This channel is so underrated.

@fanstream

4 жыл бұрын

agree...channel is stellar

@willnzsurf

4 жыл бұрын

Should have billions of views!😬

@unibomberbear6708

4 жыл бұрын

That's because they don't use New aged Terms. I find the avg. Joe either fears big words , and runs , or reaches for their Bible , Pitch Fork , and Medieval Torch . I'm not backing up Relativity , or Positivism , no . I think theories are still fun , but they ain't gonna put a man on the Moon using Relativity , Na'meen...

@rmarinero

4 жыл бұрын

One of the best channels in physics and philosophy out there!

@sheenaalexis8710

3 жыл бұрын

It's so sad. But a makeup tutorial channel has millions of subs. It's pretty telling of the human race. The majority of Humans are superficial, narrow minded robot's. I find it mind boggling how anyone wouldn't find it intriguing and important to talk about our OWN universe that WE live in. It's crazy to me.

Robert- the look on your face-as you patiently, politely listen to these ideas and opinions- often without understanding what the hell they're talking about- that look is priceless.

Multiple ponytailed, bespectacled intellectuals in one video! Only on Closer To Truth. I love it.

@kelcritcarroll

Жыл бұрын

This is so true! Good OBSERVATION!

Your show is so special. There's something bigger. Your quest to find that is encouraging.

There were always commercials but now they are just out of control on this channel. Just relentless. Merciless.

A lot of things qualify as observers, but since humans are among those things, we think an observer needs to be something very special.

Mr Kuhn made me feel envious in this episode... I want a conversation with David Wallace. Enjoyed the topic too!

The hands down BEST show yet..Chalmers has long ago left the physics reservation and resides in metaphysicsland.. Of ALL the guests, only Sean Carroll accurately described what a measurement is in physics, BUT ALL sides were fascinating,.. thanks. .

@abhishekshah11

4 жыл бұрын

He doesn't. He is an Everettian and they don't believe in macroscopic phenomena like "measurement".

@billnorris1264

4 жыл бұрын

@@abhishekshah11 Not true friend.. He DOES support the many worlds interpretation of QM, that's a separate issue from the definition that physicists apply to the term measurement.. A measurement is SIMPLY the interaction of two or more fundamental particles, like photons or electrons. This has nothing to do with whether or not the wave function collapses as in the Copenhagen or many worlds interpretation.. Everyone agrees that particles interact.. Peace friend.

Wow! This is a good one! You might consider the hypothesis the consciousness is primary, and thus "previous" to, and required by matter to exist. Thank you so much!!

Another great video by RLK. Would like to see longer, deeper interviews, respectfully.

I think this is one of the most interesting topic. I almost feel quantum physics gives us a focused lense to the “now” and all other possibilities are smeared in statistical possibilities that are not collapsed 🤔

I love this channel, it's everything I want in a channel. Also it's good to see people actually taking these topics seriously instead of pretending to know the answers like so many "science" speakers and thinkers do.

just discovered your channel - IT'S AWESOME! This is all the stuff I love to think about! And as a playwright, I don't have a formal education in these topics - thank you for making this

I enjoy your episodes they are really insightful and thought provoking thank you Robert.

I'm so impressed and amused by Robert's ending with "closer to truth" 🤣🤣🤣

"Observation" is the wrong word because it leads people to believe that it means to observe in any passive way like merely looking at something with your eyes, when in fact that kind of "observation" would have zero impact on a quantum system. That said, you can't look at subatomic particles with your eyes and so you can't passively "observe" their "quantum behavior". The only way to know anything about these particles is to make measurements on them by interacting with them in some way. Weather it's by using a two-way mirror or a polarizer or prism or magnetic feilds(in the case of charged particles). If this were the case then merely looking at the double slit experiment would make the wave collapse. But this is not the case. The double slit itself is the first measurement or "observation". If you make a second measurement, then the wave function will collapse. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

@dankuchar6821

4 жыл бұрын

. In order to observe something a photon must either be reflected or emitted by an object, and that photon then would affect the outcome and become an observation. But I do see your point. It's the famous measurement problem. The other term often used is observation. Perhaps neither is appropriate. Maybe it just requires that something interact with something else. So maybe the term interact is better.

