Bernard Carr - Physics of the Observer
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 พ.ค. 2023
- Does the concept of observation have deep relevance in fundamental physics? What about in quantum physics where some kind of observation seems to be needed to transform “wave function” probabilities into actual events? What’s an “observation” anyway? What does it take to be an “observer”? Must it have some kind of sentience?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on quantum theory: rb.gy/bi9xi
Bernard J. Carr is a Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at Queen Mary, University of London. His research interests include the early universe, dark matter, general relativity, primordial black holes, and the anthropic principle.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Glad we got this all cleared up.
😂
No, seriously! Glad its all cleared up, now.
Yes I agree!
ha
Best post I have seen all month long.
Your tongue is so deeply implanted in your cheek that you probably cannot drink a glass of water. It's a good thing you made a choice not to.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
'Excellent'... Distinguished Dr Bernard Carr has described beautifully , elegantly and his approach towards consciousness & Observer is perfectly in right direction... thanks 🙏.
Shut up
Yet another excellent interview by Robert :)
Carr is a clear thinker. I appreciate that he doesn't take a position but engages the full complexity of the problem.
Love this channel
One thing is obvious to me. Whatever the answer is it will be ground breaking and completely unexpected. No current half explanation is even remotely close to the truth.
Science doesn’t deal with truth. No scientific theory is true. Science only tries to create provisional models.
Raymond Tallis is striving mightily to be the Copernicus of ‘ consciousness.’ As you say to little avail. Still:” The Unique and Its Property”, Max Stirner,1844/2017 Landstreicher translation with the “creative nothing “ is as good as it gets.
I suggest that whatever the "mental mechanism" is that allows us to see and experience the three-dimensional, multi-sensory features of our dreams when we direct our consciousness inward while sleeping, is the same mechanism that allows us to see and experience the multi-sensory features of the universe when we direct our consciousness outward while awake. In other words, everything is founded upon fields of information that require the presence of consciousness to decode and explicate into reality whatever it is that the information encodes.
I agree the cognitive mechanism is probably the same, but what varies is where the “sensory input” is coming from. While waking it’s coming from our physical external senses, but while dreaming it’s coming from some imaginative internal source linked to our memories and emotional drives.
@@simonhibbs887 While dreaming, sensory input probably is not imaginative but rather from One Source (past, present and future) as we all connected.
@@simonhibbs887 I get what you are saying, but I propose that our external physical senses are nothing but mere *"windows"* through-which our inner-consciousness peers outward into the universe, and that the 3-D features of the universe are, in truth, constructed from an extremely advanced and highly ordered version of the same fundamental substance that composes our dreams. Hence (and again), the same mental mechanism (or process, or whatever we want to call it) that explicates our dreams into 3-D reality within our minds, is the same mechanism that explicates the 3-D features of the universe into reality. In other words, the process (which still involves an "observer") can be viewed as being much more *"NATURAL"* and *"ORGANIC"* than what the so-called "collapse of the quantum wave function" implies.
_______
@@laniechrisgardnerasl8639 I suggest that your dreams are composed of the living fabric of your very own being and would not exist if the *"dreamer"* of your dreams ( *YOU* - as in your inner *"I Am-ness"* ) did not exist. In other words, *YOU* are the source of your own thoughts and dreams.
@@TheUltimateSeeds since we are all connected (consciousness), our dreams are not only composed of my very own being, but intertwined throughout the cosmos.
Thanks a lot. 👍It's a very good talk, physically consciousness indirectly involves in the collapse of the quantum wave function, however, in theologically angels who's consciousness, e.g. Maxwell demons, the gatekeepers of the barrier between the black and the white. 2:30 ... BC: I think most physicists would prefer to think that the collapse of a wave function was determined something other than consciousness. However that does not mean that the hypothesis that consciousness collapses the is dead on the cotrary there still quite a number of people who would push that view very strongly but the point I want to make is that even if you do believe that consciousness collapses the wave function that hasn't really accommodated consciusness within physics it's saying that in some sense quantum theory is weird and therefore maybe that will explain consciousness which is also aware but in fact we don't understand quantum theory anyway so to say that we've explained consciousness or mind in terms of quantum theory seems to be a bit illogical because it's just explaining one mystery in terms of another. 3:27 ... 8:28 It's basically saying that the universe doesn't exist in any well-defined sense until an observer brings it into reality by observing it so this relates to the first issue the question of quantum collapse so wheeler is in that picture assuming that it is consciousness which collapses the wave function as I said most physicists wouldn't favor that therefore most physicist wouldn't favor the idea that the universe was brought into reality on the count of this but at least it's the (the way you would achieve that is to some kind of multiple consistent history that when conscience is formed somehow back selected the consistent history is consistent with its own existence) well this is you see in quatum theory itself the idea is the wave function does not exist in any well-defined state until someone observes it and collapse the wave function so until then you know you have the superposition of possible states but once someone observers then it collapses to a real physical state so that's when you have the transition from the quantum to the classical state. 9:33
Carr is a relatively hidden gem. Not dogmatic at all, exploring every possible path.
Love your post: Exploring every path occurs in the Universe until a (conscious) measurement is taken.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Consciousness must precede everything for anything to have any value. For example, unless something was aware of the interaction of two quantum states, the interaction would have no value. If two quantum states interacted with each other, how could a collapse happen unless awareness preceded the interaction to know an interaction took place? Unless awareness preceded the interaction, it would be as if it never happened
Bernard Carr appears to be another one among far far far too many who exemplify the problem of specialists/experts stuck up the back passage of their own cohort bubble. If he had done even the simplest of google searches, or had read a little more widely, he'd have come across medical instrument inventor *Itzhak Bentov* who wrote two books, using quantum physics, to address the issue of Consciousness. Serious as his undertaking was Bentov nevertheless managed to explained his findings in a quite unique and humorous way.
He included many hand drawings of physical phenomena (e.g. waves, orbits, reciprocating motion etc) as they related to the micro-motion pulses of a body's physiology whilst sat in meditation. A really eye-opening view of the phenomenon of Consciousness.
