SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " object " 634 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
The new Pac-12 Conference partners with Playfly Sports for Sponsorship Development
The Pac-12 Conference and Playfly Sports today jointly announced a partnership that will see the sports industry’s leading revenue-maximization company serve as the new Pac-12’s partner for sponsorship development. The partnership begins immediately, ahead of the new league’s launch for the 2026-27 season. As part of the partnership, Playfly will assist the Pac-12 in building a centralized revenue engine powered by data, valuation expertise and scalable brand integrations. This model will focus on developing innovative partnerships that align with evolving fan behavior and brand objectives.
This simulation reveals what really happens near black holes
Black holes are among the most extreme objects in the universe, and now scientists can model them more accurately than ever before. By combining Einstein’s gravity with realistic behavior of light and matter, researchers have built simulations that closely match real astronomical observations. These models reveal how matter forms chaotic, glowing disks and launches powerful outflows as it falls into black holes. It’s a major step toward decoding how these cosmic engines actually work.
Mental health conditions are associated with increased risk of subsequent self-harm, assault and unintentional injuries in two nations
Nature Mental Health - In this two-nation administrative register study (~5 million individuals), mental health conditions were linked to subsequent unintentional, self-harm and assault...
The guardians of the meteorites of the Argentine Chaco
About 4,000 years ago, an intense shower of these objects fell in the north of the country, turning it into a reserve of great astronomical and spiritual value for the Indigenous Moqoit people
Interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS is rapidly moving away from us. Can we 'intercept' it before it leaves us forever?
3I/ATLAS has passed its closest point to Earth, meaning we will soon lose sight of it for good. Some scientists want to send a spacecraft to chase down the alien comet — or the next interstellar object.
Evaluation of WHO’s coordination in health emergencies helps guide humanitarian reforms
The recent evaluation of the Global Health Cluster sheds new light on how WHO, in its unique role as the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Cluster Lead Agency (CLA) for health, coordinates life-saving health responses in humanitarian crises. It highlights how WHO works through partnerships to reach the most vulnerable crisis-affected populations and strengthen collective action in increasingly complex emergencies. Serving both learning and accountability purposes, the evaluation provided timely and actionable recommendations that are helping to strategically position WHO during the ongoing IASC Humanitarian Reset and the broader UN 2.0 reforms, where prioritization and new ways of working are taking shape. The evaluation was conducted between 2024 and 2025, at a time when humanitarian action funding was plummeting by more than 50%, triggering the launch of the IASC Humanitarian Reset. While restructuring and prioritization across the humanitarian landscape were underway, the evaluation, through iterative feedback loops, shared emerging findings that helped identify the most crucial coordination functions needed. This was especially important at a time when humanitarian needs and health risks due to armed conflict and natural hazards were increasing, while the capacity of health partners to support Member States to equitably reach all populations affected by crises and deliver response was at risk. The evaluation found that the Global Health Cluster (GHC) remains a highly relevant mechanism for strengthening health coordination in crises and has delivered efficiently despite limited resources. It noted strong collaboration with partners and highlighted opportunities to deepen integration within WHO structures and further enhance inter-cluster cooperation. The evaluation also identified areas where greater emphasis on transition planning, national coordination capacity and linkages between humanitarian response and health system strengthening would bring added value. While the GHC has achieved many of its strategic objectives, improvements in monitoring systems would help better demonstrate collective impact. The recommendations will help strengthen the IASC CLA coordination function across WHO, at all levels, and with all partners. It is noted that going forward WHO needs to continue to support capacity to fulfil coordination functions, in line with the IASC Humanitarian Reset whilst ensuring collective prioritization of health cluster action and quality coverage of the health response. The evaluation will help WHO strengthen locally-led action, national ownership and leadership of the sector, and linkages between health system strengthening activities. Additionally, the evaluation evidence will be used to optimize resource mobilization for the GHC and strengthen WHO’s capacity to deliver, plan for and monitor and evaluate results across the Organization. Read the evaluation Global Health Cluster https://healthcluster.who.int/ WHO’s work in health emergencies https://www.who.int/emergencies/overview
Why Astronomers Are Excited About Comet 3I/Atlas’ Close Approach
Comet 3I/Atlas is just the third known object to visit us from outside our solar system. So yes... we'll be talking about aliens.
