What does this mean for our lived experience of consciousness and reality? Does it change anything? Let us know what you think in the comments! See the full talk at: iai.tv/video/perception-as-a-fantasy-donald-hoffman?TH-cam&+comment
Spacetime/consciousness - the realm of PERCEPTION - is simply awareness at a less-than-infinite sampling rate. Beyond perception, an infinite sampling rate sees that there is nothing but a non-local Unity: One Mind that is ALL. THIS is absolute Reality. But we, the Thought of that Mind, have temporarily lost absolute Awareness (have fallen into limitation) due to an error that we made, and are instead experiencing a pixilated virtual un-Reality simulation that isn't at all what it seems. This is a dream realm. But it is perfectly-ordered; a perfect design that is returning us to an infinite sampling rate and rational Wholeness. And in fact, the "good news" is that this has already been accomplished, as time is an illusion. We are but experiencing an "ancient" (for lack of a better word) memory. Science and religion meet when they both find absolute Truth. And yes, the "good news" is that our successful return to infinite and eternal perfection has already been accomplished. "The Kingdom of GOD is within you." "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." "I have overcome the world." "He who overcomes will inherit all things." The biblical prophet Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies.
It seems like consciousness is a medium between humans and "reality" which produces models and representations, because to "comprehend reality" would be impossible, there's just far too much of it. Most people are incapable of comprehending the best models the species has developed to represent reality, so we really stand no chance of comprehending the "thing in itself", we even lack the sensory, intellectual, or physical tools to do so.
The problem with consciousness being fundamental is the sheer triviality and even noxious nature of the contents of consciousness, painful memories, painful worries. Sleep is relief. Those afflicted with post-traumatic stress syndrome might have a jaundiced view of consciousness. I wouldn't be afraid of flying if rendered unconscious. Consciousness can be a terrible handicap. The term "self-conscious" is negative.
So the statement that space-time is doomed is a bit sensational. It's not that space-time does not exist, it does. It's that more fundamental than space-time is the metaphysical qualia that allows scientists to experience space-time in the first place. The black hole encountered at the planck length is a mirror.
I always think of the great Russell Stannard, who would make the point that there is a boundry of the knowable. It seems like because there are some things we cant explain with the scientific method, or through religious/spiritual explanations, it makes people uncomfortable. There are many things about the Universe that people may never understand completely, and that is okay to admit.
I may not agree with every conclusion but I am happy to entertain thoughts outside of the approved box. We are missing the forest due to our obsession with the trees. To grasp the big picture requires stepping back from the complexity to discern the simple.
Let's admit: We don't really the nature of the universe. We have theories founded in mathematics, yet such explanation relies on the ability of the mind to rely on time and space as subjective apparatuses. Our account of reality is unfortunately not the only one because of our finitude.
Hes saying that our understanding of the fundamental structure of the universe is flawed because we experience the universe through a sensory system that has evolved to survive and reproduce rather than to see the truth. We dont see the world as it is but instead we see it as out brain interprets it to be through signals sent from out senses
For some time I have found Don's perspective and work fascinating, but as of yesterday I believe all he has come up with is a version of another headset interface to the math that attempts t describe the indescribable. I have read his book and perused some of his writings and have yet to find that he tells us what a "conscious agent" is in his perspective. What he gives as a "definition" is to me just a mathematical "headset" trying to tune into what is the deeper consciousness, but neither he nor anyone can ever really describe that consciousness. When we die, maybe we will know, but in our puny body/minds we never will.
Maybe space-time is doomed for revision rather than replacement. I am beginning to think it may just be the subjective lens through which physics looks at it that is a bit off. I can't help but think that there is something amiss with the space-time geometry and it just requires a bit of a paradigm shift to restructure it a little. I'm not an expert or physicist, it's just an educated thought. > Oh, P.S. Is anything we perceive so-called 'reality'? Human subjective realities yes. Very modified and revised version in the minds own image of a limited sensory of a blurred universe. Natural objective universe (as it is separate from our subjective human thoughts) Not directly, but sort of in a way that is foreign to the mind, so it gets modified to match the required version that the mind want's, so we perceive but can't interpret it as it is too noisy, blurry, distorted, ugly for humans to make practical use of.
At 2:18, is it that there is nothing smaller than the planck scale within spacetime, or there may be, but our attempts to measure it at that scale destroys the whole underlying spacetime framework? Are we annihilating entire infinitesimal universes by obliterating the entire structure of space-time in which they exist? 😉
Interesting ideas but no testable theory. Just speculation, which is fine, but at some point you have to start proving things. If everything is an illusion that means, when it comes to gravity, every single living thing is under the exact same illusion. Gravity operates according to a precise equation for everyone, everywhere and all the time. If you don't accept that then walk off a building. So then why not just call that reality? Call it an illusion if you want, but you can also just refer to it as reality.
