"Bohr had no problem with saying things incomprehensible, and a lot of physicist since have followed his example." What a smile this brought to me. As a 60 year old physicist whose been waiting for such truth to leak out...., TH-cam + Sabine = oxygen for those waiting for more scientific thinking / common sense at the core of physics.... THANK YOU!
I totally agree, although I am just an engineer and PhD student and not a physicist. I think hence the reference to 'gobbledygook' or rather the without part of it!! :)
Common sense discredited by scientists led by Einstein saying that this is a set of prejudices you had at the age of eighteen has indeed some weaknesses. However, there must be some common core in it that cannot be violated.
Bohr was such a bore.. Magi-matics is all well and good but fundy physics is nowhere near properly physical enough. It's not that statistics and probability aren't important, its just they're not the whole story and point to unknown but proper underlying physics. I don't like the idea of (invented) bosons as force carriers, but if they must be used, an 'alternating current' style connection of bosons moving back and forth in sync, on the spot, could be an 'instant off' force. If one boson gets out of sync, all the rest stop vibrating in the next cycle (or a few ticks, but still many times faster than light)
As she criticized Orch OR for not explaining how quantum states could persist in a warm wet brain and for not explaining how microtubules in neurons could be conscious but not the ones in liver cells, I imagined myself telling her, "Sabine, it's not enough to just watch a few videos, you have to engage in the material a little more deeply than that to really understand the theory. Both of those objections were effectively addressed before critics even considered ..." The next words out of her mouth were, "It's not enough to just watch a few videos. You have to engage with the material..." Sabine Sabine Sabine! I do love your work. But please take your own advice!
"Postnatal development of dye-coupling among astrocytes in rat visual cortex" -- Binmöller et al No idea what it all about except that there is little if any evidence for Orch OR
@@Thomas-gk42 Her worldview, her metaphysics, is too boxed in by materialist assumptions for her to grasp what the quantum reveals. Mind exists intersubjectively, between the objects.
For me, the hallmark of a scientist is not what they accept in any given theory but rather how they scrutinise them. Sabine , you are a master of scrutiny.
See: "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion" to witness a gamma photon, which is a quantum particle spreading as a wave and then collapsing to a definite position. Consciousness has nothing to do with lightning.
@@MrPedalpaddle "The wave function isn't real" Ok, but the wave function does describe whatever REAL thing is over there making an interference pattern in a double slit experiment. So to not acknowledging or try to explain the effects of that real thing is like putting your head in the sand. Like Sabine said... "incomprehensible".
I remember reading a sci-fi story where some scientists figured out a variation of a double-slit experiment that did physically differ when a human observed it. They made a consciousness-detecting device which was basically a box with a small window, and when someone looks inside, the green light lights up. They tested it on their dogs and cats (conscious-positive), and then started mass-producing them and selling to everyone. But it turned out, for most humans the green light stayed dark.
@@schmetterling4477 it’s about the exploration and film as thought experiment. Isn’t science a what if? Scenario? Don’t you have to provide a narrative in your mind? Carlo Rovelli goes to philosophy lectures because they help him deliver his findings on quantum time.
@@Portents-Magic-imagination Science is the rational description of nature. Please go back to primary school where they tried to explain this to you. ;-) Yes, as a physics PhD I do have a narrative in my mind. It rationally explains most known physical phenomena well. The ones it doesn't explain well are those for which we have insufficient experimental and observational data at this time. ;-) Rovelli is an idiot. Don't listen to him. :-)
Superb! An actual physicist with an actual sense of humor… coupled with the ability to speak plainly on advanced concepts, the history involved, and possible theories (from widely accepted ones to some… not so much) in such a way that non physicists like me can easily understand. Thanks!!!
Regarding Penroses and Hameroffs Orchestrated Objective Reduction Theory (Orch Or): - Microtubules are organized different in e.g. unconscious cerebellum compared to conscious parts of the brain (A-Lattice vs B-Lattice Microtubules) - Microtubules are special because of the Tubulins, that they are made off. They seem to have special properties prolonging decoherence time - They are also crucial in explaining how anesthetics work
Exactly. The hand-waving is insane, especially when we know quantum biology has been proven in photosynthesis. Her glossed over explanation of Orch OR dismisses how the aromatic rings, hydrophobic pockets and water molecules in a lattice alignment allows for coherence at much greater distances, but they don’t even pretend to have the full and complete model yet, it still needs work. There’s been an argument put forth recently that it could have something to do with spin, but either way, considering how Hameroff showed years ago that at the very least microtubules act as cellular automata, like a cellular computer, and how Penrose showed how you’d need some type of effect at the Plank scale of space time geometry to explain qualia, the very nature of consciousness, then regardless if the theory is a perfect working model, it’s far closer than anything else the reductionists and classicalists have put forth. Until these people can simulate a paramecium, which has been shown to have some kind of learning, or until they can show exactly how anesthesia actually works, which they can’t, why bother? These people aren’t being scientific. Bottom line, most of these people are conflating consciousness with intelligence, inductive and deductive reasoning.
