Paul Davies has such grace in his conviction on matters that are most profound.

I have to listen to this many times to follow this concept. When I thing I understand I lose it. But he is a great teacher to listen and learn from.

@AlanSmitheeman

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, it's like trying to grasp water.

@Chicken_Little_Syndrome

Жыл бұрын

It's not you. Quantum mechanics is essentially illogical nonsense.

@goodsirknight

Жыл бұрын

me too Derek, been coming back to this clip the last few days. Playing a bit, trying to grasp it, thinking i have it, and onto the next bit. i'm hoping i'll get to a stage in the near future where I understand it, and that observation will affect the nature of reality as it is right now. come on, future me!!

thank you for making this extremely interesting interview with Paul Davies!

Paul Davies is the best living explainer of complex science! Always it is possible to follow his arguments and understand his ideas....much clearer than the other well-known public explainers of science!

One of your best ever segments Mr. Kuhn -- truly mind-bending, self-reflexive and educational beyond words.

Very enjoyable discussion, thank you gentlemen.

It is difficult to conceive of something more powerful than Physics when guided by open and learned minds such as Paul Paul Davies´.

@michaelg1569

Жыл бұрын

Something more powerful than physics is direct knowing. Physics is constrained by the mind.

"The Observer is part of the observed world." Very significant statement by Davies IMO. I like the way this guy thinks and explains scientific knowns and unknowns. Everything Davies says about Wheeler (and Einstein) is correct.

@jamenta2

Жыл бұрын

​@Terre Schill I'll have to check that out, thanks.

@allenmakere3822

Жыл бұрын

see Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm

An observer is any point in space-time that interacts with another points in SpaceTime forcing it to measure itself or collapse its wave function into a deterministic moment and then return to indeterministic probability.

The cellular based life form as an observer has a tremendous bias towards itself as an observer, it doesn't seem to be able to imagine any other form of life than itself. If one is able to be a bit objective about the existence and coming into being of the cell based life form its complexity it seems anything but intuitive, it would seem there could be less complicated, or more complicated forms of life that we just can't imagine. We would not be able to imagine the cell based life forms if it was not for ourselves.

@mpmichaelpayne

Жыл бұрын

I think you need more likes

@Silverfirefly1

Жыл бұрын

There is non cellular life on earth. It struggles with individual scale, it is however very successful. The issue with complexity is that anything more self sufficient is going to have to divide itself from its environment and immediately some human is going to come along and label it as a cell, or a protocell mostly due to the limits of the language.

@vgold4286

Жыл бұрын

This means that little Johnny down the street might really be a girl afterall?

@alejandrocurado5134

Жыл бұрын

Another way of putting it is that a photon knows there is an observer, call it x

@EyeWokeVisuals

Жыл бұрын

@@vgold4286 Johnny can either give birth or not... those who are confused, are simply LOST

This needs part 2

Davies is remarkebly astutue. He is trying to put this in the simplest way for most to understand, but if we're talking about big bang cosmology, the mechanics of it, I believe, are beyond human comprehension. They are beyond the bounds of perception, language or experimental verification. You begin to run into all kinds of mind twisting scenarios like the quantum eraser and my personal favorite, the one electron universe, or conformal cyclic cosmology. The entirety of space and time for this universe could have played out at or before the instant of the big bang and then influenced a timeline in the past to create the big bang. It gets crazy. I dont even think it touches on people that these theoretical models can be true they are so far from our normal experience but the quantum world doesn't care a shred about our experience. Perhaps a supremely sophisticated AI will begin to scratch the surface but even then what could we even make results.

@_fox_face

Жыл бұрын

Why would u think AI (that does not exist) would be more intelligent than ure own intelligence (which does exist)

@pnf197

Жыл бұрын

In the end, the observer.

