Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
@senorinsanio I understand. When it comes to contemplating a meaning for the universe, thats not up to science or any structured religion. Such a question never reaches a conclusion. Einstein did say, "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary."
@senorinsanio Depends what you mean by spirituality. Science can certainly be beautiful and have that "spiritual" feel with eureka moments and all that good stuff.
@senorinsanio I don't think Einstein is referring to supernatural or metaphysical energies when he says religion. Plenty of scientists and people are spiritual one way or another, there just aren't too many that will allow their beliefs to bring them down to pseudoscientific fluff with no evidence.
From some elementary observations on the forms of physical equations, to stating that it's just accident and these equations that have resulted in everything that exists, and that there is nothing metaphysical. WOW!!
That's some of the most impressive hand waving I have ever seen. Pity there's not a Nobel Prize for "The stating of impressive conclusions without the need for a logical argument or set of premises" - he'd be a strong contender.
@aew782 "When a biologist doesn't know, he asks a chemist. When a chemist doesn't know he asks a physicist. When a physicist doesn't know he asks God."
I dont see why people have to become hardcore militants from whichever part of the spectrum when it comes to subjects on God or philosophy or existence or science in general. It could be a type of zealousness or arrogance. I mean it would and should naturally raise the eyebrows of any educated (or uneducated) person to hear the part about the "unimaginably long sequence of accidents", suggesting in terms of probability that it's all one ridiculously huge accident or chance out come yet w/beauty.
@Belial690 This ain't a university lecture, he gives simple understandable examples about evolution of science.
Mr Gell man was the competitor of Richard Feynman, they were working on particle physics in the 60s, he's extremely well educated and even his school professors felt intimidated in front of him, he could beat them at what ever subject they talked about. But above all it's his particle physics, do you know how hard it is for the average person to understand advanced physics?
@MultiBrados oh yes it is difficult, most people don't even know basic calculus, or what the universe looks like, if they did they wouldn't believe in astrology mumbo jumbo, false probability, and all the nonsense they do. They cannot even understand a compound interest formula which affects their finances. advanced Physics isn't an easy subject , it's hard even for physicists and impossible for the science illitarate,
@VERGIS92 It's not that difficult, you don't need to be very smart at all to understand physics. The problem is it's hard to talk about physics without using math, and most people don't "speak" math.
he didn't make me understand more about his quark proposition, but his humour is exuberantly huge, philosophical appreciation from his speech is to the MAXimum. I really love this talk.
you don't need something more to create something more.This is what an ancient sanskrit shlok "prunamadam,purnamidam" says . and murray gell mann is talking about.
"You don't need something more to get something more.. Isn't there something more some peolple ask me? Presumably they mean something 'supernatural'... anyway there isn't"
This guy is one of the most brilliant people on the planet. ANd he's well-rounded too. Not just good at math, he's knowledgeable in languages, the arts, biology, etc. He demonstrated it in this talk when he gave a perfect, phonetic pronunciation of the name of the French mathematician "Coulomb".
Think of the underlying law of nature. The way of all things.
Consider its astounding inferences and implications.
The single, underlying law ... of nature! Not merely of physics, chemistry, psychology, biology, etc., but of all fields of inquiry combined! The law we can all relate to, identify, understand and apply.
Ask yourself. What is the underlying law of nature?
Delight in the question. Have fun in the process of finding the answer firsthand for yourself.
'However, things like love and compassion, are not merely very complex. There is something about them that makes me (and many others) believe strongly that they cannot be created by bits alone.'
So is it conscious love and compassion when an diseased ant crawls away from a colony to die alone, and saving the colony?
Love and compassion are advanced human manifestations of altruism in nature, part of the survival mechanisms for social animals. It's no less wonderful if it isn't magical.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the 4 forces are a crock, they're helpful tools and concepts. There has been no conclusive experiment that proves things fall at a constant acceleration to any significant decimal place. The maths is right but the assumption used as the foundation may just be wrong.
@shahinarya Guess what? That's not even from me! It's from one of the most famous sex crazed noble price winning dick head of physics: Richard Phillips Feynman.
Thats like saying theres nothing but transistors flipping bits inside my computer.
Its true, and it's not. There is far more going on, and far more meaning then that. Love is still love, regardless of if its caused by magic space aliens transmiting their brains into ours (ie. an external soul). Or some magic super powerful space man says its so (god). Or because of a complex organization of otherwise mundane particles.
Thats as nonsensical as saying 'how is the sun still the sun if its just a bunch of atoms under intense pressure turning into denser atoms causing it to emit radiation to the earth'.
We all feel love, compassion, etc. Regardless of whether we are just chemicals and accidents, or magic disembodied aliens possessing the bodies of relatively hairless apes for the last 2000+ years.
A car is a car regardless of how it works. Love is love regardless of how it works.
@lubermanl So you're saying there's a simple chemical mechanism for love. If you believe that then I'd have to question if you have ever been in love.
It's also worth noting that despite all our scientific progress, we are no closer now to understanding things like love than we were 1000 years ago.
You might not be any closer to understanding love then people were 1000 years ago. I wouldn't say science hasnt done anything.
I wouldnt say its simple. Computers are so complex we don't even design them, we design programs to design them. And the brain is far far more complex then a computer. For example Oxytocin is a chemical that can aid in trusting people.
We know that chemicals can influence things like love in the brain, or aid in forming relationships. And there is no other theory.
In other words, what do you believe love is? and why. We know that if interact physically with the brain it messes up people. If you de-organize the brain people aren't the same. If there is something outside of the physical brain then how do you know, and what does it do?
Could it be like this web site? it is just 1's and 0's transmitting through wires. But is that really all it is? Its a complex organization of 1's 0's which makes it far more meaningful.
Have you ever been moved to tears by a video on the internet? but thats just 1's and 0's. How could 1's and 0's have that much meaning? because they are a fantastically complex series of 1's and 0's. The brain is far more complex, which means it can have far more meaning.
it makes sense that you can use simple constituents to make things that are more and more complex - so complex that it is almost impossible to believe that at the base we have such primitive constituents.
However, things like love and compassion, are not merely very complex. There is something about them that makes me (and many others) believe strongly that they cannot be created by bits alone.
Hey... Thought you all might be interested in Binary Relativity on youtube. I also love physics and thought you might want to know about some new theories...
@chromophore Since writing that comment, I must say that I retract it.
Gell-Mann is fantastic for his eight-fold way, his many unique insights and is certainly a hero of mine. Gell-Mann is a dynamic and outstanding character that really shouldn't be compared to Feynman directly, as they both are giants.
