Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

This episode is about what physics says is there when nobody is looking, including time itself. Jim Al-Khalili, theoretical physicist and Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Surrey, joins to argue that the arrow of time is fundamental. Entropy increases because the arrow already points that way, and...

TOEwithCurt's profile picture

Curt Jaimungal

60,128 subscribers

11,958 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

27 Yorum

Jeff Michaud profil fotoğrafı
Jeff Michaud21 gün önce

Models aren’t reality, and all models are wrong. We should stop pretending otherwise by claiming that this or that “is fundamental”. We can certainly make such assumptions and explore adaptive implications but there is strictly no way of validating anything outside of ourselves and our own phenomenological experience.

Philip Spomer 🦬 profil fotoğrafı
Philip Spomer 🦬21 gün önce

What is “time itself”? I submit that it is precisely “flow.” Our conjunction of this flow with fields, and particles, is what physicists are referring to, by “time.”

Richard 🐎 profil fotoğrafı
Richard 🐎21 gün önce

Don’t see how the arrow of time can be fundamental rather than derived from a low entropy past. Thermodynamics playing a role in finding quantum gravity would suggest that spacetime is not fundamental at all, it emerges from a deeper structure.

Andre Sierra profil fotoğrafı
Andre Sierra21 gün önce

The arrow of time is the one that gets me. Almost every law of physics works the same running forwards or backwards, and yet we only ever remember the past. Looking forward to this one.

Tim Nordin profil fotoğrafı
Tim Nordin21 gün önce

I’m not sure “increasing disorder” gets us to the bottom of the arrow of time, because disordered already contains a choice of description. Shuffle a deck and we call it disordered because suits and ranks mean something to us, but it has simply moved from one exact configuration to another. Entropy is a precise quantity, “disorder” is an interpretation of what that quantity means. Maybe the deeper asymmetry is not disorder at all, but inheritance. Once something becomes real, it becomes history and gains the authority to constrain what can become real next. The unrealized alternatives do not.

Jing Liang profil fotoğrafı
Jing Liang21 gün önce

He is right but incomplete. The arrow of time is the direction of causality and correlates with increasing entropy only under the closed-system assumption. Entropy increase is not fundamental but an analytical and experimental artifact of that assumption.

dim dim profil fotoğrafı
dim dim21 gün önce

time arrow isn't about time in causality

Alison | AlisonBob.eth profil fotoğrafı
Alison | AlisonBob.eth20 gün önce

Mentions Bohm? I am in!! lol will listen at work today

Eric Olson profil fotoğrafı
Eric Olson21 gün önce

Hooray for Bohmian and mechanics

bio-neural.ai profil fotoğrafı
bio-neural.ai21 gün önce

Nah. Nonsense.

Sagacity Sweet Science profil fotoğrafı
Sagacity Sweet Science21 gün önce

“Arrow of time”? Time = Length Full Stop. ;) Happy hunting!

Victor🧬🛸👨‍🚀 profil fotoğrafı
Victor🧬🛸👨‍🚀21 gün önce

Curt Jaimungal, please interview physicist, writer and broadcaster, and professor at Arizona State University, Paul Davies. He wrote an iconic book in 2001 titled "How to Build a Time Machine" That would be a fantastic podcast

MT Mind profil fotoğrafı
MT Mind21 gün önce

Even science is part of the dream.

ⓧ augerd 🜏 ∞ 🜏 profil fotoğrafı
ⓧ augerd 🜏 ∞ 🜏20 gün önce

nonsense ... the arrow of time is left open/incomplete .. and this incompleteness is an invite ... an invite for each to compose with time!! and when one does compose with time... there is no entropy.. there is no decay ...

Potential Role Model profil fotoğrafı
Potential Role Model21 gün önce

The answer is still 42

synont profil fotoğrafı
synont20 gün önce

These attempts, being still rather immature, are already outdated. Have a look at the pinned post in my profile for the full text of "Universe Topology".

Ricardo Bartolome_ @ZOT profil fotoğrafı
Ricardo Bartolome_ @ZOT21 gün önce

Arrow of time, entropy, Emergent Compressed Vacuum, and a theoretical model culminating in 41 physical quantities with only two eigenvalues ​​and an interlocked overconstrained. Zero Operator Theory. Thank you for the more than 6k downloads in 200 days.

Dr_Prodworthy profil fotoğrafı
Dr_Prodworthy21 gün önce

@jimalkhalili If the Universe is unitary, it can be run forwards/backwards, but not changed, like a movie, preventing the Grandfather Paradox, b/c you would grow younger & become unborn. Conversely, irreversible measurements are the equivalent of an "arrow of time" & the 2nd law.

Mark Bell profil fotoğrafı
Mark Bell21 gün önce

I brake for blocktime.

Caleigh Fisher profil fotoğrafı
Caleigh Fisher21 gün önce

Imho time being a compact dimension is the only thing that can account for observations. The relationship of charge and chirality geometrically CRIES Klein spinor topology. Time is the (minimum) distance from minima to maxima. But take a lazy path if you like. 1/137 speed

ToE profil fotoğrafı
ToE17 gün önce

The claim that the arrow of time is fundamental identifies a real weakness in the usual entropy-based explanation, but it risks stopping the explanation one step too early. Saying entropy increases because time already has a preferred direction simply replaces one unexplained asymmetry with another. The deeper question is what physical structure makes processes genuinely directional in the first place. A more complete account would distinguish between an unresolved physical possibility, its lawful realization, and the persistent record produced by that realization. Those stages are not trivially interchangeable: a completed event contains dependencies and records that were not present beforehand. On this view, the thermodynamic arrow is not the cause of irreversibility, but neither does it need to be imposed as a primitive direction of time. It may instead emerge from a more fundamental asymmetry in how physical events become realized and recorded. The Past Hypothesis therefore does appear incomplete if it merely inserts a special low-entropy boundary condition. But declaring the arrow of time fundamental has a similar weakness unless the theory explains what generates that directionality. The real target should be the underlying mechanism from which temporal order, record formation and entropy increase all follow together.

