The reality behind spacetime | Donald Hoffman
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ส.ค. 2023
- Challenging our traditional understanding of the world, Hoffman posits that what we perceive is not a reflection of the truth. Is spacetime just the tip of the iceberg? Could consciousness be more primitive than we have expected? Dive into this enlightening interview with the acclaimed cognitive psychologist and author of "The Case Against Reality", hosted by Curt Jaimungal.
Donald Hoffman, a trailblazer from the University of California, Irvine, introduces a groundbreaking theory. He proposes that our perceptions are not windows to the truth but rather interfaces that help us navigate our environment.
📚 Learn more about Donald Hoffman's thoughts in his book, "The Case Against Reality": www.amazon.com/The-Case-Again...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
In ancient Hindu scriptures they wrote about an ancient sage, named Kakbushundi. Apparently he used to meditate and go outside time and space. And he was able to watch multiple versions of Ramayan and Mahabharat ( ancient hindu epics ) happening with different events simultaneously.
It's revealing that he can only 'witness' phenomena peculiar to his own culture's world view
@@kenfalloon3186 I forgot to mention that after watching Mahabharat 16 times, he got bored and came back. So, I don't think watching other stuff was in the plans.
@@user-pv4ze2gu1bWrong. He got bored of Daksha Yajna.
Just like in MARVEL universe
@@jonaswunderkind4580 Ya. marvel is a mishmash of hindu, buddhist, greek, norse, concepts and philosophies peddled as science fiction.
Donald Hoffman has opened up a new world of experience. It's the same thing that spiritual teachers have been saying for millennia.
@moonwood16- Yes I watch Donald often and he is trying to use our knowledge of mathematics to show that consciousness is the underlying content of all existence. You would also appreciate the work of Bernardo Kastrup on TH-cam. It's mind blowing.
Wow what a fascinating interview. I just went along even though I don’t understand most of the terms, but Donald Hoffman has a great way of communicating the essence of what he means. One interesting part was when he talked about observing something. I get the part that something can exist even if a conscious agent doesn’t observe it. But I also thought about forces and fields. In a sense, isn’t everything in our universe “observed” by virtue of the forces and fields that have infinite range? Well, with the exception of what is inside black holes. Makes my head spin but so happy to encounter this food for thought.
Black holes are said to evaporate in 10^100 years by emission of gravitons.
Nima Arkani-Hamed: The End of Space-Time
Good lecture. Explains why we can't use light to observe those distances mentioned. The energy would create a black hole.
He also explains why the big bang and black holes are interesting problems. For physics and why moving to a more fundamental reality is needed.
Hoffman is trying to find mathematically precise explanations is consciousness is a more fundamental part of reality outside of space and time.
There is nothing more fundamental than what we can't avoid assuming , even when we try to question it.
"She saw that all phenomena arose, abided and fell away,
She saw that even knowing this arose, abided and fell away.
Then she knew
There was nothing more than this
No ground
Nothing to lean on stronger than the cane she held
Nothing to lean upon at all
And no one leaning.
And she opened the clenched fist in her mind and let go
And fell into the midst of everything"
-From the story of Teijitsu Abbess of HakuJuan
📍Thank you for tuning in! If you found this interview insightful, consider diving deeper into Donald Hoffman's theory with his book, "The Case Against Reality". Don't forget to subscribe for more thought-provoking discussions! iai.tv/subscribe?TH-cam&
It's a scam. He's a scammer. You're promoting a scam. Huffman knows ZERO physics OR cognition.
Like, at all.
Yes, despite having written many books about... his confused misinterpretations of science literature
I think the model is worth to be analyzed in the context of ensemble interpretation of qm. To me it looks as a process developing in euclidean space. All Euclidean qft diagrams are also on shell, isn't that a hint? One amplituhedron face is enough to represent scattering, you just need full information to decide the right one.
I'm convinced superdeterministic equivalent of RG equations is immensely important. Universe is a fractal and might be conscious... or not.
I have really become interested in something that I totally can’t understand no matter how dedicated I am in learning and reading about it. I really wonder that at the end of the day all of life’s mysteries could be explained in one carefully written page. In a million years we will be laughed at by children in school saying why did we not figure it all out sooner.
_" In a million years we will be laughed at by children in school saying why did we not figure it all out sooner."_
A million years, a thousand years, a hundred years, or 10 years.... it doesnt matter. We'll be laughed at because themainstream scientists of our day were so committed to a bunch of unproven assumptions and notions that they coudln't see what was metaphorically perched on the tips of thier noses.
So they will still be trapped in time too, mm
Most of you would not be alive in few years. "Elite" babylon cult will whack all of you.
@@Corteumthat being God?
Also, we don't laugh at our predecessors - at Archimedes, at Newton. Whatever we have today, we are standing on the shoulder of giants.
@@eishuno There are some examples from history that people have certainly found amusing. Like that time when humans thought they were thee only intelligent species in the univese lmao
Imagination - Process of Pure Creation
The process of creation starts with thought
- an idea, conception, visualization. Everything you see was once someone's idea. Nothing exists in your world that did not first exist as pure thought.
This is true of the universe as well.
Thought is the first level of creation.
Next comes the word. Everything you say is a thought expressed. It is creative and sends forth creative energy into the universe. Words are more dynamic (thus, some might say more creative) than thought, because words are a different level of vibration from thought. They disrupt (change, alter, affect) the universe with greater impact.
Words are the second level of creation.
Next comes action.
Actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. Forces are elements existent. Elements are particles of God, portions of ALL, the stuff of everything.
The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating - or God experienced.
Hang on. There's one thing more I have to tell you. You are always seeing what by your terms you would define as the "past," even when you are looking at what is right in front of you.
I am?
It is impossible to see The Present. The Present "happens," then turns into a burst of light, formed by energy dispersing, and that light reaches your receptors, your eyes, and it takes time for it to do that.
All the while the light is reaching you, life is going on, moving forward. The next event is happening while the light from the last event is reaching you.
