Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Philip K.Dick

Reality is the present moment, and having a cup of tea helps to realise this 😊

At this point in time, I'm a hard materialist, but I enjoyed hearing your conversation and presentation of this topic. Very stimulating topics!

32:17 when you asked "So where does this leave us?" I almost expected you to say "I can't say about you, but it leaves me In front of a camera, with a cup of good tea, and enjoying it". Happy Lunar New Year, everybody!

I would dare to argue, that an objective reality is something that can be measured by more than one sane observer and/or confirmed by instruments, which were prior confirmed able to measure objectively existing objects. One may argue, that constructing such an instrument can only be done on subjective basis, after all it is a person who is deciding on what will trigger the instruments gauges. But I would disregard such an argument, as one which is not leading to an agreement, but rather undermining any logical conclusion, stating that such a person is looking for any possible and impossible way of arguing the existence of objectivity. It is not the tone of the color "red" that defines whether it objectively exists or not. It is the mere differentiation of the color "red" from all the other colors, that make it exist objectively, and/or the fact that an instrument (spectrograph) or even an animal (say, the bull) can differentiate the color "red". And this is what makes it objective. One may wonder, what is objectivity? And that is what truly is subjective. The borders of the objective are set by the ruling party, whether political, religious or (God forbid!) scientifical. Objectivity is the criteria which the force at power deems acceptable in order to reach their goals. Everything else is deemed subjective or non existent. But this is only my subjective view on the topic.

Probably my favorite video from you. I'm pretty drawn to the determinist vision of the universe where past present and future all coexist. Especially after seeing a recent video from Kurzgesagt. But as you said we simply don't know what reality is and I think it's a beautiful thing to acknowledge. I feel like accepting that we don't know everything and might never fully understand reality can bring humanity together. Thank you for this video. Wishing you all the best !

LOVE this! I feel like I'm back in my college dorm room, reading the Dancing Wu Li Masters and getting my mind blown by quantum physics, and having deep philosophical/scientific conversations with my dearest friends.

I did not expect this sort of content from the channel Don, but I’m glad to see its presence. Just placed my first order, many thank from the US!

@MeiLeaf

4 ай бұрын

Always nice to find meaningful tangents to tea

When I first saw the artwork for this tea I thought it reminded me of Kantian metaphysics and now here's a video on the matter! Many thanks as always for your insights Don

Gong Hei Fat Choi Don & Celine. My kind of video! Love and Appreciate your deep dive into eternal subjects! Thank you! Enjoy!

On Einsteins question about the moon not existing, when the idealist isn't looking: Idealism, in my point of view, must include a higher power or God to be the first observer and creator of reality. But, since Einstein asked, it must not be a requirement of idealism, I guess. Wow, there are acutally more things, accepted as scientific, which are hampering the mere idea of idealism, than I initially thought: observation could be possible before the existence of humans, if we acknowledge, that humans or thinking, observing organisms exist outside our planet. And, idealism may be possible before the Big Bang, if you acknowledge the existence of unmaterial carriers of information, that is ghosts, angels, demons, plasmoids, or any other name they have been given throughout thousands of years of written and spoken history. Without a God or at least ghosts, then idealist ideas are truly far fetched.

Aged White teas will change my reality pretty darn quick, I'll tell you that much. Still sipping on Simple Dreams 1!

TLDR: Reality is a subjective construct shaped by human consciousness, challenging the materialistic view of an objective, deterministic universe. Quantum physics suggests our perceptions influence reality, necessitating a multidisciplinary approach to understanding existence. Acknowledging subjectivity enriches our exploration, revealing the complexity and interconnectedness of our perceptions and the universe.

@MeiLeaf

4 ай бұрын

Wow can you do this for all of my videos?! That's quite a skill.

@ITS.TRISTVN

4 ай бұрын

@@MeiLeaf I can give it my best shot! I'm glad you appreciate my efforts 😁

Thank you so much for the insights and the effort with every part of it! It was a wonderful journey! It's so nice to see the teapet having its moment in this video ♥ Thank you for this appreciation of my gift. I was incredibly pleased to discover it there. The video reminded me that there is still the podcast. Is there something planned again in the future?