Caleigh Fisher profil fotoğrafı
Caleigh Fisher21 gün önce

Rate of travel from minima to maxima is our action space.

ETHICAI profil fotoğrafı
ETHICAI21 gün önce

Time is emergent not fundamental. Same as "space" and consciousness. All ontologically one "stuff" working in unison ONLY configured to the agent....or the agent only configured to the emergence to give a whole. No boundaries. Waves upon waves upon waves.. a mist of a dream.

Lord Sub-Zero (Ioannis Giakalis) profil fotoğrafı
Lord Sub-Zero (Ioannis Giakalis)21 gün önce

Well… Beyond any misexplanation or not, you do not merely need the *sub-stance* ,to be present and experience the material essence. You need the *out* of it! Fundamental…? No grounds!

Pankaj Taneja, PHnotD profil fotoğrafı
Pankaj Taneja, PHnotD21 gün önce

Humans trying to not be humans to see the world. A human is always a human - there's no not-human place to stand. Our science is human science as the science of a hypothetical alien x would be alien x science, as it would impose the structure of cognition. There's no THE science

Scott Long profil fotoğrafı
Scott Long21 gün önce

Correct. My model has said this from the beginning, and now I am interested in what Jim has to say. Also, the gravity in my model upon revision is thermodynamic. Your post came to my feed at exactly the right time. Thank you.

Carl Gay profil fotoğrafı
Carl Gay21 gün önce

Strongly agree that thermodynamics belongs in the foundations, not as an afterthought. Al-Khalili’s insistence that the arrow of time is fundamental (and that entropy increases because the arrow already points that way) feels right. Thermodynamics is also the more useful comparison with AI systems rather than with consciousness. Consciousness remains the harder and more contested question. Using thermodynamics gives us clearer questions, and more useful answers.

Benzer Videolar

Is entropy subjective? Entropy is core to the laws of thermodynamics and the arrow of time. And yet, some physicists argue that entropy actually depends on who is measuring it. Could it really be the case that such a fundamental aspect of the laws of physics is subjective?! I addressed this question in my talk at the Rationalist Festival (Rat Fest) 2025, organised by Conjecture Institute. Watch here or on the YouTube link below!
10:16

Is entropy subjective? Entropy is core to the laws of thermodynamics and the arrow of time. And yet, some physicists argue that entropy actually depends on who is measuring it. Could it really be the case that such a fundamental aspect of the laws of physics is subjective?! I addressed this question in my talk at the Rationalist Festival (Rat Fest) 2025, organised by Conjecture Institute. Watch here or on the YouTube link below!

Dr Maria Violaris

54,941 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Lex Fridman asked Elon Musk what the meaning of life is. His answer was not what anyone expected. We do not know, he said. And that is exactly why we need to expand consciousness. Not to find the answer. To ask better questions. He believes the universe is full of things we cannot even formulate yet. We are like children trying to understand calculus. The problem is not that calculus is too hard. The problem is that we have not developed enough to know it exists. Consciousness, to him, is a tool for exploring the universe. The more of it we have, the better our questions become. The better our questions become, the closer we get to understanding what any of this means. This is why he builds rockets and brain interfaces and AI. Not because he has the answers. Because he thinks the only way to get them is to expand what we are capable of thinking. Most people spend their lives looking for meaning. Elon is building the tools to look for it at a scale we cannot yet imagine.
1:51

Lex Fridman asked Elon Musk what the meaning of life is. His answer was not what anyone expected. We do not know, he said. And that is exactly why we need to expand consciousness. Not to find the answer. To ask better questions. He believes the universe is full of things we cannot even formulate yet. We are like children trying to understand calculus. The problem is not that calculus is too hard. The problem is that we have not developed enough to know it exists. Consciousness, to him, is a tool for exploring the universe. The more of it we have, the better our questions become. The better our questions become, the closer we get to understanding what any of this means. This is why he builds rockets and brain interfaces and AI. Not because he has the answers. Because he thinks the only way to get them is to expand what we are capable of thinking. Most people spend their lives looking for meaning. Elon is building the tools to look for it at a scale we cannot yet imagine.

Shruti

16,844 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

WOWW…Tucker Carlson during his conversation with Col. Davis says that when he was in the Alps the wealthiest people visiting were Ukrainian. He also states that Ukraine is selling weapons to other nations including MEXICAN CARTELS. He wants to know why nobody is talking about this fact. Good question.
3:51

WOWW…Tucker Carlson during his conversation with Col. Davis says that when he was in the Alps the wealthiest people visiting were Ukrainian. He also states that Ukraine is selling weapons to other nations including MEXICAN CARTELS. He wants to know why nobody is talking about this fact. Good question.

