PicoPhysics: In PicoPhysics Universe appears to be very simple. Amulgamated (or Free) Quants of Kenergy in Space.

It's also attributed to J.B.S. Haldane "queerer than we can suppose"

Stating an opinion is not making an argument. Poor fellow needs a long holiday.

What does this mean - never heard this puzzling - stuff before - it better make things - more understood.? Fare thee well.@@VijayGupta-lw7qz

'Owt as queer as folk'. I wonder if the Universe will simply prove inexplicable to us ?

Anything that happens, happens.

Sounds like a bold claim lol

If only that could happen then it would be a result of Murphy's Law which says that anything that can happen will happen .

PicoPhysics: In PicoPhysics Universe appears to be very simple. Amulgamated (or Free) Quants of Kenergy in Space.

There is a theory that what Douglas Adams says, makes no sense.

she talks the least, but says the most

She's a smart little lady

@@n.p.mackenzie Rupert is totally crazy my best, nothing is to verify about the claim, that the sun is conscious, it's a gigantic ball of hot plasma, constantly whirled, with very few structures and without any possibility to form complex ones. You also could claim, that your dirty underwear is conscious in the same way. Of course, you may believe it like the indian people, he talked about, but if you come with that in a scientific disguise, it's pseudoscience. And Sabine is not arrogant, she just says clearly what she thinks is right. Better than blabla.

@@Joseph-fw6xx No doubt, she is!

I believe each galaxy is a form of conscious - too many very intelligent people seem to think so.

And this is where i agree with Bjorn and Sabine. If the universe is infinite (or so big, that for our human minds can be treated as such), our small and finite brains will never be able to understand it all. Not in todays configuration. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try!!! This is exactly the same thing with free will and decision making. I'm all for those who say we don't have free will (just an illusion). But it doesn't mean we can't make decisions. And i as a human being, I decided I'd love to find out as much as i can before i pass away. I have no idea what will be in a few hundred, thousands or more years. Perheaps we will evolve into something much more capable than humans? Personally i really hope so. And i also hope that this one particular character trait - curiosity, will remain in our grand, grand, grand.... children.

Aristotle: “All men by nature desire knowledge.”

We will never understand everything.

This universe is the breath of God through his angel, he created and ended nature with three trumpet blasts. Humans as God's most perfect creation are given the highest gift, namely being able to speak and reason. There is only one weakness of the human mind, that is, the human mind cannot find the limits of its own mind. There are two most important parts of man, namely the spirit (spirit/consciousness) and his heart. The human spirit experiences seven phases ( 1. the eternal age 2. the mother's womb 3. birth into the world 4. life in the grave 5 in the plains of society (flat earth) 6. the day of judgment 7. Heaven or Hell. While the human heart is like a King for the Body man.

​@@MarsLonsenin our spirit realm there is no three-dimensional space yet or only in the form of writing, in our mother's womb we already exist in three dimensions but there is no time dimension yet, in the natural world we live in 4 dimensions, space and time, in the grave we live in five dimensions , time space and memory of our actions, in the realm of resurrection we live in six dimensions while in the afterlife we ​​live in seven dimensions. but mathematically those dimensions could be primes. 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17.

LOL!

I screamed for her.

Because she thinks and behaves as if she is the only smart person in the room. Sad.

@@DanielJones-wj7mm She may well have been...Love her!

@@DanielJones-wj7mm Nah, besides Sabine, there was conscious sunlight there too.

Now that is a pretty damned good analogy.

@@cliveadams7629 Agreed, She's great when speaking, but when anyone else is speaking, she shuts down and just sits there looking slightly uncomfortable.

@@AsifBooks I mean, I don't know how much she knew beforehand about the other panelists, but I could see the whole conscious sun angle being hard to interact with on the spot

@@AsifBooks That's her couping mechanism for the discomfort she feels at having her assumptions challenged and being unable to respond in a raitonal manner 😂lol

@@AsifBooks She seemed to appreciate Bjorn's perspective. She even looked at him when he was talking 😂😂

Yes it is beyond our understand, but why?

I am uncertain about that.

@@kipponi Because my cat scratched at the flywire and wanted to go out. As soon as I opened the door, it changed its mind. That has to be as good as any other why question you can conjure up.

No, Nils Bohr, right? But anyway just nice words, no meaning

@@kipponi Haw!

Yea, like Hollywood 🙄

''People are strange, when you're a stranger.''

Plenty of marvel as well. At the source of this marvel, many see the generosity of the Gods.

@@DarkSkay generosity , gods. What is the opposite of generosity and what is the opposite of gods.

@@liamhickey359 At the opposite side of a mirror, sometimes another mirror. Opposite a lush forest nourished by rivers, clouds travelling with the wind; casting shadows traced by distant stars.

