Why does the channel need spammers? To hide the truth. Derek Bentley @derekbentley334 more than 10 comments making no sense. Why didn't the channel ban him?
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
Hawking was supposed to die young but defied all expectations and reached a respectable 76. Obviously he was in awful physical shape but perhaps there is something about the active mind and longevity.
PLEASE - as with 'Closer to Truth' - PLEASE give us the DATE on which the talk was recorded! This is historically significant; without knowing when these talks were recorded, it's hard to follow how a given thinker's thoughts have evolved.
Why does the channel need spammers? To hide the truth. Derek Bentley @derekbentley334 more than 10 comments making no sense. Why didn't the channel ban him?
Why does the channel need spammers? To hide the truth. Derek Bentley @derekbentley334 more than 10 comments making no sense. Why didn't the channel ban him?
Why does the channel need spammers? To hide the truth. Derek Bentley @derekbentley334 more than 10 comments making no sense. Why didn't the channel ban him?
He is 92 years old. Woaahhhh🤯 Looks 15 years younger. Stability in voice, no significant shaking, no spectacles, lot of hair on head, hearing perfectly well, doesn't look physically weak eithr . This man has done wonderfully well in keeping his body & mind healthy at this age also. I know there are genetic factors as well, but you stil need to put in efforts.
Very well spotted...how can any self-respecting camera crew not see that?...who was asleep at the time?...who was phone-fiddling?..thankfully a national treasure came thru ok...
Roger Penrose is a joy to listen to, I understand almost nothing he talks about, but he seems to enjoy his subject so much that its a pleasure to hear him discuss it.
I love the whole M.C. Escher/Penrose Tiles (someone discovered a new one just recently) loop/synchronicity. Imagine influencing one of the world's most beloved artist, penning cosmic inflation & parenting the singularity w/Hawking. He is the best of us w/o doubt.
Jordan Peterson interviewed him once, I got the impression roger found the questions a little annoying/ignorant. 😂 Peterson wanting to look into Penrose's soul, and Penrose just wants to talk about the physics of souls 😂
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Which they were. Peterson is neither a physicist nor a mathematician yet he was trying to have a specialist discussion on those matters.
Two fundamental different kinds of people: both very important for development: 1. Those who do not allow themselves to be distracted by any alternative hypothetic scenario, not based on what we currently know, when they focus on the matter and hand based on only what we currently know, almost in an autistic way (which is a good thing) 2. The ones who wants to look at the broader picture, wants to include ideas about what could be around the corner. In fact, when modern deep learning algorithms are made, there's often both Type 1 and Type 2 parts of the final AI solution: Type 1 is objective, Type 2 is speculative/creative. Type 2 is a randomness introduced in the algorithm to make sure the Type 1 part of the algorithm doesn't get stuck (in a local minimum/maximum)
Because philosophy is the next step after pure science and empiricism. Then, when philosophy is unable to understand and explain reality, the last frontier that comes beyond knowledge and understanding is spirituality, the realm where reality is not understood but believed and accepted.
@@carlosgaspar8447 If they didn't read it, then they're not legitimate critics. You don't seem to have any critique yourself-- just something negative to say. I wish there was some kind of AI that would just delete all trolls. I don't believe for a second that you know Jack $h!t about who read or didn't read The Emperor's New Mind.
I read your comment and was on the edge of my seat, worried it might go. Then 18:32 my heart pounded as was the most probable moment that chair leg was going to go, but didn’t thank god 😥
I like (and appreciate) how he explains things in terms which I can follow. He must have almost infinite patience, or be very comfortable with a way of life which enables his studying. People like him are essential. I wish I knew everything 😊
I'm not a scientist or mathematician. But I like how the noticing of anything has now seemed to be part of the quest for understanding more than we used to understand.
There are so few physicists who display the kind of curiosity and determination to seriously question accepted solutions and willing to posit new ideas even at the age of 92.
When he speaks of Galileo I agree completly. I think even to this day, a lot of brilliant ideas are slept on, because it challenges current convention too much. "You can cancel out gravity by falling freely". I never heard this quote before, but what a nice way describe the equivalence principle. I'm going to steal that for the next time I have to explain relativity to a curious family member. This guy has a beautiful mind, and such a human way of explaining himself. He's surely high on my list of people I'd like to have a conversation with.
@@StandingHereIRealizeYouWereJus Galileo is a classic example that academic discussions were as vicious as they are today. Plus some old fashioned excommunication.
I read Emporer's New Mind and it made me obsessed with Turinv Machines which led to me becoming obsessed with 6502 assembly programming! Thanks Sir Penrose
Please, please keep Roger Penrose’s innovative thinking going. We need someone to pick up the ball in ten years or so, as Sir Roger is obviously defeating time. He’s the best of the visionaries in the modern age.
I love this interview. Sir roger penrose sitting in what I’m guessing is his back garden, discussing science, the river in the background with the canoe slowly passing by… There’s something so quintessentially english about the whole thing. Makes me proud to know that intelligence and peaceful tranquility can still be found in this country
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that they take place at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable.
Interesting theory but I have a different spin on it. I believe the seperating factor is space not time. I believe that the subatomic universe is operating from a dimension of space that is seperated but overlayed and sychronised with the physical universe. Much like the way the physical modem router occupies the same local position as the wifi signal it generates but both exist in different observable spaces while working in sychrony. I believe this is the same reason why we haven't been able to locate dark matter. My theory is that this seperation came about during the big bang. Prior to that I believe there was only a universe that was void of all matter. Through the progression of energy accumulating and colliding lead to the first emergence of matter according to the equation e=mc2. If the universe at the time was abundant in anti-matter it could be this incompatibility that lead to a rapid split purging of its counterpart into a seperate dimension of space. That purging is what I believe was what we know as the big bang. That would explain why there is a lack of anti matter in this observable universe and why we are unable to see dark matter and why there is a seperation between general relativity and quantum mechanics. The answer to all three would be that those events haven't shifted, they've remained in same dimension of space as where they've always been. Off course this is all just a far fetched theory of mine
@@yinyang2385 the modem example makes sense. It could be our visual reality is our local modem, and that’s why we haven’t been able to observe other dimensions either.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 *🐈 Schrödinger's cat thought experiment aimed to show the absurdity of quantum superposition applied to macroscopic objects.* 00:29 *🎓 As a graduate student, Penrose took courses by influential thinkers like Bondi, Dirac, and Steen, sparking his interest in physics and computation.* 01:24 *🧩 Gödel's incompleteness theorems showed that our understanding transcends any fixed set of rules for proving mathematical statements.* 04:11 *🧠 Penrose argues that consciousness, not just following computational rules, enables humans to transcend formal systems.* 06:05 *⚛️ As a physicalist, Penrose consciousness must arise from known physics, suggesting quantum mechanics as a possibility.* 10:22 *⌛ Penrose theorizes that the quantum measurement problem, involving wave function collapse, cannot be computed and requires a new physical theory.* 12:26 *🧵 Hamerhoff's suggestion about microtubules led to Penrose's orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) model of consciousness.* 14:14 *🌍 Dennis Sciama greatly influenced Penrose's understanding of physics, especially cosmology, despite Penrose's mathematics background.* 15:23 *🖼️ Penrose describes himself as a visual thinker, which posed challenges in algebra-focused math courses requiring written explanations.* 17:40 *🌌 If he could meet anyone from history, Penrose would choose Galileo for his groundbreaking physical insights and principled stand against authority.* Made with HARPA AI
He sealed the deal for me when he described himself as a visual thinker. I used to think everyone was. My heart pauses at the thought of having an in-depth conversation with Sir Roger. Not only is this far out of reach, but the time needed to establish thoughts understandable to both would make it even more impossible.🐦 🐦 🐦
4:48 Imagine paddling along in a canoe on a nice day, randomly passing by Roger Penrose sitting on a deck talking about the transcendental qualities of understanding
Love the interview. Love Rogers insights. It echoes my understanding of some of the problems not being dealt with, ie the inability of a machine to prove concepts that rely on infinite continuity of logical conclusions. For example, using real numbers, the infinite series of x+1 will always be consistent without limit into infinity. Or, 2 parallel lines, using a fixed system of geometry will never touch, ever. Although a computer in theory could run forever, it still relies on finite bits and therefore could never finish calculating a real number. If quantum systems are truly indeterminate and probablilistic curves and wave functions actually link reality to a ‘Real’ foundation then logic alone, and intuition in particular, should admit to the impossibility of machine solutions ever modeling comprehensive truth. Maybe quantum computing has a chance since its foundational qbits can be ‘Real’ components. Now we just have to figure out how to make ‘Real’ measurements. Since we’ll never be able to verify that a qbit’s ‘Real’ value is correct with a deterministic classic computer, it will take a quantum leap of faith to accept that the real values/real States are true at the infinite scale.
