The Institute of Art and Ideas why not put enistines discovery at the beginning of the Christian Era.

The Institute of Art and Ideas You have deleted my comments, you have Violated your own principles!

Hi. I would like to reach out to some of ur staff who might want to hear what I have to say about the big questions.

There’s only one big bang

The only thing that is outside of the single bang is the popping of ur brain cells or the banging of reproduction. This should cover everything u can see observe in the mind. The ecology plants space time existence

Mine too.

I found it pretty credible.

My money is on Penrose's aeons being a spark of the next revolution in Cosmology.

what absolute BS. Sean Carroll: "There is no point in doubting the big bang model"? LOLOLOL thats good science. Science is just another religion. Made up fairy tales. Sean Carroll is fraud!

and there is a "smart guy" Sean Carrol who truly belive that we are alone in this universe and life exist only on planet earth.

Not smart enough to realise there are somethings the human mind is not cable of understanding such as time and space both of which are paradoxes.

@@felixfedre518 Really?

@@rationalsceptic7634 When did time begin? Big bang? OK, what happened before that? And if time can't begin it would take an infinite amount of time to get to now. The same reasoning with space, Conclusion: neither can exist in any actual reality. There! I did that so quickly. And yes, really.

@@felixfedre518 there is no "before" time began, that's just silly. Also there could be infinite time before the big bang just as there are infinitely many negative numbers before zero. But either way we don't know enough (yet) to answer the question of what time is definitely.

@@rationalsceptic7634 Really, and truly. Anyone claiming to know is simply pulling it out of their ass, which is not science.

thanks for flagging! we've released the Q+A as well here ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hZR6imtuomh6rYE.html

N 001 I would like to know what he thought of the work of the unmentionable Priest George Lemaitre?

I concur. They need an hour each.

@@petercohen3966 Could we stand it?

That was the idea of the day!

Time is a yooman word for cellular decay

Time goes away without something to measure it, isn't that like saying there is no sound if there is no one to hear it?

@@ahad2k11 That could be

@@ahad2k11: Not if time is caused by movement, rather than vice versa.

GOD I hope for fuck's sake you were making a sarcastic joke. Can never be to certain in a world filled with flatturds & evolution deniers & Holocaust deniers & AGW deniers.

I assume you’re NOT including yourself..........

Thank you for recognizing me...

@@theultimatereductionist7592 woosh

Don't under estimate Russian bots...

I does take a while to describe it but I’ve watched many videos where he has had a ton of time but still cant effectively explain it. I don’t think he’s capable of explaining it well. Doesn’t mean he’s wrong, he just can’t explain this to anyone who isn’t a physicist.

The show producers are in a rush and the presenter cares the least!

I don't know if they knew about Dark Energy back then (what is supposed to be 70% or more of the universe right now) but essentially you would need all of it to suddenly inflate into a very small region and then produce (by decay) the matter/energy that we had in our universe at the start of the Big Bang. Even after 10^10^120 years when there is nothing but dark energy and ultra red shifted photons there wouldn't be enough energy to do all that, removing units of measurement won't help you and there is still entropy spread throughout the immense area of spacetime.

@Dharma Defender I don't even see the need for there to be a definition between our universe and whatever existed before? Whatever 'something' it is you refer to is just the universe in a state and form that we can never comprehend.

@Dharma Defender While as an agnostic I don't totally disregard the possibility of a God, using God as a 'fill in the blank' doesn't really count as definitive proof of anything really.

I agree! It is, just as Roger said, a very hard idea to swallow. However think about this… if the universe is infinite; I mean truly infinite.. it has no end, then the many worlds theory is correct, as there are only a finite number of ways that particles can arrange themselves.

liars

religious people tend not to like his theory because it suggests that our universe did not need a creator.

@@allstarwatt7246 religious people are willing to subvert reason and rational thought to intentional ignorance and hate. I have little concern for what they "believe".

@@allstarwatt7246If these religious people actually gave it any introspective thought they would come to the realisation that this theory does support a Creator, themselves.

check out our website - iai.tv - we've got loads more debates there!

His Book Cycles of Time was outstanding. I wished they would have had Lee Smolin up there with his Fecund Universes... As explained in his book The Life of the cosmos. Steinhardt & Turok released a book called Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang which , like Penrose, explores a cyclic model but different...

