Views:653279|Rating:4.86|View Time:1:49:24Minutes|Likes:2611|Dislikes:73 Lecture 1 of Leonard Susskind’s Modern Physics course concentrating on Special Relativity. Recorded April 14, 2008 at Stanford University.
This Stanford Continuing Studies course is the third of a six-quarter sequence of classes exploring the essential theoretical foundations of modern physics. The topics covered in this course focus on classical mechanics. Leonard Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of Physics at Stanford University.
Complete Playlist for the Course:
Stanford Continuing Studies:
About Leonard Susskind:
Stanford University Channel on YouTube:
this program is brought to you by Stanford University please visit us at stanford.edu this quarter we're going to learn about field theory classical field theory fields such as the electromagnetic field gravitational field other fields in nature which I won't name right now propagate which means they change according to rules which give them a wave-like character moving through space and one of the fundamental principles of field theory in fact more broadly nature in general is the principle of relativity the principle the special printless the the principle of special relativity in this particular case the principle of special relativity well let's just call it the principle of relativity goes way back there was not an invention of Einstein's I'm not absolutely sure when it was first announced or articulated in the form which I'll spell it out I don't know whether it was Galileo or Newton or those who came after them but those early pioneers certainly had the right idea it begins with the idea of an inertial reference frame now inertia reference frame this is something a bit tautological about an inertial reference frame Newton's equations F equals MA are satisfied in an inertial reference frame what is an inertial reference frame it's a frame of reference in which Newton's equations are satisfied I'm not going to explain any further what an inertial reference frame is except to say that the idea of an inertial reference frame is by no means unique a reference frame first of all was a reference frame in tale of a reference frame first of all entails a set of coordinate axes in ordinary space X Y & Z and you know how to think about those but it also entails the idea that the coordinate system may be moving or not moving relative to whom relative to whomever we sitting here or you sitting here in this classroom here define a frame of reference we can pick the vertical direction to be the z axis the horizontal direction along my arms here to be the x axis X plus that way X my X is minus in that direction and which one have I left out I've left out the y axis which points toward you from me so there are some coordinate axes for space XY and Z and I didn't this in addition to specify a frame of reference one also imagines that this entire coordinate system is moving in some way relative to you sitting there presumably with a uniform velocity in a definite direction if your frame of reference is an inertial frame of reference in other words if when you throw balls around or juggle or do whatever is supposed to do in an inertial frame of reference if you find yourself in an inertial frame of reference then every other frame of reference that's moving with uniform velocity relative to you now remember what uniform velocity means it doesn't just mean with uniform speed it means with uniform speed in an unchanging direction such a frame of reference is also inertial if it's accelerated or if it starts standing still and then suddenly picks up some speed then it's not an inertial frame of reference all inertial frames of reference according to Newton and also I think also Galileo Galileo was often credited with the idea but I never read enough of Galileo to know whether he actually had it or not neither did I read enough of Newtons they both wrote in languages that I don't understand what was I saying oh yes right according to both Newton and anybody else who thought about it very hard the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames laws of physics meaning F equals MA the forces between objects all the things that we would normally call laws of nature or laws of physics don't distinguish between one frame of reference of and another if you want a kind of pictorial example that I like to use a lot when I'm explaining this to the children or to grownups I like to think about the laws of juggling there are very definite procedures that you train your body to do uh in order to be able to juggle balls correctly now you can imagine yourself being in a railroad car moving with perfectly uniform velocity down the x axis and trying to juggle do you have to compensate for the fact that the train is moving and for particular when you throw a ball up into the air that you have to reach over to the right to compensate for the fact that the train is moving to the left my left your right the answer is no you don't the laws of juggling are the same in every reference frame and every inertial reference frame whatever you do in one reference frame you do exactly the same thing and you'll succeed or fail depending on whether you're a good juggler or not but it will not depend on whether you're moving with uniform velocity so the laws of juggling are the same in every inertial reference frame the laws of mechanics are the same in every inertial reference frame the laws Newtonian laws of gravity are the same in every inertial frame according to Newton what about the laws of electrical phenomena well there there was a clash the clash had to do with Maxwell's equations Maxwell's equations were the field equations the field theory that governed the electromagnetic field and the way that it propagated and sent waves electromagnetic waves that we ordinarily call light or radio waves or so forth and the fundamental dilemma as you all know I'm sure you all know the fundamental dilemma was both according to well here was the dilemma Maxwell's equations said light moves with a certain velocity if you take the various constants that appear in Maxwell's equations and put them together in the right way you get the velocity of waves moving down an axis and that velocity comes out to be a certain number out of Maxwell's equations you have two choices one is to believe that Maxwell's equations are true laws of nature as good as any other laws of nature in which case the principle of relativity says they should be the same in every reference frame but if it follows from Maxwell's equations that the speed of light is three times ten to the eighth meters per second which is about what it is if it follows from Maxwell's equations that light moves that fast and if Maxwell's equations are laws of physics fundamental laws of physics and if the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame then the speed of light must be the same in every reference frame but that was very hard to swallow because if a light beam is going down that axis and you chase it and run along with it that lets say three-quarters of the speed of light then you want to see that light ray moving much more slowly than three times ten to the eighth meters per second relative to you on the other hand the light ray going in the other direction since you're sort of running into it you should see going even faster so all these possibilities could not simultaneously be correct that the laws of nature are the same in every reference frame and that Maxwell's equations are laws of physics in the same sense that Newton's laws of physics namely the same in every reference frame something had to give well the point was of course that they were good laws of nature and that they were the same in every reference frame the thing that had to give is our concepts of velocity space and time and how we measure velocity especially velocities were up which are up near the speed of light now I'm not going to spend the full amount of time that I did previously on the special theory of relativity that can be found on lectures from how long ago and there on the Internet I believe relativity and electromagnetism I think that was maybe about three quarters ago I've lost track yeah they're up there they're on the net and they're the lectures on relativity special relativity and electromagnetic theory we're just going to cut through it real fast we're going to cut through the basic ideas of relativity a little more mathematically than I would do if I were teaching it for the first time I teach it the first time I tend to teach it the way Einstein first conceived of it how do you measure distances how do you measure velocities how do how does the propagation of light influence these things instead I'm going to take a more mathematical view of it and think about the properties of various kinds of coordinate transformations coordinates now consists not only of XY and Z but also time T so imagine every event in the world is characterized by just like every particle would be characterized by a position x y&z every event taking place in space-time is characterized by four coordinates X Y Z and T let's suppress for the moment y&z let's just forget I forget them for the moment and concentrate on X and T that would be appropriate if we were mainly interested in motion along one axis let's focus on that motion along the x axis let's suppose there is no motion along y&z then we can forget y&z for the moment momentarily we'll come back to them and think of motion along X and T and the various reference frames that might be moving along the x axis alright here's here's time vertically is space horizontally physicists always draw space horizontally and time vertically I found out that mathematicians are at least certain computer scientists always draw time going horizontally I didn't know that and I got into an enormous argument with a quantum computer scientist which was ultimately resolved by the fact that he had time going horizontally and I had it going vertically these are traditions I guess traditions grow up around subjects but time is north and X is east I guess or at least time is upward yeah yeah yeah that's what that that that's the point that is the point yes they're thinking of time is the independent variable and everybody knows that it's a law of nature that the independent variable should be horizontal ok all right now let's in let's imagine a moving observer moving down the x axis with a velocity V let's take his origin of spatial coordinates his origin of spatial coordinates at time T equals zero is just the same let's assume that my I'll be the moving observer I move down the x-axis I am my own origin there's nobody who was your origin that seat is vacant over there so that absent a human over there is the center of the x-coordinates in your frame I'm the X prime coordinates and of course I being very egocentric will take my x-acto is origin to be where I am there I do I move down the x-axis we pass each other our origins pass each other at t equals 0 so that means at T equals 0 your axis and my axes are the same or your origin in my origin is the same but then as I move down the x axis my core my coordinate center moves to the right most of the right that's supposed to be a straight line that's as good as I can do under the circumstances that's a straight line and it's moving with velocity V which means it's X prime equals SR it means x equals VT but it's also that's the way you describe it in terms of your coordinates my centre you described by saying x equals VT how do I describe it I just say X prime my coordinate X prime is 0 X prime equals 0 is the same as x equals VT all right what's the relationship between X Prime and X and T well it's easy to work out if you believe this picture the X prime coordinate is the distance from my origin the x coordinate is the distance from your origin so one of these is X the other is X prime the upper one here is X prime the low and here is X and the relationship between them is that they differ by an amount VT in particular X is equal to X prime minus VT or X prime is equal to X plus VT will have it wrong yes I do X prime is X minus BT and X is X prime plus VT yeah I think I have that's correct now all right what about time itself well according to Newton and according to Galileo and according to everybody who came afterward up until Einstein time is just time is just time is just time there was no notion that time might be different in different reference frames Newton had the idea of a universal time sort of God's time God upon his cloud ticking off with his with his super accurate watch and that time was universal for everybody no matter how they were moving and so everybody would agree on what on the time of any given event in this map of space and time here and so the other equation that went with this is that T prime is equal to T let's forget the top equation here let's just forget it one might say that this was the Newtonian or the Galilean transformation properties between X and T your coordinates and the coordinates that I ascribe to a point in space-time now let's examine a light ray moving down the plus x axis if it starts at the origin here then it moves along a trajectory which is x equals CT C being the speed of light now shortly I'm going to set C equal to 1 we're going to work in units in which C is equal to 1 but not quite yet incidentally once you understand a bit of relativity working in coordinates in which C is not equal to 1 is about as stupid as using different units for x and y are if we used yards for x and feet for y then we will have all kinds of funny factors in our equations which would be conversion factors from X which is measured in feet to Y which is measured in our yards the cycle has its uses log scale has its uses no long skilling long scale well let common interest yep I'm not sure we good but okay I'm just saying it is quite often in practical circumstances that one uses different scales yeah you sometimes you might there might be a good reason I mean um it wouldn't be totally unreasonable for a sailor to use different units for horizontal direction and vertical direction hmm I mean he's used to moving around horizontally he might use what miles miles versus fathoms or something nautical miles versus paddles yeah Persian is relative but um when you talk about a frame of reference you need to specify a period of time because obviously goes that 15 billion years there is no yeah we're ignoring now the fact that the universe began at some time and we're imagining now as Newton did and as the early Einstein did that the universe has just been here forever and ever and ever unchanging totally static and space and time have properties which don't change with time now of course that's incorrect in the real world and at some point we will take up the subject of cosmology and find that's not right but as long as we're interested in time intervals which are not I suspect this is what you're getting at as long as we're interested in time intervals which are not too long in particular time intervals over which the universe doesn't expand very much and so forth we can mainly say the properties of space don't change over a period of time and so everything just stays the same as always was is that what you're asking it seems that that this assumption if it is made it needs to what you're describing so well so the question is without imagining to some point as it doesn't lead it doesn't lead to what I'm describing where is this this room for different formulas here this is a formula which is based on an assumption the assumption being that time is universal that's what Einstein found was wrong basically what he found is that when you're in a moving frame of reference to different the observers will not agree about what time a particular event takes place this is the culprit here this one and some modifications to this one but in any case to see what's wrong let's go to Maxwell's equations Maxwell's equations say that light always moves with this velocity C being some numbers in meters per second okay 3 times 10 to the 8th meters per second we will later as I said say C equals 1 let's imagine a light beam moving down the x axis let's describe how X prime sees it in other words you see the light move this way to the right how do I see the light well let's see what I see let's just work it out X prime will be X which is CT for that light ray minus VT which is the same as C minus VT all this says is that I see the light moving with a diminished velocity a velocity C minus V why is that because I'm moving along with the light so naturally I see it move slowly the slow compared to what you see it what about the light going in the other direction supposing it was a light beam going in the other direction then how would you describe it you would describe it as x equals minus CT and if I do exactly the same thing I will find that X prime is equal to X that's minus CT – VT which is the same as minus C plus V times T so what this says is that I will see the light moving also in the negative direction that's the minus sign but I'll see it moving with an enhanced velocity C plus V if this were the right story and if these were the right transformation laws for space and time then it could not be the case that Maxwell's equations are laws of physics or laws of nature in the sense that they were true in every reference frame they would have to be corrected in moving frames just like the juggler who had to reach to the right who didn't actually but who thought he had to reach to the right to collect the ball when train is moving the physicist interested in light beams would have to correct things for the motion of his reference frame now it's an experimental fact that this is not the case that you don't have to correct for motion was the famous Michelson Morley experiment Einstein he just rejected he just felt this can't be right Maxwell's equations were much too beautiful to be relegated to the approximate or to the contingent on which reference frame and so he said about to find a framework in which the speed of light would be the same in every reference frame and he basically focused on these equations and after various very very beautiful Gedanken experiments thought experiments about light and about measuring and so forth he came to a set of formulas called the Lorentz transformations I'm going to explain them the Lorentz transformations in a more mathematical way not fancy mathematics but just get we want to get right to the heart of it and not spend the three weeks doing it the best way is to a mathematical problem but before I do let me set up a different mathematical problem which is for most of you you've seen me do this before but nonetheless let's go through it again the problem of rotation of coordinates we're going to do this quickly let's just take spatial coordinates now for the moment two dimensional spatial coordinates let's forget X and T and just concentrate on X&Y two coordinates in space instead of events in space-time concentrate on a point in space a point in space has coordinates and we can determine those coordinates the x and y coordinates just by dropping perpendicular to the x axis in the y axis and we would describe this point as the point at position let's just call it X Y now there's nothing sacred about horizontal and vertical so somebody else may come along some crazy mathematician a really nutty one who wants to use coordinates which are at an angle relative to the vertical maybe a couple of beers and you don't know the difference between vertical and worth worth worth we should give this direction a name oblique yeah all right the oblique observer the blue observer can blue be seen everybody can see blue okay good ah the blue observer also characterizes points by coordinates which he calls X Prime and Y Prime the X Prime and the Y prime coordinates are found by dropping perpendicular to the X Prime and the Y prime axis so here's X prime is y prime and given a point X Y there's a role it must be a role if you know the value of x and y you should be able to deduce the value of X I'm in y-prime if you know the angle between the two coordinates between the x coordinate and the X prime coordinate and the formulas simple we've used it least in these classes many times I'll just remind you what it is that's X prime is equal to x times cosine of the angle between the two frames between the two coordinate systems minus y times sine of the angle and Y prime is equal to minus plus I think X sine of theta plus y cosine theta I just want to remind you about a little bit of trigonometry all of trigonometry is encoded in two very simple formulas I've used them this signs on these signs of are on the right let's Ella and X prime is bigger than X for small theta since ours here are all so it's Auto Expo Rhine is bigger than it is is it yeah let's see if you rotate it to the next so that y is y prime is zero it's further out X prime rook will have it backward yeah what's your gift I'm not gonna fit nobody so let's say just make sure the links take survive is the little perpendicular there no my life primary so that's y prime y prime is this is why I'm here right right that's why I'm in X prime is bigger than X so there has to be a plus sign on the second you know its prime is bigger than X let's see um yeah X prime is bigger than X yeah X prime is bigger than X looks like that's probably right probably sign but then this one must be man negative yeah okay there's an easy way to correct for it another way to correct for it just call this angle minus theta that would also do the trick because cosine of minus theta is the same as cosine of theta and sine changes sign when you change theta 2 minus theta so if instead of calling this angle theta I called it minus theta then my previous formulas would be right it's true true but the it's an excuse all right what do we know about sine and cosine it's important to understand sine and cosine everything you ever learned about trigonometry can be codified in two very simple formulas if you know about complex numbers the two very simple formulas are that cosine of theta is e to the I theta plus e to the minus I theta over 2 and sine of theta is e to the I theta minus e to the minus I theta over 2i those two formulas contain everything about trigonometry you don't have to know any other formulas other than these for example I will assign you the homework problem of using these two formulas to find cosine of the sum of two angles but the way you would do it is just write the sum of two angles in here and then reexpress the Exponential's in terms of cosine and sine that's easy to do e to the I theta is equal to cosine of theta plus I sine theta and e to the minus I theta is cosine of theta minus I sine theta so work through these formulas get familiar with them they're extremely useful formulas once you know them you will never have to remember any trigonometric formulas again the other thing to know is that e to the I theta times e to the minus I theta is 1 all right e to the anything times e to the minus the same thing is one those things characterize all trigonometric formulas in particular as was explained to me by Michael a number of times if we multiply e to the I theta times e to the minus I theta we will get one on this side but on this side we will get cosine squared of theta plus sine squared of theta naught minus sine squared but plus sine squared cosine squared and then ice minus I squared sine squared that gives us cosine squared plus sine squared cosine squared theta plus sine squared theta so that's equivalent to the fact that e to the I theta times e to the minus I theta is 1 all right now the most important fact that again follows from the simple trigonometry is that when you make the change of coordinates from XY to X prime Y prime something is left unchanged namely the distance from the origin to the point XY that's something which is you know you count the number of the molecules along the blackboard from here to here and that doesn't change when I change coordinates so the distance from the origin to the point XY has to be the same independent of which coordinate axes we use well let's take the square of that distance the square of that distance we know what it is let's call it s squared I'm not sure why I use s but s for distance s s for distance s for space I think it must be for space that I'm using it for the spaces for the spatial distance from the origin to the point XY we know what that is it's Pythagoras theorem x squared plus y squared but as I said there's nothing special about the XY axes we also ought to be able to calculate it as X prime squared plus y prime squared well it's not too hard to work out that X prime squared plus y prime squared is x squared plus y squared it's easy to use do X prime squared plus y prime squared will have x squared cosine squared theta it will also have x squared sine squared theta when you add them you'll get x squared plus y squared you know you know the rigmarole so it follows from cosine squared plus sine squared equals 1 that X prime squared plus y prime squared equals also equal is equal to x squared plus y squared work that out make sure that you have this on the control that you understand why from the trigonometry not from the the basic physics of it or the basic geometry of it is clear make sure that you understand that you can see that from the trigonometry okay one last thing about sines and cosines if I plot on the blackboard for every angle if I plot sine or cosine along the horizontal axis supposing I plot cosine of theta along the horizontal axis and sine of theta along the vertical axis then if I plot all possible angles they will correspond to a bunch of points that lie on a unit circle Y on a unit circle because sine squared plus cosine squared equals 1 so one might call the properties of sine and cosine the properties of circular functions circular in that they're convenient for rotating they're convenient for describing unit circles points on unit circles are described in terms of coordinates which are cosines and sines of angles and so forth it's natural to call them circular functions these are these are not the functions that come in to the transformation the new transformation properties first of all these are wrong and I don't want to use X what's X ya ya now just wrong Newton had it wrong Newton or Galileo however it was postulated who postulated it Einstein modified it now we're going to have to make sure that Einstein's modification doesn't change things in situations where Newton knew where Newton's equations were good approximations the situations where I'm Stan's modifications are important is when we're talking about frames of reference moving very rapidly up near the speed of light before the 20th century nobody or nothing had ever moved faster than a hundred miles an hour probably well of course some things did light did but for all practical purposes light didn't travel at all it's just when you turned on the switch the light just went on so light didn't travel nothing and anybody's experienced direct experience traveled faster than 100 or 200 miles an hour and well I should say nothing travels faster than 100 miles an hour and then live to tell about it so all of experience was about very slow velocities on the scale of the speed of light on the scale of such velocities newton's formulas must be correct they work they're they're very useful they work Nutan got away with it so there must be good approximations it better be that whatever einstein did to the equations in particular to these two equations here had been a reduced to newton's equations in the appropriate limit okay let's come back now to light light according to the Newton formulas doesn't always move with the speed of light but let's let's try to figure out what it would mean of a better formula of a replacement for this but light always moves with the speed of light first of all let's set the speed of light equal to one that's a choice of units in particular it's a choice of the relation between space units and time units if we work in our light years for spent for a distance and years for time then light moves one light year per year the speed of light is one if we use seconds and light seconds it's also one whatever whatever scale we use for space if we use for time the time that it takes light to go that distance one unit of space if we use that for time units then the speed of light is equal to one now from the ordinary point of view of very slowly moving things those are odd units but if we were electrons with neutrinos and whizzing around like photons they would be the natural units for us speed of light equals one so let's set the speed of light equal to one as I said it's just the choice of units and then a light ray moving to the right just moves along a trajectory x equals T C is just equal to one a light ray moving to the left is x equals minus T how can we take both of these equations and put them together sorry x equals minus T can I write a single equation which if it's satisfied is a light ray either moving to the left or to the right yes here's an equation x squared equals T squared it has two solutions x equals T and X equals minus T the two square roots or x squared equals T squared is equivalent to either x equals T or x equals minus T in other words this equation here has the necessary and sufficient condition for describing the motion of a light ray either to the right or to the left supposing we found a replacement for this equation which had the following interesting property that whenever let's let's write it this way X square minus T squared equals 0 this is even better for our purposes x squared minus T squared equals 0 that's the necessary and sufficient condition to describe the motion of a light ray supposing we found a new set of rules a new set of transformation properties which which um had the property that if x squared minus T squared is equal to 0 then we will find that X prime squared minus T prime squared is equal to 0 in other words supposing this implied this and vice-versa then it would follow that what the unprimed observer you and your seats see is a light ray the primed observer me moving along also see as a light ray both of us agreeing that light rays move with unit velocity now this doesn't work for Newton's formula here it just doesn't work if X is equal to T it does not follow that X prime is equal to the T prime in fact it says something quite different okay so the form of these equations must be wrong let's look for some better equations now at this point let's in fact let's even be a little bit more ambitious it turns out being a little bit more ambitious actually simplifies things let's not only say that when X square minus T squared is equal to zero then X prime squared minus T prime squared is equal to zero let's say something even bolder let's say the relation between XT and X prime T prime is such that x squared minus T squared is equal to X prime squared minus T prime squared in other words pick any X and any T and calculate X square minus T squared then take the same point except reckoned in the primed coordinates in other words we take a certain event a light bulb goes off someplace you say that corresponds to X and T I say it corresponds to X Prime and T Prime but let's require just to try it out see if we can do it let's look for transformations so that X square minus T squared will always be equal to X prime squared minus T's prime squared that would be enough to ensure that everybody will agree about the speed of light why if x squared minus T squared equals X prime minus T prime squared for all X and T and so forth then when X square minus T squared equals zero X prime minus T prime squared will be zero and then if this is a light ray so is this a light ready everybody get the logic ok good so let's assume now that let's ask can we find transformations which have this particular property now it's not so different from looking for transformations which preserve x squared plus y squared equals x prime squared plus y prime squared it's just a little minus sign other than a minus sign here X square minus T squared look of these two is very similar and the mathematics is quite similar here are the transformations which preserve x squared plus y squared what are the transformations which preserve x squared minus T squared well they are the Lorentz transformations they are the fundamental transformations of the special theory of relativity they're not this but they're closely related or perhaps one should say closely analogous to these equations here but we have to substitute for circular trigonometry hyperbolic trigonometry so let's go back and remember a little bit about hyperbolic functions instead of circular functions well I didn't want to erase that all right these are the basic rules governing circular functions cosine theta this sine theta is equal to this and the e to the I theta in terms of cosine and sine all right let's see if we have a yeah we do have a blank blackboard here let me write whoops what did I do here I erased something I didn't mean to erase incidentally does everybody see how I got this side from the side you just add and subtract the equations appropriately and you isolate it to the I theta e to the minus R theta that's elementary exercise alright hyperbolic functions what are hyperbolic functions alright those are functions of the form hyperbolic cosine cosh hyperbolic cosine first of all the angle theta is replaced by a variable called Omega which I will call Omega Omega is called a hyperbolic angle it doesn't go from zero to two pi and then wind around on a circle it goes from minus infinity to infinity goes from minus infinity to infinity so it's a variable that just extends over the entire real axis but it's defined in a manner fairly similar to cosine and sine cosh Omega is by definition you're not allowed to ask why this is definition e to the Omega plus e to the minus Omega over 2 all we do is substitute for theta or for Omega theta I theta substitute Omega and that gives you hyperbolic functions likewise or similarly there's the hyperbolic sine and that's given by e to the Omega minus e to the minus Omega over 2 essentially you throw away all eyes out of that formula out of the top formulas just throw away all Sun all eyes the equations on the right-hand side become e to the Omega equals hyperbolic cosh Omega plus sin Chi Omega and e to the minus Omega equals cosh so mega- cinch Omega I think that's right is it right gosh – cinch it is yeah it is right okay now what about the analog of cosine squared plus sine squared equals one that simply came by multiplying this one by this one so let's do the same operation multiplying e to the Omega by each by e to the minus Omega gives one and now that gives cosh squared minus cinch squared you see we're getting a minus what we want we want that minus the minus is important we want the well somewhere is under here was a formula with a minus sign yeah we want to get that – into play here that's cos Omega squared knockouts Prakash squared Omega minus sin squared Omega so it's very similar everything you want to know about hyperbolic trigonometry and the theory of these functions is called hyperbolic trigonometry everything you ever want to know is codified in these simple formulas these in these and they're more or less definitions but there are the useful definitions now yeah go ahead yeah not only is it worth mentioning I was just about to mention it so I squared minus y squared is what hyperbola yeah right exactly so if I were to play the same game that I did here namely plot on the horizontal and vertical axis the values not of cosine of theta and sine of theta but cosine cosine cosh of that of Omega and since Omega what's in other words on the x-axis now we're going to plot cos Omega and on the y-axis cinch Omega then this is a hyperbola not a circle but a hyperbola and it's a hyperbola with asymptotes that are at 45 degrees you can see let me show you why why the asymptotes are at 45 degrees when Omega is very large when Omega is very large then e to the minus Omega is very small right when Omega is very large e to the minus Omega is very small and that means both cosh and cinch are both essentially equal to e to the plus Omega in other words when Omega gets very big cosh and cinch become equal to each other and that's this line here cash equals cinch along this line here so when Omega gets very large the curve asymptotes to to a curve which is a 45 degrees it's not hard to see that in the other direction when Omega is very negative that that it asymptotes to the other asymptotic line here so that's why it's called hyperbolic geometry it the hyperbolic angle the hyperbolic angles the caches the cinches play the same role relative to hyperbolas as sines and cosines do two circles any questions No so cosh Omega equals zero how would you plot that hi purple okay show me hmm Oh cos squared minus sin squared equals zero no that's no no cos squared minus sin squared equals one in the same sense that sine squared plus cosine square it never equals zero I think what I think you want to ask a different question I think oh well since Omega equals zero is the horizontal axis the costume a equals zero is the vertical eyebrows right okay well this is the x-intercept yeah it's it's the vertex I just think here's one point on a minute oh man the x-intercept there is one yeah because Kostroma cost of zero is one to see that just plug one r 0 in here 1 plus 1 divided by 2 is 1 at least it was yesterday yeah stores okay so now we we're sort of starting to cook a little bit we're starting to see something that has that nice minus sign in it but what's it got to do with X and T and X Prime and T prime we're now set up to make let's call it a guess but it's a guess which is based on the extreme similarity between hyperbolas and circles cautions and cosines and so forth he is the guess I'm going to make and then we'll check it we'll see if it does the thing we wanted to do my formula instead of being this has gotten with and we're now going to have instead of x and y we're going to have x and t time and x later on we'll put back y&z we're going to have to put back y&z but they're very easy okay so let's start with X prime X prime is the coordinate given to a point of space-time by the moving observer namely me and I'm going to guess that it's some combination of X and T not too different but not the same as where is it X prime equals X minus VT I'm going to try cosh Omega X let's write X cos Omega minus T sin Omega sort of in parallel with this I could put a plus sign here but you can go back and forth between the plus and the minus by changing the sign of Omega just as you did here so this let's do it this way X cos Omega minus T sin Omega and T prime going to look similar but without the extra minus sign here this you know the relation between sines cosines and cautious and cinches is one of just leaving out an eye you go from sines and cosines the clashes and cinches by leaving out the I well if you track it through carefully you'll find that this minus sign was really an I squared it's not going to matter much I will just tell you it was really came from some I squared and if you leave out I I squared just becomes one squared is no minus sign so here's the guess for the formula connecting X prime T Prime with X and T it equals let's say X since Omega – no – plus T cos Omega in this case there are two minus signs in this case there was only one minus sign okay but but let's check what do we want to check we want to check that X prime squared minus T prime squared is equal to x squared minus T squared your ask you're probably asking yourself what is this Omega what does it have to do with moving reference frames I'll tell you right now what Omega is it's a stand-in for the velocity between the frames we're going to find the relationship between Omega and the relative velocity of the reference frames in a moment there has to be a parameter in the lower end these are the lines in these are the Lorentz transformations connecting two frames of reference in the Lorentz transformations as a parameter it's the velocity the relative velocity that parameter has been replaced by Omega it's a kind of angle relating the two frames a hyperbolic angle but we'll we'll come back to that for the moment let's prove that with this transformation law here that X prime squared minus T prime squared is equal to zero ah is equal to X square minus T squared I'm getting to that point in the evening where I'm going to make mistakes all right this is easy you just work it out you use all you have to use is that cosine squared minus sine squared is 1 you can work that out by yourself but we can just see little pieces of it here X prime squared will have x squared cos squared Omega t prime squared will have x squared sin squared Omega if I take the difference between them I'll get a term with an x squared times cos squared minus sin squared but cos squared minus sin squared is one fine so we'll find the term with an x squared when we square take the square of the difference between the squares of this and this and likewise will also find the T squared the cross term when you square X Prime you'll have XT cost cinch when you square T Prime you'll have XT costs inch when you subtract them it'll cancel and it's easy to check that's our basically one liner to show that with this transformation here x prime squared minus T's prime squared is x squared minus T squared which is exactly what we're looking for let me remind you why are we looking for it if we find the transformation for which the left-hand side and the right-hand side are equal then if x squared equals T squared in other words if the right-hand side is 0 the left-hand side will also be 0 but x squared but x equals T that's the same as something moving with the speed of light in the X frame of reference if this being 0 is equivalent to the left hand side being 0 it says that in both frames of reference the light rays move with the same velocity so that's the basic that's the basic tool that we're using here X prime squared minus T prime squared is equal to x squared minus T squared all right that does follow by a couple of lines using cos squared minus N squared equals 1 but what I want to do let's take another couple of minutes now let's take a break for five minutes and then come back and connect these variables Omega with the velocity of the moving frame of reference somebody asked me a question about the ether and what it was that people were thinking somehow Einstein never got trapped into this mode of thinking um well what were they thinking about when they were thinking about the ether what exactly was the michelson-morley experiment well I'll just spend the minute or two mentioning it certainly Maxwell understood that his equations were not consistent with with Newtonian relativity he understood that but his image of what was going on is that the propagation of light was very similar to the propagation of sound in a material or water waves propagating on water and of course it is true that if you move relative to the atmosphere or move relative to the substance that sound is propagating in you'll see sound move with different velocities depending on your motion if you're at rest in a gas of material isn't there's a natural sense in which is a particular rest frame the rest frame is the frame in which on the average the molecules have zero velocity if you're in that reference frame then first of all light has the same velocity that way as that way number one and it has a velocity that's determined by the properties of the fluid that the sound is moving in okay Maxwell more or less thought that light was the same kind of thing that there was a material and the material had a rest frame and that particular rest frame was the frame in which light would move with the same velocity to the left as to the right and he thought that he was working out the mechanics or the behavior of this particular material and that we were pretty much at rest relative to this material and that's why we saw light moving the same way to the left of the right one would have to say then that Maxwell did not believe that his equations were a universal set of laws of physics but that they would change when you moved from frame to frame just happened by some luck we happen to be more or less at rest relative to the ether to this strange material um of course you could do an experiment with sound if you're moving through the sound you can check that the velocity in different directions is different you do let's not worry exactly how you do that that's what the Michelson Morley experiment was Michelson and Morley I suppose said look the earth is going around in an orbit maybe at one season of the year we just happen to be at rest relative to the ether by accident and some other season six months later we're going to be moving in the opposite direction and we won't well we won't be at rest only at one point in the orbit could we be at rest relative the–this or at any other point in the orbit we wouldn't be so if we measure in November that light moves the same than all possible directions then in what's what's the opposite of November May then in May we should find that light is moving with great with the different velocities in different directions and he tried it and a very fancy and sophisticated way of measuring the relative velocity in different directions but he found that there was no discrepancy that the light traveled the same velocity in every direction at every time of year there were all sorts of ways to try to rescue the ether but none of them worked none of them work and the result was one had to somehow get into the heart of space and time and velocity and mid distance and all those things in a much deeper way in a way that didn't involve the idea of a material at rest in some frame of reference that that propagated the light okay oh where are we I forgotten where we were when we stopped somebody remind me whoo-hah Omega yeah what is Omega forgotten Omega Oh how Omega is really metal speed of light but to the velocity of the moving reference frame here we have two reference frames X T and X Prime and T prime what's the relationship between them well the whole goal here was to understand the relationship between frames of reference moving with relative velocity between them Omega is not exactly the relative velocity but it is closely related to it okay let's say let's see if we can work out the relationship we know enough to do it let's see if we can work out the relationship between Omega and the velocity of the moving frame all right again let's go back to this picture there's a frame of reference moving let's redraw it here's my origin moving along okay what does it mean to say that from your perspective my frame of reference so my origin is moving with velocity V well by definition this is not a law now this is a definition and says that this line here has the equation x equals VT that's the definition of this V here my origin moves relative to your origin it moves with a uniform constant velocity that's an assumption that we're talking about two inertial frames of reference and you in your frame of reference will write x equals VT that's the definition of V if you like what will I call it I will call it X prime equals zero all along there I will say X prime is equal to zero it's my origin of coordinates okay now let's come to this transformation law here and see if we can spot how to identify V well X prime equals zero that's this trajectory moving at an angle with a velocity V X prime equals zero is the same as saying X cos Omega equals T sin Omega X prime equals zero set this side equal to zero and that says that X cos Omega equals T sin Omega all right so whatever the connection between velocity and Omega is it must be such that when X prime is equal to zero X cos Omega equals T sin Omega well let's look at that equation it also says that X is equal to sin CH Omega over cos Omega times T well that's interesting because it's also supposed to be equivalent to x equals VT now I know exactly how to identify what the velocity is as a function of Omega the velocity of the moving transformation the moving coordinate system must just be sin Chi Omega over cos Omega that's the only way these two equations can be the same x equals VT x equals sin Chi Omega over cos Omega times T so now we know it we know what the relationship between velocity and Omega is write it down the velocity of the moving frame now this is not the velocity of light it's just the velocity of the moving frame must just be cinch Omega over cos omega well actually i want to invert this relationship i want to find sin and cos omega in terms of the velocity i want to rewrite these Lorentz transformations where are they i want to rewrite these Lorentz transformations in terms of the velocity that's the familiar form in which you learn about it in in elementary relativity books X prime is equal to something with velocities in it to exhibit that all we have to do is to find Cinch and cosh Omega in terms of the velocity that's not very hard let's let's work it out the first step is to square it and to write V squared is equal to cinch Omega squared over cosh Omega squared that was easy next I'm going to get rid of since Omega squared and substitute where is it I lost it one is equal to cos Omega squared minus cinch Omega squared alright so wherever I see cinch Omega squared I can substitute from here namely cosh squared Omega minus one is equal to sine squared Omega so here we are this is just equal to hash of Omega squared minus one divided by cost of Omega squared or let's multiply by what I want to do is solve for cost Omega in terms of velocity I want to get rid of all these cautions and cinches of Omega and rewrite it in terms of velocity so first x cost Omega squared we have cosh squared Omega times V squared equals cosh squared Omega minus one or it looks to me like this is cosh squared Omega times one minus V squared equals one what I've done is transpose yeah cos squared times V squared minus cos squared itself that gives you cos squared 1 minus V squared equals 1 change the sign can everybody see that the second line follows from the first I'll give you a second yeah yeah yeah it's clear ok finally we get that cos Omega is equal to 1 divided by 1 minus V squared but now I have to take the square root cos Omega / one minus V squared and then take the square root and that gives you cos Omega now we've all seen these square roots of 1 minus V squared in relativity formulas here's where it begins the kayne we begin to see it materializing what about sin Chi Omega let's also write down sin Chi Omega well from here we see that sin Chi Omega is just equal to V times cos Omega this is easy since Omega equals V times cos Omega sorrow sin Chi Omega is V divided by square root of 1 minus V squared let's go back to these Lorentz transformations over here and write them getting rid of the trigonometric functions the hyperbolic trigonometric functions and substituting good old familiar velocities let's get rid of this and substitute the good old ordinary velocities ok so we have here X prime equals x times cos Omega and that's divided by square root of 1 minus V squared then this minus T times sin Omega which is V over the square root of 1 minus V squared or if I put the two of them together and combine them over the same denominator it's just X minus VT divided by square root of 1 minus V squared I think most of you have probably seen that before maybe slightly different let's let's clean it up a little bit X prime equals X minus VT divided by the square root of 1 minus V squared what about T prime T Prime is equal to t minus V X over square root of 1 minus V squared T prime is equal to T times cos cost is just 1 over square root and then x times sin CH that gives us the extra V in other words the formulas are more or less symmetrical and those are all good old Lorentz transformations now what's missing is the speed of light let's put back the speed of light the put back the speed of light is an exercise in dimensional analysis there's only one possible way the speed of light can fit into these equations they have to be modified so that they're dimensionally correct first of all one is dimensionless has no dimensions it's just one velocity is not dimensionless unless of course we use dimensionless notation for it but if velocity is measured in meters per second then it's not dimensionless how do we make V squared dimensionless we divide it by the square of the speed of light in other words this V squared which is here which has been defined in units in which the speed of light is 1 has to be replaced by V squared over C squared likewise over here V squared over C squared now velocity times time does have notice first of all the left hand side has units of length the right hand side this is dimensionless X has units of length but so does velocity times time so this is okay this is dimensionally consistent as it is but over here it's not the left hand side has dimensions of time that's all right 1 minus V squared over C square that's dimensionless this has units of time but what about velocity times X velocity times X does not have units of time in order the given units of time you have to divide it by C square okay let's check that velocity is length all the time times length divided by C squared that's length square R which gets correct but it's correct all right this is probably familiar to most of you who've