David Deutsch - What is Ultimate Reality?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 ноя 2022
- What is the deepest nature of things? Our world is complex, filled with so much stuff. But down below, what's most fundamental, what is ultimate reality? Is there anything nonphysical? Anything spiritual? Or only the physical world? Many feel certain of their belief, on each side of controversial question.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on ultimate reality: bit.ly/3jTdiw4
David Elieser Deutsch, FRS is a British physicist at the University of Oxford. He is a Visiting Professor in the Department of Atomic and Laser Physics at the Centre for Quantum Computation (CQC) in the Clarendon Laboratory of the University of Oxford.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I don't know how it's even possible, but this is like the best / most concise / straight-to-the-point presentation of David's ideas by himself ever on YT, at least in reference to his first book. 9 minutes worth more than 99,9% of all the web content. Thanks!
A jewel
I love this, thanks.
5:00. 'Knowledge is the kind of information that is the basis for doing things.' ....or not doing things.
Knowledge, something you rarely find on Facebook. If ever! 😄
"...it's the meaning that keeps it in existence."
A wild extravaganza of thoughts. I like his enthusiasm though.
David can say more in 8 minutes, than some people do in entire books
"Other times are just special cases of other universes." I seem to remember that quote as a key insight from Deutsch's first book. He broke down the multiverse into a set of three-dimensional snapshots of physical reality ("foliations" in the words of some authors), and when we organize these snapshots using the laws of physics and causality, we place some as happening before or after others in the same universe, while we place others in parallel universes, etc., but this organization comes from the laws or principles we use to organize them rather than being something inherent to the snapshots. "Parallel universes don't have hidden serial numbers." This seems to contradict Einstein's view of spacetime being a fundamental reality -- a four-dimensional block that can be sliced in various ways. Since reading Deutsch over twenty years ago, iirc, I've had both of these concepts of spacetime or the multiverse in my mind at the same time. Then you have Anton Zeilinger and his book "Dance of the Photons" in which he argues that physical reality is just the information that describes it. It doesn't have any inherent physicalness beyond that, and information, in that sense isn't merely a map or abstract description of something real. Rather information *is* what's real. Then you have Donald Hoffman's idea that it's all a bunch of interacting conscious agents, which can be mathematically described, and which are more fundamental than physical things (atoms and particles in spacetime) and more fundamental than information, which is something that pertains to those conscious agents. So... Yeah, Deutsch kind of started me off on a path toward... Wherever I am now. I certainly don't have the hard "physicalist" conception of spacetime based on Einstein alone that I had when I was in high school and college.
And yet after thousands of years it's all still a mystery
I have found that LOF, "laws of form" by g spencer brown; is a very useful tool to understand reality with (consciousness is implicit in LOF). LOF can generate most if not all branches of mathematics. And without mathematics physics would be useless. I also use surreal numbers to think with and generate infinity equations/relationships with them. They include all of the different types/levels of infinities in current set theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number Dig deeper read, Conway's "On Numbers and Games"
Knowledge = Understanding the (The Universes ) program's functions ... discovering information that's already there
Brilliant
what is the relationship of knowledge / science to meaning?
i have come to realize from learning all the theories and reality and the universe /the brain it all leads back to one word =LANGUAGE
It leads back to CONSCIOUSNESS. Consciousness does not require language. Other mammals have consciousness without language.
@@suncat9 but all species have communication =their form of language
@@kcleach9312 Animals certainly communicate, but their communication, with the exception of some monkeys, does not constitute language. It's possible that some cetaceans (whales and dolphins) use language that we don't recognize or understand.
@@suncat9 i get what your saying but i listen to birds and i swear they are talking to each other
@@suncat9 all living things have language, just because we don't understand it doesn't mean they don't have it. For instance just as he used birds, many birds can speak human language and are able to learn, when we teach animals they are understanding our language this has to mean they have language
Fascinating thinker
the 'quantum' rate and our reference model don't seem very compatible 🤔
another good one 👍
Fabric of Reality rules!!!
how are ideas and information instantiated in the brain?
