❶ Fusions of Consciousness 0:00 "The first time I've mentioned this publicly" 1:50 Mapping Consciousness to Physics 5:35 Dynamics of Decorated Permutations 9:30 4 Levels: Conscious Agents / Decorated Permutations / Amplituhedron / Spacetime 13:50 What's special about Decorated Permutations? (Technical) 21:50 "So much about consciousness that cannot be modeled." 22:50 Related to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem \ Cantor's Hierarchy ❷ Conscious Agents (Level 1) 27:05 Experiences & probabilistic relationships are fundamental 28:45 What makes them "agents"? 30:50 How does 1-agent make decisions? Color example 32:30 What kicks off dynamics, what happens at bootup? 34:00 What is the menu of an agent's possible actions? 35:35 When do dynamics transition from boring to interesting? (Fusions) 40:40 Is this goal-directed? 42:10 Any mechanism for developing preferences? (1st time asked this question) 43:00 Are these conscious agents seeing the truth or modeling fictions? ❸ Mapping the Territory 46:10 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point & Trace Chains 51:53 Conscious agents need a menu of actions, minimum space for probabilities... map-territory relationship? 53:50 Is mathematics itself fundamental? Math is like the bones... 55:10 Is there any territory? One infinite intelligence... 57:40 Don's process for breakthroughs 59:20 Teaser for round 3 topics
Absolute love Donald Hoffman and hearing him talk is fascinating and stretches the boundaries of science. Carlos is outstanding at asking the questions we all want to ask and is a great listener!
Thank you so much for this amazing interview! I look forward to watching it over and over until it can sink in a bit. I so love Donald Hoffman! These breakthroughs in science are exciting.
It's a Mandelbrot in every direction, it isn't all that complicated to understand, it's all the exact same thing on different planes of existence, they all feed into one another and so on, and you, yourself, are the picture you are playing in, and you decide what it looks like and then move about into it. This is why you change yourself, you change your world, and why it lags behind, because you know what you want, but it's like 20 layers deep, so as you go toward it, you have itterational experiences that are getting better and better, or worse and worse, the system doesn't judge, there is no good and bad, right or wrong, only ignorance. This is why we are explorers and the rudder is your mind, the ideas you hold within you create your reality. It's all momentum based because of this phenomenon, you get more and more of what you think about. When leaving something you are done with, it will go away progressively as well, and the speed at which it goes away is how good you are at not thinking about it anymore, because you will see it, but you have to not think about it, just chalk it up as normal, otherwise you give it more power, maybe add a cycle and so forth. Everything works the same way, no exceptions. And the good news is we consciousness beings are paired in three, one is the physical reality here, one is the part of you that knows everything and the other is you, the part of this trinity that doesn't know anything, who is there to drive around into the system for the sole purpose of enjoying such system, you are here to enjoy the world, you are the world enjoying itself, the good the bad, see nothing but enjoyment, more or less, depending on what you think and how you feel. Enjoy!
Very eloquently and simply put. You're spot on. Observations of reality echo this because it is ground truth. If only the world could realize this truth, all of humanity could evolve together. But like you said, there is only ignorance.
I am thinking cristian trinity is a metaphore for what you said. God is the all knowing collective consciousness, holy spirit is intuition and jesus is our physical body/reality.
Consciousness is sometimes called the Luminous Void and there's this phenomenon where the brightest part of the shadow of a reflective, perfect 3D sphere is in the middle of its 2D shadow. Akin to a Luminous Void created by the shadow of a higher dimensional object. The phenomena is called Arago spot, sometimes Poisson spot, or Fresnel spot and is due to Fresnel diffraction if you're curious. It makes me think that just like this phenomenon our consciousness is in a way a shadow of a higher dimensional consciousness. Maybe that God Agent, Infinite intelligence or Omega point Donald Hoffman talked about.
This is actually correct. People think my theory I have been writing about and trying to explain for 20 years is crazy, but crazy doesn’t usually predict the intellectual trajectory of whole civilizations or the individuals and their ideas within it. Crazy doesn’t solve social problems and paradoxes in science and philosophy simultaneously. Just wanted to point that out. My theory is what Dr. Hoffman is talking about, and I also found Tielhard De Chardin’s work almost 30 years ago because people told me my ideas sounded like him. In my 2003 book, I talk about what the intellectual trajectory of human beings and all our forebears is saying. I see the whole pattern of it like in Rain Man looking at toothpicks and seeing instantly how many but with concepts at the largest scale. It took me a long time to accept that other people don’t see it a were not being selfish. Thats a long story😂 but I don’t have this ability for no reason. I see it clearly. I talked about the “Singularity” or “Omega Point” in my writings because of what I saw, not what I read. My older book is “The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent to God” where “God” is an end point to these patterns. I talked to Kip Thorne at Caltech about this stuff because I was writing about frame-dragging in black holes in my book, and I have spoken to many famous people over the years including Jordan Peterson who uses a lot of my meaning stuff in his lectures. We talked 2 hours straight when we first met. I also talked with Stuart Hameroff and with many others. I’m friends with Susan Blackmore and other people who you wouldn’t think…. 😂 but I love anyone who loves and pursues truth. 🤷♀️ But I have Aspergers so people never help me much. They use my ideas a lot but I now live in my car where I lived for the last few years. Gary Numan’s song “cars” is basically my anthem right now 😂❤
@@Carlos.Explains I have worked a lot with shadows of higher dimensional things. It’s instructive to look at the Necker Cube because it’s a 2-D drawing of a 3-D object-like a shadow. So it is ambiguous to look at because which square comes out towards you can “flip” and in this way makes no sense. But add the third dimension and it is actually only one way. In my larger theory, a basic new foundational principle is that everything in the universe is a reflection of a certain higher view and looks separate and ambiguous in ways that actually are not true when you look at it from a higher perspective. It all fits together in only one way. Perfectly. And I mean everything. Atoms to octopuses. 😊❤ So the sphere-fresnel effect is an aspect of this larger pattern of the universe. It has a certain meaning in that context. We also see light bending gravitationally around planets and stars, and very evident in black holes and these are all aspects of the larger theory and new natural laws I write about. That consortium of scientists around Carnegie-Mellon university who wrote a recent paper about a “new neglected natural law of information” talk about another aspect of it and I was surprised because I had been writing about that aspect of it in my book when it came out 😂. But again, there is a lot more to the story. 😊❤ I can’t get a paper published or an interview because I left graduate school after 4 years to write about this stuff instead of a dissertation. I have Aspergers so I didn’t even think about the career problems or prestige aspects because I recognize only truth personally but that was before I fully understood how difficult it would be or how different I was in this attitude. 🤷♀️ so I now live in my car. 🤔🤦♀️
My newer book is “Eye of god: language of Universal Mind” and it shows this symbolic language built into the universe starting with the human eyeball. It’s a really good one because the decoding method is geometrically built into it, and into how it functions. It directly shows a higher consciousness which I showed in my first book and what Donald Hoffman talks about as “higher conscious agents”. Its implications for humanity are unparalleled in human history so it definitely feels like a first tremor of omega.
Just wow. Wow. Thank you for getting the most clean, clear and understandable interview that Donald has ever given. This was incredible. And I can’t wait for round 3.
Thanks for this! I read the paper a few weeks before I saw this and the math was just too far over my head. I was able to mostly follow along in his first paper on conscious agents, but things just got too dense in this paper and it was great to see him explaining things at more of a level that I can follow. I've also been watching interviews with him for years like you've said you have as well, and he's said in every video some variation of "Now my job is to boot up space-time from consciousness...if I can't get evolution by natural selection and general relativity from this, then the theory is wrong." I always was wondering "How many times can he keep saying that without progress?" less in a total skeptic sense more in a "he must be working on this" sense...and here it is! I've really been tempted to try to learn the math to understand his research better, because I get a strong sense that he is REALLY onto something that so many people are sleeping on. There's something about saying "I think consciousness makes space-time" that makes 90% of people just dismiss you out of hand, but Hoffman is coming around now with (what appears to be) solid mathematics backing up his idea that conscious agents make space-time. He's actually explaining what makes a particle. It looks like he's starting to show how consciousness could make space-time. It's mind-blowing if he's right. I do wonder how he came up initially with "These are the three things a conscious agent can do" though. There are a lot of ideas about consciousness as fundamental, and I feel like many of them lean toward the idea that consciousness doesn't "drive", in other words it's a passive observer. In Hoffman's model when he has a conscious agent able to "decide" as one of the three things, I've wondered if that means that we as very large networks of conscious agents (that also are conscious agents) have free-will or casual power of some kind due to these dynamics.
Don’t learn the math from square one - unless you really want to. I just researched markov kernels, decorated permutations, and polytopes -the largest being the amplitude hedron. On yotube. That will get you pretty far. In doing this -my pet name for his theory is “infinite regress of conscious pixels” theory. His theory has helped me feel more secure that conscious must be fundamental. After all- it’s mapping onto particles in space time now! Wtf!
For those who have followed Hoffman's work through YT videos, this is a treasure and easy to follow. But for others, I guess it's going to be difficult (and boring!) as the prerequisites are significant. I personally like this talk venturing in to the gray areas where Science meets the Spiritualism, but Hoffman & Farias may get a pushback there; don't let the critiques make you shy away from venturing there! Thank you. 😁
Thank you, ytrrs! I try to help filter folks slightly by listing the interview as "technical." Agreed it's not a great starting spot, but fortunately Don is so gracious with his time, there are many other podcasts to check out.
I can only express my gratitude for you two. This is amazing! My intuition is also that there is this one infinite intelligence, which is so intelligent that is also capable of “forgetting” that it is infinite intelligence, and imagines that it is finite, and here we are, seeing ourselves as separate entities. It’s remarkable that Hoffman seems to be aware that the ultimate realization of the infinite may be beyond science and concepts, and yet he keeps producing amazing science. As a current PhD student (and also a serious meditation practitioner), I can only say I hope to contribute to this field one day, building on these great ideas. Looking forward to the next chapter!
