New Perspectives: Challenging philosophical trends | Penrose, Žižek, Singer, Noble, and many more!

День тому

Do our theories of physics and the universe work? How do we relate to the world around us? What is our basis of morality? From physics to philosophy, watch the world’s leading thinkers debate today’s biggest ideas, including Roger Penrose, Slavoj Žižek, Peter Singer, Thangam Debbonaire, Priya Natarajan, Lisa Randall, Tim Maudlin, Marika Taylor, Denis Noble, Joscha Bach, Tommy Curry, Paul Bloom and Rowan Williams.
Join the debate live at the upcoming HowTheLightGetsIn festival in Hay-On-Wye in May 2024! For more information, visit: howthelightgetsin.org/festiva...
00:00 Introduction
01:12 Do our theories of physics work? | Roger Penrose, Priya Natarajan, Lisa Randall, Tim Maudlin, Marika Taylor
13:22 How do we relate to what’s out there? | Denis Noble, Joscha Bach
17:35 What is in our nature? | Paul Bloom, Rowan Williams, Slavoj Žižek
27:25 What’s right and what’s wrong? | Peter Singer, Tommy Curry, Thangam Debbonaire
#physics #philosophy #debate
Debates and talks featured:
The trouble with string theory (Hay, 2023)
iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with...
Gravity and the universe (London, 2023)
iai.tv/video/gravity-and-the-...
The centre of the universe (Hay, 2023)
iai.tv/video/the-centre-of-th...
Beyond experiment (London, 2022)
iai.tv/video/beyond-experiment
Beauty and the meaning of life (Hay, 2023)
iai.tv/video/beauty-and-the-m...
Rhetoric and reality (Hay, 2023)
iai.tv/video/rhetoric-and-rea...
The rational animal (2020)
iai.tv/video/the-rational-animal
In conversation; Rowan Williams and Iain McGilchrist (Hay, 2023)
iai.tv/video/on-the-nature-of...
Surplus happiness (Hay, 2023)
iai.tv/video/surplus-happiness
A rule to live by (London, 2023)
iai.tv/video/a-rule-to-live-by
The good and the evil (Hay 2022)
iai.tv/video/the-good-and-the...
Democracy in the dock (Hay, 2023)
iai.tv/video/democracy-in-the...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

КОМЕНТАРІ: 59

@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas 15 днів тому

What questions would you ask to challenge the status quo? Let us know in the comments below! Join the debate live at the next festival: howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/hay?UKposts&

@AlexHillsCandles4Assange 13 днів тому

Why can't I comment without censorshup?

@AlexHillsCandles4Assange 13 днів тому

I asked if someone would try the challenge of watching playlist on w1t$1t get$1t channel for my proposed challenging question

@alex79suited 16 днів тому

Great collage of perspectives, thank you to all. Peace ✌️ 😎.

@SpokoSpoko 16 днів тому

It looks like compilation of talks we saw many times already

@ruinsphisic 15 днів тому

@dunk1089 14 днів тому

it is. this is a common tactic used by this channel to have you wanting more access to talks and then being met with a paywall.

@danielberkowitz3524 15 днів тому

You need to get Penrose and Zizek together.

@bretnetherton9273 12 днів тому

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

@homewall744 16 днів тому

Funny how they use "theory" to mean "hypothesis" when they are the same people who keep telling us we're stupid for not understanding how these differ in science.

@0l_pops531 16 днів тому

The "String Theory" Hypothesis?

@CONNELL19511216 15 днів тому

You're nit picking to the nth degree

@fujifooj875 14 днів тому

If i allow for a bit of wiggle room in language, mixing up theory vs hypothesis is not a big problem.

@wulphstein 16 днів тому

I would have thought that a constant speed of light would have/should have encouraged physicists to ask how that trick (the invariance of c) is achieved ontologically, how nature does that.

@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos 3 дні тому

That's because "invariance of c" needs small informational complexity to state but is pretty powerful as a postulate with many consequences (special theory of relativity, general theory of relativity, QFT). So we would not gain (much) predictive power by starting with something different and explaining the constant speed of light.

@davidbond5448 15 днів тому

Goosestepper at 19:30

@user-iu4wh1zs6t 14 днів тому

Yeah. I wonder why maga crowds spread COVID. Was it their politically driven resistance to masks and vaccines? BLM crowds took vaccines and wore masks... But, he wanted to make his own uninformed point.