Johnny St.Pete

71,451 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

There is a very small action in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring that I find increasingly unsettling the more closely I look at it: when Saruman reveals the Palantír, Gandalf immediately pulls the cloth back over it. One man wants to look. The other wants to cover up the very thing that allows him to see more. Why? If the Palantír is a tool that allows someone to see across great distances, shouldn't a wise person want to know as much as possible? And yet this scene suggests a paradox: sometimes the danger does not lie in knowing too little, but in becoming too convinced that what we know is enough to draw a conclusion. Saruman is the clearest example of this. When he shows the Palantír to Gandalf, Saruman says: “I have seen it.” The sentence sounds like a declaration of knowledge. I have seen it. I know what is happening. I understand Sauron’s power. But that is precisely the problem: seeing one thing is not the same as seeing the whole truth. The Palantír gives Saruman a wider field of vision, but a wider field of vision does not necessarily mean a complete perspective. Saruman can see Sauron’s rising power, the scale of the threat, and things an ordinary person could never see. But he cannot see everything that will ultimately determine the outcome of the war. He does not see Frodo. He does not know how far a small Hobbit can go. He does not know how loyalty, friendship, sacrifice, and seemingly insignificant choices will shape the course of history. In other words, Saruman has more information, but that does not mean he possesses the whole truth. And this is where the Palantír becomes such an interesting image of the trap of knowledge. Because information does not draw conclusions by itself. Human beings do. Saruman sees that Sauron is powerful. From that, he reasons that Sauron will win. Then, from “will win,” he arrives at “cannot be resisted.” And finally: “We must join with him.” Notice the word “must.” Saruman does not say, “I want to stand with Sauron.” He says, “We must.” A personal choice is transformed into an inevitability imposed by reality itself. That is Saruman’s real tragedy. He does not need to stop thinking in order to become corrupted. On the contrary, he continues to reason. He continues to analyze. He continues to speak in the language of rationality. He even calls his choice wisdom: “It would be wise, my friend.” And this is where intelligence begins to become a trap. Saruman has constructed a chain of reasoning in which every path leads to the same conclusion: Sauron is too powerful, therefore resisting him is futile; if resistance is futile, then cooperation is the practical choice; and if that is the practical choice, then surrender can be called wisdom. He is no longer using reason to search for the truth. He is using reason to protect a conclusion he has already accepted. That is a particularly dangerous form of self-justification: when a person begins to call what they fear something they “must” do, and then calls their surrender “reason.” And this is why Gandalf’s reaction to the Palantír is so significant. He does not argue with Saruman that knowledge is bad. He simply says: “A Palantír is a dangerous tool.” Then he covers it. Gandalf understands something Saruman has forgotten: being wise does not mean always wanting to see more. It means knowing the limits of your own understanding. There are things we need to know. But there are also things we need to recognize that we cannot fully control in the way they affect us. Gandalf does not cover the Palantír because he is afraid of the truth. He covers it because he understands that not everything we can see should be looked at in whatever way we choose. Especially because Gandalf also says: “We do not know who else may be watching.” That line completely changes the meaning of the orb. The Palantír is not merely a window through which we can look out at the world. It is also a window through which someone else can look back at us. Saruman thinks he is using the tool to observe Sauron. But eventually, Saruman himself becomes trapped in a relationship he no longer controls. This is the paradox of power: we think we are holding the tool, until we realize that the tool has begun to shape the way we see the world. And from here, the two Wizards stand before the same problem but respond to it in completely different ways. Saruman looks at Sauron’s power and concludes: We cannot win. Gandalf looks at the same thing but refuses to accept that conclusion. Not because Gandalf knows for certain that they will win. But because he understands that no one has the right to turn a possibility into a destiny simply because they cannot yet see a way out. That is why Gandalf’s question cuts so deeply: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?” Gandalf does not ask: “When did you become evil?” He asks: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason?” Because Saruman’s fall begins with the very thing that once made him powerful: his intelligence. Intelligence itself is not the problem. The problem begins at the moment a person believes their intelligence has become great enough that they no longer need to question themselves. And perhaps that is what makes the Palantír such an intriguing symbol. It is an orb designed to see far into the distance. Yet the farther Saruman sees, the narrower his world becomes. He sees Sauron and no longer sees the possibility of resisting Sauron. He sees power and no longer sees courage. He sees war and no longer sees the small people who might change its outcome. Gandalf, meanwhile, sees less, but leaves room for more possibilities. And perhaps this is the deepest difference between the two. Saruman wants a complete view of the world so that he can be certain about the future. Gandalf accepts that the future cannot be seen in its entirety. One seeks certainty. The other accepts the limits of knowledge. And in Tolkien’s world, it is the second person who remains free. Because sometimes the most dangerous thing is not that we do not know enough. It is that we know a little, reason a great deal, and then begin to believe that our conclusion is the whole truth. Saruman is not defeated by the Palantír simply because he looks into it. He is defeated by what happens afterward: he allows what he sees to become the limit of what he can imagine. And Gandalf, through an action so small that it could almost be overlooked, simply pulls the cloth back over the Palantír. As if reminding us: Wisdom does not always mean seeing more. Sometimes wisdom means recognizing that the very way we see can deceive us.
4:37