@LuigiSimoncini

Жыл бұрын

@@_fox_face low self esteem

@TheJacklwilliams

Жыл бұрын

I think the interesting thing about AI assisting in quantum mechanics and providing solutions/answers to what you speak of is compelling. As you state as well, I don’t believe we’ll be able to understand the resulting outcome either. It’s ability to break it down into something we can comprehend would be the true test of it’s level of intelligence of not only these matters but of our limits of comprehension. Lastly, I love this, because “the observer” in our case, has been proven to not be able to even scratch the surface of comprehension of what’s going on.

thank you for adding to our knowledge and self awarness

Matter is conscious. Matter is consciousness. Consciousness is the driver (force) of material interaction. Consciousness does not emerge with the evolution of brains, it was there all along.

I love Paul Davies and his clarity.

Fascinating talk. Thank you so much. 😊 My guess is the annoyance of physicists is mainly due to the lack of comprehensive definition for what an observer is across the board. Case in point, general relativity does indeed talk about sapient observers, whereas quantum mechanics seems to only require some physical interaction with a given quantum system to have their proverbial measurement done. It appears not to require sapience. Now, what's more is that quantum mechanics seems to describe directly a physical phenomenon when it talks about observers making measurements, whereas general relativity only uses observers as predictions of what the system ought to look like at any given vantage point, should general relativity hold. It's the use of a theoretical tool, not a physical feature of dependency upon observation. This seems to me to suggest that general relativity doesn't require observers in the first place, nor does it need to actually define them, whereas quantum mechanics appears to need their existence when describing measurement, and yet it has not gone through the trouble of defining them clearly.

@hckytwn3192

Жыл бұрын

"quantum mechanics seems to only require some physical interaction with a given quantum system to have their proverbial measurement done" - This isn't correct. All measurements 'collapse the wavefunction' (or whatever terminology you want to chose), but not all interactions do. The double-slit experiment couldn't be performed if that were the case. The devices/mirrors in the experiment don't collapse the wavefunction. Nor do interactions with gravity or the CMB or other fields. Matter of fact, even normal interactions with the environment don't--it just causes decoherence. The only time we see wave function collapse is via a measurement and measurements are only seen via sapience (i.e. the measurer). This is part and parcel with the Measurement Problem--simply put, Quantum Mechanics can't explain how a quantum system can be collapsed/changed into a classical one.

"Why is observation in the quantum world still a mystery?", we aren't ready for the Supermind.

@michael.spector2128

Жыл бұрын

We are

Sometimes we can think about it in a simple everyday way, or an indepth complex sort of way. But either way it is very interesting in any perspective.

Thank you for saying in layman's terms.... often people are unable to just explain within there mind, observation, and drowning in others explanations.

i have long cherished his book ABOUT TIME, which I have re-read many times. it was written for non-scientific folk like myself. and even discusses this very topic.

I love the way Robert looks at Paul 😊 Both men are great thinkers

Observer, know Thyself! Davies is a clear and penetrating thinker. A wonderful conversation.

One of the few physicists who properly grasps the difference between physics and metaphysics and recognizes the plausibility of the knowledge claims of mysticism. I wonder why they both assume that consciousness is emergent. I wonder even more why they imagine any physical phenomena is fundamental. I suppose it's a habit. These ideas don't wash in metaphysics, which is to say when we give them a bit of thought. .

Distinguishing even further by including the action of the observer adding energy and thought, expectations that influence what the outcome of many things will result in.

I love Paul’s approach to the “self as illusion” idea. Sure the self may be caused by numerous immensely complicated processes in the brain all coming together. That doesn’t mean the feeling of self is an illusion though. If it feels like I have a self then that feeling can’t be an illusion because I know it exists (Like Descartes said). My “self” may just not be as simple and unified as it feels like it is. That feeling emerges from all of the numerous processes that make it up. Calling the self just an illusion seems like a way for scientists to avoid sounding like philosophers. I think there is a point where science and philosophy converge. The more we learn through science the closer we get to complete understanding of the self. Maybe it will take an infinite amount of knowledge to reach that exact convergence point. I think of it similarly to how a piece of matter would need infinite energy to achieve the speed of light. Even if we can never fully understand the sense of self hopefully we can get 99.999% of the way there. Even if it turns out to be impossible to completely converge science with philosophy (or spirituality if you prefer), the act of trying will continue to elevate us as a species.

