-brain thinking western man
Send Sean Carolll to a planet with gravity x10 that of earth and let him walk there and see if he acknowledges God after that. The point that many things cannot be explained in the universe is the more reason that somebody is out there beyond our understanding.
It is simple . Imagine if the sun and the planets are bigger than they are . Imagine the amount of gravity that the human body would have to deal with just walking the earth. The weight of the planets and stars are fine tuned to the point that our body can stand on earth. God exists you fools.
That's gotta be the dumbest thing ever said..lol
Really? Look at the subotbitals of atoms and how S3 and above fill their patterns of s,p,d,f subshells as the elements increase on proton numbers up the Periodic Table, and grasp this all arises from the absolutely precise properties of each of 12 to 16 different quarks, whose properties arise from the Planck scale structure of space-time itself. That "stupid comment" is an attempt to /allusion to "Fine Tuning."
The only time a physicist would acknowledge the existence of God is on their last days on earth and thinking that all their knowledge will be recycled and will be put to rest and there is nothing they can do to turn back time.
Is that some thinly veiled threat of Hell?
This is what happens when someone learns something about science and thinks he is above nature and the universe.
* This is what happens when someone learns about science and finds it convincing, and finds the claims of theism unconvincing after learning about those.
God save us from Good Theory then
God Is a She
Totally awesome. Job needs to hear this presentation. There is no apparent correct explanation or answer for suffering. Our notion of the all knowing and loving being does not comport with the likes of a simple person like myself praying over and over again for the wisdom and understanding to live the best life I can for all those people in my life and me. Having faith in faith is an ask beyond all the extraordinary gifts I have been given. The very need to have to rely on biblical scholars to explain godship is hard to grasp and the Truth , the way and the light should be easily accessible to everyone. Thank you for a well thought out explanation. Keep them coming
When this guy can breath life into a hand full of dirt, you got my attention.
Osiris
If God exists his power would have to be unimaginably vast to be the creator of physics laws,etc. God would know the true laws of physics not mankind's approximations. He wouldn't be subject to death or aging. Every motion of every electron would be known to God (in contradiction to QM).
Christian God is theory not science God
This was much better than I'd thought it would be - physicists have a tendency, not entirely unwarranted, to give a facile dismissal of a dumb claim and then move on... because it's dumb and that's all they think it needs - _but the proponents usually have thought of that already._ In this case, Dr. Carroll has anticipated and dealt with all of the usual responses already. Nice! I also ultimately agree with essentially all of this; MWI seems very likely to be the winner among quantum-physical interpretations. _...that said,_ I think there's a stone left unturned re: "reasons." The claim "everything needs a reason" might be closer to something like "two plus two is four", or "A is A", than it is to "momentum is conserved" - that is, some things are such that we cannot really make do without them, and hence we either _must_ apply them to theories re: universal origins... ...or else throw up our hands. (As in the case of some idea like "when did time begin?", say: it's probably a malformed question... but it's not clear what the alternative could be, either!)
God does not require for Sean to get it.
As for Free Will: I can Choose to Believe. Now what?
Okay, choose to believe that you don't have arms. Just believe that for 5 seconds. If you truly have freewill, you should be able to choose to just believe that. You should be able to choose not to feel pain as well, so go sit on the stove and just choose not to feel pain.
@@jonathanjrgensen6774 you're either getting brainwashed by theism or getting brainwashed by atheism it's just jumping from one bandwagon to another bandwagon try to mentally change your inner belief by switching back and forth between theism and atheism, if you can casually do that, you're not getting brainwashed by anything
God has created Us to eventually find an amusament source such as this fool.
it's called an Axiom, silly! and why so angry, Sir?
"Why are you so angry?" - Proceeds to write 4 comments
No Sean. If you were to come across a car (high entropy object) on Mars, your logical conclusion is that some intelligent being made it because the likelihood of particles coming together by themselves to create that is basically zero. That's obvious because we know how the laws of nature work, and if it were easy for nature to produce cars on its own, then we'd see cars throughout the universe. We have something unnatural, the car, that we can compare to natural things and can conclude that intelligent creature must have made it because we don't see it anywhere else. With the universe, however, you have nothing to compare it to because it's the only universe we've ever known. What would a universe not created by God look like? It's hard to say because we don't have an example of one. E.g. if all you've ever known is a universe without intelligent life (excluding humans) how would you know intelligent life exists since you couldn't even imagine there'd be such a thing given that you've never seen it? Is our universe of high entropy when compared to others? That's anyone's guess. If the universal constants that make our universe are fine-tuned for life then you can argue it our universe is of high entropy and has an intelligent creator. In fact you don't even need evidence of a high entropy creation. If we can conclude that high entropy events/objects must have a creator because they're so hard to come by, it is unfair to say the opposite for low entropy objects. Anyway, my POV is that the fact that anything exists at all is proof that an intelligent being must have made it. Otherwise if universes can make themselves then cars, buildings and computers can make themselves too.
If we found a car or similar object on Mars it would be a reasonable inference that humans left it there since we only have evidence cars are made by humans. If we found something entirely unfamiliar on Mars we wouldn't infer anything about its origin. We would have to investigate further. There's no evidence a creator 'finely-tuned' our universe for life. If that were the case it's reasonable to infer life would be much more common than it seems to be. As best we can tell most of the universe seems inhospitable to life esp complex life. Your last paragraph is entirely speculative. The next logical step is to search of evidence of what exactly this creator is or might be. For instnace what is it composed of? Until there's evidence there's no way to progress beyond speculation.
I understand that human brain doesn't only have Logical prefrontal cortex but amygdala emotions ... But Coming to this the conclusion that God is stupid fantasy which is not even a good fantasy is Easy ... If you use little logic
There are three levels of belief in a God. 1. A God created the universe. 2. A God which is omnipotent and omniscient created the universe 3. A God which is omnipotent and omniscient and loves me created the universe. 4. A God which is omnipotent and omniscient and loves me created the universe in six earth days. The ONLY one which cannot be rejected out of hand is number one. Omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive. Number one is, as Sean Carroll says, not a good theory/hypothesis.
OK, I'm far from stupid. I can follow rudimentary physics, philosophy and cosmology. But that was very heavy to follow. 99.5% of theists would go. WHAT THE F*CK ARE YOU ON ABOUT. I LOVE JESUS AND JESUS LOVES ME.
Anyone who thinks it's necessary to claim "I'm far from stupid" is probably very close to it.