@@hipreference I believe most people in here have open minds. I don't believe they are assuming that consciousness is intelligence, but I have argued with those who only view consciousness as awareness of one's surroundings. But, to me, this isn't about "them" ... if you understand what is offered, then you benefit regardless of whether anyone else does. Focus on the subject instead of the audience unless you're the one teaching and I think you'll gain a lot more than being witness to the flaws in the thinking of others.
@@lifecloud2 sure, I don’t think I’m going at the audience so much as the nebulous aether of classicalist physicists and “journalists” writing early moratoriums of Orch OR for over a decade, but sure that in and of itself it biased… admittedly I’m a bit of an armchair on-looker, but I think the theory has merit, even if it’s not perfect yet! But yeah, not throwing shade at the audience, just kinda talking out loud about the shade-throwers, and I felt like her attitude was indicative of that same attitude, kind of dismissive, didn’t seem to really grapple with many of the explanations the current version of the theory provides.
@@hipreference I think you're correct. Some ideas are easier to attach oneself to than others - insufficiently studied ideas are everywhere - some good, some bad. But it may not only be that there haven't been sufficient studies - making a living as a physicist can't be that easy for researchers with unusual ideas. I think we should strive to keep an open mind - and take care we are correctly observing, whether someone calls it scientific or not. Also, if the main problem someone has with Quantum Healing is truly that it makes ill people guilty (in her mind) of their causing their illness, then that seems like prejudice influencing what one can entertain. I MAY NOT WANT to suspect that people's mental states can influence their health. I MAY NOT WANT TO. But scientific inquiry has only succeeded to the extant it has, because we keep looking regardless of prejudices. For me consciousness is still not well understood. And I don't buy that it necessarily only takes place in the brain - there's still a history of research that's accessible in libraries around the world; popularity is not a factor in what's more true.
@@hipreference I disagree with your conclusion here ... that's all. Keep in mind that this is a youtube video, relatively short and geared towards an audience that isn't c generally composed of "classicalist physicists." I don't hear this as dismissive but as informative. She speaks to those who likely aren't interested in pursuing a hard-core career in physics but still hold an interest in the subject. She's taken 17 minutes to communicate ideas that could be broken down in detail over the course of weeks. I think she's done a fine job. And as an "armchair on-looker," who are you looking at?
Again a HUGE thanks to Sabine and the channel's crew. what an awesome channel. What's being amazing to me, is once i get to know of some "scientific" news, I always "judge" that by my previous knowledge, and very often I disagree on something, but I don't know a scientist to talk to and clarify my doubts, but watching your videos either bring the knowledge I was missing, or agrees with my toughts on the topic, wich is really awesome for me, as I'm just a very curious person and not someone that dedicated my life on such fields.
I thought that PBS was the best but your channel is even better because you do not avoid problems where physics touches the meaning of human existence. I made videos about consciousnes on my channel and many of them were inspired by your videos.
PBS does touch on those topics as well, but they don't have the same kind of grounded/pragmatic approach to physics. Still many great watches there, but I prefer the presentation style here.
@@TheMelnTeam Sabine does not treat inflation, string theory, dark matter and multiverse theory as revealed truth. I like that attitude. For many physicists, these theories have become a new faith, although they have not been unequivocally confirmed and confirmation of some of them is not possible at all. The same is true of general relativity. For many physicists, it has become a dogma when astronomical observations blatantly contradict it. Dark matter was only invented to save general relativity. Instead of trying to modify this theory to be consistent with observations on a larger scale, most of the resources and time are spent searching for dark matter particles. Probably in vain.
Sabine I love your efforts to separate the science from the pseudo-science particularly regarding quantum mechanics and entanglement. We need more scientists and educators like yourself!
About the wave function not being a physical wave: If you know about the double slit experiment the wave function leaves physical markings on the photographic film at the back of the double slit experiment.It's not just an abstract concept.
She refers to the wave function as a mathematical model. Einstein didn't like the idea of "spooky action at a distance" so he didn't really buy into it, but Bohr just emphasized that the wavefunction is a model that is not necessarily wrong but rather incomplete/lack of updates, the best model available to date to explain the phenomenon you describe.
No, it's not the wave that leaves physical markings. When the wave interacts with the photographic film it becomes detected particles. The wave itself is what we can't measure without "collapsing" it. But what the experiment shows us is HOW the particles traveled to reach the photographic film.
