I'm a 34 female photographer in Canada and I'm so grateful I get to witness these types of conversations. What a time to be alive! (even if i don't understand a lot of it at the moment lol but piece by piece i learn something i never would be able to before)
When I turned 5 years old and went to Kindergarden, the bathrooms stalls had doors. When I would close the door, I would wonder if the outer room ACTUALLY disappeared. I failed Algebra and ended up being an opera singer. But that little girl (it turns out), wasn't so far off. : )
Very cool memory! I had the same ideas as a child but I failed Abstract Algebra in college so I had to become a mechanical engineer instead of theoretical physicist lol
Maybe this is why people play loud music in their houses. They can't see who or what is outside being affected by their nose. Same with people telling at each other in their houses. Then they think others should mind their own business if you comment. Dudes your loudness has made it everyone else's business.
I asked the AI to help with this concept. I think it did a good job . //Explaining Wigner's Friend Using the Feynman Method The Feynman method encourages breaking down complex concepts into simple terms that anyone can understand. Here's an attempt to explain Wigner's Friend using this approach: 1. The Core Concept: Imagine you have a friend in a completely sealed lab. Inside the lab, your friend flips a coin. You, standing outside, don't know the result. From your perspective, the coin is in a state of being both heads and tails simultaneously (a superposition) until you open the lab and observe the result. This is a basic idea in quantum mechanics. 2. Wigner's Twist: Now imagine that you are a physicist named Wigner. Instead of just a coin, your friend in the lab is performing a quantum measurement on a particle that can be in one of two states, let's say "up" or "down." Your friend observes the particle and sees a definite outcome, either "up" or "down." However, from your perspective outside the lab, you see the entire lab, including your friend and the particle, as one giant quantum system. This system is in a superposition of states, meaning that to you, it's as if your friend is in a state of having seen both "up" and "down" simultaneously. 3. The Paradox: This creates a strange situation. Your friend inside the lab insists that they saw a definite outcome. But according to your description of the system, they haven't. This raises questions about: The absoluteness of observation: Does an observation truly create a definite fact, or is it relative to the observer? The role of the observer: Does the act of observation somehow force the quantum system to "choose" a definite outcome? The nature of reality: Is there a single, objective reality, or are there multiple realities depending on the observer's perspective? 4. Extending the Paradox: The sources discuss how physicists have extended Wigner's Friend thought experiment by adding more observers and entangled particles, leading to even more complex paradoxes and "no-go theorems." These theorems suggest that: It may be impossible to reconcile the different experiences of observers in quantum scenarios. [1-5] The idea of a shared, objective reality might be fundamentally flawed. [6-10] Quantum theory might not be universally applicable, or it might require significant revision to account for these paradoxes. [8, 11, 12] 5. Analogies and Examples: The sources use analogies to help understand the implications of Wigner's Friend: Einstein's Moon: Einstein famously argued that the moon should exist even if no one is looking at it. Wigner's Friend challenges this idea by suggesting that the "moon" (the measurement outcome) might only become real when an observer looks. [4, 13] Berman's Socks: This analogy is used to explain Bell's Theorem and the idea of local causality. However, Wigner's Friend scenarios show that even events that appear to have a common cause might not be independently explainable. [14, 15] Quantum Reference Frames: Just as different reference frames in relativity lead to different perceptions of time and space, different "quantum reference frames" in Wigner's Friend scenarios lead to incompatible perceptions of reality. However, unlike relativity, there is no known way to transform between these quantum reference frames. [16] 6. Open Questions and Future Directions: Wigner's Friend raises more questions than it answers. The sources discuss several possible interpretations and research directions, including: Exploring different interpretations of quantum mechanics: Many-Worlds, Cubism, Bohmian Mechanics, etc., each offer a different perspective on the role of the observer and the nature of reality. [17-19] Conducting experiments with more complex "observers": Pushing the boundaries of Wigner's Friend by using machines or even AI as observers could shed light on the relationship between consciousness and measurement. [20, 21] Re-examining our assumptions about knowledge and information: The idea that knowledge can be freely transferred between observers might need to be revised in light of these paradoxes. [22, 23] Conclusion: Wigner's Friend is a powerful thought experiment that highlights the profound strangeness of quantum mechanics and challenges our fundamental assumptions about reality and observation. The sources offer a glimpse into the ongoing debates and research efforts aimed at understanding the implications of this paradox.//
I listened to Jacob Barandas “There is no wave function” (Harvard theoretical physicist). He showed that a type of non-Markov process(mathematical statistics) is equivalent to the mathematical model classically used in quantum mechanics. It also makes it possible to remove some of these weird observer collaps of wave function effects. Wave-function and Hilbertroom quantum models are mathematical models that predict results of reality well but they don’t infer how reality is constructed and a lot of the “weird” stuff is due to behavior inherent to those models. They are not wrong but Barandas showed that you can get the same results with a model that better connects with classical physics. Well worth a watch.
My take is that Barandas theory (not yet peer reviewed) is a way of modelling the dusty cloud that later 'manifests itself' as a particle. This new model may or maynot be right it is way over my head but my research tells me it does not negate the spooky action at a distance of quantum entanglement. Personally this may suggest Hilbert space may be the better modelling tool.
"Bell did not prove that nature is nondeterministic or nonlocal, but that it can not be both at the same time". That must be one of my favorite sentences. Thank you!
I can’t pretend to grok this adequately but I nonetheless urge folks to see Curt Jaimingal’s “Theories of Everything” Interview with Prof. Jacob Barandes - don’t know who’s thesis is right (or maybe parts of both) but it sounds like they might be ending up in similar boxes. Maybe, finally, we’ll see some real progress. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
“Time and space are not conditions in which we live, but modes by which we think. Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, determined by the external world.” -Albert Einstein
I learned in psychology that all measurements are models with certain levels of reliability. Two different scales can be used to measure the same thing with varying outcomes. One scale might weight me at 150lbs and another might measure my weight at 150.5lbs. One scale may use more accurate methods for measuring my weight. One scale might be better at detecting smaller differences in weight than the other. Both measure weight and both do so accurately, but do so with varying degrees of precision and/or accuracy.
Love your channel! It’s brilliant to listen while crocheting. ❤ My bet is on Retrocausality (1:11:05) because it exists in weaving and somehow in crochet too. There’s a way to work with thread where the work at the end affects the initial state. Maybe the crochet is the answer 😄
can you explain more about this phenomenon? i've never heard of anyone describing crocheting this way (and i'm very inexperienced to have noticed anything like this)
Re your summary to this video…It’s not bells theorem that confronted us with that. Bells inequality created a theoretical way to test the theory of wave particle duality which predates Bell by a long way. Basically, bells inequality test would prove Einstein’s hidden variable idea as wrong and the quantum physicists like Bohr who challenged Einstein, correct. But bells inequality could not be physically truly tested until only the last few years, by Clauser et al…although the Fundamental Fysiks Group did get pretty far towards that all the way back in the 1960’s (Clauser was part of that)
It is vital to remember a few points. Math is not physics. Just because it happens in math does not make it real. We must also realize the issue with scale. The world distorts the farther away we look and conversely the farther inward. If we could perceive at those scale perspectives the world may appear "normal". Of course we also have the big one. Consciousness. I prefer a mystical and physics union. All of manifest reality is LIFE. It moves. Most of it is only minimally aware, as to it's function only, but others, via assembly, allow for the construction of a receiver that can channel an emergent gestalt that has a chance for near permanent cohesion.