@haniamritdas4725

Жыл бұрын

Science and philosophy converge in ashtanga yoga and in Stoicism, if nowhere else. Knowledge of the self is basic in both of these reality-based streams of thought and action. The idea that religion is somehow necessarily opposed to science is nothing but a con used to keep people ignorant and under the thumb of pretenders to understanding and authority.

@1SpudderR

Жыл бұрын

Do you realise that You! are only ever aware of the Past! And from that perspective the Observer Subconsciousness is in the Now!? Where are You in the Trilogy Of “Past, Observer, Now”!? The Three sided Pyramid.

@haniamritdas4725

Жыл бұрын

@@1SpudderR You make an excellent point about experience. It applies to all sensory information: whatever sort of "wave" it travels on, that wave of stuff had its origin in the past, so all we experience is a sort of local historical record -- the radius of the locale being fairly arbitrary. But space itself is expanding from the small to the large, according to our perception, so the flow of all the energy carried in it is from inside, outward. Dissipation. Life giving flow, like the plumes of heat and nutrients emerging from within the planet in the ocean floors which may be able to bootstrap organic life from first principles, incubating the correct soup of biologically needful elements and their fascinating combinations. The future may not be a thing we observe, but we do observe its apparently continuous flow as the complementary wave emerging from within us, meeting and penetrating our own view of the past projections flowing ever (?) outward and through us.

@robertjsmith

Жыл бұрын

ObserverWill When you stay with your immediate,direct experience,you perceive only sights,sounds,smells,taste,sensations,,thoughts,and emotions.None of those experiences belongs to you.They start belonging to you only when a "my" or "mine" arise

@rpscorp9457

Жыл бұрын

@@1SpudderR pyramids have at least 4 sides..

Can we just say it -- metaphysics. Many call it woowoo but the physicists and quantum guys are finding themselves, because their road lead there, at the front gates of it. Great video thank you. Oh and, the wise say that Atman is the Witness, as in the observer, as in the seer who see's. Because of embodiment, the jiva, the Soul, identifies itself with the body. Truly the soul is Atman and Atman is All; the great seer. It's likely not, plural, Atman is the Witness.

@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness

Жыл бұрын

One being many being One 🙏🏼

@anteodedi8937

Жыл бұрын

Lol, keep your religion out of this!

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

If one found oneself long time in an environment filled with foreign speaking people only, would the likelihood of one inventing the 'all is one' idea be significantly less? All the English speaking people that I meet are of one mind about the majority of things. I discover this by speaking with them. From time to time the thoughts they tell me become my thoughts too. Is it reasonable to assert that together we constitute one mind? I think so but can't help imagining that it is mainly our linguistic communications that makes us single minded. I think it doesn't go beyond that probably because I have a distaste for superstition.

@avi8r66

Жыл бұрын

@@anteodedi8937 Impossible, this channel is all about religion unfortunately. They disguise their agenda as much as they can but it's a religious channel and the people being interviewed are typically insiders. Davies, for example, has a long history in the christian and woo book markets trying to align science and theistic positions.

@anteodedi8937

Жыл бұрын

@@avi8r66 I follow this channel for a long time and tbh I don't find that true. People being interviewed come from different postions. The host is quite honest at pursuing the truth imo. I make fun of people who comment here in general because they miss the entire point of this channel and they treat their religion as a fact. Just look at their ridiculous comments and how they shoehorn their religion in there.

The obvious answer is that being an observer and causing change to other matter is evidence that we are all and everything is apart of the same thing. We just choose to see ourselves as separate in our vanity.

Is anyone else seeing g a soft spoken, smoothly refined Robert Deniro?

The arrow of time points forward in time because of the wave function collapse. Because causality has a speed limit every point in space sees itself as the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles. When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment. The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past.