No. The guy on the left is using claims and unfalsifiable methods to try and prove his quackery.

Sheldrake has no perspective. Not even within his own ... uh.... "discipline"

​@@ebog4841could argue that 'discipline' is a large part of the problem of early conditioned reactivity to causal naivety that brings forth the protectively self-centric individualised mind that, neccesarily, forms psuedo-protective, stubborn thinking patterns and consequent behavioural loops.

Why not argue respectfully with a Delusional patient in Asylum, as to why he believes Unicorns will eat all humans next Monday... because the process of mind believing something purely based on assumptions rather than full knowledge/complete observations... is literally called Delusion... Please stop baby sitting these God believers because they can cut your head if they have done that in the past, for literally not believing in a delusion... Christianity like any other religion is Delusion... Delusion have two components: one that is practical (like human extinction) + one that is impractical (Unicorn made human extinct)... understand that your mind can make impractical blend in with Practical and make whole thing believable... But you should always keep questioning things... and that's only Science's capability... neither religion, nor philosophy have capabilities of accepting that they are taking a huge Risky leap of faith in the middle to connect Impractical to Practical world...

​@@ebog4841some of Rupert's work on plant biology is school-coursebook standard worldwide...

Agrees

That’s how he keeps going, living off the mystery, and others ignorance and gullibility.

Curious! What the single most incomprehensible thing you find about Sheldrake's approach to science?

@@Corteum the sun

@@vaibhavsati538 lol I dont think he should have started with the sun. He could have just talked about consciousness itself... since we havent even figured that out yet, ,let alone going straight to the sun. That's a huge leap for most scientists right now.

Two approaches I'm not familiar with, but I'd very much enjoy reading your philosophy about the one you perceive as "not incomprehensible".

I am so glad he didn't get into Flat earth stuff He is already active in the pseudoscience area after all

​@@bengeurden1272he is ? how come?

Yeah. She is limited by her own unchallenged and limited conceptions.

@@natanaellizama6559just an exponent of naive materialism

The Sun is conscious. Any scientist who will rightly call themselves a scientist, having now read my post will investigate the veracity (or not) of the Aetherius society recordings.

Consciousness(the term) has,in modernity, been diluted,enhanced,manipulated,commodified to the point of loosing an agreed upon objective meaning...so sad.

I studied her face carefully when that came up, I half expected her to laugh or stop that gentleman mid-way through his speech 😅

Yes. Her expression is priceless.

And for not cringing when the presenter mispronounced her name at the beginning.

When physics laws explain chaos, it wont be chaos anymore.

@@rogerjohnson2562 > When physics laws explain chaos, it wont be chaos anymore. "Chaos" in physics does not mean "behavior which follows no rules and thus can't be predicted by any theory". "Chaotic system" merely means a system where even tiny changes of initial conditions lead to significantly divergent later states.

@@denysvlasenko1865 > tiny changes of initial conditions How do meterologists keep track of where all the butterflies are?

"The former can have a finite depth of understanding." - It could, but there's also no reason to think that that is the case.

*buzzwords* *buzzwords* *buzzwords*

You mean it was way past Sabine's league

I love it when Sabine says "I know string theorists, ehm, serious string theorists..." 😂

I used to like Kaku, but now he's getting ever more KooKoo, and just breeding more of the same!

@@theprasun Not even close! She's truly brilliant, and a true scientist who will not cater to absurd beliefs like religion! I myself will challenge anyone too in that regard, I don't care how much science thy have studied and worked with: If you can't show it, you don't know it, and faith is not a viable nor working method to derive knowledge, and has always and will only fail miserably!

Yes 'reality.'

open mindedness .. lol ... you mean open to ideas that make no sense. This is not something to be admired.

Those who spend time in the Sciences and lack exposure to less rigourous thinking processes often find "right-brained" divergent thinking to be flaky. Those who spend no time in the Sciences sometimes are. The balanced Renaissance mind uses both adeptly. Sheldrake is such a person.

you mean pseudoscience?

Sheldrake is a proponent of pseudoscientific ideas, I wouldn’t even say that his arguments make any kind of sense in philosophy either.

He is very open

In my mind "understanding" is justifying a choice of axioms beyond "hey, they give us the right results".

in physics, the axioms can be hypothetical. in mathematics and philosophy of logic, axioms just are. they are a set which combined with logical operators lead to another set of statements.

