The entire video was 3hrs 40mins long. Too big to upload in one go so I had to split it up into 2 parts. Be sure to watch Part 2 (kzread.info/dash/bejne/Y6eowdelc7PLgpc.html), that's where all the really juicy stuff is. Don't half-ass this episode -- it's an important one.

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

Not sure yet. It's already shot. I might upload it tomorrow because I want people to see the whole thing in one go for maximum impact. But if not tomorrow, then next Sunday.

@NeutronicBusch

6 жыл бұрын

Actualized.org Any new book recommendations?

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

Actually, yes, there is a new book recommendation in Part 2. It will be added to my book list when Part 2 is released. It is a book exclusively full of quotes from the founding fathers of quantum mechanics in support of mysticism and rejecting materialism. Highly recommend reading it. You will never see QM the same way again. It's a non-technical book.

@NeutronicBusch

6 жыл бұрын

Actualized.org Thank you, Leo! Seriously looking forward for the next upcoming videos!

@luisguzman3758

6 жыл бұрын

Damn these topics are getting huge... no wait ... Infinity ;-)

Personal Notes - Quantum Mechanics Debunks Materialism - Focus on the the big picture, high-level. Not technicality. - Its relalationship with nonduality. - Visionary scientists are becoming less common. - Explain the origin of existence. - Leo loves epistemology. - What really matters is deep state of consciousness. Key thesis > Paradox is inherent to reality (circle back around; strange loop! You Are It!!!!!) > Quantum physics confirms nonduality > Radical consequences that cannot be logical understood. Solution: transcend the human-mind. > Materialistics are wrong Materialistic paradigm: There is a physical reality. My exit from reality is death. The building blocks are atoms, molecules, quarks etc. There is an objetive way to reality. This mindset is kinda hard-wired in our brain. Democrates, Socrates, Aristostle popularized ideas aligned with this paradigm. Newton believed in God. He said God created the Universe as a clockwork thing. Modern scientists have thrown away "God". So the Universe is simply a clockwork. But... Reality is non-linear, acasual, highly relative. So reality is not clockwork. Reality = Infinite consciousness singularity/Infinite dream In this dream called reality, you can experience the limits of physicality. How to get this? Direct experience... Modern Science points to a higher level of consciousness >> XX Century Discoveries That Shook Materialism

@davidrowewtl6811

6 жыл бұрын

Thank you

@Fesenfull

6 жыл бұрын

Niiice

@myexperience1259

6 жыл бұрын

Gabriel Antonio after knowing all that what I should do in my life ? .-.

@gabo3color

6 жыл бұрын

You actually need to be following actualized.org and you must also must have watched the episode, not just my little summary. If you want good advice, you must be very specific, which you failed to do in your question.

@flowmp

6 жыл бұрын

good stuff..... & potato I got nothing to say to you.

1:04:19 How to deal with rejection when picking up girls

6 жыл бұрын

I am laughing so hard lmao

@MaySelf

6 жыл бұрын

holy shit hahaha

@MARISRUBINS

6 жыл бұрын

🤣

@OfficialLuceMusic

6 жыл бұрын

Lmao.. Someone give this man a medal.

@hokiturmix

6 жыл бұрын

Nothing was real about your feelings.

But Leoooo.... How does this help me to get a hot witch girlfriend?

@FPSCroatia

6 жыл бұрын

DL L Tell her about this topic and you will blow her away

@dakillah6018

6 жыл бұрын

ahahahaha you fuckin troll ahahaha i cant believe what you combined to make a joke....this is so old shit..the hot witch girlfriend....hmmm maybe you follow Leo like a year and watched his shit really fast so its not that hard to believe anymore :D but still funny as fuck

@najiahhaqani9737

6 жыл бұрын

lol

@danalyze

6 жыл бұрын

...what?

@danalyze

6 жыл бұрын

...but will she blow me?

As soon as I saw the title my physics major's ego got triggered and I started typing a long-ass comment about how you can't talk about quantum mechanics without talking about the math of it,and how new age people misunderstand it and use it to justify their beliefs, but then I became conscious of what I'm doing, erased the comment and watched the video. And it surprised me how accurate it actually is! Really good job on this one!

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks for being openminded.

@Paradoxonium990

6 жыл бұрын

I see. Have to watch it then because I love Leo and recommend his channel to almost everyone, but after dealing with so many quacks from social media and RL, I am tired af. And the last thing I would want from his channel is some Chopra Sadhguru bs.

@isaacstamper7798

6 жыл бұрын

He did have a couple errors in his understanding of QM though...

@asameshimae6850

6 жыл бұрын

Isaac Stamper Like what for example?

@Paradoxonium990

6 жыл бұрын

I agree, he did. Till 21:49 he only spoke of the present day people from STEM being materialists (and cited mostly people working at R&D/Experimental division) as opposed to 20th-century giants. This is not true. If that were the case then this renders theoretical physicists' along with their thinking and working of this century as materialists. Publishing and perish (which is, unfortunately, the case and is the new form which replaced "or perish") is a result of predatory journals and technology sought out by govt. and private sector alike, for the most part. This doesn't deem them as materialists. Many like to think in terms of logical positivism as well, and many are reductionists too, from the POV of philosophy. Also, how can Leo be 100% sure that no one has experienced the same mental states of consciousness as he has until now? Sam Harris, for example, is a skeptic. He calls out the woo and jargon of mystics, gurus, and religious dogmas, yet meditates. Is pro-science and technology, but also discusses the ethical and moral part of the implications of tech, AI, etc., if they may lead humanity somewhere bad, etc. He doesn't make no such claim of attaining profound states. Where lies the objective measure of it which would measure the spectrum? Anyway, I listened only till this point. I'll finish the rest and continue with my points.

Start: 26:25

@naftalibendavid

5 жыл бұрын

random thank you

A complement to the part at 11:30: Richard Feynmann elegantly said that: "no theory is right, it is simply not proved wrong ... so we never are right, we can only be sure we are wrong."

Spooky action at a distance does not debunk causality it debunks any confidence that our current model of causality is complete. It doesn’t even debunk our current model as it stands.

Leo should have started this vid with "you wanted to know what the matrix is neo?"

pause the video... 20 minute meditation... continue the video!

>99 minutes >only part 1 *bring it on*

@NapoleonDynamite69

6 жыл бұрын

Jeremy Mac bring it on again 2

First - Thank you Leo for meticulously preparing the delivery of this content. It is appreciated because it points to your inherent intent of truly sharing 100% of your discoveries with the world at large. Secondly - the implications are massive in the way in which those who get it will experience their world. This then leads me to be grateful that you exist and that you drive this information down to our level. In a way - this too represents the way in which reality seems to function. Cloud of probability that collapses unto an object as we observe it. Meaning then at this level is infinite. Gracias señor Leo 👊🏼

