Jul 2, 2023 05:05 PM
(This post was last modified: Jul 2, 2023 05:18 PM by C C.)
What's beyond physics? (Closer To Truth)
https://youtu.be/XlK7Yn-aMsQ
VIDEO EXCERPTS: What is beyond physics? [...] I seek first class scientists unafraid to tackle big questions.
I begin with the director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University, Lawrence Krauss.
[...] Lawrence Krauss is sure there is more to reality than what we know today. Fine, I'm with him. But he says, there could be no bottom. More fundamental theories could go on forever, a never ending series of deeper and deeper laws, like a Russian nesting doll, one placed inside the other. Lawrence thinks theories without end.
I think that is absurd. But much as I hate to admit it, Lawrence knows more than I know. At least in physics.
So what might we find? I ask physicist Michio Kaku who explores the far reaches of the possible. To Michio, little is impossible.
[...] Michio is a visionary, but still he stays within the bounds of known physical laws. That is where he is comfortable.
As for me, I go for discomfort. I do not like to be ridiculed and I will be tough minded, but I seek to break the bounds of known physical laws. It's probably impossible, but still I must try.
Very few scientists go beyond today's realm of the physical. One lives in England, a botanist by trade and iconoclast by reputation. I go to Oxford to the Pitt Rivers Museum to meet this off the edge scientist - Rupert Sheldrake. In driving reality, Rupert sees strange new laws.
[...] well, few scientists think the way Rupert does, conjuring up, organizing principles that almost certainly do not exist. But that Rupert is wrong does not prevent my enjoying his disruptive ideas. Expanding my boundaries, confronting ideas I had never imagined. Like being freed from a prison in which I didn't know I was being confined.
I scurry back to mainstream science, but with a fresh openness to consider radical ideas.
I meet a cosmologist who boldly addresses questions many think unaddressable. Paul Davies. Paul wonders whether the laws of nature are from forever.
[...] to Paul, the reason for the laws of the universe must be contained within the universe, not imposed from without. Not by a creator god, not by all mighty physics. And these laws, which Paul says can change, are at their core, information. His universe pulls conventional wisdom inside out, exposing gaps in common explanations. Paul's got guts and I go with his gaps. But not with his theories. If all reasons are to be sufficiently subsumed within the universe, something about the universe must be self-existing. But what could even count as a candidate?
[...] what about consciousness? Some scientists assert that beyond the physical sits consciousness. That the bedrock of reality is a kind of mind, but not necessarily a kind of god. I ask David Chalmers, an Australian philosopher of mind, who returned respectability to the ancient idea that mind is more than brain. David speculates that what's fundamental in the cosmos may be consciousness...
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/XlK7Yn-aMsQ
https://youtu.be/XlK7Yn-aMsQ
VIDEO EXCERPTS: What is beyond physics? [...] I seek first class scientists unafraid to tackle big questions.
I begin with the director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University, Lawrence Krauss.
[...] Lawrence Krauss is sure there is more to reality than what we know today. Fine, I'm with him. But he says, there could be no bottom. More fundamental theories could go on forever, a never ending series of deeper and deeper laws, like a Russian nesting doll, one placed inside the other. Lawrence thinks theories without end.
I think that is absurd. But much as I hate to admit it, Lawrence knows more than I know. At least in physics.
So what might we find? I ask physicist Michio Kaku who explores the far reaches of the possible. To Michio, little is impossible.
[...] Michio is a visionary, but still he stays within the bounds of known physical laws. That is where he is comfortable.
As for me, I go for discomfort. I do not like to be ridiculed and I will be tough minded, but I seek to break the bounds of known physical laws. It's probably impossible, but still I must try.
Very few scientists go beyond today's realm of the physical. One lives in England, a botanist by trade and iconoclast by reputation. I go to Oxford to the Pitt Rivers Museum to meet this off the edge scientist - Rupert Sheldrake. In driving reality, Rupert sees strange new laws.
[...] well, few scientists think the way Rupert does, conjuring up, organizing principles that almost certainly do not exist. But that Rupert is wrong does not prevent my enjoying his disruptive ideas. Expanding my boundaries, confronting ideas I had never imagined. Like being freed from a prison in which I didn't know I was being confined.
I scurry back to mainstream science, but with a fresh openness to consider radical ideas.
I meet a cosmologist who boldly addresses questions many think unaddressable. Paul Davies. Paul wonders whether the laws of nature are from forever.
[...] to Paul, the reason for the laws of the universe must be contained within the universe, not imposed from without. Not by a creator god, not by all mighty physics. And these laws, which Paul says can change, are at their core, information. His universe pulls conventional wisdom inside out, exposing gaps in common explanations. Paul's got guts and I go with his gaps. But not with his theories. If all reasons are to be sufficiently subsumed within the universe, something about the universe must be self-existing. But what could even count as a candidate?
[...] what about consciousness? Some scientists assert that beyond the physical sits consciousness. That the bedrock of reality is a kind of mind, but not necessarily a kind of god. I ask David Chalmers, an Australian philosopher of mind, who returned respectability to the ancient idea that mind is more than brain. David speculates that what's fundamental in the cosmos may be consciousness...
