I could watch Max Tegmark all day long he’s fascinating.

tegmark is likeable, he's coming around to what others have been saying because he follows the evidence. He's careful and open minded.

❤ thank you Mr. Kuhn, your interviews are always very compelling! The camera work is by the way always excellent 👏🏻

dr max always put it in terms anyone can understand. thats a great teacher. what good is it to think about these things and have insights if you can't get it across -- and not just to other physicists, but to a wider variety of people. knowledge gained aside, to be perfectly selfish for him, he makes me want to support funding research. and i am tight, so that is a great feat lol.

In the future, they will look back at this time and marvel at how dense we were in thinking that consciousness is an artifact of clocking billions of logic gates, rather than being a fundamental and universal nonlocal field, as the ancient sages told us so long ago.

Some pretty dangerous concerts! Love it ❤. We need to understand why we understand!

@longcastle4863

8 ай бұрын

Billy Strings has some dangerous concerts; well, that is, if you’re allergic to the wafting scents of cannabis.

Love listening to Max, one of my favorite scientists. Also love the synchronicity of, and KZread's ability to read my mind... was just thinking the other day how much I enjoyed Max's talk on the Lex show and how I put it on my list of things to rewatch. Heh. Ultimately are we not all Stardust and Energy originating from the same source? What might this possibly imply regards the 'observer' affect? If, in some way or form, we are all made of and are a product of the same things, is it even possible that any 'thing' large or small can be observed unknowingly? Dark web connectivity or some other force? Do people get a weird feeling when being observed? Sometimes yes or no depending on a number of factors, is that quantifiable, common sense quantifiable? If there is some maths, unknown, or unknowable to us currently that would explain how sentience or consciousness is a direct and intentional product of the design of all things in our verse? Beneath the most complex anything, even chaos, and if we can handle brutal honesty, is simplicity the ultimate rule.. simplicity and synchronicity masked by chaos and buried deep within complexities... materialist are certainly grinding their way downward and upwards towards this, while non-materialist and metaphysics work their way sideways towards the same realities... the ability to step sideways makes materialists rather uncomfortable, perhaps as it should, but, nonetheless, it occurs across all peoples and times, if one can handle looking into that glass.... good stuff, fun to ponder the possibilities and the probabilities.

Simple ez and potent effective and saved everyone so much time...

wow, I love the way he put his last words on this video, the parable 'A wave hit me'.

I think consciousness needs to create a duality environment in which to experience and feel life. So while information does move up from quarks and electrons to consciousness...consciousness itself created the quarks and electrons. Very much like a video game being a simulated world created by a programmer. This channel is amazing! Great conversations that make you think, thank you Mr. Kuhn and to you Mr. Tegmark for coming on the show many times!

That wave analogy at the end to consciousness was lovely. Still wondering whether he thinks there is a causal arrow from consciousness down, though. 8)

I enjoyed Max Tegmark's "Life 3.0" book!

I would love to see the same question posed to Michio Kaku so that to later view both responses We don't see enough of him and as far as I am concerned he is the most interesting..

0:11 The physics of the observer means defining the observer as something that takes information in and can remember it. 1:18 More assumptions about the observer, such as its size when calculating cosmology or the observer "being conscious" when calculating quantum mechanics . 2:10 One leap is that there has to be something that observes; the second is that the observer has to be conscious. 2:28 But how do we reconcile the necessity of having conscious observers and the entirety of quantum events that have happened since the beginning of the Universe? 3:35 Exchanging information might constitute the observers. - Robert 4:12 Consciousness originates from information processing. -Max 4:46 How do we connect information and consciousness if information exchange occurs everywhere in the Universe? -Robert 5:15 For consciousness, you need sufficiently complex information processing. - Max 5:41 So, consciousness is rooted in information, but consciousness is required for the proper functioning of quantum mechanics? - Robert I think that consciousness is used equivocally in this question. The former understanding is complex information encoding; the latter is any information encoding. The encoding of information changes the information structure in the observer, which applies to anything from photons to galaxies. The structure of human observers is significantly more complex. Thus, the human capacity to encode information is also more complex as the information propagates through neural networks and results in a phenomenological experience of understanding. In sum, if the “observation” is information encoding, then everything in the universe observes. Nevertheless, the structure of human observers is more complex as human observers are equipped with more computational power than other known information processing systems. Nevertheless, this assumption holds iff the definition of “observation” equals the capacity to encode the information and if this understanding is used by Max at 1:18. If “being conscious” means something else, this part of the comment does not hold. 5:53 Max hopes to understand the entirety of physics with information processing systems, from systems operating on quarks to more complex systems that eventually give rise to consciousness. 6:22 The question is whether the information processing done by complex systems can influence the information processing done at the levels of quarks. (my paraphrase of Robert's question) I believe that question has been left unanswered. I think the answer is yes, as one can plan actions that eventually lead to bodily movements encoded by the observers down to the quantum scale.

Well, seeing how there is nothing implicit in the quantum wavefunction that seems capable of *collapsing itself* into a positionally-fixed phenomenon (and, no, "decoherence" has nothing to do with wavefunction collapse), then what else other than consciousness could do the job? To borrow from Kantian jargon, consciousness is what explicates *"phenomena"* (the 3-D features of what we call "local" reality) from *"noumena"* (the nebulous "fields" of "non-local" quantum information).

