Do General Principles Govern All Science? | Episode 1004 | Closer To Truth
Are there "general principles" that encompass all sciences, that explain even beyond the sciences? What would that mean about our world and about us? Featuring interviews with Geoffrey West, Martin Rees, Stuart Kauffman, Holmes Rolston III, and David Deutsch.
Season 10, Episode 4 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth 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.
#Science #Principles
thank u for taking us with your journey .......
The "thinking cap" was a great touch.
I really appreciate the work that you do here, sir. Thanks
David Deutsch is my favorite physicist. He really nails it with his ...explanation
Have you read all of his books?
Great episode....
The listing says the fourth discussant is Rodney Holder. Instead, it seems to be Holmes Ralston III. While I watched this part with interest because of what Ralston said about the importance of the human mind, I realized he (Ralston) is expressing (rather obliquely) a supernatural theory about the genesis of the mind. Beliefs in the supernatural lead to pessimistic, stagnant, and dehumanizing philosophy and so I found the Wiki on Ralston. Ralston is a Templeton Prize Winner. The Templeton Foundation is a religious foundation and is the same foundation that allegedly paid participants to debate the existence of God with Richard Dawkins. Ralston, like his father and grandfather are ordained Presbyterian ministers. I think this is a good example of the fact that people who are completely wrong about something (the existence of God) will often express some important elements of truth (the idea of the mind being important). I would also like to highly recommend David Deutsch's two books: The Beginning of Infinity and The Fabric of Reality. Audio versions are available.
wow great guests.
Ultimate, constant, sanctification, fix mind deals everything real. No need to question every thing, you are the answer.
Before I which an episode of closer to truth, I press the like button first!
At about 15:15 the discussant is not who is listed in the information section. I guess maybe I was the only one who noticed? It makes me wonder how many viewers actually watch the whole video? Did anyone else notice?
The comment of Stuart Kaufmann was quite interesting. I would love to have a discussion with him, if there maybe a relation to Zipf‘s theorem. If so, the broad applicability of his theory maybe be rather an emergent phenomenon from combinatorial complexity than a fundamental mechanism.
A uniquely valuable series although I sometimes wonder if Doc Kuhn treats this more like a chance to tour the world chatting to fellow big brains.
Also I have less than no idea what Stu Kaufman means by a general principle that is independent of the universe
That he has to tour the world in order to make these series is a sad thing....., I'm quite sure he would prefer running around the corner to meet equally interesting thinkers.
What is the character and nature of science? One moral standard MUTUAL CONSENT with integrity of heart. In character self-governing. Communication/ full disclosure and through self-examination. By nature individual freewill sovereigns. Free from obligation, liabilities, and debt. Principle is our nature. Practice our character.
👍😊👌
Meaningless.
@@patmoran5339 well it does require some thinking?
@@ophidiaparaclete integrity of heart? The second sentence isn't
@@patmoran5339 integrity of heart. To come from the heart and do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
And the forth bang, AI? If so it could be right round the corner. But we have to survive, the next fifty years or so, as a spices. Sounds easy enough but personally I'm not so sure. What a shame if we blow it now.
I love these videos. Thank you. I think that it may be very difficult to unify fundamental principles because of the emergent phenomenon that arises from them, like the way biology is emergent from chemistry which is emergent from particle physics, etc. Both upwards and downwards. I also think that emergent phenomena just appears emergent because we are not capable of seeing the whole system at once. Perhaps once AI exceeds the human brain’s abilities, it will think emergent behavior is obvious behavior. Until then we just have to keep looking ourselves. And that sure is fun!
Yeah, these are great.
It is highly interesting about three big bangs. I never thought this.
The moment you bring your "Transcendent" thing into the play, everything becomes infinitely more abstract, ambiguous, and mind-dependent than before, and it feels like a stubborn refusal to let any deterministic, physicalist, and naturalist stand on its own. And if all that wasn't confusing enough, conflating the class of emergent phenomena as Transcendent ones will do the rest
theology basically, not science, I agree,
I huge portion of these shows consist of Robert Kuhn walking around looking thoughtful. It must be hard for director to keep it varied and interesting.
9:01 Yes, when experiments can't be conducted use computer simulation and let your imagination run free... However, put rubbish in a computer model one can only get rubbish out. Not only are the variables complex there is no way of knowing all them! I shall remain skeptical and 'suspend judgement'.
Knowing the size of an animal can tell you how long it lives does not account for my cat’s nine lives.
Particularly if it’s a schrodinger breed
clearly not true anyway, tortoise/turtles outlive most species
totally agree, from macrocism to microcism, from biology to phsicalogy, to logical. its also including Mystical force. for each has it's own cycle of existance. for each creation has a time limit, to create the balance of nature.
Meaningless.
@@patmoran5339 that's because, you did not look deep enought!!!