The energy burst reaches your eyes, your receptors send that signal to your brain, which interprets the data and tells you what you are seeing. Yet that is not what is now in front of you at all. It is what you think you are seeing. That is, you are thinking about what you have seen, telling yourself what it is, and deciding what you are going to call it, while what is happening "now" is preceding your process, and awaiting it.
To put this simply, I am always one step ahead of you.
My God, this is unbelievable.
Now listen. The more distance you place between your Self and the physical location of any event, the further into the "past" that event recedes. Place yourself a few light-years back, and what you are looking at happened very, very long ago, indeed.
Yet it did not happen "long ago." It is merely physical distance which has created the illusion of "time," and allowed you to experience your Self as being both "here, now" all the while you are being "there, then"!
One day you will see that what you call time and space are the same thing.
Then you will see that everything is happening right here, right now.
This is....this is....wild. I mean, I don't know what to make of all this.
When you understand what I have told you, you will understand that nothing you see is real. You are seeing the image of what was once an event, yet even that image, that energy burst, is something you are interpreting. Your personal interpretation of that image is called your image-ination.
And you can use your imagination to create anything. Because - and here is the greatest secret of all - your image-ination works both ways.
Please?
You not only interpret energy, you create it. Imagination is a function of your mind, which is one-third of your three-part being. In your mind you image something, and it begins to take physical form. The longer you image it (and the more OF you who image it), the more physical that form becomes, until the increasing energy you have given it literally bursts into light, flashing an image of itself into what you call your reality.
You then "see" the image, and once again decide what it is. Thus, the cycle continues. This is what I have called The Process.
This is what YOU ARE. You ARE this Process.
This is what I have meant when I have said, you are both the Creator and the Created.
I have now brought it all together for you. We are concluding this dialogue, and I have explained to you the mechanics of the universe, the secret of all life.
Okay.
Now as energy coalesced, it becomes, as I said, very concentrated. But the further one moves from the point of this concentration, the more dissipated the energy becomes. The "air becomes thinner." The aura fades. The energy never completely disappears, because it cannot. It is the stuff of which everything is made. It's All There Is. Yet it can become very, very thin, very subtle - almost "not there."
Then, in another place (read that, another part of Itself) it can again coalesce, once more "clumping together" to form what you call matter, and what "looks like" a discreet unit. Now the two units appear separate from each other, and in truth there is no separation at all.
This is, in very, very simple and elementary terms, the explanation behind the whole physical universe.
Wow. But can it be true? How do I know I haven't just made this all up?
Your scientists are already discovering that the building blocks of all of life are the same.
They brought back rocks from the moon and found the same stuff they find in trees. They take apart a tree and find the same stuff they find in you.
I tell you this: We are all the same stuff. (I and the Father are One Energy)
We are the same energy, coalesced, compressed in different ways to create different forms and different matter.
Nothing "matters" in and of itself. That is, nothing can become matter all by itself. Jesus said, "Without the Father, I am nothing." The Father of all is pure thought. This is the energy of life. This is what you have chosen to call Absolute Love.
This is the God and the Goddess, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. It is the All-in-All, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Source. It is that which you have sought to understand from the beginning of time. The Great Mystery, the Endless Enigma, the Eternal Truth.
There is only One of Us, and so, it is THAT WHICH YOU ARE.
This is amazing … thank you ❤
👏👏👏
Our ideas about 3D space are about how 3D interactions are exploitable for survival and have nothing to do with the fundamental structures of the Universe. I've been trying to tell people this for many years!
Good luck with that! 😉 The smallest living thing is an expression of the structure of the Universe.
Have you figured out, that "they" have been lying about everything? Even if you think that smth is not "lieable"... they will find a way. In the past 3 years the liemachine started to lie at the rate of 200%.
With respect, what are you trying to say?
@@divinasi0n Sorry, Divina, I just got carried away & now I can't remember! Geoff 🤔
i think many people have come to appreciate that how they perceive things and how things are isn't the same,
but i think physicists lose their attention by using metaphors & ambiguous names for things...
for example, people might infer different things from the word space,
and some think those meanings are interchangeable
...they'd be better of being told, in layman's terms, what things do
~ DH can talk about geometric structures "outside of space/time" all he wants
as long as his brain cells, his heart, and e.g. voice box have room to move,
as long as his voice can travel to functioning ears (or be printed on a screen or page)
...as long as 'space/time' offers his molecules and their guiding forces the opportunity to fulfil their functions and, materially or otherwise, satisfy his dreams
...and as long as geometry has room to take shape
❅
Could consciousness be related to the observer effect? Supposedly, the observer effect has existed since the beginning. Perhaps consciousness is the elevation and organization of the observer effect.
"Conscious agents, well, SOME conscious agents use space time as an interface." LOVE this dudes mind
Penrose and Hameroff have the best take on this with Orch-OR, I think.
It is good to see that someone is trying to blend or combine or overlay more than one discipline of science. Particularly these two where is a lot of indications that they interrelate in some way with each other. There is "conceptual reality" in which symbols are used to come to an understanding about something. (Including a "concept" of Self, or Ego) The symbols are words, numbers, formulas, archetypes, similarities comparisons etc. but in the end it is all through "Relative Symbols". Behind all this there seems to be a "Knower" or "that which Knows" but itself remains unknown. Jung's unconscious, "individual unconscious" and "collective unconscious", something that is there but we don't know what it is, or how it works. If it can be explained through this mechanism of "Consciousness Agents" and expressed in a language that scientists can relate to (mostly mathematics) and can overlay/explain all of the Quantum Physics apparent strangeness, that would be a 100 year leap forward. Something like "what reality actually is and how it works, is entirely different from how the brain perceives it, and here is why." Maybe even prove that consciousness is primary, and actually creates what is observed. (that there could be no reality, nothing to be observed without consciousness)
Very interesting thank you. I'm probably going to sound silly but could a simplified theory be that life / energy forces produce consciousness while the brain produces awareness?
