This was very interesting. If I understand it correctly, this would mean that the probabilities in scoped system under scrutiny are really the probabilities of the environment effecting the system? If the scope of the system is all-encompassing then there is no environment and the probabilities disappear. But isn't that the same as saying that we live in a deterministic universe but our experience of that universe is probabilistic in an inverse proportion to how much of the universe we experience?

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

Superposition is by definition indeterminate. When a particle is in a superposition, it is not in an actual place, it only exists as a probability wave described by Schrodinger's wave function. You can't determine something that does not actually exist. ps: There is no scientific evidence for multi-worlds. It is only a scientific Interpretation.

Unless you ask the bride, we assume she is in the superposition of saying YES and NO at the same time.

@wagfinpis

9 ай бұрын

If you seek the causal constituents responsible for her selected answer then there is no question that needs an answer.

@mattkanter1729

8 ай бұрын

Yup. And of course a complete neural mapping of the bride’s brain would give us the bride’s ( eventual ) answer before she even thinks of it or gives it .

The point of Quantum Mechanics is that the world is NOT deterministic. That it’s intrinsically indeterminate and stochastic. Keeping track of “every photon” will not alter this aspect of QM. Having said that, QM is not the final say - Physicists know that both General Relativity and QM are provisional theories and incomplete

@brothermine2292

9 ай бұрын

No, fundamental indeterminacy is NOT the point of QM. Bohmian mechanics shows it's possible to interpret QM as being fully deterministic... the probabilities just reflect our ignorance of part of the state of the system (hidden variables).

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

9 ай бұрын

*"The point of Quantum Mechanics is that the world is NOT deterministic."* ... Heisenberg's uncertainty principle negates any hopes of the Hard Determinists' for a totally deterministic reality, ... but even "science" can't stop them from believing that it is! I've argued many times how science and religion behave in similar ways. Theists run into problems with their belief in God the moment questions of "evil and suffering" arise because their presence cannot be explained in the presence of an almighty God. And when you point this out, they suddenly become defensive and dismissive. They want to "pick and choose" which parts of their theistic beliefs apply ... _and which parts don't._ Hard Determinists, Materialists, and Physicalists behave just like the theists regarding their belief that the universe is a totally deterministic (predictable) realm. They run into similar problems the moment you toss out the uncertainty principle. Like the theists, they become defensive, dismissive, and want to "pick and choose" which parts of science apply ... _and which parts don't._ You might even find the truth of what I just wrote demonstrated in this thread?

@brothermine2292

9 ай бұрын

It's amusing how our friend 0-1 (whose reply has been deleted) selectively picks from physics the bits that please him. But the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle actually has more than one interpretation: (1) The "weak" principle that Heisenberg described in the draft of his first paper about it, in which uncertainty is caused by the imperfectly controlled energy-transferring interaction required to measure information about the state of a system. For example, to accurately measure the position of a particle, you need to measure it using light (or another particle) that has a wavelength shorter than the accuracy you're striving for. But the shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy, and an uncontrollable fraction of that energy gets transferred into kinetic energy of the measured particle, just like energy is transferred from the cue ball to another billiard ball it collides with. Kinetic energy implies momentum, so by accurately measuring position we must uncontrollably perturb momentum and thus can't also accurately measure momentum at the same time. (2) The bold "strong" principle that Niels Bohr badgered Heisenberg into publishing (1927), in which randomness is ASSUMED to be fundamental. Our friend 0-1 tries to wear his ignorance of physics as a badge of honor. But anyone who actually studies the foundations of physics (which 0-1 proudly refuses to do) can quickly learn that fundamental randomness isn't required by every interpretation of quantum mechanics. 0-1 fools only himself by ignoring the DeBroglie-Bohm deterministic interpretation of QM, in which the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is the weak version. As Kuhn's guest noted early in this video, the principle that a conscious observer is required to collapse the Schrodinger wavefunction was another of Niels Bohr's woo-woo ideas, and isn't believed by most physicists. (My hunch is that it was NEVER believed by most physicists, who were encouraged to "shut up and calculate.") Note: I'm not a "hard determinist." I'm agnostic about it because there's insufficient evidence to prove either determinism or fundamental randomness. Similarly, I don't believe in any particular interpretation of quantum mechanics.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@brothermine2292 Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has not been refuted. In fact, the accumulation of scientific evidence over the last century has profoundly supported fundamental indeterminacy and more importantly, contextuality of quantum measurements. Most of the RATIONAL loopholes arguing for Hidden Variables have been closed since John Bell. There has been NO scientific evidence indicating otherwise. Sorry. Isaac Newton was wrong on two counts: locality AND contextuality.

@johnandrew2370

9 ай бұрын

"There is nothing random in a universe controlled by mathematical law" ~ Michael Faraday

Wooshhhh ! Straight over my head. I just like looking at space,,,words about it fail me.

Seems like a long way to say that wave collapse can be accomplished by systemic interactions, no need for a conscious observer. We might go on to say no need for "mind" in the universe. As for perfect knowledge of the system, that would have to be time independent in the form of knowing all possible outcomes, thereby implying a "static" situation. I guess. Otherwise, not sure what the gentlemen means.

@T.R.A.I.N.I.N.G.

9 ай бұрын

it's not "static" so much as "outside of time".

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

Physicists like Bousso still have no real answer to John von Neumann's chain.

@David.C.Velasquez

9 ай бұрын

The "block" would appear as a static manifold superimposition, of every possibility, to an "observer outside of time" or just of one higher dimensionality than said structure.

He said a lot in there. I know he and Lenny had been working on something called the Holographic principle which I thought was related to gravity and black holes. Didn't know it could explain this (many worlds?) stuff as well! Can't wait to see what more comes out of it.

This is a much better setting for a discussion than in an art museum right smack in the middle of people trying to enjoy the artworks 😂

Observation is essentially about interaction. Where quantum fields of potentiality intersect, potentiality becomes 'actuality'( interaction).To be precise, each observer has a unique frame of reference.The world ,as we experience it ,is possible because our frames of reference are not so dissimilar as to make it impossible.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

The problem is that the equations of quantum mechanics include interactions in the model, so any system of arbitrarily many interactions just gets absorbed into the wave function. There is no limit to the expansion of the wave function, only what you can calculate. This expansion of the wave function is what he means when he talks about 'keeping track' of interactions, he means calculate their contribution to the wave function. By 'something happening' he means the collapse of the wave function to a discrete state. we don't have a model for that in quantum mechanics.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 The wave function is a wave probability function. Even if you kept track of every possible interaction that would not change the nature of the wave function itself.

Excellent video. This is an enigmatic subject. And it has remained so since 100 years now. I really feel if we can device experiments to somehow prove whether the brain functions Quantum mechanically or not, that would take this enigma to the next level.

@danielyapesque

9 ай бұрын

PEAR Labs, Dean Radin, and all the serious psi researchers have been testing and confirming mind-matter interactions for decades. When you see the effect of intent on RNG readings in real-time, it becomes experiential truth, even if the theory and scientific consensus haven’t caught up.