This all starts to reak of people being entangled in numbers without any chance of ever getting out. And they are getting funded massively while other fields of research where folks might actually get somewhere with things are left behind. Quantum Fascism if you will
Time is a compactified dimension one single Planck second in size. This is why there are limits. Limit theorem. This is why there is conservation. Closed system.
Not only spacetime, but everything is doomed on a certain scale. Reality is just revealed in its level of perception only. Beyond certain level, divert to another realm.
Donald Hoffman serves us all - if for no other reason than he is challenging common assumptions. Whether any one of us agrees with him seems trivial in consequence, compared to the net positive of having a thoughtful character push the boundaries of blind human belief.
I suggest that when everyone begins to understand that universal matter is composed of a substance that is simply a more advanced and ordered version of the same substance that composes our thoughts and dreams, then everything will make more sense.
you simply can't understand the connections he makes. various fields of study are created not because they are truly different from one another but because there's so much information that fields have to be split, if you dont think these fields are related on a deeper level your incredibly naive and likely think the distinctions between fields are actually born out in nature as such.
I believe Schopenhauer asserted, viz critiquing the Kantian "a priori categories", that only the notion of Causality was a priori, not Space or Time or anything else. This is in immediate perception, of course. After 35 years I still think he's right. Hoffman has something to sell and in the end it's just as mundane and irrelevant as any other "theory". I prefer Albert Hoffman's discovery...
Very little substance here, quoting a variety of scientist out of context while not supporting any evidence is a strange approach to saying that there may be more fundamental framework beyond space time.
@@pondreezy Spoken like somebody waiting for an argument better than “we don’t understand consciousness therefore the completely unrelated space time relativity must be wrong” that led us to wasting 69 years chasing string theory ghosts. Theories must be testable and supported by evidence, as well as simple.
It's not surprising or premature considering the context. It's pretty well understood that we don't have a working model, akin to the standard model of particle physics. And yet we exist in time and space without any problems. Obviously our perception and understanding, at least so far as it concerns scientific inquiry, is the problem.
Useful definitions of nature's processes must obviously vary with scale. So why are some concerned that our species is currently limited in its ability to measure and to reduce natural processes to fundaments? Some would try to go beyond our current limits by confusing speculation with theory, metaphysics with nature.
Stoyan Sargs BSM-SG model not only has the first realistic perspective on space and time, it correctly predicted numerous findings over the last 20 years that contemporary physics was puzzled about. It is a shame that science does not learn from history or reflections....
Materialism will prevent science from evolving because science only focuses on the same mainstream paradigms rather than try to oken new doors outside of those mainstream paradigms.
Two points Professor Hoffman: (1) does not the structure deeper than space-time and quantum mechanics that gives rise to both have to be light itself since all is made of light? (2) Actual light can not be seen in our visible spectrum or invisible spectrum. Invisibility itself is an illusion..What we see in all spectrums is unseen light reflecting off matter that is only perceptible by what it is missing -- its complent. Genetics has mastered this what it is is what it is missing. The deeper structure of genetics is simply tit for tat with exception (Feynman) and genetic algorithms created out of something other than anything we know.
@@biggerdoofus Richard Feynman.said it but also said QED and QECD both have the base2 progression for its place values ...0...1...2...4...8...16... meaning the core mathematical structure of Genetics and QauntumElectro Dynamics is the same.
Loved this! Moving in the right direction here! btw it's impossible to reconcile Big Bang theory and Quantum Entanglement, unless..... everything in the universe is entangled, i.e (ONE)
Some Scientific theories are a smart representations of what we call reality. But they can not be reality itself. They describe the behavior of nature in specific conditions. Very useful indeed
A brilliantly executed survey with a vast coverage of concepts smoothly presented - all challenging our preconceptions, just like all great minds ( e.g. Einstein) did - we need more thinkers like him to make progress in our understanding of reality! 👏
The most fundamental law has been starting us in the face since Newton. We just don't see it because it's too weird. Mass is just a complex coordinate point between space (one dimension, but it can be further divided into 3, 11, 42, etc.) and time. m^2 = s^2 + t^2. The balanced form is simplified to m/(s + t), with any force being a delta to that configuration.
@@axle.student s here just means "space". Synonymous with distance, except for the fact that it includes volume (or density if also accounting for mass). t for time, which you could declare in seconds.
Lord Krishna a jar in spacetime Droupadi a jar in spacetime Dushasan a jar in spacetime Droupadi consciousness coincides neither with that of Krishna nor with Dushasan consciousness
Philosophy includes morality and science. Moral law is Ten Commandments. Science is observing the universe created by LORD and finding out the physical and chemical laws determined by LORD.