Your comment has nothing to do with this video, I wonder why people nowadays are thrilled to write down sociological problems that are vague and sometimes really unstable to venture. This simply shows your militancy towards todays trend of so called " Intellectual Talk and the promising factors of the new movement" . Actually, I personally think that you don't have a background and like the others, keeps repeating the same old thread of arguments that are very troll in nature in a deceptive way.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Assuming that there is no god, we need to explain how can matter evolve to life and then to intelligent life just for this matter to be aware of it self and to describe it self in mathematical equations.
There have been attempts at it. I say attempts 'cos science never claims 2 be sure of everything. We already know that the elementary element of Hydrogen from the big bang combined to form helium etc. etc. This is the only philosophical reason for the existence of a creator (Science - cannot claim to know everything but it sure gets better at it every year. As i tell ppl - If Science can prove the Bible is true, it is liberal enough to accept it, but the truth is all test ssay bible it's not.
Scientists ask:" How can I understand how this all works so that I can understand it."
Christian thinks:" How can I figure out how to make this proof of God's work."
Sometimes finding answers means thinking, and learning, not making a big shrug, and saying:" I don't know, God did it. it's magic....no need to think anymore."
Perhaps learning, needs the right frame of mind that a "God" intended as a sign of maturity to develop understand.
the IGNORANT will always take bits and pieces to make REALITY fit their JESUS theory...discarding REALITIES that do not FIT?
duh these IGNORANT bible babblers have it all backwards....that is what suggests that folks who take bible babble LITERALLY are out to get a free lunch without doing the REAL work necessary to understand the cosmos.
@PoppedLASTICZ "Sometimes finding answers means thinking, and learning, not making a big shrug, and saying:" I don't know, God did it. it's magic....no need to think anymore." Yes - just like Newton.
But you are right - we need to learn from the evidence: Many atheists are bigoted and have very little regard for evidence which may undermine their prejudices. And vast majority of them are quite thick but like to believe that they are oh so smart.
For all you morons who are arguing about Religion and Science.
It does not matter whether you believe or don't. The laws don't change. So suck it up. What you don't know you don't talk about.
So - you don't know how to world began so you cannot say that God didn't create it. You may believe that God didn't because he doesn't exist. But you don't know. You think. So shutup no one cares about what you think since you don't know anything.
But the idea of a God is FAR more improbable than the universe and time just spontaneously starting by itself. Evolution shows that a creator didn't have to do anything for the diversity of life, and what we know so far points to abiogenesis, not divine creation.
One requires far more assumptions that have no rational justification and can be dismissed as wishful anthropomorphizing the universe by teleological zealots.
anyway i absolutely agree that life was born out of chemistry, physics, and chance. but it's still tough to wrap my head around the beginning of the universe, if there was one and if so, what came before? and if not... how? and where do the fundamental laws come from? in any case, i'm as sure as anyone can reasonably be that religion doesn't have the answers.
Evidence says what Prof. Gell-Mann sayed. So it doesnt't matter what you think. Reality is what it is. And if you think different than what reality says then you are denying reality and are, therefore, wrong.
To say it in another way, the fact that you want reality to be in a certain way has no effect whatsoever over reality.
@diegoarmino I sure hope you're joking! Are you telling me OUR perception of reality is meaningless?! and that our reality is NOT created from OUR perception?
Our world, is all created through OUR translation of that reality! It is our PERCEPTION that dictates what is right and wrong in our reality. What maybe very wrong to you maybe right to me yet the reality remains. Perception is BEYOND reality.
"Do what you will, you live in a world of fiction full of contradiction."
@freighttrain777 in other words...if language (reality) is meaningless, then this whole argument is impossible to be understood. if this argument can be understood, then language (reality) cannot be meaningless. you cannot logically rely on the premise that language (reality) has meaning to to communicate the language (reality) has no meaning.
@diegoarmino if language (reality) is meaningless, then this whole argument is impossible to be understood. if this argument can be understood, then language (reality) cannot be meaningless. you cannot logically rely on the premise that language (reality) has meaning to to communicate the language (reality) has no meaning.
@diegoarmino: You could just as easily switch the claim by saying that reality is denying YOU, and in so being, reality is wrong. But that results in a paradox, now, doesn't it? The bottom line is: truth is contingent on what makes our models work, and not what actually IS the case. Food for thought.
@diegoarmino Well said, intellectual honesty is the only road to progress. I'm sorry for replying to a year old comment but you seem to be getting a steady trickle of nonsensical replies and I just wanted to show some support.
Amusing. If you had even the slightest understanding of what Einstein actually meant, you would know that he used to use the word "god" as a metaphor. Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, and even found the idea of a personal god ridiculous.
Newton, however, did believe in a personal god, but remember that he lived more than 300 years ago.
Reality strongly indicates the inexistence of the supernatural. So if Newton believed in god, he was as wrong as you are in this respect.
That's something I really don't understand, Einstein's favorite hobby was to demonstrate mathematically concepts that seemed to have no correlation with reality (such as time being subjective) until we found those correlations. So why would someone that favors mathematical proof and logic over perception not agree with the fact that "god plays dice" just because of an instinctive belief?
I believe he also refuted the idea of universe accelerated expansion because of his fear of it.
What a wonderful lecture on a truly fascinating subject. I knew Murray Gell-Mann by name and fame, but never before saw him speak. He's a great speaker!
as some one used the integrated approach to water resources for a world water congress in 1977 in my twenties, i was pleasd at MMG came to similar thinking in his sixties-inhis book quarks and jaguar in 1994 he says- we must get away from the idea that serious work is restricted to beating to death a well -defined problem in a narrow discipline, while broadly integrative thinkg is relegated to cocktail parties.we encounter a lack of respect for the task of integration.
i read his book the qark and the jaguar in 1994. i wonder why he said-my friend einstein or for that matter hi enistein since one of his regret while he was at prinston was he never got to know einstein .the age gap and as einstein a towering figure,he as as some one in his twenties .that is the impression i got from his interview with science journalist ? i may not be using exact words .
Lol actually mate, I believe he was refering to the fact that they both studied the "same" topic. As many might remember learning that current science stands upon the old. So in fact, they realy were lab asistants or friends to eachother.
i could have spoken to him; i did not like the kind of people who approached great figures,got into conversation and reported to others as a way of showing off.He was working on unified field theory.,it was doomed a failure.he did not belief in quan.mech...GM occationally said good afternoon, Einstein answered a mix of german and english.and that was it.now older and wiser, i would not have missed an opportuniy.but GM got nobel prize like him indeed.