I think I may be making progress here! When I first discovered your channel several months ago, I was having a very difficult time understanding the videos. But now, several months and many videos later, I find myself grasping the topic more fully and a bit more quickly. I am truly learning and growing from your videos Sabine, and I could not be more grateful! 🙏
Don´t fool yourself. :-). You may be able to follow more, but you can easily check your real progress by trying to explain, what you think you understood, to a third person. Once you are able to correctly do that, only then you actually understood.
She is dead set in her old academical establishment. Authoritative and pretentious. When she says something doesn't make sense, she doesn't say for which scientist, implying that SHE doesn't think it makes sense...
I KNEW it! Since childhood, I've always had a deep rooted, nagging Intuition that Cheese was behind all Reality, not just the Moon. Thanks Sabine, you've made my life complete
"Because that's how physicists treat their friends" 😂😂😂 Sabine you're a treasure 😄 So cool to see the consciousness discussion evolving in physics. I think it's most beneficial to be an open minded skeptic here. There's certainly a lot we don't know 😉
There is no consciousness discussion in physics! It's like asking a carpenter on a discussion on the biology of grass. Wrong topic. Look for my posts on this thread as I crack consciousness. It is the opposite of physics - literally. It it a meta-level. What? Meta-physics.
@TheAmericanBrain you remind of a coworker. When I present him with data he doesn't like, says "no." And he believes that is the end of it. Meanwhile the world keeps moving along and fails to record his opinion.
everyone has some form of bullshit. you should never assume anything, even that they keep it real. everyone has their own bs and tunnel vision. and people of theory are often very stubborn and firm, but often enough they are also wrong. that's the whole profession they do here.
@@NuanceOverDogma She wants people to buy her books and help subsidise her videos via deals with sponsors, that is pretty fair, she's not a shill. Sabine isn't out to deceive anyone.
Ok, who led you all here? Just say it so I can watch the video or read whatever they wrote and consider their argument. I’m assuming it’s well stated and convincing to lead to such a consensus in this thread
In the double-slit experiment, the "observer effect" - where particles behave differently when being observed - is not due to a conscious observer but rather to the *physical act of measurement*, which disturbs the system. Specifically, when an electronic detector is placed at one of the slits to observe which path the particle takes, it interacts with the particle in a way that affects its wave-like behavior.
I really love how Sabine always sounds as though she is debunking a theory, no matter whether it's something she agrees with or not. This is a truly authentic perspective for a scientist, I think. Kudos for consistent skepticism! 🙏❤️
@@arcadealchemist hm nah I would say an experimental falsification of the hypothesis debunks a theory. And on the contrary I would say that experimental confirmation of theoretical predictions validates a theory by failing to debunk it, but no experiment can "prove" a theory. Only confirm or deny it.
@@ungratefulingrate1268 oh man this was a while ago. I think it’s the fact that consciousness can be part of an equation essentially and that equation can lead to different realities? Like the thought of a world where something didn’t happen is as likely as a world where it did turns “what’s the point of anything” into “what if” and “why bother” turns into “why not”
Sabine, I look forward to your videos every Saturday here in the US. I took physics courses in the mid-60s & early 70s as part of my Undergraduate & then my Graduate education, although I ended up with chemistry degrees. I just wish my profs (some are still part of my life) had been as well spoken, entertaining & understandable as you.
@𝔴𝔥𝔞𝔱 𝔞𝔭𝔭 𝔪𝔢👉+1③⓪①⑨⑥⓪⑤②⑦④ I’m sorry Sabine. I don’t understand this fragment of your reply. Nor do I understand how we can “talk”. Sorry, I’m a literalist. I’d like to understand your to me cryptic message.
Finally, someone explains what a measurement is, all other videos just throw it around without explaining the most important term in Quantum Mechanics, great job !
Yes great job. The greatest physicists couldn't figure out for a century, what's inside the black box called "measurement". It's simply not possible to see inside the box. Unless you're Sabine of course.