I would be happier to have physics without a multiverse (it seems like a cop out), physics without the odd notion of the 'many worlds hypothesis' (again, dubious), physics without a swampland of 10²⁷²·²⁰⁰ initial conditions (Cumrun Vafa's _F-theory_ which can F-off as far as I am concerned). Maybe something can be "smuggled in" underneath spacetime using various forms and combinations of Imaginary Numbers. Maybe it is as simple as everything we perceive as having mass in what we comprehend as spacetime (which may well not exist in the way we assume as it could be something wildly transformed yet still be mathematically consistent: such as a single electron/positron weaving forward/backward throughout what we think of as spacetime ~ with our sampling of reality being turned inside out so that the distant entanglements were proximal and our Free Will was neurologically coupled with it, so that in a relatable sense, but from an atheistic perspective, we are a part of a God which constitutes the cosmos who has a Disassociative Identity Disorder and rarely experiences an awareness of oneness except when the brain chemistry changes due to some hallucinogens and hypomanic psychosis ~ all this is speculative and is not even a worthy hypothesis for scientific enquiry as there would be no experiment that can be devised to determine whether one person is a fragment of the divine, yes, you might fool around with some cards with squiggly lines and try to see if one person can read the mind of God that is trapped within another person's brain, but ESP is about as discredited as staring at goats these days), is representable by Real Numbers, and everything that we perceive as quantised energy waves is represented by various forms of Imaginary Numbers, which is so tempting in its simplicity given that a Spinor is a square root of a Vector and a square root has +ve and -ve solutions, which is why Paul Dirac came up with antimatter in the form of the positron and the rest of _Quantum Field Theory_ can be seen as an elaboration of his ocean of Spinors that are the host to phenomena within our psuedo-Riemannian manifold, but it could be that the inability to tie a persistent knot in anything other than a Lorentzian (1, 3) Metric is a mathematical reason which recovers our 4-dimensional spacetime, not as some arbitrary parameterisation of a set of physical multiverses where other exouniverses of different combinations of dimensions exist, or a number lazily pasted in from our solipsistic observations which lack the introspection to accept these are tainted by a privileged quasi-"God's children" mindset, but one which could be proven through _Knot Theory_ to be the only tenable topology given the alternatives are either lacking in sufficient spatial dimensions to have the knot pass over and under itself as it is (1, 2) or (1, 1) or (1, 0), or no time in which to tie the knot (0, n), or too many spatial dimensions allowing the (1, 4) knot to slip past its own bounds through an adjacent hyperspace, which is the same for any (1, m) where m > 3. Why knots? Well Lord Kelvin once put forward _Vortex Theory_ to explain atoms as knots in the aether, but at a level of a _Theory of Everything_ it will move beneath physical observations to mathematical consistency which synthetically generates reality a sample of which we experience ~ to ask the question: "What happened before the Big Bang?" ceases to be about physics and increasingly becomes one of meta mathematics (the mathematics where axioms are not taken for granted as there are multiple foundational choices for mathematical systems based on different axioms). Consequently, I was pleased to see Cohl Furey's video entitled as being fresh thinking: _Summary (Video 13/14)._

Well summed up, thanks.

She's going to have to have it serviced now from it having to go off so often!! Daaaaaaaang!

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Thanks for the funny comment. Is her bs-o-meter already available in her online-shop? Pay my monthly income for that.

If people stuck more to proper logic and less to ego driven word salad, that would be great.

My own bs-o-meter went off so many times I thought my house was on fire

I agree! Educated like Sabine, I yet like Sheldrake's argumentation of things. Sheldrake may not have the math skills of Sabine, but at least he is deeply committed to understanding the REAL phenomenon of consciousness, whilst Sabine is committed to understanding a purely IMAGINARY phenomenon of Quantum Gravity (which even Penrose has to admit is nonsensical). Yes I get the raised eye-brows when suggesting the Sun may be conscious. But think it through please. Take the example of cockroaches; They are successful in survival, quite aware of their surroundings and relative smart in their strategies. By any standards that qualifies as some level of consciousness. The fact they can't communicate with us is due to what we consider to be an 'inferior' level of consciousness. Well ok. All Sheldrake says is that this may apply in reverse as well; that there might be higher fractal levels of consciousness our Sun is part of, that likewise we can't recognize or communicate with due to our own relative inferior consciousness level. That is a very reasonable line of thought. As for Sheldrakes' suggestions of the existence of a medium through which consciousness may be 'uploaded and downloaded' manifesting in living organisms; We may again laugh and hold the view our consciousness is confined to only the working of neurons in brain activity. Ok. laugh all we want. But then take a look at UKposts at the very tenacious tiny creature called 'lacrymaria'. Watch it being aware and conscious of its surroundings, hunt for food, avoid enemies. And next realize you are looking at a single cell creature. Not having a single neuron. How on Earth is this intricate behavior coming from the suggested confinement of its limited biology? Until anyone can explain that to me, I don't exclude Sheldrake again has a very valid point. Sabine needs to open her mind a bit. She should be intelligent enough to yet see the merit of what Sheldrake is proposing.

