by Gerald Hooft says that at the big bang there was a flux of probabilities (equations) and then something pulled the trigger; but why there was a flux and why something pulled the trigger is not for scientists to answer. The universe is so complex, he says, that we will never be able fully figure it out, anymore than someone could figure out what your next thought will be. I wasn't keen on his superdeterminism, but even on that he was ambiguous. The universe is so complex, he says, that things can appear to happen by chance, or through randomness. He believes that the multiverce theory is nonsense, and what scientists are seeing in their research are possible universes, (probabilities) but only this one won through because only one can exist. Scientists who believe that the universe is not
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Matias Vernengo writes Elon Musk (& Vivek Ramaswamy) on hardship, because he knows so much about it
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Klas Eklunds ‘Vår ekonomi’ — lärobok med stora brister
New Economics Foundation writes We need more than a tax on the super rich to deliver climate and economic justice
Robert Vienneau writes Profits Not Explained By Merit, Increased Risk, Increased Ability To Compete, Etc.
Gerald Hooft says that at the big bang there was a flux of probabilities (equations) and then something pulled the trigger; but why there was a flux and why something pulled the trigger is not for scientists to answer.
The universe is so complex, he says, that we will never be able fully figure it out, anymore than someone could figure out what your next thought will be.
I wasn't keen on his superdeterminism, but even on that he was ambiguous. The universe is so complex, he says, that things can appear to happen by chance, or through randomness.
He believes that the multiverce theory is nonsense, and what scientists are seeing in their research are possible universes, (probabilities) but only this one won through because only one can exist.
Scientists who believe that the universe is not meaningless, like Paul Davies, say that if this is the only universe, then then it's amazing it has the miracle of life. But in the multiverse theory, scientists say, well at least one universe could contain life if there is an infinite amount of them. They also say that there are replicas of this universe, plus infinite variations of it, and this occurs an infinite amount of times, because their maths show that there is only a finate amount of matter available in the universe, and it can only be rearranged so in many different ways.
Gerald Hooft says that the brain may run on software, but he doesn't seem to consider that as a result we may have a limited amount of free will, independent of its molecules, or atoms. Most scientists nowadays say we don't have free will. I've thought about this a lot and flipped on it a number of times, but I believe have a small amount of free will, although this could be will, rather than free will. But we work so hard to make our lives go in a certain direction, which is self determination, and although this is instinctual, there could be a software part that allows for flexibility. But no one has ever been able to figure this out, so it's unlikely I will either.
Anyway, Professor Gerald Hooft is a very smart guy.
I've become more spiritual as I've got older, believing life has meaning, but of course, this is similar to having a faith. Bernardo Kastrup is interesting on this I might post on that later. I was once a Quaker for a number years, which was a very special part of my life.
Theoretical and particle physics continues to be mysterious, almost an occult science, and the more you try to figure out our reality, the more confusing and counterintuitive it gets. We talk to Nobel Prize-winning physicist Professor Gerard ‘t Hooft.