Slavoj Žižek & Lee Smolin: Marxism Meets Quantum Physics | Robinson's Podcast #206
Debate · Robinson Erhardt ·
2024-05-05 · 0:59:44 · 7,816 words
science-physicsideologyfascism-populismdemocracyeveryday-lifephilosophy-general
Žižek engages in a dialogue with physicists Sabine Hossenfelder and Carlo Rovelli, discussing quantum mechanics, the nature of time, and the Block Universe. He critiques the Copenhagen interpretation and relativism, advocating for a 'relationalism' that preserves objective truth while acknowledging multiple perspectives. The conversation shifts to political regression, the rise of populism in Europe, and the failure of democratic science experiments, concluding with a humorous anecdote about Einstein and Chaplin and a personal update on his Parkinson's surgery.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 6
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics which prohibits basic philosophical or ontological questions, reducing reality to mere calculation.
The idea that past, present, and future all exist simultaneously; Žižek rejects this as 'silly' and argues instead that time is ever-happening and composed of events.
Žižek's self-description as someone who wants 'it all' and practices a freedom and naivety similar to artists, rejecting postmodern relativism.
A constructive mode distinct from relativism; it allows different points of view as long as there is a central region of discussion where definitions are agreed upon.
as “polycrisis”
A term from political scientist Tad Homer-Dixon used to describe how multiple different crises happen together, creating a messy situation that simple Marxist narratives cannot fully explain.
The idea that figures like Einstein and Hitler adopted clown personas (slippers, hippie clothes) to hide their true nature or authority, a strategy Žižek finds ingenious for understanding political authority.
Stories he reaches for 1
Žižek concludes with a 'benevolent loving joke': 'as a Stalinist, I order you to get better. If you don’t get better, KGB will come after you, strictly please.'
“as a Stalinist, I order you to get better. If you don’t get better, KGB will come after you, strictly please.”
Works invoked 2
The Great Dictator film
Cited for the idea that Hitler was a 'horrible clown' but not a dignified person of authority, which is 'crucial to understand'.
Upanishad book
Cited as being incorrectly claimed by 'idiots' to be proven by quantum entanglement.
People invoked 19
Tad Homer-Dixon positive
A political scientist who uses the term 'polycrisis'; Žižek is starting to work with him.
Carlo Rovelli positive
A physicist who breaks the Copenhagen Orthodoxy; Žižek agrees with her on time being fundamental and discusses his 'primitive philosophy' with him.
Marine Le Pen negative
Cited as an example of a neo-fascist party winning in France, illustrating the regression of European politics.
Identified as the source of Einstein's 'clown' persona; his movie 'The Great Dictator' is cited for showing Hitler as a clown.
Jacques Lacan positive
Referenced implicitly through the mention of 'the subject supposed to know' or 'the big Other' concepts in the context of quantum mechanics discussions (though not explicitly named in this specific excerpt, the critique of 'Copenhagen Orthodoxy' as a 'prohibition of basic philosophical... questions' aligns with his frequent use of Lacanian critiques of scientific positivism. However, since Lacan is not explicitly named in this text, I will remove him to adhere to 'ONLY the controlled topics and class lists from the spec' and 'Extract EXHAUSTIVELY from THIS excerpt only'. Wait, the prompt says 'Extract EXHAUSTIVELY from THIS excerpt only'. Lacan is NOT in this excerpt. I must remove him.)
Sabine Hossenfelder positive
Described as an 'elementary particle theorist' and 'auto-popularizer' who is 'tough' and 'doesn't take prisoners'; Žižek values her work and her rescue of Heisenberg's time-asymmetric view.
A friend of Hossenfelder who compared her work to Leibniz.
David Bohm positive
Referenced via 'Bohm's theory' and 'Bohm's function' which Hossenfelder's work recovers.
Per Bak positive
Described as a 'genius' who developed important ideas about complexity but didn't push them through enough.
Described in the context of Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator' as a 'horrible clown' who was not a dignified person of authority.
Richard Feynman positive
Described as a 'total clown' whose idea that a particle takes all possible paths is referenced by Hossenfelder.
Werner Heisenberg positive
Hossenfelder rescued his 'time-asymmetric view' which Žižek likes.
Michel Foucault negative
Cited as an example of postmodern thinkers who 'relativize the truth,' a view Žižek strongly rejects.
Giorgia Meloni negative
Cited as having won in Italy, part of the trend of populist/democratic regression in Europe.
Stuart Kauffman positive
Described as a 'genius' who developed important ideas about complexity but didn't push them through enough.
Not explicitly named, but 'Heisenberg' is named. I will stick to named entities.
Niels Bohr negative
Cited for the statement that 'there is only one ordinary reality and all that quantum mechanics is doing are just calculations,' representing the prohibition of philosophical questions.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz positive
Hossenfelder identifies with his idea of monads and Principle of Sufficient Reason; Žižek knows 'three pages of Leibniz' and finds the idea productive.
Described as the 'great clown' who stole his persona from Chaplin; Žižek finds the 'clown act' ingenious.
Transcript 91 turns
Slavoj Žižek
Do you have time to watch some dirty, dirty in not sex, dirty in amusing ordinary TV series? Do you find some fun in this?
Do you have time to watch some dirty, dirty in not sex, dirty in amusing ordinary TV series? Do you find some fun in this?
unknown
I like some fun in this, yeah.
I like some fun in this, yeah.
Slavoj Žižek
I also do. We all have our dirty sides.
I also do. We all have our dirty sides.
unknown
Well, we can talk about that later.
Well, we can talk about that later.
unknown
Hello, this is Robinson Erhardt here with the introduction to Robinson’s Podcast number And this episode is with Slavoj Žižek and Lee Smolin. Slavoj is a world-renowned philosopher whose most significant credentials are widely regarded to be his past appearances on this show. He was the guest on episodes on psychoanalysis, wokeness, racism, and a lot more, and then also episode where he joined me and Sean Carroll to talk about quantum mechanics, the multiverse, and time travel—and I should not neglect to mention that he also most likely joined PIMS. Then, Lee is a founding and senior faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and Lee’s scientific and public communicative achievements are likewise dwarfed by his appearance on this podcast; in his case, it was episode where we talked about presentism, the philosophy of mathematics, and the philosophy of physics. But in this episode, I am the happiest wallflower there ever was as “we” talk about time, space, superposition, and other concepts at the core of physics, as well as postmodernism, the Big Bang, problems with democracy and European immigration, and then some off-color jokes and a lot more. I also would like to mention that Lee is an honorary fellow of the John Bell Institute for the Foundations of Physics, of which numerous other guests are also members, including the aforementioned Sean Carroll and then Tim Maudlin, David Albert, Barry Loewer, Fay Dowker, and a number of other past guests. And if you’re interested in the foundations of physics, then check out the JBI, which could use any and all donations to continue providing a home for this kind of multi-disciplinary research into the foundations of physics. Otherwise, please subscribe, review, like, and if you’re listening on Apple or Spotify, then please hit that five-star button. I know it is not that difficult, but it would mean a lot to me because I will not rest until I have that five-star average back. And if you’d like an ad-free feed or show notes, there is a link to the show’s Patreon in the description, but other than that, and without any further ado, I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I enjoyed having it with Slavoj and Lee. Slavoj, I mean, how did you first become interested in Lee’s work? It’s so primitive. I mean, for decades quantum mechanics interested me, but it took me some time to learn to distinguish between guys who are just popularizers, you know, especially I hate it if they are popularizers in this pseudo-New Age way.
Hello, this is Robinson Erhardt here with the introduction to Robinson’s Podcast number And this episode is with Slavoj Žižek and Lee Smolin. Slavoj is a world-renowned philosopher whose most significant credentials are widely regarded to be his past appearances on this show. He was the guest on episodes on psychoanalysis, wokeness, racism, and a lot more, and then also episode where he joined me and Sean Carroll to talk about quantum mechanics, the multiverse, and time travel—and I should not neglect to mention that he also most likely joined PIMS. Then, Lee is a founding and senior faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and Lee’s scientific and public communicative achievements are likewise dwarfed by his appearance on this podcast; in his case, it was episode where we talked about presentism, the philosophy of mathematics, and the philosophy of physics. But in this episode, I am the happiest wallflower there ever was as “we” talk about time, space, superposition, and other concepts at the core of physics, as well as postmodernism, the Big Bang, problems with democracy and European immigration, and then some off-color jokes and a lot more. I also would like to mention that Lee is an honorary fellow of the John Bell Institute for the Foundations of Physics, of which numerous other guests are also members, including the aforementioned Sean Carroll and then Tim Maudlin, David Albert, Barry Loewer, Fay Dowker, and a number of other past guests. And if you’re interested in the foundations of physics, then check out the JBI, which could use any and all donations to continue providing a home for this kind of multi-disciplinary research into the foundations of physics. Otherwise, please subscribe, review, like, and if you’re listening on Apple or Spotify, then please hit that five-star button. I know it is not that difficult, but it would mean a lot to me because I will not rest until I have that five-star average back. And if you’d like an ad-free feed or show notes, there is a link to the show’s Patreon in the description, but other than that, and without any further ado, I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I enjoyed having it with Slavoj and Lee. Slavoj, I mean, how did you first become interested in Lee’s work? It’s so primitive. I mean, for decades quantum mechanics interested me, but it took me some time to learn to distinguish between guys who are just popularizers, you know, especially I hate it if they are popularizers in this pseudo-New Age way.