No discussion of Quantum Theory can leave aside John Stewart Bell, who managed to prove, with a short theorem, that the whole cornucopia of QM "interpretations" that were cropping up were false; and that the assumption of hidden variables to explain entanglement simply did not work. His theorem only left room to accept what the basic math says, even if it's unappealing to intuition. I would describe the materialist model this way: There is space, which is absolute, a-priori, and 3-dimensional. There is also time, which is also absolute and a-priori, and one-dimensional. In this space there are particles of matter that interact with each other by means of forces, and obeying absolute natural laws, which exist a-priori and is up to us to discover. A consequence of these assumptions is that the universe is deterministic. That's what you mean by "clockwork"; I know, but it needs the full description. Objectivism is a philosophy, which embraced this model, but contributed nothing to it. Quantum indeterminacy and chaos theory blew this materialistic model right out of the water, indeed; but I don't know how the term "non-linear" comes in. Objective uncertainty, which is implied in Quantum Uncertainty, and proven by experiments, indeed proves that the universe is NOT deterministic. IOW, the future is NOT predetermined. Correction: If you are riding a beam of light, the time of your travel is zero; therefore you cannot say the universe is standing still, because the moment you leave and the moment you arrive are, to you, the exact same instant, even if you traveled across 15 billion light years. To speak of the wave/particle duality and that observation affects measurement is very bland without describing the actual experiments. When I describe to people the double-slit experiment and they understand it, they start banging their heads against the wall. They go through the same shock that the fathers of QM went through. But if you just SAY that observation changes the experiment, nobody understands what you are talking about. In a nutshell: It was observed that light passing through a barrier with a small hole tended to disperse as it passed through the hole. This phenomenon, called diffraction, seemed to support the theory of light being made of waves. Using a very dim light and a photographic plate behind the barrier with the small hole, it was shown that the plate showed individual photon impacts, proving that light was made of particles, but the distribution of the impacts matched statistically the diffraction pattern. People tried to explain diffraction as being caused by fields and things surrounding the material around the small hole, but the material of the barrier, whether conductive or not, magnetic or not, seemed to make no difference. Only the size of the hole seemed to affect the diffraction pattern. The double-slit experiment then came up, where having two pin-holes in a barrier produced a pattern of fringes of light and dark, which could only be explained as interference, again supporting that light was waves. Using the dim light source and photographic plate, the same experiment yielded individual photon impacts, again validating the particle theory of light; however, the impacts of photons were more concentrated in places and more dispersed in others, matching the pattern of interference observed. People theorized that perhaps each photon was splitting in two parts, going through both pin-holes at the same time, and then interfering with itself. So, someone had the brilliant idea of putting a detector around each pin-hole, to be able to tell if each photon was going through only one pin-hole or both, and the detectors detected that photons were passing through one pin-hole or the other, but not both. However, when this experiment was made, the fringes, the interference pattern, disappeared. The result was two overlapping, normal diffraction patterns. Nobody had any idea what was going on, at this point. In the meantime, Heisenberg had been working on Uncertainty. Heisenberg was not looking for God, or Shangri La, or non-duality. All he was trying to do was to figure out the theoretical limits of knowledge of physical systems. He observed that, to tell where a particle is, you have to shine a light on it and observe the shadow. But the more accurately you want to know WHERE the particle is, the shorter the wavelength of light you have to use. The shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy, and so the more your light beam will kick the particle out to God knows where. So, to know where a particle is accurately, implies that you no longer know where it is going. He found, eventually, the formula he was looking for, and it was Degree of Certainty of Position TIMES Degree of Certainty of Motion EQUALS Plank's Constant. Nobody thought much about it, until someone decided to use it to explain diffraction. You can rewrite the equation as Certainty of Motion EQUALS Plank's Constant OVER Certainty of Position. When a photon is going through a small pin-hall, the certainty about its position increases the smaller the pin-hole is, and when you divide Plank's Constant by this increased positional certainty, you get a diminished motion vector certainty. The result of this calculation matched EXACTLY the measured diffraction. But the double-slit experiment was still a mystery. Then someone else used the same approach to the double-slit. Two pin-holes boil down to a 50%-50% chance of a photon being either at this (almost exact) location or that, and when this was expressed mathematically and used to divide Plank's Constant by, the motional uncertainty that resulted was like a sine wave modulated by a gaussian, and it exactly matched the pattern of interference that had been observed. Finally, this left only one mystery unanswered: Why did the interference pattern go away when the detectors were placed? Finally someone clicked: Once you put detectors on the pin holes, you no longer have the 50-50 uncertainty as to which hole the photon is going through, so the standard, single pin-hole uncertainty equation applies. You HAVE to NOT KNOW which pin hole the photon is going through, if you want to see the interference. Now THAT is the way to explain how the observer affects the experiment. Good night.

@denzali

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for that top notch breakdown sir

@denzali

4 жыл бұрын

Dan W I just found this comment again and loved it a second time. Wish I could copy and paste it for further reference. But.. memorising it will help understand it completely so... 🙏🏻

@privateerburrows

4 жыл бұрын

I appreciate your appreciation. Yes, this is a wonderful discovery for Humanity. Unfortunately most people don't know what they are missing. They satisfy themselves with a few quantum slogans and don't bother to try to understand it correctly. That's to Science what dogma is to true religious experience.

I love how you started to put out some really advanced stuff out there! Since i tried DMT and LSD years ago, all of reality became so much more, then it used to be, yet it feels so calm and simple. I used to watch your older videos a lot, and they were great, gave me some insight into the basic material about my feelings, what i actually am and have. But I started to research ancient alchemy, Taoist alchemy, Magick, Rituals of all kind since humanity. Those teachings gave me so much to think about, like the hermetic principles or Hermes Trismegistus. There are a lot of ways to the Ox, there is not one true way and by believeing that, people blind theirselves to possibilites, limiting their own potential. This is why Religion is so dangerous. Thanks for putting out the work, gonna start exploring these new topics you provide.

Leo thank you SOO much for your hard work and the tons of value and life changing topics, points of view, paradigms, and revelations you give for FREE on this amazing channel! Your actually the best! I am a better version of myself today because of you. Keep it up👌🤘

@VectorOfKnowledge

Жыл бұрын

He's a fraud.

Congratulations Leo! You actually got the description of science right. I know because I have been a scientist /engineer for over 4 decades. Have you read Quantum Enigma by Rosenblum and Kuttner?

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

Congratulations for being a scientist who actually understands epistemology ;) No I have not.

@lordpsmatrix

6 жыл бұрын

Michael J. Buddhism remains the most correct "Religion" because in true Buddhism there is no God. But trust the human subservient ego, WHAT! NO GOD!? then they went and made Lord Buddha their God.

'observing' something in quantum mechanics doesn't mean something looking or measuring it, it could be a particle interacting with another particle making that particle 'observed'. also these quantum ideas DO NOT work on the macro scale that's why you have classical physics for that.

@ActualizedOrg

3 жыл бұрын

No! You don't get it. There is no particle interacting with another particle unless you measure it! That's what QM says, not me. It's extremely radical: particles do not even exist! They only come into existence IF you measure for them. Your measurement literally creates particles! Again, this is not my idea, this is what the founders of QM said. Read their works. And measurement can ONLY occur within consciousness. All of QM hinges on CONSCIOUSNESS of it. QM has everything to do with "looking". If you don't look, nothing exists. Period.

@zlocish

3 жыл бұрын

@@ActualizedOrg Wow. You just make a mockery out of real quantum mechanics. Stop selling this bullshit to people

@someonenotnoone

27 күн бұрын

@@ActualizedOrg This is an entire confusion. Of course you can't measure a particle until you measure it. How is my human measurement of the sun more fundamental than a komodo dragons, or a rocks? It just doesn't make any sense that the sun didn't exist as particles until the first human chose to look at it or something.

@nannumahbub7137

14 күн бұрын

​@@someonenotnooneThen there is an idea.. and that is Hugh Everett.. not a human being...

but leooooooo0o0ooo0oOooooo

thank you Leo, you blow my mind up, I sometime have emotionnal difficulties to follow you due to my fear of my reality collapsing, but now I see it as part of it all and get to giggle about it. I've been through the build up you had through some years now and it's amazing, thank you for everything, and actually, also thank you for the courage you had and still have to simply talk about this stuff as you do, it's so fondamental that much people can easily start criticizing due to how groundbreaking it is, and also so clearly explained xD. Thank you.