Since objective reality is unattainable, it becomes, functionally-speaking, irrelevant. There's some use in aligning one's perceptions to those of others around, for the sake of consensus, communication, and fitting in. Aside from that, creating a personally enjoyable experience may be worth more than chasing personal alignment with some conjecture of what an objective reality would be.

Wow, we need more deep thinking like this in society! Objectivity, I believe, is only useful insofar as it describes subjectivity with respect to an infinite, eternal, and unchangeable God.

Love you for bringing forward this conversation Don! If we as humans want to touch our “deepest” form of reality we need to hold the truth that WE DONT KNOW close to our hearts. By understanding this we become open to exploring the mysteries of this amazing reality. If we tell ourselves “we know”?we close ourself off. The beauty is all in the journey of seeking, not in finding answers.

Will save this for when I feel a philosophical/contemplative session coming up.

@TimHoekstra

4 ай бұрын

Love the recent theory that black holes might be the observers collapsing the wave function.

Are you at work, drinking tea and pondering the meaning of life, while reality itself is probably out there somewhere, wearing a disguise and laughing at us all?

Cheers, Don, and all the best in the New Year! Thank you so much for this talk that tied together everything we saw and experienced during last years game. Unfortunately my brain has melted now, and I will have to go and sit in the freezer for a little while, until everything solidifies again and I can rewatch this video. Till then ... happy sipping!

As a Muslim , I see reality as path that our own choices create as god made the major factor of it same as death and life where u can't change any of these to an deathable reality , also god made our own reach to the unknown reality limited to our consciousness where each time we go higher with it reality changes and evolves , so from this standing point I will say let's evolve each time with tea and love let's share happiness and safety . Good bye .

Happy New Year of the Dragon 🎉 Thank you Don for this deep and insightful dissertation ❤

Great vid, Don! This really got me thinking 🤔😅

Me personally, I don’t think it really matters that we find out the full understanding behind every atom. I think we ought to just seek out our own spiritual truth rather than come to one conclusion above all others (other conclusions).

After some wandering a curious man found himself in a forrest. Looking up he saw a beehive and asked the bee "Where am I, and what is this?". The bee replied "You are in a forrest, I am a bee and know all the flowers, shrubs and trees. No one knows them better than me." A soft voice permeated the air "You are all in the forrest now... if you have the ears, listen to me." An even more subtle voice whispered "Look at the forrest and how it was created." Happy New Year 🐉

Happy Lunar New Year, everyone. I’m enjoying Feather Maiden while listening.

🐉 恭喜发财 - Gong Xi Fa Cai! 💚 Don waxing philosophic? Instant Like. Big Up to the Camden Wood Dragon Massive and a Happy, Healthy and Auspicious one to All!!

Happy New year!!

Tea and video pairing... This one pairs well with Ancient Haze lol

Excellent video! Thank you!

Hi Mei, could you create a video talking about what tea are best for Grandpa style brewing ? I'm looking for some tea for my regular office days. Gaiwan is a bit too much at my workspace.

@MeiLeaf

4 ай бұрын

Usually baked green teas like Jade Arrow, fur peak and monkey picked

Booyah 😊👍

See Don get into a fight with his wife... Celine: ''Don, you haven't done the laundry again!'' Don: ''Honey, your assumption is only a fruit of your confirmation bias ...! Celine interrupting him: ''I don't care about the universe right now, do the laundry!'' Don: ''Such claims are not to be made without understanding the quantum reality of things ...'' ETC.

This is actually very important. I see people confuse a priori and a posteriori knowledge on very important issues. Some people have made science a kind of religion. There is a kind of crisis of faith in the west and many people aren't thinking clearly.

Very comprehensive. Thanks

No coincidence. Love this video. My favorite subject ❤️. Thanks.