Maybe at certain times the universe leans on or treats certain things as more fundamental when necessary, and that is why the timeline of our universe looks the way it does rather than something more static. At least nature sort of works like that on earth, with life all relying on itself and its world in a very imperfect but functional way. Maybe in actuality the universe would barely appear to know how to hold itself together. Our focus would be toward determining how things change on the biggest scales, rather than the ways we find out how things change at smaller ones on earth
Perception is, by definition, an interpretation of data. It is not the data itself. So, of course we don’t see reality “as it is”. None of this means reality isn’t real or that consciousness creates reality though. We do experience reality in consciousness through our brain creating a model of it, but that’s a wildly different thing. Hoffman confuses the math (!) for the territory, and it’s tiresome that he’s still peddling this stuff.
He's not saying either of those things. I think he's saying that reality isn't what it appears to be under normal physicalist descriptions, which is that of spatio-temporally located particles and their interactions. And it's not "our" consciousness creating the reality. He's looking for a "holistic theory" where particulars (facts of the world) are simulations generated by non-human, conscious-observers. Of course, this is close to a mathematically-motivated fantasy, outside the norm of simple physicalist theories, but Hoffman is not so philosophically naive as you seem to imply.
@@lokayatavishwam9594 I like the “mathematically motivated fantasy” phrase, that’s accurate. Anyway, he’s made the claims I alluded to a number of times and overall he might as well be suggesting “god does it” because he’s not explaining anything in a way that can really ever be validated through experiment and he fundamentally misrepresents problems in physics like the measurement problem and presents others topics in physics as if they’re mainstream and not the fringe, very much not consensus views that they are, as well as seeming to, at the least, take a very contrarian or fantastical view in the philosophy he talks about. Is it interesting? Sure but mostly in the way of providing ideas for fiction writers 🤷♂️
@@micdavey Well, foundations of physics is not doing so bad either, in terms of fantastical theories. Bell's theorem tells us that non-locality must be ( and is, as proven recently) a real physical feature of our universe, and PBR theorem shows that wavefunction assigned to a quantum system is not just a mathematical tool, but it reflects some real aspects of that particular system. And people like Sean Carroll seems to think that Many Worlds is the best, most parsimonious way out of this. If that's not a fantasy, I don't know what is.
@@lokayatavishwam9594 oh for sure! I’m not suggesting we understand how reality really works yet, if we ever will, but I do think Hoffman has gone down the rabbit hole while thinking he’s still in the real world.
Very, very interesting. Rupert Sheldrake speaks about life being frozen light. I believe all is consciousness and light, the One Divine Living Light Everlasting.
@@Paine137 you do realize you first have to believe and be convinced that science is worthy of your focus, just like you convinced yourself from other people? You do realize that everyone has the unanimous ability to focus on whatever they want to with our without any physical limitation right?
How would you build something based on the idea that consciousness is fundamental? The lack of physical utility from metaphysical theory does not make it a pointless endeavour.
Something more sophisticated can be found in the new physics expounded in the "Novel quantitative push gravity/field theory poised for verification" theory.
Like listening to a slightly stoned (albeit potentially very bright) adolescent rattle on and then suddenly demand an eighth of weed if you want to hear the full theory.
Hoffman's talk seems to refer to the metaphysical nature of qualia. It raises an additional question. How are the persistent correspondences between physical properties and metaphysical properties derived and propagated? Part of the answers may lie at the planck boundary layer, which is the 2D surface beyond which physical space-time breaks down. We may get a sense of this layer by looking beyond the event horizons of black holes. This is a conjecture, but nevertheless, insight regarding the nature of qualia may lay on the other side of horizon-like boundary layers. This goes for the planck boundary layer, event horizons, and the boundary that encloses the observable universe.
David Bohm proposed that what we perceive as empty space is actually a rich, fundamental ground of existence. In Bohm's cosmology, the interface between the space-time explicate domain and the nonlocal, nontemporal implicate domain can be viewed as a "holoplenum of holospheres" (closely packed foam of Plank-size quantum black holes), that is according to an interpreter of Bohm's idea whose name eludes me at the moment. Consciousness in this construct is seen as "peering out" from within each holosphere into the space-time explicate domain. My intuition does not align with this perspective, but I thought you would find it interesting.
You can’t measure something, so it doesn’t exist, it’s doomed? Explanation in video seems to be skipping over some logical steps. I can’t measure the screen size of my neighbor’s TV, that doesn’t logically lead to the conclusion that his TV is doomed and doesn’t exist. I’m not saying the physics isn’t true, just that the logic in the explanation isn’t that clear.
This lecture is very poor quality. Throwing a bunch of physics and physicist's quotes around proves nothing. That no theory can presently explain qualia proves nothing except our ignorance, which must surely be by now an unremarkable state from which the human race has been emerging for millennia. And no amount of ignorance or any gap in human knowledge PROVES any other theory that might be put forward. Each theory must be proven on its own merits. Indeed, it is a dead give-away for a bogus argument that it stands not on its own merits but on the claimed weaknesses of other theories. Moreover, it does not help that if you do actually know any physics, you realise how ridiculous all the physics used in this lecture really is. Skip it.