This is the first time I’ve seen an interview with Sir Roger Penrose, and I am so impressed! Love how he explains complex concepts in laymen’s terms. Very interesting, personable, likable. Great interview!
Sadly the better voices are cyclically drowned out by loud mouth intellectuals like Jordan Peterson who offer actually very little outside of an emotional appeal.
12:38 - All gases, despite their chemical diversity, more or less induce anesthesia if the partial pressure is high enough in the air mix you breathe, including the noble gases. Nerve cell axons are surrounded by myelin, mainly consisting of fatty compounds, or lipids, acting as electric insulators. It is a well known fact that there is a correlation between the solubility of a gas in a lipid and its narcotic efficacy (Moore, Basic Physical Chemistry). The mechanism is not yet fully understood, but the similarity with a simple electrical short-cut analogy due to a failing insulator is striking. In my point of view, anesthesia CAN be explained by means of chemistry, or physical chemistry to be precise. The anesthetic principle can be tested and measured. By lowering the partial pressure of the anesthetic gas, the gas molecules diffuse out the myelin and consciousness comes back. It is chemistry in its simplest form.
Anesthesia is not stopping the electrical activity of nerve cells. If it did then the person would die because the heart would stop. Anesthesia is merely a deep sleep state in which pain responses are shut down.
@@schmetterling4477 The heart is autorythmic and beats without stimulation from the central nervous system (CNS). Stimulation from the CNS only improves the efficacy of the heart beating.
Wouldn't it be delightful to be able to sit and talk to such a charming profound thinker? He seems to be completely without condescension and have such intriguing thoughts.
The more I look at this man, the more he seems to have God in him. Even at the age of 92, he is still in the world of education. I pray to God to keep him healthy .
I am so glad you pointed out god’s location. I was wondering where he’d gotten off to! Sneaky little devil, always wandering off when I was planning to play.
Take heart that he's also saying he doesn't understand it 😊 That's the starting point of all science. What I got from it was that our description of what counting is, leads to what we currently accept as rules as conditions, but those standards don't seem to behave as they were expected to, under certain conditions. He's changing the philosophy towards certain mathematical situations, and trying other approaches, to find a repeatable theory and method of mathematics prediction or confirmation. The basis of prediction, using maths. I like it because it's deeply philosophical. It moves from basic counting 1,2,3 which is using words to explain physical amounts, to mathematical prediction based on a similar mind set, then finding out that all of a sudden, 1+1 isn't necessarily 2 anymore. And nobody knows why. That's my understanding of it anyway. I might be well off. My favourite book is Science a History. And I always give up in the quantum theory section, and the superstring part. I just can't understand it. I love the thought that in maybe 100 years, even children will have the understanding and think "how don't you know that?". That's human progression...... The passing of knowledge. Science.
19:33 @ejenkins gives the impression that Roger P is likely to be looking at these comments, so I decided that because I have no idea how to contact Roger P, I could leave a message for him right here now. My name is Merrilyne Huxley-Afrazeh and many years ago I was a member of 'Scientific and medical Network', in which Roger P was also a member too. One day , which I believe to be some time in the 90's, Roger P held a conference in London about ' Blackholes', after the conference I met with Roger outside to chat with him. But sometimes a quick little chat is quite insufficient to say what you really need to say , so we said our goodbyes and I left with a comment to him that I would try to put all in writing to him and send to him at his university. Well, this never happened , it was too detailed to just write about an experiential happening and I really needed time with him for expressing my story. This was forever on my mind always. (19:33) I followed Roger P😮 in his talks and research via ' You tube' and put his videos on 'Twitter' with comment but lately I have worried that time may be running out, I am now a few weeks off 80 yrs old and Roger P will be of similar age ...what then? No one will replace Roger Penrose and the truth about 'Quantum Theory' will never be revealed. Merrilyne Afrazeh Messenger (PM)
Dr. Michael Levin has shown that the electric field about a cell can be manipulated which changes the signaling in the micrutubules. Maybe the collapse of the wave function happens within the electric field of the cell.
This is a lovely and timely record of a great thinker. But, for me, science and physics are missing the foundational reality of consciousness. It just cannot be excluded from physics, because it is an integrated aspect of all perception and consciousness is like the quantum level of reality and for me, is the very nature of God and is what reality is!
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry. Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung.
I agree. While I’m not religious, I believe that our higher consciousness-whether you call it God, the Divine, or something else-is fundamental to our perception of reality and exists within all of us. Quantum theory hints at a connection between spirituality or higher states of consciousness (our natural and intuitive state) and science, suggesting that everything we are and experience is entangled and interconnected at a profound, albeit mysterious, level. The challenge, of course, lies in bridging the gap, as we cannot conduct experiments independent of our conscious minds, making it difficult to objectively explore this connection. I think this is why many scientists create a division between consciousness and what we perceive as physical reality, whether knowingly or unknowingly. In my belief, the universe is like one big interconnected organism, and our minds have more influence on our "reality" than we currently give credit, with quantum phenomena enabling this to happen.