Maybe this IS crazy. I recommend a look at the work of Jacob Barandes whereby we return to a more classical approach to quantum physics. He was just recently interviewed at length on Theories of Everything titled "There's No Wave Function."
There is a difference between past and future. The experiment completed is a past like everything we are able to see and sense around us. The paradoxes in quantum physics are possible related to the extremely short time intervals when we are not able to distinguish between past and future. The future is a wave function. The past is classical physics.
The three papers have a total of 12 (twelve!!) authors, among those at least two women. Why did the prize go only to three professors? It a well known insider fact that in academics doctoral candidates, even students, do the leg work, not the professor. Also, the order of the names (especially if not in alphabetical order) indicates how much work that person contributed to the paper (the first person did most). How much did the recipients of the price they really contribute?
I see it like this: All reality is a quantum hologram, which to me is like a soup which has no form until it is observed. --- When consciousness starts to observe this "formless soup" it has some kind of expectation ( this can be subconscious one) and that chooses one possible reality from infinite pool of realitys (the soup) and he experiences that. Also "the soup" is one big whole thing, there is no separation so everything affects everything so you get things like quantum entanglement. --- Problem with scientist is, they do not want to include consciousness in their models because they are in this religion called "materialism", so they are missing the biggest piece of the puzzle and without it, you just can't complete the task no matter how many decades you try and how many different theories you come up with. So they will bang their heads on the wall until someday in the future they take the necessary leap and then everything changes. Also then they realize how much our expectation has affected all scientific studies and that is another "wow.. we didn't think of that back then.." But that is how science progresses, todays insanity is tomorrows common knowledge.
Great contribution, thank you very much! Suggested question for further discussion: Would Adrian Johnston’s concept of “transcendental materialism” be a meaningful assumption to take a step further?
Recent theories in quantum mechanics challenge traditional notions of objective reality and measurement, suggesting that consciousness plays a significant role in shaping our understanding of the universe.
Of course you can't get to any objective world-view. Any such thing is just a thought. Just look at it, see it for yourself. It's obvious, what else could it be but a thought? Don't believe me, just look! And the same goes for anything we believe about the "subjective world". What is that except thought? Any time you label any "thing", any time you ascribe "thing-ness" to the world, that can only be a thought. The world isn't in any "real" or "certain" way outside of our constructions.
@@manso306 precisely, the word is not the thing. Any word used to describe anything at all is nothing but a superimposition and a product of thought which by its very nature is limited.
Experience is a process projecting from potentially infinite data to limited information. The process is undefinable , uncertain, subjective and non deterministic. And yet we try to use the resulting information to create objective models - of things/objects. Noble pursuit, and useful - but not something with an end
I was a semiology teacher for many years and the starting point was that there are no events, things or facts, only constructions of meaning that depend on the mode of relation and their instruments, so, only relative observations... when you beat the table each one has an experience that has different aspects, is not chosen, and changes in next moment... of course we can agree in reducing it to the beating gesture, sound... its only a mode of relation that focus the intersubjectivity in this essentialism for pratical reasons or whatever... in physiscs, the a priori mode of relation is obliged to be in a factual essencialism, so if confronted with its relativity it seems strange, but essencia never existed and is only seeing things as they are... now the observation... an interaction between particules, waves, "possibilities", etc. is not an observation, an observation is a relation of a living being, that implies and depends of a universe and all its evolution, all we know, dont know and cannot know in the infinite complexity of life, etc.... so the moment of observation is an activity in all dimentions of this relation, that can and is reduced or collapsed in many senses, but if assumed in it's plenitude begins to show the reducing aspect and solving its traumatic history, the differential between our nature and the habitual modes of relation, that opens to the creative, to creation!! Well this is my mode of relation to what is being talked here. Everything good to everybody. Henrique Areias
Lots of assertions here. Interesting. When you turn science into technology don't you Convert abstractions into things? Sure, let's break it down into simpler terms: 1. **No Absolute Facts**: There are no fixed events or facts. Everything we know is based on how we interpret and relate to things. 2. **Different Experiences**: When something happens, like hitting a table, everyone experiences it differently. These experiences aren't chosen and can change over time. 3. **Simplifying for Practicality**: We often simplify complex experiences to make them easier to understand and agree on, like focusing on the sound of hitting the table. 4. **Physics and Facts**: In physics, we often think of observations as absolute facts. But in reality, everything is relative and depends on how we observe it. 5. **Observation as a Relationship**: Observing something isn't just about seeing particles or waves. It's about the relationship between a living being and the universe, including everything we know and don't know. 6. **Complexity of Observation**: Observing something involves many dimensions and can be simplified in different ways. Embracing the full complexity of observation can lead to creativity and new ideas. In essence, Areias is saying that our understanding of reality is shaped by how we relate to and interpret things. By acknowledging the complexity and relativity of our observations, we can open up new possibilities for creativity and understanding.
When I first learnt about determining the charge of an oil drop, to get the value the experiment was performed more than 200 K times.. this startled me I then realised that we try to manipulate nature based on average values and misrepresent this as a rule or law or true value.. That was 45 years ago
What it will come down to is this.. we think we can create complete objective models, when all the faculties we have (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking) for creating any constructs are inherently subjective . Reality is only one such objective model, which will never be complete and for which evidence will always be subjective. But the models will be useful - subjectively that is. If we want to get any further, we can look at how we come up with the constructs in the first place, rather than trying to justify them with subjective observations. Then space, time, basic properties can all be seen as constructs, only conditionally arising (not even existing) from an underlying process which we can not understand or model, but can transcend. That process is neither subjective or objective - the idea of a subject also arises from it.
Then you are stuck in a paradox. Using logic to dismantle logic itself. Claiming that everything is subjective and limited by sensory experience while simultaneously saying you can logically dismantle the systems that arise from it, forgetting that your logic is just another system. Just stupid. No offense.
@@LukasMekler-Culbertson Who said it's logical . Logic is a construct at a higher level. Ultimately useless at the more fundamental level. You can develop insight , that's all.
As a science I have always liked physics best. If this question was chemistry and could make a skin cream we would already have done millions experiments of cat's hooked to proton decay detectors in boxes.
Today, in science, there’s much talk about consciousness and the level at which it is fundamental. Now should it be the case, that it is fundamental, and all photons , electrons and atoms has some form and level of consciousness and awareness, then it seems to me there would never be even a sliver of a corner of the universe that would not , at all times be observed. So superpositions would never be able to actually exist?