@longcastle4863

8 ай бұрын

What can do the job is just one atomic particle hitting another atomic particle and it can do the job outside the horizon of our observable universe-so no chance of observation by us at all. But it’s happening all the time outside our conscious awareness: in the middle of our sun, on some unseen planet in some galaxy whose light is just a portion of a pinprick in the purple haze of the night sky. Collapsing wave functions are not a rare phenomenon. They probably occur near infinite times each millionth of a moment throughout eternity. And to think it all has to be observed in order to happen? Nonsense.

@TheUltimateSeeds

8 ай бұрын

​@@longcastle4863 You are describing "decoherence." However, according to Wiki: *"...Decoherence was first introduced in 1970 by the German physicist H Dieter Zeh and has been a subject of active research since the 1980s. Decoherence has been developed into a complete framework, but it does not solve the measurement problem, as the founders of decoherence theory admit in their seminal papers....Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse..."* Again, if there is nothing implicit in the wave-function that seems capable of collapsing itself into a positionally-fixed phenomenon, then we need to at least be open to the possibility that in the final analysis, consciousness may indeed be what explicates phenomenal reality into existence from the noumenal-like fields of quantum information. Think of it as being "loosely" similar to how a laser explicates three-dimensional images into existence from the patterns of information stored in the photographic plate (the photographic emulsion) of a laser hologram. Or better yet, how the eye of your mind (i.e., your central "consciousness") explicates the three-dimensional features of your vivid dreams into existence from their underlying informational underpinning. _______

Another quantum headache. Wonderful

feels like Bernardo Kastrup's turn to be interviewed should be coming up soon, his analytic idealism has something to add to this debate.

@valuemastery

8 ай бұрын

Hopefully. Rupert Spira then would be next. But I'm not sure they're ready yet to give up their dualistic thinking.

The important part of an immediate solutions to producing a critical problem, is a practical outcome. Consciousness is hypothetical where there is no definite solution.

energy of quantum probabilities expand space and measure particle(s) as an observer?

look to what we struggle with: the origin and dispersion of life, the origin and end of the universe, and consciousness. It could be argued we have made the least progress on consciousness out of the three big problems (if you aren't a physicalist neuroscientist, I suppose). I think there are many out there that are hesitant to be labeled as woo / pan psychic / "spiritual" yet see the signs poiniting many of our fields to consciousness as an unexplained phenomenon being essential to understanding cosmology, quantum spook / physics and life. Feels frustrating that this is still fringe, academically speaking. What a great investigative level to pull and we say no there is no need!

@paulusbrent9987

8 ай бұрын

Right. But if those who are "hesitant out there" want to be taken seriously, they should stop coming up with this observer-effect nonsense and other woo fairy tales. Begin by being serious first, and then physicalism might be challenged better.

@CMVMic

8 ай бұрын

Consciousness is not mysterious. It is simply a specific set of physical phenomena

In the general case, the observer is an evolving ( when measuring, his state changes: thereby making measurement possible) researcher of the spontaneous evolution of the Universe. Finally, we can say that after two stages of cognition of reality: the monologue of the observer without a physical experiment (natural philosophy) and the observer/nature dialogue - a physical experiment (science); the third stage begins - a physical experiment in the "reception" mode, which changes the state of the observer (a monologue of nature). That is, the result of the measurement is a change in the state of the measuring device; a change in the physical state of the observer ( even if the "observer" does not make a measurement), and finally, a change in the intellectual state of the observer. P.S. More precisely, the observer becomes more experienced.

@vanikaghajanyan7760

8 ай бұрын

@Phoneix-vq8iv( See P.S. ) It seems that nature has army methods: if you don't know, we will teach you; if you don't want, we will force you.

I get giddy when a new Max interview pops up.

One thing for sure, consciousness does have some form of causation into physical reality, otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about it. If we experienced consciousness but it had no causal ability, we'd not be able to tell others about this first person experience we have.

@longcastle4863

8 ай бұрын

I would say, of course consciousness has some form of causation with the world. Through the process of Evolution, consciousness was selected for by Nature because of the benefits it provides in helping creatures to adapt and survive in their environments. Lot of causation in that. 😊

@squamish4244

8 ай бұрын

Yes it does. Max is extremely resistant to this idea, as are most physicists. The materialist paradigm dies hard.

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

@@squamish4244 Physicalists believe that consciousness is inherently part of physical reality, and so no special form of causation into it is required. The argument is that If there is a physical effect, it is caused by a physical phenomenon. Conscious processes have physical effects. Therefore conscious processes are physical phenomena.

