Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

This is a careful lecture that can be followed with zero background knowledge. Einstein thought he'd caught quantum mechanics in an act of spookiness — this podcast asks whether he was even worried about the right thing. Tim Maudlin, professor of philosophy at NYU and a leading philosopher of...

TOEwithCurt's profile picture

Curt Jaimungal

59,697 subscribers

10,709 просмотров • 9 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

MIT put its full quantum physics course online for free and the opening lecture starts with a box you can't look inside. Almost nobody finishes it. This is 8.04, Quantum Physics I, taught by Allan Adams on the MIT campus. Same room, same problem sets, same professor the tuition pays for. He skips the history and the philosophy. He builds a simple apparatus, sends things through it, and shows the result no classical picture can survive. Skip the first 10 minutes, that part is course admin. What follows is thought experiment stacked on thought experiment until superposition stops being a word and becomes the only explanation left. Every engineer arguing about quantum computing in 2026 is arguing about what happens in this hour. A systems engineer I know watched it twice with a notebook and called it the clearest teaching he'd seen since university. MIT charges $60,000 a year. This lecture costs nothing. The gate was never locked. Almost nobody walks through.
1:15:32

MIT put its full quantum physics course online for free and the opening lecture starts with a box you can't look inside. Almost nobody finishes it. This is 8.04, Quantum Physics I, taught by Allan Adams on the MIT campus. Same room, same problem sets, same professor the tuition pays for. He skips the history and the philosophy. He builds a simple apparatus, sends things through it, and shows the result no classical picture can survive. Skip the first 10 minutes, that part is course admin. What follows is thought experiment stacked on thought experiment until superposition stops being a word and becomes the only explanation left. Every engineer arguing about quantum computing in 2026 is arguing about what happens in this hour. A systems engineer I know watched it twice with a notebook and called it the clearest teaching he'd seen since university. MIT charges $60,000 a year. This lecture costs nothing. The gate was never locked. Almost nobody walks through.

xanax

14,291 просмотров • 12 дней назад

This is another scene trafficking in boring clichés: The camera slowly swoops around Syril, as he gazes with wet eyes upon scenes of generic carnage, to the accompaniment of maudlin string music. Syril is experiencing Profound Moral Feelings. Everything he believed in was a lie?? This goes on for some time. I can already predict the responses to this. But I am completely serious. What is actually interesting about this? This is just not remarkable at all. Gilroy is going through the motions of a totally predictable story in a totally pedestrian way. And that is a consistent failing of the series.
0:49

This is another scene trafficking in boring clichés: The camera slowly swoops around Syril, as he gazes with wet eyes upon scenes of generic carnage, to the accompaniment of maudlin string music. Syril is experiencing Profound Moral Feelings. Everything he believed in was a lie?? This goes on for some time. I can already predict the responses to this. But I am completely serious. What is actually interesting about this? This is just not remarkable at all. Gilroy is going through the motions of a totally predictable story in a totally pedestrian way. And that is a consistent failing of the series.

The Mighty Dud Bolt

388,000 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Former SpaceX Head of Talent : I think Elon is smarter than Einstein. "One way we explained the SpaceX culture, in order to be honest with people, was this: SpaceX is like special forces. We take on missions that others consider impossible. This will be the hardest thing you ever do in your life. It attracts the kind of personality that wants to be a Navy SEAL, but in engineering. It will be bruising, punishing, and uncomfortable every day. Growth is not comfortable. If you are comfortable, you are probably not growing. To work for Elon is to be comfortable living in a constant state of discomfort. He has 10,000 times more going through his brain than the average person at any given moment. Our ability to think about and analyze a problem is nothing compared to how his brain works. Elon aspires to be the greatest engineer in the history of the world. He has the cognitive horsepower of the geniuses who came before us. But he is not Einstein, is he? I think he is smarter than Einstein."
1:30

Former SpaceX Head of Talent : I think Elon is smarter than Einstein. "One way we explained the SpaceX culture, in order to be honest with people, was this: SpaceX is like special forces. We take on missions that others consider impossible. This will be the hardest thing you ever do in your life. It attracts the kind of personality that wants to be a Navy SEAL, but in engineering. It will be bruising, punishing, and uncomfortable every day. Growth is not comfortable. If you are comfortable, you are probably not growing. To work for Elon is to be comfortable living in a constant state of discomfort. He has 10,000 times more going through his brain than the average person at any given moment. Our ability to think about and analyze a problem is nothing compared to how his brain works. Elon aspires to be the greatest engineer in the history of the world. He has the cognitive horsepower of the geniuses who came before us. But he is not Einstein, is he? I think he is smarter than Einstein."