Everything is a measurement, one way or the other. Every subjective frame of reference is automatically in relationship with everything else and this is a measurement. Every person place thing action or event consist of at least 2 things measuring each other and the measurement itself is reality. Or what we perceive as such.
I'm really hoping that the result of peeling back the quantum curtain to reveal the driving mechanics of reality results in the most mystic woo-woo magic stuff ever. The materialistic view of the holographic matrix universe fades away and becomes more aligned with ancient esoteric occult panpsychism perspectives. A consciousness embedded quantum reality that with it one day we might learn new ways to harness it from within our own consciousness.
I dislike higher mathematics- but the theories themselves are interesting and easy to digest themselves. The reason I like the theory is that it is easily understood- it is a sort of Occam’s razor-- what I mean is: it works the same way forwards as backwards and if you have the correct way of things at the base then you can scale up and down infinitely. If you cannot use the basic premise on all scales, such as the basic premise being contradicted by the convoluted higher math, then something is wrong. Either it is the higher math (such as relativity being invalidated by objective observation at quantum scale) is wrong, or the basic premise that it is based upon is wrong and you did the wrong math properly so at least you made an awesome system of estimation but you did not make a system capable of accurately measuring and understanding the universe we exist in. The universe takes the path of least resistance. This is, outside extremely improbable instances of which I know not a one, just how it is. If your math requires a bunch of mental gymnastics to not argue with itself you are probably just doing mental exercise with no hope of actual progress in the sense of progressing our understanding of reality & showing that math can explain it all.
We cannot have objective results. Period. When I take a photo and you take a photo of the same thing with the same camera at the same time, they will be different due to perspective. There is no place above or outside perspective. There is no objective measurement. I use the photo example to illustrate how perspective transcends subjective barriers and dictates "objective" reality. * I can prove this. I've been running experiments for years.
Without factoring consciousness as fundamental, as Plato discovered thousands of years ago, endless neurotic measurement will result in stories confusion. Go take some 5meo dmt, experience the nature of reality behind the construct, then come back and see if you can come up with a model that can somehow encompass these experiences.
Controlling system as per life's Cycles are catograis after Lion to dog and Elephant to Goat, and Food Habits after result for Forest and availablity and Compititons after Balanced AAll Life's Cycles" go less one if it will effect next for survival life's coopration unit less due to Existance for Strugles"
Observing the observer is space affecting time. It’s always unfolding from our place in space, this time as it unfolds like a carpet for ducks at the Peabody, like the feint cumulative pull of gravity. Unique, even by degree. There seems to be some event horizon where the micro is folded within macro;e the spin a mirror of a camera lenz. Just a silly thought. Dipping my brain back in. Our brain is broke by our point of view and the paradigms that are latticed on experience.
It's times like this, I remember an abductee, and in another video an ex area 51 worker, who both said they were told that we humans have mathematics all wrong. (Not saying it's true, just saying it's what pops up)
Good point. From the frame of earth I suppose? I love thinking about how if you rewind the big bang backwards it collapses into whatever point in the universe that you happen to be at. So everywhere is the centre of the universe from that perspective.
@millenniummastering yes from earth; but does hubble's point in the well change its perspective, does webbs does mt everest or the great pyramid have diferent perspectives? How bout latitude? Does it matter that the equator day covers more ground than an arctic day? Easy enough parameters to plug into the dif eqs. I assume they have been too but idk maybe ill check yt for the explanation of this one age range. Either way, i fell asleep listening to this and now i have to play it through again. Maybe my answers are further along the lectures. Or not because my quesions are intro level perspective anyway. Lol.
Yep totally intro level. Wiki page on universe age has an answer and more for my questions. The one thing that will always trip me up in understanding is the speed of light and how it can seem to change based on perspective. I get sea sick if i think about it enough to try to actually learn anything. Too much tv.
There is nothing fundamental, the condition of reality is that for something to exist the exact opposite has to exist to maintain energy equilibrium and it happens that in this reality the type of matter were made of decays trillions of times slower than its counterpart so in a way our reality is not in equilibrium but its spending the energy as fast as it cans and that’s why theres the illusion of an arrow of time and also thats why entropy goes to a maximum because we need to make all the energy unusable or unspendable to go back to the total equilibrium which amounts to nothing- an engineer and musician so don’t take this seriously but it’s a fun thought
If time dilation is real somebody has to tell me why Voyager 1 hasn't experienced any or why it has experienced a scientifically insignificant time dilation
Schrodingers cat was explained to me that the cat is both alive and dead statisticaly until you open the box and identify the universe that holds the outcome. So you see a live cat you are in the live outcome universe. You see a dead cat amd you are in a dead outcome universe. So somewhere in another universe is a version of me who won the lottery or won the coin flip or lost the coin flip. Can i put myself in a sealed box during the lotto draw and come out a winner? Lol
Life is a living entity, we are objects of said entity and NOT the subject. Why do you always get different results? Because you aren’t the doer. Choice is a fallacy.
"Choice is a fallacy." i agree completely. choice is rare. rarer even among humans. one way of interpreting (some aspects) of Buddhism is that it is supposed to guide the cultivation of moments of pure indeterminacy, without coercion. that is, not to return choice, but to return everything about its allure. (i bring up Buddhism only because it is how i first learned of your claim.)
what if everything is a reflection of everything else, to a lesser or greater degree. In other words its like the ant wants to survive, like the elephant does, like the person does like the earth does like the universe does. As its all interconnected or a reflection of something else or of itself, just to varying levels because each part of the fractal reflection is just a greater or lesser version of itself of another part of that fractal reflection. Where every possible option is some how being tried to see if only some small part of that fractal reflection can progress higher without the rest, but it dont work that way if one part of the fractal reflection changes, all of the whole changes. Why? because it all wants to survive but its all dying. Maybe the answer to this riddle is not for one thing to survive, but for all things to survive. Maybe thats the only answer or way forward or out so to speak. Maybe its like humanity finally discovering a way to stop aging, but if any of humanity left are still dying then humanity has not truly stopped aging has it. Maybe its an all or nothing deal so to speak since everything is a reflection or fractal of everything else. And what effects one thing, effects all things. How could it not if it were not if everything were not a fractal reflection of everything else to a higher or lower degree. Maybe thats the missing piece of the puzzle because all really is one, in this fractal reflection where everything is but a reflection of something else in this fractal. You cant say well this part of the fractal progresses or improves or rises and the rest of the reflections dont, maybe its that which is not allowed making it an all or nothing deal so to speak. That could be the missing link or piece of the puzzle to everything.
Doesn't PhD mean Doctor of Philosophy? Whatever happened to scientists understanding the importance of philosophy and metaphysics, rather than simply dismissing any topics that don't use electro-mechanical measurement tools. It really is shocking to me how blind the modern era of science is compared to the era of Einstein or Darwin or Newton.