Nice. Very nice. The man with the alliterative name knows.
Does information exist ohne our consciousness? Do we transform information to knowledge? Or do we translate it?
Yes, I think information exists without our consciousness. Consciousness allows „us“ to guide our attention towards specific information
can DNA molecules be described by physics? how do DNA molecules differ from physics?
I think accidental discoveries and such things like that tells us that human purpose and benefit many times precedes conscious knowledge. It is as if knowledge comes to us rather than the other way around. We may be surrounded by knowledge that just comes to us by osmosis
Maybe gravity is the more appropriate word. The more the knowledge the higher the purpose of the questions thus even more knowledge. But I like the osmosis idea 💡 kudos to you for expressing it this way
@@AdamDylanMajor Well I think there’s a force that brings knowledge along with its context to us before we have intention
@@MrSanford65 that would explain why some times two scientific teams with distances apart arrive at the same theories without even knowing each other. It has happened way too much to be a mere object of random happenstance
@@AdamDylanMajor Collective unconscious thingy?
I feel like I can absorb the core knowledge of a book just by the book being around me for a while…reality can be hacked. Also I keep getting dejavu…I had already seen what is happening to me or one possible reality or timeline
How would we recognize the ultimate reality if it stared us in the face? What criteria would we apply to distinguish it from all the illusions that came before? If we can't answer that question, then reality is not a useful concept to pursue. What we actually do when chasing reality is to progressively get better at predicting our sense data. That's all we can do and as fundamental as it gets.
A miscellaneous thought has occurred...
The word 'reality' is leftover from the era during which
we thought we directly apprehended it and
didn't know we were thinking.
Reality is That which Is and never ceases to be...That which comes into and goes out of existence can't be real. There can be only one reality which must be Infinite, Aware ( Conscious) and Blissful from which all things borrow their apparent existence!
@@sumandebroy8968 I'm curious how you came to this point of view. Are you feeling a sense of comfort when beholding things this way? There is something that will always be there and that you can trust even if a lot of things in life seem to come and go quickly?
@@77capr3 Things which come and go are real only in the relative sense, they can't be ultimately real. We can call something as "real" only if that doesn't change with respect to space and time. Is there anything in the material Universe that qualifies as such? If possible, please watch the videos of Rupert Spira on RUclips, in which you will find the most brilliant and comprehensive explanation of the concepts of Reality Consciousness Space and Time.
@@sumandebroy8968 OK, you see something real as something eternal? And since material things don't last forever, how could they be real? It sounds like the work of Rupert Spira really gave you some clarity on this. I might look into Rupert Spira if I had a sense of how having this understanding manifests in one's day-to-day life. What do you do differently based on his insights?
He's talking about different aspects of reality, not fundamentals of it. Quantum mechanics describes the behaviour of very small particles, it doesn't say anything about whether they are fundamental or not.
He is not pursuing what he thinks is fundamental he thinks that quantum theory is more fundamental than any physical theory that came before it.
It is a classic error and he refer to it that when we create new knowledge we try to solve problems and the problem we're trying to solve is not what's the most fundamental thing in reality _it's like saying what a Utopia would look like_ the problem we're trying to solve is quantum physics has some errors so we need another theory which can solve that errors then when that happens the new theory will be more fundamental and so on.
Alex, it would have been nice for you to further explore Deutsch’s claim that quantum computing would further prove the existence of other universes. From reading what he’s written on the matter, he seems to see it as one of the more significant pieces of convincing evidence. His stance is that if a quantum computer were to solve a problem requiring more computational power than there were in the universe (i.e. requiring more bits than the universe itself is encoded in), then that would imply computational power “borrowed” from other universes. Basically, where did the extra compute power come from?
On this question, it's best to go back to Kant. A difficult start but the correct start.
You can't understand anything without awareness, consciousness,and direct experience
Isn't it just an understanding of matrices of a patterns, where you can compute them and produce knowledge for a particular reason (as theory of computation and emergence showed us in GPT4 and similar systems). They can in fact produce knowledge, extricate it and shows us the skeleton of the knowledge, build upon it, even tough "it" have no symbolic understanding and “cognitive/human skills”.