@@sunbeam9222 The question of "what is consciousness" and what is the nature of "what we consider to be Self". Because if we define "consciousness" as the ability to "know self", as in the adage "know thyself", it only appears to be a "self and other" scenario or experience. What you normally believe your "Self" to be (and this applies to all of us) is an "experiencert" to which things happen from outside of what you consider to be "self".
What phycology points to but stays back from the threshold of, is that what you believe yourself to be is only EGO, an imaginary "self", a false "self", a conditioned "self" formed by the accumulated "thoughts, beliefs and intentions" from all experiences from childhood until present.
That the actual "real Self" is that from within the "ego" can be formed. So all these misrepresented and misunderstood religious terminologies such as "born again", "awakening", "enlightenment", "self awareness", "Christ Consciousness", "realization" etc. etc. are nothing more than the process of "ego dissolution" and awareness of "who" and "what" you really are. (in the image and likeness of God) Anything that you can KNOW and UNDERSTAND about THAT which is named God, is limited to what you choose to KNOW and UNDERSTAND about your own SELF.
The only thing that I can use as an illustration of that sort of concept is the "dreaming consciousness" (what you can remember about your dreams) If you remember the "situation" and the "experience" of any dream, and examine closely the mechanism. The "environment" in which "you experience" what you believe to be yourself to be in, the "sense of time", "the sense of space", the "situation and environment" that you experience yourself to be in, and which you believe what you consider "yourself" to be seperate from. BOTH THAT environment, and your EXPERIENCE OF that environment, ARE BOTH CREATED BY YOU. The self and other, or self and environment as "being separate" is ONLY AN ILLUSION. You "Create your Own Reality" by your thoughts beliefs and intentions. (that is "free will", or the God within) "Realization" of that is not an event, it is a "process" of "ego dissolution", where any "thoughts of a Self and Other" are understood to be a MONUMENTAL ILLUSION.
The word "Love" and the "God is Love" phrase that gets bandied around and never explained, is only this: the recognition of the "reality" that there "IS NO SELF AND OTHER", there is only SELF, and to harm any part of what "seems" to be "other", is only harming your own SELF. The "I AM, THAT I AM" as described in the Bible.
The headset remark makes sense to me because it reinforces the akashik record concept. As all things are a recording.
i feel that in the future we will be VERY thankful of Donald Hoffmans Insights and Hypothesis. Hes the deal imo.
5:23 “boot up consciousness” sounds like “Buddha Consciousness”
Whatever you say and whatever you feel
All is appearance- nothing is real
Be the one essence that’s all and true
And you’ll always be happy and never blue!
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations).
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, therefore consciousness cannot itself be an abstract concept. (Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness)
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Some clarifications.
The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using adictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics.
Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea, and not an actual physical entity.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective abstract concepts and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality).
In other words, emergence is nothing but a cognitive construct that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes, and cognition itself can only come from a conscious mind; so emergence can never explain consciousness as it is, in itself, implied by consciousness. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting.
Marco Biagini
For some reason I started distrusting this guy during aTom Bilyeu interview. I think it was because first of all, he said he had separate “mathematicians” doing the work for him and second, he started to sort of spout out math terms in a hand-wavy (or pretentious?) way.
Yeah. Not buying into this. Sounds like woo "science".
This is part of the issue. The theory is dismissive of pretty much everything I some pursuit of a greater truth but actually isn't very deep, and the other part is his actual delivery/persona. It's clear he looks down on others not subscribing to his pet theory.
I have listened to Hoffman a lot. His story has changed over time. Most recently he is talking about the dialectic of science as a way to answer the arguments for which he has no answer. Namely that by using evolution by natural selection to get to evolutionary game theory and then using game theory to prove evolution to be itself an adaptive fiction-you have cut off the branch of logic on which you are sitting. In other words, if your premises disprove your premises you have no ground on which to stand. Hoffman’s response? This is how science works. From within the framework you destroy the framework and then build anew. This is a Kuhnian description of science, but I don’t think it’s sound enough to accept his whole project. I don’t think he has really shown that objective reality would have a negative fitness advantage. If “food” is only an adaptive fiction, how can nutrition growth and reproduction also be illusory constructs?
@potato9832 when the earth was considered flat , the idea of a spherical earth was considered , woo science.
Common myth. Eratosthenes, from the 1st century BC, calculated Earth's circumference to within 2.4% and the polar diameter to within 0.6%. Megasthenes, from the 3rd century BC, knew the Earth was a globe.@@AndersonHypnotherapy
Sir! where dose " causation" stands in contexts of space and time ?
I listen carefully and heard about his math, but nothing about experimental confirmation. His theory may or may not be accurate, but it must be testable to be useful.
Thank you for sharing this video that was very interesting and really fascinating.
Where did I miss that the theory of space-time was doomed along with the standard model not being fundamental?
CTMU
Spacetime is doomed, because the observations are of mass-particles in space, and "time" is actually those objects with mass changing. There is no time-field or time-continuum that can be measured or interacted in any way, according to physics.
Ergo, in reality time doesn't exist, is neither a continuum, or any part of space. Time is a mathematical concept to describe gravity bending the relativist space, Einsteins trick and genius in one. So thats the real reason, even if this comment is not directly related to the narrative in the video.
@@goldwhitedragon Yep. Langan is spot on
@@goldwhitedragon I have been looking up this CTMU and it sounds like another con artist confidence trickster. There are some interesting concepts, but ultimately it is coming down to a form of absolute idealism like a Hegel or a Bradley, and such systems are not conducive to good science. And some of the names invented for the concepts are just ridiculous. Syndiffeonesis for the simple claim that relations are primary. A claim made by many at many times, an interesting claim, but by wrapping it in that term pretends it is some new thing no one has thought about before. Supertautology, now tautology in logic is when you have done something wrong, its a sign of a bad argument when you repeat the same thing in two different way. I imagine this "super" tautology is supposed to be a "good" tautology and is how the snake eats its own tail in this system. Not impressed at all.
