Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Nothing in physics may be truly fundamental. Questions whether the idea of “building blocks” in nature are increasingly outliving its usefulness, suggesting that our most basic concepts reflect the limits of human understanding rather than the structure of reality itself. Here Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder (Sabine Hossenfelder) argues that mathematics... show more

Institute of Art and Ideas

27,049 subscribers

57,185 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Arts Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Will we ever know how the universe began? Acclaimed theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder Sabine Hossenfelder argues that not only is discovering the universe’s origins an impossible task, but one that she doesn't consider worth pursuing at all. Instead, theories for the beginning of the universe are merely stories we tell ourselves. In this debate, she joins theoretical quantum physicist Ivette Fuentes and philosopher of science James Ladyman to explore the various lenses through which we perceive and study the cosmological world of the universe. Click the link to watch more.

Will we ever know how the universe began? Acclaimed theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder Sabine Hossenfelder argues that not only is discovering the universe’s origins an impossible task, but one that she doesn't consider worth pursuing at all. Instead, theories for the beginning of the universe are merely stories we tell ourselves. In this debate, she joins theoretical quantum physicist Ivette Fuentes and philosopher of science James Ladyman to explore the various lenses through which we perceive and study the cosmological world of the universe. Click the link to watch more.

Institute of Art and Ideas

74,814 views • 6 months ago

Einstein thought quantum theory was ‘silly.’ Heisenberg believed reality is nothing but possibilities. As Sabine Hossenfelder Sabine Hossenfelder explains, the real challenge is still ahead: reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity. Can we ever unite the two pillars of physics? Tap the link below to watch the full debate with Roger Penrose and Slavoj Žižek as they explore the mysteries of an unknowable universe.

Einstein thought quantum theory was ‘silly.’ Heisenberg believed reality is nothing but possibilities. As Sabine Hossenfelder Sabine Hossenfelder explains, the real challenge is still ahead: reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity. Can we ever unite the two pillars of physics? Tap the link below to watch the full debate with Roger Penrose and Slavoj Žižek as they explore the mysteries of an unknowable universe.

Institute of Art and Ideas

39,421 views • 11 months ago

Is math something humans invent—or something we discover? And why does it describe the universe so uncannily well? In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson sits down with mathematicians David Berlinski, Sergiu Klainerman, and Stephen C. Meyer to explore one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy: the reality of mathematics. From the simple certainty that 2 + 2 = 4 to the mind-bending mathematics behind black holes and quantum physics, the conversation asks why abstract numbers—created in the human mind—map so perfectly onto the physical world. Is mathematics purely logical, or does it point to a deeper structure of reality that isn't material at all? Along the way, the panel explores beauty in science, the "unreasonable effectiveness" of math, and whether the concept of materialism can really explain the world we live in. This wide-ranging discussion blends mathematics, physics, philosophy, and metaphysics into a fascinating conversation about truth, beauty, and the nature of reality itself. Watch the full episode of Uncommon Knowledge on X:

Is math something humans invent—or something we discover? And why does it describe the universe so uncannily well? In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson sits down with mathematicians David Berlinski, Sergiu Klainerman, and Stephen C. Meyer to explore one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy: the reality of mathematics. From the simple certainty that 2 + 2 = 4 to the mind-bending mathematics behind black holes and quantum physics, the conversation asks why abstract numbers—created in the human mind—map so perfectly onto the physical world. Is mathematics purely logical, or does it point to a deeper structure of reality that isn't material at all? Along the way, the panel explores beauty in science, the "unreasonable effectiveness" of math, and whether the concept of materialism can really explain the world we live in. This wide-ranging discussion blends mathematics, physics, philosophy, and metaphysics into a fascinating conversation about truth, beauty, and the nature of reality itself. Watch the full episode of Uncommon Knowledge on X:

Hoover Institution

51,619 views • 7 months ago

Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder explains why, in a fundamental sense, those we’ve lost still exist. By looking at the core laws of nature, she reveals that the universe doesn’t actually destroy information; it only rearranges it. Because the laws of physics are reversible, every piece of matter and radiation carries the history of what it once was. In theory, a powerful enough computer could "rewind" the universe to see the past as clearly as the present. Credit: Big Think

Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder explains why, in a fundamental sense, those we’ve lost still exist. By looking at the core laws of nature, she reveals that the universe doesn’t actually destroy information; it only rearranges it. Because the laws of physics are reversible, every piece of matter and radiation carries the history of what it once was. In theory, a powerful enough computer could "rewind" the universe to see the past as clearly as the present. Credit: Big Think

Cosmos Archive

53,686 views • 5 months ago

🚨 Sabine Hossenfelder Just Covered Beatriz Villarroel’s Latest UAP Papers For the first time, a mainstream physicist is saying it out loud, and not just any physicist! Sabine says: “We have images of likely artificial objects orbiting Earth before Sputnik.” Five transients, in perfect lines on old photographic plates from 1949–1957. Each dot reflecting sunlight showing objects that vanish in Earth’s shadow. Beatriz Villarroel’s team at Nordita just dropped peer reviewed work showing these patterns are statistically real, not film dust or noise (22 sigma significance). And Hossenfelder, one of the most skeptical voices in physics looked at the data and called it: “The most convincing evidence of unidentified aerial phenomena I’ve seen.” Watch The Full Thing Here: #BeatrizVillarroel #UAP #Disclosure #SabineHossenfelder #Science

🚨 Sabine Hossenfelder Just Covered Beatriz Villarroel’s Latest UAP Papers For the first time, a mainstream physicist is saying it out loud, and not just any physicist! Sabine says: “We have images of likely artificial objects orbiting Earth before Sputnik.” Five transients, in perfect lines on old photographic plates from 1949–1957. Each dot reflecting sunlight showing objects that vanish in Earth’s shadow. Beatriz Villarroel’s team at Nordita just dropped peer reviewed work showing these patterns are statistically real, not film dust or noise (22 sigma significance). And Hossenfelder, one of the most skeptical voices in physics looked at the data and called it: “The most convincing evidence of unidentified aerial phenomena I’ve seen.” Watch The Full Thing Here: #BeatrizVillarroel #UAP #Disclosure #SabineHossenfelder #Science

Skywatch Signal

47,728 views • 10 months ago

In this scene from the 2016 movie Arrival, Louise learns that the non-human species perceives time non-linearly as a simultaneous "now" rather than a linear sequence of cause and effect. Contact with an intelligent non-human species that perceives time non-linearly would force humanity to rethink our assumptions about how time and space actually work. Physicists are already finding that the fundamental laws of quantum physics do not distinguish between past and future, suggesting that the forward flow of time we experience may not actually be a fundamental property of reality...

In this scene from the 2016 movie Arrival, Louise learns that the non-human species perceives time non-linearly as a simultaneous "now" rather than a linear sequence of cause and effect. Contact with an intelligent non-human species that perceives time non-linearly would force humanity to rethink our assumptions about how time and space actually work. Physicists are already finding that the fundamental laws of quantum physics do not distinguish between past and future, suggesting that the forward flow of time we experience may not actually be a fundamental property of reality...

Disclosure Party

1,453,465 views • 7 months ago

The Physicist Who Proved Free Will Using Thermodynamics Physicist and philosopher Jenann Ismael joins to unveil a radical idea: free will isn’t an illusion, it’s a physical reality grounded in thermodynamics and relativity. In this conversation, Jenann explains why no system, not even a perfect computer, can predict its own future, and how this inherent unpredictability opens the door to real agency. We explore the paradox of identity, the limits of determinism, the role of memory in selfhood, and why your choices truly come from you. This is the clearest, most rigorous defense of free will in the age of physics.