@longcastle4863

8 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 It doesn’t have to be that complicated. All you have to do is have the thought, I think I’ll go open the door and let my friend in. There. Your conscious thought just has a causal effect in the world. And it was you, your physical body that had that thought. Consciousness, thinking, awareness are aspects of living physical material systems. Edit. Reading your comment over again, I’m thinking this pretty much is what you actually already said. Ah, lol, time for bed… 😊

@squamish4244

8 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Well - let's just say that I've had a great many experiences I cannot explain with the physicalist model. And heard far too many stories to ever believe in it. I have heard all the arguments - it's your mind tricking you, hallucinations are very convincing etc. But I've never 'seen' anything, I just have all these issues with energy pumping through my body, raging like a storm, and the only explanation is found in Eastern medicine. I have healers who live 400 miles away work on me to settle stuff down, and I know when they are working on me without even knowing the time of day they're doing it. So - explain that one. Yeah, I'm one of _those_ people. But I don't make a big deal of it. In fact if I think about it too much, I can feel like I'm losing my mind, because it is so alien to most of Western science. So I live my life knowing that there's a lot more going on than we have accounted for, and consciousness does not die with the body.

And the final observer is you, you are the consciousness that somehow makes the universe the way it is, in my case unfortunately I hallucinate something I truly dislike but it is me even though it looks separate and I must love it somehow because learning how to love reality is also learning how to love your own self.

@CMVMic

8 ай бұрын

Wrong

Wonderful Interview. Their bright intelligence was just an accessory to be closer to the truth. This conversation is a remarkable piece of very high-level science. Thanks for this sublime experience.

energy could have been observer at the quantum beginning? energy observer with consciousness of time in quantum wave function?

At 5:27 - "It has to be a certain very complex *type* of information processing." No it doesn't. It must be simple and general, applicable to all observers at all levels. At 6:29 Robert suggests a causal arrow going down in the other direction. Exactly. This probing, astute interviewer often seems to have a better grasp of the issues than many of the scientists he interviews. People keep ignoring the elephant in the room. It's in the title. INTEGRATED Information Theory. Our cherished info-tech (materialist) biases typically assume the presence of some kind of computer, despite there being *no* evidence of any kind of computer anywhere, neither real nor in metaphor. Computers PROCESS information, they do not INTEGRATE it. Colonies, otoh, are comprised of observers (mind-bodies) that *integrate* information. Computers do neither. Neither do rocks, nor spoons, nor thermostats, nor billiard balls. No wonder people are making fun of IIT and writing petitions calling for dismissing it as pseudoscience. This computer analogy needs to die, have a stake driven through its soulless, black heart. So what is it that colonies do? What is it that observers in colonies do? What is it that colonies as observers do? They associate. If we expect people to take IIT seriously, then we should do so without reference to computers, whether implied or otherwise. Computers never occur in nature. Only colonies do. The neuro-plastic brain is a colony of neurons, and it forms into functional specialisations just as human-plastic cities, as colonies of people, do. Neurons are to brain and mind what people are to city and culture. Colonies everywhere, no sign of computers anywhere. Once we factor in association as the most fundamental of all principles (semiotic theory of CS Peirce relates), they'll stop laughing at IIT and start paying attention.

The theory of Quantum gravity needs to be The theory of quantum-gravity-consciousness

The appropriateness of KFC for lunch depends on whether I observe the greasey chicken when hungry or not

@Resmith18SR

8 ай бұрын

The Ultimate question is does that bucket of KFC Extra Crunchy exist when no one is observing it? I think, yes it does and it's also finger licking good. 😂😂😂

@EverythingCameFromNothing

8 ай бұрын

Inside the greasy box the wicked wings are in a super position of being both spicy and original. It’s not until they pass through the other end that we can consciously know how hot they really are!!

@santacruzman

8 ай бұрын

Max is a platonist.

@Resmith18SR

8 ай бұрын

@@santacruzman Mad Max

@santacruzman

8 ай бұрын

@@Resmith18SR perhaps. There is a video out there where Max goes head to head with Rafael Nunez (co author of "Where Mathematics Comes From). Max does nothing but respond in broken sentences while Nunez eats him for lunch. The topic is Math: discovered or invented.

What went bang once could go bang again. - Allen Watts. 🙏

The perspective of three worlds may unveil a new point of view on what the measurement effect actually is, and it alters the role of the observer in quantum physics; world 1 is the physical world, world 2 is processing and world 3 an autonomous world of information. The terms ‘observer’ and ‘measurement’ may refer to the storage process, an action (world 2), instead of to the preserved information which has formed an autonomous object (world 3).

Who here after watching the video or interview feel that the question was not answered?

The observer/soul is not the equations the observer has to be outside of math and time or else we couldn't observe anything in time. It is timeless so it creates time by thinking of the observed that is a process in time and creates more questions and more theories.

I think Max didn't quite understand the question at 2:14. But the question supposes that you need an observer for the physics to exist. Not sure that's exactly what Max says. That's fascinating. He is saying that you need a certain definition of observer for a theory to hold. So it's more that the universe needs an observer as we suppose it to be for the universe to be as we think or observe it to be. It seems you need a point of reference, not just to measure position and speed, but also to describe other aspects of the universe. So you cannot describe the universe in an absolute manner. I can't get my head around the fact that the speed of light is a constant, and that there is a max speed, independent of a point of reference. Is it because light lives in a higher dimensional universe, and we live in the hyperplane that is orthogonal to the acceleration of light? In other words, this would also be a constraint on the observer for the universe to exist as we think. I wish I were knowledgeable in physics to see if what I'm saying here makes any sense. Any physicist to comment? This whole thing seems to go back to the fact that language emerges together with perception. Language defines objects w/r one another, and assumes a subject (an observer). If language had taken a different direction (including physics, which is a language) we might have been perceiving a whole different universe. So we're building a perception of the universe as we're building the universe itself, which is not more than our perception of it. If you assume that you are part of it, this doesn't make sense. But if you accept that you are elusive, then why would the universe not be as elusive as you? I know I am elusive. Nothing defines me well. That's a known "problem". We also know from quantum mechanics that "reality" in the sense of objective phenomenons is elusive as it depends on the observer.

