J. Richard Gott - Why Did Our Universe Begin?
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Related videos
Daniel Dennett - Can Religion Be Explained Without God?
Closer To Truth
33.5k views
David Chalmers - What Things are Conscious?
Closer To Truth
45.5k views
Roger Penrose - Did the Universe Begin?
Closer To Truth
123.9k views
Saul Perlmutter - Why Did Our Universe Begin?
Closer To Truth
114.6k views
Alan Guth - Why is the Universe Expanding?
Closer To Truth
81.2k views
Steven Weinberg - Why a Fine-Tuned Universe?
Closer To Truth
106.5k views
Paul Davies - What are Observers?
Closer To Truth
120.2k views
Sean Carroll on the Biggest Ideas in the Universe | Closer To Truth Chats
Closer To Truth
135.9k views
David Albert - Why Is There Anything At All?
Closer To Truth
53.8k views
The Multiverse: What's Real? | ENCORE Episode 1801 | Closer To Truth
Closer To Truth
39.0k views
Top Comments (10)
I once figured all of this out when I was on acid, but then I forgot again.
Us humans have this propensity to think of existence and non-existence in terms similar to those that apply to everyday objects. The table exists or it does not exist, the chair exists or it does not exist. But when the fundamental nature of the universe is concerned, the concept of non-existence might prove meaningless. The most fundamental substrate would serve as the eternal foundation of all emergent phenomenon. This substrate or structure(s) might exist because existence is the default state, and non-existence is an impossible, meaningless concept. Given this potential reality, questions about the ultimate origin of 'creation' may well be meaningless expressions of our ignorance. For instance, one might argue: the chair existed but now it is gone because I burned it to ashes. However, this is technically incorrect. The key thing to realize here is that the chair was an emergent phenomenon. A collection of particles that was temporarily arranged in a specific pattern. The chair never really existed as a separate entity except in some platonic sense. The same applies to everything except that which is most fundamental and elementary. So now take an individual, presumably elementary particle like an electron. You cannot cancel its existence. It just exists. Unless it's a composite entity, in which case one should look at its most fundamental constituents. It may well be that space and time are emergent phenomenon as well, arising from some eternal, fundamental substrate. My point is that perhaps only the most fundamental structure really exist, that existence is its default state, that it could not have been any other way, and that everything else emerges from this foundation - much like patterns arising from the simple rules of cellular automatons or fractal sets. The closer we get to this foundation, the more fuzzy things get, because known concepts break down as we reduce emergent phenomenon to their more fundamental constituents. Finally, the 'root' substrate may well be qualitatively beyond our ability to comprehend.
"The standard big Bong model" is my favorite
2:06... _Standard Big Bong Model of the Universe..._ : )
the ultimate question that will be left unanswered at any minds is what caused all that precursors to begin
We will never know for sure the answers brings more questions it really depends on what you believe
the apparatus you got specially made up would make a very good bong - I'll get my coat!
I love that glass model.
What a Sales man all the way through. I was sold 😅
2:06 the standard big bong model? My kinda thing 😉😉
Unlock the Data Inside
Turn Videos into Knowledge
- Get FREE 10/day: transcripts, summaries, chats
- Chat with videos, export text & PDF
- $1 free API credit for RAG, chatbots & research
Free forever plan • All features unlocked
Top Comments (10)
I once figured all of this out when I was on acid, but then I forgot again.
Us humans have this propensity to think of existence and non-existence in terms similar to those that apply to everyday objects. The table exists or it does not exist, the chair exists or it does not exist. But when the fundamental nature of the universe is concerned, the concept of non-existence might prove meaningless. The most fundamental substrate would serve as the eternal foundation of all emergent phenomenon. This substrate or structure(s) might exist because existence is the default state, and non-existence is an impossible, meaningless concept. Given this potential reality, questions about the ultimate origin of 'creation' may well be meaningless expressions of our ignorance. For instance, one might argue: the chair existed but now it is gone because I burned it to ashes. However, this is technically incorrect. The key thing to realize here is that the chair was an emergent phenomenon. A collection of particles that was temporarily arranged in a specific pattern. The chair never really existed as a separate entity except in some platonic sense. The same applies to everything except that which is most fundamental and elementary. So now take an individual, presumably elementary particle like an electron. You cannot cancel its existence. It just exists. Unless it's a composite entity, in which case one should look at its most fundamental constituents. It may well be that space and time are emergent phenomenon as well, arising from some eternal, fundamental substrate. My point is that perhaps only the most fundamental structure really exist, that existence is its default state, that it could not have been any other way, and that everything else emerges from this foundation - much like patterns arising from the simple rules of cellular automatons or fractal sets. The closer we get to this foundation, the more fuzzy things get, because known concepts break down as we reduce emergent phenomenon to their more fundamental constituents. Finally, the 'root' substrate may well be qualitatively beyond our ability to comprehend.
"The standard big Bong model" is my favorite
2:06... _Standard Big Bong Model of the Universe..._ : )
the ultimate question that will be left unanswered at any minds is what caused all that precursors to begin
We will never know for sure the answers brings more questions it really depends on what you believe
the apparatus you got specially made up would make a very good bong - I'll get my coat!
I love that glass model.
What a Sales man all the way through. I was sold 😅
2:06 the standard big bong model? My kinda thing 😉😉