Doge Tipping

214,913 просмотров • 25 дней назад

Demis Hassabis has a test for whether AI is actually creative. Give it only the data Einstein had in 1901 and see if it invents relativity. He thinks today's text models will never pass it. This is his bar for true creativity. Not extrapolating something already known. Generating a genuinely new hypothesis about reality that nobody has reached before. The thing Einstein did in 1905 with a handful of papers that rewrote physics. Hassabis wants to hand an AI the same starting data Einstein had and see if it gets there on its own. No peeking past the cutoff. Then he explained why he doubts text alone can do it. Einstein daydreamed his way to relativity. He was a patent clerk imagining what it would look like to ride alongside a beam of light. He ran the experiment in his head first, then proved it with math. Yann LeCun, who won the Turing Award and ran AI at Meta, says the same thing in blunter terms. He says today's models don't understand the physical world as well as a housecat, and that text alone is "complete BS" as a path to real intelligence. Two of the most decorated minds in AI agree the missing piece is the same. Hassabis thinks an AI needs to understand the world of atoms, not just the world of bits. Most of the industry is racing to scale text models. Hassabis just told them the most important kind of thinking might live somewhere text can't reach. --- Watch the full interview at Semafor on YouTube
1:24

Demis Hassabis has a test for whether AI is actually creative. Give it only the data Einstein had in 1901 and see if it invents relativity. He thinks today's text models will never pass it. This is his bar for true creativity. Not extrapolating something already known. Generating a genuinely new hypothesis about reality that nobody has reached before. The thing Einstein did in 1905 with a handful of papers that rewrote physics. Hassabis wants to hand an AI the same starting data Einstein had and see if it gets there on its own. No peeking past the cutoff. Then he explained why he doubts text alone can do it. Einstein daydreamed his way to relativity. He was a patent clerk imagining what it would look like to ride alongside a beam of light. He ran the experiment in his head first, then proved it with math. Yann LeCun, who won the Turing Award and ran AI at Meta, says the same thing in blunter terms. He says today's models don't understand the physical world as well as a housecat, and that text alone is "complete BS" as a path to real intelligence. Two of the most decorated minds in AI agree the missing piece is the same. Hassabis thinks an AI needs to understand the world of atoms, not just the world of bits. Most of the industry is racing to scale text models. Hassabis just told them the most important kind of thinking might live somewhere text can't reach. --- Watch the full interview at Semafor on YouTube

Ihtesham Ali

18,905 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

The Non-Traversable Bridge Einstein Found Inside Gravity Einstein’s equations not only describe gravity as a force but as the shape of Spacetime as well. In 1935, Einstein and Rosen found that the Schwarzschild solution could be written in a way that reveals something astonishing: Two separate exterior regions of Spacetime joined by a bridge-like throat Rᵤᵥ = 0 This became known as the Einstein-Rosen Bridge. It is often called a Wormhole, but the classical Einstein-Rosen bridge is not a science-fiction tunnel. In the standard Schwarzschild geometry, it is non-traversable. The throat does not remain open long enough for ordinary travel from one region to the other. Its real power is mathematical. It shows that General Relativity is not merely about objects moving through space. The theory allows Spacetime to have global structure such as different regions, horizons, extensions, and hidden connections that are not visible from one local patch alone. The Einstein-Rosen bridge is one of the earliest glimpses of that deeper idea. Gravity is geometry. And sometimes, geometry has two worlds joined by a throat. #Astrophysics #GeneralRelativity #Einstein #BlackHole #Spacetime #Cosmology #Gravity #Wormhole #Mathematics #Physics
0:56