The corollary argument would be that without observation, wave-functions do not collapse. How do we reconcile that with the fact that reality existed before sentient observers here on Earth? Is Earth that special?

The quantum observer effect can’t rely on biological entities. Collapse of the wave function has been in effect since the very beginning of time. If consciousness is required then the universe itself is conscious and our minds are just a receiver/transponder in a much larger and more beautiful existence. This alone gives me hope for the afterlife realm because then the physical brain is not required for consciousness, just the soul and external mind connections.

Yeah I agree with that too information u guys gives some great stuff is wisdom stuff may be not full observed but point n fact r clear after full sentence I know some basic physics that’s all it’s helps a lot n thank u putting up context like this

Was there consciousness in this universe just before the first stars formed? If no, then what does all this talk mean?

Many unexplained mysteries, but the ideas of JA Wheeler (mentioned here) seem to me to hold a possible key to unlocking them.

does a cloth with enough patches have the same weaving identity...

Good job Max

The only thing I'm convinced of, is I don't really know anything. But even that I'm not sure of.

@CMVMic

8 ай бұрын

If you dont know anything why are you making claims

the act of observing creates reality

@santacruzman

8 ай бұрын

Um, no. Observing presupposes reality.

7:15 is the key

What you are asking is how do the causes and the effects of things determine our reality that’s what you’re asking

I think the initial use of the word "observer" by people were working on QM in the lab experiments has caused so much confusion. For a lay person, observer implies conscious entity like human. Sean Carroll and Brian Greene has clarified this many times. A video camera or some instrument that is external to quantum (state) experiment, and interacts with it is good enough as a observer. A more general and more neutral word could have been measurement instrument and would have avoided a lot of confusion with consciousness. Sure a macroscopic, external, conscious entity could be an observer, but not because it is conscious, but because it is macroscopic entity external to the quantum state and interacts with it. People also site microtubules in brain use quantum state collapse based processes and that generates consciousness, but that is exactly opposite of consciousness causes collapse of quantum state.

@paulclancy789

8 ай бұрын

You strike me as a micro organism trying to find relevancy

Don't confuse/equate human observers with, for example, the observer participants when 2 particles collide. Information is exchanged in both, but human observers have the ability of free will Information gathering, while the particles are strictly determined.😮

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

If you believe in the concept of philosophical free will yes, if you’re a physicalist who doesn’t, no.

@browngreen933

8 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 I don't believe human thought/mind has any restrictions. It can go anywhere, think anything. No boundaries. No inherant restrictions or laws. Particles and such are bound by strict rules. So are our living bodies. But our thinking is pure free will.

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

@@browngreen933 It seems likely there are restrictions on the amount of information we can retain in memory. Much tighter limits in how much information we can have presently in mind at a given moment, otherwise we wouldn’t need memory. We have great difficulty imagining things in more than two dimensions, and imagining and reasoning about complex structures in many dimensions, other that mathematically, seems beyond us. Certainly reasoning purely mentally about intersections and complex interactions between structures in higher dimensions seems beyond us. Then there is imagining images in colour ranges beyond the capability of the human visual system. We’re just not evolved for that. Of course we work around these limitations by getting computers to reason about these things for us. Computers give us a good order of comparison I’m the reasoning capacity stakes. ChatGPT has one percent as many connections as the human brain but retains a thousand times more information than a human learns in through lifetime. This is possible because it’s trains using a process called back propagation that is many orders of magnitude more efficient than the mechanisms used by the brain.

@browngreen933

8 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 I don't disagree. Yes, the brain has a capacity limit although it's incredibly large. And yes, computers can do some things better than our brains can. But still, the human mind doesn't seems to have many built-in restrictions which may ultimately be our undoing. The conceiving and invention of nuclear weapons, for example.

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

@@browngreen933 I see you mean, there may be many ways in which we have reached the point where we have become scientifically and technologically unbounded. All scientific knowledge and physically possible technologies may be accessible to us. I think that’s largely due to our ability to develop assistive technologies. Machines, scientific instruments and computers. These allow us to transcend our inherent biological limits in the physical, perceptual and conceptual domains.

That's the anchor and it should reverberate from that point across the universe.

6:56

The observer is fundamental if puzzle of rest/motion will go away.

And now, little man, I give the watch to you.

In case this is relevant: When I Look at my finger through my two eyes (my double slit) without focusing, I see two fingers; when looking at two fingers, I see four fingers.