I don't think much of his theory. It's like saying that if you get rid of all the clocks in the world then time would stop.

@@RobertsMrtn the kicker is that once only photons are around, time becomes completely meaningless. A photon must always travel at the speed of light - but it can not experience time at that speed thanks to relativity. thus, for a photon, any path is the same length, because length is velocity times time, but if velocity is constant and time is not there, then you only get one answer. which means that in a very real sense the photons are all in the same spot, because distance is, like time, nonexistant for it. Which would mean that all the photons are in the same spot, an infinitely small spot of extreme energy - which should sound familiar.

​@@pensiring7112 Yes, you are correct. A photon will not experience time using its own clock. The instant it is created it is destroyed. But from our clock it could last billions of years. I would argue that I would need the speed of light in order to calibrate my clock and measure time.

@@RobertsMrtn Yes, but I think the point of his theory is that there might be a time where "our clock" just does not exist at all, that there is no possibility to measure time, not even theoretically, because nothing with mass can even form. The only valid observer in that universe IS a photon that can neither experience time nor distance, so it does not really matter if the photon lasts billion of years, or takes trillions upon trillions of years to meet another photon, infinite time and no time become the same thing, and thus, a Poincare recurrence must occur, bringing the universe back to the big bang (because from an "outside" view, even though impossible, infinite time could pass before the next aeon starts). I am not a physicist, so, I can't really say if that makes sense, but it does make intuitive sense to me.

I honestly don't think they can know.

I sometimes think about the fact that until 1924, we thought our Milky Way galaxy was the entire universe. The fact that we can now see with our own eyes the possibility of 100 billion galaxies is overwhelming. There is a new telescope going up (hopefully) next year, that can see infrared light. We will be able to see farther than ever before. Who knows what other hidden secrets will be revealed.

That was certainly a great conclusion .

He's no genius.

@@richardmarcus3340 I agree with you. The universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is increasing, either that or time is slowing down or of course a combination of the two. If expansion continues the universe will continue to cool. This could cause a black hole to "mini" big bang but none of this would cause all matter to become photons.

who could possibly suppose the selection pressures universal or eonic evolution might have to contend with.

who?

I think each contributed equally. Sean Carroll has more earned his seat at the table and always well grounded. Roger is more free spirited in his creative thinking but there is room for that too.

@@Daveunave now that's not fair... obviously few scientists alive today can compete with Roger's intellect or accomplishments, but Sean is a FANTASTIC science communicator, and Laura does extremely valuable, indispensable even, work on the frontiers of cosmology. Laura in particular brings stuff to the table that neither of the other two do, just because of her areas of research and interest. But yeah, Roger is amazing, obviously.

yeah he's incredible

@@myopenmind527 you are insane. Penrose is a way more accomplished scientist than Carroll! Carroll is just a trendy pop science writer and popularizer! Have you read Penrose work or studied his career? He won a Nobel Prize!. He literally proved the existence of the singularity with Hawking. His book Road to Reality is a tour de force of the world of physics and one of the most comprehensive science texts of our generation, and also extremely philosophically sophisticated. He is the inventor of twistor theory, has several theorems, methods, and effects named after him (Hawking-Penrose theorems, Penrose Tilings, Penrose-Terrell Rotation, Penrose Diagrams). He invented spin networks, the strong censorship hypothesis, the Weyl curvature hypothesis, and CCC theory. His work on consciousness is also highly innovative with the Orch-OR theory. What notable theories has Carroll even proposed? Carroll is just a popularizer.

I agree. Whenever I listen to any of the talks by these folks (espescially Roger) I am always looking around for more talks.

no

The evidence is there. Beliefs are irrelevant.