@gwills9337

4 жыл бұрын

yes, it seems like they lost track of this fact by including so many opinions. They had to call in Big Daddy SC @13:40 to clear it up.

@billnorris1264

4 жыл бұрын

@@dankuchar6821 You are exactly right Dan. The definition that a physicist would give to a MEASUREMENT is the interaction of any TWO or more particles.. Plain and simple.. Tangentially, few people stop to consider that ALL information is CARRIED on particles or waves as well..

@neilcreamer8207

4 жыл бұрын

@@billnorris1264 I almost agree but I'd qualify that slightly. In the double slit experiment, the measurement is an interaction between either light or charge with an atom in the detector. I contend that it's our assumption that the light or charge is particulate (photons or electrons) which leads to the whole confusion over wave/particle duality and 'collapse of the wave function'. I think that we incorrectly assume the presence of photons and electrons in the experiments. If you remove that assumption there is nothing in the observations that can't be explained by classical optics and the quantum nature of the atoms in the detector.

@dankuchar6821

4 жыл бұрын

@@neilcreamer8207 except that when you turn on a detector in one of the slits nothing acts like a wave anymore, it all acts like particles. That's the dilemma. Detect which slit something goes through and suddenly the wave nature disappears and everything looks like classical particles. Why? and if it's particles, then how can one particle go through both slits and interfere with itself. It's quantum weirdness for sure! There are lots of theories and hypotheses as to why, but no one has a clear answer yet.

Robert Lawrence Kuhn living the life, the real Indiana Jones right here

David Wallace is fantastic!

Best Closer To Truth Ever.💯

Perception is a glimpse of a deeper truth.

My favourite vision of paradise is Robert Kuhn and Dave Chalmers arguing over whether consciousness is fundamental (Yes, the final round!)

1:15 ... I know that view well. The Canadian rockies are unmatched in beauty.

Cool Ending.. Always nice!!

Great episode..

John Wheeler summed it up nicely: “it from bit”.

Beautiful location for philosophical questions

18:49.. That was pretty Good. Liked it. Please keep going... this is so cool if you go far enough... be aware of boundaries though.

damn, great to see Max. Such a super guy!

@sheenaalexis8710

3 жыл бұрын

One of my favourite ones to hear from. I have such a crush on him lol

An observer is part of the system being observed. If you believe the fundamental subspace consists of +ve charge cells (quanta with base charge +1) in an ethereal sea of -ve charge, forming a self-balancing lattice then many things make more sense if you allow this literal, physical, all pervasive field to not only allow the lattice cells to vibrate around a fixed point, but also break free and travel, with energy lost squeezing through the lattice returned when the lattice rebalances with an inertial kick behind. These free cells, and possibly/probably the holes they leave behind, and their surrounding lattice warps (and possibly lattice cell flows) form matter particles... Interestingly, there is only one way to move a solid block of lattice (ie. a sphere) while preserving the lattice in general and that is for every lattice cell in front of the travelling sphere to loop to the -ve, stretched space behind. If the loops repel each other a bit (as they are all made of flowing +ve charge) then the loops would look very much like a magnetic field...

For the observer, the wave function of the observed object collapses. This is because the observed object and the observer are in a quantum entanglement state from the viewpoint of an another observer.

When you care to educate yourself and try to learn everything , your life experience will help you to find the answers for unknown questions

@darrelllatham6086

3 жыл бұрын

.

Seth Lloyd is a legend.

But if the electron is there when I alone look at it, would it also be there if there were four people observing? Whose consciousness then, out of the four, was the decisive one?