Coocksastra meaning is required actions and Result finding generation order of Sax and Home act may king level person was doing event's preprations as per star and moon cycles Time of geography of place according" ancient book became mixed modern"
I was thinking if up or down was not the full attribute what if you added the observer. Thinking Watanabe here. Then if the observer dies the attribute of up or down would go back to being unobserved. Externally the up and down would have no attribute or indeterminate state as it has to include the observer, removing the paradox. In other words you definition of the attribute up does not exist on its own. Maybe this was one of the options but i could not understand it. 🦆
Charecter of Quantum is how much Censitive naturaly in Lab if then Soule Forme Devoloped Soule Quantum Cell will behave how much carefully ? As screen viewers you see and came selfe about "
What is true and what is not? If a new movie comes out and everyone sees this movie then it is real but I have not heard of this movie and have not seen it and that means for me and only for me this movie is not real . I think people are talking about things without having a definition of what it is about . For each of us, reality is something different, and what is happening is also perceived differently . The world we know is only in our minds nobody knows the world as I know it. And I don't know the world as another person knows it
"... in the sense that particles have predetermined physical properties prior to measurement" I am sorry, but this is very lame statement. "Particles" are processes, not objects. This is how "something" (aka "quantum fields") manifests itself and interacts with itself. Nowadays we have so many hints, that the "particles" are not little marbles that exist between interactions (including measurements) so it's time not to resurrect this ghost again and again.
It cannot be true that there is no truth Truth has no contradictions Truth cannot change There is no truth without mind, or mind without being Truth/Mind/Being are One Truth is Absolutely Unchangingly Alive One/Living/Truth Is The Creator One/Living/Truth Holds all temporal/created things together Truth cannot be increased or decreased There is Only One Unchanging/Immortal Living Truth Who Just Is Truth is Above energy/matter/space/time No two 'physical' things are the same: The temporal/creation is infinitely organised complexity with zero randomness. Randomness is an illusion that can be experienced by creatures who don't know everything. The entire temporal/changing creation is perfectly unchangingly known by the One/Living/Truth; The One/Living/Truth cannot learn anything. Truth Is Perfect, A Perfect Creator Creates Perfectly.
Money is mediuam for needed service for pay as money" Behind of Bater system as material = Matarial comodity way was not for every one" as per Service Quality" and naw are Science to musical to Basic life in Society among Commons frome Schooling to latest" are pay behind Service" ammount and vallues" caused Everyone can't complit selfe essential needed services butt Connected by Money all the Services Salary to blessings forme" or Dependency mediuam is money" Butt in Forest if Some one Get dawn by Helicopter exidantly if is he Richest" vallue of money power ? Is Past Story Opening Base of Raghukul Reet Sada chali Aayi" Praan Jaayi par Bachan Naa Jaayi" value of Service in Forest and Promised"
Wild race for counter of birth Ticket runn on counter and ? Counter Closed, race of Normal Soules and waiting way nonstope going way' say's Environment's of Coupulation and Productive Event's Atmoshphare of Room and surrounding Holly findings,
God's transfer and promotions way rebirth life's is his equal Kingdome's Equal Body Equal His Soule as water of every Droope of a Jheel" skay to earth cycle and survival whatever is His made Earth" and Environments" where ever want to lock your selfe" as awerness of Human and Meaning of Human's or Origin of wee" Answer is only my Base of next stape of tomorrow's for"
The subjective frame of reference is equally valid as the objective 1. In fact it is completely accurate every single time 100% of the time in its own framework yet the objective frame of reference is never completely correct at all in this universe because it is just an average of all the subjective ones after they are added together then divided by the amount of them. Like l you would average numbers. So the subjective frame of reference is right every time but the objective frame of reference is never right except in its own frame of reference and this is a mirror image of the boxes you were talking about here and it's how all reality works in fact because everything is like nested Russian dolls except they are interlocking. So it's like a bunch of fractals that are interlocking with each other. I can explain how all this occurs because of duality and it solves all paradoxes and explains why existence even is.
So therefore we have 4 different observers on 4 different reference (quantum or Einstein) frames of a phenomena known as Jesus Christ, the only Savior that can rescue us all from eternal Hell.. Their names are Matthew Mark Luke & John. @6:30 Should we worry about the contradictions and paradoxes? Should we go to Bart Ehrman or someone else? Can physics account for the "discrepancies" in each one of these gospel records?
Society and administrations base is over Classified way valutions first butt These all Clasified Humans Catagorys was only one as Frainds of God Persons" butt out of Social comments"
I'm a 34 female photographer in Canada and I'm so grateful I get to witness these types of conversations. What a time to be alive! (even if i don't understand a lot of it at the moment lol but piece by piece i learn something i never would be able to before)
That's it, not a single physicist learned what they know intuitively, they learned one bite and tidbit at a time.
When I turned 5 years old and went to Kindergarden, the bathrooms stalls had doors. When I would close the door, I would wonder if the outer room ACTUALLY disappeared. I failed Algebra and ended up being an opera singer. But that little girl (it turns out), wasn't so far off. : )
Very cool memory! I had the same ideas as a child but I failed Abstract Algebra in college so I had to become a mechanical engineer instead of theoretical physicist lol
i had loads of similar intuitions as a kid, but they were beaten out of me by dogma and orthodoxy. I'm slowly rediscovering them :)
I'm like you. Kind of.
Maybe this is why people play loud music in their houses. They can't see who or what is outside being affected by their nose. Same with people telling at each other in their houses. Then they think others should mind their own business if you comment. Dudes your loudness has made it everyone else's business.
I had wild speculations as a child too. Hopeless at math, so ended up a lowly telecommunications technician on $180k 😢
Some people watching netflix today, but for me this is a real netflix. Thank You for your work.
I asked the AI to help with this concept. I think it did a good job .
//Explaining Wigner's Friend Using the Feynman Method
The Feynman method encourages breaking down complex concepts into simple terms that anyone can understand. Here's an attempt to explain Wigner's Friend using this approach:
1. The Core Concept:
Imagine you have a friend in a completely sealed lab. Inside the lab, your friend flips a coin. You, standing outside, don't know the result. From your perspective, the coin is in a state of being both heads and tails simultaneously (a superposition) until you open the lab and observe the result. This is a basic idea in quantum mechanics.
2. Wigner's Twist:
Now imagine that you are a physicist named Wigner. Instead of just a coin, your friend in the lab is performing a quantum measurement on a particle that can be in one of two states, let's say "up" or "down." Your friend observes the particle and sees a definite outcome, either "up" or "down."
However, from your perspective outside the lab, you see the entire lab, including your friend and the particle, as one giant quantum system. This system is in a superposition of states, meaning that to you, it's as if your friend is in a state of having seen both "up" and "down" simultaneously.
3. The Paradox:
This creates a strange situation. Your friend inside the lab insists that they saw a definite outcome. But according to your description of the system, they haven't. This raises questions about:
The absoluteness of observation: Does an observation truly create a definite fact, or is it relative to the observer?
The role of the observer: Does the act of observation somehow force the quantum system to "choose" a definite outcome?