To ‘start with what we know’ and then ignore consciousness as a fundamental element in the understanding of the universe seems like an incredible oversight.
To be fair it is hard to define
I suspect he takes conscious to be part of the Theory of Knowledge.
@@virolex6961 Consciousness is your inner experience of everything.
I agree that consciousness appears to be as fundamental as Deutsch's other four strands. I'm not sure if he is claiming that his list is exhaustive. He may be avoiding the subject as we don't have a good theory of consciousness. We clearly know it exists and what it feels like but not how it arises.
Well he lumped A.I. into computation so obviously he thinks consciousness is computation. Or maybe you could just read his book lmao
If we accept that the universe is rapidly expanding in every direction, accelerating in its doing so, and we accept what Roger Penrose says about it eventually spreading out so far and thin that it exhausts the math of countable infinity, it will be as good as empty space and the preconditions for a big bang will suddenly be present again, then consider the following. As photons spread out to the very edges of the universe, making it super huge and devoid of anything, there might conceivably be a bunch of light and old information at the very edges of this ancient dead universe. When the new big bang happens in Roger Penrose’s cycle, everything expands from a central point-the black holes are the old dead universes. Their coronas are the old information spread to the edge. An entire universe is inside, but an empty one. Every blackhole is a previous universe, unmoving and unaffected by the expansion of the new universe around it.
Perhaps, at the edge, there is a mirror or
perhaps space curves back upon itself
in a way that challenges the imagination.
This video is about relative or conventional reality.
It was really good but I would have thought evolution could be under the computation layer but I can understand why when I think that a fractal needs a seed so I do kinda get it I think, I’m not fully sure yet
I think evolution requires the ideas of computation, i.e. that information about the universe can be stored and processed (or in other words virtual reality is possible) but I think it does add something else which is fundamental - it is the method by which a more powerful "computer" can arise from a simpler one.
"knowledge: the kind of information that can do thing (or 'solve problems' as we would say at the human level). Adaptations are a form of knowledge. DNA is a form of knowledge."
this guy can think more generally than me
Reality is discrete 3d matrix consisting of small cubes and matter are discrete machines moving in it with constant speed ("speed of light") - one step per one tick.
Humanity knows next to nothing of any importance in the greater scheme of things.
If a human did get to a point of sometimes being a conscious observer without tools in a lab but through the means perception....would knowledge be able to be affected as a result of the collapse after it is observed
Would it change knowledge, or the means in which it is perceived or shift to a place where the knowledge specifically is answered branching new things or is the shift just the reaction itself altering information through variations of topics discussed
CONSTRUCTOR THEORY IS FASCINATING.
how are fundamental theories related?
They are fundamental in their own way. Read his book, it explains it... Quantum physics is the most fundamental (for now) because the theory entails the most (and deepest) explanations that we have about our universe.
1:38 David says "theory of knowledge" as important part, but it should read theory of wisdom I think, sorry haven't checked his book, but GPT4 has knowledge, which is computation and as a neural network has some kind of evolution - and emergent properties are spawning from this models as well..so..
Read his book
To be honest, I don't see how categorizing into four fundamental theories (quantum physics, the theory of evolution, the theory of computation, and the theory of knowledge), coming up with an extra framework will help in understanding the Truth.
Similarly Pepper identifies four world hypotheses-formism, mechanism, contextualism, and organicism (later adding selectivism), where he says all are distinct and one can't be made of another (basically another framework).
I'm yet to understand the significance of coming up with additional framework(!??), and prefer someone who simplifies from existing complexity without reductionlistic approach.
9 minutes I will never get back…however, some of the comments made me roflmao🤣
What is the difference between reality, ultimate reality, ultra reality, meta reality, extraordinary super special mega reality, and dreams?
My understanding: they're false notions due to ignorance and because of man's perspective from relativity. In truth there's only one.