The Non-Traversable Bridge Einstein Found Inside Gravity Einstein’s equations not only describe gravity as a force but as the shape of Spacetime as well. In 1935, Einstein and Rosen found that the Schwarzschild solution could be written in a way that reveals something astonishing: Two separate exterior regions of Spacetime joined by a bridge-like throat Rᵤᵥ = 0 This became known as the Einstein-Rosen Bridge. It is often called a Wormhole, but the classical Einstein-Rosen bridge is not a science-fiction tunnel. In the standard Schwarzschild geometry, it is non-traversable. The throat does not remain open long enough for ordinary travel from one region to the other. Its real power is mathematical. It shows that General Relativity is not merely about objects moving through space. The theory allows Spacetime to have global structure such as different regions, horizons, extensions, and hidden connections that are not visible from one local patch alone. The Einstein-Rosen bridge is one of the earliest glimpses of that deeper idea. Gravity is geometry. And sometimes, geometry has two worlds joined by a throat. #Astrophysics #GeneralRelativity #Einstein #BlackHole #Spacetime #Cosmology #Gravity #Wormhole #Mathematics #Physics

Mathelirium

91,291 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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!
1:34

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 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

There's a physics lecture with over a million views' worth of value and almost no views. No slides. No notes. Just a green chalkboard and a man who clearly doesn't need one. The professor is V. Balakrishnan, IIT Madras. The course is Classical Physics, recorded for NPTEL — India's free national lecture archive — and quietly sitting on YouTube since 2009. What makes lecture one worth your time isn't production value. It's the opposite. It's a full subject held in one person's head, delivered in order, with nothing between him and the material. He opens with the actual boundary of the field: what classical mechanics can explain, and the precise point where it hands off to quantum theory. No hedging, no filler — every sentence finished before the next one starts. A friend who works in physics told me he went through the entire series and ranks it above courses he paid thousands of dollars for. It's been online for 17 years. Low resolution, zero marketing, still one of the best physics courses on the internet. Sometimes the best teaching in the world was never behind a paywall — it just wasn't in English-language algorithms' way of finding it.
48:48

There's a physics lecture with over a million views' worth of value and almost no views. No slides. No notes. Just a green chalkboard and a man who clearly doesn't need one. The professor is V. Balakrishnan, IIT Madras. The course is Classical Physics, recorded for NPTEL — India's free national lecture archive — and quietly sitting on YouTube since 2009. What makes lecture one worth your time isn't production value. It's the opposite. It's a full subject held in one person's head, delivered in order, with nothing between him and the material. He opens with the actual boundary of the field: what classical mechanics can explain, and the precise point where it hands off to quantum theory. No hedging, no filler — every sentence finished before the next one starts. A friend who works in physics told me he went through the entire series and ranks it above courses he paid thousands of dollars for. It's been online for 17 years. Low resolution, zero marketing, still one of the best physics courses on the internet. Sometimes the best teaching in the world was never behind a paywall — it just wasn't in English-language algorithms' way of finding it.

Nainsi Dwivedi

12,346 просмотров • 9 дней назад

The moment Moses strikes the rock instead of speaking to it, something breaks — not just in the story, but in the entire logic of leadership. This lecture traces the final act of the Exodus narrative, from the golden calf to the poisonous serpents to the strange bronze idol that somehow becomes the precursor to the crucifix, and asks what it all means for a civilization that's starting to forget. Peterson walks through the collapse that happens every time a people abandon self-governance for hedonism, how that abdication quietly summons the tyrant it thinks it's rejecting, and why Korah's revolutionary accusation — that all authority is just power wearing a costume — sounds so familiar right now. The throughline from Moses to Joshua to Christ turns out to be a single radical claim: that the only thing capable of making you immune to poison is the willingness to look at it directly. This lecture was filmed on March 19th, 2024 in Fort Myers, Florida
1:31:01