2:16 The main misconception in the interpretations of quantum mechanics is that the equally probable nature of phenomena implies their equivalence.* Moreover, not only at 50/50, but also at 99/1. However, equality and equivalence are completely different things, even if they are causally related; for example, all inertial reference systems are equal in SR and QM, but far from equivalent. Obviously, if a dead or a living cat, the spin of entangled photons up or down, pairs of socks or letters marked + or - in different parts of the world are equal, then they are not physically equivalent; and also, branched universes. When an tails falls out after a coin toss, then they talk about the collapse of the wave function, when tails and heads are just equal, but not the same even not only for numismatists.That is, these are physical parameters of different physical phenomena, and their representation by a single wave function according to Born is ridiculous. For example, when energy E=mc^2, then mass m=E/c^2, since they are parameters of the same physical entity, and therefore equivalent. For comparison: in GR, in a gravitational field or in an equally accelerated frame of reference, all events are not only equal, but equivalent*, so Einstein criticized QM for not being as radical as RT.** --------------------- *) - In logic, this is the basic law: the law of identity. **) - The equivalent Universe can only be the accelerating Universe itself. ***) - It seems that the uncertainty principle is the result of a misunderstanding of probability/equivalence. In the Heisenberg inequalities, the mathematical apparatus was formed before the interpretation of their physical essence. It is funny that these inequalities indicate that there are no exact values of coordinates and momentum vector in the states of microobjects at the same time; and thus exclude the equivalence of these parameters.

This reminds me of his paper called "Dynamics and Observer-Dependence of Holographic Screens" that he published a little while ago.

Either his arguments are sloppy and wrong, or...I'm missing something, as follows: Would seem that even if you tracked all particles in the universe and had a universal wave function that described perfectly the specific variable you are looking at, the result of measurement at any instant of time would still not be determined -- you would still have a quantum probability function. Happy to have someone explain this to me...

6:20 Unrecoverable measurement. It seems that there have never been any problems with QM already within the framework of GR (for example, in the case of the Schrodinger/Carroll cat). A live cat breathes and, accordingly, emits gravitational waves according to the formula GR with intensity: I(G)=(2G/45c^5)(M^2)(l^4)(w^6), where M is the mass of the cat, l is its characteristic size, w is its frequency breathing.The frequency of gravitational radiation should be on the order of w~ 2π/т where т is the characteristic time of accelerated mass movement (pulsation, rotation, collision, non-spherical explosion).It is clear that the dead cat is not breathing and I(G) =0. In principle, all this lends itself to a certain (improbability) constant measurement without opening the "black box", since gravity is not shielded [w=w(m)]. Moreover, the behavior of the radiation source is also controlled, since it emits only in an excited state. * Of course, Carroll's sleeping cat breathes, but differently (can be measured) than the waking one.** Sweet dreams to you QM, on the interpretation of the Born wave function. P.S. Why didn't Einstein use this argument? He wasn't sure about the reality of gravitational waves and assumed only the presence of hidden parameters… --------------------- *) - If the cat is replaced with a detector, then with each absorption its state will change (which makes measurement possible). It is clear that this will also cause additional radiation of gravitational waves, since the included detector is already a source. **) - The formula can be given in the following form for a photon: I(G)={[w/w(pl)]^2}ħw^2. Of course, this approach is also applicable to the case of entangled particles. "When physicists offer metaphysical explanations for physical phenomena, I start swearing." (Raymond Tallis). Frame of reference in GR: "In the general case of an arbitrary variable gravitational field, the metric of space is not only non-euclidean but also changed with time. This means that the relationships between different geometric distances change over time. As a result, the relative position of the "test particles" introduced into the field in any coordinate system can not remain unchanged." ( Landau-Lifshitz, II). It turns out that since the Big Bang, all the particles in the universe speak, hear and listen to each other in the language of gravity (= irreducible spontaneous measurement).

@edcunion

9 ай бұрын

The gravitational memory effect might be taken more seriously? Perhaps as a memory of the posited Feynman sticky bead action? Black holes, that can enjoy a sort of induced polarization, might be thought as a near perfect type of spacetime capacitor, or perhaps as a kind of Lewis, not Sean Carrol's, Cheshire cat, that disapears fermions and bosons but remembers their bulk accelerations? Albert's gravitation-acceleration equivalance is smiling back at the universe darkly?

@vanikaghajanyan7760

9 ай бұрын

@@edcunion A smile without a cat or a reciprocal smile of Albert's double can be detected from Einstein's equations. Raising one of the indices, substituting I=k and summing, we find: R=-(8πG/c^4)T, where T=T(n) is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor (~ effect of "gravitational memory").

@edcunion

9 ай бұрын

@@vanikaghajanyan7760 Well there you are, might not only gravity/accelerations and their sub light speed fermionic actions and light speed bosonic radiation, be related to the universes increasing sum acceleration, as the universe evolves, or creates/stores more information over time? Is it violating the conservation of energy law by increasing it, by remembering actions as information? Entropy may come in here somewhere, as a singular entity like a proton or electron or black holes singularity i.e. its centroid, thinking of a compensated rotated Hamiltonian, would be zero in isolation after self compensation or error correction, with their actions and information and entropy stored on their dynamic spacetime bounding surfaces? Just a thought experiment for today that may be hogwash. Thanks for the math reply.

@vanikaghajanyan7760

9 ай бұрын

@@edcunion The unification of spatial coordinates and time into a single manifold is not formal but is a real reflection of the picture of the world, and self-closure does not take place for the 4-line. The time coordinate pulls along with it the spatial coordinates, because if it is impossible to return to the past, then it is also impossible to return to where "there" is not with the spontaneous accumulation of space-time history. In general, no law of conservation of time is known. This is due to the asymmetry of time, which means the accumulation of time (history); therefore, on the horizon, there is simply a min "amount" of time (for a min of the entropy of the system, that is, in the general case, the measure of time is - diversity). Entropy (here: a measure of diversity, not "ugliness" / disorder) of the system: S=πε(pl)r(t).

@edcunion

9 ай бұрын

Its supposed protons, electrons & black holes decay eventually, but at least the fermions in effect act like Wilczeks's time crystals? It's posited black holes Hawking evaporate. A 1000 tonne one would evaporate after about 45 seconds and would be about 5-6 orders of magnitude smaller than a proton with 45 seconds left of existence? Dali has a floppy clocks take on time called the "persistence of memory" about a decade after Albert's nobel prize, as an artist not a scientist, he may have inadvertantly been on to something about entropy, gravity & universal acceleration, time, universal memory and consciousness with that one painting? EM radiation too as we require bosons to observe things, including universal acceleration waves in the form of gravity waves that trigger accelerometer currents in wires, or the cosmological anti-gravity constant?

Radioactive decay will remain probabilistic regardless of how well you keep track of the system.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

Unless you believe in super-determinism, or some hidden mechanism not yet discovered by science (apparently, according to this guy).

@duytdl

9 ай бұрын

My interpretation of this was that the determinism comes from the fact that all possible decay pathways are ultimately predictable in QM, i.e., as he said, nothing ever really "happens", or anything that can happen does happen, but we only get to experience only one possibility of it all because we're only humans. A hypothetical quantum being will experience it all (dead + alive cats) and it'll all be deterministic to him, which of course as he said, is unsatisfying as an explanation. In other words, we (as mortals) can't ever keep track of everything ever (which is the point he's making). And that's what makes us-us, and our world-our world. Or at least that's what I took from this, correct me if I'm wrong.

@Bdix1256

9 ай бұрын

@@duytdl that sort of sounds like the Everettian many worlds theory where the all quantum paths are realized.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@Bdix1256 Yes, I think you're right. What is really being pushed here and why probably Kuhn interviewed the guy and put it out there is the Many-Worlds Interpretation. What I found disturbing is the way the video is edited - it was made to sound like there is some kind of overwhelming scientific consensus on this Interpretation. Which is pretty misleading (intentional or not).

electromagnetic field energy measures particle(s) from quantum energy probability, expanding space in the process?