@@RWin-fp5jn yes the “imaginary” phenomenon of QG, which you emphasize in capital letters confidently. This gets 3 likes. Incredible stuff. The world is in so much trouble.

@@RWin-fp5jn I also saw elsewhere in these comments that you’ve stuck in there for psychological effect that Penrose called quantum gravity nonsensical. Just a complete lie. You’re quite the propagandist and liar, huh?

@@RWin-fp5jn I like this, great comment. I've followed Sheldrake for ages, his concepts make a lot of sense to me. Your analogy of the Lacrymaria is the way I feel about a lot of things, including viruses. A virus is not considered to be alive, but it will somehow adapt as a 'species/strain' to suit its needs, mutate without communicating. The mechanism for this seems to be a riddle. I think there's something in this pansychism theory. I just feel there's an inherent reason behind every action of a system that is 'non-living' which could be explained if that entity had some kind of awareness. If an alien observed a bunch of humans going about their daily business it would all seem like we were all a shower of brainless nutters. 😏

@@coreyleander7911 I've also seen Sir Penrose say it is nonsensical.

the supergirl of patience here.

Don't bother with Sheldrake.

😄@@rogerphelps9939 true: i wonder if it is testable that you can see in one's eyes that he/she is not able to create a certain truth out of some known and proven truths without wondering of in fantasy and religion

@@runePV fantasy and religion are your reminder that on a cosmic scale all your knowledge might as well be produced by the brain of an ant. which i think you need reminding of

​@@runePVtry some kykeon worked wonders for the Greek Philosophers to shake to your core that cult-urally conditioned, pseudo-protective mind veil of causally naive reactivity that began in late infancy.

Sheldrake is a true (i.e. undogmatic) scientist, comparable with e.g. Michael Faraday. Sabine and Bjorn I found also undogmatic, as it should be.

Pretty interesting AWD. I don't think we should slam on the brakes, like a Mennonite, but we oughta pump the brakes a little, ''take stock, and re-determine what it will take for us to progress and survive a while longer''.

🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe that can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (i.e. the observer of all phenomena) - is unknowingly to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of Ultimate Reality as being the Perfect Person, and “God” is a personal epithet of the Impersonal Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Monad is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every fully-enlightened sage in the history of this planet, Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, consubstantially and simultaneously, Absolutely NOTHING and Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “(Param) Brahman”, “Cosmic Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “Unconditioned Truth”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Universal Self”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). Subsequent chapters expand on this axiom. In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself, or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! This understanding can be factually-realized by studying a systematic method of introspection, called “gnosticism” (“jñāna yogaḥ”, in Sanskrit). Because the Unmanifested Absolute (i.e. NO-THING) is infinite creative potentiality, “It” perpetually actualizes as the manifest creation (i.e. EVERY-THING), in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes/multiverses. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, and because phenomenal existence is dualistic, there cannot be a single object without at least one subject. Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person’s sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. PURPORTEDLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created from the initial event (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of immeasurably-dense light, which in turn, was ultimately instigated by Extra-Temporal Supra-Conscious Bliss. From that primal event, every motion or action that has ever occurred, has been a direct or indirect result of that expansion. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are, essentially, this Eternally-Aware-Bliss, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn’t normally mistake the reflected image to be one’s real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating forms. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything that can presently be perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of the primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every subsequent action has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit”, is largely a fallacious belief. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they desire. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of but two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic sequence). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. Cont...

Hindus, when relating to Surya deva, are not referring to merely the solar orb.

Thanks for that sir! I was scared at first when I read "As an Indian" 🤭 To me Sheldrake shouldn't be allowed near science, as he would waste everyone's time, as everyone who took that rout always have, only for nothing but more people believing the absurd with zero evidence to back it up has ever come of it!

@@Bob-of-Zoid You should rethink that statement. I've never considered stars to have consciousness until now but if you think about it the sun has been around for 4.5 billion years and it very well might have developed some kind of consciousness that is beyond anything we can fathom. After all, our form of consciousness is nothing more than a bunch of electro-chemical reactions.

@@Bob-of-Zoid at least what sheldrake proposed is very much testable and it would not cost billions like a large hydron collider. sabine said that dark matter does not interact with "light" which is basically a tautology unless she actually meant the electromagnetic spectrum.