The moment Moses strikes the rock instead of speaking to it, something breaks — not just in the story, but in the entire logic of leadership. This lecture traces the final act of the Exodus narrative, from the golden calf to the poisonous serpents to the strange bronze idol that somehow becomes the precursor to the crucifix, and asks what it all means for a civilization that's starting to forget. Peterson walks through the collapse that happens every time a people abandon self-governance for hedonism, how that abdication quietly summons the tyrant it thinks it's rejecting, and why Korah's revolutionary accusation — that all authority is just power wearing a costume — sounds so familiar right now. The throughline from Moses to Joshua to Christ turns out to be a single radical claim: that the only thing capable of making you immune to poison is the willingness to look at it directly. This lecture was filmed on March 19th, 2024 in Fort Myers, Florida

Dr Jordan B Peterson

273,257 просмотров • 17 дней назад

This is evergreen! When a young boy asks John MacArthur why didn’t Jesus just *Pow* in the garden when Eve ate the apple, He can stop it like that? Bible Questions and Answers, Part 70 — John MacArthur “I’m Joey Cusenza, and my question is, why didn’t Jesus stop Eve at the garden of Eden when she ate the fruit? *Like, I mean, pow,* He can just stop it like that. Why didn’t He?” JOHN: That is the most profound question of all questions: Why didn’t God stop Eve from eating the fruit? This theologians call the problem of theodicy: Why is there evil in the world? If God is absolutely holy, why is there evil in the world? That’s essentially that question: Why didn’t He stop it before it started? First of all, the broad answer is this: because God allowed her to eat that fruit, God allowed sin to come into the world, so that He could be glorified. Now God is a God of love, and He could express that love even in the perfection of the Trinity. And He expressed that love to Adam and Eve when He walked and talked with them before they sinned and before she ate. So God could express His love. But if there had never been a sin, there would never be forgiveness, there would never be mercy, there would never be grace, there would never be compassion, there would never be healing, there would never be restoration. And so, forever and ever, the angels would never be able to worship God for all those aspects of His nature. So God allows evil so that He can display grace and mercy and compassion because those also are attributes of God that can only be put on display through His response to sin. There’s another reason, and that is that God is holy and just and righteous. He would never be able to display ultimately what that means unless there were sinners to judge. So whether it is judgment on sin or whether it is salvation from sin, the fact that sin exists allows God to display eternally the glory of the full scope of His attributes. Okay? Great question. Thank you, bud.
3:11

This is evergreen! When a young boy asks John MacArthur why didn’t Jesus just *Pow* in the garden when Eve ate the apple, He can stop it like that? Bible Questions and Answers, Part 70 — John MacArthur “I’m Joey Cusenza, and my question is, why didn’t Jesus stop Eve at the garden of Eden when she ate the fruit? *Like, I mean, pow,* He can just stop it like that. Why didn’t He?” JOHN: That is the most profound question of all questions: Why didn’t God stop Eve from eating the fruit? This theologians call the problem of theodicy: Why is there evil in the world? If God is absolutely holy, why is there evil in the world? That’s essentially that question: Why didn’t He stop it before it started? First of all, the broad answer is this: because God allowed her to eat that fruit, God allowed sin to come into the world, so that He could be glorified. Now God is a God of love, and He could express that love even in the perfection of the Trinity. And He expressed that love to Adam and Eve when He walked and talked with them before they sinned and before she ate. So God could express His love. But if there had never been a sin, there would never be forgiveness, there would never be mercy, there would never be grace, there would never be compassion, there would never be healing, there would never be restoration. And so, forever and ever, the angels would never be able to worship God for all those aspects of His nature. So God allows evil so that He can display grace and mercy and compassion because those also are attributes of God that can only be put on display through His response to sin. There’s another reason, and that is that God is holy and just and righteous. He would never be able to display ultimately what that means unless there were sinners to judge. So whether it is judgment on sin or whether it is salvation from sin, the fact that sin exists allows God to display eternally the glory of the full scope of His attributes. Okay? Great question. Thank you, bud.