The Physicist Who Proved Free Will Using Thermodynamics Physicist and philosopher Jenann Ismael joins to unveil a radical idea: free will isn’t an illusion, it’s a physical reality grounded in thermodynamics and relativity. In this conversation, Jenann explains why no system, not even a perfect computer, can predict its own future, and how this inherent unpredictability opens the door to real agency. We explore the paradox of identity, the limits of determinism, the role of memory in selfhood, and why your choices truly come from you. This is the clearest, most rigorous defense of free will in the age of physics.

Curt Jaimungal

11,882 views • 1 year ago

$Why quantum theory could have a fractal structure: explained in 83 minutes. The notion of true quantum nonlocality is absurd. In the latest episode of the Quantum Foundations Podcast, Prof Tim Palmer from the University of Oxford suggests that there is a hidden assumption in standard quantum mechanics, and dropping it will save us from this absurdity. Namely, the reality of counterfactuals: the physics of what could have happened but did not. Inspired by chaos theory and the fractal structure widespread in atmospheric physics, Palmer has developed a new underlying structure for quantum theory, with radical implications for our fundamental principles of quantum physics; the limits of quantum computation; and perhaps even the search for quantum gravity. Watch on my YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts!$

Why quantum theory could have a fractal structure: explained in 83 minutes. The notion of true quantum nonlocality is absurd. In the latest episode of the Quantum Foundations Podcast, Prof Tim Palmer from the University of Oxford suggests that there is a hidden assumption in standard quantum mechanics, and dropping it will save us from this absurdity. Namely, the reality of counterfactuals: the physics of what could have happened but did not. Inspired by chaos theory and the fractal structure widespread in atmospheric physics, Palmer has developed a new underlying structure for quantum theory, with radical implications for our fundamental principles of quantum physics; the limits of quantum computation; and perhaps even the search for quantum gravity. Watch on my YouTube channel, or listen on Spotify and Apple Podcasts!

Dr Maria Violaris

18,259 views • 6 months ago

“The theory of intelligent design holds that there are certain features of life in the universe that are best explained as a product of a creative intelligence.” “The digital code that’s stored in the DNA.” “Patterns in the fossil record.” “The presence of nanomachinery inside life.” Stephen C. Meyer just sat down with me to break down the theory of intelligent design: This theory holds that certain features of life appear to be the “product of a creative intelligence, rather than a strictly undirected physical or material process, such as, in the biological realm, natural selection acting on random mutations.” “All these things are things that we think are best explained because a creative intelligence has played a role in the origin and history of life.” “We have phenomena like the fine-tuning of the initial arrangement of matter and energy at the beginning of the universe and the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics.” “The basic parameters of physics fall within very narrow ranges or tolerances outside of which, not only life, but even basic chemistry, would be impossible.” Meyer’s new documentary, The Story of Everything, explored the evidence that humanity and our universe are not the product of random evolution, but that we were created by a designer. “We look at the evidence for the beginning of the universe, and with it, the very real possibility that we’re looking at evidence of a creation event.” “We also look at the discovery of fine-tuning.” “And we look at the interior of the cell and the discoveries of the miniature machinery and the digital code that makes the proteins that make the machines and make everything else inside living cells.” Stephen C. Meyer

“The theory of intelligent design holds that there are certain features of life in the universe that are best explained as a product of a creative intelligence.” “The digital code that’s stored in the DNA.” “Patterns in the fossil record.” “The presence of nanomachinery inside life.” Stephen C. Meyer just sat down with me to break down the theory of intelligent design: This theory holds that certain features of life appear to be the “product of a creative intelligence, rather than a strictly undirected physical or material process, such as, in the biological realm, natural selection acting on random mutations.” “All these things are things that we think are best explained because a creative intelligence has played a role in the origin and history of life.” “We have phenomena like the fine-tuning of the initial arrangement of matter and energy at the beginning of the universe and the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics.” “The basic parameters of physics fall within very narrow ranges or tolerances outside of which, not only life, but even basic chemistry, would be impossible.” Meyer’s new documentary, The Story of Everything, explored the evidence that humanity and our universe are not the product of random evolution, but that we were created by a designer. “We look at the evidence for the beginning of the universe, and with it, the very real possibility that we’re looking at evidence of a creation event.” “We also look at the discovery of fine-tuning.” “And we look at the interior of the cell and the discoveries of the miniature machinery and the digital code that makes the proteins that make the machines and make everything else inside living cells.” Stephen C. Meyer