Sheldrake was just talking about shared human consciousness being concentrated on a single message. He could have used a sports analogy, like a stadium praying for the winning field goal of a football game. But then everyone would have been arguing about football vs. futbol, and then chaos. And then a silence like the vacuum of space.

mathematics has been waiting to be discovered and is primely needed to find out dimenmsions and reltive constructions

The Aussie government is a violent CRIMINAL organization. 🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe that can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (i.e. the observer of all phenomena) - is unknowingly to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of Ultimate Reality as being the Perfect Person, and “God” is a personal epithet of the Impersonal Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Monad is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every fully-enlightened sage in the history of this planet, Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, consubstantially and simultaneously, Absolutely NOTHING and Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “(Param) Brahman”, “Cosmic Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “Unconditioned Truth”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Universal Self”, “The Ground of All Being”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). Subsequent chapters expand on this axiom. In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself, or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! This understanding can be factually-realized by studying a systematic method of introspection, called “gnosticism” (“jñāna yogaḥ”, in Sanskrit). Because the Unmanifested Absolute (i.e. NO-THING) is infinite creative potentiality, “It” perpetually actualizes as the manifest creation (i.e. EVERY-THING), in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes/multiverses. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, and because phenomenal existence is dualistic, there cannot be a single object without at least one subject. Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person’s sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. PURPORTEDLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created from the initial event (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of immeasurably-dense light, which in turn, was ultimately instigated by Extra-Temporal Supra-Conscious Bliss. From that primal event, every motion or action that has ever occurred, has been a direct or indirect result of that expansion. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything equates to Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are, essentially, this Eternally-Aware-Bliss, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn’t normally mistake the reflected image to be one’s real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating forms. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything that can presently be perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of the primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every subsequent action has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit”, is largely a fallacious belief. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they desire. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of but two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic sequence). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. Cont...

"Everyone here makes very valid points even if they appear to be a little conflicting." I agree, although underlying everything in this debate is more than a little disagreement between Sabina and Rupert regarding mechanistic determinism. I drink up her no-gobbledygook reports and almost everything she has published online, though don't buy her deterministic take on the way things are. I loved her astute point about fantasy literature's being based to some degree on knowledge derived through science, and hope it wasn't a dig against that which she doesn't agree. But @axle.australian.patriot -- I wonder what you mean by "experience the universe...in every way" if there exist aspects of it we are completely unaware of. Could you unpack that somewhat?

@@eugenecampbellutube ""experience the universe...in every way" I struggle myself to offer an easy explanation of that. Experience in the sense of being the raw observer without concepts of knowledge, belief or prejudice. This is a philosophical or even Metaphysical expression. Like the unborn child experiencing the stimuli that it is subjected to without knowledge of what it is and without a need to describe it. Maybe thinking as "Raw Awareness or consciousness". > Can we experience the full extent of the universe like that in a natural human way? Metaphysasists and theolagists may argue yes, mechanical physics would likely argue no, mathematical physics and theoretical physics boarders at times upon metaphysics. Can we experience the universe in full (as a raw awareness) with our human made extension of our senses. Through cautious reason quite possibly. But many would argue that it is impossible to be a truly objective observer having been born a subject human being and a lifetime of reinforcing our subject instinct. > See the universe as it is and let it form it's own description of itself rather than imposing our neat subjective human rules over it. We can explain it in our own terms after we see it for what it really is.. > Yeah, I know I'm a bit out there lol

I like to call it nature's internal consistency-checking mechanism: it only commits to a particular detail about reality once it's sure it's not contradicting itself.

Not only not necessarily, but not at all, and it never implied an entity, or conscious, agency..! That is and always was a deliberate misreprisentation of science by freaking religious apologist creationists! The observer refers to the equipment, and the fact that it too has effects and influences the outcome of the experiments, and we have no way of observing the quantum realm, without influencing it! Hence "The observer effect"!

@@timhaldane7588 Sounds cute, but it's really just Nonsense!

Early on in physics the wording of “observer” was misconstrued. It wasn’t meant to be a conscious entity, but just anything that “measured” something. By measure, it’s meant that anything that impinges on something else, such as a particle that hits another particle has taken a “measurement” and therefore is an “observer”. It doesn’t require anything conscious.

I think most physicists probably already implicit assume the observer effect is the cause of the wave function collapse. It's already orthodoxy that decoherence occurs through the observer effect, so it's not really a stretch to assume a similar process is what causes the wave function to collapse. Although the exact way this happens is not known, a popular idea is that it's caused by gravity, if you get a lot of energy into a single location the curvature of spacetime collapse the wave function, Roger Penrose talks a lot about that.

haha, nice try, 'I refute it thus!' - Dr Johnson

@@pn2543 can’t argue with the man…..

PicoPhysics; We believe in deterministic universe. Presence or absence of observation does not alter reality / but observation itself being part of reality which impacts the result. Universe appears to be very simple. Amulgamated (or Free) Quants of Kenergy in Space.

I’m just glad the sun kept cool and shined on.

Her face is most often straight that's the hyper-rationalists issue.

i would.

@@HarryNicNicholas It is my belief that you wouldn't but it is academic as they will never get that sophisticated, or more likely humans are too arrogant to try it!