Terri Green

132,141 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

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:
57:17

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 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Oxford professor John Lennox eloquently arguing in front of the Oxford Union Society for the existence of God and the reality of the Savior in 2012: "And here we reach what for me is the chief evidence, not only for the existence, but the nature of God. It is Jesus Christ. He it was who not only taught the Golden Rule, but embodied it—fed the hungry, healed the sick and suffering, and welcomed society's outcasts, brought utter respect to the marginalized and ashamed, and He's brought forgiveness and peace to multi-millions around the world. He's able to do this, of course, because though He was a man, He uniquely never was only a man, but God become human. The central evidence for this startling claim is, of course, His historical resurrection from the dead that launched Christianity in the world. This is, of course, ladies and gentlemen, a crunch issue. If Jesus rose from the dead, death is not the end and atheism is false. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, Christianity is false. And I remember at Cambridge as a student listening to the brilliant Norman Anderson, a legal expert going through forensically the evidence from his legal perspective as a brilliant lawyer, and he said at the end of it, 'The empty tomb then of Jesus forms a veritable rock on which all rationalistic theories of the Resurrection dash themselves in vain.'"
6:09

Oxford professor John Lennox eloquently arguing in front of the Oxford Union Society for the existence of God and the reality of the Savior in 2012: "And here we reach what for me is the chief evidence, not only for the existence, but the nature of God. It is Jesus Christ. He it was who not only taught the Golden Rule, but embodied it—fed the hungry, healed the sick and suffering, and welcomed society's outcasts, brought utter respect to the marginalized and ashamed, and He's brought forgiveness and peace to multi-millions around the world. He's able to do this, of course, because though He was a man, He uniquely never was only a man, but God become human. The central evidence for this startling claim is, of course, His historical resurrection from the dead that launched Christianity in the world. This is, of course, ladies and gentlemen, a crunch issue. If Jesus rose from the dead, death is not the end and atheism is false. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, Christianity is false. And I remember at Cambridge as a student listening to the brilliant Norman Anderson, a legal expert going through forensically the evidence from his legal perspective as a brilliant lawyer, and he said at the end of it, 'The empty tomb then of Jesus forms a veritable rock on which all rationalistic theories of the Resurrection dash themselves in vain.'"

Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker

31,332 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Marc Andreessen says the movie Oppenheimer misunderstands history and morality. "The movie sets up both Oppenheimer and also specifically Albert Einstein as the key moral authorities of the era with respect to the use of nuclear weapons. Both claims of which I believe are deeply incorrect on substance." "My critique is the morality of the movie I think is very badly upside-down. And it's upside-down in a way that flatters our current politics but is very badly upside-down in terms of what actually happened at the time." Its redeeming feature is the first half: "[The first half of the movie is] one of the only recreations on film of what American elite culture and society and American research establishment of the leading experts at the time, in the 1920s and 30s, how thoroughly saturated that world was with Communism." However, the remainder of the movie frames Oppenheimer and Einstein as political heroes and vilifies technology, when in reality Oppenheimer was surrounded by Communists, Einstein was a critic of American democracy, and the hydrogen bomb Oppenheimer refused to build may have prevented World War III. (Marc recommends reading When Reason Goes on Holiday by Neven Sesardić to learn more about Einstein's political views.) "I thought the movie really cheated on the morality of it because it presented this as this slam dunk that the nuke was bad and that these people were bad and the whole thing was bad and that both Einstein and Oppenheimer were moral heroes in some extent trying to line up against this. And I just thought that really cheated the audience." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸
7:10

Marc Andreessen says the movie Oppenheimer misunderstands history and morality. "The movie sets up both Oppenheimer and also specifically Albert Einstein as the key moral authorities of the era with respect to the use of nuclear weapons. Both claims of which I believe are deeply incorrect on substance." "My critique is the morality of the movie I think is very badly upside-down. And it's upside-down in a way that flatters our current politics but is very badly upside-down in terms of what actually happened at the time." Its redeeming feature is the first half: "[The first half of the movie is] one of the only recreations on film of what American elite culture and society and American research establishment of the leading experts at the time, in the 1920s and 30s, how thoroughly saturated that world was with Communism." However, the remainder of the movie frames Oppenheimer and Einstein as political heroes and vilifies technology, when in reality Oppenheimer was surrounded by Communists, Einstein was a critic of American democracy, and the hydrogen bomb Oppenheimer refused to build may have prevented World War III. (Marc recommends reading When Reason Goes on Holiday by Neven Sesardić to learn more about Einstein's political views.) "I thought the movie really cheated on the morality of it because it presented this as this slam dunk that the nuke was bad and that these people were bad and the whole thing was bad and that both Einstein and Oppenheimer were moral heroes in some extent trying to line up against this. And I just thought that really cheated the audience." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸

a16z

328,615 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Sam Harris on why consciousness is more certain than the universe — and why free will is a different problem entirely Pulling out a clip from my conversation with Sam Harris (Making Sense Podcast) where he draws an asymmetry I think is worth sitting with. His claim: consciousness is the one thing in the universe that can't be an illusion — even more certain than physics. We could be brains in vats, in the matrix, on an alien supercomputer. None of it changes the fact that something seems to be happening. That seeming IS consciousness. Free will? Different story. Sam argues it's not just illusory but incoherent — provably so, regardless of how you tune determinism vs quantum indeterminism. He agrees with Sapolsky on the conclusion but adds a unique contribution on the experience of free will itself. Curious what the community thinks. Does the consciousness-as-bedrock argument hold under closer inspection, or is it just Descartes in new clothing?
5:16

Sam Harris on why consciousness is more certain than the universe — and why free will is a different problem entirely Pulling out a clip from my conversation with Sam Harris (Making Sense Podcast) where he draws an asymmetry I think is worth sitting with. His claim: consciousness is the one thing in the universe that can't be an illusion — even more certain than physics. We could be brains in vats, in the matrix, on an alien supercomputer. None of it changes the fact that something seems to be happening. That seeming IS consciousness. Free will? Different story. Sam argues it's not just illusory but incoherent — provably so, regardless of how you tune determinism vs quantum indeterminism. He agrees with Sapolsky on the conclusion but adds a unique contribution on the experience of free will itself. Curious what the community thinks. Does the consciousness-as-bedrock argument hold under closer inspection, or is it just Descartes in new clothing?

Prof. Brian Keating

26,472 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

This footage shows Dr. Sharafuddeen Gbadebo Rāji making a recap of his lecture to his Hausa audience present at the lecture. The lecture was delivered in Yoruba so he decided to summarize the lecture in Hausa. Fun fact: He grew up in Jos and was an Imām for the Hausa and Yoruba communities. The Hausas loved him so much they started laying claim to him as one of theirs. He speaks Hausa impeccably that no one would mistake him for a Yoruba man but the 'Gbadebo' in his name is there for a reason. This is despite Jos being one of the most volatile states in Nigeria and famous for religious and tribal crisis. He still holds classes for Hausas to teach them religious knowledge till date. Hausa communities still invite him for lectures even off the shores of Nigeria. Dumbing things down for the Yoruba supremacists.
1:30

This footage shows Dr. Sharafuddeen Gbadebo Rāji making a recap of his lecture to his Hausa audience present at the lecture. The lecture was delivered in Yoruba so he decided to summarize the lecture in Hausa. Fun fact: He grew up in Jos and was an Imām for the Hausa and Yoruba communities. The Hausas loved him so much they started laying claim to him as one of theirs. He speaks Hausa impeccably that no one would mistake him for a Yoruba man but the 'Gbadebo' in his name is there for a reason. This is despite Jos being one of the most volatile states in Nigeria and famous for religious and tribal crisis. He still holds classes for Hausas to teach them religious knowledge till date. Hausa communities still invite him for lectures even off the shores of Nigeria. Dumbing things down for the Yoruba supremacists.

Copy Counsel

28,620 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

The objection by the representative of India to Pakistan's mention of Jammu and Kashmir in the Arria Formula meeting was not surprising to us. India, as a party to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, has actually refused to implement the Security Council resolutions on this dispute, and has even refused to cooperate with the United Nations, including the good offices of the Secretary-General, and with all those mechanisms that form part of Chapter VI. As I stated in my statement, Kashmir is an international dispute. It is on the agenda of the Security Council. It was never a part of India, and it is not, and cannot be, part of India — because this was the core question at the heart of these Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir. The purpose was to determine the status of this territory: whether it wishes to be part of India or Pakistan. That status has not yet been determined, because the resolutions have not been implemented. To assert that Kashmir is a part of India is, in fact, itself a violation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. Please watch my response below to the misleading remarks of the Indian representative
2:14