If the parabola is expressed in the form y = ax^2 + bx + c, then the second derivative of the parabola with respect to x is y'' = 2a. What the hell, however, does that have to do with anything whatsoever?
didn't you want to say "Islam is The One great religion"?
you should have, if you are a self-respecting muslim
but you did not because you have the good sense to see how foolish it would sound at a place like this (where a superior mind is lecturing on True Truth)
where could you find any such stuff as Newton, Einstein (,Gell-Mann) etc. have layed bare for us in your "revealed" holly book
LoL These religious freakjobs leaving comments are the best part about YouTube! If it weren't for the laughter that we atheists & agnostics share about theists, we wouldn't be alive today!
For anything or anyone to self-exist it must do so in an infinite mode, eternal as well. Our environment is not infinite in power, i.e. we do not experience infinite star light, therefore we are living in a derivative environment.
Derived not form nothing, but from an eternal, infinite source.
Good point, but although the inverse square law/equation describes an aspect of the functioning of gravity - it does not say what gravity is. My point is that science is punctuated by paradigm shifts, when the theorectical and equational framework changes fundamentally. QM was such a shift; in time it will itself be replaced by another. We cannot presume our present model is final; or that another civ will follow exactly the same pattern of discovery as we have. models are maps, not reality.
Gell-Mann's error is precisely at this philosophical level - he does not have it. He cannot see beyond the horizon of QM. He presumes that alien civilisations no matter how much in advance of us would have a quantum understanding of reality. This is scientific and philosophical short-sightedness. He is entitled to his opinion. I meerly wish to point out that a little philosophical reflection will reveal that is is almost certainly wrong.
He 'gets it' perfectly; he's saying that any intelligent entity exploring the nature of reality would find the same rules such as the inverse square law for gravity. Also, that the scientific endeavor is the attempt to develop models which get ever closer to the way things are. Nothing short-sighted about that view.
Good point, but although the inverse square law/equation describes an aspect of the functioning of gravity - it does not say what gravity is. My point is that science is punctuated by paradigm shifts, when the theorectical and equational framework changes fundamentally. QM was such a shift; in time it will itself be replaced by another. We cannot presume our present model is final; or that another civ will follow exactly the same pattern of discovery as we have. models are maps, not reality.
You're right about the inverse square law. But fortunately our understanding of gravity has changed since Newton, and even since Einstein. We now have a somewhat ontological theory of gravity, meaning that we don't just describe what it does, but what it is. Gravity, currently, is understood as perturbations in the otherwise relatively flat geometry of space-time. Of course I agree with you that science has limits, and that our present model of the universe is limited. But we're very close.
What is really incredible is that both of his 'colleagues', pictured on stage, would have disagreed with him -- and he knows it. It is almost as if he wants to shove their faces in it and insult them. Neither Newton nor Einstein would have agreed that the universe is accidental. Einstein fought the Copenhagen interpretation right to the end. Newton's most fundamental belief was in a Divine order.
The computational success of QM does not imply that nature is accidental, or probabilistic; no more than the successes of Ptolemy's astronomy proved the earth was at the centre of the universe.
The probabilistic interpretation, IE the orthodox interpretation seems the most supported. The hidden variable interpretation on the other hand, which you are referring to, has lost much favor, no variable has been found so to speak.
I am not referring to any hidden variable. I am implying that the orthodox interpretation is fundamentally wrong as to the underlying nature of reality in a similar way that Ptolemy's astronomy was wrong.
The orthodox interpretation projects characteristics of the QM equations onto the underlying reality - and that is a very basic error; like projecting the grammatical structure of language onto reality, and imagining that a tree is a noun in reality.
I thought about your statement, but I do not see that. Quantum mechanics' statistical model seems more about being a predictive model than about forcing nature to concur with it.
I do agree that probabilistic models for underlying reality of the subatomic (being accidental) is grievously disharmonious with classical physics (which Einstein and Newton supported in its determinism), however the apparent accuracy of the model means there must be some truth to the math.
The computational accuracy of QM has utility; it is the only way we have at this time to deal with the data at the sub-atomic level. But does that mean the maths truly reflects the structure of the underlying reality?
If I use inches to measure a real distance, I cannot say there are x inches actually in the real distance. Math does not map onto reality. For instance, the equations of physics are symmetrical - but reality is not.
I think you're being more philosophical on the nature of knowledge and math than anything else.
The obvious truth, anyway, is that if a model makes accurate predictions about a system, then it describes the nature of that system. You can always ask if there is some reality deeper, or a need for more accuracy, but it seems like pushing the goalpost ahead, unless an actual underlying reality were discovered.
Consider: within the measurement tolerance of the time Ptolemy's astronomy made predictions accurate enough to produce navigation tables. Newton's equations made accurate predictions until anomalous measurements made QM and relativity necessary.
Philosophical or not, these are accurate observations.
This philosophical understanding of human knowing is the foundation of the work of the greatest scientists. It is why they are able to see beyond the science orthodoxy of their times.
"...It is why they are able to see beyond the science orthodoxy of their times."
I'm not in opposition of you on this point or those you made before it, I just think that if there is something more than quantum mechanics, it will be found. Until quantum mechanics hits that wall where something better is needed, I am not complaining about it.
"You don't need something more to get something more." Yes you do, you need "a lot of these accidents"!
Hm, doesn't fit in my theory, can't explain it, let's call it an accident...
Maybe microbes "think" the same thing every time we interact with their environment. "Hm, colony B wiped out by antibiotics, what a coincidence". I think what religion calls GOD, science calls accident. In principle they talk about the very same thing but just named it differently. Stupid humans...
You pulled the quote out of context. By 'emergence', he was only referring to the 'onionlayers' and their overlapping explanation.
And what religion calls god, science calls not yet fully understood. And it is not just semantics, science keeps asking questions where religion does not.
His final words perfectly show the blind spot of science. "... plus a lot of accidents". Maybe these "accidents" form a pattern themselves. Given the fact, that these coincidences show up literally everywhere, scientists still manage to ignore these "ghosts in the machine" and seem to be quite happy with it. They just label something they cannot explain a "coincidence" or a measurement problem or a contamination and keep going. Even if science admited that there is no such thing as coincidence
..sorry, I was expecting him to say that. He has an awesome voice. I can't tell if I'm thinking of Professor Frink, or someone else. It's just familiar.
my hero! Murray is so awesome. I would love to have him derive the QCD Lagrangian on vid, even better in person. I doubt Id remember it all the first several times but its just a beautiful equation.
Sounds like Machio Kakos field string theory inverted... some good points. For math to exsist, there has to be a master mathematician. This isn't by chance, it is by design but the snapshot of time which is so extream that it keeps us learning and evolving.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
stupid arrogant humans, we keep implementing the designs of our own limited minds upon the universe, keep discovering the same old paterns and keep thinking we are uncovering universal truths. The whole of the history of science is one long episode of collective human mental masturbation.