As always interesting discussion. However, this discussion is slightly misleading. Of course physics needs to (eventually) explain (conscious) observers as they are part of the universe. But that is a separate topic in itself. But, AFAICT, the intent of the question is wrt QM. In other words - do the observers in the context of QM measurement NEED to be conscious. And this has been answered many times by Sean Carroll, Brian Green and Carlo Rovelli etc. A video camera can be treated as an observer in QM measurement. This has been well established. And camera records stuff but does not have its own internal representation. Of course a macroscopic, conscious entity can be a observer in QM measurement, but not because it is conscious but because it is macroscopic. Thus consciousness is not required property of the observer in QM. The teams that develop quantum computers do not worry about consciousness of lab personnel will destroy quantum state. They worry about other molecules in the env and that is why Quantum state is kept in a vacuum. This also means that these molecules in the environment around quantum state are observers. IMO decoherrance and entanglement with environment to dilute the pure, isolated quantum state is the key.

@bryandraughn9830

Жыл бұрын

It seems as if most people aren't familiar with decoherence. They prefer to act as if it's not a concept, or maybe they've just never heard of it. It's strange that so many people have opinions on the subject without much familiarity. Or maybe that's just a predictable result of psychology.

@SandipChitale

Жыл бұрын

@@bryandraughn9830Agree. I am surprised though about Paul's comments because he is a prominent physicist and am pretty sure he has heard of decoherrance. My worry always is about opening the door to the woo woo crowd to mixing up quantum physics and validation of their cosmic quantum consciousness ideas. And Paul, possibly unintentionally leaving that door open with his comments.

An observer: One who has the ability to witness such an event, one who is self aware. In other words having consciousness.

@imcpan2590

Жыл бұрын

Not in physics. In psychology - maybe.

@Silverfirefly1

Жыл бұрын

In physics any particle is an observer. Existing in order to bounce off something or be bounced off of or otherwise interacted with counts as being a witness. The answer to tree falling in the woods example is that the entire rest of the forest including the air is witnessing it via the physical chain of cause and effect that results from it.

@Silverfirefly1

Жыл бұрын

@Arsene Lupin III A conscious observer is an observer, but you already know intuitively that reality will continue to support itself if you leave the room, so the act of observation is being delegated to every other particle that may or may not interact with another and so affirm its existence. There is room for consciousness to be the foundation of reality, but it doesn't lie in the idea that individual conscious minds are generating the universe. Rather, the sum of the information of the energy - and by extension the matter - of the universe may be conscious, with sentient beings being a facility to look back at itself from the inside.

@Silverfirefly1

Жыл бұрын

@Arsene Lupin III They certainly get excited 😉

@imcpan2590

Жыл бұрын

@@Silverfirefly1 In theoretical physics you can consider hypothetical observers, for example such that travel faster than light. In this case their interaction with the observed object may be hard to describe.

It's interesting to think that we can unlock the 'secrets of the universe' using only our 5 senses and how the mind interprets that. We are a product of evolution on this planet, and therefore are pretty well equipped to deal with life on it. Greater technology has given some understanding of things outside of that box but in no way will we ever be able to comprehend the bigger picture clearly.

?Observations/observers are resonance phenomenon between possible vibrational states?

The "observer" is the act of "choosing" which determines which version of reality you will experience. "Versions of reality" are merely a matter of perspective. The perspective of the "observer" is chosen. We do have free will. The universe is infinite and all encompassing. All possibilities exist within it.

Fully agree about the observer system requiring a representation of itself.

We don't need more wishy-washy definitions of what the QM observer is. What about a recording device (which is not conscious), but which can be interrogated later by a human observer? Does something magical happen to the QM state when the interrogation by the human occurs (however delayed that might be)?

does an observer place itself in space and time? is a sense of space and time needed for observation?

I have a suggestion for closer to truth team and robert if you are reading this comment. Can you make these discussions more understandable for a layman as sometimes it gets too difficult to understand what the person is trying to say. Is there any way to make it more understandable to someone who’s not in science?????????

@dgodrummer8110

Жыл бұрын

yeah, this conversation is up there. Paul Davies books are written for non-scientific folk. I have enjoyed reading and re-reading his book ABOUT TIME.