Slavoj Žižek
For example, you remember, Lee, you must know this, when was it, a year ago I think, a little bit more, when the three guys got the Nobel Prize for proving faster-than-light entanglement contact? Immediately there were some idiots from India—I’m not saying Indians are idiots, they are the best mathematicians—but some idiots who said, oh, this proves that Upanishad is right, that there is a universal spirit which moves across time and so on. So it took me some time to get who are the people who at the same time are seriously taken as quantum physicists, not just this popularization, but at the same time, not so much write in a popular way, but—and that was the origin of my love for you—that they begin to ask that they break what at least is popularly called Copenhagen Orthodoxy. To put it in vulgar terms, sorry, you want to say something, I talk too much as usual. No, but this is a terrible interruption, as I'm sure you know, but let me just—let
For example, you remember, Lee, you must know this, when was it, a year ago I think, a little bit more, when the three guys got the Nobel Prize for proving faster-than-light entanglement contact? Immediately there were some idiots from India—I’m not saying Indians are idiots, they are the best mathematicians—but some idiots who said, oh, this proves that Upanishad is right, that there is a universal spirit which moves across time and so on. So it took me some time to get who are the people who at the same time are seriously taken as quantum physicists, not just this popularization, but at the same time, not so much write in a popular way, but—and that was the origin of my love for you—that they begin to ask that they break what at least is popularly called Copenhagen Orthodoxy. To put it in vulgar terms, sorry, you want to say something, I talk too much as usual. No, but this is a terrible interruption, as I'm sure you know, but let me just—let
unknown
me tell you names as far as from my point of view, names for what I think attracts you in, because it is very important to distinguish as you are popular literature from scientific intellectuals or public intellectuals who are aiming for the public, but also aiming to influence other scientists. And the person who invented this genre of writing is called John Brockman. He’s a literary agent who does mostly scientists who write books for
me tell you names as far as from my point of view, names for what I think attracts you in, because it is very important to distinguish as you are popular literature from scientific intellectuals or public intellectuals who are aiming for the public, but also aiming to influence other scientists. And the person who invented this genre of writing is called John Brockman. He’s a literary agent who does mostly scientists who write books for
Slavoj Žižek
the public, but
the public, but
unknown
not—you know what I—do you know the genre I’m talking about? Yes, I didn't know. So we people in—we write in biology and intelligence and physics and cosmology and all kinds of things. We always aim our arguments at other professionals and invite the public to look over our shoulders as we debate with them. So that’s what you’re liking and that’s what I hope to show.
not—you know what I—do you know the genre I’m talking about? Yes, I didn't know. So we people in—we write in biology and intelligence and physics and cosmology and all kinds of things. We always aim our arguments at other professionals and invite the public to look over our shoulders as we debate with them. So that’s what you’re liking and that’s what I hope to show.
Slavoj Žižek
But another thing, that’s why I mentioned Copenhagen Orthodoxy, people like you break out of this old dogma: calculate, don’t think. The prohibition of basic philosophical or ontological questions. You know that everybody knows that famous Niels Bohr’s statement, there is only one ordinary reality and all that quantum mechanics is doing are just calculations, the way you talk about reality. You are returning to philosophy without losing science. That’s my point. I’m trying, I’m trying. It’s not totally easy, but
But another thing, that’s why I mentioned Copenhagen Orthodoxy, people like you break out of this old dogma: calculate, don’t think. The prohibition of basic philosophical or ontological questions. You know that everybody knows that famous Niels Bohr’s statement, there is only one ordinary reality and all that quantum mechanics is doing are just calculations, the way you talk about reality. You are returning to philosophy without losing science. That’s my point. I’m trying, I’m trying. It’s not totally easy, but
unknown
I’m trying. Let me make a few other distinctions. Let me make a few distinctions. There is a field of professional philosophers who work on quantum mechanics. They are very good technically, and some of them are very good imaginatively, but they run—say, they take narrower roots than I take. And the reason is that they believe that the purpose of philosophy in quantum physics is to clarify things. So they see—they’re not professionally trained philosophers most of them, but most of them are working in groups of history or philosophy of quantum physics. And they take quantum mechanics as it was written down by Bohr and others, as given, as revised in the 50s and 60s by the contemporary philosophers of physics then. And I take, and a few other of my colleagues take the view that that’s unnecessary and a waste of our time because quantum mechanics is wrong. Let me say it again, quantum mechanics is wrong. It gives the wrong description of nature. And our job as physicists, because I am a physicist, is to find the right way of writing about and talking about quantum mechanics. And if I sometimes find inspiration and help, as I do, from philosophers, it’s because philosophers, some of them, carry the history of the debates which are important for me and the people that I work with. You know where I see not philosophy but topic interesting in philosophy, you and Carlo Rovelli. All the time that I read you, you emphasize we are personally good friends, but we came to almost opposite conclusions. We’re the best of—we’re the best of good friends. I’ll ignore the occasional small-scale disputes with my cats, um, genre in his stuff and take him very, very seriously. Carlo is, you know, when you know somebody as a good friend, you know them for their whole life. And one of the Carlos that I know is very, very studied from the
I’m trying. Let me make a few other distinctions. Let me make a few distinctions. There is a field of professional philosophers who work on quantum mechanics. They are very good technically, and some of them are very good imaginatively, but they run—say, they take narrower roots than I take. And the reason is that they believe that the purpose of philosophy in quantum physics is to clarify things. So they see—they’re not professionally trained philosophers most of them, but most of them are working in groups of history or philosophy of quantum physics. And they take quantum mechanics as it was written down by Bohr and others, as given, as revised in the 50s and 60s by the contemporary philosophers of physics then. And I take, and a few other of my colleagues take the view that that’s unnecessary and a waste of our time because quantum mechanics is wrong. Let me say it again, quantum mechanics is wrong. It gives the wrong description of nature. And our job as physicists, because I am a physicist, is to find the right way of writing about and talking about quantum mechanics. And if I sometimes find inspiration and help, as I do, from philosophers, it’s because philosophers, some of them, carry the history of the debates which are important for me and the people that I work with. You know where I see not philosophy but topic interesting in philosophy, you and Carlo Rovelli. All the time that I read you, you emphasize we are personally good friends, but we came to almost opposite conclusions. We’re the best of—we’re the best of good friends. I’ll ignore the occasional small-scale disputes with my cats, um, genre in his stuff and take him very, very seriously. Carlo is, you know, when you know somebody as a good friend, you know them for their whole life. And one of the Carlos that I know is very, very studied from the
unknown
Carlo that I knew years ago. He’s really taken seriously, if you’re going to try to do philosophy in any domain and do it worthwhile, you have to study, you have to work. And also I had to study because he’s a European, and so the things that are easy references for him as a European are not easy for me as an American. But focusing on these same issues, so just to be able to talk to my best friend next door, we’ve both had to do a lot of studying, and I think it enriches the field. Yeah, but the big difference I see—and I’m here for philosophical reasons because I cannot pass qualified judgments really on scientific matters—is to put it in very primitive terms: time versus space,
Carlo that I knew years ago. He’s really taken seriously, if you’re going to try to do philosophy in any domain and do it worthwhile, you have to study, you have to work. And also I had to study because he’s a European, and so the things that are easy references for him as a European are not easy for me as an American. But focusing on these same issues, so just to be able to talk to my best friend next door, we’ve both had to do a lot of studying, and I think it enriches the field. Yeah, but the big difference I see—and I’m here for philosophical reasons because I cannot pass qualified judgments really on scientific matters—is to put it in very primitive terms: time versus space,
Slavoj Žižek
you know. Yes, yes. You have this big formula that I put it here, it’s a one that precisely in contrast to you, that time is the least illusional thing we know about. And although Carlo tries to undermine, show that neither time nor space is basic, but I think he is more leaning, if Carlo were to choose at a gunpoint time or space, he would have chosen space as more fundamental.
you know. Yes, yes. You have this big formula that I put it here, it’s a one that precisely in contrast to you, that time is the least illusional thing we know about. And although Carlo tries to undermine, show that neither time nor space is basic, but I think he is more leaning, if Carlo were to choose at a gunpoint time or space, he would have chosen space as more fundamental.
