Carlo Rovelli: Loop Quantum Gravity, Relational Time

Guess what under the confluence of convergent and divergence in the gravitational field time it’s become to existence as the exccedent of the energy and spraying over earth surface like sprinkles in all directions at the minimum speed this energy can travel in this gravitational field wish I can explain in total detail finally it’s here to be known and available for this world look for me Juan Carlos Castro

“Relations more fundamental than things” is a major theme of category theory. Perhaps understanding that theme in a logically sound/rigorous setting like mathematics (e.g. proving things “arrow theoretically”, drawing category theory diagrams without needing to label the objects but merely the morphisms between them, etc.) may reveal its truth in looser settings.

If we only think about kinematics, then it is equally ok to say the Sun revolves around the Earth or the other way round. But if we consider dynamics, then the right way is to say the Earth revolves around the Sun. (consideration about common center of gravity ignored here on purpose).

*Title:* Unveiling the Power of String Ends: A Novel Approach

### *Presentation Outline:*

1. *Introduction*
- Brief overview of string theory and its significance.
- The challenges in current particle-energy interactions.
- Introduction of the concept of string ends and its potential.

2. *String Theory Basics*
- Fundamental principles of string theory.
- Review of existing models and limitations.
- The importance of string ends in theoretical physics.

3. *Particle-String Connection*
- Exploring the relationship between particles and string ends.
- New perspectives on how particles interact through strings.
- Key equations and models supporting the hypothesis.

4. *Methodology*
- The experimental framework used to test the connection.
- Steps in linking string ends with particle behavior.
- Technologies and simulations employed.

5. *Results*
- Presentation of findings from experimental data.
- Insights on energy transfer and particle behavior.
- Comparative analysis with existing models.

6. *Discussion*
- Implications of these results for high-energy physics.
- How this approach challenges or complements existing theories.
- Open questions and areas for further research.

7. *Conclusion*
- Summary of key takeaways.
- The potential for this novel method to drive future discoveries.
- Next steps in research and experimentation.

he disagrees with all opposing ideas that hurt his theories like he had faith in what he proposed....when he has no critique he says I don't like or feel exciting wolframs physics. such strong faith in mathematical story of loops...

retroaction = consciousness

Reality out there has no reality of its own it is all these interconnected and interrelated processes that brings out the manifested world of relationship

Great discussion. It occurs to me that if you combine RQM with panpsychism, you'd get the idea that every "system" -- from particle to planet -- would have consciousness, and every "interaction" would have an intersubjective dimension.

He was trying very hard not to call out string theory and multiverse when he said he was against the “ultimate reality that doesn’t interact with us”. I don’t think Carlo is against ultimate realities which can be tested.

Contrary to what you stated at the beginning there was no warmth or chemistry felt throughout this video. I felt embarrassed for you. So much I had to turn off.

Is wave collapse necessary or can the wave stop short of collapse?

Time is a useful construct.

"There is no theory of everything."
_ D. Hoffman.

4 hours?!?! No.

Ah, an official loopy! Sorry about your theory going down in flames.

The "hard problem" is based on a false intuition where people just imagine themselves in different points of view and then claim (falsely) that they are imagining things being conscious or unconscious. If I asked you to imagine a rock being conscious, what would you do? You'd probably imagine your own point of view looking out from the rock, as if you strapped a camera to the front of the rock looking out of it. But that's not what was asked, shifting your point of view to the rock is irrelevant. This is precisely what Chalmers does when he convinces himself he is imagining "zombies," he is just shifting his point of view in his mind to some other person, and then shifting it to a point of view outside of the person looking at them, and then claiming in the latter he's imagining them as not being conscious, when there is no connection here. This is what I mean by a false intuition: people think they are imagining X while really imagining Y, and so they trick themselves into believing X is reasonably conceivable and build arguments around it, when really it's just sophistry because X is not even metaphysically conceivable in the first place.

The universe pocesses consciousness. Each time a quantum wave collapses, this is a moment of proto consciousness.
What we call intelligence is the ability to collapse multiple numbers of quantum moments. We may be very low in this ability. There is no reason this ability does not extend to infinity.
If this is the case then beings who have much higher abilities in this area may be capable of actions we may see as magic.
Also, what we see of other areas of reality may only be a small sample, all we can perceive.

The universe pocesses consciousness. Each time a quantum wave collapses, this is a moment of proto consciousness.
What we call intelligence is the ability to collapse multiple numbers of quantum moments. We may be very low in this ability. There is no reason this ability does not extend to infinity.
If this is the case then beings who have much higher abilities in this area may be capable of actions we may see as magic.
Also, what we see of other areas of reality may only be a small sample, all we can perceive.

We constantly forget that our view of reality is completely dependent upon our detention and summation of the parts of reality we can detect.

Time is that which separates quantum probability collapse.