I once observed a bird tumbling behind two other birds, flying towards me at about a 20 degree angle i expected to see it fall but it just kept spinning round. It became quickly apparent that this was not a bird but a ball, a dull black rotating ball with a brass line wrapped around it much like that of a tennis ball. The size was just bigger than a football . Then had an urge to point at it, to see what would happen, but as I stood up I must have blinked and found myself just pointing at the two birds, by this time they were overhead and went over the house. I was originally sitting on the doorstep then ran around and watched them fly on as if nothing was there at all. The weird thing I find hard to dismiss was the urge to point at it, I was already seeing it so pointing at it seems well, pointless.. But it gave whatever this thing was a window to vanish. Feel like it was aware of me. The tennis ball pattern makes me think Human made. Either way feels like I observed something that makes our physics seem like basic math, and the whole thing lasted about 10 seconds and was completely silent. Thank you

So the general consensus is that observing within the act of an array of systems firing neurons and other biological processes produce a display of external values through which is malleable in regards to displacement of individual subsets of systems underlining an overall emergence within further developments of systems over time. From whichever system took place initially displays potential threats to the perceivable quantum and subjective immersion of which is only captivated in a window of time imperceptible up to its output. Not only does this reveal infinite and definite expressions, but also helps guide the force of nature to proceed in course the unconscious reflection. For to be conscious, an act of unconscious layering will inevitably follow suit. Projections of rejected data are brought back around into subjectively perceivable interpretations for further investigation. Additional accumulated information presents itself as points in which said data should be layered and presented. In so, data given enough unclaimed territory within mental constructs, unveils enough space and time to run indefinitely as long as something can remain unaccounted for.

I could listen to this guest talk about lawnmowers for 12 hours straight

I love this channel, this interview. Thanks so much. …yes if colour/ light was real, in the world, it would be out there. We do create the past via ‘memory’ which adds colour/light. There’s no colour in photos or iPads.

The Inertial plane/Counterspace is, instantaneously/entangled, connected to everything. The Inertial plane is perpendicular to the Apex of Aether's Hyperboloid. Scalable Aether Universe!

Observer=any system capable of energetic information exchange and recollection of state change

I keep thinking, at some point people will rediscover Charles Sanders Pierce’s philosophy and realize that this has already been fleshed out to a great extent.

You have action and reaction. What is the observer is the initial action, fundamentally?

When i think of observers in general stuff like personal beliefs, charakter etc.. ''psychological entity one might call it...comes to mind. This colors ones individual objectivity..the less coloring there is the more clarity of mind. In stuff like science where the claim is objectivity is everything one should pay more attention to this by teaching all students a healthy dosis of psychology since we cannot have psychological light weights judging their own sence of objectivity pushing their field of specialism in certain sorts of directions.

An observer is a block that emits a redstone signal when the block or fluid it faces experiences a change.

6:40 secs, but if the conscious beings were formless coeherent and able to travel anywhere , would that not be a good sync as well.

(1:20) *PD: **_"An observer is an internal state that can process information from the world, and then act on that information."_* ... This is exactly what 8 billion individual workstations (humans) are doing right now. "We" are the newly evolved arbitrators of value for Existence, and we define what Existence represents moving forward. I'm now going off-script with some "new information:" If you want a perfect example of how "observers" are setting the standard for generating *new information,* then I suggest you watch "Dytto" in a video called "FRONTROW - The Millionaires Club by World of Dance." Dytto is the modern-day version of what existence was in the early universe, and all I need to use to demonstrate how we "observers" are redefining existence. She takes all of the fundamental forces of existence from 13.8 billion years ago and physically manipulates their effects to her whim. She is a living, breathing *video effects generator* who is able to defy gravity, motion, physics, and time with everythng synchronized to human-orchestrated sound waves (music). Dytto is a sentient, self-aware version of a quantum wave function that she can collapse to a standalone particle whenever the heII she feels like it. THIS is the power that *"living observes"* wield over the cold, lifeless realm of inanimate structure.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

@Terre Schill *"So obviously I had to go see Dytto Dance. She was good. Very good. So good I thought the video itself was malfunctioning. But of cosmic significance?"* ... You've just watched what was once just impersonal, benign wave functions, gravity, sound waves, time, motion, cause and effect, etc. that happened in the early universe, to which she is now subjectively reinterpreting as a "human observer." Dytto is transcending everything the universe had to offer for the first 10 billion years of inanimate structure. She represents the most current state of the "Evolution of Existence." She is the new face of "Existence!" All of these brainy individuals being interviewed by CTT are far too focused on the paint, canvas, and the brushes to the point that they no longer recognize the masterpiece that's been painted over time. In my opinion, Dytto has more to say about the "individual observer" within that single crazy dance video than every physicist, philosopher, or scientist interviewed on this channel. Now, some claim humans are insignificant "bugs on a rock" in regard to the universe. According to many, the universe doesn't even recognize our existence when in actuality, we are the new "industry standard" in the cosmos. WE are the evolution of wave functions!