@@gazzyb85 I agree with that! If science wants a TOE nothing fits that more than the God concept. Believing in physicality is to believe in a restriction of our potential and the infinite creativity available to us; whereas taking the nonphysical or spiritual view allows us to go beyond perceived limitations! Quantum potentials point to it!
Thank you for your wonderful words and instructions my Quantum agents needed this perfect alignment with your instructions. My system is almost complete
Merci merci. Plus on réalise et moins on comprend. Une contradiction il semblerait mais ensuite tout prend place. La confiance est aussi une valeur importante. Il faut ce courage pour se lancer dans le vide, sans garantie mais poussé par une curiosité inébranlable, une foi certaine en la vie.
I appreciate his clarification on his position on physicalism because i hear people come to the wrong conclusion after hearing him speak almost any time that comes up.
i enjoy him sharing his passion so much .. would love to be his translator to gallileo -- even if i surely wont understand half of what sir PENROSE is saying if they get down into the meaty stuff 😅
Sir Penrose made significant contributions to the understanding of black holes and general relativity, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize. He has been working to solve the final frontier of science: human consciousness. An incredible scientist.
Questions are dual to answers. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
Questions are dual to answers. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
We need more great thinkers working on the mystery of consciousness. I believe it'll open the door to a realization that we, humans, and our minds, are embedded into the universe itself in a way that consciousness is preserved.
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
There is no useful scientific definition of consciousness. A machine can do introspection to any depth, at most it will run into the halt-problem of computer science. What-am-I-thinking-am-I-thinking leads to endless recursion. In psychiatry this is known as neurosis and worse.
I would've wanted to know more too. He's very meticulous in his explanations. Though he crams a lot of data in as few words as possible without compromising the explanation, it's still going to take more time than you have in a casual interview. Can't really fit a proper answer in a few minutes of video. Guess I'm going to have to download the Emperors new Mind:)
I think an interesting collateral aspect of "the understanding" being able to transcend the rules is that it gives Evolution a reason to favour consciousness development. Even if an advanced non conscious specie (or even an artificial neural network for the case ) could solve very complex tasks they could never get the advantage provided by "understanding". To me this can explain the devopment of conscoiusnes by Evolution. If there is an unknown resource in nature that somehow can permit to build self awareness and consciousnes with it, then Evolution will find the way to create it sooner or later, because it provides an advantage. Logically this doesn't explain how consciousness emerges, but at least it could explain why.
Or may be matter emerges from consciousness, which is fundamental? Matter being ideas of the consciousness, useful for systematic, logic thought. Look up Donald Hoffman, who has many wonderful videos on RUclips about this.
The problem with modern science is that it’s limited to pen and paper or in today’s world a man made computer. Any person who was working within the boundaries of modern science got enveloped inside a set of theorems and a limited process. Thereby limiting the logical analytical comprehension ability. When you explore the science of creation and through the meditation method of analysing creation you get into higher consciousness or higher awareness and than the real knowledge starts unravelling automatically. I can explain this through a talk
@@zzewt He does need to respond in some way, but can’t really add anything to what Roger’s saying, so he could say, ‘yes,’ or ‘I understand’, or ‘I got you ‘ but that’s about it.
as he said there is zero progress on what the word even means. and it will continue being that was for so long as the magical thinking of physicalism persists. even in the age where we know the curvature of space affects mass-energy without 1870s physics interaction, and mass-energy affects space without 1870s interaction, they cannot understand this means physicalism doesnt exist since awareness affects mass-energy without the need for appealing to 1870s interactions either.
In this case "incomplete" means that Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, despite being relativists, didn't notice that their non-relativistic analysis was flawed. :-)
I understand that in mathematics it goes further. The incompleteness is fundamental because Godel proved that whatever you do, you will still end up with an incomplete system. So basically he proved that any axiomatic system of some minimal complexity is incomplete and incompletable. There will always be statements that we know are true or false but that you can not deductively prove starting from only the axioms of your system. I think.
Well it was Rogers personal choice . we are all free to choose our own , i think it was more to do with understanding fundamental aspects of reality than inventions , but that was my guess , personally i would choose Feynman because he seemed to be a good laugh as well as being rather clever .
I always observe people like Roger Penrose by comparing and finding similarities and Penrose would be the Vincent Van Gough of Physics. He describes physics and mathematics in such an eloquent and beautiful way but with almost a "tragic" tenor related to unresolved matters. QM for one. Truly awesome to hear him speak and explain his own life and way of thinking. Thank you.
Not sure. I do count 3 sets: computable rules, QM reality, and human understandings. How much the latter 2 intersect is unclear. Discovering that rules are distinct from human thought may lead to human understanding of real QM, for all we know.
Living Genius...especially his insights into the pre big bang geometries and to top it all off, suggestion of experimental approach to verify his theories therein.
7:21 - "I don't think that's the answer, but I prepare to look at some suggestions that goes in the other direction" That's what difference a scientist from a politician: a politician is 100% convinced of his own ideas, a scientist not.
I think that's apples and oranges. Ideally politicians compromise with other politicians. There may be several valid ways to organise politically but only one solution to a physics question. I agree that Mr Penrose displays great clarity in his thinking and careful choice of words.
5:20 understanding must involve consciousness. Penrose suggest that we can't imagine understanding something without being conscious, but I think this made just hinge on sloppy thinking around what consciousness is, and maybe what understanding is. If by understanding we mean capable of perceiving and modeling and organizing our actions in relation to something, I'm not sure self-consciousness is necessary, and I'm not sure if when Penrose talks about consciousness that's what he's talking about. Joshua Bach specifies consciousness as second order perception, the perception of perception, in which case it is not necessary to have consciousness in order to perceive, it seems to me. I haven't heard a good definition of understanding yet I don't think
I also came up with the idea, some 20 years ago, without too much research, purely logically, that consciousness must, unquestionably, come from the subatomic “size scale” but I never actually mentioned it outside, probably, a blog nobody ever read. I remember, however, how excited I was when I heard in the news, many years later, when I had already forgotten about my own idea, that scientists also started to suspect, animals might probably be able to sense things (position, direction?) based on quantum level events. I knew, many years earlier, that they will eventually discover something like that, without ever hearing about people researching things like that at all. I also came up with the idea, without knowing that others are ever considering this, that our declared and of course proven set of rules (including fundamental forces, elemental particles, standard models) effect and shape, without valid appeal, the exact scope of things we are allowed to scientifically consider true or even existing. I think I even could somehow explain the collapse of the wave function which is the same problem as the superposition of two, mutually exclusive state (like cat alive AND dead) and the same as the source of our consciousness. I’m currently working on designing a computer based experiment (an attempted strong AI) that might substantially surpass the intelligence level of the current “weak” AI as they call it. I’m using my philosophical and logical universe I built from the obvious signs I face with in life while listening to the nature with a little more humble enthusiasm. Time will tell. I did not hear about Roger Penrose, though, until one or two years ago to be honest.