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 days ago
you have some great stuff here
grisgrisy 6 days ago
love the video really good
willbirful 1 week ago
Seriously, someone needs to teach Gell-Mann how to use powerpoint!!!
venturas55 2 weeks ago
@venturas55 I know he doesn´t need it, and he may have more importants things to worry about... but still.... it will take him like 5minuts....
venturas55 2 weeks ago
Chopra is an idiot Gell-Mann in under 16 minutes explained how we don't need something more to get something more
Mr1x43 1 month ago
Would have loved seeing Murray Gell-Mann explain quantum physics to Deepak Chopra on stage.
kjrunia 2 months ago
I like Murray Gell-Mann and his concepts.
jmgibbs53 4 months ago
@senorinsanio I understand. When it comes to contemplating a meaning for the universe, thats not up to science or any structured religion. Such a question never reaches a conclusion. Einstein did say, "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary."
dudepal187 5 months ago
21 dislikes? Who the hell could dislike this? Natural Selection seriously needs to sort our species out
DarKool81 5 months ago
@senorinsanio Depends what you mean by spirituality. Science can certainly be beautiful and have that "spiritual" feel with eureka moments and all that good stuff.
dudepal187 5 months ago
@senorinsanio I don't think Einstein is referring to supernatural or metaphysical energies when he says religion. Plenty of scientists and people are spiritual one way or another, there just aren't too many that will allow their beliefs to bring them down to pseudoscientific fluff with no evidence.
dudepal187 6 months ago
137 has been merged with the tesseract, the cube, the square, and of course the New Jerusalem.
namaste
islandbuoy4 6 months ago
From some elementary observations on the forms of physical equations, to stating that it's just accident and these equations that have resulted in everything that exists, and that there is nothing metaphysical. WOW!!
That's some of the most impressive hand waving I have ever seen. Pity there's not a Nobel Prize for "The stating of impressive conclusions without the need for a logical argument or set of premises" - he'd be a strong contender.
bushfingers 6 months ago
So this is the dude that Feynman had a good time annoying.
8644371 6 months ago
Comment removed
professorkingy 7 months ago
Fluffeh hair kawaiii <:3cc desu
nintram 8 months ago
got to get this guy off youtube
Zareste 9 months ago
why are people talking about God?
aew782 9 months ago
@aew782 "When a biologist doesn't know, he asks a chemist. When a chemist doesn't know he asks a physicist. When a physicist doesn't know he asks God."
DoubleHaulCharters 9 months ago
Comment removed
esill00 8 months ago
@DoubleHaulCharters and then God asks Murray Gell-Man
esill00 8 months ago 3
I love physics so much, I'm getting mad!
MultiBrados 10 months ago 2
I dont see why people have to become hardcore militants from whichever part of the spectrum when it comes to subjects on God or philosophy or existence or science in general. It could be a type of zealousness or arrogance. I mean it would and should naturally raise the eyebrows of any educated (or uneducated) person to hear the part about the "unimaginably long sequence of accidents", suggesting in terms of probability that it's all one ridiculously huge accident or chance out come yet w/beauty.
MonkkSoori 11 months ago
@Belial690 This ain't a university lecture, he gives simple understandable examples about evolution of science.
Mr Gell man was the competitor of Richard Feynman, they were working on particle physics in the 60s, he's extremely well educated and even his school professors felt intimidated in front of him, he could beat them at what ever subject they talked about. But above all it's his particle physics, do you know how hard it is for the average person to understand advanced physics?
VERGIS92 11 months ago
@VERGIS92 There is nothing easier than understanding physics. Sorry.
MultiBrados 10 months ago
@MultiBrados oh yes it is difficult, most people don't even know basic calculus, or what the universe looks like, if they did they wouldn't believe in astrology mumbo jumbo, false probability, and all the nonsense they do. They cannot even understand a compound interest formula which affects their finances. advanced Physics isn't an easy subject , it's hard even for physicists and impossible for the science illitarate,
VERGIS92 10 months ago
@VERGIS92 It's not that difficult, you don't need to be very smart at all to understand physics. The problem is it's hard to talk about physics without using math, and most people don't "speak" math.
vibins360 10 months ago
If you don't like it , don't WATCH IT!!! Strange people!!
Mthoery 1 year ago 2
the theory of everything is SUPERSTRING THEORY
baloch95 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lonely wives for naughty things mworld5.info
ZacariasNaima 1 year ago
he didn't make me understand more about his quark proposition, but his humour is exuberantly huge, philosophical appreciation from his speech is to the MAXimum. I really love this talk.
otivaeey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi brother needs to chat a, Asian women busizz4me.info
wasidalipadmanabh 1 year ago
lol, this is the crazy guy who thinks he can bend spoons with his mind. how can anyone take him seriously here?
TensorKhan 1 year ago
@TensorKhan that's Uri Gellar you dick.
pacmandem 1 year ago 2
@TensorKhan What? No. Go suck it.
Zoiros85 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Date a cheated naughty girl online now **mworld5.info**
iygeilka 1 year ago
you don't need something more to create something more.This is what an ancient sanskrit shlok "prunamadam,purnamidam" says . and murray gell mann is talking about.
vand1000 1 year ago
This guy is the patron saint of super nerds.
paulgnr 1 year ago
Murray Gell-Man autographed my Ti-89 graphing calculator at a lecture at Washington University in St. Louis
echymp 1 year ago 36
Comment removed
pepicanable 1 year ago
@echymp
How much did u pay for your Ti -89 calculator?
pepicanable 1 year ago
@pepicanable omg get a life bruv or at least google it
pacmandem 1 year ago
@echymp I, my friend, am jealous
HelloIAmDaniel 9 months ago
@echymp LUCKY MOTHER FUCKER
sodaxcandy08 7 months ago
this guy is awesome. i am fascinated by particle physics and Murray Gell-Mann is a close friend with cormac mccarthy and that's what brought me here.
gatoradeee 1 year ago
"Physics proceeds funeral by funeral." -Max Plank.
FeelOfFriction 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TRUE
the IGNORANT will always take bits and pieces of REALITY to fit their JESUS theory...discarding the anomalies that do not.
islandbuoy4 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Discovered in the 21stC: The Underlying Law of Nature.
The underlying law of nature may be the world's most useful, profitable and encouraging knowledge.
The top 3 General Characteristics of The underlying law of nature are:
#1. The Way of All Things
#2. The Basis of All Laws and Principles
#3. The Basis of All Health, Growth, Efficacy and Efficiency
Google it – as a start.
The empirical process for identifying the underlying law of nature was discovered in 2008.
