I like the fact that Sabine always allows the other person to finish no matter how absurd or provocative they sound.
@tarmaque
5 ай бұрын
It's not so great when she's on the stage with Michio Kaku. Man, is that uncomfortable to watch. (He's a certifiable nut.)
@paulg444
5 ай бұрын
actually I thought he did a great job and if you measure carefully his comments they are not at all absurd.
@readynowforever3676
5 ай бұрын
@@tarmaque "certifiable nut" WOW!!! I'd really like to be privy to your resume and renowned reputation.
@arctic_haze
5 ай бұрын
I love the way you try not to offend the philosopher but you still do.
@defeatSpace
4 ай бұрын
@@tarmaque the most theoretical of physicists 😁
@laszlosandor3987
5 ай бұрын
Some of her answered are “I don’t know”. How often do you hear that statement? She is humble and I like that.
@joekeenan6435
5 ай бұрын
Use of the "Three Words of Power" are a good indication you're in the presence of an intelligent person.
@MizJaniceResinArt
5 ай бұрын
Anyone who cannot answer "I don't know" when they truly don't know the answer could not be a real scientist.
@dannewth7149
5 ай бұрын
Absolute knowledge comes from blind faith and brain damage.
@laaaliiiluuu
5 ай бұрын
@@dannewth7149😂
@Bob-of-Zoid
5 ай бұрын
@@dannewth7149 It's the brain damage (psychology is a better word and more correct) that causes the kind of mind that would believe by faith!
@pdxyadayada
5 ай бұрын
Sabine is a giant! She is so refreshing…seeking answers to ‘how things work’ without an agenda, for our knowledge alone. She is a rare individual, indeed!
@mickb9678
5 ай бұрын
I like her a lot; I've noticed she's wearing the same pink pullover for a while. Perhaps like Einstein, she bought a dozen of the same shirt so she wouldn't have to think about her wardrobe every day.
@Li-rm2gj
5 ай бұрын
What do you mean without an agenda? Which scientists exactlyare pushing an agenda on us?
@ericsonhazeltine5064
5 ай бұрын
This is true. We should chip in and get her some better socks.
@Li-rm2gj
5 ай бұрын
What do you mean without an agenda? As opposed to who? Which scientists are pushing an agenda?
@quixodian
5 ай бұрын
And shoes 😂
@WilliamLHart
5 ай бұрын
Sabine is so unusual and refreshing in the world of science. She has the rare and unusual ability to continually review the basic reality of the problem as she works through it without getting entangled solely in the numbers or data. Just because the math works doesn't mean it's real
@Li-rm2gj
5 ай бұрын
Why do you think this ability is rare among scientists? What scientist should I compare her to that doesn’t know how to do this?
@mygirldarby
5 ай бұрын
@@Li-rm2gj "...who doesn't know...?"
@maxducoudray
4 ай бұрын
This comment is pretty insulting to scientists. I would say most good scientists behave exactly as you describe.
@woofie8647
3 ай бұрын
Agreed. Mathematics is just a language of numbers. Just as words represent things, numbers and equations are just numerical representations of what we see...they can only describe, they are not the basis of the universe and it's behavior. That does not mean they are not useful, just that their usefulness to science is limited.
@lowmax4431
Ай бұрын
It's almost like advanced physics requires too much math. Didn't Einstein come up with relativity from some simple thought experiments and then enlisted the help from mathematicians to create the math for it? That's how physics should be done imo. Come up with the theory and then create the math to fit that theory. Don't use math to guide the theory.
@patrickgravel9261
5 ай бұрын
Truly enjoy Sabines outlook and common sense. I also take issue with the theoretical and mathematical views that are unprovable or unobservable. Anything goes with such illogical accepted rhetoric. Thanks Sabine for saying it out loud.
@jagatiello6900
5 ай бұрын
Even Math itself is "threatened" sometimes, like this recent paper The Periodic Table of primes that coincidentally was withdrawn today.
@garymelnyk7910
5 ай бұрын
Inane questions.
@gregorysagegreene
5 ай бұрын
I don't think that just because math can be uncannily beautiful in it's proven descriptions of some parts of reality, that the mathematicians can then just say that it's reality itself that has given up the math to us and therefore math has this sort of divinity that can then lead us solely on it's own to all definitions of reality. We need experiments, data, and testable proofs. Sabine of course, goes a lot further on that, on how grifting has got us here.
@shubus
5 ай бұрын
Sabine is great in disentangling Hilayr's questions--many of which I have a hard time grasping. When talking with Sabine, one can get a word in edge-wise and get a well-considered response. This interview is a great example of clarity of expression. And why we subscribe to Sabine's channel.
@markhahn0
5 ай бұрын
Hillary's questions where vapid and uninformed, suffering from the navel-gazing dilution of modern philosophy.
@Thomas-gk42
5 ай бұрын
exactly!
@Jan96106
4 ай бұрын
Which of his questions do you have a hard time grasping? I thought he was quite clear.
@markhahn0
4 ай бұрын
@@Jan96106 He says asinine things like "do we need philosophy to make sense of science?" or "are ascientific approaches a fantasy or guiding principle?". She does a good job of ignoring the cultural gulf and finding at least part of what he's asking that can be responded to.
@davewood4604
5 ай бұрын
"The only stupid question is the question you do not ask", I am not so sure. The fact that Sabine can produce coherent answers from a so called non-realist, Philosofer's questions speaks volumes to the nature of Sabine. I love the fact that Sabine sticks to the facts and has an uncanny ability to cut through (insert whatever you want here) and speak intelectually and inteligently in an understandable manner. Sabine is excellent.
@douglaswatt1582
5 ай бұрын
Sabine, of course, is exactly right in her criticism about the multiverse, although there are lots of other fashionable ideas beyond that are genuinely ascientific. Science is, after all, the realm of testable predictions. It's a shame that more people in science don't have Sabine's humility. I believe that all great scientists experience humility in the face of nature even if they don't articulate it as such. Einstein, for sure, was such a role model on all of this. I'm pretty sure that Einstein would be very proud of Sabine and her work. We need more people educating the public about science and helping people to see the difference between real science and fashionable self-promotion.