Excellent video

20:15.. That's true. I've done that myself.. it is possible.. can't explain how.. but yeahp.

Utterly beautiful location.

Why not have David Albert talk about GRW objective collapse?

Next program about it please interview Wolfgang Smith!

Creative Intelligence is omnipresent.

Great content, as always. But so many ads!

@snoopon

4 жыл бұрын

adblock

If there is an observational system at play, then observation should be necessary.

I have heard that the universe itself is sentient and that is how it is possible for the universe to exit. Is that plausible?

Not sure what is more confusing 🤔...quantum physics itself or how science plays the game of semantic and changes what we believe these words actually mean. Well played

1) The observer is observing 2) the observer is being observed.

I shake my head when people confuse infinity with eternity. Infinity is and always will be a function of time, while eternity does away with time and to me is thus more fundamental. And consciousness is eternal!!!

For a device measuring quantum wave / field, sentient observer(s) produced and used the measuring device?

Time flows only for the observer.

The standard observer has a proper mass and is generally considered as an inertial frame in relation to what is being measured. Proper masses are constants... in a gravitational potential which is approximated as a constant. Proper masses could be local constants only while the speed of light would be a true constant. Physics describes the world from a local perspective, hence the proper masses are constants if you consider only this point of view.

And... God as the dude who is driving the boat is having a laugh while trolling them all LOL!

@Raydensheraj

4 жыл бұрын

Looking at TWO God of the gaps at the same time....luckily Bohrs outdated philosophy is pretty much dead.

Does anyone know what the guy in the raft was talking about around @7:58?

The exchange of information collapses the wave function.

@dankuchar6821

4 жыл бұрын

Perhaps!

@SirKaison

4 жыл бұрын

Which is an interaction.

@puluzo

4 жыл бұрын

Haha well done you solved the puzzle. Nobel is on the corner 😀

How do quantum waves / fields interact with information? Can observation of quantum wave / field bring about information?

How does "he who speaks first, loses" *connect* with this? What are the *implications*?

At 5:18 the huge gap in scale between Observer and the quantum is a misunderstanding. Our minds are functioning on the vary same scale in the quantum scale! Therefore the gap is our owe deception in understanding. I wish I could do the maths and show you.

Maybe just as our conscious observation can change quantum waves / fields, another conscious observation can change nature?

A wave function collapse is just a way of describing what appears to us...to our knowing. From the Quantum particles point of view (and I say that metaphorically!) there is no wave function collapse, it is the ding an sich - the thing in its self! The way it appears to knowing depends on how it is known. This is the implication of Wigner's paradox, which experiment has proved, that two different observations can measure the same quantum system to be as two different values. It is just two different experiences of the thing. The super position is the thing in reality, the measurement is our experience of it, and our experience of it is all we can ever know! Any measurement instrument is simply, in principle, an extension of our senses. Senses them selves are measurement instruments!

Could consciousness / observation add information, both to nature and quantum waves / fields?

@RubelliteFae

Жыл бұрын

Depends what you mean by "add information." Consider that what physics describes is relationships between "things." But the more we look into what a thing is, the more we see that it is a system of relationships. By observing, an observer is becoming entangled in a new relationship. So, you could say this new relationship is new information (or would be as soon as it is observe by an additional observer).

I Always Wondered What was it about Canada.. I knew something was there.. had no idea what.

13:10 Any physical theory must begin with an observer. What he thinks the world exists objectively? What would it even mean, exists where, when, for whom? The world only exists here now and for us.

Thank you, Robert. Super segment!

It seems like these scientists on their own separate videos and podcasts get thousands of likes, why are so few watching this?

@joanofarc33

4 жыл бұрын

Drake The Human Because most people have too little knowledge to properly get anything out of the discussion. You need more than the bare minimum of understanding of physics to follow the discussion.