(1) Stalking the Wild Pendulum: On the Mechanics of Consciousness (1988)
(2) Brief Tour of Higher Consciousness: A Cosmic Book on the Mechanics of Creation (2000, posthumously)
*Bear in mind the Yogis, Sufis, Taoists and Shamans have been studying the phenomenon of Consciousness for some 25,000yrs or more.* They all recognise that 'the body is the vehicle' - the physical body being an anatomical and physiological entity - through which Consciousness may be directly appreciated. That mind-body system, in most cases, has to undergo training for that purpose, just as an elite athlete has to train for their high level purpose.
About 2,000yrs ago the most pertinent of these findings were collated into the *Yoga Sutras (by Patanjali).* There have been numerous translations of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. As a Systems Analyst, the version I favor is:
*Light on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali* (B. K. S. Iyengar)
I found this version the most useful because it has many systems diagrams relating the levels of Consciousness to each other and *relating physical **_phenomena_** (through the sensory organs) to spiritual **_noumena_** (through the organs of the mind).*
Once again, this is all about _training,_ training the body-mind system to be receptive to the direct experiencing of Consciousness. And, as with training for anything, it is most advantageous to have a trainer to guide you around the many obstacles and personal resistances which get in the way of your progress.
*Yogic (inside-out) Sciences* are much more difficult than *Materialist (outside-in) Sciences.* It is much easier to study, and experiment with objective phenomena outside of yourself - isolated from everything else in a controlled situation - and then record their quantities.
It is many orders of magnitude more difficult when the *_object of study is your own whole self_* while it is still connected to the complexity of the world, and contend with _its quantities and also with its qualities._ *To experience how difficult this is, see how long you can just sit with yourself **_without any distractions whatsoever._* No more than 5-10mins before you start barking?
As far as I’m aware universities in the *US (Berekely) and Australia (Melbourne)* are doing the most interesting research on Consciousness using long-term meditators as their subjects. They have noted changes in brain blood flows _away_ from the frontal cortex (the seat of personal identity). That explains some of the utterances of highly spiritualised people around the world exclaiming that they have lost all sense of their identity and _’no longer know who they are.’_
I hear in this a belief that we are separate from the universe, insulated observers of it. We are the universe, constructed with the stuff of and by the actions of the universe; including consciousness . Consciousness seems so fundamental that it has inspired great minds through the ages.
I think of it like Wheel of Fortune. Once the wheels spins, all of the prizes are real (obtainable) to the contestant, but once the wheel stops, only one prize is real (obtainable), and the other prizes are not real (unobtainable). Life's like that.
Saying fine tuning has nothing to do with consciousness is similar to saying words has nothing to do with meaning.
even if humans use a proxy observer humans still must observe the proxy observer to retrieve information
The observer is always observing the Cosmos from the inside as there is no outside vantage point in which to observer the Cosmos. John Wheelers interpretation of Quantum Theory is incorrect. There are two principles that came out of Quantum Theory (1) The principle of fecundity stating that the Cosmos contains all possibilities and all possibilities are real (2) The principle of plenitude stating the Cosmos contains the maximum diversity of existence.
An observer has their own point of view and from that point of view they are able to observe all events within their world line. The observer also chooses what to measure within their world line as well as the parameters of theories, axioms and truth statements.
QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc. QM a nonstarter.
Good eye opener but i have a question ,that is why cant
we observe reality in its superposed state
You cannot have a clear and meaningful conversation about consciousness as it relates to physics without a clear fundamental definition of what consciousness is, in all of its aspects, as it relates to physics.
As it stands, consciousness is a poorly defined/understood concept.
Let's first fully define consciousness as it relates to physics, and THEN have this conversation which, at that point, will be clear and meaningful without any confusion or misunderstanding as it relates to the shared definition of consciousness.
At 5:20 Bernard made a very strange jump in argument. He seems to say and agree that consciousness does not play a role in collapse of wave function, and suddenly start asking then how does consciousness come into physics. It does not have to in some mysterious way in the first place. Consciousness is a product of highly networked structure of the brain and the dynamic electrochemistry. If we perturb the electro chemistry in the brain or damage the structure of the brain, some of all of consciousness (and self awareness) can be lost.
BTW Sean Carroll and Brian Greene have said it many times elsewhere that consciousness is not required to collapse the wave function. Any macroscopic system will do. They have given an example of a video camera, but in general any measuring instrument that is not part of the quantum system and interacts with it is sufficient. And we only need one example of a non-consciousness entity collapsing a wave function and this whole red herring of consciousness collapses wave function can be dismissed. Sure a macroscopic, conscious entity can collapse a wave function, sure, but not because it is conscious, but because it is macroscopic environment of a quantum system.
I can assure you that people who develop quantum computers do not worry about the consciousness of the lab personnel destroying their computers quantum state, but they do worry about even air molecules or the lab equipment surrounding the quantum state.
time in quantum waves / fields could be conscious subjectivity with objective representation, similar to human awareness of consciousness?
Corotretring Interacting Region being electromagnetic is gaining over Gravitational Waves, hence a + for consciousness as a door way to communicate to multiverses temporal or spacial.🎉
What if there is no collapse of the wave function; that it a perceptive process within the confines of consciousness itself? And observer bias can alter that perception while having no impact on the external environment.
In theory, the universe needs an observer in order to collapse the wave function. So if the universe is expanding, it would follow that universe needs an observer to collapse the wave function to measure its expansion.
In order for the wave function to collapse, the observer must have a process or system to collapse it. Without an observer's process or system, the universe may not be expand.
An observer must utilize time to collapse the wave and therefore the observer collapses the wave into a derivative of time and space.
Just an idea.
QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc. So QM is a nonstarter. For proper physics: “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
Isn't the fact that the "observer" is trying to capture a slice of time? Essentially we're trying to measure the length of now.