"Throwing around" quotes from respected physicists is not the same as making a weak argument - it is highlighting the considered views of domain experts, which you hastily dismiss. Your continued insistence on proof betrays your ignorance of how science operates. Science is not in the business of providing proof. That's the realm of law and mathematics - not empirical inquiry. Your dismissive rant is not only fundamentally missguided but also fails to address the substance of the lecture. If you are unable or unwilling to engage constructively with the material, perhaps you should refrain from commenting.
I agree with you that the present state of physics is terrible. Also the arrogance of some physicists to declare that the limitation of their knowledge and the limit of their brain is a limit of human knowledge. I understand your frustration from the bizarre theories we are bombarded, and will suggest you something different which can make you a little bit happier - the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
why should I believe him if he's just a creation of my perception? Why call it perception? Also, he says perception is a fantasy but physicalists are ilusionists?
@@InsertPhilosophyHere You’re as interesting as a broken cinderblock. Science is a method based on evidence. Whining about interpretations is what empty philosophers offer.
We are just analog meat computers that test concrete reality to function every moment. Anything else perceived as an illusion persistently is a hallucination.
Yeah, Don.H. is Right, why this dead mantra, give No meaning. Well, Fantasy is the Ability to Imagine. Imagination is the Ability to Sense. Sensing is Feeling + Contrast +Perspective. based on Memory. Our sensing-organs is Motion, the Sensed object/subject is Motion, the Sensing is Motion. It is All Motion, Stuff-side of Life is Motion, a Motion-Ocean. So, the Real Illusion, Eternal Miracle, is the Nature of Life. Consciousness/Life-side is 100% Electric, our Thoughts is also Motion. Intelligence, can Never be artificial, We can't See with the Intelligence. Intuition is the Ability to See behind the Stuff-side, to See the Real Illusion from 'In-Side'. The 'tiny nature' of Space, is part of the Creation.
Dr. Hoffman's research seems to show that Darwinian fitness based on natural selection is inversely correlated to seeing "reality" as it is. This is not surprising since selection pressures will tend to filter out the vast amount of information inherent to physical space-time and compress that information into metaphysical qualia. The use of qualia is similar to compression methods used by computer GUI's to abstract away the intricate details of computer processing for end-users who have no interest in learning those details on order to work and play.
What does this mean for our lived experience of consciousness and reality? Does it change anything? Let us know what you think in the comments!
See the full talk at: iai.tv/video/perception-as-a-fantasy-donald-hoffman?TH-cam&+comment
Spacetime/consciousness - the realm of PERCEPTION - is simply awareness at a less-than-infinite sampling rate. Beyond perception, an infinite sampling rate sees that there is nothing but a non-local Unity: One Mind that is ALL. THIS is absolute Reality. But we, the Thought of that Mind, have temporarily lost absolute Awareness (have fallen into limitation) due to an error that we made, and are instead experiencing a pixilated virtual un-Reality simulation that isn't at all what it seems. This is a dream realm. But it is perfectly-ordered; a perfect design that is returning us to an infinite sampling rate and rational Wholeness. And in fact, the "good news" is that this has already been accomplished, as time is an illusion. We are but experiencing an "ancient" (for lack of a better word) memory. Science and religion meet when they both find absolute Truth. And yes, the "good news" is that our successful return to infinite and eternal perfection has already been accomplished. "The Kingdom of GOD is within you." "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." "I have overcome the world." "He who overcomes will inherit all things." The biblical prophet Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies.
THERE is no consciousness. its just another mumbo jumbo construct
The punch line is that consciousness is fundamental.
THERE is no consciousness. its just another mumbo jumbo construct
It seems like consciousness is a medium between humans and "reality" which produces models and representations, because to "comprehend reality" would be impossible, there's just far too much of it. Most people are incapable of comprehending the best models the species has developed to represent reality, so we really stand no chance of comprehending the "thing in itself", we even lack the sensory, intellectual, or physical tools to do so.
Always good to see science catching on to what philosophy has understood for centuries. 😉
What has it understood, other than questioning understanding into cyclonic deadends.
@@Paine137 Maybe you should watch the video.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere Yeah not convinced. All argument and no evidence.
@@Paine137 Logical Fallacy #1: Can't answer the argument so pretend you didn't hear it.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere You haven’t said anything, Freud.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
The problem with consciousness being fundamental is the sheer triviality and even noxious nature of the contents of consciousness, painful memories, painful worries. Sleep is relief. Those afflicted with post-traumatic stress syndrome might have a jaundiced view of consciousness. I wouldn't be afraid of flying if rendered unconscious. Consciousness can be a terrible handicap. The term "self-conscious" is negative.
I think consciousness is something deeper than the feeling of Self.
I respect how Donald Hoffman isn't afraid to test new ideas!!! 💪
So the statement that space-time is doomed is a bit sensational. It's not that space-time does not exist, it does. It's that more fundamental than space-time is the metaphysical qualia that allows scientists to experience space-time in the first place. The black hole encountered at the planck length is a mirror.