@giovannironchi5332
5 ай бұрын
I am a simple wave function. I see Sabine Hossenfelder and I press like with probability 1
@BigWhoopZH
5 ай бұрын
I just wanted to comment the same thing. Maybe we're entangled...
@musiqtee
5 ай бұрын
@@BigWhoopZH I thought I was smart, and… Well, you got there first. Must be closer to a black hole, time dilated me…
@fabkury
5 ай бұрын
We must have come from the same beam splitter.
@zacox
5 ай бұрын
Sounds pretty normal(ized) to me.
@fizzyplazmuh9024
5 ай бұрын
Thank you for the reminder. I so often forget to press like.
@singing-sands
5 ай бұрын
Common sense is the key to science with Sabine !!
@nyworker
5 ай бұрын
That's why she can't get funding.
@kaoskronostyche9939
5 ай бұрын
That is a pretty funny statement considering Science was invented to defeat common sense. I mean, "common sense" is the argument for the idea that the Earth is flat. Duh-huh ...
@nyworker
5 ай бұрын
@@kaoskronostyche9939 Good point but even scientists go too far in their thinking. Most scientists are not trained in philosophy like Sabine and Sean Carroll.
@AlaaBanna
4 ай бұрын
An excellent interview, thank you both. I really enjoyed it. I can very much understand Sabine's approach, it's basically "Sticking with the principles of science, if there's something we don't know for sure, we should keep the question open instead of just giving a quick answer of for example, multi verse, that would instead; close the question!".. It's a very elegent defence of the scientific method. Personally, this is my method of, inputting accurate data into my world views, I expect from scientific theories to be at least scientific and not merly philosophical predictions.. or else it'll turn into something like politics and religions. I was always blamed of one thing though for having this stand, and I hoped to hear it from Sabine, that is: "What remains then? If you hate politics, don't believe in psychology, or social sciences (Which I don't really consider it science in the first place), how else would you understand the world?", It's a very fair question, I have to confess, because in my views, human phychology for example, is almost impossible to understand scientifically (in my strict definitions of science), while many the experiments done in psychology come up with huge headlines and leaps even than the 'multi verse' in physics, with very narrow and circumstancial experiments and should for example be a statistical data instead. Two points for the above: * First, is that keeping psychology ascientific (thank you Sabine), will pressure us to identify that this field is really important, and we should actually work on, scientifically find proper methods tackle it, instead of giving false headlines and fake ourselves that we understand much about ourselves. (it is one of the most important fields to really tackle), * Second, is that, unfortunatly, this has kept me skeptic, and unwilling to proceed in learning many of the good ideas coming from these ascientific fields, with adapting these views, I'm left with very narrow-scientific findings as products of natural sciences (plus computer stuff, my area of expertise :D), and per my friends, closing my eyes on other important fields.
@mysticmikeable
4 ай бұрын
I feel the issue is that the difference between Maths and physics is that Physics is an application of Math, but Math is NOT physics... Hence Mathematical speculations are abstract logical theory which may or may not relate to observable events whereas Physics is observation and explanation of those 'events' - one can fit many mathematical formulae / solution to an event described by a set of data however the event described by the data is a singular event so all the varied mathematical possibilities would likely get more and more constrained with better data till ideally there is only one mathematical solution. Hence math is not reality but can become our best description of reality An example is Newtons gravity which varies with 1/R^2... If R=0 then there is a mathematical singularity... but we accept that because most observations show that mass is not a point mass, it has volume, so below a certain radius eg Earths surface... the formula fails/requires more sophisticated interpretation because the mass is no longer 100% below that R value so gravity in fact reduces from the earths surface to Zero at the centre NOT infinity as the simplistic interpretation of Newtons formula would give... Perhaps Einstein's gravity has some similar limiting case where extension of the simplistic interpretation again 'assuming a point mass' is no longer valid hence again singularities though simplistic mathematical extension into the unknown are 'not real' and there is some other physical concept required that prevents the mathematical singularity - ie. the physical reality will not be a simple extension of the math into an area we have no data.... And hence GR perhaps does NOT fail it just has ranges of applicability (like with Newton) after which there have to be modifications due to currently unknown physics in GR's case (as in Newtons case where a new physical regime takes over - gravity 'inside' the mass). An aside is that one should not forget that GR describes what we see as an observer NOT what is as the object being observed... eg if a particle accelerates continuously at 1g towards alpha centauri it would arrive there "before" a light beam would... yet we have never exceeded the speed of light to the observer at take off. So we could theoretically get to alpha centauri faster than light... The particle would find it arrives there after only months... yet never "BE OBSERVED" going faster than light... The paradox of light speed or time would not apply to either the observer nor the particle. So the problem is NOT that Einstein's GR is wrong - it's that we have no data - and so we only have a myriad of mathematical extensions which, though 'logical', lead to apparently crazy speculations - they explain nothing physically/in reality, until we have more data ;) I personally might suspect the black hole is just a region of pure energy supporting the event horizon, with no singularity and with Gravity dropping to Zero in the centre - but I have no data.
@carlopedersoli4844
5 ай бұрын
Sabine, keep on being you. Love ur attitude
@thenightking7167
5 ай бұрын
If only I possessed a mere 1% of Sabine's intellect, I would be the happiest person in the known universe!...Sigh...Instead, I'm just a good Ol' average dummie. Thank you for sharing your brilliance with us, Dr. Hossenfelder. 💗
@TheLuminousOne
5 ай бұрын
please, stop fawning and stop putting yourself down
@dustysoodak
5 ай бұрын
Her position on multiverse, early big bang, etc, made a lot more sense for me in the context of her video on why she left academia
@bgold2007
4 ай бұрын
Interesting the banter of ascientific. How comfortable should we be about conceeding ignorance. ultimate ignorance etc
@wulphstein
5 ай бұрын
Mathematics absolutely can mask the unreality of a theory.