You may be able to combine Dewey's pragmatism - Newtonian mechanics, arbitrary origin affine space-time Einsteinian relativity, Schrodinger quantum mechanics and probability theory include predictions - , the fact that technology has resulted in a better picture of the universe, as well as the notion of a bounded sequence with an infimum, or greatest lower bound and supremum, or least upper bound, to argue for an inherent universe with an indefinite property without invoking infinity, while turning to Minkowski's space-time metric tensor prototype for identity with a suitable modification to exclude contradiction * , although it is difficult to see how to coherently model information in the absence of a complete symantic - the cost of prediction in physics - and syntactic language given pragmatic instrumentalism, where theory evaluatiion is by usefulness instead of the correspondence theory of truth : dualistic idealism and materialism is not recognized. * Including opposite symbols "-" and "+" in a single entity is a 'contradiction' and syntactically illegal.

Communication dissolves all things.

Can I be conscious without memory as some sort of reference point? In other words.....what good is being conscious, if I can't remember a damn thing! ❤

Everything is completely established with a free field, a spacetime lock and a conscious flux. 5:59 ... so my hope and yes is that it can ultimatley be unified and we can start with the usual physics of quarks () and electrons and see how these can be thought of as systems that are processing information at a higher level and how we can understand and turn consciousness as a higher level aspect of certain kinds of information processing (6:27 so the causal arrow is going from the particles the fields to consciousness is there any causal arrow going in the other direction that's my question) there is a causal arrow from bottom up but but I think it's too simplistic to say that our consciousness is just a bunch of electrons moving around or just the most of information because consciousness takes on kind of a life of its own very much like a way of traveling across a lake takes on a life of its own you can study the wave

When you control the mail, you control information! -Newman

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

8 ай бұрын

*"When you control the mail, you control information! -Newman"* ... Newman and Tegmark. What a great juxtaposition!

@myggggeneration

8 ай бұрын

Newman in Seinfeld?

-0: Observer Maitrey: 0bservation +0: 0bserved -0: observer is concious Maitrey: Observer +0: observer is not concious -0: world is random Maitrey: observer: world +0: world is deterministic

The problem with this thing is that they don’t know what consciousness is. To me, consciousness is the same as information.

All information is probabilistic in nature and hence all information is a kind of a probability. Now profoundly note that probabilities are nonsensical without consciousness AND consciousness is nonsensical without probabilities (if not explicit than IMPLICIT probabilities😉) . Bonus note: Symmetry is beautiful. 😍

@longcastle4863

8 ай бұрын

I recently had someone I think must be good at math explain to me that rarely does one and one really equal two because it rarely is that it is exactly a one or exactly a two. We are constantly putting shapes around things and rounding off the rugged edges.

@longcastle4863

8 ай бұрын

But also, just because we can be aware of something probabilistic in nature, does not mean that thing needs consciousness in order for it to exist.

@ififif31

8 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Ok define information or probabilities without implicitly invoking consciousness…I’ll wait ad infinitum ;)

@longcastle4863

8 ай бұрын

⁠​⁠@@ififif31 You can’t define anything but within a milieu of consciousness. It doesn’t mean there aren’t things that exist outside our consciousness awareness of them-that we can’t yet discuss or define or acknowledge even. There are likely, for example, rocks buried meters below the surface of the moon that no one, yet, is aware of, but which one day will be observed to exist after all. Now think of all the countless things neither we nor anyone else will ever see or observe.

@ififif31

8 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Well first note that my aforementioned wait is still ticking/existing ;) Secondly note that the longer the time period is of you failing to define ANYTHING independently existing without consciousness/information/probabilities, the higher the probability is that consciousness/information/probabilities are fundamental and 3 sides of the same coin ;) Finally note that it would be beautifully elegant if all the things that existed outside of our own consciousness were just….…..more/other/shared consciousnesses 🐸 👽😉👽😉👽😉👽😉👽😉👽

are things being observed by a "conscious" entity there when not being observed? there are theories that say yes and theories that say no. i vote for yes, things are there whether we observe them or not. i vote for basic common sense.

@angrygary122

8 ай бұрын

I truly believe they are not

@longcastle4863

8 ай бұрын

You’re right, imo. Many of the craters we see on the moon were made millions even billions of years before we arrived on the scene. And yet now we observe the evidence of what happened way back then . So we know it happened, but we didn’t observe it.

(3:40) *MT: **_"My guess is that information is very much at the heart of what an observer is."_* ... What's not to love about Tegmark? I fully agree! I have also proposed that *information* is the core structure of "Existence," and this information has been evolving into higher complexity since the beginning. Each new level of information-based evolution is paired with an observer matching that same level of informational complexity. When basic matter first showed up, the observer level was equally minimal (just enough to process that information). When prokaryotes emerged, the observational level evolved to match that higher level of complexity. When complex lifeforms appeared, they were also met with an equal amount of observational capability. So, now we have *self-aware humans* who are observing matter, basic lifeforms, complex lifeforms, our own species, and even "Existence" itself ... and handing out our many *value judgments* along the way. My claim is that we now represent "Existence" evaluating itself through our own self-awareness. We can take the full spectrum of "nature" and evaluate it as *outside observers.* Many find the life-and-death struggles of nature as appalling, brutal and heartless. Many have also decided that eating another animal is wrong. We can introduce new constructs such as forgiveness, charity, and personal sacrifice that do not fit within the Darwinian playbook of nature. "Existence" then takes all of this *new information* we've generated and scripts the next stage of evolution to emerge in the universe. My claim is that these uniquely strange constructs we've conceived will result in a new consciousness-based realm rather than the current matter and biology-based template. The next level of "Existence" will not have anything to do with lifeforms or matter. "Existence" won't care about matter or biology. Existence has _moved on_ from that realm just like we've all moved on from the things that interested us back in kindergarten. ... Yes, the *next level of "Existence"* will consist of whatever we've manufactured in our individual, self-aware consciousnesses, and that's where we will end up once we shed our mortal coil. The theists will meet their God, the Buddhists will find their nirvana, and the atheists will finally get to enjoy their blissful state of nonexistence. In the *new realm,* ... "Existence" merely provides you with exactly what you've conceived.