I always think of the great Russell Stannard, who would make the point that there is a boundry of the knowable. It seems like because there are some things we cant explain with the scientific method, or through religious/spiritual explanations, it makes people uncomfortable. There are many things about the Universe that people may never understand completely, and that is okay to admit.
Or we can try harder just like so many before us in less fortunate circumstances.
I may not agree with every conclusion but I am happy to entertain thoughts outside of the approved box. We are missing the forest due to our obsession with the trees. To grasp the big picture requires stepping back from the complexity to discern the simple.
Amen to that!
Let's admit: We don't really the nature of the universe. We have theories founded in mathematics, yet such explanation relies on the ability of the mind to rely on time and space as subjective apparatuses. Our account of reality is unfortunately not the only one because of our finitude.
Spacetime is BACK!! Just thinking of clickbaity titles for 2025
Hes saying that our understanding of the fundamental structure of the universe is flawed because we experience the universe through a sensory system that has evolved to survive and reproduce rather than to see the truth. We dont see the world as it is but instead we see it as out brain interprets it to be through signals sent from out senses
For some time I have found Don's perspective and work fascinating, but as of yesterday I believe all he has come up with is a version of another headset interface to the math that attempts t describe the indescribable. I have read his book and perused some of his writings and have yet to find that he tells us what a "conscious agent" is in his perspective. What he gives as a "definition" is to me just a mathematical "headset" trying to tune into what is the deeper consciousness, but neither he nor anyone can ever really describe that consciousness. When we die, maybe we will know, but in our puny body/minds we never will.
Maybe space-time is doomed for revision rather than replacement. I am beginning to think it may just be the subjective lens through which physics looks at it that is a bit off. I can't help but think that there is something amiss with the space-time geometry and it just requires a bit of a paradigm shift to restructure it a little.
I'm not an expert or physicist, it's just an educated thought.
>
Oh, P.S. Is anything we perceive so-called 'reality'?
Human subjective realities yes. Very modified and revised version in the minds own image of a limited sensory of a blurred universe.
Natural objective universe (as it is separate from our subjective human thoughts) Not directly, but sort of in a way that is foreign to the mind, so it gets modified to match the required version that the mind want's, so we perceive but can't interpret it as it is too noisy, blurry, distorted, ugly for humans to make practical use of.
Why is it so difficult for people to imagine that everything is fundamentally an imagination?
At 2:18, is it that there is nothing smaller than the planck scale within spacetime, or there may be, but our attempts to measure it at that scale destroys the whole underlying spacetime framework? Are we annihilating entire infinitesimal universes by obliterating the entire structure of space-time in which they exist? 😉
The fact that he feels the needs to repeat the phrase "operational meaning" should be seen as a red flag.
Interesting ideas but no testable theory. Just speculation, which is fine, but at some point you have to start proving things. If everything is an illusion that means, when it comes to gravity, every single living thing is under the exact same illusion. Gravity operates according to a precise equation for everyone, everywhere and all the time. If you don't accept that then walk off a building. So then why not just call that reality? Call it an illusion if you want, but you can also just refer to it as reality.
The only intelligent comment I’ve found in this thread so far. 👍
This all starts to reak of people being entangled in numbers without any chance of ever getting out. And they are getting funded massively while other fields of research where folks might actually get somewhere with things are left behind. Quantum Fascism if you will
Would "gravity" be the same for everybody and everything, then there would absolutely not be a need for Dark Matter, MOND, Emergent Gravity etc etc 😅
@@dennisb7465 Um, okay.
Time is a compactified dimension one single Planck second in size.
This is why there are limits.
Limit theorem.
This is why there is conservation.
Closed system.
Not only spacetime, but everything is doomed on a certain scale. Reality is just revealed in its level of perception only. Beyond certain level, divert to another realm.
Perhaps it will expand.. such topics as this theologically can cause a big bang. Which creates more space to occupy
Donald Hoffman serves us all - if for no other reason than he is challenging common assumptions. Whether any one of us agrees with him seems trivial in consequence, compared to the net positive of having a thoughtful character push the boundaries of blind human belief.
I suggest that when everyone begins to understand that universal matter is composed of a substance that is simply a more advanced and ordered version of the same substance that composes our thoughts and dreams, then everything will make more sense.
Hoffman is an expert at using unrelated evidence to support his arguments.
Cool story bro 😎
What is that unrelated evidence that your referring to?
I think that's a pretty bad faith statement, but I would be open to hearing more if you would like to share.
you simply can't understand the connections he makes. various fields of study are created not because they are truly different from one another but because there's so much information that fields have to be split, if you dont think these fields are related on a deeper level your incredibly naive and likely think the distinctions between fields are actually born out in nature as such.
@@Meditation409he doesn't know what he's talking about bro he's probably just a coping materialist
I believe Schopenhauer asserted, viz critiquing the Kantian "a priori categories", that only the notion of Causality was a priori, not Space or Time or anything else. This is in immediate perception, of course. After 35 years I still think he's right. Hoffman has something to sell and in the end it's just as mundane and irrelevant as any other "theory". I prefer Albert Hoffman's discovery...
