It turns out, the specialists (at least in high energy physics) tend to not look across their shoulder, and certainly not across towns. That is to say, the loop quantum gravitist doesn't know the latest developments in string theory and vice versa, nor are they interested.
This is truly your strength, the fact that the physics and cosmology and mathematics landscape is so siloed and you can talk to so many people from these fields in a way that allows for cross-pollination of ideas and new synergies.
I really hope you can be a bridge between these various worlds.
Each thing in existence is a sign, a mirror reflecting unity, purpose, and order. The diversity you see is the expression of one source, a single truth that holds all things together. True knowledge is clarity, not confusion. it is coherence not devision. Each piece of creation, every thought and every being, has a place, a role in this. Clarity is strength, depth is born of purpose, and wisdom lies in seeing the wholeness within diversity. These signs guide us to return, to recognize the stable truth from which all flows and to which all returns.
Wait a minute. If you think and reflect deeply on this essay you realize there are universals that we can all agree about that do create greater social harmony. A good example is to consider the "God" concept — the agreement is you and I do not have to insist someone shares our view, but we can all agree that for harmony we can tolerate other views that are not objectively batshit insane.
There are plenty of examples where shared beliefs create social cohesion. If they are conducive to some broad but maybe vaguely defined "Good" then they will endure. Do I need to reel off a list of such universals? I'd be here all day, so I'll spare the comments section the read. But just think about why almost everyone when given the chance is kind to others. We do not need to sift through an ecosystem to find kindness is in every good thing.
What we cannot base social harmony upon are contestable beliefs. That's all. You want the garden that allows a thousand flowers to bloom for that stuff. But meta-socially that is a harmony, the unity in shared belief that we can allow flowers to bloom and not be complete assholes and ideologues about such contestable things. You can spot sick ideologies (fascism, neoliberalism) by the way they stomp on other flowers buds. We can yet tolerate the people who harbour such sicknesses, and slowly patiently and with no coercion weed the crud out over time. That's called spiritual or moral education. It does not require us to tell others their weird beliefs are "wrong".
Reminds me of Richard Dawkins’ discussions regarding memes. If we look to nature for a living laboratory, we find the generalists (in nature this would be omnivores) always gain the upper hand in the long term. Specialization leads to scarcity and competition and the generalists moves on to a different food source. To put this in a meme structure vis á vis podcasting, the resource is subscriptions, people’s money, and associations. The generalists (which you are, sort of) that provides a solid foundation of hard science yet the real scientific curiosity that science should have. In my list of things I follow and support, I see your products as a jewel in my portfolio. Curt, who has can talk particle physics with one scientist then move to consciousness and esoteric knowledge with another. We need the specialists, of course, but someone needs to bring it all together for those that don’t have the time. That person is you. Thank you.
What an interesting way of looking at the world this is, Curt. And it is generally applicable! Take for instance, chess. You have the positional players (Karpov, the sandy crab) and the tactical players (Tal, the muddy crab). Then you have the generalists (Carlsen). As a physicist, I was expecting you to say that God is a superposition of limitless possibilities. Then, just as a human or AI must play thousands of games to find the best way of playing chess for them, so God must explore as many ways of being God as it can, so that it can manifest the best possible Godlike qualities. You could say the same for say, reincarnation (if you believe in it): each life explores some of the myriad possibilities, so that you can eventually manifest the best possible <b>you</b>.
Yes maybe... I fell in love with someone who was mysterious. But, if he had continued to always be mysterious to me, then I would never really be able to really know Him. Eventually sticking with a life partner whom you can never really know is very difficult. Having a relationship with the most attractive woman might be exciting but this excitement can wither away if you can never really get to know her. If I was unable to get to know God on a human level then I would have left Him.
Because God became more accessible and relatable to me over time on an individual, personal and intimate level that's what's kept me a believer. Not a doctrine, creed or teaching. Not even blessing or grace. Not a sense of right or duty but the sight of peerless worth.
Here is a favorite portion of a treasured hymn which reflects a very real experience that believers can have. The Christian life does have its hardships and for all the things I've lost I've remained a Christian because I've gained a lot. I feel this speaks best to my experience:
"Perhaps the un-defined divine is the greatest definition"
This sounds like an eastern religion (especially, Hinduism with 33 million conceptions of the divine, only possible general description being "undefinable").