Seems to me to be the exact opposite that in fact, the measurable states are what we determine as being “deterministic” meaning it’s the path integral, I.e the measurable state that we can observe. The randomness and fluctuations are simply the probabilities that give reality a fuzzy boundary and is unknowable, since that is the true randomness of the universe. This is how the universe can both be random and deterministic.

How it is chosen? And who is the one that chooses?

Fascinating insight!

We are each at the center of our own personal cosmic horizon, but we are irregular bags of particles. Could there be a true, point like center of the horizon, at any instantaneous moment, that is that silent witness that observes causality unfold, as it is moved through space?... giving rise to our apparent experience of time?

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

What is interesting is our experience with computers, especially video games, is the kind of simulation that you are proposing may be real life for each of us as Observers. But can one really believe as Einstein once quipped, the moon is not really there when one is not looking? But then again, why is there anything at all? How is there a universe with unimaginable energy and size, and precise laws - how is there even a universe in the first place? How is there even self-aware consciousness like you and me? I mean just existence itself, and awareness seems like an unimaginable miracle to me - so how much of a stretch is it to conceive reality as more like a simulation - that we are already experiencing with computers?

@David.C.Velasquez

9 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 Yes, great post. I appreciate that you ask "how" when most ask "why"... when the word why connotes agency which cannot be identified, leading to paradoxical conclusions. The simulation aspect you mention, definitely resonates with me, even though I usually subscribe to a more pantheist omniversal ideology and interpretation of cosmology, although these are most likely not mutually exclusive. I am 50 and have been a gamer since Pong, and early on, I felt as if these simulated worlds had a simple yet valid reality of their own. From our perspective they were as fleeting as the flick of a power switch. I spent a few years learning to program, starting with a program called Fractint and eventually coding a simple 3d engine with c+ and directX8(lol)... only reinforcing my feeling that simulated beings wouldn't necessarily realize it, and that reality itself, is also relative to point of view. Psychedelics helped with that last bit. Obviously there is much more to be said on the subject.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@David.C.Velasquez Man I remember Pong. Seeing it for the first time in a Mall stereo shop. I was mesmerized. Wanted one so badly! And it was on sale for 10K!! Yeah, Ping Pong - you could buy it for the low price of 10,000 dollars! Then you had Radio Shacks 1st purchaseable computer with an actual tape cassette for your memory management (later known as a disk drive, later to become a solid state drive). I think the key to the simulation question lies with answering the question what is consciousness? And the Observer problem may be providing hints - if it is really our conscious choice that determines what we see. I am not ready to make the jump that this *is* the case, but one cannot rule it out either. It is pretty mysterious how there are so many physical laws that are incredibly precise, that if they weren't, life could not exist as we know it now. Where did these physical laws come from? What sustains them? Then we have consciousness itself. Self-awareness!! Being aware that we are aware! How is this even possible? How did inert matter and electricity somehow combine itself into a replicating, a self-aware brain with a very adaptable body? Yeah I know - we're suppose to chalk it all up to some puddle somewhere on earth that despite ridiculous odds - I mean ridiculous - we're talking absurdly impossible sequences of events taking place for the right DNA & RNA strands forming, and finding a way to repeatedly replicate themselves - so ridiculous - it would be more ridiculous than a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a jumbo jet - how did this come about? How is consciousness possible, given we have no idea how to derive consciousness from the known physical laws of matter? There is no indication that electron spin, or chemical reactions, or electricity can provide an emotion or a single thought. So what is consciousness? What role does it play in our reality? Is it just a happenstance byproduct? Something that just happened? Or is it more central to our reality and to our existence? Part of what makes me suspect consciousness may be more than what the materialists insist we believe - are the last 3 decades of NDE research, 65+ prospective and retrospective scientific studies. I especially liked the scientific work by Pim von Lommel. Although it is scientific work the materialists scoff at (including Kuhn) - it is solid work with respectable scientific credentials and does not deserve to be ignored or marginalized the way Kuhn and other Skeptics routinely do. And the scientific work does point to consciousness being something more fundamental to our reality, just as the Observer effect does appear to point to this as well. But consciousness studies do not stop at NDE research, or the Observer Effect - there is a mountain of scientific data and studies regarding the phenomena of Psi. Which also appears to indicate the boundaries of consciousness are likely not localized strictly to the brain, and may likely not be a simple product of the brain. Science should be about exploring open unresolved questions. I think scientific questions regarding consciousness are the most fascinating right now in science. And these questions should not be limited to attempting to understand consciousness strictly by neural processes. To me, doing that, is like attempting to understand a Mozart symphony by taking a radio apart - and hoping if you understand the radio, you will understand Mozart.

Might be even the observer is observed by the observed. 😅

The observer is consciousness.

@jeffforsythe9514

9 ай бұрын

The soul is consciousness. When the body falls away the soul enters another womb. Falun Dafa offers an escape from that cycle so that we can return home to Heaven.

Couldn't understand any of the directions this guy tried to point to in his answers. 🤔

@AlOfNorway

9 ай бұрын

He pretty much said: “since we haven’t measured everything there is to measure, we don’t know whether we are imposing our idea of the importance of the observer or not”. He is criticising the importance we put on the criticiser since we haven’t measured everything, and thus we don’t know whether it is true or not.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

To me he was talking out of two sides of his mouth, and still pushing Hidden Variables - which was resolved pretty much by John Bell like 50 years ago. And there has been plenty of experiments since then as well (Kochen-Specker et al)

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@AlOfNorway Yeah - there is something still hidden that we don't know about. Same argument by Einstein. And there has been plenty of science since then, that does not support hidden variables whatsoever. And no science that indicates what Bousso insists is true. Reminds me of all the materialists who insist consciousness is an emergent product of the brain, without a scinitilla of scientific evidence that consciousness can be derived by ANY known physical attributes of the brain.

@danieladmassu941

9 ай бұрын

@@AlOfNorway I tend to agree that requiring a conscious observer as a legitimate variable to explain a phenomenon could be the biggest bungle in physics yet. However choosing not to put forward any explanation because we haven't (and really can't) measure everything is kind of paralyzing, isn't it?

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@danieladmassu941 Well, what constitutes an "Observer" is still largely debated. And Observer may simply be "information" in a system. Not an actual conscious being etc. It's hard to call the Measurement Problem a "bungle" since the greatest known physicists in science from Heisenberg to Einstein to John von Neumann (Neumann I believe the greatest genius among them, and greatest scientist since Newton) took very seriously the phenomena that has become the foundation of the quantum physics we know today. Also, John Bell's mathematical proof of contextuality still holds up - if there were non-contextual hidden variables, Bell's inequalities would have been disproven by now.

I'm a bit confused about what this guy was actually saying. He didn't seem clear in his own mind.

This is mind blowing.

He set a lot in the interview yet he didn't answer the question of what makes an observer important.

Bousso articulates it perfectly at around 1.5 mins in, and again with the Shrodinger experiment at around 2.5 mins. For simplicity, "measure" is a thousand times better of a word than "observer". Nothing about the observer effect means a conscious person. The observer effect is just another way of describing relativity. Imagine 2 lights in outer space, millions of miles apart. Both burn of them out at the same time - well, if you're much closer to one than the other, then the light you're nearest to actually goes out first. If you're closer to the other light, then that one went out first. You might say "sure but there's an absolute vantage point from which they went out simultaneously", while true, there's nothing special about that vantage point vs the others. Therefore, the very concept of *the order events happened in* is not absolute - it depends on where you are, how fast you're going, etc. This relativity applies to everything: Speed, distance, duration, size - all of it is relative. Therefore, reality is not any 1 thing, it literally depends on how you look at it. That is what is meant by the observer effect. The wave function collapses one way, and not the other, because it is being measured one way, and not the other. There is no concept of "getting outside the universe" to take a measurement - you have to use the universe to measure itself, from within itself. And when you do that, it depends on how you measure.

