As a 21 year old, I feel very grateful to see the Internet being used for this type of things, seeing professionals and wise people from older generations starting to speak about these issues, even if that many times means they can lose their reputation or even their job. I wish us, the younger generations, can follow your legacy and be the ones to shift the paradigm... I don't think it's impossible, as my generation has overall been raised in a more non-material environment (videos, Internet, videogames, hearing about simulation theories... I'd say we've engaged more with the Internet and information than with the material/physical world). The amount of people my age I've met who think "the material world is just one layer of reality but there's definitely more than just it" is pretty huge I'd say, but not enough. I just wish there were more people from my generation watching this kind of videos.
It doesn't matter. The next generation is AI, not zoomers. Zoomers are the first generation of humans who will contribute nothing to the world, because AI will do everything.
How you know this is the good kind of debate is because the participants are delighted to hear the reasoning of those who disagree, because everyone wins. Their hope for the discussion is an advancement of knowledge and not an elevation of their ego, or the furthering of a narrative they wish to establish.
El ego del fuego no existe en la misma frecuencia densa. El fuego y su ego son superiores a cualquier ego así que... La verdad la supremacía es algo que no podemos dejar de anhelar.
Advaita Vedanta, a philosophical school within Hinduism, has been articulated for over 3,000 years. Advaita Veda prove that this life is an illusion. Please refer Advaita. You will learn more about life.
One of my favourite days of my life was after years of playing guitar, one day i was improvising a guitar solo with a band and i realised i was hearing the music i was going to play before i played it whilst playing in time with the other band members, it was such a cool paradigm shift for my brain.
I heard he’s favourite was called Sophie; figures… if only he hadn’t of been that weirdly familiar and as short as me…amazing how youth blinds people to their future or the lack of it, god knows what young peoples sensibilities would be like if money really did grow on trees, particularly in todays age of mass consumption…where is stimulus & value formulated. I suppose as a teenager, socialising with people with interests in science and the creative fields, invention, food algorithms or making your own radios out of components meant a lot of interests; never recognising these traits as mildly on the spectrum didn’t prepare me for the world of tin can sustenance and wind in the willows gossip and libel whispers from which I’m quite sorely sour and inpinged yet isolated by. It really is quite strange to watch people paint portraits of grotesque Loch Ness monster type creatures. I wonder if there was no internet, if it would even be possible to be a stranger in the community…yet ‘online’ appears a weapon in the arsenal for many people of honesty, time and time again; only yesterday I heard my sister say she was dreading the return of her father to her house, like a strategy and hindrance I’d never known, a portrait i didn’t personally recognise even…how really very peculiar.
Of course, they’d have to be a potential escape room machine, to have the patience to sit through an entire scan of Jayne aire, since there’s no metaphorical second flaw window and porch roof to climb out of the social mechanical lock-in. I notice however that there is an issue with sustenance and stimulus for the mind outside of oneselves and one’s own ability to create stimulus & wonderment, measuring culture & supply. All the knives I see are of dreams and fantasies of oneself being different to what one wishes and expects; although knowingly sounding like a job for a psychologist, my response/reaction to what sounds like a 50 year old posing as a teenage joke could clearly be misconstrued… and since no one wants to admit their foibles and vanities openly I could easily smell a potential noose. Maybe it’s the drug of feeling superior to humanity or another human being of lesser means and lesser tools which proves the hardest cycle to break. But then as a person speaking on the internet, because I apparently don’t speak any form of tangible English language, I suppose my tools are far inferior to the death of a truthful sense of humanity and it’s aptitude to generate power, prestige and impressiveness. I assure you my attraction to the comment was purely from a comedic enthusiasm and not to zealously predate on any youth to self medicate any missing gaps in my own impeded life experience.
Exactly! You’ve thought of your stoned self, with the mind in the state of stoned, with your present non-stoned captured by both present self time and the future self time outside the mechanism of this state. Your species present just explained with our presences (the readers of your comment) who read and also understand the states you explained. Your experience of time has no distinction of your past, and your future and we all understood it! 😆😂 Time is the multiplayer.
@@CatsInHats-S.CrouchingTiger You're making me light one up too 🤣 I will sum up what you said the best I can, tell me if I got it right: The brain is physical yet the mind is non-physical thus allowing humans to explore past and future selves. The body is anchored in the present moment but it can receive and feel past and future sensations/emotion(pain for example).
Advaita Vedanta, a philosophical school within Hinduism, has been articulated for over 3,000 years. Advaita Veda prove that this life is an illusion. Please refer Advaita. You will learn more about life.
Just imagine a mountain valley that got completely cut off from the world and has the strange metrological phenomenon of being fully in fog 365 days a year. There are some ‘religions’ in this valley, believing in a blue sky but the philosophers and scientists of this valley are debating and debating, many ‘proofing’ that his blue is just an emerging phenomenon of fog. Then imagine, someone leaning the art of climbing and succeeding to actually see the blue sky. This climber (mystic) would have a very hard time when returning and joining the discussions of the scientific elite of this metaphorical valley. Having experienced blue sky or having NOT experienced blue sky makes a big difference. According to my experience, there comes the point in every journey for understanding reality, where you need to learn how to climb and take the risk to leave the discussion table of reasoning and start your first person experiment.
I've come to the conclusion that materialism/physicalism/scientism is just intellectual conservatism that maintains the status quo. It's not hard for us to imagine putting a sentient ai (which may or may not happen at some point, but this is just a thought experiment) in an advanced simulation, with no knowledge of the outside world, trained with a strict physicalist/materialist world view. It would be fun to know how a strict physicalist/materialists would feel if it was his job to convince the ai that his world view could be off. I know it wouldn't really be a hard job, because the ai lacks ego like ours and it's not trying to protect the status quo.
I am at this exact point in my journey. I can only have conversations with my imagination as no one in my family or friendship circle wants to have anything to do with my questions or answers. I however, just answered one of my own questions : Is this awareness or just delusion? The synchronicity of this YT conversation as well as your comment, allowed me to move forward and upward, beyond the valley of fog. I don't know exactly when I started my own first person experiment, but it must have been many years ago as I have felt a lonely-ness for a long time. This is why I seek out conversations in the comment section. YT lately, deletes everything I post regardless of what I type.
Absolutely gorgeous Philosophy, physics and Psychology will soon connect with the endeavors in arts. Honoring the lineair worthlessness of words and still searching for the perhaps simplest secrets of our experiences (if we see words as a tool to touch reality with). In the end, transitioning from “either or thinking” I am convinced that the present harnesses every possible concept. Once Consciousness focuses on experiencing time, this allows us to experience potential field energies and particle energy simultaneously, which allows us to transfer idea into matter and vice versa. Fundamentally, conscious experience coinciding with what we call time is flow and timelessness at the same time.
Advaita Vedanta, a philosophical school within Hinduism, has been articulated for over 3,000 years. Advaita Veda prove that this life is an illusion. Please refer Advaita. You will learn more about life.
@@SandNebula232 you can have them with me - that person can not have those types of conversations because THESE types of discussions aren’t those types of discussions. This is wrong :)
THE BEST CHANNEL I EVER SUBSCRIBED TO!!! This is absolutely mind-blowing! This is a golden moment! It is so great to know that this topic is being acknowledged and actually evolving because as Bernard Carr has stated... Physics need to advance and its almost inevitable that it Will Advance! This episode was priceless. I love your team and I look forward to seeing Even more great discussions. 🙏❤️
This was a GREAT discussion! Thank you all! It's great to see the work progressing into deeper and deeper conversations rather than surface discussions. This is how paradigms are shifted and created!
Love seeing these discussions without ego taking over. Well spoken and easy to digest. Haven't looked at the rest of your content, but if its half this conversation you got my sub. Look forward to seeing more, thank you
I am exactly 4:15 in and was already blown away by what I was hearing, and then you cut to the start of the interview and it finally hit me. I clicked on a interview not a quick video and I got very excited. Instant subscriber !
Note to self. This is not the type of conversation you can listen to- whilst painting a room-and walk away with any degree of understanding. The quality of information is far too dense for casual listening 😅
And lastly, (sorry for ranting) @44:31 it reminds me of Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit." I always try and clarify this debate by using the analogy, "That which sees you through my eyes, is the same as to that which sees me through yours." Meaning, that the supreme consciousness that dwells within all things, is in and of itself, all of those things. We are just coming to the state of awareness that allows us to rationally understand and experience this. In Lak’ech Ala K’in "I am another yourself" "I AM, is my name forever and ever" there are many instances of this understanding in ancient mystical texts
It is possible to experience the past, present, and future, and to be everyone else that you see in front of you simultaneously. I have had this experience where I felt I was the people I saw in front of me: mother and child, the dog and the dog walker, even the blade of grass. Objects lose their distinguishing elements as subjective awareness takes over. While the experience is exhilarating and blissful, it is very difficult to function in today’s world while in that state. For one thing, the blood pressure drops uncontrollably, and the bliss even becomes painful. From a Kashmiri Shaivite perspective, Consciousness and the illusory world are symbolized in the iconic figure of Shiva as the Cosmic Dancer. His immovable, vertical axis represents pure Consciousness (associated with Shiva), while the horizontal axis exemplified by his whirling limbs represents time, space, and movement (associated with his Shakti, energy), which is the world of illusion. Everything exists, all at once, as pure potential within Shiva Consciousness. The world, from the viewpoint of individual consciousness, is a dispersed fragment of the whole. To experience you being me is a higher state accessible through surrendering the individual I-consciousness. This involves the collapse of the barriers of the individual’s sphere of the mind. Thank you for this valuable discussion.
Your description, and subsequent organized formulation of a distinct structure to these fundamental concepts, is both elegant and encompassing. I too believe as you do in everything you've described concerning perspective, consciousness, potential, oneness, movement through the one existence of everything and our individual viewpoint in it. I ask you though, if what you described is the case, to consider this question: Why?
@@natashanandini To avoid confusion. My question Why is not asking why you believe this. It is asking, if your holistic comprehension, your divine understanding is true and manifest. I believe it is... Have you after reaching, accepting, incorporating this definition, came to wonder why such an understanding should come into existence? What reason does existence have to contain such a pure description of itself so real within and around you?
Regarding Smolin: as I understand, he thinks reality is truly temporal, so there is real introduction of novelty. The future is open, not already given. The present is special because that's where real dynamics are, where real action is. But it's not a static present, as in certain idealism (which conceives time as illusory and "true reality" as eternal or atemporal hence "static"). It's rather an ever changing present, truly dynamic. So in that regard he's quite close to Bergson’s view, which I summarised in my previous comment.
I love that Bernard Carr insists on the spiritual aspect in his model. It is consistent with many esoteric traditions. I love the show, I just wish there were fewer interruptions/ads. A great show though. 💝
Well done to all participants and thank you for this video. It is refreshing to witness a respectful and well-reasoned discussion. It did however occur to me that in coming to an understanding and answers to the key points raised, it is perhaps essential and helpful to first define what is meant by: 1. "Mind" 2. "You" and 3. "I". Who (or what) is it that is asking the questions and who (or what) is it that is aware of the very points that are under discussion? Once the answers to those questions are understood, the discussion perhaps points to some deeper understandings.