Penrose's proposal has been ruled out already. The fact that he keeps pumping it out shows what a sufferer of Nobel Disease he is -- he's gone from a brilliant mind to a fraud caught up in his own ego refusing to adapt when experiment proves him wrong.
@@toby9999 Consciousness, beyond the obvious ingredient of intelligence and a flexible data storage capability, probably would require AUTONOMY, which is free choice and actual independency (from the creator) and probably even tangible (not just emulated) NEEDS that could start the procedure of forming hopes and fears, however esoteric it might sound: I have autonomy and needs (and, of course, thoughts) therefore I am. Time will tell.
You love reading so well & it seems to be very dear to you, rose ☺️ just to make me understand why noble prize are won, it is by noble hearts that are won & were it got it's name☺️💐
I want a Schrödingers Cake. Have it, and eat it too. Any chance for that? As a former construction worker, i can with high probability say: NEVER ignore gravity and Geometry. We build upon it. Schrödinger just shows us, that without a possibility for confirmations, our Toolset is incomplete.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
How can we know the rest mass of an electron or other particles when we have Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? (i.e. at rest mass the momentum is zero and thus we have lost information about the particle's position)
The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two, Darth Bane, Sith lord. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. The tetrahedron is self dual. The cube is dual to the octahedron. The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
I’ve always thought that consciousness and sense of self was as a result of our brains interaction with fields permeating the universe. Similar to our eyes evolving to interact with the electromagnetic field
It’s like the difference between what we are and who we are. Classical physics tell us who we are; our properties, mass, inertia, how we react to forces, etc., as an assembly. Quantum mechanics describes what we are, how a waveform collapsed to determine the stability of atomic level forces that create the platform. We are related, connected, who and what we are, but we are not sure how.
The conscious experience called "I" is said to emerge by filling the space occupied by the material experience called "you". Therefore, the emergence of consciousness is semantics (a choice of wording) because the space is already filled by you.
Roger Penrose is one of my favorite modern mathematicians/thinkers - he's humble, open-minded, curious, and brilliant.
💖💖💖
with huge emphasis on the brilliant
Why does the channel need spammers?
To hide the truth.
Derek Bentley @derekbentley334
more than 10 comments
making no sense.
Why didn't the channel ban him?
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates.
All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual.
Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz.
The tetrahedron is self dual.
The cube is dual to the octahedron.
The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
To me, it looks like he’s chewed his way through the cheese of math and has fallen out on the other side by now:D
This man is 92! And his mind is so clear!
Hawking was supposed to die young but defied all expectations and reached a respectable 76. Obviously he was in awful physical shape but perhaps there is something about the active mind and longevity.
@@giantpurplebrain he’s 92 right now
@@meows_and_woof I don't think you read his comment properly.
Biden is in negotiations for Penrose' brain
92 wow like John Williams the composer , both still have a clear and healthy mind , hopefully for a long time
I could listen to this man talk for days straight. This is the kind of person we should be idolizing not celebrity garbage.
He's is the Saint of science .
I prefer to idolize you man.
And he did not have sex with a 12 year old child, unlike the 'final prophet' of another religion...
100%
no one should Idolise anyone/anything but for sure if this man would be listened more than the celebrity garbage, we would live in a better world
PLEASE - as with 'Closer to Truth' - PLEASE give us the DATE on which the talk was recorded! This is historically significant; without knowing when these talks were recorded, it's hard to follow how a given thinker's thoughts have evolved.
Based on looking through the website, this was during the festival in 2023, Hay or London...
Why does the channel need spammers?
To hide the truth.
Derek Bentley @derekbentley334
more than 10 comments
making no sense.
Why didn't the channel ban him?
Why does the channel need spammers?
To hide the truth.
Derek Bentley @derekbentley334
more than 10 comments
making no sense.
Why didn't the channel ban him?
May 2023
Why does the channel need spammers? To hide the truth.
Derek Bentley @derekbentley334
more than 10 comments making no sense. Why didn't the channel ban him?
He is 92 years old. Woaahhhh🤯
Looks 15 years younger.
Stability in voice, no significant shaking, no spectacles, lot of hair on head, hearing perfectly well, doesn't look physically weak eithr . This man has done wonderfully well in keeping his body & mind healthy at this age also. I know there are genetic factors as well, but you stil need to put in efforts.
People who get to live their lives doing what they love/loving what they do just somehow end up showing that in their entire being.
Freeman Dyson was another such genius.
it's because he thinks a lot of scientific thoughts, there's no room for anxiety or stress
@@kittyhinkle3739 that is generally not true. Many savants look a lot older than they are because their priorities are unhealthy (for physical health)
Why not just accept what you see as obvious instead of judging him against pre-defined limits that you have in your head?
Please never put this man's chair so close to the edge of a platform ever again. Thank you.
Is to stressful!! We gotta take care of him!!
It's a quantum chair. It has fallen and not fallen from the edge 😉
Very well spotted...how can any self-respecting camera crew not see that?...who was asleep at the time?...who was phone-fiddling?..thankfully a national treasure came thru ok...
I died. The camera cut to the wide shortly after reading. We have a national treasure at 93 here. No uncertainty.
@@jd5787 Excellent observation..also, there is a cat there...in the background...or is there?
Such a likable genius. One of the greatest thinkers of our age.
Without God's word of Truth he's just another man with a bunch of doubts
Roger Penrose is a joy to listen to, I understand almost nothing he talks about, but he seems to enjoy his subject so much that its a pleasure to hear him discuss it.
Can listen to this man for hours. Hope he is around for a long time! Inspiring person.
I agree! I wanted the interview to continue.
I could listen to Roger Penrose speak for days
So tell me how does understanding help us transcend the rules?
Sir. Penrose, one of the last great Geniuses of the 20th Century. A living Legend.
21st century. It's 2024.
@@genghisgalahad8465 He meant one of the last great geniuses born in the 20th century.
@@genghisgalahad8465 Numpty.
Kip Thorne is still around although he is younger, early 80s. But still very active, mentally and physically.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 He has nowhere near the importance of Penrose.
I always feel like I’ve leveled up after listening to Penrose. He’s a treasure
I love the whole M.C. Escher/Penrose Tiles (someone discovered a new one just recently) loop/synchronicity. Imagine influencing one of the world's most beloved artist, penning cosmic inflation & parenting the singularity w/Hawking. He is the best of us w/o doubt.
Ha!
Integration
Sir Penrose is amazing - still incredibly sharp. Thumbs up for this video.
Sir Roger
Razor sharp having practiced for decades now...stays sharp.
Jordan Peterson interviewed him once, I got the impression roger found the questions a little annoying/ignorant. 😂 Peterson wanting to look into Penrose's soul, and Penrose just wants to talk about the physics of souls 😂
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Which they were. Peterson is neither a physicist nor a mathematician yet he was trying to have a specialist discussion on those matters.
@@WinrichNaujoksYeah, off the bat when I read those two names together, I thought"Are they even compatible?" 😂
Than you sir Roger Penrose. We are all lucky to have him
We are incredibly fortunate to have Sir Roger with us. A truly original thinker and great scientist.