The nature of reality: Is there a single, objective reality, or are there multiple realities depending on the observer's perspective?
4. Extending the Paradox:
The sources discuss how physicists have extended Wigner's Friend thought experiment by adding more observers and entangled particles, leading to even more complex paradoxes and "no-go theorems." These theorems suggest that:
It may be impossible to reconcile the different experiences of observers in quantum scenarios. [1-5]
The idea of a shared, objective reality might be fundamentally flawed. [6-10]
Quantum theory might not be universally applicable, or it might require significant revision to account for these paradoxes. [8, 11, 12]
5. Analogies and Examples:
The sources use analogies to help understand the implications of Wigner's Friend:
Einstein's Moon: Einstein famously argued that the moon should exist even if no one is looking at it. Wigner's Friend challenges this idea by suggesting that the "moon" (the measurement outcome) might only become real when an observer looks. [4, 13]
Berman's Socks: This analogy is used to explain Bell's Theorem and the idea of local causality. However, Wigner's Friend scenarios show that even events that appear to have a common cause might not be independently explainable. [14, 15]
Quantum Reference Frames: Just as different reference frames in relativity lead to different perceptions of time and space, different "quantum reference frames" in Wigner's Friend scenarios lead to incompatible perceptions of reality. However, unlike relativity, there is no known way to transform between these quantum reference frames. [16]
6. Open Questions and Future Directions:
Wigner's Friend raises more questions than it answers. The sources discuss several possible interpretations and research directions, including:
Exploring different interpretations of quantum mechanics: Many-Worlds, Cubism, Bohmian Mechanics, etc., each offer a different perspective on the role of the observer and the nature of reality. [17-19]
Conducting experiments with more complex "observers": Pushing the boundaries of Wigner's Friend by using machines or even AI as observers could shed light on the relationship between consciousness and measurement. [20, 21]
Re-examining our assumptions about knowledge and information: The idea that knowledge can be freely transferred between observers might need to be revised in light of these paradoxes. [22, 23]
Conclusion:
Wigner's Friend is a powerful thought experiment that highlights the profound strangeness of quantum mechanics and challenges our fundamental assumptions about reality and observation. The sources offer a glimpse into the ongoing debates and research efforts aimed at understanding the implications of this paradox.//
I listened to Jacob Barandas “There is no wave function” (Harvard theoretical physicist). He showed that a type of non-Markov process(mathematical statistics) is equivalent to the mathematical model classically used in quantum mechanics. It also makes it possible to remove some of these weird observer collaps of wave function effects. Wave-function and Hilbertroom quantum models are mathematical models that predict results of reality well but they don’t infer how reality is constructed and a lot of the “weird” stuff is due to behavior inherent to those models. They are not wrong but Barandas showed that you can get the same results with a model that better connects with classical physics. Well worth a watch.
Yes, I watched, it was interesting.
I was thinking the same, thank you for say it
Got the feeling this video got recommend to me after watching that 👍
Can you please provide a link? Really interested in this
My take is that Barandas theory (not yet peer reviewed) is a way of modelling the dusty cloud that later 'manifests itself' as a particle. This new model may or maynot be right it is way over my head but my research tells me it does not negate the spooky action at a distance of quantum entanglement. Personally this may suggest Hilbert space may be the better modelling tool.
I'm crying. It's actually what I saw in my most intense LSD trips. I love you Bernardo. I looooove you all
Was an awesome trip Hans❤ Glad to be part of the team🎉
And Essentia is glad to have you!!
"Bell did not prove that nature is nondeterministic or nonlocal, but that it can not be both at the same time". That must be one of my favorite sentences. Thank you!
I can’t pretend to grok this adequately but I nonetheless urge folks to see Curt Jaimingal’s “Theories of Everything” Interview with Prof. Jacob Barandes - don’t know who’s thesis is right (or maybe parts of both) but it sounds like they might be ending up in similar boxes.
Maybe, finally, we’ll see some real progress.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
whose*
@@tejask228wanker
consciousness. you don't know what it is because you are it and therefore you know.
“There is no shared reality” - so we are back to being the centre of our very own observable universe!
“Time and space are not conditions in which we live, but modes by which we think. Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, determined by the external world.” -Albert Einstein
Oh, Buddha! Please keep me sane!
It’s all illusion.
Interdependent phenomena rooted in ignorance
Perhaps become as (your personality version) Buda 👍💜🗯
One of the very best teachers to implore for highest help - for the seriously seeking humble soul.
Good luck
Fare thee well - on life's journey
WE are the only electron. Great insightful conversation and subsequent lectures. Thank you for your work!
I learned in psychology that all measurements are models with certain levels of reliability. Two different scales can be used to measure the same thing with varying outcomes. One scale might weight me at 150lbs and another might measure my weight at 150.5lbs. One scale may use more accurate methods for measuring my weight. One scale might be better at detecting smaller differences in weight than the other. Both measure weight and both do so accurately, but do so with varying degrees of precision and/or accuracy.
Love your channel! It’s brilliant to listen while crocheting. ❤ My bet is on Retrocausality (1:11:05) because it exists in weaving and somehow in crochet too. There’s a way to work with thread where the work at the end affects the initial state. Maybe the crochet is the answer 😄
can you explain more about this phenomenon? i've never heard of anyone describing crocheting this way (and i'm very inexperienced to have noticed anything like this)
Re your summary to this video…It’s not bells theorem that confronted us with that.
Bells inequality created a theoretical way to test the theory of wave particle duality which predates Bell by a long way. Basically, bells inequality test would prove Einstein’s hidden variable idea as wrong and the quantum physicists like Bohr who challenged Einstein, correct.
But bells inequality could not be physically truly tested until only the last few years, by Clauser et al…although the Fundamental Fysiks Group did get pretty far towards that all the way back in the 1960’s (Clauser was part of that)
It is vital to remember a few points. Math is not physics. Just because it happens in math does not make it real. We must also realize the issue with scale. The world distorts the farther away we look and conversely the farther inward. If we could perceive at those scale perspectives the world may appear "normal". Of course we also have the big one. Consciousness. I prefer a mystical and physics union. All of manifest reality is LIFE. It moves. Most of it is only minimally aware, as to it's function only, but others, via assembly, allow for the construction of a receiver that can channel an emergent gestalt that has a chance for near permanent cohesion.
Thank you for doing this for us for free ❤
Maybe this IS crazy. I recommend a look at the work of Jacob Barandes whereby we return to a more classical approach to quantum physics. He was just recently interviewed at length on Theories of Everything titled "There's No Wave Function."
Yes. He is an excellent educator. He looks into the workings and mysteries of quantum. Three observers take a look
There is a difference between past and future. The experiment completed is a past like everything we are able to see and sense around us. The paradoxes in quantum physics are possible related to the extremely short time intervals when we are not able to distinguish between past and future. The future is a wave function. The past is classical physics.
This is so great, thank you to all involved. Hans, you have the best job in the world (except maybe these physicists). How can we get involved?!?