@5piles

9 ай бұрын

well, it is called 'the measurement problem'. however its just speculation that in isolation an apparatus or as cited here a photon can measure the cat. he keeps running away from this by rebranding observers with 'drawing a line between what is known and what is not known', as though that ought to be a magical physical composition. i guess since we're busy trying to pray 1830s based physics emergent properties of consciousness into existence with zero evidence, then there should be no problem doing the equivalent to it in quantum physics as well. and as you can see theyre doing equally well ie. zero progress in either problem for 100+ yrs.

@bennyskim

8 ай бұрын

@@5piles I can tell why there's been no progress in 100+ years from a lot of the comments I see in these videos. People trend into 2 camps: 1) God exists, and does everything, so there's no reason to figure anything out. 2) The universe is a simple machine and all the problems were already solved by Newton, Einstein, etc. so there's no reason to figure anything out. Surprisingly few of us realize how little is known. I don't think you need to show the photon "measures" the cat, only that it interacts with it. It's the necessary interaction when measuring that causes the observer effect - it could be called the "measurer effect" or "interaction principle" instead of "observer effect". A photon bounces off a cat at some size, space, and time scale, which has ramifications from that orientation, to that photon's reality, and some local observers too, but it doesn't bounce off it from every possible orientation: For example, if the cat is moving some velocity X, or is some size Y, there is a chance it won't have the mass required, or density of matter required, for the photon to bounce off anything material. All it would take for the cat to be both stationary and moving 400 million mph simultaneously is to apply those attributes to 2 different observers. The observer moving 400 million mph would take different measurements than the stationary observer, even though it's the same cat doing the same thing. The cat only exists the way it does to each respective measurer/observer. Even though it's possible for many observers, especially local ones, to record more-or-less the same cat, it isn't that case for all possible observers. Light is massless and moves at a constant rate, and is thus sizeless, yet when we measure a photon, it has a size equal to half of the wavelength, and the radius is proportional to square root of the wavelength. There is light moving at the tiniest scales, and the size of photon you get depends on that scale. So if you were incredibly tiny, you would not see light bouncing off the unimaginably giant cat. The same is true with speed, not just size. And all these attributes are relative to an observer, or point of measurement. The most controversial thing about this view is seeing "relativity", "observer effect", and "measurement problem" as all the same kind of understanding. But again it's very hard to convince anyone it's that simple.

Empirical observation calls for consciousness therefore consciousness precedes observation if not then we wouldn’t know whether or not if anything happened

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

Kind of. Our bodies can sense things when we are not conscious, but we don’t become aware of it until conscious. That’s how we can be woken from deep dreamless sleep by a bucket of cold water, and ‘remember’ being hit by the water after the fact. Our consciousness/memory system has a recent replay function. But really, to be aware of something in consciousness, tautologically we must be conscious yes.

I take issue with the quote “if we kept track of everything in the universe nothing would happen.” Besides the sentence being contradictory to his point of view that observers don’t matter (using “we” as physicist), quantum mechanics is probabilistic. Not to mention bells theorem which I won’t go into here. This speaker makes it sound like much has developed to make the observer obsolete but doesn’t go into detail into what these new physics are. Hint: there aren’t, we are still using the same quantum physics that Bohr did when he said “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

Bousso is still attempting to maintain Non-Contextuality of a measurement. He's still arguing for it like Einstein did for decades. It's hard to believe physicists are still attempting to push non-contextuality. John Bell provided the mathematical proof (using well known statistics) to demonstrate a quantum measurement is contextual - that one can perform the exact same experiment with no physical interference with the electrons or photons - or whatever particle you use for the experiment and you will achieve different results depending on at what point you to decide to measure the location of the particles - despite the experiment being exactly the same. And Heisenberg's Uncertainty still holds that you never can deterministically know where those particles might actually be ever. Einstein rebelled against this (and contextuality) and insisted "God does not play dice with the Universe." It is a bit astonishing that we continue to get this kind of Materialist tripe from Kuhn - almost as much tripe as interviewing the goofball Daniel Dennett. Like, really - we're suppose to take non-contextuality/determinism seriously after a century of accumulating scientific evidence and experimentation in quantum physics? Good Grief.

Professor Bousso seems to explicitly say total observation / measurement would result in complete determinism of events and also that it would result in nothing ever happening. So... those are not the same thing. Is this some ambivalence that's built into the nature of the problem or can't he make up his mind? Also, talking about what 'we' observe as if wave function collapse is numerically the same for all observers was a notion that just slid into the conversation without being introduced as a problem. IDK what's happening in this conversation.

In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the Strong Nuclear Force. 2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the Strong Nuclear Force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.

@NotNecessarily-ip4vc

9 ай бұрын

Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view. [2D is not the center of the universe, 0D is the center of the mirror universe]: The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped. In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge. Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed. What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.

@GH-hh8cm

9 ай бұрын

Garbage!

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@NotNecessarily-ip4vc Excellent analysis.

“That was wrong” That’s an unproven claim.

✨🌠🙏

I know this doesn’t make sense in real life, more sci-fi/a misrepresentation of QM, but it would be cool if we could look out in the universe and determine something has been observed, know it wasn’t us and deduce that someone out there had observed it so we aren’t alone

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

1:54 ... why is taht happening why is to study the universe you have to divide it into the observed and the observer and for the universe what could possibly be an observer. 2:06 RB: well in quantum mechanics when you study the time evolution of any system the evolution is actually completely determined (which suggests time is 3 dimensional) in some sense nothing ever happens in that uh what the state of system at onte time is completely determined by the state of the system at any other time in some sense they're completely equivalent to each other. When we say that an atom decayed and therefore the cat died or was kept alive we cannot describe this by following this completely deterministic evolution of the quantum mechanical wave function this sort of thing only happens if we take into account that there are parts of the world that the system interacts with that we don't keep track of so there are always right particles bouncing off the cat for example 3:00

Guys inst corrected. He observes many sequences of events. Unpredicted conscience show up these events is nill. Quanta mechanic big problems are unpredicted conscience never pictures sequences of events so far. Guys please go to studies fundamental law of quanta mechanic.

If there would be no live or consciousness in the universe then would the universe exist? Does the universe exist if no consciousness is in it to observe or explore it? If the answer is yes then what is the difference between existing universe or none existing universe? Maybe the universe is only real in the mind of the observer. That is all there is.

Finite beings trying to completely and fully understand the details of all that goes on around them may be destined to forever have frustrations. Could it be only an all-knowing and all-seeing omnipotent being can completely and fully understand the details of all that goes on. It could also be only such a being that can ultimately know to what extent we have free will or that all is predetermined for us.

Cats are excellent observers.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

What is an Observer?

@dubsar

9 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 An observer is an entity that actively affects, by its own emergent properties, future outcomes in a system. At least, that is what my own observations allow me to think.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@dubsar What is the nature of this "entity"? What scientific evidence is there regarding the emergence of consciousness, as I was not aware there is any scientific evidence of such. We do have correlations of consciousness with brain activity, but there is no known science that derives consciousness from what we know of the properties of matter. So where does the magical "emergence" come from? Is it just an idea, another fantastic assumption proposed by someone?