Well maybe humans fail the test because we are in a simulation and are therefore all programmes that just think they are human…

Bot

They already are, given how prevalent AI is these days, sometimes when I talk to people online I second-guess myself because some people sound like ChatGPT how they talk.

Sorry, the more we know, the more we know we don't know. That's because nobody knows the mind of God. Atheists by their own admission are not intelligently designed. Enough said about atheism. The Bible is the truth and it is undeniable. It is filled with prophesies that came to pass exactly as prophesied. Only God knows the end from the beginning. Maranatha

With respect, I recommend probing the following idea: that your consciousness (C) is what it is like to be the updating of the model of self in the world (UMSITW) which your brain creates and maintains all the while that you are awake. What this means is that your brain, which exists in order to make your muscles move in the right way at the right time, needs a model of the world with you in it in order for you to be able to navigate your physical and social environments. The model is always a set of predictions created out of memories appropriate to current location and circumstances. This must be so otherwise it would be impossible for you to make any plans or have any useful expectations. The world is always changing however so we need to be updating relevant parts of our model of the world, and/or self, wherever a significant change has occurred. This entails the creation of new memories, and our emotional response to the _novelty each time_ determines the degree of significance. The beauty, and the power, of this description is that it provides a coherent explanation of C, which I like to characterise as _rememberable awareness_, which is not contradicted by any discoveries of neuroscience or psychology that I have read about *and* allows us to understand to what extent other animals may be experiencing awareness similar to our own. Extraterrestrial animals will be endowed in analogous, even if not very similar, manner because the underlying logical requirements of autonomous navigation through variable environments will always apply. 😉

Very interesting

Maybe the question itself is useless. The difference in being and not being might be arbitrary in the greater scheme of things. Everything is and is not all at once and all that jazz. Then again, I might have no idea what I'm saying. I'm just some guy on the internet after all.

I mean the initial state of the human condition is: there is therefore I think, which is only followed by: I think therefore I am. So in a sense you posing that question; "why is there something rather than nothing at all?" = the reason of something being there by virtue of posing that question. Again on larger scales the question becomes irrelevant. Looking at the universe as a whole it doesn't seem to matter any ant deciding to follow any scent. But from the microbiomes inside the ant the question becomes so much relevant that some organisms spend their entire lifespan to make the ant express certain behavior's. I'm not saying were ants i'm saying; posing the question is just following a scent. And the purpose of meaning is within the meaning itself. Whatever that meaning may be. But some guidelines have higher values than others. Like increase complexity or atrophy. You may feel like murdering the person in front of you blocking your way to get to your destination quicker. But in that process, you calculate the damage you do to those around you and yourself what that would mean. This rule becomes hardwired in your brain, and you stop running over people to get to your destination quicker, mainly because you know (hope) there will be another destination after that. Because there are things, there is meaning. If there where no things there would be no meaning. Yes, things also constitute your thoughts, because without the material world we would not come to be as thinking beings. So the question remains is the thought a function of the things or are things a function of thoughts. Both are correct and incorrect at the same time. The universe or universes might truly be infinite, or might not exist at all. Their is no difference.

@@leggoentertainment2947 It does make sense. If you're not persuaded by the 'religious' idea that we were created by a greater Being that desires to have a relationship with us, then your life has no purpose and you have no answer to the question 'why are we here?'

@@londen3547 I hear you, however I must insist that the believe in god is just as useful/useless as the believe that live doesn't have a purpose. The purpose is in the act of living itself. With the first breath you take till the last breath you breath you're fulfilling your purpose. Even us having this otherwise meaningless UKposts conversation is defining purpose. I am no fan of the sky daddy concept especially one that looks at your genitals. But at the same time, saying that life is meaningless is forgoing the part that every day you iterate on behavior that is meaningful to you. If that isn't purpose I don''t understand the notion of meaning. Mind you: It wouldn't be the first time I completely missed the obvious... And definitely won't be the last. If I make it through this day. Alhamdulilah

I would ask instead "why should there be nothing at all?" The answer to that is self evident. While nothing at all might be possible, it is an unstable state of affairs that inevitably gives rise to 'something'. Hence the tangible universe we see about us. This is really no more mysterious than nuclear decay. It just happens.

Nope. He will just go on about hypergraphs, simple rules and complexity and principle of computational equivalence.

Spacetime does have some elemental characteristics we can measure, so there is progress to be had in finding more of these.

Ruben Sheldrake deserves no respect.

Two speakers!

@@Bob-of-Zoid That attitude says a lot about the current state of the science community. Paradoxically unscientific.

@@ximono Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse Meeeeeeeeee! Sheldrake is a philosopher, not a scientist! Besides that since when has serious science ever followed no evidence whatsoever as vigorously as religion? Not fo r long at all, and then only under the threat of death by religious zealots! But please explain to me what the F you mean by that exactly and where doing so has ever brought facts to light, good evidence worth following, let alone irrefutable proof for anything: Give it your best shot!