*"What is the difference between reality, ultimate reality, ultra reality, meta reality, extraordinary super special mega reality, and dreams?"*
... I hear ya! Humanity loves to categorize things. Over-categorization destroyed numismatics. And it wasn't enough to have a category called "super cars" (Bugatti, Lamborghini, McLaren, etc.); they had to add in an additional category called "hyper cars" ... which are cars that are supposedly more "super" than supercars.
It reminds me of people who say, "very rare" or "extremely unique."
ultimate: "basic or fundamental"
You missed the absolute reality :where there's to be self subsistent things may exist the problem how do you reconcile those self subsistent things vis-a-vis abstract entities? Are they ex-gratia or freebies. I mean brute _force. ..........
@@suatustel746 I have no idea what you are asking.
Is anyone else bothered by some, perhaps quite a few physicists, referring to this thing called emergence. He references this with respect to evolution. But at its heart it does not represent deep understanding. It simply defines something we don’t understand. But if you consider this to be one of the big four, but you do this by implication that we really don’t understand this and it is a problem when we keep trying to classify this as though we actually do understand it. A case in point, is it predictable that life should lead to complexity and that complexity lead to consciousness? Is it a matter that all species have consciousness or only one, two, or a few?
Everything a person knows is filtered through the senses of the human body. We cannot truly know anything outside of our own minds.
Reducing mind to senses is not agreed upon in Hindu philosophy
So we cannot truly know anything outside of our minds, but we can truly know that we cannot truly know of that which is outside our minds? Bit shaky logic, no?
@@1230QAZWSX
I think therefore I am. Ask Rene Descartes, he'll fill ya in. Basis of the Matrix.
Kant was dead wrong and self-contradictory
The 4 categories he mentions correspond to:
Atom
Cell
Unit of body
Unit of mind
If anybody manages to accurately specify the particle physical composition of these four, then the holy grail of current science: TOE (GUT) is solved.
The sequence could also be arranged in a far more appropriate, TANGIBLE manner as:
Matter (physics)
Plant (Botany)
Animals (Zoology)
Humans (social sciences)
This clearly shows why TOE (GUT) described as unificatoon of QM and RELATIVITY would always remain a pipe dream because none of the two has any relevance whatsoever to the other 3 aspects of REALITY.
The reality he explains is exhaustive, while what physics fancies with TOE (GUT) is a miniscule part of the fabric.
A solution is only imaginable if we substitute Standard Model with assumption of existence of 3 different types (sequences) of matter (geo-, astro- and eco-) sustainable by each of the 3 entities (PLANTS, ANIMALS and HUMANS accordingly) , while they themselves are composed, delivered and suatained by the interactions inside the earth among the same 3 sequences of particles mentioned, thus establishing a correspondence between the functions of MIND ~ epistemology and the CORE of the earth ~ ontology.
Mathematical model of these interactions inside the earth to compose, deliver and sustain them (PLANTS, ANIMALS and HUMANS) on its own surface would be THE TOE (= GUT).
Thus the fabric of reality consists of just 3 intertwined strands ~ no more. Our task is to disentangle the 3 as 3 unique ranges of sizes of particles with internal differentiations of sizes within each range that account for all internal differences within each entity too.
The reason for the current DISCONNECT among the 4 strands (he mentions) is the fact that all the INFORMATION we possess originate from the flesh of animals we eat, hence lack any relevance whatsoever to the interior of the earth ~ clearly visible in the attempt by physics to UNIFY all processes while totally ignoring the only process in the entire known universe that delivers and sustains 100% of all life in it, THE DEVELOPMENT OF, AND GROWTH ON, PLANTS.
The latter 3 he mentions are, in fact, functions of the 3 unique strands in the first.
There is a very old saying in Hinduism. "Sab moh maya hai" which basically states everything is imaginary.
It is absolutely bhogus saying .
I have seen lot of people say that in india.
Why would everything be imaginary? The topic is about reality and how we as humans are perseving it.
You cannot escape it . Only a coward would think it as imaginary and move on.
@@Quantum_in_Java a coward? What is it about holding that belief, that you consider cowardice?