Jan Jekielek

19,015 views • 3 months ago

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

14,034 views • 4 months ago

✅Explanation of Meaning (by parts): 1. “Why does it exist? In what way does it exist? Does it have a purpose?” : The author opens with foundational questions about the Universe’s existence, its mode of being, and potential purpose, probing the reasons and nature of reality, inviting deep philosophical inquiry. 2. “Could it have not existed at all? Could reality be such that no intelligent being would have appeared?” : These questions explore the contingency of the Universe and the possibility of a reality without intelligence, highlighting the fragility and randomness of conditions that allow for conscious life. 3. “Why does it have the ability to give birth to intelligence?” : The author questions why the Universe possesses the capacity to produce intelligent beings, emphasizing the remarkable and seemingly improbable emergence of consciousness as a key feature of reality. 4. “Why is the world the way it is? Why is it so whimsical?” : These queries address the specific nature of the Universe and its apparent capriciousness, suggesting that its structure and behavior may lack clear logic or predictability, challenging deterministic views. 5. “What is its structure? Is it finite or infinite?” : The author seeks to understand the Universe’s composition and scale, questioning whether it has boundaries or extends infinitely, reflecting on its physical and metaphysical framework. 6. “Has it always existed or does it have a beginning? Does it have a prime cause?” : These questions probe the temporal origin of the Universe and whether it stems from a primary cause, engaging with debates about eternity versus a finite beginning, like the Big Bang. 7. “What lies beyond its limits? Is it eternally evolving or destined to decline in the future?” : The author wonders about what exists outside the Universe and its long-term trajectory, contemplating whether it will continue to evolve or face eventual decline, such as heat death. 8. “Can intelligent beings live forever? Is the world knowable or not?” : The final questions address the potential immortality of intelligent life and the Universe’s comprehensibility, exploring whether consciousness can persist indefinitely and if reality can be fully understood. 🗝️Main Idea (refined version): The author presents a series of profound questions about the Universe’s existence, purpose, structure, and capacity to produce intelligence, probing its contingency, whimsy, and knowability. These inquiries challenge us to reflect on reality’s nature, our place within it, and the possibility of eternal life or decline. They underscore the mystery of why the Universe exists as it does, ensuring humility and curiosity in the face of cosmic unknowns. By engaging with these questions, we confront the randomness and fragility of intelligent life’s emergence. This reflection inspires a quest for knowledge, blending philosophy and science to explore our origins. Ultimately, it urges us to find meaning in an uncertain, evolving cosmos, embracing the pursuit of truth as a guiding purpose.