@dubsar

9 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 I don't need science to assert my consciousness. My gut feeling is enough.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@dubsar Sure. But the video here is regarding science, thus the nature of the discussion.

Look easier way to understand what QMECH is imagine a circle 360 ° each degree has 360 degrees now everything around us is energy now different path combines different degree to make a sum = whole now different paths equal different =whole ie properties the universe is everything we just don't see correct combinations yet

Knowing every particle still wont make you know the future, the chicken at the farm.

A cat in a superposition is not fiction

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

The problem with Schrodinger's example is the cat itself is an Observer.

The universe isn't uniform time can dilate. We are measuring time wrong because our understanding of time is wrong. Our measurements are wrong.

Im pretty certain Robert didn't get that one either.

Imagination - Process of Pure Creation The process of creation starts with thought - an idea, conception, visualization. Everything you see was once someone's idea. Nothing exists in your world that did not first exist as pure thought. This is true of the universe as well. Thought is the first level of creation. Next comes the word. Everything you say is a thought expressed. It is creative and sends forth creative energy into the universe. Words are more dynamic (thus, some might say more creative) than thought, because words are a different level of vibration from thought. They disrupt (change, alter, affect) the universe with greater impact. Words are the second level of creation. Next comes action. Actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. Forces are elements existent. Elements are particles of God, portions of ALL, the stuff of everything. The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating - or God experienced. Hang on. There's one thing more I have to tell you. You are always seeing what by your terms you would define as the "past," even when you are looking at what is right in front of you. I am? It is impossible to see The Present. The Present "happens," then turns into a burst of light, formed by energy dispersing, and that light reaches your receptors, your eyes, and it takes time for it to do that. All the while the light is reaching you, life is going on, moving forward. The next event is happening while the light from the last event is reaching you. The energy burst reaches your eyes, your receptors send that signal to your brain, which interprets the data and tells you what you are seeing. Yet that is not what is now in front of you at all. It is what you think you are seeing. That is, you are thinking about what you have seen, telling yourself what it is, and deciding what you are going to call it, while what is happening "now" is preceding your process, and awaiting it. To put this simply, I am always one step ahead of you. My God, this is unbelievable. Now listen. The more distance you place between your Self and the physical location of any event, the further into the "past" that event recedes. Place yourself a few light-years back, and what you are looking at happened very, very long ago, indeed. Yet it did not happen "long ago." It is merely physical distance which has created the illusion of "time," and allowed you to experience your Self as being both "here, now" all the while you are being "there, then"! One day you will see that what you call time and space are the same thing. Then you will see that everything is happening right here, right now. This is....this is....wild. I mean, I don't know what to make of all this. When you understand what I have told you, you will understand that nothing you see is real. You are seeing the image of what was once an event, yet even that image, that energy burst, is something you are interpreting. Your personal interpretation of that image is called your image-ination. And you can use your imagination to create anything. Because - and here is the greatest secret of all - your image-ination works both ways. Please? You not only interpret energy, you create it. Imagination is a function of your mind, which is one-third of your three-part being. In your mind you image something, and it begins to take physical form. The longer you image it (and the more OF you who image it), the more physical that form becomes, until the increasing energy you have given it literally bursts into light, flashing an image of itself into what you call your reality. You then "see" the image, and once again decide what it is. Thus, the cycle continues. This is what I have called The Process. This is what YOU ARE. You ARE this Process. This is what I have meant when I have said, you are both the Creator and the Created. I have now brought it all together for you. We are concluding this dialogue, and I have explained to you the mechanics of the universe, the secret of all life. Okay. Now as energy coalesced, it becomes, as I said, very concentrated. But the further one moves from the point of this concentration, the more dissipated the energy becomes. The "air becomes thinner." The aura fades. The energy never completely disappears, because it cannot. It is the stuff of which everything is made. It's All There Is. Yet it can become very, very thin, very subtle - almost "not there." Then, in another place (read that, another part of Itself) it can again coalesce, once more "clumping together" to form what you call matter, and what "looks like" a discreet unit. Now the two units appear separate from each other, and in truth there is no separation at all. This is, in very, very simple and elementary terms, the explanation behind the whole physical universe. Wow. But can it be true? How do I know I haven't just made this all up? Your scientists are already discovering that the building blocks of all of life are the same. They brought back rocks from the moon and found the same stuff they find in trees. They take apart a tree and find the same stuff they find in you. I tell you this: We are all the same stuff. (I and the Father are One Energy) We are the same energy, coalesced, compressed in different ways to create different forms and different matter. Nothing "matters" in and of itself. That is, nothing can become matter all by itself. Jesus said, "Without the Father, I am nothing." The Father of all is pure thought. This is the energy of life. This is what you have chosen to call Absolute Love. This is the God and the Goddess, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. It is the All-in-All, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Source. It is that which you have sought to understand from the beginning of time. The Great Mystery, the Endless Enigma, the Eternal Truth. There is only One of Us, and so, it is THAT WHICH YOU ARE.

@T.R.A.I.N.I.N.G.

9 ай бұрын

the jesus christian stuff is a bit unnecessary. but at least aside frome spiritual mumbo jumbo you made the valid point about observational latency.

Now, let's hear from analytical idealism people on the subject.

Physics deals with physical properties of matter - its physical causes and physical effects... while the observer is our immortal conscious soul which is not physical, so, there is no such thing as "physics of the observer"... ...and knowledge of the essence of consciousness (the observer) is a forbidden fruit because it is part of the essence of God the Holy Spirit.

The goal of physics is to try and explain the unexplainable.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

But that is what makes scientific endeavor so interesting - even if it ultimately turns out some things are unexplainable. And many things once thought to be "unexplainable" have turned out to be explainable. Why stop now?

I understood nothing of his explanation.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

I imagine you're familiar with the Double Slit Experiment. Pretty much boils down to Bousso claiming that when you observe one of the two slits - whatever you choose, does not really determine the experiment - but instead some other deterministic quality of reality causes the results of the quantum wave collapse (not your choice of which slit you observed). Note - it has been very well established in quantum physics that there is no interference or impact of the measurement apparatus on what is being measured. Although you do still have some crackpot physicists maintaining interference must be involved.

When he says if you tracked every particle and interaction "nothing would happen" what he means is that you would just have a wave function of possible outcomes. You would never get an actual discrete outcome, which is a specific event happening. So he's talking about 'collapse' of the wave function to discrete states.

@Jimthedog135

9 ай бұрын

Can you explain that in even more detail? So observing stuff makes that stuff not have a discrete outcome?

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

@@Jimthedog135 He’s not taking about observations. By ‘keep track of’ he means calculate its evolution according to the equations of Quantum Mechanics. That requires taking into account all possible interactions with other particles, fields, etc in the calculation. So it’s about knowing all of the inputs into the system state so you can include them in the calculation. So this is about knowing and including the ‘initial conditions’ in our calculations, not about measuring a final outcome. The final outcome is what he means by ‘something happening’, or what we see when we do a measurement. Yeah… it’s not explained at all in the clip.

@Jimthedog135

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 oh I see what you mean. That guy is then very bad at explaining what he means. I understand you completely, but he's remarks that "nothing ever happens" just sounds like him trying to obfuscate something.

Whenever God experiences itself, through us or otherwise, that counts as a "measurement".