For the first 30 minutes, I was super-impressed with Carlo Rovelli. Over the next 30 minutes I was kind of like "what he says here makes sense, but what he says there doesn't". Over the following 30 minutes, I felt "he is a legend in his own mind who is full of himself and name-drops when he feels its necessary". After that, I thought he was kind of full of s=`t. By the end, I was thinking "this guy is kind of bonkers". That said, I am so impressed with this channel and with Curt as an interviewer. Curt is beyond patient, and he is much smarter than many of his guests.

Carlo never convinced me with his relational quantum mechanics. He did not define the components. Relational nature of time is undefined as the past is separated from the future by consciousness of 'now' and it is undefined. Even there is no way to have a quantum mechanical definition of now. Penrose struggled to define the end of a BH when it ends with a 'pop', undefined, classically or even quantum mechanically. It is part of the conundrum of 'incompleteness' of QM that bothered Einstein. It just might be what prevents a theory of QM to exist.

Hey Kurt can you prove that you are that you are answering these comments personally ? Or have you got a bot doing the chatting ? How could you prove that it is you and not a bot ? I`m sure you will have trained the bot to be very similar to you so no worries really. It`s. It is. You know. Etc. Anyway great vibe with Carlo. To my mind you did look a bit seriously exhausted after talking to Stephan Wolfram a couple of years back. Anyway. Great stuff here. Stay Well. And thanks.

Time is the root cause of every theory and formula.
Adding a metric for a problem that doesn’t require it.
A moment where human mortality skews the ability to ask the right questions.

Thanks Kurt I apreciate you very very much, your questions are very simple yet abstract and philosophically profound bringing out the best in each guest. Your the best much love

Professor Rovelli, describing the ‘mistake’ of analytic idealism, says that the material pen feels to him more real than the subjective ‘me’, which he characterizes as vague in comparison. He confuses core subjectivity with personal identity. By ‘mental’, analytic idealism refers to core subjectivity, not personal identity, and this means the pen comes second, because without core subjectivity, there is no perception of a pen, and furthermore, analytic idealism proposes that the pen itself is a thought (isn’t it?) and so, without core subjectivity, there wouldn’t be a pen at all. Putting it simply, Carlo Rovelli sees the pen (mental), touches the pen (mental), thinks about the pen (mental), talks about the pen (mental), and says: ‘The pen is first’.

To understand time it is necessary to differentiate between my ideas about my experience and my experience.

People get star struck by musicians and movie stars...not me, but meeting Carlo I would probably act as a 13 year old girl meeting Justin Bieber.

whats wrong with looking at our 4D expanding Lorentzian Universe from a point in 5D AdS Universe in which it is embedded?

Such a great discussion!

I’d love it everyone had a “Spinoza Blackboard”. Once you say something, it is a numbered postulate and you don’t need to repeat it. I.e. #1 A particle collapsing for you doesn’t mean the particle is collapsing for someone else that is not there with you.

Amazing as always! Ty for the content!

Time is a human construct that describes the fact that stuff is moving.

Re: Hoffman section. It seems to me that you got stuck within a Kantian antinomy. But Hegel provides a way out of phenomenona - noumena antinomy with a process/evolutionary approach to this problem of getting the minds images (noumena) together with the phenomena in the "real" world. This process Hegel called a dialectic (like a conversation between my nous and the stuff out there.) Over a life time our minds (brains) images come into a convergence with the real things out there.

VC. I'm working on a nano self repairing arkship and miner ship's. And immersive spatial music universel format. Qt.some is correct. In str. Some is correct.MIND U THOSE WHO ARE USING AI FOR WRONG DOING.
AI will destroy you!❤

TIME is the matrix we are all trapped in. Realitive (to space movement) FULL STOP is the door to "space ought time" where matter exists void of TIME. From where thru ( and not necessarily where from) UFOs travel here thru and our "space time" was born into.

Fantastic discussion but really Curt Math is an Americanism, Mathematics is a plural, it is Maths! Sorry, but being English it annoys the hell out of me!

Kurt ... religion is tribal. This is hard if you are a cosmopolitan. The sage Nagasena talking to King Milinda. Three centuries before Nagarjuna.

I can't get the concept of simulacrum out of my mind

Wow, affection &love

i suggest Federico Faggin and Corrado Malanga from italy, to interview :)

When two observers interacting, happen to see the same thing, might be the consequence of consciousness. Am I right?

big bang is a big lie

You might like Philosophical Baby by Alison Gopnik

I wouldn't say it's "pragmatism" to state that "real" things have to interact with us. It's that by definition "real" is things that interact (though I agree there are different "types", as ideas interact with us, but differently to how chairs interact with us). Great discussion! :)

Huge Carlo Rovelli fan. I loved his book on Anaximander as well as The Order of Time and Seven Brief Lessons.

I hope one fay you will talk to French physicist Phillipe Guillermant

the one thing this is missing . time in every form someone made up. just as everything you believe was made up by someone