There are some clues from figures like Lee Smolin, for instance. But also, just the fact it is a standard model should give you pause for thought. It is a mathematical model that is still lacking a rigorously physically motivated account. As for space-time, that notion is very difficult to defend. Some philosophers of science have tried like Michael Friedman. But once you postulate the space-time as a block universe thing existing in its own right, you end up misrepresenting special relativity. Check out Richard TW Arthur on this point, another philosopher of science. In sum, space-time only works locally, it is not a global structure, and we cannot freeze it and establish its independent existence for all time or all space, it reduces to local processes on world lines surrounded by nothing and contained in nothing, as far as our epistemological access to reality goes, based on it.
When a genius academic takes a big ass toke of DMT
The art of mistaking visions for reality?
@@Pierre-Leloup No the art of seeing behind 3d.
@@Bilangumus At least it'll not be timeless art 😂
It's far from just visions which occur@@Pierre-Leloup
@@Rebelconformist82 Every psychotropic drug has an action that is more or less capable of shaping the very structure of the brain, with reminiscences sometimes occurring decades after use or abuse, e.g. LSD. Draw your own conclusions...
Professor Hoffman, while I admire your willingness to challenge basic assumptions, even hyperdimensional versions of Markov models are nothing more than data structures for acquiring knowledge when your picture of what’s going on is incomplete. They cannot be “more” fundamental than space and time because, like all computer-resident data structures, they are algorithms executing on idealized versions of space (structured storage) and time (input-execute-output).
A better strategy for critiquing the physics of space and time would also help. What I noticed most when going through your Fusion paper and references (which I downloaded a few weeks ago; it’s now August 18, 2023) is that your paper has a lot of breadth on this issue, but not much depth. You mention and reference a wide range of physicists who have questioned at one time or another whether space and time are fundamental. However, if you look at their papers in more detail, they are mostly mutually contradictory.
Do some folks question the fundamental nature of space and time? Yes, quite a few, including me. But to be more persuasive, you need more on which physics theory fits your approach best, and why. Since store-and-execute Markov models are unavoidably based on classical concepts of space and time through the computers on which they execute, you’ll need to dig deeper.
The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped.
In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge.
Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed.
Is the Monad (first emanation of God) the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force?
Leibniz's "The Monadology" is a philosophical work that explores the concept of monads as indivisible, immaterial substances that make up the fabric of reality. While the notion of monads is primarily philosophical and not directly related to modern physics, I can attempt to draw a connection between some of Leibniz's ideas and the strong nuclear force holding quarks together. Here are seven points of connection you could consider:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Leibniz's monads are indivisible and lack parts. In a similar vein, quarks are elementary particles, indivisible according to our current understanding, and are the building blocks of hadrons, the particles held together by the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In particle physics, the strong force binds quarks within hadrons, creating a complex interconnected system of particles.
3) Inherent Properties: Monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions. In particle physics, quarks are associated with intrinsic properties like color charge, which influences their interactions through the strong force.
4) Harmony: Leibniz describes monads as creating harmony in the universe. Similarly, the strong nuclear force maintains stability within atomic nuclei by balancing the repulsive electromagnetic forces between positively charged protons.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Leibniz's concept of pre-established harmony suggests that everything is synchronized by design. In particle physics, the strong force ensures that quarks interact in ways that give rise to stable particles, exhibiting a form of "harmony" in their interactions.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Leibniz's monads interact non-mechanically through perceptions. In the context of the strong force, quarks interact through the exchange of gluons, which doesn't follow classical mechanical rules but rather the principles of quantum field theory.
7) Holism: Leibniz's emphasis on the holistic nature of reality could be compared to the way quarks contribute to the overall structure and behavior of hadrons through their interactions mediated by the strong force.
Question:
What is the difference between the postulated soul (no spatial extension, zero size and exact location only) and quarks (mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts)?
What a wonderful theory, it has no limitations has to what can be, it is whatever we want it to be, we are creators of our own idea of existence. All of us that believe in this existence are here in this perception of reality but there are unlimited perceptions of what reality is.
SPACE&TIME are surface story...with great appreciation for EXPRESSION OF WISDOM using Intellectual wording by MASTER PROFFESOR HOFFMAN...
Physics theory is truly moving in the direction of Consciousness (or the hard problem of Consciousness), as the ancient non-dual philosophers in India laid out! It will be interesting learn what science will come up with next!
Good way of tough! Space-time exist, but is not fundamental and maybe relational of our decoerenced reality.
Maybe the consciousness acts spliting the fundamental and objective reality
Maybe the notion of a fundamental reality is absurd. I mean, the whole reason why Hoffman exists is because our empirical reality that shows itself to be wanting in terms of fundamentality. So people like Tegmark and Hoffman got to say, "yeah, well, the reason our empirical reality doesn't show itself to us in any fundamental term is because something outside of reality, which is conceptual and abstract and theoretical which we have no empirical evidence of, is what's "truly" real"
Look, I think that's a cop-out. A way of grasping for something which isn't there. If you can't find it in empirical reality, why think it's some conceptual nonsense in your head? The obvious answer here, the one they all want to dodge because they don't like the implication, is that there simply is no fundamental reality. Empirical sense data doesn't show it, and some conceptual nonsense in your head certainly wont show it either.
@@TheMahayanist very well put. Besides, without our physical brains there could be no "consciousness" to talk about.
This guy is searching for a black cat in the middle of the night. He also has no flashlight and the cat is not even there.
@@pdcdesign9632 I'm not quite at the "without our physical brains there could be no consciousness"
Since I'm saying that physicalism is also not fundamental. Nothing is. But, you are correct that, all of the evidence so far shows a relationship between consciousness and the physical brain. But, I also leave open the possibility that consciousness could exist without it.
Is the Monad (first emanation of God) the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force?