@David.C.Velasquez

9 ай бұрын

I agree with this statement, if the entity we are referring to as god, is nothing short of the eternally infinite omniverse itself.

@afaegfsgsdef

9 ай бұрын

Why call it "God"?!?

@karolinaska6836

9 ай бұрын

@@afaegfsgsdef why not?

@David.C.Velasquez

9 ай бұрын

@@afaegfsgsdef I normally don't, but it is the only word many christians will understand in this context. Some random string of characters, will be assigned by any given culture, to represent this conceptualization. I prefer ∞...

Seems like many worlds without accepting its implications.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

Or super-determinism. Pretty much boils down to another hidden variables interpretation. And he starts off the interview stating as if such an interpretation has now been 100% established as scientifically true regarding the Observer problem. What nonsense. And even with the "many worlds" interpretation, when does the world split? WHAT decides and WHEN does it happen?

@MrBajaJunky

9 ай бұрын

​​@@jamenta2 I am perfectly fine with the many worlds theory. I think there is only one wave function for the whole multiverse which evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. Just by assuming a low entropy configuration as the initial condition you will get that branching structure out of the Schrödinger equation. Additionally the Schrödinger equation will tell you that different branches interact very weakly and in a random way. Therefore we can not observe the existence of other branches.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@MrBajaJunky What determines when a multi-world splits to another world? And when does it split?

@MrBajaJunky

9 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 Short answer: Solve the Schrödinger equation, it will tell you. Longer answer: Branching happens when a system becomes entangled with its environment. Even longer answer: Branching happens when within a macroscopically-independent part of the wave function an entaglement happens with respect to the whole Hilbert space spanned by this independent part.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@MrBajaJunky Except in the Double-Slit experiment (simple enough to use as an example here), contextuality is established by the choice of an Observer. And there is NO interference with the measurement apparatus with the particles measured. This has been extremely well established scientifically. Again my question is, WHEN and WHAT determines a multi-world split? WHAT "macroscopic-independent part" are you referring too - since there is no interference WHATSOEVER with the actual measurement of particles - and by the way, this has been scientifically well established - there are ways to measure that absolutely 100% prove there is no interference. So what then determines the "macroscopic-independent part" you refer to? And WHEN does this actually occur? An INFINITE number of times? WHEN DOES IT OCCUR?? What is the macroscopic-independent part you refer to that CAUSES the split? And note: I'm not even bringing up John von Neumann's chain here - which is ALSO a legitimate query.

I found this disappointing to be honest. 100 years and Bousso isn’t really answering any fundamental questions here. He’s being asked what happens if we could track every particle, is the universe then deterministic and no randomness in the collapse of the wave function and I’m not getting an answer to that other than there are things beyond our event horizon (therefore we can’t track everything presumably). When he discounts the observer effect early on in the interview, he doesn’t explain why. It seems like he’s trying to have his cake and eat it? Is the observer effect real or not? If not, what’s really going on? If we don’t know, just say so!

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

Everett acolytes won't even admit there is a wave function. I believe there is some kind of "infinite worlds" version of the wave function that we somehow move between these infinite worlds. Although it beggars the question of at what time do you and I enter a particular world that exists? Or why aren't we aware of all these worlds we exist in? What ultimately determines the world that occurs in a double-slit experiment? Super-determinism??

@tonybarry787

9 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 yes personally I think it’s a cop out to say all possibilities ARE happening, hence there’s nothing special or random going on and don’t need to worry about observer effect or how the universe seems highly suitable for our existence

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@tonybarry787 It seems very suspect to me as well, and convenient for them.

I think Raphael's point is that the quantum wavefunction has a deterministic evolution. If you were to incorporate all contributions to a quantum wavefunction, then the evolution of the quantum wavefunction could in theory be known throughout all time. He claims that the reason we don't observe this and instead observe changes to the wavefunction that we could not fully anticipate (e.g., particle decay) is due to not having enough information, i.e., not observing enough of the system. I don't know whether that is a fair assessment: after all, I'm pretty sure we literally can't fully know all quantum states (uncertainty principle). But then, I'm not a quantum physicist. I'm just glad he didn't support the quantum mysticism interpretation, and that Robert clarified that Raphael was using "happens" in a very unusual way and that he just meant that it would just be deterministic.

This is an excuse to dismiss the observer as the most essential in understanding anything. The observer is all there is. It is the only reason anything exists, or makes sense.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

Well - that *is* one position. A position I personally lean toward as the valid Interpretation (and so did John von Neumann). But scientifically it remains an open question - there is no scientific consensus yet.

@AlOfNorway

9 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 there can never be consensus on what is an individual first-hand experience, which is what the observer is. We are all that same observer, although our bodies and luggage differ. Whether we agree on it or not, doesn’t matter, because it is the truth and the fact. One can never experience anyone else’s observer, only one’s own. There can therefore never be consensus on what is intrinsically unique and one-of-kind phenomenon in space and time.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@AlOfNorway Actually, the scientific investigations in Near-Death Experiences - 65+ prospective/retrospective world wide scientific studies, over the last 30+ years - one common feature reported (and is defined within the Bruce Greyson NDE scale) is the experience of a "Life Review" and in this "Life Review" - many report experiencing the emotions and psychological thoughts of those they interacted with - as if they were that person, from that person's exact perspective. So I'm not quite sure science backs up your position i.e. "One can never experience anyone else's Observer". There is some scientific evidence that people do have just such an experience when having an NDE.

Bousso acts as if the "Observer" problem has been concretely resolved in physics. This is not true. It has not been resolved. And he knows it. There are a number of Interpretations of the Measurement Problem, none of them been absolutely, unanimously agreed upon by all scientists or are considered definitively proven. Furthermore, Bousso then goes on with a word salad that still attempts to deal with the Observer problem itself, but wants to redefine the Observer in whatever not yet proven theory he has latched onto. Reminds me how old-school materialists no longer define themselves "materialists" but have renamed themselves as "physicalists". It's all definitional hand waving that deliberately obfuscates still significant issues regarding the fundamental nature of reality - and the fundamental nature of an Observer. Note - to move away from the definitional obfuscation here by Bousso (and assumption he makes the Observer problem has been resolved) - one only need look at the very simple "Double Slit Experiment" itself. And note there are a number of concrete irrefutable, well established scientific facts still valid today, regarding the experiment 1) There is no interference whatsoever with the measurement apparatus with the particles themselves, 2) There are no hidden variables, 3) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle remains and the particles appear according to Schrodingers' probability wave function 4) The result of the Experiment remains contextual based on the Measurement (Observation) itself.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

He says that he and a collaborator have worked on a tentative theory to do with observational event horizons, but he certainly doesn’t claim to have resolved the problem at all.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Well sheesh - the way he comes off in the beginning of the interview he sounds like he's speaking for all physicists and that the Observer Problem has been resolved. Really off putting. A "tentative" theory makes a lot more sense now. He could have began the interview saying that. And then - explaining some of his terms as he went along - which he didn't. But that may be partially the fault of the interviewer.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 he's not saying it as resolved, he's saying that the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong (he doesn't call it that, but this is what he means by early interpretations). I can't say exactly what he meant by that though, Copenhagen has a lot of fundamental problems and now we have better theoretical formalisms, so maybe that's what he's referring to. we still have the measurement problem though, and he does explain that.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Well you are certainly much more clear about his position in a single paragraph than the near certainty (with authority) he opens up the video with. Yes, the Copenhagen interpretation does not happen to coincide with the Many-Worlds interpretation pushed mightily by the Skeptics - and Copenhagen is low on the totem pole of their fanatical faith in old-school Materialism. But as you say, none of it has been resolved. Much like the problem with consciousness itself.