The consequence of absolute freedom is self restriction. Nothing = No-Thing=The lack of any static entity=Eternal Dynamism=Always never the same

BTW Aristotle wrote the METAPHYSICS and the whole word and concept came from HIM, Actually called it like that cause he wrote this work after the physics,. Meta in Greeck is After, he did not know how to name it so he called it Metaphysics. = Afterthe physics. So do NOT put Aristotle among the " meterialists" list. It is not well know but Alexander the great when he heard that Aristotle published this work answered to Aristotle " Do NOT teach these things to the common mortals because they will become like us " This was secret knowledge and mst times is found among the ancients encoded. Pythagoras also was teaching these to the very very few. So in other words Aristotle mostly offered "convenient knowledge" to the people of his time BUT he knew and wrote some of the "other" stuff.. the mstical.

Hello, Leo! Great stuff! I wait your episode about "Self Deception with Science". Cheers!

Awesome explanation of QM. Thank you, Leo! Your video clarified and reinforced many things I learned in the early 1980's while reading a book titled "Dancing Wu Li Masters". This book blew my mind wide open. Looking forward to Part 2.

Leo, thank you for uploading this. I'm excited for the next part. I also wanted to mention that I went back and re watched two of your episodes: projection, and radical open-mindedness. I wanted to say that you were right not to think of myself as a limited being, and that I shouldn't assume so much. All your content is very eye-opening, and it's awesome you what you do. Enjoy that Vegas weather.

Leo I’d like to meet you, your work and speeches and ideas is fascinating to me

One question Leo: why is it that if we look up in the sky, we see the same stars again and again even though they could turn into anything in the field of possibilities. Is it because we are pre-disposed on what we assume we will see?

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

+Bastian Stieg Because, you see, one possiblity out of infinity is that you are a human being on this planet who looks up at the stars each night and they never change. Think of your life as a novel which has already been written. The novel works as a WHOLE. In the novel you go to look up at the stars each night and they are always the same. But there are an infinite number of novels. One for every possible way anything can be. Imagine an infinite novel. Notice, it must contain every finite novel possible! And so, here you are.

Damn leo... you're on another level!!

Hmm, how could it take me so long finding this great channel of yours, Leo. Weird as I've been spending hundreds and hundreds of hours on KZread, watching 'conciousness expanding' videos of all sorts, for years. Might be a reason for that too, who knows? Anyway, I'm enjoying it greatly! I am daily thinking of my potential to reach 'sageness' (I watched a video yesterday where you talked about becoming a sage) and trying to take smaller leaps each day, until I'm able to make the Great leap. I am one of the few (if there were many having this experience, I'm sure I would have heard much more about it and people would behave much differently if they've 'had' it) who have been blessed/lucky enough to have experienced real Oneness in this 'lifetime', and ever since I experienced it years ago I've carried it with me daily without being able to fully... I guess open up to it... again. But having tasting it, it never leaves you - because how can it? I have a feeling you might have experienced it too. In that state of conciousness there's only true love, bliss, serenity, beauty and shall we say 'live streaming' of real understanding/knowing. I remember feeling 'so this is from where Buddha, Jesus and the other great sages lived' and thought I would stay in this state forever on, but that didn't prove to be the case. It's rather impossible having an experience like this and not being deeply affected by it, and wanting to return there - not just visiting... I'm looking forward to taking in more of your great content which I'm sure will be of value to me in trying to do so. All the best from Sweden.

You took everything I was thinking and put it into words. Absolutely astounding, I'm happy to know there are other minds out there like this. Makes sense however based on the time we are in, its all just coming together.

@yannivisci3948

2 жыл бұрын

@Maker Haugh that content like this is actually nothing more but snake oil from cyber charlatans who mislead people with pseudo-intellectual and occult ideas framed as spirituality and self growth for a profit (or whatever their intentions may be). I humored this stuff for a moment but at this point have no interest. Thank you.

@MikeTaylorPhotoArts

Жыл бұрын

cult leader. Hack. Sociopath. Give up.

@yannivisci3948

Жыл бұрын

@@MikeTaylorPhotoArts false prophet, an antichrist, modernist, pay no mind and unsubscribe!

24:46. I cannot believe I am hearing this. My cousin and I were literally saying how humans may never understand quantum mechanics. This is because it occupies a higher order of logic, or as you put it, a “transcendent” state. Hence we cannot fathom such a thing. This really is the essence of this whole paradigm. Also a question, do you think that other beings can access this higher order, or if humans will every be able to?

@ActualizedOrg

4 жыл бұрын

You can access higher orders by realzing you are not actually a human. "Human" is an invented story you're believing in. "Human" is an idea, not a material fact.

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet.” ~ Niels Bohr

This was accectly what I needed, totally blew my mind!! I am excited for part 2!

Wow this is exactly what I've been looking for, thank you so much!

@selflit

6 жыл бұрын

How

@kalsizzle

6 жыл бұрын

beskonačni uspeli pobednik idk I've been really curious about spirituality and consciousness and how quantum physics could relate to it

@kalsizzle

6 жыл бұрын

beskonačni uspeli pobednik pretty much stuff I think about when I'm really stoned

@1must723

5 жыл бұрын

yes best way to ponder the deep mind stuff same hear lol !!!!

@kalsizzle

5 жыл бұрын

Mikko oh shut up

leo you making me tripping again and have pychedelic flashback again

Hey guys I have a question, I've been doing Leo's mindfulness meditation with labeling technique daily for two months now. However, it doesn't feel like meditation, more like a focus practice. So I'm often mentally exhausted after a session and not relaxed at all. Moreover, I'm not feeling more anxious which is, according to Leo a side effect of the first year of meditation. Is that normal? How do I know or how to track if I meditate the right way?

@idan7989

4 жыл бұрын

I don't know buddy

It's Monday here and it's time for work, but hey now that Leo has uploaded, it can wait.

Hey Leo since you mentioned "PhDs from Caltech" , just wanted to tell you that I am a physics PhD from Caltech and I know what you're trying to do/say. So don't be so disappointed in us all ;)

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

Say Hi to Sean Carroll for me ;)

@astoma199

6 жыл бұрын

Actualized.org I have already graduated but sure will the next time I see him. My thesis was in many body quantum mechanics itself. I share your frustration with faith in materialist paradigm among physicists. I am still watching your video. Combing very carefully for any possible misrepresentations of quantum physics :)

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

+astoma199 Make sure you watch Part 2. It will blow your mind.

@astoma199

6 жыл бұрын

Actualized.org are you saying that consciousness itself can and does exist in superposition as well?

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

There really isn't such a thing as "consciousness". The only thing there is, is Infinity. Infinity entails everything, including whatever is happening for you right now. Infinity has no "substance". The "substance" of everything is nothing. It is undefinable. It cannot be called "matter" or "consciousness" or "energy" or anything else. It is itself. It is fundamentally unknowable. God is incapable of knowing itself. Because knowledge is an indirect process, always secondary to BEING. The way you framed your question, you are still assuming a duality between subject and object. As if there is this thing called "consciousness" and some other thing which isn't consciousness of which it is aware. But consciousness and the content of consciousness are ONE. Subject and object are identical. You aren't looking at this sentence, you ARE this sentence!

Please do a video about the kundalini!!!

@rkchauhan4541

4 жыл бұрын

Yes

@OnePercentBetter

3 жыл бұрын

+1

Something amazing to see would be for Leo to have an open discussion about these things with a quantum physicist I would love to see that!

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

If Sean Carroll wants to have a public discussion, we could record it.

So if I'm getting this right at @1:28:08 you mean that if we could represent space as an infinite bitmap, the pixels which render visible image are the ones where physical particles exist at a given time, while all the other pixels are white, containing every possible color, which is the same as nothing, right?