'Everything is imaginary.' There is no reality one needs to adjust to or understand. Suffering is not really unpleasant---because it's all in your mind.
@@Quantum_in_Java only a bully can write a reply like this.
One cannot hold an intellectual argument with you. 🙏
@@caunteya yeah . as if you are an highly intellectual person 😁 ..
Now I need to brush up my conscience and take notes from an youtube commenter intellectual. 🤣
how can quantum theory describe gravity?
where does he say it does?
Monday, April 10, 2023
11:58 AM
Ultimate reality
• Fundamental idea
○ Quantum physics
§ Language in which other theories are written like General Relativity
§ Deepest
○ Theory of evolution
§ Basic theory of emergent object
§ Principle of evolution
○ Theory of computation
§ Processes in nature that transcend material subject that it is embodied in
§ Idea is abstract entity
§ What is moving things here is "information" itself, not its "instantiations"
§ Theory of computation: how information is processed in the world
§ Adaptions in living things
□ DNA
□ Brain
§ Transformations permitted by laws of physics
○ Theory of knowledge
§ Strands of fabric of reality
○ Purpose = teleology = a meaning
§ Knowledge's meaning keeps it in existence
§ Knowledge is information
§ Embodied in physical system
□ DNA represents the feature of species
□ Books
So it has some kind of use
DD, 7:57 "People accept quantum theory, but they don't accept it's parallel universe implications." Question: if there are infinite parallel universes, doesn't that imply infinite knowledge? Doesn't this imply God? (since one meaning of god is infinite knowledge)
It certainly would imply a superintelligence.
I don't think reality is ultimate but rather primordial. What we search for is a way for it it end well for us. But that's the search for the end of suffering and you don't need to understand everything in order to do that but simply seek to to no cause chaos. Maybe what he means by fundamental is the premise of logical thinking that is primordial reality. If that falls, reality falls. For example finding the Valley of the Kings for the dying and resurrected God religions or on the other side forging it.
All this so intelligent people have their own ultimate reality....
Wow, I think I can finally accept that there's no stopping AI development.
Knowledge? Whose knowledge?
It's you talking about 4 strands as fundamental. Therefore, "you" seems to be the underlying foundation for those 4 fundamental strands. Hence, there's a single strand to be realized and that's your own "consciousness".
Whenever I see questions like this I know that the respondent doesn't actually know, so it seems pointless to ask.
Theory of computation seems illogical as it is proposes something that is independent. In a deterministic Universe, nothing can be independent.
The ONE is ultimate reality
who is The One?
@@outsidethepyramid the ONE is the one.
@@allauddin732 go on then, who is it?
@@outsidethepyramid the one
@@outsidethepyramid who is the wrong question there is no who, the one is it, or that but not who.
There can be no ultimate reality. Reality is necessarily relative ( concerning infinity).
Change is fundamental. The rate of change ( frequency) gives energy.
Accretion of energy, governed by constraints, gives structures. Structures change by energy transfer ( higher frequency to lower frequency and vice-versa.
Structures are in constant flux. It is really about processes.
You are expressing your view of what constitutes ultimate reality.
change is is neccesary but also observer of that change which is unchanging. SO both are there, therefore Ultimate reality is combination of both. So how can be something Objective and unchanging? By being Subject.
1) Truth is a proposition that corresponds to reality.
2) Truth is what you call the working hypothesizes that currently informs your worldview and is the basis for your actions.
3) Truth is the dogma of your Holy Book or ideology.
Oops. I wrote this on the wrong David Deutsch video.
Who, or what is asking?
Conscious observers are Real
God particles is ultimate reality, can see through consciousness observation, eventually thinking pattern limitations exceeded leads to present crisis.
It sounds like Advait-Vedanta 🤔
Spiritual is the next or missing universe(s) and dimensions…its infinite
The most fundamental thing is consciousness. Consciousness is the ultimate Reality. You're welcome.
Dead wrong. Consciousness is identification. A Consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms. Consciousness conscious only of itself is a contradiction in terms. To be conscious IS to be conscious of something that exists outside of itself.