I know this will sound funny & your ivy college education probably won’t let you do this. But I highly recommend you to consult a mystic who speaks from experience, specifically if you really want answers to your questions around consciousness, objectivity, universe, etc.
What Fine Tuning? 99.9999999999% of the universe is ABSOLUTELY inhospitable to any life!
The stuff of which the world of our experience is composed is, in my belief, neither mind nor matter, but something more primitive than either. Both mind and matter seem to be composite, and the stuff of which they are compounded lies in a sense between the two, in a sense above them both, like a common ancestor.
~Bertrand Russell
I regard consciousness and matter as different aspects of one and the same thing.
~De Broglie
We can also find information embodied in conscious experience. The pattern of color patches in a visual field, for example, can be seen as analogous to that of pixels covering a display screen. Intriguingly, it turns out that we find the same information states embodied in conscious experience and in underlying physical processes in the brain. The three-dimensional encoding of color spaces, for example, suggests that the information state in a color experience corresponds directly to an information state in the brain. We might even regard the two states as distinct aspects of a single information state, which is simultaneously embodied in both physical processing and conscious experience.
~Chalmers
Certain neurophysiological terms denote (refer to) the very same events that are also denoted (referred to) by certain phenomenal terms. [...] I take these referents to be the immediately experienced qualities, or their configurations in the various phenomenal fields.
~Feigl
Our basic ontology is that all systems, macroscopic structures included, are quantum fields.
~Saunders
I just think its like a video game loading/rendering resources when you look the wave function collapses
The notion that things exist independently without an observer is known in philosophy as realism.
There is no such thing as a cat being both dead and alive at the same time. An observer has nothing to do with the cat's current status. The cat is either dead or alive and our observation just confirms one of the 2 possibilities. The universe works its magic with or without my consciousness of it. Realism.
@@Max-bf8cp According to most theories of life, the brain continues to function even for a (brief) period of time after the heart stops, say 15-25 seconds. So consciousness can exist even if the cat is dead and no longer has a functioning heart, albeit a very short time. This would tend to refute your argument of "realism" having the most reliable explanation of the Universe. So...the cat can be alive and dead at the same time.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Retired surgeon
It doesn’t make sense that anything at all can exist without a conscious observer.
It doesn’t make any sense that conscious observers are required for anything to exist.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness." Max Planck
These physicists are barking up the wrong tree. They should be exploring what qualities does consciousness have that allow us to perceive matter. Wave functions are invisible to the naked eye. They are vast formless fields of raw energy at the ready for consciousness to interpret in material form. From tree to log to 2 x 4 to house. It is a perpetual perceptive process. And different forms of consciousness have different perceptive qualities. Man, a bird, a porcupine and a grub see the same tree as having different perceptive potential.
@@simonhibbs887 thank you. The hubris is astounding
It doesn't make sense that subjective experience is necessary for complex organisms to exist. It has no evolutionary advantage.
@@bofinalss-yf2jf If consciousness is simply having a mental model of the world that includes intentional agents and taking into account their thought processes, and part of that awareness includes a model of your own agency and mental processes, and this is consciousness, then obviously it confers enormous evolutionary advantages. The ability to reason about the awareness, interests, goals and intentions of other beings in the world is crucial in order to anticipate their behaviour and even take steps to modify that behaviour. Being able to reason about one's own thought processes is also huge because it enables us to realise when we have deficiencies in our knowledge or skills, and plan to take steps to learn new things and identify new problems for us to solve. A human being without that ability would be unable to function effectively in human society.
We witness it
and what of the quantum state of the observer (a human) which is comprised of trillions of potentially different particles in quantum sates.
have we really defined the observer and what it means for the observer in this case humans.
A First-Person Observer Has A Sort Of Causality On Waveforms? Like Music I Guess?
Postulation is in love with complexity while the world burns.
meaning?
@@chrisgarret3285 mmm, should be fairly obvious we can’t breath soot or refined carbon and live to brag about it.
@@mellonglass so autism?
@@chrisgarret3285 imbibed education of differences to bully, yes. Learning to live with differences is the first part of going forward as neoliberalism collapses.
@@chrisgarret3285 What has autism got to do with it?
Another key word first person
and also how is solipsism connected to this idea
It's hardly fine tuned if we are the only speck of life anywhere
Where is the Box with the cat 🐈?
Spacetime doesn’t exist if you aren’t a first person observer. Outside that first person experience there isn’t a 4D spacetime.
I do more than observing it's just that i shift reality so it's hard to tell.
It occurred to me that if consciousness collapses the wave function, that somehow consciousness touches or interacts with it. Alternatively, if the wave function collapses simply when it is sensed or observed, then the wave function must feel or sense that it is being sensed. Then could that imply that the wave function itself has consciousness? th-cam.com/video/Eslt6W7Uv6o/w-d-xo.html
I’n quantum mechanics itself there is no such thing as an observer or even a detector. These are imaginative impositions. Rather there are only interactions between quantum objects represented by the Schrödinger equation. So when a photon hits a ‘detector’ what actually happens is the photon interacts with electrons in the sensor, and these gain energy which causes them to move, which generates an electrical field and a current, etc, etc. but all of these are quantum interactions described by the Schrödinger equation.
The problem is, there’s no known mechanism by which the Schrödinger equations “stops” incorporating quantum interactions into its terms and gives us a discrete result. We call that the collapse of the wave function, but we don't know how it happens or why. So when we say we make an observation or measurement, we mean when the Schrödinger equation ‘stops’ and gives us a discrete result. That’s all.
@@simonhibbs887 Wow, great reply.Even I understood it! Thank you.
Why Sean Carrol recommended referring to it as The Measurement Problem instead of the Observer.
Let's say Quantum Biology truly makes discoveries - maybe that might imply the observer is special to the wave function. It could also disprove the specialness of an observer.
The only thing I could imagine is if some how there was some kind of special complexity particle, which would maybe be why complex things like brains might cause collapse.