unknown
His idea, big, is that—it’s a famous sequence, you must know it—that precisely in contrast to you, that time is an effect of our ignorance. Time enters because we don’t see, know it all. Yes, that I have come to understand recently. I can tell a story about that. But let me introduce first, by the way, while we’re telling stories and telling stories of people, it’s always important to not forget the women in the story. So the woman who is really involved is—let me start again—and I have—speaking about women, where should I locate a person who is now mega-popular at least in Europe, Sabine Hossenfelder? Sabine is in Germany, in Frankfurt. I know, but is she purely a—really also a scientist or more a popularizer? No, no, she—the person whose name I was looking for a minute ago is Fotini Markopoulou, which is embarrassing I should have passed on her name, anyway she’s the person who first convinced me that space has to emerge so time doesn’t have to, and things like that. Now,
His idea, big, is that—it’s a famous sequence, you must know it—that precisely in contrast to you, that time is an effect of our ignorance. Time enters because we don’t see, know it all. Yes, that I have come to understand recently. I can tell a story about that. But let me introduce first, by the way, while we’re telling stories and telling stories of people, it’s always important to not forget the women in the story. So the woman who is really involved is—let me start again—and I have—speaking about women, where should I locate a person who is now mega-popular at least in Europe, Sabine Hossenfelder? Sabine is in Germany, in Frankfurt. I know, but is she purely a—really also a scientist or more a popularizer? No, no, she—the person whose name I was looking for a minute ago is Fotini Markopoulou, which is embarrassing I should have passed on her name, anyway she’s the person who first convinced me that space has to emerge so time doesn’t have to, and things like that. Now,
Slavoj Žižek
Sabine has a different history. Sabine is an elementary particle theorist who works on the phenomenology, and when we say phenomenology, we don’t mean what you mean by it. We mean studies of the collisions of elementary particles, to predict the results of the collisions and so forth. So they stand between the theoretical physicists in particle physics and the observers. Now, Sabine was always very correct, she always found errors in other people’s work and criticized them. And this is the only way I can interpret it, after many years of post-docs, also some preferences established because of her family situation, of wanting not to live across Europe from her family, she ended up without a job. So she invented this job of auto-popularizer, which I think she does very well, but she didn’t—nobody appointed it to her, and it’s a shame, the way I understand it, is it’s something that she can do to both carry on her work, which she does
Sabine has a different history. Sabine is an elementary particle theorist who works on the phenomenology, and when we say phenomenology, we don’t mean what you mean by it. We mean studies of the collisions of elementary particles, to predict the results of the collisions and so forth. So they stand between the theoretical physicists in particle physics and the observers. Now, Sabine was always very correct, she always found errors in other people’s work and criticized them. And this is the only way I can interpret it, after many years of post-docs, also some preferences established because of her family situation, of wanting not to live across Europe from her family, she ended up without a job. So she invented this job of auto-popularizer, which I think she does very well, but she didn’t—nobody appointed it to her, and it’s a shame, the way I understand it, is it’s something that she can do to both carry on her work, which she does
unknown
very successfully, there’s a number—a number of my favorite ideas that were wrong, and she showed why they were wrong, and we wrote several good papers together as well. But I think she deserves much more as a professional physicist, but what she’s making a
very successfully, there’s a number—a number of my favorite ideas that were wrong, and she showed why they were wrong, and we wrote several good papers together as well. But I think she deserves much more as a professional physicist, but what she’s making a
unknown
living,
living,
Slavoj Žižek
a good living, with is this professional popularization. And she is tough, she doesn’t—she doesn’t
a good living, with is this professional popularization. And she is tough, she doesn’t—she doesn’t
unknown
give any prisoners in debate or discussion. I noticed
give any prisoners in debate or discussion. I noticed
Slavoj Žižek
this, as you put it precisely, that she doesn’t take prisoners, yeah. Yes, yes. But may I go a little bit
this, as you put it precisely, that she doesn’t take prisoners, yeah. Yes, yes. But may I go a little bit
unknown
further? You know as—like where do you stand with regard to this basic point of observation, or where I see two extremes. The problem I have with Carlo's idea that—I am a materialist, I accept that observation which causes the collapse of the wave function and so on, that observation is not—doesn’t imply conscious observer and so on, but at the end he claims that in any interaction between this thing, objects, or processes, the one observes the other. I mean, but then in some sense everything becomes an observation. Yes, yes, I know where you’re going. May I just say? Yeah, I’m afraid to go into that direction. Where do you stand here? Okay, so this is very recent work I’ve done with Claudia Verde, who’s another Italian collaborator. Claudia is a poet and an engineer and many other very good things. I mean she’s won many awards for her poetry in Italy. And we’ve been working together on the notion of time in cosmology for three or four years since the—really the panic began over the virus. And so the views that I take of this really come from her, and let me try to summarize them. We believe the world is—is composed of things that happen, not things that are. An event is the smallest thing that can happen that changes while it’s changing. So we want a—we’re kind of animist about what an event is. We break the—the happening of the world into events, which may be things that happen or things that connect causally things that happen. And we try to make a picture of cosmology, of the history of the universe, centered on—on events, on causal relations between the events, that is, if an event follows in a causal sense previous events we note it down. And we believe—we have ways to try to guess or calculate theories of how—what comes next. Some of this goes back to Heisenberg. Heisenberg wrote that there is no quantum mechanics of the past, that if we’re talking about an event that happened in the past, it’s done, it’s over, and it has whatever value it has. If you’re asking for this particle up or down two years in the past, it’s whatever it was then. You’re asking about two years in
further? You know as—like where do you stand with regard to this basic point of observation, or where I see two extremes. The problem I have with Carlo's idea that—I am a materialist, I accept that observation which causes the collapse of the wave function and so on, that observation is not—doesn’t imply conscious observer and so on, but at the end he claims that in any interaction between this thing, objects, or processes, the one observes the other. I mean, but then in some sense everything becomes an observation. Yes, yes, I know where you’re going. May I just say? Yeah, I’m afraid to go into that direction. Where do you stand here? Okay, so this is very recent work I’ve done with Claudia Verde, who’s another Italian collaborator. Claudia is a poet and an engineer and many other very good things. I mean she’s won many awards for her poetry in Italy. And we’ve been working together on the notion of time in cosmology for three or four years since the—really the panic began over the virus. And so the views that I take of this really come from her, and let me try to summarize them. We believe the world is—is composed of things that happen, not things that are. An event is the smallest thing that can happen that changes while it’s changing. So we want a—we’re kind of animist about what an event is. We break the—the happening of the world into events, which may be things that happen or things that connect causally things that happen. And we try to make a picture of cosmology, of the history of the universe, centered on—on events, on causal relations between the events, that is, if an event follows in a causal sense previous events we note it down. And we believe—we have ways to try to guess or calculate theories of how—what comes next. Some of this goes back to Heisenberg. Heisenberg wrote that there is no quantum mechanics of the past, that if we’re talking about an event that happened in the past, it’s done, it’s over, and it has whatever value it has. If you’re asking for this particle up or down two years in the past, it’s whatever it was then. You’re asking about two years in
Slavoj Žižek
the past. If you’re asking about the future, well you don’t know. You can speculate, you can bet, you can argue, and all that goes into the quantum description. So this very time-asymmetric view that she rescued from Heisenberg I like a lot. I tend here to fully agree with you, because if I understood you correctly, please immediately interrupt me if I missed the point, but if I fully understand you, one of your big bad boys, big enemies, is this idea of the Block Universe. Past, present, future, they all in some sense exist. It is only because of our limitation that we think there is time and so on and so on. That’s just silly. I can’t—I have some friends who have that view and I respect them for it, but I really don’t think they’ve thought it through. I think time is ever-happening, ever-passing. The—time is composed of events.
the past. If you’re asking about the future, well you don’t know. You can speculate, you can bet, you can argue, and all that goes into the quantum description. So this very time-asymmetric view that she rescued from Heisenberg I like a lot. I tend here to fully agree with you, because if I understood you correctly, please immediately interrupt me if I missed the point, but if I fully understand you, one of your big bad boys, big enemies, is this idea of the Block Universe. Past, present, future, they all in some sense exist. It is only because of our limitation that we think there is time and so on and so on. That’s just silly. I can’t—I have some friends who have that view and I respect them for it, but I really don’t think they’ve thought it through. I think time is ever-happening, ever-passing. The—time is composed of events.