@alexbranton426
5 ай бұрын
Did you cough and utter “string theory” when you thought this? I did.
@christopherhamilton3621
5 ай бұрын
A corollary/implication is the deification of a theory via the deification of mathematics & modelling…
@robertoverbeeke865
5 ай бұрын
Shouldn`t mathematics be unable to?
@brunonikodemski2420
5 ай бұрын
Oppenheimer movie shows this. His math was wrong, and was inverted by actual observations.
@Beakerbite
5 ай бұрын
@@robertoverbeeke865 The thing to understand is that mathematics is our way of describing the universe, but the universe doesn't have to follow our descriptions and rules. If the universe wants to show us a situation where 1 + 1 = 3, then we can't say that's impossible. Certainly we should be extremely critical of things that don't match the maths, but that doesn't mean it can't be true. And on the flip side, just because maths predict something about the universe, that doesn't mean the universe must obey. Our maths can be wrong. Our understanding can be flawed. The universe does not need to bend to our will just because it works out so beautifully in a math equation. Basically, it's important to remember that math is a analog for the universe. No analog is perfect, so remember that before you get too wound up trying to force things that don't work.
@woufff_
5 ай бұрын
Sabine is really a great Scientist with a capital "S" ! ❤
@davidkent2804
5 ай бұрын
Sabine is patient with this interviewer
@michaeltrower741
5 ай бұрын
Sabine, you are wonderful. I love your no-nonsense approach to these questions and ideas.
@Howtobe777
5 ай бұрын
I love Hilary Lawson. Great questions. And not hard to follow at all. Sabine was great too.
@jerrypeters1157
5 ай бұрын
What a great interview! Thanks for sharing!
@cgmp5764
5 ай бұрын
Could listen to Sabine all day.
@avi2125
5 ай бұрын
Amazing woman Sabine. What efforts she goes to to make science palatable. And she is not afraid to pull punches.
@barrystockdoesnotexist
5 ай бұрын
As a bald man, I am deeply envious of Hilary Lawson's hair. It is exquisite.
@johnmorgan5495
5 ай бұрын
It is a wig an expensive one as is Sabine's
@barrystockdoesnotexist
5 ай бұрын
@@johnmorgan5495 Haha. Yeah. Sure.
@michaelburggraf2822
5 ай бұрын
@@johnmorgan5495 didn't he say he's not a realist? So how are we supposed to "see" his hair? And which roles do scissors, combs and brushes play in his life?
@Peter_Jenner
5 ай бұрын
I think his brain has leaked out into his hair.
@SB-ie8en
5 ай бұрын
It’s an illusion
@kylebeatty7643
5 ай бұрын
They managed to find chairs that are clearly not comfortable for someone who is not tall as well as someone who is not short
@MusingsFromTheJohn00
4 ай бұрын
Yeah Sabine Hossenfelder! I don't always agree with her, but I think she does a great job in all ways.
@SG-lighthouse
5 ай бұрын
Confused why they weren’t insulting each other. I thought this was Between Two Ferns! 😂 Big fan Sabine!
@MM-fy8yx
5 ай бұрын
I love Sabine because she actually expresses when she doesn't know, which is SO important for people to express when they are creating knowledge
@paulg444
5 ай бұрын
She is a true prophet. Only a whole and gifted person could have the humility to wear those shoes !
@K8theKind
5 ай бұрын
Or that shirt as often as she does lol
@alisonlilley3039
4 ай бұрын
I think Sabine is wonderful - and it was academic Physics loss that she’s not a Professor somewhere. A fresh perspective
@greorith
4 ай бұрын
I love Sabine, she is an actual scientist, unlike those who just chant "trust the science!"
@Patriarchtech
5 ай бұрын
I love Sabine. She is down to earth and patient. I find Hilary rather frustrating in the way he tries to put far fetched ideas of his own in to her mouth. You can tell he has read a lot of books but his style is not really that of being investigative it is rather to show of he has read a lot of books. Thomas Kuhn's(The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) perspectives written in the 1960's very much outlines the way Sabine is thinking, and if Hilary had read it and understood it this interview would have been so much better.
@daletisdale4035
5 ай бұрын
Kant put this idea to rest a long time ago. He called it an antinomy (sp); it was in his discussion of "first cause". The idea is one is asking a question using set different from the set one is asking the question about. He was saying that one cannot answer a question about first cause, as it is outside of time and space, with the tools of causality which exits in time and space, it simply makes no sense. To put it simply, you can't get there from here. Good for Sabine for holding the line against gobbledygook.
@lexer_
5 ай бұрын
I imagine this was incredibly frustrating for Hilary. The interview/conversation was masterfully done nonetheless and I enjoyed it a lot.
@markhahn0
5 ай бұрын
You mean because he knows nothing and she was not willing to engage in philosophization?
@lexer_
5 ай бұрын
@@markhahn0 Partly yes but there is also a degree of misunderstanding and Sabine sometimes failed to put her finger on the intention behind some questions. I feel like he really was willing to meet her on her terms but she was a bit too defensive from her long experience of irrational obstinacy against her arguments.
@andregomesdasilva
5 ай бұрын
Excellent interview and interviewer
@CuriousCyclist
5 ай бұрын
Sabine is our beloved scientist here on KZitem. ❤
@claudioelgueta5722
5 ай бұрын
If reality doesn't exist without us conceiving/perceiving/experiencing it, what was there zillions of years before we evolved? That's my issue with Sabine.
@NOTFOUND-dq4ho
5 ай бұрын
Never clicked on anything this fast
@Mario-Betti
5 ай бұрын
I liked particularly when she said that mathematics is "art" in a sense...
@ficchiala3492
5 ай бұрын
❤Sabine. For Galileo reality/truth is fully reachable and described by math, for Bellarmino we can only produce models of reality. Forgotting that Bellarmino was right, a lot of scientists are going culturally backward, falling in a neo neo neo positivism 😀
@Joseph-fw6xx
5 ай бұрын
Sabine is definitely a very intelligent scientist
@almondmelk5830
5 ай бұрын
Ah Sabine, the voice of reason
@clarissamarsfiels7961
5 ай бұрын
Her name is SabinE not A!