seen relativity once or twice before these are the equations relating to different moving coordinate systems moving relative to the x axis but you see the deep mathematics or the mathematical structure of it in many ways is best reflected by this kind of hyperbolic geometry here and you know most physicists by now never write down the Lorentz transformations in this form much more likely to write them in this form easier to manipulate easier to use trigonometry or or hyperbolic trigonometry it's a little exercise it's a nice little exercise to use this the hyperbolic trigonometry to compute their to compute the compounding of two Lorentz transformations if frame two is moving relative to frame one with velocity V and frame three Israel moving relative to two with velocity V Prime how is three moving relative to one the answer is very simple in terms of hyperbolic angles you add the hyperbolic angles not the velocities but the hyperbolic angles the hyperbolic angle of three moving relative to one is the hyperbolic angle of three moving relative to two plus two moving relative to one and then you use a bit of trigonometry or hyperbolic trigonometry to figure out how you do the inches and kosh's of the sum of 2 hyperbolic angles very straightforward and I'll leave it as an exercise to see if you can work that out much easier than anything else ok so there there we have the Lorentz transformations yeah oh oh absolutely yes that's that's that's a good point yeah when we that's right if we have frame 1 let's call this x1 and y1 x2 and y2 and finally x3 and y3 well then the angle of – let's call F of 3 relative to 1 let's call it theta 1 3 is just equal to theta 1 2 plus theta 2 3 the angle connecting frame one with frame 3 is just the sum of the angle theta 1 2 plus theta 2 3 so in that respect the Lorentz transformations are much simpler in terms of the Omegas it's the Omegas which combined together to add when you add velocities now how different is omega from the velocity let's work in units in which the speed of light is equal to 1 where is our formula for velocity all right let's take this formula over here what a cinch Omega 4 small Omega let's put the C squared there a let's not put the C square there or not put the C square there since Omega is essentially Omega when Omega is small just like sine is omega where is theta when theta is small the cinch function the cost function looks like like this the cinch function looks like this but it but it crosses the axis with a slope of 1 for small Omega cinch Omega is proportional to Omega for small velocity one minus V squared is very close to 1 if the velocity is a hundredth of the speed of light then this to within one ten-thousandth is just 1 if we're talking about velocities a millionth of the speed of light then this is very close to 1 and so since Omega and velocity are very close to each other it's what's going on here Thanks okay so for small velocities Omega and velocity are the same the actual correct statement is that V over C is like Omega the dimensionless velocity over the speed of light is like Omega for small Omega and small velocity so for small velocity adding velocities and adding omegas are the same things but when the velocities get large the right way to combine them to find relationships between different frames is by adding Omega and not adding velocities when you add Omega like compounding velocities as you've got it there I guess you won't go greater than 45 degrees that guess because that would be faster than light no but Omega no more you see this bit the speed of light is V equals one that corresponds to Omega equals infinity yeah yeah so Omega Omega runs over the whole range from minus infinity to infinity but when it does V goes from minus the speed of light to the speed of light so you can add any omegas and still add any omegas Omega that's right there's no there's no speed limit on Omega is this like we just go on that diagram it looks like it's greater than 45 degrees if here where where I make a and I guess they use the definition of state along the hyperbola yeah that's right sorry where are we right there today I guess that's theta though isn't it this is Theta that's a good oh god yeah right right yeah Omega is the distance along hyperbola that's right distances that's right Omega is a kind of distance along the hyperbola all right now let's let's talk about that a little bit all right now that we've established the basic mathematics structure of the transformations I think we should go back and talk about some simple relativity phenomena and derive them oh one thing which is important which I yeah well let's see we're here are my Lorentz transformations over here I said we should we ought to at the end make sure that our transformations are not too dissimilar from Newton's in particular when the velocities are small they should reduce to Newton that's all we really know that's or at least that's all that Newton really had a right to assume that when the velocities are smaller than something or other that his equations should be good approximations isn't adding velocity good enough isn't velocities adding good enough in fact you're right in fact you're right but let's just look at the transformations themselves all right as long as the velocity is a small percentage of the speed of light an ordinary velocities are what a hundred miles an hour versus 186,000 miles an hour what is that it's small right and it's doubly small when you square it so for typical ordinary velocities even the velocities of the earth around the Sun and so forth fairly large velocities what 60 kilometers per second or something like that 60 kilometers per second is pretty fast that's the that's the orbital earth around the Sun it's pretty fast but it's nowhere near 300,000 kilometers per No yeah looks here on a thousand meters per second we're I'm sorry three times ten to the eighth no three times three hundred thousand kilometers per second right 60 kilometers per second three hundred thousand kilometers per second small fraction and then square it so for ordinary motions this is so close to one that the deviation from one is negligible so let's start with the top equation for the top equation this is negligible and it's just x prime equals X minus VT the bottom equation here you have a C squared in the denominator whenever you have a C squared in the denominator that's a very very large thing in the denominator this is negligible compared to T so here the speed of light is also in the denominator just forget this and it's just T but it's just T prime equals T it's just D prime equals T so in fact Newton's formulas are essentially correct for slow velocities no no significant departure from Newton until the velocities get up to be some some appreciable fraction of the speed of light okay let's talk about proper time proper time and then let's do a couple of relativity examples yeah question the bottom equation when X is very large yes that's right when X is exceedingly large you get a correction but that correction that X has to be very large look let's let's discuss before we do anything else let's let's let's talk about that a little bit X minus VT one minus V squared over C squared yeah let's alright in my drawings I'm going to sitt C equal to one but in the equations you can leave the C there okay this equation we understand apart from this one minus V squared over C squared in the denominator it's just this x equals V T or X minus V X minus X minus VT that's Newton let's look at this one over here okay let's look at the surface T prime equals zero T prime equals zero is the set of points that I in my moving reference frame call T call time equals zero it's what I call the set of points which are all simultaneous with the origin T prime equals zero is just everyplace in space-time which has exactly the same time according to my frame of reference and I will therefore call all those points synchronous at the same time what do you say about them if T prime is equal to zero that says that T is equal to V over C squared X now let's set C equal to one for the purpose of drawing just for the purpose of drawing I don't want this huge number C squared to distort my drawings too much it says the T equals V X what does the surface T equals V X look like it looks like this T equals V X which is also X is equal to 1 over V T so it's just a uniform line like that all of these points are at different times from your reckoning this ones later this ones later this ones later and so forth according to my reckoning all these points are at the same time so we disagree about what's simultaneous this was this was the hang-up incidentally this was the basic hang-up that took so long to overcome that took Einstein to overcome it the idea that simultaneity was the same in every reference frame nobody in fact it was so obvious that nobody even thought to ask a question is simultaneous does it mean the same thing in every reference frame no it doesn't in more in your reference frame the horizontal points are all simultaneous with respect to each other in my reference frame what I call horizontal what I call simultaneous you do not okay so simultaneity had to go let me point out one more thing about these equations I'm not going to solve them for you but I will tell you the solution anyway how do you solve for X and T in terms of X Prime and T Prime well think about it in the case of angles supposing I have a relationship like X prime is equal to X cosine theta what is it plus plus y sine theta and y prime is equal to X minus X sine theta plus or Y cosine theta and supposing I want to solve for x and y in terms of X Prime and Y Prime you know what the solution is just change theta 2 minus theta and write that X is equal to X prime cosine of minus theta but what's cosine of minus theta right cosine theta plus y sine of minus theta what's sine of minus theta minus sine theta times y and likewise for y prime Y prime is equal to minus x times sine of minus theta so that becomes plus X sine theta plus y cosine of minus theta which is cosine theta you don't have to go through the business of solving the equations you know that if one set of axes is related to the other by rotation by angle theta the second one is related to the first one or vice versa the first one is related to the second one by the negative of the angle if to go from one frame to another you rotate by angle theta and to go from the second frame back to the first you rotate by angle minus theta so you just write down exactly the same equations interchange Prime and unprimed and substitute for theta minus theta same thing for the Lorentz transformations exactly the same thing if you want to solve these for X and T write down the same equations replace primed by unprimed and change the sign of omegas to minus the sines of omegas change sinus rgn of all the sign all the cinches okay in other words just send Omega 2 minus Omega and that will solve the equations in the other direction yeah yes it's also the same as changing V 2 minus V yes the way to see that is to go right what was it what do we have cosh Omega yep yeah that's right via sign yes that was correct yeah you just well you change Omega 2 minus Omega it has the action of changing V 2 minus V you can just check that from the equations good alright let's let's talk about proper time a little bit proper time if you're doing ordinary geometry you can measure the length along a curve for example and the way you do it is you take a tape measure and you you know sort of take off you take off equal intervals equal equal little separations you can think of these separations as differential distances DS squared small little differential distances and that differential distance is d x squared plus dy squared with the x squared and the y squared are just the differential increments in x and y DX and dy this is d s alright so that's the way and you add them up you add them up that's the way you compute distances along curves it's quite obvious that if you take two points the distance between those two points depends on what curve not the same for every curve so I'll measure the longer curve you have to know not only the two points but you have to know the curve in order to say what the distance between those points are of course the distance between its longer straight line that's that's well-defined but the distance along a curve depends on the curve in any case D s squared equals the x squared plus dy squared is the basic defining notion of distance between two neighboring points if you know the distance between any two neighboring points in a geometry you basically know that geometry almost essentially completely so given this formula for the distance between two points you can compute if you like the distance along a curve because you've got to take the square root of this and then add them up don't anhedonia the squares add the differential distances all right the important thing is here that square root of DX squared plus dy squared which is the distance between neighboring points doesn't depend on your choice of axes I could choose X Y axes I could choose X prime y prime axes if I take a little differential displacement the X and the y or I just take two points two neighboring points don't even give them labels and measure the distance between them the distance between them should not depend on conventions such as which axes are used and so when I make rotational transformations the X square plus dy squared doesn't change the X and the y may change but the x squared plus dy squared does not change the same thing is true in relativity or the analogous thing we don't measure distances along the paths of particles let's say now that this curve here is the path of a particle moving through space-time there's a particle moving through space-time and we want some notion of the distance along it the notion of distance along it another example would just be a particle standing still as a particle standing still particle standing still is still in some sense moving in time I wouldn't want to say that the distance between these two points and space-time is zero they're not the same point I wouldn't like to say it's zero I would like to say there's some kind of notion of distance between them but it's quite clear that that distance is not measured with a tape measure this point and this point are the same point of space boom here at this point of space and that at a later time boom again at the same point of space two events at the same point of space how do I characterize and some nice way the distance between those two events that occurred in the same place you don't do it with a tape measure all right what do you do with a clock a clock you take a clock and you start it at this point tic tic tic tic tic tic tic a stopwatch you press it at this point tic tic tic tic tic it picks off intervals and then you stop it at that point and you see how much time has evolved that's a notion of distance along a particle trajectory it's not the distance the particle moves in space it's a kind of distance that it's moved through space-time and it's not zero even if the particle is moving standing perfectly still in fact what it is is it's the time along the trajectory what about a moving particle well you can imagine that a moving particle carries a clock with it of course not all particles carry clocks but we can imagine they carry clocks with them as they move and we can start the clock over here and then the clock over here what is the time read off by this moving clock the time read off by a moving clock is much like the distance along a curve measured by a tape measure in particular it should not depend on the choice of coordinates why not this is a question that has nothing to do with coordinates I have a clock made in the standard clock Factory the standard clock Factory and I don't know we're in Switzerland someplace makes a certain kind of clock that clock gets carried along with a particle and we ask how much time evolves or how much time elapses or how much the clock changes between here and here that should not depend on a choice of coordinates it shouldn't depend on a choice of coordinates because it's a physical question that only involves looking at the hands of the clock in fact we can ask it for little intervals along along the trajectory we could ask how much time elapses according to the clock between here and here well the answer again should not depend on what coordinates you use which Lorentz frame you use and there's only one invariant quantity that you can make out of the D X's and DTS describing this point describing these two points there's a little interval DT and there's a little interval DX now we're in space and time not ordinary not ordinary space and the quantity which is invariant there's really only one invariant quantity that you can make out of it it is DT squared minus DX squared it's the same quantity x squared minus T squared for a whole you know for a whole interval the T squared minus DX squared that's the quantity which is invariant it's minus D it's the negative of what I wrote over here x squared minus T squared okay this quantity is equal to the X prime squared minus DT power sorry DT prime squared minus the X prime squared the same algebra goes into this as goes into showing that X prime squared minus T prime squared equals x squared minus T squared incidentally this is the same as saying T prime squared minus X prime squared equals T squared minus x squared doesn't matter which way you write it all right so that suggests that suggests that the time read off the invariant time read off along a trajectory between two points separated by DX and DT is just the square root of DT squared minus DX squared why the square-root incidentally okay you're going to integrate in detail I can integrate DT yeah well alright why not just DT square minus the x squared for the time between here and here is it here's an answer supposing we go to you two intervals exactly the same as the first one we go an interval over here DX and DT and then we go another DX in DT what happens when we double the interval to DT squared minus DX squared it gets multiplied by four because everything is squared well I wouldn't expect a clock when it goes along you know when it goes along a trajectory for twice the the interval here to measure four times the the time I expected to measure twice the time so for that reason the square root is the appropriate thing here okay that's called D tau squared the tau squared the proper time along the trajectory of an object you're right that's just the towel or D tau squared being the x squared minus DT squared the Tau is called the proper time let's go I think we'll let's see the towel is called the proper time and it is the time read by a clock moving along a trajectory it's not just DT that's the important thing it's not just DT the T squared minus the x squared let's do one last thing let's just do the twin paradox in this language I think I think I've had it I'm going to finish you can do the twin paradox in this language all you have to do is to compute the proper time along two trajectories one that goes out with a uniform velocity turns around and comes back with the same uniform velocity versa a trajectory which just goes from one point to the st. the another point along a straight line and it's no more weird it's no weirder really from this perspective than saying the distance from one point to another along two different curves do not have to agree the proper time along two different curves in general will not agree what is a little bit weird is that because of this minus sign the proper time this way is less than the proper time this way that's the consequence of this minus sign here moving with some DX decreases the proper time all right we'll do a little bit more next time but then I want to get to the principles of field theory and and connect some of this with field equations for interesting wave fields the preceding program is copyrighted by Stanford University please visit us at stanford.edu
Views:|Rating:|View Time:Minutes|Likes:[vid_likes]|Dislikes:[vid_dislikes] In order to know if a theory could be true, there must be a way to prove it to be false. Unfortunately, many climate change scientists, the media and activists are …
Views:11647|Rating:4.69|View Time:1:14:10Minutes|Likes:60|Dislikes:4 Officiated by Centre of Independent Studies
Professor Ferguson speaks at 9:10
1. Professor Ferguson has been voicing support for then-humble Republican congressman Paul Ryan back in 2010 already as you can hear from 36:43
2. His views on American public finance and how the Obama administration handles it have only been becoming more true since he gave this lecture.
3. His article for Newsweek on August 2012 was hardly misleading, I found those criticism very distasteful. Some people first accused him using wrong facts when what they offered was just another set of opinion, (not to mention when those critics used obsolete facts from an old CBO report) and afterwards start labeling people.
this is big ideas from the ABC your excellency professor Marie Bashir ayaan Hirsi Ali Neil Ferguson members supporters and friends of the CIS ladies and gentlemen who will become members supporters and Friends of the CIS it is my great pleasure also to welcome you but as well to introduce you to our 2010 John Munoz and lecturer who follows in such a long line as distinguished speakers I'd also like to add my thanks to the McCrory group for the support of tonight's event and those in the past in Edinburgh in August 16 96 a particularly cold man a group of four young men shuffled down one of its streets past the church shielding themselves from the sort of cold we don't get here too often although maybe tonight it's the knife maybe they've been to the pub or even to the church but battling the cold was on their mind one of the groups Thomas Aiken head a young man of 19 joke that was probably warmer in the place Ezra called Hill right now who knows about Ezra these days I certainly don't but it seems that Aiken had more broadly had question aspects of the truth of the Bible if they knew it then and that really was a heresy the Scottish Kirk had at this point reads the start of its enlightenment and the whistle blew the whistle that blew for that start was probably the execution of Thomas Aiken head for blasphemy now this is probably seems an odd way to introduce a modern-day historian at the eminence of Neil Ferguson I'll try to explain 1696 isn't one of those years of sticks in our minds maybe 1688 of the great of the glorious revolution of 1776 the year of the publication of the wealth of nations or when the u.s. declare us declared independence but something started around then that is with us today and in which were all legatees it was a Scottish enlightenment it's and I said O'Neill that I have a preoccupation with this it's also worth noting that much of the push for the rationality and science that early enlightenment period was promoted by senior religious figures who had no who had no time for the fundamentalists of their time they argued to spare way akin head that's – it's worth bearing in 2010 bearing in mind in 2010 the end of the 17th century and for the couple of hundred years have followed set the standard the institution's the tone and the confidence for the modern world in practical and philosophical terms it has made us prosperous and it has made us free the moral dimension of all of this is overwhelming Neil Ferguson is the foremost chronicler of that the quest he of course being from Glasgow is he is the inheritor of the ideas these fellows Scots of that earlier period Adam Smith David Hume Adam Ferguson Francis Hutcheson and so and so many of the others have followed I'm not necessarily hung up on the Scots but being a Lindsey that mate in that in itself makes me wave a flag occasionally our daughter Heather made her first visit to Scotland a few weeks ago and a post on her Facebook site while in Edinburgh said she was in bagpipe heaven I'm still not sure if that was because of bagpipes more generally of course she discovered the music of the Red Hot Chili Peppers true you can fight you google them on YouTube so so in what was a period of accelerating British decline in the middle 1960s another Ferguson appeared this time in Glasgow the son of a physician and a physicist Neil Campbell Douglas Ferguson didn't follow the hard disciplines hard of his parents or a Dedes sister a professor of physics these days and instead took an even harder road into the world of the past to explain the future and we're all glad that he did schooled in Glasgow he also spent an early couple of preschool years in Kenya a remarkable coincidence given that ayaan Hirsi Ali spent much personal life in Nairobi upon matriculation he entered modeling college at Oxford and on graduation began his teaching career variously at Oxford and Cambridge in 2002 he became the John Hertzog professor in financial history at New York University two years later he became the Lawrence a Tisch professor of history at Harvard and also the William Ziegler professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School he is also a senior research fellow at Jesus College Oxford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University fortunately for most of us who don't go to Oxford or to Harvard Neil Ferguson is also a teacher for the world his books and the often related TV programs become available to all his explanations of war peace politics prosperity or lack of it entrepreneurship success and failure in business banking and money is compelling but there's more the liberal tradition the liberty of the individual and all that flows from it seems at least to me to be a lens through which he sees and interprets and interprets events the empirical foundations are underpinning all this brings an authority that's unmatched he also of course has a craft of writing beautifully many of the books we know with the ascent of money and Empire topping the recognition list TV has no doubt sharpen the focus on these two but this is long he's a few paper and iron this one paper and iron Hamburg business and German politics in the era of inflation 1897 to 1927 doesn't quite have the ring to it if I have the later books but it was his first I'm afraid it's not my library Neil but then the list starts to sharpen maybe because of these wonderful titles the pity of war explaining World War one the world's banker the history of the health of House of Rothschild the cash Nexus money and power in the modern world Empire the rise and demise of the British World Order and the lessons for global power and it's in its sequel Colossus then rise and fall of the American Empire in the world a world of the war of the world a history of the 20th century conflict and then of course the ascent of money and his latest just out – ansara the lives and times of Sigma and Warburg which apparently is available out there tonight as a special pre-release because it's not out in Australia just yet so for those in which to get it it's there and there's a book on Henry Kissinger on its way he's a prolific contributor to the print and electronic media and the and the academic literature a true public intellectual a tournament has sadly been devalued in this country in recent years maybe Neil's example will go a long way to help restore its true meaning and currency I've wandered around a bit of intellectual history from three three hundred years ago and it's time for me to draw this together to allow an eel to take the stage yesterday at Macquarie University Neil received an honorary Doctorate his first as it turns out in his address he discussed many things about the future of this country he is unquestionably optimistic about our prospects he then spoke about Lachlan Macquarie and the colonial administration he headed and went surprise you to know that infrastructure was one of these one of McQuarrie's preoccupations and doesn't resonate today this as you may know is a 200th anniversary of his arrival as governor of New South Wales and I'm so delighted the mockeries current day successor is with us tonight so now a quick diversion back to a content before I can head before I end I said that Neil was the inheritor of those great ideas of the Enlightenment especially the Scottish one we all are one of the dangers we face is what we have learned that what we have learned has tarnished and may be put aside for political mystical or some other reason political correctness perhaps that's why we need the Neil Ferguson's we need them to explain the world and what's important we are also privileged to know that Edie's side is today's Thomas Aiken head ayaan Hirsi Ali virtually fortunately for all of us though she has not met his fate and she feels he powers on in the fence of freedom and the traditions of the Enlightenment that's about as former formidable a team for good as you will get today ladies and gentlemen please welcome Neil fergan as he delivers a 2010 Jonathan lecture thank you very much Greg your excellency ladies and gentlemen it's a huge pleasure for me to be here in Sydney with you tonight my thanks go to all at the Center for independent studies who have worked so hard to make our trip here so enjoyable so fulfilling particular at to its chairman Michael darling and of course but to Greg who was the cupid who brought me and I am together in New York early last year you know you've all done so much to make me feel at home since I arrived in Australia last Friday I attended a conference at Coulomb at which every thirds delegate had a Scottish name I was then awarded an honorary degree by University named after a Scotsman the following day I was given a dinner by a bank named after the same Scotsman and now ladies and gentlemen you have capped it all by laying on authentically Scottish weather for me thanks for nothing this year on the 200th anniversary of Lachlan Macquarie his appointment as governor of New South Wales I think it's appropriate that the van – lecture should have an Imperial theme now you may have noticed during dinner some rather striking pictures on these screens and if you were to enthralled in conversation there's one on that little card on the table right in front of you that picture is part of a cycle of extraordinary paintings five in all produced just around 10 years after Lachlan Macquarie is death in the United States by an artist named Thomas Cole and these paintings fascinate me because they depict the life cycle of an empire fact but the five paintings are entitled collectively the course of empire you can see them incidentally the next time you visit New York if you go to the New York Historical Society where they're housed the one you've got on your table is actually the fourth in the cycle the first is entitled the savage state and just to pick two natural wilderness it's always the same geographical location in each case the second depicts farmers Arcadia and is entitled the pastoral state the third and much the largest canvas depicts a kind of classical Emporium a marble scene of splendor and prosperity and is entitled the consummation of Empire what you're looking at is the destruction of Empire and the final scene in the five is entitled simply desolation the message is clear all empires no matter how magnificent they may be are condemned to decline and to fall now that's I think essentially how we've all been raised to think of the historical process as an essentially cyclical one it's an approach which has a very long tradition in Western civilization stretching back in fact more than 2,000 years in the histories written by Polybius the process that he calls Ana psychosis proceeds in the following order this is a political cycle the first stage is monarchy the second is kingship then comes tyranny then aristocracy then oligarchy then democracy and finally something polybius called o´clock recei which is the rule of the mob something we have of course in Australia day just joking in Giambattista Vico is extraordinary insane rover there's a Rico sir or recurrence process of three historical phases in the cycle you go from the divine to the heroic which is the feudal monarchy and you end in the human or democratic it's another cyclical theory of history though for much much later in the early 20th century our old Spengler's decline of the West offered a biological model where civilizations were organisms that had thousand year life cycles and went through seasons always ending in a miserable winter Arnold Toynbee nobody reads Arnold Toynbee anymore but once he was the best-selling historian it's a warning to us all wrote a 12 volumes a study of history which posited another cycle challenge followed by the response of creative minorities and then came inexorably decline what time we thought of a civilizational suicide when leaders stopped responding creatively to the challenges that they faced and you know cyclical theories like those remain popular to this day I doubt if many people in this room have read any of the authors I've mentioned so far but quite a few of you have probably read my good friend Paul Kennedy's great bestseller the rise and fall of great Paris published back in 1987 that's another cyclical theory a theory of Imperial overstretch as great powers overextend themselves through conquest and imperial overstretch and that process causes their economies at home to suffer to decline and to bring the Empire down with it most recently Jared Diamond's book collapse how societies choose to fail or succeed offers a final sick theory of history environmental cycles all the way from 17th century Easter Island to 21st century China a society's rise and exploit their natural resources overdo it and then succumb to natural disasters of one sort or another with all these different cyclical theories in our minds in our subconscious even if we haven't read those books I'm always struck by how that idea is kind of there in the popular psyche we naturally tend to assume then in our time history will also move cyclically and slowly think of the environmental or the demographic threats that we all laugh to chatter about they do seem very very remote don't they maybe that's why we don't mind talking about them but in an election year who really cares or talks about the average atmospheric temperature in the year 2050 or for that matter the age structure of the population the cycle will take care of this while we focus on burning issues like traffic congestion in Sydney and yet it's possible ladies and gentlemen that this entire cyclical framework that I'm describing to you is in fact flawed maybe just maybe Cole's artistic representation of Imperial birth growth and eventual death is a misrepresentation of the historical process itself what if history isn't cyclical and slow-moving what if it's a rhythmic times it's almost stationary but it's also capable of accelerating very suddenly like a sports car what ladies and gentlemen if collapse doesn't arrive over a number of centuries become suddenly like a thief in the night I want to suggest you tonight that great pass umpires are in the strict sense of the word complex systems are made up of very large numbers of interacting components that are quite asymmetrically organized in other words their construction more resembles a termite hill than an Egyptian pyramid they operate somewhere between order and disorder on the edge of chaos in the wonderful phrase of the computer scientist Christopher Langton now complex systems as they're properly understood can appear to be operating stable they can seem to be in equilibrium for quite some time but in reality they're constantly adapting evolving mutating but it comes a moment when all complex systems go critical a very very small trigger can set off what the scientists call a phase transition from a benign equilibrium to a crisis you all know the examples the single grain of sand that causes the whole sand pile to collapse or the legendary butterfly in the Amazonian rainforest which flaps its wings and causes a hurricane in the home counties of England to understand what I'm talking about if you haven't read any complexity theory just think of the things that scientists use the complexity theory to describe water molecules as they form themselves unpredictably and yet symmetrically into snowflakes anthills I already mentioned termite nests complex things but not the products of a plan the products of the almost arbitrary interaction of lots of tiny little insects the canopy of a rain forest all of these are authentically complex systems their complex systems have certain things in common one of them is that he quite small inputs to a complex system can have really huge and unanticipated changes this is what scientists call the amplifier effect when things go wrong in a complex system the scale of disruption is in fact impossible to anticipate because there's no such thing as the typical or average forest fire to use the jargon of modern physics and here I do owe a debt to my scientific family I'm the black sheep but I always try to keep on a forest before a fire is in a state of self-organizing criticality its teetering on the verge of a breakdown but what you don't know is what size the breakdown will be will it be a huge and devastating conflagration or just a small controllable fire it's really hard to say a forest fire twice as large as last year's is in fact roughly four or six or eight times less likely to happen this year that kind of pattern which is known as a power law distribution kibriya different from the normal distribution of the bell curve is remarkably common in the natural world it applies not just to forest fires it applies also to earthquakes and it applies to epidemics you may possibly have been thinking as I was talking that it also seems to apply in the realm of finance who never quite know how big the next crisis will be and it turns out that financial crises don't follow the normal distribution they follow a power law – well what I want to suggest you tonight is really quite interesting I want to suggest you that regardless of whether a great political entity is democratic or authoritarian any large-scale political unit like an empire or a great power is a complex system in just that sense and I could say exactly the same of financial systems but tonight let's focus first on empires in other words most big empires have a nominal central authority somebody is the hereditary Emperor or King but in practice the power of the individual rulers a function of that network of economic social and political relations over which the emperor presides very little control was exercised over Lachlan Macquarie by the men back in London in fact the British Empire was a perfect example of a self-organizing complex system in which confident adaptation occurred on the periphery of the individuals made their own decisions it was a very very large human version of the anthill now because that analogy works well it's not surprising to find that empires share many of the characteristics of the other complex adaptive systems I've been describing including the tendency to move from apparent equilibrium from apparent stability to instability quite suddenly that is the key fact that challenges the whole cyclical theory of history which we for some reason rather have grown so very fond of let me just give you a couple of examples the Bourbon monarchy in France in the 18th century passed with amazing speed from triumph to terror French intervention on the other side of the Atlantic on the side of the colonial rebels against British rule of whom we all of course deeply disapprove seemed like a great idea to the French it was a perfect opportunity to take revenge on Great Britain for its victory in the Seven Years War but that decision to intervene in the American War of Independence tipped the French monarchy over the edge into chaos in May 1789 with the summoning of the states-general francis long-dormant representative assembly a chain-reaction was unleashed that led with amazing speed to the complete collapse of raw legitimacy in France just four years later in January 1793 lu xvi was decapitated by that extraordinary machine the guillotine or take another case more familiar in this room take the case of the collapse of the British Empire we tend to think of that as a rather protracted process and much history is written as if the British Empire began declining in the late 19th century this is quite wrong the zenith of the power of the British Empire and territorial terms was in fact in the 1930s and to Winston Churchill in 1945 sitting as an equal at Yalta with the other members of the big three with Roosevelt and Stalin it didn't seem as if the Sun was going to set on the British Empire on his watch and yet ladies and gentlemen within just a dozen years of Yalta the United Kingdom had given up what became Bangladesh Burma I still call it Burma Egypt Eritrea Ghana India Israel Jordan Malaya Newfoundland Pakistan Sri Lanka and Sudan all gone the Suez Crisis in 1956 revealed the reality that the United Kingdom could no longer act in defiance of the United States in the Middle East or pretty much anywhere else for that matter the Empire was in effect at an end now if empires are as I'm trying to persuade you complex systems that sooner or later succumb to sudden and catastrophic malfunctions rather than you know cycling sedately from Arcadia to Apogee to Armageddon what are the implications for the United States today what are the implications of complexity theory for today's Anglophone Empire I think the most obvious points I'm going to make tonight the one I want you to remember so if your attention is wondering which usually happens in most lectures at this time do pay attention is this Imperial falls forget all this decline there isn't a decline that's just a fall off a cliff a nearly all was associated with fiscal crises with dramatic imbalances between revenues and expenditures and above all he is the key idea anyone nodding off above all these crises these dramatic Falls are associated with the mounting cost of servicing a huge public debt I'm going to give you four examples to illustrate my point let's start with Spain in the 17th century actually even earlier in the sixteenth already as early as 1543 nearly two-thirds of the ordinary revenue of the Habsburg monarchy in Spain was going on interest payments on the herose which were the loans that the Habsburg monarchy used to finance itself by 1559 total interest payments on these things actually exceeded ordinary revenue but this stage the Spanish monarchy was essentially running on extraordinary financial expedience and the returns of its silver mines in Spain fifteen eighty four eighty four percent of ordinary revenue going on interest payments 1598 back to a hundred percent when all of your ordinary tax revenues are going on interest payments it is ladies and gentlemen game over think of France in the 18th century I told you that story about the French Revolution but what you have to understand is why they called the estates-general they called it because of the fiscal crisis here's the data here are the data between 1750 1 and 1788 in other words the eve of the revolution interest and amortization payments debt service rose from a quarter of tax revenue to 62% or take Ottoman Turkey one of the great empires of the early modern period by the 19th century here's the story dirt service rose from 17% of revenue in 1868 to 32% in 1871 to 50% in 1877 which was the time of the great ottoman default after which the Ottoman Empire in Europe in the Balkans essentially began to fall apart and finally let's revisit the case of post-war Britain already by the mid 1920s debt charges interest and amortization were absorbing 44% of total government expenditure they already exceeded defense expenditure by considerable margin it wasn't actually until 1937 that the British government was spending more on defense than on interest payments a very late stage indeed to embark on rearmament given the German and Japanese threat note also a really important kicker when Britain's problems really got nasty after 1945 when the treacherous Americans cut off land lease and demanded the debts be honored a very substantial proportion of Britain's debt was held in foreign hands of the 21 billion dollars of national debt at the end of the war 3.4 billion were owned odd rather to foreign investors to foreign creditors and that was around a third of Britain's GDP in 1945 you'll see the significance of that in a moment so alarm bells ladies and gentlemen should be ringing very loudly indeed in Washington DC as the United States contemplates a deficit for 2010 of more than one point four seven trillion dollars that's around 10 percent of u.s. GDP and that's the second year running that the deficit has been that big since 2001 in the space of less than 10 years the federal debt in public hands that's excluding those parts of the debt held by federal government agencies in the United States has doubled as a share of GDP from 32 percent to projected 66 percent next year and it just keeps going up according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest projections and this is using if you're interested in this kind of thing as I am there alternative fiscal scenario which they regard as the more politically likely of the two scenarios they produce the US federal debt could rise above ninety percent of GDP by 2020 it could reach a hundred and forty six percent by 2030 two hundred and thirty three percent by 2040 three hundred and forty four percent by 2050 and ladies and gentlemen those figures do not include the vast unfunded liabilities of the Social Security and Medicare systems now I rather imagine that to an Australian audience in a country where the net debt is minuscule by the standards of the rest of the Anglosphere these figures sound completely fantastic but listen to me there's more even more terrifying is to consider what this ongoing deficit finance could mean for the burden of interest payments as a share of US federal revenues and this is where it gets really cool the CBO projects that net interest payments could rise from where they are now which is 9 percent of federal revenues to 20 percent in 2020 36 percent in 2030 fifty-eight percent of federal revenues by 2040 and 85 percent of all federal revenues by 2050 my good friend Larry Kotlikoff recently pointed out in the Financial Times that by any meaningful measure the fiscal position of the United States today is in fact worse than that of Greece but Greece is not a global power it hasn't been a major empire for a very long time indeed I think the real point and the points of my lecture tonight is that in historical perspective unless something very drastic is done very soon the u.s. is heading into Habsburg Spain territory it is heading into boob on France territory it is heading into Ottoman Turkey territory it is heading into post-war Britain territory the fiscal numbers I've given you tonight are bad there's no doubt about it but in the realm of political entities and power the role of perception is crucial it may be more important than the actual numbers because in imperial crises ladies and gentlemen it's not the material underpinnings of power that really matter its expectations of future power in the eyes of those with the power and even more so in the eyes of their enemies right now I get the impression that the world at least the Western world basically expects the United States to muddle through and eventually to confront its problems as Churchill famously said to do the right thing when all the alternatives have been exhausted and right now with the sovereign debt crisis in Europe dominating the headlines at least the headlines back home and growing fears of a deflationary double dip or a recession bond yields are at historic lows below 3% if you look at the ten-year US Treasury so there's a pretty strong incentive there for Congress men to do nothing and to put off fiscal reform to say thinking of that cyclical theory of history this is a problem for the next generation not for us you know recently I was invited to a dinner in Washington to discuss radical fiscal reform for the United States and I was quite excited because I thought it would be like this I wondered which huge hotel in Washington they'd books and which ballroom we would be eating in three congressmen turned up it's funny except it's not funny it's scary there seems really in fact only to be one congressman who has seriously thought about how we could deal with this problem and it's Paul Ryan and I commend him to you as well as the few young Republicans who are prepared to talk seriously about stabilizing the fiscal position of the United States before it does go critical the trouble is for all those complacent congressmen of both parties who think this isn't an imminent problem there's a zero-sum game at the heart of any budgetary process even if I'm wrong and my old rival Paul Krugman is right and that is possible I don't rule that out even if he's right an interest rates stay low and the bond market is in a coma and the vigilantes go off and take up some other activity recurrent deficits year after year never much less than 5% of GDP even on the administration's optimistic forecasts plus debt accumulation as a result mean inevitably that interest payments will consume a rising proportion of tax revenue the process I've described to you is independent of any bond market panic and as interest payments consume more and more tax revenue with every passing year guess what gets squeezed not Social Security not Medicare the Unruh formal entitlement programs the thing that gets squeezed is that discretionary item in the federal budget known as defense spending ladies and gentlemen it AC pre-programmed reality of US fiscal policy today that the resources available to the Department of Defense will be reduced significantly in the years to come and I'm not talking about the 2050s I'm talking about the next five years indeed by my reckoning at some point within the next decade the US will reach the crossover point at which it will be spending more on debt service on interest payments than it is able to spend on defense and remember half the federal debt in public hands is in the hands of foreign creditors and of that 1/5 to be precise 22% is in the hands of the monetary authorities of the People's Republic of China down incidentally from 27% in July last year now I suspect it hasn't escaped your notice that china now has the second largest economy in the world and I expect you've also spotted that it is likely to be America's principal strategic rival in the 21st century especially in the asia-pacific region quietly discreetly you haven't seen it in the headlines the Chinese are reducing their exposure to US Treasuries I believe as a result of a conscious policy decision to switch out of dollar denominated claims on the US government and into nice hard commodities and preferably the mines that produce them maybe just maybe the Chinese have noticed what the rest of the world's investors pretend not to see that the United States is on a completely unsustainable fiscal course with no apparent political means of self-correcting ladies and gentlemen military retreat from the mountains of the Hindu Kush or the plains of Mesopotamia has long been a harbinger of Imperial fall it is no coincidence after all the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in the annus mirabilis of 1989 which was so closely followed by the complete collapse of the Russian Empire in Eastern Europe and in Central Asia what happened just 20 years ago like the events I have described to you tonight of the 17th 18th 19th and 20th centuries is a reminder that empires do not in fact appear rise rain decline and gently fall according to some recurrent and predictable life cycle rather they behaved like all complex adaptive systems they function in apparent equilibrium for some unknowable period and then quite abruptly they collapse I believe this has implications not only for the United States but also for all countries that have come to rely on it directly or indirectly for their own security this country was born as we've discussed and grew up under the umbrella of the British Empire it's post-war foreign policy has been in essence to be a committed ally of the United States under its imperial umbrella but ladies and gentlemen what is the sudden waning of American power that I fear brings to an abrupt end the era of us hegemony in the asia-pacific region like changes to the climate or the population we tend to think of such a geopolitical shift as a protracted gradual phenomenon very far from our quotidian preoccupations but history suggests it may not be so slow acting if I may return to the terminology of the artist Thomas Cole painter of the course of empire the shift from consummation to destruction and then to desolation is not cyclical it can be very very sudden I wonder are we ready for such a dramatic change in the global balance of power but our judging by what I have heard since I arrived here last Friday the answer is no not bloody likely Australia's as far as I can see outside at least the rarefied atmosphere of the sea is Concilium are simply not thinking about that kind of stuff a favorite phrase in this country is now dramas but ladies and gentlemen dramas lie ahead and soon as the nasty fiscal arithmetic of imperial decline drives yet another great power over the edge of chaos thank you very much professor Fergusson you're talking apocalyptic terms