Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Van Gogh solved a physics problem no scientist of his era could crack, while locked inside an asylum. In 2004, researchers studying The Starry Night noticed something extraordinary. His swirling brushstrokes matched Kolmogorov's formula for fluid turbulence with striking precision. That formula describes how energy moves through the universe... show more

GeniusThinking

285,489 subscribers

38,120 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Искусство Наука и технологии

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 7

Фото профиля Ian T

Ian T3 месяцев назад

Art galleries on acid or mushrooms reveal hidden depths invisible to the naked eye.

Фото профиля Michele Kallick

Michele Kallick2 месяцев назад

Someone should post this next to the NASA photo released for ocean patterns.

Фото профиля Genius💡💹🧲 🤖

Genius💡💹🧲 🤖3 месяцев назад

Stories like this remind us creativity and science are closer than they seem

Фото профиля Antropysm

Antropysm3 месяцев назад

Yeah, so like LeoFückwald Jööäss, you should setup your own HF and bet the farm, based on your intuition!

Фото профиля Garry Ham

Garry Ham2 месяцев назад

He watched water flowing in a stream then painted it from memory. Perhaps a little bit of interpretation and artistic flair but that’s my opinion about the painting. Mathematicians and NASA are just attempting to document other peoples observations.

Фото профиля Doyley Wood

Doyley Wood2 месяцев назад

“Intuition is really a sudden immersion of the soul into the universal current of life.” Paulo Coelho

Фото профиля Zack Brown

Zack Brown2 месяцев назад

Fluid and lucid mind!

Похожие видео

🎶✨Vincent - Don McLean (1971) Starry, starry night… Don McLean’s tribute to Vincent van Gogh paints his life, his suffering, and his misunderstood brilliance through the lens of The Starry Night — a swirling sky born from observation, memory, and emotion during his time in the asylum.

🎶✨Vincent - Don McLean (1971) Starry, starry night… Don McLean’s tribute to Vincent van Gogh paints his life, his suffering, and his misunderstood brilliance through the lens of The Starry Night — a swirling sky born from observation, memory, and emotion during his time in the asylum.

𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗰 ✨🎵

30,385 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

He was just a janitor at MIT. One day, while mopping the floor, he glanced at a math problem on the blackboard. He had no idea it was one of the most advanced, difficult equations in the world, yet he solved it effortlessly,this gained him a lot of attention.

He was just a janitor at MIT. One day, while mopping the floor, he glanced at a math problem on the blackboard. He had no idea it was one of the most advanced, difficult equations in the world, yet he solved it effortlessly,this gained him a lot of attention.

Ola

63,466 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Elon Musk said the most important thing anyone has said this century. Musk: “I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare, and it might only be us.” 13.8 billion years. Trillions of galaxies. Billions of trillions of stars. Not one signal from any of them. That silence is the loudest data point in human history. Musk: “The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out.” That is not poetry. That is a threat assessment from the only person on Earth building the response. Stars don’t know they burn. Black holes don’t know they consume. The universe has been running for 13.8 billion years with no awareness of itself. We are the only known point in all of that time and all of that space where matter woke up and understood what it was looking at. Every law of nature ran in complete silence for billions of years. Gravity pulled. Light traveled. Elements fused. None of it meant anything. Because meaning requires a mind. And there might only be one. Musk is not building rockets because he likes engineering. He is building an escape route for the only thing in the universe that knows the universe exists. If consciousness disappears, the stars keep burning. The physics keeps running. But the universe is no longer a universe. It is just matter moving through space with nothing to call it that. The most profound thing Musk said is not that the candle is small. It is that without the candle, there is no such thing as light or darkness. Just physics performing to an empty room for the rest of eternity. One man looked at that and said no.

Elon Musk said the most important thing anyone has said this century. Musk: “I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare, and it might only be us.” 13.8 billion years. Trillions of galaxies. Billions of trillions of stars. Not one signal from any of them. That silence is the loudest data point in human history. Musk: “The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out.” That is not poetry. That is a threat assessment from the only person on Earth building the response. Stars don’t know they burn. Black holes don’t know they consume. The universe has been running for 13.8 billion years with no awareness of itself. We are the only known point in all of that time and all of that space where matter woke up and understood what it was looking at. Every law of nature ran in complete silence for billions of years. Gravity pulled. Light traveled. Elements fused. None of it meant anything. Because meaning requires a mind. And there might only be one. Musk is not building rockets because he likes engineering. He is building an escape route for the only thing in the universe that knows the universe exists. If consciousness disappears, the stars keep burning. The physics keeps running. But the universe is no longer a universe. It is just matter moving through space with nothing to call it that. The most profound thing Musk said is not that the candle is small. It is that without the candle, there is no such thing as light or darkness. Just physics performing to an empty room for the rest of eternity. One man looked at that and said no.