Benaiah Wright: I agree with you, and your comment is looking more and more valid in the light of recent ideas that challenge the Big Bang theory (Prof. Learner etc).

quote I don't believe for one second that they have any clue what happened at the beginning of the universe As an accompanying inferior mind I believe you are correct. They are creating ever more intricate explanations based on their mathematical skills and without any regard for plausability. How do we arrive at NOW after an infinite number of previous universal aeons ? Is not TIME a man made construct to indicate that we can experience events separately ? The lady says we have an EXACT knowledge of events ; except for the beginning. That is NOT true ! Interpretation of Doppler red shift is being challenged. If it succeeds theoretical cosmologists will have a Universal heart attack ! Measurements showing that light bends in a gravitational field produced different results when measured in S America and Africa. Dark matter was created to overcome knowledge unknowns ! etc

@@divvy1400yam600 Is time a human concept? no! A photon leaves the sun to travel to earth. It will take that photon 8 minutes to get here. When it arrives, it arrives in the now. When the photon left the sun, it was in the suns now. So to be precise, all events are done in the now: the past now, the present now, and the future now. What we measure and call time, is the spaces between one now and the next now. Motion can be measured using one point in space to another. If there is no motion, then there's nothing to measure time by. This would mean everything will be in a state of suspension. What's interesting is measuring the shortest distance from one time segment to another is known as a Planck length. That's 1.6× 10^-35. Physists say that anything below this level cannot be measured. Our universe is in constant motion. Particles pop in and out all the time, but when they do, the time they are here can be measured. So time does not need man to exist. Man exists because of time.

Hmmm....the arrogance of man....we’ve been wrong more than right throughout history when making such absolute statements.

A universe with a beginning but no end is like a universe with a center and no edge.

​@@d1psh1tc1tywhat?? 😂

They barely said anything...

You deserve a cookie 🍪

Unfortunately, many are deceived by the "scientists" with/through fake theories.

Sean is great at history. But, my take is that he gives an unbalanced view of the state of science. He doesn't spend enough time on valid ideas that do not align with his way of thinking. For example, he is a proponent of the block universe theory (eternalism). In a book on time, he hardly considers the growing block universe, and dismisses it with the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Yes, he is easy to understand, but easy does not equal the best answer.

Yes, I disagree with Sean on many of his ideas. Especially the Many Worlds Interpretation. He is a great speaker though.

It still doesn't explain how the first ever aeon came into existence. Unless there's an infinity of aeons in the past without a beginning, which doesn't make sense.

@@70AD-user45 I agree. I should add a caveat that it makes the most sense (or is the most satisfying) in the context of the big bang and big freeze theories. Wetterich's "long thaw" is also an interesting theory. In terms of the ultimate beginning, it's very hard to escape a scenario of complete non-existence. Even theories involving nonlinear time or an infinite loop likely can't avoid it.

@@70AD-user45 I never understood this insistence on the need for an "origin". Explain how there can be a "nothing" - or really even a something from nothing - even the big bang had to start with something, in which case why was there that something? its a never-ending line of enquiry that seems to imply that there always has to be something.

@@bilbonob548 The word "nothing" in physics means there was a quantum field which created virtual particles, which borrowed energy from the gravitational field, before the virtual particles annihilated each other. What they're saying is, the universe was created from this quantum field during a quantum fluctuation when matter was created from energy during this quantum fluctuation. Mass is a positive form of energy and gravity is a negative form of energy. The two cancel each other out and what are you left with... nothing.

@@70AD-user45 So what brought about these quantum fluctuations?

J Rashkan yes indeed. I’m currently in the middle of his “Big Picture” book. Great, enthralling read.

@@illlDCllli Yeah that ones great. I would check out "From Eternity to Here" next it goes into so much more detail about things like the nature of spacetime and thermodynamics. All his books are good.

He has a great voice, he is also overbearing in this presentation, basically ruining it. You may not understand why, because you don't understand the physics arguments here.

They aren't testing anything.

That’s odd. Just read the book because Sean Carroll listed it as one of HIS favourite books!!!

Great book, it has a sequel too.

That's because these people don't have an ideology

@@moldycarrot9267 Belief in abiogenesis is an ideology.

@@PaulHoward108 Whether or not abiogenesis is indeed an ideology or not (debatable), I think Moldy Carrot meant "That's because these people don't have an ideology *about the origin of the universe*." That's what this discussion was about, after all.

@@Dalendrion If abiogenesis is not true, the origin of the universe is in consciousness. The Vedas describe the universe as one of Viṣṇu's dreams, and several pioneers of quantum theory praised the Vedas for helping their understanding. All the evidence available to science can be represented in a dream, but not in any naturalistic theory.