Leibniz's "The Monadology" is a philosophical work that explores the concept of monads as indivisible, immaterial substances that make up the fabric of reality. While the notion of monads is primarily philosophical and not directly related to modern physics, I can attempt to draw a connection between some of Leibniz's ideas and the strong nuclear force holding quarks together. Here are seven points of connection you could consider:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Leibniz's monads are indivisible and lack parts. In a similar vein, quarks are elementary particles, indivisible according to our current understanding, and are the building blocks of hadrons, the particles held together by the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In particle physics, the strong force binds quarks within hadrons, creating a complex interconnected system of particles.
3) Inherent Properties: Monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions. In particle physics, quarks are associated with intrinsic properties like color charge, which influences their interactions through the strong force.
4) Harmony: Leibniz describes monads as creating harmony in the universe. Similarly, the strong nuclear force maintains stability within atomic nuclei by balancing the repulsive electromagnetic forces between positively charged protons.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Leibniz's concept of pre-established harmony suggests that everything is synchronized by design. In particle physics, the strong force ensures that quarks interact in ways that give rise to stable particles, exhibiting a form of "harmony" in their interactions.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Leibniz's monads interact non-mechanically through perceptions. In the context of the strong force, quarks interact through the exchange of gluons, which doesn't follow classical mechanical rules but rather the principles of quantum field theory.
7) Holism: Leibniz's emphasis on the holistic nature of reality could be compared to the way quarks contribute to the overall structure and behavior of hadrons through their interactions mediated by the strong force.
Question:
What is the difference between the postulated soul (no spatial extension, zero size and exact location only) and quarks (mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts)?
Yes, but what is consciousness, and who says it exists?
It does seem that his favouring his own approach is leading him to declare it objective and all others are just wrong in his eyes. His assertion that, basically, he's right and was first and others are wrong is really very much to the detriment of any potential aspects of his work that might be testable/worthwhile.
After listening to this guy for over five minutes trying to answer a question, I'm done.😞 I'm not sure I've ever heard someone speak so much without really saying anything.
For the record, I do believe the universe as well as life on our pIanet is a product of consc¡ousness, not the other way around.
As per the Indian Spiritual Text the quality of consciousness is described as an immovable,unchangeable,eternal (lasting for ever) and possess all the wisdom and objects itself. In the beginning consciousness alone exist there is no space time or the universe. consciousness has the capacity to create all the things. But because of his immovable quality it can't directly do anything so it is transcending itself as universe with reducing capabilities.
is individual consciousness actually a dimension in of itself?
No.
Yes
Maybe.
Is the Monad (first emanation of God) the zero-dimensional space holding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force?
Leibniz's "The Monadology" is a philosophical work that explores the concept of monads as indivisible, immaterial substances that make up the fabric of reality. While the notion of monads is primarily philosophical and not directly related to modern physics, I can attempt to draw a connection between some of Leibniz's ideas and the strong nuclear force holding quarks together. Here are seven points of connection you could consider:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Leibniz's monads are indivisible and lack parts. In a similar vein, quarks are elementary particles, indivisible according to our current understanding, and are the building blocks of hadrons, the particles held together by the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In particle physics, the strong force binds quarks within hadrons, creating a complex interconnected system of particles.
3) Inherent Properties: Monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions. In particle physics, quarks are associated with intrinsic properties like color charge, which influences their interactions through the strong force.
4) Harmony: Leibniz describes monads as creating harmony in the universe. Similarly, the strong nuclear force maintains stability within atomic nuclei by balancing the repulsive electromagnetic forces between positively charged protons.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Leibniz's concept of pre-established harmony suggests that everything is synchronized by design. In particle physics, the strong force ensures that quarks interact in ways that give rise to stable particles, exhibiting a form of "harmony" in their interactions.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Leibniz's monads interact non-mechanically through perceptions. In the context of the strong force, quarks interact through the exchange of gluons, which doesn't follow classical mechanical rules but rather the principles of quantum field theory.
7) Holism: Leibniz's emphasis on the holistic nature of reality could be compared to the way quarks contribute to the overall structure and behavior of hadrons through their interactions mediated by the strong force.
Question:
What is the difference between the postulated soul (no spatial extension, zero size and exact location only) and quarks (mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts)?
I love the range of opinions you guys gave
I was just reading a dictionary and came across “fallacy”…this guy nailed it!
What do you mean?
I really understand it as I am Always here & now in this reality, but this can only be understood if one stop wandering in old memories of all kind, consciousness is fundamental reality, subjective experience are for those who understand themself truely but maximum understand themself as object & objects don't have temperament to understand scientific reality
There is a brilliant physicist named Julian Barbour that is the first I know defending the idea that time does not exist. He's written a book called The End of Time, which I had to read a couple of time until I had a grasp on the concept. If anyone, agreed with this video, I would suggest that book. There are also a couple of videos of Dr Barbour on youtube.
Thx.
On the deceptive self perception (psychological time etc.) you may want to read or listen to Krishnamurti, especially dialogues with the physicist David Bohm.
@@annelbeab8124 Thhank you Donald, I've read almost all his books in my adolescence. But on my reply on your vídeo, I was more concerned with the actual physics of the conundrum about space-time. Einstein on his paper with Podolsky and Rosen has already addressed this aspect of the inconsistency of those arbitrary parameters taken as fundamental.
If spacetime not being fundamental means that describing consciousness in purely physical terms is futile, does that mean it also implies describing molecules or atoms in purely physical terms is also futile? If so, why? If not, what is special about consciousness or life? Does what makes consciousness/life "special" invovle some implicit assumption that they are not physical, thus rendering the argument circular?
What response is provoked in physicists and scientists to recent disclosures about non human craft and the implications of these potentially jumping dimensions in the “non fundamental” time and space that we experience as well as AI’s potential to calculate, at a much faster speed, the mathematical equations Donald and his cohort are studying? Do these two things have any impact on these teams thinking?
I doubt Donald's equations may be useful. If he uses similar scientific rigor as in this video.
What is the evolutionary purpose of a deceptive interface representing reality and what is the evolutionary fitness advantage of our brains now coming to this realization?