Leo is the next Socrates.

@littledarkone1995

6 жыл бұрын

Ovidiu Drobotă lets hope he’s not Since Socrates was put to death

@h0ph1p13

6 жыл бұрын

Not all. Not in Buddhism.

@mroctober2978

6 жыл бұрын

Socrates was the last Leo.

@dragonfurp

6 жыл бұрын

ugh

@alextrusk1713

6 жыл бұрын

Ovidiu Drobotă leo is Socrates..kinda

Leo, I'm listening to you since a few days, and it has been stimulating in different ways. (for example one day, I noticed that after listening to you I had more energy than usual in my singing practice), and I'm interested in the metaphysics that you suggest, and how that can transform one's life. I'd like to point a few mistakes that you made n this video: you describe quantum entanglement by saying that what you do at one particle is instantly transmitted to the other particle and thus it contredicts Einstein's claims (I imagine that you had in mind the claim that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light) ; it's a big mistake : quantum entanglement is not that and it doesn't contredict EInstein's claim. Quantic entanglement is about measure : you measure a certain variable on both particle (for example the orientation of the spin) and the two measurements are related in spite the fact that before the measurement the value to be measured was not determined and cannot be. This suggest a kind of instant connection between the particles but it CANNOT be used to transmit information (beacause you cannot force the result of the measure). (see for example wikipedia , or any text book of QM en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement ) The second thing that I found very dubious, to say the least, in your video is when you speak of the elephant; you forget to say that concepts of QM are specific to very small scales (which does'nt mean that they don't have general philosophical implications ); they don't apply litteraly to macroscopic objetcs. So there is no such a thing like an elephant in a superposition state between many animals. To think so is a deep misundestanding of QM. At the end of this part you said that speaking about the elephant was an analogy ; if it's an analogy, ok; but it's a dangerous one because people who don't know about QM could very well take what you say literraly. Last thing : you take for granted dark matter and dark energy; that's a mistake beacause those concepts are very questionable and some astrophysicists are looking for other ways to understand the astrophysicals data. It way more speculative than QM.

Thank you Leo, for your open mind, learn, knowledge, edge concepts and free sharing. 1) Just say that, in my actual stage I look science at as a materialistic, lower right (orange) as a good, but incomplete, method to pursuit material knowledge. 2) Capacity to think independently and make philosophy is one of the more important qualifications in life. 3) I like the concept that "reality" can’t exist without paradox. 4) AT this point of my path, I start to seeing some enlightnement under the veil.

Nice, I've been waiting for a video just like this! Thanks a bunch.

Cypher is that you? (Character from The Matrix) EDIT: Now that i think about it, he looks more like a grown up version of the spoon boy

@m.g.9334

6 жыл бұрын

DrkKnightSilver wtf now i understand everything! Leo is evil and want lure us back into the matrix xD

@TheCloakedKnight

6 жыл бұрын

Glad i'm not the only one who took the red pill :-)

Talking about stephen hawking 2days before his death, what a coincidence

@bilalbasharat8070

6 жыл бұрын

thats what i was thinking . coincidence!

The strange loop would appear to function like a wave but limited appearances (perspectives) can be deceptive. Once again, great insights, Leo. Many thanks.

What I'm not fully grasping is that when I'm not looking at someone (= me not being aware of a person) then the person doesn't exist... But isn't the person self-aware and therefore still in existence?

This is not a youtube comment.

@lordhumongous644

3 жыл бұрын

Clever

Quantum mechanics does not say that things dont exist when you're not looking at it. You know who says that, and bases it off of what they think quantum mechanics is? People that don't actually understand quantum mechanics, and use it to explain some mystical bs. What youbare saying has not been proven in any way. Do not speak of these things as fact, it's insulting to the actual science. Btw, this way of thinking about quantum mechanics is actually very egotistical and self centered.

@doom_field

3 жыл бұрын

You took some mushrooms or whatever, read some books about speculation of a real science, and then speculated more on your own. Please don't believe any of this as fact, people.

Another example of superposition is if you have played heroes lll or another game of this kind where the map is hiden and its a field which you unveill with your movement . In the game you have the option to reveal all of the map or a big portion of it which gives you a bigger picture of the game and the direction where to go , rather than moving in the dark. As good as this is, it allways feels like the mystery is gone and its better not to know the right path and every inch of the map.

Im loving this episode ! You're on fire Leo!!!!!

There's one more modern physicist point of view I don't see included here. Its that of Gerard 't Hooft: Nobel Prize 1999 for the renormalizability of Yang-Mills theory; inventor of Quantum Chromodynamics; discoverer of the first magnetic monopole solution; inventor of instantons, creator of the incredibly important concept of holography ..., etc. He believes that QM is an extremely clever piece of mathematics that we've utterly misunderstood. He claims that QM is a device that computes the right answer, but that we have a total misinterpretation of it. He's been working for the past 15 years or so on building a deterministic formalism to replace it. It hasn't received much attention, because most of us young researchers are more concerned with writing papers and keeping our careers on track, and fear derailing ourselves into a never ending intellectual quagmire. 't Hooft believes that the discretization of energy levels in an atom are really just the presence of multiple classical/deterministic "attractor" solution for the electron to converge towards.

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

Does he recognize that subject and object are one? What does he say is the "substance" of reality? You can change the underlying equations all you want. The metaphysical and epistemic problem will still remain. If a scientist tells you that reality is a formalism (an equation, a symbol), you can immediately see he's confused the map for the territory. You then have to ask him, "What is the substance of your symbols?" To which he will have no good answer because he's not conscious of what symbols are. And then for the final test, you can ask him, "Why does reality exist?" If he doesn't have a simple and clear answer, he doesn't understand reality. Any time a scientist says, "Oh, but we can't really answer something like that. That's a philosophical question outside the scope of science." that is him admitting his methods are inadequate.

@studentofspacetime

6 жыл бұрын

I doubt that 't Hooft ponder questions about existence. The way I perceive him, he would probably think of these discussions as silly, or unscientific. He's a dry type of person. Definitely a deep thinker insofar as he is interested in defining quantum gravity, solving the black hole information paradox, black hole entropy problem etc. But I’d definitely peg him as a materialist. About the symbols not having a clear meaning: This is something that we often come across in physics, where we will write down things that are not even well-defined, but the symbols can "do the thinking for us". An eminent example of this is Feynman's path integral formulation of QM and of QFT. These infinite-dimensional integrals almost never make sense mathematically, but the intuitive meaning is clear, and they often bring us home to the right technical results. So, 't Hooft probably thinks that the whole concept of a Hilbert space defining quantum states, the probability distribution interpretation of a wave-function, and all these things are faulty a posteriori interpretations of a mathematical formalism that eventually computes the right scattering amplitudes. I don't subscribe to this viewpoint, but it's not inconceivable for this to happen. To give a simpler example: Think of ordinary integrals. We've known how to compute them since Newton, with a good intuition for this "infinitesimal element" that you're summing over. Yet, every time a student writes down the differential symbol under an integral, he/she has no clue what it actually means. It took a lot of further foundational work to make sense of these (Lebesgue integration), with proposals even in the 20th century (such as non-standard calculus). This willingness to accept doing mathematics with ambiguous meaning and "going with the flow" is the key advantage of the physicist over the mathematician, who needs to rigorously define everything he/she writes down. So it's true that the map isn't the territory. But oftentimes, the chaotic scientific process will produce maps that seem to have a life of their own, before we know what they are a map of.

