@@PetraKann LOL, yet it is our understanding of physics that has built the world as we know it. It's not imaginary souls or quantum consciousness which there is zero evidence of.
@@PetraKann it would appear more than a touch ironic then, that you should have been so entirely reliant upon such "trivialities" simply in order to first describe them. No?
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .
The approximate 65% ~ 35% divide in the two pole questions tells me that everyone starts with a bias which is based on an underlying world view which is so deeply held there is almost zero chance of anyone changing it regardless of the case against it being put even competently and clearly. This is very dangerous for those who happen to be wrong and I think the test for that is to ask yourself honestly "could you be wrong" then look for that assuming your bias is wrong.
If it is true, that the dire thought can change the electromagnetic field (pattern), then I think it proves that it can not be emergent relative to the quantum (electromagnetic) field(s) With emergent phenomena, I can not change the fundamentals I can not split a proton with a chisel
There is no reason to think that is true, unless you are defining a ‘thought’ as an antecedent neural/electro-magnetic pattern itself part of the cascade of physical causes.
The curious thing about "the limits of knowledge" phrase is that logically it does not apply to quantum field theory. QFT simply tells us what knowledge is available in this universe. That we were hallucinating in the past that there should be "more" than there actually is is not a loss of knowledge. It's a loss of collective foolishness. We are getting smarter by understanding these things, not somehow less capable of learning.
Logic and well reasoned discourse are total buzz kills. Professor Carroll did a great job scoping his presentation. Other comments notwithstanding, he wasn’t opining on the fundamental nature of reality or discounting spirituality. He simply stated that we (humans) have created a very accurate model that describes/predicts the physical world we (humans) interact with during our everyday lives. Not a controversial assertion given he also described the limits of that model.
Excellent! I don't know how many times I've had to explain to someone that there is no way to gauge "how much there is to know." or how close we might be to reaching that point. We could be close, or very far away, but it's impossible to say unless you already know everything and therefore can measure our current position in comparison. I grow tired of hearing "We don't know anything." from certain individuals who hate science.😊
@@Littleprinceleon I can't even imagine what it would mean to know everything. I only know that we cannot gauge our level of knowledge from a position of the limited knowledge that we possess. I also am very confused about how a system behaves "when we're not looking at it". As soon as we try to verify our hypothesis, we are immediately interacting with the system and thus...... well you know. Everyday language just doesn't convey these ideas very well I suppose. Thanks for the reply! I don't think that's ever happened before!
Thanks for this talk, it really addresses the issues. I would like to understand the bit with the coupling constants and lambda, seems to be important but I have no idea what it means despite the fact that I know what all the words mean. Is there a way to explain this the mere mortals?
There is a one minute and thirty seconds long attempt at total dismantling of the very foundations of the entirety of Sabine Hossenfelder's life project AKA "superdeterminism" @48:25 and it would be interesting to hear her response
Basic logic rules out superdeterminism in a way Sean didn't even get into. That the initial conditions of hidden variables at the dawn of time are ones that uniformly restrict our conscious decision making processes when setting up QM experiments in ways that consistently trick us into thinking QM violates Bell's inequities when it actually doesn't would not only basically be proof that God exists, it would be proof that he is totally fucking with us. It's a scientifically nonsensical idea and her response to that is uniformly brief and incoherent.
Great lecture! My first reaction is that Sean would really benefit with a primer on functionalism in philosophy of mind. Functionalism is usually associated with emergentism, so I think it may even be close to his actual position after he read up on it, if he has a chance, but I don't know. But in any event I think he could make great contributions to the functionalism debate because of how it intersects with this lecture. An important thing to mention at the start is that philosophers of mind distinguish "physicalism" from "functionalism". Functionalism is still a physical theory, but the actual physical arrangement isn't relevant. A silicon based computer (at least perhaps one still far in the future) could have the same conscious experience as a carbon-based human, but of course both still operate based on the vanilla physics and chemistry of neurons and CPUs. So both are still "physical", but it's not "philosophical physicalism". I think that functionalism is even the majority position in philosophy of mind, if you took a poll, and I'm even more confident that most would "✓" the box saying "they are not physicalists". But what they mean by the term "physicalism" is different than the way Sean used it in this lecture, as he was talking about a much more general claim that "there is a physical basis". I think most philosophers of mind would agree with that, sans the few Sean was targeting in this lecture (strict or property dualists and mental monists). But that position, "it's all physical", includes both "philosophical physicalism" (which itself has to brands: 1. "token physicalism", only this exact arrangement of neurons can be conscious; and 2. "type physicalism": only arrangements of neurons of this general type can be conscious) and "functionalism" (any physical system with this general functional arrangement, to the extent it can physically manifest it, can be conscious, and consciousness is an emergent property of that arrangement, the functional state, manifestable through many different physical states, and not the specific underlying physical state itself per se). Functionalism vs. philosophical physicalism is just the next layer in the debate, both "physical", where a lot of the real action is happening these days, I think. Okay, that's my little contribution to the discussion here. Thanks for the great talk and food for thought!
In scientific terms I believe you are talking about whether or not consciousness is substrate independent. Sean is neither a cognitive nor computer/information scientist, and the question of substrate independence is a high level one in those fields specifically, so I suspect he would correctly point out he is not the person to ask about such things. That said substrate dependency would require a new kind of computation of which we are unaware and could never functionally model, and that isn't much better than invoking the supernatural from an information science perspective.
Consiousness can't be explained and it has infinite degree of freedoms. That is connected to the hard problem of Consiousness which will remain forever.. we can reach to abstract. But not to Consiousness.
Hi @seancarroll, could you please write a book on QFT? (I'm half-joking... but I'm also half-serious.) Kidding aside, if you did write one, I'd be among the first in line to purchase a copy. It's difficult to find a QFT textbook which stays grounded [1], and properly motivates the material. Even the texts which are intended for an audience of students approaching the subject via self-study [2], tend to be a bit opaque to a relative outsider to the field. Your explanation of renormalization and ultraviolet cutoff finally make that aspect clear to me, in spite of the fact that you haven't even shown much math yet. So, that's a long-winded way of saying, great lecture (even though I'm only halfway through, so-far). I'll probably be picking-up your GR textbook. - Paul Footnote 1: ...well, as much as is possible anyway, given the subject matter. Footnote 2: ...who (for example) got their EE BS years ago, and stayed current in his (or her) physics knowledge (just to pick a random example). ;-)
Because, your not considering the energy displacing into other modes In order to maintain a system state. The act of crossing modes should be considered and is not. Please explain.
Glad to see him not only mention the idea of consciousness being fundamental, but doesn't discredit it either. He is correct however that it's an irrelevant argument in the domain of physics without making testable predictions.
@@schmetterling4477 That's a definition, not proof of anything other than consciousness. You'll find without making additional assumptions, the only truth you have is that you experience this thing we call "consciousness". If you can't even accept that fact then you are not working towards a truthful model of reality.
@@MisakaMikotoDesu How do you know that "I am experiencing this thing called consciousness"? You are making way too many uneducated guesses here, already. You sound like a gal from the philosophy department where they are eating their own bullshit for breakfast, lunch and dinner. ;-)
Ignorance is a wonderful machine of esoteric, ungrounded ideas: animism almost died in the Western world when Lavoisier proved there was no flogist, nothing but material substances and measurable phenomena in combustion, and when biochemistry proved life does not require any 'vital force.' But some people still insist on the animistic idea that cognition and consciousness, and their ontological essence or property called qualia, either does not result from physical phenomena or has no possible epistemological (i.e., accessible to observation out of the mental, individual experience) quality. Modern-day brain-to-machine interfaces are approaching epistemology of qualia in some degree. Along half a century, my goal was to find out how neurons and their neural interactions managed to build mental worlds modeling the environment or fictitious alternates usually called fantasy. I almost got it all some ten years ago but for a key interpretation (it is not enough to build a sound mathematical model of the mind). Now I have found out what that key piece is and everything makes sense, in a holistic way, from qualia to hallucinations through sensible or nonsensical mental processes. A very easy way that shows how cognition is a clear emergent property that only requires physical machinery. I hope it won't take too long for people to finally accept that animism only provides misleading names and no explanations.
Joscha Bach, prominent and brilliant cognitive scientist, actually recently said he has come to lean towards an animist perspective, but the spirit/animus is nothing supernatural, it is essentially the "software" governing how matter can and has arranged itself into living things and their associated behaviors on both short term and evolutionary time scales. That said he has a penchant for trying to make comparisons between religious ideas and high level concepts in current science which I find unnecessary and ill fitting considering the nebulous nature of religious ideas across time, cultures and individuals, as well as the astounding philosophical baggage most religious concepts are carrying around.
The argument that we can't do something because it may violate rules we made ourselves about physics (like energy conservation) isn't a strong one. Not the least of which because we made those rules for the Universe (which the Universe couldn't care less about) using consciousness. So it's an argument with a parallel common root, and cannot be placed in order nor hierarchy. In sum, it says nothing from one thing to the other; only that they both seem to be common and extant. We all know that "associated with" or "correlated to" is not equivalent of causal. *It's a solid presentation though. Well organized and coherent.
Well lets hear your laws of nature , your mathematical explanation , when you say violate rules we made , that is not quite true is it ? what you fail to grasp is that from empirical evidence it would appear that conservation laws hold true , now if you can disprove those with empirical evidence great lets see it and we can all move on , we are not making rules for the universe , we are discovering properties about the universe , to say it is not a strong argument is false , it is the strongest position to argue from , the collective knowledge of humanity to date as opposed to your unstated explanation .
The universe doesn't care about the rules we observe it operating by... sure. Your suggestion that we made the rules for the universe rather than deriving them based on empirical evidence is... I'm sorry but stupid is the word to use here. Physics is not some choose your own adventure fantasy like you are pretending it is, sorry. Our conscious perceptions do not include quantum mechanics or general relativity, for two prominent examples. It required collective effort as a species over the course of millennia to understand these things about the nature of the universe as they are entirely absent from our naive conscious experience of reality. Any reliable evidence that our understanding of how the universe works is wrong or incomplete is exciting news for physicists, not something that is swept under the rug if it violates something like energy conservation. If the universe doesn't "care" about the laws of physics why would we? What would be the point?
@@jyjjy7 Much of what you said ranges between incorrect and naive, so I wouldn't throw the word "stupid" around as you do. Don't apologize, just don't use it, it makes you look silly. You understand far less about physics than you think. Physics is a _MODEL,_ it is NOT the rules for the Universe. Physics is an attempt to create an abstract model which correlates to the actual workings of the Universe, not the Universe itself. Observations about the Universe are filtered through and interpreted by human consciousness and are not direct observations. Even tools we build are still interpreted this way, and worse we built them using our biases and assumptions. Then we interpret them within that assumptive framework. We do not, have not, and likely cannot ever observe the Universe directly. Rather, we fold all of this into our past experiences and beliefs through cognitive networks. There is no stand alone "pure" data nor interpretation. Physics is a MODEL. A model we made, one we constructed. It is our attempt to interperate the Universe and imagine rules that make this easier. We make artificial categories, separations, deliniations and groups. And we say these should apply, but only if we ignore the outliers. Our models are averages of behaviors so categories can be maintained. This is not the Universe, it's a toy model for our convenience. _The Universe is ONE Thing, with no parts._ It is singular and beyond our human understanding. As to models, the Universe could care less about them. We've found the Universe violates our models ever since we started making them. We change them, and sometimes scrap them completely for new ones. The Universe doesn't care about our rules. Yes, the Universe can expand faster than the speed of light, increase in size and energy if it feels like it, and do anything else it damned well pleases. We try (insufficiently) to describe behaviors we see, but we do NOT make the rules for the Universe. Nor does the Universe care for our sophomoric rules. It can do anything it likes at any time. The notion we restrain the Universe and restrict its behavior with our rules, (rules which WE made for our models, and passively observed), is naive and hubristic. And fully incorrect. Further, even our models apply only to describe things within the Universe, not to the Universe itself. The Universe can do anything it wants at any moment. It does not care about our rules. The very idea that it would is just the height of nonsense. (Perhaps studying some biology would help you here- and learning about perception and how we process and interoperate information to form cognitive models. Then you will have a better understanding of what our physics models are based on, and why they are twice removed from reality, at best.)
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 That physics is a model and models are not the thing is trivially true. That's basic epistemology, not some secret knowledge you've discovered that should make us call into questions things like conservation of energy. The model is based upon conscious observations, of course, because phenomena we can observe is what we actually care about, not random fantasy like processes that violate conservation of energy which have never been observed. Sean specializes in foundational theoretical physics and as such he is more aware of all of this than either of us. You want to insist he entertain things inconsistent to his expert understanding of how the universe behaves because you are confused about the actual implications of something that impressed you too much when you were philosophy 101 and makes you think physicists don't really know what they are doing. Physics is a model, yes, but no, it is not a toy. Are nuclear bombs toys? Are satellites? Is the computing device you wrote all that on just a toy? That you live in a modern technological society and consider our understanding of how the universe works something even physicists themselves should consider unreliable when attempting to educate the public is ridiculous.
@@jyjjy7 You're confusing "reality" with a model, and vice-versa. It's not a trivial issue, which seems to be the basis for your (and indeed many actual physicists) confusion. I would recommend you take some time and work through the comments I posted above, until you actually understand what I wrote (which you have shown you do not). Give it a good think, perhaps for a number of years. It's intricate and advanced, certainly the leading edge of physical philosophy, so you shouldn't expect you can just skim through and understand the deep underpinnings and implications of it. As to the models, they are known to be wrong. Yes, energy conservation can be violated (and likely is). The Universe is getting larger, but contains the same energy per unit of space as when it was smaller. That's the idea behind the cosmological constant (λ) and dark energy- two things we came up with (rather recently) because our fundamental descriptions of the models do not reflect reality. (ie. they're wrong and we know it for even the strictly physical objects we already know of). So no, there is no fundamental law which the Universe must obey. And no, building a model does not necessarily reflect reality in any meaningful way. As long as models are kept small they can be wildly off. And considering our models are based on the 5% of the matter and energy we think we know about, and 95% of energy and matter we have never observed or verified to exist... Then even that limited 5% model is woefully inept at anything but local scales in time and space. Of which we don't even know what "space" is or what "time" is. So 5% of the physical stuffs is even included in the model, and that's only the stuffs we _believe_ we know about. All of these could be false interpretations of a simpler yet more expansive reality. And no, the biological instrument is not trivial, nor can it be ignored. I would recommend you study a bit of neuroscience here, specifically how senses actually work and generate experiences. Absolutely nothing you think you experience directly interfaces with you or your brain. These are are constructed from digital binary "on/off" conditions which are fully walled off from the "outside world" or common base reality (if there is one). These are generated experiences that do not exist outside your personal processor; it's all in your head. The "reality" inside and outside your head is known to be vastly different, and heavily edited and curated. (So even if that model was based on "reality", it would be strikingly foundationally different.) What you would _LIKE_ to dismiss as "philosophy 101" is a combination of years of cognitive sciences and theoretical physics combined. I don't expect you (or anyone) to have that background. But since someone that does has directed you to a few highlighted specific areas within these areas of study, you now have a possibility for understanding what I wrote. You need both pieces to understand what I've said, an intuitive understanding of how the brain works and produces your reality, and the theoretical physics which these models are based and interpreted. If you don't understand the lens, you cannot reconstruct an accurate view of "reality" from its image. And all of this only deals with what we have termed "physical" objects, which may just be one small subset among many others. Concepts of which do not even exist in the human psyche, so cannot be observed, experienced, or studied until a schema for them is established. Nothing outside of current scope of consciousness can even be globally biologically or physically processed, let alone you being made aware of it consciously by your brain (or mind). Information scapes are the new frontier in physics. That necessarily converges with information processing. The idea you can take a model based on the latter and project it forward to encompass the former.... And then expect the former to comply with the latter.... Is utter nonsense. Physics models do _NOT_ tell the Universe what to do, nor does the Universe need to follow them. The Informational Universe does as it pleases, when it pleases.
A fine example of Socratic Method response to assertion and debate via Disproof Methodology, Metaphysical Philosophy in constructive discussion. (Students should retaliate in kind and mutual respect)
Dr. Carroll emphasizes that Core Theory is focused on prediction rather than ontology and then goes on to dismiss "mental aspects of reality" as irrelevant since they don't change the predictions. That's fair if assuming the same playing field, but aren't mental approach arguments largely aimed at ontology rather than prediction? Seems a categorical error.
I've never seen the hard problem of consciousness flipped on its head like this. The hard problem basically says that there is no description available, or even one that would be possible to come up with, which would describe how matter gives rise to subjective experience. Dr. Carroll is saying that there is zero way one could describe consciousness influencing the behavior of physical particles. That's a brilliant way to put it. So I agree - physicalism and consciousness are mutually exclusive at this point. Either everything is physical stuff OR it's consciousness, weird as that may sound. Here's the problem with physicalism - I am 100% sure that consciousness exists. I know this without the possibility of error. Consciousness exists is THE most fundamental fact from the point of an observer. I do not, however, experience the physical world in any direct way outside of consciousness. No one ever has or can. So if we have to choose between "it's all physical stuff" and "it's all consciousness" I'm going with the later but I'm sure one of those two things definitely exists.
So what is consciousness? 😊 If one goes far enough one might even assume that you exist in Matrix and either there is a more "real" you somewhere "outside" or you're only part of the simulation. What I don't like about this, that it seems to be an easy way to solipsism: how would you react? if I visited and insulted you in a painful way then I claimed that you are only a figment of the simulation (an AGI) pretending to be a person... Try to describe whatever you feel/think consciousness is. There's almost a certainty that a person clever enough will demonstrate that the content of your "analysis" can be traced back either to previous experiences of the inner (your body) or outer world or to the innate structure and function of the brain. Have you ever thought about the following? The hard problem simply leverages the fact that the brain is complex enough to be able to reflect the complexity of the world to such an extent that it leads to a UNIQUE configuration of stored information and of capabilities to process that information. This uniqueness is what manifests as the most subjective part of your experiences. Even if science demonstrates how to artificially stimulate the brain to "see/feel" REDNESS without manipulating the VISUAL cortex, the resulting experience of the individuals will differ depending on the particular configuration of their brains. But let's play with this thought: if such an apparatus is developed that can not only stimulate specific parts but also block some of the others, then presumably the resulting experience in the subjects would be more similar. Scientists can already stimulate the brain of genetically modified rats in such highly specific manner which would be experienced in humans as vivid realistic hallucinations of past experiences: even though the animals were placed into a rather frustrating environment, they believed (inferred from their behaviour) that they were placed into a comfortable place full of food.
When exactly does Caroll say (in this video) that there is "zero way one could describe consciousness influencing the behaviour of physical particles"? Do I understand correctly, that you think he specifically denied (in this video) any possibility how consciousness would affect the particles?
How conscious are you of your liver? Maybe we could just remove it surgically while you are unconscious under anesthesia. Perhaps it's an unnecessary organ since you aren't even registering it consciously 😊 and what's more you don't seem to be able to consciously influence it which means by your logic that it doesn't even really exist, so you should happily exist without this liver thing. Are you sure that you would undertake such an experiment?
The core equation is invariant no matter the time direction. If you take a system and run it backwards, what were "causes" become "effects", and what were "effects" become "causes". "cause" and "effect" only come into play as concepts when there is a macroscopic arrow of time (due to entropy increasing).
The body has no life of itself. Thought has no life of itself. By themselves, they are inert. They are activated by life. Life is the only Being. What is life? What is consciousness? When activated by life, thought creates the idea "I", a simulacrum of Being. Because thought is limited, the simulacrum, the representation, is limited, insufficient. Consciousness, which is life, cannot be measured - it is infinite, unknowable. Because life is infinite, the simulacrum, by reflection, wants to be complete too. So, it goes after power, position, fortune, and all the rest of it, never reaching completeness. In this ambition, it creates division, competition, wars and destruction. In this movement of becoming, the simulacrum has continuity, with all its miseries. Do I depend on thought to be alive and conscious? Who or what am I? Can I measure who or what I am? With which instrument? Am I not the unknowable, the infinite, the timeless?
We cannot ignore the fact that we came up with these rules of the Universe (physics models) using consciousness in the first place. So as a scientist, i must point out that you have failed to separate the variables; dependant and independent. And then using a commingled base, built a sequential argument on top. But which does it truly sit on?
7:15 _"We have reasons to believe that if there are unknown fields... they have nothing to do with ... the everyday world."_ Sure, but a debugging argument looks for the hidden holes our brains like to skip over. For example, is our Faraday-inspired concept of _fields_ fundamental? Or deeper still: Is the astonishingly complex set of asymptotically precise behaviors we call xyzt spacetime fundamental? These are the Goldilocks conditions for which our neural circuitry is optimized, making them comfortable and beyond debate. However, as with hobbits, there are risks in assuming that the comfortable middle-earth of classical physics engenders _no_ testable implications from a richer world of non-xyzt behaviors that surround it at both ends. Spacetime, even at the human level, is rattier than we assume. For example, there's that annoying inverse-units equivalence in special relativity, in which a system _must_ experience identical physics if you _multiply_ its length and time units by R when moving in one direction and _divide_ them by R when moving in the opposite direction. Even within classical domains, the simplicity of xyzt measures emerges only _after_ completing a back-and-forth loop between observer and observed. Saying there can be no new fields is rock solid. However, if classical maths cannot even see the necessity of back-and-forth loops even for classical clocks and rulers, can they assure us the broader universe cannot impact our middle-earth physics in ways we have yet to learn to yet recognize?
Great talk. But at 58 minutes in Sean completely dodges on the Hard Problem, saying it will be “dissolved” by continuing progress on neural correlates of conscious experience. But the HP was proposed by Chalmers precisely to distinguish it from the ‘easy’ problems of neural correlates. Given physicalism, increased knowledge of neural correlations does not bridge the explanatory gap between unconscious physical processes eg physiology and subjectivity!
It appears you did not think about what Carroll said. Claiming there will remain a "gap" is what he is saying will not be the case. If you fully understand how neuronal firing patterns create the experience of red then at the same time you look at red you would clearly know that there is no hard problem about the process. It would only remain subjective in the sense that they are (to what ever degree) specific to one brain, namely your own. More importantly perhaps, the advocates of a permanent hard problem can never (I would say even in principle) produce a candidate "answer," or even describe what it would be like in tentative terms. The full physicalist explanation would include neuron storage of past experiences of red, red's relation to similar storage of other colors, activity of those, and add to this all of the neuronal electro-chemical firings of the moment that constitute the particular experience of red. There is no gap left in anything at that point.
@@Ofinfinitejest I promise you I have thought about what he said. You are partially correct when you state that advocates of the HP (wouldn't call it a 'permanent' HP) suggest that the physicalist picture can never, in principle, produce a candidate answer. This is meant to pump our intuition that the physicalist picture is not, and in principle cannot be, a complete picture of reality. If you're familiar with Mary the color vision neuroscientist (briefly, she has a theoretically complete, exhaustive physical understanding of the physics and neurophysiology of color vision but has spent her life in a black & white environment) when she enters the world and sees red for the first time, she absolutely does acquire new knowledge. Carroll disagrees (see his podcast with Philip Goff). Nowhere in the physicalist picture of brains, broken down into its constituents (e.g. quarks, electrons, photons) is there consciousness. Nor is consciousness of any kind a product of them. Given physicalism, there are merely "atoms and the void". Consciousness does not reduce to physicalist components. Conscious experiences are real. Physicalism does not conserve the data that there exists conscious experience. Therefore physicalism is not complete.
Well, for physicalists there are ONLY neural correlates, as prof Carroll explained for almost an hour, showing that it would be truly hard to find/prove something else relevant beyond that. He didn’t dodge anything, he did not outrule different possibilities, he just said prove it to us with the same or better strength of physicalists’ arguments. Chalmers HP doesn’t really exist unless you first PROVE there’s something beyond physicality, correlations etc., as he posed it it’s just an antropocentric way of gaining attention, and he’s like a neanderthal complaining with a sapiens to explain the sun in the sky based on stone technology. The neanderthal will slowly get extinct, the sapiens will keep the leather jacket and look as the really cool guy for generations to follow.
The Hard Problem requires explaining the "inner" mental experience of (some) brain activities, because we know by introspection that we do mentally experience. (Some philosophers would say that's the ONLY fact one can know with absolute certainty: cogito ergo sum.) But the Hard Problem does NOT also require explaining how consciousness affects the brain, since there's no compelling reason to believe consciousness affects the brain. In other words, consciousness might be a helpless passenger... an "audience" compelled to mentally experience feelings & thoughts but not the source of any thoughts or decisions. The illusory appearance that consciousness is the source of thinking & deciding is to be expected even if consciousness is a helpless passive experiencer of the brain's thinking & deciding. That's an alternative that Sean Carroll overlooked when he defined Substance Dualism. His definition involves "interaction" between mind & brain. In a broader definition, the action might be only one way: the brain affects the non-physical mind but the mind doesn't affect the brain. Sean said consciousness is "irrelevant" if it can't affect the brain. That seems a narrow-minded opinion about what's important. If consciousness is non-physical, then it could outlive the brain, and it might have properties that become all-important after the brain dies. This would be irrelevant to Sean's professional life as a physicist, but it could be highly relevant to the meaning of life. That said, if I had to bet, I would bet on Physicalism -- consciousness is just an emergent property that doesn't outlive the brain -- because Physics works so well for everything else. (I guess this is inductive reasoning.) However, betting on whether the Emergence solution to the Hard Problem will someday be discovered would be a separate bet, with lower odds of winning.
Exactly! I was wondering if anyone had noticed that he evaded the true HP. The Hard Problem is not about explaining correlations of brain states and experience, is is about explaining how subjective experience comes about, how qualia comes about. So although Sean Carrol made an awesome presentation and I loved his points, he completely missed the point of the Hard Problem
There is a very easy logical proof that rules out esoteric models, which I devised when I was 13 and didn't know yet how to state accurately. My modern version uses two definitions: • D1: The physical (or material) world spans everything that acts and interacts according to a known or unknown given set of natural laws. • D2: The supernatural world spans everything that can force something physical to act against some natural law. Given that D1 defines a closed system which excludes D2 and any influence therefrom, the latter can only be an empty collection lest contradiction (something material both following and acting against some natural law) arises.
@@schmetterling4477 Oh, but I was. I wrote the above (with many more words and less accurately) in an essay while the teacher walked about us. Class was Religion. Essay: the Divine Order. I guess the teacher never read what I wrote (I suspect they just measure how much students write, then attribute marks).
You know, I'm hearing a lot of talk about how "we" don't have a theory of how consciousness and physics work together. Neither party in this conversation is in a position to know that. I have such a theory, and I put it out there decades ago. There are at least half a dozen papers about it in peer-reviewed academic journals. For what it's worth, I'm reputed in some circles to be "the smartest man in the world", and was featured on every major television network west of Asia back near the turn of the millennium. I came up with the first application of the Simulation Hypothesis back in 1989 (way before Bostrom got hold of it). Since then, I've been cancelled by Academia Inc.; if you want to know why, you'd have to ask it, and it wouldn't have a coherent answer for you. Trust me, fellows - if you're living in the ivory tower, you probably don't know rat crap from rice krispies in this field, and I say that with all due respect. Have a nice day.
Chris, stop confusing simple deterministic dynamics for consciousness and then using that to reinvent God and maybe you'll be taken seriously. If you are the smartest man in the world you should be able to notice your theories are in service of their conclusion and as such ill motivated from a scientific perspectives which are unimpressed by the semantic games you (and others) play to shove consciousness and religion into fundamental physics.
Obviously Sean isn’t doing experiments on conscious matter … it is presumptuous to think it behaves as experiments on dead matter. How recent was it that we discovered the odd behavior in the double slit and Stern-Gerlach experiments? Who previously predicted that behavior? Consciousness exists!
He literally lists environment-dependent couplings as a possible loophole at 46:49. Now you're saying there is/are force(s) that only acts on living things. That is an easy claim to make, but a very hard one to quantify.
As a "physicalist" he naturally believes any new aspect of consciousness should only be discoverable as a new field or new particle and while not dismissing the possibility can quite reasonably conclude they are irrelevant! All ignoring the reality of spirituality or even just the origin of information which any non-physicalist knows it is not an emergent property of matter. He actually acknowledges as much in the earlier topics describing the collapse of the wave function by "knowing" or "measuring" implying a non material "mind" is both fundamental and required.
It’s simple. Any concept of consciousness that has a foundation in the non-physical would contradict all that we know of reality (and we know a lot). There is zero good evidence for consciousness existing outside the material world we live in.
And yet he lays out the theory that describes all we are and know of perfectly fine and gives you an option of showing where are the magical new vectors that give rise to consciousness/soul. You can't. So I'll hitch my wagon to reality, you are free to believe in whatever fairytales you want.
@@hahtos What we know from quantum mechanics about the real nature of particles is correct but it is his broader conclusion of physicalism (materialism) goes well beyond this. While offering some alternatives he is rejecting the very thing quantum mechanics tells us that a non-physical mind is necessary to collapse the wave function and produce locality of all the particles (atoms) we experience as solid. He also rejects information as having *meaning* because it cannot be expressed mathematically and so defaults to emergence which actually requires any meaningless gibberish to contain more information that a book in English! You people are not thinking critically enough what is being claimed.
I think there is a confusion about what he meant by "observed" in collapse of the wave function. This generally means the wave state has interacted with any other thing. That thing can be a particle, not a conscious one even. It seems also he did address the physical interactions with any non-physical, as the physical does change consciousness (ie. You can have a lesion in an area of the brain which will cause predictable changes to conscious experience and brain function, both. But i agree there seems to be something lacking in his exclusionary arguments. They don't seem as solid as they initially sound when stated quickly.
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 _"This generally means the wave state has interacted with any other thing. That thing can be a particle, not a conscious one even."_ So what collapsed the wave state of the thing or particle? Ends up in an infinite regression which can only stop at a non-physical entity. The closest the naturalist gets is *it from bit* except information is not measured in bits.
The admission that physics runs into incomprehensible infinites everywhere we look only confirms the biblical prediction: _"and he has put eternity in the mind of man so he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end"_ Eccl 3:11
Please stop "confirming" anything just to cater your personal bias and ideology. You are of course free to lie to yourself as much as you want, just don't post it as an enlightened truth. That's just your opinion.
@@lsdap1969 You think Carroll's *physicalism* is not the ideology of *materialism* which under the guise of *naturalism* is just *atheism!* A religious belief!
Scientists are so funny, consciousness obviously is not an emergent property, Literally all the ancient civilizations also agreed on this point that consciousness did not emerge from the universe but the universe emerged from consciousness or a conscious process For they understood a very simple fact that you can't get something from nothing meaning that there must be consciousness out there in Space for us to have consciousness. Like duh it's pretty simple, every element inside of man must have some root element in Space.
This was really put together and helped me understand possible reasons for why the c-word may be just a label which I already suspected. If the arguments presented here are right, and I think they are, consciousness will go down in history as another one of the vague filler words for things we didn't understand like "vital essence" and "alchemical transmutation."
The key point to emphasise is that we do understand many facets of consciousness / our sense of self, we can relate them to physical phenomena (induce out of body experiences by prodding different parts of the brain, see how people lose things like memory or their own sense of identity through brain trauma). We can even see individuals who completely lack certain things we associate with consciousnesses such as the ability to feel fear, we can point very precisely to brain regions are and note a lack of activity. So any concept of consciousness is one that ‘has’ to interact with the physical phenomena. We can’t simply hand wave and say “well this is a different layer of reality altogether”. Given how many close ties to known physical phenomena there are.
. NEURO-FEEDBACK IS A WELL UNDERSTOOD SCIENCE NOW. Not only can you objectively prove you have a brain, (WhooPee!!!) you can use neuro-feedback techniques to improve its functioning. This can be a great tool of science/medicine for folks with certain syndromes.
Thank you Dr Carrol for speaking so carefully, your logic is refreshing.
God, this is a masterpiece. This should be part of some super popular show to give it more outreach.
Not really
An irrelevant masterpiece.
Physics is trivialities pretending to be profound
@@PetraKann it’s difficult if you don’t get it.
@@PetraKann LOL, yet it is our understanding of physics that has built the world as we know it. It's not imaginary souls or quantum consciousness which there is zero evidence of.
@@PetraKann it would appear more than a touch ironic then, that you should have been so entirely reliant upon such "trivialities" simply in order to first describe them. No?
Sean begins talking at 4:18.
They should make this video at the start of every discussion of consciousness and religion
If you're still waiting to get evidence of a multiverse, maybe God is the Occam's razor best explanation.
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.
The approximate 65% ~ 35% divide in the two pole questions tells me that everyone starts with a bias which is based on an underlying world view which is so deeply held there is almost zero chance of anyone changing it regardless of the case against it being put even competently and clearly. This is very dangerous for those who happen to be wrong and I think the test for that is to ask yourself honestly "could you be wrong" then look for that assuming your bias is wrong.
If it is true, that the dire thought can change the electromagnetic field (pattern), then I think it proves that it can not be emergent relative to the quantum (electromagnetic) field(s)
With emergent phenomena, I can not change the fundamentals
I can not split a proton with a chisel
There is no reason to think that is true, unless you are defining a ‘thought’ as an antecedent neural/electro-magnetic pattern itself part of the cascade of physical causes.
The curious thing about "the limits of knowledge" phrase is that logically it does not apply to quantum field theory. QFT simply tells us what knowledge is available in this universe. That we were hallucinating in the past that there should be "more" than there actually is is not a loss of knowledge. It's a loss of collective foolishness. We are getting smarter by understanding these things, not somehow less capable of learning.
35:28 To quantum expression for the gravitational potential: "Containing all information about the gravitational field." (Einstein), you can come according to the classics (G), SR ©, and De Broglie's hypothesis (h), - without GR and QM:
a. Kepler's third law: Gm=(r^3)w^2.
b. The researcher will notice that electrodynamics has achieved great success, compared with mechanics, thanks to the introduction of the concept of current, and will write down Kepler's law as follows: I(G)= mw=v^3/G, where I(G) is the gravitational current. By the way, Maxwell's realization of the displacement current effect is the culmination of all (mechanics+electrodynamics) classical physics.
c. The researcher will get acquainted with the semi-classical Bohr theory, where the quantization rule of the angular momentum: the moment modulus in a stationary orbit is determined by the formula mvr=nħ (n=1,2,3,..). As well as with the de Broglie hypothesis: a free particle should be compared with a plane monochromatic wave, and the wave parameters are frequency and length waves are associated with mechanical characteristics - momentum and energy: k=p/ħ=w/c. And, based on Kepler's law, will write down Newton's law as follows: F=mg=m|a|= v^4/G=(ħ/c)w^2.
d. The researcher will remember Einstein's time dilation and the equivalence principle [see Pauli, RT, "Simple consequences of the equivalence principle", where v^2=(rw)^2=-2Ф(centrifugal)~-2Ф(G)], and finally writes the quantum expression for the Newtonian gravitational potential as follows: Ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/c]^½(w) = -[h/4πm(pl)]w=-(½)[w/w(pl)]c^2 (can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment).
One of the important regularities that the formula reveals is the quantization of not only the orbit, but also the wave itself (obviously, the problem of particle/wave dualism disappears at the same time): πr=nλ=(n+n')2r(pl), that is, λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl), where n' (=0,1,2,3…) is the orbit number, n (=0,1,2,3…) is the number of particles (quanta).
In other words, mc^2=ħw; where m (=M/n'=2∆m/n) is the quantum of the complete and mass defect of the system: moreover, the parameter mλ [=m(pl)λ(pl)=m(w)λ(w)=m(e)λ(e)] covers the entire spectrum of particles.
Logic and well reasoned discourse are total buzz kills.
Professor Carroll did a great job scoping his presentation. Other comments notwithstanding, he wasn’t opining on the fundamental nature of reality or discounting spirituality.
He simply stated that we (humans) have created a very accurate model that describes/predicts the physical world we (humans) interact with during our everyday lives.
Not a controversial assertion given he also described the limits of that model.
Excellent!
I don't know how many times I've had to explain to someone that there is no way to gauge "how much there is to know." or how close we might be to reaching that point.
We could be close, or very far away, but it's impossible to say unless you already know everything and therefore can measure our current position in comparison.
I grow tired of hearing "We don't know anything." from certain individuals who hate science.😊
While I share your complaint about the ignorants,
What would that mean to "know everything"?
@@Littleprinceleon
I can't even imagine what it would mean to know everything. I only know that we cannot gauge our level of knowledge from a position of the limited knowledge that we possess.
I also am very confused about how a system behaves "when we're not looking at it".
As soon as we try to verify our hypothesis, we are immediately interacting with the system and thus...... well you know.
Everyday language just doesn't convey these ideas very well I suppose.
Thanks for the reply!
I don't think that's ever happened before!
Thanks for this talk, it really addresses the issues. I would like to understand the bit with the coupling constants and lambda, seems to be important but I have no idea what it means despite the fact that I know what all the words mean. Is there a way to explain this the mere mortals?
Coupling constants simply mean that we are at least one piece of evidence short.
There is a one minute and thirty seconds long attempt at total dismantling of the very foundations of the entirety of Sabine Hossenfelder's life project AKA "superdeterminism" @48:25 and it would be interesting to hear her response
Basic logic rules out superdeterminism in a way Sean didn't even get into. That the initial conditions of hidden variables at the dawn of time are ones that uniformly restrict our conscious decision making processes when setting up QM experiments in ways that consistently trick us into thinking QM violates Bell's inequities when it actually doesn't would not only basically be proof that God exists, it would be proof that he is totally fucking with us. It's a scientifically nonsensical idea and her response to that is uniformly brief and incoherent.
Great lecture! My first reaction is that Sean would really benefit with a primer on functionalism in philosophy of mind. Functionalism is usually associated with emergentism, so I think it may even be close to his actual position after he read up on it, if he has a chance, but I don't know. But in any event I think he could make great contributions to the functionalism debate because of how it intersects with this lecture.
An important thing to mention at the start is that philosophers of mind distinguish "physicalism" from "functionalism". Functionalism is still a physical theory, but the actual physical arrangement isn't relevant. A silicon based computer (at least perhaps one still far in the future) could have the same conscious experience as a carbon-based human, but of course both still operate based on the vanilla physics and chemistry of neurons and CPUs. So both are still "physical", but it's not "philosophical physicalism".
I think that functionalism is even the majority position in philosophy of mind, if you took a poll, and I'm even more confident that most would "✓" the box saying "they are not physicalists". But what they mean by the term "physicalism" is different than the way Sean used it in this lecture, as he was talking about a much more general claim that "there is a physical basis". I think most philosophers of mind would agree with that, sans the few Sean was targeting in this lecture (strict or property dualists and mental monists). But that position, "it's all physical", includes both "philosophical physicalism" (which itself has to brands: 1. "token physicalism", only this exact arrangement of neurons can be conscious; and 2. "type physicalism": only arrangements of neurons of this general type can be conscious) and "functionalism" (any physical system with this general functional arrangement, to the extent it can physically manifest it, can be conscious, and consciousness is an emergent property of that arrangement, the functional state, manifestable through many different physical states, and not the specific underlying physical state itself per se). Functionalism vs. philosophical physicalism is just the next layer in the debate, both "physical", where a lot of the real action is happening these days, I think.
Okay, that's my little contribution to the discussion here. Thanks for the great talk and food for thought!
Many thanks for taking the time to contribute your thoughts here
In scientific terms I believe you are talking about whether or not consciousness is substrate independent. Sean is neither a cognitive nor computer/information scientist, and the question of substrate independence is a high level one in those fields specifically, so I suspect he would correctly point out he is not the person to ask about such things.
That said substrate dependency would require a new kind of computation of which we are unaware and could never functionally model, and that isn't much better than invoking the supernatural from an information science perspective.
Consiousness can't be explained and it has infinite degree of freedoms. That is connected to the hard problem of Consiousness which will remain forever.. we can reach to abstract. But not to Consiousness.
Hi @seancarroll, could you please write a book on QFT? (I'm half-joking... but I'm also half-serious.)
Kidding aside, if you did write one, I'd be among the first in line to purchase a copy.
It's difficult to find a QFT textbook which stays grounded [1], and properly motivates the material. Even the texts which are intended for an audience of students approaching the subject via self-study [2], tend to be a bit opaque to a relative outsider to the field.
Your explanation of renormalization and ultraviolet cutoff finally make that aspect clear to me, in spite of the fact that you haven't even shown much math yet.
So, that's a long-winded way of saying, great lecture (even though I'm only halfway through, so-far). I'll probably be picking-up your GR textbook.
- Paul
Footnote 1:
...well, as much as is possible anyway, given the subject matter.
Footnote 2:
...who (for example) got their EE BS years ago, and stayed current in his (or her) physics knowledge (just to pick a random example). ;-)
Hi, This is Shon Karroll. Thanks for your kind words. Please forward most money for new books. @k32j5r32 India 🇮🇳 lol
Because, your not considering the energy displacing into other modes In order to maintain a system state.
The act of crossing modes should be considered and is not.
Please explain.
Glad to see him not only mention the idea of consciousness being fundamental, but doesn't discredit it either. He is correct however that it's an irrelevant argument in the domain of physics without making testable predictions.
There is nothing fundamental about consciousness. It's an emergent property, just like cream cheese.
@@schmetterling4477 good luck proving such a statement.
@@MisakaMikotoDesu Please see the definition of "emergent properties". ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 That's a definition, not proof of anything other than consciousness. You'll find without making additional assumptions, the only truth you have is that you experience this thing we call "consciousness". If you can't even accept that fact then you are not working towards a truthful model of reality.
@@MisakaMikotoDesu How do you know that "I am experiencing this thing called consciousness"? You are making way too many uneducated guesses here, already. You sound like a gal from the philosophy department where they are eating their own bullshit for breakfast, lunch and dinner. ;-)
A fantastic explanation of the spherical cows that underpin Physics.
For everyday life, Archimedes is fine for me.
I do understand cognition and consciousness, in various mutually-related mathematical, physiology-grounded ways.
Ignorance is a wonderful machine of esoteric, ungrounded ideas: animism almost died in the Western world when Lavoisier proved there was no flogist, nothing but material substances and measurable phenomena in combustion, and when biochemistry proved life does not require any 'vital force.' But some people still insist on the animistic idea that cognition and consciousness, and their ontological essence or property called qualia, either does not result from physical phenomena or has no possible epistemological (i.e., accessible to observation out of the mental, individual experience) quality. Modern-day brain-to-machine interfaces are approaching epistemology of qualia in some degree.
Along half a century, my goal was to find out how neurons and their neural interactions managed to build mental worlds modeling the environment or fictitious alternates usually called fantasy. I almost got it all some ten years ago but for a key interpretation (it is not enough to build a sound mathematical model of the mind). Now I have found out what that key piece is and everything makes sense, in a holistic way, from qualia to hallucinations through sensible or nonsensical mental processes. A very easy way that shows how cognition is a clear emergent property that only requires physical machinery. I hope it won't take too long for people to finally accept that animism only provides misleading names and no explanations.
Joscha Bach, prominent and brilliant cognitive scientist, actually recently said he has come to lean towards an animist perspective, but the spirit/animus is nothing supernatural, it is essentially the "software" governing how matter can and has arranged itself into living things and their associated behaviors on both short term and evolutionary time scales.
That said he has a penchant for trying to make comparisons between religious ideas and high level concepts in current science which I find unnecessary and ill fitting considering the nebulous nature of religious ideas across time, cultures and individuals, as well as the astounding philosophical baggage most religious concepts are carrying around.
The argument that we can't do something because it may violate rules we made ourselves about physics (like energy conservation) isn't a strong one. Not the least of which because we made those rules for the Universe (which the Universe couldn't care less about) using consciousness.
So it's an argument with a parallel common root, and cannot be placed in order nor hierarchy. In sum, it says nothing from one thing to the other; only that they both seem to be common and extant. We all know that "associated with" or "correlated to" is not equivalent of causal.
*It's a solid presentation though. Well organized and coherent.
Well lets hear your laws of nature , your mathematical explanation , when you say violate rules we made , that is not quite true is it ? what you fail to grasp is that from empirical evidence it would appear that conservation laws hold true , now if you can disprove those with empirical evidence great lets see it and we can all move on , we are not making rules for the universe , we are discovering properties about the universe , to say it is not a strong argument is false , it is the strongest position to argue from , the collective knowledge of humanity to date as opposed to your unstated explanation .
The universe doesn't care about the rules we observe it operating by... sure. Your suggestion that we made the rules for the universe rather than deriving them based on empirical evidence is... I'm sorry but stupid is the word to use here. Physics is not some choose your own adventure fantasy like you are pretending it is, sorry.
Our conscious perceptions do not include quantum mechanics or general relativity, for two prominent examples. It required collective effort as a species over the course of millennia to understand these things about the nature of the universe as they are entirely absent from our naive conscious experience of reality. Any reliable evidence that our understanding of how the universe works is wrong or incomplete is exciting news for physicists, not something that is swept under the rug if it violates something like energy conservation.
If the universe doesn't "care" about the laws of physics why would we? What would be the point?
@@jyjjy7 Much of what you said ranges between incorrect and naive, so I wouldn't throw the word "stupid" around as you do. Don't apologize, just don't use it, it makes you look silly.
You understand far less about physics than you think.
Physics is a _MODEL,_ it is NOT the rules for the Universe. Physics is an attempt to create an abstract model which correlates to the actual workings of the Universe, not the Universe itself.
Observations about the Universe are filtered through and interpreted by human consciousness and are not direct observations. Even tools we build are still interpreted this way, and worse we built them using our biases and assumptions. Then we interpret them within that assumptive framework.
We do not, have not, and likely cannot ever observe the Universe directly. Rather, we fold all of this into our past experiences and beliefs through cognitive networks. There is no stand alone "pure" data nor interpretation.
Physics is a MODEL. A model we made, one we constructed. It is our attempt to interperate the Universe and imagine rules that make this easier. We make artificial categories, separations, deliniations and groups. And we say these should apply, but only if we ignore the outliers. Our models are averages of behaviors so categories can be maintained. This is not the Universe, it's a toy model for our convenience.
_The Universe is ONE Thing, with no parts._ It is singular and beyond our human understanding.
As to models, the Universe could care less about them. We've found the Universe violates our models ever since we started making them. We change them, and sometimes scrap them completely for new ones. The Universe doesn't care about our rules.
Yes, the Universe can expand faster than the speed of light, increase in size and energy if it feels like it, and do anything else it damned well pleases. We try (insufficiently) to describe behaviors we see, but we do NOT make the rules for the Universe. Nor does the Universe care for our sophomoric rules. It can do anything it likes at any time. The notion we restrain the Universe and restrict its behavior with our rules, (rules which WE made for our models, and passively observed), is naive and hubristic. And fully incorrect.
Further, even our models apply only to describe things within the Universe, not to the Universe itself. The Universe can do anything it wants at any moment. It does not care about our rules. The very idea that it would is just the height of nonsense.
(Perhaps studying some biology would help you here- and learning about perception and how we process and interoperate information to form cognitive models. Then you will have a better understanding of what our physics models are based on, and why they are twice removed from reality, at best.)
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 That physics is a model and models are not the thing is trivially true. That's basic epistemology, not some secret knowledge you've discovered that should make us call into questions things like conservation of energy. The model is based upon conscious observations, of course, because phenomena we can observe is what we actually care about, not random fantasy like processes that violate conservation of energy which have never been observed.
Sean specializes in foundational theoretical physics and as such he is more aware of all of this than either of us. You want to insist he entertain things inconsistent to his expert understanding of how the universe behaves because you are confused about the actual implications of something that impressed you too much when you were philosophy 101 and makes you think physicists don't really know what they are doing.
Physics is a model, yes, but no, it is not a toy. Are nuclear bombs toys? Are satellites? Is the computing device you wrote all that on just a toy? That you live in a modern technological society and consider our understanding of how the universe works something even physicists themselves should consider unreliable when attempting to educate the public is ridiculous.
@@jyjjy7 You're confusing "reality" with a model, and vice-versa. It's not a trivial issue, which seems to be the basis for your (and indeed many actual physicists) confusion. I would recommend you take some time and work through the comments I posted above, until you actually understand what I wrote (which you have shown you do not). Give it a good think, perhaps for a number of years. It's intricate and advanced, certainly the leading edge of physical philosophy, so you shouldn't expect you can just skim through and understand the deep underpinnings and implications of it.
As to the models, they are known to be wrong. Yes, energy conservation can be violated (and likely is). The Universe is getting larger, but contains the same energy per unit of space as when it was smaller. That's the idea behind the cosmological constant (λ) and dark energy- two things we came up with (rather recently) because our fundamental descriptions of the models do not reflect reality. (ie. they're wrong and we know it for even the strictly physical objects we already know of).
So no, there is no fundamental law which the Universe must obey. And no, building a model does not necessarily reflect reality in any meaningful way. As long as models are kept small they can be wildly off. And considering our models are based on the 5% of the matter and energy we think we know about, and 95% of energy and matter we have never observed or verified to exist... Then even that limited 5% model is woefully inept at anything but local scales in time and space. Of which we don't even know what "space" is or what "time" is.
So 5% of the physical stuffs is even included in the model, and that's only the stuffs we _believe_ we know about. All of these could be false interpretations of a simpler yet more expansive reality.
And no, the biological instrument is not trivial, nor can it be ignored. I would recommend you study a bit of neuroscience here, specifically how senses actually work and generate experiences. Absolutely nothing you think you experience directly interfaces with you or your brain. These are are constructed from digital binary "on/off" conditions which are fully walled off from the "outside world" or common base reality (if there is one). These are generated experiences that do not exist outside your personal processor; it's all in your head. The "reality" inside and outside your head is known to be vastly different, and heavily edited and curated. (So even if that model was based on "reality", it would be strikingly foundationally different.)
What you would _LIKE_ to dismiss as "philosophy 101" is a combination of years of cognitive sciences and theoretical physics combined. I don't expect you (or anyone) to have that background. But since someone that does has directed you to a few highlighted specific areas within these areas of study, you now have a possibility for understanding what I wrote. You need both pieces to understand what I've said, an intuitive understanding of how the brain works and produces your reality, and the theoretical physics which these models are based and interpreted. If you don't understand the lens, you cannot reconstruct an accurate view of "reality" from its image.
And all of this only deals with what we have termed "physical" objects, which may just be one small subset among many others. Concepts of which do not even exist in the human psyche, so cannot be observed, experienced, or studied until a schema for them is established. Nothing outside of current scope of consciousness can even be globally biologically or physically processed, let alone you being made aware of it consciously by your brain (or mind).
Information scapes are the new frontier in physics. That necessarily converges with information processing. The idea you can take a model based on the latter and project it forward to encompass the former.... And then expect the former to comply with the latter.... Is utter nonsense.
Physics models do _NOT_ tell the Universe what to do, nor does the Universe need to follow them. The Informational Universe does as it pleases, when it pleases.
Knowledge is only valuable, when it produces a product of value.
I enjoyed this. Thank you!
A fine example of Socratic Method response to assertion and debate via Disproof Methodology, Metaphysical Philosophy in constructive discussion. (Students should retaliate in kind and mutual respect)
Thank you for this discussion.
Is there any plan to speak with Bernardo Kastrup on Analytical Idealism?
Would love to see that discussion
Dr. Carroll emphasizes that Core Theory is focused on prediction rather than ontology and then goes on to dismiss "mental aspects of reality" as irrelevant since they don't change the predictions. That's fair if assuming the same playing field, but aren't mental approach arguments largely aimed at ontology rather than prediction? Seems a categorical error.
Mental aspects of reality? As in drug use and psychiatric conditions? Those belong to the field of clinical psychology, not the field of physics. ;-)
What's the point of an ontology disconnected from our understanding of the physical? What is it an ontology of in that case?
Um,... isn't consciousness part of every day life?
Obviously, so it cannot be resultant from yet to be discovered physics. That's the point.
Religion makes me feel weak and insignificant.
Science makes me feel weak and insignificant.
Maybe I am weak and insignificant.
That's why they tell you to pay better attention in school. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477
You're right.
I could have gone to university instead of working at 16
@@tedgrant2 I was working while I was at university. NEXT! :-)
@@schmetterling4477
Then the company told me I had to go to college one day per week.
More exams !
@@tedgrant2 I was working five days a week and studying seven days a week. I win. ;-)
I've never seen the hard problem of consciousness flipped on its head like this. The hard problem basically says that there is no description available, or even one that would be possible to come up with, which would describe how matter gives rise to subjective experience. Dr. Carroll is saying that there is zero way one could describe consciousness influencing the behavior of physical particles. That's a brilliant way to put it. So I agree - physicalism and consciousness are mutually exclusive at this point. Either everything is physical stuff OR it's consciousness, weird as that may sound. Here's the problem with physicalism - I am 100% sure that consciousness exists. I know this without the possibility of error. Consciousness exists is THE most fundamental fact from the point of an observer. I do not, however, experience the physical world in any direct way outside of consciousness. No one ever has or can. So if we have to choose between "it's all physical stuff" and "it's all consciousness" I'm going with the later but I'm sure one of those two things definitely exists.
So what is consciousness?
😊
If one goes far enough one might even assume that you exist in Matrix and either there is a more "real" you somewhere "outside" or you're only part of the simulation.
What I don't like about this, that it seems to be an easy way to solipsism:
how would you react? if I visited and insulted you in a painful way then I claimed that you are only a figment of the simulation (an AGI) pretending to be a person...
Try to describe whatever you feel/think consciousness is.
There's almost a certainty that a person clever enough will demonstrate that the content of your "analysis" can be traced back either to previous experiences of the inner (your body) or outer world or to the innate structure and function of the brain.
Have you ever thought about the following?
The hard problem simply leverages the fact that the brain is complex enough to be able to reflect the complexity of the world to such an extent that it leads to a UNIQUE configuration of stored information and of capabilities to process that information.
This uniqueness is what manifests as the most subjective part of your experiences. Even if science demonstrates how to artificially stimulate the brain to "see/feel" REDNESS without manipulating the VISUAL cortex, the resulting experience of the individuals will differ depending on the particular configuration of their brains.
But let's play with this thought: if such an apparatus is developed that can not only stimulate specific parts but also block some of the others, then presumably the resulting experience in the subjects would be more similar.
Scientists can already stimulate the brain of genetically modified rats in such highly specific manner which would be experienced in humans as vivid realistic hallucinations of past experiences:
even though the animals were placed into a rather frustrating environment, they believed (inferred from their behaviour) that they were placed into a comfortable place full of food.
When exactly does Caroll say (in this video) that there is "zero way one could describe consciousness influencing the behaviour of physical particles"?
Do I understand correctly, that you think he specifically denied (in this video) any possibility how consciousness would affect the particles?
What does "outside of consciousness" mean?
How conscious are you during sleep?
How conscious are you of your liver?
Maybe we could just remove it surgically while you are unconscious under anesthesia.
Perhaps it's an unnecessary organ since you aren't even registering it consciously 😊 and what's more you don't seem to be able to consciously influence it which means by your logic that it doesn't even really exist, so you should happily exist without this liver thing.
Are you sure that you would undertake such an experiment?
The biggest elephant in the room:
what's the difference between experiences and consciousness?
54:02 "Cause and effect doesn't exist at the fundamental level..."
The core equation is invariant no matter the time direction. If you take a system and run it backwards, what were "causes" become "effects", and what were "effects" become "causes". "cause" and "effect" only come into play as concepts when there is a macroscopic arrow of time (due to entropy increasing).
The body has no life of itself. Thought has no life of itself. By themselves, they are inert. They are activated by life. Life is the only Being. What is life? What is consciousness? When activated by life, thought creates the idea "I", a simulacrum of Being.
Because thought is limited, the simulacrum, the representation, is limited, insufficient. Consciousness, which is life, cannot be measured - it is infinite, unknowable. Because life is infinite, the simulacrum, by reflection, wants to be complete too. So, it goes after power, position, fortune, and all the rest of it, never reaching completeness. In this ambition, it creates division, competition, wars and destruction. In this movement of becoming, the simulacrum has continuity, with all its miseries.
Do I depend on thought to be alive and conscious? Who or what am I? Can I measure who or what I am? With which instrument?
Am I not the unknowable, the infinite, the timeless?
We cannot ignore the fact that we came up with these rules of the Universe (physics models) using consciousness in the first place. So as a scientist, i must point out that you have failed to separate the variables; dependant and independent. And then using a commingled base, built a sequential argument on top. But which does it truly sit on?
Brilliant. Thank you Sean
"The Powers of Lambda Suppress You!" @33:24
I would never sign a contract written by Sean Carroll.
I am a Sean Carollian
7:15 _"We have reasons to believe that if there are unknown fields... they have nothing to do with ... the everyday world."_ Sure, but a debugging argument looks for the hidden holes our brains like to skip over. For example, is our Faraday-inspired concept of _fields_ fundamental? Or deeper still: Is the astonishingly complex set of asymptotically precise behaviors we call xyzt spacetime fundamental? These are the Goldilocks conditions for which our neural circuitry is optimized, making them comfortable and beyond debate. However, as with hobbits, there are risks in assuming that the comfortable middle-earth of classical physics engenders _no_ testable implications from a richer world of non-xyzt behaviors that surround it at both ends.
Spacetime, even at the human level, is rattier than we assume. For example, there's that annoying inverse-units equivalence in special relativity, in which a system _must_ experience identical physics if you _multiply_ its length and time units by R when moving in one direction and _divide_ them by R when moving in the opposite direction. Even within classical domains, the simplicity of xyzt measures emerges only _after_ completing a back-and-forth loop between observer and observed.
Saying there can be no new fields is rock solid. However, if classical maths cannot even see the necessity of back-and-forth loops even for classical clocks and rulers, can they assure us the broader universe cannot impact our middle-earth physics in ways we have yet to learn to yet recognize?
Anyone else wonder if the Big Bang occurred when/because the Higgs field came into existence?
No, I don't because it didn't. ;-)
55:55 40% of cal tech participants said consciousness is BEYOND science 😢
There could be another dimension after death.
Great talk. But at 58 minutes in Sean completely dodges on the Hard Problem, saying it will be “dissolved” by continuing progress on neural correlates of conscious experience. But the HP was proposed by Chalmers precisely to distinguish it from the ‘easy’ problems of neural correlates. Given physicalism, increased knowledge of neural correlations does not bridge the explanatory gap between unconscious physical processes eg physiology and subjectivity!
It appears you did not think about what Carroll said. Claiming there will remain a "gap" is what he is saying will not be the case. If you fully understand how neuronal firing patterns create the experience of red then at the same time you look at red you would clearly know that there is no hard problem about the process. It would only remain subjective in the sense that they are (to what ever degree) specific to one brain, namely your own.
More importantly perhaps, the advocates of a permanent hard problem can never (I would say even in principle) produce a candidate "answer," or even describe what it would be like in tentative terms. The full physicalist explanation would include neuron storage of past experiences of red, red's relation to similar storage of other colors, activity of those, and add to this all of the neuronal electro-chemical firings of the moment that constitute the particular experience of red. There is no gap left in anything at that point.
@@Ofinfinitejest I promise you I have thought about what he said. You are partially correct when you state that advocates of the HP (wouldn't call it a 'permanent' HP) suggest that the physicalist picture can never, in principle, produce a candidate answer. This is meant to pump our intuition that the physicalist picture is not, and in principle cannot be, a complete picture of reality. If you're familiar with Mary the color vision neuroscientist (briefly, she has a theoretically complete, exhaustive physical understanding of the physics and neurophysiology of color vision but has spent her life in a black & white environment) when she enters the world and sees red for the first time, she absolutely does acquire new knowledge. Carroll disagrees (see his podcast with Philip Goff).
Nowhere in the physicalist picture of brains, broken down into its constituents (e.g. quarks, electrons, photons) is there consciousness. Nor is consciousness of any kind a product of them. Given physicalism, there are merely "atoms and the void". Consciousness does not reduce to physicalist components. Conscious experiences are real. Physicalism does not conserve the data that there exists conscious experience. Therefore physicalism is not complete.
Well, for physicalists there are ONLY neural correlates, as prof Carroll explained for almost an hour, showing that it would be truly hard to find/prove something else relevant beyond that. He didn’t dodge anything, he did not outrule different possibilities, he just said prove it to us with the same or better strength of physicalists’ arguments. Chalmers HP doesn’t really exist unless you first PROVE there’s something beyond physicality, correlations etc., as he posed it it’s just an antropocentric way of gaining attention, and he’s like a neanderthal complaining with a sapiens to explain the sun in the sky based on stone technology. The neanderthal will slowly get extinct, the sapiens will keep the leather jacket and look as the really cool guy for generations to follow.
The Hard Problem requires explaining the "inner" mental experience of (some) brain activities, because we know by introspection that we do mentally experience. (Some philosophers would say that's the ONLY fact one can know with absolute certainty: cogito ergo sum.) But the Hard Problem does NOT also require explaining how consciousness affects the brain, since there's no compelling reason to believe consciousness affects the brain. In other words, consciousness might be a helpless passenger... an "audience" compelled to mentally experience feelings & thoughts but not the source of any thoughts or decisions. The illusory appearance that consciousness is the source of thinking & deciding is to be expected even if consciousness is a helpless passive experiencer of the brain's thinking & deciding.
That's an alternative that Sean Carroll overlooked when he defined Substance Dualism. His definition involves "interaction" between mind & brain. In a broader definition, the action might be only one way: the brain affects the non-physical mind but the mind doesn't affect the brain.
Sean said consciousness is "irrelevant" if it can't affect the brain. That seems a narrow-minded opinion about what's important. If consciousness is non-physical, then it could outlive the brain, and it might have properties that become all-important after the brain dies. This would be irrelevant to Sean's professional life as a physicist, but it could be highly relevant to the meaning of life.
That said, if I had to bet, I would bet on Physicalism -- consciousness is just an emergent property that doesn't outlive the brain -- because Physics works so well for everything else. (I guess this is inductive reasoning.) However, betting on whether the Emergence solution to the Hard Problem will someday be discovered would be a separate bet, with lower odds of winning.
Exactly! I was wondering if anyone had noticed that he evaded the true HP. The Hard Problem is not about explaining correlations of brain states and experience, is is about explaining how subjective experience comes about, how qualia comes about. So although Sean Carrol made an awesome presentation and I loved his points, he completely missed the point of the Hard Problem
There is a very easy logical proof that rules out esoteric models, which I devised when I was 13 and didn't know yet how to state accurately. My modern version uses two definitions:
• D1: The physical (or material) world spans everything that acts and interacts according to a known or unknown given set of natural laws.
• D2: The supernatural world spans everything that can force something physical to act against some natural law.
Given that D1 defines a closed system which excludes D2 and any influence therefrom, the latter can only be an empty collection lest contradiction (something material both following and acting against some natural law) arises.
Why are you telling us that you didn't pay attention in school? We don't care. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Oh, but I was. I wrote the above (with many more words and less accurately) in an essay while the teacher walked about us. Class was Religion. Essay: the Divine Order.
I guess the teacher never read what I wrote (I suspect they just measure how much students write, then attribute marks).
@@wafikiri_All of religion is a trivial Nigerian Prince scam. Anybody who pays attention in school knows that. QED. ;-)
You know, I'm hearing a lot of talk about how "we" don't have a theory of how consciousness and physics work together. Neither party in this conversation is in a position to know that. I have such a theory, and I put it out there decades ago. There are at least half a dozen papers about it in peer-reviewed academic journals. For what it's worth, I'm reputed in some circles to be "the smartest man in the world", and was featured on every major television network west of Asia back near the turn of the millennium. I came up with the first application of the Simulation Hypothesis back in 1989 (way before Bostrom got hold of it). Since then, I've been cancelled by Academia Inc.; if you want to know why, you'd have to ask it, and it wouldn't have a coherent answer for you. Trust me, fellows - if you're living in the ivory tower, you probably don't know rat crap from rice krispies in this field, and I say that with all due respect. Have a nice day.
You need to stop drinking. ;-)
Chris, stop confusing simple deterministic dynamics for consciousness and then using that to reinvent God and maybe you'll be taken seriously. If you are the smartest man in the world you should be able to notice your theories are in service of their conclusion and as such ill motivated from a scientific perspectives which are unimpressed by the semantic games you (and others) play to shove consciousness and religion into fundamental physics.
Obviously Sean isn’t doing experiments on conscious matter … it is presumptuous to think it behaves as experiments on dead matter. How recent was it that we discovered the odd behavior in the double slit and Stern-Gerlach experiments? Who previously predicted that behavior? Consciousness exists!
He literally lists environment-dependent couplings as a possible loophole at 46:49. Now you're saying there is/are force(s) that only acts on living things. That is an easy claim to make, but a very hard one to quantify.
Arrest this criminal Sean Carroll.
Give me justice.
Lol. What would be the reason 🤔
Lee Edward Johnson Scott Robinson Michelle
The religious are so desperate to hang onto the idea of a _soul_ . I can only encourage physicists to not entertain them with empty vagaries.
as if sean carroll knows anything about quantum field theory.
As a "physicalist" he naturally believes any new aspect of consciousness should only be discoverable as a new field or new particle and while not dismissing the possibility can quite reasonably conclude they are irrelevant! All ignoring the reality of spirituality or even just the origin of information which any non-physicalist knows it is not an emergent property of matter. He actually acknowledges as much in the earlier topics describing the collapse of the wave function by "knowing" or "measuring" implying a non material "mind" is both fundamental and required.
It’s simple. Any concept of consciousness that has a foundation in the non-physical would contradict all that we know of reality (and we know a lot). There is zero good evidence for consciousness existing outside the material world we live in.
And yet he lays out the theory that describes all we are and know of perfectly fine and gives you an option of showing where are the magical new vectors that give rise to consciousness/soul. You can't. So I'll hitch my wagon to reality, you are free to believe in whatever fairytales you want.
@@hahtos What we know from quantum mechanics about the real nature of particles is correct but it is his broader conclusion of physicalism (materialism) goes well beyond this. While offering some alternatives he is rejecting the very thing quantum mechanics tells us that a non-physical mind is necessary to collapse the wave function and produce locality of all the particles (atoms) we experience as solid. He also rejects information as having *meaning* because it cannot be expressed mathematically and so defaults to emergence which actually requires any meaningless gibberish to contain more information that a book in English! You people are not thinking critically enough what is being claimed.
I think there is a confusion about what he meant by "observed" in collapse of the wave function. This generally means the wave state has interacted with any other thing. That thing can be a particle, not a conscious one even.
It seems also he did address the physical interactions with any non-physical, as the physical does change consciousness (ie. You can have a lesion in an area of the brain which will cause predictable changes to conscious experience and brain function, both.
But i agree there seems to be something lacking in his exclusionary arguments. They don't seem as solid as they initially sound when stated quickly.
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 _"This generally means the wave state has interacted with any other thing. That thing can be a particle, not a conscious one even."_ So what collapsed the wave state of the thing or particle? Ends up in an infinite regression which can only stop at a non-physical entity.
The closest the naturalist gets is *it from bit* except information is not measured in bits.
The admission that physics runs into incomprehensible infinites everywhere we look only confirms the biblical prediction:
_"and he has put eternity in the mind of man so he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end"_ Eccl 3:11
Nice story bro
Please stop "confirming" anything just to cater your personal bias and ideology.
You are of course free to lie to yourself as much as you want, just don't post it as an enlightened truth. That's just your opinion.
@@hahtos Yea the bible is amazing..
@@lsdap1969 And you think Carroll's hypothetical _"many worlds"_ is not _"just opinion"_ *!*
@@lsdap1969 You think Carroll's *physicalism* is not the ideology of *materialism* which under the guise of *naturalism* is just *atheism!* A religious belief!
Scientists are so funny, consciousness obviously is not an emergent property, Literally all the ancient civilizations also agreed on this point that consciousness did not emerge from the universe but the universe emerged from consciousness or a conscious process For they understood a very simple fact that you can't get something from nothing meaning that there must be consciousness out there in Space for us to have consciousness. Like duh it's pretty simple, every element inside of man must have some root element in Space.
This was really put together and helped me understand possible reasons for why the c-word may be just a label which I already suspected. If the arguments presented here are right, and I think they are, consciousness will go down in history as another one of the vague filler words for things we didn't understand like "vital essence" and "alchemical transmutation."
The key point to emphasise is that we do understand many facets of consciousness / our sense of self, we can relate them to physical phenomena (induce out of body experiences by prodding different parts of the brain, see how people lose things like memory or their own sense of identity through brain trauma).
We can even see individuals who completely lack certain things we associate with consciousnesses such as the ability to feel fear, we can point very precisely to brain regions are and note a lack of activity.
So any concept of consciousness is one that ‘has’ to interact with the physical phenomena.
We can’t simply hand wave and say “well this is a different layer of reality altogether”. Given how many close ties to known physical phenomena there are.
. NEURO-FEEDBACK IS A WELL UNDERSTOOD SCIENCE NOW.
Not only can you objectively prove you have a brain, (WhooPee!!!)
you can use neuro-feedback techniques to improve its functioning.
This can be a great tool of science/medicine for folks with certain syndromes.