Very little substance here, quoting a variety of scientist out of context while not supporting any evidence is a strange approach to saying that there may be more fundamental framework beyond space time.
Spoken like a straight up buster.
@@pondreezy Spoken like somebody waiting for an argument better than “we don’t understand consciousness therefore the completely unrelated space time relativity must be wrong” that led us to wasting 69 years chasing string theory ghosts. Theories must be testable and supported by evidence, as well as simple.
@@Kronzik Does anyone else want to eat mademoiselle craballeta with some butter?
It's not surprising or premature considering the context. It's pretty well understood that we don't have a working model, akin to the standard model of particle physics. And yet we exist in time and space without any problems. Obviously our perception and understanding, at least so far as it concerns scientific inquiry, is the problem.
IAI has been chasing more controversial people recently, goff, hoffman, Weinstein etc. TH-cam putting pressure on the IAI for clicks most likely
Penrose actually have a good view on this topic.
Useful definitions of nature's processes must obviously vary with scale. So why are some concerned that our species is currently limited in its ability to measure and to reduce natural processes to fundaments? Some would try to go beyond our current limits by confusing speculation with theory, metaphysics with nature.
Stoyan Sargs BSM-SG model not only has the first realistic perspective on space and time, it correctly predicted numerous findings over the last 20 years that contemporary physics was puzzled about. It is a shame that science does not learn from history or reflections....
Materialism will prevent science from evolving because science only focuses on the same mainstream paradigms rather than try to oken new doors outside of those mainstream paradigms.
maybe we can say that 'consciousness' is a kind of 'meta cognitive' or 'Intelligent algorithm' which not bounds to space-time continuum..
Two points Professor Hoffman: (1) does not the structure deeper than space-time and quantum mechanics that gives rise to both have to be light itself since all is made of light? (2) Actual light can not be seen in our visible spectrum or invisible spectrum. Invisibility itself is an illusion..What we see in all spectrums is unseen light reflecting off matter that is only perceptible by what it is missing -- its complent. Genetics has mastered this what it is is what it is missing. The deeper structure of genetics is simply tit for tat with exception (Feynman) and genetic algorithms created out of something other than anything we know.
"all is made of light"? I've never heard of any scientific theory that says that.
@@biggerdoofus Richard Feynman.said it but also said QED and QECD both have the base2 progression for its place values ...0...1...2...4...8...16... meaning the core mathematical structure of Genetics and QauntumElectro Dynamics is the same.
Loved this! Moving in the right direction here! btw it's impossible to reconcile Big Bang theory and Quantum Entanglement, unless..... everything in the universe is entangled, i.e (ONE)
Some Scientific theories are a smart representations of what we call reality. But they can not be reality itself. They describe the behavior of nature in specific conditions. Very useful indeed
A brilliantly executed survey with a vast coverage of concepts smoothly presented - all challenging our preconceptions, just like all great minds ( e.g. Einstein) did - we need more thinkers like him to make progress in our understanding of reality! 👏
The most fundamental law has been starting us in the face since Newton. We just don't see it because it's too weird. Mass is just a complex coordinate point between space (one dimension, but it can be further divided into 3, 11, 42, etc.) and time. m^2 = s^2 + t^2. The balanced form is simplified to m/(s + t), with any force being a delta to that configuration.
isn't seconds (s) just the measurement convention for time (t). m/s+s seams a bit odd.
@@axle.student s here just means "space". Synonymous with distance, except for the fact that it includes volume (or density if also accounting for mass). t for time, which you could declare in seconds.
@@dustinfrost2603 OK, cool. m/s is typically Meters per Second.
Got caught in the Mass (m), Meters (m) trap lol
Lord Krishna a jar in spacetime Droupadi a jar in spacetime Dushasan a jar in spacetime Droupadi consciousness coincides neither with that of Krishna nor with Dushasan consciousness
“We’re batting zero.”
Philosophy includes morality and science. Moral law is Ten Commandments. Science is observing the universe created by LORD and finding out the physical and chemical laws determined by LORD.
Maybe at certain times the universe leans on or treats certain things as more fundamental when necessary, and that is why the timeline of our universe looks the way it does rather than something more static. At least nature sort of works like that on earth, with life all relying on itself and its world in a very imperfect but functional way. Maybe in actuality the universe would barely appear to know how to hold itself together. Our focus would be toward determining how things change on the biggest scales, rather than the ways we find out how things change at smaller ones on earth
Kant clearly said that space and time are mere a priori subjectivity not objective entities. Einstein is wrong.
Yeah,sure… and you are right…
Perception is, by definition, an interpretation of data. It is not the data itself. So, of course we don’t see reality “as it is”. None of this means reality isn’t real or that consciousness creates reality though. We do experience reality in consciousness through our brain creating a model of it, but that’s a wildly different thing. Hoffman confuses the math (!) for the territory, and it’s tiresome that he’s still peddling this stuff.
