Another Two Talks on Cosmology

John Baez interview with Latham Boyle

Notice that he hardly ever mentions the theory and actual observations, just the deductions that they have made from them (2:47). To me this sounds like a state of almost complete ignorance. Sure, it's simple enough, but why is this interesting? Is it because he thinks he has shown that we don't need to assume anything special about the initial state of the Universe, and that it spontaneously produces all the structure we could ever abstract from observations of its present state? 14:10 When you look at the cosmic microwave background now you find it is far from scale-invariant because of the gravitational clumping that's been going on since.

Personally I think this just means that it was all so long ago that not even God knows anything about it. See this talk on coupled oscillators as associative memories for compositional inference.

Subscribe to John Baez.

Mike McCulloch on what sort of things would happen if you found that some of your fundamental assumptions (such as the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass) don't hold:


Subscribe to Mike McCulloch.

See The Category Enriched over the Category of Finite Sets, The Finitely Triangulated Manifold and the Magnitude of a Finite Category.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Steven Johnson - So You Think You Know How to Take Derivatives?

Tensor Fields and Simplicial Complexes

Hitachi HD44780U LCD Display Fonts