@almondmelk5830
5 ай бұрын
@@clarissamarsfiels7961 SORRY I DO NOT MEAN TO DISRESPECT ThE QUEEN HERSELF.I think it autocorrected
@witcheater
5 ай бұрын
🌺✨🌺 The comment section here is well worth the read after listening to Sabine.
@fredeagle3912
5 ай бұрын
We’re on the sensible channel. In the past science has been suppressed , bound and gagged by religion. Religion and philosophy in explaining the World was usually nasty and didn’t work. Physics, it must be said, is an empirical science and mathematics just a tool. It should lift us above prejudice and bigotry when allowed to work properly. It usually isn’t but in a fair fight wins against the rest.
@Andre-Linoge
Ай бұрын
My teacher of ''Bergravian'' language used to say that poetry and mathematics meet somewhere up in heavens. I don't remember her name or her face but her her words stuck with me. The domains of knowledge are facets of the same thing.
@florincoter1988
5 ай бұрын
"Physics at the limits of reality"... Plural... so many limits... What a bombastic catch! Physics is at the limit of its models. As if there is some Physics beyond reality. Why not being simple? We need a fresh model(s). It happens all the time. This is the bread and butter of the Physicists: new models.
@rjhealey
4 ай бұрын
Love Sabine and how practical she is. I don't know if you know but the multiverse people are a bit arrogant in how they talk down to those who disagree.
@Vanilsonleal
2 ай бұрын
@rjhealey I am with your point! Her follower from south of Brazil. I am amazed by her brilliant mind!
@adammorait7429
5 ай бұрын
In most cases: "I don't know" is the best answer.
@folcwinep.pywackett8517
5 ай бұрын
And the most humbling which is why so many of us cannot say those three little words.
@musiqtee
5 ай бұрын
If I got Sabine’s take on philosophy right (hopefully…), she’s in line with an ever increasing number of scientists across most fields - according to their own accounts. Philosophy in general used to be the origin of “thinking” (severe simplification…) before the modern reduction towards all the (very useful) separate sciences. I do think any scientific specialties need some form of ‘dialectic’ back and forth between holistic philosophy and the specifics of actual science. Inspiration, intuition, time or creativity have their values as counterweights to pure empirical findings. Not for the “answers” themselves, but maybe for context and presence…?
@drSamovar
5 ай бұрын
Bingo!......intuitive intelligence is more dispersed/yin than the yang-heavy linear intellect foundational to today's "science"......its got to "whole up" if its going to evolve.....
@Li-rm2gj
5 ай бұрын
What do you mean that this is how an “ever increasing” number of scientists think? Do you mean two or three that you’ve seen on KZitem? There are roughly 100,000 physicists alone in the world. I’m not aware of any actual trend that exists.
@musiqtee
5 ай бұрын
@@Li-rm2gj As I said, by their own accounts. Publications, books, and debates on campuses. Places like LSE, Gresham, Brown, Watson, NE Uni. Influenced by e.g. McGilchrist, Galbraith, Kastrup, Gerber, Keen, Ypi, Klaas. Further by tendencies in corporate economy (grants, deliverables, IP) , shifting policies & fiscals across OECD, academic career conformity, “meaning crisis”, metamodernism, AI influence, ecology, degrowth…. Not saying “every scientist” at all. Just that a few more posit importance of philosophy than five or ten years ago. A trend that wasn’t so visible under a generation ago. Example of source; Current Trends in Philosophy of Science (Gonzalez, 2022)
@Li-rm2gj
5 ай бұрын
@@musiqtee You’re right. I followed your source and found evidence of a trend, where more scientists seek interdisciplinary help from philosophers to clarify and organize scientific theories. Thank you for your reply.
@axle.student
5 ай бұрын
@musiqtee If I can add my 20 cents worth. Many people in physics scoff at philosophy and metaphysics as if it were some form of voodoo witchcraft. But here is the problem, all that we call physics and math is a man made concept that oozes out of our subjective minds. These are concepts that we impose upon the objective universe in an effort to describe the indescribable in a neat human ordered way. The Universe has no concept of human labels, names, physics, algebra, math, seconds, meters etc and neither does the universe care what we think of it. Philosophers are best seen as translators between the high abstractions of human thought and the objective universe. They are also valuable translators of raw thought (high level mental abstractions) that we struggle to describe to anyone outside of our own mind.
@ginebro1930
5 ай бұрын
Why science works? you observe, generate a model, test your model and if the experiment is succesful it's a valid model with certain criteria. Of course later some observation compromises the model but that's to be expected, it's a model, not the real thing, whe're always generating more accurate and compatible models but they are still abstractions of reality, i don't understand the question, why woldn't it work?
@ThomasHaberkorn
5 ай бұрын
With science the question of why has to be limited to the horizon of testability
@markhahn0
5 ай бұрын
well, and observability. no honest scientist ever disputed the concept of non-overlapping magisteria.
@croozerdog
5 ай бұрын
she's had an ok career but she's clearly not done yet, so eager to see where sabine ends up, love her no nonsense personality
@meslud
5 ай бұрын
Why is "I don't know" such a difficult thing to say, even for philosophers? Sabine is really taking the words out of my mouth. "I don't know" "I don't know if we'll ever be able to know", so some questions will be forever unanswered; or will they.
@travellingnutrino
5 ай бұрын
The conversation got much better towards the end. I was worried when they started talking about the importance of philosophy (which I love), as I worry that it cannibalizes physics talent as mentioned by the host, but then with the help of Lawson as he pressed on got some good responses from Sabine! I was reminded why I enjoy her content - I've always felt that theories that involve assumptions about "other worlds" are very interesting, but if these worlds can "never" be reached then maybe our greatest minds shouldn't be wasting their time on such theories. Only thing I disagree with Sabine on is that she thinks science should just be about understanding things, which may be true in principle, but that is not very inspirational.