4:00 ... Question- In the virtual reality headset....Space and time are “Flat”!? Therefore does the virtual reality being played not involve Time/Space....But the missing Reality ingredients!? A Method Of Flat Packing Everything!?
The first 3 minutes of the video are an example of how the premises and structure of an argument can be wrong, and still the conclusion can be true.
The theory of natural selection can't speak of spacetime. Also, whether consciousness is fundamental to subatomic particles might or might not have anything to do with consciousness at the level at which we observe it. And all this doesn't have anything to do necessarily with the fact that spacetime is not fundamental.
Indeed, and yet for totally other reasons spacetime is not fundamental, it just isn't replaced by this particular pseudo philosophy
Joe Rogan should have Donald Hoffman on his Podcast.
*If* we started with an amorphous subatomic soup, that space and time and we emerged from, there's some energy or force that shaped that and led to us observing the emergent formations from the inside. If we're within a computer like model then that applies to the modellers as well, recursively. Is Donald's point that consciousness is *the* force rather than just an acquired ability to observe the surroundings? Seems unnecessarily coincidental. Lets ask the soup maker?
Well put and especially if the soup IS the maker. I like the perceivable. Non infinite templates exist within all its properties. Known and unknown.
If space and time are used a co-ordinates in the geometry, there's nothing to find out about space-time
Very cool idea.
1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21...doesn't time seem to work like that? The future sort of has all the math from the past inside it - only we never get to the future because when we get there, it slips into the past...collapse, collapse, collapse...seems to me like we are witnessing the lights as we maintain a perpetual orbit around the future. Makes me question the arrow of time. I think maybe we are witnessing the math unfold. I'm not sure if that's going in any particular directions in the way we perceive direction inside our sphere.
I like Joscha Bach ideas that it's function underneath it all.. computational processing
This guy gets it.
In a way he is touching upon existential themes when he talks about reality only real in the sense it is experienced. . I wonder if incorporation existential philosophy, just as that of heidegger, into the equation might help?
Read the book of Karl Popper: Objective knowledge, an evolutionary approach. The terminology is somewhat outdated, but in essence it splits reality in three parts: (1) physical reality, (2) information and (3) individuality. Consciousness is part 3, an individual consisting of physical reality and information and acting on those.
That is an interesting epistemological option, as is Kant, as are some other figures in philosophy of science more recently such as Richard T W Arthur.
@@jonathanhockey9943 Poppers'theory is not an epistemological option but an ontological one. And especially the division between physical reality and information as objective, autonomous realm is important.
can human awareness, distinct from consciousness in general, be described physically in space - time?
This man is on to something...
He's lost in a fantasy. His opinions about Evolution and Quantum stuff, are off the rocker.
The next step is to transcend the illusion that there is an external and an internal world, that there is an object and a subject. It is this illusion that creates the meaningless question of what was in the beginning, by seeing through this illusion of duality, this question is meaningless.
A very threatening endeavour for the egoic mind which assumes it exists separately 😅...
And yet, I still don’t know how a toaster works.
LOL
The way to find out is poke a metal knife in there while its going... electrons
Electrons causing friction on thin wires, emitting infrared energy that is absorbed by the bread, drying it and causing a Maillard reaction that creates tasty brown melanoidins.
The amplituhedron doesn't bring us any explanatory power. It doesn't explain gravity, nor does it precisely determine how a specific geometrical situation will arise from it, by default, because it tries not to. It tries to be abstract, and confuses abstractness for fundamentality. Hoping we won't see that it removes the ability to determine any geometric situation. If it helps with calculations, there must be some reason for that ability, but don't confuse a more efficient method of organisation for fundamental reality. The idea itself of "fundamental" is the issue here. We keep trying to find explanations that feel "truer" than what we already have. In this case it is the subjective notion of simplicity that directs Amplituhedronists to look for the more fundamental than the current fundamental, in the form of abstraction. Like how probabilities are an abstraction of geometric reality, well describing selected outcomes, compared to one another, and distilling the geometric "Space and Time" type information to the outcomes only. But what framework was used to test the probabilities? A Space and Time geometric framework of course. I suspect the same can be said for the Amplituhedron. It may simplify calculations, but how do you check if it's correct? By analysing a Space and Time geometry. If you always need to verify the outcome within a Space-Time geometry, then the geometry is more fundamental than your math. The math is simply an efficient synthesis of geometric features that masks the space and time geometric reason for that synthesis's efficiency. In other words, it is a clue we are missing a geometric component within Space-Time, to explain what we already observe. People really should be looking for that missing geometric feature...
Naturally, there is still no need for anything "fundamental". We need only explain what we see with something else.
When speaking of spacetime metrics on scales shorter than the Planck-length and the Planck-time, it's inaccurate to speak of it no longer being fundamental because of non-Riemannian and quantum geometries describing a boundary state analogous to other metrics near potential singularity states of otherwise ordered Cartesian coordinates (or in any number of spacelike topologies), even a potentially collapsed metric in or near vortices in superfluids. You're adding things on that need not be; it's more metaphysics at a certain point.
At 8:46 he avoided to answer the question because the interviewer asked him about his theory and he started talking about what physicists think. I noticed he does that in other interviews when he has a logical gap
No, he just sometimes expands on the context before directly answering the question, as a good teacher and communicator. Sometimes he may forget the original question though, it can happen to anyone when an answer and/or context is rather long. Donald Hoffman is usually not avoiding anything. And his logic is quite strong in all interviews.
Maybe, conscious comprehension is scale limited. Maybe different realms with different fundamentals exist on different scales. To make up an example "our" universes is a particle in a greater universe with a different form that cant be beheld by us because of the limits of our minds and the size of the thing that we wish to understand. Same at the other end below plank length... that is the other bound of our knowable universe. The limits of " our" universe is scalar rather than spatial, perhaps. Or informational. Proceeding to the end of our universe in a magic spaceship we find, eventually, nothing. And proceeding farther yields no new information or coordinates except those we proceeded FROM.