@@PaulHoward108 Can you describe to me what consciousness is? I suspect that you and I have a very different concept of it and it makes understanding the rest of your argument quite hard at the moment.

didn’t break mine

@@reissmaclachlan you don't have a heart

@@reissmaclachlan okay and?

@@albert6157 and… I’m glad the video was over, did you not understand!?

I definitely appreciate that it solves several sticky problems with the BBT (flatness, horizon, etc) but it has always struck me as ad hoc, and Roger's point that it introduces new physics motivated entirely by this particular model alone is a good one. Would love to see some convergent/independent lines of observation or theory pointing to these mechanisms (e.g. inflaton fields). Then again, I'm not a physicist only a hobbyist so my comprehension is limited here.

We only go by what they are saying, fuck the looks! btw, You needed to edit that statement? :-)

Absolutely agree. Penrose is one of the great scientists of our time and should have been seated with more serious discussants.

I don’t think he was shushing anybody...simply reminding him with a time check. It’s called being a moderator...it’s his job.

He's just doing his job so that others can address the ideas brought up.

John Giorgetti it’s whoever programmed this event to think someone could feasibly explain the origins of existence in one minute or less is just absurd. It’s catering to what they believe is an audience with little attention spans.

Enter the Braggn' I gotta admit I wanted to dismiss your comment because it came across very arrogant, but thank you for introducing me to the ideas of Halton Arp. Seeing as how they both worked for CalTech, I wonder what Sean Carroll’s argument against Arp’s would be. Whether he’s right or wrong, Arp had conviction to pursue his own research regardless of the suppression from the mainstream. I’ll need to look into his theory further to see if recent data supports or disproves it...

How can finite humans discuss and accurately predict the orbit of pluto 248 years when no one has ever seen it complete an orbit it was only discovered in 1930

@@TheD4VR0S You are correct about Pluto. However, you cannot make a similar statement about a singularity or a parallel universe.

@@vermouth310 They are not stating for certain these things are true. They are exploring the idea because it is possible within the math. Einstei's theory predicted black holes long before we could actuallty observe one. It predicted gravitational lensing long before we had proof of it. So, if the math works out, it's worth discussing as a possibility. This is how science works. You hypothesize, and then you test it.

sort of the inherent limitations of the platform- to do these topics justice you'd need a 20 hour video not a 40 minute one

I think the textbook Copenhagen quantum mechanics and conscious observer relation could be key in all this. Only a conscious observer can see the branching occur. Even that doesn't matter because it's based on probability of a deterministic theory. I agree with Sean that quantum mechanics will more likely provide us 'the conscious' observer the answer if there is one.

Sorry we can't make this any longer, but we can offer you more of Penrose - here's 2 more to help finish the dishes: iai.tv/video/the-next-universe and iai.tv/video/bang-goes-the-big-bang | thanks for watching and commenting, we really value feedback

The Institute of Art and Ideas WOW! Thank you so much, I’ll give your channel another chance for sure : ) The effort is much appreciated.

Such as?

Like alpha and omega?

@@DottieDuey no, Alpha and Omega has a beginning and an end. Discussions amongst humans has no beginning and no end.

Because general relativity works for large enough scales and is inherently deterministic

When you hear that the Big Band is just a rewind of the expansion we witness now, you hear an oversimplification of a theory that is way more complex than that. It didn't happen "just" because space is expanding now. If you really want to know more, you have to understand General relativity and good luck with that if you are not a very good PhD level mathematician. But life isn't such abitch and there are a lot of good channels on UKposts which simplify things for us laymen but are a bit more complex than your statement. I advise PBS Space Time, for example, even though it can be challenging in itself if you have no physics background at all.

You went off the rails at “scientific model of physical creation”. Pick one.

@Dharma Defender scientology and astrology?

@@iordannelucas No.. forgeries only copy what is true..

In the beginning there was a Unicorn. You can't prove me wrong or right so go ahead and make up your own story...feel free !

Only if your mind needs a beginning. :-)

fenom Sean is a fantastic communicator of established theories. Unfortunately established theories are incomplete. Roger proposes new theories which depart from the establishment. Progress is made by rebels, not conservatives. Roger is invested in his ideas because they conform to basic physical principles. Sean is invested in his ideas because they conform to economic necessity. 👍🏽

"you take three molecules of vodka, two molecules of vermouth, an atom of olive..."