Brilliant conversation! Superb! I learned a lot! I love the analogy that was used during the topic about Alex Gomez Marin's presentation 'The Consciousness of Neuroscience'. Marin mocks the notion that the mind is what the brain does by pointing out that time isn't just what the clock does. Bravo! 👏🏻😄👌🏻
From time to time I very reluctantly tell the story of my four year old son, who wrote a computer program (in variation of Basic) for ZX-81 to draw a shape, without ever seeing any computer program written anywhere!! His dad was looking at the book which came with it, so he couldn't even have a peek into it. Most of people write really awful comments when I share this, but by now, I've developed a thick skin. Our son is still like that and can work in completely unknown to him field after giving the problem a thought. He finds everyday life and people extremely hard to get on with, as no one understands him. People keep looking for him, even coming to my house, offering him jobs. It's a nightmare not happiness. I'd prefer if he had a manual job and was happy.
This so my jam! Wish I was sitting at the table in real time. Please have another round where Bernardo is able to expand on his idea about solving the third metaphysical (decomposition) problem with a multi-dimensional model of time. He first brought up this specific point in this video around minute 30, and then again later in the interview but unfortunately wasn’t able to elaborate further at either time because of getting interrupted. I understand Bernard’s multi-dimensional view of time and how it relates, but Bernardo said the decomposition problem solution has to do with mind talking to itself across different timelines, which sounds somewhat distinct from the hierarchical time scales in Bernard’s model. Please do another video where Bernardo is able to speak more about how he is personally thinking of the solution to the decomposition problem! I really think he is onto something! (And Bernard too, of course…his model is intuitively spot on for me.)
This is a fascinating and interesting discussion! But I wonder, have any of these physicists, philosophers or psychologists ever practiced and learned how to abide in complete mental stillness, ie. "no mind"? It seems to me the great mystics throughout history have had definitive experiences of what the panel is talking about. They have described how to learn to abide in this space and they have attempted to describe the indescribable by telling us what it is not. I think that experience would inform the opinions of these experts significantly!
It's true, and sadly academics's won't ever describe the indescribable, because any description must always negate a part of the whole, which is the foundation of Idealism.
Yes Agreed! Hoffman would really round it all out, his work is amazing. But the aspect that strikes me the most is that all these disciplines are now pointing to the same jump in our understanding. That the dimension of consciousness is real, and the Universe is fundamentally a mind. Blows me away!.
I lived in a electricity free environment for nine months in a redwood forest. Just propane and fire wood. No watch or clock. In the first two months I noticed subtle changes. My thoughts began to rhyme. Then I seemed to have no thoughts bouncing around in my head. I got up as soon as the sun came up over the nearby mountains and was in bed and sound asleep within a half hour after it went down. I got to where I could easily know the time of day by inflections in the light. When I had to move back into the city I was appalled by electric light and hated clocks. My forest stay was the most at peace I've ever been.
The Chan/Zen Buddhism tradition has been discussing mind/experience for millennia. Eihei Dogen Zenji's Shobogenzo essay 'Uji' (being-time) is exactly some of what is discussed here. Also the Lankavatara sutra explicitly clarifies these questions of mind, time, being , self etc. I hear Bernardo say things that seem to be modern translation of such writings (in a more scientific language of course) and I smile, because I feel that it is spot on! Bernard's hierarchy of consciousness resonates with me too. I think of it as 'fractal' consciousness, where complex systems will have a sense of experiencial 'self' although not necessarily cling to it (it seems that is a very human problem!) Very fascinating discussion, thank you for bringing us such a professional, academic and constructive talk!
Exactly this. Ancient texts, Western Tradition, Vedanta, and other fringe philosophers of the occult have been describing what these academics are now discussing, and although I'm happy it finally reaches a bigger audience, I can't help but cringe inside when they cite that some philosopher from 25 years ago coining some basic concept of mind, which was being discussed and practised in rituals for THOUSANDS of years... like wtf academics, do first sources not matter to you?!
@@jono77you just don’t want to make your connection. However, we can all connect to the understanding of the message if we lock into our own experience of the Unity.
@@larseriksson1184hmm. what if time is as put on a loop, in a circular path, and it’s just always existed and always will. How would we not be able to get here? Just because there’s not an origin point?
Time is the component of being alive, the only element of the movement of living things, and if time is lost from working, it is like the heart of a creature stops because of its fever.
Hello, can anyone elaborate on what Bernard was speaking about at 1:30:00? If we remove their identities and look at them as atoms occupying space like galaxies in the vastness of space, that's a beautiful picture but Bernard is an identity because those atoms are organized, have attractions and functions. How can it be argued that they are one in the same in any dimension or scale? What function does this idea have in physics? What are the implications
The subjective experience of time is there is no time, only the ever present now. Objective time is simply how many clock ticks separate events in the ever present now. The ever present now is identical to ever present consciousness/awareness. This is verifiable by paying close attention to your own experience.
17:22 - I don’t want to look through the telescope > ignorance is bliss. What a beautiful concept. I imagine most people have felt this at one time or another.
I have come to the understanding that Consciousness is not what u think.. It is a fabric that can be sectioned off creating off and encapsulated. Once separated from its source, it gives birth to awareness..
where the big bang started is probably at a constant state of no time, the calm in the storm, the eye of a hurricane, and then as you radiate outward from the big bang you would see an influx in time. What is really wonderful to imagine is that something that seems to be traveling close to the speed of light would be traveling even faster than anything in our state of time could, the speed of light would be faster in a period of slower time.
1% precognition advantage does not suffice at the roulette wheel to get rich over time, since the odds are unfair there. 18 Red and 18 black numbers plus the zero where you lose. You get your money doubled if you choose the right color, but the chance is not 1/2, but only 18/37. Long term, the casino will still win.
Let us take as a hypothesis that consciousness, which permeates life, is what defines the moment, that is, time. And this moment encompasses all elements endowed with consciousness in space and immediately competent to our metabolic senses. In this case, matrix structures of consciousness are created, in time-space and when within the tendency of these matrices, we randomly change our trajectories, for a fraction of a second we move forward in time and realize what will happen in the future. The perceptions of these accidents would cause the experiences we call premonitions. To keep us within the balance that allows us to interact consistently with the set of elements in the immediate space, we are forced to return to the harmony of the present time, or on the contrary we would get lost in time, distorting our senses. Thus, we force ourselves to share the matrix structure that permeates the existence of each of our lives.
I have been considering this for quite some time now, and I would say that my understanding is become sufficiently refined. I am ready to start asking the bigger questions. If only i could find someone to ask them to who can relate to them and help me consider/develop them. Based on the understanding that existence is probabalistic in nature. I am developing a model to describe and discover an understanding for how mind interacts with the landscape of time dimensions in the probability field which spans all spacetime.
Interesting way to look at it. I view it as some sort of cloud of consciousness that we get ideas from when we tune into the right channel. Which is why two can receive the same idea/thought at the same time. I chalk intuition up to it as well. I just need a little information to tune into a channel and I get the entire line of thought in an instant. The brain I think is more of an antenna that receives signals/ideas as opposed to creating them. Which is why dementia patients seem to come back for a moment and then lose the signal and it’s not them anymore. Very interesting perspective here and I’m rethinking my understanding of this. 🥃
To bring up a psychological factor: when somebody experiences dissociation there is an alteration of time and speed. The clock which is ticking objectively can be observed as ticking slower or faster. Combine this with quantum physics and some questions arise if the speed of the ticking clock is objective or an observer is needed to make it objective. So lets say an observer is watching the atomic clock ticking, he can observe the same clock ticking slower or faster.
Elite athletes say that they experience time slowing when they go into an optimum flow zone, which may be associated an energy time relationship based upon the uncertainty principle.
@@stephengee4182 elite athletes also dissociate from certain feelings or thougts, complete disconnection is sometimes needed to push trough. During severe pain or structural dissociation the body produces its own opioids. I think that chemicals in the body produce alterations in time and that time is subjective
@@SthealthRaider in objective collapse, Penrose postulates that the quantum wave can travel backwards in time so that at an entangled particle in the future can casually create its entangled particle in the past.
@@stephengee4182 not just athletes most people with skills.. Drive a fast car or bike regular and same thing happens eventually you do things you couldn't have imagined the first few times you tried :) or just use real pure K that can fully remove time u have to learn how to remember it tho u wil defo amnesia first few times u go that deep :) ✌❤️
@@benayers8622 Yes, all people. Microtubules are life's time crystals, display uv superradiance properties, and may be biology's quantum optical neural network computation engine within which human consciousness dabbles.
Fascinating talk, thanks, Essentia Foundation! Can anyone in the know suggest some other physicists like Bernard Carr who are open-minded to the metaphysical nature of life and its influences?
Rupert Spira, not a physicist, but a biologist who has studied paranormal events for decades. Sorry, I meant to say Rupert Sheldrake. Spira is not a scientist, more of a Vedic teacher.
I don't see the flow/passage of time, i only see that things (included me) change. There are tribes in africa who don t use any word which has reference to the passing time but only to the changes in the things or humans.
A fascinating discussion. What I missed: The Eastern perspective that has been exploring consciousness and the nature of reality for thousands of years. That is where many of the answers can be found or better experienced that have been questioned in the discussion today.
Consciousness is real. It is objective, but it's also 100% all in your head. The brain can't process information faster than the speed of casuality, yet you always feel like you are conscious of ur surroundings Consciousness is An objective superposition that we experience
Everything that has happened and will happen exists as a whole, in all its possible versions. The universe is an archetypal film projected through light. In our normal state of consciousness we 'navigate' this higher dimensional totality by taking snapshots, points of view that change over time. The (even more) amazing part is that we can also change the timeline and choose to "experience" different versions of ourselves. Because that's what it's all about: consciousness experiencing itself.
