Comments by "Kristopher Driver" (@paxdriver) on "World Science Festival" channel.

  1. This talk is so incredibly profound at times, I've watched it 4 times in a row and keep catching better understanding each successive viewing. Terrific upload thanks again
    103
  2. How do they go 50+ mins without mentioning the insertion process and CRISPR?
    34
  3. Seth ACTUALLY tried to experiment with the grandfather paradox?!?! Seriously, he needs to be in videos waaay more often
    14
  4. Fantastic but too many panelists for the allotted time! Would've been great as a duplicate separate discussion, we would've gotten a lot more out of the esteemed.
    14
  5. "am I the only one who thinks this is magical?" dead silence
    13
  6. Man I could listen to Lee for hours
    12
  7. Duuuude him and Brian Cox and you read my mind
    10
  8. Too bad about the host... No need to beat the dead horse I guess. Sheila, much kudos on your work. World changing research, very impressive
    9
  9. That chick would be awful to watch movies :p the matrix was not about putting a chip in Keanu's brain to teach him karate lol
    9
  10. Supremely well done! Great panel and conductor, thanks so much to all involved
    8
  11. Great mod and discussion, classic great WSF, thanks much!
    6
  12. "oh so it's moving but I just can't see it"... Yup.. High school science class.. How does this host keep getting work? He should at least stick to Mickey mouse themed panels, and this cluelessness, it's embarrassing. As a Christian, I'm offended by the injection of his beliefs unprompted. Totally unnecessary at a civilized convention to waste time trying to keep up with the conversation then after all that, change gears on a dime to impose the idea of creation. I'm fucking livid that this host gets work. Yeah, 4 fucking mins to say "so..." without even asking a question but managing to speak of socks, underwear, time, smell, application and possibilities of nanotechnology (at approximately 20 mins) So.... Yeah, I'm tired of being polite WSF please listen.
    6
  13. I've seen a lot of these talks and imho he did a phenomenal job of succinctly elaborating concepts
    5
  14. Wonderful upload! Thanks you
    5
  15. How? The interrupting cow screwed up everyone's rhythms asking questions too early. She didn't add anything, and would have been best to leave after the intros. Great talks, loved the ideas and props
    4
  16. A. Randomjack no doubt, it's the only way I can learn :)
    4
  17. Play a drinking game on this video - every time the moderator says "wait a minute" or "hold on" one person at a time in sequence have to take a sip. If he asks a pertinent question however, you finish your drink no matter how much is in it.
    4
  18. That kid at the end is either a genius or a fan of 90's action movies lol either way, bright future
    4
  19. Adam Sujkowski we could create it, yes, but computers could never instantiate themselves naturally because of irreducible complexity of logic gate structures, power modulation/generation/distribution and function. there's no impetus for an organic chip to grow and evolve because it is in and of itself self-sustaining and therefore not needing growth or development. a hallmark to life is that it adapts and is constantly improving on itself. computers would never have that proclivity so they could never organically gain consciousness on their own. very different forms of life even if we give computers life, it would be off a branch of the homosapien tree, not a tree of their own.
    4
  20. Why isn't wsf on primetime public access yet?
    4
  21. Anoop Pawar the cow portion was in reference to a knock knock joke btw. I stand by my comments as positive criticism. I'd like to not have the discussions curtailed and progression of a thought be explained sequentially in future sessions in the interest of clarity for everyone. Being nice doesn't help for better future talks.
    3
  22. lol no but it's not productive in this case, I don't think. I'm not judging her a person, I'm sure she's a spectacularly wonderful human being. I'm obviously not a troll just spouting random bs to piss people off. Disassociate your feelings from critique, it only adds barriers to the learning process. 
    3
  23. Not your best work, to be honest. Very drawn out discussion on a pretty shallow topic to begin with. Was expecting something... "Radical" other than the guests (just kidding of course lol) . Looking forward to the next one.
    3
  24. Fantastic moderator
    3
  25. the best way to try to understand infinity is to consider what "now" is. it has no beginning, persists ubiquitously, and has no end. you can experience it, identify it, record it, track it, measure it and quantify it but the moment itself is infinite because it is not a segment of reality, it is all of reality in its entirety, despite having no discernible instantiation
    3
  26. Oners82 I don't know, that might just make him twitch and shake which would be pretty funny but way more of a distraction lol thinking of 'Ernest Goes to Jail' electric chair scene
    3
  27. Not particularly interesting discussion, but that's not to say it's not an incredibly important one to have. Kudos to the panel and moderator, fantastic job on an otherwise relatively dry subject. Good job wsf for putting this on despite it nor being as sexy as most other panel discussions at wsf.