Soon we may all do so.
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
Take a moment to exercise your brain!
MrSkullfaceflamenco 1 year ago
lol... peeling layers and layers of onions for truth, at the cost of plenty of tears ;]
UnluckyGambler 1 year ago
i love his slides. so old school.
marianiiina 1 year ago
"You don't need something more to get something more.. Isn't there something more some peolple ask me? Presumably they mean something 'supernatural'... anyway there isn't"
What a charming, contagious laugh(t)er!!
besursangeet 1 year ago 4
I LOVE his laugh
angela1894 1 year ago 3
This guy is one of the most brilliant people on the planet. ANd he's well-rounded too. Not just good at math, he's knowledgeable in languages, the arts, biology, etc. He demonstrated it in this talk when he gave a perfect, phonetic pronunciation of the name of the French mathematician "Coulomb".
angela1894 1 year ago
Think of the underlying law of nature. The way of all things.
Consider its astounding inferences and implications.
The single, underlying law ... of nature! Not merely of physics, chemistry, psychology, biology, etc., but of all fields of inquiry combined! The law we can all relate to, identify, understand and apply.
Ask yourself. What is the underlying law of nature?
Delight in the question. Have fun in the process of finding the answer firsthand for yourself.
Google it, as a start.
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
'However, things like love and compassion, are not merely very complex. There is something about them that makes me (and many others) believe strongly that they cannot be created by bits alone.'
So is it conscious love and compassion when an diseased ant crawls away from a colony to die alone, and saving the colony?
Love and compassion are advanced human manifestations of altruism in nature, part of the survival mechanisms for social animals. It's no less wonderful if it isn't magical.
kitchenaut 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the 4 forces are a crock, they're helpful tools and concepts. There has been no conclusive experiment that proves things fall at a constant acceleration to any significant decimal place. The maths is right but the assumption used as the foundation may just be wrong.
MrStevo3000 2 years ago
Maths is perfection, Physics in it's present state is merely a tool like a shifter. A convenient way to do things that don't require a perfect fit.
MrStevo3000 2 years ago
@MrStevo3000 Math is to Physics, what masturbation is to sex - RPF
Think about it
SeltsamerAttraktor 1 year ago
Math to physics is more like penis (for a male) to masturbation you sex crazed dick head waste of 7x10 to the 27th power waste of atoms!
shahinarya 1 year ago
@shahinarya Guess what? That's not even from me! It's from one of the most famous sex crazed noble price winning dick head of physics: Richard Phillips Feynman.
SeltsamerAttraktor 1 year ago
My hero. :)
PrinceOfLogic 2 years ago 4
Well if there is no god and no purpose, only chemicals and accidents, then that is somewhat disheartening.
I wonder if Gell-Mann has ever been in love.
powpanda 2 years ago
Thats like saying theres nothing but transistors flipping bits inside my computer.
Its true, and it's not. There is far more going on, and far more meaning then that. Love is still love, regardless of if its caused by magic space aliens transmiting their brains into ours (ie. an external soul). Or some magic super powerful space man says its so (god). Or because of a complex organization of otherwise mundane particles.
lubermanl 2 years ago
@lubermanl
How is love still love if there is nothing but chemistry and accidents?
powpanda 2 years ago
Thats as nonsensical as saying 'how is the sun still the sun if its just a bunch of atoms under intense pressure turning into denser atoms causing it to emit radiation to the earth'.
We all feel love, compassion, etc. Regardless of whether we are just chemicals and accidents, or magic disembodied aliens possessing the bodies of relatively hairless apes for the last 2000+ years.
A car is a car regardless of how it works. Love is love regardless of how it works.
lubermanl 2 years ago 3
@lubermanl You're equating love with a car?
powpanda 2 years ago
Your probably just trolling.
But incase you really don't get it.
If you don't know how a car works. And you found out. Would the car stop being a car?
If you don't know how love works, and you found out. Would love stop being love?
lubermanl 2 years ago 6
@lubermanl So you're saying there's a simple chemical mechanism for love. If you believe that then I'd have to question if you have ever been in love.
It's also worth noting that despite all our scientific progress, we are no closer now to understanding things like love than we were 1000 years ago.
At least, I hope you are wrong.
powpanda 2 years ago
You might not be any closer to understanding love then people were 1000 years ago. I wouldn't say science hasnt done anything.
I wouldnt say its simple. Computers are so complex we don't even design them, we design programs to design them. And the brain is far far more complex then a computer. For example Oxytocin is a chemical that can aid in trusting people.
We know that chemicals can influence things like love in the brain, or aid in forming relationships. And there is no other theory.
lubermanl 2 years ago
In other words, what do you believe love is? and why. We know that if interact physically with the brain it messes up people. If you de-organize the brain people aren't the same. If there is something outside of the physical brain then how do you know, and what does it do?
Could it be like this web site? it is just 1's and 0's transmitting through wires. But is that really all it is? Its a complex organization of 1's 0's which makes it far more meaningful.
The brain is probably similar.
lubermanl 2 years ago
Have you ever been moved to tears by a video on the internet? but thats just 1's and 0's. How could 1's and 0's have that much meaning? because they are a fantastically complex series of 1's and 0's. The brain is far more complex, which means it can have far more meaning.
lubermanl 2 years ago
@lubermanl Here is why I disagree with you:
it makes sense that you can use simple constituents to make things that are more and more complex - so complex that it is almost impossible to believe that at the base we have such primitive constituents.
However, things like love and compassion, are not merely very complex. There is something about them that makes me (and many others) believe strongly that they cannot be created by bits alone.
powpanda 2 years ago
Life is tough - but your feelings also don't matter so why not try to be happy?
fleebenworth 2 years ago
funny guy Gell-Mann (2:06) - every good physicists has good sense of humor
milosnoze 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
gen6k 2 years ago
I still like Richard Feynman for his charisma.
Gell-Mann is passionate, yet just not really someone that makes physics (which I bloody love!) fascinating & brilliantly enjoyable.
fallingstarblues 2 years ago 5
Few people has the tremendous ability of Feynman, we have to give credit for other people for trying right?
hmsrenown 2 years ago
Hey... Thought you all might be interested in Binary Relativity on youtube. I also love physics and thought you might want to know about some new theories...
NRegals 2 years ago
@fallingstarblues By comparing both of them you are living in a state of sin. No really. Feynman is Feynman and Gell-Mann is Gell-Mann.
chromophore 3 months ago 10
@chromophore Since writing that comment, I must say that I retract it.