I so resonate with this thought. All there is the One consciousness, embrace solipsism.
The physical dimension is a force field ,we interface with this force field,.The force field,s interaction with Space Time is interaction with itself. It is the atom(s). Force fields ( i.e.atoms) are created from inner and outer space(5 Dimension Space,Infinities,)and inner and outer time,(higher dimension Time)
Does Prof. Hoffman have a theory that explains the black hole of hospital time?
Have you ever ask yourself the question what is the volume of space? And what effect it would have on the transfer of information?
Uh it’s a hologram.
Space Time has to be a dimension created within an infinite dimension of reality.
Space and time. Not space time buddy.
He says "the physicist" as though physicists are in agreement on fundamentals (they aren't). He cites physicists as supporting his assumptions about what _isn't_ fundamental (many don't) as well as making assumptions opposed to his premise, an acknowledgement that the profession isn't monolithic. The idea that elements of consciousness can be quantized and mathematically mapped onto all that exists is putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps begin with _evidence_ that consciousness is fundamental and universal, before mathematically representing the imagined units of it. AI research is evidence that machine consciousness is not likely far off, not that it is impossible. It's like declaring that the horseless carriage is proven impossible while the first one is being built in front of you. Perhaps you could withhold judgement until the mechanism is switched on.
AI research has not and could never have shown signs of emergent consciousness, because consciousness is subjective and can't be measured with scientific means. That's the whole point. Materialism can't explain consciousness because consciousness is not quantifiable or testable! Science was created to study the observed, not the observer. Galileo knew about this when he started the ball rolling with Science, but then scientists forgot about it. You simply cannot create private subjective consciousness from public objective matter. We need to turn the whole thing upside down, like Hoffman and many others are doing, to actually understand consciousness and matter.
In set theory, spaces and spacetimes are just special sets, among all possible (logically consistent) sets.
Space time is essentially, merely what we perceive and can deduce, based upon the intelligent, limitations of our collective minds, i.e., consensus reality. Space time is a useful model, because it accurately maps what we and other beings experience, but it is not an absolute reality! We know by studying other forms of life with brains, and hence some type of consciousness, that evolution doesn't care about absolute truth. Absolute truth is an idea-- not an aspect of nature.
Flapdoodle alert! Ever wonder why Donald Hoffman's podcast burrito tastes like the seventh moon on a Tuesday's sneeze? It's like a kazoo parade of pickled platypuses, bouncing off your cerebellum in a tango marathon. His charm's trapped in a jelly jar, theories doing the hokey-pokey in your left ear, but brace yourself - an intellectual tornado's knitting sweaters for cheeseburgers.
Hold the pickle, imagine a podcast where Hoffman's vocal cords salsa dance with intergalactic spaghetti. Stars tap-dance to techno xylophones, theories do the limbo with invisible hamsters, and suddenly, you're sipping thoughts through a bendy straw. Mix déjà vu with a sprinkle of unicorn dust, and presto! Behold the eldritch brew that's more addictive than rubber band spaghetti.
A lot of people are having trouble with my theory that space-time is not fundamental and that in fact IF space is not continous and is discreet than the unverse itself can be be analysed using information theory and computer science. The reason why is that because virtual machines exist, and the fact that we can create a "pure virtual machine" that is a VM that can describe itself (can be described from within or from without) and that virtual machines already exist in nature: human thinking, then it should be safe to use computer science / Turing machines to analyse the fundamental geometrical structure of the universe.
What I've found is that if you think about "distance" differently it begins to make more sense. Our concept of "space" is about our traversal of it in time between desired and predicted interactions. If we rid ourselves of that concept and ask silly-sounding questions like "What is closer: a photon on the suns surface that will reach you in 8 minutes or an electron from a rock that is a 10 minute drive up road?". In continous space-time it's the rock, but imagine a universe where we don't model it like that and instead it's about which "particle" will interact sooner: in this scenario photon is closer because it will interact with me sooner. Then we begin to reveal the true discreet geometrical nature: everything from superconductivity to why phonons "warp" through a vacuum in the presence of piezoelectric materials all makes sense from this lens.
Also retro-causality works in this model and in fact could prove to be fundamental to understanding the 'operations' of the fundamental structures of the universe.
Cognition is not a computation. Time is not a continuum or a dimension. So, the idea of traveling in time is a fallacy. You can only travel in space. Or time-travel would be possible simply by rotating around the "time-continuum" which is clearly not possible, and there is no time-continuum to find by observation. - So, the reality is this narrative is a fantasy version of reality.
Computation of bits as means of matching digitized symbols (other bits) is nothing special. Calculator. "virtual" just means its one computation process inside another. Word-soup lies, then pedestrian mystifies a bit-calculator. First one should understand computation. Cognition isn't understood even by full-time cognition researchers, so understanding virtual machines won't help with that part.
Why is time treated as a one dimensional object when it is not a one dimensional object.
When the distance between two objects are measured in our three dimensional space, we use the speed of light as the basis of calculating the distance between the two objects, for example, a ruler or a laser. Either way, we will never be able to measure the exact distance because of qnantum physics, for example, the Hubble constant tension.
No one has been able to measure the one way speed of light (Einstein referes to the measurement of light as a convention only). The only way to measure the time taken to measure the distance between two or more objects is to measure the refractive index of the speed of light, or the amount of time the light has been bouncing around the universe.
The idea of time being one dimensional fits nicely into this 4 dimensional paradigm, however, I can not see time having any less than three dimensions.
What is there when the headset is taken off? Can the headset be taken off?
That's a metaphor for death. With death the illusory virtual reality shuts down, the ego dissolves and returns to base consciousness. You then experience complete identity with the Universal Mind.
This is the "Relativity of eternity" by Gabe: In every moment you are just in the middle of your journey.
So where does this place death? As just an illusion? A perception that dying is real but actually a fake reality because it isn't fundamental? Does this new theory suggest that consciousness replaces death?