Subcritical and Supercritical economies is interesting. Japan was backwards up to 1870. Beginning around 1880 Meiji government undertook rapid development, bringing in tons of experts from Europe and USA. Her first manufactured items were simple though required some complex machinery...for instance she quickly dominated the silk fabric market using machine designs from France. All the simple hand tools had to be made in good quantity to make the more complex machines. Then complex machines made the tools easier, faster cheaper....leading to more machines and more complex tools. She was making state-of-the-art vacuum tubes, radios and relay-based computers as well as of course lenses and cameras by the 1930s. By 1940 Japan had reached parity with Western Nations. S. Korean economy built up in much the same way as Japan, but faster...30 years instead of 60. But what about Singapore....seems to have taken a slightly different path...not much tool and manufacturing development. Maybe Singapore is subcritical....but is still wealthy.
All experiences are Feeling-experiences, the Feeling cant be created, it is an Eternal ability, if Feeling didn't exist, no one would never have been able to Feel anything at all. The Eternal Life expose basicly two sides, the 'Stuff-side' and the 'Life-side', physical pain/psychological pain. The Perspective-principle and the Contrast-principle, are the two 'Legs' that make Feeling 'walk' into sensing.
Freedom is general principle governing natural laws / science. Natural laws and science come into existence through freedom.
I enjoy these too. I also think that the view that Beethoven is better than Brahms or vice versa is entirely subjective must be right. I will always prefer Ludwig to one tune Wolfgang but not everyone agrees, or ever will.
When we observe the results of a scientific experiment we use a binary yes or no to whether the results conform to our hypothesis or not.
Possibly one overall general principal is "intention", whether it be the 'intention' to survive for all species on earth or for the self-conscious Human Being, the 'intention' to observe and understand the universe via mathematical equations, measurement and observation. So is 'intention' an overall principal cause of all physical creation and motion? If 'intention' is truely a 'general principal', that governs all sciences, then you should not be able to physicaly get out of bed, or do any science without intending to do so.
Principle not principal.
The answer is "will"
Do General Principles Govern All Science? >"Will." Understandable, have a great day.
Candidates: laws of thermodynamics, logistics equation, laws of motion, emergence in complex systems, etc. Should include Stephen Wolfram ("A New Kind of Science") in this discussion. David Deutsche assumes that modern composers' music is "better" than a caveman banging rocks. That may not ring true to cavemen. I'm not sure about "objective truth." Humans define what is "good" and "bad" in musical composition. Something sounds "good" or "bad" to different groups of humans. Music tastes and genres change over time, so what sounds good or bad various over time. There is no objective truth to music's sound quality.
There is nothing 'general' about any science, unless 'science' includes devine science.
I'm a caveman and I'm offended. P.S. Here's my music: kzhead.info/channel/PLajiDW3923VqJIzUwe6kxBCZHRKiJQUU4.html
Holy s%#t I come to a conclusion. Religion and religious ideas, stem from trauma. I hadn’t watch this episode yet
I wish he’d included advocates for the disunity of science (Nancy Cartwright, John Dupré, Peter Galison, Ian Hacking etc)
There is no point in asking what the general principles mean, before you know what they are. (by the way; yes, there are general principles that explain everything. And Mind is not emergent, but fundamental.)
I wonder how he would explain the size of dinosaurs and their ability to move....
I don't know if this is someone else, but I was sent a reply about my last name? Was it you. Cause the other thread is missing from my screen
Pat Moran who are you
ok sorry wrong one.
What ive read on internet there were more oxygen in the air which made the air more dense and made the birds fly for an example
Too many adverts it makes your videos very frustrating and spoils them.
@derekbd genuine thank you for this.
This guy is king weasel king of all the other weasels
"Emergent" is a sophisticated way of saying nothing...or saying I don't know. Choose one...