Gell-Mann is fantastic for his eight-fold way, his many unique insights and is certainly a hero of mine. Gell-Mann is a dynamic and outstanding character that really shouldn't be compared to Feynman directly, as they both are giants.
fallingstarblues 3 months ago 2
thats exactly what i was thinking when he said that :o)
tetranoob 2 years ago 3
Natural sciences: true sciences.
world needs to replace jesus, buddha mohammad, sikhs, jews, jains, hindu,
superman, batman, spideman with
true knowledge.
Nature: Real
Jessus, Buddha etc: FAKE
charlesdarwinxxx 2 years ago
If that is the synthesis you want to claim.
I think, einstein and tesla, and many many more GREAT scientist would disagree with you.
"an understanding of the spiritual phenomenon is a direct consequence of intellectual growth"
Tesla.... on his late days....
espenladden 2 years ago
That's what Budhisme says to.
etiennealive 2 years ago
i like batman....... na i see what you did there
diomedes39 2 years ago
Your comment has nothing to do with this video, I wonder why people nowadays are thrilled to write down sociological problems that are vague and sometimes really unstable to venture. This simply shows your militancy towards todays trend of so called " Intellectual Talk and the promising factors of the new movement" . Actually, I personally think that you don't have a background and like the others, keeps repeating the same old thread of arguments that are very troll in nature in a deceptive way.
PatrickLars 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Assuming that there is no god, we need to explain how can matter evolve to life and then to intelligent life just for this matter to be aware of it self and to describe it self in mathematical equations.
blackhawck70 2 years ago
There have been attempts at it. I say attempts 'cos science never claims 2 be sure of everything. We already know that the elementary element of Hydrogen from the big bang combined to form helium etc. etc. This is the only philosophical reason for the existence of a creator (Science - cannot claim to know everything but it sure gets better at it every year. As i tell ppl - If Science can prove the Bible is true, it is liberal enough to accept it, but the truth is all test ssay bible it's not.
oneki 2 years ago
We have...you are just uneducated.
EternalBeliever 2 years ago
"Because there is no Humpty Dumpty and there is no God." ~Carlin
Baldingchimp 2 years ago 4
Scientists ask:" How can I understand how this all works so that I can understand it."
Christian thinks:" How can I figure out how to make this proof of God's work."
Sometimes finding answers means thinking, and learning, not making a big shrug, and saying:" I don't know, God did it. it's magic....no need to think anymore."
Perhaps learning, needs the right frame of mind that a "God" intended as a sign of maturity to develop understand.
PoppedLASTICZ 2 years ago 35
Comment removed
islandbuoy4 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PoppedLASTICZ
HOW TRUE
the IGNORANT will always take bits and pieces to make REALITY fit their JESUS theory...discarding REALITIES that do not FIT?
duh these IGNORANT bible babblers have it all backwards....that is what suggests that folks who take bible babble LITERALLY are out to get a free lunch without doing the REAL work necessary to understand the cosmos.
FAITH alone does NOT compensate for IGNORANCE
islandbuoy4 1 year ago
@PoppedLASTICZ "Sometimes finding answers means thinking, and learning, not making a big shrug, and saying:" I don't know, God did it. it's magic....no need to think anymore." Yes - just like Newton.
But you are right - we need to learn from the evidence: Many atheists are bigoted and have very little regard for evidence which may undermine their prejudices. And vast majority of them are quite thick but like to believe that they are oh so smart.
bushfingers 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For all you morons who are arguing about Religion and Science.
It does not matter whether you believe or don't. The laws don't change. So suck it up. What you don't know you don't talk about.
So - you don't know how to world began so you cannot say that God didn't create it. You may believe that God didn't because he doesn't exist. But you don't know. You think. So shutup no one cares about what you think since you don't know anything.
Hitman47PL 2 years ago
But the idea of a God is FAR more improbable than the universe and time just spontaneously starting by itself. Evolution shows that a creator didn't have to do anything for the diversity of life, and what we know so far points to abiogenesis, not divine creation.
One requires far more assumptions that have no rational justification and can be dismissed as wishful anthropomorphizing the universe by teleological zealots.
kannako 2 years ago 7
Who knows, String Theory does have 10^500 (and counting) solutions; so maybe God is factored ironically in the equation.
EinSofVirtuoso 2 years ago
42.
jasonguyperson 2 years ago 6
That's really not much of an answer...
molewizard 2 years ago
wonderful perspective
eapst28 2 years ago
me an muzz go way back. was over at is ouse the ava day. cracked a few tinnies.
shakeyourdimsims 2 years ago
Murray is such a great speaker.
dementedd12 2 years ago 2
ha bradyspace = destroyed
anyway i absolutely agree that life was born out of chemistry, physics, and chance. but it's still tough to wrap my head around the beginning of the universe, if there was one and if so, what came before? and if not... how? and where do the fundamental laws come from? in any case, i'm as sure as anyone can reasonably be that religion doesn't have the answers.
MorticusEternium 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"God does not throw dice" -- Einstein "The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect." -- Newton
Prof. Gell-Mann, I think you do need something more to explain something more.
bradyspace 2 years ago
Then, you are wrong of course!
Evidence says what Prof. Gell-Mann sayed. So it doesnt't matter what you think. Reality is what it is. And if you think different than what reality says then you are denying reality and are, therefore, wrong.
To say it in another way, the fact that you want reality to be in a certain way has no effect whatsoever over reality.
diegoarmino 2 years ago 25
@diegoarmino I sure hope you're joking! Are you telling me OUR perception of reality is meaningless?! and that our reality is NOT created from OUR perception?
Our world, is all created through OUR translation of that reality! It is our PERCEPTION that dictates what is right and wrong in our reality. What maybe very wrong to you maybe right to me yet the reality remains. Perception is BEYOND reality.
"Do what you will, you live in a world of fiction full of contradiction."
freighttrain777 1 year ago
@freighttrain777 in other words...if language (reality) is meaningless, then this whole argument is impossible to be understood. if this argument can be understood, then language (reality) cannot be meaningless. you cannot logically rely on the premise that language (reality) has meaning to to communicate the language (reality) has no meaning.
evostisi 1 year ago 3
@evostisi Damn right, good logic.
GeorgesBarras 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@diegoarmino if language (reality) is meaningless, then this whole argument is impossible to be understood. if this argument can be understood, then language (reality) cannot be meaningless. you cannot logically rely on the premise that language (reality) has meaning to to communicate the language (reality) has no meaning.
evostisi 1 year ago
@diegoarmino
Reality is mere opinion.
FeelOfFriction 1 year ago
@diegoarmino: You could just as easily switch the claim by saying that reality is denying YOU, and in so being, reality is wrong. But that results in a paradox, now, doesn't it? The bottom line is: truth is contingent on what makes our models work, and not what actually IS the case. Food for thought.