The three papers have a total of 12 (twelve!!) authors, among those at least two women. Why did the prize go only to three professors?
It a well known insider fact that in academics doctoral candidates, even students, do the leg work, not the professor. Also, the order of the names (especially if not in alphabetical order) indicates how much work that person contributed to the paper (the first person did most).
How much did the recipients of the price they really contribute?
The role of the observer is recursive.
String theory is falling apart 💪
I see it like this:
All reality is a quantum hologram, which to me is like a soup which has no form until it is observed.
---
When consciousness starts to observe this "formless soup" it has some kind of expectation ( this can be subconscious one) and that chooses one possible reality from infinite pool of realitys (the soup) and he experiences that.
Also "the soup" is one big whole thing, there is no separation so everything affects everything so you get things like quantum entanglement.
---
Problem with scientist is, they do not want to include consciousness in their models because they are in this religion called "materialism", so they are missing the biggest piece of the puzzle and without it, you just can't complete the task no matter how many decades you try and how many different theories you come up with. So they will bang their heads on the wall until someday in the future they take the necessary leap and then everything changes. Also then they realize how much our expectation has affected all scientific studies and that is another "wow.. we didn't think of that back then.."
But that is how science progresses, todays insanity is tomorrows common knowledge.
Great contribution, thank you very much! Suggested question for further discussion: Would Adrian Johnston’s concept of “transcendental materialism” be a meaningful assumption to take a step further?
This is very nice editing thank you
Can someone simplify this for me with an example?
Recent theories in quantum mechanics challenge traditional notions of objective reality and measurement, suggesting that consciousness plays a significant role in shaping our understanding of the universe.
@@petersalomon7164Consciouness doesnt play any role in physiscs.
@@portugalsud2924absolutely it does
@portugalsud2924 are you sure?😂
Of course you can't get to any objective world-view. Any such thing is just a thought. Just look at it, see it for yourself. It's obvious, what else could it be but a thought? Don't believe me, just look!
And the same goes for anything we believe about the "subjective world". What is that except thought? Any time you label any "thing", any time you ascribe "thing-ness" to the world, that can only be a thought. The world isn't in any "real" or "certain" way outside of our constructions.
@@manso306 precisely, the word is not the thing. Any word used to describe anything at all is nothing but a superimposition and a product of thought which by its very nature is limited.
Experience is a process projecting from potentially infinite data to limited information. The process is undefinable , uncertain, subjective and non deterministic. And yet we try to use the resulting information to create objective models - of things/objects. Noble pursuit, and useful - but not something with an end
Maybe I am a bit slow on the uptake but can someone explain in a few bullet points what are the main points this podcast is trying to convey.
Awesome episode! Subscribed
Can we start getting some spark notes for these lol
This is a feature I’ve been dreaming of actually being implemented by RUclips. A mini-variation of NotebookLM but for longer RUclips videos.
I was a semiology teacher for many years and the starting point was that there are no events, things or facts, only constructions of meaning that depend on the mode of relation and their instruments, so, only relative observations... when you beat the table each one has an experience that has different aspects, is not chosen, and changes in next moment... of course we can agree in reducing it to the beating gesture, sound... its only a mode of relation that focus the intersubjectivity in this essentialism for pratical reasons or whatever... in physiscs, the a priori mode of relation is obliged to be in a factual essencialism, so if confronted with its relativity it seems strange, but essencia never existed and is only seeing things as they are... now the observation... an interaction between particules, waves, "possibilities", etc. is not an observation, an observation is a relation of a living being, that implies and depends of a universe and all its evolution, all we know, dont know and cannot know in the infinite complexity of life, etc.... so the moment of observation is an activity in all dimentions of this relation, that can and is reduced or collapsed in many senses, but if assumed in it's plenitude begins to show the reducing aspect and solving its traumatic history, the differential between our nature and the habitual modes of relation, that opens to the creative, to creation!! Well this is my mode of relation to what is being talked here. Everything good to everybody. Henrique Areias
Lots of assertions here. Interesting. When you turn science into technology don't you Convert abstractions into things?
Sure, let's break it down into simpler terms:
1. **No Absolute Facts**: There are no fixed events or facts. Everything we know is based on how we interpret and relate to things.
2. **Different Experiences**: When something happens, like hitting a table, everyone experiences it differently. These experiences aren't chosen and can change over time.
3. **Simplifying for Practicality**: We often simplify complex experiences to make them easier to understand and agree on, like focusing on the sound of hitting the table.
4. **Physics and Facts**: In physics, we often think of observations as absolute facts. But in reality, everything is relative and depends on how we observe it.
5. **Observation as a Relationship**: Observing something isn't just about seeing particles or waves. It's about the relationship between a living being and the universe, including everything we know and don't know.
6. **Complexity of Observation**: Observing something involves many dimensions and can be simplified in different ways. Embracing the full complexity of observation can lead to creativity and new ideas.
In essence, Areias is saying that our understanding of reality is shaped by how we relate to and interpret things. By acknowledging the complexity and relativity of our observations, we can open up new possibilities for creativity and understanding.
If we were to take the topic UAP suddenly - appearing then suddenly reappearing in another location this could be explained perhaps.
When I first learnt about determining the charge of an oil drop, to get the value the experiment was performed more than 200 K times.. this startled me I then realised that we try to manipulate nature based on average values and misrepresent this as a rule or law or true value.. That was 45 years ago
Perfect, the micro-dose done and now for a discussion. ✌️
What it will come down to is this.. we think we can create complete objective models, when all the faculties we have (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking) for creating any constructs are inherently subjective . Reality is only one such objective model, which will never be complete and for which evidence will always be subjective. But the models will be useful - subjectively that is.
If we want to get any further, we can look at how we come up with the constructs in the first place, rather than trying to justify them with subjective observations. Then space, time, basic properties can all be seen as constructs, only conditionally arising (not even existing) from an underlying process which we can not understand or model, but can transcend. That process is neither subjective or objective - the idea of a subject also arises from it.
Then you are stuck in a paradox. Using logic to dismantle logic itself. Claiming that everything is subjective and limited by sensory experience while simultaneously saying you can logically dismantle the systems that arise from it, forgetting that your logic is just another system.
Just stupid. No offense.
@@LukasMekler-Culbertson Who said it's logical . Logic is a construct at a higher level. Ultimately useless at the more fundamental level. You can develop insight , that's all.
@@manjukasoysa3901Insight is still subjective.
@@LukasMekler-Culbertson the ultimate insight is neither subjective nor objective because the subject is itself a construct.
As a science I have always liked physics best. If this question was chemistry and could make a skin cream we would already have done millions experiments of cat's hooked to proton decay detectors in boxes.
Today, in science, there’s much talk about consciousness and the level at which it is fundamental.
Now should it be the case, that it is fundamental, and all photons , electrons and atoms has some form and level of consciousness and awareness, then it seems to me there would never be even a sliver of a corner of the universe that would not , at all times be observed.
So superpositions would never be able to actually exist?