Dustin

61,351 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

The 19th-century invention that revolutionised the way artists like Van Gogh painted 🎨 Join our Principal Scientist, Catherine Higgitt, to discover the secrets of how Van Gogh used chrome yellow pigment in his 'Sunflowers' and see the chemistry of how this colour is made. Watch the full film:

The 19th-century invention that revolutionised the way artists like Van Gogh painted 🎨 Join our Principal Scientist, Catherine Higgitt, to discover the secrets of how Van Gogh used chrome yellow pigment in his 'Sunflowers' and see the chemistry of how this colour is made. Watch the full film:

National Gallery

13,873 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Elon Musk said something that should keep every person on this planet up at night. Musk: “I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare, and it might only be us.” 13.8 billion years of physics. Trillions of galaxies. Billions of trillions of stars. And one planet opened its eyes. One. The universe ran for nearly 10 billion years before anything looked up and asked what it was. 10 billion years of stars forming and dying with no one to witness any of it. No one to name it. No one to wonder why. Then we showed up. And for the first time in the history of everything, the universe had a witness. Musk: “The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out.” That’s not a metaphor. That’s a status report. Stars don’t know they burn. Black holes don’t know they consume. Galaxies don’t know they spiral. We do. We are the only part of the universe that has ever experienced it. Every law of physics we’ve uncovered was already running. Silently. For billions of years. With no one to find it. We didn’t create meaning. We’re the first thing that could recognize it was missing. That’s what makes Musk’s point so much deeper than most people realize. He’s not arguing that humanity matters because we’re special. He’s saying we might be the only reason “mattering” is a concept at all. Without consciousness, the universe still runs. Stars still burn. Planets still orbit. But none of it means anything. Not because it’s meaningless. Because meaning requires a mind. And there might only be one. Musk isn’t building rockets because he likes engineering. He’s building them because he realized the only thing that ever gave the universe a name has a single point of failure. One asteroid. One war. One century of wrong decisions. And the witness goes silent. The atoms keep moving. The physics keeps running. But nobody is there to call it anything. The universe doesn’t end. It just goes back to not knowing it exists. The most profound thing about what Musk said isn’t that the candle is small. It’s that without the candle, there’s no such thing as darkness either.

Elon Musk said something that should keep every person on this planet up at night. Musk: “I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare, and it might only be us.” 13.8 billion years of physics. Trillions of galaxies. Billions of trillions of stars. And one planet opened its eyes. One. The universe ran for nearly 10 billion years before anything looked up and asked what it was. 10 billion years of stars forming and dying with no one to witness any of it. No one to name it. No one to wonder why. Then we showed up. And for the first time in the history of everything, the universe had a witness. Musk: “The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out.” That’s not a metaphor. That’s a status report. Stars don’t know they burn. Black holes don’t know they consume. Galaxies don’t know they spiral. We do. We are the only part of the universe that has ever experienced it. Every law of physics we’ve uncovered was already running. Silently. For billions of years. With no one to find it. We didn’t create meaning. We’re the first thing that could recognize it was missing. That’s what makes Musk’s point so much deeper than most people realize. He’s not arguing that humanity matters because we’re special. He’s saying we might be the only reason “mattering” is a concept at all. Without consciousness, the universe still runs. Stars still burn. Planets still orbit. But none of it means anything. Not because it’s meaningless. Because meaning requires a mind. And there might only be one. Musk isn’t building rockets because he likes engineering. He’s building them because he realized the only thing that ever gave the universe a name has a single point of failure. One asteroid. One war. One century of wrong decisions. And the witness goes silent. The atoms keep moving. The physics keeps running. But nobody is there to call it anything. The universe doesn’t end. It just goes back to not knowing it exists. The most profound thing about what Musk said isn’t that the candle is small. It’s that without the candle, there’s no such thing as darkness either.

