Physics and the meaning of life PART 1 | Sabine Hossenfelder

This is the first part of a two-part course from the Institute of Art and Ideas.

Many have argued that science can provide data but can't answer the real mysteries of the universe, yet Sabine Hossenfelder opposes this position. She asserts that through physics, we can make progress on the existential issues which have gripped philosophers for centuries.

Part one: Introduction to existential physics
Was the universe made for us? What is consciousness? And is it possible that the universe is conscious? Does the universe think?

Join Sabine Hossenfelder as she reveals what physics can teach us about existential issues.

#Sabine #Physics #GeneralRelativity

Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist, author and musician who researches quantum gravity. She is a research fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray (2018) and Existential Physics: A Scientist’s Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions (2022) and a regular contributor to Forbes. She is known for her popular YouTube channel Science Without The Gobbledygook.

[AllisonSherman]

With changes in the economy leading to instability in the stock market, some individuals may face a decrease in their investments in an effort to benefit from the current market conditions, I am considering liquidating my $725k portfolio consisting of bonds and stocks. Someone else in the same situation? Please tell me in the comments!..

[roberthumphreys]

Excellent presentation from Sabine, as usual. It is comforting to observe how her Youtube following has grown over time. Unlike some scientists, I am not particularly bothered by "we may never know". I think it is pretty clear that we will never know exactly what conditions and events on this planet led to the formation of life. I do believe we will be able to take a well informed guess (a probability), but that is the best we will be able to achieve. This is part of what is referred to as "the human condition". I think it means we humans need to find the meaning of life and existence within ourselves. Based on the current state of humanity, we have some work to do. This kind of content helps the process.

[BROWNDIRTWARRIOR]

Physics is on a collision course with metaphysics where a new branch will emerge fostering a greater understanding of existence.

[ecoutezpourentendre]

Listening and watching Sabine is always refreshing, her perspective is truly appreciated!!! The upfront acknowledgment of “what we currently know” is a major reason for the respect and high esteem which I have for her.
PEACE

[ianhall]

If you want to find a meaning to life for humans, you had first better find a meaning to life of the dinosaurs, who roamed the Earth for about two hundred million years before they became extinct. I doubt if the Almighty will allocate such an immense amount of time to humans.

[cgmp]

A skillful communicator with a brilliant brain.

[alexwoodhead]

clicked on this channel out of bordem and then I see Sabine Hossenfelder was uploaded an hour ago! hell yeah!

[muddassirahmedkhan]

Very interesting. I want to share with you something about space-time and black holes. We can assume that space-time is a very thick and wide sheet like an ocean with zero viscosity, extreamly transparent and non- interactive. Things can exist inside it and move freely. It has certain characteristics like mu not, and epsilon not due to which speed of light is restricted to a certain value. All things existing inside space-time can' t move out of it untill they attain certain escape velocity or energy. Anybody having mass can bend space-time around it and produce a voide (region of nothingness) if it exist lonely somewhere in space-time, as big as can be, depending on the mass of the body. That is why a black hole produce a bigger voide

[Thomas-gk]

Great talk of Dr Hossenfelder again. Just finished the book, an exciting, entertaining and surprising look on the borders of our existence.

[Wouldntyouliketoknow]

The stuff about the past still "existing" I find a bit disingenuous.. just because a past event could still be observed somewhere in the universe (i.e the death of our common shared ancestor) doesn't prove that the past event still "exists". It only proves to the observer that the past event occurred however long ago it has taken that information to reach the observer. Is she saying that because information takes time to propogate that its source continues to "exists" because thats like saying a fish that that makes a ripple in the atlantic ocean will continue to exist for as long as it's ripples can be observed. If the fish is eaten but a ripple it created is still travelling somewhere accross the Atlantic - then Sabine is saying the fish still "exists"?

I am coming away from this presentation encouraged to read Sabine's book. And ever since internet came into being I don't remember having read any from cover to cover, so that's quite a resolve for me.

[DarkSkay]

"Everything obeys the laws of nature. Everything lives in space and time."

Taken at face value these statements are very controversial. There are scientists who believe in the existence of randomness (i.e. entities not governed by rules, legislators or laws).

Many believe that logic and mathematics "live" or have a form of existence independent of space, time and wheter humans have found access to this mathematical reality/truth (thereby making it "alive" within our minds).

More remote, the assumption that there must exist 'divine entities', parameters and mechanisms given to the universe or its superstructure(s), so that it can start working, advancing and evoloving (a bit like maths need axioms).

More remote still, worlds that evolve in circumstances that wouldn't fit the word-intuitions expressed as "space" and "time". Sure "everything" often paradoxically-only and only means "everything we currently see" - but it suffices to go back just a blink of an eye on an astronomical time scale, in the ancient view of the world, the "everything" was tiny compared e.g. to the solar system - "everything" always turned out to be much much much larger than "everything"! After surprises always came more surprises - how large and deep the world now suddenly "is", after taking into account the new, current chapter of scientific knowledge.

The "theory of everything" is for theologians.

Furthermore the two statements at the beginning also draw a paradox or 'stack of turtles': assuming everything lives in space and time, the laws of nature that govern space and time would also live in space and time, therefore govern & obey themselves.

[mcmg-museudacriacao.melind]

Sabine I love your YouTube! Thanks for all !

[johndunn]

If we presume to know is to extend this through light. That is something is to something else pronounced as the light between. The fact that continuum exists is to say that for instantaneous change there must be to where that change must go to. So far the only mechanism we have an excuse for this is in "collapse". With the point being made that to head into a direction with instantaneous change is to know unto what that heading of change is for. So far we only know this for a reason of collapse. Unless the big bang does really speak for instantaneous change into creation.

[BBQDad]

Every time I try to get out, Hossenfelder pulls me back in!

[BuleriaChk]

I would agree with all of this if it weren't for those pesky neutrinos hitting the back of my brain every time I turn around or even look anywhere else ....

"No matter where you go, that's where you are..." - The Beatles (I think)
"No matter where you look, that's what you see... "
"No matter what you touch, that's what you feel... "

[islandbuoy]

hmm ... the scientist reaches the summit of the mountain and over yonder is the yogi/shaman/mystic sitting/waiting who asks 'what took you so long, shall we compare notes?' (similar to discussions between the Dalai Lama and David Bohm)

[walteralter]

My question would be - to what degree do the laws of psychology, particularly as applied to imagination or the subjective modeling of reality (emphatically minus the laws of physics as exemplified by the dream state) approach congruity with the laws of physics? In other words, do our minds accurately render the physical world? Or, more importantly, to what degree do our minds render the physical world, and if that rendering is not so accurate, what are the factors that inhibit that accuracy? Can we answer the real mysteries of the universe with a tool that is entirely too difficult, or most likely intrinsically impossible, to calibrate? Or more to the point, should we even bother when the answers are going to be wrong rigorously? Basically, what physics attempts is to force subjectivity into being objective by hoping that a rather accurate perceptual uptake can circumvent the filtering and distortion of subjective interpretation. Why should we even need to "interpret"? I have managed to teach myself that the need to interpret mental intake is a symptom of neurosis bordering, in many cases, on psychosis. Until we know how our minds work, how the ding dong hell are we going to figure out how the universe works? My way of saying that AI is not insane.

[cravenmoore]

This lady has a good way of breaking complex issues down to bite size pieces 👍

[ili]

Teach physics, not the meaning of life. I’ve seen her attempts to stray before.. i’ll be skipping this