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

Жыл бұрын

@Terre Schill *"So shall we say that we are all co-authors of the universe?"* ... I think that is a very astute "observation." We take everything existence has to offer and reinterpret it through the prism of self-awareness. We are obsessed with the quanta, and our failure to recognize our importance within existence is preventing us from grasping the _big picture._

are you absolutely sure you can't send messages back to the past though ? what about in dreams you've had in the past ? i've had many future preditions happen in my dream and all i had to do was wait until it happened. for example if something shocking happens to you or something you deem important to you happen in the future but you're in the present in the past you could be dreaming of what is to come that's for certain ? strangest thing i've ever been a part of... you should be checking out what dreams are and include it in quantum physics etc

Birth of Mind becoming Matter. 🤯

The other side of the coin is that there have always been observers and our redundant version of "the big bang" limits our understanding of how on earth we came into being in the first place.

You people are geniuses I wish you all the best

Do you ever perplex the universe may be performing computations?

The observer/observer system x is the fundamental physical reference, x is always at rest.

A lawyer once told me the least reliable data comes from eyewitness account. From Anthropology, ‘Observation alters what is observed’. This video seems also to discredit the abilities, accuracy, and dependabilities of observations. What need for books? Why value any opinion? How did we ever land on the moon, or drive our cars to work? Why investigate theft or murder? We do what we can with the tools we have, get up in the morning and try again. I’d say we’ve done pretty well. Quantum Mechanics: Re. Two different things are interconnected in ways that don’t make sense.. A clock repairer once told me that you set clocks in a room with different beats, they eventually beat in the same rhythm. I wonder if this is what these gentlemen are describing? What about the Wellesley Effect of menstrual cycles?

The observer is a point of view, determined by a collection of experiences.

I like to watch.

I'm not sure how enlightening this discussion is, the answers are very involved and that perhaps obscures what underlying truth may be there. But if the notion being expressed is that an observer as Paul Davies defines it is in some way essential to the outcome of an interaction which occurs prior to the observation (which it must), this can never be more than a philosophical conjecture, because no non-observed control could be known to us. Further, there is no reason to believe that it is the case. There is some apparent conflation of constraint on our _knowledge_ of the past, and constraint on what has occurred in the past.

Amen

might time in quantum mechanics be moving from future to past, even as space is moving from past to future?

@tannerhuxtable6118

Жыл бұрын

If we called the past "the future" and called the future "the past", it would make sense that events in "the past" affected events in "the future". On certain scales, we can "predict" the future with much greater certainty than we can "postdict" the past. There are machines, like telescopes, that can see very far "forward", but can't see "backward at all, even though "backward" and "forward" are, absolutely,, indistinct. Maybe our sense of time is a similar machine that sees a distinction where there is none.

Robert asks Paul: *"...if you go back to the early universe, there obviously weren't any conscious beings around, so, does that obviate the conjecture that consciousness is fundamentally important?..."* - To which I ask, can there be a more presumptive stance than that? I mean, pose that question to Bishop Berkeley, for example, who proposed that the universe is actually the MIND of a higher consciousness. So, no, going back to the early universe most certainly does not obviate the possible role of consciousness.

@bryandraughn9830

Жыл бұрын

The presumptive stance is a result of never having detected such an intelligence. It's equally as presumptive to suppose that there is.