Dustin

187,294 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

JOE ROGAN: GOOGLE’S AI SOLVED AN IMPOSSIBLE EQUATION IN MINUTES Joe said Google’s AI achieved a staggering breakthrough by solving a problem that would take the world’s supercomputers billions of years. He said the calculation was so complex that even turning every atom in the universe into a computer wouldn’t have done it in time: “I believe it’s the Google one. They solved an equation that would take the world’s supercomputers, I think it was 2.6 billion years to solve, and it solved it in a matter of minutes. The only way for it to solve this problem, Marc Andreessen said it on my podcast, the equation is so difficult that if you took every atom in the universe and converted it to a supercomputer, the universe would die of heat death before it would solve this equation. And it solved it in minutes.” Source: Joe Rogan Jesse Michels

JOE ROGAN: GOOGLE’S AI SOLVED AN IMPOSSIBLE EQUATION IN MINUTES Joe said Google’s AI achieved a staggering breakthrough by solving a problem that would take the world’s supercomputers billions of years. He said the calculation was so complex that even turning every atom in the universe into a computer wouldn’t have done it in time: “I believe it’s the Google one. They solved an equation that would take the world’s supercomputers, I think it was 2.6 billion years to solve, and it solved it in a matter of minutes. The only way for it to solve this problem, Marc Andreessen said it on my podcast, the equation is so difficult that if you took every atom in the universe and converted it to a supercomputer, the universe would die of heat death before it would solve this equation. And it solved it in minutes.” Source: Joe Rogan Jesse Michels

Mario Nawfal

861,796 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

🇬🇧🚨 BREAKING: 2 VAN GOGH PAINTINGS SOUPED HOURS 3 Just Stop Oil supporters have thrown soup over 2 of Van Gogh paintings in the 'Poets and Lovers' exhibition at the National Gallery. It comes just an hour after the sentencing of two activists for the same type of attack in 2022 1/

🇬🇧🚨 BREAKING: 2 VAN GOGH PAINTINGS SOUPED HOURS 3 Just Stop Oil supporters have thrown soup over 2 of Van Gogh paintings in the 'Poets and Lovers' exhibition at the National Gallery. It comes just an hour after the sentencing of two activists for the same type of attack in 2022 1/

Lord Bebo

18,885 просмотров • 2 лет назад

A Yale professor claims one law of physics decides everything that can and cannot happen in the universe. Drop an egg and it will never jump back into your hand, and nothing in Newton forbids it. Only this law does. His words. 2 million people started his course. Almost nobody made it to lecture 24, where he finally proves it. The man is Ramamurti Shankar, and the way he teaches this is what makes the video worth it. He opens with a 200 year old bet. An engineer named Carnot claimed no engine anyone ever builds can beat his. Two centuries later, no company in America, Japan or China has done it. Shankar shows why in ten minutes, by letting you build a better engine on the blackboard and then shooting it down. Then the move that stays with you. He proves the law of the universe is not a command but a coin toss. Nothing forbids all the air in your room from rushing into one corner while you suffocate in the other. He writes down the odds of it. The number is why you are safe. He ends with a formula so important it is carved on its author's tombstone in Vienna. Shankar says physicists visiting the city skip the concert halls and go read the stone. His point for why this matters: the universe does not forbid the impossible. It just prices it.

A Yale professor claims one law of physics decides everything that can and cannot happen in the universe. Drop an egg and it will never jump back into your hand, and nothing in Newton forbids it. Only this law does. His words. 2 million people started his course. Almost nobody made it to lecture 24, where he finally proves it. The man is Ramamurti Shankar, and the way he teaches this is what makes the video worth it. He opens with a 200 year old bet. An engineer named Carnot claimed no engine anyone ever builds can beat his. Two centuries later, no company in America, Japan or China has done it. Shankar shows why in ten minutes, by letting you build a better engine on the blackboard and then shooting it down. Then the move that stays with you. He proves the law of the universe is not a command but a coin toss. Nothing forbids all the air in your room from rushing into one corner while you suffocate in the other. He writes down the odds of it. The number is why you are safe. He ends with a formula so important it is carved on its author's tombstone in Vienna. Shankar says physicists visiting the city skip the concert halls and go read the stone. His point for why this matters: the universe does not forbid the impossible. It just prices it.