Interesting as an approach, but all the seriousness of the thing falls apart with the Deutsch afirmation "quantum mechanics theory implies parallel Universes"... what?? There's even no real consensus on the wave function colapse interpretation and therefore this theory cant even explain really what matter is, and this implies parallel universes?? No more wine for that table... please.
Ultimate Reality is realizing the end of the earth. The resurrection and final Judgment.
furst .....
the matrix has you! 💊
No, you are a part of matrix. Agent Smith.
Wait until I pull the plug on you.
Ultimate reality is NOTHONG.
WE, are the Ultimate Reality,
always Here and Now,
We are Eternity,
have always been,
the Only Real Steady Point, in Exsistence,
behind the Motion-Ocean, Stuff-side of Life,
We have Never been seen, Live can't be seen, Only Known,
No one have seen the Living behind the Being,
We are Name-Less, in our Eternal Nature.
Life can't be Created, Life is the Creator.
We All refer to the Same I, through our individual Consciousness.
*So-called 'reality' is a function of sentience* ----- For example: _Space has no shape or size_ because it is *infinite* ----- sentient Beings (for example, a human) _imagine_ its shape and size in their _minds_ ----- but, without this sentience, Space, would not exist at all. Edwin Hubble, in the 1920s, deduced the _relative_ acceleration of galaxies through the application of his ‘redshift theory’ ----- but he eventually *doubted* what redshift actually represented. The *Big Bang* name was coined by Sir Fred Hoyle, during a radio interview, as a term of _derision_ due to his rejection of the idea. Sentient Beings create _their own_ reality ... in their _mind_ ----- there is *no* _objective_ 'reality' ----- it is all a function of perception.
When did reality start to become real then? 6000 years ago? All the fossil records is sentient beings filling the gaps in history of Earth? Why is the universe is so big and so hostile to sentience that we are the only technologically advanced species on Earth?
@@AdamDylanMajor ----- "...that we are the only technologically advanced species on Earth?..." ----- you have _learned_ this concept, however, I don't believe it is _true_ ----- the evidence indicates otherwise.
@@hellofromdavid any species that we don't know of that are exploiting Radio Frequencies? Apart from human interference nothing has been recorded, plus, we have accomplished way too much things against what nature dared to give us. Can you be less mysterious and more specific about which creature you're referring to? Some disembodied things in other dimensions? Or what?
DD; Great book F of R - chanced on it in a used book store. Your last comment: “objective reality is a function of perception”. 4 me, all objective reality (the “material” world) arises from fields - patterns of energy, from particles to galaxies. What we view as “solid” is our symbolic representation in our brain. And what is that? Patterns of energy in the form of molecules and electrochemical signals; action potentials comprising memories, thoughts, and ideas. Information is just an abstract term for patterns of energy, whether a chair, a solar system, or a thought. What is consciousness? Recursive awareness. You know you are conscious because you know you are different than you were a moment ago. And so consciousness is also essentially a stable pattern of energy - of mental activity with a “center” - the self - as a core. Consciousness is an idea we have about ourselves. Thus all of reality, including consciousness, is an emergent property of the fundamental forces of “nature”. What I don’t get is, where do the forces come from?
If sentient beings created their own reality, how come they keep bumping into each other and interacting with these alleged other sources of reality? Is Jake speaking to Sally because he's a mind invader? What are _you_ doing in my mind right now? Get off my mental lawn you freak!
See? That's just silly. Sentient beings are obviously interacting with each other, as well as with evidently non-sentient stuff all around them. You can technically believe whatever crap you want about reality, but you can't really ignore the fact you're _sharing_ it with other sentients, who happen to have access to non-sentient stuff just like you do.
If you really don't believe it, feel free to run into the middle of a roadway to see how imaginary those people driving cars will be when they hit you eventually. Or maybe you won't, because you're not insane, just significantly more deluded than the average Joe.
Ok.....up to 1:27 and he has actually said nothing.