But Sabine is incorrect! 1/ Firstly, reality is knowable. It is existence. Consciousness is the identity that identifies existence in the nature of existence. You can identify the nature of existence, using reason and logic. Secondly, using science and mathematics as auxiliaries, you can extend man’s perspective, knowledge, just like a telescope or microscope, extends man senses. However, it is always consciousness that was interpret the data. Existence comes first and consciousness belongs to you and it identifies existence. And because one identity identifies the other identity, consciousness, identifies existence, this means Aristotle‘s law of identity. This means there is truth. And you can know the truth using reason and logic. It’s not about guesswork. It’s not about the superiority of physics. Physics is dependent upon metaphysics, meta-level. Metaphysics is simply: existence, exist, consciousness, with free, well, and Aristotle’s law of identity, which means truth. ---- 2/ reality is neither a deterministic, nor indeterministic, if by any indeterminism you mean - quantum or chaos theory indeterminism. There is no way chaos a randomness can lead to consciousness. Instead, consciousness is a causal property and you cause it. You are the cause and effect is thinking or doing some thing like raise your right hand up right now. You are the cause. It’s not your brain, but the “special Novel unique quality,”an emergent function of your brain. You cannot ask, how old is Consciousness arise in the brain because to ask that is to look for an emergent property in the parts, which is impossible. You can ask where is the wetness of water, because when you look for it in H2O molecules, what will you find? More H2O molecules which are the very concept called :wetness . So witness is an emergent quality of H2O molecules, interacting at room temperature. In analogy, but something completely unique in the universe, consciousness is an emergent function of your brain with volition , which means free will, and self-awareness. ----- Conventional science creates a “model, map” of reality. -> It doesn’t give you the background territory, the actuality reality. Above, I’ve giving you the actuality reality, which is called metaphysics.
@@things_leftunsaid they may contain unrealized knowledge and inperceivable or inconceivable information. A book contains information without the book knowing the information. Sabrine though is not a hallucination, that would be a different situation. 😁
@@seriousmaran9414, Random numbers creating data. A, B, C, D all could be true until the wave goes boink. When it does, C becomes the reality and suddenly it always was. (That's not how reality works. That's how some people think reality works.)
See: "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion" to witness a gamma photon, which is a quantum particle spreading as a wave and then collapsing to a definite position. Consciousness has nothing to do with lightning.
Sabine is so awesome with her voice fluctuations that adds that extra intellectual joy to listen to and makes you think beyond just the words and presentation of material. Well done!
I agree with you, but I think that sometimes is a way tomi troduce her own bias and personal opinions, making, for example, a theory sound more nonsense or more serious.
to be fair, it IS possible to change (some) processes in your body with focus and training. One example is Wim Hof, its been scientifically studied and verified, another is the placebo effect
This is completely different from the idea of quantum healing or an extra-physical brain however. Vim Hoff (and other breathing techniques or meditation for that matter) works exactly through physiological and thus physical routes. Changing your brain state affects your body - and we all know that: Just noticed that you forgot your key inside and now you will have to call your ex flatmate you fell out with? See how quickly your physiology changes - sweaty palms, a hot head, rise in heart rate, etc.
It also has been proved in many clinical studies that happiness and optimist mindest has zero effect on wether a patient is gonna heal or not. Placebo is not well understood
@@macaque791 That is substantially true, but there are studies that support differential recovery rates purely based on whether the patient has a view of external natural environment, or concrete vistas. This may not be classified strictly as "happiness", but in my book, that distinction is splitting linguistic hairs.
The universe takes the path of least commitment. It doesn't settle (decohere) into a single state unless enough other stuff interacts with it. I believe this is telling us something very profound about the nature of our shared "reality".
Hi Sabine ! ..."...consciousness is necessary to make sense of quantum mechanics..." - It is only consciousness that can possibly "...make sense..." of anything at all ! :-)
I've wondered how quantum mechanics plays into the operation of a biological brain vs the limited synthetic neural networks we have now. The exact timing of neurons firing essentially comes down to individual molecular reactions which involve quantum physics. It could mean that we end up making a decision one way or another based on quantum _randomness,_ or that we made the decision both ways.
The Quantum phenomena that might play a role in Brain function is likely a lot more subtle than we all think it is. No Neurons in a superposition of firing and not firing, but rather something along the lines of Quantum phenomena determining when and how Neurons fire, maybe throw in some entanglement between Neurons for some indirect communication (Neurons can already communicate remotely, see Ephatic coupling), and Quantum effects of light passing through Neuronal Axons (there is some proof of that last point actually!)
Sabine's proving to the world that Germans do in fact have a sense of humor. They just don't share it much because it's rather biting and they want to be nice - so it's mostly reserved for friends.
I remember you covering this in an earlier video. Quantum mechanics is weird. Consciousness is weird. Therefore the two are related! At least that seems to be their argument.
"He (Bohr) was quite content with being incomprehensible. And a lot of physicists have since followed his example." Hysterical! Oh, Sabine can be quite acid-tongued.
What a fabulous video. I’m 23 years old and have been sticking to philosophy for some time now but I’d love to become a theoretical physicist some day. Thank you for making complex topics more accessible.