There is a very small action in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring that I find increasingly unsettling the more closely I look at it: when Saruman reveals the Palantír, Gandalf immediately pulls the cloth back over it. One man wants to look. The other wants to cover up the very thing that allows him to see more. Why? If the Palantír is a tool that allows someone to see across great distances, shouldn't a wise person want to know as much as possible? And yet this scene suggests a paradox: sometimes the danger does not lie in knowing too little, but in becoming too convinced that what we know is enough to draw a conclusion. Saruman is the clearest example of this. When he shows the Palantír to Gandalf, Saruman says: “I have seen it.” The sentence sounds like a declaration of knowledge. I have seen it. I know what is happening. I understand Sauron’s power. But that is precisely the problem: seeing one thing is not the same as seeing the whole truth. The Palantír gives Saruman a wider field of vision, but a wider field of vision does not necessarily mean a complete perspective. Saruman can see Sauron’s rising power, the scale of the threat, and things an ordinary person could never see. But he cannot see everything that will ultimately determine the outcome of the war. He does not see Frodo. He does not know how far a small Hobbit can go. He does not know how loyalty, friendship, sacrifice, and seemingly insignificant choices will shape the course of history. In other words, Saruman has more information, but that does not mean he possesses the whole truth. And this is where the Palantír becomes such an interesting image of the trap of knowledge. Because information does not draw conclusions by itself. Human beings do. Saruman sees that Sauron is powerful. From that, he reasons that Sauron will win. Then, from “will win,” he arrives at “cannot be resisted.” And finally: “We must join with him.” Notice the word “must.” Saruman does not say, “I want to stand with Sauron.” He says, “We must.” A personal choice is transformed into an inevitability imposed by reality itself. That is Saruman’s real tragedy. He does not need to stop thinking in order to become corrupted. On the contrary, he continues to reason. He continues to analyze. He continues to speak in the language of rationality. He even calls his choice wisdom: “It would be wise, my friend.” And this is where intelligence begins to become a trap. Saruman has constructed a chain of reasoning in which every path leads to the same conclusion: Sauron is too powerful, therefore resisting him is futile; if resistance is futile, then cooperation is the practical choice; and if that is the practical choice, then surrender can be called wisdom. He is no longer using reason to search for the truth. He is using reason to protect a conclusion he has already accepted. That is a particularly dangerous form of self-justification: when a person begins to call what they fear something they “must” do, and then calls their surrender “reason.” And this is why Gandalf’s reaction to the Palantír is so significant. He does not argue with Saruman that knowledge is bad. He simply says: “A Palantír is a dangerous tool.” Then he covers it. Gandalf understands something Saruman has forgotten: being wise does not mean always wanting to see more. It means knowing the limits of your own understanding. There are things we need to know. But there are also things we need to recognize that we cannot fully control in the way they affect us. Gandalf does not cover the Palantír because he is afraid of the truth. He covers it because he understands that not everything we can see should be looked at in whatever way we choose. Especially because Gandalf also says: “We do not know who else may be watching.” That line completely changes the meaning of the orb. The Palantír is not merely a window through which we can look out at the world. It is also a window through which someone else can look back at us. Saruman thinks he is using the tool to observe Sauron. But eventually, Saruman himself becomes trapped in a relationship he no longer controls. This is the paradox of power: we think we are holding the tool, until we realize that the tool has begun to shape the way we see the world. And from here, the two Wizards stand before the same problem but respond to it in completely different ways. Saruman looks at Sauron’s power and concludes: We cannot win. Gandalf looks at the same thing but refuses to accept that conclusion. Not because Gandalf knows for certain that they will win. But because he understands that no one has the right to turn a possibility into a destiny simply because they cannot yet see a way out. That is why Gandalf’s question cuts so deeply: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?” Gandalf does not ask: “When did you become evil?” He asks: “When did Saruman the Wise abandon reason?” Because Saruman’s fall begins with the very thing that once made him powerful: his intelligence. Intelligence itself is not the problem. The problem begins at the moment a person believes their intelligence has become great enough that they no longer need to question themselves. And perhaps that is what makes the Palantír such an intriguing symbol. It is an orb designed to see far into the distance. Yet the farther Saruman sees, the narrower his world becomes. He sees Sauron and no longer sees the possibility of resisting Sauron. He sees power and no longer sees courage. He sees war and no longer sees the small people who might change its outcome. Gandalf, meanwhile, sees less, but leaves room for more possibilities. And perhaps this is the deepest difference between the two. Saruman wants a complete view of the world so that he can be certain about the future. Gandalf accepts that the future cannot be seen in its entirety. One seeks certainty. The other accepts the limits of knowledge. And in Tolkien’s world, it is the second person who remains free. Because sometimes the most dangerous thing is not that we do not know enough. It is that we know a little, reason a great deal, and then begin to believe that our conclusion is the whole truth. Saruman is not defeated by the Palantír simply because he looks into it. He is defeated by what happens afterward: he allows what he sees to become the limit of what he can imagine. And Gandalf, through an action so small that it could almost be overlooked, simply pulls the cloth back over the Palantír. As if reminding us: Wisdom does not always mean seeing more. Sometimes wisdom means recognizing that the very way we see can deceive us.

🎼🌺Music Love♥️

15,487 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

This is Sainil Nagare. He is Professor Emeritus at Harvard and California University. When he was by student "Why Rajput history is not taught", he spoke the truth. He said "Rajput's have not won a single major war". Rajput's abused him very badly. Listen to the truth he has spoken on why Rajput History is not taught. 🙏🙏🔥
2:39

This is Sainil Nagare. He is Professor Emeritus at Harvard and California University. When he was by student "Why Rajput history is not taught", he spoke the truth. He said "Rajput's have not won a single major war". Rajput's abused him very badly. Listen to the truth he has spoken on why Rajput History is not taught. 🙏🙏🔥

