The shaky foundations of cosmology | Bjørn Ekeberg

An interview with Bjørn Ekeberg about the cracks in cosmology.

From early scientists being labelled "natural philosophers" to Isaac Newton's interest in the occult, metaphysics of varying degrees has played a part in our sciences - especially in theoretical physics. However, as science and philosophy both became more specialised, they split apart. Does science need philosophy, and vice versa? Join us in this interview with Bjørn Ekeberg, a renowned philosopher of science and author, as he shares his journey discovering the historical union between science and the metaphysical.

#cosmology #sciencevsmetaphysics #philosophyofscience

00:11 What first sparked your interest in cosmology?
02:05 What’s the relationship between philosophy and science?
05:30 What is the Standard Model of Cosmology?
09:00 Are your critiques scientific or philosophical?
14:56 How can we tell if data is challenging the laws of nature?
16:40 In the future, how will we understand our place in the universe?
18:18 Would you merge your creative work with your interest in cosmology?
19:23 Does philosophical thinking inform your creative writing?

Bjørn Ekeberg is a philosopher of science whose main interests lie in the limits of scientific knowledge. He is also author of Metaphysical Experiments: Physics and the Invention of the Universe.

[TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

How can we go beyond the Standard Model of Cosmology? Leave your thoughts in the comments!

[katlynklassen]

I like this guy. He is a genuine thinker. True edge of thought type who is driven more by the question than the answer.

[BailelaVida]

What a lovely breeze of fresh air to hear this Metaphysicist speak. Eloquent, concise and obviously accurate arguments presented in a clear and easily understood manner. The current state of human knowledge development is laid out in as clear a fashion as I've heard in a very long time. Thanks Bjørn Ekeberg and IAI for this pearl of provocative wisdom. Specifically, thanks for contributing to our moving forward in our interpretations of our world. Let's go.

[koroglurustem]

Very eloquently explained. He's right, we scientists are not trained in philosophy any more and that's detrimental when you need a deeper scrutiny of scientific foundation of particular research.

[Michaelcaba]

Einstein's statement that science can separate itself from philosophy is itself a philosophical statement.

[romado]

What insane about astronomers is that they are gravity, dust, and gas centrentric and avoid electric, magnetic, plasma causes.

[piehound]

I started my academic career as a pre-engineering student and then completed my Bachelor of Arts majoring in physics. But because i already had a massive religious indoctrination as a background i failed to see the connection between philosophy and what we call "science." (Though i have seen that connection on an intuitive level. But too late to save my academic career.) Since then i have had what you call a " MARGINAL EXISTENCE " from a career point of view. Many thanks for your insights.

[_-martin-_]

I think that most intellectually honest scientists agree with Ekebergs statements. As our observable cosmos expands the inaccuracies of our current physics knowledge and models become increasingly clear. The search for a unified theory continues. For that very reason, I think the world would be much better off investing in scientific research instead of war.

[bananabreeding]

I think that there's always some level of implicit metaphysics in physics.

Because the actual teaching of theoretical physics does not present a scoping review of metaphysics; many theoretical physicists are unaware of the implicit metaphysical contents of their physical theories.

[poksnee]

Excellent presentation. Dark energy and dark matter are what used to be called fudge factors.

[imranabdulmuhaimin]

I feel relieved! Ekeberg just verified my biggest concern which he very carefully lays out here trying his best to not offend the “monopolised mainstream physics community”! He is spot on, on where the whole problem started which is the route cause of current (mainstream) physics / cosmology why is stuck for nearly a Century making no progress dooming us and theoretically marooning us to this solar system … it’s Einstein’s work! Questioning Einstein is considered as “Blasphemous” by the mainstream physics community cos not only just their lifetime career crunching “numbers” is based on it but their whole academic education was built on the ‘Assumption’ that Einstein’s theory is Gospel Truth and all their work and education is built on it… literally!
Physics today is no different trying to lay a small carpet to a bigger room… pull one side to the wall, you are left with a gap on the opposite side.
The day we throw away Einstein’s Theory and restart physics from there bottom up on a clean sheet of paper … we will be going forward and making progress! 50+ years bluffing over a stuck theory and other theories based, built, around it needs to be openly questioned with courage, scepticism by everyone and scrutinise it’s fundamental assumptions and mathematical applications (starting with using time as a 4th dimension vector, when the theory itself ends up claiming time not being linear. It’s preposterous).

[fig]

I studied Physics at University 30 years ago. One of the things that put people like me off, was how it became more and more mathematical. I think that's part of the reason Physics has broken with philosophy. Theoretical physists now see mathematics as the basis of everything, and they don't really think about the philosophical elements anymore. I agree that this is a bit of a step backward, and I think it can prevent access to the debate from non-scientists (and non-mathematicians).

[Dug]

The Standard Model is just that, a model. It tells a story that pieces together observations and measurements at any given time of scientific discovery.
The Steady State Universe was purely based on a philosophy that the Universe is fundamentally simple and a universal theory of everything was just round the corner that would tie it up in a neat little bow in the form of an elegant equation in the days before any useful observation and measurement to hold it to task.
I think there is much greater acceptance to be flexible these days as it has become apparent that the universe is stranger and stranger.

I see the Standard model as like how you go about solving a jigsaw puzzle without the picture of the finished puzzle to go by
You find bits that go together, ok they are blue I'll put then up the top because it looks to be sky.

[KipIngram]

I love to see blocks challenged. There should always be a lively debate about such things. I hope to never again see the sort of situation we had during the heyday of string theory, when challenging it could torpedo a scientist's career. The sort of behavior that went on in that environment is inexcusable.

[CJ_]

Super keen to see more professional academics debate these sorts of things. Scientists in many fields are WAY too rigid in their narrow dogma.

[bluewidow]

When I hear discussions about the varied nature of distant objects, the same issue always comes to mind. Even Bjørn mentioned differences in the present tense. But the idea of the further "away" something is, is a false framing. It is further back in time. Thus, my question would be, could the behaviour, and in a sense "the natural laws" have changed over time? Thus, seeing differences in the past (the more "remote" objects) might then be explained by an evolution in the behaviour of the system, rather than it being different in different places alone. We have no idea what the universe is like in distant areas of the cosmos. If there is anything still there at all. It was so long ago, it could be nothing now. And how would, could, we know?

[andrewrivera]

This video popped up on my feed late at night a few days ago but never got around to watching it then it disappeared, glad it came up again. From a layperson’s perspective I agree it’s beginning to be difficult to trust everything coming out of the “science “ community these days as skeptics are brutally attacked from deviating from the official line that blurs money, politics and ego.

The lambda CDM model does increasingly rely on assumptions in particular that the universe is homogeneous and isotopic at sufficiently large scales as we continue to discover larger and larger galactic structures. Will be very interested in hearing more from the interviewed gentleman.

[kennethsayce]

The hypothesis that I support is that the BIG BANG never happened, the universe is not expanding (we have miss interpreted the red shift), the universe is infinite and never had a beginning, if the universe is infinite and never had a beginning it will never have an end.

[smlankau]

A profound conversation. Thank you so much.

[DANCEGARAGEPUNK]

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from the prejudices of this generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.
(Albert Einstein to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)