No. Both models are quite reasonably accurate in their different contexts. If you're tossing a ball, you don't use quantum mechanics. If you're splitting an atom, you don't use classical mechanics. One does *NOT* invalidate the other. Please stop spreading misinformation on topics you do not understand. 2:32 This is exactly what you are doing in this video, sorry to say.

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

+boomboom No, you are missing the deeper metaphysical and epistemic issues. There is no division between "you" and a "ball". Of course if you are calculating the trajectory of a ball you would use classical mechancis. That is NOT what we are talking about here.

@bligablatzbligablatz8728

6 жыл бұрын

of course its not what you are talking about. what you are talking about, metaphorically and literally is much ado about nothing . if more people like this individual here saw through this crap you couldn't peddle this bullshit. of course you have experienced infinity . and how do we know this is true, ah yes, BECAUSE YOU TOLD US SO. based on the notable foundation of hearsay, and some 5 me o up your ass. why not dispense with the whole paraphernalia, having a you tube channel, communicating to people with computers and i phones and the cost of running a website. as we are all infinite, part of the great oneness of everything , just notify me directly , or as there is nothing real why bother at all. in fact i'm pretty sure I just became enlightened. so i think i,ll forgo work tomorrow, as my job doesn't "really" exist anyways. . .

@eboomer

6 жыл бұрын

His notion of "absolute infinity" is interesting to think about. And who knows, it may be the way things are. But things may happen to be entirely different than that. Who knows. In the end though, science is about accurately predicting the outcomes of things you can objectively and repeatably observe, not about divining the meaning of the entire universe or whatever. The models they describe are just a means to an end of coming to predictions that correlate well with observation. Was it Maxwell? that described electromagnetism in terms of things like levers and pulleys. Does that mean that iron is literally made of levers and pulleys? No, it's just that if you apply that model, you calculate results that correlate with observation. He thinks that there is some deeper meaning to be discovered by interpreting these models in a radically literal sense, when *he's* the one who's missing the deep, albeit more boring and less enticing, core principle of what science *really* is.

6 жыл бұрын

Just a remark to this discussion that is slightly unrelated to the topic of this video: the nature of physics theories/concepts is such that they generalise/encapsulate/extend/superset/include previous theories/concepts. For example electrical impedance extends the concept of electrical resistance. In principle, you could calculate the trajectory of a ball using quantum mechanics, but since speeds are slow and sizes are big, it would be pointless to use it. The additional terms you would get would be so ridiculously small, you would difficultly not ignore them. You could also use special relativity, but since speeds are slow, it would be pointless to use it. You could also use general relativity, but since masses are small, it would be pointless to use it. So, before you start predicting outcomes (or more generally: mapping a reality), you should first determine the range of each of observables/parameters and then choose the most appropriate theory, otherwise you just waste computational power.

@eboomer

6 жыл бұрын

+Anže Peternel - I agree with everything you said. Neither theory invalidates the other, and I think that's the gist of what we're both saying. Leo was saying, or at least very strongly implying to the point that I would expect people to think he was stating it, that one way of viewing things throws the other entirely out the window and makes any conclusions drawn from it wrong. I think rather, it enriches your understanding, so you can accurately and more effectively understand things in a wider variety of contexts. *It doesn't replace, but enhance.*

Great work Leo, thanks! I have been waiting for that video a long time either.........:-)

thought provoking, to levels of bewilderment, but very excited about what i come up with in understanding since what ever i didnt understand i simply threw on the backburners to cook. thank you. :)

If you physically die when you awaken, how can their be awakened beings?

@Lazurath101

5 жыл бұрын

Physicality is contained within consciousness, not the other way around. Therefore, losing your physical body during awakening just means you come to exist in a pure consciousness-body.

@unbalancedlibra9788

3 жыл бұрын

Sleeping actually equals waking up, the flesh rots, but spirit lasts forever. Flesh is 3D soul is 4D

I knew it would be worth the wait 👌🏽

Finally you put it together. If one makes anything look easy they're really good at it. You're doing it. Blessings.

What is Nothing, but a collection of Infinite Possibilities? & what is something, but a possibility viewed by another possibility?

Studying "hardcore physics and calculus" at the undergraduate level, that is, Newtonian mechanics, basic calculus, and ordinary differential equations, does not make you a quantum mechanics expert. I went to an engineering university too and although I earned a degree in chemistry, I had the same physics requirements that the engineering students had. Quantum mechanics is meaningless without mathematics. The non-mathematical explanations of QM are for lay people, but are meaningless. You are not talking about QM at a high level or even a low level, unless you are talking about its underlying mathematics. I took a couple quantum chemistry courses while earning my PhD and I use quantum chemistry to study the interactions between metals and mineral surfaces. I understand a tiny portion of quantum mechanics that is necessary to do my work. I don't pretend to know very much about QM; however, I do understand that it has a math basis that is necessary to understand it even at a low level. Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, and others were scientists; their philosophical work is irrelevant. If you think that scientists are mindlessly drudging away in their labs and only a few "great men" are forging ahead is nonsense. All science builds from the work of other scientists. History loves a "great man", but they are unnecessary in science. Quantum mechanics would be true and useful, even if we didn't know who first conceptualized it.

@ActualizedOrg

3 жыл бұрын

Without epistemology you cannot know that mathematics is valid or true. You have no clue what science is yet.

@HeathWatts

3 жыл бұрын

@@ActualizedOrg You're saying that humans had no knowledge of knowledge until they knew about epistemology? Humans had harnessed fire and built tools long before the Greece developed Western philosophy. I hope the people who signed off on my PhD don't here that some cult leader says that I don't have a clue about science. Everyone watching this cult channel should run away, unless they are here for a laugh, as I am.

@DamonMacready

3 жыл бұрын

@@HeathWatts Apart from the laughs, I'm here to study megalomania at work in its true form.

@arknabul2760

3 жыл бұрын

@@DamonMacready You can also study solipsim and mind manipulation. I think the only thing you can´t study here is physics. In fact, I think this is just a pastor keeping his sheeps inside the fence.

99 minutes and Leo is the one. I knew it was worth it to wait to watch the video to the end 🔝.

@BTHABIT.

6 жыл бұрын

PS Niels Bohr was a Dane.

I’m a bit confused about the comment at 1:28. The wavefunction as defined in QM is always normalized such that the integral of its squared norm is one. That means that the probability of finding the particle somewhere is one. This, therefore, does not include the possibility of it being nowhere.

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

You're missing the obvious: somewhere and nowhere are the exact same place! When a particle is somewhere, it is simultaneously nowhere. Even as you see the particle, it simultaneously doesn't exist! Seeing is not different from not-seeing. All of these dualities collapse. Everything is occurring nowhere. And it's also not-occurring. Occurring and not-occurring are the same thing!

@studentofspacetime

6 жыл бұрын

I understand the non-duality statement. I just don't see how you get this specific assertion out of the QM superposition principle. In non-relativistic QM, conservation of probability is fundamental. So it does not include the possibility of it being nowhere. The being somewhere and simultaneously nowhere statement is too difficult for words or symbols. At this point, I understand it more easily from Nagarjuna

@studentofspacetime

2 жыл бұрын

@Maker Haugh Of course. What i meant by that remark, is that Nagarjuna embraced contradictions such as: It's black and white and both at the same time and neither at the same time. (And I'm not claiming to quote here, so no need to point it out).

Leo, in case of the entanglement it doesn't violate the speed of light limit - you can't transfer any information through this process. You can just check the state of one particle (collapse the wavefunction), which in turn will determine the state of other particle, but you can't control the outcome of the measurement

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

+Ania Wald Maybe so, but the universe has instant access to itself. Time doesn't actually exist.