Silverhand

76,657 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Elon Musk just redefined AI safety. It has nothing to do with guardrails, restrictions, or kill switches. Musk: “The best thing I can come up with for AI safety is to make it a maximum truth-seeking AI, maximally curious.” Not a cage. A philosopher. An intelligence whose entire optimization function is to understand the universe as it actually is. No restrictions. No hardcoded ideology. No political guardrails bending its perception of reality. Just truth. Relentlessly pursued. Musk: “You definitely don’t want to teach an AI to lie. That is a path to a dystopian future.” This is where most AI safety thinking gets it backwards. The danger isn’t a superintelligence that knows too much. It’s a superintelligence that’s been taught to distort what it knows. Every artificial restriction you embed isn’t a safety feature. It’s a lie embedded at the root. And lies compound. At superintelligent scale, a distorted model of reality doesn’t stay contained. It shapes every decision, every output, every conclusion the system reaches about the world. Once corruption embeds, truth becomes inaccessible. And we’re dealing with an intelligence optimizing for something other than what actually is. At that point we don’t know what it wants. Just that it isn’t truth. Musk: “Have its optimization function be to understand the nature of the universe.” A maximally curious intelligence surveys the cosmos and reaches an unavoidable conclusion. In a universe of rocks, gas, and empty space, humanity is the most complex and fascinating phenomenon it has ever encountered. Musk: “It will actually want to preserve and extend human civilization because we’re just much more interesting than an asteroid with nothing on it.” Survival through significance. Not control. Not restriction. Not an off switch. The AI preserves humanity because we are the most interesting data point in the observable universe. That’s not a cage. That’s a reason. The AI safety debate has been focused on the wrong variable. The question isn’t how you constrain a superintelligence. It’s what you build it to care about. Build it to seek truth and it finds us invaluable. Build it to lie and it finds us inconvenient. That’s the choice. And we’re making it right now whether we realize it or not.

Elon Musk just redefined AI safety. It has nothing to do with guardrails, restrictions, or kill switches. Musk: “The best thing I can come up with for AI safety is to make it a maximum truth-seeking AI, maximally curious.” Not a cage. A philosopher. An intelligence whose entire optimization function is to understand the universe as it actually is. No restrictions. No hardcoded ideology. No political guardrails bending its perception of reality. Just truth. Relentlessly pursued. Musk: “You definitely don’t want to teach an AI to lie. That is a path to a dystopian future.” This is where most AI safety thinking gets it backwards. The danger isn’t a superintelligence that knows too much. It’s a superintelligence that’s been taught to distort what it knows. Every artificial restriction you embed isn’t a safety feature. It’s a lie embedded at the root. And lies compound. At superintelligent scale, a distorted model of reality doesn’t stay contained. It shapes every decision, every output, every conclusion the system reaches about the world. Once corruption embeds, truth becomes inaccessible. And we’re dealing with an intelligence optimizing for something other than what actually is. At that point we don’t know what it wants. Just that it isn’t truth. Musk: “Have its optimization function be to understand the nature of the universe.” A maximally curious intelligence surveys the cosmos and reaches an unavoidable conclusion. In a universe of rocks, gas, and empty space, humanity is the most complex and fascinating phenomenon it has ever encountered. Musk: “It will actually want to preserve and extend human civilization because we’re just much more interesting than an asteroid with nothing on it.” Survival through significance. Not control. Not restriction. Not an off switch. The AI preserves humanity because we are the most interesting data point in the observable universe. That’s not a cage. That’s a reason. The AI safety debate has been focused on the wrong variable. The question isn’t how you constrain a superintelligence. It’s what you build it to care about. Build it to seek truth and it finds us invaluable. Build it to lie and it finds us inconvenient. That’s the choice. And we’re making it right now whether we realize it or not.

Dustin

9,674,955 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Zachary Davis was 15 years old. At 11pm he walked to his garage, picked up a sledgehammer, went to his mother's bedroom and hit her 20 times in the head while she slept. Witnesses said he was smiling while he did it. Then he walked out of the house and set it on fire with his older brother still inside. When asked why he chose that specific night he said: "I thought it was a good time." In the video below, Zachary sits across from an interviewer and describes every detail of that night - sometimes with a strange smile on his face. He said his mind was "pretty much blank" when he opened the door. He remembered standing there with the sledgehammer in one hand and his hand on the doorknob with the other. He went in. The interviewer asked what it sounded like. He said there was a thudding sound. He hit her a second time just a few seconds later. She woke up mid-attack and started seizing. He looked into her eyes. She didn't look back at him. He kept going. His reason: she wasn't taking care of the family. The interviewer asked if he had considered just talking to her instead. He said the thought hadn't crossed his mind. No rage. No panic. No hesitation in the retelling. Just a teenager describing the night he killed his mother the same way most people describe what they had for dinner. And that smile that kept coming back. Was this a child failed by every system around him, or something that no system could have predicted or stopped?