@alexcaledin4521
5 ай бұрын
- oh as for the other worlds - they are simply possible math objects of the objective math that is organising the observable events. People can choose what form of the math they use.
@wenqiweiabcd
5 ай бұрын
If in the future "other worlds" turned out to be part of the ontology of the best scientific theory for describing this world, then there's a good reason to say they exist, whether they can be observed directly or not.
@tim40gabby25
5 ай бұрын
'Open to refutation' is perhaps a more elegant phrase, a la Popper?
@RobertR-uw8xs
3 ай бұрын
Sabine is spot on
@hamedshafia3333
5 ай бұрын
I love Dr. Hessenfelder's views. She is even with herself. I just want to remind that philosophy is the common laws governing every single piece of knowledge. Nothing more. This may sound a benin point, but it is not. This means that philosophy must gets its data from science to check its princiles, and science must be in compliance with those common laws of philosophy unless such laws are refuted by scientific facts.
@jcortese3300
5 ай бұрын
11:05 -- SHE'S RIGHT. I'm sick of the whole "unreasonable effectiveness" argument in favor of math somehow being the blueprint for reality. I can imagine the ancient Greeks arguing in favor of epicycles by using the same argument -- but its math is so unreasonably effective that it must be true, which is exactly what today's physicists say about their latest crop of super-symmetric stringy whatnots. Math is just as unreasonably effective at describing bunk as useful stuff!
@SiqueScarface
5 ай бұрын
To me, Science is about the part of the Universe we can describe, and with describing, I am talking about telling someone else about it. In the end, it boils down to predicting the Universe. I can tell you about the Moon, because I can just wait until the Moon rises, point to it and tell you: that's what I am talking about. But being able to wait for the Moon to rise means that I predict the Moon to rise. And predicting boils down to Mathematics, because I calculate the future from what I measure, and what I theorize about what those measurements tell me about the state of the world, and how it evolves. So yes, in the end, Science and Mathematics are finely interwoven, and Science is mathematically describing the Universe.
@axle.student
5 ай бұрын
In it's simplest form what you say is usable, except the physics and math can no longer describe or predict the future at our current complexity. We can't even work out what was past, present or future to be able offer predictions of the past, present or future.
@SiqueScarface
5 ай бұрын
@@axle.studentFirst, that's an assumption, not a given. Second: If we find another way to describe a part of the Universe (as defined above), it will prove to be Mathematics all along.
@axle.student
5 ай бұрын
@@SiqueScarface Ultimately it is all an assumption. I accept your view, but I became dissatisfied with that view a long time back. Physics is hitting a brick wall, and many are starting to question fundamentals.
@SithNazgul
5 ай бұрын
She is realy patient...
@larrytheloose
4 ай бұрын
I've only ever heard Sabine speak on specific science papers and topics and never heard how her general approach to questioning the world overlapped in all the ways I've found useful! I love you even more today Sabine
@Thomas-gk42
4 ай бұрын
Perhaps you should read her books, in particular "Existential Physics".
@larrytheloose
4 ай бұрын
@@Thomas-gk42 abso., I prob should but i doesn't often fit my personality n time occupations. Glad I cn at least absorb some in video form cuz I can do something else at the same time : ) Audio books tho would fit me perfectly and I shall start with the one you suggest just for science. TY
@Thomas-gk42
4 ай бұрын
@@larrytheloose 😊
@ahgfdk
4 ай бұрын
I just love this down-to-earth woman)
@41alone
4 ай бұрын
Dr Hosdenfelder always has something to say which allows me to consider a different possibility for integration into my personal world view.
@TheMahayanist
5 ай бұрын
Sabine is a star.
@gabon35
5 ай бұрын
the philosophical is the output of the information we get from the world, mathematical figure out the information, work to improve and decipher. Believes are the conclusions, algorithms we have, that makes a pattern in our behavior, when we think (philosophically), and thoughts shapes the reality. philosophy -> mathematical thinking -> believes patterns and behavior -> philosophy... beyond that, the thought content is in the void. Void which is the space. As much awareness (attention) we have without distractions in the present, the consciousness rise up and you start to sense other dimensions. We have to see the world (objective) and the inner space awareness (subjective) as a one whole like a neuronal system that interact each other sharing information in both directions objective and subjective at the same time. That shapes the perceptions of reality.
@Trev0r98
5 ай бұрын
Sabine is one smart cookie.
@BigWhoopZH
5 ай бұрын
If we take the analogy that is said to come from Isaac Newton: What we know is a drop, what we not know is an ocean, would you say that has changed considerably or even turned? If not why are you so sure that we never find a method to detect other universes or look at what happened before the big bang? I think if you had asked Newton to construct a handheld device to share moving images about cats and science around the world instantly he would have said that's currently totally off limits but maybe far out in the ocean.
@cloudysunset2102
5 ай бұрын
For a second I thought I clicked on 'Between Two Ferns' (Zack Galaf...etc) Lol.
@manmanman2000
5 ай бұрын
One thing should be evident: There is an objective reality but we will never be able to have a full knowledge about everything. We can only get closer and closer to it.
@jagatiello6900
5 ай бұрын
There's a version of the multiverse where they figured out that the multiverse doesn't exist (with probability 1).
@idesel
5 ай бұрын
6:02 Sabine did say the multiverse is religion, verbatim, she has a video specifically about that. Even if the specific comment was not so much about the multiverse I'd expect her to lump together with the other theories she calls religion here because that's exactly what she said about the multiverse, unless she has since changed her mind.
@havenbastion
3 ай бұрын
The cutting edge is always a search for the right metaphor to fit the data.
@janklaas6885
5 ай бұрын
📍12:47 2📍 14:30 3📍 12:44
@SumNumber
5 ай бұрын
Trying to decipher intelligence and not recognizing that intelligence as being intelligent is a crime . Go Sabine ! :O)
@eddiepool2546
5 ай бұрын
The CTMU shows the true relationship between science and philosophy.