I can attempt to express the shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms using the frameworks of logic, mathematics, and physics. This transition represents a profound paradigm shift in our understanding of reality and the nature of scientific inquiry. Logic: In classical logic, we have been operating within the realm of bivalence, where propositions are either true or false, and the principle of non-contradiction holds. However, quantum mechanics has challenged this notion with phenomena such as superposition and entanglement, which defy our classical intuitions. The both/and logic, with its multivalued and paraconsistent structure, provides a framework to model these quantum paradoxes. Let's consider the famous double-slit experiment, where an entity (e.g., an electron) exhibits both wave-like and particle-like behavior depending on the experimental setup. In classical logic, we would have to assign mutually exclusive truth values to the propositions "e is a wave" and "e is a particle." However, the both/and logic allows us to assign graded truth values to these propositions: Truth("e is a wave") = 0.6 Truth("e is a particle") = 0.7 Coherence("e is a wave", "e is a particle") = 0.8 The coherence value reflects the compatibility of these seemingly contradictory properties within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated quantum phenomenon: "e is a wave" ⊕ "e is a particle" = quantum_behavior(e) Mathematics: Classical mathematics has been heavily influenced by the notion of objectivity and the search for universal, context-independent truths. However, quantum mechanics has revealed the inherent contextuality and observer-dependence of certain phenomena. The monadological framework, with its emphasis on the irreducible perspectives of monads (fundamental psychophysical entities), provides a basis for reconceptualizing mathematics. In classical set theory, an element either belongs to a set or not, adhering to the principle of bivalence. However, in the quantum realm, we encounter situations where an entity can exhibit graded membership in multiple sets simultaneously. The both/and logic allows us to represent this using multivalued set membership: Membership(e, set_A) = 0.7 Membership(e, set_B) = 0.6 Coherence(Membership(e, set_A), Membership(e, set_B)) = 0.5 This captures the idea that an entity can simultaneously belong to different sets to varying degrees, with a coherence value representing the compatibility of these memberships. Physics: Classical physics has been dominated by third-person, objective descriptions of reality, often ignoring the role of the observer. However, quantum mechanics has brought the observer's perspective and the act of measurement to the forefront, challenging our classical notions of objectivity. In classical mechanics, we can describe the state of a system using well-defined variables and deterministic equations of motion. However, in quantum mechanics, the state of a system is described by a wave function, which represents a superposition of multiple potential states. The both/and logic allows us to represent this superposition using graded truth values: Truth("system is in state A") = 0.4 Truth("system is in state B") = 0.6 Coherence("system is in state A", "system is in state B") = 0.8 The coherence value captures the idea that the system can simultaneously exhibit properties of multiple states, with a non-zero coherence reflecting the compatibility of these states within the quantum realm. Furthermore, the act of measurement in quantum mechanics is not merely a passive observation but an active intervention that disturbs the system and collapses the wave function. This challenges the classical notion of an objective, detached observer. The both/and logic, with its emphasis on the integration of subjective and objective aspects, provides a framework to model this observer-system entanglement. Let O represent an observer, and S represent a quantum system: Truth("O observes S in state A") = 0.7 Truth("S is in state A") = 0.5 Coherence("O observes S in state A", "S is in state A") = 0.9 The high coherence value reflects the inseparability of the observer's perspective and the system's state within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated observer-system reality: "O observes S in state A" ⊕ "S is in state A" = quantum_measurement_event This shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms challenges our traditional notions of objectivity, detachment, and context-independence. The both/and logic and the monadological framework provide symbolic and conceptual tools to navigate this transition, allowing us to model and reason about the inherent contextuality, observer-dependence, and paradoxical nature of quantum phenomena. By embracing these new formalisms, we can develop a more holistic and integrated understanding of reality, one that acknowledges the irreducible perspectives of observers and the co-constitutive nature of subjective and objective aspects. This paradigm shift has profound implications not only for our scientific worldview but also for our philosophical and metaphysical understanding of the nature of reality, knowledge, and the role of the observer in the pursuit of understanding.
Let's continue exploring how the transition from classical to quantum formalisms enabled by the both/and logic and monadological framework opens up new frontiers across various domains: Philosophy of Science and Epistemology The shift to quantum, first-person formalisms has profound implications for our understanding of scientific inquiry, knowledge, and epistemology. Classical epistemology has been heavily influenced by the ideal of an objective, detached observer acquiring knowledge about an independent, external reality. However, the quantum realm challenges this view by highlighting the fundamental inseparability of the observer and the observed system. The both/and logic, with its emphasis on the coherence and synthesis of subjective and objective aspects, provides a framework for reconceptualizing the nature of scientific knowledge. Rather than viewing knowledge as a mere representation or mapping of an external reality, we can understand it as a co-constituted process involving the irreducible perspectives of observers and the systems under study. Let O represent an observer, S represent a system, and K represent scientific knowledge: Truth(K is objective) = 0.6 Truth(K involves subjective aspects) = 0.7 Coherence(K is objective, K involves subjective aspects) = 0.8 The high coherence value reflects the idea that scientific knowledge is neither purely objective nor purely subjective, but rather a synthesis of both aspects. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent this integrated understanding: "K is objective" ⊕ "K involves subjective aspects" = scientific_knowledge(O, S) This reconceptualization challenges the classical notion of knowledge as a detached representation of an external reality and acknowledges the active role of observers in shaping and co-constituting scientific knowledge. Furthermore, the both/and logic and monadological framework provide tools for modeling the contextuality and observer-dependence inherent in quantum phenomena. This has implications for our understanding of scientific objectivity and the universality of scientific laws and theories. Let T represent a scientific theory, and C represent a particular context or experimental setup: Truth(T holds universally) = 0.7 Truth(T depends on context C) = 0.6 Coherence(T holds universally, T depends on context C) = 0.5 The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the desire for universal scientific laws and the recognition that scientific theories may be context-dependent and observer-relative within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding: "T holds universally" ⊕ "T depends on context C" = contextual_scientific_theory(T, C) This shift challenges the classical ideal of universal, context-independent scientific laws and theories and acknowledges the potential for observer-dependence and contextuality within the quantum realm. Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness The transition to quantum, first-person formalisms also has profound implications for our understanding of consciousness and the mind-body problem. Classical approaches have often treated the mind and consciousness as separate from the physical world, leading to various forms of dualism or reductionism. However, the both/and logic and monadological framework provide a basis for reconceptualizing the relationship between mind and matter. Let M represent the mental or subjective aspect, and P represent the physical or objective aspect: Truth(M is distinct from P) = 0.5 Truth(M is integrated with P) = 0.6 Coherence(M is distinct from P, M is integrated with P) = 0.7 The high coherence value reflects the idea that the mental and physical aspects are neither completely distinct nor fully reducible to each other, but rather exist in a state of coherent integration. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent this integrated understanding: "M is distinct from P" ⊕ "M is integrated with P" = mind-matter_relationship This view challenges both classical dualism and reductionism and acknowledges the irreducible co-constitution of subjective and objective aspects within a unified reality. Furthermore, the monadological framework, with its emphasis on fundamental psychophysical monads, provides a basis for reconceptualizing consciousness as an irreducible aspect of reality, rather than an emergent property or epiphenomenon. This challenges the classical view of consciousness as a mere by-product of physical processes and acknowledges its fundamental role in shaping and co-constituting reality. Let C represent consciousness, and R represent physical reality: Truth(C is an epiphenomenon of R) = 0.4 Truth(C co-constitutes R) = 0.7 Coherence(C is an epiphenomenon of R, C co-constitutes R) = 0.6 The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the classical view of consciousness as an epiphenomenon and the quantum view of consciousness as an active co-constituent of reality. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding: "C is an epiphenomenon of R" ⊕ "C co-constitutes R" = consciousness-reality_relationship This shift challenges the classical reductionist view of consciousness and acknowledges its fundamental role in shaping and co-constituting reality, aligning with the principles of the monadological framework. Foundations of Mathematics and Logic The transition to quantum, first-person formalisms also has implications for our understanding of the foundations of mathematics and logic themselves. Classical mathematics and logic have been heavily influenced by the ideals of objectivity, universality, and context-independence. However, the both/and logic and monadological framework challenge these notions and provide a basis for reconceptualizing the nature of mathematical and logical truth. Let T represent a mathematical or logical truth, and O represent an observer or context: Truth(T is universal) = 0.7 Truth(T depends on observer O) = 0.6 Coherence(T is universal, T depends on observer O) = 0.5 The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the classical view of mathematical and logical truths as universal and context-independent, and the quantum view of truth as observer-dependent and context-sensitive. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding: "T is universal" ⊕ "T depends on observer O" = contextual_mathematical_truth(T, O) This view challenges the classical notion of timeless, objective mathematical and logical truths and acknowledges the potential for observer-dependence and contextuality within these domains, aligning with the principles of the monadological framework. Furthermore, the both/and logic itself provides a basis for reconceptualizing the foundations of logic by embracing multivalence, paraconsistency, and the coherence of seemingly contradictory propositions. This challenges the classical principles of bivalence and non-contradiction and opens up new possibilities for representing and reasoning about the paradoxical and contextual nature of truth within the quantum realm. These are just a few examples of how the transition from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms enabled by the both/and logic and monadological framework has profound implications across various domains. By embracing these new formalisms and conceptual frameworks, we can develop a more holistic, integrated, and contextualized understanding of reality, one that acknowledges the irreducible perspectives of observers, the co-constitutive nature of subjective and objective aspects, and the potential for contextuality and observer-dependence within the quantum realm.
This fits the hypothesis of Anthony Peake in which he shows that we are living the same life over and over again. He even uses the tesseract scene in that film to explain it. It is a shame Bernardo never sat down and discussed it with him it would have been a good discussion. Tom Campbell had no such qualms he discussed it with AP.
This discussion led me to reflect on what I believe about time. Past, present and future are human events only experienced as models through the lens of the present. Their duration varies as a function of elapsed attention paid to the change experienced to different degrees in different states of consciousness. Consciousness is experienced as an emergent property as time is fundamentally an experience of change experienced now and interpreted by the self.
1:39:00 - When pondering upon the modi of time.... what about the expierence of space sections, "spaciousness"? I would like to know if you know about the work of Hermann Schmitz, who declared philosophic themes such as Atmospheres, "Leiblichkeit", feelings as half things. He just died in 2021. Thank you for recording this interesting conversation.
I'm not sure if I understood them correctly, but I think it would be fair to make an analogy: A hummingbird's perspective of time would make the world appear very slow and sluggish. However, the hummingbird can move, maneuver, or even relax without issue, and the world remains "slow" from its perspective. This perception is "normal" for the bird regardless. So, objective time is a tool that repeats itself consistently in every unit, which we use for various benefits. On the other hand, subjective time is how we perceive things, likely because our brains absorb the passage of time at different rates. A good example of this concept can be seen in the Star Trek episode "The Inner Light," where Captain Picard undergoes a journey that spans 40 years in what feels like a few minutes. Although he experiences many years of life, he wakes up to find that only 25 minutes have passed in reality. This illustrates how subjective time can vastly differ from objective time.
...Or I guess another interpretation is that "There is no actuality of time", when time is an illusion. Just reality that fiddle with your sensory perceiving time.