An interesting essay. It is quite an exciting time with so many theories being explored. As a person of faith, i regard science as the measurement of God's creation. I anticipate any final definitions of the understanding of creation to include an appropriate reference to the creator. And i look forward to that day, without any doubt whatsoever that God will be in the final paragraph of the explanation of how and why something exists rather than nothing.
As a 'truth seeker' i tend to devalue anything which can be empirically disproven, allowing my instinct to find the truth, to unceasingly guide me.
Humans (as we know it) survival is not the goal. We’re just little echoes in the ‘’Implicate’’(sorry Mr. Bohm)order, or what a friend use to call segments arbitraires…..Not a clue where i’m going🤷🏻♂️. Another idea just popped, have you ever talked with Neil Theise? (https://www.neiltheiseofficial.com/)Yoniso-Manasikara, be like water. ☯️
If we should see epistemological systems of knowledge as species... maybe the primitive concepts and ideas, the a priori categories, what is originally offered to us in the flesh and bones, the starting toolkit we are equipped, the kernel of the DaSein itself... however we want to describe that stuff... (quantity, absence, presence, existence, becoming/change, space, before and after, things, the difference between things, the difference between self and things, basic elements of logic and math... those inescapable things, that even in defining them, or denying them, in doubting them, one inevitably makes implicit use of them)... maybe we should see them as the DNA?
Another good one, I will be stealing/using "ecology of knowledge".
Nice TOE ep w Susskind also, thanks for the stuff
By definition, infinity cannot be quantified. We are a holographic fractal of the Divine infinite, co-creating the infinite cosmos.
Boom! The way I feel this evening ( which is good) I will concur.
Why not….☮️
It turns out, the specialists (at least in high energy physics) tend to not look across their shoulder, and certainly not across towns. That is to say, the loop quantum gravitist doesn't know the latest developments in string theory and vice versa, nor are they interested.
This is truly your strength, the fact that the physics and cosmology and mathematics landscape is so siloed and you can talk to so many people from these fields in a way that allows for cross-pollination of ideas and new synergies.
I really hope you can be a bridge between these various worlds.
Each thing in existence is a sign, a mirror reflecting unity, purpose, and order. The diversity you see is the expression of one source, a single truth that holds all things together. True knowledge is clarity, not confusion. it is coherence not devision. Each piece of creation, every thought and every being, has a place, a role in this. Clarity is strength, depth is born of purpose, and wisdom lies in seeing the wholeness within diversity. These signs guide us to return, to recognize the stable truth from which all flows and to which all returns.
Wait a minute. If you think and reflect deeply on this essay you realize there are universals that we can all agree about that do create greater social harmony. A good example is to consider the "God" concept — the agreement is you and I do not have to insist someone shares our view, but we can all agree that for harmony we can tolerate other views that are not objectively batshit insane.
There are plenty of examples where shared beliefs create social cohesion. If they are conducive to some broad but maybe vaguely defined "Good" then they will endure. Do I need to reel off a list of such universals? I'd be here all day, so I'll spare the comments section the read. But just think about why almost everyone when given the chance is kind to others. We do not need to sift through an ecosystem to find kindness is in every good thing.
What we cannot base social harmony upon are contestable beliefs. That's all. You want the garden that allows a thousand flowers to bloom for that stuff. But meta-socially that is a harmony, the unity in shared belief that we can allow flowers to bloom and not be complete assholes and ideologues about such contestable things. You can spot sick ideologies (fascism, neoliberalism) by the way they stomp on other flowers buds. We can yet tolerate the people who harbour such sicknesses, and slowly patiently and with no coercion weed the crud out over time. That's called spiritual or moral education. It does not require us to tell others their weird beliefs are "wrong".
Reminds me of Richard Dawkins’ discussions regarding memes. If we look to nature for a living laboratory, we find the generalists (in nature this would be omnivores) always gain the upper hand in the long term. Specialization leads to scarcity and competition and the generalists moves on to a different food source. To put this in a meme structure vis á vis podcasting, the resource is subscriptions, people’s money, and associations. The generalists (which you are, sort of) that provides a solid foundation of hard science yet the real scientific curiosity that science should have. In my list of things I follow and support, I see your products as a jewel in my portfolio. Curt, who has can talk particle physics with one scientist then move to consciousness and esoteric knowledge with another. We need the specialists, of course, but someone needs to bring it all together for those that don’t have the time. That person is you. Thank you.