Thanks alot for your speech! Every year again a pleasure to listen. It really is a sure source of new and inspiring thoughts :). Consequentially, I have some complaints (or just things I want to share from my subjective perspective): 1) On determinism: I really see why the explanations determinism yields seem 'unplausable', because it does not fit our daily experience. But is that really a good argument? First, I think you misrepresent the theory if you describe as a "way of living". Of course no one lives like they are predetermined. It is not an worthwhile perspective to have. I guess as an determinist you could say "You are determined to live a life not really believing in determinism." Second, many of the things which we intersubjectively deem true seem unplausible intuitively (I guess everything if we go deep into biology, chemistry, psychology, but for a specific example: figs and wasps). But also, to me it seems clear that metaphors drawing on our daily experiences does this perspective a disserve, like when you say something like "your future was written already at the very beginning of the universe". No, not necessarily did anyone "write" anything, or preconceive anything, it just *happened* and will *happen* how the law of cause and effect makes it happen. Like pouring water, you don't know how it really splashes into the teapot, and every photo is different. It is just what complexity yields. So I would say, believing in determinism is just believing into cause and effect. And imagining an alternative to it is not easy, especially when thinking about science. Because how could we scientifically study free will? What does that even mean? I think that is the reason why it seems that all the scientists believe in determinism. I think they don't literally believe in it most of the times, they just believe in cause and effect. 2) And with quantum physics we arrived at a point where physicsists in my opinion didn't find any cause anymore. They just found probability which in my view is just "not knowing" (revealing my internalized belief in determinism I guess haha). So, when the determinant (or the set of determinants) is unknown, then it seems like probability. That is exactly what is always done in social sciences as well. We can only give factors influencing certain behaviours for example in a certain way with a certain chance or likelihood. Then multiple factors affect each other again and so on. I never really understood why this couldn't be the case for quantum physics as well. But I have to admit here, that I never really dived deep into this topic, so maybe there is a reason that this explanation is excluded (which I somehow can't imagine :D). Anyway. 3) I also found it a bit weird that you always said that scientists believe in determinism. I think especially in the social sciences, or even more in the humanities (if you call this a science?) it is not the case. It is really more a believe in cause and effect, but to varying degrees. In the social sciences we are not able (as the physicists are) to zoom in on such a deep level, and hence we are happy to just look at factors influencing certain phenomena (i.e. theories of causal relationships). However, they are never fully describing a fully determined phenomenon, because there are just too many possible factors. You could research on agency itself and exmpirically examine condition that shape agency, without fully determining it. And many researchers do exactly that. But in the end, it depends on the level how close you look. It is unclear whether you can zoom in to "full determinism" or not - or if there is something like "true free will" - whatever that means :). I think what really remains crucial here, is that underlying is still a view of cause and effect, and there is no clear alternative to it, if we want to call something science. Another thing that is more done in humanities and also some social sciences in general, is *describing reality*. I.e., finding fancy words describing social phenomena. I think there is great value in it, and maybe you mean this as an alternative. Or also art. I see your point there. Okay that comment got waay too long but I just want to add another thing which you basically say as well in the end. The *one thing* we truly know is our own experience. I somehow stumbled across it some years ago when reading Husserl for the first time. And it is the realization, that you can question everything in the world (following Descartes) - you can denounce the existence of everything in this world, but you very much cannot your current experience. What you currently experience you experience - and this cannot be questioned. You can question whether this experience is "real" i.e. reflects some objective world, but you can be sure that you are experiencing it (referring to being). To me it is summed up as: "Your current phenomenon is real in its experience." Probably this seems a bit "you don't say", but when I was younger studying maths I was looking for some truth and that is basically the only bit I found :D. Okay I stop now with this waay too long comment although I have still many things to discuss. So, thank you Don again for that great speech!

@prcr

4 ай бұрын

Great discussion points and food for thought. Thanks!

Very interesting, thanks!