STOIC 🇦🇱🇨🇴🗡️⚔️

137,716 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce

“Iran is not going to declare an end to the war while Israel is still attacking Lebanon. It has to be part of the deal. And of course, Bibi won’t play ball because he doesn’t want the war to end. And Trump is just waking up to that fact three months into the war, and he’s not happy about it.” “A lot of what he’s saying is that Bibi should do everything that he says. And now he’s learning that that’s not the way the world works. So constantly over the past three months, Trump is confronted by reality, which totally contradicts the made up story he has about the Iran war in his head. And guess what? In the end, reality is winning out.” “And that’s why we’re in the quagmire we’re in. Because Trump won’t accept the reality. He only wants the world to bend to what’s in his head. In this case, he’s not getting what he wants, so he’s throwing a tantrum.”
0:41

“Iran is not going to declare an end to the war while Israel is still attacking Lebanon. It has to be part of the deal. And of course, Bibi won’t play ball because he doesn’t want the war to end. And Trump is just waking up to that fact three months into the war, and he’s not happy about it.” “A lot of what he’s saying is that Bibi should do everything that he says. And now he’s learning that that’s not the way the world works. So constantly over the past three months, Trump is confronted by reality, which totally contradicts the made up story he has about the Iran war in his head. And guess what? In the end, reality is winning out.” “And that’s why we’re in the quagmire we’re in. Because Trump won’t accept the reality. He only wants the world to bend to what’s in his head. In this case, he’s not getting what he wants, so he’s throwing a tantrum.”

Josh Rogin

13,279 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Nobody in the Trump administration is doing what is right for the American people, Marc Elias says. And Trump wants it to stay that way. “Trump doesn’t want that corruption to be exposed. He doesn’t want that oversight. He doesn’t want the threat that is posed by Democrats controlling Congress.”
1:14

Nobody in the Trump administration is doing what is right for the American people, Marc Elias says. And Trump wants it to stay that way. “Trump doesn’t want that corruption to be exposed. He doesn’t want that oversight. He doesn’t want the threat that is posed by Democrats controlling Congress.”

Democracy Docket

16,876 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

It is not every day that I can tell you about a new explanation for the origin of the universe -- and the origin of time itself -- that is not complete bogus. But recently physicists have come up with one that works because it removes the problem of quantum gravity.
5:20

It is not every day that I can tell you about a new explanation for the origin of the universe -- and the origin of time itself -- that is not complete bogus. But recently physicists have come up with one that works because it removes the problem of quantum gravity.

Sabine Hossenfelder

116,042 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Bilbo Baggins: When a Life Is Stretched to Its Limit There is a line spoken by Bilbo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings that has stayed with me: “I’m old, Gandalf. I know I don’t look it, but I’m beginning to feel it in my heart. I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter that has been scraped over too much bread.” At first, this might sound like nothing more than the complaint of someone who has lived too long. But what caught my attention was not that Bilbo says he is old. It is the way he describes that feeling: “I feel thin.” He does not say that he is in pain. He says that he is being stretched. And from there, I began to see this line as an image of a being carrying a burden greater than the scope of an ordinary life. This is my personal interpretation. Tolkien does not directly present a concept of “capacity” or “the elasticity of a life” in the way I am using those ideas here. I am simply taking Bilbo’s own image of “butter and bread” and using it to look more deeply into the feeling he is describing. Too Much Bread and Too Little Butter If I had to imagine that feeling through another image, I would think of a balloon. When it is in its natural state, it has a certain shape. As the pressure increases, it begins to stretch. It has not burst. But it is no longer in its original state. And I think Bilbo is much the same. He has possessed the Ring for sixty years. Yet what is remarkable is that, after all that time, Bilbo is still Bilbo. He still loves the Shire, loves Bag End, cares about Frodo, writes books, smokes, and talks with Gandalf. The Ring has affected him, but it has not completely taken over who he is. That is why I do not think Bilbo’s endurance should simply be understood as: “He was so strong that the Ring could not affect him.” Quite the opposite. The words “I feel thin, sort of stretched...” show that he has already begun to feel that pressure from within. And this is where the image of “butter and bread” becomes especially interesting. The piece of bread does not necessarily have to be understood as the Ring itself. In the way I see it, it is something broader. It is the entire scope of what Bilbo is carrying: the passing years, his unusual existence, the pressure of the Ring, and everything that comes with it. The butter, meanwhile, is Bilbo himself. A finite being with finite capacity. A little butter is enough for a reasonably sized piece of bread. But when it has to be spread across a piece of bread that is too large, it has to become thinner. And that is what I feel in Bilbo. It is not that he suddenly becomes weak. It is that the same being is having to stretch itself to accommodate a burden that has grown beyond the boundaries of an ordinary life. “Stretched” Does Not Mean Destroyed This is the part I find most important. Bilbo is still alive. He is still himself. He still has things he loves and still has the ability to experience the world around him. But something has appeared within him that perhaps was not there before: He feels that he is being stretched too thin. So, being “stretched” does not mean that Bilbo has been destroyed. It shows that he is still enduring, but that his endurance has begun to leave a mark. Being able to endure does not mean being unaffected. A person can endure something for a very long time and still become tired. Someone can continue living almost normally while inwardly feeling that they are being stretched too thin. Bilbo is in precisely that state. And perhaps that is why his next words feel so natural: “I need a holiday, a very long holiday...” I like the way Bilbo says this. He does not try to prove that he can endure more. He simply realizes that he needs to leave. To me, this is a remarkable form of awareness. Bilbo does not wait until he has completely lost himself before recognizing the problem. He realizes that he is being stretched. And from that realization, he wants to step away from the circumstances creating that pressure. Recognizing Your Limit Is Also a Form of Strength If we continue with the image of the balloon, Bilbo has enough elasticity to withstand that pressure for decades. But that elasticity is not infinite. The more it is stretched, the farther it moves from its original state. And what catches my attention most is that Bilbo is still aware enough to recognize this. From this perspective, I see Bilbo’s decision to leave in a different way. He does not leave because he has failed. He leaves because he has recognized his limit. To me, this is much more meaningful than simply saying that Bilbo is “strong” because he was able to possess the Ring for so long. A being can be remarkably resilient and still have limits. And being able to recognize those limits is not weakness. It is awareness. Bilbo does not say: “I can endure more.” He says, in a very different way: “I need a holiday.” Perhaps that simplicity is exactly what makes the line so thought-provoking. He does not need to prove how strong he is. He only needs to be honest about what he is feeling. Why Is the Image of the “Butter” So Sad? That is also why I find Bilbo’s image of the butter so sad. Bilbo is still there. He has not disappeared. He has not been destroyed. But he feels as though he has been spread too thin. The image does not describe a moment of collapse. It describes a process. The burden creates pressure. The pressure forces Bilbo to adapt. That prolonged adaptation makes him feel increasingly stretched. And eventually, he realizes that he cannot continue that way forever. That is what makes the words “I feel thin” so important. “Thin” is not a declaration of weakness. It is a sign that a being has been pulled away from its natural state for too long. And recognizing that opens a choice for Bilbo: To leave. It makes me see Bilbo differently: “Bilbo is not a being that cannot be stretched; he is a being that has endured pressure for a very long time, yet remained aware enough to recognize that his capacity to stretch is not infinite.” And perhaps that is what I like most about this line. Strength is not always about enduring more. Sometimes, strength is knowing that you have endured enough.
4:18

