Purpose and the Universe by Sean M. Carroll, Ph.D (with HD slides) at the 2013 AHA Conference
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
Sean speaks at 2:48. This NEW, edited version displays Sean Carroll's lecture slides in HD resolution. (Select HD and go fullscreen to view.) Sean Carroll speaks at 2:48. Q&A at 58:16 Sean Carroll's Summary: The idea of a "purpose" or "reason why" has a strong hold on the human imagination, and has a special resonance when we think about the universe itself. However, modern science has gradually eroded the role of purpose in our best understanding of nature. This represents an important step forward in human understanding, as we can see how apparently purposeful features of reality arise through undirected laws of nature. But it represents a challenge for questions of morality and meaning. I will argue that purposes can be created or emergent even when they are not fundamental, and that this perspective has important consequences for how we live our lives. Sean Carroll is an author and theoretical physicist at Caltech. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/ http://www.americanhumanist.org/ Recorded 6/2/13. Sean Carroll was the keynote speaker at the 2013 American Humanist Association annual Conference. To donate to me via PayPal, use the email beag12@yahoo.com. Thanks!
Comments
-
The universe is here for us the people. There is no one else that can appreciate it.
-
thanks for posting HD with slides. Great
-
-
consevation of information.
-
What is W in Sean's formula?
-
Holy wow, Richard Dawkins was in the audience asking a question.
-
Dark matter causes my indigestion, I swear.
-
مرحبا
-
fire rises due to density. fire is much lighter than anything else
-
Sean, if you ask me if I got an equation, I do have one: Sean^2 = Lawrence^2 + Michio^2 + Leonardo ^2 + Nima^2, a Pythagoras in n-dimensional space :). But I do have issue with Everett's 'many words'. No, I am not that 10Y old!! It seems more acceptable that 'probability integral' across the field is NOT equal to 1, as the probability can leak to other fields due to their strong interaction, - yet not to other words. On the other hand, 11 dimensions proposed Ed Witten have somehow soothing effect, even if they are full blown and perpendicular to each other. Math works just fine!!
-
great video, nearly didn't watch when in the introduction she said she "had the honour to talk to Rebecca Goldstein..." but fair play to the audience for giving Sean a standing ovation at the end, hopefully some of them were converted into normal people ;)
-
Dawkins should not complain if someone believes he is an ass. Sean could have just suffered a slip of the tongue (the name is spelled right on the slide), and his correction is more proper to an anal retentive spinster
-
The Fractal Nature of Living Systems
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/life-fractal-rick-delmonico-1?trk=mp-reader-card -
This is JUST like a Christian revival prayer meeting, except the faith content. Stories of suspended disbelief like walking on water have been replaced with man made global warming.
This must be the dawning of a new age of fundamentalist collectivism being the dominant religion. In Star Trek, they were called the Borg.
Can I get a witness? Hallelujah Hallelujah Gay Marriage like during the fall of Rome. We have a room full of men without masculine muscles nor masculine voices. A room of Democrats. -
I wish Sean would put his big brain to work debunking global warming.
-
thos dude is yo yo
-
6:54-> [...]"...and it's not just Evangelical CREATURES."[...]
Pfff...pfff...pfff...PUHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHAHAHAH! -
Sean pulls a fast one here. "Sean's equation" is not Laplacian deterministic! First of all, it's not deterministic because it only gives probability distributions. Anyone who's listened to weather forecasts knows that if you use probability distributions to predict too far in the future, you end up with meaningless mush and no useful information. Second, the equation is not Laplacian because time is not the dynamical variable. In fact, the equation is "teleological" because the transition probabilities it predicts depend on properties of the future state, even before the future state is actually attained. The equation itself is strong evidence that the Laplacian viewpoint is inadequate, and is only a misleading appearance.
See:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2uooHqQ6T7PgUzsM95xUWfBuyeGBUXzx
Telology lives! -
explained beautifully
0m 0sLenght
631Rating