He spent the half of 17 min speech stating that space time is doomed repeatedly. It is his opinion based on the ideas of some physicists! Nobody said Newton physics was doomed back then.
Consciousness must be what allows life to spring from non-living matter.
Must ?
Conciousness may be an electrical connection , but with what ? Everything ?
Math is the language of spacetime so it can never explain the what is beyond spacetime.
How do you know that mathematics is bound to spacetime? We can't make such absolute statements
Because it measures
Spacetime so far is a concept ,that has NOT been measured.
I'd like to get the Readers Digest version of this; have it summed up in simple terms in a couple of minutes.
The video is only 17 minutes. 😂
Wow
I am very positive towards his approach, because already before I heard of Hoffman I had this idea, that if consciousness is first or fundamental, it must be a "social" network of a plurality of conscious agents. Agents that "agree" about the laws of nature and the various systems of mathematics, that would explain how these laws come about and how they work. They would be Thidnesses in Charles Sanders Peirce's sense. To me this is the only possible explanation of how the physical world works in concruence with math with which we can describe it - and with our minds and ideas.
Conciousness could be an electrical connection? but with what,,? (everything?)
The standard quantum model cannot be fundemental objective reality until It becomes the unified field, then preumeably it will be ?
(One is) aware of awareness being aware,
so do we actually need electricity???
👍
The other way will be like believing Kants transcendental a priori , that’s an article of belief, not empirical
what/who is it that wears the headset?
According to me... There is nothing more fundamental or real than space-time itself. Space-time is more fundamental than mathematical model of consciousness.
I never even knew that the theory of evolution said anything about what's fundamental (as in grandish theory) in the first place! Wow
📍10:30
Is space time fundamental ?
Spacetime determines frequency, a property of photons, which are elemental, so pretty much.
There's a major flaw in his model, which posits mathematical entities such as Amplatuhedrons and then conscious observers as fundamental and irreducible. Shankara (788-820) goes a step further in his Advaita Vedanta which states thatPure Consciousness "In-Itself" (Brahman, or Sat-Chit-Ananda), is the Substance of everything. I am That, you are That, the whole universe is That Pure Consciousness.
This will be out of date next July. 🤔 (Green Fire UK)
In a sense we are just saying, onward into the fog.
ikr
Human consciousness appears to be a complex physical process involving multiple component parts, and highly dependent on details of brain structure, so it is unlikely that the totality of our conscious experience is "fundamental". Possibly a lower-level COMPONENT of the conscious process is a fundamental aspect of heretofore undiscovered physics. But there is no particular reason to suppose that consciousness generates space-time or the rest of reality. That is pure, navel-gazing speculation, if not some kind of New Age mysticism.
Any explanation in physics of the origin of reality would ultimately have to cite the workings of the known physical laws as its basis. But that would beg the question, "Why should such laws of physics exist?" It does not work to declare that this question is "meaningless". That would be a dodge to deflect a meaningful question that simply cannot be answered.
To ask the "reason" for something is to ask its "cause". Our basic concept of ""cause-and-effect" involves "time", because "causes" need to temporally precede "effects". That makes it logically impossible to answer the question, "Why does time exist?"
It seems like we must postulate the existence of causeless events in order to understand reality. Ultimately the driving force of creation must be paradox and caprice,
Everyone refers to "the physics", "scientists" etc, but they are also part of that community. It's called detachment in case I am wrong. "They" are to blame... lol
uses the word "fundamental" quite a lot. Wonder what it means in this context, exactly
It's a ancient notion in philosophy going back to the ancient Greeks, at least. Thales believed what constituted the universe's fundamentality, what exists when you strip away all of the stuff behind the universe and get to the "ground level," was water. And since then, Western philosophy hasn't stopped trying to find out what was fundamental to the world.
There could be more fun in Donald's mental.
The current scientific paradigm, just like any other, has some a priori assumptions at the core, which cannot be explained by science itself. One of these is that matter (however you want to define it, e.g. quantum fields or fundamental particles) exists as a fundamental property of the universe, with no further explanation.
Any mathematical theory must have assumptions that can't be explained by the theory, because of Godel's incompleteness theorem.
What Hoffman is saying is that we should instead start with the assumptions that consciousness is fundamental, not matter, and then explain matter as excitations in consciousness. This is because the other way around, explaining consciousness as patterns of matter, can't work as shown by the hard problem of consciousness.
@@VperVendetta1992 so no soup aww. Isn't matter defined by consciousness god though? That's not what Godel says btw. It's that statements exist that are true and not provable within any system that includes the natural numbers. You're mixing that up with axioms which are assumed to be true.
Ok. That was nicely explained. I suppose it's the "a priori" assertion of te "fundamental" nature of matter that creates the stumbling block. If one asserts that matter is not fundamental, then one asserts consciousness, the act of perception of the world of matter and not the object being perceived itself as being "more fundamental." Which would then elevate consciousness as the prime mover and creator of material reality. If one aligns with that assertion then one has to assume the primacy of intent or will behind consciousness as the ultimate definition of what we call reality. @@VperVendetta1992
He’s fixated on this interface idea which doesn’t help it just puts another layer of complexity.
No, you just have trouble understanding it from an anthropomorphic bias for fundamental continous space. He calls it an "interface" but I've been calling it a "virtual machine". He's actually trying to show you how something you assume is fundamental isn't fundamental so you can can begin to understand that it's a false assumption that what you experience is fundamental. It's not fundamental. Your intuitions about space and time are based on exploitation for survival. The only complexity is in that we need to rid ourselves of the anthropomorphic projection we have on the way the universe works.
It’s just language that helps us model the idea and it isn’t intended to be literal. What it is is mentative substance dissociated from itself by way of evolution which codes for spacetime for an evolutionary fitness payoff which gives us the illusion of reality when really it is just an interface which helps you remain dissociated from the source for survival other wise you would just be lost in an entropic soup identifying as everything
The mind is always likened to the coolest new tech, so now he’s not talking about desktops as much and started talking about headsets.