The objection by the representative of India to Pakistan's mention of Jammu and Kashmir in the Arria Formula meeting was not surprising to us. India, as a party to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, has actually refused to implement the Security Council resolutions on this dispute, and has even refused to cooperate with the United Nations, including the good offices of the Secretary-General, and with all those mechanisms that form part of Chapter VI. As I stated in my statement, Kashmir is an international dispute. It is on the agenda of the Security Council. It was never a part of India, and it is not, and cannot be, part of India — because this was the core question at the heart of these Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir. The purpose was to determine the status of this territory: whether it wishes to be part of India or Pakistan. That status has not yet been determined, because the resolutions have not been implemented. To assert that Kashmir is a part of India is, in fact, itself a violation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. Please watch my response below to the misleading remarks of the Indian representative

Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, PR of Pakistan to the UN

62,717 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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

12,323 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

An Indian institute filmed a professor teaching classical physics with no notes, no slides, and a green board. Almost nobody outside India watches it. This is Classical Physics, lecture 1, taught by V. Balakrishnan at IIT Madras, published free by NPTEL, India's national open courseware programme. Balakrishnan taught at IIT Madras for decades. Students who sat in that room describe the same thing: the whole subject held in his head, delivered in order, no paper on the podium. Lecture 1 is the introduction. What classical mechanics claims, where the claims hold, and the exact points where they stop holding and quantum takes over. Watch how he speaks. Complete sentences, no filler, each idea finished before the next begins. Rare in any lecture hall on any continent. A physicist I know worked through the whole NPTEL series and rates it above the western courses he paid for. Free on YouTube, 17 years online, low resolution, no marketing. The teaching was never concentrated in the famous universities.
48:48

An Indian institute filmed a professor teaching classical physics with no notes, no slides, and a green board. Almost nobody outside India watches it. This is Classical Physics, lecture 1, taught by V. Balakrishnan at IIT Madras, published free by NPTEL, India's national open courseware programme. Balakrishnan taught at IIT Madras for decades. Students who sat in that room describe the same thing: the whole subject held in his head, delivered in order, no paper on the podium. Lecture 1 is the introduction. What classical mechanics claims, where the claims hold, and the exact points where they stop holding and quantum takes over. Watch how he speaks. Complete sentences, no filler, each idea finished before the next begins. Rare in any lecture hall on any continent. A physicist I know worked through the whole NPTEL series and rates it above the western courses he paid for. Free on YouTube, 17 years online, low resolution, no marketing. The teaching was never concentrated in the famous universities.

xanax

3,239,485 просмотров • 10 дней назад

What if the self you keep trying to serve isn't actually you at all? In this lecture, the final stop of a 60 city tour, Jordan Peterson begins with an unlikely admission from the world's most famous atheist and follows it into the two shortest, densest paragraphs in the Bible: the story of two brothers and the offerings they make. From there he traces a single thread through the whole architecture of a human life, why the child who insists on his own way ends up with no friends, why a marriage cannot survive on getting what you want, and how a thousand quiet hours of resentment turn an ordinary person into someone capable of the unthinkable. What he uncovers is not a rule about religion but a question your own conscience has been asking you all along, one that decides whether the world opens up in front of you or closes in. The answer has nothing to do with belief in the usual sense, and everything to do with what you're willing to give up. This lecture was filmed on June 25, 2024, in Mexico City, Mexico.
1:39:53

What if the self you keep trying to serve isn't actually you at all? In this lecture, the final stop of a 60 city tour, Jordan Peterson begins with an unlikely admission from the world's most famous atheist and follows it into the two shortest, densest paragraphs in the Bible: the story of two brothers and the offerings they make. From there he traces a single thread through the whole architecture of a human life, why the child who insists on his own way ends up with no friends, why a marriage cannot survive on getting what you want, and how a thousand quiet hours of resentment turn an ordinary person into someone capable of the unthinkable. What he uncovers is not a rule about religion but a question your own conscience has been asking you all along, one that decides whether the world opens up in front of you or closes in. The answer has nothing to do with belief in the usual sense, and everything to do with what you're willing to give up. This lecture was filmed on June 25, 2024, in Mexico City, Mexico.