Bilbo Baggins: When a Life Is Stretched to Its Limit There is a line spoken by Bilbo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings that has stayed with me: “I’m old, Gandalf. I know I don’t look it, but I’m beginning to feel it in my heart. I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter that has been scraped over too much bread.” At first, this might sound like nothing more than the complaint of someone who has lived too long. But what caught my attention was not that Bilbo says he is old. It is the way he describes that feeling: “I feel thin.” He does not say that he is in pain. He says that he is being stretched. And from there, I began to see this line as an image of a being carrying a burden greater than the scope of an ordinary life. This is my personal interpretation. Tolkien does not directly present a concept of “capacity” or “the elasticity of a life” in the way I am using those ideas here. I am simply taking Bilbo’s own image of “butter and bread” and using it to look more deeply into the feeling he is describing. Too Much Bread and Too Little Butter If I had to imagine that feeling through another image, I would think of a balloon. When it is in its natural state, it has a certain shape. As the pressure increases, it begins to stretch. It has not burst. But it is no longer in its original state. And I think Bilbo is much the same. He has possessed the Ring for sixty years. Yet what is remarkable is that, after all that time, Bilbo is still Bilbo. He still loves the Shire, loves Bag End, cares about Frodo, writes books, smokes, and talks with Gandalf. The Ring has affected him, but it has not completely taken over who he is. That is why I do not think Bilbo’s endurance should simply be understood as: “He was so strong that the Ring could not affect him.” Quite the opposite. The words “I feel thin, sort of stretched...” show that he has already begun to feel that pressure from within. And this is where the image of “butter and bread” becomes especially interesting. The piece of bread does not necessarily have to be understood as the Ring itself. In the way I see it, it is something broader. It is the entire scope of what Bilbo is carrying: the passing years, his unusual existence, the pressure of the Ring, and everything that comes with it. The butter, meanwhile, is Bilbo himself. A finite being with finite capacity. A little butter is enough for a reasonably sized piece of bread. But when it has to be spread across a piece of bread that is too large, it has to become thinner. And that is what I feel in Bilbo. It is not that he suddenly becomes weak. It is that the same being is having to stretch itself to accommodate a burden that has grown beyond the boundaries of an ordinary life. “Stretched” Does Not Mean Destroyed This is the part I find most important. Bilbo is still alive. He is still himself. He still has things he loves and still has the ability to experience the world around him. But something has appeared within him that perhaps was not there before: He feels that he is being stretched too thin. So, being “stretched” does not mean that Bilbo has been destroyed. It shows that he is still enduring, but that his endurance has begun to leave a mark. Being able to endure does not mean being unaffected. A person can endure something for a very long time and still become tired. Someone can continue living almost normally while inwardly feeling that they are being stretched too thin. Bilbo is in precisely that state. And perhaps that is why his next words feel so natural: “I need a holiday, a very long holiday...” I like the way Bilbo says this. He does not try to prove that he can endure more. He simply realizes that he needs to leave. To me, this is a remarkable form of awareness. Bilbo does not wait until he has completely lost himself before recognizing the problem. He realizes that he is being stretched. And from that realization, he wants to step away from the circumstances creating that pressure. Recognizing Your Limit Is Also a Form of Strength If we continue with the image of the balloon, Bilbo has enough elasticity to withstand that pressure for decades. But that elasticity is not infinite. The more it is stretched, the farther it moves from its original state. And what catches my attention most is that Bilbo is still aware enough to recognize this. From this perspective, I see Bilbo’s decision to leave in a different way. He does not leave because he has failed. He leaves because he has recognized his limit. To me, this is much more meaningful than simply saying that Bilbo is “strong” because he was able to possess the Ring for so long. A being can be remarkably resilient and still have limits. And being able to recognize those limits is not weakness. It is awareness. Bilbo does not say: “I can endure more.” He says, in a very different way: “I need a holiday.” Perhaps that simplicity is exactly what makes the line so thought-provoking. He does not need to prove how strong he is. He only needs to be honest about what he is feeling. Why Is the Image of the “Butter” So Sad? That is also why I find Bilbo’s image of the butter so sad. Bilbo is still there. He has not disappeared. He has not been destroyed. But he feels as though he has been spread too thin. The image does not describe a moment of collapse. It describes a process. The burden creates pressure. The pressure forces Bilbo to adapt. That prolonged adaptation makes him feel increasingly stretched. And eventually, he realizes that he cannot continue that way forever. That is what makes the words “I feel thin” so important. “Thin” is not a declaration of weakness. It is a sign that a being has been pulled away from its natural state for too long. And recognizing that opens a choice for Bilbo: To leave. It makes me see Bilbo differently: “Bilbo is not a being that cannot be stretched; he is a being that has endured pressure for a very long time, yet remained aware enough to recognize that his capacity to stretch is not infinite.” And perhaps that is what I like most about this line. Strength is not always about enduring more. Sometimes, strength is knowing that you have endured enough.