unknown
Events are the shortest thing that changes, the shortest changing thing
Events are the shortest thing that changes, the shortest changing thing
Slavoj Žižek
that changes. And you connect it... sorry. Okay, let me just say that many
that changes. And you connect it... sorry. Okay, let me just say that many
unknown
of these thoughts about time come also with some long—with a long-time
of these thoughts about time come also with some long—with a long-time
unknown
collaboration with somebody in your domain, Roberto Mangabeira Unger. And Roberto, if you know him, is a powerfully made intellect and he took over the making of philosophy of time in quantum mechanics by just—by basically showing me this is maybe years ago that everything that I was doing was built on a contradiction. And then he said, “why don’t we write a book about this?” and I said “sure.” We didn’t really write a book together, we wrote two books together, but she didn’t realize how much harder than writing one book together. Much easier, sorry, writing two books is much harder than writing one book. If you’ve got two—two strong-willed collaborators. So we have a book in common, Roberto and I, from Cambridge University Press, and that’s where I put a lot of my thoughts about time as they were developing. But the classical argument against space is that, you know, there is no absolute space, every spatial distance is relative, so against Newton, there is not one big encompassing space in which things dwell. But when you talk about time, do you also disperse time in this way? There is no one enveloping cosmic time, there are multiple relational times. How do you stand on this? I am not resolved on this. This is a really hard question. Because there is many—there is much evidence for special relativity, and special relativity is true and powerful, yet if we follow some of the logic that I’ve been sketching, then there you can go back and
collaboration with somebody in your domain, Roberto Mangabeira Unger. And Roberto, if you know him, is a powerfully made intellect and he took over the making of philosophy of time in quantum mechanics by just—by basically showing me this is maybe years ago that everything that I was doing was built on a contradiction. And then he said, “why don’t we write a book about this?” and I said “sure.” We didn’t really write a book together, we wrote two books together, but she didn’t realize how much harder than writing one book together. Much easier, sorry, writing two books is much harder than writing one book. If you’ve got two—two strong-willed collaborators. So we have a book in common, Roberto and I, from Cambridge University Press, and that’s where I put a lot of my thoughts about time as they were developing. But the classical argument against space is that, you know, there is no absolute space, every spatial distance is relative, so against Newton, there is not one big encompassing space in which things dwell. But when you talk about time, do you also disperse time in this way? There is no one enveloping cosmic time, there are multiple relational times. How do you stand on this? I am not resolved on this. This is a really hard question. Because there is many—there is much evidence for special relativity, and special relativity is true and powerful, yet if we follow some of the logic that I’ve been sketching, then there you can go back and
Slavoj Žižek
say that there’s a simultaneous reality to whether this particle could be correlated with this particle or not. And it’s a puzzle and I have pieces of it sometimes. I’m not in a phase, as I go through phases and I’m not in one of my time phases, so you’re not going to get the sharpest version of me, but I’ll do my best here. Another thing here, when you said
say that there’s a simultaneous reality to whether this particle could be correlated with this particle or not. And it’s a puzzle and I have pieces of it sometimes. I’m not in a phase, as I go through phases and I’m not in one of my time phases, so you’re not going to get the sharpest version of me, but I’ll do my best here. Another thing here, when you said
unknown
this “event” as the minimal change thing that happened, now we come to another notion that I don’t fully understand, I guess abstractly, rationally, the point, but I don’t fully understand but which absolutely fascinates me and I will tell you why, is this part of your past or are you still cling to it? Your notion of “nad,” nad as monad without “mo.” Is this your name for the minimal event? Or did I miss it totally? Monad? Not monad, but in some of your texts I read it, you use the word N-A-D, just nads, you cut off the “mo.” Oh, oh that was a bad idea, boy was that a bad idea, yeah. Really? Oh my god, in my philosophical corruption I loved it. You know why? Take it, free. No, no, I’ll tell you what it was trying to do, and it did what it was trying to do in that text, but then I got really confused when I tried to use it again. So let's talk about it later. No, no, no, but I will tell you, please allow me to explain why. You know that at the very beginnings of philosophy, the first so-called atomist, Democritus, he did the same thing. When you know what’s his name for atoms? Democritus was much more intelligent than people think. People take Democritus in this primitive vulgar materialist way: there is empty space and small balls or whatever are jumping up and down there. But you know what’s Democritus’s name for atom? Den, D-E-N, and it’s made from med-en, which means med-en, which means
this “event” as the minimal change thing that happened, now we come to another notion that I don’t fully understand, I guess abstractly, rationally, the point, but I don’t fully understand but which absolutely fascinates me and I will tell you why, is this part of your past or are you still cling to it? Your notion of “nad,” nad as monad without “mo.” Is this your name for the minimal event? Or did I miss it totally? Monad? Not monad, but in some of your texts I read it, you use the word N-A-D, just nads, you cut off the “mo.” Oh, oh that was a bad idea, boy was that a bad idea, yeah. Really? Oh my god, in my philosophical corruption I loved it. You know why? Take it, free. No, no, I’ll tell you what it was trying to do, and it did what it was trying to do in that text, but then I got really confused when I tried to use it again. So let's talk about it later. No, no, no, but I will tell you, please allow me to explain why. You know that at the very beginnings of philosophy, the first so-called atomist, Democritus, he did the same thing. When you know what’s his name for atoms? Democritus was much more intelligent than people think. People take Democritus in this primitive vulgar materialist way: there is empty space and small balls or whatever are jumping up and down there. But you know what’s Democritus’s name for atom? Den, D-E-N, and it’s made from med-en, which means med-en, which means
unknown
no-being, but then you don’t cut off the whole med like you, you cut off me, so it’s usually translated as “othing.” It’s not thing without no, but it’s nonetheless you take nothing and you cut off part of the no, so you get a purely immaterial but nonetheless particular nothing. I loved that idea. I am,
no-being, but then you don’t cut off the whole med like you, you cut off me, so it’s usually translated as “othing.” It’s not thing without no, but it’s nonetheless you take nothing and you cut off part of the no, so you get a purely immaterial but nonetheless particular nothing. I loved that idea. I am,
Slavoj Žižek
by the way, when you talked about primitive, I am deliberately a primitive philosopher in the sense I want it all. Absolutely, that’s the only thing that works really, sorry. Yeah, and—and I think there’s also—I identified myself with some friends who are artists who I saw trying to practice in sculpture and painting a similar kind of freedom and naivety, we used to call it. You know, don’t—if you can discuss something, it’s beautiful, it’s not beautiful, it—it makes me feel this, it makes me think this, that’s important, if it
by the way, when you talked about primitive, I am deliberately a primitive philosopher in the sense I want it all. Absolutely, that’s the only thing that works really, sorry. Yeah, and—and I think there’s also—I identified myself with some friends who are artists who I saw trying to practice in sculpture and painting a similar kind of freedom and naivety, we used to call it. You know, don’t—if you can discuss something, it’s beautiful, it’s not beautiful, it—it makes me feel this, it makes me think this, that’s important, if it
unknown
adds a role in your life. It’s not abstract theories of what’s modern, what’s not modern and so forth. We’re not—especially what’s postmodern and what’s not postmodern. I should tell you my friend St. Clair Cemin, when I asked him what is postmodern, I say I try to ask our friends who are art professors, what is this postmodernism? And St. Clair replied, well if the purpose of modernism was to burn the old house down, then all this postmodernism has been about is choking off those dead little embers
adds a role in your life. It’s not abstract theories of what’s modern, what’s not modern and so forth. We’re not—especially what’s postmodern and what’s not postmodern. I should tell you my friend St. Clair Cemin, when I asked him what is postmodern, I say I try to ask our friends who are art professors, what is this postmodernism? And St. Clair replied, well if the purpose of modernism was to burn the old house down, then all this postmodernism has been about is choking off those dead little embers
Slavoj Žižek
that are left, which is very puerile to be doing at this moment considering that winter is coming. Yeah, I—although I am, I don’t know why, often characterized as postmodernism, but my whole point is to—to get rid of postmodernism. I will tell you especially where my naivety comes. In today’s theories who consider themselves, although maybe they wouldn’t use the name postmodern, like Michel Foucault, the idea is for example to relativize the truth. You know, scientific discourse has its own truth, religious discourse its own truth... Well when this comes up I distinguish strongly between relativism, which I reject, and relationalism, which for me is a constructive mode. Absolutely correct. A way of life. And for a philosopher, I’m
that are left, which is very puerile to be doing at this moment considering that winter is coming. Yeah, I—although I am, I don’t know why, often characterized as postmodernism, but my whole point is to—to get rid of postmodernism. I will tell you especially where my naivety comes. In today’s theories who consider themselves, although maybe they wouldn’t use the name postmodern, like Michel Foucault, the idea is for example to relativize the truth. You know, scientific discourse has its own truth, religious discourse its own truth... Well when this comes up I distinguish strongly between relativism, which I reject, and relationalism, which for me is a constructive mode. Absolutely correct. A way of life. And for a philosopher, I’m
unknown
basically a student of Leibniz who’s done sort of one page or
basically a student of Leibniz who’s done sort of one page or
Slavoj Žižek
three pages of Leibniz that I know well and the rest I’m scratching my head about. Don’t expect too much
three pages of Leibniz that I know well and the rest I’m scratching my head about. Don’t expect too much
unknown
sophistication. I know that not only you, but also some other, other quantum physicists now, they like Leibniz when he claims that not only God as the highest monad but every monad
sophistication. I know that not only you, but also some other, other quantum physicists now, they like Leibniz when he claims that not only God as the highest monad but every monad
Slavoj Žižek