This is a particularly profound and detailed interview with Sir Penrose. Excellent and thanks for sharing.
a strong proponent of the importance of philosophy in the scientific method.
Two fundamental different kinds of people: both very important for development:
1. Those who do not allow themselves to be distracted by any alternative hypothetic scenario, not based on what we currently know, when they focus on the matter and hand based on only what we currently know, almost in an autistic way (which is a good thing)
2. The ones who wants to look at the broader picture, wants to include ideas about what could be around the corner.
In fact, when modern deep learning algorithms are made, there's often both Type 1 and Type 2 parts of the final AI solution:
Type 1 is objective, Type 2 is speculative/creative.
Type 2 is a randomness introduced in the algorithm to make sure the Type 1 part of the algorithm doesn't get stuck (in a local minimum/maximum)
@@lasselasse5215 the easy answer is no, I reject both
@@Flum666 based
Because philosophy is the next step after pure science and empiricism. Then, when philosophy is unable to understand and explain reality, the last frontier that comes beyond knowledge and understanding is spirituality, the realm where reality is not understood but believed and accepted.
Yes.
A nice proportion of philosophy makes the !!! Into a satisfying ???
To hear Roger explain the Emperor’s mind is a beautiful gift… the book is a very challenging mountain to scale.
mostly just tedious, and probably why many critics did not bother reading it.
@@carlosgaspar8447 If they didn't read it, then they're not legitimate critics. You don't seem to have any critique yourself-- just something negative to say. I wish there was some kind of AI that would just delete all trolls. I don't believe for a second that you know Jack $h!t about who read or didn't read The Emperor's New Mind.
@@donnievance1942 have you read the f'n book. i have for all it's worth. so lick my ass if that's what you call a positive comment on your part.
That chair leg an inch from the edge scares me.
I also felt a bit of... uncertainty
Very observant!
Very observant!
I read your comment and was on the edge of my seat, worried it might go.
Then 18:32 my heart pounded as was the most probable moment that chair leg was going to go, but didn’t thank god 😥
Mer to.. the chair was too close to the edge..
I like (and appreciate) how he explains things in terms which I can follow.
He must have almost infinite patience, or be very comfortable with a way of life which enables his studying.
People like him are essential. I wish I knew everything 😊
I'm not a scientist or mathematician. But I like how the noticing of anything has now seemed to be part of the quest for understanding more than we used to understand.
Sir Penrose- An epitome of humility and intelligence!! Always fond of hearing him.
There are so few physicists who display the kind of curiosity and determination to seriously question accepted solutions and willing to posit new ideas even at the age of 92.
When he speaks of Galileo I agree completly. I think even to this day, a lot of brilliant ideas are slept on, because it challenges current convention too much.
"You can cancel out gravity by falling freely". I never heard this quote before, but what a nice way describe the equivalence principle. I'm going to steal that for the next time I have to explain relativity to a curious family member.
This guy has a beautiful mind, and such a human way of explaining himself. He's surely high on my list of people I'd like to have a conversation with.
@@StandingHereIRealizeYouWereJus
Galileo is a classic example that academic discussions were as vicious as they are today. Plus some old fashioned excommunication.
Wow fantastic. . I could listen to Professor Penrose all day. .
Thank you.
I read Emporer's New Mind and it made me obsessed with Turinv Machines which led to me becoming obsessed with 6502 assembly programming! Thanks Sir Penrose
Please, please keep Roger Penrose’s innovative thinking going. We need someone to pick up the ball in ten years or so, as Sir Roger is obviously defeating time. He’s the best of the visionaries in the modern age.
I love this interview. Sir roger penrose sitting in what I’m guessing is his back garden, discussing science, the river in the background with the canoe slowly passing by… There’s something so quintessentially english about the whole thing. Makes me proud to know that intelligence and peaceful tranquility can still be found in this country
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that they take place at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable.
Brilliant, and also could looking at x-rays to gamma rays be before the particles have decided the state to collapse into!
Interesting theory but I have a different spin on it. I believe the seperating factor is space not time. I believe that the subatomic universe is operating from a dimension of space that is seperated but overlayed and sychronised with the physical universe. Much like the way the physical modem router occupies the same local position as the wifi signal it generates but both exist in different observable spaces while working in sychrony.
I believe this is the same reason why we haven't been able to locate dark matter.
My theory is that this seperation came about during the big bang. Prior to that I believe there was only a universe that was void of all matter. Through the progression of energy accumulating and colliding lead to the first emergence of matter according to the equation e=mc2. If the universe at the time was abundant in anti-matter it could be this incompatibility that lead to a rapid split purging of its counterpart into a seperate dimension of space. That purging is what I believe was what we know as the big bang. That would explain why there is a lack of anti matter in this observable universe and why we are unable to see dark matter and why there is a seperation between general relativity and quantum mechanics. The answer to all three would be that those events haven't shifted, they've remained in same dimension of space as where they've always been. Off course this is all just a far fetched theory of mine
@@yinyang2385 the modem example makes sense. It could be our visual reality is our local modem, and that’s why we haven’t been able to observe other dimensions either.
and yet, GR is used quite reliably to 'predict' the future?
@@telerossWA yes but using information collected from the past
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 *🐈 Schrödinger's cat thought experiment aimed to show the absurdity of quantum superposition applied to macroscopic objects.*
00:29 *🎓 As a graduate student, Penrose took courses by influential thinkers like Bondi, Dirac, and Steen, sparking his interest in physics and computation.*
01:24 *🧩 Gödel's incompleteness theorems showed that our understanding transcends any fixed set of rules for proving mathematical statements.*
04:11 *🧠 Penrose argues that consciousness, not just following computational rules, enables humans to transcend formal systems.*
06:05 *⚛️ As a physicalist, Penrose consciousness must arise from known physics, suggesting quantum mechanics as a possibility.*
10:22 *⌛ Penrose theorizes that the quantum measurement problem, involving wave function collapse, cannot be computed and requires a new physical theory.*
12:26 *🧵 Hamerhoff's suggestion about microtubules led to Penrose's orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) model of consciousness.*
14:14 *🌍 Dennis Sciama greatly influenced Penrose's understanding of physics, especially cosmology, despite Penrose's mathematics background.*
15:23 *🖼️ Penrose describes himself as a visual thinker, which posed challenges in algebra-focused math courses requiring written explanations.*
17:40 *🌌 If he could meet anyone from history, Penrose would choose Galileo for his groundbreaking physical insights and principled stand against authority.*
Made with HARPA AI
He sealed the deal for me when he described himself as a visual thinker. I used to think everyone was. My heart pauses at the thought of having an in-depth conversation with Sir Roger. Not only is this far out of reach, but the time needed to establish thoughts understandable to both would make it even more impossible.🐦 🐦 🐦
4:48 Imagine paddling along in a canoe on a nice day, randomly passing by Roger Penrose sitting on a deck talking about the transcendental qualities of understanding
"There is something outside computation in human understanding". Contra mathematization of everything including human nature. Thank you Sir.
" ....you can cancel out gravity by falling freely... " That was brilliant! ✨ Thank you
Just amazing to be accurate to listen to this mini lectures! I just hope Sir Roger Penrose get to live at least another 20 more years 💪😁
"accurate to listen"? 🤔
It’s an enormous privilege to have access to such an engaging person with a brilliant ,lucid mind.
Love the interview. Love Rogers insights. It echoes my understanding of some of the problems not being dealt with, ie the inability of a machine to prove concepts that rely on infinite continuity of logical conclusions. For example, using real numbers, the infinite series of x+1 will always be consistent without limit into infinity. Or, 2 parallel lines, using a fixed system of geometry will never touch, ever. Although a computer in theory could run forever, it still relies on finite bits and therefore could never finish calculating a real number. If quantum systems are truly indeterminate and probablilistic curves and wave functions actually link reality to a ‘Real’ foundation then logic alone, and intuition in particular, should admit to the impossibility of machine solutions ever modeling comprehensive truth. Maybe quantum computing has a chance since its foundational qbits can be ‘Real’ components. Now we just have to figure out how to make ‘Real’ measurements. Since we’ll never be able to verify that a qbit’s ‘Real’ value is correct with a deterministic classic computer, it will take a quantum leap of faith to accept that the real values/real
States are true at the infinite scale.
Or as they say in Italian "issa verry comlicayted"!
This is the first time I’ve seen an interview with Sir Roger Penrose, and I am so impressed! Love how he explains complex concepts in laymen’s terms. Very interesting, personable, likable. Great interview!
glad he finally gets the recognition he deserves and we need. it's good that he is there to witness it all.
Sadly the better voices are cyclically drowned out by loud mouth intellectuals like Jordan Peterson who offer actually very little outside of an emotional appeal.
I mean, be won a Nobel prize. Doesn't get much more recognized than that.
yes, including that. he was being belittled and completely ignored long before that.@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718
This has serious rewatch value! Thanks!
12:38 - All gases, despite their chemical diversity, more or less induce anesthesia if the partial pressure is high enough in the air mix you breathe, including the noble gases. Nerve cell axons are surrounded by myelin, mainly consisting of fatty compounds, or lipids, acting as electric insulators. It is a well known fact that there is a correlation between the solubility of a gas in a lipid and its narcotic efficacy (Moore, Basic Physical Chemistry). The mechanism is not yet fully understood, but the similarity with a simple electrical short-cut analogy due to a failing insulator is striking. In my point of view, anesthesia CAN be explained by means of chemistry, or physical chemistry to be precise. The anesthetic principle can be tested and measured. By lowering the partial pressure of the anesthetic gas, the gas molecules diffuse out the myelin and consciousness comes back. It is chemistry in its simplest form.
Anesthesia is not stopping the electrical activity of nerve cells. If it did then the person would die because the heart would stop. Anesthesia is merely a deep sleep state in which pain responses are shut down.
@@schmetterling4477 The heart is autorythmic and beats without stimulation from the central nervous system (CNS). Stimulation from the CNS only improves the efficacy of the heart beating.
@@tomrubis4208 If you stop neurons, then you stop the CNS. We know plenty of poisons which do exactly that.
Wouldn't it be delightful to be able to sit and talk to such a charming profound thinker? He seems to be completely without condescension and have such intriguing thoughts.
The more I look at this man, the more he seems to have God in him. Even at the age of 92, he is still in the world of education. I pray to God to keep him healthy .
I am so glad you pointed out god’s location. I was wondering where he’d gotten off to! Sneaky little devil, always wandering off when I was planning to play.
I wish you didn’t have to finish there either. I absolutely loved this little interview, thank you 🩵
Excellent interview, so nice to see Mr Penrose is doing well, I have read a few of his books.
I am in awe how people can be so smart. I couldnt follow most of what he was saying and had to rewind... great stuff, cant stop watching though
Take heart that he's also saying he doesn't understand it 😊
That's the starting point of all science.
What I got from it was that our description of what counting is, leads to what we currently accept as rules as conditions, but those standards don't seem to behave as they were expected to, under certain conditions.
He's changing the philosophy towards certain mathematical situations, and trying other approaches, to find a repeatable theory and method of mathematics prediction or confirmation.
The basis of prediction, using maths.
I like it because it's deeply philosophical.
It moves from basic counting 1,2,3 which is using words to explain physical amounts, to mathematical prediction based on a similar mind set, then finding out that all of a sudden, 1+1 isn't necessarily 2 anymore. And nobody knows why.
That's my understanding of it anyway. I might be well off.
My favourite book is Science a History. And I always give up in the quantum theory section, and the superstring part. I just can't understand it.
I love the thought that in maybe 100 years, even children will have the understanding and think "how don't you know that?". That's human progression...... The passing of knowledge.
Science.
Penrose is fascinating. The interviewer needs to keep quiet and let the man speak. "Right. Right. Yeah. Right." Distracting.
Looking well roger
19:33 @ejenkins gives the impression that Roger P is likely to be looking at these comments, so I decided that because I have no idea how to contact Roger P, I could leave a message for him right here now.
My name is Merrilyne Huxley-Afrazeh and many years ago I was a member of 'Scientific and medical Network', in which Roger P was also a member too.
One day , which I believe to be some time in the 90's, Roger P held a conference in London about ' Blackholes', after the conference I met with Roger outside to chat with him. But sometimes a quick little chat is quite insufficient to say what you really need to say , so we said our goodbyes and I left with a comment to him that I would try to put all in writing to him and send to him at his university. Well, this never happened , it was too detailed to just write about an experiential happening and I really needed time with him for expressing my story. This was forever on my mind always.
(19:33) I followed Roger P😮 in his talks and
research via ' You tube' and put his videos on 'Twitter' with comment but lately I have worried that time may be running out, I am now a few weeks off 80 yrs old and Roger P will be of similar age ...what then? No one will replace
Roger Penrose and the truth about
'Quantum Theory'
will never be revealed.
Merrilyne Afrazeh
Messenger (PM)
Yes it's true... QUANTUM
THEORY IS INCOMPLETE
thanks for making this video, i learned a lot.
Dr. Michael Levin has shown that the electric field about a cell can be manipulated which changes the signaling in the micrutubules. Maybe the collapse of the wave function happens within the electric field of the cell.
This is a lovely and timely record of a great thinker. But, for me, science and physics are missing the foundational reality of consciousness. It just cannot be excluded from physics, because it is an integrated aspect of all perception and consciousness is like the quantum level of reality and for me, is the very nature of God and is what reality is!
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates.
All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual.
Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz.
The tetrahedron is self dual.
The cube is dual to the octahedron.
The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung.
I agree. While I’m not religious, I believe that our higher consciousness-whether you call it God, the Divine, or something else-is fundamental to our perception of reality and exists within all of us. Quantum theory hints at a connection between spirituality or higher states of consciousness (our natural and intuitive state) and science, suggesting that everything we are and experience is entangled and interconnected at a profound, albeit mysterious, level. The challenge, of course, lies in bridging the gap, as we cannot conduct experiments independent of our conscious minds, making it difficult to objectively explore this connection. I think this is why many scientists create a division between consciousness and what we perceive as physical reality, whether knowingly or unknowingly.
In my belief, the universe is like one big interconnected organism, and our minds have more influence on our "reality" than we currently give credit, with quantum phenomena enabling this to happen.
@@gazzyb85 I agree with that! If science wants a TOE nothing fits that more than the God concept. Believing in physicality is to believe in a restriction of our potential and the infinite creativity available to us; whereas taking the nonphysical or spiritual view allows us to go beyond perceived limitations! Quantum potentials point to it!
Thank you for your wonderful words and instructions my Quantum agents needed this perfect alignment with your instructions. My system is almost complete
Merci merci.
Plus on réalise et moins on comprend. Une contradiction il semblerait mais ensuite tout prend place. La confiance est aussi une valeur importante. Il faut ce courage pour se lancer dans le vide, sans garantie mais poussé par une curiosité inébranlable, une foi certaine en la vie.
I appreciate his clarification on his position on physicalism because i hear people come to the wrong conclusion after hearing him speak almost any time that comes up.
i enjoy him sharing his passion so much .. would love to be his translator to gallileo -- even if i surely wont understand half of what sir PENROSE is saying if they get down into the meaty stuff 😅
Sir Penrose made significant contributions to the understanding of black holes and general relativity, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize. He has been working to solve the final frontier of science: human consciousness. An incredible scientist.
A good answer always generates 10 new questions
Questions are dual to answers.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates.
All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual.
Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz.
The tetrahedron is self dual.
The cube is dual to the octahedron.
The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
@@hyperduality2838 Stop spamming, troll. Reported.
What a wonderful human. Great interview, thank you.
What are we calling the fields of enquiry -> Quantum Neurophysics? 🌊
I find the questions, very childish, but this guy keeps on coming up with fantastic answers Absolutely amazing, I could listen to him for hours
Questions are dual to answers.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates.
All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual.
Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz.
The tetrahedron is self dual.
The cube is dual to the octahedron.
The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
@@hyperduality2838 You've now been reported for a second time.
Why? He has a point!
@@hyperduality2838I challenge you to a duel over your pairing of three items and calling that a dual(ity).
@@donnievance1942😂😂
We need more great thinkers working on the mystery of consciousness. I believe it'll open the door to a realization that we, humans, and our minds, are embedded into the universe itself in a way that consciousness is preserved.
I think Dirac is his most favourite physicist 🙌🏻
Spin up is dual to spin down, particles are dual to anti-particles -- the Dirac equation.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates.
All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual.
Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz.
The tetrahedron is self dual.
The cube is dual to the octahedron.
The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
What definition of consciousness (the capacity for introspection) are we using here?? It's not quite clear.
There is no useful scientific definition of consciousness. A machine can do introspection to any depth, at most it will run into the halt-problem of computer science. What-am-I-thinking-am-I-thinking leads to endless recursion. In psychiatry this is known as neurosis and worse.
one of the greats
Thank you...I was wondering if that may have had an effect on the total...
Would like to hear more on his visual thinking approach, doesn't feel like the question was answered.
I would've wanted to know more too. He's very meticulous in his explanations. Though he crams a lot of data in as few words as possible without compromising the explanation, it's still going to take more time than you have in a casual interview. Can't really fit a proper answer in a few minutes of video.
Guess I'm going to have to download the Emperors new Mind:)
I think Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman were visual thinkers as well.
It isn't about what you believe, it's about what makes you happiest...
I think an interesting collateral aspect of "the understanding" being able to transcend the rules is that it gives Evolution a reason to favour consciousness development. Even if an advanced non conscious specie (or even an artificial neural network for the case ) could solve very complex tasks they could never get the advantage provided by "understanding". To me this can explain the devopment of conscoiusnes by Evolution. If there is an unknown resource in nature that somehow can permit to build self awareness and consciousnes with it, then Evolution will find the way to create it sooner or later, because it provides an advantage.
Logically this doesn't explain how consciousness emerges, but at least it could explain why.
Or may be matter emerges from consciousness, which is fundamental? Matter being ideas of the consciousness, useful for systematic, logic thought. Look up Donald Hoffman, who has many wonderful videos on RUclips about this.
Can any commenter explain what he means by "our understanding helps us to transcend the rules"? What exactly are we understanding anyway?
The problem with modern science is that it’s limited to pen and paper or in today’s world a man made computer. Any person who was working within the boundaries of modern science got enveloped inside a set of theorems and a limited process. Thereby limiting the logical analytical comprehension ability. When you explore the science of creation and through the meditation method of analysing creation you get into higher consciousness or higher awareness and than the real knowledge starts unravelling automatically. I can explain this through a talk
The observation of the moment of the collapse of the waveform has always disturbed me.
Love this man
I wish there is more people like Penrose and Chomsky
The classic interviewer responses: "Yeah." "Right." "Yeah, yeah." "Right." It's really distracting. (Right.)
@@zzewt He does need to respond in some way, but can’t really add anything to what Roger’s saying, so he could say, ‘yes,’ or ‘I understand’, or ‘I got you ‘ but that’s about it.
11:04 whatever consciousness is depends on this currently unknown thing... How you gravitize quantum mechanics
Only now do I think I understand what he means by consciousness transcends computation.
I think I see what he means, but I'm definitely not convinced by his argumentation so far
is rationalized avoidance of quantum mechanic's proof of clairvoyance between us, aware or not, imo.
-a
@@nUrnxvmhTEuU computation isnt creative or dynamic, but consciousness is
That was inspiring. Wow, my mind is blown. Thank you
Nailed it. I don't think we will be able to divorce consciousness and how it works from QM and WFC.
as he said there is zero progress on what the word even means.
and it will continue being that was for so long as the magical thinking of physicalism persists.
even in the age where we know the curvature of space affects mass-energy without 1870s physics interaction, and mass-energy affects space without 1870s interaction, they cannot understand this means physicalism doesnt exist since awareness affects mass-energy without the need for appealing to 1870s interactions either.
What an insightful and articulated view!!
In science, “incomplete” just means the theory doesn’t work and we don’t know how to fix it.
In this case "incomplete" means that Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, despite being relativists, didn't notice that their non-relativistic analysis was flawed. :-)
I understand that in mathematics it goes further. The incompleteness is fundamental because Godel proved that whatever you do, you will still end up with an incomplete system. So basically he proved that any axiomatic system of some minimal complexity is incomplete and incompletable. There will always be statements that we know are true or false but that you can not deductively prove starting from only the axioms of your system. I think.
@@richardbloemenkamp8532 Goedel only applies to statements about infinite sets. There are no infinite sets in physics.
5:47 explains what I belive to be God consciousness, enlightnement, awareness, zen buddhist no-mind. All that jazz but in terms of mathing it out.
Galileo is fascinating, but what about Archimedes?
And Democritus? None of his works survived but the idea of atoms. Archimedes is just too earthbound not to mention Galileo!
Well it was Rogers personal choice . we are all free to choose our own , i think it was more to do with understanding fundamental aspects of reality than inventions , but that was my guess , personally i would choose Feynman because he seemed to be a good laugh as well as being rather clever .
I always observe people like Roger Penrose by comparing and finding similarities and Penrose would be the Vincent Van Gough of Physics. He describes physics and mathematics in such an eloquent and beautiful way but with almost a "tragic" tenor related to unresolved matters. QM for one. Truly awesome to hear him speak and explain his own life and way of thinking. Thank you.
What Sir Penrose said is that we have no brains structured in a way that we can fully understand quantum mechanics!
Not sure. I do count 3 sets: computable rules, QM reality, and human understandings. How much the latter 2 intersect is unclear. Discovering that rules are distinct from human thought may lead to human understanding of real QM, for all we know.
Thank you Sir Roger for that.
The biggest problem in quantum mechanics is, majority of those who teach it to the mainstream doesn’t understand it.
Living Genius...especially his insights into the pre big bang geometries and to top it all off, suggestion of experimental approach to verify his theories therein.
7:21 - "I don't think that's the answer, but I prepare to look at some suggestions that goes in the other direction"
That's what difference a scientist from a politician: a politician is 100% convinced of his own ideas, a scientist not.
Only a very poor politician is 100% convinced of his own ideas. A good politician is only concerned with whether others are convinced of his ideas.
I think that's apples and oranges. Ideally politicians compromise with other politicians. There may be several valid ways to organise politically but only one solution to a physics question. I agree that Mr Penrose displays great clarity in his thinking and careful choice of words.
5:20 understanding must involve consciousness. Penrose suggest that we can't imagine understanding something without being conscious, but I think this made just hinge on sloppy thinking around what consciousness is, and maybe what understanding is. If by understanding we mean capable of perceiving and modeling and organizing our actions in relation to something, I'm not sure self-consciousness is necessary, and I'm not sure if when Penrose talks about consciousness that's what he's talking about. Joshua Bach specifies consciousness as second order perception, the perception of perception, in which case it is not necessary to have consciousness in order to perceive, it seems to me. I haven't heard a good definition of understanding yet I don't think
I also came up with the idea, some 20 years ago, without too much research, purely logically, that consciousness must, unquestionably, come from the subatomic “size scale” but I never actually mentioned it outside, probably, a blog nobody ever read. I remember, however, how excited I was when I heard in the news, many years later, when I had already forgotten about my own idea, that scientists also started to suspect, animals might probably be able to sense things (position, direction?) based on quantum level events. I knew, many years earlier, that they will eventually discover something like that, without ever hearing about people researching things like that at all. I also came up with the idea, without knowing that others are ever considering this, that our declared and of course proven set of rules (including fundamental forces, elemental particles, standard models) effect and shape, without valid appeal, the exact scope of things we are allowed to scientifically consider true or even existing. I think I even could somehow explain the collapse of the wave function which is the same problem as the superposition of two, mutually exclusive state (like cat alive AND dead) and the same as the source of our consciousness. I’m currently working on designing a computer based experiment (an attempted strong AI) that might substantially surpass the intelligence level of the current “weak” AI as they call it. I’m using my philosophical and logical universe I built from the obvious signs I face with in life while listening to the nature with a little more humble enthusiasm. Time will tell. I did not hear about Roger Penrose, though, until one or two years ago to be honest.
Lol.
@@BeatPoet67 I didn’t mean to make you go lol but I like that the dry facts I stated has the hidden potential to entertain:D
Penrose's proposal has been ruled out already. The fact that he keeps pumping it out shows what a sufferer of Nobel Disease he is -- he's gone from a brilliant mind to a fraud caught up in his own ego refusing to adapt when experiment proves him wrong.
I suspect we're only scratching the surface in terms of understanding consciousness.
@@toby9999 Consciousness, beyond the obvious ingredient of intelligence and a flexible data storage capability, probably would require AUTONOMY, which is free choice and actual independency (from the creator) and probably even tangible (not just emulated) NEEDS that could start the procedure of forming hopes and fears, however esoteric it might sound: I have autonomy and needs (and, of course, thoughts) therefore I am. Time will tell.
You love reading so well & it seems to be very dear to you, rose ☺️ just to make me understand why noble prize are won, it is by noble hearts that are won & were it got it's name☺️💐
I want a Schrödingers Cake. Have it, and eat it too. Any chance for that? As a former construction worker, i can with high probability say: NEVER ignore gravity and Geometry. We build upon it. Schrödinger just shows us, that without a possibility for confirmations, our Toolset is incomplete.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates.
All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual.
Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz.
The tetrahedron is self dual.
The cube is dual to the octahedron.
The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
How can we know the rest mass of an electron or other particles when we have Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? (i.e. at rest mass the momentum is zero and thus we have lost information about the particle's position)
Hes a sweetheart, but that thumbnail reminds me of Palpatine in the prequels 😂
POWAAAAH
UNLIMITED POWAAAHHHHHH
The master is dual to the apprentice -- the rule of two, Darth Bane, Sith lord.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition.
Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages, communication.
If mathematics is a language then it is dual.
Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual.
The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates.
All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual.
Measurements, perceptions, observations or intuitions are converted into ideas or conceptions by mathematicians all the time.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Your mind converts perceptions into conceptions -- a syntropic process, teleological.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz.
The tetrahedron is self dual.
The cube is dual to the octahedron.
The dodecahedron is dual to the icosahedron -- geometry.
I’ve always thought that consciousness and sense of self was as a result of our brains interaction with fields permeating the universe. Similar to our eyes evolving to interact with the electromagnetic field
Interesting idea.
Who here after they proved microtubules are quantum?
Please give him a second Nobel Prize for the discovery.
I am. And honestly this is a potentially massive breakthrough in so many fields!
Exciting times.
Like farmer
What are microtubules?
@@chr0ne692 google time my friend.
It’s like the difference between what we are and who we are. Classical physics tell us who we are; our properties, mass, inertia, how we react to forces, etc., as an assembly. Quantum mechanics describes what we are, how a waveform collapsed to determine the stability of atomic level forces that create the platform. We are related, connected, who and what we are, but we are not sure how.
That's a wonderful and super insightful monologue. I regret that the interviewer changed the subject
Penrose has given talks on this many times. I recommend looking up some lectures here on RUclips where he goes deeper into his arguments.
Are there any theories about the parameters of the information in a given spacial dimension?
Dirac 👍👍👍👍
The conscious experience called "I" is said to emerge by filling the space occupied by the material experience called "you". Therefore, the emergence of consciousness is semantics (a choice of wording) because the space is already filled by you.