What would physics give you? It gave her error - for you to buy into Sabine -is just wrong. You have consciousness with free will. Sabine is wrong to say you do not . She is practicing mysticism called scientism which is not science , neither is Scientology. This is the wrong philosophy of post-modernism, like modernism, logical positivism , Kant, Plato and all the errors of western philosophy as bad as eastern philosophy. So what is true? Let's find out by the end. First, wetness and liquidity are properties of water that are emergent from mere H20 molecules at room temperature. If you zoom in , you will not find these properties. They are macro level properties. However, the brain is wholly different to mere water [a different substrate]. The brain therefore has different emergent property with causal power called free will. You can glean it because you would not be able to form any conclusion that is valid without it [how would you - magic?] Secondly, the first emergence you experience is life itself. The laws of physics ordinarily turns order into chaos - entropy . However "aliveness" is turning chaos into order: like you break down your food but it fuels the process of turning items into order to maintain your life vis a vis the raging power of thermodynamics, of entropy. 4 billion years ago mere matter auto-catalyticaly become self organizing and ended up duplicating itself. The first proto-cell that complexified into the first life forms: bacteria and archea (Which are still in the same form today 4 billion years later!) It took another 2.5 billion years before a black swan event (not an emergence per se) as bacteria and archea merged into mitochrondria. Now Eukaryotes were born and were far better by magnitudes at energy efficiency per gene. These organisms exploding in the Cambrian (and 99% of them went extinct at the end of that period). Speciation is due to Darwinian evolution which is about complexification. From primates to hominoids - many different types in parallel roamed the earth until there was only one. You . The last one had only one invention for 1 million years - the axe. But about 70,000 years ago culture exploded . Sentient man was here. All other animals have consciousness (crudely means awareness as per dictionary definition) starting with first brains: worms. Higher up the chain , there is a wider range of cognition. So the first strong emergence - 'mind from matter' was worms as the neuronal trellis (possessed by pre-worm species like jelly fish) complexified into a brain (worm). After aeons (550 million years) , hominoids appeared but still not human consciousness. With modern man, there is a distinct trackable difference compared to all other species throughout earth history: another level of emergence. Thirdly, on top of free will (a given) you need the right method to reach conclusion. That is the method of reason and logic. Like reading, writing, math - it must be learned, practiced (a lot) to get to mastery. But you are not using reason and logic. You are deliberating omitting "induction" as a method of science. I showed you above how to induct consciousness using science: grab things now, point to thing , smell things - your sense organs take in sensory datum and it self organizes into percepts (units of perception) so you can validate "existence" really does exist [as in "really" - of reality]. Go ahead point to things. Smell things. Or grab things and ask and answer: does it really exist? Point to yourself too! This is an ostensive definition. You can abstract from all things and answer - if rational man - that all things that are real exist. In other words existence exists. But wait! How do you know that? ->> Because consciousness is an emergent causal power , distinct to the brain. So consciousness is not your "non-strong emergence" - what you call an "effect' of the brain- otherwise the blazing fast computers of today would be able to do what you do or ask this. Computers are precise , great deductive machines following rules. It can not induct. It is not consciousness. You are not a computer. Even the Nobelist Sir Roger Penrose shows you your mind/brain is not a algorithmic mechanism otherwise Nobels like him would not be able to have "outside the box" insights - he says. I do better than him: fully identifying what is this "Consciousness". So metaphysics - what Sabine misses out on and upon which all physics and science depend is "existence exists; consciousness with free will is exercised to identify this earlier identity exists and because of that you also know all this to be fully true: Aristotle's law of identity. So metaphysics : existence, consciousness and identity. But how to know any truth, any identity? The methods of reason and logic; such as using induction above. This is science.
In Wigner's Friend Experiment, the experiment inside the room is no longer in superposition. But to the person outside the room, it's still in superposition. Doesn't that mean the experiment is in superposition and NOT in superposition at the same time?
The important thing is the observation of the last observer. For him the internal observer is just a part of the apparatus and is in superposition. The wave function collapses only when the external oberver knows the result...I suppose !
The quantum description of the setup is observer dependent, because observers don't have access to the same information, namely the measurement outcome. The observer dependence is only resolved when both participants exchange their results. You can add a third observer, that will see the whole thing as a superposition of superpositions.
I intent to develop science of quantum mechanics by directing my consciousness into watching videos about you studying the topic! Thank you for doing that Sabine! :)
See: "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion" to witness a gamma photon, which is a quantum particle spreading as a wave and then collapsing to a definite position. Consciousness has nothing to do with lightning.
Decades ago, when I first learned of wave function collapse, I thought that it sounded very much like a method we software developers sometime use. Sometimes, for performance reasons, variable/property values do not need to be continuously updated. They only need to be determined at the point you need to know their values. What if the famous double slit test exposes an artifact of the way the construct of space/time 'processes' particle state to conserve computation by only resolving the value at the time it is needed to be known?