    3
  28. iTweetify I'm glad I scanned the comments. Thanks dude. skip
    3
  29. Superb! Great job
    3
  30. It's just as likely that dark energy globs throb. Oscillations are more common in nature than discrete start-stop locomotion, I think we can all agree.
    3
  31. 4:30 Lmfao! Brian's looking for a number of football fields but Jessica answers in meters 😂 that was priceless
    3
  32. Omg Robert gets so damn defensive
    2
  33. Felix van Diggelen much, but I've been watching everything I can find on the subject so I'm not a good reference point. That one was really good too but for completely different reasons. Much simpler but it was a tribute to Einstein more than it was a stimulating theoretical discourse
    2
  34. A. Randomjack I've watched a few lectures and talks, I really like him too but I don't find the holographic principles he subscribes to very interesting. There's just not much to think about once the concept is grasped. I can't remember the dude's name but the black guy that's really soft spoken, he found programming language-like logic gates in dna. He doesn't have much in the way of videos or lectures but his research results are cool as hell.
    2
  35. ***** again, mostly over my head but sincerely appreciate the detail. All I can comment on is my hypothetical imaginary interpretation lol. In that, I can see how information might seem to be lost, but since volume is being calculated on an area basis, it stands to reason (to me lol) that the perceived loss of information is most likely due to our frame of reference, which is why I relate it to higher dimensional structures as an example. If time is a dimension, for example, it's our confinement to time that the information can't be retrieved. If time were a spacial dimension you could step backwards and see the information come out of the black hole intact, in theory. Not saying by any means that it's solved, but I don't think the debate is really leaning in the right direction because they don't seem to put any weight on the method of measurement or point of reference; admittedly I could be completely mistaken though. On a side note, I thought entropy's formula was s=k log W where W is the number of states or complexions. If you wouldn't mind, I'd be interested to know how S=A/4 relates to it (if at all). Thanks much!
    2
  36. Thanks much for your input! Appreciate you taking the time
    2
  37. Zurround100 not quite sure how to take that lol. I smell satire
    2
  38. ***** thanks, good to know. block lol
    2
  39. Fantastic! Thanks so much
    2
  40. mi z "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." - so not proof, but suggested by evidence to varying degrees. Take a seat and I'll school you
    2
  41. mi z it was scientific fact based on experience and known science in the 1300's that heavy objects couldn't fly. that theory was wrong and took hundreds, if not thousands of years to disprove. need another one?
    2
  42. mi z at one time it was modern scientific, yes. we are currently in a time, which also has its own modern science. doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to glean congruence
    2
  43. mi z and since there's still a possibility that we're still wrong, even though minute, science tells us it remains a theory, NOT fact.
    2
  44. mi z and that's exactly what i said from the beginning. now you're caught up
    2
  45. The best drug on earth is contemplating the existence of existence
    2
  46. Nooooo!!!! Not Robert kulwich! Anyone but him... Fuck!!! Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck!
    2
  47. This is by far the most profound video on YouTube if you can grasp Lee Smolin
    2
  48. @MrMegamike420 not listening, apparently. But you did also miss the point that homebrew genomics is a real thing, and a lot of what they glossed over relates to cost and accessibility. Were you listening?
    2
  49.  @teresaboze69 ... 4 years ago when I posted this? You must be feeling extra special today lol enjoy the drugs big head
    2
  50. Yeah, they made a pretty dry topic very clever and thought provoking like only WSF does so well.
    2
  51. Henrik buitenhuis it's just as likely that is the case as not :) lol
    2
  52. jetpaq i know.... despite my inner philosopher's pride being roshambo'ed lol But it doesn't have to be like that! He can just ... not speak while there's a panel of intelligent people in front of him. Less is more, and that's something even a philosopher should be able to ponder quietly in the corner lol
    2
  53. Especially the philosophically math ones
    2
  54. 1 hour is nowhere near long enough for 5 panel members imho. Love the work, appreciate the longer long form of yore, though
    2
  55. Wow, and you're not sponsored by metformin, GNC grifters, or aunt Jenny's Parlour Shoppe at all? You just happened to stumble across 4 prominent scientists who like to practise and legitimize the age old craft of hocking l'huile du serpent? This episode made me uncomfortable with the scientists saying, "I choose to do X aith this dose at this frequency.. but it's not researched at all so you shouldn't do it too... But trust me on this other thing, I'm an expert scientist otherwise." It came across as a bit sleezy tbh. Long time fan, watched every video at least once. I'm no troll or hater, but if I were publishing content I'd want to know the opinions of the people who give them tons of views more than a click through. Just saying
    2
  56. The intro piano is soooo nice, great choice in production
    2
  57. who's there? Interrupting cow. Interrupting cow wh- MOOO!!! It was also a joke made by one of the other moderators of another IQ2 debate. Anyway, I called her a cow because she was interrupting, it was a joke, not an insult.
    1
  58. Thanks for prodding for clarity, I have no idea how many people may have misunderstood my failed attempt at humor lol
    1
  59. Nerdiness is an echo chamber lol
    1
  60. Brilliant, great stuff thanks
    1
  61. Louise Vanderbilt not sure but I hope to see more of her on WSF. Credit where it's due :)
    1
  62. ***** thanks for your input, you're clearly a lot more knowledgeable in the matter than I am. To clarify, if-then's are a form of logic gate, that's what I was referring to but I'm sure my comprehension is superficial. The holographic principle as I understand it is akin to penterac and other similar representations of higher dimensional objects. Information wouldn't be lost if it leaked by way of radiation, got compressed into the singularity, and/or bleeds into another dimension. The information would be lost to us because we're confined to a linear frame of reference in time. If time could be manipulated it wouldn't be lost though.
    1
  63. I love silence in a woman.... jk I figured it would go without saying that someone watching intellectual discussions in their free time would want a woman that's mentally stimulating. The satire is all mine my friends.
    1
  64. well, that's completely false. it's proven because of data lol they detected the boson exactly within the range it was forecast based on the day's current theories. like eintein's relativity theory, wormholes aren't proven, but data on time dilation (which is proven, GPS being an easy example), black hole radiation, light speed cap, the cosmological constant, dark matter, dark energy, gravitational waves, neutrinos, etc etc etc. are all based on several data points like CERN produces and the higgs boson is still irrefutably accurate. not quite sure what you're skeptical of. measure it yourself, you won't find another result. or are you saying "proof" with arbitrary air quotes?
    1
  65. they reported that neutrinos moved faster than light because they couldn't figure out where there error was after many months of trying to disprove it. it was disproven by the scientific community thanks to their report. that was the point of reporting it, to encourage the community to figure out where their mistake was. it was that neutrinos transmutate into other forms of neutrinos FYI and it was verifiably proven several times since then thanks to the SNO project in Ontario's nickel belt
    1
  66. ***** thanks much, i'll have to look into it again. not quite sure if it was a comprehension issue on my end or misinformation.
    1
  67. He's my favorite physicist ever. Better than Feynman, Planck and Einstein and combined
    1
  68. Stuffywhiteguysayswhat?
    1
  69. There are assumptions, that's why models aren't exact atom by atom, but to say pure speculation you'd have to take a fractal of uncertainty and weight it more heavily than experimentation and repeated calculation. You're right that it's possible, just 0.000001^nth unlikely. Impossible to disprove, that's why big bang will always be called a theory 👍
    1
  70. mi z never said it did, was merely pointing out that the original comment to which i replied was not technically impossible.
    1
  71. Pretty good job guys, thanks much
    1
  72. Absolutely fantastic! Thanks for keeping a lot of the wolf stories of Yellowstone, really really fascinating stuff
    1
  73. Pa Pinkelman I don't know what that is lol
    1
  74. Pa Pinkelman lol ooooh damn, now I wish I just looked it up so I didn't kill your joke. sorry dude lol
    1
  75. Phenomenal! Wsf you've outdone yourselves
    1
  76. Raumance lol oh god i'd be on the floor
    1
  77. Lol totally
    1
  78. Yeah, I use tons of plastic bags, but when they get recycled back into plastic bags it's carbon neutral, essentially. Single use plastic is the only thing that shouldn't be used. Example : sealed toothpicks
    1
  79. Bring back Colin mcginn!
    1
  80. That dude is definitely a reformed Canadian lol! Sooo many mores subtly violated :p Great job WSF
    1
  81. What a bitch.
    1
  82.  @Ernieshaus  lol I'm offended by the impression he gives to other Christians because he fits the stereotype of never having thought outside the bubble of doctrine to recognize symbolism as separate from science. Doctrine is only taught as immovable fixed reality, not that Christianity requires it. It's simple minded and not helpful. Me from 5 years ago should've chosen a better word than "offended" lol. For a "world science festival" I just expect more from speakers in the way of thoughtfulness, that's all. If he doesn't grasp abstractions for their conceptual values then he shouldn't be there in a forum teaching people imho. He should be in the crowd or watching on YouTube :p
    1
  83. iamking132 that's what star wars was about lol
    1
  84. Truth is a philosophical question not well tailored to science. The universe isn't constrained by rules that we identify, the rules are to help us understand it. If natural laws had an expiry date because of force carrying particle decay that was never observed before because we've never watched a boson for extended periods of time, truth is what nature does. Science describes nature, not truth. It describes what's already happened and what should happen, but it's not the law, the forces are beholden to their own laws, which we're still trying to understand.
    1
  85. John doesn't usually talk this much, bit much for me but overall another bang up job by wsf and participants. Top notch thank you
    1
  86.  @ashleypearson9044  ya, Ur so 1337 I quake 3d lol
    1
  87. "why am I me and not someone or something else?" is the argument to put the onus on the one arguing in favor of people as biological machines. I think the concept of consciousness would never arise in an artificial intelligence. The concept came to being because we're different from machines.
    1
  88. God can't roll dice if he has the capacity to invent random, physics, time and energy lol
    1
  89. You mean intergalactic planetary? ;p
    1
  90. Life is entropy, just order slowly shifting to disorder like Buddha gleaned oh so many years ago
    1
  91. If you believe you're conscious, free will necessarily exists or is unknown; it can't not be if you're conscious. Conscious is the free will of the mind, the purest free will that we're able to be conscious of. Any freer and will would be unchanged, so our mind epitomize freedom, and thus free will exists by virtue of it being contemplated.
    1
  92. All you guys are arguing is whether or not you believe you're truly conscious. If you're conscious and contemplate free will, even if it's a natural chemical mechanism, it exists in your mind's creation of it. Presumably a rock doesn't create it's sense of self and ergo does not have free will. The limits to our freedom are natural physical laws of nature, but free will is required to consider it is even possibly true. Animals, even conscious ones, are functioning on instinct. Humans will contemplate their own existence as an optional choice made available to them through biology.  In other words, free will is limited by our brains but it exists inherently by our creation of it via contemplation. If we weren't free to at least minute degree, we would be incapable and unable to fathom the concept to begin with.
    1
  93. ***** lol i hear you. i mean, there's always an existential defense for consciousness since life begets life, but it's by no means the most logical approach to the subject, it's just stretching open a pinhole. Occam's Razor suggests our line of reasoning to be the lasting and most reasonable one.
    1
  94. Adam Sujkowski first off, acting conscious and being conscious are different things. that's what the word simulation means. secondly, conscious life can create conscious life, so babies would be a better example of creating consciousness. although free will is limited because of epigenetics, the intrinsic quality of freedom itself is only perceptible by a free-thinking source, to whatever degree that source is free it needs to be for the concept to arise. that's why animals and rocks aren't free, they can't fathom the concept. 
    1
  95. Adam Sujkowski logic and reasoning are the basis of science. the scientific argument is that by being able to discuss the matter a degree of freedom is necessarily present.
    1
  96. Adam Sujkowski such is the nature of all matter and all sciences. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in particle physics suggests the same for anything with energy/mass. That's why I mentioned Occam's Razor, the logical conclusion with the least assumptions is the most likely to be accurate.
    1
  97. Adam Sujkowski that's just asking how consciousness works. if you believe you're conscious you have to believe you have a measure of free because one precludes the other. logic and reason are considered scientific evidence, the only thing lacking is experiment but a test can't really be done on existential matters any more than it can be done on quantum mechanical scales. your question is akin to asking for evidence of the mechanism of energy. it's unknown but by rational deduction and logic we can say with utmost certainty that energy is real for all intents and purposes. same goes for free will, some has to exist for us to have the concept of it just like energy has to exist for matter to exist, and consciousness must exist for consciousness to be questioned.
    1
  98. Adam Sujkowski the thing that makes us better IS the special and magical thing we're talking about. our difference in opinion is just the significance and abstraction
    1
  99. Adam Sujkowski we still can't create life by rubbing amino acids together though, that's the special part. the fact that our brains process AND are alive is what's fascinating to me :)
    1
  100. Adam Sujkowski computers can't spontaneously come into existence, they require intervention. some people think life needed intervention to, but either way there is a distinct difference between life and computation. secondly, computation is based on algorithms moreso than natural law
    1
  101. i tried to plus 1 your comment and accidentally flagged it lol sorry George!
    1
  102. it won't let me undo it!!!!
    1
  103. David needs to not speak when he has nothing to say... It's really annoying that he adds nothing but shallow commentary on other panelists specific fields of study
    1
  104. Because guy who thinks a child's casket is a unit of measurement took his place, apparently lol
    1
  105. Best intro clip ever!!
    1
  106. Fantastic
    1