The notion of Consciousness is steeped in mystery and debate, and although it is still generally considered to be human only, there are now schools of thought emerging that believe some animals have ‘consciousness’ as well. The idea that it is an attribute unique to us as human beings arises from the fact that we have an awareness of ourselves and the world we live in, unlike most or any of the other creatures. This awareness we have forms the basis of ‘the self’. The reason for our becoming self-conscious, or self-aware, creatures will become apparent later on, when we begin exploring the nature of being human in greater detail. But this human self-consciousness is something quite different in nature to the reality of the Consciousness that lies behind and within everything to appear as the myriad forms in existence. Consciousness inhabits and animates creation and its creatures not unlike the power that flows through a computer to make it work in accordance with the hardware and software of the device. By this analogy, the specific physical characteristics of a creature’s body constitute the hardware, and the programming of its mind the software. These things are important to understand because if this conceptual ground is not firm, the model we build from here will not endure, and its potential value will be lost. What all this is pointing to is that what you really are―what we all are―is an eternal, unlimited energy source capable of creating and experiencing events. What you are is this creative source, this Consciousness. Who you are is how this Consciousness works through you to express as something unique in the world. Powerful creative Consciousness is your true and essential nature, but of course, you experience your life through the limitations of a human body, so it may not seem that you are an all-powerful being at times, or indeed ever. By its very nature, the body exists as some ‘thing’ and is, therefore, a limitation or restriction of ‘everything else possible’, to become something specific and useful―a human being. And then it must be remembered that these bodies we inhabit are a product of Mother Earth, and have developed for good reasons. Although today there are many philosophes, theories and just sheer guesses put forward to explain the purpose of our existence, none of them fully describe or satisfactorily explain the original intention for our emergence. Some bodies born into this world have, or will develop over time, physical or mental attributes that further alter the creative opportunities and experiences available to them in a lifetime. The influence of our national culture, the general culture of our times, and the impact of our upbringing by parents and other significant people also become major influences that can place limitations on our thinking and power. Other restrictions occur as a result of the pains we might experience in life, the emotions that often get buried in the body as a result, and the accumulating limited beliefs they then give rise to. There is also the concept of ‘karmic debt’ that will limit opportunities, and this too will be discussed later in the work. The state of your own evolved Consciousness is another factor affecting personal power. All these things limit the opportunities you have in life, and so it can be seen that although your true nature is something quite grand, you find yourself in very limiting circumstances. But it is important to keep perspective. Your essential nature is a free and unlimited Consciousness, a potential capable of eternal creation and experience. And this Consciousness was the reality before the Universe that we know emerged. Consciousness Exist Outside of the Brain? The brain may not create consciousness but "filter" it. The prevailing consensus in neuroscience is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and its metabolism. When the brain dies, the mind and consciousness of the being to whom that brain belonged cease to exist. In other words, without a brain, there can be no consciousness. But according to the decades-long research of Dr. Peter Fenwick, a highly regarded neuropsychiatrist who has been studying the human brain, consciousness, and the phenomenon of near-death experience (NDE) for 50 years, this view is incorrect. Despite initially being highly incredulous of NDEs and related phenomena, Fenwick now believes his extensive research suggests that consciousness persists after death. In fact, Fenwick believes that consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain as an inherent property of the universe itself like dark matter and dark energy or gravity. Hence, in Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it. As odd as this idea might seem at first, there are some analogies that bring the concept into sharper focus. For example, the eye filters and interprets only a very small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the ear registers only a narrow range of sonic frequencies. Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.” Indeed, the eye can see only the wavelengths of electromagnetic energy that correspond to visible light. But the entire EM spectrum is vast and extends from extremely low energy, long-wavelength radio waves to incredibly energetic, ultrashort-wavelength gamma rays. So, while we can’t actually “see” much of the EM spectrum, we know things like X-rays, infrared radiation, and microwaves exist because we have instruments for detecting them. Similarly, our ears can register only a narrow range of sonic frequencies but we know a huge amount of others imperceptible to the human ear exist nevertheless. When the eye dies, the electromagnetic spectrum does not vanish or cease to be; it’s just that the eye is no longer viable and therefore can no longer filter, be stimulated by, and react to light energy. But the energy it previously interacted with remains nonetheless. And so too when the ear dies, or stops transducing sound waves, the energies that the living ear normally responds to still exist. According to Fenwick, so it is with consciousness. Just because the organ that filters, perceives, and interprets it dies does not mean the phenomenon itself ceases to exist. It only ceases to be in the now-dead brain but continues to exist independently of the brain as an external property of the universe itself. What’s more, according to Fenwick, our consciousness tricks us into perceiving a false duality of self and other when in fact there is only unity. We are not separate from other aspects of the universe but an integral and inextricable part of them. And when we die, we transcend the human experience of consciousness, and its illusion of duality, and merge with the universe's entire and unified property of consciousness. So, ironically, only in death can we be fully conscious.

@S3RAVA3LM

9 ай бұрын

Animals having consciousness was a debatable topic. That's a school to avoid.

Both, as humans and our technological devices are inherently limited in capturing the full essence of reality. This is because we not only exist within but are also integral components of our spacetime foundation. Thus, we will inevitably fall short in comprehending the complete picture of the universe as it truly is.

I choose to believe that the universe is deterministic until an observer with independent perspective, consciousnes, interacts with it. We can change the probabilities based on our needs.

@johnandrew2370

9 ай бұрын

You can't choose anything if the world is deterministic.

@mikefinn

9 ай бұрын

@@johnandrew2370 Our consciousness can work independently, locally, within a deterministic universal background. I choose to believe in freewill. We can change local probabilities by the actions we take. We can make choices based on the qualia that shape our consciousness. Future probbabilities arise that were not present before our interaction.

I agree with RLK. Speechless. If physics is about explaining things, then this video and physics in general is an utter failure. They are completely clueless. The discussion has degenerated to speculation and apparently there is no hope for resolution. It's no wonder Sabine Hossenfelder says it's a crisis.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

There have always been, and maybe always will be unknowns. Science is about exploring those unknowns. If we had explanations for everything, that would be the end of science. All,that would be left in engineering, Sabine is talking about a crisis in high energy particle physics, not physics generally.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Science is about admitting what we don't know.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 That's absolutely true. There should always be a distinction between what is demonstrated through verified observational evidence, and what is still theoretical. However the fact that there are still things yet to be explained is hardly an 'utter failure' of science.

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 It ought to be one of the triumphs of science. But we often are seeing the exact opposite, people who cherry pick what they deem is science and not science based on their personal unexamined biases. Some go so far as to claim, for example, psychology is not a science.

@simonhibbs887

9 ай бұрын

@@jamenta2 Cherry picking is arbitrarily. Those people have a specific definition of science, and psychology doesn’t match that description in their opinion. I think psychology is in trouble, but it’s recoverable.

Bousso, the entire video you are just speculating and making stories up, trying to explain something that is just obvious common sense. However, things react and interact via intelligence, which you are so politely leaving out of the explanation.

Talk without clarity.

Which is the main reason why you should learn of your self first as an observer. Do it in a way that is unique and do it right. Personally, I would rather trust Merlin like Wizardry than support a scientist with questionable character who does things to feel his pockets alone.