Fascinating talk and one that I enjoyed listening to! In terms of quantum mechanics, wouldn't the finding (that matter can/will change position when it is being measured or observed) simply indicate that our human perceptions/observations/testing/experiences do not necessarily match reality? To me this would seem to fit more in line with Plato's Allegory, although it may not be some other "deity" or "individual" presenting a false reality to us but more our own human weakness/fallacies at perception/observation/testing/experience of reality. For example, perhaps matter can exist simultaneously at different points and times in space, but our limited human senses and lack of capabilities to perceive/experience/observe this means we simplify a more complex "objective" reality into something reductive (and not in line with reality!) that we can (or at least think we can) "subjectively" understand.

Great discussion and summary of those various philosophies and epistemologies! Whatever reality is, just make sure it involves drinking good tea. 😉

Bold move Cotten, let’s see how it works out for them…

If the many-worlds interpretation is a materialist cop out, is the simulation hypothesis the idealist one?

@MeiLeaf

4 ай бұрын

Interesting point

Materialism, the way that you describe it (the way it probably is "in the books") seems so strange. I myself would think that materalism is the belief that the source of everything lies in the material, that is palpable, measurable. Determinism seems like an illogical construct, with which nobody in their right mind (in my point of view) would agree with; other than in a dogmatic, fanatic way, without any scientific grounds for it. Being materialistic, in my point of view, would be to deny any spiritual or non-palpable, any subjective, unmaterialized source of influence on the real world. Leaving a gate for what is now considered supernatural, to become part of the materialistic world view, as soon as the instruments are created to measure that influence, which is now considered immaterial. The mere existence of humans and their free will, as opposed to animals, which are acting merely on basis of instinctive programming, should deem determinism impossible. But somehow, as I understand from what you are saying, this is the mainstream in science. Which is bizarre to me and sounds like a basis for disagreement, rather than a way of coming to an agreement about the nature of reality.

@beth.7

4 ай бұрын

About „determinism“: it seems to me, that there is a War of Words going on, rather than tangible proof for or against determinism. There are two video posts about this by Sabine Hossenfelder defending her views on determinism and materialism (pro) and as far as I understood them, she is vying for scientifically appropriate and tidy use of these termini. Even if I don’t agree with all she says on the face of it, - probably because I need to try and follow her reasoning from the viewpoint of a physicist - I think she’s right in insisting on this linguistic tidiness. The last of her videos could almost be a direct answer to some of Don‘s speech (even though it was recorded earlier 😅) - What I don’t like about her approach is, that she seems to put on mindcuffs, as soon as her concept of determinism transcends physics, arguing that those regions belong purely to other fields of study, i.e. psychology or metaphysics/philosophy. I’d rather see more interdisciplinary communication.

@Apollo440

4 ай бұрын

​@@beth.7 I believe that most of the problems science and, by extension, humanity faces are because of a lack of interdisciplinary communication. We need to use a common, goal-driven language in all of the scientific circles. Nowadays, some branches of science deny the rest of the tree :) so to speak. This leads to an unholistic approach in medicine, when curing one illness leads to causing another. This leads to social injustice, where one group lives well, only when the other doesn't. And this is happening globally.

Good stuff, Don.

A pleasure to watch this, cheers! An inspiring book trying to discuss the quantum gaps is Helgoland by Carlo Rovelli. Beautifully written, one if its very surprising conclusion gets the reader back to the philosophy of a rather obscure and radical ancient Buddhist, Nagarjuna.

@Spiritchaser93

5 ай бұрын

Nagarjuna isnt that obscure, dare I say hes the most important buddhist thinker (after the buddha). i dont believe in forcing a quantum reading into buddhism. but only to evaluate its ideas on its own merit. perhaps most importantly, buddhist logic tolerates contradiction (eg. p v ~p), and logic is reflective of the natural world since the mind is not independent of the world, neither can we say that the world is independent of the mind. to claim one independent of the other is in itself a positive ontological commitment, which buddhism is vehemently against. one could say buddhism is a negative, or flattening, philosophy, as it demystifies and serves to criticize all grand metaphysical theories, to bring them all down to the level not of pure scepticism/suspension, but to everyday pragmatics. even the logical conclusion of hume's empiricism is pragmatics.