Personally I think it has to to with energy states, and being in the lowest energy state. A collapsed wave might be a higher energy state, so it would have to be forced into it, like forcing atoms to collide to create chemical reactions. It could also be an emergent phenomenon, like temperature, where at a lower level it's really just about statistical probabilities, rather than hard rules. The theory about conserving computational power also has one major issue for me, quantum equations require huge computational power, which is why we are only able to simulate fairly simple scenarios. If someone designed it that way, that would be a strange choice when you would get an almost identical universe (from our point of view) with classical physics. Of course the "computer" isn't necessarily restricted by the same physical laws, but there are also other reasons I doubt our universe was designed.
in reality there is no collapse taking place, the wavefunction was always left, or right all along. Math is only an interpretation of reality. Reality exists without the tool(maths) we use to measure it.
I've been thinking about this a lot recently. I guess it's not very scientific, but I've noticed, or think I've noticed, a lot lately that a lot of very complicated machines seem to behave slightly differently, but predictably, depending on who uses them. What if there is such a thing as a spirit, and it has some kind of influence on the natural world. You mentioned the double slit experiment and the 'evidence' that it seems it may be possible to manipulate results with the mind. I think they may be going at it the wrong way. Maybe instead of attempting to manipulate the results by force, first they should have a lot of people just sit passively by the machine and see if it does anything at all, THEN see if they can manipulate the light. The problem I see with their approach is that it's like they're trying to write with a third arm they just barely attached without even checking if arm moves due to the brain or sends sensory information to the brain at all.
To my (quite limited) experience and knowledge it matters less what people try to think. It matters much more what they actually believe is happening. If they sit there "Well, can't work, but let's try anyways", it won't work. If the experimenter comes in and says "look, it's bent to the left!" and they believe him, chances are good it actually does bend.
If you're interested in the topics discussed in this video, I highly recommend the book 'Life, Consciousness And Other Quantum Wackiness' by I. A. Gill. It offers an interpretation of quantum mechanics, consciousness and the wave function collapse
Thanks for covering the Dean Radin experiment. I saw it a few years ago and havent seen anyone mention it otherwise. Could you explain the interference pattern with single slits more? I feel like that would create an issue for ANY double slit experiment would it not?
@@hunterlavish 1) To answer comprehensively takes at least 5 year University course. I cannot fit it in to TH-cam margins, (to loosely paraphrase Fermat). 2) QED=Quantum Electrodynamics. Crudely speaking, it deals with the theory of light and matter. (Gravity is nowhere to appear in the theory.) Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga were given the Nobel prize for its practical solution. 3) QED differs from other approaches in that it (so far) always produces results that agree precisely with experiment, whereas no other testable approaches do.
Hi Sabine, thank you for this video. Although I have to admit that the topic is still very difficult for me to understand (how would either of the consciousness > wave-function collapse or the wave-function collapse > consciousness would make a different in the existence of other objects outside my observing mind/consciousness). But I'm interested to explore more. So I have just bought your book "Existential Physics".
@@sslaia It's not that conciousness affects "the existence of other objects" if you mean that, it's just that in a range of possible results, you discover which one has occurred and therefore you complete the result of the equation -> therefore, you can say that your conciousness affected the result, but just in a theoretical way. The result will be the same whether you look at it or not, but you'll never know till you do it.
@@rokasb6907 the fact you have to insult suggests you believe in total mysticism and feel upset . Stop this mysticism . Stop it now ! Read what I said and grasp the science
Thank you Sabine. I don't understand most of what you say, firstly because my English is bad, then because my knowledge of physics is superficial, even so I like the way you explain it and little by little I learn one concept here and another there. It's pretty fun. Thanks.
Thank you so much for presenting a discussion on this topic! It's not often such a review is done meaningfully and respectfully. While it's not widely respected it's still a topic of interest to at least learn about for me. Your video did a great job of helping me.
"No one knows what consciousness is anyway" Bless you for saying that. It's always bothered me that scientists have used the term consciousness in practical terms (meaning, in some instance when it might be said to affect some outcome) without the word having a clear (non-metaphysical) definition. Also bothersome and related is how the word observer is tossed around and to this day I don't know exactly what would constitute an observer used in these thought games.
@sabine Hosseenfelder, I have one for you. Say you put two particles, quantum entangled, into a double hemisphere where one hemisphere is 3 metres from the centre, the other is 9 metres from the centre. You shoot energy into the entangled pair, and within 1ms, you see that one particle hits a specific point in the smaller hemisphere, in a specif point. You can then predict that within 2ms, the other one will hit the larger hemisphere in a specific point, opposite the other particle. We CAN predict both direction and speed of a particle in this way. Please explain that. Thank you, dear Lady.