14:14 'Every physical system... can be considered an observer' but not every observer has Free Will. Thus the Free Will of the hue•man 'observe•her is that s/he has 'dominion' over the precise 'question' s/he asks of nature, but not over the 'answer' that nature provides to the precise, measuring probe of the observer's inquiry! In other words, the observer can only 'will' the precise question, and nature 'wills' its [standard deviation] answer!

Inventing an infinitum of universes to explain our one universe is suspect.

@RubelliteFae

Жыл бұрын

Yet without this, our Universe becomes somehow special. Whenever we think there's something unique about a human domain science eventually shows this to be untrue. If this Universe can come to be, then why not others?

@youtubetrailerpark

Жыл бұрын

@@RubelliteFae Looking back on science, it is consistent that the science of the day was proven incorrect by later science. Based on that, there's no reason to believe it's correct now.

@RubelliteFae

Жыл бұрын

@@youtubetrailerpark What I described isn't a scientific theory or anything. It's a rule of thumb that we've figured out from so many people failing to consider it so many times over the centuries. For more info look up, "Copernican principle." It isn't "the science of the day," and your ill logic doesn't apply. I say ill logic, because you are literally using "the science of the day" to have this conversation.

I don't think consciousness is required by the observer. In this context, anything that interacts with the wave function is an 'observer', and that interaction (observation) collapses the wave function and forces the probability to become actual, creating what we think of as 'reality' ..

When someone observes a quantum state they shine a light on it…isn’t it the light itself that which collapses the wave function regardless of the observer herself? But without consciousness than the light is spotting the object in super position…So ultimately consciousness is required to collapse the wave function…And on the macro scale…the entire Universe requires consciousness for its existence from it’s inception to the point where it gave rise to conscious life….

god surfs the wave function.

In a raft on a river and wearing pfds, these pointy heads (all of whom I admire immensely) look REALLY out of place. Great scene, though, Robert.

So, what? Nobody ever watched super slo-mo lightning? You are observing Gamma Photons interacting with the air. You can watch the collapse of the wave-function. Look at large things defined by quanta to see quanta. Blind guys with calculators trying to guess what can be seen... if only they could look.

If a conscious observer is needed to collapse the wave function, then who the hell was conscious to collapse the wave function before there were conscious beings? Without a measurement there is no particle interaction. If you're not sentient what good does it do to observe anything? What is the probability of conscious beings becoming conscious of a system's probabilities?

Interesting but I've heard it said that the idea of being a 'conscious' observer is very misleading if not altogether incorrect, that is it an unfortunate nomenclature which has led to a lot of mistakes and misunderstandings. It is the engagement with the wave function that causes it to collapse, not some living being's eyeball upon it. In other words, a rock will work in the double-slit experiment the same as a camera. But I'm just repeating what I've heard, that's what is so confounding about physics in general, there is so much repeating of what others have said and so little actual knowledge.

11:56.. Error.. You Cannot compute or create a system.. because the observer is not a system but static state.. it's pure element.. like gold, or diamonds or things that are pure for it's natural essence..

You need to know the laws of physics

How do we know that an observer perceives the entire reality when measuring a particle; maybe the quantum wave function continues to exist without the observer's perception?

@RubelliteFae

Жыл бұрын

The wave function is the probability for the particle existing in a specific way (location, spin, direction of movement, momentum, etc). Once something exists (in the relevantly specific way), then the probability of its existence (in that way) is 100%. 100% is a point.

Consciousness means that I exist.

I think I understand quantum mechanics.

Or our individual perceptions of reality are different unless coincidentally similar or the same

Everything about human experience is subjective, we are the subjects of our own lives and can not escape our subjectivity. This is perhaps the reason the observer effects the observed. It is impossible to be "objective" the word itself is questionable, how do we make our thoughts into objects - we can not.

Quanta are waves, Nature is particles. Nature needs observation / observer, quanta does not need observation.