Imperativism 1 year ago
@diegoarmino Well said, intellectual honesty is the only road to progress. I'm sorry for replying to a year old comment but you seem to be getting a steady trickle of nonsensical replies and I just wanted to show some support.
DSBrekus 1 year ago
@DSBrekus Thank you. It's apreciated.
diegoarmino 1 year ago
Amusing. If you had even the slightest understanding of what Einstein actually meant, you would know that he used to use the word "god" as a metaphor. Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, and even found the idea of a personal god ridiculous.
Newton, however, did believe in a personal god, but remember that he lived more than 300 years ago.
Reality strongly indicates the inexistence of the supernatural. So if Newton believed in god, he was as wrong as you are in this respect.
diegoarmino 2 years ago 10
@diegoarmino
That's something I really don't understand, Einstein's favorite hobby was to demonstrate mathematically concepts that seemed to have no correlation with reality (such as time being subjective) until we found those correlations. So why would someone that favors mathematical proof and logic over perception not agree with the fact that "god plays dice" just because of an instinctive belief?
I believe he also refuted the idea of universe accelerated expansion because of his fear of it.
sinekonata 1 year ago
Idiot religious fucktard! It's "God does not play dice." And God is a metaphor for the physical laws of the Universe. Einstein was a pantheist.
And get a fucking life, Newton lived in the 17th century. He also believed in Alchemy. Do you believe that also?
20th century cracked more mathematics and science than any other. We know much more about the universe.
Newton would be an atheist if he lived today...the same way he would be believing in chemistry if lived today.
AdiZetaFunction 2 years ago 4
Moron.
amanuscarr 2 years ago
If I randomly picked answers on my IQ test would that qualify me as a Moron?
bradyspace 2 years ago
What a wonderful lecture on a truly fascinating subject. I knew Murray Gell-Mann by name and fame, but never before saw him speak. He's a great speaker!
Stegocephalian 2 years ago 4
I love smart old guys. :)
AtheistdotEDU 2 years ago 6
his laugh at 2:07 shows that he's aged well, haha. great stuff
marcriganoskate 2 years ago
as some one used the integrated approach to water resources for a world water congress in 1977 in my twenties, i was pleasd at MMG came to similar thinking in his sixties-inhis book quarks and jaguar in 1994 he says- we must get away from the idea that serious work is restricted to beating to death a well -defined problem in a narrow discipline, while broadly integrative thinkg is relegated to cocktail parties.we encounter a lack of respect for the task of integration.
vkpillay 3 years ago
i read his book the qark and the jaguar in 1994. i wonder why he said-my friend einstein or for that matter hi enistein since one of his regret while he was at prinston was he never got to know einstein .the age gap and as einstein a towering figure,he as as some one in his twenties .that is the impression i got from his interview with science journalist ? i may not be using exact words .
vkpillay 3 years ago
Lol actually mate, I believe he was refering to the fact that they both studied the "same" topic. As many might remember learning that current science stands upon the old. So in fact, they realy were lab asistants or friends to eachother.
HeyHowdyHey2 3 years ago
well it is better to quote his own words:
i could have spoken to him; i did not like the kind of people who approached great figures,got into conversation and reported to others as a way of showing off.He was working on unified field theory.,it was doomed a failure.he did not belief in quan.mech...GM occationally said good afternoon, Einstein answered a mix of german and english.and that was it.now older and wiser, i would not have missed an opportuniy.but GM got nobel prize like him indeed.
vjpillay 2 years ago
If you need a book to tell you how to be a decent human being i feel sorry for you.
I do good things because I choose to be good and do good, not because I'm trying to impress and invisible sky fairy who will judge me if I'm bad.
Rantandreason 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh, shut the fuck up already!
hitchwatch 3 years ago
Your point is well thought out and highly researched. Backed by loads of peer reviewed evidence.
Rantandreason 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Give me the second derivative of a parabola, Mr. Physics.
hitchwatch 3 years ago
"If you could reason with religious people, there wouldn't BE any religious people." - Dr. Gregory House
Zarimus 3 years ago 6
that is brilliant!
hayeder 3 years ago
If the parabola is expressed in the form y = ax^2 + bx + c, then the second derivative of the parabola with respect to x is y'' = 2a. What the hell, however, does that have to do with anything whatsoever?
unhealthytruthseeker 2 years ago 3
didn't you want to say "Islam is The One great religion"?
you should have, if you are a self-respecting muslim
but you did not because you have the good sense to see how foolish it would sound at a place like this (where a superior mind is lecturing on True Truth)
where could you find any such stuff as Newton, Einstein (,Gell-Mann) etc. have layed bare for us in your "revealed" holly book
sC11nt 3 years ago
yes, Mohamed must have had an inkling of an understanding that the moon gets its light from the sun
but that about describes the width of his understanding of the Laws of the physical world
the backwardness of the islamic world has a name and that name is...
Qur·'an
sC11nt 3 years ago
LoL These religious freakjobs leaving comments are the best part about YouTube! If it weren't for the laughter that we atheists & agnostics share about theists, we wouldn't be alive today!
AdiZetaFunction 3 years ago 4
Emergence is unable to account for it's own existence.
seanmPWH 3 years ago
so?
vespuzzi 3 years ago
So Gel-Mann is not connecting the dots.
seanmPWH 3 years ago
Can you think of anything that is able to account for it's own existence?
hilbert54 3 years ago 2
Yes - anything that is eternal. By definition: God.
seanmPWH 3 years ago
Well the list is endless if we are allowed to just make things up.
hilbert54 3 years ago 2
Go for it. I would like to see the list.
For anything or anyone to self-exist it must do so in an infinite mode, eternal as well. Our environment is not infinite in power, i.e. we do not experience infinite star light, therefore we are living in a derivative environment.
Derived not form nothing, but from an eternal, infinite source.
seanmPWH 3 years ago
Good point, but although the inverse square law/equation describes an aspect of the functioning of gravity - it does not say what gravity is. My point is that science is punctuated by paradigm shifts, when the theorectical and equational framework changes fundamentally. QM was such a shift; in time it will itself be replaced by another. We cannot presume our present model is final; or that another civ will follow exactly the same pattern of discovery as we have. models are maps, not reality.
siddhaam 3 years ago
Gell-Mann's error is precisely at this philosophical level - he does not have it. He cannot see beyond the horizon of QM. He presumes that alien civilisations no matter how much in advance of us would have a quantum understanding of reality. This is scientific and philosophical short-sightedness. He is entitled to his opinion. I meerly wish to point out that a little philosophical reflection will reveal that is is almost certainly wrong.
siddhaam 3 years ago
He 'gets it' perfectly; he's saying that any intelligent entity exploring the nature of reality would find the same rules such as the inverse square law for gravity. Also, that the scientific endeavor is the attempt to develop models which get ever closer to the way things are. Nothing short-sighted about that view.