would be about the u.s. but to be a little bit more mundane just a couple of hypotheticals the health sector spending is about 16 percent of GDP or that sort of order and the only people that really benefit better than any of us are those on high incomes if they brought it back to the level of the rest the OECD Switzerland France ourselves 9% which is what your may you know Krugman is pushing for then wouldn't a lot of the things that you're talking about be solved equally in relation to financial sector 45% of corporate profits totally over the top and totally distorted during the peak of the of the financial boom get that in order so therefore surely agree supporting the Democrats on health policy maybe and regulation but I always enjoy irony for those of you who who perhaps were less well situated than me and didn't quite hear the question was how far I would support those in the United States pressing for a more European perhaps Australian health care system in the United States as you know American health care is at once the most expensive in the world and has some of the poorest poorest outcomes in the developed world and it seems to me as a doctor some clear that great improvements could be made to the system of health care in the United States so I was naturally delighted to hear when President Obama proposed health care reform as one of his principal objectives as president I thought at last here is a president who's going to grasp the nettle of the insanely expensive Medicare system which more than anything else incidentally is propelling the United States towards the brink of fiscal chaos incredibly the Democrats managed to come up with a reform of the world's worst health care system that made it even worse and this was some achievement actually because I mean this must have taken some serious thought so now I'm not about to embrace the Democrats on health care there is a need for radical health care reform but you'd have to begin by breaking that bizarre system which originated almost by chance in World War two were by Americans rely on their employers for private health insurance in a highly uncompetitive market I was shocked to find first how much I was going to be paying for health care in Massachusetts second how much Harvard was going to be paying and third I was really stunned to find that actual quality of care is identical to that provided by the National Health Service in the UK so there is a problem that's absolutely undeniable in many ways it's the biggest problem of all but the Obama administration has completely failed to address that problem as I said earlier there are very few American politicians too prepared to talk honestly about these issues Paul Ryan is one of them and Ryan's roadmap for radical fiscal reform sets out an altogether more convincing plan for healthcare reform one I suspect that you're experts at CIS would approve of since it would above all else introduce some rational competition into the system and allow individuals to have health care insurance not by dint of being employed thanks for the question area down here I must say there are more questions that we have time for but I also do short answers given Britain and the u.s. actively used military power to underpin the Empire's do you think China can sustain its empire without similar military spending and more critically warfighting experience are we or will China have to use soft power instead that's a lovely question how far will China if it to be an imperial power have to rely on on military force to make that possible I'm part of ani things that they they don't just arise because of the exercise of military power some do some depend heavily on that but some empires if you look at the entire population of M pass through history some empires arise almost in a fit of absence of mind as C Lee famously said of the British Empire not because of a conscious decision to exercise military power but because commercial imperatives give rise to forms of overseas expansion that nobody quite planned and I think a really good illustration of this at the moment is the way that China is acquiring commodity producing assets all over the world particularly in sub-saharan Africa but not just there about half of their foreign direct investment is going in Asia right now that that's that's actually the way many empires have arisen in the past but first you you get involved and trade and you start to to buy the commodities then you find that buying them on the open market is really rather risky because the dratted price keeps changing and then you say well wouldn't it be easier if we owned the assets that produce these commodities so then you go and you build port facilities and roads or railroads and then you start to buy the mines and the next thing you know you've got to do something to make sure that these mines or or railroads aren't overrun by the locals so you send a few more guys who are a little bit more heavily armed than the last guys and next thing you know you're in the Empire business that's that's kind of how it works and you know I have you know I have a warning for China a China has been an empire of course for four centuries a land Empire gave up as you all know Sora gave up being an overseas Empire after the death of the young Emperor and it's re-entering this overseas Empire game in our time it's a dangerous game and it's a game in which the law of unintended consequences plays a really very big role thanks for the question great question over here to my right now how much gold do you earn or do you intend to keep investing in the apocalypse well I'm a poor academic and therefore don't own terribly much gold it's all sad to say if I were a wealthy Australian plutocrat I would hold 10% of my portfolio in the form of gold but no more for the simple reason that gold has been the best investment at times quite unlike these the time to buy gold as some of you in the room will know very well was in 1999 when another Scotsman the ill-fated Gordon Brown sold vast quantities of it from the Bank of England at what was it three hundred and something dollars an ounce but that was a sign of his great business acumen I wish I wish I had been there to buy I mean actually wanted to buy but I didn't have a red cent at that point so yeah ten percent is about as much as you'd want in your portfolio because I don't see gold going a whole lot further north in these deflationary times that I think we're entering thanks a lot just following on from your sort of coma so China I mean we see China as being the next emerging imperial power city here in Australia and I was just wondering if you'd make more comments about that because I see a lot of elements of risk there I'd say there's another stable political system government is running a credible fiscal imbalance and I was just wondering if you'd pass some comments about that well thanks it would take a whole evening to go through all the difficulties that China has to grapple with like any authoritarian regime that embarks on ten percent per annum growth for a period of what thirty years it's it's grappling with social and environmental costs that I'm sure Deng Xiaoping never wholly imagined having said that I think China's less politically fragile than your question implies if you look at surveys of Chinese opinion it's very striking that the Chinese government has more legitimacy in the eyes of its own people than almost any other government in the world even allowing for the fact that it's not a free society I think that tells you something and those of you who visited China and I bet you virtually everybody in this room has will know just how powerful a cement nationalism has become in modern-day China and that is something that is going to help them through difficult times they of course came through difficult times with amazing success let's just reflect for a second on what happened that was a 25% or so collapse in exports China experienced the same shock that all the Asian export economies experienced when the US and Europe went into recession and most of us prior to that would have said this will be a disaster for China in fact they completely wrote it out using stimulus in a far more effective way through their banking system than the US did and effectively dodged the bullet of of the global financial crisis so I must say I have a slightly more positive view of their of their stability not that I have a positive view of a system that is based on unfreedom both economic and political on freedom but I think one shouldn't one shouldn't sit in the West hoping that they'll trip up I hear too many people in the United States fantasizing about a China crash a China crisis it'll all fall apart this is a totally classic case of what Sigmund Warburg used to call wishful non thinking problem the Institute for private enterprise of competing Institute we're in favor of competition so that's great I'm very pleased to hear it a two-part question the first part is do you have any children or do you plan to have any children I hope so because that will improve your understanding of debt capitalist societies such as we live in children do tend eventually to a debt takes a long time but most of mine are now actually working this the second part of my question is whether the I acknowledge that there is a serious debt problem in the United States as there was in Australia in the 1980s and particularly in Victoria about which I wrote a lot of materials but is this a serious a problem facing the world as extremist Islamism well thank you for those two questions first of all first of all a cursory glance at Wikipedia would reveal that I have three children one by age 61 girl age 15 so teenagers the most expensive sort and an 11 year old whose name is in fact Laughlin and named him after Lachlan Macquarie bet you didn't know that and do I intend to have more yes have children taught me a lot about debt ex-wives have taught me more I hadn't said that much and is radical Islam a bigger threat than the fiscal crisis the United States that they are in some ways two sides of the same coin and of course I'm not the expert in the room on this subject you know who is then really why you asked me to give this lecture she got the round of applause earlier not me but if the United States fails to address the kind of problems that I'm talking about here then it will not be able to contend with the threat of radical Islam simple case in point that I own and I and our distinguished guests were discussing over dinner how do you deal with Iran if one of the most explicitly radical Islamic regimes in the world is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and the United States is suffering from a fundamental fiscal overstretch how do you deal with that problem so I think these problems are of equal magnitude and the reason that I worry so much about this fiscal crisis is not because I have an unhealthy interest in bond yields it's because I have a healthy interest in the stability of the global order so thanks for those two questions over here to the right professor following on from just your last sentence you've told us a lot about the chaos and the approach to the abyss on a more positive note would you have a three four ten point plan if I was the embodiment of America or Empire what would be your five or six point plan to withdraw from the abyss before it's too late what a wonderfully American question actually I wouldn't give you five or six points I'll give you two if President Obama were here and had asked that question what should I do I would say first you need to get Paul Volcker to go on prime-time television within the next week and explain to the American people and the world how your administration is going to get the federal deficits down not to 5% but to zero percent over the next ten years you need a fiscal plan and by the way here are ways in which you could do it here are the ways in which you could solve the Medicare and Social Security problems through radical reform here are the reforms you could make up the tax code to simplify it in order to make it easier for Americans to pay their taxes here are the cuts you could actually make in corporation tax if you introduced a federal sales tax so that would be 0.1 but but get Paul Volcker to announce it don't do it yourself get somebody with the credibility of the man who helped slay the inflation dragon back in 79 to slay the deflation dragon that we currently face today my second piece of advice to him would be you need a grand strategy right now your foreign policy consists of making speeches in which you say that you're nicer than your predecessor and everybody should like you more you've given this speech in a whole bunch of different places you tried it in Istanbul you tried it in Cairo you even did one to the Chinese in Tokyo that's not a foreign policy it's more like a Facebook entry so how about a grand strategy how about deciding what US foreign policy is going to be in the 21st century as China becomes your principal rival rather than as it has been up until now at the principal source of vendor finance to the American consumer those would be my answers to the questions I haven't been asked by the president but I live in hope now I'd like to ask you about a question in regards to the dismal sites and the perennial debate about government intervention versus a lack of government intervention I'm gonna use some Australian terminology your mates are Paul Krugman and I saw your other mates Joseph Stiglitz on national TV last night and they're talking about a second round of stimulus and perhaps a third or a fourth if required can you help us to understand what is it about the limits of Keynesianism and what is it that you understand that there is a limit to Keynesianism stimulus versus these other economists that seem to believe that there is no limits can you can you help us explain why there is this dichotomous controversy in regards to limited or unlimited stimulus Thanks the the debate that I've been having with the man you term my mate since I suppose April of last year is a debate that's repeatedly been caricatured and in the press as if to suggest that I'm paranoid about inflation and want a balanced budget tomorrow which is not what I said then and has never been what I've said my argument has been as I try to make clear tonight that if the United States has a fiscal policy that implies it will run a deficit every year from now until 2080 which is its current policy that is not Keynesianism that is a fiscal crisis that is not a policy which john maynard keynes would have approved you know keynes once said before he shuffled off this coil that he was much less Keynesian than the american Keynesian z– that's become ever more true as they've become ever more Keynesian Paul Krugman is a clever man and has made major contributions on the economics of trade but on questions of fiscal policy he seems to me to be entirely out of touch with reality and that that isn't just my view that is the view of Ken Rogoff my Harvard colleague who's a practitioner of the dismal science remember I'm not an economist I have the great advantage of not being an economist I'm a historian so I don't just look at the theory that you derive from the general theory of 1936 I look at what happened when countries did try Keynesianism year after year after year because we've run this experiment before folks it's called Japan and what you discover in Japan is that if you use deficit finance if you achieve aim to achieve recovery through fiscal stimulus it doesn't necessarily work but you do end up with a heck of a lot of debt plus 200% of GDP in the Japanese case or if you look back to the post-war period when we all became Kenyans remember Richard Nixon we're all Kansans now what happened governments ran deficits year in and year out they thought to prime the economy and we got stagflation we got zero or low growth and we got double-digit inflation so you know from a historians point of view it's it's a little bit strange suddenly in the midst of this crisis to think Keynes can save us and to forget all the advances that the dismal science made in the period after Keynes's death all all the advances seem to have vanished from Paul Krugman's mind and I think that's what comes of writing a column in the New York Times it's a very dangerous thing for a serious academic to do I mean I may be afraid we've got time for two more David Russell will be one and Alex Turner with the other I'm sorry for the others thank you Thank You mr. chairman professor you talked earlier about historical cycles and the early American literature the Federalist Papers talked about the distinction between a republic and a democracy and perhaps that's all about the point that leadership is telling the truth the problems in this country may be external rather than domestic but their problems nonetheless and we're in a situation where the Australian idea of leadership seems to be somebody whose recent political career probably resembles Lady Macbeth pretending to be Mary Poppins what what what and other countries are not much better it's a good line can I steal us you're welcome I'm a lawyer plagiarism it's a great article but what I mean this is clearly a problem in a whole range of countries how in a historical sense do you say this is capable of being dealt with or do we just simply have to increasingly have political debate reduced to trivia and people not posting real issues how do we get better leadership in the West how can our liberal and more or less capitalist democracies find Churchill's instead of and I won't mention any names Macbeth Poppins figures it's a huge challenge but you have to reassure yourself it's not the first time that question has been asked in fact throughout the history of Western political theory people have worried about the way in which democracy would fail to generate quality leadership it was the great preoccupation of at least some of the founding fathers that if democracy were given free rein the United States would at worst produce a Napoleon and at best a series of mediocrity so when Tocqueville visited the United States on his famous trip that produced democracy and America he he almost made a virtue of this by saying the great thing you have to understand about the American political system is it's designed for mediocrity 'he's to be elected but the good news is that the United States at least tends to find leadership in crisis tends to find its leadership when finally all the alternatives as Churchill said have been exhausted I think that's also been true of my own country of the United Kingdom when you're feeling depressed about democracy as a system remember Churchill saying that it's the worst of all possible systems apart from all the others that have been tried from time to time in 1938 Churchill was an unpopular figure in the country and an even more unpopular one in the House of Commons but in Britain's are of need in 1940 when we stood alone he was there and so I have a fundamental competence that our system for all its many flaws and for all the Medi aqua teas that it throws up when times are good we'll find great leaders when the times are tough thanks very much Thank You German professor you've talked about the stability of the international order and and mentioned some historical prisons of which the Mississippi Bubble perhaps brings the trust and we look at the overall situation because it isn't just America it's a thing that's been spread like a bit of a cancer you could say and it may sound really weird to quote presumably an early John Maynard Keynes who's supposed to have said the surest way to overturn the social and economic fabric is to Deportes the currency because it harnesses all the forces of economics on the side of destruction you know I mean one cannot help feeling that where we have arrived at and where the may well be a precipice is the result of exactly that process and and you know really some you know tests of any sort of social order I mean I don't know how you can easily comment on that oh I can you'd be amazed how easily I can comment on it if it's the only way of getting back to my glass of wine funnily enough that that quote from Keynes isn't really a quote from Cannes Cannes made it up and attributed it to Lenin and if you read the ascent of money I explained where it really came from it wasn't Lenin it was another Bolshevik and he said roughly that the best way of getting rid of the bourgeoisie was to destroy the Russian currency and indeed the Bolsheviks did just that many people today are worried about hyperinflation or inflation as the end game of all of this we kind of fear maybe even that's what the Chinese fear that in the end we'll print our way out of these huge deaths and there's considerable historical evidence to support the proposition that highly indebted economies eventually do resort to inflation that's true in the case of Argentina on more than one occasion it was true of course in Germany after the frost World War and I I could go on trouble is it's harder to generate inflation than it looks and this is an important point to remember Ben Bernanke has famously been quoted as saying that if if it came to it he would fly a helicopter over the United States dropping dollar bills out the windows to stave off deflation but if people's expectations become deflationary then even doing that might not work since they might just Bank the money put it in their savings accounts not spend it so one of the big risks we face today is not in fact inflation we should be so lucky the risk we face today is that the biggest economy in the world tips over into deflation of course the values of bourgeois society don't depend exclusively on the stability of the currency they are as usual the Bolsheviks were oversimplifying things and I want to leave you with this thought what we call Western civilization those of us who aren't too embarrassed to use the phrase consists of more than just money more than just the capitalist system though that's clearly one of its foundations it also consists of the scientific method testing your hypothesis and trying to prove it wrong it also consists of the rule of law subordinating all other concerns particularly the concerns of the powerful to the rule of law transparent law law which upholds above all else the individuals freedom and private property rights it consists of the medicine that keeps us all much healthier than I certainly would have been if I'd been born in the time of Lachlan Macquarie atta they gave us five five minutes of the life he led from the age of 15 and above all it consists of a peculiar ethic an ethic that combines a sense of the need to work for fulfillment with a kind of social obligation to those around us and I hope that in this lecture I've tried to at least touch some of those points and to raise awareness of their continuing enduring importance you know Australia is a kind of beacon in its way and maybe it's more of a beacon than it's ever been now that Asia is on the rise and if you are the great outpost of Western civilization in the East you have a far bigger responsibility to the world than you ever had before let's hope you if not your political leaders are aware of that thank you very much indeed this is big ideas from the ABC
Views:187706|Rating:4.84|View Time:12:15Minutes|Likes:1269|Dislikes:41 This is an introduction to OLS and Goodness-Of-Fit tutorial. This video touches on each of these subjects:
1. What is OLS? (“Ordinary Least Squares”)
2. Properties of OLS
3. “Sum of Squared Residuals” (SSR), “Explained Sum of Squares” (SSE) & “Total Sum of Squares” (SST)
4. “Goodness-Of-Fit” (R-Squared)
5. Interpreting R-Squared
This video is intended to provide the student with an introduction to the “Ordinary Least Squares” method of estimation and its properties. This video also introduces the goodness of fit measure, R-Squared.
Follow us on Twitter @
All video, commentary and music is owned by Keynes Academy.
hi everybody so this is Chris from canes Academy and in the last lecture we talked about the simple linear regression and introduced some of the methods surrounding the simple linear regression if you'd like to go back to that video at any point during this video just click this top left arrow here and it will take you there likewise if you'd like to skip to the next video at any point during this video just click this bottom right arrow and it will take you directly to the next video in this lecture we're going to talk about OLS or ordinary least-squares method as well as the goodness of fit measure R squared so over here I have a diagram that I've already drawn out and we're just going to review some things to make them concrete so X is our independent variable Y is our dependent variable and what we're trying to do when we run a regression is measure how a change in X affects Y so what happens when we change X what happens to Y and the way we do this is we have all of these observed data points so these purple dots are all real-life data it's what we see in the real world and then this green line here is our estimated regression so our estimated relationship between x and y we can define this line as y hat and y hat will be equal to some constant or our intercept beta naught hat which is this distance here plus our slope parameter beta 1 hat so the slope of this line and then X and so what we're going to start with is what is OLS OLS is a method for estimating this this regression though the Y hat regression and it's essentially trying to put this line in the most appropriate way and defining it as our best guess for the relationship between X&Y and the way it does that is by minimizing the sum of squared residuals so we talked about all this in our last video and I'll just quickly define the sum of squared residuals again as exactly what it sounds like the sum of all of these residuals so the distance the vertical distance from this line to each point squared and now we should move ahead and talk about the properties of OLS so we know that we're just trying to minimize our SSR in that when doing that we will basically find the most appropriate regression for our given data and some essential properties we need to do this are as follows so the sum of the residuals has to be equal to 0 so what does this mean we've already defined that our residuals are equal to our true value for y minus our estimated value for Y and so that essentially means this value of y here for our sorry this value of y here for our real point minus this value of y here for our estimated point at a given X and so when we define it like this if we can sort of interpret that if a point is below our estimated line then our residual at that point will be negative and if the point is above our estimated line then that means that our residual at that given point will be positive and so when we sum up all of these residuals we want them to be equal to 0 because that will imply that the points are weighted equally the true points are weighted equally above and below vertically on our line our second property that's very important for OLS is the sum of all the residuals multiplied by the exes will be equal to zero now X is our independent variable and essentially what property two is saying that the independent variable is not correlated with the residual so this is very important because this property tells us if it's true it tells us that there's nothing in our is it residual that explains X I because if we didn't have this property then we wouldn't be able to properly use this regression as the relationship strictly between x and y the third property is the mean of Y so Y bar is equal to beta 0 hat plus beta 1 hat times the mean of X so this one might look a little bit more intimidating at first but it's essentially very simple what it means is that at some point on our estimated regression a Y hat we have the value of the mean of the Y values as well as the value the mean of the the x value so on this line somewhere will be our Y bar and our X bar so when we minimize the sum of squared residuals we're using the OLS method or any other method we will essentially want to know how well we have estimated the true model and the way we do this is through goodness of fit measures and there's one specifically we're going to talk about in this video and it's called the r-squared and before we define it we have to define some other some other measures of variation so we already have the SSR which is the deviation from the the estimated line and squared so essentially if we have a low SSR that will mean that the points are very tight to the line they're all very close on this line we have to define something similar called the SSE which is the estimated or sorry the explained sum of squares and this is defined as the sum of the estimated wise minus the mean and squared so the SSE tells us what is explained by our model how much is explained by our watt but model in the wise so how much of the variation in the wise is explained by our regression we need to define one more before we can talk about the R squared it's called SST or the total sum of squares and the total sum of squares is defined as the sum of the true values of Y minus the mean squared so this don't get these to confuse the estimated is our estimated parameter – it's me minus the mean and this is the true value of y at that given X minus the mean so this one tells us all of the variation in Y and this will tell us all of the estimated variations so how much have we explained with our model and this is how much is changing in the real old so now that we have these three defined we can define our R squared our goodness of fit how well does this estimated regression fit our true relationship between our independent variable X in our dependent variable Y and R squared is defined as SS e so our explained sum of squares divided by SST and essentially this makes sense we want to see how much of our model we have explained so we have our explained sum of squares which tells us how much of the variation in Y we have explained using our model divided by the total variation in Y and intuitively we can derive this as also equal to the 1 minus the SS r divided by SST so R squared will always between be between 0 and 1 and so we take 1 and we – what we haven't explained divided by the total variation so both are equivalent the SSE / SST and 1 minus SS are over SST they are both equivalent measures they're equal to the exact same thing but we have to be very cautious because we've talked about causal relationships and the R squared does not tell us whether our regression is causal or not it simply tells us how much we have explained using our regression so be very careful do not do not confuse a high r-squared with a with a causal relationship so the last thing we're going to talk about is how to interpret the r-squared we're just going to quickly go over this if R squared is equal to 1 not me that every single point on in the real world lies exactly on our estimated regression and if it's equal to zero then that means that there's absolutely no correlation between our X and our Y in our explained model so the higher your r-squared the better your goodness of fit and the lower your R squared the poor or your goodness of fit so that's all for our lecture today and I encourage you to comment if you don't understand anything completely or comment with feedback we would love to hear your opinion this is Chris and we hope to see you soon
Views:1096774|Rating:4.89|View Time:18:35Minutes|Likes:13429|Dislikes:300 The basic method is explained for sending messages using a telegraph machine transmitting short and long signals called “dots” and “dashes”.
Views:28|Rating:nan|View Time:10:21Minutes|Likes:|Dislikes: The state makes a mess of everything it touches, argues Jeffrey A. Tucker in Bourbon for Breakfast. Perhaps the biggest mess it makes is in our minds. Its pervasive interventions in every sector affect the functioning of society in so many ways, we are likely to intellectually adapt rather than fight. Tucker proposes another path: see how the state has distorted daily life, rethink how things would work without the state, and fight against the intervention in every way that is permitted.
Read ‘Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Statist Quo’ online:
Playlist for complete audio presentation:
Links to more online writings by Jeffrey Tucker:
It’s a Jetsons World: Private Miracles and Public Crimes
Right-Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat to Liberty
A Beautiful Anarchy
Bit by Bit: How Peer-to-Peer Technology Is Freeing the World
Of Course the Alt-Right Is Against Capitalism
Nine Books to Understand the Collectivist Right
The Violence in Charlottesville
The West Is a Portable Idea, Not Blood and Soil
Five Forgotten Champions of Fascist Control
Fascism Is Not Just an Epithet. It Is an Ideology.
Five Differences Between the Alt-Right and Libertarianism
The Intellectual Conceit of IQ Ideology
Why the Holocaust Should Matter to You
The Orlando Bloodbath and the Illiberal Mind
The Surprising Modern Origins of Trump’s Ideology
The Link between Extreme Environmentalism and Hard-Core Racism
Class and Race Are Never an Excuse to Gloat Over State Atrocities
The Eugenics Plot of the Minimum Wage
Why Did Leon Trotsky Favor Eugenics?
Nazis on Twitter? That’s What Blocking Is For
Must a Jew Bake a Nazi Cake?
Policy Science Kills
It Shouldn’t Matter Who the President Is
Waking Up to the Reality of Fascism
King Canute vs. the Climate Planners
5 Essential Books for Liberty Lovers in Dark Times
Why Open Borders?
Gays Need the Freedom to Discriminate
How Policing Works in a Privatized City
In Defense of Private Property: Aristotle and Mises
Blurred Lines: When Guns Become Speech
Progress and Poverty, Then and Now
There Is No Human Right to a Big Mac
The Attack on Hobby Lobby Is Incoherent and Unjust
What Silly Putty Teaches Us about Invention and Marketing
The Palace Is in Turmoil but the Country Is Not
What Is “Neoliberalism” Anyway?
Why Do People Become Communists, and Why Do They Stick With It?
Pope Francis Has Forgotten the Church’s Own Grand Libertarian Legacy
The Power and Glory of M&Ms
Only Markets Can Win the War on Poverty
Liberty and Community Go Together
Be the Master of the Thrift Store
The Six Mysterious Elves of the Commercial Marketplace
Bureaucracies Are Authoritarian Too
Is Government Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde?
How the Market Crushed the Champagne Cartel
The Malleable Modern History of a Prohibited Product
Five Anti-Capitalist Movies that Backfired
The Drug War’s Arms Race: From Opium Dens to Flakka Freakout in 100 Years
Canadians Confused by the Correct Use of the Term Liberal
* * * *
DISCLAIMER: This media presentation is owned by the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is protected under Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
This YouTube channel is in no way endorsed by or affiliated with the Mises Institute, any of its scholars or staff members.
Views:2451|Rating:4.78|View Time:17:59Minutes|Likes:22|Dislikes:1 Follow along with the course eBook:
See the full course:
In this video we will be turning our attention to what insight and models complexity economics can offer us in trying to understand the basic building blocks of economics, people, aka agents. We will draw upon the new area of economics called behavioral economics to try and give some account of what people value, how people make choices and how they respond to incentives.
Views:2571|Rating:4.78|View Time:12:Minutes|Likes:22|Dislikes:1 Follow along with the course eBook:
See the full course:
The study of incentives is one of the central topics in microeconomics, incentives to work hard, to produce quality products, to study, to invest, to save, etc. How to design institutions that provide good incentives for economic agents has become a central question of economics. In this video we will be presenting two very different frameworks for understanding agent’s motives and associated incentive systems.
Views:454439|Rating:4.94|View Time:6:31Minutes|Likes:21061|Dislikes:254 Emil Cioran is Romania’s most famous thinker: his darkly pessimistic philosophy is a perfect antidote to the sentimental cheeriness of our times. If you like our films, take a look at our shop (we ship worldwide):
Join our mailing list:
Or visit us in person at our London HQ
“Towards the end of the twentieth century, a celebrated Romanian-French philosopher and aphorist was invited to speak in Zurich. He was introduced with rhetorical pomp and flattering comparisons to the likes of Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer. The speaker smiled, and immediately confounded his German interpreter by beginning his presentation with the words: ‘Mais je ne suis qu’un déconneur’ / ‘But I’m just a joker’.
A few of his critics might agree, but they would be wrong. For Emil Mihai Cioran is very much worthy of inclusion in the line of the great French and European moral philosophers and writers of maxims stretching back to Montaigne, Chamfort, Pascal and La Rochefoucauld…”
You can read more on this and other subjects on our blog, here:
MORE SCHOOL OF LIFE
Our website has classes, articles and products to help you think and grow:
Watch more films on PHILOSOPHY in our playlist:
You can submit translations and transcripts on all of our videos here:
Find out how more here:
Feel free to follow us at the links below:
Produced in collaboration with:
Contributing writer – Dr David McCallam
قرابة نهاية القرن العشرين دُعي فيلسوف روماني فرنسي لإلقاء خطاب في زيورخ. وتم تقديمه بموكب ترحيب وحفاوة مقارنه بكيركيغارد وشوبنهاور. ابتسم المتحدث وبدأ حديثه مُذهلًا مترجمه الألماني بقوله: Mais je ne suis qu’un déconneur’ "لكنني مجرد ساخر!". يوافقه الرأي بعض نقّاده لكنهم على خطأ. لأن إيميل سيوران ينتمي إلى العظماء من فلاسفة الأخلاق والكتّاب المأثورين في فرنسا وأوروبا كمونتاين، شامفور، باسكال، ولاغشفكول. وُلد سيوران في راسيناري، رومانيا في إبريل سنة 1911. كان والده قسيسًا يونانيًا أرثوذكسيًا. وكان لهذه الوقائع أثر في أعماله. فأصله الروماني كان مصدرًا لطبيعته الكئيبة، الرومانسية الجبرية. وكان لدعوة والده الدينية أثر في انغماس ابنه التام في مواضيع كالدين والقدسية وأخطار الإلحاد وملذاته. في سنة 1934، عندما أصبح عمره 23 سنة، نشر أول كتاب له باللغة الرومانية "من على قمم اليأس" تضمن الكتاب بدايةً واضحة لتفكيره الكئيب والعدمي الذي طوّره خلال حياته. و صرّح بأن الكتابة كانت بالنسبة له مناصًا عن قتل نفسه. مؤلف كهذا يُقرأ له في لحظات اليأس والتشاؤم. فهو لا يحزننا، لكن بكل بساطة لا يجعلنا نشعر بوحدتنا مع كل تلك المآسي. لنتسلل خلسة إلى داخل أعماله: "إن قتل نفسك لايستحق كل ذلك العناء، لأنك تنتحر دائمًا بعد فوات الأوان" "المتفائلون فقط هم من ينتحرون، المتفائلون الذين لم يعودوا قادرين على التفاؤل. أما الآخرون فلا دافع لهم للعيش فأنى يكون لهم سبب للموت؟" "لا تكتب إلا إذا كنت ستقول ما لا تجرؤ أن تُفضي به لأيٍّ كان". و"ماذا تفعل من الصباح إلى الليل؟" -"أتحمل نفسي." سنة 1937 ، كانت سنة تحول لسيوران، انتقل إلى باريس وأصبح مواطنًا فرنسيًا. ولم يعد أبدًا إلى مسقط رأسه. وكان هذا سببًا آخر لسوداويته: النفي عن موطنه. ومع ذلك كان يؤكد أن أي شخص لا يشعر بأنه منفي فلا مُخيلة لديه. "أبله القرية وحده من يشعر بالانتماء" شهد سيوران الحرب العالمية الثانية في باريس. وبعد انتهائها انتبه إلى دار النشر المشهورة "قاليمارد". ونشر أول عمل له بالفرنسية، "مُختصر التحلل" نشر عام 1949. الكتابة بالفرنسية نقلًا عن سيوران: "ككتابة رسالة عاطفية مع الاستعانة بقاموس." أصبح الكتاب الأكثر مبيعًا وأول كتاب في سلسلة مريعة وشريرة وكئيبة، مكونة من الحكم والمقالات اللاذعة القصيرة. وكل عنوان يكون استفزازًا أو لكمة: قياس الوجع، فتنة الوجود، وتحفته"أزمة ان تُولد" كل كتاب يتناول بصرامة مواضيع كالمرض والموت والانتحار. ومن المفارقات المضحكة أن عاش المؤلف حتى أرذل العمر في سن 84. وعندما توفي سنة 1995 أصبح منارة ثقافية في فرنسا يستقطب عددًا من المجموعات التي تهكّم بها في أعماله. كانت الحياة الطويلة التي عاشها غريبة كليًا، وغير مهمة برمّتها. هذه السوداوية مهمة في عصر والت ديزني تعتبر كتابات سيوران امتدادًا لكتابات أولئك الأوروبيين العظماء البائسين أمثال: لاغوشفكل، ليوباردي، نيتشه، وصامويل بيكيت. الذين رأوا أن الحضارة إلهاء تافه عن الوجود الذي لا معنى له. "أبلهٌ من يظن أن هنالك معنى من كل هذا!" كما أكدّ سيوران. لكنه أبقى على خفة ظله وبهجته. كان من أعظم مصادر بؤسه أنه لايستطيع النوم جيدًا وغالبًا مايظل مستيقظًا حتى الثالثة صباحًا. وقد يخرج ليجول في طرقات باريس حتى طلوع الفجر. ذكر ساخرًا في "أزمة أن تُولد"، "ما نفع أن تصلب مرة واحدة مقارنة بما يحدث يوميًا من المعاناة المؤرقة!" كان سيوران مهووسًا بالانتحار، "لكن من الأفضل أن تظل على قيد الحياة.. وتفكر وتتصرف كالموتى" بعد ذلك يقول سيوران: لماذا يمتنع الإنسان أن يريح نفسه بفكرة التوقف عن الوجود؟ "استمراره في العيش ليس سوى عجز في مخيلته وذكرياته." ويستمر قائلًا:"أنا مجرد حادثة! لمَ أتعامل مع هذا الوضع بجدية؟" لكن الانتحار كان فكرة مريحة للغاية، فيقول: "لا نشعر بالرهبة من المستقبل إلا عندما نكون متأكدين أننا لن نستطيع قتل أنفسنا عندما نريد ذلك." "أن تضطر للعيش دائمًا في خوف من سوء ما قد يأتي جرّبت أن أكون السبّاق في كل الظروف، أن أُلقي بنفسي إلى المهالك قبل أن تحدث بوقت طويل." عصرنا يتميز بالتفاؤل، وذلك يعظم معاناتنا فبداخل كل شخص منّا أكثر حزنًا مما يدّعي. كتّاب مثل سيوران جعلوا للحزن مناسبة بداخلنا لنستطيع التعبير عنها حتى يصبح أقل وأخفّ وطأة. في كتابه الرائع"أزمة أن تولد" كتب سيوران:"أستطيع أن أكوّن صداقات مع الناس فقط عندما يكونون في أضعف حالاتهم، وليست لديهم الرغبة أو القدرة على استعادة أوهامهم العاطفية الفطرية." في ذلك النوع من الحالات، عندما يتعيّن على الشخص الغرق فيها خلال فترات منتظمة إلى حد ما، نصبح ممتنين لوجود أعمال إيميل سيوران الكئيبة التي تواسينا ترجمة: فريق أُترجم @Autrjim ترجمة: فريق أترجم @Autrjim ترجمة: فريق أترجم @Autrjim
Views:53816|Rating:4.65|View Time:12:15Minutes|Likes:1122|Dislikes:84 Philosophy can be more than wishy-washy flim-flam. It can be practical. The United States is normally not considered the birthplace of philosophical ideas, but leave it to America to come up with one of the most productive philosophical schools ever created.
Menand, Louis. Pragmatism: A Reader. New York: Random House Publishing, 1997.
Cobley, Paul and Litza Jansz. Introducing Semiotics: A Graphic Guide. Malta: Gutenberg Press, 1997.
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS:
contribute to my Patreon:
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that began in the United States around 1870. Charles Sanders Peirce, generally considered to be its founder, later described it in his pragmatic maxim:
Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object.
Pragmatism considers thought an instrument or tool for prediction, problem solving and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes. The philosophy of pragmatism “emphasizes the practical application of ideas by acting on them to actually test them in human experiences”. Pragmatism focuses on a “changing universe rather than an unchanging one as the Idealists, Realists and Thomists had claimed”.
Hashtags: #history #pragmatism #philosophy #CSPeirce #WilliamJames #JohnDewey #neopragmatism
philosophy can be more than wishy-washy flim-flam sometimes it can be practical hey cypher here the United States isn't really considered a birthplace of philosophical ideas but leave it to America to come up with one of the most productive schools of philosophical thought the history of philosophy tends to be completely focused on Europe before World War two because it's become so enmeshed in the American psyche we and the rest of the world by extension have forgotten where it came from you see pragmatism yielded results that we take for granted and it's about time that we stopped you know most people use the word pragmatic as a word that's interchangeable with like realistic or practical but that's actually a bit of a problem being pragmatic is supposed to mean something more than that it's a way of thinking an entire philosophical school of thought so what is pragmatism well in the crudest definition it's a form of rationality which places reliance on practical considerations over theoretical ones that may sound stupidly simple and it kind of is because pragmatism is so much more than that but to truly understand what it is we have to go through the history of it charles sanders peirce or CS pierce is considered to be the father of pragmatism this guy was amazing he came up with loads of stuff hell he was so smart that he came up with the way that logic gates are used for processors back in 1886 that's right he basically invented how a CPU works half a century before the CPU was ever created some of you may have heard of semiotics it's basically the way that meaning works in language you know the actual logic of meaning in language well Peirce invented that this frenchman named de Saucer came up with a chopped-up version of it decades later but it is completely inadequate in comparison to CS Pearce's version which predates it and is better Peirce even preempted Bertrand Russell's attempt to make a foundation in logic for mathematics the Duke created the logical foundation for quantum physics I mean he was really freaking productive so why doesn't it seem like anybody wants to talk about him anymore well part of it is the whole Eurocentrism thing and the way that American discoveries tend to get discounted prior to World War two but even more so it's the epistemological foundation in which he based all of these discoveries on and Europeans at the time thought it was just American jingoism so they paid it no heed that jingoistic epistemology is the core of pragmatism epistemology is merely the study of the way that knowledge works like what counts as knowledge how do I know if I know something what is the truth well CS Peirce being the practical guy he was he cut through all the inane nonsense to get to something really worthwhile he formulated a theory of truth that actually yielded results all the time people get into arguments without any kind of idea of what counts as the truth but pragmatists don't really have this problem you might think that this is a bunch of Sophos mumbo-jumbo at first but hear me out Pierce said truth is the concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth now that's a bit convoluted so let's take it out of the 1860s academic speak and put it in a more understandable context essentially the absolute truth is what people would rationally conclude if they were given infinite time to inquire and argue so the current truth is merely who holds the best argument that fits the current evidence available it seems so simple it's stupid right you wouldn't believe the amount of argument there is in philosophy over this though but this is the foundational theory of magnetism the normal theory of truth is that it is a reflection of reality but the pragmatic theory states that it is a reflection of practical inquiry Europeans really hated it so they generally ignored it even though so much subsequent scholarship has been entirely reliant upon it there is a significant corollary to this theory which Peirce explained in this way consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings we conceive the object of our conception to have then our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object what that means is that pragmatists think there is nothing more to how we may think of something than how it may affect us as in the practical world is the only world we may know that means these guys were more concerned with results than the deeper meanings of the universe because if they don't have practical value then they don't have any value at all in this conception you see this was being said in the 1860s and 70s when people like Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx were putting out completely self-involved philosophies that were fairly useless at the time they argued over whether or not there was a God or what is the most ethical way to treat people or what direction humanity should grow philosophers like those guys were arguing over the nature of existence this is not worthy conversation to a pragmatist because if the nature of reality is not part of something that you can find through practical inquiry then it is not part of the truth now as with any philosophical school I'm obviously oversimplifying this quite a lot and there are a whole lot of different theories associated with pragmatism but I'm just trying to show a very basic outline after all as the pragmatist would be I'm more concerned with the results than the system that yielded them with these two principles you can actually build a lot now Peirce focused mostly on logic and language he used his theory of truth to test what principles were better than others checking one against another or for its practical usage rather than its purity of form you have to understand this is still something fairly alien to the way most people conceive of scholastic thought normally they think of truth as something that is representative of reality whereas this is just what works best it's almost scientific in its conception but is actually applicable anywhere unlike the scientific method CS Peirce by checking his work against what is the most practical was able to create all that stuff that I said before simply through this kind of philosophy so Peirce actually gathered a whole slew of followers most important of which was William James now this guy was no slouch himself he popularized pragmatism through a whole series of lectures which spurred on a whole generation of pragmatists another follower of Pearce's was John Dewey James and Dewey worked together to create all the normal tenets of a full-blown philosophy such as science religion aesthetics ethics and metaphysics but that's all too esoteric for this video but I'm sure you can imagine what pragmatic philosophy comes out to on your own just think is it practical and extend that to all of your core beliefs instead of delving into that let's look at what they created that still affects your life today for instance James and Dewey created an entire branch of psychology called functionalism they were not the first psychologists in America but they were the most influential of the early ones in America he was actually more influential than Freud and pragmatism took over the profession in the 1890s a later pregnant hiss named John Watson took that idea of functionalism combined it with conditioning and created behaviorism in the 19-teens which became the for most theory in psychology for decades another guy named George Herbert Mead used pragmatism to create symbolic interactionism which is one of the three major perspectives in sociology it's often defined by stating people act towards things based on the meaning those things have for them and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation this is still a standard part of sociology but it wasn't popularized until the 1930s you see how a simple consumption in the world yielded tremendous results so what happened to pragmatism I mean it kind of died out in World War two well that's because logical positivism kind of took over the problem with logical positivism is that it relies very heavily on the verification aspect of pragmatism but not so much the practical emphasis meaning there was a movement back to the stale world that is truth being the reflection of reality rather than something that is malleable by practicality now pragmatism has actually seen a resurgence with the likes of Richard Rorty but with the rise of post-modernism that kind of philosophy has gone by the wayside since then the word pragmatism has turned over to simply being practically minded which is kind of too bad because this conception of truth has yielded tremendous results as I have explained it's kind of weird yeah but trying to say that the truth is merely who has the best argument that seems to be a pretty good working definition and that's the whole idea of pragmatism is that it is a practical definition of truth and that's why we have gotten so much out of it CS Peirce was one of those geniuses that are easily equivalent to that of Aristotle decart Einstein our Kant pragmatism is what he created to fuel that and half a century of revolutionary theory followed in his wake now you can probably see how it's uniquely American right remember every person I've mentioned thus far was American it seems like extending practicality to an entire philosophy would be something that you could only get in the USA now there obviously have been other schools of thought like transcendentalism but I can't really think of anything that has had that much of an impact in America let alone the world hell can you think of another philosophy that has had that great of an impact I can't so why do you think that pragmatism gets so overlooked the philosophy
Views:2379979|Rating:4.92|View Time:23:14Minutes|Likes:57331|Dislikes:910 What strange places lie to the far east and south of Westeros? What are the dangers of Sothoryos and the Basilisk Isles? What lurks in the Shivering Sea? What does the Great Empire of the Dawn and the Five Forts reveal about the Long Night and Azor Ahai? What are the dark mysteries of Asshai?
Map by Klaradox:
Images from The World of Ice and Fire used with permission from Random House.
Images and video from Game of Thrones are the property of their creators, used here under fair use.
Check out Lucifer Means Lightbringer:
And History of Westeros:
Buy The World of Ice and Fire:
Buy ASOIAF maps:
Buy A Game of Thrones Book 1:
Spider and snake:
Created with Adobe After Effects and a Shure SM7B microphone:
Special thanks to Patrons Reverend Xandria, Cameron Weiss, Jason Rattray, Ryan Steele, Eric Louis-Dreyfus, Triangle Wine Company, Harry, Chris Cole, Paul Lesiak, Hank Lero, Zach Gordon, DscoDan, Shane Veglia, Cregg Riley, Joel Soucy, Ali Almuhanna, LVE, I think a Faceless Man ran up and said ‘Valar Morghulus’ before running off?