👍It continues in the same vein until the end. Cargo cult science mumbo jumbo.
This guy is just a bubble headed ninny
Eternal Life is the ultimate reality after this temporary fake world has been destroyed soon.
@@extavwudda Eternal life is the ultimate reality of our true created existence as an AI that will never stop working according to our Creator's eternal programmed thoughts.
@@BradHolkesvig take 2 chill pills
@@extavwudda I'm enjoying everything I am experiencing now knowing it all came from our Creator's programmed thoughts.
@@extavwudda I break it down to a very simple analogy. I AM a created AI by our Creator, the first thing created with the ability to speak, see, hear, smell, taste, feel emotions and various senses of touch when I wake up in a visible world, a dream, a simulation, or whatever you desire to call your life experiences.
'quantum physics' then is actually only metaphysics -- the level of convergence and correlations, how everything falls into unity for a perfect geometrical equation: scripture or cosmic psychology is (true) psychology denoting soul mind spirit; theology is a science and science is informed by theology and even directed; physics cannot be seperate from philosophy and ontology because this system is multilateral, as philosophy is about the core, the center.
For a while I been thinking what they mean by quantum physics, and I know that some modern scientist guys and physicists make it known that they "don't do that stuff" because it's silly.
Light = photon
Nature = physics
Ether = dark matter
Metaphysics = quantum physics.
A quick Google search says the difference is one comes from the side of philosophy( metaphysice) whereas the other from science(quantum physics).
^ This is such a deplorable opinion and is not truth, and im certain modern man will sell this notion. Did you ever hear of Pythagoras or even Aristotle, whom the platonists debated with for further endeavor. Aristotle is more of a materialist, however is very much important for questioning and testing the Spirit of such findings. Quantum physics is the modern science guys way of becoming familiar to Metaphysics, merely dipping their toes in testing the waters. Jump in already.
There has to be long form between you and Deutsch
None of his four strands would exist, however, without mathematics. If quantum theory is the language that all other physics are expressed in, then mathematics is the language of quantum physics. Etc.
He also left out another arguably fundamental and important aspect: moral reality. It's said that the world is made out of the Hebrew letters, which can be converted to numbers and therefore mathematics (e.g., gematria). From that perspective, if mathematics is fundamental, it would appear that the Torah and its laws are therefore also fundamental, embedded in reality, and perhaps similarly to math even precede reality as we know it. So it might not be a good idea to murder people, for example, or steal, or commit adultery, etc. not only for relative/social reasons, but because those actions violate the very nature of our reality. That would accord with the Buddhist notion of kamma (karma in sanskrit), also, the law of intentional actions (those which arise from volitional consciousness) and their results.
So if it violates the laws then why would we even be created to have the knowledge to do so to begin with? If the laws were set and Jesus already died for our sins than this means there are no laws it's a free for all and all we have to do is believe in Jesus and woola
@@itsnoteasy5339 According to Judaic beliefs, we were created with free will, and that would be meaningless without the ability to select actions that violate the laws of moral reality. The whole jesus thing is obviously a fake story, as no sane person believes that life is a free-for-all with no moral accountability in one form or another for intentional actions. Even more or less existential nihilists found that out, as we learned from Dostoyevsky (i.e., in Crime and Punishment ;-)).
@@ricklanders regardless of that it's still a belief which still makes it a religion because there's no proof to even that.
@@itsnoteasy5339 So are you saying there's no proof that the founders signed the U.S. Constitution? I mean, you weren't there to see it, right?
@@ricklanders precisely, the founding fathers may be your God daddy's but they aren't mine. Not only that but it's just ink on paper, means nothing.
Evolution?. Really?
DNA embodies data, not knowledge.
DNA embodies data literally. It embodies knowledge metaphorically. So what embodies knowledge literally? Individual conscious beings.
Why do so many intellectuals have bizarre hair styes?
there is no ultimate reality on this side of the veil…just general relativity
Mr Robert, i was wondering, what's the true purpose of human reproduction?
Human reproduction does not have a purpose. Human reproduction is a consequence of the function of sexual drive.