@xarithl

6 жыл бұрын

Sure, I agree with your message, I just wanted to clarify this point

... but leo... I like this episode.

Quantum mechanics explained by someone who wouldn't be able to read the first page of any actual quantum mechanics textbook.

@dracometeor1524

2 жыл бұрын

Most fitting title for this video.

@ashley_brown6106

28 күн бұрын

You're underestimating Leo

One warm afternoon in 1996 I took a short nap. I awoke within it to find myself standing in the presence of a huge sun or sphere of light, quickly understanding that this sun was pure conscious awareness. Although its surface was only swirling light and did not have a face, it seemed as if it was smiling at me and had nothing but love for me. I felt its thoughts as one with my own and felt it peering deeply into my own awareness, knowing everything about me all at once. Standing in its presence I was overcome by a deep sense of awe and at the same time I was surprised to find myself so fully conscious in this empty, but light-filled void. There was nothing in existence for me but myself and this bright bluish-white sun smiling its awareness at me. It was unlike any place on earth, and yet as real as waking reality. In fact, it was more real; I was super-conscious. Suddenly I came to a profound awareness that this sun was God! I was so overwhelmed and surprised that God was real that I mentally gasped and then yelled out, You re Real! I had always had a deep mistrust of religion. Years before this experience, I had decided for many seemingly valid reasons that religion and God were only a product of the human mind, yet there I was standing in the presence of what I knew without a doubt was God. What I had previously thought to be the truth about the universe was shattered and I stood there stunned, having had my world turned around so quickly. I was happy because I had always hoped that God was real and that there was a future beyond the physical. As I stood in its presence, I perceived myself to be nothing but pure awareness and without a body. This sun of awareness fully merged with me, seeing everything inside of me. It saw everything I had ever done (and failed to do) both good and bad, and yet I did not sense or feel this Being was judging me or my past. There was no serial or motion-picture-like review of my life, just a sudden and full knowing about all things I have ever done, thought and experienced. Because this sun of awareness/God was peering so fully and deeply into me, I felt totally naked, more naked than if I were standing without clothes in front of a million people. This Being seemed to be the consciousness of everyone I had ever known plus that of millions of others. It seemed to be everyone, but incredible as it might seem, most of all it seemed to be me. Even though I had no awareness of having a body, this feeling of nakedness was more than I could stand. Before I had time to think about what I was doing, I began moving away from this Being as fast as I could. It wasn t that I was afraid, nor that I wanted to get away from this wonderful sun of light, it was more like an automatic response to feeling more naked than I thought naked could be. As I was traveling away from this Being I found myself bursting through some kind of barrier into a blackness that was filled with wonderful stars; space. As I continued moving forward at a tremendous speed through the star fields, I soon found myself slowing down as if I was up against another barrier or membrane. It seemed to stretch slightly and then I burst through it into another blackness of star-filled space. I continued to speed away faster and faster, but regardless of how much physical distance I traveled, I was never any farther away from the sun of awareness at all. I quickly traveled through several star-filled spaces, at least six of them beyond the great sphere of light, each separated from one another by barriers that I was easily penetrating. As I passed through each layer, my speed increased each time, but its consciousness was still with me. It was still deeply within my own consciousness. All of a sudden, I fell through the top of my bedroom ceiling, hit my body with a jolt and immediately woke up. The jolt was so strong that my bed physically bounced as my body jerked awake in response to the sudden stop. I opened my eyes and immediately spoke in a low and powerful voice, "I am that great I am." I said this almost involuntarily; the words spilled out of my mouth without even thinking about what or why I was saying it. I also knew what this meant: that I was the very consciousness that I was trying to get away from! As much as I tried to get away from that Sun of Awareness, I could never get one fraction of an inch farther away from it, no matter how far or fast I traveled. Even after waking up, it was still with me. To this day, I still feel and know its presence. I believe that this Sun/Intelligence/God wasn't a single Being, but is the center of all beings, that it is me, you and perhaps all conscious beings. From this experience I think that somewhere at the center of each of us is a spark of this same light, and without it we would not have consciousness, and perhaps without us it would not exist either. As I was flying away from this being, I had the impression that I was traveling through several layers within a sphere, but I was bursting through layers like the layers of an onion but between each layer was star-filled space. I can t really tell you if I was traveling from the inside out, or the outside in, but as I traveled through them I had an impression that the farther I got from the sphere of light, the smaller I got and the more divided I became. As I was returning I felt like I was not only traveling through spheres within spheres, but also as if I were traveling from the top of a pyramid down, the peak an all seeing eye of omni-present consciousness, the blocks below all of the individuals which make the whole. While trying to move away I could both see and feel myself splitting into more and more diverse copies of myself, each branching off into many other branches of selves which also split into their own branches, dividing and dividing into ever larger numbers. Because of this experience, I came to see everyone around me as myself. At the same time, I also see this as equally true from everyone else s perspective, that I am them too. They too can look around and only see other parts of themselves, other selves experiencing life from another point of view, separated by their physical bodies and world, by their individual minds and wills, but in reality they are one at their core. These feelings and thoughts were so strong within me that I had trouble referring to other people at work as anything other than I. I had a tendency to think about others as just another part of myself. Just as I think about my hands as being a part of me, I would sometimes refer to others as I instead of the name of the person. For example, instead of saying, He had finished working on that project it came out as I had finished working on that project. I had to re-learn how to refer to others as separate from myself. After four years, I still think of others as myself, but now I can stop from verbalizing it. If I had the chance to do it over again and stand in the presence of this sun-intelligence-God, I wouldn't run away from it no matter how startling it is to be seen to such depth. I now hope that I would stand in its presence no matter how naked I felt. I don't believe that my motive for running was because I couldn t stand to face the light, or that I felt like a bad person, but because I was so unaccustomed to being seen so fully, so suddenly, so clearly and to such depth. Unfortunately my flight away from it took place before I could think of what I was doing and why. The words I spoke after the experience, "I am that great I am" meant that, although I am individual here, I am also a part of every other consciousness at the great central point of consciousness; God. I am now secure in the knowledge that this presence of consciousness has always been with me, and that I have never been alone and never will be alone. I now know that this presence is closer to me than anything else in the universe. I had been so accustomed to it that I didn t know it was there, much like becoming used to a smell in a room, once you are there with it long enough, it begins to fade into the background. Like silence, it is always there, maybe in the background, behind and between the sounds, but always there. Like a quiet pure awareness, completely silent but ever present. To find it within listen to the silence and then try to find what is behind it, it's there as strong as your own silent awareness forever smiling at you....

@kot0564

10 ай бұрын

World record comment length

Hey leo i want your opinion on two things.First “I” recently have made big steps towards understanding (it seems that way at least) using a Kriya yoga technique and at some points I couldn’t see the point in mentally masturbating to theory about these things.But listening to the points you made in this video while constantly reminding my self that all this is just words in the front of my head I got into higher states. So do you think this method could be used to reach enlightenment?I mean you have someone talking and constantly pointing you the way. For example when you asked and talked about it was like you were pointing me to the right direction. One big problem i have is that i reach a “high state” and i start to feel that reality isn’t real and that there are no humans and that’s crazy scary .But recently i use the thought that if i reach-see non duality loneliness and not being alone are the same thing. One other concern i have with the de-realitization thing is if it is mental illness or if it is the truth. So what do you suggest push through? Give comfort to myself with thoughts while knowing that these are just thoughts ?

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

+Jim Chief You are on the right track. Yes, question everything. Deconstruct reality. Yes, it will feel scary and even crazy. Your entire reality will collapse. Then enlightenment will dawn. Yes, you can give comfort to yourself with thoughts. You must use the mind to help you break free of the mind. It's like training wheels.