He's not saying either of those things. I think he's saying that reality isn't what it appears to be under normal physicalist descriptions, which is that of spatio-temporally located particles and their interactions. And it's not "our" consciousness creating the reality. He's looking for a "holistic theory" where particulars (facts of the world) are simulations generated by non-human, conscious-observers. Of course, this is close to a mathematically-motivated fantasy, outside the norm of simple physicalist theories, but Hoffman is not so philosophically naive as you seem to imply.
Well said!
@@lokayatavishwam9594 I like the “mathematically motivated fantasy” phrase, that’s accurate. Anyway, he’s made the claims I alluded to a number of times and overall he might as well be suggesting “god does it” because he’s not explaining anything in a way that can really ever be validated through experiment and he fundamentally misrepresents problems in physics like the measurement problem and presents others topics in physics as if they’re mainstream and not the fringe, very much not consensus views that they are, as well as seeming to, at the least, take a very contrarian or fantastical view in the philosophy he talks about. Is it interesting? Sure but mostly in the way of providing ideas for fiction writers 🤷♂️
@@micdavey Well, foundations of physics is not doing so bad either, in terms of fantastical theories. Bell's theorem tells us that non-locality must be ( and is, as proven recently) a real physical feature of our universe, and PBR theorem shows that wavefunction assigned to a quantum system is not just a mathematical tool, but it reflects some real aspects of that particular system. And people like Sean Carroll seems to think that Many Worlds is the best, most parsimonious way out of this. If that's not a fantasy, I don't know what is.
@@lokayatavishwam9594 oh for sure! I’m not suggesting we understand how reality really works yet, if we ever will, but I do think Hoffman has gone down the rabbit hole while thinking he’s still in the real world.
Very, very interesting. Rupert Sheldrake speaks about life being frozen light. I believe all is consciousness and light, the One Divine Living Light Everlasting.
I believe we’re all violins.
See I can do it too.
@@Paine137I can only imagine the sense of brilliance that must have washed over you as you typed that out.
@@Paine137 you do realize you first have to believe and be convinced that science is worthy of your focus, just like you convinced yourself from other people? You do realize that everyone has the unanimous ability to focus on whatever they want to with our without any physical limitation right?
@@bluntforcetrauma6333 I can only imagine the sense of brilliance that must have washed over you as you typed that out.
@@Cliodhna-z1i Except science actually works.
I'll listen to this guy when someone actually builds something based on his ideas.
How would you build something based on the idea that consciousness is fundamental? The lack of physical utility from metaphysical theory does not make it a pointless endeavour.
hear hear. its been long overdue. the minds of science people being hard set on the ideas of their god of science
I am unsubscribing on the basis of this insult.
" 'Truth' is a kind of lie without which a certain species could not endure life!" - Nietzsche😂
Illusions are illusory. They can never explain anything.
Something more sophisticated can be found in the new physics expounded in the "Novel quantitative push gravity/field theory poised for verification" theory.
Like listening to a slightly stoned (albeit potentially very bright) adolescent rattle on and then suddenly demand an eighth of weed if you want to hear the full theory.
Ah, yes, the next one...
1 = 0 = infinity
I stubbed my toe. That was real
Hoffman's talk seems to refer to the metaphysical nature of qualia. It raises an additional question. How are the persistent correspondences between physical properties and metaphysical properties derived and propagated? Part of the answers may lie at the planck boundary layer, which is the 2D surface beyond which physical space-time breaks down. We may get a sense of this layer by looking beyond the event horizons of black holes. This is a conjecture, but nevertheless, insight regarding the nature of qualia may lay on the other side of horizon-like boundary layers. This goes for the planck boundary layer, event horizons, and the boundary that encloses the observable universe.
David Bohm proposed that what we perceive as empty space is actually a rich, fundamental ground of existence. In Bohm's cosmology, the interface between the space-time explicate domain and the nonlocal, nontemporal implicate domain can be viewed as a "holoplenum of holospheres" (closely packed foam of Plank-size quantum black holes), that is according to an interpreter of Bohm's idea whose name eludes me at the moment. Consciousness in this construct is seen as "peering out" from within each holosphere into the space-time explicate domain. My intuition does not align with this perspective, but I thought you would find it interesting.
@@attilaszekeres7435 I located a paper titled "The Pribram - Bohm Hypothesis." I will give it a read. Thanks.
We humans live in realm of lies. Greatest Liar is God
Sounds like everything is doomed.
Or like confusing. Dude just can't comprehend some ideas so he thinks all doomed.
Space and time are illusions but black hole not ? 😂😂😂😂😂🤩🤩😂😂😂😂😂
10 to the minus 33cm you say? Interesting...
I think Donald Hoffman is brilliant. However, I do not agree with all the things he says in this video.