NASA Webb Telescope Discovers Lemon-Shaped Planet, the ‘Stretchiest’ Ever Seen
An unusual object orbiting a rapidly spinning star might be a new phenomenon in the universe.
Comet 3I/ATLAS reaches its closest point to Earth tonight: How to see it in the sky and online
Comet 3I/ATLAS, the third interstellar object ever detected, will swing closest to Earth overnight from Thursday to Friday (Dec. 18 to 19). Here’s how to see it.
Trump talks lower prices, health care costs, military bonuses in year-end address
Watch full coverage as President Donald Trump addressed the nation from the White House, highlighting his achievements and outlining future objectives. He announced a “warrior dividend,” stating that more than 1 million military service members will receive a bonus payment. NBC News' Tom Llamas and Peter Alexander provide analysis of Trump’s remarks.
Popular salad dressings, sold at Costco and reportedly Publix, recalled over ‘foreign objects’
Ventura Foods salad dressing recall affects thousands of cases at major retailers such as Costco due to black plastic contamination in onion ingredients.
Efficacy of a digital health application for weight management in people with obesity: 6-months results from a randomized controlled trial
International Journal of Obesity - Efficacy of a digital health application for weight management in people with obesity: 6-months results from a randomized controlled trial
Scientists have been studying the exoplanet TRAPPIST-1 e. Could it harbor alien life? : Short Wave
Want to be a top notch candidate for hosting alien life? Then there's a few key requirements you should be aware of: Ideally, you're a large object like a moon or a planet; scientists suspect you also have an atmosphere and water; plus, you should orbit your star from a nice mid-range distance — in the "Goldilocks Zone" of habitability. Until recently, you would be competing against TRAPPIST-1 e. It's a planet outside of our solar system. TRAPPIST-1 e is also only 40 light years away, rocky and the same size as Earth, which prompted researchers to investigate whether it also has an atmosphere — and the potential for alien life. A team of researchers has been investigating TRAPPIST-1 e to learn more about its potential. Their answers, recently published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, say a lot not just about this exoplanet, but about how scientists should refocus their hunt for alien life.Interested in more space science? Email us your question at shortwave@npr.org.Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave.
Report identifies science objectives of human Mars exploration
The search for past or present life should be the top science objective of future human missions to Mars, a new National Academies report concludes.
Is the universe ending sooner than we thought? New physics suggests a much shorter lifespan | - The Times of India
Science News: A groundbreaking study from Radboud University suggests the universe may end in approximately 10^78 years, significantly earlier than the previously assumed 10^1100 years. By revisiting Hawking radiation, researchers argue that all compact massive objects will evaporate, altering our understanding of cosmic lifespans.
Trump's speech on combating inflation turns to grievances about immigrants
On the road in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, President Trump said he objected to taking immigrants from "hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries."
Gut micro-organisms associated with health, nutrition and dietary interventions
Nature - Comprehensive large-scale studies of multi-national populations identified microbiome species consistently associated with favourable and unfavourable health markers, informing future...
Search for Life Should Be Top Science Priority for First Human Landing on Mars, Says New Report
When astronauts set foot on Mars, it will be one of humanity’s greatest milestones, marking the start of a new era of discovery on another planet. A new National Academies report identifies the highest priority science objectives for the first human missions to Mars and says searching for evidence of existing or past life on the planet should be the top priority.
Viewpoint: Follow the science? In this era of hyper-partisanship, Republicans and Democrats follow different paths
e’re often told to “follow the science” — a comforting phrase that suggests clarity, objectivity, and consensus. But in today’s hyperpolarized world, even
Representation in science and trust in scientists in the USA
Nature Human Behaviour - Druckman et al. document gaps in trust in scientists in the USA. People from groups less represented among scientists (for example, women and those with lower economic...
Cosmic knots may finally explain why the Universe exists
Knotted structures once imagined by Lord Kelvin may actually have shaped the universe’s earliest moments, according to new research showing how two powerful symmetries could have created stable “cosmic knots” after the Big Bang. These exotic objects may have briefly dominated the young cosmos, unraveled through quantum tunneling, and produced heavy right-handed neutrinos whose decays tipped the balance toward matter over antimatter.