Everything is a measurement, one way or the other. Every subjective frame of reference is automatically in relationship with everything else and this is a measurement. Every person place thing action or event consist of at least 2 things measuring each other and the measurement itself is reality. Or what we perceive as such.
I'm really hoping that the result of peeling back the quantum curtain to reveal the driving mechanics of reality results in the most mystic woo-woo magic stuff ever. The materialistic view of the holographic matrix universe fades away and becomes more aligned with ancient esoteric occult panpsychism perspectives. A consciousness embedded quantum reality that with it one day we might learn new ways to harness it from within our own consciousness.
I have a question. What is flawed about observing that material reality exists?
This debate feels semantic
I dislike higher mathematics- but the theories themselves are interesting and easy to digest themselves.
The reason I like the theory is that it is easily understood- it is a sort of Occam’s razor-- what I mean is: it works the same way forwards as backwards and if you have the correct way of things at the base then you can scale up and down infinitely. If you cannot use the basic premise on all scales, such as the basic premise being contradicted by the convoluted higher math, then something is wrong. Either it is the higher math (such as relativity being invalidated by objective observation at quantum scale) is wrong, or the basic premise that it is based upon is wrong and you did the wrong math properly so at least you made an awesome system of estimation but you did not make a system capable of accurately measuring and understanding the universe we exist in.
The universe takes the path of least resistance. This is, outside extremely improbable instances of which I know not a one, just how it is. If your math requires a bunch of mental gymnastics to not argue with itself you are probably just doing mental exercise with no hope of actual progress in the sense of progressing our understanding of reality & showing that math can explain it all.
We cannot have objective results. Period.
When I take a photo and you take a photo of the same thing with the same camera at the same time, they will be different due to perspective. There is no place above or outside perspective. There is no objective measurement.
I use the photo example to illustrate how perspective transcends subjective barriers and dictates "objective" reality.
* I can prove this. I've been running experiments for years.
Prototype of the Fundamental Particle on 4 foot rock nearing completion. Soon it will be uploaded on RUclips.
Too many ads however very interesting.
Question mark in title, I switch off straight away.
All of these physisists could send a " glass eye to sleep" Thank God for Tyson, and Greene!!
I fell asleep almost instantly after listening.
Without factoring consciousness as fundamental, as Plato discovered thousands of years ago, endless neurotic measurement will result in stories confusion. Go take some 5meo dmt, experience the nature of reality behind the construct, then come back and see if you can come up with a model that can somehow encompass these experiences.
Controlling system as per life's Cycles are catograis after Lion to dog and Elephant to Goat, and Food Habits after result for Forest and availablity and Compititons after Balanced AAll Life's Cycles" go less one if it will effect next for survival life's coopration unit less due to Existance for Strugles"
Observing the observer is space affecting time. It’s always unfolding from our place in space, this time as it unfolds like a carpet for ducks at the Peabody, like the feint cumulative pull of gravity. Unique, even by degree. There seems to be some event horizon where the micro is folded within macro;e the spin a mirror of a camera lenz. Just a silly thought. Dipping my brain back in. Our brain is broke by our point of view and the paradigms that are latticed on experience.
Hundreds of ads make impossible to watch unfortunately..
To get over this hump, you have to understand the non-physical mind and in "time".Hopefully agi will help with this. Your getting there kid!
It's times like this, I remember an abductee, and in another video an ex area 51 worker, who both said they were told that we humans have mathematics all wrong.
(Not saying it's true, just saying it's what pops up)
Demons lie
@veronica_._._._ So do you, Dave.
They are almost about to break the fourth wall
This is why i have a hard time believing the universe is 13.7 b years old: From whose perspective? From which gravitational well?
Good point. From the frame of earth I suppose? I love thinking about how if you rewind the big bang backwards it collapses into whatever point in the universe that you happen to be at. So everywhere is the centre of the universe from that perspective.
@millenniummastering yes from earth; but does hubble's point in the well change its perspective, does webbs does mt everest or the great pyramid have diferent perspectives? How bout latitude? Does it matter that the equator day covers more ground than an arctic day? Easy enough parameters to plug into the dif eqs. I assume they have been too but idk maybe ill check yt for the explanation of this one age range. Either way, i fell asleep listening to this and now i have to play it through again. Maybe my answers are further along the lectures. Or not because my quesions are intro level perspective anyway. Lol.
Yep totally intro level. Wiki page on universe age has an answer and more for my questions. The one thing that will always trip me up in understanding is the speed of light and how it can seem to change based on perspective. I get sea sick if i think about it enough to try to actually learn anything. Too much tv.
There is nothing fundamental, the condition of reality is that for something to exist the exact opposite has to exist to maintain energy equilibrium and it happens that in this reality the type of matter were made of decays trillions of times slower than its counterpart so in a way our reality is not in equilibrium but its spending the energy as fast as it cans and that’s why theres the illusion of an arrow of time and also thats why entropy goes to a maximum because we need to make all the energy unusable or unspendable to go back to the total equilibrium which amounts to nothing- an engineer and musician so don’t take this seriously but it’s a fun thought
If time dilation is real somebody has to tell me why Voyager 1 hasn't experienced any or why it has experienced a scientifically insignificant time dilation
Schrodingers cat was explained to me that the cat is both alive and dead statisticaly until you open the box and identify the universe that holds the outcome. So you see a live cat you are in the live outcome universe. You see a dead cat amd you are in a dead outcome universe. So somewhere in another universe is a version of me who won the lottery or won the coin flip or lost the coin flip. Can i put myself in a sealed box during the lotto draw and come out a winner? Lol
Berenstein, Berenstain, what even is this reality of which you speak? You think that is reality you are observing? Hmm... interesting.
There is a huge difference between dreams and reality. ..
It's amazing the kind of illusions smart people who lack wisdom can spend a whole career on...
Whatever it is would make for great technology.
Life is a living entity, we are objects of said entity and NOT the subject. Why do you always get different results? Because you aren’t the doer. Choice is a fallacy.
"Choice is a fallacy." i agree completely. choice is rare. rarer even among humans.
one way of interpreting (some aspects) of Buddhism is that it is supposed to guide the cultivation of moments of pure indeterminacy, without coercion. that is, not to return choice, but to return everything about its allure.
(i bring up Buddhism only because it is how i first learned of your claim.)
Mathematics strives for perfection where Nature doesn't. One of them (mathematics or Nature) is functional, the other isn't. You're welcome.
what if everything is a reflection of everything else, to a lesser or greater degree. In other words its like the ant wants to survive, like the elephant does, like the person does like the earth does like the universe does. As its all interconnected or a reflection of something else or of itself, just to varying levels because each part of the fractal reflection is just a greater or lesser version of itself of another part of that fractal reflection. Where every possible option is some how being tried to see if only some small part of that fractal reflection can progress higher without the rest, but it dont work that way if one part of the fractal reflection changes, all of the whole changes. Why? because it all wants to survive but its all dying. Maybe the answer to this riddle is not for one thing to survive, but for all things to survive. Maybe thats the only answer or way forward or out so to speak. Maybe its like humanity finally discovering a way to stop aging, but if any of humanity left are still dying then humanity has not truly stopped aging has it. Maybe its an all or nothing deal so to speak since everything is a reflection or fractal of everything else. And what effects one thing, effects all things. How could it not if it were not if everything were not a fractal reflection of everything else to a higher or lower degree. Maybe thats the missing piece of the puzzle because all really is one, in this fractal reflection where everything is but a reflection of something else in this fractal. You cant say well this part of the fractal progresses or improves or rises and the rest of the reflections dont, maybe its that which is not allowed making it an all or nothing deal so to speak. That could be the missing link or piece of the puzzle to everything.