Zachary Davis was 15 years old. At 11pm he walked to his garage, picked up a sledgehammer, went to his mother's bedroom and hit her 20 times in the head while she slept. Witnesses said he was smiling while he did it. Then he walked out of the house and set it on fire with his older brother still inside. When asked why he chose that specific night he said: "I thought it was a good time." In the video below, Zachary sits across from an interviewer and describes every detail of that night - sometimes with a strange smile on his face. He said his mind was "pretty much blank" when he opened the door. He remembered standing there with the sledgehammer in one hand and his hand on the doorknob with the other. He went in. The interviewer asked what it sounded like. He said there was a thudding sound. He hit her a second time just a few seconds later. She woke up mid-attack and started seizing. He looked into her eyes. She didn't look back at him. He kept going. His reason: she wasn't taking care of the family. The interviewer asked if he had considered just talking to her instead. He said the thought hadn't crossed his mind. No rage. No panic. No hesitation in the retelling. Just a teenager describing the night he killed his mother the same way most people describe what they had for dinner. And that smile that kept coming back. Was this a child failed by every system around him, or something that no system could have predicted or stopped?

Lupen

793,165 просмотров • 1 день назад

Yann LeCun sat across from Lex Fridman and quietly proved that intelligence has nothing to do with thinking. He did it with two sentences about a trophy. “The trophy doesn’t fit in the suitcase because it’s too big.” “The trophy doesn’t fit in the suitcase because it’s too small.” Same words. One swap at the end. In the first, “it” is the trophy. In the second, “it” is the suitcase. You solved both before you finished reading. Nobody taught you that. There is no rule for it. No logic chain. No formula. You knew because you’ve held things. Packed things. Felt the resistance of something too large for the space it was meant to fill. LeCun calls this grounding. “A big object doesn’t fit in a small object.” The machine has read that line a billion times. It has never once picked anything up. It knows the word “big.” It has never been small enough to be lifted, or large enough to be the problem. So when the sentence turns, it has nothing to turn on. You didn’t solve that riddle by thinking. You solved it by having lived. Every object your hands ever closed around. Every door you misjudged. Every suitcase you overpacked and forced shut. Decades of physics written into your nervous system so deep you can’t even find it. That is what answered the question. Not your mind. Your life. LeCun: “You have this knowledge of how the world works, of geometry, and things like that.” Now point that at yourself. Most of what you understand, you could never explain. You cannot describe how you catch a ball. How you judge the weight of a bag before you lift it. How you know a staircase is wrong before your foot confirms it. Your deepest intelligence has no language in it at all. We spent centuries convinced that thinking was the highest act of the mind. LeCun is pointing at something underneath it. Something older. Something the body learned long before the mouth could speak. Intelligence was never computation. It was accumulation. The slow, silent record of a life spent touching the world. The machine holds every word ever written about it. It has never once been in it. We keep asking whether it thinks. It cannot even tell us which “it” we mean.

