What did you think of this debate? Who do you agree with the most? Leave a comment below! Discover 3000+ videos like this and more live events with an IAI Premium Live Subscription. Sign up: iai.tv/subscribe? See more speakers debate quantum physics in London this September: howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/london? Join us at our next IAI Live event on August 8th: iai.tv/live?
Great interview as usual. I just wish I knew how do they interpret the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. I thought that one sealed it once and for all that the instruments are not causing the collapse and that the observer is fundamental...as predicted
there were many good remarks and ideas proposed during the very interesting discussion on this key issue in physics. but why jump ahead, talking about consciousness of highly organized forms of matter, that can process data/information the way, which we call as a consious perception, instead of discussing what life is. it looks strange that nobody tried to discuss the possible deep connection between life, which we poorly understand at present, and the problem of the observer of the observable universe. first we need to understand life, although Sir Roger Penrose is certainly a genius, looking ahead much deeper for revealing the deep possible ties between gravity, QM and how our brains work.
I think all the speakers here and possibly the host also considers consciousness as emergent phenomenon, i.e. somehow matter creates consciousness. With that assumption there will always be an observer, observed differentiation and unending debates. Even a donkey knows, that this is me the donkey and that is someone else. Duality seems intuitive, just as the intuition of the ancients, that the earth is at the center and the Sun goes around it, or the earth is flat. These have been proven to be counter intuitive. Similarly the duality which is known even to a donkey and the scientist alike seems intuitive but reality could be counter intuitive. What if brain does not create the mind, rather the mind generates the body mind complex (including the brain) and the universe and the others, just like in a dream the mind creates your own replica through whose dream senses you experience the dream universe and the so called dream others. The mind itself divides into observer and the observed, the knower and the known, the experiencer and the experienced. When the mind goes to deep sleep there is no world nor the ego, everyones deep sleep experience is exactly same, the mind rises during dream and waking and the world rises and the duality rises, but the reality is beyond the mind, i.e. pure consciousness which illumines the mind. This is the claim of Advaita Vedanta (Reference Mandukya Karika of Gaudapada Acharya) Also please look up Donald Hoffman, he seems to be a pioneer of a cognitive scientist willing to look at everything inside out.
My observation is, the conscious experience of existence is metaphysical, that our conscious experience of existence evolved from a realisation that came from conscious being, and that realisation came from a conscious being that became aware of it's existence. The self-realisation of our conscious experience of existence, is the main reason our planet is being visited, they all want to be here for it.
3 thank you's 1. For making these discussions available to us who have not been fortunate enough to be scientists by profession, but are scientists at heart 2. For putting real science out there, not the least of which is the format - where debate and diversity are the norm 3. For finally knowing how to pronounce Sabine's name As for the topic of consciousness, these are exciting times. I truely hope that it is not just a ghost in the machine phenomenon, that arises as a byproduct from the complexity of our biological brain. In that sense, I admire and am inspired by Hammerof's, Penrose's, and Donnald Hoffman's quests, as they go outside the box to look for new ideas, which is where all new frontiers were and are always waiting to be discovered, IMHO.
If you watch her channel, she says it. I think she is right no matter what we say or think! She seems awesome and goes right past it. The way you pronounce my name doesn't change a thing. IMHO THIS IS SCIENCE!!! Such a breath of fresh air. I feel grateful to be able to listen to this.
Absolutely NOT! She's oxymoronic in her basic thinking. Eric pointed that out in this clip and it became obvious to me as soon as she spoke for a while. She's caught in a subject-object dichotomy loop and can't escape.
Australia 🇦🇺 here, from an uneducated family with a young family of my own. I really enjoy these conversations, I have been following Eric and his brother for years. I’m not smart but am trying to learn. Wish we had more people care in Australia 🇦🇺 they just want to watch football and TV media like married at first sight 🤦. Keep going team 👍
Another Australian here. I reckon there's more of us than you'd realise that are interested in this stuff, but you're right that it's so drowned out by the footy and other mainstream stuff. Sabine's channel is great, too. I really enjoy her dry, deadpan sense of humour.
@@cameronmclennan942 I wish you where correct however I have done two laps around Australia with my family trying to find a home left mark McStalin land and have come to the otherwise
Good discussion. However, Dr Keating: you don't need to continuously plug (= OVERSELL) the others'/your books and podcasts every few minutes . That's what show notes and Google search are for. And RUclips also auto suggests in and around the video we are watching. Even if this were intended for a audio-only audience (radio, podcast), most folks have little problem with searching for related material.
@@shadowkille8r99 That’s like saying a roofer can’t talk about roofing unless they worked on the Taj Mahal. That makes zero sense. She’s there because she’s talked and written about these concepts and other rabbit holes theoretical physicists have gotten themselves into in interesting and thought provoking ways. It’s always either the most pompous or least accomplished people who say things like this. Which are you?
@@shadowkille8r99 Because she has a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. She has contributed research in quantum gravity and the study of black holes, which are significant areas in theoretical physics. If you're talking about a singular groundbreaking theoretical discovery, then none of the people on the panel are qualified to be there if we go by your standards.
I'm a retired professor of anthropology, with very little knowledge of physics beyond high school level. I've been watching a few of these IAI discussions with physicists. Something that strikes me as surprising is that: in spite of the fact that most of these IAI assemblies seem to have been conceived as "debates," and the idea that disagreement might arise is often discussed by the hosts, there generally seems to be very little disagreement.
these are all very well behaved people because of their academic background which is at the same time quite a shame. I like fire. Even professional iconoclast Weinstein (no, I'm not a fan ;) was clearly on his best behavior here.
It's nice to hear physicists talk about philosophy again. Too often, scientists forget that some of the most famous in their lineage: Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Planck, etc spent a lot of their time dwelling on the metaphysics of reality. Extremist modernism is why all we can do now is just throw two atoms at each other at continually higher velocities and consider that scientific progress.
Carlo should first make sure he gets the idea of Penrose before calling it extreme, and then dismissing it. Penrose never claimed that human consciousness affects measurement in the experiment.
A record player is a great example of an apparatus making a measurement. It is that playback process that represents the flow of time. “Space is solid time and time is liquid space”. That playback process isn’t perfect though, and there is always a distortion in the sound from the speakers, regardless of how expensive your stereo system is. Audio engineers excel at reducing the distortion from their equipment but it is not possible to remove it entirely. i.e using a crossover. There are different types of distortion that can be reduced at the expense of increasing another type of distortion, and good audio systems have a tiny total harmonic distortion. This is exactly the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation. You may also want to think about this Perfect Information as the grooves carved into vinyl (solid time). Playing the record indicates the flow of time is moving forward. Sound is experienced in the liquid space of dynamic air movements, the solid time on the record is liquid space again. Once again there is a distortion in the measurement made by the stylus which is riding the waveform carved into the grooves. Once again there are different types of distortion that can never be eliminated and follow the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation as well. Then, the (distorted) signal from the stylus is then sent through the amplifier and into the speakers, where there is another level of unavoidable distortion that was discussed earlier.
The distortion and noise, though unwanted are just more information and exist within their own time domain which does not agree with our own personal time domain which desires perfect music and perfect time. Perfect silence and perfect absence of time may be the only achievable.
@@nyworker I think the profundity of thought here is that time transmute to a fluid from a solid to a conscious experience to a memory which can be replayed in different states of time or rewound on the record. To me that's the poetry of the metaphor, imagining how real time might leap off the space-time fabric and complete the analogy in physical terms.
Fantastic, honestly.. I barely understand, but having these conversations for us lay people to listen in on is just fantastic thanks to everyone involved.
'Whether we observe nature itself or ...' is a question that goes back to (at least!) Plato & co and likely to more ancient others with less adept publicists. Well, we're from, of and embedded in nature, so we're nature observing itself ... or trying to. Thanks to all; wonderful discussion!
youre trying to speak general. YOu wouldnt understand universe and science until I walk you baby steps thru more portal and identity theft. YOu dont observe me yet were still in collaboration you cant get out of.
I find it useful to seperate the terms 'actuality' and 'reality': The former referring to what is 'actually' out there... and 'reality' being what WE 'realise', i.e. how our minds interpret what is out there, filtered through the limits of our senses, mental abilities and prejudices (etc.)...
In 1781 Kant published Critique of Pure Reason and rocked the world of philosophy. What Kant articulated and what later generations of philosophers picked up on was that reality as we perceive it is not purely objective - it is at least partly subjective. It is easy to believe that reality as we see it is a reflection of reality as it actually is. In other words we tend to assume that the perceptual function that the conscious mind plays is passive, like a mirror, and doesn’t alter the image of reality that it reflects to us. Not so, said Kant. Our perception of reality might start with sensations of something outside of ourselves, but by the time we perceive it our conscious mind has organized, categorized and arranged those raw sensations into reality as it appears to us. We can’t know reality directly. We don’t perceive of things in themselves. What we perceive as reality is in part created by our conscious mind. And this creation of reality isn’t only the unconscious work of the mind as a machine, as some before Kant had believed, the creative process that constructs reality as we see it is also influenced by us. Of all of the infinite sensations, physical, emotional and conceptual that we experience at any given time we are only aware of a small percentage. The rest we ignore, but those that we attend to are compiled into reality by our conscious minds as we see it. What Kant did for the world of Philosophy was make human beings part of the creative process of reality as we see it. In this he dealt a blow to both organized religion and materialist science. To religion he insisted that we can’t perceive the Creation-Creator directly because our perception of Creation-Creator will also be partly of our own construction. To materialist science likewise he takes away the ruse of objectivity because everything we observe will always be influenced by our consciousness. What Kant did for us was redefine reality. Where we at one time had a fixed stage that we observed passively from a seat in the audience, we now had a cooperative process of creation right in the middle of the production. This profound connection between conscious human perception and the creation of reality and of our responsibility in it is what Quantum mechanics showing us to be the truth.
@@djelalhassan7631 Quantum mechanics and more specifically the double slit experiment isn't necessarily applicable to bigger scale reality. I would also argue that English is not the proper language to philosophize. Greek is. Reality is translated as "πραγματικότητα which is a derivative of the word "πράγμα or "OBJECT" which, of course, aligns itself with "objectivity" and NOT "subjectivity". Kant was wrong and Rand was furious about his "creative" perception of reality. I think that Kant tried to describe the power of free will and intent! Intent is a key ingredient in shamanistic practices. It has the power to ATTRACT outcomes of objective reality but not alter reality. Reality is! Kant conflated the states of attraction and being. The subjectivity (one could say "relativism") of Kant is a problem of perceptional distortion. A personal shortcoming of perceiving reality for what it is! Like a non-calibrated instrument that gives untruthful readings, a human, in his imperfect state of perceiving reality is bound to produce untruthful interpretations. This is exactly what I think Sabine does. It's a manifestation of the fundamental problem of philosophy, the subject-object dichotomy. Kant was wrong! There is an objective reality and I could easily proven him wrong by slapping him silly. He'd feel that, without too much thinking, I guarantee you that and that would certainly register as objective reality for anyone involved. Most certainly Kant. The problem with thinkers is that they solely depend on thinking to solve ALL problems. Sometimes solutions and answers are "felt" much more accurately than "thought of". But, I guess, "to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail".
@@djelalhassan7631Kant is just trivially wrong. We do indeed perceive reality as it really is and all Kant's arguments to the contrary are easily rebutted. Perception is not organization and categorization. We organize and categorize things based on what we perceive, but perception itself just is. While our brain's activity plays a role in what we perceive, so does the environment, and so does the environment's environment. If the brain is indeed a real object then it logically follows none of the brain's activity could produce something that isn't real, it would all be merely the real activity of the brain. The claim that the brain can create something that isn't real is to claim the brain can transcend reality, which Kant never convincingly justifies.
@amihartz The brain conjures things that do not map onto external reality. Dreams and hallucinations are "real" in the sense that they are neurochemical processes which the subject experiences, but they are not inter-subjective, publicly available phenomena.
Would be nice if we had thinkers that talked about consciousness in relation to QM because they exist and they should not be rejected in this manner 🙂 EDIT: the “there is nothing psychic in nature” comment was so naive philosophically. It is quite breathtaking..
That’s very closed minded of you… you must be a physicist. Just because you don’t like that statement doesn’t mean it is or isn’t true. But you definitely cannot say that at this point you know it isn’t. You simply don’t have enough information to say that.
That depends on the definition of 'psychic' - a much abused term, and the comment might just be a reflection of annoyance at the abuse. Which I share. It's a term best avoided.
One way to think of quantum physics is that the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas for us (atoms) to interact with; we have waves over a period of time and particles as an uncertain future unfolds. The mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of time with classical physics represents processes over a ‘period of time’ as in Newton's differential equations. In this theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents geometry, the Planck Constant ħ=h/2π is linked to 2π circular geometry representing a two dimensional aspect of 4π spherical three-dimensional geometry. We have to square the wave function Ψ² representing the radius being squared r² because the process is relative to the two-dimensional spherical 4π surface. We then see 4π in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π representing our probabilistic temporal three dimensions life. The charge of the electron e² and the speed of light c² are both squared for the same geometrical reason. We have this concept because the electromagnetic force forms a continuous exchange of energy forming what we experience as time. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light photon ∆E=hf energy is forming potential photon energy into the kinetic energy of electrons. Kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy is the energy of what is actually happening. An uncertain probabilistic future is continuously coming into existence with the exchange of photon energy.
Thanks to the Brian guy for letting us see this, but I have never seen so many commercials, subscription invitations, and mention of 1,500 live views. I would say Just focus on producing good content and everything else will follow
Greatly enjoyed this conversation. Although all participants mostly repeated their individual stances we came to know, it is good to see the interaction now has become more friendly and slightly open to each other ideas. The main feature of the mystery of the 'observer problem' in the quantum world is not addressed in a significantly new way. IMHO the key to understanding the 'observation problem' is that we have used incorrect wording for 100 years. Referring to the infamous double slit experiment, we keep saying that we see a PARTICLE (say electron) moving through either one or the other slit. That is physically incorrect. we don NOT see the particle. We see its ENERGY. This is the essence to understand the double slit experiment. We see the ENERGY of the particle EITHER as the 'point-like' particle property of 'potential' OR (if we don't measure) we see the same energy acting as the GRID around the particle, thus interacting through both slits creating the interference shape. Again, repeat after me; ENERGY is BOTH that practicle property of potential AND the GRID property around it. The act of measuring (by sensor or brain) forces nature to display the POTENTIAL function and collapses the GRID function, as apparently (!) both are inversely related. Penrose in 2020 (Lex Friedman) explicitly stated that mass likewise has the function of inertia AND the inverse time function of CLOCK in the subatomic world. He derives this by substituting E=hf in E=MC2. So then, I think it is about time after 100 years to finally acknowledge that the FUNDAMENT of phyisics is DUALITY between functions and measures and that the 'observer problem' is simply demonstrating their INVERSE relation....why don't we discuss this the next time?
@@ailblentyn They are troubled by trying to understand physics from a mono-continuum viewpoint, whereas we fundamentally live in a dual continuum world. The questions and paradoxes that pop-up in our curriculum are not real. They are the consequence of sticking to only our spacetime setup. Thats why we did not find answers to the century old issues. Its not our lack of brainpower. It is our unwillingness to revise what we thought we knew....
@@RWin-fp5jn "The act of measuring (by sensor or brain)" - Brain has no effect on measurement, only instruments that shoot electrons or other particles. Brain is not emitting particles into your experiment and nothing outside of your own mind can comprehend what you're observing.
How would "our spacetime setup" differ in the physics described by your(?) "duality between functions and measures". Is this your own idea or is there (aside from Penrose) any active research into it?
@@hedles Our grid (continuum) has two and not one setups. The macro setup is space (grid) and time (clock). The subatomic setup has energy (grid) and mass (clock). Thats is why we see atom bound electrons not moving in terms of space and time but in terms of (quanta) of energy which take mass and not time traverse. Simple observation. No theory. Simple undeniable truths we are not allowed to say. And since we also use energy as a measure of 'potential' in the macro world it follows all measures have 2 functions and all functions have tow measures. No theory. Just simple observations. If we don't acknowledge the basics, we will never progress and we might well face another 4 decades of failures in physics
One thing that does confuse me is the propensity of scientists to refer to "mind" and "consciousness" interchangeably, as though they are the same thing. The things which I refer to as my "mind" and my "consciousness" are so unmistakably different (and indeed entirely independent of one another) that I'm forced to conclude either that many smart people have never stopped for five minutes to investigate themselves, or that my subjective experience of reality is qualitatively different from that of others. In my experience, mind is a broad term for the tendency of sensory input to cause echoes, and the synthesis of those echoes into novel excitations, by some unknown and possibly mechanical process. A machine made entirely of wooden gears could have a mind, but it wouldn't be conscious. My consciousness, by contrast, would probably be best described as the thing which watches my mind. Consciousness can (and often does, in my case) exist with no mind at all (no thoughts; no echoes), but when there is a thought "in" the mind, my consciousness is watching it. Either one can exist without the other, but while I would say that mind is almost certainly a product of the brain, consciousness is very unlikely to be so, both because there is no reason I can see for evolution to have created it, and because there is no physical framework I'm aware of which would allow for its existence.
A very interesting and informative discussion, and certainly challenging ideas presented. Thank you to all panelists and host for the great challenge. 1:13:03
Such deep and great subject with top thinkers/reasearcher...but, Brian, tbis is way tooo short for such adiscussion. 3 hrs might start to be decent!!! Keep up your great informative podcasts...thank you!!!
Both Sabine and Carlo claim that the superposition collapses by any measuring instrument, and not at the level of conscious observing. But how do they know that? Perhaps the measuring instrument is in a superposition until a human checks its output? Suppose the apparatus flashes red for spin up and green for spin down, then the evolution of the wavefunction that's a superposition of up and down, will result in a superposition of red and green. We only "observe" a collapse of the wavefunction, once we observe the instrument and check which light is flashing. In fact, what counts as a measurement is arbitrary, if not for conscious observers. Any two specs of dust interacting is s measurement from the perspective of the dust particle experiencing that interaction. So why would the fact that this particular interaction happen to be in the form of something built by humans, be any different and cause a collapse, if not because of the conscious observation involved? An apparatus is just a fancy physical system, which should obey Schrödinger evolution. There's nothing special about a measuring instrument, unless from the point of view of a conscious being. So whilst we can't prove that the wavefunction collapse happens at the point of consciousness, we certainly can't prove that it happens earlier. So Sabine and Carlo are wrong to claim that we know that the collapse has nothing to do with consciousness.
It's yet unknown whether or not consciousness is involved in it, and in what sense, to what degree. But the apparatus idea has been just sheer nonsense for a century, for the reasons you detailed. It's sad that belief in such nonsense is still what makes someone a grounded, well-respected thinker.
Sadly, the answer to this question is something that cannot be expressed in words, but is pretty much obvious once you write the equations of QM. I say sadly because it's source of many misunderstandings about the implications of QM. What the layperson without a solid foundation in physics (and the related mathematics such as Hilbert spaces, operators, eigenvectors and eigenvalues, projection operators) does not understand is that what we think of as a "measurement" is exactly the same as an "interaction", i.e. ANY kind of interaction Hamiltonian that perturbs the original Hamiltonian of the system (and so, its time evolution as well, save for some specific case like Quantum nondemolition and the Quantum Zeno protocol). Once you write that it's obvious that consciousness has nothing at all to do with the operation of measuring, at least if you still stand by Occam's Razor. If you don't, and prefer to explain things that are the exact same and bring to the exact same results, in two artificially different cathegories, well, then that speaks for itself
@@raffaeledivora9517 Except it's you who doesn't have a solid foundation in physics, the known universe is one continuous "system". Any further division into interacting systems is a convenience tool, in order to be able to do any meaningful physics. Once you have this useful but false picture, is when the whole treatment of Hilbert spaces/operators/eigenvalus etc. comes in. "Intercting systems" is all good and necessary instrumentalism, but it's not what's actually going on. And of course even then, interaction goes both ways, for example why does the mesuring device collapse the particle, instead the particle collapsing the measuring device?
@@neftu9131 Frankly I don't understamd the point of your last question, since the particle does in fact collapse the state of the system it is interacting with as well. Your first point however I find interesting, in that it puts reductionism into question (which in this case is possible to do, and has already been done by some prominent currently active physicists). So I have to accept your objection about we not knowing the possible effects of large-scale interactions (and possibly, non-locality?), but the key issue is always the same: where is your alternative model for these effects? Does it produce testable predictions? Why does it not produce observable discrepancies in measurements we already did? Until those questions are not at least all partially answered, it is not credible scientifically (since you don't discard something that works pretty well for something that works worse, and that's logics 101)
Question, I just checked the online definition of reality which made reference to 'actual existence ' fine, but then I looked up the online definition of existence and found that it was premised on the nature of reality ... hmmm. This is very insightful and highlights one of the reasons that discussions of this nature are so difficult
@@keiichicom7891 Contradictions can only exist in the mind. So it's contextual, yet still important if you want to say how the concepts of reality and existence are different.
I’m about 5 minutes in and what fascinates me the most was the amount of different drinking vessels Eric used during the intro. Was each one filled with a different beverage? As an observer, I would guess the probability was yes, each was filled with a different drink. But as the observer, I could never know what he’s observing, so like everything observed in life (reality) everything’s merely a guess.
Great debate and thanks for making this public again, it's awesome to have some questions which I've had for years discussed by experts in the field, learnt a lot of topics which I need to follow up on. Next idea, it'd be great if you could do something similar but with top neuroscientists, exclusively focused on the biological aspects of this debate. I'm sure this will yield a bunch of useful insights, this is something which the likes of Robert Sapolsky, Sam Harris and many others have talked about endlessly.
complete intellectual dishonesty, typical physicalists. an apparatus does not collapses a wave function if its never observed by an actual observer seeing the apparatus. that an apparatus can be declared to collapse a wave function independent of an actual observer is what zeilinger says is not just wrong but something which can no longer be considered a coherent question to ask.
What is measurement? continued . . . Let us consider a set of integers which serve as input to the functions f(x) = x; f(x)=2x; f(x) = 3x; f(x) = 4(x); . . . Here, the math function is the frame of reference. When we express the function f(x) = x in the cartesian coordinate system, the description is a straight line of slope 1: "What we get (the actual input) is what we see", a cartesian coordinate description of a set of integers or rather an uninfluenced observation. Please note that f(x) = x does not influence the actual input because there is no skewing or departure from the straight line of slope 1. We then increase the coefficient of x in steps of 1 as f(x) = 2x; f(x) = 3x; f(x) = 4x; . . . and observe that any increase ( or decrease) in value of the coefficient causes slopping or skewing or departure from the initial slope of 1. Because there is a skewing or a departure from "what we get is what we see" expression of the cartesian coordinate system, we say that the coefficient of x greater than or less than 1 "influences" the input as an act of measurement and skews the slope of the straight line. The measurement outcome is the effect of the influence, a skewed slope. This implies that an influenced observation is a measurement. The strength of the influence(a coefficient
You guys are on the right track ,there is more than one track and remember your not the only people working on it and that all the theories have something to offer
That's not the problem. The problem is that most of our observations in the microscopic world are agreeing quite well with our assumptions about it and that the observations we have about the cosmological scale are still riddled with so many irreducible measurement errors that it's still too noisy to do any precision physics at all.
Were would we be without edgy fringe meta physical Weinstein nonsense? 8 minutes before we hear from the experts. Then I got a RUclips ad just before the first expert uttered a single word. I will deliberately avoid buying any of the products or services marketed in these interrupting ads
Thank you. It's almost indefensible to put this grandiose/grandiloquent crackpot on a panel with serious scientists and thinkers of Sabine's caliber. It only seems to happen because his close pal, Brian Keating (who also comes across as a professional grievance pimp against the scientific community) is in the mix. I suppose they are a sure draw for silly, gullible, and downright idiotic "darkweb"/alt-right quacks, misfits, and incels. Their presence here makes me lose a lot of respect for IAS, but Sabine is more than a match for any given pair of fools/tools. Pity she's not always around to correct and challenge their like.
This resonates with my ongoing inner dialogue. When I've achieved what to me is an expressable certainty, I find it can't be stated simply. Here goes. Everything man made began with a thought. Thoughts are weightless. In the beginning thought is only potential, only aware of no-thing. I haven't resolved how this "awareness" of an undefinable nothingness, in an effort to discover it's characteristics, what it is, needed to bring into existence something other than itself. It somehow produces an infinitely miniscule telekinetic pressure that gives form to the potential of something other than nothing existing . The will to exist now becomes the purpose for every action. Skip ahead to when humanity has done the will of weightless thought. Having harnessed all the energy of the entire fully actualized universe and computized all known knowns it fearlessly surrenders to the mother of all black holes and provides the codes for a new bourne universe in an orgasmic big bang. Still working on the nothing to something part. If that is solved what then would I have to think about?
Absolutely! For me the language is Infinite potential dividing itself through linear progression (in infinite direction) in order to experience, to manifest. The cycle of the universe is the cell cycle in an organism at scale. The black hole is the gate of mitosis. Not exact but a variation from our bodies distinct cell division process. Are we still the healthy cell or are we the cancer, the mutated cell required for the evolutionary process?
My impression is that you are essentially talking about the power of intent and by extension, free will. A concept that Sabine has completely refuted. Too bad for her, I say. Moreover, thinking is just a tool, our natural state of being is (thoughtless) existing, not thinking. I would suggest the book "The Master and his emissary" by Iain McGilchrist plus looking into the fundamental philosophical problem of subject-object dichotomy.
Thoroughly enjoyable ! Came for more substance than a deep-dive into the philosophy of science, but _hey_ - as one of the panelists made clear, _that's_ WHERE Physics and Quatum _ANYTHING_ have BEEN for the last 40 years ! Nice JOB 👍!
The observer is the way to better understand our environment. He is the variable that can make equations furthering our knowledge. But thats it. Can we move on. Science, the entire world of physics does not care about the observer. Were the only ones to care. And should get over it
that was more fun than i expected, you all seem to be okay with each other even in disagreement and more smiles and laughter than i've seen from any for a while, even brian was (slightly) funnier than usual...😁
Someone mentions consciousness in these dialogues and it's like: what an extreme idea! Someone mentions "infinite" universes that exist for no reason at all: perfectly possible!!
@@JerseyLynne "scientists say "nothing is unstable" nothing means "no consciousness" If "nothing is unstable", then there is something and it is not "nothing" "Nothing" is not the absence of consciousness, it is the absence of anything.
@@nemrodx2185 If you could stop arguing against the strawmen of your own creation, you might start learning something. In other words: brain input mode - on, brain's output mode - off.
😂.. You obviously don’t understand any of what Was discussed then. This was/is just a leftist ego stroke Exercise. All they did was give their opinions on contrived theories that deal with Concepts that they themselves don’t fully grasp. You probably also believe in Climate Change Hoax and Think NASA is legitimate. Academia hasn’t been viable since the 80’s mid 90’s.. Best advice I can muster is to 1, Learn Latin and 2, Find oldest books you can get your hands on.. The Bible, Book of Enoch and Non canonized texts included. The current Historical narrative as sold is Not close to factual. Research GALAN WINSOR, Nicola Tesla. Look into Dresden, old world Resets and ask yourself why NASA names It’s Tools after Science fiction Writers and Mason/Satanists.. We had Electric Cars that were clean, moved Fast and travels for 100 miles per charge in the 1800’s..Seriously.. I’m certainly not the brightest but My IQ is far closer to 200 than most.
Mostly wonderful, but sometimes I think he could be a bit more passive and let the guests interact and react to each other's statements more, rather than posing a new question to each guest in turn irrespective.
@@logtothebase2 I suspect that was a very deliberate choice to safeguard the ego and carefully-cultivated online image of one of his longtime pals. The grandiose one who very obviously didn't belong here.
Same here Unfortunately the constant and suddenly change of subjects didn't contribute to the debate. Not her fault, of course. Even I was asking myself what Eric was saying seconds after the subject change
45:00 Eric hits the nail on the head. People assume that because we don't understand consciousness and quantum mechanics, we must assume they go together. As an electrical engineer this is like people saying because they understand electrons and em fields, then they must be related to how a radio or cell phone works. The devil is in the details and how the levels of reality relate.
@@joeredman569 Exactly....because they are all theorists at the most fundamental level they believe they can make a judgement like "I'm soooo smart and if I can't understand it, that means nobody can". Like Sam Harris who calls a brain "thinking meat" and then said he tried computer programming but found it too difficult.
"People assume that because we don't understand consciousness and quantum mechanics, we must assume they go together." I don't think people assume that. I think it's just a goofy assertion that some physicist made up and projected onto other people's minds. And other physicists latched onto the idea for some odd reason, without thinking it through. I don't know why they keep saying it because it's pure fantasy bullshit.
Rovelli's assertion (53:20) that consciousness is a non-problem is a problem. It's only a non-problem to those who believe that the brain is a computer, and things like motivations, emotions, love, fear, etc are just computer algorithms running on the biological hardware that is the brain. Computers, however, *never* occur in nature. They cannot, because of entropy. What do occur in nature are colonies, not computers. The properties of consciousness, along with entropy, *do* need to be taken seriously. I side with Penrose & Hameroff that there is something about consciousness that requires some manner of QM involvement (though I do wish they'd drop their thing with microtubules). My own preference is for DNA entanglement (yes, I know about warm, wet environments - factor in not decoherence, but recoherence). Going this route, we obtain solutions to entropy, the binding problem, the mind-body problem (bodies wire neuroplastic brains), and more. Bottom line, dismissing consciousness as a non-problem, to persist with the assumption that the brain is a computer, will just extend the past 50-year catastrophe to a 100-year catastrophe. The brain is *not* a computer. It is a colony (of neurons/glia) and its dynamics reflect the dynamics of what all colonies do. And that's why QM, factoring in the secrets of the DNA molecule, might be fundamental to the mind/life sciences... and indeed, to all the sciences that must take the entropy problem far more seriously than they have in the past.
Your observation about the brain is not a computer and there is no computers out there in nature is due to a very limited view of what a computer is and what computation is. In essence, any process that has a state and transition rule is a computation. So that applies to the rules of physics as well as how the brain works. Therefore, anything that goes through the process of computation is a computer. As long as one can demonstrate that a brain has a state and a transition rule, then the brain is a computer in the broadest sense. And it’s obvious that the brain has a state and some kind of mechanism that calculates that next state (i.e. a transition rule).
@@خالد_الشيباني Colonies comprised of agents operate very differently to computers, which are comprised of circuits, switches, components and mechanisms. Computers are *never* comprised of agents. Agency theory (e.g., Sharov, 2018)* is a contemporary incarnation of autopoiesis and systems theory (Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela), and bears no resemblance to the state transition rules (linear, input/output) to which you refer. *Sharov, A. (2018). Mind, agency and biosemiotics. Journal of Cognitive Science 19(2):195-228
Thank you @TheTroofSayer !! I'm not with you on the DNA thing but otherwise fully agree! For both of you, I think you are missing Penrose' point about Gödel's theorem. This is how he highlights the connection between consciousness and non-computability. Regardless if you have a silicon based CPU or an organic "wet" calculator you will be bound to computable problems only. You will never be able to exceed that, which we obviously are able to with our minds. Humans have solved innumerable mathematically non-computable problems.
The commercials are extremely disruptive to the conversation. During my view, the guests could hardly get going on a thought before I had to play the commercial mini-game 😤
I like Eric's reference to "recreational philosophy," and it made me wonder what terminology would be applied to philosophies of physics, or other "hard" sciences, which seem increasingly to be what public debates among physicists are about lately. Perhaps this is due to the various crises arising in theoretical physics due to certain problems remaining unsolved for an extended period, such that hard scientist are taking a hard look at themselves wondering where they have gone astray. It's sort of like watching group therapy.
@@VperVendetta1992 no that's not what I mean at all. I mean the philosophy involved in the practice of physics, like ethical standards, and what constitutes an acceptable degree of conjecture for serious consideration. Metaphysics would fall beyond that bound, but the debate is about where the bounds lie.
I destroyed and built these people. science all the fields and academia. one man see what Im doing how I operate and what I talk about they get ideas nthen they start cloning. portal for him too oh we need a portal now. O LORD wasnt cuttin it. too much. Jesus SMuggling. I never lost.
Sabina is correct that we must have more theories concerning the origins of consciousness to make sense of the term reality. Best guess is a field that pervades time instantaneously.
What is time? What is the relationship between time and the observer? To notice change is time. Let us go into what is involved in the act of noticing change. We have the current frame and we compare the current frame with the previous frame and say that the previous frame has changed into the current frame. Without referring to the previous frame, we cannot notice change. So, how did the previous frame come about? It came about the moment we registered or recorded the first frame. Without recording the initial frame, we cannot compare, and if there is nothing to refer to, then we cannot notice change. This means that the moment we register or record, time begins. Because comparison is measurement, time is a measure. We are not only looking at time as a measure, but we are also looking at time as a record, time as memory. A program is a record of a pattern of operation or functioning: it invariably produces the same output given the same valid input. We cannot notice a pattern without time. A pattern is time. Because a program is a record, a program is time; the observer is a program, therefore, the observer is time. The observer is the past. Recording or registering is the basis of psychological, biological and chronological time. Matter is a record, therefore, matter is time.
A macroscopic, conscious entity can be an observer in a quantum measurement experiment, not because it is conscious but because it is macroscopic. Thus conscious entity can be an observer, but that does not mean every observer HAS to be conscious. This is a VERY important point and is not appreciated. In other words consciousness is not anything special in quantum mechanics. Like Carlo said, he considers cameras, or any other instrument that is outside quantum system and interacts with it is an observer. Sean Carroll and Brian Green and others have said similar things. IMO the use of word observer, has caused all of this confusion. For a lay person words like observer conjure up conscious entities like humans. And that is how the word observer is used colloquially. This is a powerful example of slack use of colloquial word in the context of scientific theory. I think measurement instrument or some such would have been a better choice. God particle to describe Higgs boson has caused a similar confusion, which woo woo crowd takes it and runs with it. There are countless gurus with theories of quantum consciousness or quantum healing. The labs trying to build quantum computers do not worry about isolating the quantum computer states from consciousness of the personnel in the lab. They try to isolate the quantum state from molecules close to it, lest they may destroy the quantum state by interacting with it.
Well put, Sandip. The term 'observer' does indeed evoke the idea of a conscious percipient, but I would argue the confusion would be precluded at the outset by a robust definition of macroscopic consciousness. Indeed, even though observers do not need to be conscious, folk will continue to speculate about possible microscopic consciousnesses so long as our definition of macroscopic consciousnesses remains mysterious. Say we upgraded the old definition of consciousness -- e.g. awareness of one's surroundings -- to make it refer specifically to the *self-world modelling faculty of brains* , then I would imagine we would hear very little from the microscopic-consciousness crowd. On a self-world modeling definition, consciousness is when the brain models the inputs of its sensoriums in real-time. Consciousness isn't something separable from body or brain; it is not the equivalent of software like Microsoft Word, able to be ran on different systems with significantly different hardware. Rather, consciousness more resembles the computer and its components in its entirety; without particular key components, a monitor or GPU or CPU, the computer doesn't work. Likewise, without body and brain, consciousness cannot work. (Body and brain could be artificial, made of silicone, because what's important is structure, not substrate) While the term consciousness remains vague so too will claims made by QT-leaning consciousness philosophers. If we narrowed the term to refer to the modelling process, I find it hard to imagine many would conflate macroscopic observers with microscopic observers, for it would be obvious that sensoriums and self-modeling brains do not exist at the microscopic level and are strictly macroscopic phenomena.
Recent developments in AI have made your analogy less effective. Trained neural networks can generate games by studying pixels alone, without any of the original code or game engine. I think something similar happens with the human scientific endeavour. By studying patterns and the surface of things we can derive models which map onto a deeper reality.
@@Sifar_Secure the people at Line 6 will tell you that their digital algorithms produce an audio quality indistinguishable from tube amps, they don’t though. They might be undetectable once in a mix and played through a digital sound system, yet the player can feel the difference between analog and digital while performing. This is a better analogy because it’s about how limited and varied our powers of observation are. Video games have a logical mathematical structure so by studying enough pixels over time you could figure out many aspects of game play. However you have the perspective of a player and know how to read the text prompts. When we study something in the natural world we are more like the character in the game tying to understand the rules of the guy who made the game. It ain’t gonna work, the perspective is too narrow. The guy who has played music through a tube amp his whole life has a memory of the relationship between his physical actions and the sonic results. He hears things he can’t quantify and technicians don’t really see in the digitized waveform. Is he crazy, no, he just has a different perspective that exist outside of the parameters that scientist know how to measure and create algorithms for. When we talk about understanding the natural world via a minuscule sample size of atoms, we are lacking way to much data to assume we can understand the perspective of God, or at least what ever natural force made reality possible.
What I’m personally trying to do is compile a straight forward summary of our current collective understanding of reality, written out in laymen terms without harking back to Copernicus and the anthropic principle etc. I want to trim the superfluous talking and philosophical questioning to lay down a clear, refined foundation for anyone to understand, and perhaps build up from. We need more eyes on the subject because I believe we’re yet to start asking the right questions…
About the debate in general : 1. Too superficial for the topic. 2. Host is talking too much while saying nothing. Better give those seconds to the guests. 3. To discuss those questions under such time constraints guests should be better selected to represent different angles, be interested in this particular discussion. Neither Eric nor Carlo were, for different reasons.
@@TheKrunel Check the Wikipedia entry for Hidden-variable theory, or sit on the sidelines trying hard to act superior by making out Dr Weinstein is talking "meaningless nonsense" when you offer no substantive critique, why, in your opinion, any particular part of what he said was incorrect for him to assert, and wasn't merely the work of De Broglie-Bohm and Penrose.
@@____uncompetative "gravity is the engine of observation" (Penrose, I guess), "the big problem in this area is trying to go after every theory you've never thought of as if it were something called hidden variables" (De Broglie-Bohm, I guess). It's just hand wavy verbiage from Weinstein
I think the fundamental question is is whether the wave function collapse is describing fundamental reality or not, because with our current observations it is impossible for us to know because the very act of observing limits what we can see is going on. If you take the wave functions literally, the fundamental reality is that the observation is what is causing the collapse, in a non deterministic way. It is impossible to prove that there is a separation between the apparatus and the observer. We can compare it to instead the flipping of a coin. We can make extremely simple equations of the probably of a coin flip, and the result would be 50%. Are those equations actually describing reality? No, not really. In theory, you could perfectly model the coin flip, take into account the angular momentum, gravity, the vector field of air currents over time, the gravity of everything in the universe, the light particles smashing into it, the vibration of the coin, the vibration and interactions of all the little atoms in the coin, and you could come up with a model that completely predicts the system of the coin flip, and it would be near deterministic(Except some of those things probably have quantum fluctuations themselves). So the equation for the probability for a particular coin flip is NOT technically describing reality... The fundamental question is how much is the Schrödinger equations and their collapse actually describing reality, and how much is it just an approximation? Is probability and observation the fundamental "mover", or are we just simply not being able to see what's going on? That there is a very kinetic reason for the collapse of the wave function and the particle never actually goes through any of the slits it's not supposed to.
11:00 Sabine: reality is not scientifically defensible; not a realist but instrumentalist. 15:00 Maps are not the territory; physics "map" has not been updated in decades, and people are now viewing the maps as territory. 16:25 Bertrand Russell: role of observer= construct probability based on past events; turkey. 18:40: science is not about finding certainty but a process to learn. Is quantum a modeling tool or measurable, observable? 51:30 We cannot underdtand the sun or super nova without quantum mechanixs 52:40 nobody knows what consciousness is. It's a name we gave to the unknown 1:05:10 G-2
Turkey example is spot on! Just because we don't see resurrection of the past generations, does not mean it will never happen in the future. The Creator promised that He will bring it. We are too arrogant to think that all that effort of creating the whole universe was somehow meaningless and in vain. The improbable possibility of the existence itself is somehow pushed under the rug and assigned to blind coincidence and chance which always ends up in scientific fiasco when it comes to explanations and possibilities. Fine-tuned universe spits on the faces of deniers who try to hide the pointers 👉 towards God within the unscientific nonsense as multiverse. They don't want to accept 'unscientific' God hypothesis and yet shamelessly retort to unscientific multiverse nonsense.
So, an observer eats turkey and transforms the chemical potential energy in the turkey's proteins and fats into ATP, which then enables the brain to continue observing?
Brian should let the guests do the talking. Just pose questions briefly, to the point, preferably written down in advance to avoid confusion and repetition.
I am a physicist and I will provide sound arguments that prove that consciousness is not generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is not physical (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. Contrary to the Rovelli's opening statement, we are NOT only a physical system like any other in the universe. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it can be proved that this hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledge and implies logical contradictions. There are in fact 2 arguments that prove such hypothesis contains a logical fallacy. 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions of underlying processes and arbitrary abstractions of the actual physical processes. In fact, the underlying microscopic processes are described by the fundamental laws of physics and no emergent properties are involved in such description; this implies that all the alleged emergent properties are only arbitrary and approximate descriptions of the actual physical processes (arbitrariness is involved when more than one options is possible; in this case, more than one possible descriptions). An approximate description is only an abstraction, 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; an approximate description is an idea that exists only in a conscious mind. This means that emergent properties are concepts that refer to something that has an inherent conceptual nature (abstract ideas). 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 every set of elements is inherently an arbitrary abstraction which implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set. 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. Therefore, any property attributed to the set as a whole is inherently arbitrary because it depends on the arbitrary choice used to define the set. Arbitrariness is a precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and consciousness is a precondition for the existence of arbitrariness. 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 the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. 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, 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, such "something" cannot exist independently of a conscious mind and 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 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. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else; however, there is no objective criterion that allows us to identify what separates brain and non-brain. Obviously, consciousness cannot be a property of an abstraction, because an abstraction cannot conceive of itself. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction because it implies the arbitrary choice of including some elements in the set and excluding others. Physically the brain is not a single entity and therefore every alleged property of the brain is an arbitrary concept, a subjective abstraction, because it depends on the arbitrary definition of the brain. This is sufficient to prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is a property of the brain is nonsensical because it contains an intrinsic logical contradiction; consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of arbitrariness, and therefore the existence of consciousness cannot be a consequence of all that implies arbitrariness. Conversely, if the concept refers to “something” that is NOT inherently arbitrary or subjective or conceptual, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of a concept that does not refer to something that is inherently subjective and presupposes the existence of arbitrariness, is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties which imply arbitrariness and can exist only as ideas in a conscious mind, the concept of indivisible entity refers to a reality 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. Since consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever, consciousness can only be a fundamental property of an indivisible entity, because only an indivisible entity does not imply any kind of arbitrariness; 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 cannot be 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. Marco Biagini
Talking about something "unphysical" in the physical and that interacts and affects the physical in any way, is like talking about what's outside the universe. If there was anything "outside" the universe that you could be sure of somehow, it would, by definition, not be outside the universe anymore. edit: Let me claryfy. The existance of that "unphysical" thing is the reason that leads to the physical process of you writing about it. So somewhere inbetween must be a physical connection between the "unphysical" and the physical which is a contradiction.
@@IngTomT False. You are abitrarily assuming that the interaction between something physical and something unphysical must be physical. ; therefore, your conclusionthat there is contradiction is only the result of a circular reasoning. Indeed, dualism does not imply any kind of contradiction. By the way, with the term physical, i refer to all what is reducible to the fundamental laws of physics, according to which in our brain there are only interacting quantum particles, such as electrond, protons and neutrons.. the physocal interactions are only those predicted by the fundamental laws of physics. My arguments prove that brain processes, as described by the laws of physics, are not a sufficient condition for the existence of our mental experiences. There are two logically consistent interpretations; the dualistic view and the idealistic view. In the dualistic perspective, our mental experiences are the result of the interaction between the soul and brain processes. In the idealistic perspective, our mental experiences are the result of the interaction between our soul and God, and brain processes are a representation of that interaction; in this view, the whole universe exists only as an idea in God's mind, who creates the phenomena we observe according to the mathematical models he has conceived (what we call "the laws of physics"). This idealistic perspective is essentially Berkeley's view and provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics.
@@marcobiagini1878 My view is that only physical interaction can animate a physical object to a physical action. Not necessarly that we already understand the nature of that interaction (or everything we could understand about the physical world) yet but it has to be physical nonetheless. I don't understand why you need to sperate things we understand and things we don't understand (yet) into categories like physical and unphysical. It doesn't seem necesarry to me.
@@IngTomT As I said, your assumption that "only physical interaction can animate a physical object" is arbitrary and devoid of any rational basis. My arguments prove that the brain, as described by our scientific knowledge, cannot generate consciousness and that consciousness can only be a property of an indivisible element, which does not exist according to the current laws of physics. Some further considerations about progress in science; First of all, science has never made progress throughout history in explaining the origin of consciousness and therefore there is no reason to expect science to provide an explanation in the future. Neuroscience has shown only the existence of corelations between brain processes and mental experiences, but correlation does not mean causation. Indeed, science is unable to explain the existence of consciousness even in principle; science does not even provide a clue to justify the existence of consciousness. It is worth considering that the current laws of physics already explain all chemical and biological processes, including cerebral processes, without the need to introduce addictional hypotheses, independent of the laws of physics themselves. Developments in physics are expected to refer to high energy processes or cosmology, processes that do not interfere with brain processes. In fact, a remarkable feature of the laws of physics, is the fact that the strong interaction among quarks is decoupled from the electromagnetic interaction between electrons, which alone determines all chemical and biological processes; the strong interaction simply holds nucleons together inside the atomic nucleous during chemical and biological processes. It is therefore unreasonable to hypothesize that we will find new laws of physics that will change our descriptions of biological processes, just as science has never changed our description of the dynamics of macroscopic objects at speeds far below the speed of light, a dynamics that is still described through the laws of classical physics. Quantum physics represents a major breakthrough in the history of science because for the first time it has provided a set of laws capable to explain all biological processes. The point is that we do not need new laws of physics to explain biological and cerebral processes, and such processes are perfectly reducible to the current laws of physics; conversely, my arguments prove that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics.
Beauty is subjective. And within this mental arbitrariness, I don't see physical atoms formulating a subjective viewpoint. Also what is the Language of neurons. Do neurons communicate... I love this... my goodness benefits other human neurons... morality will lead to global peace? Having said that, I think Mind is not the physical brain. I think in my simple illustrated thinking we are fundamentally in agreement.
The problem of quantum measurement is simply that of the added energy of the neasuring/observation device which interferes in the field being measured. We do not know the role of consciousness, just as we have no epistemological bridge that connects quantum field theory with classical physics, chemistry and biology and finally life, sentience and consciousness. We assume it is negligble or non-existent but that only reveals the gaps of our understanding. Sabine has a video "disproving" free will on the basis of particles and math, but her conclusion is so simplistic as to be unwarranted as it presumes a bridge between particles and a psychic phenomenon that we just do not have. The hard problem of consciousness is how we get experiential, intangible and subjective qualities from just objective and tangible stuff: is that a boring issue best left for neuroscientists like Antonio Damásio et.all? Kind of like saying you are only interested in biology and not in chemistry, or only interested in chemistry and not in physics: these borders do not exist in nature. All of the panel, like mainstream scientists, seem to just assume that it's an emergent property or epiphenomenon and thus sidestep the issue. If Eric Weinstein finds it "boring" it is because this debate has become fatigued and not gone anywhere. Yet, if Donald Hoffman or Bernardo Kastrup ideas of idealism may be on to something, then all the panel and mainstream physicists will be out of a job as their assumptions are all wrong and all of Weinstein's new directions and perspectives would be irrelevant. Rovelli's dismal and claim that there is nothing "psychic" in nature is, as a comment points out below, very naive: I understand their shying away from the subject because it reeks of metaphysics: it is also an extreme and dangerous subject because it threatens to upend all the cherished scientific truths of physicalism. Others, finding the monopoly of conventional physicalism too restrictive and reductionist, like David Bohm and Schrodinger (different from Penrose) intuited that the Indian Upanishads may have been on to something in their consideration of consciousness as the most fundamental element of reality. The moderator, Brian Keating, did a great job and one sees he's very interested in the subject (as opposed to the close minded dogma of "Just shut up and calculate"), but the panel was too one sided in its reluctance to broach the subject: Rovelli actually close minded, Sabine just agnostically skeptical and Eric in a world of his own. An idealist might have quipped "Never mind the matter, these scientists can go stuff it." Aside from the math, they are all as clueless about the real role of quantum physics in reality as we are. Tim Maudlin is right here: we have no image or picture of quantum physics which allow us to connect it with reality as we do of classical physics. An enjoyable discussion, nevertheless, but nothing illuminating here.
Very true. Carlo and Sabine have such horrendous arguments, that are obviously so close minded and 100% biased that it discredits their very own position as scientists. These are actual scientists? These are the people who teach science? incredibly disgusting
Actually the apparatus has been experimentally proven to not cause of the collapse by the quantum eraser experiment. What they were saying about the instrument maybe causing the collapse is patently false. But I understand why they do it. You would have no career as a physicist if you admit that consciousness is fundamental
I agree that the idea of quantum consciousness is a boring one and it kills me that the general public seems so interested in it and woo surrounding it.
The woo part of it really grinds my gears. It shows that the vast majority of humans think we're the center of the universe. Thinking of how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of things, much like Hossenfelder says about free will, is far less prohibitive in understanding the universe than thinking we have something profound about our frame of observation.
@@lousassle9387 it's not that we're the center of the universe but we are quite special because we bring meaning to the universe with consciousness, as of now we are the only known example. Even if we're not the only one it's one of the most special things about the universe, that beings like us can comprehend it
What do you mean by quantum consciousness? Are you referring to that as a type of conciousness? Or just stating that some people query if conciousness needs quantum explanations? If so, just go and look at the forefathers of quantum mechanics who pretty much all thought conciousness was integral to understanding quantum mechanics Also it’s not quite quantum related but check out Donald hoffman
I don't really get the "shut up and calculate" notion. If a physicist wants to philosophise and interpret in their free time, they should do so. As long as it doesn't interfere with the way they analyse laboratory results, that's fine. Philosophy is simply the love of wisdom, including thinking about the big questions of nature. Science is about gathering evidence about nature. As long as one can distinguish science from philosophy, I don't see the harm in practicing in both.
"Shut up and calculate" is good when you are studying and have to learn to make calculations. A physicist who is not a philosopher too, is just a bank clerk.
On reality, consider what this video represents. This is 4 people in different places each presumably real people interactively interfacing where each expresses a view, that view is transmitted via photons to an electronic system that then transmits a representation via photons of a very different form to a receiving electronic circuit to a photon emitting device into the biochemical system of a person’s consciousness. This process is rebounding continuously back and forth to build presentation that is sent via photons all over the world to be viewed by millions of people, and,………that presentation has the same meaning to those millions of Observers, all of whom can cross reference the consistency of that meaning between one another. If Reality is not consistently verifiable, then that presentation is one hell of a coincidence. Is reality real?? This is just semantics, because something here seems definitely real to me. Then there is the quantum verification of the presentation.
Sabine would argue that it's "real TO YOU" (but that doesn't mean it's objectively real). Then she would say that she believes in "collective science" and it'd be the end of her silly argument. I 100% agree with you!
Ok you are a subscriber of her channel and a fan I get it, but what exactly are you finding admirable about her. Her thinking is off the charts oxymoronic. Borderline insane. Eric pointed it out in a pretty emphatic fashion.
@@C_R_O_M________ its been a while i watched this video, can you tell me where (at what min.) Eric is pointing it out? im interested to hear what he has to say again.
What is measurement? We have a straight line terminated at both ends and a standard ruler. We place the ruler alongside the straight line, compare and determine the size or length of the straight line We see that measurement involves comparison and that all comparison needs a standard or a fixed frame of reference. If the reference is not fixed or changes from place to place, then it cannot be deemed a standard. Most importantly, if we alter the frame of reference, then the thing being measured changes. (A thing is a thing because it is a measurement outcome, otherwise, it is nothing or perhaps everything.). The moment we introduce a frame of reference, measurement begins. Then on, everything is translated in terms of the frame of reference (the observer), in that, the frame of reference turns out to be extremely influential; it influences observation, therefore, measurement is an influence.
Does any physicist debate in an objective way, about the fact that so many different quantum interpretations are indicating we are no further in QM since Bell’s Theorem got tested? Still a good show and debate showing here. Thanks.
We are no further in QM period or the interpretation of QM? There's been many developments in QFT (quantum field theory) over the last 2 decades, like in Topological order and field theories. The TI (Topological Insulator) was also demonstrated in Te2Bi3 quantum wells, for instance. Pretty sure you mean in the interpretation of QM. I think more and more physicists are going for the many worlds interpretation since there is no spooky action at a distance, doesn't lead to Schrodinger's cat, and is more consistent with GR.
@@marcusrosales3344 The "many worlds" interpretation is so vaguely defined and comes in so many flavors that the statement "I favor the many worlds interpretation" is essentially meaningless.
1. Is there a field theory vs. atomist paradigm battle? 2. Did the simplification of Maxwell’s equations cause a loss in understanding of Faradays observations? 3. Is light a “thing” or a perturbation like a sound wave. 4. Is matter incredibly powerful light? 5. Does physical reality only exist inside a magnetic envelope (heliosphere, galactic current sheet etc…no islands in space). 6. Is space time model better then aether model? 7. What was wrong with aether model? 8. To effectively apply mathematics to physical phenomena, to what degree does the nature of the phenomena need to be understood ( in order for math to measure effectively)? Thank you.
What did you think of this debate? Who do you agree with the most? Leave a comment below!
Discover 3000+ videos like this and more live events with an IAI Premium Live Subscription. Sign up: iai.tv/subscribe?
See more speakers debate quantum physics in London this September: howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/london?
Join us at our next IAI Live event on August 8th: iai.tv/live?
I didn't listen. I don't find philosophy to have much practical application to everyday life.
Great interview as usual.
I just wish I knew how do they interpret the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. I thought that one sealed it once and for all that the instruments are not causing the collapse and that the observer is fundamental...as predicted
The guy on the left looks like the leatherface character from the chainsaw massacre. The guy on the right looks like a crazed mad scientist.
there were many good remarks and ideas proposed during the very interesting discussion on this key issue in physics. but why jump ahead, talking about consciousness of highly organized forms of matter, that can process data/information the way, which we call as a consious perception, instead of discussing what life is. it looks strange that nobody tried to discuss the possible deep connection between life, which we poorly understand at present, and the problem of the observer of the observable universe. first we need to understand life, although Sir Roger Penrose is certainly a genius, looking ahead much deeper for revealing the deep possible ties between gravity, QM and how our brains work.
I think all the speakers here and possibly the host also considers consciousness as emergent phenomenon, i.e. somehow matter creates consciousness. With that assumption there will always be an observer, observed differentiation and unending debates. Even a donkey knows, that this is me the donkey and that is someone else. Duality seems intuitive, just as the intuition of the ancients, that the earth is at the center and the Sun goes around it, or the earth is flat. These have been proven to be counter intuitive. Similarly the duality which is known even to a donkey and the scientist alike seems intuitive but reality could be counter intuitive. What if brain does not create the mind, rather the mind generates the body mind complex (including the brain) and the universe and the others, just like in a dream the mind creates your own replica through whose dream senses you experience the dream universe and the so called dream others. The mind itself divides into observer and the observed, the knower and the known, the experiencer and the experienced. When the mind goes to deep sleep there is no world nor the ego, everyones deep sleep experience is exactly same, the mind rises during dream and waking and the world rises and the duality rises, but the reality is beyond the mind, i.e. pure consciousness which illumines the mind. This is the claim of Advaita Vedanta (Reference Mandukya Karika of Gaudapada Acharya) Also please look up Donald Hoffman, he seems to be a pioneer of a cognitive scientist willing to look at everything inside out.
So glad to be a part of this fantastic and fascinating conversation with my friends Sabine, Carlo, and Eric!
You did a phenomenal job as host.
My observation is, the conscious experience of existence is metaphysical, that our conscious experience of existence evolved from a realisation that came from conscious being, and that realisation came from a conscious being that became aware of it's existence.
The self-realisation of our conscious experience of existence, is the main reason our planet is being visited, they all want to be here for it.
@@barryrobertson7064 lol
@@barryrobertson7064 Your dealer must have great weed.
It is always a pleasure to see scientists doing philosophy... I wonder if they will notice.
"I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, [Carlo]"
"Yes, you meant."
Bravo Carlo.
Carlo is the least promising scientist
@@giulio9476 You dislike that he questions your metaphysical prejudices?
3 thank you's
1. For making these discussions available to us who have not been fortunate enough to be scientists by profession, but are scientists at heart
2. For putting real science out there, not the least of which is the format - where debate and diversity are the norm
3. For finally knowing how to pronounce Sabine's name
As for the topic of consciousness, these are exciting times.
I truely hope that it is not just a ghost in the machine phenomenon, that arises as a byproduct from the complexity of our biological brain. In that sense, I admire and am inspired by Hammerof's, Penrose's, and Donnald Hoffman's quests, as they go outside the box to look for new ideas, which is where all new frontiers were and are always waiting to be discovered, IMHO.
Sabine is a German name and is pronounced a bit different than how the others do in that discussion
@@youlig1 oh man.... :)) I guess ill have to ask a german native speaker when I find one
If you watch her channel, she says it. I think she is right no matter what we say or think! She seems awesome and goes right past it. The way you pronounce my name doesn't change a thing. IMHO
THIS IS SCIENCE!!! Such a breath of fresh air. I feel grateful to be able to listen to this.
Doc Sabine is one of the most important and trustworthy thinkers to rely on, currently
Only if you are shallow and don't read her papers. Once you do it becomes obvious that she is just a troll. ;-)
Absolutely NOT! She's oxymoronic in her basic thinking. Eric pointed that out in this clip and it became obvious to me as soon as she spoke for a while. She's caught in a subject-object dichotomy loop and can't escape.
Australia 🇦🇺 here, from an uneducated family with a young family of my own.
I really enjoy these conversations, I have been following Eric and his brother for years.
I’m not smart but am trying to learn.
Wish we had more people care in Australia 🇦🇺 they just want to watch football and TV media like married at first sight 🤦.
Keep going team 👍
Couldn’t agree more
Another Australian here. I reckon there's more of us than you'd realise that are interested in this stuff, but you're right that it's so drowned out by the footy and other mainstream stuff. Sabine's channel is great, too. I really enjoy her dry, deadpan sense of humour.
@@cameronmclennan942 I wish you where correct however I have done two laps around Australia with my family trying to find a home left mark McStalin land and have come to the otherwise
Married with children
You're not alone brother
Good discussion.
However, Dr Keating: you don't need to continuously plug (= OVERSELL) the others'/your books and podcasts every few minutes . That's what show notes and Google search are for. And RUclips also auto suggests in and around the video we are watching. Even if this were intended for a audio-only audience (radio, podcast), most folks have little problem with searching for related material.
Yeah he's quite clumbsy in how he promotes the podcasts or books. Really ought to look at how others are doing it.
I really like the way Sabine describes her thought process and the way in which she forms her conclusions and analysis.
Really? How do you know she even exists?
how is she even qualified to be on this panel? Can you name one significant contribution she's made to literally anything?
@@shadowkille8r99 That’s like saying a roofer can’t talk about roofing unless they worked on the Taj Mahal. That makes zero sense. She’s there because she’s talked and written about these concepts and other rabbit holes theoretical physicists have gotten themselves into in interesting and thought provoking ways. It’s always either the most pompous or least accomplished people who say things like this. Which are you?
@@shadowkille8r99 Because she has a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. She has contributed research in quantum gravity and the study of black holes, which are significant areas in theoretical physics. If you're talking about a singular groundbreaking theoretical discovery, then none of the people on the panel are qualified to be there if we go by your standards.
My award for 'best science hair' goes to Rovelli. Debate over.
I'm a retired professor of anthropology, with very little knowledge of physics beyond high school level. I've been watching a few of these IAI discussions with physicists. Something that strikes me as surprising is that: in spite of the fact that most of these IAI assemblies seem to have been conceived as "debates," and the idea that disagreement might arise is often discussed by the hosts, there generally seems to be very little disagreement.
Very interesting observation… I myself have been thinking about the same thing.
these are all very well behaved people because of their academic background which is at the same time quite a shame. I like fire. Even professional iconoclast Weinstein (no, I'm not a fan ;) was clearly on his best behavior here.
It's nice to hear physicists talk about philosophy again. Too often, scientists forget that some of the most famous in their lineage: Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Planck, etc spent a lot of their time dwelling on the metaphysics of reality. Extremist modernism is why all we can do now is just throw two atoms at each other at continually higher velocities and consider that scientific progress.
Great panel, wonderful thought provoking discussion. We need more like this to try and understand science today
Carlo should first make sure he gets the idea of Penrose before calling it extreme, and then dismissing it. Penrose never claimed that human consciousness affects measurement in the experiment.
And to the host - you suck, because you don’t correct such false accusations
Will watch anything with Sabine or Carlo 👍
have you read carlos Book HELGOLAND
A record player is a great example of an apparatus making a measurement. It is that playback process that represents the flow of time. “Space is solid time and time is liquid space”. That playback process isn’t perfect though, and there is always a distortion in the sound from the speakers, regardless of how expensive your stereo system is. Audio engineers excel at reducing the distortion from their equipment but it is not possible to remove it entirely. i.e using a crossover. There are different types of distortion that can be reduced at the expense of increasing another type of distortion, and good audio systems have a tiny total harmonic distortion. This is exactly the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation. You may also want to think about this Perfect Information as the grooves carved into vinyl (solid time). Playing the record indicates the flow of time is moving forward. Sound is experienced in the liquid space of dynamic air movements, the solid time on the record is liquid space again. Once again there is a distortion in the measurement made by the stylus which is riding the waveform carved into the grooves. Once again there are different types of distortion that can never be eliminated and follow the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation as well. Then, the (distorted) signal from the stylus is then sent through the amplifier and into the speakers, where there is another level of unavoidable distortion that was discussed earlier.
I really like this comment but have nothing meaningful to contribute
wow
The distortion and noise, though unwanted are just more information and exist within their own time domain which does not agree with our own personal time domain which desires perfect music and perfect time. Perfect silence and perfect absence of time may be the only achievable.
@@nyworker I think the profundity of thought here is that time transmute to a fluid from a solid to a conscious experience to a memory which can be replayed in different states of time or rewound on the record. To me that's the poetry of the metaphor, imagining how real time might leap off the space-time fabric and complete the analogy in physical terms.
@@paxdriver
Ha ha, am afraid you know a lot about this. Your analogy opened my understanding
6:15 begins
Fantastic, honestly.. I barely understand, but having these conversations for us lay people to listen in on is just fantastic thanks to everyone involved.
'Whether we observe nature itself or ...' is a question that goes back to (at least!) Plato & co and likely to more ancient others with less adept publicists. Well, we're from, of and embedded in nature, so we're nature observing itself ... or trying to. Thanks to all; wonderful discussion!
youre trying to speak general. YOu wouldnt understand universe and science until I walk you baby steps thru more portal and identity theft. YOu dont observe me yet were still in collaboration you cant get out of.
This is great , I feel so lucky to be able to listen in on discussions of this caliber , it's truly an honor
Sincerely, 👍
Dr. Keating does too.
57:45 I could both feel and see a part of Sabine die right there, as soon as he uttered the word "beautiful".
I find it useful to seperate the terms 'actuality' and 'reality': The former referring to what is 'actually' out there... and 'reality' being what WE 'realise', i.e. how our minds interpret what is out there, filtered through the limits of our senses, mental abilities and prejudices (etc.)...
In 1781 Kant published Critique of Pure Reason and rocked the world of philosophy. What Kant articulated and what later generations of philosophers picked up on was that reality as we perceive it is not purely objective - it is at least partly subjective.
It is easy to believe that reality as we see it is a reflection of reality as it actually is. In other words we tend to assume that the perceptual function that the conscious mind plays is passive, like a mirror, and doesn’t alter the image of reality that it reflects to us. Not so, said Kant. Our perception of reality might start with sensations of something outside of ourselves, but by the time we perceive it our conscious mind has organized, categorized and arranged those raw sensations into reality as it appears to us.
We can’t know reality directly. We don’t perceive of things in themselves. What we perceive as reality is in part created by our conscious mind. And this creation of reality isn’t only the unconscious work of the mind as a machine, as some before Kant had believed, the creative process that constructs reality as we see it is also influenced by us. Of all of the infinite sensations, physical, emotional and conceptual that we experience at any given time we are only aware of a small percentage. The rest we ignore, but those that we attend to are compiled into reality by our conscious minds as we see it.
What Kant did for the world of Philosophy was make human beings part of the creative process of reality as we see it. In this he dealt a blow to both organized religion and materialist science. To religion he insisted that we can’t perceive the Creation-Creator directly because our perception of Creation-Creator will also be partly of our own construction. To materialist science likewise he takes away the ruse of objectivity because everything we observe will always be influenced by our consciousness.
What Kant did for us was redefine reality. Where we at one time had a fixed stage that we observed passively from a seat in the audience, we now had a cooperative process of creation right in the middle of the production. This profound connection between conscious human perception and the creation of reality and of our responsibility in it is what Quantum mechanics showing us to be the truth.
@@djelalhassan7631 Quantum mechanics and more specifically the double slit experiment isn't necessarily applicable to bigger scale reality. I would also argue that English is not the proper language to philosophize. Greek is. Reality is translated as "πραγματικότητα which is a derivative of the word "πράγμα or "OBJECT" which, of course, aligns itself with "objectivity" and NOT "subjectivity".
Kant was wrong and Rand was furious about his "creative" perception of reality. I think that Kant tried to describe the power of free will and intent! Intent is a key ingredient in shamanistic practices. It has the power to ATTRACT outcomes of objective reality but not alter reality.
Reality is!
Kant conflated the states of attraction and being.
The subjectivity (one could say "relativism") of Kant is a problem of perceptional distortion. A personal shortcoming of perceiving reality for what it is! Like a non-calibrated instrument that gives untruthful readings, a human, in his imperfect state of perceiving reality is bound to produce untruthful interpretations. This is exactly what I think Sabine does. It's a manifestation of the fundamental problem of philosophy, the subject-object dichotomy.
Kant was wrong! There is an objective reality and I could easily proven him wrong by slapping him silly. He'd feel that, without too much thinking, I guarantee you that and that would certainly register as objective reality for anyone involved. Most certainly Kant.
The problem with thinkers is that they solely depend on thinking to solve ALL problems. Sometimes solutions and answers are "felt" much more accurately than "thought of". But, I guess, "to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail".
@@djelalhassan7631Kant is just trivially wrong. We do indeed perceive reality as it really is and all Kant's arguments to the contrary are easily rebutted. Perception is not organization and categorization. We organize and categorize things based on what we perceive, but perception itself just is. While our brain's activity plays a role in what we perceive, so does the environment, and so does the environment's environment. If the brain is indeed a real object then it logically follows none of the brain's activity could produce something that isn't real, it would all be merely the real activity of the brain. The claim that the brain can create something that isn't real is to claim the brain can transcend reality, which Kant never convincingly justifies.
@amihartz The brain conjures things that do not map onto external reality. Dreams and hallucinations are "real" in the sense that they are neurochemical processes which the subject experiences, but they are not inter-subjective, publicly available phenomena.
Would be nice if we had thinkers that talked about consciousness in relation to QM because they exist and they should not be rejected in this manner 🙂
EDIT: the “there is nothing psychic in nature” comment was so naive philosophically. It is quite breathtaking..
Nah I'm good take yer golden ratio psuedoscience elsewhere
No. Just.... no.
That’s very closed minded of you… you must be a physicist. Just because you don’t like that statement doesn’t mean it is or isn’t true. But you definitely cannot say that at this point you know it isn’t. You simply don’t have enough information to say that.
That depends on the definition of 'psychic' - a much abused term, and the comment might just be a reflection of annoyance at the abuse. Which I share. It's a term best avoided.
@@ussromantics I would think he meant that the world is independent of our mind. Probably sees it in mechanical terms. Could be wrong of course.
It would be a good start for Carlo & Sabine to assume that their computational tools, the papers that they author etc. exist.
Haha, for real! (pun intended).
The number of commercial interruptions on this RUclips program makes it impossible too focus on the content.
I observed, that you had superimposed frustration, anger, disappointment and impatience.
I experienced the same. It seems to differ per day but yesterday was literally off-putting.
One way to think of quantum physics is that the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas for us (atoms) to interact with; we have waves over a period of time and particles as an uncertain future unfolds. The mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of time with classical physics represents processes over a ‘period of time’ as in Newton's differential equations.
In this theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents geometry, the Planck Constant ħ=h/2π is linked to 2π circular geometry representing a two dimensional aspect of 4π spherical three-dimensional geometry. We have to square the wave function Ψ² representing the radius being squared r² because the process is relative to the two-dimensional spherical 4π surface. We then see 4π in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π representing our probabilistic temporal three dimensions life. The charge of the electron e² and the speed of light c² are both squared for the same geometrical reason. We have this concept because the electromagnetic force forms a continuous exchange of energy forming what we experience as time. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light photon ∆E=hf energy is forming potential photon energy into the kinetic energy of electrons. Kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy is the energy of what is actually happening. An uncertain probabilistic future is continuously coming into existence with the exchange of photon energy.
7:00 first question!
Thanks to the Brian guy for letting us see this, but I have never seen so many commercials, subscription invitations, and mention of 1,500 live views. I would say Just focus on producing good content and everything else will follow
I agree with Sabine. "Nothing is unstable" the truth is that "nothing is no consciousness".
You are clear as mud and Sabina
Greatly enjoyed this conversation. Although all participants mostly repeated their individual stances we came to know, it is good to see the interaction now has become more friendly and slightly open to each other ideas. The main feature of the mystery of the 'observer problem' in the quantum world is not addressed in a significantly new way. IMHO the key to understanding the 'observation problem' is that we have used incorrect wording for 100 years. Referring to the infamous double slit experiment, we keep saying that we see a PARTICLE (say electron) moving through either one or the other slit. That is physically incorrect. we don NOT see the particle. We see its ENERGY. This is the essence to understand the double slit experiment. We see the ENERGY of the particle EITHER as the 'point-like' particle property of 'potential' OR (if we don't measure) we see the same energy acting as the GRID around the particle, thus interacting through both slits creating the interference shape. Again, repeat after me; ENERGY is BOTH that practicle property of potential AND the GRID property around it.
The act of measuring (by sensor or brain) forces nature to display the POTENTIAL function and collapses the GRID function, as apparently (!) both are inversely related. Penrose in 2020 (Lex Friedman) explicitly stated that mass likewise has the function of inertia AND the inverse time function of CLOCK in the subatomic world. He derives this by substituting E=hf in E=MC2. So then, I think it is about time after 100 years to finally acknowledge that the FUNDAMENT of phyisics is DUALITY between functions and measures and that the 'observer problem' is simply demonstrating their INVERSE relation....why don't we discuss this the next time?
But as I understand it Rovelli and Hossenfelder and Penrose are all troubled by the question of what makes a measurement count as such.
@@ailblentyn They are troubled by trying to understand physics from a mono-continuum viewpoint, whereas we fundamentally live in a dual continuum world. The questions and paradoxes that pop-up in our curriculum are not real. They are the consequence of sticking to only our spacetime setup. Thats why we did not find answers to the century old issues. Its not our lack of brainpower. It is our unwillingness to revise what we thought we knew....
@@RWin-fp5jn "The act of measuring (by sensor or brain)" - Brain has no effect on measurement, only instruments that shoot electrons or other particles. Brain is not emitting particles into your experiment and nothing outside of your own mind can comprehend what you're observing.
How would "our spacetime setup" differ in the physics described by your(?) "duality between functions and measures". Is this your own idea or is there (aside from Penrose) any active research into it?
@@hedles Our grid (continuum) has two and not one setups. The macro setup is space (grid) and time (clock). The subatomic setup has energy (grid) and mass (clock). Thats is why we see atom bound electrons not moving in terms of space and time but in terms of (quanta) of energy which take mass and not time traverse. Simple observation. No theory. Simple undeniable truths we are not allowed to say. And since we also use energy as a measure of 'potential' in the macro world it follows all measures have 2 functions and all functions have tow measures. No theory. Just simple observations. If we don't acknowledge the basics, we will never progress and we might well face another 4 decades of failures in physics
One thing that does confuse me is the propensity of scientists to refer to "mind" and "consciousness" interchangeably, as though they are the same thing. The things which I refer to as my "mind" and my "consciousness" are so unmistakably different (and indeed entirely independent of one another) that I'm forced to conclude either that many smart people have never stopped for five minutes to investigate themselves, or that my subjective experience of reality is qualitatively different from that of others. In my experience, mind is a broad term for the tendency of sensory input to cause echoes, and the synthesis of those echoes into novel excitations, by some unknown and possibly mechanical process. A machine made entirely of wooden gears could have a mind, but it wouldn't be conscious. My consciousness, by contrast, would probably be best described as the thing which watches my mind. Consciousness can (and often does, in my case) exist with no mind at all (no thoughts; no echoes), but when there is a thought "in" the mind, my consciousness is watching it. Either one can exist without the other, but while I would say that mind is almost certainly a product of the brain, consciousness is very unlikely to be so, both because there is no reason I can see for evolution to have created it, and because there is no physical framework I'm aware of which would allow for its existence.
evolution -> brain -> mind -> subconscious -> conscious -> projection outward onto world = gods / god
Before evolution? What would you put there?
A very interesting and informative discussion, and certainly challenging ideas presented. Thank you to all panelists and host for the great challenge. 1:13:03
Such deep and great subject with top thinkers/reasearcher...but, Brian, tbis is way tooo short for such adiscussion. 3 hrs might start to be decent!!!
Keep up your great informative podcasts...thank you!!!
Both Sabine and Carlo claim that the superposition collapses by any measuring instrument, and not at the level of conscious observing. But how do they know that? Perhaps the measuring instrument is in a superposition until a human checks its output? Suppose the apparatus flashes red for spin up and green for spin down, then the evolution of the wavefunction that's a superposition of up and down, will result in a superposition of red and green. We only "observe" a collapse of the wavefunction, once we observe the instrument and check which light is flashing. In fact, what counts as a measurement is arbitrary, if not for conscious observers. Any two specs of dust interacting is s measurement from the perspective of the dust particle experiencing that interaction. So why would the fact that this particular interaction happen to be in the form of something built by humans, be any different and cause a collapse, if not because of the conscious observation involved? An apparatus is just a fancy physical system, which should obey Schrödinger evolution. There's nothing special about a measuring instrument, unless from the point of view of a conscious being. So whilst we can't prove that the wavefunction collapse happens at the point of consciousness, we certainly can't prove that it happens earlier. So Sabine and Carlo are wrong to claim that we know that the collapse has nothing to do with consciousness.
Finally someone gets it. Thank you
It's yet unknown whether or not consciousness is involved in it, and in what sense, to what degree. But the apparatus idea has been just sheer nonsense for a century, for the reasons you detailed.
It's sad that belief in such nonsense is still what makes someone a grounded, well-respected thinker.
Sadly, the answer to this question is something that cannot be expressed in words, but is pretty much obvious once you write the equations of QM. I say sadly because it's source of many misunderstandings about the implications of QM.
What the layperson without a solid foundation in physics (and the related mathematics such as Hilbert spaces, operators, eigenvectors and eigenvalues, projection operators) does not understand is that what we think of as a "measurement" is exactly the same as an "interaction", i.e. ANY kind of interaction Hamiltonian that perturbs the original Hamiltonian of the system (and so, its time evolution as well, save for some specific case like Quantum nondemolition and the Quantum Zeno protocol). Once you write that it's obvious that consciousness has nothing at all to do with the operation of measuring, at least if you still stand by Occam's Razor. If you don't, and prefer to explain things that are the exact same and bring to the exact same results, in two artificially different cathegories, well, then that speaks for itself
@@raffaeledivora9517 Except it's you who doesn't have a solid foundation in physics, the known universe is one continuous "system". Any further division into interacting systems is a convenience tool, in order to be able to do any meaningful physics. Once you have this useful but false picture, is when the whole treatment of Hilbert spaces/operators/eigenvalus etc. comes in.
"Intercting systems" is all good and necessary instrumentalism, but it's not what's actually going on. And of course even then, interaction goes both ways, for example why does the mesuring device collapse the particle, instead the particle collapsing the measuring device?
@@neftu9131 Frankly I don't understamd the point of your last question, since the particle does in fact collapse the state of the system it is interacting with as well.
Your first point however I find interesting, in that it puts reductionism into question (which in this case is possible to do, and has already been done by some prominent currently active physicists).
So I have to accept your objection about we not knowing the possible effects of large-scale interactions (and possibly, non-locality?), but the key issue is always the same: where is your alternative model for these effects? Does it produce testable predictions? Why does it not produce observable discrepancies in measurements we already did? Until those questions are not at least all partially answered, it is not credible scientifically (since you don't discard something that works pretty well for something that works worse, and that's logics 101)
Question, I just checked the online definition of reality which made reference to 'actual existence ' fine, but then I looked up the online definition of existence and found that it was premised on the nature of reality ... hmmm. This is very insightful and highlights one of the reasons that discussions of this nature are so difficult
Interdependency is just the way everything in this world works ;)
Existence Exists is an axiom that is more fundamental than everything.
The quality of reality is that it doesn't contain contradictions. Contradictions exist though, so what happened? Somebody thought.
@@Bit-while_going Please give an example of a contradiction that exists.
@@keiichicom7891 Contradictions can only exist in the mind. So it's contextual, yet still important if you want to say how the concepts of reality and existence are different.
Some of us understand and can follow all of what you are all discussing, because we have followed your work.
You’re work*
I’m about 5 minutes in and what fascinates me the most was the amount of different drinking vessels Eric used during the intro. Was each one filled with a different beverage? As an observer, I would guess the probability was yes, each was filled with a different drink. But as the observer, I could never know what he’s observing, so like everything observed in life (reality) everything’s merely a guess.
actually thats not reality you explain. Thats the extortion way to explain that. Same with the extortion from the other angle I gave you the
Someone missed their calling in woodworking. So Much Dovetailing!❤
Really my greatest pleasure. Talking with greats.
Great debate and thanks for making this public again, it's awesome to have some questions which I've had for years discussed by experts in the field, learnt a lot of topics which I need to follow up on. Next idea, it'd be great if you could do something similar but with top neuroscientists, exclusively focused on the biological aspects of this debate. I'm sure this will yield a bunch of useful insights, this is something which the likes of Robert Sapolsky, Sam Harris and many others have talked about endlessly.
complete intellectual dishonesty, typical physicalists. an apparatus does not collapses a wave function if its never observed by an actual observer seeing the apparatus. that an apparatus can be declared to collapse a wave function independent of an actual observer is what zeilinger says is not just wrong but something which can no longer be considered a coherent question to ask.
What is measurement? continued . . .
Let us consider a set of integers which serve as input to the functions f(x) = x; f(x)=2x; f(x) = 3x; f(x) = 4(x); . . . Here, the math function is the frame of reference. When we express the function f(x) = x in the cartesian coordinate system, the description is a straight line of slope 1: "What we get (the actual input) is what we see", a cartesian coordinate description of a set of integers or rather an uninfluenced observation. Please note that f(x) = x does not influence the actual input because there is no skewing or departure from the straight line of slope 1. We then increase the coefficient of x in steps of 1 as f(x) = 2x; f(x) = 3x; f(x) = 4x; . . . and observe that any increase ( or decrease) in value of the coefficient causes slopping or skewing or departure from the initial slope of 1. Because there is a skewing or a departure from "what we get is what we see" expression of the cartesian coordinate system, we say that the coefficient of x greater than or less than 1 "influences" the input as an act of measurement and skews the slope of the straight line. The measurement outcome is the effect of the influence, a skewed slope. This implies that an influenced observation is a measurement.
The strength of the influence(a coefficient
You guys are on the right track ,there is more than one track and remember your not the only people working on it and that all the theories have something to offer
You're😉
Indubidibly
@@keithkucera3163 indubitably 🤣🤣🤣
Thank you
Eric is absolutely correct. When our observations fail to agree with our assumptions, we must admit the errors of our initial postulations.
That's not the problem. The problem is that most of our observations in the microscopic world are agreeing quite well with our assumptions about it and that the observations we have about the cosmological scale are still riddled with so many irreducible measurement errors that it's still too noisy to do any precision physics at all.
Were would we be without edgy fringe meta physical Weinstein nonsense?
8 minutes before we hear from the experts. Then I got a RUclips ad just before the first expert uttered a single word.
I will deliberately avoid buying any of the products or services marketed in these interrupting ads
Thank you. It's almost indefensible to put this grandiose/grandiloquent crackpot on a panel with serious scientists and thinkers of Sabine's caliber. It only seems to happen because his close pal, Brian Keating (who also comes across as a professional grievance pimp against the scientific community) is in the mix. I suppose they are a sure draw for silly, gullible, and downright idiotic "darkweb"/alt-right quacks, misfits, and incels. Their presence here makes me lose a lot of respect for IAS, but Sabine is more than a match for any given pair of fools/tools. Pity she's not always around to correct and challenge their like.
This resonates with my ongoing inner dialogue. When I've achieved what to me is an expressable certainty, I find it can't be stated simply. Here goes.
Everything man made began with a thought. Thoughts are weightless. In the beginning thought is only potential, only aware of no-thing. I haven't resolved how this "awareness" of an undefinable nothingness, in an effort to discover it's characteristics, what it is, needed to bring into existence something other than itself. It somehow produces an infinitely miniscule telekinetic pressure that gives form to the potential of something other than nothing existing . The will to exist now becomes the purpose for every action. Skip ahead to when humanity has done the will of weightless thought. Having harnessed all the energy of the entire fully actualized universe and computized all known knowns it fearlessly surrenders to the mother of all black holes and provides the codes for a new bourne universe in an orgasmic big bang. Still working on the nothing to something part. If that is solved what then would I have to think about?
Absolutely!
For me the language is
Infinite potential dividing itself through linear progression (in infinite direction) in order to experience, to manifest.
The cycle of the universe is the cell cycle in an organism at scale. The black hole is the gate of mitosis. Not exact but a variation from our bodies distinct cell division process. Are we still the healthy cell or are we the cancer, the mutated cell required for the evolutionary process?
My impression is that you are essentially talking about the power of intent and by extension, free will. A concept that Sabine has completely refuted. Too bad for her, I say. Moreover, thinking is just a tool, our natural state of being is (thoughtless) existing, not thinking. I would suggest the book "The Master and his emissary" by Iain McGilchrist plus looking into the fundamental philosophical problem of subject-object dichotomy.
5:00 start
Thank you for timestamp 😊
Thank you.
Thoroughly enjoyable !
Came for more substance than a deep-dive into the philosophy of science, but _hey_ - as one of the panelists made clear, _that's_ WHERE Physics and Quatum _ANYTHING_ have BEEN for the last 40 years !
Nice JOB 👍!
I wish I knew learning could be this fun when I was in school !
The observer is the way to better understand our environment. He is the variable that can make equations furthering our knowledge. But thats it. Can we move on. Science, the entire world of physics does not care about the observer. Were the only ones to care. And should get over it
that was more fun than i expected, you all seem to be okay with each other even in disagreement and more smiles and laughter than i've seen from any for a while, even brian was (slightly) funnier than usual...😁
Can't believe im just now getting this in my feed...this is great stuff
Someone mentions consciousness in these dialogues and it's like: what an extreme idea!
Someone mentions "infinite" universes that exist for no reason at all: perfectly possible!!
scientists say "nothing is unstable" nothing means "no consciousness"
@@JerseyLynne "scientists say "nothing is unstable" nothing means "no consciousness"
If "nothing is unstable", then there is something and it is not "nothing"
"Nothing" is not the absence of consciousness, it is the absence of anything.
@@nemrodx2185
If you could stop arguing against the strawmen of your own creation, you might start learning something.
In other words: brain input mode - on, brain's output mode - off.
@@ezbody what's the strawman here? describe it if you please.
Thank you all for doing this! The world needs meetings of great minds like this!
😂.. You obviously don’t understand any of what Was discussed then. This was/is just a leftist ego stroke Exercise. All they did was give their opinions on contrived theories that deal with Concepts that they themselves don’t fully grasp.
You probably also believe in Climate Change Hoax and Think NASA is legitimate. Academia hasn’t been viable since the 80’s mid 90’s.. Best advice I can muster is to 1, Learn Latin and 2, Find oldest books you can get your hands on.. The Bible, Book of Enoch and Non canonized texts included. The current Historical narrative as sold is Not close to factual.
Research GALAN WINSOR, Nicola Tesla. Look into Dresden, old world Resets and ask yourself why NASA names It’s Tools after Science fiction Writers and Mason/Satanists.. We had Electric Cars that were clean, moved Fast and travels for 100 miles per charge in the 1800’s..Seriously..
I’m certainly not the brightest but My IQ is far closer to 200 than most.
Brian hits it out of the ball park once again!! great moderating. Loved listening.
Mostly wonderful, but sometimes I think he could be a bit more passive and let the guests interact and react to each other's statements more, rather than posing a new question to each guest in turn irrespective.
@@logtothebase2 I suspect that was a very deliberate choice to safeguard the ego and carefully-cultivated online image of one of his longtime pals. The grandiose one who very obviously didn't belong here.
I have never seen such an intellectual collection except when Dr. Sabine sat alone
You admire Sabine? For what?
Was Sabine missed in the last question, I was very much looking forward to her answer!
Same here
Unfortunately the constant and suddenly change of subjects didn't contribute to the debate. Not her fault, of course. Even I was asking myself what Eric was saying seconds after the subject change
Not me! She was utterly boring and parroting things she could not put together in a concise and meaningful synthesis. It'd be one of the same.
this feels like listening to language you don't understand but still find interesting
45:00 Eric hits the nail on the head. People assume that because we don't understand consciousness and quantum mechanics, we must assume they go together. As an electrical engineer this is like people saying because they understand electrons and em fields, then they must be related to how a radio or cell phone works. The devil is in the details and how the levels of reality relate.
Just after he said consciousness is BORING! They are all really insulting to people with other ideas while remaining closed minded.
@@joeredman569 Exactly....because they are all theorists at the most fundamental level they believe they can make a judgement like "I'm soooo smart and if I can't understand it, that means nobody can". Like Sam Harris who calls a brain "thinking meat" and then said he tried computer programming but found it too difficult.
Even meat is made up of atoms and atoms are all subject to the laws of quantum mechanics.
"People assume that because we don't understand consciousness and quantum mechanics, we must assume they go together."
I don't think people assume that. I think it's just a goofy assertion that some physicist made up and projected onto other people's minds. And other physicists latched onto the idea for some odd reason, without thinking it through. I don't know why they keep saying it because it's pure fantasy bullshit.
@@joeredman569 Yes I suppose Rovelli believes primates don't exist, only things like baboons and gorillas.
We do have a Queen, no one makes her prove she is one…and no one spends their precious space time rudely challenging those who believe in her…
Rovelli's assertion (53:20) that consciousness is a non-problem is a problem. It's only a non-problem to those who believe that the brain is a computer, and things like motivations, emotions, love, fear, etc are just computer algorithms running on the biological hardware that is the brain. Computers, however, *never* occur in nature. They cannot, because of entropy. What do occur in nature are colonies, not computers. The properties of consciousness, along with entropy, *do* need to be taken seriously.
I side with Penrose & Hameroff that there is something about consciousness that requires some manner of QM involvement (though I do wish they'd drop their thing with microtubules). My own preference is for DNA entanglement (yes, I know about warm, wet environments - factor in not decoherence, but recoherence). Going this route, we obtain solutions to entropy, the binding problem, the mind-body problem (bodies wire neuroplastic brains), and more.
Bottom line, dismissing consciousness as a non-problem, to persist with the assumption that the brain is a computer, will just extend the past 50-year catastrophe to a 100-year catastrophe. The brain is *not* a computer. It is a colony (of neurons/glia) and its dynamics reflect the dynamics of what all colonies do. And that's why QM, factoring in the secrets of the DNA molecule, might be fundamental to the mind/life sciences... and indeed, to all the sciences that must take the entropy problem far more seriously than they have in the past.
Your observation about the brain is not a computer and there is no computers out there in nature is due to a very limited view of what a computer is and what computation is. In essence, any process that has a state and transition rule is a computation. So that applies to the rules of physics as well as how the brain works. Therefore, anything that goes through the process of computation is a computer. As long as one can demonstrate that a brain has a state and a transition rule, then the brain is a computer in the broadest sense. And it’s obvious that the brain has a state and some kind of mechanism that calculates that next state (i.e. a transition rule).
@@خالد_الشيباني Colonies comprised of agents operate very differently to computers, which are comprised of circuits, switches, components and mechanisms. Computers are *never* comprised of agents. Agency theory (e.g., Sharov, 2018)* is a contemporary incarnation of autopoiesis and systems theory (Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela), and bears no resemblance to the state transition rules (linear, input/output) to which you refer.
*Sharov, A. (2018). Mind, agency and biosemiotics. Journal of Cognitive Science 19(2):195-228
Thank you @TheTroofSayer !! I'm not with you on the DNA thing but otherwise fully agree! For both of you, I think you are missing Penrose' point about Gödel's theorem. This is how he highlights the connection between consciousness and non-computability. Regardless if you have a silicon based CPU or an organic "wet" calculator you will be bound to computable problems only. You will never be able to exceed that, which we obviously are able to with our minds. Humans have solved innumerable mathematically non-computable problems.
Thank you so much what an awesome lineup!
"String theorist, Art major grad, what's the difference?" --- Sabine Hossenfelder
A strong grasp of fundamental physics.
Or a strong grasp of how to create art.
@@crazyworld5449 I was waiting for this answer.
The commercials are extremely disruptive to the conversation.
During my view, the guests could hardly get going on a thought before I had to play the commercial mini-game 😤
I like Eric's reference to "recreational philosophy," and it made me wonder what terminology would be applied to philosophies of physics, or other "hard" sciences, which seem increasingly to be what public debates among physicists are about lately. Perhaps this is due to the various crises arising in theoretical physics due to certain problems remaining unsolved for an extended period, such that hard scientist are taking a hard look at themselves wondering where they have gone astray. It's sort of like watching group therapy.
Metaphysics
@@VperVendetta1992 no that's not what I mean at all. I mean the philosophy involved in the practice of physics, like ethical standards, and what constitutes an acceptable degree of conjecture for serious consideration. Metaphysics would fall beyond that bound, but the debate is about where the bounds lie.
I destroyed and built these people. science all the fields and academia. one man see what Im doing how I operate and what I talk about they get ideas nthen they start cloning. portal for him too oh we need a portal now. O LORD wasnt cuttin it. too much. Jesus SMuggling. I never lost.
Thats an abyss you need hitler to fill that. I gave you the conjecture and math prison cause you a liar you look to cheat n there it is @@crawkn
@@crawkn I see
Sabina is correct that we must have more theories concerning the origins of consciousness to make sense of the term reality. Best guess is a field that pervades time instantaneously.
Fascinating.
Sabine is always a good listen. Other guests are great too 👍
Ugly women always have warped realities.
@@frozzytango9927 ugly? luckily your opinion
@@Thomas-gk42 She is the closest thing to a meth addict
No, she's not! She is a mess to listen to.
What is time? What is the relationship between time and the observer?
To notice change is time. Let us go into what is involved in the act of noticing change. We have the current frame and we compare the current frame with the previous frame and say that the previous frame has changed into the current frame. Without referring to the previous frame, we cannot notice change. So, how did the previous frame come about? It came about the moment we registered or recorded the first frame. Without recording the initial frame, we cannot compare, and if there is nothing to refer to, then we cannot notice change. This means that the moment we register or record, time begins. Because comparison is measurement, time is a measure. We are not only looking at time as a measure, but we are also looking at time as a record, time as memory.
A program is a record of a pattern of operation or functioning: it invariably produces the same output given the same valid input. We cannot notice a pattern without time. A pattern is time. Because a program is a record, a program is time; the observer is a program, therefore, the observer is time. The observer is the past. Recording or registering is the basis of psychological, biological and chronological time.
Matter is a record, therefore, matter is time.
Thank you Brian for your stellar efforts. Such high calibre education .... at virtually zero cost (to we listeners).
If time is distorted at the edge of a black hole, what else is distorted? Wouldn't gravity also be distorted?
A macroscopic, conscious entity can be an observer in a quantum measurement experiment, not because it is conscious but because it is macroscopic. Thus conscious entity can be an observer, but that does not mean every observer HAS to be conscious. This is a VERY important point and is not appreciated. In other words consciousness is not anything special in quantum mechanics. Like Carlo said, he considers cameras, or any other instrument that is outside quantum system and interacts with it is an observer. Sean Carroll and Brian Green and others have said similar things.
IMO the use of word observer, has caused all of this confusion. For a lay person words like observer conjure up conscious entities like humans. And that is how the word observer is used colloquially. This is a powerful example of slack use of colloquial word in the context of scientific theory. I think measurement instrument or some such would have been a better choice. God particle to describe Higgs boson has caused a similar confusion, which woo woo crowd takes it and runs with it. There are countless gurus with theories of quantum consciousness or quantum healing.
The labs trying to build quantum computers do not worry about isolating the quantum computer states from consciousness of the personnel in the lab. They try to isolate the quantum state from molecules close to it, lest they may destroy the quantum state by interacting with it.
Good point! Thumbs up.
"At some point there is a transition between the micro world and the macro world"
- Niels Bohr -
Well put, Sandip.
The term 'observer' does indeed evoke the idea of a conscious percipient, but I would argue the confusion would be precluded at the outset by a robust definition of macroscopic consciousness. Indeed, even though observers do not need to be conscious, folk will continue to speculate about possible microscopic consciousnesses so long as our definition of macroscopic consciousnesses remains mysterious. Say we upgraded the old definition of consciousness -- e.g. awareness of one's surroundings -- to make it refer specifically to the *self-world modelling faculty of brains* , then I would imagine we would hear very little from the microscopic-consciousness crowd. On a self-world modeling definition, consciousness is when the brain models the inputs of its sensoriums in real-time. Consciousness isn't something separable from body or brain; it is not the equivalent of software like Microsoft Word, able to be ran on different systems with significantly different hardware. Rather, consciousness more resembles the computer and its components in its entirety; without particular key components, a monitor or GPU or CPU, the computer doesn't work. Likewise, without body and brain, consciousness cannot work. (Body and brain could be artificial, made of silicone, because what's important is structure, not substrate)
While the term consciousness remains vague so too will claims made by QT-leaning consciousness philosophers. If we narrowed the term to refer to the modelling process, I find it hard to imagine many would conflate macroscopic observers with microscopic observers, for it would be obvious that sensoriums and self-modeling brains do not exist at the microscopic level and are strictly macroscopic phenomena.
@Melle Licious thanks.
Carlo and Sabine always!!!
This feels hollow. Like the people who study the pixels trying to explain the rules of a video game.
Recent developments in AI have made your analogy less effective. Trained neural networks can generate games by studying pixels alone, without any of the original code or game engine. I think something similar happens with the human scientific endeavour. By studying patterns and the surface of things we can derive models which map onto a deeper reality.
@@Sifar_Secure the people at Line 6 will tell you that their digital algorithms produce an audio quality indistinguishable from tube amps, they don’t though. They might be undetectable once in a mix and played through a digital sound system, yet the player can feel the difference between analog and digital while performing. This is a better analogy because it’s about how limited and varied our powers of observation are. Video games have a logical mathematical structure so by studying enough pixels over time you could figure out many aspects of game play. However you have the perspective of a player and know how to read the text prompts. When we study something in the natural world we are more like the character in the game tying to understand the rules of the guy who made the game. It ain’t gonna work, the perspective is too narrow.
The guy who has played music through a tube amp his whole life has a memory of the relationship between his physical actions and the sonic results. He hears things he can’t quantify and technicians don’t really see in the digitized waveform. Is he crazy, no, he just has a different perspective that exist outside of the parameters that scientist know how to measure and create algorithms for. When we talk about understanding the natural world via a minuscule sample size of atoms, we are lacking way to much data to assume we can understand the perspective of God, or at least what ever natural force made reality possible.
What I’m personally trying to do is compile a straight forward summary of our current collective understanding of reality, written out in laymen terms without harking back to Copernicus and the anthropic principle etc. I want to trim the superfluous talking and philosophical questioning to lay down a clear, refined foundation for anyone to understand, and perhaps build up from. We need more eyes on the subject because I believe we’re yet to start asking the right questions…
OR, four physicists discuss anti realist philosophical canards about quantum physics.
I’m literally not clever at all but I absolutely love listening to this lot every chance I get this should be prime time tv we’ve lost our way
thank you
Host - stop being distracted with head movements to screens and such. Distracting to audience. Want to listen to speaker.
That’s more of a you problem than a him problem.
Wow! I feel just like I got a download.
About the debate in general :
1. Too superficial for the topic.
2. Host is talking too much while saying nothing. Better give those seconds to the guests.
3. To discuss those questions under such time constraints guests should be better selected to represent different angles, be interested in this particular discussion.
Neither Eric nor Carlo were, for different reasons.
Eric says "The map is the territory" or the map is the best known record. We build records by adding and refining more finite information in time.
1:09:19 Loved Eric’s bit here. Beautiful explanation
Thanks for the timestamp, I got a chuckle watching his meaningless nonsense
@@TheKrunel Check the Wikipedia entry for Hidden-variable theory, or sit on the sidelines trying hard to act superior by making out Dr Weinstein is talking "meaningless nonsense" when you offer no substantive critique, why, in your opinion, any particular part of what he said was incorrect for him to assert, and wasn't merely the work of De Broglie-Bohm and Penrose.
@@____uncompetative "gravity is the engine of observation" (Penrose, I guess), "the big problem in this area is trying to go after every theory you've never thought of as if it were something called hidden variables" (De Broglie-Bohm, I guess). It's just hand wavy verbiage from Weinstein
@@TheKrunel Those are the references.
@the UN = MASS MURDERERS lol
I think the fundamental question is is whether the wave function collapse is describing fundamental reality or not, because with our current observations it is impossible for us to know because the very act of observing limits what we can see is going on. If you take the wave functions literally, the fundamental reality is that the observation is what is causing the collapse, in a non deterministic way. It is impossible to prove that there is a separation between the apparatus and the observer.
We can compare it to instead the flipping of a coin. We can make extremely simple equations of the probably of a coin flip, and the result would be 50%. Are those equations actually describing reality? No, not really. In theory, you could perfectly model the coin flip, take into account the angular momentum, gravity, the vector field of air currents over time, the gravity of everything in the universe, the light particles smashing into it, the vibration of the coin, the vibration and interactions of all the little atoms in the coin, and you could come up with a model that completely predicts the system of the coin flip, and it would be near deterministic(Except some of those things probably have quantum fluctuations themselves). So the equation for the probability for a particular coin flip is NOT technically describing reality...
The fundamental question is how much is the Schrödinger equations and their collapse actually describing reality, and how much is it just an approximation? Is probability and observation the fundamental "mover", or are we just simply not being able to see what's going on? That there is a very kinetic reason for the collapse of the wave function and the particle never actually goes through any of the slits it's not supposed to.
11:00 Sabine: reality is not scientifically defensible; not a realist but instrumentalist. 15:00 Maps are not the territory; physics "map" has not been updated in decades, and people are now viewing the maps as territory. 16:25 Bertrand Russell: role of observer= construct probability based on past events; turkey. 18:40: science is not about finding certainty but a process to learn. Is quantum a modeling tool or measurable, observable? 51:30 We cannot underdtand the sun or super nova without quantum mechanixs 52:40 nobody knows what consciousness is. It's a name we gave to the unknown 1:05:10 G-2
Science is the knowledge of How.
@@steveflorida8699 science is the practise of discovering how, not the knowledge of but the documented pursuit of imho.
Turkey example is spot on! Just because we don't see resurrection of the past generations, does not mean it will never happen in the future. The Creator promised that He will bring it. We are too arrogant to think that all that effort of creating the whole universe was somehow meaningless and in vain. The improbable possibility of the existence itself is somehow pushed under the rug and assigned to blind coincidence and chance which always ends up in scientific fiasco when it comes to explanations and possibilities. Fine-tuned universe spits on the faces of deniers who try to hide the pointers 👉 towards God within the unscientific nonsense as multiverse. They don't want to accept 'unscientific' God hypothesis and yet shamelessly retort to unscientific multiverse nonsense.
So, an observer eats turkey and transforms the chemical potential energy in the turkey's proteins and fats into ATP, which then enables the brain to continue observing?
@@paxdriver science is a 7 letter word that means whatever referent* a person ascribes it to refer to.
Conversation starts at 7:40
Great debate, amazing all the best. .....
Brian should let the guests do the talking. Just pose questions briefly, to the point, preferably written down in advance to avoid confusion and repetition.
I am a physicist and I will provide sound arguments that prove that consciousness is not generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is not physical (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. Contrary to the Rovelli's opening statement, we are NOT only a physical system like any other in the universe.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it can be proved that this hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledge and implies logical contradictions. There are in fact 2 arguments that prove such hypothesis contains a logical fallacy.
1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions of underlying processes and arbitrary abstractions of the actual physical processes. In fact, the underlying microscopic processes are described by the fundamental laws of physics and no emergent properties are involved in such description; this implies that all the alleged emergent properties are only arbitrary and approximate descriptions of the actual physical processes (arbitrariness is involved when more than one options is possible; in this case, more than one possible descriptions). An approximate description is only an abstraction, 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; an approximate description is an idea that exists only in a conscious mind. This means that emergent properties are concepts that refer to something that has an inherent conceptual nature (abstract ideas).
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 every set of elements is inherently an arbitrary abstraction which implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set. 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. Therefore, any property attributed to the set as a whole is inherently arbitrary because it depends on the arbitrary choice used to define the set. Arbitrariness is a precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and consciousness is a precondition for the existence of arbitrariness.
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 the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements.
In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. 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, 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, such "something" cannot exist independently of a conscious mind and 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 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. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else; however, there is no objective criterion that allows us to identify what separates brain and non-brain. Obviously, consciousness cannot be a property of an abstraction, because an abstraction cannot conceive of itself. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction because it implies the arbitrary choice of including some elements in the set and excluding others. Physically the brain is not a single entity and therefore every alleged property of the brain is an arbitrary concept, a subjective abstraction, because it depends on the arbitrary definition of the brain. This is sufficient to prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is a property of the brain is nonsensical because it contains an intrinsic logical contradiction; consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of arbitrariness, and therefore the existence of consciousness cannot be a consequence of all that implies arbitrariness.
Conversely, if the concept refers to “something” that is NOT inherently arbitrary or subjective or conceptual, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of a concept that does not refer to something that is inherently subjective and presupposes the existence of arbitrariness, is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties which imply arbitrariness and can exist only as ideas in a conscious mind, the concept of indivisible entity refers to a reality 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.
Since consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever, consciousness can only be a fundamental property of an indivisible entity, because only an indivisible entity does not imply any kind of arbitrariness; 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 cannot be 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. Marco Biagini
Talking about something "unphysical" in the physical and that interacts and affects the physical in any way, is like talking about what's outside the universe. If there was anything "outside" the universe that you could be sure of somehow, it would, by definition, not be outside the universe anymore.
edit:
Let me claryfy. The existance of that "unphysical" thing is the reason that leads to the physical process of you writing about it. So somewhere inbetween must be a physical connection between the "unphysical" and the physical which is a contradiction.
@@IngTomT False. You are abitrarily assuming that the interaction between something physical and something unphysical must be physical. ; therefore, your conclusionthat there is contradiction is only the result of a circular reasoning. Indeed, dualism does not imply any kind of contradiction. By the way, with the term physical, i refer to all what is reducible to the fundamental laws of physics, according to which in our brain there are only interacting quantum particles, such as electrond, protons and neutrons.. the physocal interactions are only those predicted by the fundamental laws of physics. My arguments prove that brain processes, as described by the laws of physics, are not a sufficient condition for the existence of our mental experiences. There are two logically consistent interpretations; the dualistic view and the idealistic view. In the dualistic perspective, our mental experiences are the result of the interaction between the soul and brain processes. In the idealistic perspective, our mental experiences are the result of the interaction between our soul and God, and brain processes are a representation of that interaction; in this view, the whole universe exists only as an idea in God's mind, who creates the phenomena we observe according to the mathematical models he has conceived (what we call "the laws of physics"). This idealistic perspective is essentially Berkeley's view and provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics.
@@marcobiagini1878 My view is that only physical interaction can animate a physical object to a physical action. Not necessarly that we already understand the nature of that interaction (or everything we could understand about the physical world) yet but it has to be physical nonetheless. I don't understand why you need to sperate things we understand and things we don't understand (yet) into categories like physical and unphysical. It doesn't seem necesarry to me.
@@IngTomT As I said, your assumption that "only physical interaction can animate a physical object" is arbitrary and devoid of any rational basis. My arguments prove that the brain, as described by our scientific knowledge, cannot generate consciousness and that consciousness can only be a property of an indivisible element, which does not exist according to the current laws of physics. Some further considerations about progress in science;
First of all, science has never made progress throughout history in explaining the origin of consciousness and therefore there is no reason to expect science to provide an explanation in the future. Neuroscience has shown only the existence of corelations between brain processes and mental experiences, but correlation does not mean causation. Indeed, science is unable to explain the existence of consciousness even in principle; science does not even provide a clue to justify the existence of consciousness.
It is worth considering that the current laws of physics already explain all chemical and biological processes, including cerebral processes, without the need to introduce addictional hypotheses, independent of the laws of physics themselves. Developments in physics are expected to refer to high energy processes or cosmology, processes that do not interfere with brain processes. In fact, a remarkable feature of the laws of physics, is the fact that the strong interaction among quarks is decoupled from the electromagnetic interaction between electrons, which alone determines all chemical and biological processes; the strong interaction simply holds nucleons together inside the atomic nucleous during chemical and biological processes. It is therefore unreasonable to hypothesize that we will find new laws of physics that will change our descriptions of biological processes, just as science has never changed our description of the dynamics of macroscopic objects at speeds far below the speed of light, a dynamics that is still described through the laws of classical physics. Quantum physics represents a major breakthrough in the history of science because for the first time it has provided a set of laws capable to explain all biological processes. The point is that we do not need new laws of physics to explain biological and cerebral processes, and such processes are perfectly reducible to the current laws of physics; conversely, my arguments prove that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics.
Beauty is subjective. And within this mental arbitrariness, I don't see physical atoms formulating a subjective viewpoint. Also what is the Language of neurons. Do neurons communicate... I love this... my goodness benefits other human neurons... morality will lead to global peace?
Having said that, I think Mind is not the physical brain. I think in my simple illustrated thinking we are fundamentally in agreement.
Best wishing from India! I enjoyed this session.
The problem of quantum measurement is simply that of the added energy of the neasuring/observation device which interferes in the field being measured. We do not know the role of consciousness, just as we have no epistemological bridge that connects quantum field theory with classical physics, chemistry and biology and finally life, sentience and consciousness. We assume it is negligble or non-existent but that only reveals the gaps of our understanding. Sabine has a video "disproving" free will on the basis of particles and math, but her conclusion is so simplistic as to be unwarranted as it presumes a bridge between particles and a psychic phenomenon that we just do not have.
The hard problem of consciousness is how we get experiential, intangible and subjective qualities from just objective and tangible stuff: is that a boring issue best left for neuroscientists like Antonio Damásio et.all? Kind of like saying you are only interested in biology and not in chemistry, or only interested in chemistry and not in physics: these borders do not exist in nature. All of the panel, like mainstream scientists, seem to just assume that it's an emergent property or epiphenomenon and thus sidestep the issue. If Eric Weinstein finds it "boring" it is because this debate has become fatigued and not gone anywhere. Yet, if Donald Hoffman or Bernardo Kastrup ideas of idealism may be on to something, then all the panel and mainstream physicists will be out of a job as their assumptions are all wrong and all of Weinstein's new directions and perspectives would be irrelevant. Rovelli's dismal and claim that there is nothing "psychic" in nature is, as a comment points out below, very naive: I understand their shying away from the subject because it reeks of metaphysics: it is also an extreme and dangerous subject because it threatens to upend all the cherished scientific truths of physicalism. Others, finding the monopoly of conventional physicalism too restrictive and reductionist, like David Bohm and Schrodinger (different from Penrose) intuited that the Indian Upanishads may have been on to something in their consideration of consciousness as the most fundamental element of reality.
The moderator, Brian Keating, did a great job and one sees he's very interested in the subject (as opposed to the close minded dogma of "Just shut up and calculate"), but the panel was too one sided in its reluctance to broach the subject: Rovelli actually close minded, Sabine just agnostically skeptical and Eric in a world of his own. An idealist might have quipped "Never mind the matter, these scientists can go stuff it." Aside from the math, they are all as clueless about the real role of quantum physics in reality as we are. Tim Maudlin is right here: we have no image or picture of quantum physics which allow us to connect it with reality as we do of classical physics. An enjoyable discussion, nevertheless, but nothing illuminating here.
Very true. Carlo and Sabine have such horrendous arguments, that are obviously so close minded and 100% biased that it discredits their very own position as scientists. These are actual scientists? These are the people who teach science? incredibly disgusting
Extremely well said.
Wow. Very intelligent and thoughtful ideas here. Thank you for this expression.
Actually the apparatus has been experimentally proven to not cause of the collapse by the quantum eraser experiment. What they were saying about the instrument maybe causing the collapse is patently false. But I understand why they do it. You would have no career as a physicist if you admit that consciousness is fundamental
Thank you; I only can feel similar thoughts. These comments summarize what I take from the conversations stated.
It would by sooo simple to think that the whole creation IS consciousness, consciousness in endless facets, we are not even in the middle.
I agree that the idea of quantum consciousness is a boring one and it kills me that the general public seems so interested in it and woo surrounding it.
The woo part of it really grinds my gears. It shows that the vast majority of humans think we're the center of the universe. Thinking of how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of things, much like Hossenfelder says about free will, is far less prohibitive in understanding the universe than thinking we have something profound about our frame of observation.
@@lousassle9387 it's not that we're the center of the universe but we are quite special because we bring meaning to the universe with consciousness, as of now we are the only known example. Even if we're not the only one it's one of the most special things about the universe, that beings like us can comprehend it
We are both, the center of the universe and totally insignificant at the same time, just like waves are particles and vice versa ;)
What do you mean by quantum consciousness? Are you referring to that as a type of conciousness? Or just stating that some people query if conciousness needs quantum explanations?
If so, just go and look at the forefathers of quantum mechanics who pretty much all thought conciousness was integral to understanding quantum mechanics
Also it’s not quite quantum related but check out Donald hoffman
@@IngTomT we earthlings are not the center of the material universe. Our human sciences are young observers and still in elementary discoveries.
I don't really get the "shut up and calculate" notion. If a physicist wants to philosophise and interpret in their free time, they should do so. As long as it doesn't interfere with the way they analyse laboratory results, that's fine.
Philosophy is simply the love of wisdom, including thinking about the big questions of nature. Science is about gathering evidence about nature. As long as one can distinguish science from philosophy, I don't see the harm in practicing in both.
"Shut up and calculate" is good when you are studying and have to learn to make calculations.
A physicist who is not a philosopher too, is just a bank clerk.
On reality, consider what this video represents. This is 4 people in different places each presumably real people interactively interfacing where each expresses a view, that view is transmitted via photons to an electronic system that then transmits a representation via photons of a very different form to a receiving electronic circuit to a photon emitting device into the biochemical system of a person’s consciousness. This process is rebounding continuously back and forth to build presentation that is sent via photons all over the world to be viewed by millions of people, and,………that presentation has the same meaning to those millions of Observers, all of whom can cross reference the consistency of that meaning between one another.
If Reality is not consistently verifiable, then that presentation is one hell of a coincidence. Is reality real?? This is just semantics, because something here seems definitely real to me. Then there is the quantum verification of the presentation.
Sabine would argue that it's "real TO YOU" (but that doesn't mean it's objectively real). Then she would say that she believes in "collective science" and it'd be the end of her silly argument. I 100% agree with you!
This was a great dialog. My response is simply, "Wir muessen immer nach Kant zuruek."
Incredible/impressive how flawless Sabine Hossenfelder speaks and listens.
She’s just like me, except I’m quiet and shy
And easily confused when I am speaking with people
Ok you are a subscriber of her channel and a fan I get it, but what exactly are you finding admirable about her. Her thinking is off the charts oxymoronic. Borderline insane. Eric pointed it out in a pretty emphatic fashion.
@@C_R_O_M________ its been a while i watched this video, can you tell me where (at what min.) Eric is pointing it out? im interested to hear what he has to say again.
What is measurement?
We have a straight line terminated at both ends and a standard ruler. We place the ruler alongside the straight line, compare and determine the size or length of the straight line We see that measurement involves comparison and that all comparison needs a standard or a fixed frame of reference. If the reference is not fixed or changes from place to place, then it cannot be deemed a standard. Most importantly, if we alter the frame of reference, then the thing being measured changes. (A thing is a thing because it is a measurement outcome, otherwise, it is nothing or perhaps everything.).
The moment we introduce a frame of reference, measurement begins. Then on, everything is translated in terms of the frame of reference (the observer), in that, the frame of reference turns out to be extremely influential; it influences observation, therefore, measurement is an influence.
Well said
Does any physicist debate in an objective way, about the fact that so many different quantum interpretations are indicating we are no further in QM since Bell’s Theorem got tested?
Still a good show and debate showing here. Thanks.
Stephen Wolfram's physics project effectively proves that mathematical physics is an artifact of (certain slice) of mathematics.
We are no further in QM period or the interpretation of QM?
There's been many developments in QFT (quantum field theory) over the last 2 decades, like in Topological order and field theories. The TI (Topological Insulator) was also demonstrated in Te2Bi3 quantum wells, for instance.
Pretty sure you mean in the interpretation of QM. I think more and more physicists are going for the many worlds interpretation since there is no spooky action at a distance, doesn't lead to Schrodinger's cat, and is more consistent with GR.
@@marcusrosales3344 Many worlds interpretation is a sign of how far the rot has set in.
@@marcusrosales3344 The "many worlds" interpretation is so vaguely defined and comes in so many flavors that the statement "I favor the many worlds interpretation" is essentially meaningless.
Gathered here are are four minds that ponder physics and math what an opportunity lost. Let Sabine and Carlo set the agenda for the talk next time.
This moderator really loves the sound of his own voice.🙄
1. Is there a field theory vs. atomist paradigm battle?
2. Did the simplification of Maxwell’s equations cause a loss in understanding of Faradays observations?
3. Is light a “thing” or a perturbation like a sound wave.
4. Is matter incredibly powerful light?
5. Does physical reality only exist inside a magnetic envelope (heliosphere, galactic current sheet etc…no islands in space).
6. Is space time model better then aether model?
7. What was wrong with aether model?
8. To effectively apply mathematics to physical phenomena, to what degree does the nature of the phenomena need to be understood ( in order for math to measure effectively)?
Thank you.
You spoke for 8 minutes !! before letting your guest say a single thing. If your show is about your guests, then let your guests speak!!!!
It's horrendous, just horrendous! I mean it's really horrible!
It's called an intro
8 minutes out of 1hr & 17 minz
Calm down
Watch on 2X speed and it’s only 4, you’re welcome.