The listing says the fourth discussant is Rodney Holder. Instead, it seems to be Holmes Ralston III. While I watched this part with interest because of what Ralston said about the importance of the human mind, I realized he (Ralston) is expressing (rather obliquely) a supernatural theory about the genesis of the mind. Beliefs in the supernatural lead to pessimistic, stagnant, and dehumanizing philosophy and so I found the Wiki on Ralston. Ralston is a Templeton Prize Winner. The Templeton Foundation is a religious foundation and is the same foundation that allegedly paid participants to debate the existence of God with Richard Dawkins. Ralston, like his father and grandfather are ordained Presbyterian ministers. I think this is a good example of the fact that people who are completely wrong about something (the existence of God) will often express some important elements of truth (the idea of the mind being important). I would also like to highly recommend David Deutsch's two books: The Beginning of Infinity and The Fabric of Reality. Audio versions are available. Glyne I wanted to recommend The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World. DD has much information about emergence. I think you would find it interesting. My best to you, Pat
@@patmoran5339 _"I think this is a good example of the fact that _*_people who are completely wrong about something_*_ (the existence of God) [!!!!] will often express some important elements of truth (the idea of the mind being important)"_ Coming from the moniker that previously asked: _"I could be mistaken. Could you be mistaken?"_ Followed by: _" So your answer is that _*_you cannot be mistaken._*_ And you are sure beyond any doubt. So there is no reason for further discussion. You hold your position immune from criticism. That is how bad philosophy becomes worse by entrenching pessimism and stagnation."_ Your virtue signalling is obvious and your contradictory double standards reeks of hypocrisy Pat. You've held your position of the non existence of an IDEA in your mind for a seemingly long time. Be advised that all we ever have are our ideas of what "God" supposedly is, and the non existence of *your idea* is not necessarily the non existence of any reality. So you are beyond any shadow of any doubt that "God" doesn't exist. You seem to know what all of science doesn't. How did you come to realize this Truth??...oh wait!...you don't answer questions. You seemingly hold the position that Consciousness is merely an abstraction or arbitrary idea....a non reality that's superstitious...and maybe it is just as non existent as whatever idea of "God" you walk around with daily. This is why any position that Consciousness is fundamental is superstitious woo woo and an "argument for God". Yet you were previously totally unable to explain your own materialist woo woo and come here on the face of *_totally refusing to reciprocate what was graciously shown to you_* in that previous thread, ...a polite request to articulate your logic on simple questions, declare your hand and prove your mettle...... to suggest WHAT book(s) behind all that???!!!!... I have read books that i think are great but would only recommend to whom i think may actually read them...you don't answer questions so you definitely won't read recommended books either. i am not a juvenile, i can read folk sometimes...and see subtle motives. You're here to preach, to indoctrinate and (Maybe?) to reveal that you have studied stuff despite your previous demonstration of logical inadequacy. I have seen NO demonstrative reason why i would want to be indoctrinated into whatever worldview you carry around. Any chances of being even slightly intrigued is currently as non existent as the God that you seem to KNOW does not exist. Try being a little more courteous and honest in a "debate-like entanglement" if you expect to be taken half seriously with any of your literary suggestions. Enjoy the rest of your week...
@@glynemartin I guess we see things completely differently. Best to you. Pat
@@patmoran5339 _"I guess we see things completely differently."_ Maybe what's even more important is that we seem to have totally different value systems. You know?? Pleasant weekend...
@@glynemartin Yes I know. You also-please have a nice weekend. I don't want to be a "nanny" but wash your hands and wear a mask.
God is a god of the gaps. Science mined the gaps by putting on a thinking cap.
God(s) is(are) a myth. The human mind can create better and better explanations of reality through conjecture, criticism, and the elimination of errors. We call that process knowledge creation or science.
Why would Mozart be any better at music than cave man, those sounds sure sounds very different, but only because banging stones can't compare with clear sounds produced by an elegant violin, deep echo coming from large piano or harmonies from small harmonica. Also because cave man didn't know any musical notes. But how about if Mozart must play a concert in a stone age cave, without any artificial musical apparatus, who knows, cave man might be able to capture more mesmerizing rhythms. It doesn't take a genius to feel stuff, so knowledge and ability to visualize complex music would be meaningless in that scenario. General rules might exist, but they change with evolution of a man. Why would advance of civilization depend on varieties and services, there is no global civilization and therefore no universal rules, nothing to compare success against, except perhaps general ethics. To be conscious being is an advantage on itself, but it doesn't mean there's a competition among different human tribes. People can be self sufficient and happy without some spectacular achievements or piles of accumulated knowledge, if only criteria is quality of an individual life. Here's an example, what is better, to sell your product to a single very rich individual or supply masses with your various products? It's possible to earn million dollars in one deal, but you need to sell some cheep junk decades before you earn 100.000 dollars. Depends on value other people see in your product and service, and this depends on general culture, how most people spend their lives. Quality of live is getting better all around the world, but not because more miracles are built and produced than before, societies became connected trough politics and we all share same social values. This is what it means to be social, share your problems and find solutions that benefit all members or sides. But this also means some people get things they don't need and are forced to work something they don't like. Society is based on restrictions, borders and limitations, it's very hard to devote individual life to own dreams, bounded only by nature and imagination. None of Big bangs might be real, not even scientific myth of creation in an instant, based on material observations, it's all stories we tell to make sense of what we can observe and share. Life might be distinct to Earth only, or something else might exist, more than life, less than universal God, there's simply no way to know by just looking at a night sky and digging out bones. How about if Earth was further from sun than it is today, what if part of planet's mass was neutralized by another moon, life could grow much larger in weaker gravity or sun could be much brighter than we think and plants grow way taller with more light and carbon in air. Those general rules are probably just temporary phenomena, emerged from general philosophy, specially now when humanity became a global society and we will see much more mass delusion phenomena then ever before.
Sounds quite pessimistic to me.
I just wanted to add that the post is not all pessimistic. Much of it is just nonsensical.
@@patmoran5339 Obviously, since you can describe even a single thought that bother you in my line of reasoning.
@@xspotbox4400 i get you, Pat doesnt understand anything if its more than 2 sentences
@@PazLeBon That's pretty rich coming from someone fond of one or two word responses. Like "TY" and "No"