UK IVF couples use legal loophole to rank embryos based on potential IQ, height and health
British fertility clinics raise scientific and ethical objections over patients sending embryos’ genetic data abroad for analysis
When politics trumps patients
Nature Medicine - Elected to make America healthy again, the actions of the Trump administration have undermined health globally.
Giant rotating string of 14 galaxies is 'probably the largest spinning object' in the known universe
A giant rotating filament of the cosmic web may be the largest spinning structure ever seen, and could help reveal how galaxies form.
Watchdog finds Hegseth risked endangering troops by sharing of sensitive war plans on Signal, sources say
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth risked compromising sensitive military information, which could have endangered American troops and mission objectives, when he used Signal in March of this year to share highly-sensitive attack plans targeting Houthi rebels in Yemen, according to four sources familiar with the contents of a classified Inspector General report that was sent to Congress Tuesday night.
Gut microbiome-mediated transformation of dietary phytonutrients is associated with health outcomes
Nature Microbiology - Systematic analysis and machine learning coupled with in vitro and in vivo validation link gut microbiome-mediated transformation of dietary phytonutrients to health outcomes.
Microrobots in food science and technology
Nature Food - Microrobotics is an emerging innovation with promising applications in food safety, quality control and processing. This Review highlights recent advances in microrobotic design,...
Reliable forecasts of heat-health emergencies at least one week in advance
Nature Medicine - We estimate that there were more than 181,000 heat-related deaths in Europe during the three exceptionally hot summers of 2022–2024, with 62,775 deaths during 2024 alone....
Law of 'maximal randomness' explains how broken objects shatter in the most annoying way possible
A new mathematical equation describes the distribution of different fragment sizes when an object breaks. Remarkably, the distribution is the same for everything from bubbles to spaghetti.
Mapping DC health inequities: a scoping review comparing scientific and medical humanities approaches
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications - Mapping DC health inequities: a scoping review comparing scientific and medical humanities approaches
Science must move from materialism to mystery
Theoretical physicist and neuroscientist Àlex Gómez-Marín argues that modern science has become trapped in a framework that mistakes matter for the whole of reality. In this wide-ranging interview, Gómez-Marín challenges the foundations of materialism, defends the scientific study of near-death experiences, and calls for a new type of science grounded in mystery and a renewed sense of the sacred. He suggests that abandoning materialism could open the door to a deeper understanding of consciousness, death, and the purpose of human existence. Simon Custer: You are both a theoretical physicist and a neuroscientist, and you have also been fiercely critical of materialist theories of mind and consciousness. What do you think the ultimate nature of reality is?Àlex Gómez-Marín: I don't know what the ultimate nature of reality is, but what I try to first assess is whether the stories that they [mainstream science] have told us about it are right, or maybe whether there are other alternatives. That's why I've been a fierce critic of materialism. As a scientist, I realized that they had sold us this idea that to be a good scientist you also had to subscribe to many other -isms, like materialism, reductionism, and even secularism. And so first I think one needs to unmount these -isms, and then, as is happening today in consciousness studies, we have a huge landscape where there isn't only one game in town, the idea that matter is the only thing that really exists. But because we are studying the hard problem of consciousness, it may be the case that other views of reality, like idealism, or even dualism, or other theories like dual aspect monism... these are philosophical ideas that now, I think, have room in science to be taken seriously. How does something like materialism relate to dualism or idealism? What is materialism in the first place?Well, materialism is the philosophical position that matter is the only really ‘real’ thing in the universe. And I think that worked kind of well because science started 400 years ago and Galileo made that split, I call it the foundational wound. It was a great business move.He said, let's start doing science on that portion of reality that lends itself more easily to mathematization and measurement. So, for some reason, the solidity of this table or the movement of planets lend themselves very well to this foundational idea of science. But as time went on, 400 years later, we realized that we had forgotten the other side, which is what really matters.What really matters is pain, is love, is feelings, sensation, consciousness, which is very hard to define, but very intimate. We all know what it is. It's that thing that disappears when we go into deep sleep and comes back in the morning. SUGGESTED VIEWING On the edges of knowledge With Michael Shermer, Rupert Sheldrake, Güneş Taylor It's what it is like to be, as Nagel said. It's the feeling of being alive. So, materialism is good to study certain things, but then when it ossifies into this ideology and then is dressed like science, now it's preventing us from understanding these key questions that are really that everybody wants to know.Why are we here? Why do we feel reality? Where