Dr Jordan B Peterson

211,163 просмотров • 3 дней назад

Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize-winning physicist: "The universe itself doesn't know what happens next. it only knows the odds. I won a Nobel proving reality runs on probability, not certainty, which means the casino isn't cheating you. it's just closer to how nature works than you are." this free lecture from 1964 is a Nobel laureate explaining that certainty is not something the universe offers, and it has been public for sixty years. at the board it's simple. Feynman showed that at the deepest level nature does not decide what will happen, only the probability of what might. Fire a single electron at two slits and no one alive can tell you where it lands, only the odds of each spot. This drove Einstein to say God does not play dice. Feynman and the experiments proved him wrong. Reality is a probability machine, all the way down. That's the whole thing, minus the mysticism. Which means the casino is not an exception to how the world works. It is a scale model of it. Nobody gets certainty, not the gambler, not the trader, not the universe. Same point as my article above: the house wins not because it knows the outcome, but because it prices the odds while you chase a sure thing that does not exist anywhere in nature. the physics is free and it has been settled for a century. what nobody can sell you is the discipline to give up the craving for certainty and act on probabilities instead. That surrender is the whole edge, and it is the hardest thing a human mind ever does.
53:34

Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize-winning physicist: "The universe itself doesn't know what happens next. it only knows the odds. I won a Nobel proving reality runs on probability, not certainty, which means the casino isn't cheating you. it's just closer to how nature works than you are." this free lecture from 1964 is a Nobel laureate explaining that certainty is not something the universe offers, and it has been public for sixty years. at the board it's simple. Feynman showed that at the deepest level nature does not decide what will happen, only the probability of what might. Fire a single electron at two slits and no one alive can tell you where it lands, only the odds of each spot. This drove Einstein to say God does not play dice. Feynman and the experiments proved him wrong. Reality is a probability machine, all the way down. That's the whole thing, minus the mysticism. Which means the casino is not an exception to how the world works. It is a scale model of it. Nobody gets certainty, not the gambler, not the trader, not the universe. Same point as my article above: the house wins not because it knows the outcome, but because it prices the odds while you chase a sure thing that does not exist anywhere in nature. the physics is free and it has been settled for a century. what nobody can sell you is the discipline to give up the craving for certainty and act on probabilities instead. That surrender is the whole edge, and it is the hardest thing a human mind ever does.

Voltex

10,783 просмотров • 13 дней назад

Do you know why God once allowed Samuel, who had already died, to actually be summoned up by a witch? This is not just an ordinary, eerie story, but a judgment in the Bible so chilling it sends a shiver down your spine. Because Samuel was never an ordinary man. He was one of the most weighty prophets in Israel. From childhood, he heard the voice of God. He spent his whole life proclaiming God's Word and almost none of it ever fell to the ground. He anointed Saul and he also anointed David. In that generation, he was almost the very mouthpiece of God's will. But the most unsettling part is not who Samuel was while he was alive. It is that after his death, he appeared again in the night at Endor. By then, Saul was already nearing his end. The Philistine army was closing in and fear swallowed him like a rising tide. He sought an answer from God, but God no longer responded. No dreams, no prophet, no direction at all.
2:31

Do you know why God once allowed Samuel, who had already died, to actually be summoned up by a witch? This is not just an ordinary, eerie story, but a judgment in the Bible so chilling it sends a shiver down your spine. Because Samuel was never an ordinary man. He was one of the most weighty prophets in Israel. From childhood, he heard the voice of God. He spent his whole life proclaiming God's Word and almost none of it ever fell to the ground. He anointed Saul and he also anointed David. In that generation, he was almost the very mouthpiece of God's will. But the most unsettling part is not who Samuel was while he was alive. It is that after his death, he appeared again in the night at Endor. By then, Saul was already nearing his end. The Philistine army was closing in and fear swallowed him like a rising tide. He sought an answer from God, but God no longer responded. No dreams, no prophet, no direction at all.

NancyH

118,418 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад