Robert Laughlin - How Complexity and Emergence Create a Cosmos?
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
The universe began as a simple hot bath of particles and forces. How then the vast diversity of things we find on earth today? Much depends on the principles of ‘complexity’ and ’emergence’. What are they? How does each work and how do they work together?
Get special member-only exclusives with a free Closer To Truth account today: shorturl.at/ajRZ8
Robert Betts Laughlin is a theoretical physicist and the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Stanford University.
Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen: shorturl.at/hwGP3
Watch more videos on complexity and emergence: shorturl.at/iN589
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Really grateful to you Sir for doing this series: Closer to Truth. Don’t ever stop.
I like the guest's question: "How do you know....?"
Inflation is not an explosion.
To be fair it was not originally described that way in the original proposals. It was characterised as a huge explosion and called the Big Bang by Fred Hoyle who didn’t like the idea, but his description and name for it stuck in the media so here we are.
It is technically . Huge amount of energy pushing the the stuff outward and may be it is hydrodynamic in nature because after we can observe defects and structural instabilities in the Universe and which means the vacuum itself underwent a phase transition of some kind because it changed scales from tiny microscopic Universe to infinite Universe we observe today , so inflation is not an ordinary explosion because the it did not occur in preexisting space- time fabric and yet it is kind of explosion given that enormous amount of heat got released .
is the universe becoming simpler as it expands and cools?
I think he is right, it wasn’t simple, there was a big bang but complex objects around it cannot be ruled out. I think the universe has always been there
Complex objects alongside the Big Bang would have absorbed or diverted energy, causing asymmetries in the distribution of matter and in the cosmic microwave background radiation. There are some odd features in the universe that don't quite fit this model, such as some of the intergalactic voids, but relative to the size of the observable universe these are tiny and would represent minuscule asymmetries in the early universe. It also still seems likely there will be some procedural explanation for these, but we have to keep an open mind.
start of universe may have been complexity within a larger simplicity?
One millionth of a second is too fast for us to remember or experience, so it’s fair to say that in that short span of time we have no sense of being or our sense of being doesn’t exist. The span of time we can remember or be aware of is joined together by spans of time that are too fast for us to be able to take any notice of, so how is it possible to have a sense of being at all. Let’s imagine an atom moves an extremely short distance. The span of time it takes for this atom to move this extremely short distance is too short of a time interval for us to be aware of anything, so where were we, or where was our sense of being. To us, the universe, a hurricane, or an infinitely long line of dominos that are falling down, does not have a sense of being according to us. Say one day feels like one second to us, but one second just feels like one second to the person standing next to us, then according to the person standing next to us our sense of being does not exist. So what if we as conscious beings are both ourselves, as well as the universe. We can be ourselves where one second feels like one second, and at the same time we can be the universe, which solves the problem as not consciously existing at extremely short time spans. At extremely short time spans that are too fast for us to be aware of anything, we can’t say that we are different individuals because we don’t exist. Every one could be the universe. Imagine two zero dimensional points. These two zero dimensional points are not in any particular space, or are not separated by any space but are separated by time. Nonetheless, even though these two zero dimensional points are separated by time, they both still exist simultaneously. Let’s say one second was like one second to one of these zero dimensional points, but one second was like one day to the other one. That would make perfect sense as to why the two points are separated by time but still both exist simultaneously. So everyone could be their individual selves, an at the same time every one makes the universe. All numbers are the same because all a number really is is jus the digit one that is a certain way up the number line, but the boundaries in between numbers really are different to the digit ones each side of them. So one of these two zero dimensional points that are experiencing time different from each other could be a boundary in boundary in between numbers, and the other could be a digit one that makes a number. Our sense of being may not be zero dimensional but four dimensional. We need to be focusing on a colour to have a sense of being, even if we are just imagining it, which involves time going by. If one hundred years went on while we had no sense of being, it would be like a flash to us. One week goes around in a circle, repeating itself after completing the circle. If you have an appointment booked for Friday and gets changed to the Thursday before, Friday and Thursday have switched places with each other in a blink of an eye or an infinitely fast split second. The two days have switched places with each other but have not taken any time to do so. Imagine if the 7 days of the week forming the circle were still or frozen, so each of the 7 days were just 3 dimensional spaces that don’t involve any time going by. The week involves time, but because the 7 days that make up the circular week are still 3 dimensional spaces, they don’t involve any time. If an appointment for Friday gets changed to the Thursday before, Friday has switched places with Thursday infinitely fast. If Friday keeps switching places with the 6 other days around the circle infinitely fast non stop, Friday would take up all the other days spots up at the same time. All the 7 days around the circle are still or frozen 3 dimensional spaces, so if Friday is taking up the 6 other day’s places up all at once, Friday would now be made up of time turning it from 3 dimensional to 4 dimensional. And the six other days would have to all fit into Friday’s space all at once forming one 3 dimensional day. So we have Friday switching places with all the other days infinitely fast non stop taking filling the 6 other days places all at once becoming 4 dimensional, and the 6 other days are not switching around the circle but they would all have to all make one 3 dimensional day to fit into the space Friday is leaving behind. So Friday is forming a 4 dimensional day, and the six other days are making one 3 dimensional day. Let’s say the 7 frozen 3 dimensional days forming the circle all stay in their places, not switching with other days. If Friday was separated by the 6 other days by time, but the 6 other days were not separated by each other by time, the 6 other days would form one 4 dimensional entity because they are not separated by time. The 6 other days are only separated from Friday by time. So the same thing is now happening as if Friday were switching spaces with the 6 other days around the circle infinitely fast non stop. When Friday stay’s in its space, Friday is the 3 dimensional day and the 6 other days make the 4 dimensional thing. When Friday switches places with the 6 other days infinitely fast non stop the other 6 days become one 3 dimensional day and Friday becomes 4 dimensional. When the 7 frozen 3 dimensional days forming the circle remain in their places, because the 6 other days are not separated by each other by time, the 6 make one 4 dimensional thing. But because the 6 are separated by Friday by time, Friday makes the 3 dimensional day. The 4 dimensional thing can be red and the 3 dimensional day can be blue. Let’s say there are two zero dimensional points, and these two zero dimensional points are the only two colours that exist, each being red and blue. Let’s say each of these two zero dimensional points are themselves composed of individual zero dimensional points mixed together. If the two zero dimensional points both split apart so the individual zero dimensional points that made them are dispersed, you might think the two colours that the two zero dimensional points were don’t exist any more. But if all these dispersed points formed a circle like the 7 day week with frozen 3 dimensional days, the two colours could still exist even though the two zero dimensional points have split apart. So we could be the 4 dimensional thing and at the same time be the 3 dimensional day. Let’s say there are two groups of people. Let’s say that time can’t move on until one person leaves one group and enters the other group. If that is the case, then person B from the left group would have to leave their group and enter the right group at the exact same time as person A is leaving the right group and entering the left group. Imagine a circle composed of 20 frozen 3 dimensional days. Each frozen day was either red or blue. So it goes red red blue blue blue red red blue blue and so on. Let’s imagine each frozen days being like a right or left group. If one day switched with the day next to it that is a different colour, all the other days would each switch with the days next to them that are a different colour at the exact same time.
6:28 stars or even galaxies look very simple from our distance...
Look, the answer is really, really simple. It's too complicated to understand...well, for me anyhow.
Yeah we'll never find all the answers. Nor what happens to consciousness after death.
The notion that simplicity could be emergent blew my mind. This idea has something to it. Thank you for this great contribution.
The beginning actually was simple, it was empty space and nothing else. As simple as it gets. The spontaneous "something that came from nothing" was gas. This gas collapsed under its own weight of compressed accumulation (in the middle of the gas cloud), igniting into a star. Before that moment, there was no gravity and there were no electrons. The star was set into motion and created gravity. The Universe we can observe is very uniform because this exact star formation process is the only big bang that ever happened and it happens every time a star is born, which still continues to happen as we speak.
And yet we're told energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
@@everready800 empty space has energy . It’s been measured .
@@tonyatkinson2210 But how did all the mass of the universe come from empty space?
The Eternal Life, has No beginning, 'Empty Space', is the Being behind the Living, and means 'Space-Less Space', Space is part of the Creation. Gravity is a Eternal Reality, Stuff-side power.
@@everready800 it came from energy . Energy into mass . Einstein . A nuclear explosion is the opposite : mass into energy .
Ok....fine....thanks laughlin
isn't everything emergent
But we know dynamite did start as a stick. I don't get it.
Where did the stick come from?
@@simonhibbs887 the stick factory
Please find someone who can talk about this stuff in terms of physical objects for a change. Waves, complexity, I find it sad no one is trying to explain anything in terms of physical mechanisms anymore.
I think that’s because when you get down to it , the physical is waves .
Always love my Robert Laughlin. Fascinating view. In this model God rises up and down again.
I disagree with Laughlin's view on organization and structure being *less complex* than chaos and disorder. Complexity requires an *additional layer of information* (orchestration) that organizes all of the lesser parts into a more cohesive structure. If you're only evaluating the final product, then sure, I can see where Laughlin forms his basis, but he's not considering that "additional information" is required to move a less complex structure into higher complexity whereas chaos requires no orchestration at all. *Example:* I toss 1000 marbles on my living room floor. No orchestration is involved other than the me tossing the marbles. However, if I arrange each marble to be exactly 1/2 inch from each other in parallel lines, then this requires an added level of information (measurement, geometry, and mathematics).
He’s talking in terms of the information required to describe the state of a system. By less complex he means describable with less information. With randomly scattered marbles to describe their state we must individually describe the position of every marble. With a regular structure we can just describe the spacing of the whole lattice with a few parameters. The way that’s usually expressed in information systems is Kolmogorov complexity. I know what you mean, it is counterintuitive because the universe now as a structured system seems more interesting than a random plasma, and regular spacings and structure are interesting, and importantly requires higher order concepts to express. So there’s a sort of conceptual complexity that increases. However more interesting doesn’t map to more information, because it has lower entropy. One goes up and the other goes down.
@@simonhibbs887 *"He’s talking in terms of the information required to describe the state of a system. By less complex he means describable with less information."* ... Yes, that's why I qualified my comment with, _"If you're only evaluating the final product, then sure, I can see where Laughlin forms his basis,"_ *"With randomly scattered marbles to describe their state we must individually describe the position of every marble. With a regular structure we can just describe the spacing of the whole lattice with a few parameters"* ... Again, that's an _after-the-fact_ assessment (i.e., the "final product"). However, the ease at which you can describe the organized marbles required prework. Something had to organize all the marbles to offer you ease of description, ... and that "organizer" isn't included in the final product. *Example:* You can have a Piet Mondrian painting juxtaposed with paint randomly splattered onto a canvas. Which one has the higher complexity? The "splatter painting," as you say, requires more information to describe and the Mondrian painting has large, single-color areas of paint that are easy to describe. However, the "splatter painting" doesn't include Piet Mondrian's intelligence embedded within its composition. ... It's a *nonphysical property* that's now attached to Mondrian's painting. *"I know what you mean, it is counterintuitive because the universe now as a structured system seems more interesting than a random plasma, and regular spacings and structure are interesting, and importantly requires higher order concepts to express."* ... It also requires an embedded nonphysical mechanism (intelligence) to orchestrate that structured system that's easier to describe. It is a misconception that benign complex structure can emerge without a layer of organization embedded within it. Since we can't shove that mechanism under a microscope or swish it around in a test tube, we simply disregard its existence. ... But then we're right back at the beginning trying to figure out how complexity emerges from chaos. *"However more interesting doesn’t map to more information, because it has lower entropy. One goes up and the other goes down."* ... Intelligence can supplant entropy. Every morning when you make your bed, you return it to a less entopic state. The intelligence that lowers that entropy (you) walks out of the bedroom immediately afterward.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC The primary cause of ‘orchestration’ in the universe responsible for the structures we observe is gravity. It’s why we have galaxies, stars, planets, solar systems, etc. You can’t swish it in a test tube, but it’s an entirely deterministic physical process.
@@simonhibbs887 *"The primary cause of ‘orchestration’ in the universe responsible for the structures we observe is gravity. It’s why we have galaxies, stars, planets, solar systems, etc."* ... I agree that gravity plays a key role in the structuring of the universe, but even with the full force of science actively trying to figure it out, it still remains an enigma. It's premature to classify gravity as a "physical property" when its entire nature remains unknown. The "orchestration" part is setting these phenomena up to do what they do and not the resulting phenomena themselves. I would lump gravity into the category of "attraction" to which the strong force, weak force, and electromagnetism are included. The countermeasure of attraction is repulsion, which satisfies the dichotomic demands of "Existence." *"You can’t swish it in a test tube, but it’s an entirely deterministic physical process."* ... With "physical processes" being a such a broad-brush, ambiguous term, I guess you can say that. I could just as easily argue that it's a part of "orchestrated processes" (implying intelligence is involved) and we'd both be able to hide behind our ambiguous categories. I can accept your "physical processes" category because a minimal amount of nonphysical intelligence can still be operating behind the scenes. It is you that refuses to consider the existence of embedded intelligence. Between the two of us, a "nonphysical intelligence" answers questions that "physical processes," can't as a standalone proposition. You won't accept it because you can't swish it around in a test tube, but that's just the nature of nonphysical properties. True, you're not going to be able to "observe" nonphysical intelligence like you can with physical substance, and I'm not going to be able to isolate something nonphysical in a scientifically satisfying way. However, I CAN provide examples of how nonphysical information affects physical substance and allow other areas of cognition (logic, deductive reasoning, repeating patterns, human orchestration, etc.) serve as my evidence.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >... With "physical processes" being a such a broad-brush, ambiguous term, I guess you can say that. I’d say it has the most clearly and precisely defined meaning, expressed in unambiguous mathematical terms, of any concept in all of human history. >I can accept your "physical processes" category because a minimal amount of nonphysical intelligence can still be operating behind the scenes. It is you that refuses to consider the existence of embedded intelligence. I don't find it compelling because we observe the existence of a staggeringly capable form of intelligence right in front of us in nature, which manifests itself as computation. We know exactly how it works all the way from quantum effects to Large Language Models. The only remaining related phenomenon we don’t yet have a full account of is consciousness, but I think we’ll get there. >However, I CAN provide examples of how nonphysical information affects physical substance and allow other areas of cognition (logic, deductive reasoning, repeating patterns, human orchestration, etc.) serve as my evidence. All of those are entirely automatable, and in fact have been automated. Computers can evaluate logical expressions, it’s literally what they do; deductive reasoning is computable; there’s nothing humans do that couldn’t in principle be done by an automated system, that’s the point of the philosophical zombie argument. As I said, the only remaining gap is consciousness.
When things organize themselves, what? I have never seen such a thing, the things people say these days AAAAAGH.
You’ve never seen self organisation in nature ? Look at how ice crystals form , how the rings of Saturn form .
@@tonyatkinson2210 Water has remarkagle properties it expands as it freezes unlike other matierials and does not sink it exists as solid vapour and liquid on our planet in most unusual abundance. It boils at a conveient temperature. The water cycle returns it to the sea, it makes patters in snow flakes. I do not see all these things as coincidence.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 remarkable to who ? To organisms that require water to survive ? I agree the fact that water based life forms find water remarkable is not a coincidence . My point was that ice crystals when they form self organise into complex patterns . The original claim was that you had never seen this in nature . And it’s everywhere . Self organisation and increased complexity without agency
@@tonyatkinson2210It just went bang and all fell into place
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 not really. The universe is inhospitable for life. 99.999999999999999 (add more 9’s) of the universe is either empty space, black holes or hot stars . You seem any life in the center of stars or near black holes ? If the universe is fine tuned for anything , it’s fine tuned to be a black hole generator. We are (as far as we know ) the only life in the universe , we live on one small planet in the corner of an average sized galaxy consisting of 100 billion stars . Hardly fine tuned
The title, is pure superstition and speculation in favor of making more videos. Did mr. Kuhn really emerge from complexity, or was he Born.
The process of biological reproduction is a prime example of the emergent complexity he’s referring to