The observer must be nature it self, the consciousness of nature, manifesting its intelligence trough particles and laws of nature that conceive them in the first place, and all of natures amazing designs. If energy is eternal, and since consciousness is derived from energy, could then consciousness be one face of energy inseparable, as two same faces of the same thing.
Physics "exposes" a "interaction" layer of reality, it can be used to describe the same layer of interaction in consciousness
👁️🙏🏼👁️
How can it be consciousness considering physics happened long before consciousness came to be
Consciousness summons the universe and the universe responds by appearing
Classical
All chemistry is based on quantum mechanics, therefore I never understand why for some reason quantum mechanics is trotted out (specifically) to make connection with consciousness. Quantum mechanics has some seemingly mysterious aspects, Consciousness seems mysterious - so they must have something to do with each other in special way. Huh? Consciousness is the product of properly function electrochemistry in the brain, chemistry works because of quantum effects, so it is no wonder consciousness is trivially connected to quantum mechanics, but so is pretty much all of chemistry we see. BFD.
Light is the origin of being.
There are physicists, there are theoretical theorists...heck there are even philosophers ! And then we have Cosmologists, who put them all to shame with unsupported, often unprovable ( in this Universe ) assumptions !!°
Cosmology is based on observations, while philosophy is based on assumptions and opinions. You’re free to come up with your own interpretation of those observations, of course.
I believe that all observers are operating within a frequency range that resonates with the wave function when observing, causing the wave function to collapse.
Or what if, nothing is actually real - perhaps the reality of this universe is just a frequency that our individual consciousnesses are tuned to, similar to how we can tune into a radio or TV station, allowing us to interact with each other, as well as perceive and experience the same things and events.
I have thought of something that has nothing to do with me. Let me explain...
"The universe doesn't exist in any well defined way until an observer.....". The word "exist" is what it all hinges on. The word "exist" must be defined. To me, "exist" is a first person conclusion after having made an observation. Note the term 'first person' is androcentric. But this does not automatically exclude the 'existence' of any physical object or system not humanly observed. It is absurd to believe that first person observation is necessary for an object to exist. Dinosaurs existed though none were ever observed by humans, is just one example. We know that because of carbon dating the fossil record.
IMO - The word observer is taken out of context in quantum mechanics. Observer should simply imply a measurement. The wave function collapses only when a measurement is taken and is independent of consciousness. If I asked where an electron is around a nucleus you cannot say until a measurement is taken. Which says at the quantum level it is probabilistic and non deterministic and the collapse of the wave function is not dependent on a conscious observer. The universe was around long before the evolution of a conscious observer.
Those who point to measurement tools, as excuse to belittle the role of Consciousness, forgot a basic foundation in the Double Slit Experiment. If the test particle passes thru the slit with interactor detector = then congratulations. You are correct. Measurement tools may be the cause of the collapse of the wave function. But how about the other slit where there is no interactor detector? How can Zero Interaction or Zero Measurement have any meaning at all, and collapse the wave function, unless a Conscious Mind, reasoning out with logic, creates meaning, or imbues Zero Interaction with meaning, resulting to spooky collapse of the wave function despite Zero Interaction or Zero Measurement?
An Observer, can Only be a Living Being, (Life-Unit)
'The Physics', of the Observer, is the Sensing-Set, the Sensing and the Object of Sensing,
it is all Motion/Physics. No one have Seen the Observer, the Observer is Not Motion,
the Observer is Eternal.
(Basic-Observation)
I'd like to hear Donald Hoffman's theories in this conversation.
(4:35) *BC: **_"The whole question of what constitutes an observer in quantum theory; what does actually collapse the wave function is very contentious."_* ... I'm glad Mr. Carr combined these two questions into a single assertion. First, the *"Observer:"* The 1st-person observer has been around since the first quark emerged immediately after Big Bang. Every particle interaction is a direct "exchange of information," which is exactly what 1st person observation entails. The information exchanged from every action taking place in the cosmos becomes a part of the overall "database of Existence."
Second, the *"Wave Function:"* You always hear physicists claim that observation _"collapses"_ the wave function, when it could just as well be that observation _"gives rise"_ to a particle. That tiny little _packet of information_ (a particle) represents the information you wanted to extract, ... and the wave function merely provided you with what you wanted.
Humans are so highly advanced in our cognitive structure and awareness that we can't imagine ourselves operating like tiny little quarks, but fundamentally we're doing the exact same thing ... only on a much higher level.
You're using "1st person observer" to mean something different from what the guest had in mind. Earlier he associated it with consciousness, and distinguished it from the "3rd person" perspective that physics normally deals with.
What part of the definition of "person" do you think makes it reasonable to say a quark is a person?
@@brothermine2292 *"You're using "1st person observer" to mean something different from what the guest had in mind."*
... Not really. When viewed from the lofty status of highly complex humans, it may seem that way, ... but getting to the bottom of what's really going on is the goal, isn't it? If so, then take it all the way down.
*"Earlier he associated it with consciousness, and distinguished it from the "3rd person" perspective that physics normally deals with."*
... I am positing a quark as a fundamental observer. Every interaction to which the quark participates is technically an observation (an "information exchange") executed by the quark. Two atoms exchanging an electron are also 1st person exchanges of information. One gives and the other receives. Yours and my comments to each other represent 1st person exchanges of information.
... So, what's the difference?
*"What part of the definition of "person" do you think makes it reasonable to say a quark is a person?"*
... We are made of quarks. We represent a much more "evolved" version of the aforementioned 1st person particle interactions. At the most rudimentary level, a quark exchanges information with its environment. We do the same and a lot more due to our evolution.
The *Wave Function" does not collapse. What happens is as bounded observers can only measure a segment of the wave function and it is that part of the wave function that becomes our actual experience. Not every physicists claim that observations collapse the wave function some physicists claim the wave function does not collapse. In quantum field theory a particle is an excitation of the field. The observer is a complex quantum excitation.
@@kos-mos1127 *"The *Wave Function" does not collapse."*
... You are free to add your comments under my comments, but our "discussion days" are over. You had *seven opportunities* to answer a very simple question, and you chose not to.
@@saigopalaI think that fails because it cannot explain where the informational content that we experience comes from. If all that exists is conscious awareness, then my awareness should be aware of everything I could experience. It isn’t though, I am continually surprised by new experiences. These must come from somewhere other than my conscious awareness. These experiences are consistent and persistent, so they must come from a consistent and persistent source. From there, and incorporating my ability to interact with and test the world of experience, the objective nature of reality becomes apparent. So no, I’m sorry but solipsism fails as an explanation.
Let us be clear, science is done by guessing. Gravity, the electron, are both guesses. The best guesses on gravity are "refined" by mathematical manipulation of a non-existent "quantity" called time or space. The "electron", just like gravity, is a guess with an added fact of a phenomenon called electricity coupled with the less non-empirical science of chemistry.
Fire 🔥 and lightning ⛈️ and static shock are not guesses. They are real phenomenon: conscious observances. Where we get into trouble with science is when we start to "think" instead of observe. The description of real phenomenon requires words. The explanation of those descriptions require guesses: additional words to span the "gap" between what we can see and what we "think" is going on.
You don't need quantum mechanics to demonstrate this, just experiments such as the cathode ray tube experiment conducted by J.J. Thomson that "confirmed?" the "existence" of electrons - the carrier of "charge".
The observer doesn't collapse the wave function. The wave function "corroborates" the confirmation bias of the observer. Corroborates in a way like an "unreliable narrator" does in a novel. It is only when other narrators are consulted does the tale seem to break down. Contemporary facts can never override additional facts: future, unobserved, or unknown facts. They can postpone them however.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
The Universe existed long before any type of Consciousness evolved.
How do you know?
@@RolandHuettmann you beat me to it 😏
@@Emzeliemansson The race will be repeated in other universes and then... 😉
@@Emzeliemansson
Exactly. People make unwarranted claims just like thjs
More like Existence existed, but the difference is minor since we construct the universe through our consciousness quite accurately.
Consciousness doesn't really collapse the wave function. Measuring or observing the light information extracts it from the EM field. This was evident in the double slit experiments when a camera was used to try and determine which slit the light particles traveled through. When the camera was off the light produced a wave pattern. But when the camera was on the light produced a particle pattern. Light produces a particle pattern when it is measured, observed or when it strikes matter. Consciousness does not collapse the wave function. The wave is still there. Light information is extracted from the field in an instant whenever and wherever needed. Seek the information and you will find it.
Does Occam's Razor tell us to favor "quantum theory that doesn't require consciousness to collapse the wavefunction" over "quantum theory that requires consciousness to collapse the wavefunction?"
Occam’s razor is an arbitrary value judgment.
You could equally say “I favor simplicity because cheese”
That’s the basis. Arbitrariness
@@deanodebo : Why do you believe simplicity is more arbitrary than other values? Also, it's not arbitrary if it's based on the experience that simpler theories are more often correct.
@@brothermine2292
Do you have data supporting that claim that simple is more likely “correct”?
And do you think any scientific theory is ever proven true?
@@deanodebo : I have no such data. On the other hand, I haven't hunted for it.
Do you have any evidence that simplicity is an arbitrary value? It appears you're trying to avoid answering why you believe it's arbitrary.
No, I don't believe scientific theories can be proved correct, because (1) even if a theory has matched all observations, a new observation tomorrow could falsify it, and (2) some other theory might also match all observations. Scientific theories can only be falsified. But other kinds of theories can be proved true (or false), for example predictions about specific past or future events & non-events, or math conjectures.
@@brothermine2292
If you claim simple theories are more often correct and you have no data to support that - what is the basis for your claim?
If you’re unfamiliar with critiques of Occam’s razor, here’s a hint: it’s an arbitrary value judgment. Why? There’s no rationale behind it. It’s a preference.
First i want to tell the love that i do have regarding each of you give me some incroyabel abilities more of any that i ever had. It is now no time to make this politic corect nor cristic , we have an adjenda i will post it here not otters place, all of you here work with pasio and hart many time someone explain that do not have inteligence to understand but they wish have ability and sudenly each of you who are live on pc mobile what ever give those brothers sisthers evrething they need to learn with confidence. This îs the only way to love me. We all know how is sad knowing those who are without this knowleged , when you are a biggener are an initiate dont matter how long because tomorow time will just start not long ago and your cosmos expand 42 time faster than C no need to freak just ask anyone as long your minimum of 2 persons no one ever will be egual experience.so no one can be evaluate as quantitatîve knowledge . I know i exchange knowlege not away university do because my teatching is universal not just for an elite.now each of you will call me philippe jesus was my last visit i am the only god creator but my FATHER send me as philippe . I am about to be see because time get faster the point in time we have to reach is very very close so i will ask those who will become my tempel they soon be contact by me some know or dream about they will come to me some will be contact by phone mail what way are possibel and my angel is it time i am philippe and i call any who as to come to me if you get an urge to come seę me dont resite come quebec city canada.,now i am easy to reach those want tn see me i am telling you that you will find me de votre dios qui vous aime philippe grand brother of red blood genetic line of humanity your redemteur je suis l‘agneau de dîeu qui enleve les peche de tout les brebis et de tout brebis galeuse i never say obligation to belive in me it will go against my teachîng free spiritual belive as freewill.
You said the key word to the whole show (view)
Can an AI collapse the wave function? Or, will the wave function collapse the AI? Can a chicken collapse the egg, or is the chicken an idea of the collapsed egg? How many angels does it take to collapse the pin?
How did the big bang and the expension of the universe happen without a conscious human looking at it ? Dinosaurs roamed the Earth for 68 million years with no humans around. That means the Universe doe exist with or without you in it.
Big bang isn’t true. And the answer hypothetically is the wave function was in a probabilistic state. It’s actually theoretically consistent
@@deanodebo Tell Leonard Susskind, Sean Caroll and Stephen Hawking that the bigbang isn't true, then come back to youtube university and talk about your discovery.
@@wilsonkorisawa7026
Do you think any scientific theory can be proven true?
And do you realize that the appeal to authority is fallacious?
I’m going to use really simple words because, well, that’s what I can understand re: QM, but I feel like anything that “needs” a particle to be a particle can be an observer. For instance, I think gravity can be an observer, or any force or system that interacts with anything else. I just don’t think wave functions were never collapsed before the rise of living observers, where and whenever they may have started in the universe.
The problem with special ‘observers’ collapsing the wave function is that there are multiple observers. That means we would see multiple different collapses. According to QM theory these would necessarily lead to different emergent states for each observer, so we would not have a consistent universe in common experienced by all observers. This is a fundamental incompatibility between the ‘consciousness collapses the wave function’ view and what we already know to be true.
Whatever it is that causes quantum states to resolve to discrete states, it must do so globally. In fact it may well be that gravity does this. That’s a favourite theory of Roger Penrose. Either that or superdeterminism is true.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
@@davidrandell2224 One of the many problems with McCutcheon is that he grossly misrepresents what real physics actually says, and misrepresents how his solutions address the problem. For example his formula for orbits only works for perfectly circular orbits, while real orbits are elliptical, with many of them very eccentric ellipses. His theory also doesn't explain Lagrange points, tides or orbital precession, or more than 2-body systems. If gravity is due to expansion, that must mean both the moon and Earth are expanding, so when will they hit each other? He also doesn't understand what energy is, which is why he thinks magnets violate conservation of Energy. I could go on and on, but honestly his books are useless tripe. There is no way to use them to actually do any useful engineering, such as constructing engines using magnets, or plotting orbital trajectories for satellites, but we do these things using actual real physics successfully all the time.
@@simonhibbs887 About your first comment on QM. QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc. Even though Expansion Theory replaced such Standard Theory/Model ( energy paradigm) as above, still worth a reading. D=1/2at^2 a major part of the gravity equation: Galilean relative motion has the earth approaching- expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration- the released object. Geometric Orbital Equation underlies the other orbital equations( Newton and satellite). Simply redundant “ real physics.” A proton is a collection of 1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. “G” calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002. No energy, charge, photons, waves, spin, fields, potential, quantum,quarks, space, time, space- time, etc. All Standard Theory/Model replaced by Expansion Theory- expanding electrons and atoms. All atoms and atomic objects are expanding at 1/770,000th their size per second per second constant acceleration. The earth and moon have had @ 4 billion years to “collide “. Any day now! No one can calculate an “N- body” ‘ problem ‘ mathematically, not even McCutcheon. As for Lagrangian points, elliptical orbits etc all successfully explained in my copy of said reference. Any accelerometer- slinky, water balloon or phone app- experiment Proves the earth is expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration: gravity; cause thereof. All down gravity- Aristotle, Newton, LeSage, Einstein, Wheeler, Zee, Penrose etc- wrong. Up gravity- McCutcheon- correct. The chance the earth is approaching the released object: 50% or 1/2; simple Galilean relative motion yet exceeds human brain power. Laugh.
@@davidrandell2224 Like McCutcheon, Mortenson's work is complete nonsense. We know that local hidden variables are ruled out by the violation of the Bell Inequalities. A lot of the physics she claims has been 'forgotten' was taught to me in Physics class when I was 15, and again to my daughters at about that age a few years ago. Apart from the obscure cutting edge stuff she is largely talking about basic physics engineers use to build electronic, computational and mechanical systems every day. If our understanding of these things was wrong, how is it we can successfully do that? What new devices or technologies have her discoveries enabled that were previously impossible?
"Consciousness plays a role in the appearance of the physical universe" is a strange inversion of cause and effect and is disappointing coming from a scientist.
"Universe is fine tuned for humans" - really? 99.9999999999 places in the universe are completely hostile to any remotely complex structure that has any hope of producing phenomenon we would call conscious. Yes, it is true that our universe allows pockets of complex structures in very tiny corners like earth and even that is contingent on stability of that environment for long time for evolution to take hold in the complex organic chemistry substrate and produce complex conscious structures. We simply have been lucky.
Non ho capito nulla. Spero abbiate capito bene, almeno voi.
We can't observe dark matter.
I cannot emphasize this enough - One needs to always remember that to internally recognize the self awareness as if it were first person experience, itself requires a brain working in a certain way. Under influence of some drugs, and even more definitively in case of being under general anesthesia, the brain looses partial or complete ability to experience self awareness. Yes we do not understand how it does that as of yet, sure, but it is clear that the mechanisms to internally register self awareness and first person experience a brain working in proper condition is required. It is not as if there is some separate mechanism for experiencing self awareness. It is the brain.
And it is understandable why this fact is ignored while discussing the notion of self awareness, is because, the people discussing this complex topic have brain in a state that is capable of self awareness. We do not find people under general anesthesia discussing such topics.
And with that then the problem of self awareness reduces to understanding what precise physical mechanisms are that internally brain registers as self awareness.
And please note I am not talking about reporting of the self awareness to the external world as some people start objecting and saying about the example of general anesthesia that, 'oh the person just did not have the ability to tell their internal self aware experience'. I have been under general anesthesia, and I remember distinctly after waking up from it, that it was not as if I was having internal self awareness that I was not communicating. I was literally gone. It was as if there was a complete gap between the pre and post general anesthesia self awareness.
The observer is a critical factor in the formula. No observer changes the entirety of the function. You cannot have one without the other. Essentially, the tree falling in the forest metaphor.
The problem with current quantum mechanics, and the reason why we know it is incomplete, is that the equations do not include the concept of an observer at all. That’s one way of saying the equations do not include a mechanism for resolving to a discrete state, which is a more technically correct statement but basically means the same thing.
The brain-mind simulates all worlds. It's not a secret
Nice, Physicalism cannot account for consciousness which means its a flawed theory. A paradigm shift is happening and the Idealism of Kastrup seems to be the answer to the conundrum.
'isms' are most definitely NOT going to furnish any answers beyond dinner table point-scoring 'debate'. So let's look at this another way....
Medical instrument inventor *Itzhak Bentov* wrote two books using quantum physics to address the issue of Consciousness. Serious as the undertaking was he nevertheless explained his findings in a quite unique and humorous way.
He included many hand drawings of physical phenomena (e.g. waves, orbits, reciprocating motion etc) as they related to the micro-motion pulses of a body's physiology whilst sat in meditation. A really eye-opening view of the phenomenon of Consciousness.
*(1) Stalking the Wild Pendulum: On the Mechanics of Consciousness* (1988)
*(2) Brief Tour of Higher Consciousness: A Cosmic Book on the Mechanics of Creation* (2000, posthumously)
*Bear in mind the Yogis, Sufis, Taoists and Shamans have been studying the phenomenon of Consciousness for some 25,000yrs or more.* They all recognise that 'the body is the vehicle' - the physical body being an anatomical and physiological entity - through which Consciousness may be directly appreciated. That mind-body system, in most cases, has to undergo training for that purpose, just as an elite athlete has to train for their high level purpose.
About 2,000yrs ago the most pertinent of these findings were collated into the *Yoga Sutras (by Patanjali).* There have been numerous translations of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. As a Systems Analyst, the version I favor is:
*Light on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali* (B. K. S. Iyengar)
I found this version the most useful because it has many systems diagrams relating the levels of Consciousness to each other and *relating physical **_phenomena_** (through the sensory organs) to spiritual **_noumena_** (through the organs of the mind).*
Once again, this is all about _training,_ training the body-mind system to be receptive to the direct experiencing of Consciousness. And, as with training for anything, it is most advantageous to have a trainer to guide you around the many obstacles and personal resistances which get in the way of your progress.
*Yogic (inside-out) Sciences* are much more difficult than *Materialist (outside-in) Sciences.* It is much easier to study, and experiment with objective phenomena outside of yourself - isolated from everything else in a controlled situation - and then record their quantities.
It is many orders of magnitude more difficult when the *_object of study is your own whole self_* while it is still connected to the complexity of the world, and contend with _its quantities and also with its qualities._ *To experience how difficult this is, see how long you can just sit with yourself **_without any distractions whatsoever._* No more than 5-10mins before you start barking?
As far as I’m aware universities in the *US (Berekely) and Australia (Melbourne)* are doing the most interesting research on Consciousness using long-term meditators as their subjects. They have noted changes in brain blood flows _away_ from the frontal cortex (the seat of personal identity). That explains some of the utterances of highly spiritualised people around the world exclaiming that they have lost all sense of their identity and 'no longer know who they are.'
Lost in numbers
Measurement is what causes quantum phenomena. Interaction. Strange as quantum is, and while consciousness can be used to test quantum? I do not at all think it's "caused" by consciousness.
I do think that consciousness is a quantum phenomena though. So, there's that.
Those who cite the Interaction Theory to belittle the role of Consciousness forgot a basic foundation in the Double Slit Experiment. If the test particle passes thru the slit with interactor detector = then congratulations. They are correct. Interaction is the cause of the collapse of the wave function. But how about the other slit where there is no interactor detector? How can Zero Interaction have any meaning at all, and collapse the wave function, unless a Conscious Mind, reasoning out with logic, creates meaning, or imbues Zero Interaction with meaning, resulting to spooky collapse of the wave function despite Zero Interaction?
Clearly when observing our universe we can see signatures of an artist who created everything. His name is Chuck Norris
Non religious God=Light+Awareness
Hahaha
You can't explain consciousness
When you avoid difficult practices, you nothing great and significant will be rendered. If you don't read the theory, forget any form of practicing - it is useless. Those that wont encourage and support me wont get the same effect, except I understand the knowledge of pushing myself which then translates to wisdom.
IMO there is confusion about the two separate events - lets call them event E1 when the quantum state is broken because of the interaction with the environment and event E2 which is that the first conscious entity resisters the outcome. People conflate the two and therefore there is a lot of confusion. It is true in the lab environments when people were doing the quantum experiments, these two events occurred very close to each other. so E1 and E2 were effectively the same event. But what happens if we record E1 and after 1 million years person A views the result - lets call it event E2 and after 2 million years person B views the result - lets call it event E3, then did E2 caused the collapse by going back 1 million years in time? Or did E2 collapse E1? The absurdity of conflating E1 with E2 and E3 starts becoming clear.
What if two people A and B were both in the lab observing the experiment? Did person A's consciousness collapse the wave function? Or was it B's? The absurdness is obvious. If we think of E1 (actual collapse of the wave function because of interaction with the instruments) and E2 (whereby person A becomes aware of the reading), then the absurdity disappears.
What is a wave and a wave function?
It’s a mathematical structure which represents the superposition of the possible states of a quantum object.
@simonhibbs887 what is a quantum object?
does the 'superposition' exist only in our conception?
what are and from whence arise these 'possible states' ?
is this structure not futile from already being superimposed?
Do you really buy it - or just go along because everybody else does?
@@S3RAVA3LM A quantum object is just way of talking about phenomena such as photons, electrons, etc that behave according to the formulae of Quantum Mechanics. Bear in mind Quantum Mechanics is just a way of describing the behaviour we actually measure in experiments. The measurements come first, they are what is real and what happen, the formulae and theories are just descriptions of those.
Superposition is a way of describing a specific set of behaviours we observe. The 'possible states' are the states described by the Schrodinger equation which gives a probability distribution for the states you will get when you take a measurement.
What I buy is that these calculations accurately describe what we measure. We know this because the calculations and theories allow us to engineer quantum systems. Semiconductor transistors exist because we engineer them based on quantum behaviour. We have also used quantum mechanics to design lasers, optical sensors, materials surfaces and all sorts of electronics. It's hard to see how we could do that successfully if our understanding of these behaviours was not accurate. So every time a logic gate in your computer functions, it's using quantum mechanics to operate and there are probably many billions of such gates in the computer chips. That's billions of quantum mechanics experiments being conducted on your desk every second.
Can an amoeba collapse the wave function?
Hmmmmm. And they say philosophers and theologians have a high tolerance for piffle. 🤣
I think he may have been gently taking the michael?
General relativity is a theory of gravitation that explains the gravitational interaction between various objects in space. One of the main assumptions in science that people tend to stumble over is the assumption that light years in outer space equals the same measure of distance and passage of time on Earth. However, in general relativity, the local rate of time and the measure of distance depend on the amount of matter or mass in the vicinity.
When we observe other galaxies, we are effectively looking at vastly differing measures of time and distance relative to our observations of objects locally inside the mass of the Milky Way. This can lead to a number of observed phenomena in outer space, such as redshift, superluminal motion, and the apparent faster motion of the outer spiral arms of galaxies.
The expansion of the universe is not required to explain the observed redshift of light from distant galaxies. As predicted by general relativity, the expansion of space between galaxies due to the absence of matter in our line of sight, where there is less acceleration, can explain the observed redshift without the need for a universe expanding into oblivion.
The vacuum energy of space is due to frame dragging of black holes that are growing from consuming spacetime. Recent findings have found that dark energy or vacuum energy is associated with black holes that are growing in size.
In summary, general relativity is a theory that explains the interaction of gravitational forces between objects in space. The measure of distance and time in outer space depends on the amount of matter or mass in the vicinity, and this can lead to various observed phenomena, such as redshift and superluminal motion. The expansion of the universe is not required to explain these phenomena, and the vacuum energy of space is due to the frame dragging of black holes that are growing in size.
Why are you posting these ramblings that you have already been shown that you have no idea what you are talking about?
@@tomjackson7755 Why are you such a troll that never actually responds to content?
@@JungleJargon I did respond to the content. I asked why you are repeating previously debunked lies.
@@tomjackson7755 That’s not responding to the content, troll.
@@JungleJargon Your problem is that is responding to the content. Your 'content' has already been broken down and shown to be wrong. Why are you reposting these lies?
Total nonsense. Just playing cheap shots for the gallery.
Wave function is not collapsed by consciousness, but by measurement instrument.
8:00 navel gazing
The "universe" (as we know and define it) is the product of an observer, but Existence itself doesn't depend on an observer. Existence is like the "I Am" guy -- but without the Old Testament, Old Nobadaddy fairy dust.
The Universe if not the product of an observer as defined by Quantum Field Theory. The Universe is defined as a complex Quantum Field in which the observer is a disturbance.
@@kos-mos1127
That sounds like weird science. i just don't get the quantum stuff.
When you say “existence doesn’t depend on the observer” - how do you justify that claim?
@@deanodebo
Because Existence is greater than ourselves -- immortal and eternal. Do you think Existence would vanish if all observer humans were wiped out? It's a ridiculous notion.
@@browngreen933 Quantum Theory is weird but it has more experimental results then Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.
"Collapse the wave function." Am I the only one who doesn't get what they're saying?
yes, it's a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics
*"Collapse the wave function." Am I the only one who doesn't get what they're saying?"*
... Let's say a modified, wide-body 1970's Pantera keeps flying past you at +180 MPH, and you want to know who the driver is. You keep trying to see who it is, but he's moving so stinkin' fast that everything is a blur. So, you whip out your spiffy high-speed camera and try timing a photo right as he passes by. You finally get to see who the driver is, but you can never seem to get both the car and the driver properly centered in the photo.
That's physics _"the cool way!"_
You could google it. Or google the "Measurement Problem" of quantum mechanics.
No.
You can always see the driver and the car at the same time, and the vicinity of the car, and etc, ad infinitum. /
That's not the "physics cool way".
It is the wrong way of interpreting what it is in fact wrongly understood by highly indoctrinated, impotent, and obtuse minds.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC
That's crazy! I need a crash course in quantum theory I guess. Thanks!
ja the observer smells a little bit like the human hybris...
it's not based on nothing though, it's based on math
Obviously you need an observer to have mathematics, science, and religion.
Religion is
irrelevant, shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same breath as mathematics and science. You wouldn’t mention unicorns or fairies so why would you mention religion?
TH-cam police out to get me today.
We are acknowledging 'Atman' or Anatta or Christ.
The seer, one true observer, which is the present thus 'seeing', and the thing seen to be in relation with and to, as Atman is the substrata of ALL, knowledge merely a recollection.
they - academicians - intentionally make what's simple, complex. Consensus and democracy making what was once great, to what is now on par and people mistakingly believe it to be 'equal' of fair.
Look at earth - many forms, things, shapes, qualities, aspects, differentiations, discrepancies, events, life, decay, death.
Look at water - oceans, rivers, rain, steam, ice, snow.
Look at the air - wind, gales, breeze.
Look at fire - Sun, lights, sparklers, lighters, candles; fire & flame. Ultimately, illumination the attribute of Light.
Metaphysics acknowledges this ^ fact, that what is more subtle is pure, therefor more powerful and simple.
Sometimes - knowing my own experience - we have to take the long way round so realizing what actually is simple; to imbibe. The most complex stuff or gross is really the earlier levels of inquiry, like oil, which has yet to be refined to a simple form.
Fine turning is a silly concept
ONE needs no fine tuning.
Inert matter displays uniformity; the ONE permeats ALL; and draws ALL.
Maia or phenomena is circumscription, thus birth and death makes life seem disorderly.
Fine tuning is a misconception, or lousy term to acknowledge something so evident, and ultimately errring.
Vedanta, Monism - ONE is in no need of tuning.
Only maia, nescience, makes it seem like there's two polarities - order and discord.
There's only ONE; GOD.
Fine turning.. Take the long journey yourselves then, and arrive later at Vedanta.
Brains Igor - fetch BRAINS.