Hello: Enjoyed you first video very much, and went to Kindle and got your book that was out this past August 2022. Look forward to learning more! Thank you. --Steve Morgan, Ohio, USA
Thank you, :) I learned a lot! You seem to assume conciousness is solely localized in the brain. If you are also interested in this topic, I would love to see an episode about the scientific evidence around conciousness localisation.
I notice multiple instances like this one in theoretical physics, in which pretty much fantasies are taught as being solid facts. I'd say it has a lot to do with it being so difficult to figure out the Law of Everything, there's too much fantastic fluff floating around that gets in the way, and people that love to applaud it. They love the king's 4D (spatial) invisible garment so much, they somehow cause it to block the truth, and dismiss anyone that dismiss it by calling them fools.
I think that's purely a wording issue. If you replaced the word consciousness with information processing, the theory would make sense. If you use improper wording you typically lead many people into mystical thinking.
@@wiczus6102 but what's the evidence that information processing affects it? That's all consciousness is anyways. I tend to believe that the wave function is merely a useful way to predict things, but it is not the actual state of reality. Things have a location speed spin etc always whether they're measured or not. We just don't have sensitive or sophisticated enough equipment to see them
For so long I've been asking these questions in an abstract way in order to make an intuitive guess about my research findings... My research leads me to quantum computing, neuroscience, and finally to your channel... Things seem now to make sense, after all I'm not asking any random wrong questions... Thank you Sabine.. You do make topics of this nature very clear... But still in the sight of academics it seems to be considered as pseudo-science... even when we have empirical evidence...
@@dogcarman well it’s like saying that nothing can happen without consciousness, but if nobody was conscious at the beginning of the universe how did wave functions collapse? This like of thinking is like saying “God collapsed the wave functions” and if my conscience can collapse a wave function I must be god.
Looking fwd to read your book! I have found some criticism on Roger Penrose's idea of the connection of consciousness and QM to leave some information out. He mentions that indeed there are gaps in our understanding of the physical world (QM at odds with GR) and that that gap when solved may indeed shed light into the consciousness problem. I know this doesn't explain anything, but I think it helps understand where he is coming from.
See: "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion" to witness a gamma photon, which is a quantum particle spreading as a wave and then collapsing to a definite position. Consciousness has nothing to do with lightning.
@@SabineHossenfelder I'm glad you made me up in your head too singularity... there was a study done on cab drivers in England they all developed similar brain structure once they were able to be called masters of their craft memorizing all of the roads and routes... every single one of these cab drivers all developed the same exact brain structure all of the ones that were the best. If you think about this this is your brain changing three dimensional structures you are changing fundamental reality with your thought. Granite it's only changing the structure of your own brain but it proves the concept scientifically.
@@SabineHossenfelder you're liver is conscious... if you get stabbed in the liver then it's going to hurt, it's conscious enough to know that it was stabbed... scientifically speaking everything is one it all came from The Big Bang which is the ultimate metaphor for the singularity aka god... it is all encompassing and completely alone... just like you. Coming into these bodies is what it does to forget the fact that it is completely alone... understand other version of WE‽ watch my latest video... i tagged you. All existence is conscious because it is all part of the singularity... not just carrots but all and even the periodic table of elements... you know im always right when i go out of the way to comment with you... lu other version of we... it's all pointless and just existing and not ending it brings forth more suffering... Live=eviL... singularity is evil too. Fear not.
Roger is correct that there is a gap in our understanding that's why we are facing too many puzzles and mysteries in QM. The missing part in our knowledge can be found in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@residentfelon Her angriness makes her more attractive🥰 You can find more angry Sabines on TH-cam by searching the keywords "free will", "determinism", "multiverse"
I have practiced mind healing for fifty years … it is immediate and cumulative … Mind … the power of Mind in the equation of Life has always been the key insight … and quantum theory and mechanics continue to unfold … already some quantum therapists have realized Mind is the absolute agency while matter is a conditional description and lacks actuality … matter is a conditional … temporal conceptualization of change occurring in an infinite eternal space time continuum … and yes it does hold man accountable for his ignorance … which is the illusion of Life in the material circumstances or prescribed by matter
This is all the subject of Greg Egan's book "Isolation". It was quite fascinating to read, and this video was very complementary !! It's hard to believe that what I thought were far-fetched interpretrations of quantum mecanics as there are so many were actually so close to actual, even if very controversial, science... (even if to remain realistic, the author had to invent some kind of futuristic brain implant haha) I've liked this book a lot, I think Greg Egan is really great in developping quite beautiful ideas and stories in that distance some scientists take with the principle of parsimony ^^
DNA computing would be a cool subject for one of your videos. I always suspected that using DNA for computing would have a lot of benefits because you can store so much information on a small scale. I would love to hear you break down the potentials for it and how it would work.
m.th-cam.com/video/GgPdRKqcRTE/w-d-xo.html I don't know about DNA bud. But we are able to build a giant brain now, so maybe there'a that. If you dont mind the moral implications of that ........