do we go when we die? And so we need other ways. We need pluralism. I'm only asking for having more options on the table and taking them seriously. Why does materialism fail to explain consciousness? For example, if you were to lobotomize me, I would not be a functional human being. What do you say to someone who might think that materialism adequately explains the mind?Well, here we could speak about different things. We could talk about physics or about neuroscience. I happen to have training with both.For instance, for neuroscientists, 99% of them, I'm not included in that portion, believe that the brain can only be a productive organ. It's an organ that somehow, somewhere, consciousness emerges. It's like a lamp. And then something happens, magic happens, and then consciousness emerges.That's the position you need to be if you're a materialist because if the only really ‘real’ thing is matter, then you need to say, just give us some more time and money and we'll figure out how mind emerges or is produced from matter. There are many philosophically sophisticated ways of criticizing this.Now there's another option, which is the brain as a permissive organ. This was said by William James more than 100 years ago.Now then the brain wouldn't be like this machine, like for instance, a heat engine whose smoke is consciousness, which is what we would have in the first big model, the productive model. But in the permissive model, the brain would be a kind of a filter. And so the brain would still have a very important role in consciousness, but it wouldn't be a productive role.It would be permissive, much like a filter or much like a prism which would receive light. And - I'm speaking metaphorically - it would receive the light of the mind and then it could reflect it and refract it.Now, with these two big options on the table, I think we can make progress into what I call the edges of consciousness, which are all these experiences, weird experiences that many people have, but we don't talk about enough, like near-death experiences, precognitive dreams, synchronicities. These experiences are very important for humans and they have a place in the permissive hypothesis and they are literally impossible in the productive hypothesis. So that's yet one more reason to explore alternatives to materialism. There may be anecdotal evidence for near-death experiences, but is there robust evidence that would be accepted by the majority of scientists who subscribe to the scientific method?Sure. And the plural of anecdotes, someone said, is data.And there's a lot of data. Actually, this year is the 50th anniversary, half a century, since Dr. Raymond Moody realized that we have two ears and one mouth and started listening to what his patients had to say about their experiences while they were clinically dead.The heart had stopped, breathing had stopped in these patients. These patients would come back and tell him these amazing stories that some people may say are hallucinations, but for the patients were hyper-real, like seeing light at the end of the tunnels, seeing deceased family members waiting for them, feeling bliss.___I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain.___And so he and others started taking them seriously and writing their accounts down. And then you can do a science based on that material of experience that people have. Now, on the more objective side, more recently people have started to measure what's going on in the brain when people are clinically dead and brought back. This has opened a proper field of study, which is near-death studies.Evidence is a difficult word, because sometimes people think that when you say evidence, this is just the final proof. Evidence is like in a jury. You bring testimony, you bring pieces of data that point in one direction or another.I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain. When brains are broken or shut off, there can still be mind going on. And that's revolutionary.That would entail that when we die, it's not game over, which, by the way, is the thesis of materialism. If consciousness survives, materialism dies. It's game over for materialism if something of us continues after we die. Do you think that there is mental continuity after death?Well, I think so, and I believe so, and I could also say I may have experienced it myself, because four years ago I had a near-death experience. I was in the hospital, I lost a lot of blood, and I saw those beings at the end of the tunnel, three beings, and there was yellow light. I was in a well, I was looking upwards, and I hadn't read about NDEs by then, but when I came back from this experience, I decided I would try to integrate this also in my professional life. Not just my personal life, of course, but my professional life as a physicist and as a neuroscientist. So I may have had the experience of glimpses of what an afterlife would be, and I'm not ashamed to say it in this way, and then one can do science of it, and then one can do philosophy of it.One can think about what -isms we were discussing, what views on reality would allow those experiences to be really ‘real,’ as opposed to, well, poor guy, the brain was kind of broken, it must have been a hallucination. Do you have a view about whether individuality or “the ego” persists after death, or whether we sort of merge into some sort of cosmic consciousness instead?I don't know, but my view would be along those lines you're suggesting. I think we could speak about a kind of universal mind, and then the problem is not how we emerge from matter, but how we fragment from a more holistic consciousness into these individual eddies and then when we die, this kind of dissipates.But I'm not sure. For instance, idealism would promote that view, but then what would survive of us after these eddies just vanish and become again the big Consciousness, I'm not sure what that would be. I don't know for sure, but I would tell you I believe something of us survives.And there are other lines of research, not just near-death experience, that can address this really hard question of survival. For instance, there are children who remember previous lives. This was studied by Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia for more than 50 years.___Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.___It's amazing research. He went all over the world, especially in the East, and collected all these case studies, all these stories. In plural, these were data of kids, very young age, who would describe up to 40 items that then he could go and verify.There was no internet. There was really no way the kid could know. Why would the kid say that when I was living in this other body and I was a woman and that's how my house would look like or that's how I would die, right? Again, there is evidence, not proof, but there's evidence not only that something weird and interesting is happening as we cross the threshold, but also when we come back to this life.Scientists should not be afraid of studying this, but they are because there's stigma. There's usually stigma upon the enigma, and this is so unfortunate. And one of the reasons is because of the ideology of materialism, because those things cannot be possible. What is wrong with the politics of science such that they have generated this stigma?So many things. Science is a human activity to begin with.So it falls prey to all our passions and ego and greed. That's one thing. Science is a job for the good and for the bad.You need to get a salary. You need to get grants. Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.And then, we didn't have time to unpack this, but science for many years become entangled, as I was suggesting before, to other -isms, materialism, secularism. So anything that smells like the afterlife, people may think has to do with God, and then they freak out.Anything that suggests that there's something about the mind that may not need a physical material substrate to exist, it smells like non-materialism. So, all these -isms are ideologically blocking that kind of research, and then there are all these sociopolitical constraints as to what should be studied and what shouldn't be studied.I call it the backstage of science. Sometimes we scientists or science communicators seem to speak as if the data is the only thing that matters. We say, well, data and theory.But then there's a third leg of this stool, which is all the politics that goes behind the scenes. And we often don't speak about this, and it's quite vicious and petty, and it's very real. Why is materialism so attractive to most scientists?Well, an easy answer is because we've grown up with it.It's what the educational system promotes, and that's what you hear when you go to university. So it's like growing in a culture. It feels like the air in which you breathe.So it's very hard to begin with to detect, well, maybe there's another alternative. Maybe there are other ways of doing science, other environments in which one could do science. That's one reason.And other reasons maybe are more profound, and I'm not qualified to explain them, but I could say, looking at this 400-year history of science, since it started around 1623 with Galileo's book The Assayer, that science went and coupled with all what's going on in the West.And so the fall of religion, you could say, and science presented us this new alternative that then could be coupled very well with other -isms, and this idea of growth, and then science losing its good twin brother, which was philosophy. There's a whole natural history of science starting as philosophy, kind of emancipating or breaking out from philosophy, and then marrying technology, and then marrying other social systems.From that point of view, materialism is a very convenient idea to propose. There were attempts, like the German idealists tried to do a more romantic science. But no, the idea prevailed, like Francis Bacon said: You should pursue nature through all her corners, he said, and make her spill her secrets.Our attitude towards nature in the science that dominates is very much reflecting how we treat nature in our society, in our culture, like a resource to extract secrets by force and then dominate it. How is materialism related to the notions of growth and progress? What's wrong with having a productive citizenry?This is another very interesting and very difficult question to answer.But there's this recent book coming out by Paul Kingsnorth. In it, he explains this idea of the machine and this idea of progress. And this, again, this conflation of more is better, of we need to go forward always, and convincing us that the way to do that is to continually extract more from nature. But because we don't have the religious context anymore, because God is dead, then what do we have? We have what we can do as humans with our own gadgets.It's kind of the story of the Promethean fire. We will just build anything to make ourselves God.A good example today is transhumanism. Transhumanism is this pseudo-religion dressed in technoscientific language whose goal is very religious. They promise immortality, they promise redemption, they promise transformation of the entire natural world, but it's done by human means through technology. Are you suggesting that we can't have ethics without religion?Well, we should have ethics with or without religion. That's another pruning that has happened in science. We say, forget about aesthetics, although some physicists still think that beautiful means probably true, and forget about politics. We pretend there's no backstage of science, and even let's forget about ethics.