✅Explanation of Meaning (by parts): 1. “Why does it exist? In what way does it exist? Does it have a purpose?” : The author opens with foundational questions about the Universe’s existence, its mode of being, and potential purpose, probing the reasons and nature of reality, inviting deep philosophical inquiry. 2. “Could it have not existed at all? Could reality be such that no intelligent being would have appeared?” : These questions explore the contingency of the Universe and the possibility of a reality without intelligence, highlighting the fragility and randomness of conditions that allow for conscious life. 3. “Why does it have the ability to give birth to intelligence?” : The author questions why the Universe possesses the capacity to produce intelligent beings, emphasizing the remarkable and seemingly improbable emergence of consciousness as a key feature of reality. 4. “Why is the world the way it is? Why is it so whimsical?” : These queries address the specific nature of the Universe and its apparent capriciousness, suggesting that its structure and behavior may lack clear logic or predictability, challenging deterministic views. 5. “What is its structure? Is it finite or infinite?” : The author seeks to understand the Universe’s composition and scale, questioning whether it has boundaries or extends infinitely, reflecting on its physical and metaphysical framework. 6. “Has it always existed or does it have a beginning? Does it have a prime cause?” : These questions probe the temporal origin of the Universe and whether it stems from a primary cause, engaging with debates about eternity versus a finite beginning, like the Big Bang. 7. “What lies beyond its limits? Is it eternally evolving or destined to decline in the future?” : The author wonders about what exists outside the Universe and its long-term trajectory, contemplating whether it will continue to evolve or face eventual decline, such as heat death. 8. “Can intelligent beings live forever? Is the world knowable or not?” : The final questions address the potential immortality of intelligent life and the Universe’s comprehensibility, exploring whether consciousness can persist indefinitely and if reality can be fully understood. 🗝️Main Idea (refined version): The author presents a series of profound questions about the Universe’s existence, purpose, structure, and capacity to produce intelligence, probing its contingency, whimsy, and knowability. These inquiries challenge us to reflect on reality’s nature, our place within it, and the possibility of eternal life or decline. They underscore the mystery of why the Universe exists as it does, ensuring humility and curiosity in the face of cosmic unknowns. By engaging with these questions, we confront the randomness and fragility of intelligent life’s emergence. This reflection inspires a quest for knowledge, blending philosophy and science to explore our origins. Ultimately, it urges us to find meaning in an uncertain, evolving cosmos, embracing the pursuit of truth as a guiding purpose.

Zafar Mirzo | Quotes

529,789 views • 1 year ago

Sorry, we don’t live in a simulation. The Spiritual Hierarchies, sometimes called the angelic hierarchies or the nine choirs of angels, are the living cosmos itself. Our study of them reveals not only our own path of glory and initiation, but also the actual substrate of the spiritual world. The bodies of the angels are what we understand as the qualities of heaven. These qualities are also expressed through the planetary spheres, and their activity reveals to us the laws of heaven. Just as the natural world shows us that all life operates symbiotically, so too does spiritual life. We live symbiotically with the angels as a part of them. This spiritual reality was understood by our ancestors since the beginning of time. Today, however, humanity has turned its back on this truth. Why? So that man may become a god in his own mind, rather than humbling himself within the order of creation and living under God, of which he is naturally a part. Today, many claim that the cosmos is not a living being, but dead matter. Space is imagined as lifeless, filled with dead planets like Mars that humanity is destined to reshape and animate in its own image. We see fantastical cosmologies that place man at the center of creation, surrounded by bizarre classes of alien beings within a hologram of disembodied energy waves, supposedly controlled by the mind and intention alone. The height of modern ignorance is the claim that the cosmos is nothing more than a simulation and that, like a video game, man must learn to manipulate it with knowledge in order to escape it. None of this is real. It is the materialist delusion of our age. We have reduced the cosmos to a machine, an inhuman thing to be controlled. The spiritual hierarchies are lost in this miscalculation and are instead described as aliens, non-human intelligences, or other invented terms that contain no initiatory meaning. We stand at the height of hubris, making ourselves gods within a mechanical cosmos. To truly progress, we must return to meaningful definitions of God, angel, and man. We can only advance when we are able to conceive of the cosmos as living and filled with living spiritual beings, just as we ourselves are. A cosmos of life. When we can do this, our true nature and purpose can be revealed, and we can take our rightful place as the tenth member of the hierarchy. How we define something declares its nature, and the nature of our world is not that of a machine.