Observer that you're defining that needs an internal state that has a representation of itself (VERY INTERESTING IDEA, I THINK, IT IS TRUE just as a molecule has the most stable state, so does an atom, an electron, which the stablest state is its quantum field, ect.) The representation for the interanl state is its soul, isn't it? Every creature has a soul which is an observer to others of its environmental factors. With an observer the observed exists according to Quantum Mechanics. Therefore, there must be OBJECT WORLD, which may be divided into Three Realms by Two Limitation Speeds, Light Speed & Dark Speed (I assumed), Planck World, Dirac Sea and Divine Realm.

Wonderful. It's nice for me to see that physics is beginning to see the dual nature of reality, namely the outer (material) and the inner (mind), and how they're inextricably linked. It's my assumption that each occupies exactly 50% of the universe, but up to now Western science has only really focused on the material part of the universe. Shall be exciting to see where this all goes in the future. It could be sped up by talking with the Buddhists and Hindu philosophers, because they've been exploring the inner universe for millennia.

@robertjsmith

Жыл бұрын

reality isn't dualistic

@psterud

Жыл бұрын

@@robertjsmith You're right! How would you describe reality in terms of what appears to be dualistic, matter and mind?

@robertjsmith

Жыл бұрын

@@psterud non-conceptual

@psterud

Жыл бұрын

@@robertjsmith Understood. But how do you get that across to the scientists?

@robertjsmith

Жыл бұрын

@@psterud there are quite a few TED TALKS on YOU TUBE by scientists talking about non- duality also Sam Harris is good

with one little sideline he opens Pandora´s box: of causa that illusion (observer) is created by our brain therefore it can not be an illusion...

@jamenta2

Жыл бұрын

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion the brain produces the observer. The problem I have with that assumption (which Davies makes) is it discounts von Neumann's chain - which IMO remains valid.

In a video game, a "brain" is there to satisfy a game world model of reality. How do we know the brain does not serve this same need in "reality". In other words, the brain, and all it's details, could simply exist as an icon which serves as an "explanation" to our own existence, for a matrix reality that has no intrinsic explanation.

In the Quantum world, our cause effect measurement does not apply. The effect may come before the cause depending on the observers

I AM THAT I AM

Self reference becomes infinitely recursive. If you ever have the chance pop into the garden of Ye old new inn in Bourton on the Water. There you will find a model village. A model of Bourton. In the model village is a model of the inn and garden containing the model. I'm sure you can see where this is going. Can you see the relevance of the reference?

The wave function “collapses” to a probability density as the imaginary part disappears when psi and it’s complex conjugate is multiplied. The reality we get to observe is the probability density. It is sad that a renown Physicist still holds pre-Copernicus views and puts man in the center of the universe. 😞 We have a long way to go as a species.

I am a Spirit Contact. I've asked the invisible ones "What is your job?" "Observe, and report." They are watchers and reporters. Take THAT to the bank.....

So, the observer can affect what happens just by observing, but they can't affect the universe in any other way because everything happens according to laws acting on initial conditions?

@tannerhuxtable6118

Жыл бұрын

When the observer chooses to observe a particular aspect of the universe, it appears to evolve in some predictable way. When the observer chooses to observe some other particular aspect of the universe, it appears to evolve in a different but still predictable way. This may be the only way we can affect the universe Affecting the universe this way may give rise to the appearance or the actuality of being able to affect the universe in "other" ways.

There are many things we simply don't have the brain capacity to understand.

What a miracle...”To look in a mirror....and it looks back at you....100% as it was before it was even aware you were there! And reproduces you. My point just imagine the conversion rate of all that Quantum...instantaneously....Obviously with pre-awareness of what it is looking at.....because there is a Time involved for these Quantum reactions! Or is there!? A Subconsciousness connection which is the Now and Timelessness! -- Observer having a conversation with the mirror?

The concept of internal observer is not easy, as the internal observer would end up being singularity itself.

all of our body including our neural network is made from cells which we now know has algorythmic capability so perhaps our sense of self awareness is literally our cells sensing our very thoughts and signaling with all of the cells in our body to provide us the felling of our thoughts. A computer's transisters would need to individually be capable of sensing each other and cross communicating in order to replicate self conciousness.

Is it possible that the universe, through many iterations, is evolving in an effort to witness itself. Our present individual consciousness being only one of the contributors ?