Hi Tim, we're glad you enjoyed the discussion. You can see from the speakers on this panel at the links below. More from Roger Penrose: On Logic And Consciousness: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/gWWhfqqnond-sYU.html Why Quantum Is Not Quite Right: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/qql3rKGHj3-XymQ.html The Next Universe: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/nqSbq6ShiWaS0Y0.html More from Sean Carroll What Is The Meaning Of Life?:ukposts.info/have/v-deo/f5WfiIdtpI6o1Wg.html Is The Universe Just One Thing?: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/japhZHx7g2h7sas.html What Is Consciousness?: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/ppamoaSsr5uUt2Q.html More from Laura Mersini-Hougton: Are Black Holes Real?: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/sYCXrHh_eZCDz3k.html What Are The Laws Of The Universe?: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/l4KJbY-osH2UsWg.html

Thanks

I do not watch Rogan , swearing all the time , nasty bloke .

@@akumar7366 what are you? 10 years old? Engage with the substance of the ideas being explored, not the medium being used.

@@yoshikhurazi1769 Sorry not when swearing is going on , plenty of forums other then this fellow .

Ryan Counts Yes, what were they thinking when they were scheduling the program... “Let’s ask the world’s top theoretical cosmologists about the origins of the universe, and give them each one minute tops.” Jerks

Ryan Counts obviously you missed the part about time being a social construct😂 These are busy people. I appreciate how little we’ve got from their time.

@@harviej I appreciate it too. I could have listened to them chat for hours.

What? Like Adolf Hitler? I love Roger Penrose but there is no correlation between the boldness and the veracity of an idea. Of course there is no correlation that runs the opposite way either. We must be simultaneously open minded yet critical to keep our foot firmly on the road to reality - which just so happens to also be the title of a book by Sir Penrose.

That’s because infinite regression isn’t a problem in physics only in philosophy.

@@redbad2652 science is nothing but methodological naturalism which is part of natural philosophy. I am not sure how you make distinction.

@@bonleofen sorry I wasn’t very clear in my response. Infinite regression isn’t a problem with these models of as they all use different ways to define “infinity”. For instance Ccc says we have local measurable time and each aeon happens in sequence but not in “time”. Time as we recognize it is emergent inside each aeon after mass is formed. Inflation again says we have a local time but the cosmos was infinite. The main two ways I’ve seen this described was, either the cosmos is fundamental or a random quantum fluctuations started everything moving through time. Carroll holds to the B theory of time (although he doesn’t like that terminology) in that the flow of time is an illusion and past and present are equally real for light cones. Take what I say with a several grains of salt as I am a complete layman in this area but I know each of these cosmologist have taken infinite regression into account.

@@redbad2652 they define infinity in a sense that they don't consider the absolute infinity in their definition. Because if they consider absolute infinity as we know it, as a concept, they must have a first cause for it or else infinite regression becomes a problem. What they have is quantities that are large enough that they can be considered to be tending to infinity. That's part of study of limits in mathematics. So, in order for random fluctuations to "take place", we need time. Any equation or any scientific apparatus that gives us an explanation of some fluctuations happening has to give an explanation based on time. The evidence or mathematical explanation of quantum fluctuations "starting" everything has to have a beginning or a continuity of time in it. It can not be independent of time and then somehow give knowledge of "something taking place". Any explanation of anything "starting" is in itself an explanation based on time. If there was infinite time and then you have an explanation of everything starting. That's a contradiction. So, they define quantity infinity in a sense that it 'tends' to infinity but never becomes an infinite value. The trade off is that you don't speak in absolute terms. You're just talking about a quantity that is very large that it appears to be infinite or tending (if you like the mathematical terminology) to infinity.

@@bonleofen you may be right as I say I’m a layman in this area. All models wiIl eventually reach a foundation that will have no evidence to fall back upon, but I do feel confident that each of these models have taken your abjection into consideration. The interview was too short to discuss all the topics relating to the beginning of the cosmos.

Very wise of you to start with "I think I understand what he's saying" :-))