@Resmith18SR

8 ай бұрын

Did you forget to take your meds today?😂😂😂

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

8 ай бұрын

@@Resmith18SR *"Did you forget to take your meds today?"* ... That same type of question was probably asked of Galileo, Wegener, Lemaître, Darwin, and Zwicky. The first ones through the gate always get beat up.

@Resmith18SR

8 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC They were all geniuses and from your previous comments I'm just going to take a wild guess, that you're not.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

8 ай бұрын

@@Resmith18SR *"They were all geniuses and from your previous comments I'm just going to take a wild guess, that you're not."* ... My intelligence level has never been tested / evaluated.

@Resmith18SR

8 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC You could be a prime candidate for Mensa.

"The observer does not create what is not potentially there, but does participate in the extraction from the mass of existing potentialities individual items that have interest and meaning to the perceiving self. Quantum theory exhibits a similar feature." ~Henry Stapp #MU #p8 #Science

@longcastle4863

8 ай бұрын

None of that means that things do not therefore occur without being observed. That is absurd.

the observer is everything and brings "reality" into existence. the double slit proved this scientifically.

@SaxeLAD

8 ай бұрын

Nope, measurement brings reality into existence. The question of whether measurement can happen without an observer is still open.

@browngreen933

8 ай бұрын

Yes, human observers create reality from Existence.😮

@louisbullard6135

8 ай бұрын

Oh Wow we are observer’s who would have guessed. Some of this stuff my 5 year 0:12 old nephew could figure out!!!

@paulusbrent9987

8 ай бұрын

No.

@potheadphysics

8 ай бұрын

@@SaxeLAD do you mean a human observer or...? i think that leads to panpsychism, which is probably real.

Good one Robert. Max is great... There is no out there, out there. It's all you Robert, you are the observer!

@Resmith18SR

8 ай бұрын

Did you forget to take your meds again today?😂😂😂

@longcastle4863

8 ай бұрын

If you’re trying to be creepy, congratulations on your success.

No…you would be more accurate to describe the 10 to the power of 28 quarks because there is not such thing as a “wave”. There is only the description of the movement of each particle. Only that is valid. Or even yo could say only the local density of the quantum field matters.

In terms of physics, you’re speaking about cause-and-effect

Obser you know is nothing more than mind ,which is 5 dimentional being ,your consciousness &Awareness also dimensions,there are total 9 dimensions of observer being ,I am 9th,to known everything about fundamental reality ,who am I find I

I have ALWAYS enjoyed listening to what Max has to say despite the fact that his ideas have traditionally been injected with copious amounts of woo-woo.. Same here..

LOL- Notice how he totally side stepped the question of what type of observers were around before conscious creatures- these guys never want to answer that question because they know you either have to admit you think there were other conscious creatures that existed before the life we know- or that your theory is wrong- one of the two. Because we know human consciousness did not exist before the genesis of life on this planet- in fact it took many millions of years after that before human consciousness came about. So, unless you think there was some other type of conscious observer around back then- the theory is incorrect. If you think galaxies, stars, planets, and so are or were required before consciousness could come about- then how do you explain all those quantum events that had to have taken place so that the universe could develop and make said planets, stars, and galaxies? It makes zero sense. The only way around it that I see is to do away with time- allow consciousness to work retroactively and effect the past. If you don't allow for that then you're saying there is some kind of fully developed, capable consciousness outside the universe- which smells awfully familiar to me. But it doesn't smell like science- it smells like religion.

@longcastle4863

8 ай бұрын

I sometimes think scientists who talk like this are unknowingly working mankind up for a new religion. We’ll finally get rid of all the Bronze and Iron Age religions and then we’ll be stuck with this. And then that will hold us back too.

This conference happened on August 17-22, 2016 ⇔ 7 YEARS AGO ⇔ THE BEST OF RECYCLING AD NAUSEAM IN ACTION ¿¡?!

I would say there's a causal arrow going from consciousness (top) to atoms (down) if the conscious person acts on matter. For example, a person throws a baseball.

Its not that information cant occur without obvious life, information cannot occur without intelligence. However you decide to let that lead you. You can jump through hoops to deny the obvious

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

information, or meaning?

What the Bleep do we really know?

The Ground State of Blue

i agree: INFORMATION is everything - every thing...