@waltershumer4211 8 днів тому

What?

@contemplatico 14 днів тому

How many times are you gonna keep re-hashing these old 'clips' ... Talk about a re-run of a re-run of a re-run 😞

@konichiwaburajirujin 13 днів тому

Everything is theorical

@PuppetMasterdaath144 16 днів тому

it's hilarious to me how difficult to articulate probabilistic correlation reasoning is not that much worse a method to deductive reasoning in terms of theoretical analysis vs experimental empirical scrutiny trough the scientific method, in terms of a quite a few things, is it because they are afraid to be laughed at it seems very much so lol

@homewall744 16 днів тому

Why does each new dimension from point (0D), to line (1D), to plane (2D), to cube (3D), to 3D throughout time (4D), then has a bunch of new dimensions that are all tiny and folded in as if anything is smaller than 0D to 1D.

@helicalactual 15 днів тому

Time is not a dimension. It is merely a convention for substructures of the universe to coordinate intent. It is not itself an orthogonal direction, therefore it is not a degree of freedom. This is only a matrix convention.

@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos 3 дні тому

@@helicalactual Mathematically it is a "dimension" of spacetime. And it is orthogonal to the other "dimensions" in the metric. Not that it needed to be for it to be a "dimension". You could argue that spacetime is just a convention. That would be right in Newtonian physics. But since special relativity there is no objective way to even separate time and space anymore. So now it's very artificial and subjective to speak of space and time but not of spacetime. Like it's subjective to divide space up into up/down and the surface. It does not matter and we don't recognise the arbitration locally. But it's arbitrary nonetheless.

@helicalactual 2 дні тому

@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos no i definitely believe that entanglement is the "platform of existence". i was laughed at for this but like Vera Rubens and Barbra Mclintock before, it looks like its proving to be correct. furthermore, if you define time as a dynamic operator that is "movement of the wave function" it fits the relativistic model but is not necessarily combined. they are not the same obviously, one is "operating" on the other. not commutative.

@helicalactual 2 дні тому

@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos therefore this relativistic model is moot, considering that you can disprove einstein with the following phrase: you can differentiate acceleration from gravity using a microscope and looking at the mitochondria of the observer as mitochondria are quickly and incredibly effected by "Gravity" and sadly acceleration is not enough. therefore, Timespace is wrong and so is einstein, partially, even by his own admonition. therefore, time is still NOT a dimension as it is NOT orthogonal and it is NOT a direction but the direction of energy expanding in 3 + n dimensions

@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos День тому

@@helicalactual Try it again but make your comment more precise. It's really a word salad I can't decode. Make precise what mathematical definition of dimension you use. State your model. Show that in your chosen model your statement for time makes sense. And then state if and based in what your chosen model is more predictive than the standard models (LambdaCDM and the standard model of particle physics), which treat time as part of a 4-dimensional spacetime.

@alex79suited 16 днів тому

Well, was somewhat scripted as is the norm. Maybe I was expecting to much, but perspectives are just that,and when everyone is, it appears to be terrified to try and put forth arguments for a better understanding. By understanding, I mean look up and think that's just not correct. Is it the questions that are being asked that need to change. Why are we asking these questions, and why not those. In my opinion, those seem to be more exciting. Represent urging for more information knowledge wanting to know. So why do galacty exist? What are their purpose in the overall scheme of our observations. So my opinion is this. Blacksphere ⚫️ are born to form galacty, to gather matter to form closed systems. To remove all the material from the infinite ♾️ vacuum space, to cleanse it. And we are part of this system. I believe we're looking at the system and misunderstanding the underlying purpose. We want it to be special not because it serves a purpose but because our brains try to make sense of what we observe. But what the brains aren't doing is finding the purpose. We're too busy being in awe of the spectacle instead of realizing what it's doing and why? We need to change our thinking on the matter, we need to figure out how to use what's available for our survival in the vastness that is the infinite ♾️ vacuum space. Peace ✌️ 😎.

@PuppetMasterdaath144 16 днів тому

Roger Penrose is quite odd to position against consciousness as a philosophical ponderance of importance LMFAO.