It seems to me that there is confusion about the two event - 1. when the collapse (according to Copenhagen Interpretation only) happens (assuming it even does) and 2. when the a conscious observer registers and then reports that they now know the result of the experiment. By definition the registration of the knowledge of the experiments result that then can tell about it to someone who is conscious by definition requires the conscious entity. These two events could be separated by million years. For example, in the S. cat experiment, a video camera may record what happened. Then say the S. cat box is disbanded the next day, the video recording is not. Then after million years Alice (conscious entity) looks at the recording. After two million years Bob looks at the recording. According to Copenhagen Interpretation when did the collapse happen? When camera recorded the result? If so the camera is not "conscious" - I think everyone will agree. When does the collapse happen if it requires a "conscious" entity? When Alice viewed the recording? Or when Bob viewed the recording? What if Alice and Bob are sitting side by side and opened the box and observed what happened to the cat, whose "observation" collapses the wave function? Alice's? Bob's? What if Bob saw what happened to cat 1 minute after Alice? It is clearly absurd. If at least one non-"conscious" entity can collapse a wave function then a "conscious" observer is not required to collapse a wave function. No? I am a little surprised and disappointed that Max did not make that distinction and continued to talk about "conscious" observers as a requirement for collapse of wave function. Sean Carroll for example has made it clear elsewhere that "conscious" observers are not needed for collapse of wave function. I think "shut up and calculate" dogma of quantum mechanics has kept us away from the needed research to get a better handle on the interpretations of Quantum mechanics. Fortunately it is changing with modern scientists (Shaun Carroll) and philosophers (Tim Maudlin, David Alberts, Wallace) taking interest in interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and organizations like FQXI. And even authors like Dan Baker (Book: What is Real?). And allowing the need for "conscious" observers in Quantum Mechanics is NOT benign as charlatans slip in their religious and spiritual mumbo-jumbo based on that.

@abhishekshah11

4 жыл бұрын

Copenhagen is a crude interpretation and should be reserved to get through first course in quantum mechanics. The many worlds interpretation suffers from the apparent probabilities in the theory. They cannot account for why they measure a probabilistic outcome. The only true practical objective interpretation of quantum mechanics is in Qbism or GRW spontaneous collapse or theories of that nature. Why? Measurement is a macroscopic phenomena and simply put means to interact. If everything interacts with everything else, then there should be a wave of possibilities with no preference to what to collapse to. This gives us a many worlds picture of reality. However if you insist there is a problem with the appearance of probabilities in the theory, then you must accept we are only dealing with one universe, and if you trust "waveiness" of quantum phenomena, then you need something to collapse the wavefunction. GRW postulates exactly that. Replace the classical schroedinger eqn with a stochastic eqn.

Observer is a mechanism.

Consciousness has different states and attributes.. In its highest state, it is infinite space observing energy inside itself. In its lowest state it is finite space observing infinite energy outside. Inbetween these two limits, you can have infinite states of consciousness. If you apply this to your own consciousness states from morning to night, you can broadly classify 4 states.. Waking state- in this state your body, mind and soul are active, space observing movement of energy outside body. Dream state-in this state, body sleeps, mind and soul are active and space observes movement of energy in mind. Sleep state-mind sleeps, soul active and space observes movement of energy in the soul.. Fourth state- is a state when the space observes the movement of energy inside itself..This is the highest state as it enables to expeience all the three states simultaneously..humanity has to experience this state...This is the state when the finite space flips into infinite space and allows you to experience the entire universe inside you..because in this state you are an hologram of the universe..

The observer is _puruṣa._ The observed is _prakṛti._ Every observer is observed. Puruṣa is prakṛti. The distinction between the two is illusion (māyā) and relevant to why each conscious observer feels they are a unique, distinct entity. This is how reality comes to know itself. So, the illusion is useful, despite being unreal. "Nothing real can be threatened. Nothin unreal exists. Herein lies peace."-ACIM

The kuhn guy asks one physicist a question and tells the answer to another physicist when asking him another question whether it has any relevance or not to the actual question. The questions are more or less always marked by one common inquiry - "what does the Cosmos hold for him/us"? Im not sure if it is even logical to ask such questions any longer, maybe the cosmos would prove me wrong. Maybe it's all just a game... Or not.