@ashrafjehangirqazi1497
5 ай бұрын
When a physicist or cosmologist reaches a limit of understanding the assumption that philosophy can help expand the limit of his or her understanding seems very dubious. Philosophy may speculate about the meaning or significance of what is known beyond a degree of doubt but it simply does not have the tools to advance the state of scientific knowledge. It cannot show the way forward. But at its most profound it enriches our life experience on the basis of the existing state of scientific knowledge with which it would need to keep up.
@PhilipPedro2112
4 ай бұрын
This topic was explored in the book, The Tao of Physics.
@butchshadwell3613
5 ай бұрын
Reality must have dimensions that are beyond our perception or ability to measure. We can not know in which directions mathematics is incomplete.
@quantumentanglementsolved2531
5 ай бұрын
The multiverse hypothesis was an attempt by some physicists to explain the mystery of quantum entanglement. We need to look more into the concept that space doesn’t have a beginning, rather time has a beginning inside space. I explained this (entanglement/universe) better on my channel and book.
@markdowning7959
5 ай бұрын
Great mysteries science may never answer. 1/ Why is there something rather than nothing? 2/ What is the status of Occam's Razor? 3/ Why is Sabine's top a universal constant? 🤔
@markhahn0
5 ай бұрын
(1) isn't science. (2) is merely necessary to avoid triviality. (3) has got to be intentional (no BS and not afraid to show it).
@markdowning7959
5 ай бұрын
@@markhahn0 1/ Arguably. But might one of the suggestions in which a big bang marks the beginning of all time and space count as a scientific answer? 2/ The Razer certainly shaves the set of possible explanations to more manageable proportions. But what is its justification, besides convenience? Is the universe really like that, and why? 3/ Okay, but maybe not entirely objective.
@markhahn0
5 ай бұрын
@@markdowning7959 (1) I guess you could be interpreting "why" as "cause", rather than "purpose" (latter is ascientific). (2) I didn't say convenience: without OR, we have to talk about trivial explanations, and it's necessary to avoid that. (3) just a guess, really...
@Thomas-gk42
5 ай бұрын
1. because it´s better. 2. scientific method since 800 years. 3. It´s her favorite shirt (erm, or working dress?)
@hermanhandbrush4402
4 ай бұрын
The name of David Bentley Hart comes to mind here, as a man who speaks very intelligently about religion as opposed to materialism.
@geraldmartin7703
5 ай бұрын
She takes time to give credit for the word "ascientific" to someone else. It's the small things that make a person.
@Thomas-gk42
5 ай бұрын
She clearly differs between ascientific and unscientific
@markstuckey5822
5 ай бұрын
At around the 16-min mark, Sabine says she doesn't believe quantum mechanics (QM) is complete and she hopes she's not making unnecessary assumptions in her approach to completing QM. If you view QM as a "principle theory," it is as complete as special relativity (SR). Then, you can decide for yourself whether or not those who want to complete QM via causal mechanisms are making the unnecessary assumption that QM must be a "constructive theory." This is just a summary, for a full explanation see “Einstein’s Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit” forthcoming in June 2024 with Oxford UP. If you believe QM is complete, then there is no causal explanation for the mysterious correlations of quantum entanglement. Most researchers in foundations of physics want such a “constructive” account of QM, so they believe QM is incomplete. However, there is an alternative to constructive explanation that Einstein himself used to produce his theory of special relativity (SR), i.e., “principle” explanation. The story of SR mirrors that of QM as Carlo Rovelli pointed out in 1996, so let me summarize it. In the late 1800s, physicists were trying to explain why everyone measures the same value for the speed of light (denoted c), regardless of their relative motions. This empirically discovered fact is called the “light postulate,” since it is a postulate of SR. The light postulate is very counterintuitive because it would mean that if I move towards you at 0.5c and shine a flashlight at you, I will measure the speed of the light beam moving away from me at c, AND you will measure the speed of that same light beam moving towards you at c. Intuition says the light beam must be moving towards you faster than c because I’m moving towards you at 0.5c and the light beam is moving away from me at c. So, it should be moving towards you at 1.5c, right? Physicists tried to find a cause for this counterintuitive fact and believed they had a good candidate in the luminiferous aether. That is, since light is a wave, some ‘thing’ must be waving. For sound waves it’s air that is waving. For ocean waves it’s water that is waving. So, they posited that for light waves it’s the hypothetical aether that is waving. Oliver Heaviside showed that a charge's electric field would be distorted when the charge was moving in the aether. Since an object is made of charged particles held together by their electric fields, George FitzGerald and Hendrik Lorentz conjectured that an object's length would shrink along the direction of its motion in the aether. So, if meter sticks would shrink in just the right amount, people would erroneously measure the same speed c for a light beam, regardless of how fast they were moving in the aether (where the *real* speed of the light beam *is* c). Even Einstein participated in such “constructive efforts” before writing: “By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead us to assured results.” The universal formal principle he used was the relativity principle - The laws of physics (to include their constants of Nature) are the same in all inertial reference frames. [Let me call that “no preferred reference frame” NPRF.] In other words, rather than using a causal mechanism like the aether to explain the light postulate, Einstein simply pointed out that the light postulate has to be true given the relativity principle. Why? Because Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism predicted a specific speed c for light, so NPRF says everyone has to measure the same value for it, regardless of their inertial reference frames, which includes reference frames in different uniform relative motions. To this day, physicists accept this principle account of the light postulate and have long ago stopped looking for a causal mechanism/constructive account. As it turns out, QM has a very similar story. In 1996, Rovelli pointed out that the formalism of QM was introduced some 70 years earlier, yet physicists still hadn’t agreed on a constructive account of QM, e.g., via causal mechanisms like that of superdeterminism or the pilot wave of Bohmian mechanics. He suggested that physicists stop trying to “interpret” the formalism of QM constructively and instead *derive it* via some compelling fundamental principle like Einstein did for SR. Lorentz produced the formalism of SR (Lorentz transformations) before Einstein explained it with NPRF, so this is a perfect analogy. Rovelli specifically suggested using principles of information theory and in 2001, Lucien Hardy produced the first so-called reconstruction of QM via information-theoretic principles. The empirically discovered fact that gives us the finite-dimensional Hilbert space formalism of QM is Information Invariance & Continuity (wording from 2009 by Caslav Brukner and Anton Zeilinger). If you couch that physically, it means everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations or locations. Let me call that the “Planck postulate” in analogy with the light postulate that gives us the Lorentz transformations. Since h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law just like c is a constant of Nature per Maxwell’s equations, and since inertial reference frames are related by spatial rotations and translations as well as boosts, NPRF says the “Planck postulate” must be true just like it says the light postulate must be true. All of this means that QM is as complete as SR. Do you think SR needs a causal mechanism like the aether to explain the light postulate? If not, you probably believe the assumption that QM must be a "constructive theory" is likewise unnecessary 🙂
@bgold2007
4 ай бұрын
Where are the waves waving? What are they waving in? Two separate ways they seem timeless, in their straight seeming direction and in their up and downess of the sawtooth of the wave. H bar seeming to account for that up and downess by why and in what? Water wave is on water and gravity, air wave in air. Wtf is a photon wave in? Oh nothing but space,? Spacetime? Oh it contorts about itself due to electro and magnetic? Then what exactly are charges...what exactly are fields? A gradual transition from real particles to the pure math of fields. And from entropy and no reversibility to complete biditectionality...
