Time in quantum cosmology (contd.)

0:00 It's not necessarily so completely wrong in some ways, but it also gives you an advantage in another way, which is the quantity itself, which is really a coded way of saying that you're being quantitative when you're doing your programming, and hence why, and yet, the purest amount in that very act offers the possibility of structuring your programming in three ways. Right, reason. One of the things fundamental to the problem is the physics, and it happens. There's one of his master's which goes a mile distance and he's more likely to come and tell you, because it's common. So it's not true, he is quite nicely learned, he's not totally sure, but I'm told he'll probably be able to do it. However, conceptually, he's astoundingly good at mathematics, and this is really the type of thing. In classical physics, it's been meaningful to say that the part of what is absolute is, if you say, where is it? That's the way it's done. I say there's five different meanings for the meaning of the book, and I put two things in that book. You know what I mean. And you need to think about that sentence. You don't know how to write it, but that makes sense. One of them is that, actually, you can't say that. At that stage, is it that convenient? It's not convenient. It's wrong. It's worse than that. That's what it means. There are a lot of things that can be done to help you understand how to have a role in theory as well as a part of it as a part of it as a part of it as a part of it as a part of it as a part of it as a part of it. He said, broadly speaking, the fundamental levels of reality that I understand, you really get probabilistic prediction. It's not that. But it's worse than that. Because he doesn't just say that ultimately, he says it is. So he's measured. So what has suddenly happened is a great dualism has been introduced into the basis of physics. Now, it's a good not-to-be-dualism, but I like dualism. It's really a vital measure. And here's a classic one, which was actually a compliment to that. To me, it ought to be measurable. So classical physics, like my mother, works with the language of three. Something is something, it makes sense, it means it has properties. Quantum physics is a tradition, it works with the language of three. Now, physicists are possibly schizoid in many ways, because my love and know-how about what works is probably to be measurable.

2:30 These incredible examples concern everyone in the world, and you can test them in this intrepid land of certain words. But at heart, we are realists, and you cannot really imagine Shakespeare, for Christ's sake, having said the immeasurable, or not immeasurable, what is the question? Well, now that she thinks of it, she thinks of it. And we keep the crowd going for the last one. So we have a realism which is meant to create a sort of total opposite of science. One of the biggest virtues of being a director of a physics lab is that you have a lot of the out-of-the-way questions that can happen in a space that you can get some of that math to ask my wife, like I said, while I'm doing a physics seminar, so I make this extravagant statement. It's very clever of you to have it in front of a class. You're in the middle. But also, mine is modular because quite a bit of that business is used up, and you're separating out the elements. That is major to measurement, and that's just a little treasure of a type of journalism. This seems particularly close to the point, because our universe is an average measurement of life, which doesn't sound like it does. If you want to block the language of physics, you could argue, well, what really is at stake is that the problems of those potentialities, as it were, are very common. It's not that they always create negative degrees, but what is there is a possibility. A possibility is a way to come to a broadly speaking figure that is more possible. Now that sounds alright, but what does it actually mean? But then there's a great gap which opens up. There's a movement with potential for the action. You cannot see as far as you can look throughout this and give the possibility of what is the exact relative. And then we go back in there afterwards and see how it's not the same, but we can possibly modify it. And I think we have to prove that, hopefully with a hypothesis, but to be there, you may not be able to find it. So it's something, there's a very good place for this to take place. And you really need to see it. A modern economist doesn't know how to do this. This problem doesn't solve itself apart from all the really serious effects that can be found in this economy. It's how do we improve the integrity of the world? Now you might think, since we're talking about the creation of the universe, it's not a supreme development. Absolutely it isn't. In fact, you can't omit it. For all of the modern society, after all, it's not about the integrity of the world. It's about supporting the integrity of the world.

5:00 They only have to be trained with that possibility. They can never know what will happen in the future. So what you're really left with is the theory of quantum physics, but something doesn't. So the answer to why is the answer may be the hypothesis, not the reality, or the reason why it's famous. But certainly as far as physics is concerned, it isn't a multi-talented thing. This is an ice-cold subject, but it's ideas are going to divide that kind of thing into quantities. It seems to me it's impossible to believe that that's the only way to do this. Quantity is a tactic for finding the way to do it. So that's what quantum theory is about, and you can see that, well, on the face of it, You could even count them all. But, uh, make for a very wonderful search of space. What happened to the quantum theory of general relativity? Well, I said that you could think of classical general relativity as dealing with the history of space. The space is pain. So, at any given time, get it out there, think of the symbol of space. At any given time, space is a search of space. That's an is of space. Is a search of space. Passive of space. Really, passive of space. Quantum theory, being naively, well not so naively, but applied generatively, is to suggest that what happens now, the world in the same form as it has been, is an accountability. Now these two commons that I've noticed, I missed out on some things here, I think it's incredible. There are even reasons, I don't know how you could possibly make the whole space, if you're kidding me. You might have a certain circumstance, now this is a problem to be right about others, but why are you that good? For one, it's meant to be deconstructed and carved by looking at the present. Maybe you can't even think of all the things in the past, and imagine you're making the best of it now. This is one of the subtle issues that we might face. In any event, let's forget about that for now. We'll just say we haven't done it for the first time. Now, the next thing is to find that there are many possible three-dimensional spaces that are non-zero. Any possible curve to structure a medium? This is what science calls quantum fluctuation. It's the sum of all these elements, up to where it's going to be a mathematical process. In any event, the meaning of possibility in this case means it's a curve. That's statement number two. Now, statement number three. Is it the place that they all fit into a simple space of time? This is absolutely fundamental. It couldn't be that I had this, if I had some space in time, what about that? Space of time. And it's all possible.

7:30 It is possible that maybe the mathematics of this is such that the only things that occur in this state, the non-zero properties, though they might occur, are what fit into a single phenomenon. If that were true, you might make sense of it. There's all those, so it's the simplest way to try it. What you might say is, you see, we're not quite sure where we are, but the problem is that we are only here, we're only out there, and we don't know what we're about to do. Now that in itself would be quite interesting. If I said we don't quite know where we are, that's probably the most possible probability that we would be now at the moment. We might find that fairly important, but at least we would perhaps see it in the picture. But actually it's much worse than that. It turns out, now that we know, we do not live. So zero is a very large number. So, there's billions and billions of possibilities. So, in some sense, we live... Now, this sentence is very daunting. We live in many space-finding spots. I'm not saying that we live in them. It's quite a bit more difficult than you might think if you didn't know. What I can say is, and that kind of suggests that we do these things, is that as far as they do give rise to space patterns at the end of the day, many space-finding sites are co-coded. Now, for patents, that's quite the same. Think of the whole universe as a single entity. Say there's many of them, all sort of in phase and out of phase with each other. It's quite nice, I think, I find that, because if you're a process person, it's horrendous, because the point is you've missed that process before. Most of the time you're completely lost. Because what we call time depends on the space we're in. Everything's almost plugged out. There's no way at all you can smash it. So time is completely lost, and this is true. Time is lost completely. Now, you might think, on the face of it, that's not actually a disaster. Time is lost completely, but surely this means that things have to be done. And many, many years ago, I used to work around this a lot. I met a lot of people who came to study mathematics and physics. Because one of the things, on the face of this disaster, is that all you can do is make time. He did this many, many times in his career. It's a wonderful book. I'll tell you something, any young people, any young people who want to drop this device into the true future, I'll help you with that.

10:00 But it's basically what Pearsley and Davis are. They don't spot life in copy books. They don't stop looking at the book and say, look, it's a june hotel, but it is a bird. So the answer is, can we exploit it for creation theory? But you see, the whole problem with creation theory is that it's all being made over time. The stigma of organs is the same. The stigma of organs is the same. It's the same from the beginning. But it doesn't mean that you can't always have a soul. You've got to have a medium. You've got to have a medium. You've got to have a medium. You've got to have a medium. You've got to have a medium. You've got to have a medium. You've got to have a medium. You've got to have a medium. You've got to have a medium. You've got to have a medium. But whenever I'm saying that we're going on in a very early universe, let us wait and see what fluctuates in the time equation. If that had been the field now, we would have already agreed that we were going to finish by this, or this. So can we do that? Any theory indicative of that, what do you think we're going to solve? I think Jan mentioned that the image inside of the context is also through here. There's a natural universe, not the genesis of the event, the one that lasts for 80 months. That's it. As a good Jungian Gnostic, I'm very appreciative of the terabatic beauty of the whole thing, which sits there, and I don't mind talking to you about it, but I can't say it's nuts, because we'll be talking about it in the last minute, because it is 10.5 seconds, and it's not very much. And I like that idea. Of course, it doesn't allow much more than you and me. Let alone Rick Dow's career, which is timed after that, so you don't get a lot of it. Fortunately, for reasons now, if you get over this, things call for an instant cut. I don't think that we can take the time to go into this and discover this in six weeks. It's a natural solution. It's not what we get. It's what we need to know. Do you think we'll survive it? You'll be disappointed that it's actually a natural experiment. We'll actually have to come up with a take on it before we start to read the paper. It's much more important than that. There's one way of implementing this idea. Now, a key point about this, let me say again, the idea is that however you do it, however you approach it, you will find that nearly everything you want to find, and over and over again, you'll find it's lost.

12:30 Run away from it again, not to say it's in a pencil set, but run away from it again, and all you know is that you can't agree with it. And somehow, in such a way, we're holding things together and comparing them, and that's what I think we're finding. This is one particular way of doing it, which is gorgeous for instance. There we go, we're famous. Now, it used to be imaginary time. By imaginary time, I mean, of course, the time of the square root times one. The whole thing is a matter of the capital. The square root times one. It's actually quite expensive to think of fluid in quantum physics. I mean, classical physics is not big in quantum physics. Because of that, in quantum physics, the place of the fluid is generally true. It's not true in any way. If you imagine... Space. If you've got something like this, like a thumb, something there, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a thumb, like a So I pointed to this all probably after the war. I couldn't find myself to tell you that. I can't say it's a true story, but believe me, it's an actual war. I mean, you shouldn't try your smith to laugh at you with some metro on you. Nonetheless, it is there. That in itself is a deeply quantum mechanical computer. This is something that we do have, say, in the art of mathematics, but at the end of the day, it's too difficult. It turns out, because I can't be classical about it anyway, it's quite amazing. So a mean order and an approximation of the very focus of what they capture physically, you find the solve for physicality. That, in time, is replaced by minus one. So the reason for that is Newton's equation is our law of mass times acceleration. Acceleration is the second derivative of the position in respect to time, so time appears twice. If you've got the time of evolution, i.e. i times i, you've got i squared times one. But if you're crazy enough to do it, then it's not minus one, it's minus one, it's minus one. What would Watson's problem be for? Don't come to the practical point, because you don't know how to do it. I mean, Froude was making a big deal of what he was doing, and so this guy gets the dirty. Now you invite him to come to the one big technical barrier that sucks you in, and it's fairly true. Now, incredibly, if you work out the classical solution to that problem, there's a way of putting these two properties together, it's possible. So it's in that sense that people say that the fashion week's time gives you the...

15:00 The good degree of accuracy, imagine we try and use classifications, the good degree of accuracy, the absolute quantity, the equal quantity of mathematics there. Now this is, well this is being true, I'm not joking about this, this is actually dead on. The thing that works is that you can see mathematics in five parts instead of in one. Of course he's not saying that mathematics doesn't exist, he's not saying that mathematics can do what does and doesn't exist. All he's saying is that this is mathematics as it plays. This is not to work by hand. It's not to be learned by hand. You can't get anywhere else. You can't follow some of those points. It's all working by analogy. It's to work by analogy. So if you're creating the universe, you're putting a pretty big corpus on top of it, which you need. Classically, it doesn't work at all. Why not think about it as if it's a pump that comes out of the top, down by a pair? It's not what's really going to work. So what Hawking talks about is happening in time. What he's really doing is he's pretending. He's solving the classical Einstein equation, so purely he's acting. Which simply means that space and time are the same. Then you pretend that something is wrong. Now I say pretend, because that's what I mean, but it doesn't mean quite like that. But you pretend in the sense that there isn't a clear point of gravity. When I said here that it worked, what I meant was that you would do the calculation properly without doing the support. You could check to be able to write something. Here, the list goes on and on and on. So instead, you pretend that this is the right answer to see what happens. And these are the kinds of pictures that you can get with this. It's that the origin of the universe, this, the words have to show you, the origin of the universe in this sense, is from the sort of chromatic white background, you know, before what we were. I like Zurbach. Zurbach. Chromatic unity. You can actually see the place and time of its place as well as dynamics. I think it changes over time. That's why Zerbeck was there for eternity. So it is eternity across the universe. It's a rule. It's the rule of eternity. It's true. It's a good thing. But then, around the edge here, I don't know whether it's Keaton or Zerbeck, but someone starts praying to himself for something to happen.

17:30 And something happens. The universe appears. Now, this is making sense. I don't think there's any doubt. Let's talk about it. It turns out the last movement between these sorts of cones is a pattern where, up here, you get what looks like the cone I talked about, because it looks like plastic, but it isn't. It's a unit. Back here, it's totally non-plastic. There isn't a mathematical process. There's nothing. It's simply this unit of what they can see, and the deletions go down the path. And then, you can't say something happens here, because that's not what the temple's saying. You can't say that, because it's something happens down here, if you go out there and something happens. You can't really say that. All you can say is there's a smooth kind of plane, where you have genuine time up here, this primordial true eternity down here. In between these planes cannot be said to be eternal, at all. But remember that's a solid plane. And this, if I'm afraid to do it, I'm afraid to do it. And if I am, I'm not afraid to do it. For example, what many universities do, for example in France, you can have a speaker, or in a geometry, you can have this picture, with lots of things having to do with it, it's more like sort of a thing of a wormhole. Nonetheless, this is all new to physics, and it's important to realise that what you say is that the problem with geology at the time, you thought the fact that time changes very rapidly, so you asked what you thought that had to happen. Here, we get to the reason that normal times don't even work. Truly, chromatic times haven't even been. Needless to say, there's a lot of interesting things going on in this room, and that's the aspect of it. So, I have to say, you know, once I've read it, that's what I feel, you know, when I come to this room, I think of the lecture, and I think of the film, and I think of the webinar, and I think of the seminar, and I think of the lecture. So, what have we achieved? Well, I think exactly how we've done it. What have we achieved? First of all, gravity is clearly an agent of the universe, and this is certainly true and serious, but is it ever worth it? And really, to be clear, these are only some ideas we've been waiting for. It seems to me, technically, that gravity would play a central role. And that's two different things. One is the fact that it's a spirit-based world, and that the universe will make for gravity. They can take a bit of the positive and cast out the gravity where they can't anymore. That's engaging.

20:00 And the second one is the relation of gravity to space and time. So for both these reasons, I think that's a good insight into what's been discovered in the last 30 years or so. And I suppose in the past we've certainly learned that mathematics in the rest of the fundamental course was not exactly unified. So if they had, these famous totes, as I said in the beginning of the talk, would in fact have a sort of side effect. And the second thing is that science plays the way of technology. Again, I think it's the gender-based science. It's not something that philosophy is all about. I have a great friend, Hans von Jung, who I think is very popular, and I found that he felt perfectly that was the third way of the role of the gender-based science. The notion of trying yourself to change when you get to a different point, because he would have said that's a meaningless thing, because to change yourself is a different concept, so it's a different thing. But I think the other thing to say is that one thing about mathematics has changed, and the other way we've been talking about mathematics since the early days, is that it didn't have the same effect as the beginning of mathematics. Of course, perhaps... These pictures, and I'm biased, I'll have a paper, this is for the children. These pictures, to me, suggest very strongly that the notion of the process of science is wrong, that it's wrong, that it's wrong, that it's inapproachable. And that's the thought of why people talk about mathematics. That's a wonderful scheme. However, I have great friends in technology from here because they like to make the process so hard. They slide and slide and slide and look back in and they don't spend a lot of time on that. It's not like the moment of time is not an average event. It's always flowing through the track of the process. It's perhaps a good thing that we don't have to classify the redeeming part of the process as being a place in time. Whereas, of course, it's all about using the world. If you use it as a product of the whole world's processes, then what do we have to do? Human, individual, what's the point we put on that or anything? It's all there already. The fact itself is a tiny part of all the effects of mathematics. Finally, I often find myself giving lectures like this,

22:30 reading more science fiction because I don't want to do any of that. People often ask, well, what's the point of this, what's the state of that religion? Well, I've already developed the claim in the last few years. I'm not going to do that whatsoever, except to say that what happens between the two is clear. In what I call the ground big in technical origin. What I talk about is a mathematical theory which is certainly a performance of building or giving you ideas on a scheme whereby you could build things like knowledge and science, but it does so in a very subtle, simple, frequent state, in what I call philosophical and conceptual framework. One might want to empathize with this. They're not thinking about knowledge and physics. They're not thinking about it. We have a lot of power. Things are existing in the rest of the world. They realize we're only part of that. But there is a mix of them all, kind of falsely fixed between the old and the new whole. So in that sense, I think people have to appreciate that when we discuss these things, we are making a huge extrapolation without forcing our experience of the current world and the things that have happened to people in the right back in the area where others should be able to talk about these things. But here, anyway, what we're trying to qualify as a kind of whole thing is the ability to do that. There are a lot of such topics. Apart from that, what's our agenda for this first week of the course? It's quite interesting that you decided that you'd be able to invest your time in looking at quantum physics. My question is, are you planning to make a class that's more in the mathematical field? So, we need to take pigments and test them to see if they have anything to do with mathematics or string theory. For mathematics itself, you can actually get some results out of mathematics and string theory. So, the relevant work I'm going to do on mathematics is extremely mathematical. You can concentrate on science, it's extremely mathematical.

25:00 But the reason for giving that to new mathematics is because you have the same construction theory. See, I'm not one of these people who thinks that working in a mathematical company is just taking a system theory to do things in a mathematical way. You can talk to that, you can do that. You know, it's really good work you've done. That's your philosophy. My interest is to take you to a mathematical way. That would be A. That's what's with it. That's the meaning of it. Now, third of all, to get, if you like, a new concept. There is a school of thought that you could maybe want to hear speak. Well, the mathematics seems to be the right answer. What? You don't have to stand in front of a computer to get that, and that's right, it seems to be the right answer. But you're saying the interpretation is an integral part of the program. That's my question. This is not like that. This is the spectrum of the rule of gravity. That's my quote from the play, and that is the second part. Yes. You say that, er, the time and space phase back and forth for true eternity. But, if this eternity is truly eternal, how can it be before anything? Because it would not, it would not contain from nature any relation to something. No, no, it comes back to us. It comes back to us. It comes back to us. No, that's absolutely right. That's what I was saying. We've got that picture. Whatever you say about this picture, it's a picture. It's a reasonably honest picture of a particular solution. It's actually real, it's quite honest. Now, it's a reason not to laugh at it. Don't laugh at it. You might ask, what does it mean? Well, that's the point I was just about making. Well, that's right. See, here, time and space are coming through one way or another. And yet it's there in mathematics. You see, perceived as a single instrument, that causes no problem at all. It's simply what the maths is. It's what we do. It so happens. Up here, we like ordinary stuff. Down here, we look like pure, internal stuff. And in between, it is. So, for a non-processed thing, it causes more difficulty.

27:30 And of course, for a processed thing, it causes elements. As you can see, it's quite clear, the language of processing is different. You're saying that the fundamental method, you've got to time this. And what we think of as the universe is something that's barely in this time frame. That's the way I look at it, yes, I'm aware of it. I mean the clock, in a certain sense, it hasn't stopped, the clock has never started ticking. The clock simply is. It just is, yes. Michael, is this not more like using the term of the earth? There's a danger of misunderstanding eternal by thinking that eternal means a long, long, long, long time, whereas eternal here is meant in the religious sense, and that God is eternal, being outside of time, absolutely. Yes, I've shown these words a little bit, and people and I need to know each other. We want to appear together in the process before we act, and after we act. And these critical spaces of time do exist. They simply do. They do exist. And I've said it to you many times, but they do exist. I think you're right. There's a difference between the terms of physics and science. In this time we have an algorithm that's in terms of physics and science. It's not in our time. This is more like a problematic time. Yes? I wonder, isn't there a sense in which, when we have a state of awareness, we can do just that? I'm thinking of the technique of Dahlia, one of the teachers of these days, that really talks about the cycle of time, the start of time, the beginning of the day, and the end of the day. And existential planning, in which it would seem to me the theosophical interception of the time is known, and that there is something which we intuitively remember from applying a concept in the effect of that singularity, and it is a sense in which we are inspired. Conceptually, yes. What you're really going to get out of this lecture is not just this thing shown, but you're going to get a whole slew of them, all somewhat different.

30:00 You're going to get a vast composition of different emergent universes. That's correct. You'll have a certain possibility, a possibility against existing universes. I don't have the psychoposition yet. Absolutely not. So, I mean, so what this really means... It's heavily dependent on how you interpret quantum mechanics itself. The technique of an average might be, say, if you took the superposition seriously, rather than thinking that there's something missing. I mean, in ordinary quantum mechanics, you can think that there is a collapse of the wave function. But that only makes sense as something that happens in, or supposedly only makes sense as something that happens in time. There doesn't seem, in this, in quantum mechanics in this world, the concept of a collapse of the wave function just gives us one of, of, of infinity. That, that doesn't seem to make sense. Well, no, is that right? Yes, that's true. Well, up here, where you believe in our quantum mechanics, would it be possible for you to be able to fix it, perhaps, the... I'm talking about that. Oh, down there. No, I personally don't. It's standard. And up here, where you actually see it, you can't really see it there, except you can see the reference up here, and you can use that as a reference back here. So I have the thought that it would probably be nice to meet with us again, even if we don't talk. Yeah, it would be nice to meet you again. I have a question. I don't know if you should have both of them, otherwise you get so many paragraphs. Since I don't want to take up the interview, Michael Lockwood would be today. It seems to me, some of this is because of the role that we have to be worrying about all these things about time. But if you imagine a dog living in an orange grove and had a huge superposition of blue, many of which is half the size, what do you mean by that?

32:30 If you accept that there could be a huge assemblage of other universities and other types of universities, The whole concept of worrying about it bothers me in a sense because I just don't see it bothering me. Why can't we have trillions of different kinds of universe and then why should we worry about it, or we worry about it at the time? Well, I don't know about physics. At the end of the day, I don't know about physics. I think you might really find it to be an actual thing. I mean, there's a real challenge to start thinking about it as a real thing, but it's not just an idea. It's an internalization, it's an interpretation. Well, these things have to be patched up together, and it's hard not to be able to do that. And so, the genuine side of the challenge is to make it coherent across the whole world. Why would one write about these perceptible things? Well, I don't know. I headed out to physics class a month or so years ago. I saw him there. And what he worked on was this. I couldn't write about perceptible qualities, but he said to me, well, you may not know perceptible qualities, but you can write about them. Because he had a friend who passed on to him, but he'd only parted with him. So what do you mean? So he said to me, well, you may not know perceptible qualities, but you can write about them. I think this particular situation brings us closer to what I was actually thinking about with the earlier philosophical questions, where we worry about what happens in the future. I think the question is meaningless if you look at the possibilities that may be in the future. Yes, a layman question. It seems, it is saying that we are nimble. Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to seeing you again soon.

35:00 And an insight into what's really going on in your studies about the concepts of learning and how can we possibly understand the tasks of all of these. Thank you for your time. If Kant was right, this would apply to all perceiving rational beings, so there's no use in trying to contact aliens somewhere that maybe they wouldn't have our conceptual hang-ups, but on the other hand, what little I know about Newton suggests that for Jung... It doesn't have to be universal. It is in that very, very extreme sense that it counts. And the subject of it is, if it is peculiar to the topics of our fellowship, is that those topics are counted. Topics about? Yeah, humanities. Yeah. Is that not right? Yeah. I mean, you're going to talk about humanities over and over. Right. In fact, it's not for you to do it. I mean, it's not for you to do it. So, it's not for you to do it. It's not for you to do it. It's not for you to do it. It's not for you to do it. What do you think of someone who was so rude by, you know, supporting us in a way that we wouldn't want to do? Yes, I agree. But of course, don't tell me what he's like. I don't know that he can't serve you for that. What do you mean? All rational beings. All rational, sensitive beings. I'm sure that the categories and the forms of intuition tend to apply to all rational, sensitive beings. Can I just suggest a response to the question about parochial, what does it matter about time, I can't remember the exact words but that was the thrust of it. There are a lot of people doing this going back to what happened before in creation is extremely important.

37:30 Because if out of it there can be a creator, then this is a powerful boost to religion, especially Christian religion, out of which the other end, apart from moving back, is the future. Because the future is hope of life after death and so on. And that's why this is very, very important to many, many people. Because if the creation... God-type creation isn't justified at one end, but extremely difficult at justifying the immortality of the other. So that's why, though it may be parochial scientifically, it's extremely important to very many people. I'm sorry, what is the purpose of this lecture? I hear lots of good aspects, and they need to be addressed tomorrow. Of course, we haven't done that yet. It's a fine-tuning problem. It's a fine-tuning problem. Can you discuss the possibility to cue your song of possibilities? Thank you. I wonder, do you have any type of possibility of what I believe is some sort of actualism, which is that there are a huge range of possibilities, but actually only, what actually is there is the only one possibility of it being possible. Could we somehow condense or come back to the secret possibility? I actually picked up what most of us would think, even though I'm part of the school. The problem is how that one actualism comes to be. It's very, very tricky because I think most people who think they're engaged in chemistry, this is what Hodgkin kind of says, what Hodgkin kind of says is that what's going to be possible is that something actually happens. But the trouble with that is that's not what Hodgkin's thinking says. He says if you make measurements, a certain point will happen. So I think there's still a sort of a gap between that final conclusion that most people have made and the matter of the framework is actually different. And that's really the point I was getting into earlier. I mean, there are theories like that's the way to get you one of those, only one of those possibilities in actual life, once you've got time. But it isn't clear to me how those devices are going to be applicable to the emergence itself. Precisely, is among some of these. Well, I think we're going to stop here.