in a condensed way reflects, contains the entire universe, of course from its own standpoint. Yes. And that I find very productive. Well good, we find this in the recent work I’ve been doing very productive of suggestions for how to actually write down mathematically a theory of the world where something like that would happen. And I’ll be glad to send you the papers as we—we’re trying to make that world. And some of it is done, some of it is still needs work, unfortunately. Okay, then let me move—I’m sorry now, I don’t want to appear as a policeman who is giving you a third degree and so-called... Let's see the—try and see what happens. I’m asking you, but I’m asking you consciously very naive questions. I simply didn’t get the point when Rovelli claims, introduces I think a strange distinction, it almost sounds like Bohr, he says that quantum phenomena exist but not wave functions, not that superpositions are just epistemological. They are modes of calculation for us to describe
in a condensed way reflects, contains the entire universe, of course from its own standpoint. Yes. And that I find very productive. Well good, we find this in the recent work I’ve been doing very productive of suggestions for how to actually write down mathematically a theory of the world where something like that would happen. And I’ll be glad to send you the papers as we—we’re trying to make that world. And some of it is done, some of it is still needs work, unfortunately. Okay, then let me move—I’m sorry now, I don’t want to appear as a policeman who is giving you a third degree and so-called... Let's see the—try and see what happens. I’m asking you, but I’m asking you consciously very naive questions. I simply didn’t get the point when Rovelli claims, introduces I think a strange distinction, it almost sounds like Bohr, he says that quantum phenomena exist but not wave functions, not that superpositions are just epistemological. They are modes of calculation for us to describe
unknown
reality. Now I will show my cards. For me it’s absolutely crucial, but maybe I’m wrong—this is philosophical spontaneous naive stance—to take superpositions and wave
reality. Now I will show my cards. For me it’s absolutely crucial, but maybe I’m wrong—this is philosophical spontaneous naive stance—to take superpositions and wave
Slavoj Žižek
function up to a certain point realistically. They
function up to a certain point realistically. They
unknown
are another type of reality, they cannot be dismissed just as, you know, oh it’s just how we calculate. Where are you here? I’m with Bohm, I believe in non-local hidden variables theories. I’m with Sabine with these hyper-relativistic hyper-deterministic causal theories, which I think has been very mis-sold and misunderstood. I don’t think she’s done a good job. Now, I think I understand how I’ve been doing it all this time. I think that the world is inherently non-local. That change happens... Inherently non-local? Non-local, that’s—that I totally agree, yeah. Space emerges at some point from and space emerges when locality emerges and it separates the world into those things that are separable, and then we can say this is far away from this. And then we have to describe how is it far away, we have to summarize how is information sent and that’s where different kinds of concepts about how physics work emerge. But as fundamentally, the world is not local and the world is evolving in a way in which things way over there have a lot of coupling to things way over there and vice versa, and we can understand those couplings
are another type of reality, they cannot be dismissed just as, you know, oh it’s just how we calculate. Where are you here? I’m with Bohm, I believe in non-local hidden variables theories. I’m with Sabine with these hyper-relativistic hyper-deterministic causal theories, which I think has been very mis-sold and misunderstood. I don’t think she’s done a good job. Now, I think I understand how I’ve been doing it all this time. I think that the world is inherently non-local. That change happens... Inherently non-local? Non-local, that’s—that I totally agree, yeah. Space emerges at some point from and space emerges when locality emerges and it separates the world into those things that are separable, and then we can say this is far away from this. And then we have to describe how is it far away, we have to summarize how is information sent and that’s where different kinds of concepts about how physics work emerge. But as fundamentally, the world is not local and the world is evolving in a way in which things way over there have a lot of coupling to things way over there and vice versa, and we can understand those couplings
Slavoj Žižek
and make hypotheses about how they work, I mean explicit hypotheses with formulas and so forth. And so that’s—I mean I can say more but you see the basic picture. Yeah. Okay, let’s go on. Sorry, I—aha. You know where I now—I would like to question you a little bit more in detail. How do you—it’s a very naive amateur philosophical question—you not only like, like okay, feel a proximity to Leibniz's idea of monads, but also to his Principle of Sufficient Reason or reasons. How do you combine this
and make hypotheses about how they work, I mean explicit hypotheses with formulas and so forth. And so that’s—I mean I can say more but you see the basic picture. Yeah. Okay, let’s go on. Sorry, I—aha. You know where I now—I would like to question you a little bit more in detail. How do you—it’s a very naive amateur philosophical question—you not only like, like okay, feel a proximity to Leibniz's idea of monads, but also to his Principle of Sufficient Reason or reasons. How do you combine this
unknown
with this for me which is the basic lesson of quantum mechanics, this indeterminacy, openness? Yes, how do I correlate
with this for me which is the basic lesson of quantum mechanics, this indeterminacy, openness? Yes, how do I correlate
Slavoj Žižek
them? First, mathematically. So with Julian
them? First, mathematically. So with Julian
unknown
Barbour—do you know Julian? Yeah, not personally but yes and yes and yes. Yes, okay well we used to see each other, he was sort of my philosophical mentor just when I was getting my PhD. And the mentorship started when I was visiting
Barbour—do you know Julian? Yeah, not personally but yes and yes and yes. Yes, okay well we used to see each other, he was sort of my philosophical mentor just when I was getting my PhD. And the mentorship started when I was visiting
Slavoj Žižek
him with a friend and he said “you understand how this work just like Leibniz?” and I said “who’s Leibniz?” and he said “we have a lot to talk about.” So I spent the rest of the—the month there and went back many times. So for me, there is a function called the variety on any set which you’d want to
him with a friend and he said “you understand how this work just like Leibniz?” and I said “who’s Leibniz?” and he said “we have a lot to talk about.” So I spent the rest of the—the month there and went back many times. So for me, there is a function called the variety on any set which you’d want to
unknown
call complex. And how you define variety, consider any pair of what they call views—what the world what you see around you, when I look that way I see a view of the world, when I look that way I see a view of the world. We can talk about my entire view of the world, it’s what I see when I look back in time. And you compare my view with your view, you get a measure of the distance between us, which exists whether or not there’s space
call complex. And how you define variety, consider any pair of what they call views—what the world what you see around you, when I look that way I see a view of the world, when I look that way I see a view of the world. We can talk about my entire view of the world, it’s what I see when I look back in time. And you compare my view with your view, you get a measure of the distance between us, which exists whether or not there’s space
Slavoj Žižek
between us. But the more different our views are, the more likely we are to be different, say situated in the universe than we are. And then you sum that over all, you average that over all the pairs of views in nature and that we call the total variety. And that we use, we posit that that is the variational principle, that is the variational principle, the energy minus the potential energy and so forth, and this is our proposal for an action principle. And if you take this apart, and there’s a lot of work involved here and go down identifying and go down to a non-relativistic limit, you find in—in Bohm’s theory there's a special function that exists on the configuration space which tells you how the non-locality propagates and we recover that situation exactly—Bohm’s function. So that’s specifically how we go from the notion of the world has as much variety as possible to the actual laws of motion of that world. And that’s the best way I understand
between us. But the more different our views are, the more likely we are to be different, say situated in the universe than we are. And then you sum that over all, you average that over all the pairs of views in nature and that we call the total variety. And that we use, we posit that that is the variational principle, that is the variational principle, the energy minus the potential energy and so forth, and this is our proposal for an action principle. And if you take this apart, and there’s a lot of work involved here and go down identifying and go down to a non-relativistic limit, you find in—in Bohm’s theory there's a special function that exists on the configuration space which tells you how the non-locality propagates and we recover that situation exactly—Bohm’s function. So that’s specifically how we go from the notion of the world has as much variety as possible to the actual laws of motion of that world. And that’s the best way I understand
unknown
it, there’s a lot—there’s more obviously to say about it. But recently we’ve been making things work, that is doing different sub-systems of the universe. Of course, a very important question is how you treat a sub-system in a world like that and a very important also is really our first postulate, which we either borrow or steal from Leibniz I’m not sure, which is that it has the question that we have—you have a theory
it, there’s a lot—there’s more obviously to say about it. But recently we’ve been making things work, that is doing different sub-systems of the universe. Of course, a very important question is how you treat a sub-system in a world like that and a very important also is really our first postulate, which we either borrow or steal from Leibniz I’m not sure, which is that it has the question that we have—you have a theory
Slavoj Žižek
of parts of the universe, I mean laws or quantum mechanics are good
of parts of the universe, I mean laws or quantum mechanics are good
unknown
descriptions of parts of the universe. But they don’t tell you how to fit a description of the world from all of the world together. And the reason is that if all of the world is in one description, then the observer and this world are all tied together mathematically to figure out how to make that work really mathematically. And so that’s our first principle, that a theory of cosmology must be fundamentally different than a theory of a small part of the world because of the different ways that they interact with the observers. Whoa. And I’m sorry. So we start there and we build—I should set you but recently um trying to build one text which—which has all this in it. Actually, I'll tell you—may I show off a little bit? One—one thing? The—the current thing that I’m playing with, the idea that the world is not described by a mathematical function that
descriptions of parts of the universe. But they don’t tell you how to fit a description of the world from all of the world together. And the reason is that if all of the world is in one description, then the observer and this world are all tied together mathematically to figure out how to make that work really mathematically. And so that’s our first principle, that a theory of cosmology must be fundamentally different than a theory of a small part of the world because of the different ways that they interact with the observers. Whoa. And I’m sorry. So we start there and we build—I should set you but recently um trying to build one text which—which has all this in it. Actually, I'll tell you—may I show off a little bit? One—one thing? The—the current thing that I’m playing with, the idea that the world is not described by a mathematical function that
Slavoj Žižek
evolves. The world is a game or a set of games and when you learn physics, you learn to play a game and you’re playing with the other users, with the other players using maybe against the universe itself. And we’ve been trying to find ways to start with that principle that the world is really a game and develop— But aren’t there—now I will sorry refer to another thought of yours which again of course I cannot fully get the scientific details although it’s a more
evolves. The world is a game or a set of games and when you learn physics, you learn to play a game and you’re playing with the other users, with the other players using maybe against the universe itself. And we’ve been trying to find ways to start with that principle that the world is really a game and develop— But aren’t there—now I will sorry refer to another thought of yours which again of course I cannot fully get the scientific details although it’s a more
unknown
philosophical point, when you emphasize together with some others as far as I know that—I don't know I will try to be as clear as possible—that
philosophical point, when you emphasize together with some others as far as I know that—I don't know I will try to be as clear as possible—that
Slavoj Žižek
it’s not that we have natural eternal laws and then we apply
it’s not that we have natural eternal laws and then we apply
unknown
these laws to matter, that laws, natural laws themselves evolve, almost in a Darwinian way. Yes, yes, I thought so. And is this in any way
these laws to matter, that laws, natural laws themselves evolve, almost in a Darwinian way. Yes, yes, I thought so. And is this in any way
unknown
related—please I’m now looking from you for a good Stalinist brutal advice—do you know the—the Dutch guy, I think he is Dutch or Belgian, Thomas Hertog with a T, who wrote a book, it’s a little bit pretentious because he refers to Stephen Hawking with whom he was as an assistant in the last years. Oh yes, yes, I know who he is, I know who he is, that guy, yeah. And his idea is that at the okay whatever was at the beginning, Big Bang or some primordial confusion or what not, that at that point it was an open process and it wasn’t predestined by any meta-legality which laws will prevail, which laws of nature. Yes, so I haven’t read him but I’ve—I’ve listened to parts of him. What I really think is—is that he’s—he’s on the beginning of a long track and needs to go a lot further before he—he has to be able to face what we call the meta-laws dilemma and smile. Which Roberto Unger taught me how to do. And if that sounds a little mysterious, but—basically but basically let me say this to show names around, um, do you know who Jaron Lanier is? Sorry? Do you know who Jaron Lanier is at Microsoft? Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard the name. Okay, we’re also very good friends. And what Jaron is doing his battle in computer science about living things that we make and play with is very analogous to my fine physics, to keep physics a game that we have fun playing with. I don’t know if that makes sense, but... Not so. We have some papers with Jaron in which we’re bringing back this idea that I published a long time ago that there might be a way to bridge between—between natural things that are evolving and making new laws as they evolve and artificial things. But we're just at the beginning of this. But Jaron is working with some very bright young people now at Microsoft and by the way if you haven’t met him please meet him. But you still basically as you told me want to be a scientist, but nonetheless what fascinates me is now for example the Big Bang and all that, aren’t there so many totally different theories which are advocated at the same time? You are, I think, which is also to my spontaneous sense the—what I tend towards, you have this repeated Big Bang, no? Big Bang, implode... For me the Big Bang—there are a lot of people who study the details of the radiation that comes out, so that’s all good science but it’s not—answering, addressing the fundamental questions of why, how did the universe treat, pick its—its laws, whether they're temporary or long-distance and you have to go through a lot of thinking, at least I had to, to—to try to think about what language to use to attack a question like that. Um, but there’s, you know, I’m not—there aren't—I don’t mind us at all, let me say it before, I don’t mind us at all but it happens that after an interesting career, I’m not at the head of a small, big band of marching physicists who echo what I say. I’m walking along, I have a few friends with me,
related—please I’m now looking from you for a good Stalinist brutal advice—do you know the—the Dutch guy, I think he is Dutch or Belgian, Thomas Hertog with a T, who wrote a book, it’s a little bit pretentious because he refers to Stephen Hawking with whom he was as an assistant in the last years. Oh yes, yes, I know who he is, I know who he is, that guy, yeah. And his idea is that at the okay whatever was at the beginning, Big Bang or some primordial confusion or what not, that at that point it was an open process and it wasn’t predestined by any meta-legality which laws will prevail, which laws of nature. Yes, so I haven’t read him but I’ve—I’ve listened to parts of him. What I really think is—is that he’s—he’s on the beginning of a long track and needs to go a lot further before he—he has to be able to face what we call the meta-laws dilemma and smile. Which Roberto Unger taught me how to do. And if that sounds a little mysterious, but—basically but basically let me say this to show names around, um, do you know who Jaron Lanier is? Sorry? Do you know who Jaron Lanier is at Microsoft? Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard the name. Okay, we’re also very good friends. And what Jaron is doing his battle in computer science about living things that we make and play with is very analogous to my fine physics, to keep physics a game that we have fun playing with. I don’t know if that makes sense, but... Not so. We have some papers with Jaron in which we’re bringing back this idea that I published a long time ago that there might be a way to bridge between—between natural things that are evolving and making new laws as they evolve and artificial things. But we're just at the beginning of this. But Jaron is working with some very bright young people now at Microsoft and by the way if you haven’t met him please meet him. But you still basically as you told me want to be a scientist, but nonetheless what fascinates me is now for example the Big Bang and all that, aren’t there so many totally different theories which are advocated at the same time? You are, I think, which is also to my spontaneous sense the—what I tend towards, you have this repeated Big Bang, no? Big Bang, implode... For me the Big Bang—there are a lot of people who study the details of the radiation that comes out, so that’s all good science but it’s not—answering, addressing the fundamental questions of why, how did the universe treat, pick its—its laws, whether they're temporary or long-distance and you have to go through a lot of thinking, at least I had to, to—to try to think about what language to use to attack a question like that. Um, but there’s, you know, I’m not—there aren't—I don’t mind us at all, let me say it before, I don’t mind us at all but it happens that after an interesting career, I’m not at the head of a small, big band of marching physicists who echo what I say. I’m walking along, I have a few friends with me,
Slavoj Žižek
I have a few students who just seem to come from nowhere and come and work with me, and um, I’m sort of very minimally staffed shall we say on my project, it’s very minimally staffed. But it seems to be—we seem to be getting somewhere. Okay, can I ask you another question which I find interesting but from my again naive standpoint I have some problems. Your idea, it’s not even scientific, it’s more a general view about some kind of a link between scientific development, science develops
I have a few students who just seem to come from nowhere and come and work with me, and um, I’m sort of very minimally staffed shall we say on my project, it’s very minimally staffed. But it seems to be—we seem to be getting somewhere. Okay, can I ask you another question which I find interesting but from my again naive standpoint I have some problems. Your idea, it’s not even scientific, it’s more a general view about some kind of a link between scientific development, science develops
unknown
it
it
Slavoj Žižek
has to be replaced by new insights and so on, and democracy. I see your point there, but I’m just more of a pessimist here. Pessimist in the sense that—first when we talk about progress, what about regress? Don’t we live now in a time of things regressing? Second thing, sorry, please. No, so you may be suffering from two facts: one of them is that the work that I did which tried to draw together discussions about the future with physics is pretty old work, and I’ve written very little since then about these issues because I’ve been so confused. I mean, to just to tell a story on my agent, when I turned into my agent a few—a few months before the big transition of
has to be replaced by new insights and so on, and democracy. I see your point there, but I’m just more of a pessimist here. Pessimist in the sense that—first when we talk about progress, what about regress? Don’t we live now in a time of things regressing? Second thing, sorry, please. No, so you may be suffering from two facts: one of them is that the work that I did which tried to draw together discussions about the future with physics is pretty old work, and I’ve written very little since then about these issues because I’ve been so confused. I mean, to just to tell a story on my agent, when I turned into my agent a few—a few months before the big transition of
unknown
here’s my millennial book. I explain how everything is going to take off exponentially and grow and the world will be prosperous and smart. He said “I’m not going to support your book because your book will get three people who buy it and all of them will be your mother.” And he was right. So he saved me a bad book. So I don’t know what I think. I am deeply confused between my pessimism, of which I have some sources, and my optimism, of which I have a number of sources, and I don’t know what to do. I mean, I just been... Can I give you one example which shocked me? Once I was, unfortunately it was stupid from me, I caught myself in a debate with a true Christian fundamentalist. And he tries—tried to convince me that “we are also for progress more than you.” And his idea was this one: it began with equality of races, other races are not less than us, then the next step was equality of women, equality of sexual orientation and then he told me, we just go one step far—further and also demand equality for people who are not yet born. So the idea was, you know, for me when people talk about progress I always ask: but it’s not just that things progress or not, the notion of what we consider progress is changing all the time. But unfortunately I have to concede some distance to pessimism. I by—unfortunately me also, yes please, sorry. I have—I’m part of a