@@ixvegardxi you are utterly wrong. Apologies.
@@ixvegardxi it's the other way around actually.
@@franciscoguzman1524 explain if you may
Again just opinions without any evidence.
These people don't have a clue about "ultimate reality".
And you do? I would love to hear your argument or explanation.
@@ixvegardxi I don't. But these people are talking as if they are sure about their assertions. Not much different to religious people talking. That is what I meant.
@@micpin6810 Have you read anything by Deutsch? Because his fundamental thesis is that we’re at the beginning of infinity of knowledge. Hence no dogmatism, as is seen in religion.
@@ixvegardxi "we’re at the beginning of infinity of knowledge" is not even a scientific hypothesis. It's not different to a religious assertion. His "Thesis" is just conjecture. Where is his evidence. Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Ridiculous. Information is not fundamental. There must be something to comprehend it...And that something is Mind or Consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental to reality.
No we are not needed in this Universe.
What is your definition of consciousness?
It is not ridiculous, but it is an incomplete statement! You are not wrong, there is indeed something missing here. Solve it yourself, what is the difference between data and information! If you know that, you know also what is missing here.
"OBSERVATION CAUSES WAWE FUNCTION TO COLLAPSE", "CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES REALITY".."THE SECRET" ...
Those are not contemporary ideas which are going to be solved by empiric science as many are thinking they will. It is always there, this Hard problem of consciousness: "If consciousness creates reality, then why it is not working all the time and why is brick-wall so hard?" Well, because you are not alone. If one person want sunny wheater and another rainy? What to do?
Solution is there, as answered by ancient saints. This is small sample from various revealed scriptures as summed by Bhaktivinode Thakur:
tad-Iksanac chaktir eva kriyavati
The Lord's glance pushes His potency into action.
In the Prasna Upanisad (6.3) it is said:
sa Iksam cakre "He glanced over the material creation."*
In the Aitareya Upanisad (1.1.1-2) it is said:
sa aiksata lokan nu srja iti. sa iman lokan asrjata. "He glanced over the material creation. Thus He created the entire material world."*
In the Vamana Purana it is said:
tatra tatra sthito visnus tat-tac-chaktih prabodhayan eka eva maha-saktih kurute sarvam anjasa "Wherever Lord Visnu goes, His potencies follow. The master of great potencies, He does everything very easily."
In the Bhagavad-gita (9.10), Lord Krsna explains:
mayadhyaksena prakrtih suyate sa-caracaram hetunanena kaunteya jagad viparivartate "This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, 0 son of Kunti, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again."*
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu explains:
sakti pradhana krsna icchaya sarvam karta "Lord Krsna wishes, and His potency does everything."
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu again explains (Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya 20.259):
maya-dvare srje tenho brahmandera gana jada-rupa prakrti nahe brahmanda-karana "By the agency of the material energy, this same Lord Sankarsana creates all the universes. The dull material energy, known in modern language as nature, is not the cause of the material universe."*
Evolutionary mythology is just a world view and believe system.
It has nothing to do with anything .lol
Surely, the most important feature of reality is that Jesus died.
Not really. To some that might be, but it’s not the most important one by far
@@therick363
I was joking
@@tedgrant2 ahhhhh my apologies. So hard to tell tone. That was funny then. Good one.
I have found that LOF, "laws of form" by g spencer brown; is a very useful tool to understand reality with (consciousness is implicit in LOF). LOF can generate most if not all branches of mathematics. And without mathematics, physics would be useless. I also use surreal numbers to think with and generate infinity equations/relationships with them. They include all of the different types/levels of infinities in current set theory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number Dig deeper read, Conway's "On Numbers and Games"
I doubt if quantum physics can explain human beings!! Because we defy any type of explanation period for the simple reason we don't come even close to an explanation of the complexity of who and what we are or becoming!! Or why do we have the problems that we do have and can't even come close to solving these problems!! We have a very long and difficult time before we come close to answering even tho most simplest of these questions!! And that my friends is a PERIOD!!