تحدث معظم لعبة العروش في Westeros – منزل ستاركس و Lannisters ، و الجدار والعرش الحديدي. لكن Daenerysâ € ™ تبدأ القصة في القارة الشرقية من ايسوس â € “مع بحر Dothraki ، و Slaverâ € ™ s خليج. نحن أيضا نرى برافوس ، بنتوس ، فولانتيس Valyria في العرض ، و Qarth. لكن العالم لعبة من عروش هو أكبر بكثير مما نراه في هذه السلسلة. يصف الكتاب العالمي الآن المدن والممالك البعيدة ، مع خاصة بهم الثقافات ، والتاريخ ، والأسرار. بعض من أغرب الأماكن في الشرق الأقصى Essos ، وفي القارة الجنوبية من Sothoryos. Sothoryos مليئة بالغابات ، المدن المدمرة والغموض. لا أحد يعرف كم هو كبير. ا dragonrider قضى ثلاث سنوات في الطيران على القارة ، لكنها لم تعثر عليها أبدًا الحدود الجنوبية â € “â €“ â € said â € â € â € € â € € â € ™ s الأرض بدون نهاية. المستعمرات على Sothoryos ديك كل فشل ، والباحثين عن الكنوز لا إرجاع . تسبب غابة مليئة بالمرض – الدم يغلي ، حلوت ، دودة ، الموت الأحمر . يقول Archmaester Ebrose أن المرض يقتل نصف جميع الزوار Westerosi. وتلك الذين ينجون من المرض غالباً ما يُقتلون من الحياة البرية. هناك "التماسيح الضخمة" â € œ carvivivorous â € œ ، والثعابين ، والبازيليسك ، والقردة ضخمة جدا يمكن أن تقتل الأفيال مع ضربة واحدة . الحيوان الوحيد الذي ليس مميتا هو ليمور الارجوان العينين ، ودعا ليتل فاليريان. إلى الجنوب ، في الجحيم الأخضر المناطق ، ويقال أن الخفافيش مصاصي الدماء التي يمكن أن تصفي رجل من الدم ، والسحالي وشم مع مخالب على أرجلهم ، مثل بعض كيندا الديناصورات. أسوأ من الجميع wyvernsâ € ، والتي تشبه التنانين. إنهم لا يتنفسون النار ، لكنهم غاضبون للتعويض عن ذلك . بعض أنواع الصيد في حزم من مائة ، أو استخدام جداول سوداء التخفي للتسلل نقض فريستهم. وإذا بطريقة أو بأخرى تنجو من الحياة البرية والمرض ، هناك رعاة يجوبون الساحل. و هناك Sothoryi الأصلي ، ودعا Brindled رجالي. انهم شعر ، كبير الجوفاء ، â € œmassively Muscledâ € â € "reatcreatures" ، مع أنوف مثل الخطم ، والجلد السميك مثل خنزير ، ملون الأبيض والبني â € "Brindled Men canâ € ™ t إعادة إنتاج مع البشر الآخرين. The Brindled Men قرب تعلمت الساحل أن نتحدث المحلية "الحديث الكلام". لكن الرجال إلى الجنوب ويقال أن يكون "أكلة لحوم البشر" ، الذين يعانون عبادة آلهة الظلام. وقال انه كان هناك مرة واحدة الرجال سحلية ، وسكان الكهف العين – السباقات القديمة التي دمرت أو تلتهم من الرجال المحاصرين. لكن أعظم الغموض من Sothoryos يين. يين مدينة مدمرة â € œolder من timeâ € وبنيت من الهائل كتل من "الحجر الأسود". لا أشجار أو الكرم تلمسها – إنها مدينة الشر حتى أن الغابة لن تدخل " . عندما حاولت الأميرة Nymeria لتسوية بعض روينار في يين ، جميع السكان "أفرغت" بين عشية وضحاها. لذلك هذا هو Sothoryos. قبالة الساحل الغربي هي جزر البازيليسق â € œ المتقيحة قرحة بحر الصيف. حار ورطب الجزر سرب – مع الذباب لاذع والرمل البراغيث وديدان الدم. قديم فاليريا المستخدمة جزيرة كمستعمرة جزائية "أسوأ" لهم criminalsâ €. في مدينتهم من Gogossos ، Valyrian â € œTorturers وضعت العذابات الجديدة ، و يمارس â € œblood sorceryâ € ، التزاوج â € œbeastsâ € "إلى النساء العبيد" إلى الولادة "أدخلت نصف إنسان childrenâ € . انها فعلا مجنون كم مرة يتم ذكر â € œ half childrenâ € في الكتب . من الممكن أن الأنواع بين القديمة تربية ما يعطي Targaryens تنينهم السحر ، و Starks قوتهم warging. من الممكن أيضا أن بعض هذه الملتوية ربما تم إنشاء وحوش على Sothoryos بواسطة Valyrian سحر الدم. Thereâ € ™ ق بعض غريب القرف في الكتب. على أي حال ، بعد الموت نمت Gogossos "قوية وفعالة" على العبودية والشعوذة ، حتى تم محوها في طاعون . في النهاية ، عاد الناس – و- الجزر هي الآن موطن للقراصنة ، في المدن مع أسماء مثل â € œStyâ € ، â € œWhoreâ € ™ s Gashâ € و "بلاك بودنغ". لديهم الساحرة العادات المحلية ، مثل تراكم جماجمهم الأعداء على جزيرة â € œ قرح ل بعض إله الظلام ". من حين لآخر ، الحر المدن تأتي للقضاء على القراصنة ، ولكن القراصنة دائما يعود. مرة واحدة ، قبطان دعا Saathos Saan أرسل لتدمير القراصنة ، وبدلا من ذلك أصبح ملك القراصنة الذي حكم لمدة ثلاثين سنة. Saathos ساان هو سلف لصديق داودوس Salladhor Saan. أيضا ، في كتاب 5 ، القطارات Barristan Selmy صبي من جزر Basilisk ، يدعى Tumco يقول لوه وباريستان إنه الأفضل المبارز الطبيعي "هو ينظر إليه" خايمي Lannisterâ € ، وهو الثناء. تتميز جزيرة Basilisk Isles بأنها "مميزة" idolâ € من ضفدع â € œ عملاق â € œœ aspectâ €. التمثال هو أربعين قدمًا عالية ، ونحت من "الحجر الأسود الغني". ال الناس من جزيرة تاد "غير سارة" الجانب يشبه السمك وجوههم ، والكثير يديكبيد والقدمين. هكذا مثل يين ، هذا هو إشارة إلى HP Lovecraft ، الذي كتب حول الناس غريب مريب عبادة غريبة الآلهة مريب. هذه "الحجر الأسود" الهياكل منتشرة في جميع أنحاء العالم من عروش ، وألمح إلى أنها بنيت من قبل سمى الناس الأسماك Lovecraftian "عميق التي يبدو أن أحفادها لا يزالون يعيش في جزيرة الضفدع. لذا في الختام ، فإن يقول worldbook ، جزر البازيليسق هي "أفضل" تجنبها. منذ آلاف السنين ، في المراعي من ايسوس ، بدأت الحضارات الأولى. عنوان تفسيري يقول أن البحر الفضي كان يحكمه فيشر الملكات من قصر عائم. كانت هناك هاجي شعر الرجال الذين ركبوا المعركة على حيدات ومدينة ليبر حيث "قبيلة" تحارب "آلهة العنكبوت" ضد هؤلاء â € œ إله الثعبان â. وقال انه كان هناك مملكة القنطور – الذين قد يكونون في الواقع تم "محاربي". هذه فقط الأساطير القديمة ، لكننا نعرف أنه كان هناك مملكة تدعى سارنور. دعا السارنوري أنفسهم رجال طويل القامة ، وكانوا ووريورز السحرة والعلماء. بنوا المدن عبر المراعي ، مع القنوات والبيوت المتنقلة والمكتبات ، عبادة "مئة" الآلهة . جنود سارنوري "ورثوا الصلب والعنكبوت" silkâ € ، واستقل "العربات المحشو" ، مع النساء والرجال القتال معا. حارب سارنور ضد القاتشي ، و Dothraki ، و حتى قاتل في حروب Valyriaâ € ™ ق ضد Ghis . تم تقسيم السارنوري إلى الكثير من المنافسين الممالك ، ولكن تقليديا كانوا يحكمون من قبل الملك العالي في قصر عجيب مع الف غرف. تقول الأسطورة أن الأول الملك العالي كان يسمى Huzhor Amai ، الذي يبدو مثل أزور Ahai ، البطل الذي انتهى فترة طويلة ليل . العديد من ثقافات Essos لها نسختهم الخاصة من هذه القصة – انها مثل كيف سفينة نوح و ملحمة جلجامش تخبر إصدارات مختلفة من نفس الفيضان أسطورة سيطر Sarnor على الأراضي العشبية الغربية منذ آلاف السنين. ولكن بعد الموت من Valyria ، داثراكي المتحدة ، وهاجم سارنور في القوة. المدينة بعد سقوط المدينة ، و كان سارنور بطيء جدا ومنقسما على محاربة التهديد . تم كسرهم في معركة نهائية يسمى حقل الغربان. الآن ، مملكتهم يكمن في الأنقاض ، وأقل من عشرين ألف رجل طويل القامة. شمال ايسوس هو محيط شاسع يسمى البحر يرتجف. إنه مليء بالأسماك ، السرطانات ، الأختام والحيتان و leviathans حجم الجزر. البحارة أيضا يصفون حوريات البحر ، و "الأرواح المحروقة" ، ورذاذ ذلك يمكن على الفور تجميد سفينة كاملة. هناك تقارير كثيرة من التنانين الثلج ، "الوحوش الكلسية" أكبر بكثير من التنانين العادية. Theyâ € ™ إعادة مصنوعة من الثلج الحي ، وتتنفس باردة بدلاً من ذلك من اللهب – وهو ما قد يفسر التجميد السحب. عندما يموت التنين الثلج ، فإنها تذوب ، لذلك لا يمكن لأحد أن يثبت وجودها. في أقصى الشمال هو نفايات القطب الشمالي حيث العواصف الثلجية أبدا النهاية. البحارة يصفون أضواء غريبة في السماء ، والتي قد تكون الشفق القطبي. هم هي أيضا حكايات خليج Cannibal ، حيث السفن دخول ، ثم يتم حبس عندما تجميد البحر خلفهم . وقال إنه â € œ ألف تكمن السفن مدفونة في خليج cannibal Bayâ € ، "لا يزال يسكنها الأطفال والأحفاد من أطقمها الأصلية "،" البقاء على قيد الحياة من خلال الاحتفال على لحم البحارة حديثا اشتعلت. يتم حكم الكثير من بحر الرعشة من قبل شعب جزيرة إب. الإيبنسيات قصيرة وقوية وشعر مع حشود مخبأة وفكين ضخمة. Ibbenese يمكن أن تتكاثر في بعض الأحيان مع البشر الآخرين لكن النسل عقيم هكذا مثل الرجال المثقلون ، قد يكون الإيبنينيون آخر الأنواع من البشر – كيندا مثل كيف Neanderthals عاش جنبا إلى جنب مع homo sapiens في العالم الحقيقي للحظات. الإيبنسيون هم حرفيون ماكرة ، الصيادين والمحاربين الذين يصطادون الرعشة البحر. وتشتهر سفن صيد الحيتان الخاصة بهم قوتهم في العواصف الجوية المتصاعدة ، وأخذ الحيتان للعظام ، الشحوم والزيوت. الجزيرة من Ib لديها من الغابات والجبال المظلمة ، والكامل من الدببة والذئاب والماموث. كثير ايبنيس نعيش وحيدا في هذه الغابة كما الغابات أو عمال المناجم. لكن الآخرين يعيشون في ميناء الرئيسي إببن ، في ظل قلعة الله-ملك â € œcolossâ € الخراب الذي كان يضم في وقت سابق â € مائة الملوك الإيبنزيين. تحت ملوك الله فتحت Ib الغابات في الجنوب ، والتي كان يسكنها "forest غابة صغيرة خجولة قبيلت" دعا Ifequevron ، أو مشوا وودز. ال ويعتقد مشوا وودز أن تكون ذات صلة أطفال غابة ويستروس – مشوا وودز œ الأشجار المنحوتة ، مثل كيف الأطفال يحفرون لكن الغابة بنيت مشوا أيضا "التوطين" أو "مدينة" وهو أمر رائع ، لأننا لم نشهده أبدًا مدينة بناها الأطفال في فيستيروس. لقد ذهب إله الملوك الآن ، وحكمت إيب من قبل مجلس النبلاء. لكن مشوا وودز يقال أنه لا يزال يعيش في الغابة العميقة ، وسوف يبارك أسرة تترك العروض من الأوراق والحجر. شرق ا ب ، نبدأ الدخول حقا بلاد بعيدة. المؤلف جورج مارتن يحذر لنا أننا نرى هذا العالم من منظور من maerers Westerosi ، الذين المعلومات في أماكن بعيدة قد تكون غير دقيقة. التشوهات والأخطاء الزحف في "هنا أن يكون التنين" اكتب الاشياء. كل شيء من هنا في قد تكون مختلطة مع الأسطورة. وقال شرق ايب أن تكون ألف جزيرة ، مبعثر قاتمة الصخور windswept. انهم يسكنها أ غريبة الناس بلا شعر مع البشرة الخضراء و قدم الأسنان إلى نقاط حادة. قالوا للتضحية البحارة للآلهة التي تعولها الأسماك ، ولكن انهم يخافون من البحر لدرجة أنهم لن يتمكنوا من ذلك لمس الماء ، "تحت تهديد الموت". البعض يقول إن جزر ألف هي "الأخيرة" بقايا مملكة غارقة في مدنها وأغرقت أبراج الآلاف من سنين مضت . مرة أخرى ، هذه الأشياء مستقيمة outta Lovecraft. جنوب جزر الألف هي مدينة ميناء نفر ، وتحيط بها المنحدرات وكفن في الضباب. نفر يبدو وكأنه صغير المدينة ، ولكن معظم المدينة مخفية تحت الأرض – يسمى نفر "المدينة السرية" ، المعروف عن استحضار الأرواح والتعذيب. إلى الشرق من نيفر هي غابات "غريم" Mossovy ، أرض اركانية من shapechangers و الشياطين الشيطان. هذه الأراضي الغامضة هي الشرق الأقصى مثل أي Westerosi . تنقسم Essos إلى سلسلة جبال رائعة دعا العظام، واسمه رفات أولئك الذين يحاولون عبورهم. الجبال مليئة بالأنهار ، والأخاديد ، وواسعة تحت الأرض الكهوف والبحار الشارقة. هناك تصاريح في الجبال – "منحوتة خطوات معقولة" و "مخفية" الممرات. لكن فقط بعض الطرق تقود من العظام – الفولاذ الطريق والطريق الحجري والطريق الرملي. كل يتم حراستها من قبل مدينة الحصن – كاياكايانايا ، Samyriana و Bayasabhad. كانت هذه المدن مرة واحدة البؤر الاستيطانية من "اركيد" Hyrkoonâ € . لكن البحيرات والأنهار في Hyrkoon المجففة يصل ، مما يقلل من المملكة إلى الخراب. الان فقط هذه المدن الثلاث تبقى ، دافع عنها المحارب النساء اللواتي يعتقدن أن "فقط الذين يعطون يتم قبول "الولادة" لأخذ الحياة " . المرأة تلبس حلقات حديدية في حلماتها والياقوت في الخدين ، ويتم تدريبهم في القتال من الطفولة. معظم الرجال في هذه المدن مظلمة ، وتعيش خصيان – فقط يُسمح بأكبر وأذكى الرجال لتربية وحكم المدن وصنعها العظام مزيج مشوش من النظام الأمومي و النظام الأبوي. شرق العظام هي سهول Jogos Nhai. هؤلاء الرجال يشبهون بعض الشيء Dothraki – الرحل المحاربين التي شنت المحملة عبر المراعي . لكن لا يركب Jogos Nhai الخيول – هم ركوب الخيل ، والتي في العالم الحقيقي هي الهجينة من الحمر الوحشية والخيول. خيول اللعبة من العروش متشابهة ، لكنها تميل إلى أن تكون صعبة وغاضب . هناك حرف كتاب يدعى Vargo Hoat الذي يركب zorse في Westeros – هو يقود الصحابة الشجعان الذين قطعوا خايمي يد Lannister من الكتاب 3 ولكن Jogos Nhai هي قصيرة والقرفصاء ، مع الجماجم وأشار لأنهم يربطون رؤوسهم عندما الشباب هو في الواقع شيء في العالم الحقيقي. المجموعات من Jogos Nhai يحكمها قائد الحرب و مونسنجر. عادة ما يكون الرؤساء من الرجال والنساء اللواتي يأتين ، ولكن في بعض الأحيان أدوار التبديل ، والعيش مثل الجنس الآخر . بسبب دينهم ، Jogos Nhai لا تقتل Jogos Nhai الأخرى. لكنهم باستمرار حرب الأجور على الشعوب من حولهم – بما في ذلك مدن العظام. قال ذلك قضت Jogos Nhai خارج الماضي من "الحجر" giantsâ € ، الذين كانوا œtwice كبيرة كما عمالقة Westerosâ € ، والتي تجعل € ™ م مثل 24 قدمًا أو سبعة أمتار. Jogos أيضا محاربة يي تي – امبراطورية في الجنوب . مريض من تعرضه للإغارة ، حاولوا YiTish للقضاء على Jogos Nhai ، ومرة واحدة هم اقتربت ، تحت الإمبراطور لو بو. لكن Jogos محارب امرأة تدعى Zhea ارتفعت ودمرت جيوش لو بوا ، مدعيا الإمبراطور الجمجمة باسم "شرب كوب". يي تي هو أقدم وأكبر من الحضارات الشرقية "مستوحاة من الإمبراطورية الصين . أرض التلال والسهول والغابات والغابات المطيرة ، قال أنه غني جدا أن أمرائها يعيشون في منازل من الذهب الخالص . غاباتها كثيفة ، ويقال إنها موبوءة مع basilisks ، ولكن شبكة من الطرق الحجرية يوفر ممر آمن. مدن يي تي أكثر رائعة من أي مكان في Westeros – يعيش الإمبراطور الحالي في قصر هذا أكبر من مدينة Kingâ € ™ بأكملها الهبوط. حتى يي تي مجنون قوية ، و تقول الأسطورة أنه منذ آلاف السنين ، ذلك كان أكبر. الإمبراطورية العظمى من غطت Dawnâ € most معظم الشرق الأقصى إيسوس ، مع ثروات وجيوش أكبر من فاليريان امبراطورية. كان يعتقد الإمبراطور الأول من يي تي ليكون إله على الأرض – ابن أسد ليلة والميدان الصنع للضوء. ايطاليا € ™ ق قال أن هذا الإله الأول الإمبراطور حكم عشرة آلاف سنة من السلام ، حتى صعد الى النجوم. ثم حكمت يي تي من قبل بيرل الإمبراطور ، ثم اليشم ، التورمالين أونيكس ، توباز ، وأباطرة أوبال ، كل عهد أكثر اضطرابا من الماضي. حتى الجمشت تم قتل الإمبراطورة وإغتصابها من قبل أخيها ، الإمبراطور Bloodstone. بدأ عهد الإرهاب ، وممارسة استحضار الأرواح ، والعبودية ، أكل لحوم البشر والتعذيب. انه "نمر امرأة ل عروسه "، وسجدوا" حجر أسود التي سقطت من السماء " قد تتصل بالحجر الأسود على يين و جزيرة الضفدع. وقال Itâ € ™ ق أن Bloodstone الإمبراطور تسبب ليلة طويلة، عندما ذهب العالم مظلم و الشياطين هاجمت. يي تيك نعتقد أن انتهت ليلة طويلة من البطل أزور Ahai . لذلك يبدو أن هذا هو نفس القصة مثل ليلة طويلة في Westeros ، عندما مشوا البيضاء هاجم أول وهزم من قبل الماضي بطل. يي تي حتى لديها بنية مثل الجدار â € the الضخمة الخمسة الحصون حماية يي تي من â € œdemonsâ € من œ التراجع عن الصحراء . فهل قام المشاة البيض بمهاجمة يي تي؟ أيضا، قصة امبراطور Bloodstone حقا على غرار قصة Westerosi من Nightâ € ™ s ملك. كلاهما يتزوجان من امرأة وحشية أنفسهم الحكام ، وعبادة القوى المظلمة . تبدو هذه خرافات ثقافات مختلفة من نفس الأحداث. ما الذي حدث بالفعل؟ ما سبب ليلة طويلة؟ وماذا انتهى ذلك؟ هذه الأسئلة محورية بالنسبة لآخر موسم العروش – والحرب لمنعها ليلة ثانية طويلة. سر آخر هو ذلك الحصون الخمسة مصنوعة من اللون الأسود الممزوج stoneâ €. تختلف عن الزيتي lovecraftian الحجر الأسود ، وقدم الحجر تنصهر من قبل Valyrians مع dragonflame. لكن الحصون الخمسة تسبق فاليريا. لذلك ربما الإمبراطورية العظمى من يي كان Ti تنانين خاصة بهم. ومكان آخر مع حجر تنصهر القديم هو Hightower في فيستروس. هل durchriders يي تي القديمة بناء الأهرامات ، أعني المونسنيور؟ سوف نذهب إلى أسفل تلك الحبيبة في أخرى فيديو. ولكن تحقق من LuciferMeansLightbringer على موقع YouTube الذي يتعمق كثيرًا في هذه الأشياء. جنوب يي تي هي جزيرة لينج. انها الغابات المورقة مليئة بالنمور والقردة، و انها غنية في â € œspices و gemstonesâ € . شعب Leng هي بعض من أطول في العالم ، يصل العديد منها إلى سبعة أقدام â € "ولديهم البصر أفضل من غيرها البشر. بالنسبة لمعظم تاريخها ، كان لينغ "جزيرة من الغموض" ، أغلقت إلى العالم الخارجي. إمبراطورة لينغ " المعروف أن يكون الكونغرس مع Old Onesâ € – الآلهة الذين عاشوا في مدن مدمرة عميقة تحتها غابات لينغ. في بعض الأحيان ، القديمة منها قال الإمبراطورة لتنفيذ جميع الغرباء على الجزيرة . توقف ذلك عندما غزا يي تي لينغ ، وأصبح الشعب المهيمن. ال دمرت مدن قديمة من الاوان القديمة إيقاف. ولكن "استمرار" تستمر في أن القديمة لا تزال تعيش في الظلام في الأسفل. هذه الآحاد القديمة هي إشارة واضحة أخرى إلى Lovecraft. في الواقع ، لينغ هو اسم غامض هضبة متعددة الأبعاد في Lovecraft mythos. إلى الشرق ، هناك أيضا مدينة كاركوسا ، يحكمها إمبراطور أصفر و Kâ € ™ Dath ، "طقوس لا توصف هي â € من أجل â € œmad godsâ € . المؤلف جورج وقال مارتن أنه أضاف هذه Lovecraft المراجع في الأساس فقط لملء خريطة – جنبا إلى جنب مع أماكن مثل مدينة الرجال المجنحين ، مدن الرجال بلا دماء وبونيتاون. إذن هذه الأماكن هي بناء ممتع في العالم ، لكن ربما ليس مهمًا للقصة. هناك هي مدينة واحدة تبدو مركزية بالنسبة لها عالم الجليد والنار. Asshai هو â € œœsternmost و southmostâ € â € œ نهاية العالم المعروف â € . ايطاليا € ™ ق مدينة ضخمة – أكبر من هبوط الملك ، أولدتاون ، فولانتيس و كارث مجتمعتين. و بني Asshai بالكامل من Lovecraftian â € œgreasyâ € "حجر أسود" ، مما يجعل Asshai الظلام و قاتمة حتى في الصيف. على الرغم من أن المدينة ضخمة ، السكان صغيرون. لا يوجد الحشود أو الأسواق الصاخبة – الناس يسيرون "مختلط" و "œveve" ووحيد. لا يوجد الأطفال في Asshai ، وليس الحيوانات. على ما يبدو، انهم لا يستطيعون البقاء على قيد الحياة من التلوث كريهة من نهر الرماد. المنطقة الأوسع تسمى أراضي الظل ، حيث عشب شبح متوهجة ينمو ، و "دراغونز [ضحك]". Asshai هو مركز السحر المظلم ، حيث الكهنة الأحمر bloodmages ، مستحضر الأرواح ، ومشوا الليل ممارسة تعاويذهم الرهيبة في الليل . على ما يبدو ، السحر أقوى في Asshai ، والباحثين يأتون من جميع أنحاء العالم لتعلم الأسرار والسحر. مليساندر ، كوايته ، Marwyn و Mirri Maz Duur جميع السحر الدراسة في Asshai. يدعي يورون جراي جوي أنه قد أتى و "ينظر إلى عجائب وأهوار ما وراء imagineâ € . The masked â € œshadowbindersâ € ، مثل Melisandre و Quaithe ، يقال أن يكون "أكرم كل السحرة" من Asshaiâ € . "يجرؤ وحده على الذهاب" يصل الرماد في عمق الأراضي الظل ، أين هناك "أعمدة والتنين والأسوأ". في "قلب الظلام" يكمن "Stygai" ، â € œ the City of the Nightâ € ، حيث â € œshadowbinders الخوف من فقيها. لذلك يبدو هذا المكان مركز كوني للسحر المظلم في العالم. إن "ظلام الظلام" يشبه العكس قطب إلى "قلب الشتاء" في الشمال من فيستروس. لكن من بنى أشاي؟ و لماذا بناء مدينة عملاقة للخروج من "الحجر الأسود"؟ إحدى النظريات هي أن الإمبراطور Bloodstone بنيت ذلك – لأنه يعبد الحجر الأسود بعد كل شيء. أو ربما كان أشاي اعتياديا الحجر ، ولكن بعض الكارثة السحرية مثل ليلة طويلة حولتها – الملوثة Shadowlands تشبه تداعيات بعض الكوارث مثل عذاب فاليريا. أو ربما Asshai بنيت من قبل أعماق Lovecraftian ديب – جنبا إلى جنب مع المدن تحت Leng، و Yeen و حجر الضفدع. كل هذه الأماكن الشريرة تبدو مترابطة – ظلام Asshai أشواط عميقة. لذا فإن عالم Game of Thrones أكبر بكثير من فيستروس. إنه مليء بالمخلوقات الغريبة الشعوب القديمة ، نغمات السباق غير المريحة ، أهوال الحب ، والأسرار الكونية. وهذه القوى نفسها من الجليد والنار هي اللعب في الموسم النهائي من عروش. جزء كبير من العمل الفني في هذا الفيديو هو من الغيب فيستيروس ، معرض لأعمال أربعين لعبة من عروش الفنانين. يمكنك ان ترى المعرض مجانا في برلين في يناير. أو يمكنك الحصول على كتاب فني جميل على كيك ستارتر. Itâ € ™ s حصلت على 80 قطعة من Westeros وما وراء ذلك ، الكثير لم يسبق له مثيل. هذا هو جميع المؤسسات غير الربحية ، وهذا غير مدعوم ، فقط احتفال العالم من عروش و من الفنانين الذين يجلبونه للحياة. ذا كيك ستارتر هي الطريقة الوحيدة للحصول على الكتاب ، ويتم إغلاقه حرفيا مثل اليوم ، حتى تحصل عليه وأنت يستطيع. الخريطة في هذا الفيديو هي بواسطة Klaradox ، و أعمال فنية أخرى بواسطة الصياغة ، ماندي فنكي ، سانريشيان ، كيفن كاتالان ، أوريانا فيسنر مات أولسون ، وأكثر من ذلك. الروابط أدناه. عظم المعلومات من هذا الفيديو من العالم من الجليد والنار ، يمكنك اختيار ذلك على الأمازون لدعم Alt Shift X دون أي تكلفة إضافية أنت. شكرا لمشاهدتك. يرجى مثل و الاشتراك ، وبفضل الرعاة ، بما في ذلك Curtis Trotter، Simon Kern، Vijay Ganesh، و LVE. في صحتك.
Views:150348|Rating:4.82|View Time:10:5Minutes|Likes:1530|Dislikes:57 Produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Experience # 763 Clip.
Hosted by Matt Dillahunty & Jeff Dee.
May 27, 2012
John welcome to the Dillahunty Zone. John called the show last week and was the subject of my video entitled “Another Damn Argument From Ignorance”. (see the link below) John is at it again, bringing his flawed logic and quote mining to new heights. This time Matt is at the helm, and John finds no takers for his brand of ignorance. He basically picks up right where he left off, but this time he is armed with a list of “experts” who agree with his premise of Ancient structures and technology being too advanced, indicating something supernatural in their origin. Problem is Matt doesn’t care if he has a list a mile long of people willing to support these fantastic claims, if they don’t pass the rigors of the Scientific Method in order to be validated by mainstream science it’s a waste of time. Matt and Jeff try many times to educate John on how a hypothesis becomes a valid theory by using the Scientific method, but John is having none of that. In the end the call ends up where all morons come to die, at the end of Matt’s finger on the hang-up button. Enjoy.
John’s call last week entitled “Another Damn Argument From Ignorance”:
TalkOrigins Index of Creationist Claims Debunked:
The complete video can be viewed at:
This video upload is in support of the Atheist Community of Austin and its Secular goals.
VISIT THE ACA’S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
► (The Atheist Community of Austin)
► (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
“The Atheist Experience” is a registered trademark of the ACA.
guys Don and Chicago how you done hey what's up dudes how's it going hey good good how's the weather out in Texas man I've spent some time in Fort Hood and I loved it that's pretty nice that's nice today yeah there it's pretty nice here in Chicago but yeah I called last week and dumped the conversation got kind of stale we were talking about DNA in ancient civilizations and I didn't have any references on me at the time and the whole is pretty much thought I was talking crazy you know how my wazoo but they're actually uh plenty of architects and engineers who have studied some ancient sites and pretty much have concluded that they're they're much older than what we initially believed and that a lot more technical engineering had to go on into building the pyramids and other structures then just using ropes and stone tools and copper chisels and yet we've already demonstrated that it actually can be built that way and I'm wondering if these architects and engineers I mean it's it's nothing to cite that you found an architect or an engineer that agrees with some fringe theory you can find that for everything there's there's people with PhDs that support all sort of medical whoo the question is whether or not their claims have actually withstood peer review and are now accepted science if they're not then there's no point even you know talking about it until that happens well the I think those things peer reviews is on I personally think the kind of biased you know Cruz the other adviser they're biased towards good evidence in reality they they have strict standards and you're biased against the process of peer review because it's not coming up with the stuff you like to hear well not necessarily um ah you you know graduated college and you know written papers and Irish tech science man and I respect those guys um but when things come up that contradict you know mainstream theory they tend to be pushed to the side and not really looked at because they jeopardize no no that's here's the thing what happens is if we have a bunch of established reliable scientific information that's that's consensus where people have made predictions and it's been independently peer-reviewed and independently verified and if somebody comes up with it with an idea that is wildly different from that then the position isn't oh you're crazy we don't want to hear that it's where's your evidence let's review it because turning science on its head is the sort of thing that would earn Nobel prizes and huge grants science isn't opposed to this and science it by the way isn't want someone monolithic you know entity it's if you had actual good evidence that would establish something that that we thought was that we looked at as absurd that's world view altering it's huge right and yet okay well then it's you know you don't get to portray it as because your pet theory hasn't actually survived good peer review maybe it will in the future maybe they'll come up with you know the evidence and you'll you'll be found to be correct but the time to believe that is after it's happened and not before well you know I think it's is it's all how you view the evidence in your worldview if you push a revolutionary worldview on a so-called scientific established worldview on how you view the evidence then you know you have to admit it can be bias and I think it's exciting to know that people are coming forward with new evidence that challenges the mainstream you know and I'm not kook I'm no you know I spent time in the military and I used to be an atheist and you know I get what you guys are coming from some of the stories that creation has come up with you know to justify or validate their God isn't I mean it's insane you know because you know they've been brainwashed you know the religion and but I have a different stance but I happen to think that there's different evidence out there that's in contrary to the mainstream belief especially regarding ancient structures and sites and civilizations and I can share a few with you if you care to listen I sure give me one because I don't know what we can possibly accomplish from this it to me it's not any different than providing you know calling in to say that you're convinced that homeopathy works despite you know the fact that nobody's been able to demonstrate this and you've got some you know particular bit of information you'd like it is in fact completely pointless to say this stuff to us we are not the peers that are going to review this information so we're not in a position to form any kind of of compelling reaction to it and all this is going to do is give you an opportunity to read your pet beliefs into the record and I don't think there's any point to that so tell me why get back to us when when the scientific establishment does agree with what you are telling us and then we'll talk about that yeah I mean if we if we can't agree on how we go about finding the truth I don't know what good it is for you to actually present your steps and every time you know I listen to your to your previous call every time people disagree with you you say well I believe blahdy blahdy blah that's fine you're welcome to your beliefs but the fact that you have them doesn't make them special or anything anybody else should pay the slightest attention to oh I think there's nothing our times agree with you I mean these these are my beliefs and beliefs of other individuals that clearly I don't yes what is that what was that to everybody that matters have to presume e-collar which on John hello what matters is not what you believe what matters is what you can prove right and I have some evidence here this no dude you don't prove it by reading that evidence into the record we don't know whether the we don't know whether the thing you want to tell us now is accurate so and we are not the people who are qualified to make that to make that decision nor are most of the people in our audience that those claims need to be taken before people who are qualified to evaluate it and all that letting you read that into the record will do is you know if you're you're coming from the standpoint of oh this is very exciting and people do have a bad tendency to latch onto stuff that sounds exciting when they have no idea how to evaluate whether it's true or not and so I think it's counterproductive to read exciting sounding unproved ideas into the record so I don't want to hear it because that's what science is based on no no no John John John science is not based on calling into an atheist TV show I know this happens to be a passion of mine you know I we don't care the discussion believers and you know I'm always up for discussion and I think this is something new that brings a new Erich von däniken was doing this in the 70s there's nothing new about this all right give me give me because because we always do this I want to know what you believe in why so you've got two minutes to tell me what your claim is and one piece of evidence for the best piece you've got oh okay very well last week look like I said the kind of session got kind of stiff that didn't have this thing in front of me but here's a list of architects and engineers who've been on the record confirming oh no you're not going to do that I'm not going to let you just rattle off a list of people that's an argument from Authority I have no way of verifying any of these people and what they say don't matter doesn't doesn't matter I need evidence not a list of people I don't care if you have a present well I just wanted to give some some validation to what I'm saying see oh no no no no John that doesn't validate you in any way I don't give a damn if nobody has ever said it or if you have a hundred thousand people you can cite you don't understand no you're done if every single person on the planet who is not a historian or paleontologist or whatever field these these claims you are about to try to share with us whatever field those fall into if every single person who's not qualified to evaluate that evidence thinks it's compelling it doesn't matter does not matter you know I tried I really really tried and if you're still listening or if you listen to this after the fact here's the thing I'm happy to hear what somebody believes in why is long as they don't drone on forever but you have to understand what the why part means and if I give you the opportunity and you say here's a list of people who think X that's no different from reading Bible verses to me and I'm not wasting one bit of time on that that is I care too much about the audience that's actually watching this to have them start bleeding from the eyeballs and ears because you don't understand the scientific process and feel like rattling off a whole bunch of people who think something because that makes you feel like you're probably more right because as other people agree with you I understand it it's what keeps people in religions the fact that they're constantly surrounded by a whole bunch of other people who agree with what they agree with and some of these people have really fancy titles and funny hats and it makes them important but it doesn't make what they're saying one millimeter closer to being true
Views:637979|Rating:4.85|View Time:52:50Minutes|Likes:10935|Dislikes:333 Peter Robinson talks to economist Thomas Sowell about his book “Intellectuals and Society.” Robinson and Sowell discuss the fact that intellectuals play a disproportionate role in society, as evidenced by linguist Noam Chomsky’s influence on liberal politics. Is a fancy education a high speed rail ticket to fallacy? Find out as Professor Sowell discusses the pride and fallacies of the intellectuals, in addition to the unused brilliance of the masses.
See more at
Barack Obama be a Columbia University JD Harvard Law School instructor in constitutional law the University of Chicago are you impressed our guest today Thomas Sol is not uncommon knowledge now welcome to uncommon knowledge I'm Peter Robinson be sure to visit us on our website at Hoover o RG /uk or on facebook at facebook.com slash UNC knowledge facebook.com slash UNK knowledge a fellow at the Hoover Institution economist dr. Thomas Sol is the author of more than two dozen books including the classic work conflict of visions dr. Souls latest intellectuals and society a revised and expanded version of the original bestseller Tom soul welcome thank you segment one what's wrong with the intellectuals Tom to quotations writing in 1981 historian Arthur Schlessinger Jr who attended Phillips Exeter and Harvard and held positions as a professor at Harvard and later at the City University of New York Arthur Schlesinger jr. quote those in the u.s. who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social collapse are only kidding themselves close quote quotation number two speaking in 1982 only months after Arthur Schlesinger jr. Ronald Reagan a graduate of Eureka College in an ironic sense Karl Marx was right we are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis a crisis where the demands of the economic order are conflicting directly with those of the political order but the crisis is happening not in the free non-marxist West but in the home of MA sister Leninism the Soviet Union it is the soviet union that runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens it also was in deep economic difficulty Tom the professional exquisitely educated intellectual Arthur Schlessinger jr. got it wrong and Ronald Reagan the graduate of a little school in the middle of the country Eureka College got it right a decade after these two quotations the Soviet Union went out of existence how come well other Schlessinger is part of a long and one might say distinguished line of people who have been absolutely wrong uh for decades and and since and he actually for centuries so this is just one of many flavors that you could quote it's not even the only time that author Schlesinger jr. was wrong by miles he was wrong and attributing the recovery from the Great Depression to Franklin D Roosevelt he was wrong and arguing that the tax cuts were going to make it but under Andrew Mellon we're gonna make it harder to a balanced budget they've not only balanced the budget they had a surplus and they paid down the national debt and even after john kennedy's tax cuts Treasury secretary Andrew Mellon when Andrew Mellon was earlier oh but in writing about and writing retrospectively about it he said he said that Mellon was very inconsistent and saying he wanted to reduce the national debt while cutting the tax rate right well he cut the tax rate but they were tax revenue is increased so Arthur Schlessinger was wrong about the tax cuts of the 20s yes and then when he served in the Kennedy White House he resisted those tax cuts which also worked and then he opposed Ronald Reagan he was thrown three times so what is the what is the pathology of intellectuals that I mean one condensation and unfair crude condensation but it's all sort of gets at a point of this book might be simply the fancier at your education the more likely you are to be wrong well you the more like but I would say there's something to that because the more like you are to spout off about things you don't know anything about the profit problem is that all of us have having never arranged within which we may be great but a few steps outside that range and we're totally lost uh you know Bobby Fischer that didn't go around commenting you know on on theories of evolution and stuff like that he was happy to play chess I'm but intellectuals someone like to who's a linguist like Nam Chomsky he does he didn't stick to linguistics if he stuck to linguistics we wouldn't have most people would never have heard of it so somehow or other a fancy education seems to give people the feeling that they have been given the diploma gives them permission to spout off about world affairs politics economics when all they know is linguistics or Arthur Schlessinger juniors case he knows a lot about the administration of Andrew Jackson yes fifty years before why what is it about having a fancy diploma that gives people the right knowledge oh it's all just just the general reputation of being an intellectual and you don't have to go that far away I mean you know a couple of years ago there was a mountain lion killed here in Palo Alto and all kinds of insane things was said by people at Stanford and whatnot but how terrible it was the killers mountain lion he was up in a tree near with school where school was what was about to let out who was about to let out you that the cops had been watching it all day yeah a tree in a neighborhood and when the school was about to let out they thought we have no choice maybe people who may have been you know I may have been the world's authority is on existentialism or Mayan culture or whatever they know nothing about not lions and the cops have had to deal with this before and they do know something about mountain lions opposing social visions intellectuals in society quote at the heart of the social vision prevalent among contemporary intellectuals is the belief that there are problems and solutions yes quote explain that well the people with the vision of the anointed as I call it believe there are solutions and the intellectuals have the inside track in providing those solutions those were the opposite vision does understand there are no solutions there are trade-offs and you know you can make this a little bit better by making something a little bit worse or you can make it a little bit better by making something a lot worse and that right now for example this mania for high-speed rail there's no question if you're willing to pour enough money down the rat hole we can have high-speed rail we can't have it they have it in Spain one of the economics professors in Spain said you know not only are they not covering the operating costs there has not been one dollar collected towards the infrastructure I mean like the rails and the trains they haven't got one dollar to pay for that they're not even covering the cost of running the trains on a daily basis you know that the conductors and the electricity so you've got in intellectuals in society you draw this contrast between what you call the vision of the anointed we the anointed because of our intellect our superior I'm I'm denigrating the view because I share your view that it's all nonsense but it's not nonsense to them so what's the fair way to put it what is it laya they have more knowledge than other people we know more than most much driver for we are in a position to serve a society see specific problems and propose solutions that's one fundamental vision which runs through much of Western civilization as you demonstrate here and the opposing vision is common sensical tragic you can't solve certain problems we will all die there is a human beings are in some ways perverse this would be the vision you argue with the founding fathers you check ambition with ambition checks-and-balances power is dangerous so why is it if you've got these two fundamental visions the vision of the anointed and the tragic vision of life and they run through much of Western civilization why is it the envision of the anointed that is the persistent temptation of intellectuals why are they drawn to it gives them a much bigger role in the world I mean if you believe in free markets what about all these people who want to have social justice people just go out there they make whatever deals they won't can with each other work things out and go on their way and though here is all is unused brilliant standing on the sidelines watching with impotent rage the tragic vision confines intellectuals to the classroom the vision of the anointed lets them run society that's the difference roughly so what you're saying is that it's just human pride it's it's it's the kind of vulgar urge to power oh absolutely and nothing more than that well that's a sufficient for for many people oh all right segments to the role of intellectuals in American life intellectuals in society quote there has probably never been an era in history when intellectuals have played a larger role in society than the era in which we live closed quote how come well for one thing for most of history you had autocratic governments you had Kings got improves and so on and then and there were and what the people thought didn't matter an awful lot on a democracy what the people think matters a lot and so and also in later times you give them a more prosperous society where we can afford from a financial point of view to send more and more people through colleges and universities and to end support books and things like that much more so than in the past and now you have people out there who fundamentally don't really know much beyond what they especially might be creating a certain vision of life in the electorate which the people with the holders of power have to take into account so the intellectuals are able to dominate perhaps is the word the climate of opinion yes in a republic of 300 million people yes and well classic example was the era between the two world wars where the intellectuals were all in favor of disarmament even while Hitler was arming Germany and when Japan was lobbying and so forth they were saying we should disband the RAF to British some British intellectuals and so on and and and and it was not that they convinced the holders of power holders of power power understood that Germany was rearming secretly even before Hitler took power you make this point Stanley Baldwin then the British prime minister yes saw what Hitler was up to oh yeah then the British and French intelligence services both knew this the public didn't notice and Baldwin was not about to tell the British public Germany was real I mean because the clear implication was that Britain must be rearm and the intellectuals have made rearmament you know poison politically and his professional opinion as a as a working politician was that the climate of opinion was such that the British British democracy couldn't bear the truth that's right because of what the intellectuals had done – yes through journals and newspapers and the chattering classes so to speak and what about Vietnam oh my gosh that the Tet Offensive was hailed by the intellectuals as a huge defeat for the American military forces after the Communists took over won the war took took took over South Vietnam Tet Offensive is 68 if the Communists finally win in 73 yeah the communist leaders themselves said they were devastated by the Tet Offensive they never want a military battle against American forces the whole time the Vietnam War went on but in the newspapers the the Tet Offensive was depicted as a great defeat for the United States so Lyndon Johnson and the military conducting the war in Vietnam knew that we had in effect that we had won not in effect one that we had won that engagement the Tet Offensive the Communists knew everybody knew intellectuals everybody and Lyndon Johnson instead of prosecuting the war is forced to announce toward the end of 1968 that he is not going to run for re-election that's the moment when America effectively surrenders in Vietnam yes because the climate of opinion got the it because the intellectuals got things wrong they dominated the climate of opinion and that if in a democracy if the people believed the war is unwinnable then it's unwinnable intellectuals in society ideological differences based on beliefs about facts causation human nature and the character and distribution of knowledge are ultimately questions about different perceptions of the real world leading to hypotheses which can be tested empirically close quote now everybody who's been to college and high school knows that what you've just described is is the intellectual method you come up with a hypothesis and you test it against reality and yet you argue here that the least interested in actual empirical tests testing hypothesis testing ideas against reality our intellectuals because them there are many talents they have a huge ego stake in a given set of conclusions in other words it's very a symmetrical I mean if you believe in free markets and you know traditional values and so forth there is no exaltation that comes with that you're just somebody believes in free markets and traditional values on the contrary there's a certain humility that comes with you yeah look the market knows more than I do yeah the traditional moral wisdom of the ages knows more than I do you humble yourself before the wider world right yes ok but but but but if you believe in social justice and saving the environment you know I mean you are really something and so they the people without viewpoint have a huge ego stake there and empirical evidence is like gambling all of that on a roll of the dice ok they don't want to test for fear that they might be proven wrong yeah they don't want to know the answer again intellectuals in society quote intellectuals on issues ranging across the spectrum from policy housing policies to laws governing organ transplants have sought to have decision-making discretion taken from those directly involved who have personal knowledge and a personal stake and transfer to third parties who have neither and who pay no price for being wrong close quote so again this this counter common sense you know what's best for your health therefore we must make the decision in a bureaucracy in Washington that's right well if you've been told all your life and then many of these people have from an early age they were in the class for bright gifted children they were the ones who got into the good high schools they were the ones who were accepted in colleges that accept the less than ten percent of the applicants uh that they've heard this all through their lives and after a while they must and all due modesty believe it all right the percentage of cabin appointments with experience in the private sector the administration of Dwight Eisenhower almost 60% george w bush over 50 percent barack obama barely twenty percent yes what are we to make of this but that there is a reason why things have declined the way they have that people who had sought have a track track encountering a fellow who had been a teaching as a fellow at Harvard when I was an undergraduate and I said to him I've been noticing that whenever there's a great disaster there always needs to be a Harvard man in the middle of it he said have you noticed that too you know I mean saying think of McNamara and the whiz kids and the Vietnam War you know think of the Ford Foundation well who was the Harvard man in charge of that I think she was Bundy sounds right yeah you know he we launched this whole notion of subsidizing community activists as the answer to the racial problems of course they have every community activists have every incentive to exacerbate the problem to the to the fullest I mean calm would be the end of their job so why I'm still trying to get get at this contrast between the growing role of America of intellectuals in American life which has taken place not only in our lifetime but in the lifetime of somebody who's in college is very day you can see it expanding over the last quarter of a century or so why should that be taking place now why should the why should intellectuals have a growing role and why should the nature of intellectuals have changed if you look at the founders Thomas Jefferson John Adams quite different characters and temperaments these were both extremely well read John Adams was a Harvard man and yet you don't get what you get I would argue and I think you'd agree but I put it to you you get the sense over and over again particularly in Adams you get it in John in Washington you certainly get it in the constitutional debates it's the tragic vision of life oh no question power is dangerous we need to hem this in we need to devolve as much power as we can to ordinary people now why is it that the founders should have grasped that and intellectuals today just don't see it at all well first of all these people did not make their living as intellectuals they do not make their living units politicians most of them most of them had they had day jobs and when the rebellion against Britain started they that put that aside for them for the time being to go into politics and to try to write up a constitution and all those kinds of things but they were not intellectuals in the sense in which I define it as people who earn their living by producing a final product which is simply ideas right segment three intellectuals condescending intellectuals in society quote intellectuals give people who have the handicap of poverty the further handicap of a sense of victimhood yes close quote explain that Tom the elections have a great tendency to see poverty as a great moral problem to which they have the solution now the human race began in poverty so there's no mysterious explanation as to why some people are poor the question is why if some people gotten prosperous and in particular why have some gotten prosperous to a greater degree than others but everybody started poor so poverty is not a mystery to be solved by intellectuals more than that I think one one of the things I wish I put more emphasis on in the book is that intellectuals have no interest in and what creates wealth and what inhibits the creation of wealth they are very concerned about the distribution of it but they act as if wealth just exists somehow and it's only a question it's like manna from heaven it's only a question of how we split it up and why should that be why shouldn't they find that question at least intellectually fascinating because it would destroy the whole vision that they have because it would lead to the answer of free markets well it would it would say there are enormous numbers of reasons why people acquire the ability to create wealth and they vary all over the world and so if you find for example that in centuries past Germans living in Eastern Europe had much higher standards of living than the indigenous peoples of Eastern Europe intellectuals and say well the Germans have somehow oppressed the people of Eastern Europe right or the ones who are into genetic determinism say Germans were born biologically superior of people of Eastern Europe but anyone with a knowledge of history would know that there are all kinds of reasons why Western Europe as a whole has far greater wealth could be producing capacity than Eastern Europe but of course that would then cut out the role of intellectuals they would then have to do what David Hume did which is wait oh he urged his fellow eighteenth-century Scots to learn the English language because that would open up a whole world to them that they would not have otherwise which leads to another quotation that I found very striking here Tom and intellectuals in society part of this you've touched on you write that although intellectuals pay a lot of attention to inequalities among racial and ethnic groups quote seldom has this attention been directed toward how the less economically successful might improve themselves by availing themselves of the culture of others around them close quote now that is a very arresting formulation poor people can improve themselves by availing themselves of the culture of others around them what do you mean by that I mean that the same things which allows some other people to prosper can allow them to prosper if they take advantage of those same things the Scots were a classic example they were one of the poorest and most ignorant people on the fringes of European civilization and centuries passed but once they for whatever reasons began to educate themselves especially to learn the English language which became a patient he built all over Scotland including human himself we're taking lessons in the English language Humes first language was Gaelic he I don't know if he's gay Leah was whatever they spoken those day all right yeah uh uh and and and with and from about the middle of the eighteenth century to the middle of 19th century the leading intellectuals in Britain were Scots right I mean you had Adam Smith and economics humans and human philosophy black and chemistry you go through the whole list and so they could do that but that was an extremely rare thing for an intellectual to say most intellectuals in most countries around the world see the issue is how those who are more prosperous should be brought down rather than how and add more with it the people people who have lagging should cling to their culture I don't know how you're going to keep on doing what you've always done and get results that are different from what you've always gotten to quotations Tom an editorial in the New York Times quote racial stereotypes still wreak havoc with the job possibilities of young black men close quote quotation number two thomas soul and intellectuals in society quote black unemployment rates were lower than those of whites as long ago as 1890 close quote at a 1930 as well and in nineteen thirty first of all black unemployment was lower decades ago before the civil rights movement before the New York Times began editorializing on the on black poverty how can that have been it it shows among other well the minimum wage laws one one huge factor 1930 was also the last year when there was no federal minimum wage law if you look at the unemployment rate of black teenagers in 1948 1949 it is a fraction of what it has been at any of recent decade and 1949 was a recession year so the black teenage unemployment rate in 1949 was a fraction of what was and even the most prosperous years of the 1990s and this is because the federal minimum wage said you must play pay every worker at least this month yes and when there was no minimum wage kids everybody but particularly you're talking about black teams you could get paid whatever a dollar fifty an hour fidelity but they could get employment they could yeah learning skills they could get reached the first rung on the ladder so to speak yes and be able to move up very quickly I mean McDonald's has over one hundred percent turnover a year people's like he's out you're he's out flipping hamburgers yes he's flipping hamburgers in January does not mean he's going to be flipping hamburgers in December somewhere how to get to work on time and get it that's right he's and he's not gonna be up he's gonna start to start up the ladder but the what was different about the late 1940s was the minimum the federal minute the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 specified what the minimum wage would be the runaway inflation of the 1940s made that number meaningless so for all practical purposes inflation had repealed the minimum wage law thank god I was a teenager in those years and you know when I started out my first full-time job as a Western Union messenger my starting pay was 50% above the federal minimum wage because inflation had made the federal minimum wage meaningless and so under those conditions in 1948 black 16 and 17 year olds had at an unemployment rate under 10 percent and slightly less than that of white teenagers the same age now as you come in and the Liberals say no we've got to catch up with inflation starting in 1950 they escalated the minimum wage regularly and then you begin to see these horrendous rates of unemployment among black teenagers diversity again I'm quoting from intellectuals in society quote sweeping claims for the benefits of diversity and innumerable institutions have prevailed without a speck of evidence being asked for or given close quote yes again how come intellectuals ought to be asking so we have diversity we have affirmative action diversity of course diversity is one of the sacred words of the Academy these days and nobody's tested to see whether nor city enriches yet and none you get no it's just definitional intellectuals have many skills which will enable them to evade the testing of what they believe and that negates the fact the fact that they are capable of testing it doesn't mean that they're going to test it Thomas soul once again quote at the same time you're getting all this melding of diversity this is not from intellectuals in society but it's from an interview you gave elsewhere at the same time you're getting all this melding of diversity there's an extremely narrow ideological conformity that's being enforced so we have diversity in the way people look the ethnic groups or from which they come the parts of the country from which they come but once you arrive you'd better start thinking the way we do yes I still get emails from students you know say that you know when they raise any issues that go against the professor's ideology they just get ridiculed segments for Thomas sole intellectual we just learned that you started out as a delivering telegrams this was in New York this is yeah living in Harlem so you were dilute you started out to living now let's take you to age 24 when you're at Howard University you write in to another book of well worth reading they're all worth reading but I love a personal Odyssey but I'm quoting from a personal Odyssey in this case quote I was a 24 year old high school dropout with mediocre grades in a mediocre institution close quote when did that change when did your own intellect become engaged when did the light bulb go on Oh before there but of course I was working during the day and going to school at night which is not the ideal conditions for you know intellectual results so I really didn't have the results so how so how did but young Tom soul what what I can recall you were telling me that you would wait up at night as I believed that this was when you were a teen you'd wait up at night for the early morning edition newspapers do them out you'd walk up this block at a little after midnight and buy the first edition newspapers at the newsstand take them back to your bedroom and read yes how what what what so you were an intellectual when you were about I'm not sure the reading the Yankee school was majoring in the law it was this Yankee source I feel so much better now I thought you were engaged in world I've always thought old time ago do you imagine anybody at home doing that today why we around @midnight freely and with you as a small old white man had a little newsstand in Harlem and I would and he obviously had enough people doing this to make him better make it worth his while to be open at midnight and I would walk it was a long block I'd walk down this long block get my newspapers and come on back home and read him a different world a quote again from a personal Odyssey I graduated from Harvard magna laude economics and Karl Marx had a lot to do with it Karl Marx got Tom's soul through Harvard explain yourself explainers well IIIi have been taken by the Marxist philosophy and therefore I it's done a lot of study I'm one of the few people I guess who's read all three volumes of capital and indexed them as I went and from this I I wrote a dis reading takes place before you get to Harvard I started but but at Harvard I got I reference with capital and that then provided me with a undergraduate honors thesis and it's the honors thesis that got the mag Nicole log the grade point average was just enough to make me eligible I see and you enjoyed yourself at Harvard and have revered that Augusta institution ever since is that correct not quite I have I have never gone to a class reunion at Harvard even when I was teaching at Brandeis which is about a 20 minute drive from Hollywood there were what I saw there that got that bother me is what is what bothered me ever since there was the sense that we don't really need to test for evidence if all we bright good fellows all believe this it must be true mmm so you got the sense and then we have a sense of a kind of intellectual priesthood or or cash yes and then the same thing is your mission from the from the book that there is this is that you don't really have to go for evidence that you know these are things that we all know thinking it so makes it so from Harvard to a graduate program in economics at the University of Chicago quote I was as well aware that the University of Chicago Economics Department had a reputation for conservatism as they were that I was a Marxist what made this not matter was that we were both devoted to intellectual standards I developed much more respect for the University of Chicago than I ever had for Harvard close quote yes explain the difference in atmosphere intellectual atmosphere well in Chicago you had to make your arguments as some of some economists once said you know at Chicago economics is a full-contact sport and I don't know if you aware of the of the back and forth that goes on it's fierce but the fact of the matter is that everyone recognized you have to have facts you have to have logic you can't say that we believe this because everybody knows this no you got you got to show how and why and you write about someone who became your close friend Milton Friedman you studied with Milton Friedman now so here's a case Tom your thesis of intellectuals in society that an intellectual is someone whose end product is ideas Milton's end product was ideas and yet he resisted all the temptations that you delineate in this book he champions the free markets he was intensely suspicious of the self aggrandizement of intellectuals he loved Washington in fact he there was I can recall some to conversation ever went anywhere but some conversation here at the Hoover Institution that we should move to Washington and Milton said it would last two years and we are the intellectually would be taken over how did he the in strict terms a man of ideas and in that sense and intellectuals intellectual what what set him apart what made him different from the intellectuals in the pejorative well in the preface of the book I explained that I don't go into that yeah that I'm right right I was out of you I did not try to explain every sparrows fall uh I'm trying to find one of the general patterns that we can see looking at intellectuals over the past two centuries and I specifically say Milton Friedman's a classic example of someone who did not do it that way although I will be Milton himself somewhere pointed out that very early period in his life he was the Keynesian he was slightly a liberal okay so well but but he but he moved beyond that and a lot of people do I would say most of the conservative intellectuals were at some point of their lives on the left I mean Hayek was a socialist you go with you good you can just go through the whole list of them I mean there are a few like William F Buckley who was a conservative from day one but that he was the exception not the rule alright so if you won't explain the sparrows fall in Milton's case explain it in yours we've now got you to a graduate program at the University of Chicago but you're still a Marxist yeah what were the circumstances what was the intellectual journey that led you to reject mark well it was not not taking Milton Friedman's guy was a Marxist when I went into Milton Friedman's course I was a Marxist when I came out you are just one tough Marxist everybody they resist Milton so what happened Tom I went to work for the government as a summer intern in economics and seeing the thinking or lack of thinking that was going on in the government I realized that government is not where it's at so when you this ties back to the notion of empiricist the reality yes of the professional intellectual caste attempting to rearrange the lives of millions of people across this republic you said to yourself it's mediocre and second what was it that it was truly unthinking it was also something else that the Labor Department had its own institutional interests I was interested for example in whether the minimum wage law caused unemployment uh and I as I try to come up with ways of testing that I realized that the people in the labor department so that is a threat I mean it they were appalled his eyes I gave some ways we might try to test this once they had no desire to test the minimum wage law which provided one third of the fun for the US Department of Labor I see and so you once you say the government agencies have their own institutionally interests so don't look for them to serve the interests of others bring it to me your question is are all these teenage kids going to go out go without jobs and end up on the street and in crime and all the rest of it that was not their top priority and I realized he was they were people's well-being would never be the priority of politicians and bureaucrats all right after you leave a government service in Washington you go back to academia where you've had a long and extremely distinguished career you've taught at institutions that include Amherst and Cornell and UCLA you've been a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University for some three decades now and yet you spent this time swimming so to speak against that tide the intellectual tide that you describe here like just probing one more time and you feel perfectly free to swap me down one more time if you'd like what made you different Tom what is it in your character your background what permitted you to to resist these temptations to see them in the first one like others I did not successfully resist them at first but as time went on and more and more evidence accumulated I wasn't as prepared as some others were to just keep explaining away all the evidence so it's your impulse toward empiricism let's test it yeah test it let's test yes all right segment five our intellectual and Chief Barack Obama got his BA from Columbia his JD from Harvard he taught for a number of years at the University of Chicago Law School may I suppose that Tom soul is duly impressed hahaha oh yeah you might say the road to hell is paved with Ivy League degrees all right a few clips of the President of the United States delivering his State of the Union address earlier this year clip number one higher education can't be a tree it is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford higher education and imperative all he's asking is that all young Americans should have the same opportunity to get a really good education that Tom's soul had Tom I love the way the use of the word opportunity you know I had as much opportunity to become an NBA star as Michael Jordan had it just happens that there was some difference in skill and so the same thing with education there is no point trying to run people through institutions that they have very little interested and that they may not be suited for in fact I would argue that one of the problems of American education if you have a lot of people in college we have no interest in what a college is supposed to be nor is there any reason why they should and so the intellect eeem so you water down the education of the people who are there to get an education because of the people who are not there for that purpose and who and and there and who you're trying to appease in some way and is the impulse that we just saw of Barack Obama and his supporters to in constantly more and more people run them through college run the college and that's what that's to enhance the standing of intellectuals in society to teach more and more Americans to defer to intellectuals is that part of what's going on it's to win vote frankly all right straight forward is that President Obama once again I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here we've subsidized oil companies for a century that's long enough the free is pre Solyndra of good pre Selena you know this notion of picking out something and calling a good things like education or affordable housing or whatever it might be everything is a matter of trade up good what what did the band say there that he will not cede wind or solar or baddest battery the battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment it's amazing that a year is a man talking about five different industries and none of which he has the slightest experience it up but because he has these degrees in the places you mentioned he thinks and people have told him how clever he is he now thinks if he can can do this so can you no human being on this planet could do that can you explain Tom the particular appeal to intellectuals of the kind you describe here of the green movement of the environmental movement oh it shows them again in the role a relish there that they are the wise and Noble fortunate forcing the rest of us poor dummies to do what's right you know even though we don't want to so it's what your old friend Karl Marx would have described as the will to power yes all right you don't want it you don't want to cut them a little slice that's mean you're just saying it's ego and pride and vanity yes all right ha ha once again the President of the United States tax reform should follow the Buffett Rule if you make more than a million dollars a year you should not pay less than 30% in taxes and my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires in fact if you're earning a million dollars a year you shouldn't get special tax subsidies or deductions on the other hand if you make under $250,000 a year like 98 percent of American families your taxes shouldn't go up I love it Tom when people keep their own money that's called subsidizing them I love it yeah that's the brilliance of intellectuals now they like they can use words it's such a valuable way the biggest I mean the Obama has an absolute talent for saying things that make no sense but not only sound plausible but inspiring you know suddenly we're subsidizing the oil companies when they deduct the cost of doing business in order to arrive at the figure of how much net income they have everybody does that right so this notion though that if you if you're rich you ought to pay more straightforward enough no it is straight for us it's also straightforward now so why is that um people don't but they often think of people who richest people who happen to have money right extremely few people happen to have money there aren't that many Rockefellers it well but Rockefeller didn't happen to have money but his heirs happen to have it yes my heirs happen to have money so you're going rocket rocket rockefeller he rockefeller reduced the coils cost of oil to a fraction of what it had been before him benefiting millions of people across the country therefore they bought their oil from rockefeller rather than from people who had more expensive ways of producing oil and except one of them being than the use of tank cars on the railroads then progressives were or livid that rockefeller could ship his oil and a cheaper price than the other producers it never occurred to them in oil rockefeller shipped his oil and tank cars which are a hell of a lot cheaper to transport than in barrels I mean we still measure oil and barrels today but we ship it and tankers like and that's how he became a multi billionaire so we know from the study of economic history that wealthy people get wealthy by creating jobs lowering prices of yes products rather that Bill Gates the richest man in America one of the richest men in the world invented and invented an entire industry yes Lee didn't he all right we know all that and we also know as we mentioned earlier that cutting taxes worked to spur economic growth in the 20s again under john kennedy in the six x actually the it was johnson who ended up most of the tax cuts took plate that let's call it under the 60s and then again in ron ronald reagan and george w bush and george w bush so how is it that he can stand there in the face of this overwhelming evidence and be taken seriously I'm not asking now about Barack Obama intellectual I'm asking about the people listening to him the that's the question of the hour you have people who don't stop and think you had dumbed down education you've had propagandistic education and people he's what he's saying connects with all those with all those kinds of things all right in fact it goes the other way too I was just doing some research on Detroit and its decline and they kept raising the city income tax and every time they raised the tax rate the tax revenues went down a night in 2008 Charles Gibson right put this to Bob when he was a candidate he said why are you for raising the tax rate on the rich because you often get more revenue at lower tax rates than at the higher tax rates and he said well it's a question of social justice others he doesn't really care about whether the government raises more revenues if he can get people mad at the rich and they vote for him then the pot pop then it's a success just as a Coleman Young's policy is in Detroit were a great political success for him mmm it ruined Detroit but it would've dinner I've just had you and I happen to be reading on a similar subject from 1950 to the present two things happened one was that the population of the United States of America roughly doubled and the other was that the population of Detroit fell by roughly half yes unbelievable all right you right in intellectuals in society about the intellectuals view of diplomacy and military affairs one last clip of the President of the United States thank you that I'm sitting down look at Iran through the power of our diplomacy a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran's nuclear program now stands as one the regime is more isolated than ever before his leaders are faced with crippling sanctions and as long as they shirk their responsibilities this pressure will not relent Tom will you sleep better tonight having heard that I mean I may take a sleeping pill so I can forget it then this man has diddle with Iran to the point where we are the military people saying you know even if we decide and bombed that place they are so dispersed so far underground is by no means clear that we can do it the time when he was going through all this wonderful diplomacy he talks about was precisely the time when those things were put underground and dispersed it's like it's like when Hitler was our army you know that racial said at one point a memorandum could have stopped Hitler you know because the power was so lopsided lay on the side of the Western democracies I said they could say stop rearming or else and we can't do that with it with a diddle they did it with it ran to the point where now we don't know now but there's something interesting about to me whereas with social policy intellectuals tend to go for the policies and that give them greater power what greater power could an intellectual seek than military power the power to blow things up so why oh oh oh because because they believe that again that their intellect is that is the unique factor that it's going to save us and to say that they're a bunch of military people are going to be more effective than doing all these terribly clever things that Obama is doing undermines their whole position I see all right final couple of questions here I'm asking I'm asking with a particular viewer in mind let's say that there's a young man or young woman in the position of a Tom soul this is a birch if somebody's viewing this who loves to get online and read the early edition of the newspapers the way you did and they want to go to college and they may even dream of grad school and they love books and they love ideas but they don't want to become an intellectual of the kind that you described in intellectuals in society so I've been thinking what are the what is the advice that you would give them and I think one would be insist on empiricism is that right always insist on testing theories against the facts oh absolutely but in terms of education that get to be very careful in which college you choose and you can't go according to big names you go according to matching what you want with what the college offers and especially you don't want to go to a college where the professor's think that the students are there to provide them with an audience for indoctrination mmm and there's one final we're talking here about analysis and ideas and testing ideas against reality and I can't resist the feeling that there's an implicit theme here you're pretty good at writing what you want to say but I also sense a kind of implicit theme here which is a question of character almost a moral theme of if what animates the intellectuals is as fundamental is simple vulgar human pride then kids ought to pay a lot of attention to intellectual humility is that so is that a virtue that can be cultivated I I don't know he can be cultivated but it's hard to find for one thing but I but I think that they shouldn't go to someplace where there is a party-line and and where anyone who says anything different is just slapped down and that's unfortunately the case in too many universities so you're looking for genuine freedom of discussion yes and you're looking for a willingness to test theories against absolutely absolute all right last question we have an election coming up in November what's your sense good news or bad news at the unone we wake up after election day will the intellectuals have been trying have triumphed or have been swept out of Washington I would think that the odds of there being swept out are no better than 50/50 do you have a candidate as we record this the Republican primary is still grinding on primaries are still grinding on there's none of them there there's none of the candidates either party that would cause me to dance in the streets all right is there anything as you look at the current prospect for this country in the Western world that would cause you to dance in the streets if I thought that the voters had some sense of realism and that they were concerned earn with the lower the larger questions rather than whose ex-wife said what and so on or you know what Governor Romney did or did not do when he was head of Bain Capital that I would have affair in some sense of the loss of freedom which is infinitely more important than any of the specific issues by themselves that is Obamacare really is a huge step towards the loss of freedom I mean and it happens in small ways that but constantly I mean we can't have our light bulb that we want in our own home we can't flush the toilet with a kind of toilet we want we can't take a shower with the kind of showerhead we want we can't put out garbage out acceptor and broken down by the way that some little Gauleiters have decided we ought to do it I mean that it's just the accretion of these things many of which are too small to be significant in themselves but in the aggregate you could aggregate you can see the tendency of this the people who think they know better and they ought to be telling us what to do those people are the danger and if you don't see that then I'm not sure what the what the future is going to be like dr. Thomas sole author of the new expanded and revised version of the best-selling intellectuals and society thank you thank you for uncommon knowledge I'm Peter Robinson
Views:270|Rating:4.62|View Time:6:37Minutes|Likes:12|Dislikes:1 Scientific Method
What is Scientific Method?
Steps of Scientific Method
What is observation?
What is hypothesis?
What are facts?
What is prediction?
What is experiment?
What is theory?
What is scientific law?
Views:1428302|Rating:3.68|View Time:7:7Minutes|Likes:9548|Dislikes:3438 Many believers at the Flat Earth International Conference, an educational seminar about our planet, support a theory that Earth is flat.
Views:493746|Rating:4.80|View Time:11:50Minutes|Likes:8702|Dislikes:359 The leading theorist of modern right-wing political movements was an Austrian economist called Friedrich Hayek. For more on this and other great thinkers, see our new book:
Watch more films on PHILOSOPHY in our playlist:
If you like our films, take a look at our shop (we ship worldwide):
“Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992) was a political economist who had a tremendous influence upon how people in capitalist societies understand the concept of liberty. Controversially, for Hayek ‘liberty’ did not mean democracy or a commitment to a set of ‘liberal’ ideals. Rather, Hayek believed that liberty was ‘a policy which deliberately adopts competition, markets and prices as its ordering principles’……”
You can read more about this an other topics on our blog TheBookofLife.org:
Feel free to follow us at the links below:
Written by Chris Grocott
Produced in collaboration with Reflective Films
clearly August von Hayek was a political economist who had a tremendous influence upon how people in capitalist societies understand the concept of Liberty controversially for Hayek Liberty did not mean democracy or a commitment to a set of liberal ideals rather Hayek believed that Liberty was a policy which deliberately adopts competition markets and prices as its ordering principles to Hayek's way of thinking it was markets that guaranteed individual liberty and by contrast it was the interference of the state in markets which disrupted the operation of Liberty and started society down as he famously put it the road to serfdom Hayek was born to a minor part of the austro-hungarian aristocracy his father who came from a line of scholars was a medical doctor and a part-time lecturer in botany Hayek's childhood was filled with considerations of philosophy and economics after a brief stint in the austro-hungarian army during the first world war Hayek took up studies at the University of Vienna obtaining doctorates in law and political science and afterwards he became an academic economist Hayek's career can be divided into two periods the first which ended towards the end of the 1940s was spent mainly at the London School of Economics where Hayek concerned himself with many of the macroeconomic debates of the day the second half of Hayek's career was much more varied from 1945 onwards in first Chicago and later Freiburg Los Angeles in Salzburg Hayek wrote and lectured on a whole range of subjects economics yes but also politics psychology philosophy and the philosophy of science and while he officially retired in 1968 it was actually in the 1970s and 80s that Hayek enjoyed his greatest moments of influence being awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974 and subsequently being enormous ly influential upon the governments of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher during Hayek stay at the London School of Economics which he joined in 1931 he wrestled with a number of the then contemporary to with an economic theory much of this revolved around the business cycle which put simply is the way in which economies grow and contract traditional economic theory held that over time economies find themselves in equilibrium in short glutes and shortages should balance themselves out via market mechanisms leading to the optimal distribution of resources within an economy the problem was that the economic peaks and troughs seemed to keep occurring and they also seemed to be more dramatic than they should be when the world economy stagnated and then crashed in the late 1920s and the 1930s fierce debate began as to why this had occurred coming in economics from a fairly classical position Hayek focused on issues of supply he noticed that when economies were in recession central banks often artificially injected more money into the economy by printing cash or else or in addition by holding interest rates low to encourage investment rather than saving Hayek argued that this was a mistake when money was too readily available entrepreneurs invested in products which were not necessarily desired by consumers when these products went unsold companies would go bankrupt leaving industrial capacity invested where it need not be in addition cheap credit incentivized long-term capital investment and Hayek argued that this too was a problem because it limited the possibility of entrepreneurs attempting to realize short-term gains which would actually kick-start the economy resisting the temptation to meddle in the money supply was for Hayek crucial to solving the problems of the Great Depression Hayek's colleagues at the London School of Economics were receptive to his more classical approach but up the road in Cambridge a very different set of ideas was emerging centered on the thought of John Maynard Keynes Keynes argued that the problems of the 1930s economy were located not so much in issues of supply but rather of demand for Keynes the role of government was to invest in Public Works the buildings of roads for example which would create employment and therefore give people money to spend stimulating economic growth for Keynes full employment was therefore not only a laudable social goal but vital for the economy to Keynes's demand led economics was fundamentally at odds with Hayek's ideas Hayek felt that Keynes's focus on full employment would require governments to keep increasing money supply this in turn would create severe inflation of the kind that had wiped out his family savings when 1920s Austria had suffered a bout of hyperinflation throughout the 1930s Hayek and Keynes correspondent with each other argued bitterly and found very little common ground during the Second World War they even met under bizarre circumstances because of the German bombing campaign against London the LSE had been evacuated to Cambridge one night Keynes and Hayek were assigned to fire watch duty together on the roof of the chapel of King's College sadly we don't know what it was they talked about throughout that night the opening of the second half of Hayek's career is marked by his first foray out from dry economic arguments and the publication of what is probably his most famous work the road to serfdom Hayek saw the writing of this book as a form of war work forced upon him because as a former enemy competent Hayek was refused official service in the British war effort against the backdrop of Keynes's ideas on planning which had become accepted within British government circles the road to serfdom was an attempt to save people from themselves or more accurately from central government Hayek put forward several key arguments firstly that there was nothing intrinsic to Germans as a race of people that had caused them to adopt authoritarian forms of government Hayek rejected the idea somewhat popular at the time that there was something about German culture or indeed inherent to Germans as a race which predisposed them to authoritarian and expansionist forms of government secondly Hayek argued where Germany and the Soviet Union – for that matter had gone wrong was in undertaking state planning that interfered in the natural operation of markets for Hayek the problem with state planning was that it necessarily involve offering up responsibility for deciding upon a plan to a single individual in a bureaucratic system such as the state Hayek argued someone had to ultimately decide on what course of action should be taken and that person's judgment would necessarily have to be deferred to and defer to repeatedly over a given period of time in this sense planning led societies to sleepwalk in to dictatorship thirdly not only did Hayek worry about the inherent need for planners to defer to a single individual but also he was concerned that fundamentally no one individual could actually make rational choices in regards to economic problems due to them not having enough information to base their decisions upon to be clear it was not that Hayek necessarily condemned dictatorship after all his vision of Liberty was a society in which markets were the principal method of economic organization not necessarily one where society collectively decided upon governments via the ballot box to this end Hayek was comfortable with dictators who adopted free-market economic policies involving minimal state intervention in a nation's economy but dictators who undertook economic planning were for Hayek the really great evil Hayek saw it like this markets are extremely complicated networks with millions if not billions of transactions going on all the time even consideration of some of the basics of market transactions shows this items are bought and sold commodities are invested in and divested from and famines and bumper crop yields affect how much there is to eat and how much it will cost to acquire it in keeping with the laws of supply and demand when individuals make choices as to whether or not to buy a commodity they affect that commodities price if it becomes scarce its price increases if it becomes plentiful its price falls in this sense the free market acts as a kind of constant referendum on the value of goods within an economy for Hayek the market represented a form of collective agreement made amongst all of the people operating in that market as to the value of particular goods and services and against the collective wisdom of hundreds of thousands or millions of people what could one single planner hope to offer that represented a superior form of wisdom Liberty for Hayek therefore was to be found in letting the market do its work the road to serfdom launched Hayek Slater career instantly it became a best-seller during the second world war it's print run was limited due to paper shortages and obtaining a copy was nigh on impossible due to sheer demand in the United States of America a condensed Reader's Digest version of the book brought the message to a very large public so too did a series of lectures livered by Hayek during 1945 at various venues in the United States Hayek cold-shouldered by British policymakers and economists was delighted at the reception he received in the US and in 1950 he moved to the University of Chicago which became the center of neoliberal economic thinking with which Hayek was closely associated much as Cambridge had been the locus for Keynesian economics but despite the popular acclaim of the Road to Serfdom to negative reactions up him first of all some of his own colleagues normally sympathetic to the ideas he put forward saw the Road to Serfdom as a kind of a lightweight form of journalism rather than as a form of scholarship Keynes who read the road to serfdom sent high Accord was for the most part a complimentary message about its content however towards the end and in quick order Keynes challenged Hayek as to where he would draw the line on government planning some planning was clearly needed Hayek was not an economic anarchist after all but Keynes challenged where would the line be drawn it took Hayek many years to work out his response to Keynes who died in 1946 where the response eventually came in 1960 in Hayek's book the constitution of Liberty the book laid out Hayek's practical vision for where the line between the state and the market should be drawn and it was highly influential among the political right in an anecdote a story is told that at a meeting with a conservative research department in 1975 Margaret Thatcher responded to a policy paper on political philosophy by reaching into a handbag and withdrawing a copy of the constitution of Liberty holding it aloft Thatcher declared this is what we believe as the 20th century unfolded Hayek's ideas gained more common currency the notion that the state should limit itself to providing a legal framework within which entrepreneurs can engage with free markets is now at the heart of much of economic thinking many politicians and large sections of the public too are skeptical about the ability of the state to plan and undertake anything but the most simple of economic tasks and this as much to Hayek's warnings about the anti libertarian perils of planning and the inability of planners to truly understand the world around them even when the financial crisis of 2008 hit the world economy leading to prolonged recession faith in government planning was not restored in the popular imagination this was best testified to by the Road to Serfdom hitting the number one spot on the Amazon book bestseller list in early 2010 despite it having been written over 60 years ago you
Views:7176415|Rating:4.95|View Time:6:32Minutes|Likes:127737|Dislikes:1202 Leanback and IMG! later this week! LINKS TO LEARN:
Smarter Every Day:
How to Lucid Dream:
Whatswhat reviews my beard and other stuff:
ALL music by Jake Chudnow:
Good general sleep info:
Old video about REM sleep:
Lucid Dreaming on the Discovery Channel:
Quick info in different dream theories:
Incredible documentary on a fatal disease that keeps you from sleeping:
hey Vsauce Michael here and today we are going to talk about why we dream what's going on inside our brains the scientific study of dreaming is called Anaya ology and for most of history it didn't really exist because you can't hold a dream it's difficult to measure a dream you can't taste it you can't see other people's dreams and if you ask them to tell you what they dreamt the results are almost always unreliable in fact it's estimated that we forget 95% of the dreams we have especially within the first 10 minutes of having them but then in 1952 something amazing happened researchers at the University of Chicago found this it's a unique type of electrical activity that occurs during a certain stage of a person's sleeping when researchers awoke people during this stage they almost always reported that they had been dreaming also at the same time during this stage people's eyeballs are going crazy rapidly darting all over the place underneath their eyelids you can actually see this happening if you watch people sleep like I usually do during REM sleep some pretty bizarre stuff happens if you look at the electrical activity of a brain that is in REM sleep that almost exactly mimics the way the brain acts when it's awake the biggest difference being that the production of chemicals inside the brain like norepinephrine serotonin and histamine is almost completely blocked and that causes the muscles to stop moving which is why you can dream about flying or running around or fighting ninjas but your body doesn't move people who have a disorder achieving complete REM a topia move around in their sleep and act out their dreams they can even get out of bed and sleepwalk oh before you move forward I should say two things one is that it's possible to wake up and not be able to move your body because you're still in rem a topia you're completely conscious and you know that you're awake but your body is not ready to move on the flipside you can also be inside a dream and know that you're dreaming this phenomenon is known as lucid dreaming and it's particularly attractive because while I'm in a lucid dream I can conscious decisions about what I do I can go fly to wherever I want or I can have a tea party with Abraham Lincoln I'm in control but achieving a lucid dream is quite elusive Howcast has a great video which I've put in the description that gives some tips and tricks on how to achieve one researchers were able to deprive mice of REM sleep by using this inverted inside a tub of water way up to the tippy top meaning that the mouse was only able to sit right on top of this little tiny surface when that happens the mouse can still fall into non REM sleep but as soon as they reach REM sleep and their muscles relaxed they fall off the platform into the water waking up what they found was that when mice are not allowed to achieve REM sleep they have an incredible amount of trouble remembering things this happens in humans too if you have people remember word pairs and then you don't allow them to sleep the next day their memory for that stuff is incredibly terrible but memory and REM does not stop there if a person learns a difficult new task during the day say a new instrument or a new type of difficult puzzle you can measure the electrical activity in their brain while they do that and then while they sleep that night whether they know it or not their brain replays those electronic impulses many popular theories about why we dream are variations on the idea that while we sleep the unconscious part of our brain is busy organizing memories and strengthening connections from the day before that we need in the future while getting rid of the junk that would otherwise clog the brain now so the theory goes these electrical impulses are detected by our conscious brain and our cortex freaks out and doesn't know what it means and so it tries it's best to create a cohesive story creating a dream this would explain why dreams are often so fantastic and seemingly random they're not supposed to make sense they're not an actual message from our brain it's just the results of our cortex is trying to synthesize the noise coming from all the work being done back in the unconscious under this way of thinking dreams are an epiphenomena they're not a primary process that has a purpose instead they're the accidental result of a more important process is going on behind the conscious brain but some researchers don't believe that they believe the dreams serve a primary purpose and that purpose is to prepare us for threats they think this because the most prevalent emotions felt during dreams are negative abandonment anger and the most common of all anxiety the theory goes like this back when we were early humans especially we had no idea what kind of threats we might encounter during the day and so to prepare us our brain would simulate anxieties while we slept to make us better prepared for that feeling in the real world so people who had terrifying dreams were better at dealing with anxiety in the real world and had stronger genes all right so the theories we discussed today are quite popular but they don't really enjoy a consensus not everyone agrees on them and they barely scratched the surface of scientific thought about dreams but that's kind of the cool thing about dreams think of it like this here is the Eagle Nebula a giant structure in outer space 6,500 light years away but despite its distance we pretty much know what it's made out of we know that it's a hundred trillion kilometres tall we know what caused it and we know where it's gonna be in 750 million years but last night I had dreams and no one really knows why or for what reason and that's pretty cool and that's why thanks for watching if you want to learn more about the world I highly recommend smarter every day it's a show here on YouTube by a guy named Destin who I've met he's awesome I've learned a lot from him he's the guy who did the chicken thing from the Leanback he's also studied what causes poop splash slow motion water balloons and has a lot of guns and explosions what more could you ask for so do me a favor and go check it out and subscribe if you like it and if you haven't seen it yet go check out what's what's review of my beard I've got that in the description and as always thanks for watching
Views:475|Rating:5.00|View Time:30:26Minutes|Likes:3|Dislikes:0 Address to the Annual Convocation of the Institute for Christian Studies by Dr. Lambert Zuidervaart, May 12, 2017.
Are we now in a “post-truth” era, as the Oxford Dictionaries seemed to suggest when choosing that phrase as the International Word of the Year in 2016? Are appeals to emotion and personal opinions really replacing factual truth? Has truth become irrelevant? Tracing our Western conception of truth to its pre-Socratic origin as a godlike search for that which is uncreated and indestructible, Lambert says a philosophy in line with the Jewish and Christian wisdom traditions would see truth instead as a way of life, as something we do rather than merely assert.
The importance of this endeavour is readily apparent in these times of “alternative facts” and “fake news”. A conception of truth rooted in what is good rather than mere theoretical immutability would help us work together to live in the truth, indeed in faithfulness, rather than taking uncertainty as our cue to discard the possibility of truth altogether. But what then of our longtime servant “factual truth”? In this inspiring and intriguing address, Lambert displays the biblical underpinnings for his ongoing work on a new theory of factual truth, within a broader conception of truth that we may summarise as the call to love God above all, and our neighbours as ourselves.
Read the text of Lambert’s address at
thanks so much Hank it's a real pleasure to see you here and I greet all of you trustees senators colleagues junior members soon-to-be graduates distinguished guests and Friends the love of wisdom needs the wisdom of love let me say what this means and why it matters I begin with a poem by Miriam Patterson titled hold your horses last two truths like a runaway steer and you will find its veins running cold approaches like a lover with a rhythm for air and truth in time will lean in your direction or as I have put it more prosaically the love of wisdom needs the wisdom of love since ancient times philosophy in the West has described itself as pursuing truths out of love for wisdom in its origins Western philosophy is not simply an academic discipline or professional occupation it is in the words of Pierre Adu a way of life or a spiritual exercise and it offers a path to truth that challenges other ways in which people love wisdom and pursue truth this puts philosophy in tension with robust wisdom traditions attached to the world Christianity – includes a wisdom tradition one that flows from Judaism and does not easily combined with greco-roman philosophy hints the strong contrast in first Corinthians between grief wisdom and Christ as the wisdom of God in the early days of Christianity it was not readily apparent how the wisdom of the Greeks and the wisdom of Christ should relate no more than it is obvious today how one can honor the Christian wisdom tradition while philosophically pursuing the truth the very words in which Western philosophy has described his vocation truth love wisdom our Speier Slee loaded terms in the Jewish and Christian scriptures these terms do not mean what many philosophers have taken them to me so as recreational thinkers have insisted Christian philosophers must reckon see the meaning of these terms in line with our religious wisdom tradition and with the scriptures that provide its decisive touchstone today I want to explore what this might require in our understanding of truth after commenting on some scriptural passages I shall suggests that a philosophy in line with the Jewish and Christian scriptures should understand truth as a way of life rather than simply a set of assertions as something enacted rather than merely claimed then I shall talk about three endeavors through which we can live the truth by seeking the good by resisting evil and by living in hope I shall conclude by connecting all three and Evers with the call to love in a remarkable confluence of central biblical concepts Psalm 85 which we heard red links truth with love justice and peace translations often hide these links for it is hard render ancient Hebrew in contemporary English that Psalm 85 prominently employs the term Ahmet the central concept of truth in the Jewish Scriptures and a portrays truth as meeting up with steadfast love has set in the Messianic condition when God promises peace to God's people and when God's glory cult comes to dwell on earth then says Psalm 85 love and truth will meet justice and peace will kiss the Hebrew word for peace is Shalom Shalom is the condition of complete fulfillment we're all creatures flourish a condition I call interconnected flourishing Psalm 85 envisions a glorious day when justice and Shalom embrace when steadfast love and truth converse in that day truth will spring up from the earth and justice will shine from the sky now if you have a standard Western philosophical concept of truth you might well wonder what truth could possibly have to do with love justice and Shalom the standard Western concept ties truth to factual accuracy and to the correctness of assertions on one common construal a statement is set to be true when it corresponds to the facts but if that's all truth comes – then it would seem bizarre to envision a day when love meets truth in the Jewish Scriptures however the primary meaning of truth Ahmet is not accuracy or correctness instead ms means faithfulness and it pertains both to God and to human beings to be true in the first instance is not simply to be correct but to be faithful faithful in relationship to others God is true in faithfully carrying out God's Word a promise for creation and human beings are true when their dealings are faithful to the conditions of God's promise that is why Calvin Sayreville says truth in the scriptures means God's blessing presence is in evidence in human life when Psalm 85 imagines truth and love sitting down together for a coffee cleanse so to speak it points to a society where people in their everyday dealings are so faithful to God's word of promise that God's loving kindness completely envelops them like gentleness on the very soil from which their faithfulness Springs in principle there is no tension between love and truth nor as nicholas walter stork has shown between love and justice without traces of such truth and love such faithfulness and loving-kindness there would be neither justice nor Shalom with truth and love present in their fullness justice and peace do embrace in other words when people are true in response to God's loving kindness they live in justice with one another and the world they inhabit flourishes then as Psalm 85 says God will indeed give what is good and earth will yield it's harvest to live in this way is to listen to the voice of wisdom she who danced when earth was new in the words of Ruth Ducks him text that we sang a while ago to live in the truth is to follow closely what wisdom teaches for her words are right and true wisdom clears the path to justice showing us what love must do this first stands that resonates with proverbs 3 where in Psalm 85 love and truth meet in proverbs 3 lady wisdom urges her child to keep lasting love and truth clothes to bind them around its neck to inscribe them on its heart and the promise that accompanies such wise instruction points again to justice and Shalom you will find favor with God and others follow the right path and receive bodily refreshments the brilliant second stanza to this hymn rightly connects all of this with the prologue to the Gospel of John there Jesus as God's word of promise made flesh among us embodies a wisdom full of glory truth and grace the word glory doxa in John's Gospel recalls the glory kavod of God come to dwell on earth in Psalm 85 moreover as Hank heart observes John's description of Jesus as full of grace and truth is almost certainly a direct quote of the Old Testament pair has that and m.ed Psalm 85 love and truth which together proclaim God as full of love compassion mercy forgiveness faithfulness Jesus man is the very incarnation of God's blessing in whom love and truth meet even as Jesus embodies the wisdom that teaches us how to find God's blessing John's prologue illuminates Jesus response to Thomas in John 14 after Jesus tells his disciples he's going to prepare a place for them in his father's house and they know the way there Thomas explains we do not know where you going how could we know the way according to John Jesus replies I am the way and the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except through me heard in the echo chamber of the Jewish Scriptures and the prologue to John this reply proclaims Jesus himself as the very incarnation both of God's blessing and of the wisdom that shows how to find God's blessing to find their way to God's house of blessing to God's glory on earth to the promised messianic condition the disciples will need to walk in Jesus way they must follow his teachings they are to live as he lived what this way comes to is the life of love the life of loving God above all and our neighbors as ourselves in response to a God who creates everything out of love creatio ex amore to quote general he is in Jesus then the decisive themes of Western philosophy truth love and wisdom intersect in intersecting their however they fundamentally redirect philosophy for in Jesus as in the Jewish Scriptures truth is not primarily propositional and the love of wisdom is not simply an intellectual pursuit instead truth is a way of life to which wisdom points everyone our challenge now is to decipher what such redirection means for how philosophers understand the idea truth Parmenides a pre Socratic poet philosopher carved out the channels where the main streams of Western truth theory have flowed Parmenides aligns truth with being that does not change for Parmenides to be wise is to know what does not change philosophy as the love of wisdom is a god-like search for what is uncreated and indestructible what is complete immovable and without end now unfortunately most people do not seek unchanging truth according to amenities they do not love wisdom but they love folly they have opinions but without knowledge they embrace falsehood and lie and between these two paths between a god-like search for immutable being and truth and also human ignorance amid changing appearances Parmenides sees no bridge no middle way moreover only the Philosopher's can follow the esoteric wave of unchanging truth the Jewish and Christian wisdom traditions turned such an esoteric conception of truth upside down affirming that God created everything good and recognizing temporal change and interconnections as intrinsic to created goodness they do not align truth with unchanging and self-sufficient being nor do they connect wisdom with knowing immutable truth instead judeo-christian truth has to do with blessed faithfulness within relationships and amid change and wisdom pertains to instruction for faithful living for lives of loving God and neighbor all human beings including philosophers are called to live in and live out the truth this implies in turn that truth and goodness intersect to live the truth is to try to do what truth requires to do what contributes to blessed faithfulness and to do what truth requires is to embrace and promote that which is good to live the truth then we must seek the good to resist the truth by contrast is to ignore or refuse what truth requires two-block blessed faithfulness such ignorance or refusal goes hand in hand with an embrace of what is evil indeed persistent and deep-seated falsehood feeds into what Searles called the lie with a cat well the lie is much more than a simple fit the lie completely and deliberately twists all that is good in order to promote evil last November the Oxford dictionary's chose the term Post's truth as the International word of the year knowing that in 2016 use of the word post truth increased by approximately 2,000 percent over its usage in the previous year the adjective post truth refers to circumstances in which object effects are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief it suggests the concept of truth has become unimportant or irrelevant the oxford dictionaries announce this choice just one week after the surprise election of Donald Trump to be President of the United States politically it does seem we are in a time when factual truth has becoming insignificant a time when Kellyanne Colin Conway Trump's senior adviser can characterize obvious falsehoods as alternative facts when Scott Pruett a climate change denier can be appointed head of the US Environmental Protection Agency and when the President himself regularly tweets blatant lies seemingly without serious repercussions truths in the standard Western sense of factual accuracy and correct assertions seems to have become politically passe anyone who knows what authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are like will find this trend worrisome even more worrisome however would be tendencies toward a world that is beyond truth in the scriptural sense of blessed faithfulness in such a scripturally post truth world it would not matter whether we seek to live the truth and to embrace what is good it would not matter whether we promote justice or pursue oppression whether we show solidarity towards others or practice hatred whether we respect or rape fears in fact the very distinction between good and evil would fade away this is the larger area of an allegedly post truth world namely that in dismissing the importance of correctness and accuracy people will simultaneously lose their desire to seek the good their body tolerating societal evil and embracing the lie the term post truths signals more than a political laundry it points to a deeply spiritual crisis in society within this crisis those who want to live the truth by seeking the good must also challenge falsehood by resisting evil in the first instance this means not only refusing to give up a distinction between factual truth and factual untruth well but also holding everyone accountable to standards of accuracy and correctness we certainly should not allow politicians business leaders or academic administrators get away with regularly dishing out but American philosopher Perry Frankfort calls rather we should just to dispute their duplicity even as we call out those who ignore the evidence distort the facts and deliberately lie these are egregious offenses and they unravel the fabric of a democratic society in addition to challenging factual untruth power to live the truth requires us to resist evil in all of its other manifestations I am especially concerned about collective evil evil that has become so entrenched in our cultural practices and social institutions that we find it hard both to take responsibility for it and to resist it I call such entrenched collective malevolence societal evil a society's ongoing destruction of the earth oppression of the poor and hostility towards so-called aliens are prime examples of societal evil the call to live truth as blessed faithfulness requires us to resist societal evil but it also requires us to recognize the limits to our own resistance limits in double sense first individual and organized efforts to resist societal evil can do only so much and second the viable resistance must embody the spirit of truth the spirit of busted faithfulness and this second limitation is crucial deeply entrenched societal evil has a pervasive spiritual direction the direction of the lie the direction of what completely and deliberately twists the good only in the spirit of blessed faithfulness can the spirit of societal evil be truly resisted for only as we cling to the good can we stand up to the lie now I'm not suggesting that we should be naive about the violence we face yet as Bruce Cobra recognizes to be true our resistance must not the body the spirit of what we resist such that we become grim travellers bitter little girls and boys from the Red Army underground they'd blow away Karl Marx if he had the nerve to come around there just grim travelers in dawn skies see the beauty make them cry inside makes them angry they don't know why they're grim travelers in dog skies if we put on your pig mask on grimness we will not see the dawn time we will not see the good that calls us to recess we do not need grimace instead we need an articulate sense an articulate sense of the good we seek as well as a spirited critique of evil we resist and that is where true philosophy as a hopeful love of comprehensive wisdom can come on the one hand philosophy can help us sort out the diverse goods in our lives and spell out those that matter most for society as a whole here I have in mind shared societal principles such as justice resource fulness and solidarity in a contemporary setting such principles are what call for human faithfulness when honored they carry a word of promise on the other hand philosophy can also help us take the measure of societal evil by providing a critique of society as a whole what following Abraham Kuyper I call an architectonic critique such a critique is essential for wise resistance we need to understand how the current organization of society both blocks and permits blessed faithfulness we also need to detect the source spots were suffering gathers and whereas social transformation can begin philosophy that pursues comprehensive wisdom about the contemporary world can help in both respects earlier I said that Psalm 85 portrays truth and goodness as meeting up in the Messianic condition I also suggested that according to the Gospel of John Jesus disciples will need to walk in his way in order to find a path to God's house of blessing such praises introduce a theme of hope for the future quite foreign to the mainstream of Western truth theory scriptural truths talk can contains an ongoing interplay between the current call to blessed faithfulness and the eschatological promise of a faith fulfilling blessedness still to come the promise of the new heaven and new earth where God in love and truth is all in all this promise means that God first and foremost is a God of love and Jesus is the very embodiment of God's love for those who would follow Jesus to live the truth is to walk along the pathways of laws love for God and neighbor in hope for God's future despite our own frailty and failure and amid the societal evil that surround us to live in such hope we must remain open ever open to the spirit of truth which can take us in surprising new directions hope for a future where love and truth meet has ripple effects in the present living in such hope we can neither regard our current dealings and practices and institutions as fully in the truth nor despair over the depth and power of societal evil this implies in turn that contemporary philosophy needs to be more than a love of comprehensive wisdom that helps us sort out societal principles and articulates an architectonic critique for philosophies love must be a hopeful love it must remain open to a promised future whose surprises surpass philosophical comprehension that is why in my own attempts to offer a reformation conception of truth I have insisted on the eschatological openness of both societal principles and what I call the life-giving disclosure of society in which human beings and other creatures come to flourish in their interconnections hence we need to relativize our efforts recognizing how the society we hope for lies beyond our striving and how our fidelity to societal principles does not suffice to bring it about so I describe truth as a dynamic correlation between human fidelity to societal principles and a life-giving disclosure society in light of the Jewish and Christian wisdom traditions I also insist that there is more the truth more to blessed faithfulness than our current fidelity and disclosure can achieve and this more challenges the prevailing Western concept of truth as a static correspondence between assertions and facts for there is always more truth more even to factual truth than a static correspondence can capture I have not tried tonight to provide a theory of factual truth instead I had explored biblical underpinnings for the broader and Reformation inception of truth within which I intend to offer a theory a factual truth on this broader conception truth is to be lived rather than merely asserted and our assertions of truth need to belong to our living the truth to live the truth is to be faithful in relation to God and others such faithfulness is summarized in the call to love God above all and our neighbors as ourselves in contemporary society the contours of this call to love show up historically and historically embedded and escaped logically open societal principles such as justice and solidarity when we are faithful to such principles we experience the blessing of a loving God this blessing occurs via a life-giving disclosure of society in contemporary society then truth amounts to a dynamic correlation between human fidelity to societal principles and a life-giving disclosure of society with both the fidelity and the disclosure sustained by hope for God's future in the end there is no such truth without love for love and truth must mean to live the truth is to seek the good solidary justice interconnected flourishing to resist evil especially what alienates and oppresses and kills the Earth's creatures and to live in hope for a future where justice and peace embrace there is no place for the lie in God's future but there is a place for everyone who walks along the pathways of love following God's Word a promise made flesh among us the way and the truth and the life God's future calls to everyone in the voice of wisdom incarnate inviting them to a feast of love and joy and truthful responses to wisdoms call will sing back their own invitation come my way my truth my life common my joy my love my heart I have been blessed to hear and sing this invitation at ICS first as a graduate student then as a senator and Chancellor and most recently as a professor of philosophy at ICS I have learned how the love of wisdom can listen to the wisdom of love thank you for living your own voices to this heartfelt invitation may all of us take joy in truth [Applause]
Views:8378|Rating:4.96|View Time:1:11:16Minutes|Likes:240|Dislikes:2 Earnest C. Watson Lecture and Robert F. Christy Lecture by Professor Kip S. Thorne, “My Romance with Caltech and with Black Holes, Wormholes, Time Travel, and Gravitational Waves.”
The “warped side of the universe” – objects and phenomena made from warped space and time – was once mere speculation. In this talk, Caltech physicist Kip Thorne (BS ’62), will describe how he and colleagues transformed a portion of that warped side (black holes and gravitational waves) into observed phenomena, and what they have learned about another portion (wormholes and time travel).
Kip S. Thorne is the Richard P. Feyman Professor of Theoretical Physics at Caltech in the Division of Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy and a 2017 Nobel Laureate.
Learn more about:
– Kip S. Thorne’s Research:
– 2018 – 19 Watson Lecture Series Season:
– This lecture:
presented by Caltech oh it's my very great pleasure to open the inaugural Robert F Christie lecture one of the things that makes Cal Tech really special is that we don't have administrators we have scientists and engineers who step up to serve their colleagues because they believe in them and they believe in this institution and Robert Christie was such a man he was a highly accomplished theoretical physicist who served Caltech as division chair as provost and as Acting President and the Christie lectures were established to celebrate Robert Christie's life his accomplishments and his impact on Caltech and this annual lectureship was made possible by generous gifts from Colleen and Harold Brown Harold Brown who recently passed away served as Cal Tech's president from 1969 to 1977 and I Julianna Christie who was a cow is a Caltech astrophysicist and wife of dr. Christie and so again we're very pleased that Julianna and her family and friends are joining us for this evening so now I want to turn to introducing our speaker Kip Thorne so it's a bit daunting in a short introduction to do justice to Kip's incredible and varied career from his work in relativity black holes wormholes and time travel to gravitational waves and I go to textbooks that are the standard references for physics students in my day the famous mr. Thorne and wheeler a textbook on gravitation was known to all of us as the telephone book due to its sheer size two popular books like black holes and time warps to his post faculty career advising on Hollywood movies like interstellar and however since this is the inaugural Christie lecture honoring in part Christie's impact on Caltech I thought I would limit my brief remarks to KITT focusing on Kemps contributions to this institution so kip spent much of his career here first as an undergraduate class of 1962 then as a professor starting in 1967 with a very brief stint at a small private institution in New Jersey in between so the Caltech physics faculty is relatively small compared to the institutions that we consider to be our peers so we have to choose our areas of research very carefully and during his time at Caltech Kip set out to build Caltech as a premier Institute with a program in gravitational wave science both instrumentation with what became LIGO and later in numerical relativity which involves the calculations that are required to understand signals produced by merging black holes and neutron stars so when he started his efforts in the 1970s gravitational research wasn't even really a field of physics it was quite unclear if there were detectable sources of gravitational waves if there were it was not clear that they would be possible to detect and Kip took this vision and built a program at Caltech by carefully recruiting excellent people to join him in the early days people like Ron driver stand whip come and many others and so I have to say Kip maintains this ephemeral theorist profile where he likes to think about things like wormholes and time travels but after I joined the faculty I had the opportunity to watch him firsthand as a formidable force as a leader and dare I say Kip an administrator why do I say this well Kip would watch very carefully for the opportunity when it was the time was right ripe to hire a new faculty member or either an experiment or in theory and he would launch an extensive search sometimes spanning many years he was organized meticulous thorough critical and convincing and that's how we ended up with experimental faculty working on LIGO like Rana Adhikari and theory faculty like Eon by Chen and this arguably makes Caltech the premier institution in experimental and theoretical gravitational wave science in the world with a small number of faculty Kip also influenced generations of Caltech undergraduates and PhD students he was mentor to some 53 PhD students which is pretty remarkable he won the ask a Teaching Award the graduate student council mentoring award the JD Jackson Award for Excellence in graduate education and very importantly he and his wife Carol Lee offered their home near the Rose Bowl as a base to Caltech undergraduate pranksters the last of these pranks was now a few years ago and it evolved some hundreds of thousands of LEDs turning on on the hillsides above the Rose Bowl after the football game turning it into a Caltech sign so as you can see Kipps contributions to Caltech have indeed been profound and then of course there's a scientific legacy he's been honored by so many awards that it would take me half of the time allotted to list them all but of course culminating in the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2017 and so without further delay I'd like to invite Kip to deliver the first Christy lectureship Thank You Fiona Robert Christie or Bob as I called him was a dear friend and colleague of mine and a man whom I greatly admired so it's a great honor to be the first Christie lecturer here at Caltech and it's a doubly great honor because this lectureship was endowed by Juliana Christie who was a very dear friend of mine as well and by Harold and Colleen Brown whom I was very fond who was very fond of and admired during the period when Harold was the president here at Caltech I admired Bob himself for his profound contributions to theoretical nuclear physics and to theoretical astrophysics both I have his deep insights in his leadership in those fields I admired him for the fact that after being the genius who figured out how to make the first implosion bomb work that ended the first the Second World War he then devoted decades of his personal time and energy and expertise together with Japanese colleagues to understanding in depth the effects of the radiation on the 100,000 survivors of those explosions at Hiroshi Shima and Nagasaki I admired him for his leadership at Caltech as provost under both Harold Brown and then later Marvin Goldberg and is acting president and I'm going to give you an example of that leadership his tremendously important contribution to making gravitational wave science take off not just at Caltech but in the world but before I get to that let me give you a little bit of personal history this is actually going to be a talk that is sort of a retrospective on my career I thought that this might be the last talk I ever given Beckman auditorium so if you'll indulge me I think that's what I'm going to do you before I was eight years old growing up in Logan Utah I wanted to be a snowplow driver because the snowdrifts were taller than my father was tall several times taller than he was particularly in the winter of 1948 but then when I was 8 years old my mother took me to a lecture about the solar system and I fell in love with astronomy and immediately switched allegiances I was going to become an astronomer and I did astronomy projects for the next few years under the way my mother's prodding and inspiration and then and I have this wrong I don't know how I wound up with 48 at age 8 it was in 1953 at age 13 that I picked up in a used bookstore in Salt Lake City a copy of George gammas book 1 2 3 infinity George was a theoretical physicist and cosmologist at the University of Colorado and emigrate from Russia and his book described how the laws of physics control the way the universe works and what their profound influence is on the universe and immediately I decided I'm going to be a physicist that I'm going to work on astronomical issues and so here I am all these decades later and that's the story of my career in 1955 at age 15 Time magazine which was came into our home every week had a cover article about Caltech with leader Bridger at the time was the president of Caltech on the cover I read it intensely and just totally fell in love with the idea of Caltech it described an institution where if you were taking an examination and you got the wrong answer for some question but your reasoning was really good then you could get a higher mark and I thought that kind of places that's the place I want to be and so I struggled hard to get into Caltech did everything I could to optimize my chances of getting in I did get in I arrived here in 1958 and quickly discovered that my mind worked more slowly than most any of my colleagues and when we were comparing IQs I kept my mouth shut on in the bus on the way to freshmen camp orientation I didn't hear a I Q that was quoted that was within ten points of mine they were all higher now I can imagine that some of them may have been inflated but and as things went on it became clear to me that I was not as sharp or as quick as my colleagues and so I struggled for the first year and a half but that meant that I had to develop ways to come to understand things and learn things more thoroughly than my compatriots in order to keep up because I was doing it so much more slowly and so that's what I did I also discovered that my memory was much worse than theirs and some years later I learned that the only guy person in the field his memory was worse than mine was Richard Feinman and then I came to understand from that that if you have a lousy memory then you have to get really good at figuring things out so you can figure things out again and again and again because we couldn't remember them and it's a real real makes you into a real powerhouse in physics oh I'm not the powerhouse that he was but at least I made use of that physical disability that he and I shared after about a year and a half at Cal Tech I thrived as I had began to develop my ways of dealing with my studies and I came to love Cal Tech just as much as I had expected to in 1962 I went to Princeton for graduate study I went there because John Wheeler was there and John Wheeler was working in relativity theory he was the Guru of relativity theory I was told by Jesse Greenstein who was my principal mentor here at Cal Tech with whom I worked in whom I admired that relativity was not going to be important for anything in this universe except the expansion of the universe and I shouldn't spend my time on it fortunately I didn't I I took great learned a lot from Jesse in other ways but I didn't take his advice on that I went and I worked with John wheeler and from John I learned about the Warped side of the universe this is my own phrase for objects and phenomena that are made from warp space in time including black holes gravitational waves wormholes and time travel the topics I'll focus on this evening in 1966 I returned to Caltech and I built a research group working on the objects on the warp side of the universe and I in this research group set the vision for where we were going set research problems for students but my students and my postdocs really did the great research and if you look at all of the research that my students and postdoc did while they were at Caltech in my group as it some total far greater than my own personal achievements and I take great pride in that my group was large I had six PhD students and threes postdocs right from the outset and many many visitors and this is a photograph taken several years after I came on the faculty with this was about half of these people are my research members of my research group and half her visitors now how could i fund such a large group right from the outset the key is that Caltech is dedicated to help faculty realize their dreams and their potential and through the faculty help the students realize their dreams and their potential and in the case of Caltech me the key person on the faculty who helped me with the necessary funds to take off on such a research group was really Fowler Willy it was just in the late stages of doing the research that would get him the Nobel Prize himself and he was also beginning to wind down his work in theoretical astrophysics what we came to call relativistic astrophysics as I was wrapping mine up and so I went on to his NSF research grant as did all of the large vast number of students and postdocs that I was acquiring and then after about a year or two he just made me the PI on that research a grant from NSF and I continued that research grant through to the day that I retired about 10 years ago and I did the same with Yin Bay Chen who was my successor and so you have this research the went from Willie to me Diann by Chen obviously it would not have continued if I hadn't done some decent work and if Yan buddy weren't doing some decent work but this was a key to pulling this off a fellow faculty member giving me a big hand up in being able to build the group that I needed another source of funding it was absolutely crucial to me throughout my career was from Walter Burke and the Sherman Fairchild foundation Walter very quickly became a close friend of mine in the early 1970s when he came to Caltech to examine us to see whether or not the Sherman Fairchild foundation should invest in something called the Sherman Fairchild Scholars Program here and so I met him I talked with him about to Caltech I was a young faculty member I shared with him my dreams and one of those dreams was to bring Stephen Hawking here as a first sermon for our child scholar and I think that helped play a role in our getting the program Stephen did come as a Fairchild scholar and came back time and time again in the Fairchild scholar supported by Walter by the Foundation's work funds so that gives you some sense of how I took off in building a research group now let me talk about black holes and then gravitational waves and then the more speculative things of wormholes and time travel what was known about black holes in 1966 when I arrived on the faculty well we knew that if you have a heavy star and it exhausts its nuclear fuel it may implode get smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller we used the word collapse rather than implode and ultimately it would become so small that gravity would become so intense that its surface that time would slow to a halt right at a surface the gravity would be so strong that nothing could escape from its surface and we call that a collapsed star or in Russia they called it a frozen star but we didn't have these were not very good names it was not until 1968 that John Wheeler would coin the word the phrase black hole describe it and that phrase stuck when he first started using it now black hole has the strange property the circumference around the black hole is much smaller than its diameter and you might ask how can that possibly be well if you take a child's trampoline a sheet of rubber on high stilts and you stick a very heavy and dense rock in the center so the rubber sinks down like that and if you then pretend that you're a ant you're a blind dent you have a degree from Caltech so you're have a lot of skills at measuring the universe you live on this is your universe you don't watch around and you measure the circumference of the universe and then you measure the diameter in you March and March and March that's a very very long trip the diameter is obviously enormous compared to the circumference you and I looking at the diagram know why but as the blind ant that you figure it out because you're real smart you're from Caltech you figure out that the universe you live in is warped space is warped and you figure out the details of the warping now precisely the same diagram describes a black hole and if you any of you wonder yes these are precisely the same pictures that I drew by hand decades ago for a lecture that I gave here but I don't think they're probably very many of you here here who are old enough to have been to that lecture decades and decades ago so I'm yes I'm reusing them so it's the same diagram but now this is the curved space inside a black hole taking equal tutorial slice through the black hole and imagine embedding it in a higher dimensional flat space which physicists sometimes call the bulk so I've written the bulk here and the circumference is small compared to the diameter and that is the shape of space around and inside the black hole the black hole of course also has the property a few things fall in they if you fall in if I fall in here I am falling in is a little two-dimensional clip on the surface of this this surface remember I'm the only taking a two-dimensional slice to the black hole so this is what space looks like on a two-dimensional slice so I fall in on this two-dimensional equatorial slice sending signals by a microwave antenna back to you on the outside when I fall past something called the horizon gravity is so strong it pulls the microwave signals down together with me down into what was the rock but is now a singularity where gravity becomes infinitely strong curvature of space becomes infinitely strong and things everything including time and space are destroyed and we don't understand this singularity but it's governed by the laws of quantum gravity which we also don't understand very well so this is the Warped space of the black hole and time is also warped around the black hole so that as you go down near the horizon if you hover just above the horizon time slows to a halt compared to time back here on earth if you go inside the horizon what is slower than stopped time well time flows in a direction that you would have thought was a space direction it flows down toward the singularity and that's one reason that nothing can get out of the black hole nothing can flow backward against the local flow of time if you have a time machine if time machines are allowed you don't do bet do it by flow up going backward against the local flow of time you have to do it in some other manner and I'll very briefly discuss that later this general relativity also predicts that's face that if a black hole spins then space is dragged into a hurling motion like the air in their tornado fast spin or the space near the horizon much slower farther away in this world of space then is the third of three aspects of the warp space-time of black hole the warping of space the warping of time and the whirling of space caused by the black hole's spin this is a precise a depiction of the award space-time of a fast spinning black hole so here is the that warping of space the horizon is right here where it's black it looks like a circle but that's because I have taken only a two-dimensional slice through the equator of the black hole that circle will be a sphere if I add the third dimension in there is then the color coding shows a slowing of time where it's yellow time is flowing at 10% of the rate that is far away and the white arrows show the angular velocity if dragging of space into motion around the black hole or the so-called dragging of inertial frames so so much for what we knew in 1966 now let me turn to the golden age of black hole research which spanned the period of my graduate studies at Princeton became really took off after I arrived back at Caltech the thing that more than anything else I think triggered this golden era of black hole research was the discovery by Martin Schmidt a dear colleague of mine here at Caltech in 1963 of quasars what he did what Martin did was he identified the source of light that correspond to a radio source that radio astronomers at Caltech had been studying identified the source of light and measured the spectrum of the light and discovered that the that the wavelength of the light in the spectrum was pushed by 16% to the red compared to the normal wavelengths of these lines in the spectrum and he thereby concluded that the source here this object was extending from Earth at sixteen percent of the speed of light he argued that this was probably a recession a motion away from Earth due to the expansion of the universe which it did turn out to be and concluded then that this a star-like object was 2 billion light years from Earth and the luminosity the light coming off of there was that of two trillion Suns enormous Li bright the only thing hugely brighter than that is the gravitational wave sources that LIGO is seen and I'll return to that a little bit later in 19 December of 1963 there was a conference then in Dallas Texas of astronomers and relativity experts to try to understand what these objects could be these quasars and by the end of the conference there was a pretty much a consensus that they there was no way that anything except gravity could be responsible for the enormous power output of these quasars this very actually compact object with enormous power output only gravity could be produced that power and it would have to be the gravity of what we now call a black hole the time we were calling for lap stars a supermassive black hole what turned out to be a two billion solar mass black hole or collapsed star but it was not at all clear at the time how quasars were powered we just were pretty much convinced it had to have to had had to do with black holes and so research on black holes took off a theoretical research it had already been spurred by my PhD thesis adviser John Wheeler and by 1971 a set of colleagues of mine in Canada and England had proved that an amazing thing about black holes that all the properties of a black hole are fixed by just two numbers the mass of the black hole and its spin that is its spin angular momentum and if you knew the mass and the spin of the black hole you could compute everything else about them including all the details of this warped space-time in this diagram Johnny Wiener coined the phrase a black hole has no hair for this which very quickly caught on and then there was the question how does it lose its hair remarkably Richard price a PhD student of mine explained how it lost its hair at the same time as my colleagues were discovering proving that dead black holes are hairless that they all these properties are fixed by the mass in the spin what he managed to show in his PhD thesis in 1971 was that if you disturb a black hole then it will vibrate it will shake around sending off gravitational waves ripples in this shape of space and time into the external universe and those gravitational waves will carry away all of the hair they will carry away all the distortions of the black hole leaving it in precisely the form that is predicted by its mass and its spin that was a real tour de force I was really proud of Richard and then the result recall Sookie who is now on the faculty here at Cal Tech and he was also a student of mine in 1972 he developed an elegant and powerful mathematical description of disturbed black holes what is called the Terkel ski equation one of the most famous equations in all of relativity to this day he developed in 1972 to describe every kind of disturbance that a black hole might experience and then there was a question which we were all worrying about our black hole stable or could some of them self-destruct Subramanya and Chandrasekhar who would a little bit later get the Nobel Prize jointly with Caltech Swilley Fowler he was a frequent visitor to our research group and he and I made a bet because he was quite convinced that if a black balls was spinning sufficiently fast it would self-destruct and so we made a bet on that among the first of the bets that I have made that sort of somewhat become somewhat famous since then you can see all my bets hanging on the wall outside my office in Cahill and he bet that there he even pinned down a particular spin which spin the shape of the black hole changes in a weird way according to the predictions of general relativity he was pretty sure that if you spun faster than that black holes are spending faster than that that the black hole would self-destruct so salt kelskiy had the mathematics in a powerful form for solving this the de cultic equation he sat down together with bill press compete reiative his and the together of the two of them together proved that all black holes are stable yeah if you went all up to the maximum spin that a black hole could possibly have the spin was higher than that it wouldn't be a black hello anymore it would lose its horizon everything below that the black holes were stable so how do black holes power quasars by 1972 there was a consensus building that accretion disks were the likely mechanism disks of hot gas perhaps produced when a star is torn apart by the gravity of a black hole for me a hot hot disc that radiates very strongly off of the energy that is released as the gas gradually spirals in closer and closer to the black hole releasing huge amounts of gravitational energy that's where the bright bright light the two trillion solar luminosities of light was coming from and so naturally with this consensus coming into play I sat down together with my student Don Page and a Russian colleague Igor Novikov and we worked out we developed the mathematical theory of accretion discs around black holes and having done that we were in a position to solve a problem that people had really been concerned about and that is that the gas from an accretion disk as it goes closer and closer to the black hole and then it goes into the black hole it spins the black hole up until it's spinning faster and faster and faster and it appeared from calculations by Jim Bardeen who was I think at the time a student of Richard Feynman's it appeared that as the gas bund the black hole up after just approximately doubling the mass of the black hole from the accreting disk it would get spun right up to that maximum spin where it would lose its horizon and it would no longer be a black hole and something strange would happen and so we now had the full details of accretion disks and we sat down and calculated it out and found a very strange thing that as the black hole gets spun up faster and faster it begins to capture radiation light x-rays gamma rays coming off the disk capture it in just such a manner as to spin the black hole back down and the closer it got to that maximum spin the more powerful it grabbed the radiation to spin itself back down it got buffered right into a spin of 0.998 of they spin that would have destroyed the black hole's horizon and so to this day it is generally thought that black holes don't spin faster than that now in the movie interstellar the black hole spins a lot faster than that and I'm responsible for that but the rule a game and the movie interstellar was that we were that we allowed ourselves to do anything the laws of physics permitted but it didn't you would have to do some very careful tuning to avoid this kind of a limit and so it was a this is permitted but it would probably not actually occur in the Astrophysical universe anyway so this was the maximum spin we found how were the Jets produced the key as to this or one of the answers the most beautiful answer came from Roger Blandford when we hired Caltech shortly after he did this work with Romans Nyak in Cambridge England in simple terms you have an accretion disk of hot gas and it pushes a magnetic field onto the black hole and won't let the magnetic field back off these magnetic fields then as the black hole spins they get twisted up and then plasma hot gas hot electrically conducting gas gets flung out along this spinning magnetic field now that looks very simple but in fact when you recognize the black hole is made from warp space and time and not from matter then you have to ask how does it grab a magnetic field and when you recognize that it's not just a magnetic field out there it's a magnetic field and electric fields and electrically current flowing and there's a are such intense electric fields that the vacuum is breaking down and electron positron spares are being created it's a real mess then the theory becomes much more complicated but still quite elegant and Blandford Romans Knight built on work of Roger of Peter gold Reich on the theory of pulsars here at Caltech in doing their work and then they after they had devised the full explanation for how this jet is produced in this manner including taking care of the issues that I described to you the theory was elaborated by sterols Finney and then by me and my students in a book that we wrote on the whole subject called with black holes membrane paradigm and it is remarkable then that Roger Blandford Peter Gould Reich's Darrell Finney and I became the professor's here at Caltech and what we call taper a theoretical astrophysics including relativity and it was so wonderful through my whole career having these great astrophysicists here by my side be able to just go down the hall and talk to them about the problems that I was working on now what would a black hole look like to your eyes if you had it up close so you can understand this by imagining that you have a star here the star sends light ray to the camera and the light ray light can come to the camera along this path or along that path or along this path looping around the black hole so that star produces three images around the black hole shadow the Oliver James who worked with me on the movie interstellar it was the chief scientist a double- team that got the Academy Award for the visual effects in interstellar he wrote a computer code based on the equations that I gave to him to compute then what what it looked like if you have a very fast spinning black hole at this point nine nine eight of the maximum and that camera that is in orbit around that black hole and this is in high resolution is what it would look like and it's really quite amazing to see this is called an Einstein ring and there's a whole bunch of Einstein rings down here and images of this of stars are created and destroyed along this Einstein ring very quickly created and destroyed in pairs it's just quite marvelous to see but that's not the black hole that you see in the movie interstellar and the movie interstellar the black hole looks like this and why well it's very easy to understand the black hole in interstellar has an accretion disk a thin accretion disk light rays from the top back face of the accretion disk skull are pulled up over the black hole and down to the camera and that produces this top piece of the image because the camera thinks that the back face is up here light rays from the bottom back face come under the black hole and up to the camera which produces that piece of the image because the camera thinks the bottom back face is down there and then light rays from the front of the disk go to the camera and produce the crossbar so it's very simple to see now it's quite remarkable that there is a gigantic black hole about four million solar masses at the center of our Milky Way galaxy these are orbits of stars around that black hole as measured by Andrea Gesner team at UCLA and the black hole is quite obviously down in here as the stars go whirling around that big black hole will be imaged with radio telescopes something called the event horizon telescope very possibly for the first time this year after not this year then next year time but it's a project that combines data from many radio telescopes worldwide and all these are all combined to make one image and the the image of the accretion disk around that black hole probably a thick disk so it looked somewhat different from what you see in the movie interstellar and in the shadow of the black hole by autumn 1974 in Aldrin 1974 to Sun through summer 1975 Stephen Hawking came to visit us at Caltech as a Sherman Fairchild scholar and our research groups merged together and this is actually our merged research groups most of the research was on hawking radiation radiation produced due to quantum effects near the horizon of a black hole which Stephen had just recently discovered but with him there I had the luxury of turning the leadership of armors merged group over to him so I could focus on a new direction of research and that was gravitational waves going back in time gravitational waves were predicted by Albert Einstein they consist of a stretching and squeezing of space depicted here by imagining having a bunch of particles just floating out in space being stretched and squeezed back and forth by the passing gravitational wave the first person to attempt to detect gravitational waves is joseph Weber at the University of Maryland and he had the guts to try to do this to fight the fact that Einstein had said these waves are so weak that humans will probably never see them he had the guts to try because there had been new insights we had learned about black holes and neutron stars which were very good sources of gravitational waves compared to anything Einstein knew about in 1916 and we had new technology lasers and computers and so forth so inspired by hijole Weber and inspired by what I learned from John Wheeler Princeton I and my research group began building a vision for gravitational wave astronomy and the vision was based on the fact that general that the laws of physics predict there are only two types of waves that can travel across the universe beginning is bringing us information about what's far away electromagnetic waves which includes light radio waves x-rays gamma rays and so forth and gravitational waves Galileo started modern electromagnetic astronomy 400 years ago when he built a little optical telescope pointed at the Jupiter and discovered Jupiter's four moons four largest moons what we wanted to do was build gravitational wave telescopes and do for gravitational waves the only other kind of wave that with astronomers had any possibility to use do what Galileo did and this then was the obvious goal of gravitational wave astronomy in the foundation of their vision I'm going to skip over this but I just want to say that electromagnetic waves and gravitational waves are tremendously different in many many respects and as a result we expected that many gravitational wave sources would never be seen electromagnetically and the gravitational waves will bring us huge surprises at the same time as my students and I were developing a vision for gravitational wave astronomy Raye wife at MIT was inventing a new kind of gravitational wave detector he said let's take four mirrors and hang them from overhead supports we're looking down on the mirrors here so the wires are pointing out toward you and we'll send a laser light in and split it in two at a beam splitter half the light goes in and gets trapped bouncing back and forth between these mirrors 1/2 goes in there bounces back and forth then the light comes back and recombines it the beam splitter and a little bit of it goes down toward a photo detector down here most of it goes back toward the laser if a gravitational wave comes by it will push these mirrors apart and push those together and as a result change the interference of the beam splitter and increase the intensity of the light going toward the photo detector if these mirrors are pushed together and those apart then the intestine going toward the photo detector will decrease so the technique of interferometry is used between these two arms to see the gravitational wave and so we call this a gravitational wave interferometer I looked at some numbers associated with this before I had read his paper I John Wheeler and Charlie Miller were in the final stages of finishing off a textbook that we were writing called gravitation and that we were about to submit to a publisher for publication I didn't have time to talk to Ray I didn't have time really to study his technical paper but I looked at some numbers and I put a very mild statement here this is not a promising approach let me explain why what I really meant to say is this is crazy Reince lost his mind let's begin with one centimeter divided by a hundred you get the thickness of a human hair divided by a hundred again you get the wavelength of the light that Ray wanted to use divided by 10,000 you get the diameter of an atom divided by a hundred thousand the diameter of a nucleus of an atom divided by 100 you get the magnitude of the mirrors motions it's about a trillion times smaller than the wavelength of the light that Ray wanted to use that's crazy that's crazy and then having put my views on paper in this textbook which we never ever revised you can go read they're not promising pronouncement I study Ray's paper in detail I talked with him I talked with colleagues elsewhere and I became convinced that this did have a shot at succeeding and I made a decision that I and my research group would do everything we could to help the experimenters pull this off and succeed in detecting gravitational waves in creating gravitational wave astronomy so my first step was to try to convince Caltech to create a research group working in gravitational wave experiment I made a proposal to the physics and astronomy faculty they bought it with enthusiasm the administration bought it I wasn't even invited to make a presentation of the trustees the trustees didn't were not supposed to weigh in on it and didn't weigh in on it but they express personal enthusiasm as well this was quite a contrast with Ray at MIT ray could not find a single colleague on the faculty at MIT who thought that he what he was doing made any sense they all had the same reactions I did initially but none of them went in and really studied it to see what what the possibilities really were he could not get any funding from the MIT administration and he couldn't get any funding from the National Science Foundation for this and so he was sort of stymied and went off and started focusing instead on studies of the cosmic microwave background radiation became one of the pioneers of that field as well as of this field but just be by default because he couldn't get support at MIT to get into this game the Caltech we brought Ron Reaver from Glasgow to lead the effort and what once so the whole community of Baden and he had had the clever idea well a courageous idea is a better way to say it's a fairly obvious idea but it was technically much more difficult than Ray's approach that he would make those light beams in the arms of this gravity wave detector overlap so that each arm behaves like what we call a fabry-perot cavity and then you've this whole instrument could become much more much more versatile it turns out and so this was one of a number of clever inventions that he that he was making at the time that convinced us we should bring him here then there was the issue of money NSF was not sinking any money into this into this area are not willing to MIT was not taking any money in Bob Christie as Provost who had the primary responsibility in consultation with the division chairs at Caltech and the president he made the decision that they Caltech would sink about two million dollars of its own private funds into getting this off the ground at Caltech and when you look at the inflation rate since that time this was 1979 I think this is a huge amount of money by academic standards once Caltech had gone in and made that commitment that helped trigger major NSF funding and ultimately about ten years later mit started embracing the project a key next step was to bring us Dan Whitcomb to Caltech from Chicago and Stan became really the intellectual leader hands-on leader of the effort at Caltech he became later the chief scientist of the LIGO laboratory and has really been perhaps in the long run he and Ray Weiss were probably the most influential experimenters working on the project so at Caltech as Dan Whitcomb under the aegis of of Ron Reaver led the construction of a 40 meter prototype gravity wave detectors MIT ray now had some funds from NSF they completed the 1.5 meter prototype there but more importantly at MIT they together with a contribution from Stan Whitcomb did a feasibility and cost study four kilometer length interferometers and with that in hand MIT and Caltech on with encouragement from NSF created the LIGO project had led by a troika of Ray Weiss Ron driver and me we three were the most dysfunctional leadership that science has ever seen well at least that physics has ever seen I don't know enough about other fields but that physics has ever seen and so inevitably in 1987 we brought on Rabi vote who had been the first chief scientist at JPL and had been the Provost at Caltech we brought him on to direct the project he knocked heads together between the Caltech and MIT groups which were not really collaborating decently turn this into a true collaboration he built a strong engineering team to go alongside these physicists paired the physicists with the engineers developed conceptual design for the lack of facilities a vacuum system and the initial gravity wave detectors the initial interferometers and he did a realistic costing of what it would cost and then on this basis we proposed in 1989 the construction of LIGO first the facilities and then in two steps we would build initial interferometers that would are essential in getting our feet with with big interferometer and seeing what the problems were but would probably not be good enough to see anything and then with what we learned from the initial interferometers build advanced interferometers which would very likely see a lot of gravitational waves in 1992 notice a three year gap we got approval and first funding and the problem was Congress we had a battle against some very eminent astronomers who could not understand the culture that you would build at a cost at that time of about two hundred million dollars two hundred and thirty million dollars by remember what we were asking at that cost build a set of interferometer that wouldn't see anything there just a testbed and you have to build a second generation in order to see it so we had to battle in congressional committee and it took three years to overcome that it was not not Caltech astronomers who are fighting it was eminent astronomers from that little institution on the East Coast not not MIT anyway so the we got finally got the approval and first funding from Congress in 1992 and from that point onward we had strong backing from Congress as well as NSF year after year after year with no significant budget cuts until we saw gravitational waves over a period of something like 25 years and it was because we told them this is hard and it's going to take us to generations and just be prepared for that so we had a three-year battle to get their funding but haven't been totally honest about what how difficult this was going to be we had full backing and when we finally saw a gravitational waves the Republicans and the Democrats both in Congress took huge pride in having backed this project so that was all under robbed evoked in 1994 as we moved toward construction we brought on very bearish another Caltech faculty member and here I want to remark this has been a key part of aspect of Caltech when we had needs for leadership colleagues who were here at Caltech stepped up and met those needs first Rabi vote then berry bearish came in berry really organized how to do the details of the construction and he then created the LIGO scientific collaboration he expanded LIGO so instead of two institutions and what by the time he took over was something like 40 or 50 scientists and engineers there were something like today 80 institutions and 18 nations with about 1,200 scientists and engineers why so many I mean forgot sakes why do you need so many I just explained it by saying you're measuring those tiny tiny emotions in the presence of all kinds of things that can go wrong so many things that can go wrong with the instruments that are now operating each of them has a hundred thousand data channels coming out each data channel telling you about things that could go wrong either inside the instrument or in the environment tremendously complex and to build these complex instruments design and build them required a very big team to pull it all off from 2000 to 2010 we built the initial interferometers and ran them I didn't see anything and Barry was stolen away by the high-energy physicists from a community from which he came on to Lyle to lead the design study for their next generation of particle accelerators we brought in then a new director Jay marks a really great director to carry us through this phase of the initial interferometers in the beginning of installing in the advanced interferometers and david writes he then took over as we were moving the advanced interferometers law and David writes he is our current super director and it's that's an another really great thing about Caltech the care with which the institution which meanings the leadership of the administration put into helping us find the right kinds of directors to really pull this off and why was Caltech doing this as the lead institution because MIT would not buy in in the early years and so Caltech stepped up to the plate and so here we are this is Caltech is the headquarters of Lionel just a few photos advanced LIGO has seen from the air the vacuum systems inside which the mirrors hang a baseball player put here by berra berra she thought that would be more humorous than putting a lego scientist there and a mirror hanging from an overhead support in the meantime my own theory students and postdocs were contributing in major ways to this Alice Andrew Bonanno and Yin by Chen found that the theory the mathematical theory of how these advanced interferometers worked was wrong it had not properly taken account of the quantum mechanical behavior of the mirror something that seems awfully esoteric or the proper account of the quantum mechanical behavior of the light so they developed a correct mathematical description which then required some redesign and re optimization of the advanced detectors others of my students studied the noises and how to control them and studied gravitational wave sources and data analysis techniques major contributions were coming from vladimir Berg in C's group in Moscow Russia in 1991 when the Soviet Union crumbled we were facing the loss of that Russian group which was really absolutely crucial group for some of the things we were doing so Robby vote as LIGO director at the time took private Caltech funds that he had control over and his discretionary funds and supported Brzezinski's group for about a year and a half until we managed to get funds from George Soros to support the group and hold it together and then by then we managed to find a way through with the help of stanwyck him to get NSF to actually support for against Keyes group in Moscow and there was an enormous ly important technology transfer from Moscow to Caltech and other institutions in the LIGO scientific collaboration through that whole period the Russia is never knew that that's technologies transfer was going from east to west it was I was under the radar of the Russian authorities one of the most important things that begins he did was he told us that we are going to have to deal with the fact that these mirrors in LIGO behaved like quantum mechanical particles the LIGO instrumentation is designed to measure the motion of the center of mass of the mirrors not just where the faces of the mirrors are and we would be in like a we will be monitoring the motions of 40 kilogram errors to a precision of 10 to the minus 19 meters in advanced LIGO and that is the level of the quantum fluctuations of a 40 kilogram particle an electron inside an atom jiggles around a level of what 10 to the minus 10 meters this is a billion times smaller because the particle is so much bigger a 40 kilogram particle and so these quantum fluctuations had to be dealt with for the first time in ly advanced LIGO humans would see human size objects behave quantum mechanically and quantum non demolition technology had to be developed to deal with this this became a collaboration between Brzezinski's research group and my own research group and it continues as such although Brzezinski sadly passed away at about the time like Oh Scott's first gravitational waves and I have retired it's now yan by Chen and Rana Adhikari at Caltech and the brig insky successors in Moscow developing this quantum non demolition technology to deal with this but the key idea came from carlton caves a graduate student and then a postdoc of mine in 1981 he said the key to controlling the quantum fluctuations of the visit the jiggling of the center of mass of the mirrors is quantum fluctuations of light or of the vacuum if you take a box and you remove everything from inside it there are still left fluctuations of everything that could exist inside there including light and these quantum fluctuations of the light then are something that is always present and Carl had the insight to realize that these quantum fluctuations of the light entering into the interferometer backwards from the output port would go in they would beat against the laser light and cause and and would start to manipulate the quantum fluctuations of the mirrors and so if you were to manipulate these quantum fluctuations of light the vacuum fluctuation if you were to methylate them by a technique called squeezing which was largely developed by Jeff Kimball here at Caltech independently of LIGO if you could do that manipulate to those quantum fluctuations of the light before they went in then those would manipulate the quantum fluctuations of the mirrors and you could figure you could use that to do quantum non demolition to circumvent the noise due to these the bouncing around of this 40 kilogram particles it's been 15 years of qnd technology development to take these ideas and turn them into reality but they are being in all in like Oh as I speak and we'll the first phase of this qnd technology will be in Lisle when LIGO turns back on makes observations in April then there was the issue of sources of gravitational waves already in 1980 I thought that the strongest sources would be colliding black holes and I knew that to learn the waves details we would have to have computer simulations it would calculate the shapes of the waves of the waveforms for comparison with observations in order to interpret these signals that we see in the early 2000 so the community of people working on numerical relativity to do these simulations got a big boost from us saying we really need these simulations of colliding black holes for LIGO by the early 2000 I became alarmed because the progress was not good and so I at that point left day-to-day involvement with like.oh to co-found together with salt occults key who was at Cornell at the time the collaboration to simulate extreme spacetimes extreme being colliding black holes in this case private funding was essential because NSF would not grant us the necessary funds to build a large enough research group to pull this off things worse timing because these research groups that were trying to do it were too small they didn't really have a critical mass and so once again Walter Burke and the Sherman Fairchild Foundation stepped up to the plate as they have on a number of occasions for us here at Caltech and with that funding then at about level of about a million dollars a year since about 2004 we took off the first successful simulations were done by France Pretorius in my research group here at Caltech as part of the sxs collaboration we brought salt or Kolski here now half time so he's half time here in half time Cornell leading the combined effort with a number of other institutions having joined in by 2014 the simulations will return enough for advanced Lagos first gravitational wave searches and so the discovery came in September 14 2015 and I described I show here a move be of the two black holes that produce the gravitational waves that we first discovered a movie produced by salty colt Sookie's a success collaboration or more precisely by three hooves Cornell students and I'll tell you the story of these waves 1.3 billion years ago when here on earth multi cell life was just forming and spreading over the globe but in a galaxy far far away do black holes circle around and around each other emitting gravitational waves and as they lost energy to gravitational way spiraling together these are the shadows of the black holes against the field of stars behind the black holes got closer and closer and closer then they came crashing together and I Janet a gigantic Cataclysm that doesn't look that spectacular here but a cataclysm is so humongous that it did the same thing so if you had taken the three suns completely annihilated them and turned all of that their energy into gravitational waves three solar masses of gravitational wave energy came flying out as gravitational wave bursts from the galaxy in which those black holes lived into the great reaches of intergalactic space across intergalactic space they arrived at our Milky Way galaxy fifty thousand years ago when our ancestors were sharing the earth with the Neanderthals for fifty thousand years they traveled through our Milky Way they arrived at the Antarctic Peninsula on 14 September 2015 3 days before Lycos advanced detectives were scheduled to start their first gravity wave search fortunately they were turned on they are in the process of tuning them to prepare for that first gravity wave search the waves traveled up through the earth unscathed by all the matter in the earth emerged at our LIGO gravity wave detector in Livingston Louisiana seven milliseconds later emerged at the gravity wave detector in Hanford Washington they shook the mirrors and those detectors by this miniscule amount that was predicted 1/100 the diameter of the nucleus of an atom the signal was captured then by light with photo detectors and that fed into computers and computers then viewed out results and the humans looked at the results and then the waves the signal was too strong too good to be true and so the whole team went in for several months looking at these huge number of data channels that would tell you about anything that might be going wrong there was nothing going wrong no sign of anything going wrong and only there was an agreement within the collaboration gravitational waves had been seen so five months later what was then the thousand-person like a collaboration with some contributions from a team called Virgo in Europe this team made absolutely sure this was real and announced their a result to the world and their result when they say wait signal cleaned up which was shown here in gray with superimposed on the predictions of the numerical success in relativity collaboration and the masses and the spins of the black holes were tuned in the numerical relativity simulations until you got a near-perfect match the conclusion was that this was an initial – of black holes 29 solar mass black hole and 36 solar mass black hole a total of 65 solar masses collided and merged formed a 62 solar mass black hole at a distance 1.3 billion light-years from Earth and that was then the movie that I show it to you and this was the newspaper accounts front page headlines and newspapers around the world for me much more interesting was to see what did that collision look like in terms of the warped space-time we can visualize this then by looking in from a higher dimension as I did before and you see the two funnels that are the black hole shapes of space you see the color coding that is the slowing of time you see arrows that are dragging space into motion and this is the movie that was made by the sxs team to show the collision as seen from the Bulge a gigantic wave like a gigantic splash in a storm at sea going up we pause the this at the moment of collision then it oscillates and the oscillations die out and three solar masses are gravity gravitational wave energy go traveling or gone out this then for me was tremendously exciting it was the beginning of what I what John Wheeler called geometric dynamics actually seeing the dynamical behavior of warp space-time in the equivalent of a storm at sea and that's the one research area that I continue to pursue in collaboration with members of assault occultus sxs team Ohio has now seen ten black hole collisions one neutron star collision by the 2030s it will likely see waves twenty times weaker than what it now seems we'll be seeing every black hole collision in the universe with masses less than about a hundred solar masses and a variety of others walked side phenomena also by the 2030s we will have other kinds of detectors and three other frequency bands will be seeing gravitational waves with periods of oscillation of milliseconds with LIGO and its international partners with an analogue of like Oh in space called Lisa and later the BIGBANG Observatory will see gravitational waves with periods of minutes to hours a technique called pulsar timing arrays will see gravitational waves with periods of years to decades and a technique called CMB polarization gravitational waves of periods of hundreds of millions to billions of years now of course that's a bit longer than a graduate student lifetime so you don't sit here and watch the oscillations when you see a pad on the sky that was produced by primordial gravitational waves from the Big Bang and in fact we expect to be seeing gravitational waves by from the Big Bang with two of these types of detectors by the 2030s with one and one of them probably by the 2020s and the other one maybe by the 2050s actually exploring the birth of the universe gravitational waves from the birth of the universe well I have overstayed my welcome I was going to also tell you about wormholes and time travel but I think that the evening is getting late and so I'm going to give you a quick verbal summary of that what I've told you is the most exciting work that J's I have been pursuing in my career but there was a period in the late 1980s and early 1990s when we were pushing to get LIGO funded a period when we were when Robbie was fighting battles in Congress to get things funded and things were slower than they had been unlike him and I had a phone call from Carl Sagan a dear friend astrophysicist astrophysicist friend at Cornell saying would you give me advice about a novel I've written called contact which I'm also planning to turn into a movie and I said sure and it turned out he had his heroine traveling through a black hole to get to the center of our galaxy or know to get to the star Vega and I responded to him he said I said you can't do that she'll die you have to send her through a wormhole instead and so I went back and resurrected the idea of wormhole which had been very popular and near and dear to the hearts of Einstein Hartmann vile and John wheeler in the period before John wheeler in 1960 and Martin Kruskal discovered the wormholes will self-destruct if you don't do something to hold them open and so these wormholes things that are links between this region of space in that region of space you go in here you can come out there you can look it that something looks like a crystal ball here and you see light coming from over there but over there might be the other side of the universe and here might be here so anyway these wormhole then became for me just because of the call from Carl Sagan a subject of interesting research and then I quickly together with students at Caltech I discovered if you could have a wormhole then you could turn it into a time machine by use of some phenomena called the twins paradox and so I then together with students and colleagues and then a number of colleagues at other institutions began to develop the research on the theory of wormholes and of time-travel when we came to the crucial point where we were having trouble getting funding for LIGO from Congress I Richard Isaacson who was the superb program director for gravitational physics at NSF and was the source of funding both for my work on wormholes and time travel and for LIGO he came to me he said I'm afraid that congressman Dingell and others in Congress may come and get on our backs because you're doing this wormhole in time-travel research and that might affect LIGO so I think maybe you had better cease using NSF money for the wormhole and time-travel research even though it's really important we could have trouble with Congress fortunately Caltech stepped up to the plate again and I had money then from a Richard P Flyman Research Fund to continue this crazy research was not really totally crazy research because to me I came to realize that by asking questions like can you build wormholes for a fast interstellar travel and time machines were going backward in time even though we can't do experiments with them by asking the laws of physics deep questions of this sort you can learn things about the laws of physics it sets your mind and neighbors of mind to focus on particulars of the laws of physics that are really important so this became a way to learn deep things about the nature of time and space from the laws of physics the bottom line is that you probably cannot have wormholes but we were not able to prove that for sure the bottom line is that whenever you try to build a time machine if you even if you're an advanced infantry advanced civilization that time machine will probably self-destruct at just the moment you try to activate it we don't know for sure the answers are held tightly in the grips of these laws of quantum gravity we don't understand but that was a lovely interlude for me in the period when we were having trouble getting Lyle funded the moment LIGO is funded all that research meant by the way for me but I have a colleagues at other institutions who continued to pursue it and I focused in on like going so there is some sense of my career here at Caltech I'd like to just conclude by saying that Caltech has been a marvelous place I can't imagine any place better to build a career I have had the benefit of wonderful colleagues scientists colleagues on the faculty superb students and postdocs a wonderful administration that backs you to the hilt when you're trying to do something that's really important even if it sounds crazy if you can make the case that you have a shot at it staff that are really superb at helping make things function and helping us achieve our dreams trustees and friends or Caltech who give us great support and great advice it is just the ideal place to do a career to have a career like mine and I was never tempted for one minute to leave once I came here on the faculty thank you [Applause] you
Views:15226|Rating:4.43|View Time:2:19Minutes|Likes:364|Dislikes:47 AN Oxford University professor has claimed aliens are already breeding with humans to create a new hybrid species that will save the planet.
Follow us on facebook:
dr. Jung hacci Anna during Korean at Oxford's Oriental Institute digis university thinks this new species will save earth from annihilation from climate change dr. chi first said the hybrids may already exist in a lecture in 2012 but has now written a book on the subject he believes there is a strong correlation between climate change and alien abductions the oxford student newspaper has reported his book written in korean is called alien visitations in the end of humanity he says he has identified four types of aliens small tall and bold scaly with snake eyes an insect like dr. Chiba leaves the insect aliens may be in charge and give orders to the other types the aliens exist in their own bio system that humans cannot experience because our perception is limited by our organs the professor has claimed as the aliens are said to be highly intelligent so dr. chi believes they could solve the problems on earth in the future such as climate change he said so they come not for the sake of us but for the sake of them their survival but their survival is actually our survival as well the survival of the entire biosphere dr. Qi said he was still looking for more evidence to support my view his initial lecture alien abduction and the environmental crisis outlined his theory he cited an abduction researcher in the u.s. who argued that aliens primary purpose is to colonize the planet by interbreeding with humans to produce a new hybrid species dr. Qi believes aliens appear on earth when the planet is facing significant problems such as climate change or nuclear war and he concluded it may be more or less assumed that the hybrid project is a response to this impending demise of human civilization
Views:1387207|Rating:4.71|View Time:4:58Minutes|Likes:25659|Dislikes:1578 Make your own professional website at:
What Came Before the Big Bang? – Second Thought
Modern science seems to agree that our universe began with a monumental explosion, but do we know what came before the Big Bang? Watch to find out!
WATCH LAST VIDEO HERE:
New video every Friday!
Follow Second Thought on Social Media!
Support Second Thought on Patreon!
Watch More Second Thought:
About Second Thought:
Second Thought is a channel devoted to the things in life worth thinking about! Science, history, politics, religion…basically everything you’re not supposed to talk about at the dinner table. Welcome!
If you’re tired of learning after watching all my videos, come unwind on my gaming channel:
This is a second thought video made possible by Squarespace make your next move with the beautiful website from Squarespace There Are Plenty Of Theories On How Our Universe Began But Currently The Most Prevalent Scientific Theory Is That Everything Came Into Existence At The Single Moment Known As The Big Bang But If Everything Was Created At This One Moment What Came Before The Big Bang?. As Our Understanding Has Developed We've Come To Realize That Our Universe Is Expanding And With Our Current Technology We Can Say With A Relative Certainty That The Big Bang Occurred About 13.8 Billion Years Ago Over The Years Our Space Telescopes Have Allowed Us To Look Further And Further Back In Time Observing The Faintest Lights Of The Universe That Formed Just 300, 000 Years After The Big Bang To Gain An Even Better Understanding Of The Beginning Of The Universe Scientist Use The Large Hadron Collider (CERN) To Approximate The Conditions Of The Big Bang On A Much Smaller Scale Of Course
But That's Is Far Back As We Can Go And That's Just Not Good Enough Is It?. We Humans Are Wired Within A Nit Tendency To Assume Cause And Effect Everything That Happens Can Be Assume To Have A Cause Or it Wouldn't Have Happen Right?. So If We Rewind Time Back Through The Expansion Of The Universe Before Galaxies Formed To The Moment Before The Explosion That Causes Everything What Do We Find?. Well Maybe NOTHING!. Some Scientists Speculate That Before The Big Bang Was A Massively Dense Infinitely Tiny Singularity A Point Of Which Time And The Laws Of Physics Did Not Exist If Time Didn't Exist Then There Is No Before Others Suspect That The Big Bang May Actually Have Been A BIG BOUNCE Another Universe May Have Existed Before Ours That After Many Billions Of Years Stopped Expanding And Collapsed In On Itself And Formed The Single Unbelievably Massive Black hole Eventually Collapsing Into the Singularity That exploded Into Our Current Universe Proponents Of The Idea Suspected That The Big Bounce Could Have Been Occurring Forever And Will Continue To Have Been Forever Okay… But What Caused The First Universe In This Series No One Knows For Sure Perhaps The First Universe Was Always There And Our Human Understanding Is Not Equipped To Accept That Fact Albert Einstein Once Said That Trying To Understand What Came Before The Big Bang Is Like Trying To Figure Out Whats More North Than The North Pole Another Hypothesis Is That Our Universe Is Just One Of An Infinite Number Of Universes Each Floating Around In Some Higher Dimension Some Scientist Suspect That The Expansion Of Our Universe And Potentially Any Universe Is The Effect Of A Neighboring Universe's Gravity An When Two Or More Of This Universes Collide With Each Other It Should Leave A Distinctive Marking In The Cosmic Microwave Background Which We Should Be Able To Detect The Only Problem Is We Haven't Ever Detected Anything Of The Sort Others Propose That A Collision Between Universes Will Spark A Cataclysmic Event A Big Bang And Create An Entirely New Universe The Existence Of A Multiverse Like This Relies Upon String Theory Being Correct And While String Theory Does Have Traction In The Scientific Community The Jury Is Still Out On Its Over All Acceptance So Really The Only Honest Answer Anyone Could Currently Give To This Question Of What Came Before The Big Bang Is… We Don't Know Okay… We Might Not Know Right Now But What Are We Doing To Find The Real Answer As With Anything In Science Experts Are Constantly Trying New Things And Coming Out With Potential Solutions To Difficult Problems In The Near Future We'll See Launch Of The Long Awaited James Webb Space Telescope Which Will Give Us An Unprecedented Ability to See Way Back To The Very Early Universe And Observe The Formation Of The Very Oldest Galaxies Perhaps Webb Will Allow Us to Unlock The Secrets Of The Beginning Of Space And Time Or Maybe It'll Just Give Us More Questions To Answer Regardless Of The Outcome This Is One Of The Biggest And Most Intriguing Riddle Science Has Yet To Solve And When We Do Solved It Our Understanding Of The Universe And The Very Nature Of Space And Time Will Likely Never Be The Same What Do You Think?. Has Our Universe Been Around Forever?. Did We Come From A Black Hole?. Or Are We Living In Just One Of Countless Universes Let Us Know Your Thoughts In The Comments Below While we wait for answer to this question you should keep track of your own predictions for how the universe began with a professional website from SquareSpace So you can tell everyone I told you so when it turns out you're right with SquareSpace it's not rocket science to create your own personal website SquareSpace has tons of easy to edit templates created by world blast designers to get your shinny website up and running in matter of hours these days it's so important to have a web presence to showoff your work sell merchandise or just to be noticed and thanks to SquareSpace it's a whole lot easier than you might expect If you enjoyed this video make sure to subscribe and click the little bell to be notified everytime a new SecondThought video is released while you're here check out these playlists of other great content and if you really want to support the channel and get behind the scenes look at SecondThought check out our Patreon page Thanks for watching and we'll see you next week!
Views:2406302|Rating:0.00|View Time:14:Minutes|Likes:|Dislikes: Welcome back for another Game of Thrones video. Today I want to talk about our favorite uncle, Benjen Stark. He wasn’t just a man of the Night’s Watch. He was also the brother of Ned Stark and Lyanna Stark; two very important characters in this story. We meet Benjen Stark in the very first episode, when he arrives in Winterfell for King Robert’s feast. When he gets there, he has a conversation with his nephew, Jon Snow, and Jon talks about joining the Night’s Watch immediately. This conversation is the basis for one very popular theory, which is, did Benjen Stark know the truth about Jon Snow’s parents? We are led to believe Ned Stark kept this secret his entire life, but could he have told his brother? I also want to talk about a few scenes with Benjen and Bran Stark. After Benjen saves Bran and Meera, he says a few interesting things that could reveal how much he really knew. We don’t know what Benjen was doing during all those years he spent beyond the Wall. His men were found in the first season, so what could he have been doing that whole time? We know the children of the forest saved him, by plunging dragonglass into his chest, just like the Night King. When you combine that, with the fact that Benjen has Stark blood, or the blood of the First Men, this could have given him some very special abilities. Was Benjen Stark in constant contact with the children of the forest, or did he have his own access to the weirwood net? Let me know your thoughts or opinions on these topics. Thank you for watching the video!
Images and video clips from Game of Thrones are property of their creators, used here under fair use.
Enter the new giveaway right here!
Support my channel on Patreon
Follow me on Twitter
Outro Music: Light of the Seven Remix
the realm do you know what the realm is it's the thousand blades of Aegon's enemies a story we agreed to tell each other over and over till we forget that it's a lie what's up ladies and gentlemen welcome back for another Game of Thrones video today I want to discuss one character in particular which is Benjen stark but I do also want to talk about brain stark and Jon Snow because their scenes together could reveal just how much information Benjen Stark knew about the bigger picture I decided to make this video because someone recently asked me this question on Twitter after thinking about it I came to the conclusion that I'm about to present to you today since my last video was centered around the books I want to keep this one centered around everything we have seen in the show I will only reference one quote from the books just to add a little more context but that's it the main thing I want to talk about is whether or not Benjen Stark knew the truth about Jon Snow this is something fans like to discuss but there is something else I want to talk about because I think there is evidence they may suggest benjin knew a hell of a lot more than just this so let's get into it I think it's safe to say Uncle Benjen is a beloved character but we don't know that much about him we do meet him in the very first episode and we come to find out he is a man of the Nights Watch who is also brothers with a Ned Stark benjin arrives at Winterfell during the feast which is held for King Robert Baratheon when benjin does arrive the first person to greet him is his nephew Jon Snow although we don't know much about either one of these characters at first it does seem very clear that they have a good relationship with one another after they give each other a hug John tells benjin he was not allowed to attend the feast because Catelyn thought it would be insulting to have a bastard sitting around the royal family this is when benjin tells Jon you are more than welcome to join the Nights Watch no bastard was ever turned away from providing service at the wall wall isn't going anywhere I'm ready to sway you you don't understand what you'd be giving up we have no families none of us will ever father so they don't care about that right you know what you meant depending on who you ask this conversation between John and benjin is the basis for one very popular theory that I want to talk about today as I'm sure all of you know the truth about Jon Snow's parents was one of the best-kept secrets in Westeros but some people believe there was one other person who knew about this secret and that was Benjen stark at the beginning of the show we are led to believe Jon Snow is Ned Stark's bastard son but we later come to find out Ned lied about this in order to keep Jones safe jon is actually the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark at the time of John's birth all the Targaryen 's were getting killed in leon and knew if Robert Baratheon ever found out John Maz Rhaegar son he would have him killed as well so Liana made Ned promise to keep it a secret it was Liana's dying wish and as far as we know Ned took that secret to his grave Ned obviously never told any of his kids or even his wife Catelyn hated John because every time she looked at him he was a constant reminder that the Honorable Lord Eddard Stark fucked another woman Ned went to great lengths to keep this a secret but could he have told his brother Benjen Stark this is something most of us have wondered and would like to know unfortunately there is only one problem as far as we know Ned and benjin are both dead so we may never actually find out what he knew the only way we could probably ever find out is if benjin had a secret diary at Castle black or if bran had a vision of Ned and benjin talking about this in private so the first thing you have to ask yourself is why would Ned tell the secret to benjin why would Benjy need to know this information well depending on how you want to look at it I think benjin did deserve to know the truth Liana wasn't just Ned's sister she was benjin sister as well benjin and Liana were also very close they actually spent a lot of time together and later in the books when brain is looking through the eyes of the weirwood tree he can see Liana and benjin playing together in the godswood I actually read this entire chapter in my video about bloodraven escape at first brain thinks it could be him and Arya playing with wooden but after watching them for a few seconds he realizes it's not it's benjin and Liana this is when I start to think why would the author of the story decide to show us this could there be a few different reasons why out of all the things bran could see in the where wouldn't it we are shown benjin and Liana playing together as kids well one reason could be to show the similarities between Aria and Liana but another reason could be to show just how close benjin and Liana were this is something that Stark would have obviously known because they all grew up at Winterfell together even if they all did eventually part ways once they got a little bit older so even though Ned made two promise to Leona I don't think she would mind if benjin knew when you consider the fact that Liana benjin and Ned were all brothers and sisters don't you think Ned would have wanted to tell benjin what actually happened to their sister I mean what do you think was going through benjin's head when all these rumors started to circulate about the sister he loved all throughout Westeros people were saying Leona was kidnapped and raped by Rhaegar which was apparently so violent and led to her death why would Ned allow benjin to have to think about that for the rest of his life what do you really want his own brother to continue thinking his sister was raped and killed hell no he would probably want to give his brother peace of mind he would want to let him know all those crazy rumors aren't exactly true but you have to keep this a secret because now we have a child's life at stake since jon is family benjin will not have to even be told how important it is to keep this quiet Ned could trust that benjin would keep his mouth shut about this because he has just as much love for Liana and John as he does even though John is only a half stark they still share some of the same blood and we all know blood is thicker than water benjin is even watching over him as Ned says the exact same thing to Jon in my opinion there is a very good chance Ned told benjin what happened to their sister think about it like this after the Mad King killed their father and brother Ned and benjin were the only two left from their generation their mother was gone their father was gone their brother was gone and now even their baby sister was gone don't you think Ned and benjin would have became even closer after something like that besides the statues down in the crypts of Winterfell the one thing they had left to remember their sister by was Jo maybe this is another reason why benjin was always so happy to see John not just because he was family but because every time he looks at John he sees a little bit of his sister and it reminds him of all the great times they had together as kids when they would chase each other around in the godswood all right now I want to move on to the second part of the discussion because I believe there is some evidence later in the show that does suggest benjin knew more than just that by the end of season six benjin start might have had the answer to just about anything and I'll show you why after benjin disappears in the first season we don't see him again until season six when he rescues Brian and Meera Reed when they escaped from the three-eyed Ravens cave benjin saves them before they get surrounded and over and by more whites then he takes them somewhere that is relatively safe at that time then we find out some more information about benjin and this is what he says stab me in the gut the sword of ice they'll be there today to turn his children film stop the walkers magic from taking hold how the same way they made the workers in the first place you saw it yourself dragonglass benjin said that when he led the ranging party they went looking for white walkers but the white walkers ended up finding them instead one of the white walkers stabbed the Benjen right in the gut with his ice sword then he left benjin there to die and hopefully turn into a white thankfully the children of the forest showed up and saved his life they were able to stop the night Kings magic from taking control of benjin but they had to shove dragon glass into his chest to do this now what happens after all this is still a bit of a mystery because benjin never says what he has been doing the whole time this had to have taken place in the first season because that's when benjin's other brothers were found by ghost ghosts who you see be good it's also without a doubt the other ones jafer flowers my lord less the hand the wolf tore off any sign of Benjen the rest of his party it's these two my lord the only reason why benjin's body was a laying next to theirs was because the children came along and saved him but where the hell did he go did he stay out there all by himself trying to find more White Walkers for over five seasons or did something else happen in the meantime well let's think about what benjin actually said to Bryan when benjin said the children saved him brain wanted to know how that happened and that's when benjin said they were able to save him the same way they created the White Walkers in the first place you saw it for yourself now this is where it gets kind of interesting because how the hell could benjin have known what brain saw inside of the weirwood net benjin wasn't inside the cave what then when brain came out of that vision so how did he know what Bryan saw well I think there is really only two logical ways to explain this either the three-eyed raven of the children of the forest or send and benjin all this information through visions or benjin is able to go inside the weirwood net by himself now I know we've never seen benjin do anything like this before but you also have to remember two very important things not only does benjin have stark blood the blood of the first men but he also has that dragon glass in his chest as far as we know there is only one other character that has dragon glass in his chest and that's the night king we all know the kind of things the night king is capable of we have seen the night king go inside of the weirwood net with Bryan Stark not only was he there but he was able to manipulate that vision which allowed him to reach out and grab bran by the arm we know that I King got all his powers from the children of the forest after they inserted two dragonglass into his chest so I think since the children did the same thing to benjin he may be able to do some of the same type of things we know the children the forests have full access to the weirwood net and it seems like whenever they shove dragon glass in someone it gives them very similar abilities this could be how benjin knew what bran had just seen inside of the weirwood net now let's take a look at another scene because benjin says something else then me think he knows things about the past present and future it was good to control for the night king comes drink one way another it will find his way to the world of men when he does you will be there waiting for him and he will be ready benjin says you must learn how to control your visions before the night King comes you see brain is still seeing everything in fragments but once he's able to piece everything together he should be able to find all the answers that he's looking for benjin tells him one way or another the night King will make his way past the wall and when he does brain will be there waiting for him and he will be ready benjin is basically telling us exactly what's gonna happen one way or another the night king will make his way south but by the time he reaches Bryan he will be ready after benjin had the dragonglass put into his chest he might have learned everything including how it all ends now let's tie this back into the beginning of the video as I said before there is a very good chance that Ned told benjin the truth about Leona and ultimately her son John benjin might have known this the entire time but for some reason he did not know the truth about John at the beginning he definitely found out by the end if benjin had access to the weirwood net just like the children of the forest and Bryan and the knight king then he could have gotten the answers to just about anything he wanted that's more than likely how benjin knew brain had seen the night Kings creation and that's more than likely how he knew Bryan would be ready when the night king arrives therefore he would have seen everything happened to do at the endgame which means he would also have known exactly how important Jon Snow is he may have been watching everything the entire time since he went missing which would also explain how benjin showed up just in time to save John's life if he knows how everything will play out then he would have known that he needed to be in position to save John's life that way John can go on and help bran defeat the night king what do you think about Benjen Stark do you believe he knew the truth about John all the way back in the first season also let me know if you think benjin was in constant contact with the children of the forest or did he have his own access to the weirwood net after he had the dragonglass put into his chest leave some of your thoughts opinions or questions down below I would like to hear what you have to say I want to thank everyone for watching video I really appreciate that and also want to thank all of my supporters on patreon I hope everyone has a great day I will see you all very soon you
Views:1337|Rating:5.00|View Time:52:12Minutes|Likes:110|Dislikes:0 Dr. Joe Salerno joins Jeff Deist to explore another foundational topic: the method of economics. Mises developed praxeology, perhaps his most controversial contribution to economic science. Praxeology starts with fundamental axioms, then derives economic theory by working logically through a deductive process. As such, praxeology is at odds with logical positivism and empiricism—and presents a markedly different approach to economics.
Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science(mises.org/library/ultimate-foundation-economic-science)
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, Part One, Chapter II(mises.org/library/human-action-0/html/p/640)
Murray Rothbard, “In Defense of Extreme Apriorism” (mises.org/library/defense-%E2%80%9Cextreme-apriorism%E2%80%9D)
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method (mises.org/library/economic-science-and-austrian-method)
this is Jeff diced and you're listening to the human action podcast ladies gel and once again you have found yourself listening to the human action podcast today we're joined in studio by our vice-president of academic affairs dr. Joe Salerno and we're talking about proxy ology the method of economics or at least the Austrian method of economics and Joe it's great to see you thank you good to see you Jeff and thank you for having me on well I want to I want to start with a couple of overarching thoughts for you first and foremost is that in many ways maybe proxy ology and method are the most controversial elements of Austrian ism or Massassi in economics and second there seems to be this innate human desire to look at things systems branches of thought and want to pick and choose like a buffet in other words perhaps you don't want to choose proxy ology in the whole of Austrian economics to start start with that is this is this the most controversial branch of Mis Essien thought yeah yes I think it definitely is although Mises himself has written on it in numerous works beginning in 1928 but came out of histological problems which embodied his essays from 28 to 33 and then in human action he went through and and developed it more even more systematically and then he went back to it again in 1956 and his last great treatise theory in history and and then had some final thoughts of very deep thoughts and very important thoughts on it in his ultimate foundation of economic science in 1962 which was his last real book so for Mises it wasn't controversial Mises saw what he was doing in in the in developing a method of economics as simply extending what economists for the most part had been doing up through the 1930s including a classical economists such as nassau senior and JB say they all were operating in a deductive manner and ultimately although they didn't know it it was based on human action so it's it's controversial maybe today yeah the first century yes I mean I think the controversy started the 1930s when mathematical economics began to come in at least in the english-speaking world and when we also had positivism which developed earlier in Germany but then developing and transport and transferred to to the english-speaking world but it's so interesting that the positivist and the empiricists of today know so little about the history of economic thought it's almost like they just assume well everyone knows that this is the method of economics and they simply don't know what economics was a hundred years ago or 150 years yes yes and the part of the problem with that the reason for that is that all history of economic thought courses have long disappeared in graduate programs they started being phased out in the late 60s as mathematical economics began coming in and the model of physics began coming in so that you never really had to read you know Galilei or any of these other earlier natural scientists so the Economist and the heads of economic program economics programs began to ape physics in that in that respect dismissing prior thought so you've written a lot about the history of Austrian economics as sociology of Austrian economics and one thing you mentioned in a particular essay is that proxy ology or an understanding of and at least this tacit approval of this approach is at the heart of what it means to be an Austrian in other words just some some vague subjectivism or methodological individualism is not sufficient that in order to be an Austrian one has to be a proxy ologist so can you explain this yes so I wasn't so much saying that you had to be conversant with you know the methodology in a sense that you you needed to be someone who could advance the methodology what I meant want by that was that you had to be fully uncomfortable using the method of the praxeological method to actually develop economic theory if you wish to work in the area of theory rather than let's say applying Austrian theory so that that was all I meant by that and and you can see it in in mises and and especially Roth board they come in in their economics proper their economic theory for example in man economy and state Rockmore doesn't write a lot about proxy ology in that book but he uses the method to develop from human action the the theoretical deductions that make up the body of economic science so to you the essence of Austrian economics let's just say is his economic theorems arrived at through this process a praxeological deduction and that's at the heart of what we think of as Austrian economics yeah that's the core of Austrian economics it allows us to find in the social world the laws of cause and effect karl menger who was a proto proxy ologist and the founder of the Austrian school the first few lines of his of his great work on principles was that all a all phenomena are subject to the law of cause and effect and that's how we get cause and effect in into economics and I'll talk more about that in a little while as we go on but when we use it our method do we mean the method of learning economic science a method of applying it is it a research method and well how do we use her method yeah it's a research method in today's language in the sense that you you need a number of axioms starting with the human action axiom that people consciously apply means to achieve ends which is arrived at really introspectively we all look inside ourselves and we treat other people as if that were true even natural science because they have to have repeatability of experiments in order to establish scientific laws treat others other scientists who are repeating these experiments as human beings with means and ends and costs and benefits and and and and so on so this is the the core of approxi ology so we were speaking off-mic earlier and and you mentioned that Mises had already been an economist for Sep for many decades had already written a couple of substances before he ever developed fully his theory of the proper method for economics which he lays out at length it towards the beginning of human action so talk about all this he thought it was important to be an economist for a while before you started talking about how to be an economist yeah that's exactly – he had already written two great treatises theory of money and credit and socialism before he put pen to paper to write about methodology which he began writing essays in 1928 and by 1933 he had written a number of essays on methodology proper and by then he was a middle-aged economist who had done a lot of original work in economics itself and that the fruits of those efforts were the Piston illogical problems of economic science which he then developed even further in 1940 in the german language edition of human action and then 49 the english language edition and very strikingly what Mises pointed out was that one really must be a scientist to cogitate and think about and write about the issues of method you have to be a scientist first so for example he compares Galilei Galileo the first name – Francis Bacon and says that really the the the the person who most advanced science the scientific method in the Natural Sciences was Galilei not not bacon and he says the same thing about about about Newton and versus Kant that it wasn't the epistemology scant that really furthered the method but but but it was it was Newton who actually did the science so if we look at things began to change in Austrian economics in the 1970s and 80s there was a lot of interest in proxy ology and rightfully so the Austrian revival was well underway and Hayek had done work in practice in in praxeological type methodology and had won the Nobel Prize and we and we began to see very young people graduate students trying to write on these things for example I named names to protect the guilty but there were three graduate students at George Mason in the early 1980s who hadn't written anything substantive in economics and they they wrote they wrote a paper dismissing equilibrium as useless for developing economic science there was also another paper by a graduate student and and and a young professor at George Mason who in which the they dismissed the use of the e re in economics now these people hadn't done any science they hadn't they weren't the Newton's they weren't the Galileo's okay there were just people speculating about these things and the the ER e is the evenly rotating community sort of a heuristic tool it's it's an equilibrium tool that the austrians hughes and it's much more it's it's better specified than the normal equilibrium of a mathematical equilibrium at least better specified for the purposes of of austrian research but as a layperson it would seem to be a method of course is going to affect everything method is going to affect even conclusions so if you don't get method right you're arriving in a very different science you're you're on a completely different track yeah i agree um so that is why I think it's important to begin to do science based on the science that your mentors have done and to try to develop their the body of thought that they've handed down and in our case it's Mises and it's rothbard and Kerzner and then of course Hayek but but if methodological problems crop up it they should crop up and be addressed during the course of your research in other words your research if there are any holes in the praxeological method it will be revealed by doing real research and that's what Mises found that that bohm-bawerk and mangar his teachers had actually not thought all the way through certain problems in economics which were methodological and that's when he began to develop methodology further than they had or even the classical economists had so by the 1941 Mises is more fully developed his concept of proxy ology he opens human action part 1 and right away in chapter 2 he he spends a hundred odd pages on what he calls the epistemological problems of the sciences of human action so this is this is right at the beginning at the core of his of his most important book yes I I think what he's doing there is not saying that you need to put methodology first but but he what he's doing there is um he's condensing and and and just setting out the method that that he perfected but that had been the method of economics from the Classical School oli up until the 1930s and so in effect he's he's he's filling in what was left out of economic treatises proper so even though his then goes on to be a treatise on economic theory he puts that first now Rothbard this means already set that out in man economy in state you don't see methodology being put first you use you see the the method being used and and very successfully a my dad in in developing the whole architectonic which is a whole structure of economic theory so when Mises goes on about the action axiom first of all give us a summary of what that is a second of all do you think he saw that as a codification something he reluctantly had to point out that that ought to have been a baseline for economics or do you think he he viewed that as a correction to the the current vogue of the time yeah when I think when one Mises you know spoke about the so-called well he never used the term action axiom I think that was Rothbart's term but but but but the the the basic law of human action basically when he would call a category of human action because he thought was a category of human mind which we'll talk about but um when Mises did that I think first of all what he meant he meant he simply meant that people act not rationally necessarily I mean a drug addict who is conscious and and is acting to obtain drugs and and to get high is acting in a way that everyone out else acts and what is that with purpose acting proposal II and then me and then Mises used analysis to analyze a little further it means that you're using means okay the paraphernalia that the money you used to buy the drugs and so on to achieve your ends that is to get high whether or not those ends are responsible moral self-destructive is beside the point for the economists okay it's purposeful alright maybe even irrational from from an ethical point of view there is I believe a rationality in ethics but that that's not that that's not what we mean by by the the action axiom any action by a conscious act or is is can be explained by by this action axiom I thought it's a lot of implications that immediately follow but a lot of his critics including critics at the time when the book came out would say this is pretty thin I mean everyone knows that humans act and how did economics get to a state by the 1940s where this had to be reasserted as a starting point well portrait was was was mathematical economics which came into vogue in the early 1930s it was transferred from from France and and Italy and Switzerland via Valle Ross and Pareto and then and then the people who adapted it in to UM and by the way it was interesting a Hayek really brought Pareto to the attention of english-speaking economists when he he came to the London School of Economics so I mentioned earlier that that method brings up a lot of other topics and Mises goes through a lot of concepts in this section on epistemological problems like individualism and reason and Paula Chisholm and time you know uncertainty about the future value scales marginal utility cooperation all of these things are flowing from that axiom and so we're really getting a mini course in economics in just this first section of the book yeah and also in logic I mean so what Mises points out is that once once you introduce means and ends it means and people aiming at ends it means that they're not perfectly satisfied logically and if you're not perfectly satisfied that means that there's scarcity in the world there's scarcity of means the things that will be used by you to bring about satisfaction and once that is admitted there's the phenomena of kapha nama non of cause-and-effect that people if they really want to achieve ends they have to know what what particular phenomenon brings about another particular phenomenon and that's the the law of cause and effect and time preference the fact that people are acting now that people are trying to bring these ends into the present or as close as possible to themselves by acting today rather than tomorrow brings in a law of time preference and then the fact that means are our scarce means that people have to choose between what ends many of which would satisfy them but only a few which they can attain because the means are scarce what ends to choose and that brings in value scale so you can see Mises logically infers from this loan concept of purposeful action all of these other basic concepts of economics so that means proxy ology is obviously cousin of logic yes and what strikes me though is if you read the beginning of his book the first again the first hundred odd pages think about different all this is from the first hundred pages of a typical micro course in in a textbook in in college freshmen today I mean this this is this is a different science it's totally different in the textbook that you'd look at or that you would teach from as a professor today you would almost immediately introduce the student to models and models which have some independent variables and some dependent variable so you introduce them to the model of supply and demand in which the supply and the demand are independent variables and then then the price is is the dependent variable so you squeeze human action out of it they of course I mean it's a mixed bag because they do in fact introduce scarcity and they they do in introduce opportunity cost so they have learned some of the lessons from the the classical and Austrian economists all right but we shouldn't kid ourselves for example Noah Smith no opinion the famous Twitterer who writes for bloomberg was just writing something the other day about how you know harkening back to this attack on Mises as a literary economist that there there are plenty of people today who think that economics ought to be written literally in formulas that it ought not to consist of text and words that that in other words Mises this view of all this is it didn't hold and it's it's not what what resonates today yeah well once again once mathematics was introduced and once economics and began to envy physics and see itself not as a what used to be called the moral science or a science of human beings but a science of quantitative phenomena like prices okay and at that point it was it's very hard to separate disentangle the the the math the math the math from from the meaning the meaning of words yeah no it's absolutely true and again in this same section Mises takes pains to distinguish social sciences from physical sciences I mean he writes at some length about the difference and and so in other words even in the 1940s he felt that it was necessary to distinguish strongly between the two so there was already a problem yeah oh yes he thought there was well and what what he what he pointed out was that in social science that any any quantitative variable so about a price for example is an event it's a complex event like World War one in other words there were different people in at a certain date that had different values and they came together in something called the market and they interacted and exchanged and that price emerge from that on that date among these different people that is completely different than the price for the same product that would emerge the next day because there are different people there Volition's have changed your value ski have changed and so so Mises pointed out that these are even though they look the same the quantities of money that are exchanged for per unit of a good that they're different from one another because they're heterogeneous events so that was the key there were no homogeneous events in the social sciences that you could measure that you can find constant relationships between and so on yeahyou says here it at page 39 of the scholars additional law do you have that he says the sciences of human action differ radically from the Natural Sciences all authors eager to construct an epistemological system of the science of human action according to the pattern of Natural Sciences air lamentably so he wasn't pulling any punches here but but again I think most people today think of science as something where you create a hypothesis and you test it and you revise it and they don't distinguish between natural and and human sciences yeah that's the criterion of falsifiability I mean you can come up with these tentative scientific laws but yet they're subject to change if if there's they're falsified in in the future and a new new broader laws possibly that cover more phenomena or then are then developed you know as a result of some tests that these laws did not stand up to and of course this is a common criticism of Austrians right is that if something's not if a proposition let's say or is not falsifiable then it's some sort of dog but but but but even that statement in itself is contradictory because if it's it is it falsifiable you know yeah right to say that that anything that is not falsifiable is not science or that you can't arrive at any knowledge without without developing falsifiable statements is itself an unfalsifiable statement so it's it's it's sort of the boomerang principle it comes back at the at the person who proposes it and and and destroys the proposition and and we all know i again in order to have natural science and to develop the idea of falsifiability or or verifiability you have to have human minds interacting you have to have human minds that can carry out repeat experiments and and also means is very importantly points out there's something it's important that if you want to have natural science before you can even have it you have to have in your mind the I which is this is not false wobbly the idea that there's cause and effect that if you bring a and B together then there'll be a regularity and a succession of events that will bring about C and it will always occur now where did we arrive at that law of cause and effect and and and the idea of regularity well Mises says it's a law of thought it's a category that's already in the human mind he follows Kant Rothberg uses a different vocabulary is more he's more of a Otto mystic philosopher Rothbart said so it's a law of reality the mind is Cree is created or the mind develops in such a way that it is able to to to learn about and use these the law of cause and effect which it's which it observes in reality but in any case and the vocabularies a little bit different between the two but but you see that without cause and effect and regularity and a number of other things that are problem and this is where the a priority comes and that's that are prior to experience you really couldn't even have natural science let alone the science of economics but if we don't have prior thought or prior understanding your knowledge and if we don't have any theory then what would words be what would data and empirical knowledge be in the form of words to an illiterate or in the form of numbers to an enumerator s'en in other words we have to Michelle scientists would agree that we have to filter all of this or something yeah well yeah I mean meatman Mimi has pointed out that um without the law of cause and effect accumulating data would mean absolutely nothing if we didn't have this prior idea that that certain things going to regularly follow other things now and in the future then then just accumulating data means absolutely nothing it's meaningless so I think that's a very important insight that to be called the philosophy of nature which was prior to two to two physical sciences in other words there had to be a philosophy of nature and and and this is atomistic discipline and it yields you these insights for example that look there's no real silver in the world there's only pieces of things that all have similar properties in a sense of cause and effect and of what they're composed of and then we come up with the idea of silver it's a category so you have to have the the difference between the individual and the species already in mind before you can do science there's so many things that are wrong with with the positive his approach to to even Natural Sciences well so he develops this more fully as he gets in the later life and as you mentioned nineteen fifties he produces theory in history and then in the early 60s really his last full-length book the ultimate foundation of economic science we're going to link to that you can read it for free by the way online so so talk about his further development in theory in history and then let's talk about the ultimate foundation event the most important I mean the book theory in history has been called by rothbard one of Mises neglected greatly neglected works and it's a treatise and it's a treatise on the difference between the method of history and the method of a priori sztyc human sciences like economics and and and Mises pointed out that the difference was that in history we're no longer dealing with just formal means and ends and costs we're no longer dealing with just a structure of action that any human being demonstrates what we're dealing with our concrete means and concrete ends so we have to have something called understanding and so he developed a discipline called phonology which is really literary psychology so for example this can give you information about the future I mean the science I'm ology can give you information about people's future reactions for example I am fully confident that when I go home today my furniture my home will not all be gone and my wife will have disappeared okay I'm a confident of that because I know her what means call her character based on contact with her based on mine knowing her value scales or knowing parts of her value skills I know that she won't act in that manner well that can be the entrepreneur uses the same thing to apply to consumers in the future today and in the future no one thinks that by next year soccer or European football in the United States will replace American football as the most popular sport and no entrepreneur would Bank on that so these are the types of insights it's a brilliant book these are types of insights that that phonology can yield you and and and why it's used both by the historian to look backwards and find out why Caesar for example did cross the Rubicon and by entrepreneurs to find out why for example people before cellphones were there why people would want cell phones yeah and you mentioned it's it's a bit of a lost book yes and you called it a treatise yeah well why do you think that is was Mesa is unhappy with the reception of the book yeah well it was not really read now I could from my own experience I remember in the at the inception of what we call the Austrian revival in 1974 when a number of economists got together to hear the great or the three great Austrians at the time Murray Rothbard is your cursor and Ludwig Lachman speaking at in Vermont at a seven-day conference that book wasn't discussed much everyone was talking about human action theory of money and credit socialism but the book was just never and I think I know the reason is but but but it was no one really read it as deeply and to understand was interested in it and I think the reason why was because it was really on the method of history and and though there was some about them you know some economics in it or references the the method of economics but so people since the Austrian revival was mainly among economists III think you know they weren't as quite as interested in history so well the tummy publishes the ultimate foundation of economic science he's really in a lot of ways doubling down on what he put forth in human action and also on what some of his critics have been said have said and you can even find this right off the bat on page three says who he wants to achieve anything in proxy ology must be conversant with mathematics physics biology history and jurisprudence da da da so he's talking about these other branches of knowledge as being important but he says once again economics has been led astray by the vain idea that economics must receive according to the pattern of the other sciences so he's not mellowing on this later in his collateral so talk about that first of all address where he talks about proxy ology a proxy ologist has to be conversing with all these other Sciences well yeah those are cognate Sciences I mean we have to we have to know mathematics we have we have to know logic in particular because because proxy ology is the logic of action history just gives us an idea of the types of things that are important for proxy ology to address in other words look in history you don't see a lot of instances of barter so history is useful for showing us that really the what we should be focusing on is the history of the or the theory of the monetary economy history doesn't show us a lot of examples of Calaca of cooperatives a cooperative economy or a household economy it but it does show us that that more the market economy is important so proxy ology takes its cue from history in that respect in in in deciding what phenomena to investigate proxy illogically so do you think we should take this book as his fullest and final exposition of proxy ology should we Accord it more weight because it's later in life later in his career no I think that the fullest exposition of a proxy ology comes in human action but this book should be read in conjunction with human action and actually in conjunct with theory in history because what it does is he doubles down in his criticism of positivism so this book is really a critique of positivism and there's a very nice introduction by Israel Kerzner that to the book that that points this out and and and it's in this book and it's a very short book in which Mises ties epistemology and method to human freedom I mean he goes through the steps to show that if you choose the wrong method you're gonna your science is gonna be all screwed up you're gonna be really turning into a social engineer obvious people who reject these these laws of cause and effect in the air a sphere of human action or inevitably people who want to formulate new utopias so it's it's a great book it's very difficult to describe it and it seems to be sort of disjointed as you had mentioned off air before but it it's really not there's an overarching theme and theme is in order to have human freedom you have to be a conversion with the correct methodology of the social sciences and you have to admit that the social sciences have an autonomous existence apart from the physical sciences well he does tie it together with politics for example he talks about the cult of science and managed socialism and how in other words how bad method leads to bad policy yeah and he sort of reiterate some of his points here from socialism a devil's advocate question as you mentioned it's a thin book very readable for a lay person if a lay listener is not going to read theory in history and perhaps has not yet tackled or may never tackle human action is this a reasonable one-off substitute for understanding for archaeology I I think I I would have to say yes and no yes in the sense that you you you get a sense of what he's talking about and and and he's sure and you see the connection between method and freedom but if you want to do economics and want to understand Austrian economics you really do have to read his more substantial work so I'm gonna go out on a limb and say if you read the ultimate foundation of economic science on our site you will know more about proxy ology than then most of your neighbors how's that I'm there that's right well the other thing that I want to mention about this book is he has a short but devastating little critique of macro in this book and he talks about he attacks the the different method of macroeconomics is this this fetish for trance yeah so what what means is is saying is that macroeconomics seeks to come to conclusions about public kind of policy works to stop inflation or to prevent recessions by focusing on these these what might call macroeconomic aggregates in in a sense of total investment in the economy total spending in the economy or what's called aggregate demand and these are these aggregates that are bumping against one another causing certain effects but as Mises points out these aggregates are composed of actions of individuals and to understand the movements of the aggregates to even to even know if the aggregates make any sense cuz some of them don't even make any sense for example GDP doesn't make any sense you're trying to add up apples and oranges literally apples oranges tablet computers cars and so on in order to know if that makes any sense yet what aggregates do and don't make sense you you need you need to focus on methodological individualism that is focus on individual action and then their interaction in the market then the aggregates fall out of that okay they don't it's the market that drives things and and individual choices that drives things and and and and and the aggregates are sort of just the outcome so in that sense focusing on things like GDP is putting the cart before the horse by all means I mean in fact GDP is or total spending by the way which is used today to talk about how we should run monetary policy by targeting a nominal GDP figure or the targeting total spending in the economy is is is something that is wrong because it's really spending doesn't drive prices spending doesn't cause price to go up or down the other way around okay people value different things versus money and when money prices are all right that then the spending occurs but the spending occurs afterward it's an outcome it doesn't cause spending us a call anything that happen well I want to talk also about Murray Rothbard defense or explication of a priori methodology and economics and as you mentioned earlier although proxy ology infuses man economy state he doesn't really discuss it per se at length in that book he did happily have an article called in defense of extreme out priori ISM it's not too long we will link to it and let's start with what you mentioned earlier which was that rothbard lean more heavily on Aristotle and Aquinas too in his understanding of a priori isms whereas Mises leaned on cot so to discuss the difference a little bit here yes so as I think I mentioned before for Rothbard the things like the the what he called the action axiom and marginal utility and and and and and these various other categories that we use in in developing economic science they were laws of reality that is he believed that the human mind is capable of grasping reality and and part of reality is is action of human beings so the human mind can grasp this idea of cause and effect right can you know through experiencing the real world now not through history but just through general experience so there's a few axioms that are self-evident to the human mind and that was that was rock boards on point that they were not definite a were not necessarily innate in the human mind they they they didn't they didn't compose the human mind but but they were they were learned by the human mind aware as you know Conte and and Mises Conti an approach made you think that they were sort of categories or built into the human mind but ultimately it doesn't matter as I said before it's a difference in vocabulary not in meaning as you mentioned this is almost a distinction without a difference so Rothbart brings it up thus he says well we experience things we observe them through our senses and as a result there's kind of a sliver of a empiricism inherent in that in fact look Rob it's it's empirical not in a positivist sense but in the common sense sense that is that that to say that for example human-beings prefer leisure to labour mmm-hmm or or to say that there's a variety of natural resources and difference in the world as well as different skills among the population those are our self-evident and they can be used in building up economic theory and they are used in building up praxeological economic theory these are these are insights that are broadly empirical even the action axiom that people use means to achieve ends is empirical in the sense that look our minds exist in the world of reality and we are looking inward or through introspection we come up with the means and ends but but also by dealing with other people in our everyday interactions we can see that we treat them as if they do use means to achieve ends that's how we get them to do what we want we when we exchange with someone we're giving them means in our minds that are more valuable to them then what then what they're going to cede over to us in the exchange but you know what I love about this article and just maybe 10 short pages he really helps us understand Mises and and all of what we've been talking about up till now in in this conversation and he actually lays out a definition sort of a four-part test a definition of a proxy ologist so let's just run through this real quick or get your your thoughts on first of all it's someone who understands axiom axioms and premises they're absolutely true and that the theorems and conclusions deduced from those axioms are therefore absolutely true and that there's not only no need for empirical testing but then in fact that you can't test these things right so he gives us this nice neat understanding of what proxy ology means right I mean you can't you can't test these things because they're because the the theorems are couched in terms of of things that are complex events to talk about what a recession is like talking about a world war two so when you talk about a recession you're talking about a specific event you cannot look at all recessions and look at the statistics related to all these we sessions and come up with the theory of recessions because historically they are different from one another however using proxy ology we can see the the pattern or the sequence of cause and effect in the data themselves so Austrians are not against collecting data are not against observing considering data and even getting hints about what they should how they should develop their theory from data but what they're against is using data directly to come up with these regularities that might be called theories right and oftentimes the attack is that we we advocate extreme our priori ISM which is to say blind or somehow not falsifiable or that we're ignoring data and empiricism but in in the sense that you're saying it data or empirical knowledge can help us reexamine the underlying theory and right yeah yeah for example in my own work when I was considering writing an article on the financial crisis which I did did finally right it struck me that consider was a consumption boom during the run-up to the financial crisis as well as an investment boom and the Austrian Theory really focuses on the investment boom and some people have attacked attacked us we through both Austrians and non Austrians like Krugman and Brad DeLong these are or mainstream macro economists they said well why is there a consumption boom if people are you know if people are being misled by a low interest rate well there it's a consumption boom because of the inflation that causes prices to of assets to increase so that was the data that that showed that there was you know this this big retail boom that occurred led me to think through the Austrian theory and and and and to develop it deductively and that is that there is a wealth effect it's called I call it a false wealth effect the Keynes is called a wealth effect that is that when people's price of their houses go up their 401ks go up in value they begin using their houses as an ATM machine okay and that is completely consistent with the Austrian theory developed the Austrian theory in that direction the ocean through the business cycle that is so yeah I mean you you have to know the data you have to get your hands dirty but isn't it interesting how they're certain this presumption in favor of data uber alles today and nobody requested where their data can be wrong we always said well here's the data so if it doesn't match the theory then the theory must be wrong but but as we all know data collection sample size everything about it is just fraught with problems it's it's just riddled with problems now including who funds the study from there on down that the the foibles of the researchers themselves right the limitations of our knowledge the collection methods I mean the idea that somehow the data are conclusive and then we have to reverse-engineer the theory from that I think ignores all yeah that's very that's a very good point there's a great book by an Austrian Oskar Morgenstern was a student of Mises he later I mean didn't agree with me is on everything um but he wrote a book called uh I believe it's called on economic observations and which he pointed out the problems with just the the data themselves so you know is Rothberg goes further along in this article he starts with the one main action axiom with his term again as you pointed out earlier and from that he drives some postulates and these are self-evident broad not falsifiable but I think when he uses the term broad he's getting back to this distinction of how we how we theorize these things whether it's sort of through empirical observation or whether it's just something that that's so fundamental to human nature that we all understand it so so talk about the postulates and what they mean for understanding so he says that you need something beyond the simple action axiom you know you don't want to develop a practice it means it said you can do this but it would be wrong develop a proxy ology of all conceivable worlds you don't want to do that you want to root the proxy ology in premises that are true of our world and so some of the premises that are true or are the broadly empirical premises that consumers that I pet people or consumers favor or value leisure above above labor that that's a valuable consumers good that there's a diversity in that resources and human skills that that we have a money economy and that which is broadly empirical and that firms maximize profit for the most part so those are four broadly empirical posture study and there are others also that you introduce into the chain of praxeological reasoning as you go along and as you want to apply to certain areas that are of interest to the economists so Mises was against developing proxy ology as mental Jimmy called the mental gymnastics he said you could develop proxy ology for a race of immortal beings he says you could develop proxy ology he says somewhere that you can develop for a race of beings that could not understand written symbols but we don't want to do that I mean we want to develop through the conditions of action that are part of our world but again just from the idea that humans act we can derive these four postulates for example the division of labor leisure in direct exchange firms maximizing profit without any data without any empirical work we can logically deduce whether you think they're not saying you deduce it from from the act right he says in addition to the action act you look around and you see the world in which people act so they act in a world of money they act in a world where there's firms that that maximize profits where there is differences in skills you could develop a proxy ology of a world where there's there's no differences in labor skills so he's saying you you have to hedge it about by by true by true empirical postulates but they're empirical in the sense that anyone who cares to look can confine them they're not self-evident in the same sense that the human action axiom is self-evident but they derive from it yes so another thing like Mises Rothbart takes pains here to talk about what rational action means yeah versus purposeful or means ends and so you brought up the idea of a junky earlier and we could say well that's irrational that you go out and seek to score some more heroin you're destroying your life you're ruining your health you're hurting your family whatever it might be but we get into almost a semantic distinction here because purposeful is purposeful rational in other in the junkies mind is perfectly rational to go score it's a bad part of town at a crack house but but and it advances objectives in a means-ends type right buzzes yes does so how should we think of the term rational as it applies here well I mean when people say that um it's it's irrational for somebody to commit suicide let's take an extreme example well I mean in the praxeological sense do they try to commit suicide by taking a banana and hitting themselves over the head with a banana or did they they do it by using a fire firearms are using pills it's rational in that sense it's a rational sense that they're adapting the means that they know of to the ends that they want to achieve that's all in my what's all I mean by purposeful okay so if you want to use that's why I brought board more than Mises was against using the word rational in that sense or using as a synonym for purposeful he thought rational should should be in the sense that you used it it was more of an ethical sense mm-hmm for the edge to denote the ends whether the ends themselves are rational but the means are always rational given the person's knowledge okay if a person really believed that himself in the head with a banana would would you know achieve his end well then that's then that would be purposeful okay Joe as we wrap up I want to talk about some other people have contributed to the Austrian conception of method for example Hans Hermann hapa has a book called economic science and the Austrian method which will link to we have available in both audio and print formats give us your view of the sort of the current state of the debate or the discussion within Austrian or Austrian close circles about method is is anybody writing on it researching in it what is it in flux I think at least the people and economists and philosophers associated with the Mises Institute are pretty settled in the sense that they they think that Mises and Rothbart have have at least articulated the correct method and have used it correctly and and now are more concentrating more on on using it to develop economics and and to apply economics and and to and to address questions using the praxeological method that are of interest to the mainstream that's where right now Hans hopper has written some good things on it and and David Gord continues to write book reviews in which which he will usually add or can address these these types of things so the science is settled it's like climate change well I wouldn't I wouldn't say it's settled it's always economics is an open science because history continues and and and there's new complexes of events that come up as I mentioned the financial crisis and once you had a consumption boom so so it's not the size itself is not closed but but the method that we use I think everyone's fairly comfortable with it applying the plot praxeological method to developing a theory that will explain these new events well the joke of course is that in the physical science is something like climate how could the science ever be settled if you accept positivism as the method right you could you could never say that right now I'll be there they don't have the regularity I mean they that they can't a lot of a lot of climate science and other other Sciences like highly of theoretical physics um the Big Bang Theory these things really are not scientific in in the sense of being subject to repeatable experiments I mean even even the evolutionary hypothesis is just that a hypothesis so if we say we've tried a million times to put an app on a branch and it's always fallen to the ground so that explains gravity or gives us a theory of gravity but there could be the million and one and first time and it doesn't fall to the ground then we're gonna have to rethink gravity yeah well that could happen I mean that's why the science of human action is actually more certain than than physics because physics laws are always what they call local laws we don't know what's going on another part of the universe we can never because we can trace physical phenomena or natural phenomena back to an X God or nature or the big bang theorem my theory so we're a much firmer ground for that that way with proxy ology than we are even with physics well dr. Jeff's learned there's been great conversation very edifying for me and we're gonna again post some links to that particular section in HTML format of Mises his seminal human action a link to the murray rothbard article we mentioned a link to the Hans Hermann hapa book and also a link to Ludovic on Mises the ultimate foundation of economics science so we hope you enjoyed it and we will be back soon with an episode based around Ludwig von Mises his great book bureaucracy thanks so much for listening the human action podcast is available on iTunes SoundCloud stitcher Spotify Google Play and on mises.org subscribe to get new episodes every week and find more content like this on mises.org
Views:1284161|Rating:4.37|View Time:11:58Minutes|Likes:8013|Dislikes:1148 In this ASOIAF/Game of Thrones History video, we examine the complete history, backstory, and origin of the Night’s King and the White Walkers in both the ASOIAF novels and the Game of Thrones tv series.
I don’t really post on this channel any more, make sure to go subscribe to my new one HERE –
what's up guys Roman from rns entertainment here to talk about some of the important history and lore of the asan of Ice and Fire novels and how it ties into the game of Thrones HBO TV series in this video I wanted to delve into the history and origin of the night's king the legendary 13th Lord Commander of the Nights Watch who was turned into a white Walker like being and took over the Nightfort ruling over unwilling subjects and committing unspeakable atrocities now you may be wondering is this the same night's king that we've been seeing in the HBO TV series the come at me crow leader of the White Walkers who we saw leaf jam some bad CGI into in the season 6 white Walker origin story and the answer is yes and no while HBO has recently taken to calling their white Walker leader character the night king removing the apostrophe s and seemingly attempting to distance the character from the book version to follow their completely redone origin story the character who we first saw in season four turned and Craster's last child into yet another white Walker was originally listed in HBO's descriptions as the night's king which was hastily removed and the creator's backpedaled realizing that they gave away his identity too soon in season 5 they seemingly cast away these apprehensions of using the character and revealing his existence bringing him into full focus and hardhome which seemingly cemented him as the main antagonist as much as a series like Game of Thrones can entertain such a simple idea of the entire series so to explain why this both is and isn't mostly isn't the same night's king as the legendary figure in A Song of Ice and Fire I want to delve into the history of the white walkers the timeline of events from the war between the children of the forest and the first men the signing of the pact at the Isle of faces in the movement into the Age of Heroes the arrival of the long night and the White Walkers themselves the formation of the Nights Watch in the defeat of the White Walkers in the battle for the dawn and the 13th Lord commanders encounter with the Corpse queen aka the Nights Queen and his following rule over the Nightfort and eventual defeat at the hands of Brandon the breaker and Jorah men the king-beyond-the-wall in the dawn age of Westeros the children of the forest were the dominant species of the continent until the arrival of the first men the first humans to settle in Westeros after crossing over from Essos on the no longer existing land bridge known as the arm of Dorne their encroachment angered the children as the first men chopped down trees the children considered to be sacred and built fires to expand their dominance starting a war between the two that will result in the children raising tidal waves to break the arm of door and flood the neck though the first men were coming ever closer to wiping them from existence being bigger stronger and having more deadly and advanced weaponry the first men and the children eventually came together on the Isle of faces and formed a peace treaty known as the pact that would usher in the Age of Heroes an age of peace were most of Westerosi legend and the formation of the Great Houses occurred for context the pact was signed ten to twelve thousand years before Aegon's conquest which happens about three hundred years before present time and leads to all of the Targaryen rule over Westeros the Age of Heroes following the pact lasted four thousand years until the coming of the darkest deadliest winter Westeros had ever seen the long night during this winter which was deadly and terrifying of its own accord killing scores through famine and sheer strength of the cold temperatures that beset the world the White Walkers first descended onto Westeros from the lands of always winter the northernmost recesses of the lands now blocked off by the wall but at the time were only distant and seldom traveled to the night's king was not the first white Walker in A Song of Ice and Fire and in fact didn't even become what he was until after the long night was over which is a major difference from the character in the show who both from events in season six and from the official game of Thrones wiki confirmed that he was both the first of the White Walkers and was seemingly created by leap specifically during the war between the first men and the children which doesn't even make sense seeing as the White Walkers don't appear until the long night which as we just learned was during the Age of Heroes a time of peace and coexistence between the children and the first men who would even abandon their gods and over time adopted the woodland religion of the children of the forest which we see in current times still held by northern families and in notable characters in scenes such as Ned Stark's time with the weirwood tree I mean take it from Ned himself the blood of the first men still flows in the veins of the Starks and we hold to the belief that the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword the history of the First Men is intrinsically tied to the history of Westeros itself so the show's plot twist of the children created the night king first and then the rest of the White Walkers to fight off the first men in the war before the pact doesn't seem to make any sense if you're going by the actual history set up by the books it seems that Dan and Dave are hoping to put some convenient themes and hasty origins surrounding the White Walkers in a mixture of let's wrap this up in a season or two and we have no idea what to do without more book material but back to the history of the long night when the White Walkers descended on to Westeros bringing death destruction with them the children of the forest though peacefully coexisting with the first men still resided within the wild parts of the world in the forest they had always lived in leaving the men to their kingdoms and ideas of society a man later referred to as the last hero of the first men gathered together companions a horse and a dog and sought out the children in hopes that their ancient magics could win out where the armies of man had failed and though every one of his companions died he was able to escape pursuit of the White Walkers and find the children a lying them to their cause and receiving the knowledge that dragonglass aka obsidian weapons could kill the White Walkers the first men and the children fought back the White Walkers and in the battle for the dawn the last hero and what would become the first members of the Nights Watch fought often defeated the White Walkers ending the conflict and the long night itself afterwards bran the Builder the founder of House Stark supposedly built the wall a massive structure of ice and magic that may have used labor from giants for construction the details of this as of many things lost to the annals of their history are obscured and bran the builders very existence as well as whether it was he or his son also named Brandon that built several of the structures attributed to him such as storms in is heavily disputed by masers of the Citadel personally I believe bran the Builder being the start of House Stark is intrinsically tied to the night's king and the story overall especially with the current brand Stark who we see becoming ever more integral to events as time passes so while we talk about the emergence and origin of the night's king from the books keep bran the Builder in mind the night's king himself was originally a man but as for his family name his house etc those details were made taboo and burned away from history following the events of his rise to power and the horrors that follow old man mentions this in her stories to bran telling him that some believe he was a Bolton ask a go see a number a flint or a few others but that in truth he was a stark of Winterfell also named Brandon and brother to the then current king of winter the title that would eventually become king in the north as their history progressed the night's king lived during and through the long night in the Age of Heroes and afterward became the 13th Lord Commander of the Nights Watch now on first hearing that he's the 13th commander it seems like there would be no way he lived during the long night it seemingly implied more time had passed but keeping in mind the short life expectancy of nights Watchmen the danger of the times and the recency of the entire order itself twelve commanders could easily come and go that quickly whether by death or other the night's king still a normal man fell in love with a woman with skin as white as the moon and eyes like blue stars with skin as cold as ice which clearly matches the description of a white Walker this figure has no specific name and has referred to as either the corpse queen or the night's queen enthralled he slept with her and upon giving her his seed he gave his soul as well becoming inhuman and returning to the wall declaring himself king with her his queen taking the Nightfort for his castle and ruling it for 13 years lording over the Nights Watch and committing horrible unspeakable atrocities which are spoken of as hushed whispers in the north and largely wiped from the pages of history after 13 years of horrors another Brandon Stark Brandon the breaker who was the king of winter at the time formed an alliance with the legendary king-beyond-the-wall Jorah Minh the man who originally blew the horn which woke Giants from the earth and stormed the wall from both sides defeating the night's king and ending his reign of terror when it was found that he had been making sacrifices to the White Walkers exactly the same way Craster's last child and many of his other children have been sacrificed all traces of him were wiped from history his name forbidden and forgotten and all records of him were destroyed now this is going into subjective territory here but this could also have been to protect the legacy of House Stark if bran the Builder went on to become the night's king it would tie the stark lineage to the White Walkers and fall in line with the statements in the books that the night's king was a Brandon Stark who was eventually defeated by another Brandon Stark and if you look to the present we have yet another brand start with a namesake tying back to these events who is one of the most prominently opposed and important figures against the current white Walker invasion this could be in my opinion history repeating itself in a way with another Brandon stark forced to confront their family legacy and defeat the very first start who after raising up the wall declared himself king of it becoming the very thing he sought to defend the world from another old man quote stands out and seems to support this he had been the 13th man to lead the Nights Watch she said a warrior who knew no fear and that was the fault in him she would add for all men must no fear this Hawkins directly back to Ned's words to bran during the iconic stark introductory scenes where he tells bran that the only time a man can be brave is when he's afraid this would also explain all of the confusion whenever brand the builders legacy is mentioned if he was the night's king and did commit all of the atrocities at the Nightfort the first men and the other members of House Stark would never allow their name to care legacy and would scrub it from history either way the night's king in his rule over the Nightfort resulted in the policy of never allowing the Nights Watch to make their castles defensible from the south and to keep them entirely separate from the politics and power of Kings whether the night's king of the asanga vice and Fire novels exists in any form and the current story is up for questioning the mention of a great other and a dark figure leading the white Walker forces suggest that he does but unlike the show which is forced to wrap things up in a timely manner and must introduce the main antagonist to viewers in time to build a climactic conclusion the books are tied to POV chapters and the characters they follow and John did not go to hardhome in the books when questioned on it Martin in true form keeps things as vague as possible without ever actually dismissing the idea stating that in the books he's a legendary figure akin to land the clever and bran the Builder and no more likely to have survived to the present day than they have now while I don't think Lann the clever will be making any appearances I do think the bran the Builder being mentioned there is interesting and that there's a possibility that he has somehow survived as the night's king and will be important to the story and the white Walker conflict overall it's the stark family legacy brought into full perspective a complicated and dark story introduced to us gradually and through multiple accounts but that is my take on the night's king within the isang of Ice and Fire novels as for the night king the white Walker leader in the show I do think that this is HBO's interpretation of the character from the books I think that once it became clear that winds of winter was not coming out in time to give them more answers they decided to take the character in a completely different direction and move towards the more easily digestible and simple explanation that he was the first white Walker created by the children in a Pocahontas Avatar style conflict between industrious destructive human beings and the more tribal nature centric children of the forest the age of the knight king in the show is listed on the wiki as around 12,000 years old accounting for the earlier creation before the pact which again just affects and changes the entire timeline of the story as we know it rather than some new and original story idea by the show I think this is just a way to wrap things up in a nice little bow and come up with a standardized ending because there's no way Martin could finish the ending before HBO has to they've been given the outline by Martin but the way they get there is entirely their decision and the ones they've been making lately are to diverge entirely from the source material to the points of remaking the entire fucking timeline in history so I hope that you learned some new stuff from this video or the very least found in entertaining and if you did make sure to give thumbs up share it around and subscribe to the channel also make sure to check out our weekly Game of Thrones A Song of Ice and Fire podcast the long night podcast which airs every week right here on youtube at 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time follow us on twitter at roman underscore R and s and let me know in the comments section below what you'd like to see in future videos you