@robertjsmith

Жыл бұрын

you are awareness

The delayed choice experiment only proves determinism. Nothing is being "chosen", it was always going to be that way.

Explaing without being included in the explanation itself is incomplete or any truth we claim is incoherent with the reality

ever since i was a small child i had the obligation to observe and report to the higher up beings. hard to explain but it is my duty on earth…

I thought this might be a critical analysis of the Suspicious Observer community. Kinda relieved to be wrong.

Isn't this saying the past is dependent on the present interpretation of the past? you change the past depending on what you observe of the present.

I spotted an erroneous idea at about 1:10. He says that ‘observers are a part of the world’ - but the point is that the observer is that to which the world occurs. He then tries to tackle that by talking of ‘representing the observer’, making an obvious reference to ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. But the problem is that they both continually try to ‘objectify’ the observer - to explain the observer as something observed. But the observer is not observed! Crucial but fundamental point which delineates the boundary between science and philosophy.

@popularmisconception1

Жыл бұрын

So when I see a bunch of people watching youtube videos, or watching me talking to them or dancing with them, I'm not seeing observers? What am I seeing then? Flesh? Atoms? Actions? Activations in my retina? Do I observe them? And when I act upon that observation, am I not part of the world? Some things don't appear to be observers, because they follow simple action reaction rules, such as falling rocks and orbiting planets. Then there are parts of the physical world, behavior of which is often more a consequence of their internal states, that are unseen, rather than outside forces. It kinda works best to model these parts of the universe as things somehow similar to me, their observer, and to model me as a thing similar to them. Since I know my inner states to some degree, my thoughts and feelings and stuff, somewhat better, I can use the knowledge of myself to infer their internal states. And so the observer both in me and in them becomes observed. Without them I could not see myself.

If I close my eyes does anything exist?

Observers are scouting units in Starcraft 2

The observer is the observed 😉

@pratikpatil6342

Жыл бұрын

Haha..Krishnamurti :)

If the mind as observer was not always there, how could the first observer ever be actualized?

The “observer” is what allowed our known universe to exist beyond a quantum mechanical ‘blip’ that otherwise would have gone back to nonexistence. It is the Fourth Law of Aristotelian Logic, which Aristotle never was able to express. The first three: 1) There is an object, A, it exists and we can observe it. 2) There is an object, -A (not A), it exists and we can observe it. 3) Through observation, we can discern that A and -A are different. The fourth law? 4) Before observation occurs, A = -A !!! Bell’s Theorem. That original observer? Some call it ‘God’.

If the self is a behavior, caused by the brain, then it’s not a real entity. At least it’s not real in the same sense that the whole body is, or the material being observed. It seems like there’s an homunculus, a little person in our heads, but we agree there isn’t really. Therefore, observation from the POV of human consciousness is not a materially real event, but an illusion: A perception that is not completely true.

Joscha Bach's definition of consciousness is a simulation that includes itself in the simulacrum it creates of the world based on sensory data. The self is in this sense a simulation, or "illusion" if you like; but it is only intelligent to the extent that its model matches the environment. Self-knowledge is indispensable both to consciousness and intelligence, according to this reasoning. In comparison, physicists tend to depend upon naive assumptions about their own intelligence and its nature, which is ironically ignorant.

how is "changing the nature of reality as it was in the past" not changing the past?

The first thing that occurs to me is the question, is DNA an observer?

You chuckle at the obviousness of the self being generated by the brain. However correct religious doctrine teaches that there are three layers to the self the physical the spiritual and the unutterable

@rusty1here

Жыл бұрын

Again the mind is simply a geographical location? how about Boltzmann‘s brain and the realm of the spiritual and unutterable…?

Sounds like self awareness

off on the wrong foot from the start. science mostly describes what results we can expect to happen in the world. it seldom explains it. when i look at an airplane (even its parts), that doesn't mean i understand aerodynamics or metallurgy (or, or, or).

1st .. after First.

All is mind.

When humans were apes…was there a moment when we became conscious ? How far back in the past was it? What is a sign humans became conscious

Consciousness is entropy becoming self aware