@nanalaura123

5 ай бұрын

@@Spiritchaser93 obscure only in the sense of not mainstream, yes, he was a very important and uncomfortable thinker. Nagarjuna's most radical view is that the essence of creation/world/reality is, well, empty. And Rovelli argues that's where quantum is about to go, and he does it in a very beautiful and engrossing way.

To your question "does matter change because of the fact it is being measured?" There has been an experiment, where single photons where shot at a screen with two holes, to determine, which hole they would choose. The result was captured on photosensitive film, behind this screen. The result astonished the scientists - when not measured, the screen showed one result, when measured - another. Furthermore, they report that merely thinking of one or other result made it occur on film. This means that the fact of there being an observer impacts the result. Or, I would think, that the measuring instrument was causing interference. This takes us back to the question of the tree falling in the woods without there being an observer and it making or not making a sound.

@MeiLeaf

4 ай бұрын

I assume that you are referring to the double-slit experiment which is one of the foundational experiments in Quantum and spawned do many of the arguments. This measurement problem has many interpretations but so far no definitive answers.

@Apollo440

4 ай бұрын

@@MeiLeaf Sorry for not reffering to it more precisely. Yes, that is the experiment I had in mind. I do not know how widely acknowledged or accepted it is. Yet, I keep it in the back of my mind as something possible. And, knowing how science works (so, that for almost any experiment you can produce another, which will show an opposite result), I believe this double-slit experiment to be true, despite it being argued.

I'd love to see you travel to India making videos about local teas and spirituality

@MeiLeaf

4 ай бұрын

That would be quite an incredible journey

“Everything is subjective, EVEN objectivity.” Beautifully and brilliantly articulated, Don. ❤️ 3:58

@theodorelux

5 ай бұрын

it is false though. read my comments.

a BASED video! 👏👏🐉

Hard solipsism therefore Wu , got it

Materialism doesn't explain how the first material "thing" came into being, since everything that's material is measurable, i.e. finite, i.e. has a beginning and an end. You'd be stuck in an infinite loop of cause and effect, which is incompatible with materialism. The only alternative option is an immaterial thing creating a material thing... Unless you believe something came out of nothing. I personally reject such an idea. Not only that, most people that try to counter the idea of the existence of an immaterial thing, don't even ponder how absurd the notion of another material thing, creating the first material thing is. That's what materialists like to argue, right? It's like asking for a squared circle. It's completely nonsensical to even ponder about. Now don't ask me how the idea of an immaterial/infinite thing works, Being finite myself, I'm fundamentally unqualified to answer such a question. So don't ask me how it works, I just don't see any alternatives. Food for thought?

Manifest.

kzread.info/dash/bejne/Zoeo3Mxrj7XSn5c.htmlsi=LgYHEgY89ItS8Qye I have watched this a day ago. It’s a radical idea of human being or imagination of life.

Reality is a cup of tea. You are no rabbit. So your attempts to discover the rabbit hole will be fun and pastime but will fail. But there are techniques to grasp a taste of reality. One of these techniques is drinking tea. At least in my most subjective view.

Also this concept of everything is subjective is one of the reasons subjective morality is so prevalent in our world. "It's okay to end the lives of particular people in particular places but not of others" etc. This is a terrible fallacy that is causing major crime and suffering in our world. Morality is OBJECTIVE.

@therealruski3906

5 ай бұрын

It might be a bit of a cop out but I’ve always thought of morality as inter subjective. I’m not a theist so I’m personally not a fan of tying morality to anything meta-physical. But I will say elements of our biology and development seem to constrain the subjective moral opinions that different individuals and cultures generate over time. I do STRONGLY agree with your point that the sense of morality loosing its previously considered objective status in the west is creating a lot of Socio-cultural issues, no question. Have a great day ✌️

@MeiLeaf

4 ай бұрын

Whole I totally agree that the killing of others shoul be considered by everyone to be de facto morally wrong, does this mean that morality is objective? What about killing in self defence or killing an animal to eat or killing worms to build a home. Where are these objective lines drawn and by whom?