Doesn't PhD mean Doctor of Philosophy?
Whatever happened to scientists understanding the importance of philosophy and metaphysics, rather than simply dismissing any topics that don't use electro-mechanical measurement tools.
It really is shocking to me how blind the modern era of science is compared to the era of Einstein or Darwin or Newton.
Coocksastra meaning is required actions and Result finding generation order of Sax and Home act may king level person was doing event's preprations as per star and moon cycles Time of geography of place according" ancient book became mixed modern"
I now think I knew it.
Why are you not using time in your thought experiment.. time is always ignored
Physics and the Bhudda dancing in harmony
Exactly - We need new explanations to explain new complexities and problems.
I was thinking if up or down was not the full attribute what if you added the observer. Thinking Watanabe here. Then if the observer dies the attribute of up or down would go back to being unobserved. Externally the up and down would have no attribute or indeterminate state as it has to include the observer, removing the paradox. In other words you definition of the attribute up does not exist on its own. Maybe this was one of the options but i could not understand it. 🦆
Man....get these guys some mushrooms. They're on to something..... mushrooms would show them the common ultimate reality they're looking for is LOVE.
This is so frustrating to see you taking interview and not being able to tell them alternative theories because they are not open for them :)
Charecter of Quantum is how much Censitive naturaly in Lab if then Soule Forme Devoloped Soule Quantum Cell will behave how much carefully ? As screen viewers you see and came selfe about "
possibility
smart people is like Einstein... he did not believe in QM
so the concept of 'smart' and 'quantum' together is a paradox
What is true and what is not? If a new movie comes out and everyone sees this movie then it is real but I have not heard of this movie and have not seen it and that means for me and only for me this movie is not real . I think people are talking about things without having a definition of what it is about .
For each of us, reality is something different, and what is happening is also perceived differently .
The world we know is only in our minds nobody knows the world as I know it. And I don't know the world as another person knows it
Another theory? Or another example of the endless semantic acrobatics and thought experiments circling around the same loop?
"... in the sense that particles have predetermined physical properties prior to measurement"
I am sorry, but this is very lame statement. "Particles" are processes, not objects. This is how "something" (aka "quantum fields") manifests itself and interacts with itself. Nowadays we have so many hints, that the "particles" are not little marbles that exist between interactions (including measurements) so it's time not to resurrect this ghost again and again.
Fantastic video. Only a quarter of the way in, but is there not an overlap with QBISM in this framework?
Dont bother watching the video. All the geniuses have left a comment 😉🤣
It cannot be true that there is no truth
Truth has no contradictions
Truth cannot change
There is no truth without mind, or mind without being
Truth/Mind/Being are One
Truth is Absolutely Unchangingly Alive
One/Living/Truth Is The Creator
One/Living/Truth Holds all temporal/created things together
Truth cannot be increased or decreased
There is Only One Unchanging/Immortal Living Truth Who Just Is
Truth is Above energy/matter/space/time
No two 'physical' things are the same:
The temporal/creation is infinitely organised complexity with zero randomness. Randomness is an illusion that can be experienced by creatures who don't know everything. The entire temporal/changing creation is perfectly unchangingly known by the One/Living/Truth; The One/Living/Truth cannot learn anything.
Truth Is Perfect, A Perfect Creator Creates Perfectly.
Meta-physics is more real than physic. Interior and exterior, one and plural, are just two sides of the same coin.
Good bye string theory, good bye dark energy. Cat can't be alive and death at the same time
King Akbar was Gotten Son as Salim named" result of Feet walking to God home after was"
it's turtles.... all the way down.
Die Antwort ist, es gibt keine Antwort.
Did any one know AGI is decentralized everyone need id to use AGI 😂😂😂😂 surprised 😂😂😂🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Quantum
The smoking section of physics!
Money is mediuam for needed service for pay as money" Behind of Bater system as material = Matarial comodity way was not for every one" as per Service Quality" and naw are Science to musical to Basic life in Society among Commons frome Schooling to latest" are pay behind Service" ammount and vallues" caused Everyone can't complit selfe essential needed services butt Connected by Money all the Services Salary to blessings forme" or Dependency mediuam is money" Butt in Forest if Some one Get dawn by Helicopter exidantly if is he Richest" vallue of money power ? Is Past Story Opening Base of Raghukul Reet Sada chali Aayi" Praan Jaayi par Bachan Naa Jaayi" value of Service in Forest and Promised"
language of physics is the math.. 3 hours blabla is not physics at all
show me an equation
عاشت الايادي فيدو جدا جميل ❤❤❤❤
Wild race for counter of birth Ticket runn on counter and ? Counter Closed, race of Normal Soules and waiting way nonstope going way' say's Environment's of Coupulation and Productive Event's Atmoshphare of Room and surrounding Holly findings,
God's transfer and promotions way rebirth life's is his equal Kingdome's Equal Body Equal His Soule as water of every Droope of a Jheel" skay to earth cycle and survival whatever is His made Earth" and Environments" where ever want to lock your selfe" as awerness of Human and Meaning of Human's or Origin of wee" Answer is only my Base of next stape of tomorrow's for"
😂 back to Mach
Are the authors familiar with the work of David Hume?
The subjective frame of reference is equally valid as the objective 1. In fact it is completely accurate every single time 100% of the time in its own framework yet the objective frame of reference is never completely correct at all in this universe because it is just an average of all the subjective ones after they are added together then divided by the amount of them. Like l you would average numbers. So the subjective frame of reference is right every time but the objective frame of reference is never right except in its own frame of reference and this is a mirror image of the boxes you were talking about here and it's how all reality works in fact because everything is like nested Russian dolls except they are interlocking. So it's like a bunch of fractals that are interlocking with each other. I can explain how all this occurs because of duality and it solves all paradoxes and explains why existence even is.
So therefore we have 4 different observers on 4 different reference (quantum or Einstein) frames of a phenomena known as Jesus Christ, the only Savior that can rescue us all from eternal Hell.. Their names are Matthew Mark Luke & John. @6:30 Should we worry about the contradictions and paradoxes? Should we go to Bart Ehrman or someone else? Can physics account for the "discrepancies" in each one of these gospel records?
Society and administrations base is over Classified way valutions first butt These all Clasified Humans Catagorys was only one as Frainds of God Persons" butt out of Social comments"