🎼🌺Music Love♥️

15,306 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Eric Weinstein on UFO's: "There is definitely something there. I am worried they are multi temporal adversaries - Time travel. 🛸👽😱 “We have been too long in Einstein’s prison.” If general relativity is the last word, he says UAPs are probably 1960s nation state weapons. He does not think GR is the last word. “I’m worried about multi temporal adversaries.” Time may not be one dimensional. “If you meet an adversary who has access to multi-time, it’s like you’re trying to compete with them with an A-10 Warthog and you’ve got your only gun on a track, except with time rather than with space.” The speed of light is too brutal if Einstein stays in force. Go to Alpha Centauri and back near light speed and Earth is eight years older when you return. “Nobody wants to do that, and that’s just the first star.” He points to a real instrument. DESI at Kitt Peak in southern Arizona. He believes it will show the cosmological constant is not constant, that dark energy is written into Einstein’s equations with the wrong formula, and that the result is heading toward five sigma “if we aren’t there already.” The physics we teach may be a prison. A named experiment in Arizona is the lock he thinks is about to click.
3:56

Eric Weinstein on UFO's: "There is definitely something there. I am worried they are multi temporal adversaries - Time travel. 🛸👽😱 “We have been too long in Einstein’s prison.” If general relativity is the last word, he says UAPs are probably 1960s nation state weapons. He does not think GR is the last word. “I’m worried about multi temporal adversaries.” Time may not be one dimensional. “If you meet an adversary who has access to multi-time, it’s like you’re trying to compete with them with an A-10 Warthog and you’ve got your only gun on a track, except with time rather than with space.” The speed of light is too brutal if Einstein stays in force. Go to Alpha Centauri and back near light speed and Earth is eight years older when you return. “Nobody wants to do that, and that’s just the first star.” He points to a real instrument. DESI at Kitt Peak in southern Arizona. He believes it will show the cosmological constant is not constant, that dark energy is written into Einstein’s equations with the wrong formula, and that the result is heading toward five sigma “if we aren’t there already.” The physics we teach may be a prison. A named experiment in Arizona is the lock he thinks is about to click.

Interstellar

88,802 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

AOC on Vance/Watergate: I think what it reveals more is about what JD Vance’s vision for America is, is that he wants more of the same. He doesn't want anything to change in this country. He wants to continue the reality that corruption is banal, normal. And he loves the way that the country is being governed right now. He loves that you can start an illegal war and make tons of people rich, send Americans into harm's way, and that it'll barely be a blip in on people's radar. He loves that we can engage in record levels of corruption and get away with it. And so in that statement, it's less about the acknowledgment of the reality, but it's that his vision for the future is exactly the same, and that your life won't change if so long as he's in charge.
1:38

AOC on Vance/Watergate: I think what it reveals more is about what JD Vance’s vision for America is, is that he wants more of the same. He doesn't want anything to change in this country. He wants to continue the reality that corruption is banal, normal. And he loves the way that the country is being governed right now. He loves that you can start an illegal war and make tons of people rich, send Americans into harm's way, and that it'll barely be a blip in on people's radar. He loves that we can engage in record levels of corruption and get away with it. And so in that statement, it's less about the acknowledgment of the reality, but it's that his vision for the future is exactly the same, and that your life won't change if so long as he's in charge.

Acyn

82,210 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

This is Mr Asad, he is the owner of the restaurant where the employee hired a child for $100 to shovel their parking lot, when it was time to pay he refused and instead offered him a plate of food instead. He is claiming that he didn’t know it even happened until someone sent him the video the mother of the child posted, complaining about what happened. He is claiming he spoke to the mother and will pay the boy what was discussed. He seemed very concerned and apologetic, it makes me wonder if he truly is sorry what happened. I also wonder if the employee who he is claiming was responsible was let go for scamming a child. Do you think he would be doing the right thing had the mother’s video not gone viral, if he didn’t fire the employee, does that confirm that he really only cares because of backlash?
0:49

This is Mr Asad, he is the owner of the restaurant where the employee hired a child for $100 to shovel their parking lot, when it was time to pay he refused and instead offered him a plate of food instead. He is claiming that he didn’t know it even happened until someone sent him the video the mother of the child posted, complaining about what happened. He is claiming he spoke to the mother and will pay the boy what was discussed. He seemed very concerned and apologetic, it makes me wonder if he truly is sorry what happened. I also wonder if the employee who he is claiming was responsible was let go for scamming a child. Do you think he would be doing the right thing had the mother’s video not gone viral, if he didn’t fire the employee, does that confirm that he really only cares because of backlash?