Sorry, we don’t live in a simulation. The Spiritual Hierarchies, sometimes called the angelic hierarchies or the nine choirs of angels, are the living cosmos itself. Our study of them reveals not only our own path of glory and initiation, but also the actual substrate of the spiritual world. The bodies of the angels are what we understand as the qualities of heaven. These qualities are also expressed through the planetary spheres, and their activity reveals to us the laws of heaven. Just as the natural world shows us that all life operates symbiotically, so too does spiritual life. We live symbiotically with the angels as a part of them. This spiritual reality was understood by our ancestors since the beginning of time. Today, however, humanity has turned its back on this truth. Why? So that man may become a god in his own mind, rather than humbling himself within the order of creation and living under God, of which he is naturally a part. Today, many claim that the cosmos is not a living being, but dead matter. Space is imagined as lifeless, filled with dead planets like Mars that humanity is destined to reshape and animate in its own image. We see fantastical cosmologies that place man at the center of creation, surrounded by bizarre classes of alien beings within a hologram of disembodied energy waves, supposedly controlled by the mind and intention alone. The height of modern ignorance is the claim that the cosmos is nothing more than a simulation and that, like a video game, man must learn to manipulate it with knowledge in order to escape it. None of this is real. It is the materialist delusion of our age. We have reduced the cosmos to a machine, an inhuman thing to be controlled. The spiritual hierarchies are lost in this miscalculation and are instead described as aliens, non-human intelligences, or other invented terms that contain no initiatory meaning. We stand at the height of hubris, making ourselves gods within a mechanical cosmos. To truly progress, we must return to meaningful definitions of God, angel, and man. We can only advance when we are able to conceive of the cosmos as living and filled with living spiritual beings, just as we ourselves are. A cosmos of life. When we can do this, our true nature and purpose can be revealed, and we can take our rightful place as the tenth member of the hierarchy. How we define something declares its nature, and the nature of our world is not that of a machine.

Gigi Young

20,986 views • 7 months ago

At a Q&A, John MacArthur is asked about Christian nationalism. The kingdom of God is not of this world. Jesus said that. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would [fight].” His kingdom is not of this world. The kingdom of this world is a separate world; they’re not linked together. Let me say it another way: Nothing that happens in any nation, whether it’s a Communist nation, a Muslim nation, or a “quasi-Christian” nation, or an atheistic nation—nothing in that nation politically, socially has anything to do with the advancement of the kingdom of God, because the kingdom of God is separate from that system. God, in His sovereignty, is building His church, “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it,” Jesus said. So the idea that you should link up some political effort, some political process, some social process, some gain of power or influence in a culture as part of the advance of Christianity is alien to Christianity. You never have our Lord approaching anything like that, nor the apostles, and particularly the apostle Paul. He sought to gain no favor with the Roman Empire whatsoever, or for that matter, with any other of the rulers that he ran into during his life. Now, that is not to say that we are indifferent to what happens in the nation. We’ve been talking about that the last couple of Sunday mornings. We have to be the people who uphold righteousness. When we come to vote, we want to vote for that which is the most righteous option. Obviously, we can’t vote in righteousness, but we have to vote in a way that reflects our commitment to the righteousness of God. So we couldn’t possibly elect somebody who was an abortionist, somebody who was LGBTQ or LGBTQ-affirming, or any other deviation from God’s righteous moral standard. So it gets harder, doesn’t it, nowadays, because even sometimes when politicians are more conservative and anti-abortion, they may be sinful and wicked in some other categories, and it’s very hard to find out who is really honest and who is simply dishonest and seeking power. But in the end, we do what we can with the understanding that the responsibility of the church is not to advance the kingdom of this world. That’s a faulty viewpoint. Christian nationalism is usually tied to what is called post-millennialism, and that is the view that the church, somehow, by influencing the culture, can bring in the kingdom of Christ. In other words, it’s the idea not that Christ returns and sets up His kingdom, but that the church establishes His kingdom and then hands it to Him. That is not what Scripture teaches. What Scripture teaches is what we’re learning from the book of Revelation. Things are going to get worse and worse and worse. And the end of human history is not the church triumphant, reigning in the world and taking over the structures of human kingdoms; that’s not what happens. At the end of human history, the believers are persecuted and murdered, and that’s the very opposite of what Christian nationalism would anticipate. So we believe the Bible teaches that things get worse and worse, headed toward the wrath of God, which we’re seeing in Revelation, and then our Lord returns, Himself, to establish His kingdom is clearly what we read in the book of Revelation. OK?