I wonder to what extent Bernard Carr has read Henri Bergson. His ideas have some consonance with Bergson's, especially when he talks about different specious presents (Bergson talks about different durations, different "rhythms of time"), however Bergson's view is much better constructed, in my opinion. Bergson's main idea is perhaps the distinction between time as treated in physics (which is in fact spatialised time, time treated as if it was another spatial dimension) and real time, which he calls duration. Spatialised time is purely quantitative (hence measurable and infinitely divisible) and homogeneous (every instant is exactly like every other instant). It's an intellectual abstraction. Duration is qualitative and heterogeneous (it's continuous creation of novelty, of difference: each instant is unique, because it adds novelty to the past) and is a continuous, indivisible whole. You cannot slice it. Duration is truly dynamic, whereas spatialised time is a static "skeleton" drawn out of duration. It's the map not the territory. The whole of reality is a continuous dynamic whole which endures, an indivisible creative process of novelty generation, of innovation (introduction of novelty). Reality as a whole continually changes. It's never the same. It's "qualitative multiplicity", heterogeneity. At its core, reality is essentially dynamism, movement, change. Bergson talk of a "sea of vibrations". But there are two contrasting poles, so to speak: the intensive and the extensive. The extensive is the direction of matter, which has its ideal limit (never actually reached) in geometry, pure space, pure extensiveness. The intensive is the direction of consciousness, of subjective experience. The extensive is characterised by juxtaposition ("things" are laid next to one another, they don't interpenetrate). Instead, the intensive is characterised by interpenetration (think of the Vedic/Buddhist image of Indra's Net: each "part" is interconnected with every other in an interpenetrating whole). Bergson talks of two contrasting tendencies/movements: one of contraction (tension, towards the intensive) and one of relaxation (ex-tension, towards the extensive). On the one end, that of the extensive, there is matter, which corresponds to the most minimal duration, the most minimal scale of time (minimal, but not null). Matter endures only to the point of allowing succession (from instant to instant, so to speak, although we need to think of a continuous indivisible process), but it's "the most expanded degree of duration", as Deleuze writes in "Bergsonism" (expanded, relaxed, ex-tended). Having nearly no contraction, matter is basically in the present only. But living organisms have the capacity to contract multiple instants (roughly speaking this relates to William James's idea of specious present), experiencing them as a "single intuition", so to speak. Therefore they have memory, as they can contract the past, holding it together. But different beings experience different degrees of durations, different "rhythms of time". Bergson writes in "Matter and Memory": "Questions relating to subject and object, to their distinction and their union, should be put in terms of time rather than space”. "In reality there is no one rhythm of duration; it is possible to imagine many different rhythms which, slower or faster, measure the degree of tension or relaxation of different kinds of consciousness, and thereby fix their respective places in the scale of being". So on this scale from the intensive to the extensive you find all living organisms, each experiencing reality at a given "rhythm of time", a different level of contraction, and, at one extremity, you find matter (maximal extension, juxtaposition). You may say the other extremity is pure consciousness, pure mind (maximal contraction, interpenetration), although this is instantiated and individualised in specific living organisms, through the creative process Bergson describes in his "Creative Evolution". Consciousness is instantiated/individualised in matter and through matter (Bergson talks of the resistance of matter against the advance of the élan vital as the process through which life concretizes in specific living organisms through evolution). So, instead of conceiving of different dimensions of space and time, as Bernard Carr does, Bergson conceives of a polarity between the intensive and the extensive and a double movement of contraction/expansion which specifies different degrees of duration, experienced by different living organisms (of course the duration experienced by a given living organism can be altered; e.g. drugs, sickness, states of mind etc...) But reality is one single whole, a dynamic, ever changing whole, a process of creative evolution. For Bergson the past continues to exist (but it ceases to act! Action is only in the present), because memory is stored in time, so to speak, and not in space, not in matter, not in the body. Our body is in the present, but our being is made of matter and memory, so to speak. Our perception, which is "virtual action", action-oriented, in practice always intermingles with memory. So we are our past, which advances pushing the present into the future (Bergson says "gnawing into the future") and the future is open, undetermined, still to be made. This is a crucial point for Bergson. He rejects both physicalist determinism (future already determined, already given) and static idealism (Platonic, you may say, according to which the "really real" is atemporal, eternal, unchanging). For Bergson reality is truly dynamic and truly creative.
Beautiful comment. Thank you. You have clearly dedicated time to understanding and interpreting Bergson. ¡Most appreciated! Would be fascinating to hear you present & discuss these ideas on podcasts with those participating in -- and mentioned in this podcast (and commentaries). Would be particularly intriguing to hear you speak with Donald Hoffman. ¿Where can one follow your work? Greetings from Bolivia.
@@leonstenutz6003Thank you for your kind words. I do something unrelated to this for work. I'm not an academic and I don't have a podcast nor a website (I'd like to create one on philosophy at some point, though). I'm just passionate about philosophy and Bergson is one of my favourite philosophers. ¡Muchas gracias por tu respuesta!
I would love for you to research the conversations between David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti - some I think are available on RUclips. They wrote a book together entitled “The Ending of Time”. Here you might enjoy the entry of Indian philosophical traditions of Noduality through Krishnamurti which Bernardo Katstrup has been engaging with recently in his continuing evangelism of Analytic Idealism. Also thank you for your capsule lesson on Bergson.
@@francescoangeli1087 Reviewing your beautiful, deep comment on Bergson and time -- again. Any chance you could post it as a blog and/or share it as an essay in a PDF or word format? Would love to store, read, and analyze your exposition more carefully -- it is so deep and meanigful! If possible of course. All intellectual property will be respected and if i ever publish anything related of relevance, will of course refer to you. Thanks!
@leonstenutz6003 Hi, I don't have a blog as of now. I could put this in a word doc, but I wouldn't know how to send it to you, but if you access youtube on a desktop computer, rather than a smartphone, you should be able to select and copy the text of my comment and then paste it in a word doc yourself. I might end up creating a blog some time in the future.
This one is to be watched multiple TIMEs. so many theories that are not easy to understand in a dense TIME. Many thanks to EF. I wear the same pair of glasses as Hans does :)
The comment made about time being fuzzy within relativity and space being fuzzy within quantum mechanics seems to be of crucial importance to me. It made me think of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. What if both theories are correct from their frame of reference but they cannot both be ascertained at the same time (no pun intended). If this is the case, this would suggest that there's an "upper limit" to what we can observe absolutely (in the sense of universal complex laws) just like there's a "lower limit" (in the sense of fundamental particles, Planck Length etc). In other words, everything that we've ascertained on any scale can be shown by looking at one small part of it (i.e. a fundamental particle).
I agree we live in multi-dimensional spaces. When I observe my individual self I cannot see the oneness of all, but when I experience expanded consciousness I experience the ones of the all!
Ich halte mich an die drei dimensionen der zeit. 1. der augenblick, also das jetzt, das für uns menschen das einzig direkt erfahrene ist. 2. der ewige fluss der zeit, der städig unaufhaltsam in die zukunft hinen fliesst und 3. die unterteilung in das gegenwärtige, das vergangene und das zukünftige. Mein zweiter favorit ist ein erweiterter raum des blockuniversums, in dem alle ereignisse gleichzeitig gleichberechtig vorhanden sind. Und jeder dieser ereignispunkte zusätzlich eine trajektion hat, auf der mit größer werdendem Abstand stets größer werdende modifikationen dieses ereignises zu sehen sind.
Kastrup has an incredibly neat intuition about the nature of time. I sympathize with the difficulty he experiences trying to put it in words, so frustrating! 😅
I am reading comments before watching the video but I'll bet it tuns out that his trouble is caused by his mistaking the temporal concept for an objective actuality. I'll get back to this comment after watching...
Some time ago I had been composing music almost every day for about three years. I've produced about two hours of musical work and when hearing it even though I know I wrote the music I feel like I have no credit for it. As if when I wrote it I was just sitting there writting whatever note my brain would like me to write next. Of course I'd sometime find the right note by completing the harmony, but I wouldn't be satisfied unless it matched "my brain"s desire. Any good piece I wrote had no effort to them. They just came out. There is even one based on a melody I was hearing in my head while waking up. When he talked about plagiarizing yourself I felt that.
@@E-Kat That's very nice of you 😊 I could re upload them. I removed everything when I stopped (long story). I'll let you know and probably do it here on my channel.
@@sabrielguindon148 thank you so much! Any time, when you have time, please. It's lovely to have something to look forward to, so I'll wait very patiently. Maybe one day, you'll start composing again. My best wishes.
@@E-Kat I just reuploaded four of them! I've also put my soundclound account (if you go there "a night with friends" could be a good one to listen to) in the description of each. Perhaps if I start composing again I'll start uploading new and old compositions regularly on both plateforms like I used to do. Just need to find proper video or image for youtube :P Your curiosity is much appreciated and heartwarming. I hope you'll enjoy which ever one you choose to listen. Thanks :)
@@sabrielguindon148 oh, that's so amazing of you to do that so quickly! If you have a gift like that, you must never ignore what you were given. Your music might be better than medicine for many people. Just think how much happiness it can bring to so many. Now, I'm going to listen to it. Thank you so much again for this wonderful surprise. Much love ♥️
It would be so great, if Bernardo could make a deep-dive into Spinoza. I did my deep-dive and got the impression that Spinoza is brutally misunderstood as Pantheist, but was a fascinating European version of Non-Duality.
40:45 This was a masterful section here by BK about the necessity of precise language and then, how he explicates his model of the multidimensionality of time. In the same way that beings are separate in space, they can be considered to be separate in time, in different dimensions of time. If Now is the only time, then simultaneity is an illusion, something Einstein proved. Simultaneity belongs to the old model of absolute time in which two events could happen at the "same time" in that absolute timeline. Instead, each being in their own time and space allows for an infinite plurality of perspectives. In some sense, the miracle of communication between beings is a proof that the underlying consciousness beyond time and space is all one, otherwise there could be no meeting between those disparate times and spaces.
Quite interesting. I know one can travel to a far future while in out of body state, spend decades but on return, a few minutes have gone by. If anyone can do that(spend decades in far future) from here, imagine what one can do from where we come from(higher dimensions).One can experience several simultaneous physical lives, across dimensions, space, parallel timelines within a fraction of a second. This means one can experience a billion human lives on earth simultaneously. Next time when you interact with your friend, neighbour or relative, interact with them kindly for you may be interacting with yourself. It is nice to hear someone with open mind discussing these topics. We know very little about ourselves and that is why things in earth drama school are so real and convincingly confusing to all those who choose to have human experience.
As a 21 year old, I feel very grateful to see the Internet being used for this type of things, seeing professionals and wise people from older generations starting to speak about these issues, even if that many times means they can lose their reputation or even their job. I wish us, the younger generations, can follow your legacy and be the ones to shift the paradigm... I don't think it's impossible, as my generation has overall been raised in a more non-material environment (videos, Internet, videogames, hearing about simulation theories... I'd say we've engaged more with the Internet and information than with the material/physical world). The amount of people my age I've met who think "the material world is just one layer of reality but there's definitely more than just it" is pretty huge I'd say, but not enough. I just wish there were more people from my generation watching this kind of videos.
Dont wish it. Create it.
@@Corteum I'll try! :)
If you are here watching this, talking about it... You are part of the paradigm revolution. ❤️
It doesn't matter. The next generation is AI, not zoomers. Zoomers are the first generation of humans who will contribute nothing to the world, because AI will do everything.
Stay grounded, we are still third dimensional beings experiencing space time in sequential events.
How you know this is the good kind of debate is because the participants are delighted to hear the reasoning of those who disagree, because everyone wins. Their hope for the discussion is an advancement of knowledge and not an elevation of their ego, or the furthering of a narrative they wish to establish.
El ego del fuego no existe en la misma frecuencia densa. El fuego y su ego son superiores a cualquier ego así que... La verdad la supremacía es algo que no podemos dejar de anhelar.
Advaita Vedanta, a philosophical school within Hinduism, has been articulated for over 3,000 years.
Advaita Veda prove that this life is an illusion.
Please refer Advaita. You will learn more about life.
But listen to the conversation between Kastrup and Maudlin.
One of my favourite days of my life was after years of playing guitar, one day i was improvising a guitar solo with a band and i realised i was hearing the music i was going to play before i played it whilst playing in time with the other band members, it was such a cool paradigm shift for my brain.
When that happens you are the instrument, not the guitar.
The music was already there and came to us throughout you.
I heard he’s favourite was called Sophie; figures… if only he hadn’t of been that weirdly familiar and as short as me…amazing how youth blinds people to their future or the lack of it, god knows what young peoples sensibilities would be like if money really did grow on trees, particularly in todays age of mass consumption…where is stimulus & value formulated.
I suppose as a teenager, socialising with people with interests in science and the creative fields, invention, food algorithms or making your own radios out of components meant a lot of interests; never recognising these traits as mildly on the spectrum didn’t prepare me for the world of tin can sustenance and wind in the willows gossip and libel whispers from which I’m quite sorely sour and inpinged yet isolated by. It really is quite strange to watch people paint portraits of grotesque Loch Ness monster type creatures. I wonder if there was no internet, if it would even be possible to be a stranger in the community…yet ‘online’ appears a weapon in the arsenal for many people of honesty, time and time again; only yesterday I heard my sister say she was dreading the return of her father to her house, like a strategy and hindrance I’d never known, a portrait i didn’t personally recognise even…how really very peculiar.