@theodorelux

4 ай бұрын

​@@MeiLeaf There is a difference between killing and murder. That is, killing someone in a scenario of direct self defense is the moral thing to do if necessary, but should always be avoided. Same with hunting - in a survival situation, if there are no other options but to eat an animal in order for you to retain your life, you should eat the animal. The Law of Morality also known as Natural Law (not the darwinian story) is a scientific law that is found in the Universe. It is what Hindus and Buddhists refer to as Darma or Karma. It is also the envelope of the Way or the Dao. It is the Righteous way and it can be felt through intuitive heart based consciousness - it is necessary for our freedom and prosperity.

@jean-pierrek1529

4 ай бұрын

Actually, most crimes and oppression have been committed by people who believe in an absolute morality. Not judging, not endorsing, just a historical fact. To take but one example: the inquisition was not about subjective morality!

@theodorelux

4 ай бұрын

@@jean-pierrek1529 Right, it is to note that there is a significant difference between the christianized "morality" which is based on man's law, it is not the natural law of morality which simply means DO NO HARM.

Hey Don, catto here. consider taking my word for it on all this (lol), but seriously: the Taoists got it right. My experiences haven't been theistic, but I am convinced of a metaphysics, a superstructure of reality. Happy journeying!

I doubt gravity cares about your subjectivity if you decide to walk off the edge of a cliff.

@Spiritchaser93

5 ай бұрын

what a rubbish and nonsensical way of seeing the differentiation as "truth = belief". whether one chooses to belief x,y,z is irrelevant to the discussion about the nature of reality.

@theodorelux

5 ай бұрын

@@Spiritchaser93 Right. A proper discussion on the nature of reality would talk about the laws of nature as we find them in the objective world. Not a fallacious bunch of post modern word salads.

@gewreid5946

5 ай бұрын

Yes, if something exists in reality, you can't just unexist it with clever arguments or wishful thinking. And that is just as true for emotions or subjectivity as it is for laws of physics, even if they manifest and interact in different ways. Reality is vast and complex, it isn't made of a single thing.

@MeiLeaf

4 ай бұрын

@@theodorelux these ideas and thoughts are a part of ancient human history and so throwing them into the bucket of 'post-modernist nonsense' is not representative. The question of why there are these laws of nature and why they are one way and not another is a more interesting question rather than only finding them (not that this is not essential too). And gravity may exist apart from us but it once again can only be experienced by subjectivity or studied by subjective minds.

@theodorelux

4 ай бұрын

@@MeiLeaf I was mostly referring to the talk regarding subjectivity as primary which I think is a mostly modern phenomenon but you could be right that it might be ancient in some cases. The point is you don't find tribal people with having those kind of ideas... They are mostly animists who see everything is spiritual. That is something I can roll with. By their sense gravity is experienced by a rock as well.

Personally I think it's weird you quote Aquinas and then proceed to ask who created the Creator while Aquinas clearly states that God is existence itself, the unmoved Mover if you will. That's what makes Him God.

The assertion that most scientists are determinists is a strawman. Quantum physics has been around for decades and has shown that reality at its base is schotastic. This is the most successful theory in history. It's also insane to assert most scientists think the universe is made of only matter when the majority of the universe has been observed to be made up of dark matter. This is a literal observation that has been verified many times. The entire video sets up these strawmen and then tries to debunk them. Whether or not maths is created or discovered is a matter of much discussion, and it is misleading to just assert that it is discovered.

@MeiLeaf

4 ай бұрын

Interesting. Are you saying that most scientists (not just physicists) are not materialists and therefore determinists? You are right that I don't have any statistics to back this up but this seems to be fairly self-evident and I would be happy to be mistaken. Secondly dark matter is another type of matter and so still falls under materialism. It is also not so verified and alternative proposals are at play such as iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abbb96 Thirdly I did not assert that maths is discovered, I asked the timeless question and said that to many mathematicians it seems unthinkable that maths was invented and if they are right then what does this say about materialism.

Tea? How about some qi