13:26 by person .. I hope you mean human* human is just one of the states of being.. the second making it separate would be a spiritual state of being.. there are many.. the observer is always at some level.. everyone is an observer.. the question.. who is the highest observer ?

"Observe" in quantum mechanics does not mean to sit back and "look at". If it did, then when we looked at a wave pattern of a laser going through a double slit, it would collapse! That's not what happens.

@RuneRelic

4 жыл бұрын

Sensors are physical objects anyway. What they observe/measure is the physcial excitation of a solid. They 'infer/assume' a process that happens in the medium between two points. They dont measure every quantum step in time on the journey from A to B.

@dankuchar6821

4 жыл бұрын

How would you know? What are you gauging the collapse of the way you function by staring at a laser? You're not determining position or momentum of anything so you can't tell if something collapses just by looking at the laser. What's more difficult is trying to determine superposition of a particle without looking at it. That doesn't work. Because when you look at it you destroy the superposition. It's a difficult question.

What was physical reality like when there were no observers? Shouldn't "observer" be changed to "measurement"? When I "observe" nature at the macro level, I don't change it. Light plays the crucial role in measurement. One can devise a measurement to take place without a conscious being. The result can be saved digitally and sent to me unchanged. I think they are getting a bit mystical, even supernatural, with their treatment of the "observer." I think the key here is the concept of "interaction." Seth Lloyd touched this, "even an electron is an observer; the universe is an observer." I think they are off-base regarding consciousness. Consciousness is a state of a biological system, namely certain organisms with sufficient complexity to be in a conscious state. It is not some kind of substance. Finally, there is likely an "information field" that obeys laws similar to gravity.

Observation is fundamental, even bacteria observes it's surrounding n act upon it , changes itself as per the environment, surrounding unconsciously, but changes itself so so much during very long time millions of years from unicellular to multicellular to reptiles n mammals to intelligent life ,, unconscious evolution to conscious evolution and changing , at the same time, also inorganic evolution to organic evolution think about it seriously,, consciousness

It's crazy alright, I can tell you.

i think our consciousness transforms a lower level of reality (that which we refer to as waves) into a higher level of reality (that which we call particles)

@RubelliteFae

Жыл бұрын

What makes the one higher and the other lower?

@jimmybrice6360

Жыл бұрын

@@RubelliteFae i was using that nomenclature as such - that which is lower is more fundamental than that which is higher. i highly suspect that the lowest level is god's consciousness. everything emanates from that, the ultimate reality

@RubelliteFae

Жыл бұрын

@@jimmybrice6360 I think the human (though not chiefly human) propensity for hierarchy may be one of the reasons that people find QM so perplexing. And also why fundamental metaphysics seems paradoxical. Different perspectives on the same situation can be true-like the 5 blind men describing an elephant by the parts to which they have access. A drop of water and a tank of water are both equally water. I suspect that it is through the myriads of individuals that the whole is able to better know itself-because the more perspectives there are, the more data is obtained from various differing points of view. Or, to put it in your terms, "god's omniscience occurs through the summation of every individuals experience." Both are true and hierarchy isn't required. The divine is usually described as immanent in all things. Perhaps another way of saying what you posted is "human consciousness individuates (particulates) wholeness (waves)."

@jimmybrice6360

Жыл бұрын

@@RubelliteFae even physicists know that "particles" dont really exist. protons and neutrons arent really lumps of matter. i have watched over 100 near death experience videos. many of them do speak about being part of the whole, in the spirit realm - much like individual drops in the ocean. but we apparently also maintain some sort of individual quality about us, as well. it is way beyond anything that we can imagine. supposedly, god's plan for us is to be able to access greater levels of consciousness, here on earth. in heaven, we have access to all information, instantaneously - according to quite a few of them. the thing that is so compelling about these videos are the out of body experiences. we have verified OBJECTIVE evidence of them knowing things that they could not possibly have known, while unconscious on the operating table.

