It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics.
You are all stardust.
You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren't created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode.
So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today. </quote>
Beautiful quote from the talk. Nevertheless, this still shows attachment to the "matter" that he himself says seems irrelevant to the universe as we've now come to understand it. About 30% in dark matter, about 70% in Nothing. Matter is just "all the rest < 1%". So are we matter or not?
I found this lecture to be very interesting, but I was disappointed in all the jabs against religion (even though I'm an atheist myself). The information he presented about how a flat universe could come from nothing is thought-provoking. I would love to read further discussion about the content-- for instance, the implications of an ever-expanding universe and future societies clueless to the presence of other galaxies. Instead, people are focusing on it as a video about atheism, which really occupies less than 1% of the video here.
I'm aware this lecture took place at an atheism convention, but I don't find anti-theism to be very constructive anyway. You can be a skeptic and an atheist without making disdainful remarks about the belief system of others. Engaging in open, respectful conversation is a better way of making people abandon religion anyway, if that's your goal. You know what they say about flies, honey, and vinegar.
Regardless, there are religious scientists and cosmologists. Being patronizing about their beliefs discourages them from contributing. As others have said, science is not the alternative to religion, and we shouldn't treat it in such a way.
Very interesting.
However, other "religions" such as Buddhism and Hinduism have spoken experientially of Nothing, and the universe arising out of Nothing. This has been misunderstood/misinterpreted as "nihilism" by the west.
Refer "Ashtavakra Gita" and ancient text, for example.
There are so many religion disciplines with so many diverse views on so many things that someone from somewhere will point to an obscure reference to a religion and argue "See this religion also talked about this 1000s of years ago and science just discovered it now". And lets forget overwhelming majority of the religious reference that science obliterates.
So, lets say tomorrow, we discover with definite evidence that the universe did actually came out of something, instead of nothing (which we don't know yet for sure as krauss pointed out), most religious people will forget about this reference made in Buddhism and Hinduism to proclaim "Science validates us", but instead will argue "Science doesn't know everything".
Please note that this is not what I am saying your personal position is, just making a general observation of religion sometimes looking for validation from science, only when it fits their world-view.
Buddhism isn't really a religion like Christianity is. There are no faith-based assumptions in Buddhism and it makes no claim to anything you can't reason yourself independently (as far as I know). I think you should read up on it a bit before lumping it with traditional religions. I don't think your infinite monkey theorem applies to Buddhism because it doesn't have prophecies (afaik) or literal descriptions of how the universe was created. In fact, based on what I reAd I don't think buddhists even worship a god. A Buddha seems to be just a description of a state of spiritual enlightenment.
And a trait with most religions is that adherence needs to be exclusive from other religions. From what I learned from the simpsons, buddhists are allowed to practice other religions. That's another sign Buddhism isn't just another branch of Christianity.
> There are so many religion disciplines with so many diverse views on so many things that someone from somewhere will point to an obscure reference to a religion and argue "See this religion also talked about this 1000s of years ago and science just discovered it now". And lets forget overwhelming majority of the religious reference that science obliterates.
I think what i spoke of was not one of many diverse things some religions/faiths/whatever have spoken of. It is the principal experience upon investigating one's nature through meditation.
I quoted one text, only due to its small size and the fact that it is one of the oldest. There are many others: such as the Upanishads (many of them), the Vedas, the Avadhuta Gita, the Ribhu Gita that all speak of this "nothing" being the reality from which everything arises as a vibration/ripple/disturbance. They do not just speak of it: they give you the path to realize and confirm it yourself.
And lets forget overwhelming majority of the religious reference that science obliterates.
This is actually funny. Science works by obliterating ... itself. Newton's law of gravity is wrong. That certainly doesn't discredit Newton. Its ok in science to be wrong or right about something. So why should a different rule apply to religions.
I always take the opposite side of the argument :)
If not, you should know that science is not the opposite of religion. Non-belief (or atheism) is the opposite of religion. Scientific process is often used to disqualify religious nonsense.
Its like saying why should a different rule apply to Hitler when I enjoy eating strawberry ice-cream? Absolutely makes no sense.
... but it is easy to see it that way considering all the jokes that the speaker throws to great response from the audience.
Scientific process is often used to disqualify religious nonsense
All I'm saying is that scientific process is also used to disqualify "scientific nonsense" as well, such as turning lead into gold. So religious nonsense isn't any different.
Just as you'd credit alchemists for contributing in other ways, "religions" ought to get credit for contributing to psychology, for instance, if not for creation theories.
> All I'm saying is that scientific process is also used to disqualify "scientific nonsense" as well, such as turning lead into gold. So religious nonsense isn't any different.
Yes. Science is self-correcting. Its common knowledge. Religion is not self-correcting. You might have different interpretation (over the years) of religious allegory, but nonsense is nonsense; regardless of your interpretations.
Not all of them. There is at least 1500 years of recorded tradition (500BC to 1000AD) of it not being that way. In India, the tradition during that period held that if philosopher A lost in an argumentative "dharma combat" with a philosopher B, A and his cohort of students have to become students of B.
People were certainly willing to change their minds ... even in religious/philosophical discourse. I think there is even record of the Buddha saying "You should not believe everything I say and see it for yourself."
They worked with what their tools allowed them to observe and argue about. With the benefit of hindsight, we can trash all their work, but I just choose to differ with you here and am willing to give them the respect for trying honestly.
And my take is that they seem to have got a lot of the "mind stuff" deeply right or at least close, which has influenced the course of artificial intelligence and the philosophy around it in the recent decades.
.. and even Einstein has difficulty with beliefs and changing mind. In spite of his tremendous contributions to quant mech, he couldn't quite bring himself to believe that probability was all we could bring to physical theory in the end - the famous "God does not play dice". I've always wondered whether he used the word "God" as a direct substitute for "The Universe".
> . and even Einstein has difficulty with beliefs and changing mind. In spite of his tremendous contributions to quant mech, he couldn't quite bring himself to believe that probability was all we could bring to physical theory in the end - the famous "God does not play dice". I've always wondered whether he used the word "God" as a direct substitute for "The Universe".
Einstein was a pantheist, so yes your guess that he used the word "god" as a substitute for The universe is correct. I think his intention with the word God was often used to help people "relate" to what he was saying. Unfortunately he was misinterpreted by religious zealots to misinform people.
You can read more about his religious belief here:
Interesting letter. Never seen before. Thanks for the links! .. btw my point was not so much about Einstein's religious beliefs, but just that even he found changing beliefs (scientific ones) hard.
Bah, I read 'AAI' as 'AAAI' in my morning pre-coffee blurriness and was in eager anticipation of an AI talk on simulations and world-building, or something. Would have made more sense on HN.
I have something of an awe for atheists. They seem to have a clearer idea of "God" than the rest because they clearly don't believe it .. or He or She or I dunno .. but they seem to.
I liked the ending note on humility where he presented a scenario where he thinks falsifiable science could end up not figuring out the truth about the universe because the inhabitants won't be able to access a galaxy other than their own.
Forgive my naivete, I am watching the video now but won't be able to finish it tonight. Could someone please explain to me how the universe came from nothing? Isn't that like saying that something both is and isn't at the same time and in the same sense?
You are all stardust.
You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren't created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode.
So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today. </quote>