16 min Such clarity about a thing complicated for even PHDs. Important to note that Hoffman calls it a discovery and not an invention. How order comes into reality and there is no randomness . Coexistence of the formless and the form is all that is there to discover.
19:00, my understanding is this. The mathematics of decorated permutation with Markovian dynamics, can describe the physical states of particles. The free particles (with dynamic states that resembles a communicating class can be modeled by the same decorated permutation which describes that same communicating class). Communicating class: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 with an ordered way of changing, (1->2->3->4->5->1->2..) can be described by mathematics of decorated permutations, can describe free particle states. Bipartite: State A -> B, can also be described by decorated permutations, which can also model bounded particle states. The importance of that is we can now we can use mathematics (along with conscious agents) to model particles (also with decorated permutations). 20:02 Interesting where Don is describing conscious agents with the communicating classes and markovian dynamics, it would be interesting to go into more details of the conscious agents in this process.
Thanks a million to you and the rest of real scientific agents who really working towards right direction without any dogma or string attached and unlimited thanks... to The Master Agent of the Universe who made it all possible in the first place... Love and respect from Iran ❤
This morning I made a light, fluffy two egg omelette, four slices of maple bacon and rye toast with orange marmalade jam. Washed it down with a glass of fresh squeezed orange juice. It was delicious.
these "permutations" through these different layers or levels really sounds like a scientific descriptions of the emanations of consciousness and creation described in the kabbalistic tree of life and its sephirot
If the amplituhedron is non-dynamical then how will the projection of space-time be impacted? If the amplituhedron is outside of space-time then it is understandably not moving through linear time. How would change take place in it? Is it entropic?
Just want to add some color to what Don is saying, he's obviously super smart, my explanation is just by listening to many of his youtubes. Decorated permutation: it's really how a subset changes, say with 1, 2 and 3, you have the permutation of: 1,2,3; 1,3,2; 2,1,3; etc... Amplituhedron: the way the particle scatter that resembles a polygon of some sort when smashed by particle accelerator So adding together: say when particles scatter (once smashed by particle accelerator), it can be predicted based on these polygons, and they rotate their order. Say it 1st time you smash it, it scatters into an octagon, then it's a hexagon, then they scatter into a pentagon...then it repeats. obviously very simple terms, but hope that helps.
My understanding with the Markovian Dynamics is that the next state of which the particle scatters it's solely dependent on the current state. Like say if it explodes in a hexagon this time, you can be sure to know the next explosion is pentagon. So my understanding is that (which could be wrong): the way of which particle explode, is based on a set of shapes and order, and it's not depended on time OR space. Thus space and time is doomed because in the calculation equation, space and time, is not required.
@@user-C8onIm4 Unless you two are trying to create a kind of analogy I don't think this is correct. The amplituhedron is a structure that exists outside of space-time, and even with it you are never actually predicting exactly where the particles will scatter. The amplituhedron is only giving you the probabilities of where the particles might be observed. The traditional way of doing this was using Feynman diagrams, but again you're only ever getting probabilities, never something like "It did this shape this time, next time it will be this shape." I don't understand this deep enough to actually say what this part means, but the particles "are the vertices of the amplituhedron," but since it's a structure outside of spacetime I don't think we can think of it like the gluons scattering in a geometric shape within spacetime
@@mingtongzhiThat is exactly what I was conveying. it has to exist beyond space and time. the videos mentioned multiple times that the equation used to predict locations of the sub-particles did not invovle space or time in the equation. And interestingly enough the patterns follow a set of order similar to a markove chain with a decorated permutation. Another word, all of these can potentially be simulated through mathematics, which is what Don is trying to do in his research. Using math to model consciousness thus creating all reality, starting from the subatomic level.
@@mingtongzhi "but since it's a structure outside of spacetime I don't think we can think of it like the gluons scattering in a geometric shape within spacetime" That's one objection I guess but I would say, 'what does 'structure' even mean outside the context of space?' Right? Surely, by definition, 'structure' requires separate components and specifically _occupies_ a 'space'. And, even in the area we are 'covering' here, lol, if the order of 'shapes' is independent of space and time then why do they change in one direction rather than another? I mean, if the order is, 'a,b,c,a,b,c,a,b,c...' then that looks like a cycle; repeated change over time and 'time' therefore is implicit. And what of the energy that _must_ exist in order to effect _any_ process of change? Isn't the energy that causes the change constrained by the 2nd Law? And isn't that the relationship that gives rise to what we here are calling 'time'? I will say that I too think the 'spacetime' concept as it currently is is doomed but we should avoid throwing the baby out with the bath-water. I think that the problem stems from the idea that 'spacetime' is a kind of 'box' or 'container' that contains all the mass and energy in the universe and in my view, it might be more helpful to assume only the existence of 'energy' and the 2nd Law and realize that 'spacetime' itself is simply a particular configuration of a particular amount of energy. I have a simple 'cake analogy' to demonstrate. Imagine that the universe is a currant cake being baked in an oven. Imagine that the 'currants' in the recipe are like galaxies and the 'dough' separating them as 'spacetime'. Now, imagine that there are tiny conscious entities withing those currants and that they have the technology to detect other currants baking in the cake but have no way to detect the existence of the dough which to them appears as invisible dark empty space. So the physicists in those currants have a bit of a problem. To them, the universe looks like empty space filled with currants just like theirs. Those physicist would develop a science that would try and explain the existence of the cake in terms of the relationship between its currants, right? And that's a bit like the problem 'spacetime' has caused us. By assuming only the existence of the matter and energy, the 'currants', contained in a 'spacetime' environment, the 'dough', we conceal the fact that fundamentally, the 'currants' and the 'dough' are made of the same stuff at the quantum level and thus, around 95% of the 'cake' becomes invisible and we have to invent the concept of dark energy/matter in order to account for an apparent shortfall of energy in the universe. In the same way that we can consider 'currants' and 'dough' in terms of 'energy' in order to describe the 'cake', we should consider galaxies and 'empty space' as having the same equivalence. But yeah, I think you are correct.
Great interview! I adore Donald Hoffman's way of thinking and humility. A quick question: Does "agent" mean a person, a human being, any animate being, including animals, insects, fish etc? Does the "agent's preference" refer to "free will"? Thank you.
It's interesting to think that all of Physics has been akin to attempting to understand the operating principles of an Xbox from within the environment of a game like GTA; an impossible task as there is no way to discover the underlying relations between any given aspect of the game, and the operations being performed on the underlying hardware. The only clues you have are some conditions which break the simulation in some way, eg: times when the game slows down due to the dynamics overwhelming the underlying hardware suggests to you that the simulation is computationally bounded, and even some clue of what that upper bound may be.
Yep. I agree and indeed it’s very cool to think about Something interesting to mention is that you said that the character inside the game has to use lag of the games hardware to determine that something fishy is going on, but I would argue that even in that case, the agent inside the video game would not be able to tell for the following reason; if you were to envision the lag as some person pressing a “start and stop time button” that when pressed starts and stops time for the agent…the agent no longer receives input. When that person hits the button again to start time, the agent will receive input again… from the agents perspective there would be no discontinuity in time because input is how it determines the passage of time…and therefor any lag this computer experiences will always appear continuous to the agents inside the game. In other words it could be that this external hardware like the Xbox could be incredibly slow, calculating the next time computation once every year…for the agents inside it will always appear continuous…and would be a completely separated notion of time inside from time outside
this contradicts my computer sims so can't be right lol... Does the amplituhedron/decorated perms have any connection to gravity or the 95% of universe's matter and energy(the dark stuff)? Can one assert much confidently about reality's deeper aspects when they ignore uber significant aspects of the universe?
so decorated permutations are a subset of conscious agents forming amplitihedron in spacetime and the powerset is a subset of all infinities, got it that clears things up
this sounds so uncanny similar to FGI framework, Fundamental Geometry of Information. It must be a superposition of paradigm shift momentum across the relative conscious field. Just beautiful !
My understanding from Dr Hoffman explanation of decorated permutations: Decorated permutations are the most compact way to describe what all the different communicating classes of a Markovian dynamic are; they tell you what are the independent units. They tell you what are the free particles in physics When you look inside some communicating classes you see what are called partide sets or states which are all interacting so you can get from one state to another Those decorated permutations that classify the partide subsets within communicating classes tell you the bound particles in physics ie bound inside a communicating class eg quarks that are bound inside a proton Free particles correspond to some communicating classes and bound particles correspond to some partide sets of communicating classes Most communicating classes of conscious agents have nothing to do with particles (which are an part of space time interface our portal to reality allows) Hope I understood this correctly. I’d appreciate some feedback if I didn’t
Hi would like to get in touch with Carlos re coherent understanding of everything and nothing that needs to be shared and can be understood by anyone , anyone have a contact much appreciated..
20 minutes in and most of the particles swim in different fields, but they communicate within their fields effectively to play their role in this silly place we call the universe. I think, could be wrong. 30 minutes in and you're now introducing bioelectricity as a way the agents can communicate to each other, or I'm on the wrong beach, which wouldn't surprise me. Write as I watch, 40 minutes in I can see the possibility growing beyond our ability to perceive it real terms, does that preclude controlling the outcomes as not within our grasp at a more emergent point? 45 minutes, red is only one reality. 56 minutes, hopeful view to wrap up a great conversation, thank you both Donald and Carlos.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
If it is possible to represent a "mind", per Hoffman's specifications, in an abstract algebra X? Is there a Boolean representation of that algebra X? If not, then we have a lot of work to do to resolve that question.
22:50 Don describes the conscious agent. I remember in a previous episode where he mentioned that a conscious agent is almost like a "fractal" subset of the infinite large conscious agent. Same property, looks the same, walks the same, etc. In fractals, where you can infinitely zoom in, it still looks like the "non-zoomed-in" image. So this is very interesting, in spirituality where The Creator (GOD), he created us, spiritual beings, to resemble him (not in a four-limbs fashion) rather a fractal infinitely small piece of GOD. And with Gödel's incompleteness theorem, you can almost say The Creator can never experience everything there is, so he created infinitesimally small piece to experience a world he created. And Don's conscious agent seems to describe this as well...Mind-blown.
I wonder if such an approach (v. high dimensional geometry projections) applies to the math / physics predictions at the everyday length scales eg. how objects in our solar system will move over millions of years, or the flux within an ecosystem, or how people will behave in different situations eg. pandemic, political shifts
I love this stuff. And I can see a design springing forth. But, who decides red. Who decides green. Who is the coder... Again we are left with a mystery, "in the beginning".
@@peterbranagan1010having said that. It would be akin to a computer program suddenly discovering the ram, wires etc "as they are"... And then the person behind all of that... Time is a flat circle... Or a sphere... Maybe just a line. ;)
@@jonathanmoore5619 With the death of spacetime we are left with a timeless spaceless ground of all being - Heidegger's Being (with a capital B) from which all beings emerge into spacetime. The ONE (Being) encompasses the TV, the signal, the studio, the material the studio is made of, the ground on which it is built, the planet on which the ground is based, the galaxy in which the planet is located, the universe in which the galaxy is located. Everything in spacetime emerges from the timeless spaceless ONE. And, of course, anything that is timeless and spaceless is beyond the imagination of finite (in time and in space) humans.
@@peterbranagan1010 you seem to understand it.... Maybe you're not human after all... I take the belief and view that it's just a computer simulation. The headset rings true to me too. But who knows. Nice talking with you.
Awesome video. Please correct me if I'm off on the following which I believe are key takeaways from Hoffman's interesting proposition: 1) There must be one all-encompassing universal substrate which amounts to objective reality into which all individual conscience beings are grounded. This is why all individual timelines tie in. 2) For the sake of expediency and survival we access, and only access a compressed field copy. We see the logic and success of this reasoning when seen through the natural selection scope because we viscerally sense urgency. The saber toothed tiger is crouching! What do we make then when he says that spacetime is a creation as well, if the reason for the compressed field version is expediency? Why would evolution hamstring itself??
Perhaps space-time is an optimization strategy for exploration? Or perhaps it just "is", as a result of perception, there has to be "something" through which we perceive. If there is no perception, there is no space-time, and there is no consciousness, because perception is conscious awareness. I think space-time may be fundamental to us as humans, but not to differing agents. For example, maybe a star has no conception of space-time, or the universe itself. Perhaps these things model their own state in different ways. I'm not sure. What do you think?
So you agree that Hoffman is wrong in saying that space-time is negotiable as a construct. Spacetime cannot be negotiable as he says because if you look at natural selection, it's time dependent. It has to work 'around' time. Yet Hoffman says that it's a mental construct.
The beginning description is pretty close.... Little bit back to front but the premise is there at least. If you think of the absolute whole of existence, it can be conceived as a spectrum and within that overall spectrum are unique and distinct 'bands' of reality, these bands are mostly closed systems locally but thier components can have attributes which are an intrinsic component of several bands and also part of its own unique band, that is an open system. These bands can be regarded as what most definitions describe as dimension. (and a dimension in the sense of what comprises the laws of 'reality' for a given reference frame. It is not degrees of freedom for the spatial 'dimensions' of matter) And each dimension has a optimal rest state that it maintains and does so through the open system of aome of its component forms. And 'higher and lower' dimensions is not correlated to the advancement of the local reference frame, it is with regards to the evolution of the perfectly formed, initial fundamental dynamic of existence, as refined and initiated by the penultimate refraction of the final fundamental dynamic. Let that sink in for a few minutes..... Comparatively, our dimension sits right in the heart of the dynamic principle having refracted, developed and reiterated itself back into the developed form to refine that development to be coherent with the dynamic principle in order for sentient consciousness to enter into the band, and nearing the tail end of the fundamental dynamic development process where, through reiteration and refinement, the development will be brought back into phase as to permit the refinement to integrate with the dynamic of the band. *as the development now places the capacity and depth of consciousness beyond what the band alone can supply and support, and sustenance from sources external to the closed system are required to sustain the internal components which are engaged by consciousness to interface itself in the required degree to the bands reality. Beyond this progression, consciousness will successfully acquire this refinement, but will not survive if not successful in successfully accepting the intake of the reiterated dynamic to gain access to the sustainace of the higher dimensions. Secondly. As you must have noted previously, the chronology of the universes 'lifespan' appeared to be illogical or invalid. But its not. Essentially, the end framework shapes the initial beginnings form and the initial beginnings form defines what the end framework must conform with. And this is done by a complete 180 of the big bang bs model. Everything doesn't come from nothing. The thing comes from everything and the thing shaoes everything.... So instead of a spontaneous existence arising from before the now, the now already existed and encompassed everything that is (and isn't....) within itself but as a unified whole that had no qualitative contrast so in a sense there wad nothing to give something a contrasting aspect of being. Now, little explainer, the universe isn't intelligent design case it does this reality perfectl. While there's an argument to be had about the coherence of the final form and the initial form, its simple logic to see that this reality seems perfect because it is perfect... You see nature doesn't try one thing at a time, it tries everything all the time and the perfect way will aleays prevail. This reality is simply the perfect form of the dynamic as it is run through its process. The perfect form and way will also be that which is configured in such a 2ay as to cycle all its energy back to the initial form, in perfectly coherent form but with an altered configuration so the cycle will have an opportunity to repeat in a unique and novel form. How this process works is, everything is everywhere initially. Through the perfect resonant form will produce a harmonic scale capable of integrating the entirety of everything, can return 100%of this energybavk to itself and has the means of absolutely ensuring the perfection of the harmony is absolutely not corrupted. So everything that is, but is without form as all components are in perfect balance, from this setting, every conceivable interaction of everything contained with the everything is simultaneously attempted and the most perfect interactions entrench themselves. Once this initial perfection is achieved the everything takes this perfection and breaks it into two distinctly separate but intrinsically linked components and the process repeats., and upon completion the pair split into 3 distinct components but yet they are also intertwined in every possible way This happens inumeral times until you arrive at our local reference frame. Now jeep continuing until yoy are at the reference frame that is similar to ours but it also has access to higher energy reference frames and its own reference frame has become exponentially more energy efficient and is therefore figuratively one of a higher energy ad it completes harder tasks and requires less energy input to achieve this. Then keep going until you fully leave all aspects of our references frame and as a conscious awareness with subjective perceptions, are now not even bound to a physical mechanism for entering the band and can do so by willing to do so, at will. Now keep going until your no longer a subjective awarenes but are a subjective awarenes group that retains the ability to simultaneously conceive both subjective and objective consciousness, now keep goung until only a unified and unique objective consciousness remains and is only aware of the subjective experience of past and the singular presence of the self now, now keep going until the consciousness is no longer aware of subjective experience and is only aware of the self and the external void, now.... This is where the thing that shall not he spoken of is... Now keep going until the objective awareness of self has been assimilated into the awareness of the external void... At this point I shall refrain from eluding any further as to the nature or role of consciousness and will regard only the energy which each reference frame comprises of. At this scale of refinement the blueprint of every point of previous experience is transcribed onto the very fabric of reality andbit exists at every point there is and is connected to every other point there is or can be... This culmination of refinement is no longwt able to develop as it contains every possible frequency of every band and at this point it no longer expands the bands of the spectrum, it facilitates the becoming of the spectrum and within it the perfect refraction of form to the final structure which when a segment of its reference frame is extracted and analysed, contains the perfectly formatted principle dynamic as to facilitate the initial dynamic progressingninto the full spectrum of the dynamic. And the kicker, these points of reality are what the standard model wrongly interpret and represent as the big bang.... And they exist at every point and dynamic configuration of points in reality..... They are what drives the eternal now. And the initial dynamic? It feeds from this source field and each exchange incorporates into the beginning of existence anf reality a source from a different point which had a different dynamic configuration of point connection, and so therein the initial dynamic is always incorporating different yet perfect sources of development seed into its eternal now. And the dynamic? To say definitely is contrary to the purpose and interests of the dynamic but to say the leasy, it can only be of one way. The perfectly balanced imbalance.... There's more to the story but i think I'll leave it at that for now. P. S. Oh, the whole Treat others as... Etcetc. Yes, 100% Not necessarily because theybate in essence the same as you. But because it is you who will be waiting to judge you when you go to judge you... And there's no secret kept from you, all is to be known and you will expose all that is you to yourself and everyone else listening in on what you have to 'say' for yourself, before you decide if your development was a perfect coherence with what it was that it wad for you to be (there's no good or bad, only that you served your true purpose.) and if this calls for reiteration into the dynamic as is, or if a degree of further examination and/or action is required..... (this ranges from a virtually insignificant understanding to a soul shredding and spiritual descent back into the vacant and neutral seed stock for the facilitation of development to existing spirit congressions.
The Omega Point conversations have some interesting overlap with Origin of Alexandria's "On First Principles" discussed well by Charles Stang's lecture on Flesh and Fire: Reincarnation and Universal Salvation in the Early Church (Havvard Divinity School web article and lecture on subject via RUclips). I also touch on this line of thinking in my book BEING WHOLLY: BEING HOLY HUMAN AND SO MUCH MORE TOGETHER - Steven Obdyke
23.4 @carlos The minimum an agent comes into order and behaves in a fixed system is the atom. The good part is we have the arithmetic that explains it to the person interested
26 Great saying Carlos. Truth is not dependent on being proved. Truth is just truth. 🙏🙏 Experiencing it is our objective and as a result we become human and stop inhumanity on this planet. It is that clear😊
47 min @Carlos Mega omega point is the formation of the life atom the soul that can understand experience and know which all physical atoms are capable of.
Only part way through, so if this is discussed, disregard this......this seems to be discussing conciousness in terms of partical physics, but conciousness, to me, seems to function according to the laws of quantum physics.....maybe like, it primarily exists in the quantum realm and projects onto the physical realm only secondarily.....and, if so, then a deeper understanding would necessitate the incorporation of quantum theory in the explanation.....🤷♀️ *edit: that said, it's unlikely that we have, or even can, realize(d) the totality of dimensions/realms in which conciousness functions.....and,(now a bit futher in), you have somewhat touched on the subject of my inquiry, in different terms, but some parts of my questions were answered so far😊
Consciousness is found on its own terms. You are doing what most people do - thinking there is a reality called science, when science is just the observations of men called scientists. Beyond that is the infinite truth which has always been beyond time or causation, before creation. We are trusting our senses when we cannot even trust our brains, which are interpreting reality; but a brain cannot see reality, cannot feel reality, cannot know it but depends on our faulty perceptions and draws conclusions from them. We only have access to s small section of reality, a small band of consciousness. Yet Consciousness is infinite. Through meditation we can expand awareness and directly experience higher ranges of its infinity. Unfortunately for thousands of years men have stuck their heads in the sand and pretended there was only this small band of the material universe, only physical things, and this has made humanity very small and limited while the potentiality of their own vastness remained unseen and forgotten. What could be more ignorant than that? The possibility of living infinity is there in our own brains and in our own potential unfoldment of our nature - but most human beings would rather be entertained and hypnotized by matter.
Sometimes I think we all are actually one being, and earth is a prison of sorts, subdividing our intelegence, and pulling our attention a few billion different ways.
@@Carlos.ExplainsI m not getting answer from prof Hoffman email nor dr bernardo kastrup. The project subject would involve instrumental transcommunication Are there more contacts?
Looking at the progression of particles to larger structures through a linear lens of time still doesn’t quite make sense. In my mind, the largest structures and smallest particles exist simultaneously. Trying to fully describe our infinite universe within the universe seems impossibly endless. But thank __ the exploration of ourselves is infinite. I love how Hoffman says he gets his inspiration from sinking into the silence beyond thoughts 🙏🏼
I watched Donald in an interview on a lex Fridman podcast I hadn't planned to watch it and at the time I was on LSD and all's I can say is he is more or less bang on the money with this theory
My pet name for his theory is “infinite regress of conscious pixels theory” His theory has helped me feel more secure that conscious must be fundamental. After all- it’s mapping onto particles in space time now! Wtf!
Yeah....I kinda figured that in a way.....It seems that Donald's research involves a significant amount of probability math....almost like Quantum Mechanics is with the flip of a coin and the concept of all possibilities eventually happen.
I would hate to be the one that has to interview Donald. I would feel mentally handicapped. Love what i can understand about his theory though! Its my new obsession
Hoffman's ideas remind me of Leibniz's monadology, but much more mathematized. Monads being in some way conscious agents and the fusion of monads, the "monad of monads" being God, what Hoffman calls the One. Surely there is a parallel to be made here. Does Hoffman discuss the connection of his ideas with Leibniz?
Claude, great point! I had monads somewhere in my old notebook... I haven't heard Hoffman discuss Leibniz but I've made a note for our next conversation. :)
@@Carlos.Explains In his paper "Fusions of Consiousness" Hoffman alludes briefly to Leibniz's views by saying that he agrees with Leibniz on some points and disagrees on others (pp. 6-7). But it's way too sketchy. I wish he would elaborate further. For instance, it seems to me that Hoffman's "dynamism" of conscious agents is inconsistent with Leibniz's claim that monads are windowless, i.e that monads can not interact with each other; that they are completely independent of each other. Indeed, for Leibniz monads are as many different substances and therefore cannot interact with each other. This constitutes a theoretical impasse. Leibniz appealed to the doctrine of internal relations to get out of this predicament (i.e. pre-established harmony). We know that Bertrand Russell has strongly criticized Leibniz on this point. I am interested to know how Hoffman et al. intend to solve this puzzle, that of the interaction of conscious agents. This is a formidable puzzle which, for many, constitutes Leibniz's Achilles' heel!
@@Carlos.Explains And while you are at it, try and pin Hoffman down on a definition for 'consciousness' and ask him how any kind of 'consciousness' could operate outside of some form of space that supports causality or, if you prefer, 'spacetime'. God said, "Let there be light," and *_then_* there was light. Those two events, God's desire for light _followed_ subsequently by the creation of light, must be separate in space and time otherwise, there would simply be no way to know whether God's desire for light preceded the creation of light or vice versa. It seems obvious to me that a spacetime-like environment is prerequisite to the existence of 'consciousness' and if God is outside of space and time then He most certainly is not conscious. Furthermore, the existence of 'energy' is prerequisite for the existence of a spacetime-like environment so I am afraid that Mr Hoffman has more technical difficulties than he realizes. The thing is, and Hoffman is yet to address any of this, we cannot conceive of a single process of change that does not require some expenditure of energy in order to occur. Even erasing memory requires some non-zero amount of energy. How can 'information' give rise to energy if there is no extant energy that can cause 'information' to change? In fact, I would say that it is axiomatic: _all_ processes of change require an expenditure of energy. Without energy, nothing can flow. Rivers, thoughts, even information, cannot possibly change from one state to another unless there is enough energy to effect that change. In a nutshell, I would say that like music, absent a space in which to arrange the various instruments and a time over which a performance can unfold, 'consciousness' would be utterly meaningless. I think that Hoffman is taking you into a scientific and intellectual cul de sac with this 'theory' of his and until he explains how 'information' can generate energy without actually expending energy in the process, he might as well be trying to convince us that reindeer really do fly... which is 'not even wrong'.
If you use terms like "makes" and "decisions" to describe agents that means that it it bound to time. The "presence-absence" dichotomy also it time-bound. Therefore the agents can not exist outside spacetime. Think in hyper gradient guys ;) Any "thing" is a threshold of a hyperdimensional hyper gradient.
The Omega Point: essentially Georg Cantor's "Absolute Infinite", the Tao, the Ein Sof of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Tao, the Substance of Spinoza, "Being-In_Itself" of Aristotle, The One of Plotinus, and Sat-Chit-Ananda of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. This is experiential. No problem. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra" - Sacred Sounds Choir", and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. Enjoy the Bliss of the Omega point.
Donald Hoffman says that if we do deeper in the levels of his theory we could create machines that would allow us to play with time and space as if it was a video game, make things appear and disappear like magic, his world those machines look like i wonder
Electomagntic fields is vibrating in the level of complexety and higher states next geometry form next on its evelution defie by its color and tone frequency. It emits
❶ Fusions of Consciousness
0:00 "The first time I've mentioned this publicly"
1:50 Mapping Consciousness to Physics
5:35 Dynamics of Decorated Permutations
9:30 4 Levels: Conscious Agents / Decorated Permutations / Amplituhedron / Spacetime
13:50 What's special about Decorated Permutations? (Technical)
21:50 "So much about consciousness that cannot be modeled."
22:50 Related to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem \ Cantor's Hierarchy
❷ Conscious Agents (Level 1)
27:05 Experiences & probabilistic relationships are fundamental
28:45 What makes them "agents"?
30:50 How does 1-agent make decisions? Color example
32:30 What kicks off dynamics, what happens at bootup?
34:00 What is the menu of an agent's possible actions?
35:35 When do dynamics transition from boring to interesting? (Fusions)
40:40 Is this goal-directed?
42:10 Any mechanism for developing preferences? (1st time asked this question)
43:00 Are these conscious agents seeing the truth or modeling fictions?
❸ Mapping the Territory
46:10 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point & Trace Chains
51:53 Conscious agents need a menu of actions, minimum space for probabilities... map-territory relationship?
53:50 Is mathematics itself fundamental? Math is like the bones...
55:10 Is there any territory? One infinite intelligence...
57:40 Don's process for breakthroughs
59:20 Teaser for round 3 topics
How he can enter the other infinities. ruclips.net/video/0RSiDWCfxOw/видео.html
Absolute love Donald Hoffman and hearing him talk is fascinating and stretches the boundaries of science. Carlos is outstanding at asking the questions we all want to ask and is a great listener!
Thank you Paul!
Well, I'm in love with Don... so swing wide, boi!
Nah I jk😂
It’s all poetry to me. Incredible. Keep up the good work. You are totally amazing.
Thank you so much for this amazing interview! I look forward to watching it over and over until it can sink in a bit. I so love Donald Hoffman! These breakthroughs in science are exciting.
Thanks Laura!
This is wonderful. I too am a big Donald Hoffman fan. Thank you both.
@@waynzwhirled6181 “We’re not worthy! We’re not worthy!” 🙇🙇♂️
Absolutely amazing chat. Thank you Carlos for being the conduit 🙏🏾
It's a Mandelbrot in every direction, it isn't all that complicated to understand, it's all the exact same thing on different planes of existence, they all feed into one another and so on, and you, yourself, are the picture you are playing in, and you decide what it looks like and then move about into it. This is why you change yourself, you change your world, and why it lags behind, because you know what you want, but it's like 20 layers deep, so as you go toward it, you have itterational experiences that are getting better and better, or worse and worse, the system doesn't judge, there is no good and bad, right or wrong, only ignorance. This is why we are explorers and the rudder is your mind, the ideas you hold within you create your reality. It's all momentum based because of this phenomenon, you get more and more of what you think about. When leaving something you are done with, it will go away progressively as well, and the speed at which it goes away is how good you are at not thinking about it anymore, because you will see it, but you have to not think about it, just chalk it up as normal, otherwise you give it more power, maybe add a cycle and so forth. Everything works the same way, no exceptions. And the good news is we consciousness beings are paired in three, one is the physical reality here, one is the part of you that knows everything and the other is you, the part of this trinity that doesn't know anything, who is there to drive around into the system for the sole purpose of enjoying such system, you are here to enjoy the world, you are the world enjoying itself, the good the bad, see nothing but enjoyment, more or less, depending on what you think and how you feel. Enjoy!
Very eloquently and simply put. You're spot on. Observations of reality echo this because it is ground truth. If only the world could realize this truth, all of humanity could evolve together. But like you said, there is only ignorance.
Beautifully explained✨
I am thinking cristian trinity is a metaphore for what you said. God is the all knowing collective consciousness, holy spirit is intuition and jesus is our physical body/reality.
Basically the exact feeling and description of my first DEEEEP trip, no words can describe the pure bliss
Where can I find groups of people to talk about this stuff with?
Another wonderful discussion, Don. As always, great questions Carlos. Thank you very much. Look forward to the next.
Thank you Lal!
Consciousness is sometimes called the Luminous Void and there's this phenomenon where the brightest part of the shadow of a reflective, perfect 3D sphere is in the middle of its 2D shadow. Akin to a Luminous Void created by the shadow of a higher dimensional object.
The phenomena is called Arago spot, sometimes Poisson spot, or Fresnel spot and is due to Fresnel diffraction if you're curious.
It makes me think that just like this phenomenon our consciousness is in a way a shadow of a higher dimensional consciousness. Maybe that God Agent, Infinite intelligence or Omega point Donald Hoffman talked about.
Obside, thank you so much for this! I hadn't heard of this phenomenon before. Fascinating...
Where can I find groups of people to talk about this stuff with?
This is actually correct. People think my theory I have been writing about and trying to explain for 20 years is crazy, but crazy doesn’t usually predict the intellectual trajectory of whole civilizations or the individuals and their ideas within it. Crazy doesn’t solve social problems and paradoxes in science and philosophy simultaneously. Just wanted to point that out. My theory is what Dr. Hoffman is talking about, and I also found Tielhard De Chardin’s work almost 30 years ago because people told me my ideas sounded like him. In my 2003 book, I talk about what the intellectual trajectory of human beings and all our forebears is saying. I see the whole pattern of it like in Rain Man looking at toothpicks and seeing instantly how many but with concepts at the largest scale. It took me a long time to accept that other people don’t see it a were not being selfish. Thats a long story😂 but I don’t have this ability for no reason. I see it clearly. I talked about the “Singularity” or “Omega Point” in my writings because of what I saw, not what I read. My older book is “The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent to God” where “God” is an end point to these patterns. I talked to Kip Thorne at Caltech about this stuff because I was writing about frame-dragging in black holes in my book, and I have spoken to many famous people over the years including Jordan Peterson who uses a lot of my meaning stuff in his lectures. We talked 2 hours straight when we first met. I also talked with Stuart Hameroff and with many others. I’m friends with Susan Blackmore and other people who you wouldn’t think…. 😂 but I love anyone who loves and pursues truth. 🤷♀️ But I have Aspergers so people never help me much. They use my ideas a lot but I now live in my car where I lived for the last few years. Gary Numan’s song “cars” is basically my anthem right now 😂❤
@@Carlos.Explains I have worked a lot with shadows of higher dimensional things. It’s instructive to look at the Necker Cube because it’s a 2-D drawing of a 3-D object-like a shadow. So it is ambiguous to look at because which square comes out towards you can “flip” and in this way makes no sense. But add the third dimension and it is actually only one way. In my larger theory, a basic new foundational principle is that everything in the universe is a reflection of a certain higher view and looks separate and ambiguous in ways that actually are not true when you look at it from a higher perspective. It all fits together in only one way. Perfectly. And I mean everything. Atoms to octopuses. 😊❤
So the sphere-fresnel effect is an aspect of this larger pattern of the universe. It has a certain meaning in that context. We also see light bending gravitationally around planets and stars, and very evident in black holes and these are all aspects of the larger theory and new natural laws I write about. That consortium of scientists around Carnegie-Mellon university who wrote a recent paper about a “new neglected natural law of information” talk about another aspect of it and I was surprised because I had been writing about that aspect of it in my book when it came out 😂. But again, there is a lot more to the story. 😊❤
I can’t get a paper published or an interview because I left graduate school after 4 years to write about this stuff instead of a dissertation. I have Aspergers so I didn’t even think about the career problems or prestige aspects because I recognize only truth personally but that was before I fully understood how difficult it would be or how different I was in this attitude. 🤷♀️ so I now live in my car. 🤔🤦♀️
My newer book is “Eye of god: language of Universal Mind” and it shows this symbolic language built into the universe starting with the human eyeball. It’s a really good one because the decoding method is geometrically built into it, and into how it functions. It directly shows a higher consciousness which I showed in my first book and what Donald Hoffman talks about as “higher conscious agents”. Its implications for humanity are unparalleled in human history so it definitely feels like a first tremor of omega.
Awesome and can't wait for round two! Glad to have found your channel.
@57:39 ... worth the whole video. Thanks so much. The 14th century author of THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING agrees with you Donald.
Just wow. Wow. Thank you for getting the most clean, clear and understandable interview that Donald has ever given. This was incredible. And I can’t wait for round 3.
AMAZING interview--definitately looking forward to the next one with Don!
Thanks for this! I read the paper a few weeks before I saw this and the math was just too far over my head. I was able to mostly follow along in his first paper on conscious agents, but things just got too dense in this paper and it was great to see him explaining things at more of a level that I can follow.
I've also been watching interviews with him for years like you've said you have as well, and he's said in every video some variation of "Now my job is to boot up space-time from consciousness...if I can't get evolution by natural selection and general relativity from this, then the theory is wrong."
I always was wondering "How many times can he keep saying that without progress?" less in a total skeptic sense more in a "he must be working on this" sense...and here it is! I've really been tempted to try to learn the math to understand his research better, because I get a strong sense that he is REALLY onto something that so many people are sleeping on. There's something about saying "I think consciousness makes space-time" that makes 90% of people just dismiss you out of hand, but Hoffman is coming around now with (what appears to be) solid mathematics backing up his idea that conscious agents make space-time. He's actually explaining what makes a particle. It looks like he's starting to show how consciousness could make space-time. It's mind-blowing if he's right.
I do wonder how he came up initially with "These are the three things a conscious agent can do" though. There are a lot of ideas about consciousness as fundamental, and I feel like many of them lean toward the idea that consciousness doesn't "drive", in other words it's a passive observer. In Hoffman's model when he has a conscious agent able to "decide" as one of the three things, I've wondered if that means that we as very large networks of conscious agents (that also are conscious agents) have free-will or casual power of some kind due to these dynamics.
Don’t learn the math from square one - unless you really want to. I just researched markov kernels, decorated permutations, and polytopes -the largest being the amplitude hedron. On yotube. That will get you pretty far.
In doing this -my pet name for his theory is “infinite regress of conscious pixels” theory.
His theory has helped me feel more secure that conscious must be fundamental. After all- it’s mapping onto particles in space time now! Wtf!
For those who have followed Hoffman's work through YT videos, this is a treasure and easy to follow. But for others, I guess it's going to be difficult (and boring!) as the prerequisites are significant. I personally like this talk venturing in to the gray areas where Science meets the Spiritualism, but Hoffman & Farias may get a pushback there; don't let the critiques make you shy away from venturing there! Thank you. 😁
Thank you, ytrrs! I try to help filter folks slightly by listing the interview as "technical." Agreed it's not a great starting spot, but fortunately Don is so gracious with his time, there are many other podcasts to check out.
I can only express my gratitude for you two. This is amazing!
My intuition is also that there is this one infinite intelligence, which is so intelligent that is also capable of “forgetting” that it is infinite intelligence, and imagines that it is finite, and here we are, seeing ourselves as separate entities. It’s remarkable that Hoffman seems to be aware that the ultimate realization of the infinite may be beyond science and concepts, and yet he keeps producing amazing science. As a current PhD student (and also a serious meditation practitioner), I can only say I hope to contribute to this field one day, building on these great ideas.
Looking forward to the next chapter!
Say what !
and it imagines it is finite an infinite amount of times lol
Where can I find groups of people to talk about this stuff with?
oh hell yes. This was awesome and I can't wait to see the upcoming interview with Friston!
Thank you, Lao!
16 min Such clarity about a thing complicated for even PHDs.
Important to note that Hoffman calls it a discovery and not an invention. How order comes into reality and there is no randomness .
Coexistence of the formless and the form is all that is there to discover.
Love the conversation , I wish it came with a basic course in quantum physics / mathematics
19:00, my understanding is this. The mathematics of decorated permutation with Markovian dynamics, can describe the physical states of particles. The free particles (with dynamic states that resembles a communicating class can be modeled by the same decorated permutation which describes that same communicating class).
Communicating class: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 with an ordered way of changing, (1->2->3->4->5->1->2..) can be described by mathematics of decorated permutations, can describe free particle states.
Bipartite: State A -> B, can also be described by decorated permutations, which can also model bounded particle states.
The importance of that is we can now we can use mathematics (along with conscious agents) to model particles (also with decorated permutations).
20:02 Interesting where Don is describing conscious agents with the communicating classes and markovian dynamics, it would be interesting to go into more details of the conscious agents in this process.
Thanks evomr05. There is a link to the paper in the description, in case you haven't read it yet!
This discussion is heads and tails above. Thanks to you both!
Thank you so much! Round 3 coming in a couple months. =)
Putting this on a pedal stool, truly a watership moment! We'll treasure this research like the apple of my oranges
Yes, Don, keep repeating and explaining.....we are all studying your ideas!
best channel on yt
The heart swells. Thank you Christian!!
Thanks a million to you and the rest of real scientific agents who really working towards right direction without any dogma or string attached and unlimited thanks... to The Master Agent of the Universe who made it all possible in the first place... Love and respect from Iran ❤
This morning I made a light, fluffy two egg omelette, four slices of maple bacon and rye toast with orange marmalade jam. Washed it down with a glass of fresh squeezed orange juice. It was delicious.
in new in this channel and i´m loving this interviews thank you so much for all of this
fantastic. subscribed in the first 5 minutes, thanks!!
From one conscious agent to another, thanks!!
these "permutations" through these different layers or levels really sounds like a scientific descriptions of the emanations of consciousness and creation described in the kabbalistic tree of life and its sephirot
Where can i find groups of people to talk about this stuff with?
Does the color of decorated permutations denote chirality?
Don is a special human being! 🙏
Absolutely, Fabio!
first time finding you. great content with value. keep it up!
Thanks Dirt!
Whoa! Yes. This is exciting!
Agreed Sumac! Boundary pushing material.
Couldn't get more bizarre . My favourite comedy channel
It is said that reality is stranger then fiction
Does reality terrify you so much?
Yup! The more hardcore - the better..
You and Curt both do amazing job!
Does it have to see yellow and green before it can see blue?
Great video. It’s all about the books.
Book 33
Where does the vortex come into play? Is there a vortextual movement from one level or plane to the other?
If the amplituhedron is non-dynamical then how will the projection of space-time be impacted?
If the amplituhedron is outside of space-time then it is understandably not moving through linear time. How would change take place in it? Is it entropic?
Around the 51:00 minute mark, is this discussion pertaining to cycles of the big bang and the Kali Yuga?
Ok....yep, you mentioned the big bang....😊
Just want to add some color to what Don is saying, he's obviously super smart, my explanation is just by listening to many of his youtubes.
Decorated permutation: it's really how a subset changes, say with 1, 2 and 3, you have the permutation of: 1,2,3; 1,3,2; 2,1,3; etc...
Amplituhedron: the way the particle scatter that resembles a polygon of some sort when smashed by particle accelerator
So adding together: say when particles scatter (once smashed by particle accelerator), it can be predicted based on these polygons, and they rotate their order. Say it 1st time you smash it, it scatters into an octagon, then it's a hexagon, then they scatter into a pentagon...then it repeats.
obviously very simple terms, but hope that helps.
My understanding with the Markovian Dynamics is that the next state of which the particle scatters it's solely dependent on the current state. Like say if it explodes in a hexagon this time, you can be sure to know the next explosion is pentagon.
So my understanding is that (which could be wrong): the way of which particle explode, is based on a set of shapes and order, and it's not depended on time OR space. Thus space and time is doomed because in the calculation equation, space and time, is not required.
@@user-C8onIm4 Thanks for these comments! I'll have to review before our round 3 conversation.
@@user-C8onIm4 Unless you two are trying to create a kind of analogy I don't think this is correct. The amplituhedron is a structure that exists outside of space-time, and even with it you are never actually predicting exactly where the particles will scatter. The amplituhedron is only giving you the probabilities of where the particles might be observed. The traditional way of doing this was using Feynman diagrams, but again you're only ever getting probabilities, never something like "It did this shape this time, next time it will be this shape." I don't understand this deep enough to actually say what this part means, but the particles "are the vertices of the amplituhedron," but since it's a structure outside of spacetime I don't think we can think of it like the gluons scattering in a geometric shape within spacetime
@@mingtongzhiThat is exactly what I was conveying. it has to exist beyond space and time. the videos mentioned multiple times that the equation used to predict locations of the sub-particles did not invovle space or time in the equation. And interestingly enough the patterns follow a set of order similar to a markove chain with a decorated permutation. Another word, all of these can potentially be simulated through mathematics, which is what Don is trying to do in his research. Using math to model consciousness thus creating all reality, starting from the subatomic level.
@@mingtongzhi "but since it's a structure outside of spacetime I don't think we can think of it like the gluons scattering in a geometric shape within spacetime"
That's one objection I guess but I would say, 'what does 'structure' even mean outside the context of space?' Right? Surely, by definition, 'structure' requires separate components and specifically _occupies_ a 'space'. And, even in the area we are 'covering' here, lol, if the order of 'shapes' is independent of space and time then why do they change in one direction rather than another? I mean, if the order is, 'a,b,c,a,b,c,a,b,c...' then that looks like a cycle; repeated change over time and 'time' therefore is implicit.
And what of the energy that _must_ exist in order to effect _any_ process of change? Isn't the energy that causes the change constrained by the 2nd Law? And isn't that the relationship that gives rise to what we here are calling 'time'?
I will say that I too think the 'spacetime' concept as it currently is is doomed but we should avoid throwing the baby out with the bath-water. I think that the problem stems from the idea that 'spacetime' is a kind of 'box' or 'container' that contains all the mass and energy in the universe and in my view, it might be more helpful to assume only the existence of 'energy' and the 2nd Law and realize that 'spacetime' itself is simply a particular configuration of a particular amount of energy.
I have a simple 'cake analogy' to demonstrate. Imagine that the universe is a currant cake being baked in an oven. Imagine that the 'currants' in the recipe are like galaxies and the 'dough' separating them as 'spacetime'. Now, imagine that there are tiny conscious entities withing those currants and that they have the technology to detect other currants baking in the cake but have no way to detect the existence of the dough which to them appears as invisible dark empty space. So the physicists in those currants have a bit of a problem. To them, the universe looks like empty space filled with currants just like theirs.
Those physicist would develop a science that would try and explain the existence of the cake in terms of the relationship between its currants, right?
And that's a bit like the problem 'spacetime' has caused us. By assuming only the existence of the matter and energy, the 'currants', contained in a 'spacetime' environment, the 'dough', we conceal the fact that fundamentally, the 'currants' and the 'dough' are made of the same stuff at the quantum level and thus, around 95% of the 'cake' becomes invisible and we have to invent the concept of dark energy/matter in order to account for an apparent shortfall of energy in the universe. In the same way that we can consider 'currants' and 'dough' in terms of 'energy' in order to describe the 'cake', we should consider galaxies and 'empty space' as having the same equivalence.
But yeah, I think you are correct.
Great interview! I adore Donald Hoffman's way of thinking and humility. A quick question: Does "agent" mean a person, a human being, any animate being, including animals, insects, fish etc? Does the "agent's preference" refer to "free will"? Thank you.
It's interesting to think that all of Physics has been akin to attempting to understand the operating principles of an Xbox from within the environment of a game like GTA; an impossible task as there is no way to discover the underlying relations between any given aspect of the game, and the operations being performed on the underlying hardware. The only clues you have are some conditions which break the simulation in some way, eg: times when the game slows down due to the dynamics overwhelming the underlying hardware suggests to you that the simulation is computationally bounded, and even some clue of what that upper bound may be.
Yep. I agree and indeed it’s very cool to think about
Something interesting to mention is that you said that the character inside the game has to use lag of the games hardware to determine that something fishy is going on, but I would argue that even in that case, the agent inside the video game would not be able to tell for the following reason; if you were to envision the lag as some person pressing a “start and stop time button” that when pressed starts and stops time for the agent…the agent no longer receives input. When that person hits the button again to start time, the agent will receive input again… from the agents perspective there would be no discontinuity in time because input is how it determines the passage of time…and therefor any lag this computer experiences will always appear continuous to the agents inside the game.
In other words it could be that this external hardware like the Xbox could be incredibly slow, calculating the next time computation once every year…for the agents inside it will always appear continuous…and would be a completely separated notion of time inside from time outside
this contradicts my computer sims so can't be right lol... Does the amplituhedron/decorated perms have any connection to gravity or the 95% of universe's matter and energy(the dark stuff)? Can one assert much confidently about reality's deeper aspects when they ignore uber significant aspects of the universe?
so decorated permutations are a subset of conscious agents forming amplitihedron in spacetime and the powerset is a subset of all infinities, got it that clears things up
10:41 the formless realms in Buddhism seems similar
Absolutely amazing! I just wish I understood some of this...
Thanks! (and me too... 😉)
Hoffman...I love you. ❤😊
@@joanabensby8472 I love him too!
what a time to be alive! AI and now this? things are movin'
he has hit the nail on the head on many aspects of this
Agreed, Drink J!
Did Donald mention DMT? Could you provide a timestamp?
Does it describe gravity? And possibly antigravity?
this sounds so uncanny similar to FGI framework, Fundamental Geometry of Information. It must be a superposition of paradigm shift momentum across the relative conscious field. Just beautiful !
What do you mean exactly? you have intrigued me
So decorated permutations are full metal alchemist circles? 😮
That was awesome.
Thanks Obside! Appreciate the comments. :)
My understanding from Dr Hoffman explanation of decorated permutations:
Decorated permutations are the most compact way to describe what all the different communicating classes of a Markovian dynamic are; they tell you what are the independent units. They tell you what are the free particles in physics
When you look inside some communicating classes you see what are called partide sets or states which are all interacting so you can get from one state to another
Those decorated permutations that classify the partide subsets within communicating classes tell you the bound particles in physics ie bound inside a communicating class eg quarks that are bound inside a proton
Free particles correspond to some communicating classes and bound particles correspond to some partide sets of communicating classes
Most communicating classes of conscious agents have nothing to do with particles (which are an part of space time interface
our portal to reality allows)
Hope I understood this correctly. I’d appreciate some feedback if I didn’t
Thanks X Man. This looks correct.
Could this be describing a black hole that when precisely fuse explode in a white hole?
Hey RH! What would the black hole be fusing with?
Hi would like to get in touch with Carlos re coherent understanding of everything and nothing that needs to be shared and can be understood by anyone , anyone have a contact much appreciated..
20 minutes in and most of the particles swim in different fields, but they communicate within their fields effectively to play their role in this silly place we call the universe. I think, could be wrong. 30 minutes in and you're now introducing bioelectricity as a way the agents can communicate to each other, or I'm on the wrong beach, which wouldn't surprise me. Write as I watch, 40 minutes in I can see the possibility growing beyond our ability to perceive it real terms, does that preclude controlling the outcomes as not within our grasp at a more emergent point? 45 minutes, red is only one reality. 56 minutes, hopeful view to wrap up a great conversation, thank you both Donald and Carlos.
Yes Carlos, Padre T, an amazing man, ahead of his time, any read the edymon cantos? great incorporation of this intot he novel
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties.
Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property.
The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence.
2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property.
Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements.
On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon.
Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property.
The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain).
Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity.
For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness.
As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness.
My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong.
Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
If it is possible to represent a "mind", per Hoffman's specifications, in an abstract algebra X? Is there a Boolean representation of that algebra X? If not, then we have a lot of work to do to resolve that question.
22:50 Don describes the conscious agent. I remember in a previous episode where he mentioned that a conscious agent is almost like a "fractal" subset of the infinite large conscious agent. Same property, looks the same, walks the same, etc. In fractals, where you can infinitely zoom in, it still looks like the "non-zoomed-in" image.
So this is very interesting, in spirituality where The Creator (GOD), he created us, spiritual beings, to resemble him (not in a four-limbs fashion) rather a fractal infinitely small piece of GOD. And with Gödel's incompleteness theorem, you can almost say The Creator can never experience everything there is, so he created infinitesimally small piece to experience a world he created. And Don's conscious agent seems to describe this as well...Mind-blown.
Thanks for pointing out the fractal subset quality. I haven't come across that, will have to think on it...
@@Carlos.Explains I believe he mentioned this in one of his interviews, could just be a way he is trying to describe it as well.
@@user-C8onIm4 Interesting... if you happen to recall the interview, please share it here! :)
Extremely interesting, thank you. Any experimental evidence available, or Projects planned to proof?
I wonder if such an approach (v. high dimensional geometry projections) applies to the math / physics predictions at the everyday length scales eg. how objects in our solar system will move over millions of years, or the flux within an ecosystem, or how people will behave in different situations eg. pandemic, political shifts
I love this stuff. And I can see a design springing forth. But, who decides red. Who decides green. Who is the coder... Again we are left with a mystery, "in the beginning".
If you're beyond space-time the concept of a beginning is meaningless.
As a very very crude analogy, where is the beginning of a circle?
@@peterbranagan1010 appreciated.. but we are still only explaining the TV, the signal, not the broadcasting studio...
@@peterbranagan1010having said that. It would be akin to a computer program suddenly discovering the ram, wires etc "as they are"... And then the person behind all of that...
Time is a flat circle... Or a sphere... Maybe just a line.
;)
@@jonathanmoore5619
With the death of spacetime we are left with a timeless spaceless ground of all being - Heidegger's Being (with a capital B) from which all beings emerge into spacetime.
The ONE (Being) encompasses the TV, the signal, the studio, the material the studio is made of, the ground on which it is built, the planet on which the ground is based, the galaxy in which the planet is located, the universe in which the galaxy is located.
Everything in spacetime emerges from the timeless spaceless ONE.
And, of course, anything that is timeless and spaceless is beyond the imagination of finite (in time and in space) humans.
@@peterbranagan1010 you seem to understand it.... Maybe you're not human after all...
I take the belief and view that it's just a computer simulation. The headset rings true to me too. But who knows. Nice talking with you.
When you speak of particles in the Decorated Permutations - isn't that a particle like is found in Space-Time?
Yes, the point of Hoffman’s theory is to try and get spacetime (and elementary particles) from a framework that doesn’t include spacetime
Can proton be prooven true
Awesome video. Please correct me if I'm off on the following which I believe are key takeaways from Hoffman's interesting proposition: 1) There must be one all-encompassing universal substrate which amounts to objective reality into which all individual conscience beings are grounded. This is why all individual timelines tie in. 2) For the sake of expediency and survival we access, and only access a compressed field copy. We see the logic and success of this reasoning when seen through the natural selection scope because we viscerally sense urgency. The saber toothed tiger is crouching!
What do we make then when he says that spacetime is a creation as well, if the reason for the compressed field version is expediency? Why would evolution hamstring itself??
Perhaps space-time is an optimization strategy for exploration? Or perhaps it just "is", as a result of perception, there has to be "something" through which we perceive. If there is no perception, there is no space-time, and there is no consciousness, because perception is conscious awareness. I think space-time may be fundamental to us as humans, but not to differing agents. For example, maybe a star has no conception of space-time, or the universe itself. Perhaps these things model their own state in different ways. I'm not sure. What do you think?
So you agree that Hoffman is wrong in saying that space-time is negotiable as a construct. Spacetime cannot be negotiable as he says because if you look at natural selection, it's time dependent. It has to work 'around' time. Yet Hoffman says that it's a mental construct.
So would fusion of agents imply telepathy
The beginning description is pretty close....
Little bit back to front but the premise is there at least.
If you think of the absolute whole of existence, it can be conceived as a spectrum and within that overall spectrum are unique and distinct 'bands' of reality, these bands are mostly closed systems locally but thier components can have attributes which are an intrinsic component of several bands and also part of its own unique band, that is an open system.
These bands can be regarded as what most definitions describe as dimension. (and a dimension in the sense of what comprises the laws of 'reality' for a given reference frame. It is not degrees of freedom for the spatial 'dimensions' of matter) And each dimension has a optimal rest state that it maintains and does so through the open system of aome of its component forms. And 'higher and lower' dimensions is not correlated to the advancement of the local reference frame, it is with regards to the evolution of the perfectly formed, initial fundamental dynamic of existence, as refined and initiated by the penultimate refraction of the final fundamental dynamic.
Let that sink in for a few minutes.....
Comparatively, our dimension sits right in the heart of the dynamic principle having refracted, developed and reiterated itself back into the developed form to refine that development to be coherent with the dynamic principle in order for sentient consciousness to enter into the band, and nearing the tail end of the fundamental dynamic development process where, through reiteration and refinement, the development will be brought back into phase as to permit the refinement to integrate with the dynamic of the band. *as the development now places the capacity and depth of consciousness beyond what the band alone can supply and support, and sustenance from sources external to the closed system are required to sustain the internal components which are engaged by consciousness to interface itself in the required degree to the bands reality.
Beyond this progression, consciousness will successfully acquire this refinement, but will not survive if not successful in successfully accepting the intake of the reiterated dynamic to gain access to the sustainace of the higher dimensions.
Secondly.
As you must have noted previously, the chronology of the universes 'lifespan' appeared to be illogical or invalid.
But its not.
Essentially, the end framework shapes the initial beginnings form and the initial beginnings form defines what the end framework must conform with.
And this is done by a complete 180 of the big bang bs model. Everything doesn't come from nothing. The thing comes from everything and the thing shaoes everything....
So instead of a spontaneous existence arising from before the now, the now already existed and encompassed everything that is (and isn't....) within itself but as a unified whole that had no qualitative contrast so in a sense there wad nothing to give something a contrasting aspect of being.
Now, little explainer, the universe isn't intelligent design case it does this reality perfectl. While there's an argument to be had about the coherence of the final form and the initial form, its simple logic to see that this reality seems perfect because it is perfect... You see nature doesn't try one thing at a time, it tries everything all the time and the perfect way will aleays prevail.
This reality is simply the perfect form of the dynamic as it is run through its process.
The perfect form and way will also be that which is configured in such a 2ay as to cycle all its energy back to the initial form, in perfectly coherent form but with an altered configuration so the cycle will have an opportunity to repeat in a unique and novel form.
How this process works is, everything is everywhere initially.
Through the perfect resonant form will produce a harmonic scale capable of integrating the entirety of everything, can return 100%of this energybavk to itself and has the means of absolutely ensuring the perfection of the harmony is absolutely not corrupted.
So everything that is, but is without form as all components are in perfect balance, from this setting, every conceivable interaction of everything contained with the everything is simultaneously attempted and the most perfect interactions entrench themselves. Once this initial perfection is achieved the everything takes this perfection and breaks it into two distinctly separate but intrinsically linked components and the process repeats., and upon completion the pair split into 3 distinct components but yet they are also intertwined in every possible way This happens inumeral times until you arrive at our local reference frame.
Now jeep continuing until yoy are at the reference frame that is similar to ours but it also has access to higher energy reference frames and its own reference frame has become exponentially more energy efficient and is therefore figuratively one of a higher energy ad it completes harder tasks and requires less energy input to achieve this. Then keep going until you fully leave all aspects of our references frame and as a conscious awareness with subjective perceptions, are now not even bound to a physical mechanism for entering the band and can do so by willing to do so, at will.
Now keep going until your no longer a subjective awarenes but are a subjective awarenes group that retains the ability to simultaneously conceive both subjective and objective consciousness, now keep goung until only a unified and unique objective consciousness remains and is only aware of the subjective experience of past and the singular presence of the self now, now keep going until the consciousness is no longer aware of subjective experience and is only aware of the self and the external void,
now....
This is where the thing that shall not he spoken of is...
Now keep going until the objective awareness of self has been assimilated into the awareness of the external void...
At this point I shall refrain from eluding any further as to the nature or role of consciousness and will regard only the energy which each reference frame comprises of.
At this scale of refinement the blueprint of every point of previous experience is transcribed onto the very fabric of reality andbit exists at every point there is and is connected to every other point there is or can be...
This culmination of refinement is no longwt able to develop as it contains every possible frequency of every band and at this point it no longer expands the bands of the spectrum, it facilitates the becoming of the spectrum and within it the perfect refraction of form to the final structure which when a segment of its reference frame is extracted and analysed, contains the perfectly formatted principle dynamic as to facilitate the initial dynamic progressingninto the full spectrum of the dynamic. And the kicker, these points of reality are what the standard model wrongly interpret and represent as the big bang....
And they exist at every point and dynamic configuration of points in reality..... They are what drives the eternal now.
And the initial dynamic?
It feeds from this source field and each exchange incorporates into the beginning of existence anf reality a source from a different point which had a different dynamic configuration of point connection, and so therein the initial dynamic is always incorporating different yet perfect sources of development seed into its eternal now.
And the dynamic?
To say definitely is contrary to the purpose and interests of the dynamic but to say the leasy, it can only be of one way.
The perfectly balanced imbalance....
There's more to the story but i think I'll leave it at that for now.
P. S.
Oh, the whole Treat others as... Etcetc. Yes, 100% Not necessarily because theybate in essence the same as you. But because it is you who will be waiting to judge you when you go to judge you... And there's no secret kept from you, all is to be known and you will expose all that is you to yourself and everyone else listening in on what you have to 'say' for yourself, before you decide if your development was a perfect coherence with what it was that it wad for you to be (there's no good or bad, only that you served your true purpose.) and if this calls for reiteration into the dynamic as is, or if a degree of further examination and/or action is required..... (this ranges from a virtually insignificant understanding to a soul shredding and spiritual descent back into the vacant and neutral seed stock for the facilitation of development to existing spirit congressions.
i exist in multi dimensions at same time.. its complex im searching for an understanding please
The Omega Point conversations have some interesting overlap with Origin of Alexandria's "On First Principles" discussed well by Charles Stang's lecture on Flesh and Fire: Reincarnation and Universal Salvation in the Early Church (Havvard Divinity School web article and lecture on subject via RUclips). I also touch on this line of thinking in my book BEING WHOLLY: BEING HOLY HUMAN AND SO MUCH MORE TOGETHER - Steven Obdyke
23.4 @carlos
The minimum an agent comes into order and behaves in a fixed system is the atom.
The good part is we have the arithmetic that explains it to the person interested
26 Great saying Carlos.
Truth is not dependent on being proved.
Truth is just truth. 🙏🙏
Experiencing it is our objective and as a result we become human and stop inhumanity on this planet.
It is that clear😊
47 min @Carlos
Mega omega point is the formation of the life atom the soul that can understand experience and know which all physical atoms are capable of.
When will we consider the computational complexity of the Universe? Physics has to solve problems that are well known to be in NP....
Ok…Donald Hoffman is officially my favorite public intellectual.
He didn't bother showcasing the visual results of his Wolfram simulation of all this?
Yes, there is something a little 'Michael Mann' about that, isn't there?
"We having fun here" 🎉
Only part way through, so if this is discussed, disregard this......this seems to be discussing conciousness in terms of partical physics, but conciousness, to me, seems to function according to the laws of quantum physics.....maybe like, it primarily exists in the quantum realm and projects onto the physical realm only secondarily.....and, if so, then a deeper understanding would necessitate the incorporation of quantum theory in the explanation.....🤷♀️
*edit: that said, it's unlikely that we have, or even can, realize(d) the totality of dimensions/realms in which conciousness functions.....and,(now a bit futher in), you have somewhat touched on the subject of my inquiry, in different terms, but some parts of my questions were answered so far😊
Consciousness is found on its own terms. You are doing what most people do - thinking there is a reality called science, when science is just the observations of men called scientists. Beyond that is the infinite truth which has always been beyond time or causation, before creation. We are trusting our senses when we cannot even trust our brains, which are interpreting reality; but a brain cannot see reality, cannot feel reality, cannot know it but depends on our faulty perceptions and draws conclusions from them. We only have access to s small section of reality, a small band of consciousness. Yet Consciousness is infinite. Through meditation we can expand awareness and directly experience higher ranges of its infinity. Unfortunately for thousands of years men have stuck their heads in the sand and pretended there was only this small band of the material universe, only physical things, and this has made humanity very small and limited while the potentiality of their own vastness remained unseen and forgotten. What could be more ignorant than that? The possibility of living infinity is there in our own brains and in our own potential unfoldment of our nature - but most human beings would rather be entertained and hypnotized by matter.
Sometimes I think we all are actually one being, and earth is a prison of sorts, subdividing our intelegence, and pulling our attention a few billion different ways.
20:30 Indeed it is beyond my comprehension.
Hi Carlos Are you in brazilian networking too?
Hey Lobo! I'm in the U.S., have never been to Brazil but would like to visit. :)
@@Carlos.ExplainsI m not getting answer from prof Hoffman email nor dr bernardo kastrup. The project subject would involve instrumental transcommunication Are there more contacts?
Looking at the progression of particles to larger structures through a linear lens of time still doesn’t quite make sense. In my mind, the largest structures and smallest particles exist simultaneously. Trying to fully describe our infinite universe within the universe seems impossibly endless. But thank __ the exploration of ourselves is infinite. I love how Hoffman says he gets his inspiration from sinking into the silence beyond thoughts 🙏🏼
There MUST be data behind the energy: massless, scalar, spin-less definitions of fundamental parameters ALL universes or Omniverse requires.
I watched Donald in an interview on a lex Fridman podcast I hadn't planned to watch it and at the time I was on LSD and all's I can say is he is more or less bang on the money with this theory
My pet name for his theory is “infinite regress of conscious pixels theory”
His theory has helped me feel more secure that conscious must be fundamental. After all- it’s mapping onto particles in space time now! Wtf!
How do you learn the math for this stuff??
Al, I think it's probably years of study!
Yeah....I kinda figured that in a way.....It seems that Donald's research involves a significant amount of probability math....almost like Quantum Mechanics is with the flip of a coin and the concept of all possibilities eventually happen.
Infinity in both ways. Division and addition
I think few scientists are good and sincere about combining science with philosophy
I would hate to be the one that has to interview Donald. I would feel mentally handicapped. Love what i can understand about his theory though! Its my new obsession
Hoffman's ideas remind me of Leibniz's monadology, but much more mathematized. Monads being in some way conscious agents and the fusion of monads, the "monad of monads" being God, what Hoffman calls the One. Surely there is a parallel to be made here. Does Hoffman discuss the connection of his ideas with Leibniz?
Claude, great point! I had monads somewhere in my old notebook... I haven't heard Hoffman discuss Leibniz but I've made a note for our next conversation. :)
@@Carlos.Explains In his paper "Fusions of Consiousness" Hoffman alludes briefly to Leibniz's views by saying that he agrees with Leibniz on some points and disagrees on others (pp. 6-7). But it's way too sketchy. I wish he would elaborate further. For instance, it seems to me that Hoffman's "dynamism" of conscious agents is inconsistent with Leibniz's claim that monads are windowless, i.e that monads can not interact with each other; that they are completely independent of each other.
Indeed, for Leibniz monads are as many different substances and therefore cannot interact with each other. This constitutes a theoretical impasse. Leibniz appealed to the doctrine of internal relations to get out of this predicament (i.e. pre-established harmony). We know that Bertrand Russell has strongly criticized Leibniz on this point. I am interested to know how Hoffman et al. intend to solve this puzzle, that of the interaction of conscious agents. This is a formidable puzzle which, for many, constitutes Leibniz's Achilles' heel!
@@claudetaillefer1332 thanks for the deep dive! I have to read up on this before round 3. 😀
@@Carlos.Explains And while you are at it, try and pin Hoffman down on a definition for 'consciousness' and ask him how any kind of 'consciousness' could operate outside of some form of space that supports causality or, if you prefer, 'spacetime'.
God said, "Let there be light," and *_then_* there was light. Those two events, God's desire for light _followed_ subsequently by the creation of light, must be separate in space and time otherwise, there would simply be no way to know whether God's desire for light preceded the creation of light or vice versa.
It seems obvious to me that a spacetime-like environment is prerequisite to the existence of 'consciousness' and if God is outside of space and time then He most certainly is not conscious. Furthermore, the existence of 'energy' is prerequisite for the existence of a spacetime-like environment so I am afraid that Mr Hoffman has more technical difficulties than he realizes.
The thing is, and Hoffman is yet to address any of this, we cannot conceive of a single process of change that does not require some expenditure of energy in order to occur. Even erasing memory requires some non-zero amount of energy. How can 'information' give rise to energy if there is no extant energy that can cause 'information' to change? In fact, I would say that it is axiomatic: _all_ processes of change require an expenditure of energy. Without energy, nothing can flow. Rivers, thoughts, even information, cannot possibly change from one state to another unless there is enough energy to effect that change.
In a nutshell, I would say that like music, absent a space in which to arrange the various instruments and a time over which a performance can unfold, 'consciousness' would be utterly meaningless. I think that Hoffman is taking you into a scientific and intellectual cul de sac with this 'theory' of his and until he explains how 'information' can generate energy without actually expending energy in the process, he might as well be trying to convince us that reindeer really do fly... which is 'not even wrong'.
Is Dr. Hoffman familiar with the Ruliad, constructed by Stephen Wolfram?
Not sure Jasper. I just looked it up though and it's super interesting. I've meant to ask Don about Wolfram's work, but we keep running up on time!
If you use terms like "makes" and "decisions" to describe agents that means that it it bound to time. The "presence-absence" dichotomy also it time-bound. Therefore the agents can not exist outside spacetime. Think in hyper gradient guys ;) Any "thing" is a threshold of a hyperdimensional hyper gradient.
The Omega Point: essentially Georg Cantor's "Absolute Infinite", the Tao, the Ein Sof of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Tao, the Substance of Spinoza, "Being-In_Itself" of Aristotle, The One of Plotinus, and Sat-Chit-Ananda of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. This is experiential. No problem. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra" - Sacred Sounds Choir", and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. Enjoy the Bliss of the Omega point.
The magnetic field is only relative to magnitudes presented to occupy
. As in vave field
Donald Hoffman says that if we do deeper in the levels of his theory we could create machines that would allow us to play with time and space as if it was a video game, make things appear and disappear like magic, his world those machines look like i wonder
Thanks Carlos! "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke
Electomagntic fields is vibrating in the level of complexety and higher states next geometry form next on its evelution defie by its color and tone frequency. It emits
38:37 isn’t that just the process of evolution?