@fartpooboxohyeah8611

9 ай бұрын

Huh? "Which is the main reason why you should learn of your self first as an observer. Do it in a way that is unique and do it right." What does this even mean?

@HyzersGR

9 ай бұрын

Word salad

Sounds like they don’t have a clue.

@jellojiggle1

9 ай бұрын

Exactly my thoughts too. Imo they will go down paths where they lead but will not go down paths they dont want to go. They are biased and like this man, if he doesnt make it sound like he knows something no one will take him seriously then hell have to back to waiting tables. Which i understand, no one is paying me for my drivel.

@Sam-hh3ry

9 ай бұрын

Wow great insight it’s almost like the measurement problem is unsolved

@RyanStrainMusic

9 ай бұрын

They have more clues toward the unsolved mystery than you do, so what's your point?

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

@@RyanStrainMusic Hard to know what clues the guy was even talking about. What clues are there that hidden variables exist? Or that super-determinism exists?

@FJano12

9 ай бұрын

@@RyanStrainMusic Doubt it

Perhaps we'll never understand decoherence. Maybe we should just calculate instead.

(2:00) *RLK: **_"For the universe, what could possibly be an observer?"_* ... "Existence" is in a constant state of self-evaluation with the #1 question being _"Is existence justified?"_ If there is no justification for *Existence,* then there is no reason to move a single step beyond *Nonexistence.* Humanity and our countless _value judgments_ represent a 13.8-billion-year evolution of that very question. Just like an artist's works must be judged by an outside observer to establish its value, ... such is the same for the universe.

Nobody has a clue …..

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

Nobody is a nobody when in a superposition state.

he said a lot of nothing and avoided the questions

Isaiah 24 - King James Version 24 Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof. 2 And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him. 3 The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the Lord hath spoken this word. 4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. 5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. 6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left. 7 The new wine mourneth, the vine languisheth, all the merryhearted do sigh. 8 The mirth of tabrets ceaseth, the noise of them that rejoice endeth, the joy of the harp ceaseth. 9 They shall not drink wine with a song; strong drink shall be bitter to them that drink it. 10 The city of confusion is broken down: every house is shut up, that no man may come in. 11 There is a crying for wine in the streets; all joy is darkened, the mirth of the land is gone. 12 In the city is left desolation, and the gate is smitten with destruction. 13 When thus it shall be in the midst of the land among the people, there shall be as the shaking of an olive tree, and as the gleaning grapes when the vintage is done. 14 They shall lift up their voice, they shall sing for the majesty of the Lord, they shall cry aloud from the sea. 15 Wherefore glorify ye the Lord in the fires, even the name of the Lord God of Israel in the isles of the sea. 16 From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, even glory to the righteous. But I said, My leanness, my leanness, woe unto me! the treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously. 17 Fear, and the pit, and the snare, are upon thee, O inhabitant of the earth. 18 And it shall come to pass, that he who fleeth from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake. 19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly. 20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again. 21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. 22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited. 23 Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously. Isaiah 42 King James Version 42 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. 2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. 3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. 4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law. 5 Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: 6 I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; 7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house. 8 I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. 9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them. 10 Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof. 11 Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains. 12 Let them give glory unto the Lord, and declare his praise in the islands. 13 The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies. 14 I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry like a travailing woman; I will destroy and devour at once. 15 I will make waste mountains and hills, and dry up all their herbs; and I will make the rivers islands, and I will dry up the pools. 16 And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them. 17 They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, Ye are our gods. 18 Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. 19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant? 20 Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not. 21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable. 22 But this is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore. 23 Who among you will give ear to this? who will hearken and hear for the time to come? 24 Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? did not the Lord, he against whom we have sinned? for they would not walk in his ways, neither were they obedient unto his law. 25 Therefore he hath poured upon him the fury of his anger, and the strength of battle: and it hath set him on fire round about, yet he knew not; and it burned him, yet he laid it not to heart.

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Matthew 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Isaiah 66 Judgment and Hope 66 This is what the Lord says: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be? 2 Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?” declares the Lord. 1 Peter 1:25 - But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Psalms 102:26 - They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: Acts 7:48-51 48 “However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says: 49 “‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be? 50 Has not my hand made all these things?' 51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Isaiah 51:6 - Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished. Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Psalms 19:7 - The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. Psalms 89:34 - My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Proverbs 30:5 - Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Isaiah 34:4 - And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. Isaiah 54:10 - For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee. Isaiah 55:11 - So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Jeremiah 31:35-36 - Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Titus 1:2 - In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; Hebrews 1:11-12 - They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. 2 Peter 3:7-12 - But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

@HyzersGR

9 ай бұрын

Ezekial 23:20 - There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys, and whose emissions were like those of horses.

This is 'trying to penetrate the Real, the subject, yet designating this Real as a particular' so conditioning it to become suitable for their mode of thought - physical; atomism. These guys worship atoms. This absolutely is self defeating, concerning this 'subject' , and it is very clear they haven't a clue about what they're refering to or how to go about this. It must be pride - is it not? Then what else could it be? It's the religion of atoms, that for them, everything has to be a particle, or else, automatically deems it as nonsense - ironically, non sense here concerning the Subject is applicable. What's behind the senses and enlivens these is the Atman; yet the senses can not see the Atman. Stalemate; aporia. This man is pretty much spelling it out too, and the listens or followers of the atomist religion prefer to circle the fiasco of a revolving door than to own up - put it forward.

@tomjackson7755

9 ай бұрын

You are just embarrassing yourself with this nonsense.

@S3RAVA3LM

9 ай бұрын

​@@tomjackson7755what?

@tomjackson7755

9 ай бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LM I don't know if I can make it any more simple. Can you point out the word that you don't know the meaning of?

@S3RAVA3LM

9 ай бұрын

Point out the nonsense part and give a rebuttal. If not than reveal which Intel agency you are affiliated with. Or maybe you need somebody to speak too. Persons who do bully online are very troubled persons - especially you, who deny GOD and mock those who seek the Divine. You're a very troubled persons. Even if this is a side gig - what does this say about you? You're certainly not a man. You're not righteous or wise, intelligent or erudite. You never stalk those clowns like simon hibbs, tony Atkinson, george grubbs, matt woodling, pat Moran, kos mos, grauwolfe, Andrea plosky. Do you have courage to put it forward? What happen to you when you were a child? Are you so weak that you can only get away with bullying others over the internet. You must be scared.

@tomjackson7755

9 ай бұрын

@@S3RAVA3LM The nonsense, as I have stated before, is the fantasies that you make up. Just look at the entire fantasy you have made up about me there. You know nothing about me yet you have created this fantasy so you can claim that you are somehow better than me. You seem to have lost touch with reality. "If not than reveal which Intel agency you are affiliated with." I'm supposed to be some kind of secret agent? SMH If you are being serious in the slightest way about anything you write it is you that is a very troubled person. You try to speak in the vague metaphors like are in your favorite religious book because you think it makes you sound smart. It doesn't. It just proves you are just making things up like those authors did and trying to hide that you have no idea what you are talking about. The only name on your list that I even recognize is kos mos. I have talked to him before and looked at many of his conversations. He has an actual back and forth without resulting to absurd and obviously false fantasies like you do.

utter nonsense

@jamenta2

9 ай бұрын

Well - there is some sense in the madness. But trying to figure it all out is the hard part.

@shadow15kryans23

9 ай бұрын

​@@jamenta2Couldn't have said it any better haha

Beyond the human mind? Seriously? Then physics is going for dogma. We'll prepare for a new type of religion.