Of course, they’d have to be a potential escape room machine, to have the patience to sit through an entire scan of Jayne aire, since there’s no metaphorical second flaw window and porch roof to climb out of the social mechanical lock-in. I notice however that there is an issue with sustenance and stimulus for the mind outside of oneselves and one’s own ability to create stimulus & wonderment, measuring culture & supply. All the knives I see are of dreams and fantasies of oneself being different to what one wishes and expects; although knowingly sounding like a job for a psychologist, my response/reaction to what sounds like a 50 year old posing as a teenage joke could clearly be misconstrued… and since no one wants to admit their foibles and vanities openly I could easily smell a potential noose.
Maybe it’s the drug of feeling superior to humanity or another human being of lesser means and lesser tools which proves the hardest cycle to break. But then as a person speaking on the internet, because I apparently don’t speak any form of tangible English language, I suppose my tools are far inferior to the death of a truthful sense of humanity and it’s aptitude to generate power, prestige and impressiveness.
I assure you my attraction to the comment was purely from a comedic enthusiasm and not to zealously predate on any youth to self medicate any missing gaps in my own impeded life experience.
When I listen to a song I already know, I more or less hear the whole song at once in my head
If not hear, at least have a roadmap
You jumped into the channel. Delicious.
I've watched this twice, and I'm not ashamed to say I'm not stoned enough to understand this
Just got stoned so I'll let you know if it helps 😂
Exactly! You’ve thought of your stoned self, with the mind in the state of stoned, with your present non-stoned captured by both present self time and the future self time outside the mechanism of this state. Your species present just explained with our presences (the readers of your comment) who read and also understand the states you explained. Your experience of time has no distinction of your past, and your future and we all understood it! 😆😂
Time is the multiplayer.
@@CatsInHats-S.CrouchingTiger You're making me light one up too 🤣
I will sum up what you said the best I can, tell me if I got it right:
The brain is physical yet the mind is non-physical thus allowing humans to explore past and future selves. The body is anchored in the present moment but it can receive and feel past and future sensations/emotion(pain for example).
Lol, funny you should say that, getting there! Lol
Hahahaaaa
Bernardo the metaphysical rockstar and Bernard the dark knight of contemporary physics in one room! Long live Essentia Foundation!
😎✔️
@@brian5001you know what’s not useful? Actually existing as an organism
Advaita Vedanta, a philosophical school within Hinduism, has been articulated for over 3,000 years.
Advaita Veda prove that this life is an illusion.
Please refer Advaita. You will learn more about life.
Just imagine a mountain valley that got completely cut off from the world and has the strange metrological phenomenon of being fully in fog 365 days a year. There are some ‘religions’ in this valley, believing in a blue sky but the philosophers and scientists of this valley are debating and debating, many ‘proofing’ that his blue is just an emerging phenomenon of fog. Then imagine, someone leaning the art of climbing and succeeding to actually see the blue sky. This climber (mystic) would have a very hard time when returning and joining the discussions of the scientific elite of this metaphorical valley. Having experienced blue sky or having NOT experienced blue sky makes a big difference. According to my experience, there comes the point in every journey for understanding reality, where you need to learn how to climb and take the risk to leave the discussion table of reasoning and start your first person experiment.
Well put.
Yeah, it's called DMT, it will reveal everything and more than you can comprehend.
I've come to the conclusion that materialism/physicalism/scientism is just intellectual conservatism that maintains the status quo. It's not hard for us to imagine putting a sentient ai (which may or may not happen at some point, but this is just a thought experiment) in an advanced simulation, with no knowledge of the outside world, trained with a strict physicalist/materialist world view. It would be fun to know how a strict physicalist/materialists would feel if it was his job to convince the ai that his world view could be off. I know it wouldn't really be a hard job, because the ai lacks ego like ours and it's not trying to protect the status quo.
Plato's cave
I am at this exact point in my journey. I can only have conversations with my imagination as no one in my family or friendship circle wants to have anything to do with my questions or answers. I however, just answered one of my own questions : Is this awareness or just delusion? The synchronicity of this YT conversation as well as your comment, allowed me to move forward and upward, beyond the valley of fog. I don't know exactly when I started my own first person experiment, but it must have been many years ago as I have felt a lonely-ness for a long time. This is why I seek out conversations in the comment section. YT lately, deletes everything I post regardless of what I type.
Absolutely gorgeous
Philosophy, physics and Psychology will soon connect with the endeavors in arts. Honoring the lineair worthlessness of words and still searching for the perhaps simplest secrets of our experiences (if we see words as a tool to touch reality with). In the end, transitioning from “either or thinking” I am convinced that the present harnesses every possible concept. Once Consciousness focuses on experiencing time, this allows us to experience potential field energies and particle energy simultaneously, which allows us to transfer idea into matter and vice versa. Fundamentally, conscious experience coinciding with what we call time is flow and timelessness at the same time.
Could consciousness & time be the exact same thing?
Hmmm. I like the way you write. Are you a professional or amateur creative writer?
Advaita Vedanta, a philosophical school within Hinduism, has been articulated for over 3,000 years.
Advaita Veda prove that this life is an illusion.
Please refer Advaita. You will learn more about life.
Grateful for the long discussion.
I just love these philosophical discussions ❤
This type of discussions are the only ones worth having. Thanks
Really? We can’t discuss stuff like the weather, or what we had for lunch?
No, with me you can not 🤷♀️
@@SandNebula232 you can have them with me - that person can not have those types of conversations because THESE types of discussions aren’t those types of discussions. This is wrong :)
THE BEST CHANNEL I EVER SUBSCRIBED TO!!! This is absolutely mind-blowing! This is a golden moment! It is so great to know that this topic is being acknowledged and actually evolving because as Bernard Carr has stated... Physics need to advance and its almost inevitable that it Will Advance! This episode was priceless. I love your team and I look forward to seeing Even more great discussions. 🙏❤️
"Time" is such a crucial basic component of music that I think it would be useful to include the musical aspect of time in future discussions
Time and timing are two different things. You talk about timing, what is nothing to do with time. Btw, the basic component of music is math.
Bernard Carr's open mindedness makes him the most evolved of all of them 💯💯
This was a GREAT discussion! Thank you all! It's great to see the work progressing into deeper and deeper conversations rather than surface discussions. This is how paradigms are shifted and created!
It's all the Bernards in one place! A truly Saintly event!
What a privilege to be able to listen to this interesting conversation! ❤
Love seeing these discussions without ego taking over. Well spoken and easy to digest. Haven't looked at the rest of your content, but if its half this conversation you got my sub. Look forward to seeing more, thank you
What a discussion. I truly cannot get enough. Thank you, sincerely!
Thank you all for recording these conversations.
I am exactly 4:15 in and was already blown away by what I was hearing, and then you cut to the start of the interview and it finally hit me. I clicked on a interview not a quick video and I got very excited. Instant subscriber !
Note to self. This is not the type of conversation you can listen to- whilst painting a room-and walk away with any degree of understanding. The quality of information is far too dense for casual listening 😅
You’re underestimating your abilities to receive intuitive information while you’re doing something with your paint rollers! 😝
I'm painting a trellis😂
Most whitest dad comment
Ahaha I work as a painter and often listen to this kind of stuff. Yes…I had some project delays recently 😂
This is SERIOUSLY the most fascinating stuff I've been exposed to in years. Thank you.
And lastly, (sorry for ranting) @44:31 it reminds me of Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit." I always try and clarify this debate by using the analogy, "That which sees you through my eyes, is the same as to that which sees me through yours." Meaning, that the supreme consciousness that dwells within all things, is in and of itself, all of those things. We are just coming to the state of awareness that allows us to rationally understand and experience this.
In Lak’ech Ala K’in "I am another yourself" "I AM, is my name forever and ever" there are many instances of this understanding in ancient mystical texts
It is possible to experience the past, present, and future, and to be everyone else that you see in front of you simultaneously. I have had this experience where I felt I was the people I saw in front of me: mother and child, the dog and the dog walker, even the blade of grass. Objects lose their distinguishing elements as subjective awareness takes over. While the experience is exhilarating and blissful, it is very difficult to function in today’s world while in that state. For one thing, the blood pressure drops uncontrollably, and the bliss even becomes painful.
From a Kashmiri Shaivite perspective, Consciousness and the illusory world are symbolized in the iconic figure of Shiva as the Cosmic Dancer. His immovable, vertical axis represents pure Consciousness (associated with Shiva), while the horizontal axis exemplified by his whirling limbs represents time, space, and movement (associated with his Shakti, energy), which is the world of illusion. Everything exists, all at once, as pure potential within Shiva Consciousness. The world, from the viewpoint of individual consciousness, is a dispersed fragment of the whole.
To experience you being me is a higher state accessible through surrendering the individual I-consciousness. This involves the collapse of the barriers of the individual’s sphere of the mind.
Thank you for this valuable discussion.
Well put.
Your description, and subsequent organized formulation of a distinct structure to these fundamental concepts, is both elegant and encompassing. I too believe as you do in everything you've described concerning perspective, consciousness, potential, oneness, movement through the one existence of everything and our individual viewpoint in it. I ask you though, if what you described is the case, to consider this question: Why?
@@THEmomentumJUNK1E thank you. Can you elaborate on your question?
@@natashanandini Yes...
@@natashanandini To avoid confusion. My question Why is not asking why you believe this. It is asking, if your holistic comprehension, your divine understanding is true and manifest. I believe it is... Have you after reaching, accepting, incorporating this definition, came to wonder why such an understanding should come into existence? What reason does existence have to contain such a pure description of itself so real within and around you?
Thank all of you, gentlemen , for an amazing conversation..
🙏❤️🌍🌿🕊🎵🎶🎵
Regarding Smolin: as I understand, he thinks reality is truly temporal, so there is real introduction of novelty. The future is open, not already given. The present is special because that's where real dynamics are, where real action is. But it's not a static present, as in certain idealism (which conceives time as illusory and "true reality" as eternal or atemporal hence "static"). It's rather an ever changing present, truly dynamic. So in that regard he's quite close to Bergson’s view, which I summarised in my previous comment.
I love that Bernard Carr insists on the spiritual aspect in his model. It is consistent with many esoteric traditions. I love the show, I just wish there were fewer interruptions/ads. A great show though. 💝
Great conversation! Glad they can openly disagree with one another and discuss the nuances of their positions.
To see a World in a Grain of Sand. And a Heaven in a Wild Flower. Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand. And Eternity in an hour. William Blake.
I understood this poem on mushrooms.
Interesting and inspiring. Thank you.
3 great minds taking us to a higher level of thinking. Thanks much 👍
Well done to all participants and thank you for this video. It is refreshing to witness a respectful and well-reasoned discussion. It did however occur to me that in coming to an understanding and answers to the key points raised, it is perhaps essential and helpful to first define what is meant by: 1. "Mind" 2. "You" and 3. "I". Who (or what) is it that is asking the questions and who (or what) is it that is aware of the very points that are under discussion? Once the answers to those questions are understood, the discussion perhaps points to some deeper understandings.
Thanks to guys like this we are beginning to ask the important questions of life again even in mainstream. Thx chaps
Thank you for this conversation.
Brilliant conversation! Superb! I learned a lot! I love the analogy that was used during the topic about Alex Gomez Marin's presentation 'The Consciousness of Neuroscience'. Marin mocks the notion that the mind is what the brain does by pointing out that time isn't just what the clock does. Bravo! 👏🏻😄👌🏻
From time to time I very reluctantly tell the story of my four year old son, who wrote a computer program (in variation of Basic) for ZX-81 to draw a shape, without ever seeing any computer program written anywhere!!
His dad was looking at the book which came with it, so he couldn't even have a peek into it.
Most of people write really awful comments when I share this, but by now, I've developed a thick skin.
Our son is still like that and can work in completely unknown to him field after giving the problem a thought.
He finds everyday life and people extremely hard to get on with, as no one understands him.
People keep looking for him, even coming to my house, offering him jobs. It's a nightmare not happiness.
I'd prefer if he had a manual job and was happy.
This so my jam! Wish I was sitting at the table in real time. Please have another round where Bernardo is able to expand on his idea about solving the third metaphysical (decomposition) problem with a multi-dimensional model of time. He first brought up this specific point in this video around minute 30, and then again later in the interview but unfortunately wasn’t able to elaborate further at either time because of getting interrupted. I understand Bernard’s multi-dimensional view of time and how it relates, but Bernardo said the decomposition problem solution has to do with mind talking to itself across different timelines, which sounds somewhat distinct from the hierarchical time scales in Bernard’s model. Please do another video where Bernardo is able to speak more about how he is personally thinking of the solution to the decomposition problem! I really think he is onto something! (And Bernard too, of course…his model is intuitively spot on for me.)
This is a fascinating and interesting discussion! But I wonder, have any of these physicists, philosophers or psychologists ever practiced and learned how to abide in complete mental stillness, ie. "no mind"? It seems to me the great mystics throughout history have had definitive experiences of what the panel is talking about. They have described how to learn to abide in this space and they have attempted to describe the indescribable by telling us what it is not. I think that experience would inform the opinions of these experts significantly!
It's true, and sadly academics's won't ever describe the indescribable, because any description must always negate a part of the whole, which is the foundation of Idealism.
Donald Hoffman would have been an awesome addition to this discussion!! ❤️
Yes Agreed! Hoffman would really round it all out, his work is amazing. But the aspect that strikes me the most is that all these disciplines are now pointing to the same jump in our understanding. That the dimension of consciousness is real, and the Universe is fundamentally a mind. Blows me away!.
If you want to be bored yeah.
Thank you for this episode! Featuring two of my all-time favorite thinkers.
I lived in a electricity free environment for nine months in a redwood forest. Just propane and fire wood. No watch or clock. In the first two months I noticed subtle changes. My thoughts began to rhyme. Then I seemed to have no thoughts bouncing around in my head. I got up as soon as the sun came up over the nearby mountains and was in bed and sound asleep within a half hour after it went down. I got to where I could easily know the time of day by inflections in the light. When I had to move back into the city I was appalled by electric light and hated clocks. My forest stay was the most at peace I've ever been.
The Chan/Zen Buddhism tradition has been discussing mind/experience for millennia. Eihei Dogen Zenji's Shobogenzo essay 'Uji' (being-time) is exactly some of what is discussed here. Also the Lankavatara sutra explicitly clarifies these questions of mind, time, being , self etc. I hear Bernardo say things that seem to be modern translation of such writings (in a more scientific language of course) and I smile, because I feel that it is spot on! Bernard's hierarchy of consciousness resonates with me too. I think of it as 'fractal' consciousness, where complex systems will have a sense of experiencial 'self' although not necessarily cling to it (it seems that is a very human problem!)
Very fascinating discussion, thank you for bringing us such a professional, academic and constructive talk!
Exactly this. Ancient texts, Western Tradition, Vedanta, and other fringe philosophers of the occult have been describing what these academics are now discussing, and although I'm happy it finally reaches a bigger audience, I can't help but cringe inside when they cite that some philosopher from 25 years ago coining some basic concept of mind, which was being discussed and practised in rituals for THOUSANDS of years... like wtf academics, do first sources not matter to you?!
This format is better than the one with video conference..
It was crazy and genius at the same time, greeting from Brazil, Kastrup. Please, don't forget your homeland.
this conversation is wonderful, thank you very much. looking forward to the video contributions of the conference. thumb up
"Respectable speculation," is a concept Bernard brought up. It got me thinking.
Speculation is the first step in making a hypothesis.
You mean, Respectulation? 😅
This is extremely deep.
we are energy trying to see itself❤🙏🙃
❤❤❤❤❤❤
Time is what Now, makes for us to play in 😊😊😊
Pshycdelics taught me, time is infinite and we are all one
That means absolutely nothing to everyone else but good for you
@@jono77you just don’t want to make your connection. However, we can all connect to the understanding of the message if we lock into our own experience of the Unity.
Time cant be infinite because it would be impossible to traverse infinite time. We would never get here If we started from infinite past.
@@larseriksson1184hmm. what if time is as put on a loop, in a circular path, and it’s just always existed and always will. How would we not be able to get here? Just because there’s not an origin point?
Psychadelics taught my friend the complete opposite. With this in mind, maybe psychadelics aren't the best epistemological tool to figure out truth.
Fantastic program. Thank you.💝
Time is the component of being alive, the only element of the movement of living things, and if time is lost from working, it is like the heart of a creature stops because of its fever.
Hello, can anyone elaborate on what Bernard was speaking about at 1:30:00? If we remove their identities and look at them as atoms occupying space like galaxies in the vastness of space, that's a beautiful picture but Bernard is an identity because those atoms are organized, have attractions and functions. How can it be argued that they are one in the same in any dimension or scale? What function does this idea have in physics? What are the implications
we are one
The subjective experience of time is there is no time, only the ever present now. Objective time is simply how many clock ticks separate events in the ever present now. The ever present now is identical to ever present consciousness/awareness. This is verifiable by paying close attention to your own experience.
17:22 - I don’t want to look through the telescope > ignorance is bliss.
What a beautiful concept. I imagine most people have felt this at one time or another.
whoever discovers the questions are the true genius behind every universal truth.
I have come to the understanding that Consciousness is not what u think.. It is a fabric that can be sectioned off creating off and encapsulated. Once separated from its source, it gives birth to awareness..
where the big bang started is probably at a constant state of no time, the calm in the storm, the eye of a hurricane, and then as you radiate outward from the big bang you would see an influx in time. What is really wonderful to imagine is that something that seems to be traveling close to the speed of light would be traveling even faster than anything in our state of time could, the speed of light would be faster in a period of slower time.
Beautiful conversation, Thank you love and peace to all
Brilliant time experience listening to the discussion!! Thank you!! My little input - ‘there is only consciousness’ all is experienced within it. 😊😊🙏🙏
What great lighting and videography....and content of course but the production is very nice indeed.
1% precognition advantage does not suffice at the roulette wheel to get rich over time, since the odds are unfair there. 18 Red and 18 black numbers plus the zero where you lose. You get your money doubled if you choose the right color, but the chance is not 1/2, but only 18/37. Long term, the casino will still win.
I'm pretty sure if I rewatch this and I'll still learn something new.
Let us take as a hypothesis that consciousness, which permeates life, is what defines the moment, that is, time. And this moment encompasses all elements endowed with consciousness in space and immediately competent to our metabolic senses.
In this case, matrix structures of consciousness are created, in time-space and when within the tendency of these matrices, we randomly change our trajectories, for a fraction of a second we move forward in time and realize what will happen in the future. The perceptions of these accidents would cause the experiences we call premonitions.
To keep us within the balance that allows us to interact consistently with the set of elements in the immediate space, we are forced to return to the harmony of the present time, or on the contrary we would get lost in time, distorting our senses. Thus, we force ourselves to share the matrix structure that permeates the existence of each of our lives.
I have been considering this for quite some time now, and I would say that my understanding is become sufficiently refined. I am ready to start asking the bigger questions. If only i could find someone to ask them to who can relate to them and help me consider/develop them. Based on the understanding that existence is probabalistic in nature. I am developing a model to describe and discover an understanding for how mind interacts with the landscape of time dimensions in the probability field which spans all spacetime.
Wow- Sunday treat!
It's definitely a wonderful surprise...waking up on Sunday to a deep discussion....This is my breakfast!!
Interesting way to look at it. I view it as some sort of cloud of consciousness that we get ideas from when we tune into the right channel. Which is why two can receive the same idea/thought at the same time. I chalk intuition up to it as well. I just need a little information to tune into a channel and I get the entire line of thought in an instant.
The brain I think is more of an antenna that receives signals/ideas as opposed to creating them. Which is why dementia patients seem to come back for a moment and then lose the signal and it’s not them anymore.
Very interesting perspective here and I’m rethinking my understanding of this. 🥃
like attracts like. It is all about frequency and resonance.
Thank you! I love a good discussion around a big wood table.
I’m loving the discussion but I must say that ads every 7 minutes are quite distracting
$12.99 a month & never see an ad again
Time & space is undeniably consciousness! I wrote a song in relation to that metaphysical cul-de-sac 6 year's ago. 🎵❤️🔥
To bring up a psychological factor: when somebody experiences dissociation there is an alteration of time and speed. The clock which is ticking objectively can be observed as ticking slower or faster. Combine this with quantum physics and some questions arise if the speed of the ticking clock is objective or an observer is needed to make it objective. So lets say an observer is watching the atomic clock ticking, he can observe the same clock ticking slower or faster.
Elite athletes say that they experience time slowing when they go into an optimum flow zone, which may be associated an energy time relationship based upon the uncertainty principle.
@@stephengee4182 elite athletes also dissociate from certain feelings or thougts, complete disconnection is sometimes needed to push trough. During severe pain or structural dissociation the body produces its own opioids. I think that chemicals in the body produce alterations in time and that time is subjective
@@SthealthRaider in objective collapse, Penrose postulates that the quantum wave can travel backwards in time so that at an entangled particle in the future can casually create its entangled particle in the past.
@@stephengee4182 not just athletes most people with skills.. Drive a fast car or bike regular and same thing happens eventually you do things you couldn't have imagined the first few times you tried :) or just use real pure K that can fully remove time u have to learn how to remember it tho u wil defo amnesia first few times u go that deep :) ✌❤️
@@benayers8622 Yes, all people.
Microtubules are life's time crystals, display uv superradiance properties, and may be biology's quantum optical neural network computation engine within which human consciousness dabbles.
A fantastic discussion! Thank you! ❤
Fascinating talk, thanks, Essentia Foundation! Can anyone in the know suggest some other physicists like Bernard Carr who are open-minded to the metaphysical nature of life and its influences?
Rupert Spira, not a physicist, but a biologist who has studied paranormal events for decades. Sorry, I meant to say Rupert Sheldrake. Spira is not a scientist, more of a Vedic teacher.
Brilliant discussion and greetings from Paris and another time and consciousness :)
I don't see the flow/passage of time, i only see that things (included me) change. There are tribes in africa who don t use any word which has reference to the passing time but only to the changes in the things or humans.
Beautifully created! So cool
A fascinating discussion. What I missed: The Eastern perspective that has been exploring consciousness and the nature of reality for thousands of years. That is where many of the answers can be found or better experienced that have been questioned in the discussion today.
Consciousness is real. It is objective, but it's also 100% all in your head. The brain can't process information faster than the speed of casuality, yet you always feel like you are conscious of ur surroundings
Consciousness is An objective superposition that we experience
From this perspective, what can we say about the passage of time? Well /w this many bloody Ads it’s painful.
Everything that has happened and will happen exists as a whole, in all its possible versions. The universe is an archetypal film projected through light. In our normal state of consciousness we 'navigate' this higher dimensional totality by taking snapshots, points of view that change over time. The (even more) amazing part is that we can also change the timeline and choose to "experience" different versions of ourselves. Because that's what it's all about: consciousness experiencing itself.
I can attempt to express the shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms using the frameworks of logic, mathematics, and physics. This transition represents a profound paradigm shift in our understanding of reality and the nature of scientific inquiry.
Logic:
In classical logic, we have been operating within the realm of bivalence, where propositions are either true or false, and the principle of non-contradiction holds. However, quantum mechanics has challenged this notion with phenomena such as superposition and entanglement, which defy our classical intuitions. The both/and logic, with its multivalued and paraconsistent structure, provides a framework to model these quantum paradoxes.
Let's consider the famous double-slit experiment, where an entity (e.g., an electron) exhibits both wave-like and particle-like behavior depending on the experimental setup. In classical logic, we would have to assign mutually exclusive truth values to the propositions "e is a wave" and "e is a particle." However, the both/and logic allows us to assign graded truth values to these propositions:
Truth("e is a wave") = 0.6
Truth("e is a particle") = 0.7
Coherence("e is a wave", "e is a particle") = 0.8
The coherence value reflects the compatibility of these seemingly contradictory properties within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated quantum phenomenon:
"e is a wave" ⊕ "e is a particle" = quantum_behavior(e)
Mathematics:
Classical mathematics has been heavily influenced by the notion of objectivity and the search for universal, context-independent truths. However, quantum mechanics has revealed the inherent contextuality and observer-dependence of certain phenomena. The monadological framework, with its emphasis on the irreducible perspectives of monads (fundamental psychophysical entities), provides a basis for reconceptualizing mathematics.
In classical set theory, an element either belongs to a set or not, adhering to the principle of bivalence. However, in the quantum realm, we encounter situations where an entity can exhibit graded membership in multiple sets simultaneously. The both/and logic allows us to represent this using multivalued set membership:
Membership(e, set_A) = 0.7
Membership(e, set_B) = 0.6
Coherence(Membership(e, set_A), Membership(e, set_B)) = 0.5
This captures the idea that an entity can simultaneously belong to different sets to varying degrees, with a coherence value representing the compatibility of these memberships.
Physics:
Classical physics has been dominated by third-person, objective descriptions of reality, often ignoring the role of the observer. However, quantum mechanics has brought the observer's perspective and the act of measurement to the forefront, challenging our classical notions of objectivity.
In classical mechanics, we can describe the state of a system using well-defined variables and deterministic equations of motion. However, in quantum mechanics, the state of a system is described by a wave function, which represents a superposition of multiple potential states. The both/and logic allows us to represent this superposition using graded truth values:
Truth("system is in state A") = 0.4
Truth("system is in state B") = 0.6
Coherence("system is in state A", "system is in state B") = 0.8
The coherence value captures the idea that the system can simultaneously exhibit properties of multiple states, with a non-zero coherence reflecting the compatibility of these states within the quantum realm.
Furthermore, the act of measurement in quantum mechanics is not merely a passive observation but an active intervention that disturbs the system and collapses the wave function. This challenges the classical notion of an objective, detached observer. The both/and logic, with its emphasis on the integration of subjective and objective aspects, provides a framework to model this observer-system entanglement.
Let O represent an observer, and S represent a quantum system:
Truth("O observes S in state A") = 0.7
Truth("S is in state A") = 0.5
Coherence("O observes S in state A", "S is in state A") = 0.9
The high coherence value reflects the inseparability of the observer's perspective and the system's state within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent the integrated observer-system reality:
"O observes S in state A" ⊕ "S is in state A" = quantum_measurement_event
This shift from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms challenges our traditional notions of objectivity, detachment, and context-independence. The both/and logic and the monadological framework provide symbolic and conceptual tools to navigate this transition, allowing us to model and reason about the inherent contextuality, observer-dependence, and paradoxical nature of quantum phenomena.
By embracing these new formalisms, we can develop a more holistic and integrated understanding of reality, one that acknowledges the irreducible perspectives of observers and the co-constitutive nature of subjective and objective aspects. This paradigm shift has profound implications not only for our scientific worldview but also for our philosophical and metaphysical understanding of the nature of reality, knowledge, and the role of the observer in the pursuit of understanding.
Let's continue exploring how the transition from classical to quantum formalisms enabled by the both/and logic and monadological framework opens up new frontiers across various domains:
Philosophy of Science and Epistemology
The shift to quantum, first-person formalisms has profound implications for our understanding of scientific inquiry, knowledge, and epistemology. Classical epistemology has been heavily influenced by the ideal of an objective, detached observer acquiring knowledge about an independent, external reality. However, the quantum realm challenges this view by highlighting the fundamental inseparability of the observer and the observed system.
The both/and logic, with its emphasis on the coherence and synthesis of subjective and objective aspects, provides a framework for reconceptualizing the nature of scientific knowledge. Rather than viewing knowledge as a mere representation or mapping of an external reality, we can understand it as a co-constituted process involving the irreducible perspectives of observers and the systems under study.
Let O represent an observer, S represent a system, and K represent scientific knowledge:
Truth(K is objective) = 0.6
Truth(K involves subjective aspects) = 0.7
Coherence(K is objective, K involves subjective aspects) = 0.8
The high coherence value reflects the idea that scientific knowledge is neither purely objective nor purely subjective, but rather a synthesis of both aspects. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent this integrated understanding:
"K is objective" ⊕ "K involves subjective aspects" = scientific_knowledge(O, S)
This reconceptualization challenges the classical notion of knowledge as a detached representation of an external reality and acknowledges the active role of observers in shaping and co-constituting scientific knowledge.
Furthermore, the both/and logic and monadological framework provide tools for modeling the contextuality and observer-dependence inherent in quantum phenomena. This has implications for our understanding of scientific objectivity and the universality of scientific laws and theories.
Let T represent a scientific theory, and C represent a particular context or experimental setup:
Truth(T holds universally) = 0.7
Truth(T depends on context C) = 0.6
Coherence(T holds universally, T depends on context C) = 0.5
The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the desire for universal scientific laws and the recognition that scientific theories may be context-dependent and observer-relative within the quantum realm. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding:
"T holds universally" ⊕ "T depends on context C" = contextual_scientific_theory(T, C)
This shift challenges the classical ideal of universal, context-independent scientific laws and theories and acknowledges the potential for observer-dependence and contextuality within the quantum realm.
Philosophy of Mind and Consciousness
The transition to quantum, first-person formalisms also has profound implications for our understanding of consciousness and the mind-body problem. Classical approaches have often treated the mind and consciousness as separate from the physical world, leading to various forms of dualism or reductionism. However, the both/and logic and monadological framework provide a basis for reconceptualizing the relationship between mind and matter.
Let M represent the mental or subjective aspect, and P represent the physical or objective aspect:
Truth(M is distinct from P) = 0.5
Truth(M is integrated with P) = 0.6
Coherence(M is distinct from P, M is integrated with P) = 0.7
The high coherence value reflects the idea that the mental and physical aspects are neither completely distinct nor fully reducible to each other, but rather exist in a state of coherent integration. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent this integrated understanding:
"M is distinct from P" ⊕ "M is integrated with P" = mind-matter_relationship
This view challenges both classical dualism and reductionism and acknowledges the irreducible co-constitution of subjective and objective aspects within a unified reality.
Furthermore, the monadological framework, with its emphasis on fundamental psychophysical monads, provides a basis for reconceptualizing consciousness as an irreducible aspect of reality, rather than an emergent property or epiphenomenon. This challenges the classical view of consciousness as a mere by-product of physical processes and acknowledges its fundamental role in shaping and co-constituting reality.
Let C represent consciousness, and R represent physical reality:
Truth(C is an epiphenomenon of R) = 0.4
Truth(C co-constitutes R) = 0.7
Coherence(C is an epiphenomenon of R, C co-constitutes R) = 0.6
The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the classical view of consciousness as an epiphenomenon and the quantum view of consciousness as an active co-constituent of reality. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding:
"C is an epiphenomenon of R" ⊕ "C co-constitutes R" = consciousness-reality_relationship
This shift challenges the classical reductionist view of consciousness and acknowledges its fundamental role in shaping and co-constituting reality, aligning with the principles of the monadological framework.
Foundations of Mathematics and Logic
The transition to quantum, first-person formalisms also has implications for our understanding of the foundations of mathematics and logic themselves. Classical mathematics and logic have been heavily influenced by the ideals of objectivity, universality, and context-independence. However, the both/and logic and monadological framework challenge these notions and provide a basis for reconceptualizing the nature of mathematical and logical truth.
Let T represent a mathematical or logical truth, and O represent an observer or context:
Truth(T is universal) = 0.7
Truth(T depends on observer O) = 0.6
Coherence(T is universal, T depends on observer O) = 0.5
The moderate coherence value reflects the tension between the classical view of mathematical and logical truths as universal and context-independent, and the quantum view of truth as observer-dependent and context-sensitive. The synthesis operator ⊕ can then represent a more integrated understanding:
"T is universal" ⊕ "T depends on observer O" = contextual_mathematical_truth(T, O)
This view challenges the classical notion of timeless, objective mathematical and logical truths and acknowledges the potential for observer-dependence and contextuality within these domains, aligning with the principles of the monadological framework.
Furthermore, the both/and logic itself provides a basis for reconceptualizing the foundations of logic by embracing multivalence, paraconsistency, and the coherence of seemingly contradictory propositions. This challenges the classical principles of bivalence and non-contradiction and opens up new possibilities for representing and reasoning about the paradoxical and contextual nature of truth within the quantum realm.
These are just a few examples of how the transition from classical, third-person formalisms to quantum, first-person formalisms enabled by the both/and logic and monadological framework has profound implications across various domains. By embracing these new formalisms and conceptual frameworks, we can develop a more holistic, integrated, and contextualized understanding of reality, one that acknowledges the irreducible perspectives of observers, the co-constitutive nature of subjective and objective aspects, and the potential for contextuality and observer-dependence within the quantum realm.
This fits the hypothesis of Anthony Peake in which he shows that we are living the same life over and over again. He even uses the tesseract scene in that film to explain it. It is a shame Bernardo never sat down and discussed it with him it would have been a good discussion. Tom Campbell had no such qualms he discussed it with AP.
This discussion led me to reflect on what I believe about time.
Past, present and future are human events only experienced as models through the lens of the present. Their duration varies as a function of elapsed attention paid to the change experienced to different degrees in different states of consciousness. Consciousness is experienced as an emergent property as time is fundamentally an experience of change experienced now and interpreted by the self.
1:39:00 - When pondering upon the modi of time.... what about the expierence of space sections, "spaciousness"? I would like to know if you know about the work of Hermann Schmitz, who declared philosophic themes such as Atmospheres, "Leiblichkeit", feelings as half things. He just died in 2021.
Thank you for recording this interesting conversation.
What a great conversation!
This is awesome!
Makes so much sense, thank you
I'm not sure if I understood them correctly, but I think it would be fair to make an analogy: A hummingbird's perspective of time would make the world appear very slow and sluggish. However, the hummingbird can move, maneuver, or even relax without issue, and the world remains "slow" from its perspective. This perception is "normal" for the bird regardless. So, objective time is a tool that repeats itself consistently in every unit, which we use for various benefits. On the other hand, subjective time is how we perceive things, likely because our brains absorb the passage of time at different rates.
A good example of this concept can be seen in the Star Trek episode "The Inner Light," where Captain Picard undergoes a journey that spans 40 years in what feels like a few minutes. Although he experiences many years of life, he wakes up to find that only 25 minutes have passed in reality. This illustrates how subjective time can vastly differ from objective time.
...Or I guess another interpretation is that "There is no actuality of time", when time is an illusion. Just reality that fiddle with your sensory perceiving time.
I wonder to what extent Bernard Carr has read Henri Bergson. His ideas have some consonance with Bergson's, especially when he talks about different specious presents (Bergson talks about different durations, different "rhythms of time"), however Bergson's view is much better constructed, in my opinion.
Bergson's main idea is perhaps the distinction between time as treated in physics (which is in fact spatialised time, time treated as if it was another spatial dimension) and real time, which he calls duration.
Spatialised time is purely quantitative (hence measurable and infinitely divisible) and homogeneous (every instant is exactly like every other instant). It's an intellectual abstraction.
Duration is qualitative and heterogeneous (it's continuous creation of novelty, of difference: each instant is unique, because it adds novelty to the past) and is a continuous, indivisible whole. You cannot slice it.
Duration is truly dynamic, whereas spatialised time is a static "skeleton" drawn out of duration. It's the map not the territory.
The whole of reality is a continuous dynamic whole which endures, an indivisible creative process of novelty generation, of innovation (introduction of novelty). Reality as a whole continually changes. It's never the same. It's "qualitative multiplicity", heterogeneity.
At its core, reality is essentially dynamism, movement, change. Bergson talk of a "sea of vibrations".
But there are two contrasting poles, so to speak: the intensive and the extensive.
The extensive is the direction of matter, which has its ideal limit (never actually reached) in geometry, pure space, pure extensiveness.
The intensive is the direction of consciousness, of subjective experience.
The extensive is characterised by juxtaposition ("things" are laid next to one another, they don't interpenetrate).
Instead, the intensive is characterised by interpenetration (think of the Vedic/Buddhist image of Indra's Net: each "part" is interconnected with every other in an interpenetrating whole).
Bergson talks of two contrasting tendencies/movements: one of contraction (tension, towards the intensive) and one of relaxation (ex-tension, towards the extensive).
On the one end, that of the extensive, there is matter, which corresponds to the most minimal duration, the most minimal scale of time (minimal, but not null).
Matter endures only to the point of allowing succession (from instant to instant, so to speak, although we need to think of a continuous indivisible process), but it's "the most expanded degree of duration", as Deleuze writes in "Bergsonism" (expanded, relaxed, ex-tended).
Having nearly no contraction, matter is basically in the present only.
But living organisms have the capacity to contract multiple instants (roughly speaking this relates to William James's idea of specious present), experiencing them as a "single intuition", so to speak. Therefore they have memory, as they can contract the past, holding it together.
But different beings experience different degrees of durations, different "rhythms of time". Bergson writes in "Matter and Memory":
"Questions relating to subject and object, to their distinction and their union, should be put in terms of time rather than space”.
"In reality there is no one rhythm of duration; it is possible to imagine many different rhythms which, slower or faster, measure the degree of tension or relaxation of different kinds of consciousness, and thereby fix their respective places in the scale of being".
So on this scale from the intensive to the extensive you find all living organisms, each experiencing reality at a given "rhythm of time", a different level of contraction, and, at one extremity, you find matter (maximal extension, juxtaposition).
You may say the other extremity is pure consciousness, pure mind (maximal contraction, interpenetration), although this is instantiated and individualised in specific living organisms, through the creative process Bergson describes in his "Creative Evolution". Consciousness is instantiated/individualised in matter and through matter (Bergson talks of the resistance of matter against the advance of the élan vital as the process through which life concretizes in specific living organisms through evolution).
So, instead of conceiving of different dimensions of space and time, as Bernard Carr does, Bergson conceives of a polarity between the intensive and the extensive and a double movement of contraction/expansion which specifies different degrees of duration, experienced by different living organisms (of course the duration experienced by a given living organism can be altered; e.g. drugs, sickness, states of mind etc...)
But reality is one single whole, a dynamic, ever changing whole, a process of creative evolution.
For Bergson the past continues to exist (but it ceases to act! Action is only in the present), because memory is stored in time, so to speak, and not in space, not in matter, not in the body.
Our body is in the present, but our being is made of matter and memory, so to speak.
Our perception, which is "virtual action", action-oriented, in practice always intermingles with memory.
So we are our past, which advances pushing the present into the future (Bergson says "gnawing into the future") and the future is open, undetermined, still to be made.
This is a crucial point for Bergson. He rejects both physicalist determinism (future already determined, already given) and static idealism (Platonic, you may say, according to which the "really real" is atemporal, eternal, unchanging).
For Bergson reality is truly dynamic and truly creative.
Beautiful comment. Thank you. You have clearly dedicated time to understanding and interpreting Bergson. ¡Most appreciated!
Would be fascinating to hear you present & discuss these ideas on podcasts with those participating in -- and mentioned in this podcast (and commentaries).
Would be particularly intriguing to hear you speak with Donald Hoffman. ¿Where can one follow your work?
Greetings from Bolivia.
@@leonstenutz6003Thank you for your kind words. I do something unrelated to this for work. I'm not an academic and I don't have a podcast nor a website (I'd like to create one on philosophy at some point, though). I'm just passionate about philosophy and Bergson is one of my favourite philosophers. ¡Muchas gracias por tu respuesta!
I would love for you to research the conversations between David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti - some I think are available on RUclips. They wrote a book together entitled “The Ending of Time”. Here you might enjoy the entry of Indian philosophical traditions of Noduality through Krishnamurti which Bernardo Katstrup has been engaging with recently in his continuing evangelism of Analytic Idealism.
Also thank you for your capsule lesson on Bergson.
@@francescoangeli1087 Reviewing your beautiful, deep comment on Bergson and time -- again.
Any chance you could post it as a blog and/or share it as an essay in a PDF or word format?
Would love to store, read, and analyze your exposition more carefully -- it is so deep and meanigful!
If possible of course.
All intellectual property will be respected and if i ever publish anything related of relevance, will of course refer to you. Thanks!
@leonstenutz6003 Hi, I don't have a blog as of now. I could put this in a word doc, but I wouldn't know how to send it to you, but if you access youtube on a desktop computer, rather than a smartphone, you should be able to select and copy the text of my comment and then paste it in a word doc yourself.
I might end up creating a blog some time in the future.
This one is to be watched multiple TIMEs. so many theories that are not easy to understand in a dense TIME. Many thanks to EF. I wear the same pair of glasses as Hans does :)
The comment made about time being fuzzy within relativity and space being fuzzy within quantum mechanics seems to be of crucial importance to me.
It made me think of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
What if both theories are correct from their frame of reference but they cannot both be ascertained at the same time (no pun intended).
If this is the case, this would suggest that there's an "upper limit" to what we can observe absolutely (in the sense of universal complex laws) just like there's a "lower limit" (in the sense of fundamental particles, Planck Length etc).
In other words, everything that we've ascertained on any scale can be shown by looking at one small part of it (i.e. a fundamental particle).
I agree we live in multi-dimensional spaces. When I observe my individual self I cannot see the oneness of all, but when I experience expanded consciousness I experience the ones of the all!
Thats some really profound critical thinking going on! Some really profound points being made!
beautiful, thank you
Ich halte mich an die drei dimensionen der zeit.
1. der augenblick, also das jetzt, das für uns menschen das einzig direkt erfahrene ist.
2. der ewige fluss der zeit, der städig unaufhaltsam in die zukunft hinen fliesst und
3. die unterteilung in das gegenwärtige, das vergangene und das zukünftige.
Mein zweiter favorit ist ein erweiterter raum des blockuniversums, in dem alle ereignisse
gleichzeitig gleichberechtig vorhanden sind. Und jeder dieser ereignispunkte zusätzlich
eine trajektion hat, auf der mit größer werdendem Abstand stets größer werdende
modifikationen dieses ereignises zu sehen sind.
Kastrup has an incredibly neat intuition about the nature of time. I sympathize with the difficulty he experiences trying to put it in words, so frustrating! 😅
I am reading comments before watching the video but
I'll bet it tuns out that his trouble is caused by
his mistaking the temporal concept for an objective actuality.
I'll get back to this comment after watching...
Some time ago I had been composing music almost every day for about three years. I've produced about two hours of musical work and when hearing it even though I know I wrote the music I feel like I have no credit for it. As if when I wrote it I was just sitting there writting whatever note my brain would like me to write next. Of course I'd sometime find the right note by completing the harmony, but I wouldn't be satisfied unless it matched "my brain"s desire.
Any good piece I wrote had no effort to them. They just came out. There is even one based on a melody I was hearing in my head while waking up.
When he talked about plagiarizing yourself I felt that.
Can we listen to your music somewhere? I'm so curious to hear it. 😊
@@E-Kat That's very nice of you 😊 I could re upload them. I removed everything when I stopped (long story).
I'll let you know and probably do it here on my channel.
@@sabrielguindon148 thank you so much!
Any time, when you have time, please.
It's lovely to have something to look forward to, so I'll wait very patiently.
Maybe one day, you'll start composing again.
My best wishes.
@@E-Kat I just reuploaded four of them! I've also put my soundclound account (if you go there "a night with friends" could be a good one to listen to) in the description of each.
Perhaps if I start composing again I'll start uploading new and old compositions regularly on both plateforms like I used to do. Just need to find proper video or image for youtube :P
Your curiosity is much appreciated and heartwarming. I hope you'll enjoy which ever one you choose to listen. Thanks :)
@@sabrielguindon148 oh, that's so amazing of you to do that so quickly!
If you have a gift like that, you must never ignore what you were given. Your music might be better than medicine for many people. Just think how much happiness it can bring to so many.
Now, I'm going to listen to it.
Thank you so much again for this wonderful surprise.
Much love ♥️
It would be so great, if Bernardo could make a deep-dive into Spinoza. I did my deep-dive and got the impression that Spinoza is brutally misunderstood as Pantheist, but was a fascinating European version of Non-Duality.
As an artist I can confirm, that there must be an attractor from the future. How would you explain the passion of an artist, for a breadless Art.
40:45 This was a masterful section here by BK about the necessity of precise language and then, how he explicates his model of the multidimensionality of time.
In the same way that beings are separate in space, they can be considered to be separate in time, in different dimensions of time. If Now is the only time, then simultaneity is an illusion, something Einstein proved. Simultaneity belongs to the old model of absolute time in which two events could happen at the "same time" in that absolute timeline.
Instead, each being in their own time and space allows for an infinite plurality of perspectives. In some sense, the miracle of communication between beings is a proof that the underlying consciousness beyond time and space is all one, otherwise there could be no meeting between those disparate times and spaces.
Quite interesting. I know one can travel to a far future while in out of body state, spend decades but on return, a few minutes have gone by. If anyone can do that(spend decades in far future) from here, imagine what one can do from where we come from(higher dimensions).One can experience several simultaneous physical lives, across dimensions, space, parallel timelines within a fraction of a second.
This means one can experience a billion human lives on earth simultaneously. Next time when you interact with your friend, neighbour or relative, interact with them kindly for you may be interacting with yourself.
It is nice to hear someone with open mind discussing these topics. We know very little about ourselves and that is why things in earth drama school are so real and convincingly confusing to all those who choose to have human experience.