At a Q&A, John MacArthur is asked about Christian nationalism. The kingdom of God is not of this world. Jesus said that. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would [fight].” His kingdom is not of this world. The kingdom of this world is a separate world; they’re not linked together. Let me say it another way: Nothing that happens in any nation, whether it’s a Communist nation, a Muslim nation, or a “quasi-Christian” nation, or an atheistic nation—nothing in that nation politically, socially has anything to do with the advancement of the kingdom of God, because the kingdom of God is separate from that system. God, in His sovereignty, is building His church, “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it,” Jesus said. So the idea that you should link up some political effort, some political process, some social process, some gain of power or influence in a culture as part of the advance of Christianity is alien to Christianity. You never have our Lord approaching anything like that, nor the apostles, and particularly the apostle Paul. He sought to gain no favor with the Roman Empire whatsoever, or for that matter, with any other of the rulers that he ran into during his life. Now, that is not to say that we are indifferent to what happens in the nation. We’ve been talking about that the last couple of Sunday mornings. We have to be the people who uphold righteousness. When we come to vote, we want to vote for that which is the most righteous option. Obviously, we can’t vote in righteousness, but we have to vote in a way that reflects our commitment to the righteousness of God. So we couldn’t possibly elect somebody who was an abortionist, somebody who was LGBTQ or LGBTQ-affirming, or any other deviation from God’s righteous moral standard. So it gets harder, doesn’t it, nowadays, because even sometimes when politicians are more conservative and anti-abortion, they may be sinful and wicked in some other categories, and it’s very hard to find out who is really honest and who is simply dishonest and seeking power. But in the end, we do what we can with the understanding that the responsibility of the church is not to advance the kingdom of this world. That’s a faulty viewpoint. Christian nationalism is usually tied to what is called post-millennialism, and that is the view that the church, somehow, by influencing the culture, can bring in the kingdom of Christ. In other words, it’s the idea not that Christ returns and sets up His kingdom, but that the church establishes His kingdom and then hands it to Him. That is not what Scripture teaches. What Scripture teaches is what we’re learning from the book of Revelation. Things are going to get worse and worse and worse. And the end of human history is not the church triumphant, reigning in the world and taking over the structures of human kingdoms; that’s not what happens. At the end of human history, the believers are persecuted and murdered, and that’s the very opposite of what Christian nationalism would anticipate. So we believe the Bible teaches that things get worse and worse, headed toward the wrath of God, which we’re seeing in Revelation, and then our Lord returns, Himself, to establish His kingdom is clearly what we read in the book of Revelation. OK?

Terri Green

13,029 views • 1 month ago

Nominalism lies at the root of much of the modern world’s dysfunction. It poses that the categories we use to understand reality exist only in our minds rather than reflecting anything objective in the world itself. You can't steelman this argument because it undermines the very coherence required for argument or knowledge. Taken from my discussion with Dr. Nathan Jacobs, The Realism of Symbology. Link below.

Nominalism lies at the root of much of the modern world’s dysfunction. It poses that the categories we use to understand reality exist only in our minds rather than reflecting anything objective in the world itself. You can't steelman this argument because it undermines the very coherence required for argument or knowledge. Taken from my discussion with Dr. Nathan Jacobs, The Realism of Symbology. Link below.

Jonathan Pageau

13,189 views • 8 months ago

“This Is An Epochal Moment” Science writer and Lord peer Matt Ridley joins me to discuss the collapse of the post war consensus and the growing crisis of trust in global institutions. We discuss the failures of organisations like the WHO and the United Nations, the politicisation of science from Covid to climate, and why expertise is increasingly seen as serving power rather than truth. A challenging conversation about science, energy, and whether the systems that shaped the modern world are now losing public trust. Podcast out now on all platforms | Links in replies