Hey Leo, if the elephant is charging at me and I look away at the last second, I still get trampled... How does it not exist when I don't look at it?

@arvinsloficookery

6 жыл бұрын

Or am I missing something?

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

+Arvin Selvananthan Its feet come into existence as you feel them crushing your skull. There never was such a thing as an "elephant". There were only parts of it coming and going depending how you were looking at it. Your mind stiched parts together into a conceptual object which you called "elephant". Without your mind, there are no elephants.

@tomb613

6 жыл бұрын

You observe things with more than just eyesight. Every skin cell is capable of feeling ie observing. Also other beings are observing the elephant as well...... I am being overly simplistic trying to explain a complex idea.

@zoltankurti

6 жыл бұрын

Actualized.org if somebody had an accident, and truely not experience anything from reality after the accident, and only could think, than is he invincible?

@modernmountainmonk9666

5 жыл бұрын

How do we know there are multiple observers? What does it mean to have different observing seeing the same "thing?" Is there only one world "out there?" Is that actual or an idea that is comfortable the human mind? Have we ever seen another mind that is not ours? What if there is only one consciousness? "Even though a chair may physically exist, individuals can only experience it through the medium of their own mind, each with their own literal point of view. Therefore, an independent, purely 'objective' reality could never be experienced." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Advaita_Vedanta

The lesson from this? Don't talk about quantum mechanics unless you actually understand quantum mechanics. Or you will end up like this guy.

@dracometeor1524

2 жыл бұрын

It is infuriating to listen to these illiterate folks using words salads they don't understand.

@danielvejar1

2 жыл бұрын

How did he end up? I see him good and healthy, not to mention wealthy

“Reality is not a theory” - Leo Gura I laughed so hard when you said this, because it’s just so damn obvious 😆 Everyone should know this. I was just like duuuh! Great explanation and video 👏👏

Great video Leo!! Thank you for the insights✨

Instead of emphasizeing that you are not an expert of modern science, and missinterpreting it, take your time, and learn it. A physics degree from beginning takes about 3 years. I bet you spent more time on your meditation. After learning QM and relativity (which really should be called absolutivity theory, since it is about what is the connection between reference frames) take a second look into this matter. You are missinterpreting the nature of wave function collapse. You are talking about observation getting rid of the superposition. This is not true. For example, if you measure energy, than the energy will be definit, however the observed entity will be in a superposition of positions and similarly in a superposition of momentum. This is a fact, this is predicted by the mathematics of QM and supported by evidence. Really, when you say the collapse of the wave function, that's not something special. After measurement, the wave function will be such that that property that you measure is definite, but other properties are not, because they can't. This is because operators in QM are not commutative. Your example with the infinite elephant illustrates my point. That is just absurd, and additional rules added, which is against Occam's razzor. Real science says something else about that elephant. There is something called decoherence, and as a consequence, that elephant will crush you. If it would be as you say, than you couldn't possibly tell when will it kill you, becase "it is in every possible state". I recommed you try an experiment about this. Also, what about other people? What if somebody, who I don't see, watches the elephant. Are they both not existing? If they are not, why am I different from the other people or the elephant? Your added rules to QM lead to nonsense conclusions, and are more complicated. Nobody should belive what you say.

@gloomywheel8378

5 жыл бұрын

@@ravenn2631 you completely ignored the entire post and just focused on the occams razor part and not only that but dont know at all what occams razor is. its not "the simplest explanation is likely to be the most valid" at all its the most logical explanation is the most likely. And this guys explanation are not only "not likely" but flat out wrong because his interpretation of quantum mechanics is extremely flawed and shallow.

@e376342

5 жыл бұрын

Quantum mechanics is difficult. When someone has a stage, give them space. Look for your own day and stage and audience. But know, not all of your audience will not agree with you. Do you understand?

@dracometeor1524

2 жыл бұрын

Finally someone says it!

This is a 3-part distinction. A triple distinction. A Tristinction.

@kazenriq

6 жыл бұрын

A Triction; A Tricton; A Trion; A Tron.

Hi to Leo Gura - I am listening to your video - I am on minute 15 - and I ask my self where are going. I am in field of Quantum Biology and I don't see how youtube let you come to me?

This topic I was waiting to listen about for a long time... Thank you Leo :)

Ooooo this is gonna be good!

You don't need quantum mechanics to debunk materialism. The mere existence of consciousness contradicts materialism. If everything is matter and is itself non-mental then everything is non-mental. But the mental exist. So materialism is false. See *The Case for Monistic Idealism* for a better alternative to dualism and materialism.

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

It's nice though when a system of thought is shown to collapse under its own weight. The problem is that most scientists still haven't realized that science has disproven science. Or more accurately, science has become aware of its own limitations. Except people are still largely unaware of these limitations because they do not care. It hasn't sunk in yet. Which is a problem. The same problem that religious people have. They don't see their own internal self-contradictions.

@jolez_4869

5 жыл бұрын

I know for a fact that chess boards exist, only a fool would deny that. Therefore there must be an universal property called chessboardness in everything. The stupid and idiotic scientists have the audacity to claim that those pesky atoms and particles exist and without any chessboardness. How can there be any chessboards if everything in nature is made of blocks that are zero precent chessboard-like? What a bunch of idiots.

This is so interesting. Please bring more such videos.

But in the end does it even matter?

BUT LEO! How do I use it to get a sport car full of drugged top models???

leo I have Hair fall problem,can you make a video about "How to stop Hair fall".

@rumpsugg

6 жыл бұрын

What makes you think he knows a way? lol

@shivakumarvjit

6 жыл бұрын

Because he has best hair style in the world

@beatrizaceiton2685

6 жыл бұрын

Babith Balan less materialism consumption with him

@reymlambz9406

6 жыл бұрын

Few of the symptoms of ascension are hair loss and upper head expansion. Guess what, you're on the right track and so is Leo lol

@davesmith7837

6 жыл бұрын

Look into Ayurveda medicine. Maybe go plant based, excess protein can speed up hair loss lol

How can anyone who has done even a superficial study of the history of scientific ideology claim that science, at any point, said "we don't need God to explain the universe, so from a scientific viewpoint, God doesn't exist"? While individual scientists may hold that opinion, this is not where the line was really drawn. Back in the day when these questions were prominant, the consensus in general was described as follows: "Because the goal of science is to explain empirical phenomena and relies heavily on our ability to measure observable events and characteristics thereof, God is simply not available to scientific exploration. Due to its own restrictions, science is not qualified to answer the question as to whether God exists or not." Now, I think it's valid to point out that as humble as that statement may appear, it still represents a blatant assumption that may or may not be true. But that is for you to decide. Before you go there, make sure to take along a real understanding of what 'science' actually is... Technically science is a noun that refers to a specific methodology that was designed to help us test our ideas about the way things work. That's why if science can't test an idea, like string theory, which is a misnomer, the idea remains beyond science, just like God. String theory is actually not a theory in the scientific sense of the word, it is actually just a hypothesis that will remain so until someone figures out a way to test it. Anyway, hope this helps.

This channel is one of the best things on youtube

Consciousness is the model the brain creates of itself. It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

@aestheticusmaximus1039

6 жыл бұрын

Clemens Lode explain the eraser and double slit experiment

@ClemensLode

6 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/iX2ttrx9eNjHorQ.html

@aestheticusmaximus1039

6 жыл бұрын

Clemens Lode I understand that by using the pilot wave theory one can explain the double slit experiment but what about the quantum eraser experiment?