___Science needs to be in the service of mankind.___Scientists, when they become more like engineers, they're just thinking how to make things work so that they can go to the moon, go to Mars, make machines that think, but they don't think whether that's a good idea.And also consider metaphysics. Many scientists for a long time pretended, and maybe that comes from the stream of positivisms, that really one doesn't need metaphysics at all, except that materialism is always the metaphysics running the system.You see, it's not just ethics. It's the pruning of all of these, you could say, five main legs of philosophy that just makes a kind of unconscious science, a science that doesn't really know what it's doing. It's doing it very well locally, but it just doesn't know what it's doing globally. Do you think science has to have an ultimate vision and purpose behind it for it to be effective or for it to be meaningful and transformative?Yes, a way I would say that is that science needs to be in the service of mankind. And it hasn't been that. And we can see it through, you know, when we discovered the secrets of the atom, and all of a sudden, the Manhattan Project, and then we create nuclear weapons.And now we're trying to crack how machines may think, and now we're creating this mess, right? So science needs to be in service of mankind, not in service of a few ideas that maybe want to make more money or just dominate upon nature. What about planes, trains, automobiles, and modern medicine? Hasn't science served mankind by helping us develop those technologies?Yes and no. I see where you're going, and it's fair.I came here by plane, and it's a blessing. When I almost died, the surgeons did their job, and they saved my life. But these two forced choices between Luddites and Silicon Valley types, I think, of course, it's a false dichotomy.Progress, in a way, it's good, but we often don't speak about the dark side of the moon. We say the great things that progress has brought, and we don't speak about the disasters, the side effects that it has come with, and the same when we promise new technologies. We tend to think that any technology is great, that email is going to save us so much time because we don't need to write letters and send them anymore.Is that true? I spend so many hours a week writing emails. Let's just say there are great things about it and bad things about it. People like Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, for example, argue that we've made moral progress over time because of the Enlightenment. Do you think that's totally wrong-headed?I think he's emphasizing a side of the moon, and he does that very well, and you can find tons of plots where there's a slope going up and say it's great. But I think he should also tell the not-so-friendly story.But if your ideology is just to resist and continue to explain that the Enlightenment is the best thing ever and reason is the best thing ever… this feels to me like you're worshipping these abstractions.I'm very critical of it and also of these, again, science communicators and scientists that say, Oh, science says, in the name of science, experts say. It's like, come on, let's be careful because we can shoot ourselves in the foot by putting forth to the people an image of science that we know is not really true. Recently there's been a resurgence of spirituality and of people who say that they're spiritual but not religious, especially in the United States. If materialism is going away, what is going to fill that gap? Are we going to return to traditional religion? Do you see that being connected with the rise of the political right?I'm not a fortune teller, so I don't know what's going to happen. But, yeah, we could say we're in this post-materialist age and even post-secular age. One cannot come back to the past, but maybe just to contact with the roots is a good idea.What do I mean by that? I think we need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method. We need to do so in a culture where we realize humans cannot thrive in a vacuum where there's this idea that the sacred has to be removed.Now, how do we do that without bringing in back all the vices of religion? I don't know. I'm from a Catholic country.Here we are in England, so there are differences and interreligious dialogue has always been a challenge. But I think maybe a way of putting it is: after all these conflicts and branchings I was quickly alluding to, science from philosophy and then also from religion, now there's a time of reconciliation perhaps and maybe debates in the proper sense, like exchange of ideas in service of learning and getting into something higher than both poles. We need science to talk to religious people and it's interesting when people say they're spiritual and not religious.I think this is just a way of saying, no, I don't want to go back, I want to go forward. But at the end of the day, religions have offered us practices and grounding that we now desperately need. Everybody can and should just meditate or pray or do whatever they want, but we're in a crisis and it's time for reconciliation. What do you say to critics that say you are merely projecting our need for meaning onto a fundamentally indifferent universe?Yeah, I know that the typical science communicator says something like this. But we're not projecting. Human beings feed on meaning.It's the other way around. If you're a materialist, because the only thing that there is is matter, all that comes next, free will, consciousness, meaning, this is a kind of illusion that we need to explain.They're just craving for meaning, but there isn't really for them. I would also like to remind my materialist friends that for decades, if not centuries, they've said in the name of science, we know that this and this and this doesn't really exist. I think now they sense they're forced to say, well, actually, we don't know. We've been saying, for instance, that there's nothing after you die, and now probably they need to admit that they don't know the answer.