@CMVMic

8 ай бұрын

What is information?

hermeneutics of physics

I wonder how this could be used to bolster determinism if it requires a stronger or special consciousness. I.e we were always going to be here to observe. Idk. It may be to human-centric

All physics is Motion, Sensing is Motion, Sensing-Ability is Motion, the Sensed is Motion, the Observer is Not motion.

@CMVMic

8 ай бұрын

There is no observer, there is observation. The retina interacts with photons, and it turns into electrical signals that pass through the optic nerve and interacts with the brain. The human is simply a functioning system, the human is the body and the person is a specific set of functions

@holgerjrgensen2166

8 ай бұрын

No one have ever seen the Observer, and it is Not possible for the Observer, to deny it's own existence. Rainbow mirror our Eternal set of Life-Abilities, (functions) And our smart devices would Not Function without.

@CMVMic

8 ай бұрын

@@holgerjrgensen2166 What is an observer? You need eyes and light to see not so?

@holgerjrgensen2166

8 ай бұрын

Yaeh, the Eyes is the tool of the Observer, Eyes and cameras dont see anything, they just mirror.

@CMVMic

8 ай бұрын

@@holgerjrgensen2166 Seeing and observing is a process, you are referring to what is responsible for the analyzing and compartmentalization of electrical signals. This would be the brain. The brain plays a crucial role in interpreting the sensory input it receives and generating output. This process involves complex neural networks, cognitive functions, and physical processes that collectively contribute to perception and comprehension of the external environment.

Parmenides hit upon it circa 500 BC: "All things that exist have a degree of knowledge."😂

@longcastle4863

8 ай бұрын

Including someone’s third hemorrhoid from exit door?

@browngreen933

8 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Absolutely. A hemorrhoid knows how to be a hemorrhoid and how to torture its victim. Just like a pile of shlt knows how to stink.

Time and distance are only an experience, they are not fundamental.

Fascinating... so facinating.. well you could speak in human language and English and not over represent yourself as being a smart arxx. Now tell me, WHAT'S MY NAME? EVERYTHING IS ABOUT THE NAME.... NO NAME NO PAY..

Information doesn't even travel, it's instant. See entanglement. To me it "looks" like its impacts and evolutions are difficult to measure with traditional tools and logic. It "looks" like, matter (or form) is catching up with information, until it reaches the center of its galaxy, where instead, information catches up with matter. As if information had its own gravity (or force). What happens to information when it stops? It splits into Boson particles, which makes galaxies "look" like giant reproductive systems, to me. Is the Big Bang theory taking the observer into account? Because to me, it "looks" like Big Bangs are also constantly happening.

Teleological argument...No?

Excellent content, great topic. It was all because of the observer effect in quantum mechanics that led me to accurately predict the JWST would find old, massive galaxies, some larger than the Milky Way but further than 13.8 billion light years away. In the first paperback book published Sept. 27, 2021 on page 48 I wrote quote, "The JWST, James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away." According to the observer effect in quantum entanglement experiments light information is conveyed in an instant at any distance. I believe this occurs because of the wave collapse. The wave doesn't really collapse. What happens is the information is there, quantumly entangled to the other photons in the field produced by the distant galaxy. The telescope wouldn't be able to measure the distant galaxy if it were not contained inside it's EM field or light cone. so it is because the telescope is contained inside the distant body's EM field then all the light information is entangled. so when the telescope measures the information it is conveyed in a quantum instant to the observer. According to special relativity time dilation occurs to things moving at the speed of light. As a body reaches the speed of light time to an outside observer looking at the moving object slows down as the body reaches the speed of light. To an outside observer looking at a body as it accelerates to the speed of light time will appear to have stopped for the accelerating body. This is the time dilation that occurs to bodies accelerating up to the speed of light. Mind you only to an outside observer. To the body itself time appears to travel at a different rate. This is an observer effect. so if time is traveling at a normal rate for the body traveling at c then when it reaches it's destination time would have passed for the accelerating body but not for the observer. Thus when the information is measured by an outside observer time is relative to the observer, not the body accelerating to the speed of light. That's why time appears to come to a stop to an outside observer. but the body still experienced time traveling at c. So It made me realize that the observer effect and the wave collapse function would occur with the light coming from distant galaxies. As an outside observer I realized time would have passed at the same rate for the body on the long trip. Galaxies would look old, not young when the light information is measured. The observer effect occurs in our relative time, not the time of the body in motion. So we would see the distant galaxy as it looks in our relative time, not how it looked in the past. Time dilation and length contraction would happen upon measuring any light information from the distant galaxy. It would be extremely large, comparable in size and mass of our own galaxy. Some I said would be larger than our galaxy but further than 14 billion light years away. We cannot use a telescope to look into the past. Light information happens in a quantum instant when the telescope is contained inside the EM field it's measuring. All light particles in it's EM field are entangled. Meaning we see distant galaxies as they look today, our relative time. We cannot look back in time. I was right. The JWST found the distant universe, further than 13.5 billion light years away to be filled with hundreds of large fully formed galaxies, some larger than our own galaxy. Just as I predicted back before NASA launched the James Webb Space Telescope. The old massive galaxies in the early universe I called the Mother of All Paradoxes. Old massive galaxies in the early universe would be completely contrary to the predictions made by general relativity's look back time. According to general relativity's look back time the distant bodies further than 13.5 billion light years away should be young, large, dim, undefined, diffuse galaxies. They are not supposed to be well defined spiral galaxies. According to the cosmological model It's supposed to take billions of years for galaxies to take on a well defined spiral shape. The JWST discovered well defined large spiral galaxies further than 13.8 billion light years away. Well, it's because I said so. I knew that's what the telescope would find. Right to the tee. My eBooks are available for free online.