What an interesting way of looking at the world this is, Curt. And it is generally applicable! Take for instance, chess. You have the positional players (Karpov, the sandy crab) and the tactical players (Tal, the muddy crab). Then you have the generalists (Carlsen). As a physicist, I was expecting you to say that God is a superposition of limitless possibilities. Then, just as a human or AI must play thousands of games to find the best way of playing chess for them, so God must explore as many ways of being God as it can, so that it can manifest the best possible Godlike qualities. You could say the same for say, reincarnation (if you believe in it): each life explores some of the myriad possibilities, so that you can eventually manifest the best possible <b>you</b>.
Curt, some of your thoughts echo the notion of learned ignorance that has resonated with myself lately - and as it happens, I’ve come come across ecologies of knowledge during the same process. I write about them in a couple of pieces, including here: https://open.substack.com/pub/unexaminedtechnology/p/how-and-why-to-be-learnedly-ignorant?r=2xhhg0&utm_medium=ios
“God is the most ambiguous word."
Yes maybe... I fell in love with someone who was mysterious. But, if he had continued to always be mysterious to me, then I would never really be able to really know Him. Eventually sticking with a life partner whom you can never really know is very difficult. Having a relationship with the most attractive woman might be exciting but this excitement can wither away if you can never really get to know her. If I was unable to get to know God on a human level then I would have left Him.
Because God became more accessible and relatable to me over time on an individual, personal and intimate level that's what's kept me a believer. Not a doctrine, creed or teaching. Not even blessing or grace. Not a sense of right or duty but the sight of peerless worth.
Here is a favorite portion of a treasured hymn which reflects a very real experience that believers can have. The Christian life does have its hardships and for all the things I've lost I've remained a Christian because I've gained a lot. I feel this speaks best to my experience:
Not by gain our life is measured,
But by what we’ve lost ’tis scored;
’Tis not how much wine is drunken,
But how much has been outpoured.
For the strength of love e’er standeth
In the sacrifice we bear;
He who has the greatest suff’ring
Ever has the most to share.
He who treats himself severely
Is the best for God to gain;
He who denies himself most dearly
Most can comfort those in pain.
He who suffering never beareth
Is but empty “sounding brass”;
He who self-life never spareth
Has the joys which all surpass.
"Perhaps the un-defined divine is the greatest definition"
This sounds like an eastern religion (especially, Hinduism with 33 million conceptions of the divine, only possible general description being "undefinable").
An interesting essay. It is quite an exciting time with so many theories being explored. As a person of faith, i regard science as the measurement of God's creation. I anticipate any final definitions of the understanding of creation to include an appropriate reference to the creator. And i look forward to that day, without any doubt whatsoever that God will be in the final paragraph of the explanation of how and why something exists rather than nothing.
As a 'truth seeker' i tend to devalue anything which can be empirically disproven, allowing my instinct to find the truth, to unceasingly guide me.
And it was my instinct that brought me to faith.
Humans (as we know it) survival is not the goal. We’re just little echoes in the ‘’Implicate’’(sorry Mr. Bohm)order, or what a friend use to call segments arbitraires…..Not a clue where i’m going🤷🏻♂️. Another idea just popped, have you ever talked with Neil Theise? (https://www.neiltheiseofficial.com/)Yoniso-Manasikara, be like water. ☯️
Absurdity delights me, it’s a gesture
If we should see epistemological systems of knowledge as species... maybe the primitive concepts and ideas, the a priori categories, what is originally offered to us in the flesh and bones, the starting toolkit we are equipped, the kernel of the DaSein itself... however we want to describe that stuff... (quantity, absence, presence, existence, becoming/change, space, before and after, things, the difference between things, the difference between self and things, basic elements of logic and math... those inescapable things, that even in defining them, or denying them, in doubting them, one inevitably makes implicit use of them)... maybe we should see them as the DNA?