here’s my millennial book. I explain how everything is going to take off exponentially and grow and the world will be prosperous and smart. He said “I’m not going to support your book because your book will get three people who buy it and all of them will be your mother.” And he was right. So he saved me a bad book. So I don’t know what I think. I am deeply confused between my pessimism, of which I have some sources, and my optimism, of which I have a number of sources, and I don’t know what to do. I mean, I just been... Can I give you one example which shocked me? Once I was, unfortunately it was stupid from me, I caught myself in a debate with a true Christian fundamentalist. And he tries—tried to convince me that “we are also for progress more than you.” And his idea was this one: it began with equality of races, other races are not less than us, then the next step was equality of women, equality of sexual orientation and then he told me, we just go one step far—further and also demand equality for people who are not yet born. So the idea was, you know, for me when people talk about progress I always ask: but it’s not just that things progress or not, the notion of what we consider progress is changing all the time. But unfortunately I have to concede some distance to pessimism. I by—unfortunately me also, yes please, sorry. I have—I’m part of a
Slavoj Žižek
20-year-long experiment of starting a new kind of physics institute. It was supposed to be an experiment in non-hierarch—non-hierarchical structure, more democratic science structure and so forth, and at this point I have to say we failed. That as our institute thrives, but in the shadow of what it might have been. And—and
20-year-long experiment of starting a new kind of physics institute. It was supposed to be an experiment in non-hierarch—non-hierarchical structure, more democratic science structure and so forth, and at this point I have to say we failed. That as our institute thrives, but in the shadow of what it might have been. And—and
unknown
there’s a number of—luckily in my family life I’m—I’ve had lots of unanticipated good luck, of which I can’t attribute to any wisdom but I’ve had much more good luck than I deserve. Um, and um, but it’s the living in Canada is bewildering, but it is better of your time to study living in the United States at this point. I have no idea if I’ll ever go back to live there. Not at all because you know... can’t say personal just where do we send our school, our child to university? What university would you send your child to these days? I, for me this is a big problem because my experience is you have very intelligent, great people here and there, but they are usually dispersed so that the problem is you want to get that great guy but look at what idiots you have to buy with it, you know what I mean. Unfortunately, there are very few cases where people whom I really admire are like all in one camp, connected. The second thing that worries
there’s a number of—luckily in my family life I’m—I’ve had lots of unanticipated good luck, of which I can’t attribute to any wisdom but I’ve had much more good luck than I deserve. Um, and um, but it’s the living in Canada is bewildering, but it is better of your time to study living in the United States at this point. I have no idea if I’ll ever go back to live there. Not at all because you know... can’t say personal just where do we send our school, our child to university? What university would you send your child to these days? I, for me this is a big problem because my experience is you have very intelligent, great people here and there, but they are usually dispersed so that the problem is you want to get that great guy but look at what idiots you have to buy with it, you know what I mean. Unfortunately, there are very few cases where people whom I really admire are like all in one camp, connected. The second thing that worries
Slavoj Žižek
me is—and this is what I mean by regression—it’s worse in Europe than in United States and Canada from what I can judge. Look, look at the problem of foreigners, immigrants and so on, where the—the conflict is now in Europe between the rights of the immigrant and to put it simply, populist democracy. More and more parties are voted in who knows even in France Marine Le Pen, neo-fascists will win, in Italy Meloni did, in Sweden, in Norway... so what if we are in a situation in
me is—and this is what I mean by regression—it’s worse in Europe than in United States and Canada from what I can judge. Look, look at the problem of foreigners, immigrants and so on, where the—the conflict is now in Europe between the rights of the immigrant and to put it simply, populist democracy. More and more parties are voted in who knows even in France Marine Le Pen, neo-fascists will win, in Italy Meloni did, in Sweden, in Norway... so what if we are in a situation in
unknown
which—I’m referring now to maybe you have the name, he was more popular years ago, Jon Elster, a Norwegian rational action theorist, where he says we are all saying today that democracy is under threat, but what if the threat is democracy itself in its populist form? Don’t we witness more and more today that the majority can be wrong? Oh boy. No, it’s sad, it’s very sad, yes. It is very sad and, you know, if I—if I were on American campus to right now, I would have a hard time. I mean the students would come and they would say “come out on the streets with us for Palestine” and I would say “yes, but,” and my Israeli friends would say “come out with us” and I would say “yes, but,” and I would have nothing but sadness to communicate back with them. The saddest thing for me is this failure of the left to counter populist neo-conservatives with a convincing
which—I’m referring now to maybe you have the name, he was more popular years ago, Jon Elster, a Norwegian rational action theorist, where he says we are all saying today that democracy is under threat, but what if the threat is democracy itself in its populist form? Don’t we witness more and more today that the majority can be wrong? Oh boy. No, it’s sad, it’s very sad, yes. It is very sad and, you know, if I—if I were on American campus to right now, I would have a hard time. I mean the students would come and they would say “come out on the streets with us for Palestine” and I would say “yes, but,” and my Israeli friends would say “come out with us” and I would say “yes, but,” and I would have nothing but sadness to communicate back with them. The saddest thing for me is this failure of the left to counter populist neo-conservatives with a convincing
Slavoj Žižek
story, vision of the world, however you call it. All the left is offering now is what we call this cancel culture, woke and so on, which is... So if I have anything to offer, it’s in the formulations of relationalism. So relationalism says you can have different points of view as long as there’s a central—a central region of discussion where you agree about the definitions, you can hope to resolve your differences. That’s a dumb thing to say but that’s as much as I can say. That’s the difference between rationalism and relationalism.
story, vision of the world, however you call it. All the left is offering now is what we call this cancel culture, woke and so on, which is... So if I have anything to offer, it’s in the formulations of relationalism. So relationalism says you can have different points of view as long as there’s a central—a central region of discussion where you agree about the definitions, you can hope to resolve your differences. That’s a dumb thing to say but that’s as much as I can say. That’s the difference between rationalism and relationalism.
unknown
But I don’t—I think I think we’re way beyond the debate being
But I don’t—I think I think we’re way beyond the debate being
Slavoj Žižek
at that stage or that level being discussed in philosophy class. But I don’t know. Um...
at that stage or that level being discussed in philosophy class. But I don’t know. Um...
unknown
I’m puzzled and I don’t—I suffer. I am wondering what to write in a next book about, for example. You know, because I could have opened—I could write another book, I could write another book about science but I kind of said what I have to say for now. And on wider things, I am just puzzled. I walk around thinking “what the hell is going on?” Because you know what worries me? And here I try to use as a vague metaphor quantum physics. Till now we usually had, if you were a conservative, if you were a liberal, if you were a progressive, one single story. For example, for old socialists capitalism was first good then it brought too much self-destruction we have to move on and so on. But today aren’t we caught in three, four potential catastrophic directions? We have ecology, warming, we have threat of war, we have cultural wars and so on and so on. And this is such a messy situation where you—it’s very difficult to reduce this to a
I’m puzzled and I don’t—I suffer. I am wondering what to write in a next book about, for example. You know, because I could have opened—I could write another book, I could write another book about science but I kind of said what I have to say for now. And on wider things, I am just puzzled. I walk around thinking “what the hell is going on?” Because you know what worries me? And here I try to use as a vague metaphor quantum physics. Till now we usually had, if you were a conservative, if you were a liberal, if you were a progressive, one single story. For example, for old socialists capitalism was first good then it brought too much self-destruction we have to move on and so on. But today aren’t we caught in three, four potential catastrophic directions? We have ecology, warming, we have threat of war, we have cultural wars and so on and so on. And this is such a messy situation where you—it’s very difficult to reduce this to a
Slavoj Žižek
simple narrative, for example in an old Marxist way to say “oh it’s all rooted in capitalist dynamic.” It may be but it’s still a mess I mean. And unfortunately that’s true. Um, I may be starting to work a little bit with a political scientist, Tad Homer-Dixon, who likes to talk about polycrisis now. I don’t know if that’s a popular word or not. Trying to understand how all the different crises can happen together, but I don’t—it would be just a start. I don’t think... I mean, the things that we used to think about when we thought... the big problematic idea in my—I don’t even want to say that, but Stuart Kauffman, Per Bak, and these people who developed ideas about complexity, were not wrong, they were geniuses they had to me very important ideas to think about. But they didn’t push them through enough and they didn’t push them through the contradictions. And now up against what we really should know about, we look silly. I mean, am I going to take um all the things you mentioned and build myself a big flag that says complexity system and march into battle there? Can I ask you another mega-question but we don't have time of course to go into it which interests me? What it first back to
simple narrative, for example in an old Marxist way to say “oh it’s all rooted in capitalist dynamic.” It may be but it’s still a mess I mean. And unfortunately that’s true. Um, I may be starting to work a little bit with a political scientist, Tad Homer-Dixon, who likes to talk about polycrisis now. I don’t know if that’s a popular word or not. Trying to understand how all the different crises can happen together, but I don’t—it would be just a start. I don’t think... I mean, the things that we used to think about when we thought... the big problematic idea in my—I don’t even want to say that, but Stuart Kauffman, Per Bak, and these people who developed ideas about complexity, were not wrong, they were geniuses they had to me very important ideas to think about. But they didn’t push them through enough and they didn’t push them through the contradictions. And now up against what we really should know about, we look silly. I mean, am I going to take um all the things you mentioned and build myself a big flag that says complexity system and march into battle there? Can I ask you another mega-question but we don't have time of course to go into it which interests me? What it first back to