I wish I wasn’t involved in a political issues , so I could focused more on the objects

Observation is literally just that. Whatever we focus on in external world must be translated into something our senses can understand and communicate to others. And we have only 5 senses. Real world is much more than what we're biologically capable to detect. This is where we rely on theory and technology, if our ideas are true for sensory field of our biological body, than they must be true also for things our body can't detect. Things like various forms of radiation or frequencies, for example. We can't be sure radio waves exist or high pitch sounds dogs can hear, or gas molecules our nose can't sense. It's all atoms, a mighty hydrogen proton and electricity, to be a little bit more exact. We can't see atoms, but we can see difference in various materials and substances made from elements. What is a molecule than, sounds like bunch of hydrogen proton observers that communicate trough change in electromagnetic radiation. Molecules are combination of elements held together by different kind of force than force that binds atoms in elements. And atoms stay in one piece because of third kind of force. Every particle in the universe contribute and constantly exchange force of gravity with rest of the universe, it's all connected, but meaningless in most practical terms. Take one particle out of this universe and every other particle in existence will adjust very slightly, no matter how far and away. To probe stuff, we use disturbance in force. Can't just shake things up and watch what fall down. Measurement devices are a logical stack of those forces. Energy can be converted., all can be channeled and converted in an understandable and useful form. We can't touch anything in this world, would cause immediate nuclear explosion if we could stick molecules of our body into other stuff. Sure mater can melt and mix, but it hurts and get damaged quick, molecules can't just penetrate other molecules, can only tear apart force that bind them in a tissue and make a chaotic, useless molecular mess out of it. Order is important, we want to observe functional structure, not noise and dust. We can't see electromagnetic radiation we call light in itself, must shine on something first, than we can read out change in energy levels or detect light with our eyes directly, if phenomena are in visible range. But everything is shinning, our eyes also emit light onto source of light at distance. We can't see light from distance objects, only various interference from many sources, we need senses, models and contraptions to distinguish what we want to focus on. In other words, light get observed there in between, wave lengths interfere and bend, but with precise and well defined outcome. How can we see distant objects anyway, what is a distance, it's basically space where things change before they can influence us their source. All 4 known forces are constantly at play, no matter what we try to isolate and recognize from quantum tapestry. Why distant object appear smaller with distance, we can't see objects in their real size at all lengths. Perspective is a thing when we get smaller and smaller.

Then you can imagine

So what you are really asking is.... Is quantum reality that 'predicts' the future (ie dynamic time rather than a static present moment frozen in time), a feedback mechanism dependant on thought (observer). If sense is the observation of the outside collective modelled world (objective) and thought is the observation of the inside personally modelled world (subjective)... ...is the difference simply, one is public domain externalised thought and one is private domain internalised thought. If the only thing that is real is the sensory/active 'present' (aka collective objective shared reality) and the 'past/future' imaginary, then why wouldnt the future be collectively imagined, and the present the result of that collectivelly imagined choice with the added inertia of emotional conviction. Is the future really any more than a clash of imaginary personal desires, that churn out a conclusion to those competing objectives ? When I move my arm from A to B, are not all the steps between A and B considered the inertia of my desire. When another moves their arm from C to D, are not all the steps between C and D considered the inertia of their desire. And if the inertia of those desires have a path that crosses. So what if you only have one re-occuring desire instead of many. One mode of inertia. One solitary re-occuring objective. Would evolution not be adding complexity and variety to that singular objective ? How would thought itself evolve...the logical rather than physical ? And how valid can any understanding of inertia of intent become, without including emotional conviction, which is outside the realm of logical deduction, evaluation and formula ?