___We need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method.___So it's a moment to open up possibilities and also to gently but fiercely critique these claims that I think harm society. If you say in the name of science, get on with it, when your father dies, you'll never see him again. Well, what the F do you know about it? You haven't studied the literature, you haven't had any of those experiences, and basically what you're doing is you're just doing marketing on ideology. This needs to stop. Do you think that it's scarier for some people to entertain the thought that there might be life after death, compared to a materialist worldview where you just die, given that there might be consequences for unsavory behaviour?Well, death and dying is scary. It's maybe the ultimate ending. It's a limit on life, and when we're in this conquest mode, we don't like limits.And it also has, there's a shockwave backwards, so I think if you change your notion of what death is or may be, you live differently. It also has consequences, as you're saying, for the future because this is not our only goal here and we come back in whatever form. And again, different religions would say different things. I the East, they are more happy with the idea of reincarnation, and here in the West, there are other preferences. But in any case, it changes how we live, and that's really what matters.It's not about just projecting or imagining what we'll be after, but how we live now and also how we treat those who are dying. So it goes from the individual to the families, to the hospitals.Now in the near-death research I do, this has ramifications at all these levels, all the way to society.But our society is thanatophobic. It has a phobia of death. We don't want to hear about death, and this is another thing we need to put on the table and be willing to talk about it. Do you think that we might get closer to answering ultimate questions like why is there anything at all if we jettison materialism?That’s an excellent question, Simon. Two things: we should stop treating reality, I believe, as a great sudoku, as an enigma, as something that with intelligence, money, and time that we will crack and instead treat reality more like a mystery. And what you do for in front of a mystery is not to be the clever guy in a class and say “I’ll solve you” but more like “I will bow and you will transform me.”I know this sounds a bit like a scientist speaking like a mystic. But I think this reorientation is needed. In the end, we won’t crack the big questions, but they will transform us. If we free ourselves from this prison of materialism, the way we will explore these questions will be freer, more creative, and in service of mankind. Do you think exploring mystery is the reason why we are here?I think we are here because, and this pseudo-theological argument I’m making off the cuff, But the One, the Absolute, if there is such a thing, had everything except limitation. We are that absolute experiencing that contingency. It’s like an act of divine proprioception. It’s a wonderful adventure, it’s just incredible to be alive. Perhaps we have forgotten why we are here and the whole point is to experience the flesh.Let me end by saying this. I criticize materialism harshly. I bang on this dead horse, because I think it’s dead. But matter is a great mystery. So maybe my invitation is as follows: hey materialist friends, come here, let’s work on materialism 2.0! Consciousness is a mystery, but matter is also a mystery. The fact that we can have an intersubjective experience consensus, the fact that we can apply mathematics, that we can measure things... the physical world we take for granted, but it is a great mystery too.Maybe that’s related to your last question: why are we here? Why did spirit decide to incarnate? Being in the flesh may be a great thing if spirit decided to do so.Àlex Gómez-Marín, thank you very much.My pleasure.
Powering Brazil's Transition to Zero-Emission Trucking: Improving Air Quality, Public Health and the Economy with Coordinated Efforts
The electrification of Brazil’s heavy-duty trucking sector represents a critical opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, improve air quality, and enhance public health. While Brazil’s long-standing reliance on biofuels has leveraged domestic resources and infrastructure, this strategy is best viewed as a transitional measure that may not fully meet the country’s long-term climate and economic objectives.
Water quality rule finalized as Republicans, business groups complain about process
A new rule published over Republican objections is meant to protect the health of Wisconsin's highest quality water bodies.
ON THE OBJECTIVITY OF SCIENCE: KARL POPPER and THOMAS KUHN. Lecture 5 of Postmodern Philosophy [Peterson Academy course]
Lecture Five: Science and technology have accomplished wonders since the Enlightenment. But, as Karl Popper asks, how do we “distinguish between science and pseudo–science“? Thomas Kuhn suggests that scientists are less-than-objective and more “like the typical character of Orwell’s 1984.” Themes: Logical Positivism and Analytic philosophy’s aspirations and travails. Scientific method. Science and pseudo-science. Falsifiability. […]