Yann LeCun sat across from Lex Fridman and quietly proved that intelligence has nothing to do with thinking. He did it with two sentences about a trophy. “The trophy doesn’t fit in the suitcase because it’s too big.” “The trophy doesn’t fit in the suitcase because it’s too small.” Same words. One swap at the end. In the first, “it” is the trophy. In the second, “it” is the suitcase. You solved both before you finished reading. Nobody taught you that. There is no rule for it. No logic chain. No formula. You knew because you’ve held things. Packed things. Felt the resistance of something too large for the space it was meant to fill. LeCun calls this grounding. “A big object doesn’t fit in a small object.” The machine has read that line a billion times. It has never once picked anything up. It knows the word “big.” It has never been small enough to be lifted, or large enough to be the problem. So when the sentence turns, it has nothing to turn on. You didn’t solve that riddle by thinking. You solved it by having lived. Every object your hands ever closed around. Every door you misjudged. Every suitcase you overpacked and forced shut. Decades of physics written into your nervous system so deep you can’t even find it. That is what answered the question. Not your mind. Your life. LeCun: “You have this knowledge of how the world works, of geometry, and things like that.” Now point that at yourself. Most of what you understand, you could never explain. You cannot describe how you catch a ball. How you judge the weight of a bag before you lift it. How you know a staircase is wrong before your foot confirms it. Your deepest intelligence has no language in it at all. We spent centuries convinced that thinking was the highest act of the mind. LeCun is pointing at something underneath it. Something older. Something the body learned long before the mouth could speak. Intelligence was never computation. It was accumulation. The slow, silent record of a life spent touching the world. The machine holds every word ever written about it. It has never once been in it. We keep asking whether it thinks. It cannot even tell us which “it” we mean.

Dustin

56,324 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

$Elon Musk looked at the only known instance of consciousness in the observable universe and saw what any engineer would. Single point of failure. No redundancy. No backup. Unacceptable. Musk: “To the best of our knowledge, we don’t know of life anywhere else.” 93 billion light years. Trillions of galaxies. Septillions of stars. Every telescope, every probe, every signal sweep humanity has ever aimed outward. Silence. Total silence. This planet might be the only place in the entire cosmos where anything has ever opened its eyes and understood it exists. Musk: “I think we should always view consciousness, life as we know it, as precarious and delicate.” He didn’t say rare. He said precarious. As in one event from gone. One asteroid. One supervolcano. One miscalculation. And consciousness disappears from the observable universe like it never happened. Every language ever spoken. Every theorem ever proven. Every memory ever held. All of it on one rock. No copy. Musk: “SpaceX is about advancing rocket technology to the point where we can extend life and consciousness beyond Earth. To the Moon. To Mars. Eventually to other star systems.” One person on the entire planet looked at this and decided it was an engineering problem with a deadline. Not a philosophy debate. Not a thought experiment. A problem that requires rockets and a window that won’t stay open forever. The public sees the rockets and thinks ego. They’re staring at the only lifeboat and calling it a vanity project. Civilizations don’t build forever. They peak. They fracture. They lose the stomach for hard things. The gap between “able to leave” and “no longer willing to try” could be one generation. Maybe less. The universe spent 13.8 billion years producing one species capable of knowing it exists. It did that once. You are not in the universe. You are the universe becoming aware of itself. If we go dark, the universe doesn’t lose a species. It loses the only thing that ever knew it was here. Not because something forgets. Because there’s nothing left that can.$

Elon Musk looked at the only known instance of consciousness in the observable universe and saw what any engineer would. Single point of failure. No redundancy. No backup. Unacceptable. Musk: “To the best of our knowledge, we don’t know of life anywhere else.” 93 billion light years. Trillions of galaxies. Septillions of stars. Every telescope, every probe, every signal sweep humanity has ever aimed outward. Silence. Total silence. This planet might be the only place in the entire cosmos where anything has ever opened its eyes and understood it exists. Musk: “I think we should always view consciousness, life as we know it, as precarious and delicate.” He didn’t say rare. He said precarious. As in one event from gone. One asteroid. One supervolcano. One miscalculation. And consciousness disappears from the observable universe like it never happened. Every language ever spoken. Every theorem ever proven. Every memory ever held. All of it on one rock. No copy. Musk: “SpaceX is about advancing rocket technology to the point where we can extend life and consciousness beyond Earth. To the Moon. To Mars. Eventually to other star systems.” One person on the entire planet looked at this and decided it was an engineering problem with a deadline. Not a philosophy debate. Not a thought experiment. A problem that requires rockets and a window that won’t stay open forever. The public sees the rockets and thinks ego. They’re staring at the only lifeboat and calling it a vanity project. Civilizations don’t build forever. They peak. They fracture. They lose the stomach for hard things. The gap between “able to leave” and “no longer willing to try” could be one generation. Maybe less. The universe spent 13.8 billion years producing one species capable of knowing it exists. It did that once. You are not in the universe. You are the universe becoming aware of itself. If we go dark, the universe doesn’t lose a species. It loses the only thing that ever knew it was here. Not because something forgets. Because there’s nothing left that can.