Think this way , how all the computer’s can be connected together, human brains has same capabilities, if you do the reverse engineering

7:03 - The question of "If you can observe it, are you part of the quantum system?" is answered by the aether. Waves cannot propagate without a medium. Thus, in order for any particle to interact with the wave, it must be part of the quantum system. In fact, that is all quanta is. It is observing the effects on the system. But the system itself is made of much smaller components that higher magnitudes of power are not going to let you observe. If you want to observe anything on the smaller level, you are going to have to start observing the effects of smaller objects on the system around them just as we do when hunting for planets in distant star systems. 9:21 - The idea that there needs to be a living observer for anything to exist is the dumbest thing I ever heard. The observer does not need to be living. What exists does so without the need for a living being existing inside the system. Otherwise you would need observers observing every inch of the universe for every instant of time or the universe would fall to shreads. 17:50 - To say that the wave function collapses is merely to say that you now know exactly where the particle is, what it is doing and the direction it is moving in. It also means that the wave is not able to be measured simultaneously. This is because the wave is dependent upon the movement of the particle. So if you know where the particle is at a certain moment in time, then you are not observing the wave, but the particle making the wave. It is exactly like a boat making waves. The wave is not the boat and the boat is not the wave. If observing the boat by radar, then you only see the boat, not the waves. But if you are measuring the wave created by the boat using a buoy or plunger, then the boat does not become part of the data, but you detect only the wave. They are two different types of measurement. But now, if you want to see the boat in motion in connection with its wave, then you need to use a third type of measurement. You need a stationary "eyeball" that passively processes a lot of quantum data from the entire environment, not just the wave or boat itself (which would be an isolated measurement requiring interacting with the particle or the wave). Only with an "eyeball" can you follow everything happening all at once in order to understand it. The "eyeball" is your conscious observer, but in reality, it does not need to be conscious and the universe exists whether an observer exists or not. The "eyeball" simply needs to record data sent to it by other observers for a conscious brain to interpret. The observer DOES NOT create the reality. But as Bernard Carr puts it, "The universe seems to be fine tuned for the existence of the observer." (23:03) It is exactly this issue that compelled Lee Smollen to develop the multiverse theory in order to explain away this tendency of the universe to appear fine tuned down to the photon. He says that it is because that is the universe we find ourselves in, but there are an infinite number of other universes that did not have this level of cooperation conducive to the life of an observer. That, as it sounds like, is just a cop-out to ignore the evidence for God that is declared by the fine tuning. 18:44 - The delayed choice eraser, the double-slit experiment and quantum entanglement have all been debunked by multiple physicists. (You should check out Sabine Hossenfelder's videos on those subjects.) Nothing actually affects the past, nor is the reality decided at the time of measurement. As I explained above, it is simply the nature of whether you are measuring the particle or the wave. If you observe the wave effect, you do not affect the particle, but if you measure the particle, you know its position at the time of measurement, but now your measurement has affected the path of the particle. This itself proves that the particle is real, has a definite path, and the wave is its wake. The fact is, the longer the wavelength, the faster the particle is traveling in relation to the observer, which is why the momentum its also greater.

I’m a photographer by the way

Whether, how or when scientists observe in a deterministic universe without free will makes it not fundamental.

Bedrock Reality is neither everything, nor something, nor anything, nor nothing. But that doesn't mean It isn't here.

can you add more ads please? 😁

Why something rather than nothing? The measurement problem cannot be resolved until this question is answered. Otherwise any theory (multiverse, many worlds etc.) leads to just more questions. Why "something rather than nothing" may sound purely philosophical but it is not like asking, "is there a god or is the universe fine tuned for life?". It is a question that is worthy of scientific inquiry because it is a brute fact of nature. My personal view is that something implies the number one and between nothing (zero) and one lies an infinite set of numbers, 2 + 3 = 6 %^$##% five, an so on. (quantum or universal or both) could simply be an instantiation of a functional unit(s) of information.