The observer is information...

@sakismpalatsias4106

8 ай бұрын

The consciousness is simply the interpretation. But that interpretation may be wrong. So we are trying to figure out is the correct interpretation of the interaction of the information.

Consciousness is fundamental. Research remote viewing, CIA and Russel Targ and see the astonishing results of their work. I think consciousness is a non-chemical information type.

@CMVMic

8 ай бұрын

No it isnt

The key here is informational exchange. The conscious observer affects the predictions. Information can be held in the collision of protons.

cat- why am i in a box, why are there 5 or is it 8 dead cats in here already, how do I know how to count, whats that glowy thing

Measurement is not observation, just as purpose is not consciousness. Measurement and purpose are self-consciousness. In consciousness is the fact that you have a choice the same as having a purpose? Choice in and of itself is not purpose. When you choose how does that choice become a purpose? Is it a matter of desire? Is desire the source of entropy - the arrow of time? No measurement is without desire or choice. Consciousness does not require "attention". An observation can be with attention or without. An observation with attention can be purposeful (with expectation) or reactive (passive: without expectation). Attention is basically self-conscious consciousness: consciousness influenced by thought. Thought can be rational or reactive. Rational thought makes for coherentism: consciousness "guided" by reason. Reactive thought is instinctual: consciousness guided by sense impressions. Reactive thought with memory is something different: not instinctual. It seems to be experience. Such experience that becomes pathological or can become reason or, perhaps, something else. The something else depending on the sense impression received. An observation can be made with purposeful attention or experienced attention. Depending on the type of attention the observation has active expectation (purpose) or passive expectation (experience) behind it. Is any measurent made by a device designed for experience? Is a simple ruler or scale devised to make an observation? Are they devised to affirm a desire or confirm an experience? What experience constitutes an inch or pound? Only an observation without "attention" is truly an observation. Only an observation without thought: without self-consciousness.

Or maybe our theories and conclusions are wrong?

The Trap of the Observer is that you must leave your Construct to truly observe. Therefore, we have no true Observers in Academic Institutions.

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

You don’t live within a construct?

@longcastle4863

8 ай бұрын

I think most philosophers would say, you can’t observe, but by means of a construct.

@brandonb5075

8 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 a very limited one. Phone, no internet, have lived at a camp for the last 3 years and no sex since 2015… it wasn’t by choice at first, but now I’m riding it out for the unique experience it provides. It is quite profound. I am definitely not in a city/university/capitalist system any longer. ✌🏼🤔

@brandonb5075

8 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 you observe as a baby/child without constructs, until they are forced on you. Imo. Please expand on your opinion.✌🏼😊

@simonhibbs887

8 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 I would agree with that. We have a biologically determined set of cognitive faculties. These vary between individuals, but within a range. Then we have the knowledge and skills we acquire from our culture. Then we have our personal experiences of the world. None of those have an unlimited range of possibilities. However we have a cheat code. Technology. This allows us to vastly exceed the limitations of our biology in all sorts of ways. Instruments that can accurately sense activity ranging from the subatomic level, out the vast galaxies that existed 13 billion years ago. Cognitive machines, computers, that can perform intricate calculations on vast volumes of data in seconds. This allowed us to throw off many of the constraints of our biology.

"Why is the physics of the observer so important? As your constantly moving cameras and bad cutting disrupt listening to you or your guest, because the POV is constantly moving and for no reason other than you or your director or DOP thinks it is cool, it is not, it is stupid, and disruptive.

I hate the word random in any form, nothing is random. Quantum physics is defined by random, it means we know little to nothing about the nature of the field.

It's all in the name. Really it's really the name... So may I ask, WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE LORD

Forget 13 billion years ago. Right now, miles deep within the cloud streams of Jupiter, storms are raging. And it is without a doubt that particles are colliding and wave functions are collapsing in a frenzy of interactions all over the place… With no observer there to observe any of it. Kind of embarrassing if physicists still believe in “the observer problem”. This is from an old episode, I think. Does anyone know when it first aired?

The multiverse theory is sometimes criticized for not adequately addressing the fine-tuning problem. This problem arises from the observation that the fundamental constants and conditions in our universe appear to be precisely fine-tuned to allow for the emergence of life. Critics argue that invoking a multiverse to explain this fine-tuning merely shifts the question to why our universe is so finely tuned to produce a multiverse.

If you like ecomomical explainations... God is the Observer that was around 13 billion years ago as well as for the infinate number of quantum events happening all over the universe where no other obesrver could be. Then you have information and consciousness also covered. (And you don't need to waive your arms all around!)

@longcastle4863

8 ай бұрын

And probably playing with himself the whole time.

I love cute little dogs chasing their tails videos.

That's funny... 🤓