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

38,747 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

This is a podcast all about time: depending on how you look at it, that's either unnerving or exhilarating. Professor Simon Saunders — Emeritus Fellow at Merton College, Oxford, and one of the most celebrated philosophers of physics alive — goes deep on what time actually is, why special relativity demands a block universe, and what any of this has to do with the Many Worlds Interpretation. Why doesn't space inherit the paradoxes of time? What's really missing from the block universe picture (and is it the same thing missing from quantum probability?) Saunders argues that Bell inequality violations aren't evidence against locality but evidence for Many Worlds, presents a novel derivation of the Born rule from a single physical postulate, and sketches a quantum version of Leibniz's monadology as a possible path through the mind-body problem. I hope you enjoy.
1:41

This is a podcast all about time: depending on how you look at it, that's either unnerving or exhilarating. Professor Simon Saunders — Emeritus Fellow at Merton College, Oxford, and one of the most celebrated philosophers of physics alive — goes deep on what time actually is, why special relativity demands a block universe, and what any of this has to do with the Many Worlds Interpretation. Why doesn't space inherit the paradoxes of time? What's really missing from the block universe picture (and is it the same thing missing from quantum probability?) Saunders argues that Bell inequality violations aren't evidence against locality but evidence for Many Worlds, presents a novel derivation of the Born rule from a single physical postulate, and sketches a quantum version of Leibniz's monadology as a possible path through the mind-body problem. I hope you enjoy.

Curt Jaimungal

12,414 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Jeff Bezos on the exact moment he realized he would never be a great physicist: "I really was determined to be a theoretical physicist. It's why I went to Princeton in the first place. And then I realized I was going to be a mediocre theoretical physicist. There were a few people in my classes, in quantum mechanics and so on, who could effortlessly do things that were so difficult for me." "Theoretical physics is not one of those fields where only the top few percent move the state of the art forward. It's one of those things where your brain has to be wired in a certain way." "My friend Joe and I were working on a very difficult partial differential equations problem set one night, and there was one problem we worked on for three hours. We made no headway whatsoever. And we looked up at each other at the same time and we said, Yasantha." "He stared at it for just a few seconds, maybe 10 seconds, and he said, cosine. And I said, what do you mean, cosine? He said, that's the answer. And I said, no, no, no, come on. And he said, let me show you. And he took out some paper and wrote down three pages of equations, everything canceled out, and the answer was cosine." "I said, Yasantha, did you do that in your head? And he said, oh no, that would be impossible. A few years ago I solved a similar problem, and I could map this problem onto that problem, and then it was immediately obvious that the answer was cosine." "You have an experience like that, you realize maybe being a theoretical physicist isn't what the universe wants you to be."
3:10

Jeff Bezos on the exact moment he realized he would never be a great physicist: "I really was determined to be a theoretical physicist. It's why I went to Princeton in the first place. And then I realized I was going to be a mediocre theoretical physicist. There were a few people in my classes, in quantum mechanics and so on, who could effortlessly do things that were so difficult for me." "Theoretical physics is not one of those fields where only the top few percent move the state of the art forward. It's one of those things where your brain has to be wired in a certain way." "My friend Joe and I were working on a very difficult partial differential equations problem set one night, and there was one problem we worked on for three hours. We made no headway whatsoever. And we looked up at each other at the same time and we said, Yasantha." "He stared at it for just a few seconds, maybe 10 seconds, and he said, cosine. And I said, what do you mean, cosine? He said, that's the answer. And I said, no, no, no, come on. And he said, let me show you. And he took out some paper and wrote down three pages of equations, everything canceled out, and the answer was cosine." "I said, Yasantha, did you do that in your head? And he said, oh no, that would be impossible. A few years ago I solved a similar problem, and I could map this problem onto that problem, and then it was immediately obvious that the answer was cosine." "You have an experience like that, you realize maybe being a theoretical physicist isn't what the universe wants you to be."

Jaynit

113,374 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.
7:30

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.

Stefan.

3,018,923 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

WOW: Jake Tapper identifies what some might say is the main problem plaguing the Democratic Party, and he does it in a way that every single sane American should understand. They're so out of touch that even his 15 year-old son wanting to become a police officer is called into question as racist. "You’re deciding he’s a racist because he wants to be a cop? And why does he want to be a cop? He wants to be a cop because he wants to help people, you know, and and he thinks that’s the best way he can help people. And that’s how the Democratic Party talks to men, not just white men, but men." "The idea that he wants to be a policeman, therefore he’s — he’s racist, my son. And like, you know that was the big laugh and then I got dragged in the comments and all that stuff. And — and I thought to myself this is why you f***ers are losing elections.”
2:00

WOW: Jake Tapper identifies what some might say is the main problem plaguing the Democratic Party, and he does it in a way that every single sane American should understand. They're so out of touch that even his 15 year-old son wanting to become a police officer is called into question as racist. "You’re deciding he’s a racist because he wants to be a cop? And why does he want to be a cop? He wants to be a cop because he wants to help people, you know, and and he thinks that’s the best way he can help people. And that’s how the Democratic Party talks to men, not just white men, but men." "The idea that he wants to be a policeman, therefore he’s — he’s racist, my son. And like, you know that was the big laugh and then I got dragged in the comments and all that stuff. And — and I thought to myself this is why you f***ers are losing elections.”

DeVory Darkins

749,238 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce