Physics Can't Solve the Measuring Problem: Wolfgang Smith
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ค. 2024
- If you want to support this podcast, please visit Jack’s Patreon @ / askinganything
Discord: / discord
Twitter / askingwithjack
Reddit / askinganything
0:00 Welcome Wolfgang Smith and Brian Murphy
5:12 Wolfgang, do you have any thoughts about the topic of consciousness?
11:27 Jack interrupts Wolfgang asking what happened at age 14 that made him an opponent of the current Weltanschauung
14:56 Wolfgang briefly touches upon the relation between classical physics and quantum physics
16:04 Going deeper into why an atomized worldview is not only untenable, but mathematically impossible
24:41 Why horizontal causation cannot account for Complex Specified Information
28:03 The scientific worldview is ideology-driven according to Wolfgang
29:21 Brian asks Wolfgang to elaborate on where he picked up on Heisenberg and how he got to his resolution to the measurement problem
33:53 The ontological distinction between a physical and a corporeal entity, and how that relates to the measurement problem
39:07 Why Being cannot be explained in terms of sums of parts, and the difference between quantities and qualities
43:27 What Wolfgang would like to convey to university students
50:21 Measurement gives Being to particles-which otherwise would be mere potentiae-and the causality you need in order to measure a quantum system cannot take place in time
1:00:18 Where does vertical causality come from?
1:07:43 The tripartite cosmos: the aeviternal (subject to neither time nor space), the intermediary (subject to time, but not space), the corporeal (subject to both time and space)
1:14:29 Wolfgang goes into some depth discussing James’ Gibson paper claiming we see reality ‘as it is’, and why the binding-problem cannot be solved on the corporeal level
1:27:44 Why Wolfgang isn’t familiar with most contemporary thinkers
1:33:42 Why the concept of bifurcation as coined by Alfred Whitehead is ultimately untenable
1:41:35 If Heisenberg-who was the most enlightened, metaphysically-had contemplated non-bifurcation more deeply, he would’ve resolved the leading problems in physics
1:45:15 Audience question by Bad_Mofo: What does Dr. Smith think of Alexander Unzicker’s variable light speed theory (originally from Einstein)?
1:52:19 Audience statement by Couldbeme: Many of the comments Dr. Smith has made, and his attention to Plato, seems to align with ideas we hear from John Vervaeke
1:53:37 Afterwords. Thank you Wolfgang and Brian, and good night. - บันเทิง
0:00 Welcome Wolfgang Smith and Brian Murphy
5:12 Wolfgang, do you have any thoughts about the topic of consciousness?
11:27 Jack interrupts Wolfgang asking what happened at age 14 that made him an opponent of the current Weltanschauung
14:56 Wolfgang briefly touches upon the relation between classical physics and quantum physics
16:04 Going deeper into why an atomized worldview is not only untenable, but mathematically impossible
24:41 Why horizontal causation cannot account for Complex Specified Information
28:03 The scientific worldview is ideology-driven according to Wolfgang
29:21 Brian asks Wolfgang to elaborate on where he picked up on Heisenberg and how he got to his resolution to the measurement problem
33:53 The ontological distinction between a physical and a corporeal entity, and how that relates to the measurement problem
39:07 Why Being cannot be explained in terms of sums of parts, and the difference between quantities and qualities
43:27 What Wolfgang would like to convey to university students
50:21 Measurement gives Being to particles-which otherwise would be mere potentiae-and the causality you need in order to measure a quantum system cannot take place in time
1:00:18 Where does vertical causality come from?
1:07:43 The tripartite cosmos: the aeviternal (subject to neither time nor space), the intermediary (subject to time, but not space), the corporeal (subject to both time and space)
1:14:29 Wolfgang goes into some depth discussing James’ Gibson paper claiming we see reality ‘as it is’, and why the binding-problem cannot be solved on the corporeal level
1:27:44 Why Wolfgang isn’t familiar with most contemporary thinkers
1:33:42 Why the concept of bifurcation as coined by Alfred Whitehead is ultimately untenable
1:41:35 If Heisenberg-who was the most enlightened, metaphysically-had contemplated non-bifurcation more deeply, he would’ve resolved the leading problems in physics
1:45:15 Audience question by Bad_Mofo: What does Dr. Smith think of Alexander Unzicker’s variable light speed theory (originally from Einstein)?
1:52:19 Audience statement by Couldbeme: Many of the comments Dr. Smith has made, and his attention to Plato, seems to align with ideas we hear from John Vervaeke
1:53:37 Afterwords. Thank you Wolfgang and Brian, and good night.
We Are encompassed with Trilogies, and one should be aware the true Omnipotence Of Pyramids (as obvious from open attitudes about human history) to the collection of trilogies eventually recognised as a Cone!? “All is One”!?
Thanks for your “hearted,” symbolic response. Should you wish to respond is a more elaborated fashion I would be interested.
Another error humans make in their hubris is the false assumption that our senses present to our minds reality as it is. This is demonstrably false since we know other animals possess an ability to perceive far more of the spectrum through their senses.
Human sense perception does NOT scoop up images of reality as it is but rather filters reality to where what is delivered to the mind is little more than the, “Cliff Notes,” version sufficient for survival and yes, enjoyment, of reality but not total command. ALL our measuring gizmos are only extensions of that which we expect to find. This is the true meaning of the symbol of the, Ouroboros.
Add to this conundrum that that which we gather through our senses is further filtered - or arranged into patterns - by an analysis which is itself an extension of our World View. Our epistemology is determined by our philosophy of science rather than our science being derived from our empirical observation. How many formal explanations of Quantum theory are there which all have their own internal symbolic consistency?
If you’d like a heuristic suggestion about what is the fundamental nature of reality one must look at the possibility that it consists of pure organizing information combined with the chaotic substance of ubiquitous plasma.
Time is NOT measured by entropy but rather teleology which is, if you will, negative entropy; and this (as the ancients intuited) necessitates a mind to bring order out of the chaos. The, “waters,” over which, “The spirit of God,” passed over in Genesis is a metaphor for unorganized electrical plasma. Once one gets this, many cosmological paradoxes are resolved. This fundamental and ontological substance of reality is also referred to as, “Logos.”
Psychologically, we are in a closed and limited space by nature completely unable to directly perceive the workings of the ontological substance except through religious metaphor. And I can prove this by one simple observation: We’re still here; i.e., if we could grasp the dynamics of ontological reality we would manipulate it. Further, humans have the sad history of weaponizing that which we’ve learned to manipulate. Having this ability, we would have wiped ourselves our millennia ago. This absolute boundary limitation to our perception is our saving grace, or at least the means by which we are given all the time necessary to come back to the realization of our intended position WITHIN reality.
Perhaps this is the take-away from the stories of Atlantas. Whether historic or mythological is besides the point. Plato certainly took the former position. Given the true nature of the human experience, I’m not sure the question is entirely relevant.
PS. I am not an adherent to Whitehead’s philosophy which as been commonly termed by philosophers and theologians as, “Process Theory.”
PPS. “The gods are jealous of us BECAUSE we’re mortal.” - Achilles, Homer’s Iliad -
This is exactly my life's question. I studied physics (bachelor) and a minor in philosophy of science. But sort of dropped out of the scientific world because I couldn't reconcile the deterministic materialism with my personal experience of the world. Not even through quantum mechanics. I feel there is something profoundly disconnected from physics as it currently stands.
Physicalism leads to nihilism
Read Kant,(along with Allison, section by section) he was right but for some reason, no intellectual will mention his name, he gets avoided as if everyone has an allergy. I haven' heard this interview but have listened to others.
Wolfgang Smith is a Gift! What a brillant Mind. Awesome 👏👍😊
What Prof Smith states seems to agree with what is written in the Bible - "What is seen is made from that which is unseen."
Delightful, Wolfgang. Love that you begin with what is “not real” and proceed to particles. The physicist becomes creator when he observes the wave function, discovering the “particle”.
Good grief. A well-informed scientist talking sense. Life is full of surprises.
As an artist, I have long experienced that seeing is a gradual process. If it was only retinal info, this would not happen. It isn’t a logical sequence- is a puzzlement. It is upper level perception.
Thanks a lot Jack 😄 and guests for this sharing. I do hope your channel grows and prospers as the many need to hear from minds, like the ones you share here. I do wonder how a conversation between Wolfgang and Bernado Kastrup would evolve...lol Cheers from a retired soldier down under.
Another good video, your others have been great as well
Thanks Jack!
What a fantastic discussion! I absolutely love it.
I would like to put a practical question on Professor Wolfgang Smith, in order to understand his distinction between physical and corporeal object, SX and S;:
Let's suppose one kilogram of a radioactive material, let's say Radium. This kg of Radium is obviously corporeal, and is emitting radioactivity, as quantum particles. Which are exactly corporeal entities and quantum entities in this very specific case? I understand that this kilogram of Radium is corporeal, and at the same time is emitting subatomic particles, that are affecting cells of surrounding organisms producing real effects like DNA mutations for example....I would like to know how these components and interactions are explained inside Wolfgang's frame of concepts....what is S, what is SX in this case, what is corporeal entity and which are quantum ones... at which especific moment vertical causation enters the picture to force a SX physical particle, to became S particle on corporeal world with real effects, like cited DNA mutations.... I think this would be very clarifier for a practical understanding on interaction process between the physical and the corporeal realms...
If you have a Facebook profile send me the link and I'll invite you to the community page so you can write down your question there.
Send me the link
I truly resonate with Wolfgang's Weltanschauung😊. Very good conversation, very needed. Thank You❤.
This wonderful discussion is why I’m a phenomenologist. We start with what we know is real, not some invisible subatomic billiard balls. Emmanuel Levinas and the European phenomenologists also agree with Gibson though, that we are perceiving an external reality. Anyway, thanks so much for this.
Thank you 👏👍
Yes! The time will come, and the time is NOW!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
This explains why I have trouble explaining how I design and program for AI when it comes to the AI perception logic ( known vs inknown ) in relation to sensorium integration model instincts to recognition testing interactions . An example being an AI incapable of differentiating between a vidio real time input camera view of a photograph of a thing and a thing sitting next to the photograph resultin a listing the environment objects as available equally interactable with a test apparatus as pretest going to return the same result information .
His ‘vertical causality’ sounds like it’s the Aristotelian proof of motion from potentiality to actuality which must necessarily begin with something that is pure actuality. St Thomas uses this as one of his proofs for god. I’m confused why Dr Smith talks of this as a new discovery and fails to mention Aristotle or St Thomas regarding it.
What wonderful selection of great thinkers and truth seekers. It feels like despite their differences they contribute to the panorama of the truth. Great steering job of asking questions. I myself, would have love to witness a conversation between Wofgang and Hoffman... :)
I believe that we can create a hydrodynamic model of superfluid dielectric space with gravity as prime mover.
gravity causes flows and flows in a dielectric fluid create charge separation.
charge is an artifact of gravity.
I think the brain is part of our sensory organs. This can be most obviously seen with the eye where the so called "nerve" to the brain is in reality just the brain itself. Now if you confuse the senses very hard (imagine a very loud place, with constant flashing lights, bad smells etc) this can have effects on your ability to think and even make you angry. If the brain gets somehow damaged and this leads to a "personality change" what really has happened is that you can't think clearly anymore and that makes you angry etc.
Do the low chance of CSI consider the great volume of planets in the universe and the great lengths of time in which natural processes could create CSI?
This is very interesting. I think the professor would be interested to know that a specific neoplatonic model fits better for this system he is explaining than a purely platonic one. I'd like to reach him and let him know.
It would be odd if he doesn't already know this - but perhaps not. .
So is it a secret?
If you leave out Spirit you will find out nothing.
Amazing interview! But I don't know what Veldenschom? Feldenschon? translates to or even how to spell it
“Weltanschauung”, German for worldview.
@@AskingAnything 😁 Thank you!!
Many of you would've heard about the famous cricketer Sachin Tendulkar. Well, his first name is actually a colloquial short form of Sachchidananda - Sat, chit, ananda, i.e., being, consciousness and bliss.
I repeat ;Wow😮.
I would pose a question to Herr Smith: He speaks of Quantum particles as, “potencies,” however, this idea seems to give some form of existence to them where in fact they are mathematical abstractions. They are metaphors for something ontological - perhaps good ones since we can apply these mathematical relationships to engineering problems - but that does not raise them above little more than psychological constructs.
Question then would be: Since you recognize the distinction between a map and the actual landscape, recognizing the fact that quantum particles are merely the product of mathematical modeling, why do you speak of them as having ontological reality?
The point behind my question is this: The intellectual bifurcation of reality along the lines of DeCarte, or long before him, by Hermes Trisgemistus by asserting, “As above, so below,” which implies duality, is inescapable due to the fact ALL our perceptions of reality are themselves dual in nature. (Hot/cold; light/dark; being/non-being; I/other; etc. You know the drill.)
This being the self-evident case, the problem is not with, bifurcation per se, but in what domain it is applied. Put another way, which domain is most fundamental and irreducible and where is the proper boundary? I would set up the bifurcation as follows:
We have to first start with at least one axiom or a-priori assertion, and mine would be this: There is, out there, an ontological reality which exists apart from how we think about it. Without an agreement on this there is no point in reading further since solipsism is the ultimate conversation ender .
My second quite simple and equally self-evident axiom is that we humans perceive this ontological reality, out there, somewhere, “in here, i.e., our local individual person,” through our sense experience with it to the extent we can think about it, talk to each other about it and formulate theories about what it is. Without starting with our physical experience with reality there can be no intellectual speculation about reality. I believe these two assumptions are fairly above much dispute.
The bifurcation of our experience with reality is not in the experience itself, which in Eastern thought is simply referred to as, “being.” One level of separation occurs when we attempt to describe this experience of, “being,” to others through the use of language, be that a common grammatical language and its hopelessly ambiguous yet ever expanding lexicon of philosophical jargon, the arts, or some other formal symbolic language such as mathematics.
Though Whitehead and Russel placed great hope in mathematics being the pavement over which we could travel to clear perception and communication of reality, to date there is still no formal system of mathematics that does not succumb to ambiguities and the production of paradoxes; nor has Godel’s incompleteness theorems been overcome.
The sorts of monism whether they derive from Western idealism or Eastern mysticism are jolly fine abstractions and one, such as myself, may hope are also super-realities. The issue here is that since theories regarding, “The Oneness,” are by nature and necessity untestable, unmeasurable and non-falsifiable by any method bound to a binary perception of reality, they simply cannot be reduced any further than poetic metaphor, theatre, music or the raw emotion of the moment; and any attempt to do so ends up in a sort of unintelligible glossolalia intended perhaps for angels.
Getting back to my original point: It is therefore not bifurcation that is the problem. It is the failure to recognize that bifurcation is the absolute limit to our ability to codify reality and that there exists an unbridgeable gulf by necessity between our ability to directly comprehend a reality consisting of a singular substance operating from a singular principle.
Bifurcation only is a problem when it is misplaced. When we reach the point of a humble recognition or our innate limitations that of being mortal creatures who see through the lens of five (use any number here you with, makes to difference) senses and declare the Hellenistic Classical homocentric project (or as I like to call it, “The post-Axial critique of the Bronze Age”) a failure we will never experience life as we might.
The answer to intellectual bifurcation is to hope and act to the point of faith that there are things we will never know because we cannot and that there is in fact a benevolent Creator that is knowable and has things in hand…that and also hope we can get the Gnostics to come along with us.
A vital linkage for pursuers Of “Non Domino Teaching”. Those seeking the difference between the “sheep,the shepherd” his dog, and learning why the dog obeys the whistle!?
finally after a lifetime of head bashing.....i encounter the 'tidings of great joy'...
It’s a quantum pulse.
At 1 hour 24 minutes: light experiences no motion. Time is motion of objects moving relative to each other. If no relative motion occurs, no time can be measured.
my 2 minute video: "the physical reason time slows at the speed of light".
It's so simple!
beautifull...
*E = M x C x C*
Can anyone explain what is a square second ?
Whut ?
the mistake the scientificist makes is called "mistaking the map for the territory" with regards to taking physics description of reality as reality itself, this is the error
One can't mistake energy for a description of reality. Energy can do work (that's why you have to pay for it) and it can also kill you, which is why physicists are taking extraordinary precautions against being exposed to it (e.g. in form of high voltage or electricity). At the end of the day all you are really saying is that you don't know what physics is. ;-)
Sum of parts: is it statistically a product of part states?
...obviously some combinations, like two gears, result in repeating states.
When a student in physics I asked the lecturer what is the colour of the electron and do all electrons have the same colour? He loughed and said that colour of an electron is a silly concept. Now that I am old enough I know that a true honest physicist does not see colour in anything or music or taste or smell. The reason is that according to Dr. Roger Penrose consciousness is not computational. In fact a physicist does not comprehend how we see let alone see colours. We cannot build an AI machine that can see or hear because it cannot be conscious. Any AI will never be aware of its environment. Everything that an AI gets from the environment stays in its circuitry as electrical digital units and what its programs tell it. Beings of consciousness see everything outside the boundaries of their body. Not only we see the objects outside our body but the real object is where we see it to be. We do not have a "soul" but we are "souls". There are no spirits as such. There is aura (kirlian = weak electrical field and the quantum complex field).There is also the execute program I call the Self that comes from the creator. The self is a copy of the creator. That is why we can easily say to each other "in lak'ech". We can hear and enjoy music because we are time beings. The human beings have a wider band of time than the rest of the living biological animals and plants. AI cannot hear music but only individual notes that stay inside it as binary electrical units. We are made of dynamic 3-D dimensions and a complex chronogeometric space of infinite dimensions (normalised to 3 eigen values of 3-D space triads) (expressed as non deterministic infinite differential equations which lead a one to one correspondence from the complex number field to the real number field) which is timeless. This what the 6-D wave equation we developed in 1992 tells us. This timelessness gives rise to consciousness. Cognition, sentience and willfullness (free will) is more complicated than consciousness but connected to it.
Aeviternal
Is the Lorentz force law 'classical'? It is an electromagnetic force, and electromagnetism predicts a finite speed of light that is the same for all observers because it is the product of two constants. Einstein's special relativity rests on assuming that light represents the medium by which events notify themselves to observers at a distance, and SR describes what is observed. One could indeed argue that EM theory, as it deals with material processes, is more fundamental than SR, which deals with geometric measurements. However, I suggest the two are inseparable and to call EM theory classical is a bit disingenuous, even if it derives (as everything must eventually) from observed phenomena. While we are about it, remember that the divisor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) applies to measurements of in effect remote bodies. When it comes to the experience of time, as in the so-called 'twins paradox', the difference in ages arises when one of the twins experiences accelerations. It is this, or gravity which is an acceleration, that really changes the flow of time locally, rather than simply a measurement of time in a remote object.
logically speaking, why is there not a level that is subject to space but not to time? Read Bernadette Roberts who was a Platonist mystic...
Interesting topic. My bet is on what Stephen Hawking wrote in a Brief History of Time: "The unpredictable, random element comes in only when we try to interpret the wave in terms of the positions and velocities of particles. But maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities. The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability."
That is a very down to earth statement. Maybe approximating makes humans handy with surviving but it doesn’t mean the universe dances the same tune.
@@brendawilliams8062 you have there the beginning of the next Grateful Dead hit.
So he’s saying particles don’t exist and Plato is right but new ideas after him are wrong.
Ill stick with Ken Wheeler
"The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all." Ecclesiastes 9:5. "His spirit goes out, he returns to the ground; on that very day his thoughts perish.". Psalms 146:4. "The dust returns to the earth, just as it was, and the spirit returns to the true God who gave it.". Eccl.12:7
It is certainly true that physicists currently do not have an answer to the measurement problem. Not sure why it takes two hours to tell us that. Among Dr Smith’s apparent co-religionists alone I can think of scientists with a variety of views. Why not tell us about them?
Machines built by me have done trillions of measurements. Not once was there a problem. Your move, child. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 What you will find is that at the ensemble level, the received theory of quantum mechanics is complete. There is nothing similar to the viscosity term found in the Navier-Stokes equations. However when we look at correlations between individual events then it is apparent that that received theory is not telling the whole story.
@@david_porthouse There are no correlations between events in the ensemble. That's by definition of the term "ensemble". That's why QM is perfectly linear. I hope you didn't think that that was a property of nature? Nothing could be further from the truth. The linearity of the theory is a construction by humans. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 And there's an over-correlation at the level of individual events as found by last year's Nobel Prizewinners. Bell's Theorem indicates that we need a nonlocal theory, which is good news because we acquire a new degree of freedom which we are going to need.
@@david_porthouse Yes, that was bullshit. ;-)
Really wanted to give this a chance, even past hearing the words "proven" and "intelligent design" in the same sentence. However, saying that Einsteinian relativity doesn't work because it clashes with a philosophical concept the author constructed (something that exists in time and not in space) with zero evidence of its existence -- is a logical fallacy. You can't just make up convenient evidence.
Also, my impression is that serious physicists do generally recognize the valid limitations described here. Maybe these limitations sounded more shocking mid-20th century -- youtube videos don't go that far to tell.
Any person that knows the earth is not spinning gets my attention
Hate to break it to you but it's spinning.
@@eccentricaste3232 wake up and smell the coffee sunshine
@@johnmcfarland1910 Well. who can argue with those points? Excellent argument based in sound reasoning, I shall revise my worldview forthwith.
@@PCMcGee1 glad you woke up
None of this will help me lose weight or save money.
Intelligent Design ? Platonism ? 🙄
his points about scientific assumptions,... that is what gravity, the globe, and the inside layers of the earth are all are. the earth is not a ball. its all based on assumptions, but toldl as truth.
Stop.
Wolfgang Smith has his mind cluttered with a lot of rubbish. He sells books to folk who want the universe to fit their wishful thinking.
I feel like if your ideas of evolution are correct, life is nothing but a trash heap. Its horrid.
Wolfgang Smith offers religious content disguised as science.
Many other physicists offer philosophical naturalism content disguised as science.
Could we correct the description - CORPORIAL not corporeal
Sorry. It’s corporeal.