“This Is An Epochal Moment” Science writer and Lord peer Matt Ridley joins me to discuss the collapse of the post war consensus and the growing crisis of trust in global institutions. We discuss the failures of organisations like the WHO and the United Nations, the politicisation of science from Covid to climate, and why expertise is increasingly seen as serving power rather than truth. A challenging conversation about science, energy, and whether the systems that shaped the modern world are now losing public trust. Podcast out now on all platforms | Links in replies

Winston Marshall

22,308 views • 4 months ago

“We are saving Christianity. We are saving God.” -Eric Trump It takes a certain type of diabolical narcissism to believe that we can save God rather than that God is saving us. No matter where you land politically, we must name Christian Nationalism as a theological heresy. Rather than Jesus being the Savior of the world, political leaders claim to be the saviors of the world, of humanity, and civilization. And America replaces Jesus as God’s central messianic force at work in the world. Beware of anyone who says that they are saving God or even saving the world. There is only one Savior - and it is not Donald Trump. Rebuke it… in the name of Jesus.

“We are saving Christianity. We are saving God.” -Eric Trump It takes a certain type of diabolical narcissism to believe that we can save God rather than that God is saving us. No matter where you land politically, we must name Christian Nationalism as a theological heresy. Rather than Jesus being the Savior of the world, political leaders claim to be the saviors of the world, of humanity, and civilization. And America replaces Jesus as God’s central messianic force at work in the world. Beware of anyone who says that they are saving God or even saving the world. There is only one Savior - and it is not Donald Trump. Rebuke it… in the name of Jesus.

Shane Claiborne

24,723 views • 10 months ago

.Naval: Every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species. One of the things that you really learn when you read David Deutsch’s theories and you authenticate them for yourself is you realize humans are universal explainers. That means everything that we know in the universe follows the laws of physics, and there’s no reason to believe otherwise. If you think otherwise, then please present your better theory that explains the world. If you can’t do that, then you have to go with the laws of physics. Well, the laws of physics are completely computable. They can fit inside a Turing machine or computer, and a computer can simulate the laws of physics with arbitrary accuracy, limited only by the specific power of that computer. If you increase the power of that computer, you can simulate them more accurately. So humans already simulate—in our minds we simulate—and through our computers we simulate the weather, we simulate quasars, we even simulate human systems. We simulate the economy. We simulate all kinds of things. So anything that can be understood, we can understand in our minds. This is something the AGI people get wrong when they talk about superintelligence. There is nothing out there that can understand something fundamentally that we can’t understand. It might be faster at it, it might have more compute, it might have more memory, but there’s no concept that it can understand that we can’t ourselves understand. So we are maximal universal explainers. That means every human is capable of unbounded creativity. Anyone could be the next Einstein or Fermi or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Jonas Salk or whatever. So we can create anything. And if we can create anything, every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species.

.Naval: Every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species. One of the things that you really learn when you read David Deutsch’s theories and you authenticate them for yourself is you realize humans are universal explainers. That means everything that we know in the universe follows the laws of physics, and there’s no reason to believe otherwise. If you think otherwise, then please present your better theory that explains the world. If you can’t do that, then you have to go with the laws of physics. Well, the laws of physics are completely computable. They can fit inside a Turing machine or computer, and a computer can simulate the laws of physics with arbitrary accuracy, limited only by the specific power of that computer. If you increase the power of that computer, you can simulate them more accurately. So humans already simulate—in our minds we simulate—and through our computers we simulate the weather, we simulate quasars, we even simulate human systems. We simulate the economy. We simulate all kinds of things. So anything that can be understood, we can understand in our minds. This is something the AGI people get wrong when they talk about superintelligence. There is nothing out there that can understand something fundamentally that we can’t understand. It might be faster at it, it might have more compute, it might have more memory, but there’s no concept that it can understand that we can’t ourselves understand. So we are maximal universal explainers. That means every human is capable of unbounded creativity. Anyone could be the next Einstein or Fermi or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Jonas Salk or whatever. So we can create anything. And if we can create anything, every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species.

Arjun Khemani

33,110 views • 1 year ago