@@ximono It's exactly the opposite: when someone provides evidence through their false claims that they are not credible, one should increase your credence like a good Bayesian that said someone is likely generally not credible, right? It's like you Sheldrake's universe of demonstrated false claims over the years gets to be forgotten to you.

Good thing, too, because the universe is expanding.

I don't think I gained much listening to a guy talking about conscious suns that can fire jets to move around and that humans can apparently communicate with it lmao

and she´s a poet here too: "...and in that case, there will be some strangeness left for us forever."

I like her also

She may be a competent scientist but she is a fanatical "climate change crisis" promoter.

The Nobel prize is a sham. I wish physicists would not waste their time competing for such trinkets.

@@paulweber686 I suppose you reckon the Oscars are more important to the advancement of humanity than the Nobel prizes? I just hope you are prepared to forgo the benefits afforded to humanity by the discoveries the Nobels have been awarded for. In which case you need to go back to living like people did in the late 19th century.

So you side with Sheldrake, and we should just make believe? Sorry, sensors are not made to "Perceive" anything but make hard truth factual measurements! And no, Math isn't an art as in the abstract, and Godel showed that one can put any nonsense into mathematical equations, but that's not how science uses it, that would be "Numerology", and it's what the religious, conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience freaks do! Math isn't "Created" it's extrapolated from data we can gain from observance and experimentation!

She looks marvelous, and she´s funny

People always get aggressive when they have reached the end of their knowledge and it no longer explains what is taking place

@@enigma7791 what do you mean, no one was aggressive in this talk?

@@Thomas-gk42 The original post was "Hossenfelder always looks like she's about to enter a boxing match." Are people who look such a way not aggressive? Are they not ready for a fight because they feel threatened?

@@enigma7791 you might be a great psychologist than.

haha, exactly

Dark matter does not just explain rotation curves, it explains other things, like cosmic background phase attenuation, that are ignored by popular science presentations, and are thus unknown to biologists and such that are not exposed to it.

EXACTLY why. is. Sheldrake. even. here. bruh. he probably paid to sit next to Sabine XD

@@ebog4841 He's be much better off as a preacher in the church of Jordan "cry baby" Peterson and Deepockets Chopra! 🤣

@@Bob-of-Zoid haha i didn't know he had that nickname. cry baby indeed XDD. And peddler of pseudoscience to boot lol

Celestial flatulence.

So, a question to all the skeptics scoffing and chuckling in derision at non-traditional thinking, have any of you ever done any psychonautical exploration?

@@VaughanMcCue Newton could not explain why the solar system was stable given his laws. He invoked God. Planet farting is even worse.

@@tristanmules7995 ''...non-traditional thinking...'' Creating euphemisms. You are good at it.

@@tristanmules7995Yes. And we know better than to be enamoured of the rambling thoughts attached thereto. Sheldrake sounds like Terence McKenna in this regard, but worse…

"But as long as they believe they are smart enough to understand or explain the universe with their mathematics they will remain ignorant" Well they have managed to enable this communication between all of us with their mathematics - not a poor achievement!!

Great point adrian!! Limited here on earth, yes, but aspiration is the key to unlock the door to the unlimited when our bodies on earth have served their purpose @@adrianwright8685

It has nothing to do with humility. Humility wont take us 1 microset to understanding. Continuting to speculate, hypothesize, and test hypotheses. That's got us this far. It is all taht works. Maybe we'll understand and maybe we won't.

it's also not certain that we will ever get there as it might be that the level at which human brains are entangled with the universe will yield an efficiently computable theory of the ultra microscopic, that is if we can even measure it.

@@daarom3472 I suppose anything is possible until you can verify it’s not. If you compare and contrast an ant to a human, at a functional level we are largely identical, I don’t foresee the ant ever moving towards a full understanding of metaphysics, so it’s quite possible neither will we.

The average duration of a mammalian species is about 3.8m years. So one day humans will be gone. But let's hope this is due to genetic exhaustion rather than by destroying ourselves.

@@jimgraham6722 I’m probably a few decades out of date, but wasn’t aware of any documented evidence that could be described as genetic exhaustion. With global movement, Heterosis has become more frequent in humans than previously, so that reshuffling of genes should assure the vigour of the species, even the inbred royalty now understands this is important to their survival.

When we find the bottom-most subatomic particle and crack it open, it will read: 42

I think that is a rather gratuitous judgement to make. Everything you say is spot on IMO. My point is that this kind of discussion is an essential part of human life on Earth - however much I might roll my eyes and start tearing at what little remains of my head hair when R Shelldrake starts holding forth [ :-( ] My vote of course is for Sabine H although I think Bjorn.... had some useful things to say.