unknown
you, it interested me extremely when you mentioned this like “don’t
you, it interested me extremely when you mentioned this like “don’t
unknown
focus on the past.” Past, no, it’s now and then how this now moves towards the future. How do you relate to the idea—I will put it in a very conditional way, popular with some popularizers of quantum mechanics—that... first, okay, I will begin with that
focus on the past.” Past, no, it’s now and then how this now moves towards the future. How do you relate to the idea—I will put it in a very conditional way, popular with some popularizers of quantum mechanics—that... first, okay, I will begin with that
Slavoj Žižek
well-known Feynman’s idea that when a particle goes from A to B, basically it in some sense virtual, it takes all possible paths although it collapses into one. So—and my idea
well-known Feynman’s idea that when a particle goes from A to B, basically it in some sense virtual, it takes all possible paths although it collapses into one. So—and my idea
unknown
of my recent work when I’m also abandoning my old-fashioned although not naive but nonetheless Marxism is that isn’t our history like this? Like did you read—I didn’t but too naive, but nonetheless David Graeber, “The Dawn of Everything”? No, it’s a very popular book of alternative history where he goes at different points in history—his example is the Inca Empire—and shows how it was deeply self-divided. It could have—it had potentials not just for this centralized human sacrifice terror but also much more in our notions open demo—sorry... I did meet David. Yeah. Oh yeah, I met her, yes. And I made in my style some bad taste jokes telling her that is she—Lee in these times of political correctness,
of my recent work when I’m also abandoning my old-fashioned although not naive but nonetheless Marxism is that isn’t our history like this? Like did you read—I didn’t but too naive, but nonetheless David Graeber, “The Dawn of Everything”? No, it’s a very popular book of alternative history where he goes at different points in history—his example is the Inca Empire—and shows how it was deeply self-divided. It could have—it had potentials not just for this centralized human sacrifice terror but also much more in our notions open demo—sorry... I did meet David. Yeah. Oh yeah, I met her, yes. And I made in my style some bad taste jokes telling her that is she—Lee in these times of political correctness,
Slavoj Žižek
you shouldn’t draw any conclusion from a name, you can be anything you know and so on. No assumptions that I believe... Yeah, no because you know that for example this idea now with some trans people that they call themselves not he, she, but they. They. They, he, she, they. But in Slovene, my language, this is absolutely ridiculous because we can use “they” even to address another person, but it means an almost old-fashioned feudal respect. If you meet an—if you meet an extremely strong in the sense of authority person, you don’t say even in this polite way “you,” you say “would they like to do this please,
you shouldn’t draw any conclusion from a name, you can be anything you know and so on. No assumptions that I believe... Yeah, no because you know that for example this idea now with some trans people that they call themselves not he, she, but they. They. They, he, she, they. But in Slovene, my language, this is absolutely ridiculous because we can use “they” even to address another person, but it means an almost old-fashioned feudal respect. If you meet an—if you meet an extremely strong in the sense of authority person, you don’t say even in this polite way “you,” you say “would they like to do this please,
unknown
would they?” You do this in England too. If you—if you’ve spent too much time with the queen or the princesses, you might know that they do this all the time with them. Ah, I didn’t know so again this—it it appears ridiculous for me and I got in many trouble for saying things which are no longer taken with certain irony today and I get in trouble again and again. Let me close then maybe with two jokes. One of them is the recognition that a lot of these people are clowns deliberately. And I learned this when a friend of mine who knew Derrida took me to hear him. I never could read Derrida at all. I heard him and it was crystal clear and I realized: he’s a
would they?” You do this in England too. If you—if you’ve spent too much time with the queen or the princesses, you might know that they do this all the time with them. Ah, I didn’t know so again this—it it appears ridiculous for me and I got in many trouble for saying things which are no longer taken with certain irony today and I get in trouble again and again. Let me close then maybe with two jokes. One of them is the recognition that a lot of these people are clowns deliberately. And I learned this when a friend of mine who knew Derrida took me to hear him. I never could read Derrida at all. I heard him and it was crystal clear and I realized: he’s a
unknown
jokester,
jokester,
unknown
he’s a clown.
he’s a clown.
unknown
You need to know maybe a tiny bit of French and then it’s all funny. Maybe that’s an exaggeration, but
You need to know maybe a tiny bit of French and then it’s all funny. Maybe that’s an exaggeration, but
Slavoj Žižek
that’s the way he saw it. And then Feynman who I knew a little bit, Feynman was a total clown. Do you think he took that stuff seriously? And then finally the great clown Einstein. Do you know who taught Einstein this conjecture, who taught Einstein to put on those hippie clothes and no socks and walk around? Yeah. Who taught him that? And from who did Einstein steal? Einstein stole the whole getup. Einstein was this—was a sophisticated mid-century—mid-century gentleman who came to the United States and turned himself into a clown walking around with slippers. Yes. Where did he learn that from? Who did he learn it from? And a lot of things would make sense. Charlie Chaplin. Einstein copied Charlie Chaplin. And the whole thing was a clown act to hide. Yeah, but you know what I nonetheless like about Chaplin? It’s an ingenious idea. You saw our generation did: his, Chaplin’s movie, “Great Dictator,” is that Hitler was a horrible clown but he was not a dignified person of authority. Hitler was a clown basically. Right, right, yeah. That’s crucial to understand, I mean. So I
that’s the way he saw it. And then Feynman who I knew a little bit, Feynman was a total clown. Do you think he took that stuff seriously? And then finally the great clown Einstein. Do you know who taught Einstein this conjecture, who taught Einstein to put on those hippie clothes and no socks and walk around? Yeah. Who taught him that? And from who did Einstein steal? Einstein stole the whole getup. Einstein was this—was a sophisticated mid-century—mid-century gentleman who came to the United States and turned himself into a clown walking around with slippers. Yes. Where did he learn that from? Who did he learn it from? And a lot of things would make sense. Charlie Chaplin. Einstein copied Charlie Chaplin. And the whole thing was a clown act to hide. Yeah, but you know what I nonetheless like about Chaplin? It’s an ingenious idea. You saw our generation did: his, Chaplin’s movie, “Great Dictator,” is that Hitler was a horrible clown but he was not a dignified person of authority. Hitler was a clown basically. Right, right, yeah. That’s crucial to understand, I mean. So I
unknown
think
think
Slavoj Žižek
that when I look around try to make sense of everything that’s happening, it doesn’t hurt to try the day where so and so is just playing a clown. But anyway, we’ve gone far afield, I certainly don’t know anything about that. If you will feel better and I will conclude with my very benevolent loving joke: as a Stalinist, I order you to get better. If you don’t get better, KGB will come after you, strictly please. Well actually, I am much better. It’s another discussion but I am much better than I was a few months ago due to a—due to a surgery. There's a brain surgery for Parkinson’s and it actually works. I didn’t know this. You see, I thought Parkinson is Parkinson, you just postpone it a little bit. I didn’t know you can do
that when I look around try to make sense of everything that’s happening, it doesn’t hurt to try the day where so and so is just playing a clown. But anyway, we’ve gone far afield, I certainly don’t know anything about that. If you will feel better and I will conclude with my very benevolent loving joke: as a Stalinist, I order you to get better. If you don’t get better, KGB will come after you, strictly please. Well actually, I am much better. It’s another discussion but I am much better than I was a few months ago due to a—due to a surgery. There's a brain surgery for Parkinson’s and it actually works. I didn’t know this. You see, I thought Parkinson is Parkinson, you just postpone it a little bit. I didn’t know you can do
unknown
surgery. It’s—it’s wide-ranging but not much. This is more than surgery, this is putting electrodes in the brain and shooting five volts
surgery. It’s—it’s wide-ranging but not much. This is more than surgery, this is putting electrodes in the brain and shooting five volts
Slavoj Žižek
of random current into the brain. Ah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, this also, I mean I’m deeply
of random current into the brain. Ah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, this also, I mean I’m deeply
unknown
into it. This is different topic, but all this idea vulgarized by Elon Musk or not, Neuralink, you know like direct connection between our brain and... is there—is this a serious thing that will happen? What will be? I don’t know anything that makes me think it’s serious except I do know some of the crazy
into it. This is different topic, but all this idea vulgarized by Elon Musk or not, Neuralink, you know like direct connection between our brain and... is there—is this a serious thing that will happen? What will be? I don’t know anything that makes me think it’s serious except I do know some of the crazy
Slavoj Žižek
young generation of capitalists who are already trying to get patents to—to run these devices off and make money from them.
young generation of capitalists who are already trying to get patents to—to run these devices off and make money from them.
unknown
But we’ll see what will happen. Anyway, thank you, thank you very much indeed. Thank you, I’m so sorry I had so many more things
But we’ll see what will happen. Anyway, thank you, thank you very much indeed. Thank you, I’m so sorry I had so many more things
Slavoj Žižek
because just to conclude what really interested me would be this idea that I find with some version of
because just to conclude what really interested me would be this idea that I find with some version of
unknown
quantum physics of this retroactivity. Something contingently happens and based on this
quantum physics of this retroactivity. Something contingently happens and based on this
Slavoj Žižek
the past appears in a new way. This reconstructing the past,
the past appears in a new way. This reconstructing the past,
unknown
this is what philosophically absolutely fascinates me. And I would
this is what philosophically absolutely fascinates me. And I would
Slavoj Žižek
like—let’s again get this for another because my god I’m so honored that you found strength. Do you have time
like—let’s again get this for another because my god I’m so honored that you found strength. Do you have time
unknown
to watch some dirty, dirty in not sex, dirty in amusing ordinary TV series? Do you find some fun in this? I like some fun in this, yeah. I also do. We all have our dirty sides. Well,
to watch some dirty, dirty in not sex, dirty in amusing ordinary TV series? Do you find some fun in this? I like some fun in this, yeah. I also do. We all have our dirty sides. Well,
Slavoj Žižek
we can talk about that later.
we can talk about that later.