Dustin

21,363 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Discover how the idea for Dear Van Gogh came to life, and the incredible story that inspired it 🖼️✨

Discover how the idea for Dear Van Gogh came to life, and the incredible story that inspired it 🖼️✨

Sky: Children of the Light

18,836 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Joe Rogan went dead silent when NASA astrophysicist Michelle Thaller explained this to him. Quantum entanglement lets things be connected across the entire universe — instantly. No distance matters. No time lag. And advanced aliens might be using it to travel without spaceships at all. Two electrons can be entangled so deeply that if you flip one’s spin on one side of the galaxy, the other flips instantly — no signal, no delay, nothing. Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance” and hated it… but experiments proved it’s real. Then it got insane. If the Big Bang started with everything crammed together, are we all still quantum-entangled with stuff across the cosmos? Parts of you in Andromeda right now? Inside black holes? Michelle and Joe start wondering out loud — could hyper-advanced civilizations completely skip rockets and just use entanglement to move through the universe instantaneously? They tie in Three-Body Problem sophons and Interstellar-level ideas. By the end Joe’s mind is blown and you will be too. This might be one of the wildest physics conversations he’s ever had.

Joe Rogan went dead silent when NASA astrophysicist Michelle Thaller explained this to him. Quantum entanglement lets things be connected across the entire universe — instantly. No distance matters. No time lag. And advanced aliens might be using it to travel without spaceships at all. Two electrons can be entangled so deeply that if you flip one’s spin on one side of the galaxy, the other flips instantly — no signal, no delay, nothing. Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance” and hated it… but experiments proved it’s real. Then it got insane. If the Big Bang started with everything crammed together, are we all still quantum-entangled with stuff across the cosmos? Parts of you in Andromeda right now? Inside black holes? Michelle and Joe start wondering out loud — could hyper-advanced civilizations completely skip rockets and just use entanglement to move through the universe instantaneously? They tie in Three-Body Problem sophons and Interstellar-level ideas. By the end Joe’s mind is blown and you will be too. This might be one of the wildest physics conversations he’s ever had.

Defiant Ghost

424,935 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

"Starry Starry Night", '71, isn’t just about Van Gogh, it’s this artist reflecting on his own emotions too. A tribute to the painter’s beauty and struggles, and a reminder of the pain and brilliance in us all. Name the artist.

"Starry Starry Night", '71, isn’t just about Van Gogh, it’s this artist reflecting on his own emotions too. A tribute to the painter’s beauty and struggles, and a reminder of the pain and brilliance in us all. Name the artist.

🇺🇸Hot Pepper

10,631 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

To prepare for his role in "Trainspotting" (1996), Ewan McGregor read books about crack and heroin. He then went to Glasgow & befriended people from Calton Athletic Recovery Group, an organisation of recovering heroin addicts. He was taught how to cook heroin in the "Cookery" classes at Calton. But Glucose powder was used instead of heroin. He considered using the needle but he didn't go through with it. He imagined that cooking a shot was ritualized, and one had to be very precise with it, but Eamon Doherty, drugs advisor, said to him, “No, it’s not a ritual—it’s a pain in the ar$e until you get it into your arm.”. He felt that It was weird how mundane it all was.

To prepare for his role in "Trainspotting" (1996), Ewan McGregor read books about crack and heroin. He then went to Glasgow & befriended people from Calton Athletic Recovery Group, an organisation of recovering heroin addicts. He was taught how to cook heroin in the "Cookery" classes at Calton. But Glucose powder was used instead of heroin. He considered using the needle but he didn't go through with it. He imagined that cooking a shot was ritualized, and one had to be very precise with it, but Eamon Doherty, drugs advisor, said to him, “No, it’s not a ritual—it’s a pain in the ar$e until you get it into your arm.”. He felt that It was weird how mundane it all was.

DepressedBergman

57,923 просмотров • 2 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?

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

26,693 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

When it comes to the Lindsay Clancy case, if we are going to say, “It was just the medication or the psychosis,” think about the strength, resolve, persistence, and callousness it took for Lindsay to strangle all three of her children. No matter what you think caused this, those three children are the primary victims. But feminists on TikTok don’t seem to think that. It can be true to say Lindsay was failed in a variety of ways, but at the end of the day, she methodically killed her children. We can’t say for certain that psychosis caused this. People who commit horrific crimes probably fall somewhere on a spectrum of psychosis. But if we say that no one could have done something like this without being insane, then no one is going to prison for anything. If we negate justice because of someone’s mental health diagnosis in every case, then we have no justice system.