As an ontological deflationist and a devout Humian I object!
You can’t measure something, so it doesn’t exist, it’s doomed? Explanation in video seems to be skipping over some logical steps. I can’t measure the screen size of my neighbor’s TV, that doesn’t logically lead to the conclusion that his TV is doomed and doesn’t exist. I’m not saying the physics isn’t true, just that the logic in the explanation isn’t that clear.
This lecture is very poor quality. Throwing a bunch of physics and physicist's quotes around proves nothing. That no theory can presently explain qualia proves nothing except our ignorance, which must surely be by now an unremarkable state from which the human race has been emerging for millennia. And no amount of ignorance or any gap in human knowledge PROVES any other theory that might be put forward. Each theory must be proven on its own merits. Indeed, it is a dead give-away for a bogus argument that it stands not on its own merits but on the claimed weaknesses of other theories. Moreover, it does not help that if you do actually know any physics, you realise how ridiculous all the physics used in this lecture really is. Skip it.
"Throwing around" quotes from respected physicists is not the same as making a weak argument - it is highlighting the considered views of domain experts, which you hastily dismiss. Your continued insistence on proof betrays your ignorance of how science operates. Science is not in the business of providing proof. That's the realm of law and mathematics - not empirical inquiry. Your dismissive rant is not only fundamentally missguided but also fails to address the substance of the lecture. If you are unable or unwilling to engage constructively with the material, perhaps you should refrain from commenting.
@@attilaszekeres7435 He basically correctly pointed out that Hoffman's logic is flawed.
@@guaromiami He did not such thing, obviously.
I agree with you that the present state of physics is terrible. Also the arrogance of some physicists to declare that the limitation of their knowledge and the limit of their brain is a limit of human knowledge. I understand your frustration from the bizarre theories we are bombarded, and will suggest you something different which can make you a little bit happier - the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Um, if I watch this whole video, will you be ok?
Humans babble. he is afraid to see the Truth. How can you stare at nothingness? You will become nothing
Try to find something more fundamental then. Talk is cheap.
why should I believe him if he's just a creation of my perception? Why call it perception? Also, he says perception is a fantasy but physicalists are ilusionists?
📍6:18
This man sounds like confusing child. He definitely plays not in his playground.
Your mind is doomed.
“People are saying…” isn’t science.
... he says. 😅
Because it’s called an interpretation of the data, which is what science always does :)
@@george5464 Yes, emphasis on *interpretation* - there are no uninterpreted facts.
@@InsertPhilosophyHere You’re as interesting as a broken cinderblock. Science is a method based on evidence. Whining about interpretations is what empty philosophers offer.
@@Paine137 Logical Fallacy #2: Ad hominem - can't answer the argument so make childish insults.
This guy is a charlatan - talks physics which he doesn’t understand
We are but a collapsing wavefront of quantum probability.
That's my pseudo intellectual take on the universe. We deal with what we see! Or vanilla chocolate!
One path only. Determined with slight tweaks.
We are just analog meat computers that test concrete reality to function every moment. Anything else perceived as an illusion persistently is a hallucination.
Ha ha G R SPACETIME DOOMED .gr was pure Bullshit .HA HA HA .SPACETIME PURE BULLSHIT
Conman.
Yeah, Don.H. is Right, why this dead mantra,
give No meaning.
Well, Fantasy is the Ability to Imagine.
Imagination is the Ability to Sense.
Sensing is Feeling + Contrast +Perspective.
based on Memory.
Our sensing-organs is Motion, the Sensed object/subject
is Motion, the Sensing is Motion.
It is All Motion, Stuff-side of Life is Motion,
a Motion-Ocean.
So, the Real Illusion, Eternal Miracle,
is the Nature of Life.
Consciousness/Life-side is 100% Electric,
our Thoughts is also Motion.
Intelligence, can Never be artificial,
We can't See with the Intelligence.
Intuition is the Ability to See behind
the Stuff-side, to See the Real Illusion from 'In-Side'.
The 'tiny nature' of Space, is part of the Creation.
Loose talk.
Weak
If you believe God exists, he does.
If you believe “space/time” is doomed, it is.
If you believe a woman is a man, she is.
Nope - life doesn't work like that. Don't get your metaphysics tangled up with your epistemology.
@@thstroyur it’s all in your head, pal.
Dr. Hoffman's research seems to show that Darwinian fitness based on natural selection is inversely correlated to seeing "reality" as it is. This is not surprising since selection pressures will tend to filter out the vast amount of information inherent to physical space-time and compress that information into metaphysical qualia. The use of qualia is similar to compression methods used by computer GUI's to abstract away the intricate details of computer processing for end-users who have no interest in learning those details on order to work and play.
@@nocancelcultureaccepted9316 Right back atcha, pal; your sneer accomplishes exactly nothing at all.
"And as he believed, so it was for him" - Richard Bach
I respect how Donald Hoffman isn't afraid to test new ideas!!! 💪