Відео

Thank You

First

Shame the sound quality is so terrible.

You'd be forgiven to think that one of the best universities on the planet ought to have had better video recording equipment back in 2016. This looks as though it had been recorded in the 1980s.

Why is that? Because the Universe is not Markovian; it only looks as if it is when we use a coarse grained view of it.

Can we bury Laplacean Determinism already? Its corpse is a stinking mess!

What about Bisimilarity?

Those who stand in the forest without seeing the trees don't know what Philosophy is either. The "love of words/wording" is not about an infatuation with titillating novels or fashionable politics, every baby is a scientist who lives by the inseparable mix of environment and culture in "philosophical" dependency. And if a Physicist says the easiest to fool is yourself, then you can add philosophy and do a thorough job of it, which is why Physicists and Philosophers should check each other's work via the mediation of Mathematicians. Scientists provide the evidence of working reality via mathematics to philosophers who then can reason from first principles, and provide the postulates for reiterating and refining the collective understanding. "Unification" leads to the definition of the Quantum Universe, because the act of unifying in constant terms is the origin of all information superimposed in fluid degrees of certainty, "=" symbol is the pivotal function of unity in mathematical formulae, meaning and purpose of the approach to unity is a reasonable and rational connection of philosophy in principle. "Time-timing" is another version of the basic principle of connection existence, a dynamically fluid state. Physics observes and codifies evidence of relationships that are unified in principle. It isn't a search for unification or why it is existence, mostly it's a study technique or methodology, of how it becomes technology. The trees in the forest have been identified and arranged in orderly manner, philosophically. "Solved" specific problems are why philosophy is required to fit the apparent solution back into the whole, because it's part of continuous (unified) evolution.

Thank you for posting! Ignore the complainers-if they really cared they could email for the slides, if they’re so important! Seriously though, this rules.

Reading Roveli's book, Reality is not what it seems, I am stuck at how pompous this man is. His take on European history is eccentric. Roveli reckons the Christians burnt all the books, Isis style, but he mentions in his own book that the work of Lucretius was preserved in a Christian abbey, but without batting an eyelid! He also calls Plato stupid for speculating on the Immortality of the soul. It is true that the standard model is triumphant in predictive power and the soul is not there, hence Plato's stupidity. But consciousness is not in the standard model also. But consciousness is obviously primary, as Einstein was conscious before he did his work, and conscious people made all this stuff up but they are left out of their model. Kurt Godel's incompleteness..... lost my line of thought!

Very interesting lecture. Living in a world of duality requires polarization of views because it's the methodology used to find optima, but then there's the further optimization for particular environments and the process can never cease. If bad philosophy is to be avoided, what is politics?

"Might we benefit cloned organ donors by harvesting them?" My thought process is this, not only is it for a much more ethical reason than eating meat (since this is for survival, not taste), it will also be a pleasant life given to the cloned donor, who would not exist otherwise. Mind you, these organs which will be readily available to those with the correct insurance plan (or $$$) will be saving their own loved ones. We're not talking about a steak here, or diet, we're talking about life or death for your son, daughter, mother, father, brother, wife, husband, mistress, prized athlete, or hell, for the man who wants to push the boundaries of mortality. These are real lives at stake here. These donors that are raised from the test tube, will be absolutely cared for in what could be perceived as a upper-middle class lifestyle, pampered until they reach the appropriate age, in which they will be destroyed for their organs. We had plans set in place where there could be the alternative where donors are operated on multiple times for different organs, but we've determined it inhumane. Their death will be fearless and painless. Although, if granted freedom, these donors could live upwards of one-hundred years, they will be harvested at roughly the age of twenty so that way their organs are extremely healthy and young. These donors wouldn't have the slightest clue that this was their fate and they also would not know about reality outside of their destiny. This is, afterall, a much more worthy cause than eating meat, so should be just as socially acceptable to do. Logical arguments to oppose my proposition: Humans are sentient and have free will, thusly, should not be imprisoned to a death sentence for the perceived benefit of another being. This logic applies to animals and also can be shut down if referenced with a social contract of any kind (I.E. Society understands it is wrong to kill humans) Humans have a higher intellegence and should not be subjected to such an inhumane life. We would, by all means raise these beings to be bred without a brain, or just the organs by themselves, but we don't have the technology yet. Just as we're waiting for the technology for lab grown meat. (Not like not doing it is an option). Also, does that mean that we can impose this on them if they have an extremely low IQ? We could just take the sons and daughters of parents who birthed mentally dysfunctional children. This would ensure the least amount of cruelty for our given technology. Lastly, would it be okay for us humans to be farmed in a similar manner as animals, if it was done so by a more intelligent species or race? These are all double standards, you see. The simple matter of things is we are moral agents with the rather (un)fortunate ability of higher cognitive thought. We have a burden as a species, a responsibility to not harm things unnecessarily. No amount of harmful words that you put humane in front of makes unnecessary death okay. If there are holes in my argument and logic uptop (as I'm sure there are plenty) I'm doing this at work and had to rush. I couldn't even make it far enough into the video (made it about half/ once again at work) to see if this guy was opposing or proposing the argument of benefitting animal life by breeding them into life for slaughter. Simple question for any meat eater out there (answer honestly) "Would you be okay with a system where, at birth, you are handed your scheduled execution date, all for the sake of another being's taste preference?" The death will be humane, believe you me, but you will live nearly a tenth to a quarter of your original lifespan without any of the freedoms that your life would normally grant you. If you feel the need to bring up any form of "but they're human" argument, then address this proposal: Name a trait present in animals, that if present in a human would justify the needless death of that human. They are donors, they are put into existence for this purpose, of which they would not even exist.

Possibly the most rational, honest assessment on the whole internet! If we want to save rhinos, elephants, lions, sharks, etc., we should promote them as health food. Not kidding.

We create reality. Science and philosophy think they are finding answers to how things are, but they are just creating and/or creatively thinking them.

Thank you so much for sharing.

For those who speak german; ua-cam.com/video/xhNS3cJX5EU/v-deo.html Heisenberg talks about the relationship between philosophy and physics

The videographer is terrible; he has no concept of showing the presenter AND what is presented on the projector screen, he mindlessly follows the physicist. This is most important when the voice of the lecturer is hard to understand. For this reason I give this video a 3 on the scale of 1-5.

Reading Reality is not what it seems- the journey to Quantum Gravity by Dr. Carlo Rovelli. Thank you for this excellent book Dr. Rovelli! I waited five months for its translation to English.

please point the camera at whats been projected on the wall more

There's nothing here for me to disagree with in principle but I feel that he's merely (re)stating the obvious and he's not exactly done so in the most eloquent way possible (maybe the language barrier has something to do with this). I've seen much better defenses of philosophy's role in science than this talk. Maybe he's written something more cogent on the subject matter, though...

Peirce ("purse") is commonly mistaken as "Pierce." :)

Dal mio punto di vista il tempo è un ritmo, il ritmo con cui l'universo si rigenera, così come si rigenera un'immagine telvisiva.