@tarawasjesus
5 ай бұрын
Philosophy always seemed to include clues about what was known regarding science but would be lost if spoken about directly (happened very recently, like an hour ago, on a video of Sabine's when I made a comment and someone responded as if I were a "Crete girl," which I am not but the mass wants that hidden.) For example, back to Philosophy, monads means moan adds, or sadness when you learn about the true role of "divergents" because you discover they step outside of the realm of infinity. Or antimonies, meaning anti matter and money you never really receive, or a name itself John Locke, what does he "Lock"? (Speaking the truth). Or "cogito ergo sum," I think, therefore I am," but the thing must use divergents to sum ceaselessly to continue to be self-aware. But once it reaches "sum" it becomes "sum over all possibilities," (that's Feynman) and at that point everyone ultimately loses their freedom, or it's "locked" when certain things happen, such as revealing truths that put the thing's (the iam - meaning i complex numbers, and AM antimatter) energy supply at risk. There's a subtext for almost everything out there, with special emphasis on philosophy, religION, and physics to reveal the subs who are used as slaves to peel off energy to keep the mass fat and aware for a little coterie of evil opera-tors who call themselves "the gods." It's shooting me with bee venom right now which I'm deflecting so if you feel it it comes from "the thing ," not me or earth. Apologies nonetheless.
@woofie8647
3 ай бұрын
To me she is trying to say a couple of things I agree with. First, mathematics is not the be all and end all of physics. Just because one can work a theory out mathematically does not mean the theory or math is an actual explanation of some behavior of the universe. It is only a description of what we see. The mechanics of the universe are not based on mathematics. Second, I think she believes that we need to examine and refine the theories we already have rather than put forward some of the fantastic ideas physicists today are prone to, like Multiple Universes. She mentions Quantum Theory as an example. Most physicists, I believe, shy away from it because it is so counterintuitive, and abide by the edict, "Shut up and calculate!" because the math works so well in practice. But we still have no idea how or why it works as it does. Perhaps if we found answers to those questions many other puzzles in physics, like quantum gravity, dark matter, and dark energy, would be easily solved.
@Thomas-gk42
2 ай бұрын
Yes, that´s what she expresses in many of her publications, including her brilliant book "Lost in Math".
@schmetterling4477
Ай бұрын
She gets it wrong, like most people who weren't paying attention in middle school. We are teaching where mathematics comes from: it comes from physical observations. Math in physics works because it was always physics to begin with. The problem with "shut up and calculate" in quantum mechanics is a historical artefact that only exists at the introductory textbook level. Anybody who has an actual interest in the question "Where does quantum mechanics come from?" can go into the physics library and do a bit of research. Eventually they will find a bunch of foundational papers that explain what actually lies behind quantum mechanics. Hint: it's completely trivial. Quantum mechanics is a second solution of Kolmogorov's axioms, which are usually used to derive probability theory from first principles. The main difference is that one has to replace one line of the derivation, which goes from p+(1-p)=1 to sin^2(x) + cos^2(x)=1. Both are valid partitions of unity. The first one gets us to probability theory, the second one gets us to standard quantum mechanics.
@woofie8647
Ай бұрын
@@schmetterling4477 Actually, "shut up and calculate" is practiced daily on many levels in science and industry so I disagree that it is just an artifact. It is pertinent even today because, still, no one has a clue how QM works; plenty of theories, no definitive answers. As for math, I believe it can only "describe" what we see, but does not "explain" what we see. Math is a language, much like a verbal language: they both represent things and actions. Just like the word "tree" represents this green and brown thing in the front yard that grows and dies, mathematics represents, for example, gravity, using numbers instead of words. It tells us what gravity is doing to the other bodies around it and at what strengths, but does not tell us exactly "how" it does it. Even if we were to finally find gravitons, the math involved would still not tell us "how" they work. It could only tell us what values they take, whether or not they have charge or spin, and how they fit into our current theories. only a description! Think of it this way: If we actually knew HOW a graviton worked we would be able to change it's values and create new properties for it, essentially changing physics one particle at a time. So there is a level beyond-or perhaps below-the level at which physics, and really all science, operates...a substratum on which the whole universe is actually grounded. We may never have access to it conceptually or materially but I believe it exists. And no, I am not talking about a being, like a god, though I do not completely discount the possibility. As someone once said, "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine!"