True

shall we now all praise the rationalists among us.....they are positively inspiring

Gosh, this pathetic circlejerk is out of this world...

It is.

I think science can never answer the question "why?".

Are you enjoying it at the end? When there is no more? I think probably not. Or what about a life of stress and strife. No enjoyment there. So avoid stress and strife? I don’t think so, not much to do there. All round the enjoy life philosophy needs to be filled out, perhaps abandoned

@@patricksee10 GGGGGGGGGGGGreat to hear from you. What is the one thing that makes you or me or anyone for that matter, unique in the universe? Have you ever noticed that even if you wanted to, you can't give away your point of view? It's because it's what you have accumulated from your experience in life and it's why your point of view is unique to you and only you. You have just read mine and it has nothing to do with yours, because it's from my experience and distilled down into my philosophy of life.

@@tekannon7803 of course not friend. You and I are humans. We share 5 senses, moral values and the same needs. You can know a lot about me or anyone else. My truth is yours and everyone else’s

I always though it an absurd question. Not because I'm a nihilist, but because I think it's merely a symptom of a psychological issue. Only someone who feels life is meaningless would have the need to ask it. I think it's a symptom of being uprooted. If I had to answer it, I'd say: To love. (I actually hit the wrong key when trying to type "live" and was surprised to see "love" appear on the screen. Divine intervention? Serendipity? Freudian slip of the finger? Whatever the cause, I'm keeping it.)

That’s the one tautology they can’t escape from

More that rationalism, it’s naive materialism

@@rlustemberg Damage the brain damage the consciousness. Isn't really as deep as you might want it to be.

it's just silly 🤷

They did fall out as friends when it came to living pantheism

And talks with Terence McKenna

Never did understand those exceptionals too well. Was busy getting the necessaries for me and my lady. Glad to talk about the granular nature of matter at Planck length now tho.

Well if I must, at Planck length there are vibrations that seem random at the tiny local scale causing the unmeasurable. These happen such that pressures of eg gravity can be transmitted between the resulting granules to give spacetime it's shapes. The granules also transmit quanta of light in a way that looks similar to Feynman's electro dynamics due to a random nature of interior's of the granules. This would be caused by unknown influences acting from all directions giving a pseudo randomness for our macro observations. Thus we would have transmission of light and gravity in different ways through the granules giving overall different seemingly wavelike propagation on the cosmic scale. Hardly testable until more data re light and gravitational propagation comparison gathered but conceptually graspable.

"...and in this case, there will be some strangeness left for all of us." - and isn't she a poet herself too?

Yes psycho-spiritually interesting that she's interested in wizards, because it's mysticism that she and all intellectuals and religious alike are lacking.

@@Phariseehunter hear something about entertainment?

@@Thomas-gk42 yes found their seating arrangement rather entertaining too. The 'intellectuals' out in force x2, homophonically 'right' and right of centre will Sheldrake subtly alone and 'outcast' placed left of view, with commanding, orderly 'God' figure centred, the whole field subtly shifting from a reversed 'transcendent' perspective with Sheldrake on the right hand side of God.

she has arrested emotional development i think

Good point

'excellent' chat about intelligent stars... really...

@@rogerjohnson2562 I for one quite enjoy speculative fiction, and I think that funny questions provide interesting answers, and infinite more questions. About people, about our environment, about everything we can conceive of.

Find it interesting if they had the same meeting again, but changed the seating arrangement.

@@Phariseehunter -The fact that this discussion was very good does not mean that we agree with all theses, eg Dr. Hossenfelder! One can have many reservations about her way of seeing and understanding the world. I could immediately put forward completely different assumptions, equally logical. In general, discussions of this type show how these scientists have limited scientific horizons and are stuck in errors learned from elementary schools.

@@wicekwickowski3798 Yes totally, early reactions in being naive of causality and becoming conditioned, naturally, in wanting to feel safe so being appropriated by and attached to culture. Here there can be the multiple comfort associations, two by example, status and tenure with scientific cult'ure.

Have ideas is nice, but if you are doing science you need more. If you are propsing the sun is conscious how do you test that? Simply having creative speculative ideas isn't science.

@@101Mant , dark matter is as speculative as the sun being conscious, was the only point Rupert made - he was smiling and joking all along... dark matter , makes the equations correct - was Sabine's response, but remember that Newton's equations were also correct at one point in time (They still are - but only at the scale of this tiny planet)

@@101Mant I am skeptical of his proposal, which he surely would acknowledge is speculative, as is the theory of dark matter. However, he proposed an experimental test of the "conscious sun" hypothesis. Then the question becomes whether such a test is worth the time and expense.

What he does, is absolutely not scientific.

@@Thomas-gk42 there should be room for his views as well