DrZenith 3 years ago
Good point, but although the inverse square law/equation describes an aspect of the functioning of gravity - it does not say what gravity is. My point is that science is punctuated by paradigm shifts, when the theorectical and equational framework changes fundamentally. QM was such a shift; in time it will itself be replaced by another. We cannot presume our present model is final; or that another civ will follow exactly the same pattern of discovery as we have. models are maps, not reality.
siddhaam 3 years ago
You're right about the inverse square law. But fortunately our understanding of gravity has changed since Newton, and even since Einstein. We now have a somewhat ontological theory of gravity, meaning that we don't just describe what it does, but what it is. Gravity, currently, is understood as perturbations in the otherwise relatively flat geometry of space-time. Of course I agree with you that science has limits, and that our present model of the universe is limited. But we're very close.
DanHipp 3 years ago 2
What is really incredible is that both of his 'colleagues', pictured on stage, would have disagreed with him -- and he knows it. It is almost as if he wants to shove their faces in it and insult them. Neither Newton nor Einstein would have agreed that the universe is accidental. Einstein fought the Copenhagen interpretation right to the end. Newton's most fundamental belief was in a Divine order.
siddhaam 3 years ago
The computational success of QM does not imply that nature is accidental, or probabilistic; no more than the successes of Ptolemy's astronomy proved the earth was at the centre of the universe.
siddhaam 3 years ago
The probabilistic interpretation, IE the orthodox interpretation seems the most supported. The hidden variable interpretation on the other hand, which you are referring to, has lost much favor, no variable has been found so to speak.
kDest 3 years ago
I am not referring to any hidden variable. I am implying that the orthodox interpretation is fundamentally wrong as to the underlying nature of reality in a similar way that Ptolemy's astronomy was wrong.
The orthodox interpretation projects characteristics of the QM equations onto the underlying reality - and that is a very basic error; like projecting the grammatical structure of language onto reality, and imagining that a tree is a noun in reality.
siddhaam 3 years ago
I thought about your statement, but I do not see that. Quantum mechanics' statistical model seems more about being a predictive model than about forcing nature to concur with it.
I do agree that probabilistic models for underlying reality of the subatomic (being accidental) is grievously disharmonious with classical physics (which Einstein and Newton supported in its determinism), however the apparent accuracy of the model means there must be some truth to the math.
kDest 3 years ago
The computational accuracy of QM has utility; it is the only way we have at this time to deal with the data at the sub-atomic level. But does that mean the maths truly reflects the structure of the underlying reality?
If I use inches to measure a real distance, I cannot say there are x inches actually in the real distance. Math does not map onto reality. For instance, the equations of physics are symmetrical - but reality is not.
Reality slips through the net of our equations.
siddhaam 3 years ago
"Reality slips through the net of our equations."
I think you're being more philosophical on the nature of knowledge and math than anything else.
The obvious truth, anyway, is that if a model makes accurate predictions about a system, then it describes the nature of that system. You can always ask if there is some reality deeper, or a need for more accuracy, but it seems like pushing the goalpost ahead, unless an actual underlying reality were discovered.
kDest 3 years ago
Consider: within the measurement tolerance of the time Ptolemy's astronomy made predictions accurate enough to produce navigation tables. Newton's equations made accurate predictions until anomalous measurements made QM and relativity necessary.
Philosophical or not, these are accurate observations.
This philosophical understanding of human knowing is the foundation of the work of the greatest scientists. It is why they are able to see beyond the science orthodoxy of their times.
siddhaam 3 years ago
"...It is why they are able to see beyond the science orthodoxy of their times."
I'm not in opposition of you on this point or those you made before it, I just think that if there is something more than quantum mechanics, it will be found. Until quantum mechanics hits that wall where something better is needed, I am not complaining about it.
kDest 3 years ago
Good point.
It has been goood to share views with you. Thank you and all the best.
siddhaam 3 years ago
self-similar laws on different scales are an inherent part of a fractal geometry.
jimayo420 3 years ago
What a great voice and mind this dude has!
I could listen to Mr Gell-Mann all day long. Thank you TED.
barrywilliamsmb 3 years ago
he rocks.
francescaemc2 3 years ago
"You don't need something more to get something more." Yes you do, you need "a lot of these accidents"!
Hm, doesn't fit in my theory, can't explain it, let's call it an accident...
Maybe microbes "think" the same thing every time we interact with their environment. "Hm, colony B wiped out by antibiotics, what a coincidence". I think what religion calls GOD, science calls accident. In principle they talk about the very same thing but just named it differently. Stupid humans...
TheForce74 3 years ago
You pulled the quote out of context. By 'emergence', he was only referring to the 'onionlayers' and their overlapping explanation.
And what religion calls god, science calls not yet fully understood. And it is not just semantics, science keeps asking questions where religion does not.
A crucial difference in my opinion.
Hao1981 3 years ago 3
His final words perfectly show the blind spot of science. "... plus a lot of accidents". Maybe these "accidents" form a pattern themselves. Given the fact, that these coincidences show up literally everywhere, scientists still manage to ignore these "ghosts in the machine" and seem to be quite happy with it. They just label something they cannot explain a "coincidence" or a measurement problem or a contamination and keep going. Even if science admited that there is no such thing as coincidence
TheForce74 3 years ago
GAFOIGAN!
..sorry, I was expecting him to say that. He has an awesome voice. I can't tell if I'm thinking of Professor Frink, or someone else. It's just familiar.
Flyborg 3 years ago 2
my hero! Murray is so awesome. I would love to have him derive the QCD Lagrangian on vid, even better in person. I doubt Id remember it all the first several times but its just a beautiful equation.
FarFromEquilibrium 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Really inspiring. Major influence in my artwork.
Thanks so much.
boydism08 3 years ago
and what do you think mind is made of ? I rest my case
arclight777 4 years ago
Sounds like Machio Kakos field string theory inverted... some good points. For math to exsist, there has to be a master mathematician. This isn't by chance, it is by design but the snapshot of time which is so extream that it keeps us learning and evolving.
arclight777 4 years ago
There does not need to be a master mathematician for math to exist, there has to be a mind that wants to have math exist. Your logic is flawed.
KoroOutbreak 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
stupid arrogant humans, we keep implementing the designs of our own limited minds upon the universe, keep discovering the same old paterns and keep thinking we are uncovering universal truths. The whole of the history of science is one long episode of collective human mental masturbation.
FOUADMKHAN 4 years ago