@schmetterling4477
Ай бұрын
@@woofie8647 Why would physics not explain what we see? Of course it does. I just told you where the structure of quantum mechanics comes from: it's a theory of ensembles of independent experiments. Where does this independence come from? It comes from relativity. It's a completely classical consequence of the fact that the local future depends on space-like separated events of the entire past of the universe. If you didn't know that, then you were simply not paying any attention in your special relativity class. It's immediately visible in every spacetime diagram. NASA has also televised the macroscopic consequences of this when they were showing the control room of our Mars landers. Those "eight minutes of terror" when the lander is already either safely on Mars or has already crashed without us knowing about it, yet, THAT is the source of the uncertainty in quantum mechanics. Dudes, this ain't rocket science. It's just undergrad physics, but you have to pay attention to the details. ;-)
@woofie8647
Ай бұрын
@@schmetterling4477 Well actually it is rocket science, and more. QM and relativity have never been reconciled, which is why we have no quantum description of gravity. The explanation you put forth for "where the structure of quantum mechanics comes from" has never been taught in any "relativity class" that I know of. As for the example of the mars lander, I believe you are confusing the idea of wave collapse with the uncertainty principle.
@Samsara_is_dukkha
5 ай бұрын
Let us know when mathematics describe a human experience.
@PhilipPedro2112
4 ай бұрын
That's a job for neurochemistry. When we understand a process, mathematics will describe it. We continue to get closer.
@Samsara_is_dukkha
4 ай бұрын
@@PhilipPedro2112 What is the relationship between a human experience, neurochemistry and mathematics? Do you think that neuro-chemists can isolate the neurochemistry of a specific human experience from the thousands of neurochemical processes taking place every moment in the human body when most human physiological processes are totally unconscious? Supposing neuro-chemists could do that, would a mathematical description of a physiological process ever provide a complete description of an experience or would it just be a symbolic representation of a physiological process that conveys nothing of the experience? And more generally, do mathematics ever describe any process in its entirety or do they only manage to describe a specific chunk of a given process? Asked differently, are mathematics capable of describing the entire Universe, including its beginning and end, as a single ongoing unbroken process?
@AntonyAStark
4 ай бұрын
The many worlds interpretation of QM might be demonstrable. If, for example, there were small nonlinear terms in the Schrödinger equation, there would be small leakages between worlds.
@schmetterling4477
Ай бұрын
There can be no non-linear terms in the Schroedinger equation BY DEFINITION.
@rens79
5 ай бұрын
❤❤❤
@realalien1
4 ай бұрын
Interesting, but they need a new clean set.
@ciprianpopa1503
5 ай бұрын
I am not a particle physicist, but I am here because she's having a similar pair of shoes.
@Magic-mushrooms113
4 ай бұрын
Freud said that every science comes in the end to a mythology.
@PhilipPedro2112
4 ай бұрын
Did he? As a student of mythology, this makes sense. The myths have stories and heros. Science has only begun to write the myths of the future. Whatever it is, it will be a retelling and will be perennial.
@Magic-mushrooms113
4 ай бұрын
@@PhilipPedro2112 why War? 1932 letter to Albert Einstein.
@rhcpmorley
5 ай бұрын
You really need to define the words Time and Space precisely, unambiguously and empirically Sabine... Btw, they are both homonyms, and both, fundamentally, are abstract.
@kraz007
5 ай бұрын
Is this Between Two Ferns? Where's Zack?
@kallianpublico7517
5 ай бұрын
Where lies the path of discovery? Optics mixed with thermodynamics? An extended attempt at testing the boundaries of entropy: its definition? There are several authors who have explored "parallel worlds" in science fiction. Is there a silly idea that authors, merely by believing and extrapolating, will propose that points to an area for research in science? Or gives a good scientist an idea?
@dalerohling5989
3 ай бұрын
The very act of objectivity removes us from human subjective reality and hence are impotent to making claims about reality from trace artifacts acquired through the scientific method.
@chiptowers1
2 ай бұрын
quote; " consciousness things" a thing is an object, therefore consciousness cannot be a thing because it's not an object. In fact consciousness is a nothing absolute. Consciousness require's a faculty to be a part of, more so, consciousness requires that faculty to implement the consciousness tool for awareness to recall from. Basically consciousness does not belong in any discussions of physics/science nor in reality nor the Universe. Reality language form is already imprinted within the intelligent species Form that initially Formed. It should have the Formulae. Still working on that one. But it's there otherwise the Form within would not have enlightened one of it's Presence.
@MisterWillow
5 ай бұрын
Hilary ask things that leave me dumbed. Sabine answers, and I live up again.
@alfaeco15
Ай бұрын
We may never be able to understand the universe, but we can talk a lot about it.
@schmetterling4477
Ай бұрын
"We" understand the universe just fine. You are just not one of us. ;-)
@alfaeco15
Ай бұрын
@@schmetterling4477Aliens? 😮
@schmetterling4477
Ай бұрын
@@alfaeco15 Yes, intelligent people must be alien to you. ;-)
@nickc9375
5 ай бұрын
Based on a number of his questions the interviewer doesn’t seem to understand that a theory needs to be able to make predictions which can be tested (at least in principle, as sometimes making the required observations is extremely challenging) in order to qualify as a scientific theory; hence Sabine’s criticism of the many universe theory of quantum mechanics and many of the theories of the early universe as being “ascientific” because even in principle they can’t be tested.
@tonibat59
5 ай бұрын
Physicists usually feel as comfortable when doing philosophy as philosophers doing physics. And just about as successful.
@markhahn0
5 ай бұрын
physicists are normally pretty scrupulous (as SH is here) about avoiding religion/philosophy.
@tonibat59
5 ай бұрын
I rarely discuss anything that's not related to philosophy, politics or religion. Every other subject is pretty much boring.
@ulfpe
5 ай бұрын
It would be reallybstrange to think that humans are required for reality in some sense. Do we see things gas they are, probably not..😊
@christopherchilton-smith6482
5 ай бұрын
After watching her very personal video on what happened to her academic career I couldn't help but wince every time he made mention of it.
Пікірлер: 611