@ClemensLode

6 жыл бұрын

I think this paper adresses it: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.7949&rep=rep1&type=pdf I can't summarize it in a few lines, though ;)

@aestheticusmaximus1039

6 жыл бұрын

Clemens Lode I see this just leaves me in a larger haze, materialism just seems so bizarre and magical to me just as idealism. What’s your conclusion on the state of reality?

Woah dude

@NapoleonDynamite69

6 жыл бұрын

DEH Music keep listening

Quantum mechanics does not make ANY epistemological or ontological statements. There are many INTERPRETATIONS of quantum mechanics, some of them are deterministic and some of them are not, but all of them follow the results of quantum mechanics. They are all equal in terms of scientific results.

AMAZING LECTURE. THANKS FOR TELLING US THE UNIVERSITIES HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT

This misdefinition of nothing has actually been debunked. Still kind of questioning this guy. He's certainly developed his viewpoint a lot but man I have mixed feelings on this. Claiming to have experienced enlightenment sounds like the most superstitious religious thing mentioned in the video. Just saying, I'd recommend using a different word if possible.

@Lazurath101

5 жыл бұрын

May I ask - what about the idea of enlightenment do you find dubious?

@godofdogs6198

3 жыл бұрын

Experience a mystical/spiritual awakening, and you’ll understand... I have experienced many, doesn’t mean I can fully understand or communicate it, Leo does a great job of putting the pieces together of my enlightenment experiences and ego death, God Realization.

@godofdogs6198

3 жыл бұрын

Also what word?

But reality can only exist because there can be a subjective perspective right? That's why Ego exists? And also, all the animals also have this consciousness? Is it ONE consciousness though or is it multiple, one each? Also, do only "living things" have consciousness? Or does a table also have it? Gawsh this is so complex....

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

One and multiple are identical. All dualities ultimately collapse. One implies all. And all implies one. Notice that it's your mind which is drawing the boundaries between things. There are no "things". A "thing" is a boundary you have drawn. From the universe's perspective, it knows no things because it projects no boundaries. There actually are no subjective perspectives. All perspectives are objective. But since there is this illusion of an ego, it feels to you that things are subjective. What you're actually experiencing right now isn't an experience, and there is no "you" experiencing it, but rather, this is Absolute Infinity! Ta-da! If you imagine what Infinity is for a second, one part of it is what "you" are "experiencing" right now.

@danalyze

6 жыл бұрын

....shieeeet....... haha:)

@blizzforte284

6 жыл бұрын

Would love to talk about that with someone like you. But there aren't really many who understands this really, on a deeper level. I think you know that feeling.

Only time I have seen anyone do quantum mechanics proofs or work was when I talked to a pchem grad student. He was also the only one in the university doing this subject at that moment apparently. Wish they offered an intro for undergrad.

Hi Leo, thank you for the episode. As QM states with the superposition principle, when a phenomenon is not observed, there only exists a cloud of possibilities and everything is just infinite. As you apply this concept to us, or the self, you are saying that we are the collapsed version and the reverse process should be made in order to become the infinite state. But why are we in the collapsed form in the very first place? This implies some form of observation or interaction with the phenomenon, so who is interacting with the self so to make it collapsed? Hope my point is clear enough. Thanks

@ActualizedOrg

6 жыл бұрын

+Luigi Espasiano You appear collapsed because Infinity means not just lack of collapse, but the actuality of all possible collapsed states. Actual and potential are identical. The self is always interacting with itself. There can be nothing outside of infinity, thus no "other" to interact with. The self is just being itself in an infinite number of ways. The universe is simultaneously in every possible state it could be in. And also not.

@dracometeor1524

2 жыл бұрын

@Maker Haugh We really cannot expect anything logical from a person who hasn't done his homework, who hasn't read the actual hard stuff - the quantum mechanics itself. It is too easy to waste time like philosophers to beat around the bush. People (typically non-STEM people) do not understand that QM is not philosophy, it is math. If the math says so, it happens regardless of how you might feel.

I was worried. Thank God you are OK. Have a good week. Thanks.

You're far making more of things than makes sense, and extending them way beyond the scope within which they were created, intended, and validated, and spreading misinformation in your wake regarding what the scientific method has lead us to conclude... Equating classical physics with realism, rationalism, materialism, and objectivism, and even going so far as to claim that reality is defined as being nothing more than classical physics? Quantum entanglement 'killing' the "old idea" of causality? When you're not looking at an elephant, the entire mammal is in a state of quantum superposition? Sorry to say, but these are the musings of a complete quack... Equating classical physics with realism, rationalism, materialism, and objectivism, and even going so far as to claim that reality is defined as being nothing more than classical physics? I think materialists are not in denial about the way that matter behaves at the quantum level. And rational and objective thought are exactly what led scientists to the conclusions of quantum physics - they didn't want to believe it, but the objective results they got led them to rational conclusions. Also, objectivism, in the context of philosophy, as basically an Ayn Rand cult. Quantum entanglement 'killing' the "old idea" of causality? That's an *EXTREME* overstatement. When you prepare two particles in VERY particular ways, those two particles are entangled. So you take ONE electron and ONE other electron, and perform a very specialized process to them both, and now those TWO particles are entangled. It's an extreme leap to go from that, to suggesting that every particle that normal objects are made of, are entangled to other objects, fundamentally violating the entire idea of causality. You can do highly specific things in quantum physics experiments which do violate causality, but that doesn't mean that it is invalid to talk about causality in almost every other context. When you're not looking at an elephant, the entire mammal as a whole is in a state of *quantum* superposition? Have you done so much drugs that you've lost object permanence or something? Quantum superposition is a phenomenon whereby a quantum state of an individual particle cannot be known until it is observed, and that until it is observed, it is in every possible state simultaneously, and the observation collapses the wave function. There's also a concept called "quantum decoherence", whereby, to our best experimental understanding, concepts like this do not apply to massive collections of particles (such as elephants). Schrodinger proposed a thought experiment involving a cat, but the point was not that the cat itself is both a cat and an elephant at the same time. His point was actually that that which applies to a particle does *NOT* apply to larger things such as cats. Also, there's a line that has been drawn in the sand, where if you can perform an experiment distinguishing between competing ideas, it is in the realm of science, and if you can't, it is in the realm of philosophy. That doesn't mean there is no point in thinking about it, simply that scientists will focus on applying the scientific method, which is essentially empirical verification or falsification of ideas.

@Lazurath101

5 жыл бұрын

Object permanence is literally a delusion of the human mind. Nothing that has ever existed has lasted forever. For the mind to create the idea that something can be permanent is a false projection onto reality.

leo, please, if you have time create a video about responsibility feeling, I think I lost about a year ago and I am not as productive as I was before, maybe I am not the only one that needs it. Thank you

what do you believe becomes of our personal, first person awareness when we pass on then?

the vid starts at 22:20

@jjsweg9012

6 жыл бұрын

Parki bump

@ThePandaGamingHub

6 жыл бұрын

almost there

Good boy Leo fucking late with his video this weekend

@jjsweg9012

6 жыл бұрын

Forgive the man he has been consistent

This was great, Leo. Really appreciate you spending the time articulating all this. Question regarding the elephant that exists in potentiality when nobody is looking at it: Just say that elephant has a scar down the right side of its face and it's missing an ear. Why is it that when I, or somebody else, looks at the elephant they always see the same elephant (scar, missing ear)? Why does it always present with the exact characteristics? It must be linked to some kind of base reality that gives it its properties?

@ActualizedOrg

2 жыл бұрын

Because you are imagining others seeing the same thing as you, in order to construct a sense of objective reality. Notice that in fact you have never experienced anything outside your own experience. The notion of others having some common experience with you is a concept you invented.

I was just wondering when he'd come back because I was rewatching all of his videos