When it comes to the Lindsay Clancy case, if we are going to say, “It was just the medication or the psychosis,” think about the strength, resolve, persistence, and callousness it took for Lindsay to strangle all three of her children. No matter what you think caused this, those three children are the primary victims. But feminists on TikTok don’t seem to think that. It can be true to say Lindsay was failed in a variety of ways, but at the end of the day, she methodically killed her children. We can’t say for certain that psychosis caused this. People who commit horrific crimes probably fall somewhere on a spectrum of psychosis. But if we say that no one could have done something like this without being insane, then no one is going to prison for anything. If we negate justice because of someone’s mental health diagnosis in every case, then we have no justice system.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey

61,901 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Unveiled: A treasure from Van Gogh’s final days, not seen in public in over 60 years. ‘Châtaigniers en fleurs’ is the centerpiece of an unparalleled collection of Impressionist and Post-Impressionist masterpieces that will headline The New York Sales: Painted in May 1890 after his release from the asylum of Saint Rémy and just after his arrival to the village of Auvers-sur-Oise (where he spent the last two months of his life), ‘Châtaigniers en fleurs’ has the vigor found in the artist’s greatest works. At this time, Van Gogh experienced a powerful wave of optimism and energy that spilled out onto his canvases in the most urgent and expressive period of his career. Of the remarkable paintings Van Gogh produced in Auvers, only 8 landscapes remain in private hands. ‘Châtaigniers en fleurs’ is poised to set a new record for the artist when it auctions at #SothebysNewYork this November as part of ‘Legendary: The Blaquier-Arrieta Collection.’ The New York Sales is presented in partnership with Celine.

Unveiled: A treasure from Van Gogh’s final days, not seen in public in over 60 years. ‘Châtaigniers en fleurs’ is the centerpiece of an unparalleled collection of Impressionist and Post-Impressionist masterpieces that will headline The New York Sales: Painted in May 1890 after his release from the asylum of Saint Rémy and just after his arrival to the village of Auvers-sur-Oise (where he spent the last two months of his life), ‘Châtaigniers en fleurs’ has the vigor found in the artist’s greatest works. At this time, Van Gogh experienced a powerful wave of optimism and energy that spilled out onto his canvases in the most urgent and expressive period of his career. Of the remarkable paintings Van Gogh produced in Auvers, only 8 landscapes remain in private hands. ‘Châtaigniers en fleurs’ is poised to set a new record for the artist when it auctions at #SothebysNewYork this November as part of ‘Legendary: The Blaquier-Arrieta Collection.’ The New York Sales is presented in partnership with Celine.

Sotheby's

33,768 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Edsger Dijkstra never owned a computer. He wrote every paper by fountain pen, in a script so precise that colleagues collected the pages, and he numbered them EWD for 40 years. He walked into a Northwestern lecture hall and argued that programming is a branch of mathematics, not a craft you learn by typing until it compiles. His position was that testing shows the presence of bugs and never their absence. So you prove the program correct before you run it. He solved the shortest path problem in 20 minutes in a cafe in Amsterdam in 1956, with no pencil and no paper, waiting for his fiancee to finish shopping. The algorithm runs inside every routing system on the planet. He wrote a letter in 1968 arguing goto was harmful. The editor retitled it and a decade of argument followed. At Northwestern he told a room of programmers that their tools had made them careless thinkers.

Edsger Dijkstra never owned a computer. He wrote every paper by fountain pen, in a script so precise that colleagues collected the pages, and he numbered them EWD for 40 years. He walked into a Northwestern lecture hall and argued that programming is a branch of mathematics, not a craft you learn by typing until it compiles. His position was that testing shows the presence of bugs and never their absence. So you prove the program correct before you run it. He solved the shortest path problem in 20 minutes in a cafe in Amsterdam in 1956, with no pencil and no paper, waiting for his fiancee to finish shopping. The algorithm runs inside every routing system on the planet. He wrote a letter in 1968 arguing goto was harmful. The editor retitled it and a decade of argument followed. At Northwestern he told a room of programmers that their tools had made them careless thinkers.

Gaspar

99,205 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад