Sean Carroll

Stable to a physicist means if I poke it, there's a system that I poke, so I do a little perturbation, I change something about it, Does the perturbation sort of oscillate back and forth or does it grow bigger and bigger? If it grows bigger and bigger, then it's unstable and that's bad. So that's a positive feedback loop, right?

Stable to a physicist means if I poke it, there's a system that I poke, so I do a little perturbation, I change something about it, Does the perturbation sort of oscillate back and forth or does it grow bigger and bigger? If it grows bigger and bigger, then it's unstable and that's bad. So that's a positive feedback loop, right?

When a tiny deviation in one direction keeps growing in that direction. Doane Farmer's point is that it is often in the economy, very typical to have these unstable positive feedback loops and the complexity economics perspective is supposed to help with that. I think there's been much less study about that at any quantitative level for political science, for democracy.

When a tiny deviation in one direction keeps growing in that direction. Doane Farmer's point is that it is often in the economy, very typical to have these unstable positive feedback loops and the complexity economics perspective is supposed to help with that. I think there's been much less study about that at any quantitative level for political science, for democracy.

There's been a lot of sort of qualitative political science and historical work on the stability of democracies or the lack of stability sometimes. But thinking about it in terms of physics systems or chemistry systems has not been done a lot. I would like to see more of that. I'm going to do more of it myself, and I'll let you know if I come up with anything good. I haven't quite yet.

There's been a lot of sort of qualitative political science and historical work on the stability of democracies or the lack of stability sometimes. But thinking about it in terms of physics systems or chemistry systems has not been done a lot. I would like to see more of that. I'm going to do more of it myself, and I'll let you know if I come up with anything good. I haven't quite yet.

Tim Giannizos says, a great hits and misses episode. You mentioned that your paper about the origins of the arrow of time avoids making an assumption about a single low entropy beginning. But does it just make a different assumption that the natural state of the universe is empty to sitter space? So two things. Number one, no, it does not make that assumption.

Tim Giannizos says, a great hits and misses episode. You mentioned that your paper about the origins of the arrow of time avoids making an assumption about a single low entropy beginning. But does it just make a different assumption that the natural state of the universe is empty to sitter space? So two things. Number one, no, it does not make that assumption.

It says we make an argument, a very hand-wavy argument to be sure. But the argument is, if you're not in empty de Sitter space, you approach it. It's basically the cosmic no hair theorem proven by Bob Wald back in the 1980s. And then there's a reason for that. The reason for that is that in the presence of a positive cosmological constant, de Sitter space is the highest entropy state.

It says we make an argument, a very hand-wavy argument to be sure. But the argument is, if you're not in empty de Sitter space, you approach it. It's basically the cosmic no hair theorem proven by Bob Wald back in the 1980s. And then there's a reason for that. The reason for that is that in the presence of a positive cosmological constant, de Sitter space is the highest entropy state.

So that's the whole point, part of the whole point of our paper, which is that you have to start somewhere. By start, you don't mean the initial condition of the universe, but you have to have a condition for the universe at some moment of time, and then you try to evolve it both forward and backward. And our point was you don't have to tune that condition at all.

So that's the whole point, part of the whole point of our paper, which is that you have to start somewhere. By start, you don't mean the initial condition of the universe, but you have to have a condition for the universe at some moment of time, and then you try to evolve it both forward and backward. And our point was you don't have to tune that condition at all.

It can be very, very natural, very, very generic. And you can think of that as either saying, well, I'm going to pick the most generic state, and it would indeed be empty decider space. Or you can think about saying, I want to allow for other things, but guess what? Those other things evolve into decider space. You get the same answer either way.

It can be very, very natural, very, very generic. And you can think of that as either saying, well, I'm going to pick the most generic state, and it would indeed be empty decider space. Or you can think about saying, I want to allow for other things, but guess what? Those other things evolve into decider space. You get the same answer either way.

Eric Hogan says, in the solo episode about time, you talked about stuff fluctuating into existence, maybe even the universe itself. It isn't clear to me what you imagine that such a universe producing fluctuation would look like. Would a super dense expanding bang instantaneously appear from nothing? Or would white holes grow from radiation and spit out stars?

Eric Hogan says, in the solo episode about time, you talked about stuff fluctuating into existence, maybe even the universe itself. It isn't clear to me what you imagine that such a universe producing fluctuation would look like. Would a super dense expanding bang instantaneously appear from nothing? Or would white holes grow from radiation and spit out stars?

Would the dead rise from the ground and ungrow into babies? Would galaxies dissolve into smooth gas clouds just in time for the big crunch, just by chance? If it was time symmetrical, would it even make sense to call one of the two histories a fluctuation? So I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. This is entirely my fault about the stuff fluctuating into existence.

Would the dead rise from the ground and ungrow into babies? Would galaxies dissolve into smooth gas clouds just in time for the big crunch, just by chance? If it was time symmetrical, would it even make sense to call one of the two histories a fluctuation? So I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. This is entirely my fault about the stuff fluctuating into existence.

For the universes fluctuating into existence, if I said something like that, I did not mean... the entire universe fluctuating into existence. That is not something that I particularly have contemplated. I don't even know what that means. If there was no universe, what is there to do fluctuating? We did have a

For the universes fluctuating into existence, if I said something like that, I did not mean... the entire universe fluctuating into existence. That is not something that I particularly have contemplated. I don't even know what that means. If there was no universe, what is there to do fluctuating? We did have a