People perform DNA computing all the time. It’s very resource intensive, the result of every computation is another human being. Starting the computation is very pleasurable though.
@@josephvanname3377apparently aromatic rings of DNA support objective reduction as do the microtubules outside of the nucleus. So according to Penrose there is non qualia quantum computing being done inside the nucleus and qualia like quantum computing being done in the microtubules of amygdala or limbic system structures.
I don't need scientific proof that dreams exist; not because I have observed other people's dreams, but because I have experienced them. The same goes for consciousness-its profound impact on everything, including scientific observations.👌
As our dear teacher knows, there is no “spooky action at a distance” or collapsing of this or that; our form of consciousness is simply incapable of observing both “states” of a superposition.
This was a really great video and topic, thank you so much. Consciousness and quantum mechanics are both weird enough to be linked, how so, and how does that new understanding progress science is TBD but this is a topic that could get us to the next level of understanding the universe if we have a breakthrough
@@marcosolo6491 Some people first read before making a judgment. Others make judgments before reading. I am in the first category, in which one you are?
Alright, here's a thought about quantum moments. When I look at these moments of thought, I realize how they piece together to form our understanding. Each moment is like a snapshot in time, capturing an idea, a feeling, or a connection. Just like in quantum physics, where observing a particle's position affects its state, our awareness of a thought influences its meaning and impact. In the quantum world, you can't measure speed by looking at a single snapshot. It's the same with our thoughts and ideas. Each quantum moment of thought doesn't move or progress on its own. It connects with others to form a continuous stream of consciousness. This is why measuring something's speed in the quantum realm involves looking at the distance traveled over time, not just a single frame. When I think about how quantum entanglement works, it's fascinating. Two particles can be connected in such a way that the state of one instantly influences the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are. This reminds me of how our thoughts and emotions can be deeply interconnected, even when they're seemingly separate. In a sense, our thoughts are like quantum particles. They exist in a superposition of possibilities until we observe them, and then they collapse into a specific state. This observation shapes our reality and our understanding of the world. So, when I'm working on a project or reflecting on a memory, I'm piecing together these quantum moments of thought. Each one is a part of the larger picture, and they all contribute to the narrative of my life. It's a beautiful and complex process, and it's what makes our experiences so rich and meaningful. In essence, understanding the quantum nature of our thoughts helps me appreciate the intricacies of our minds and the profound connections we share with the world around us. It's a continuous journey of discovery, one quantum moment at a time.
You're inside the laboratory and have a friend waiting outside - in front of the closed door. Because that's how physicists treat their friends 😂😂😂 Perfect!!!
Excellent explanation, Sabine! Thanks! 😃 I don't know about consciousness, but my liver sometimes complaints when I take too much beer. So... Who knows? 🤔 Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Just so you know sabine, plants have way more mechanisms for perceiving their external environment (comprehension on the other hand is a tad iffy). They probably have their own mechanisms to observe environmental phenomena that have quantum elements affiliated with it (the bias towards electron spin in Photosystem II as an example). Conscious carrots might keep you up at night though
Animals developed the ability to see because they need to go to where the food is. The plant equivalent is phototaxis, which does not require consciousness.
Everytime I hear this challenging physics concepts I get the sense that Spinoza figured all this out 400+ years ago and we're just catching up with him using positivistic science.
I am a physicist and I want to explain the problem of "observation" in quantum mechanics because it is often misunderstood even by many physicists. In quantum mechanics the physical system is described through a wave function whose evolution over time is determined by the Schrodinger equation. The wave function represents infinite different possible results for the physical quantities related to the system, but when we take a measurement, only one of these infinite possibilities becomes real; after the measurement, we must therefore modify the wave function “by hand” to eliminate all other possible results, and this modification is called the “collapse” of the wave function. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong. The fundamental problem with quantum mechanics is that interactions among particles are already included in the Schrodinger equation and such equation does not predict any collapse. The collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger equation. The Schrodinger equation is what allows us to make quantitative predictions about the outcomes of future measurements; everytime we make a measurement, we receive new information about the system, and we need to "update" our wave function, i.e. to collapse it, otherwise the Schrodinger equation would provides wrong predictions relative to successive measurements. After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break. Quantum mechanics is incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. Quantum mechanics implies that physical reality (the universe) consists of the collection of all observed phenomena and such phenomena do not exist independently of consciousness. In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself. The collapse represents the transition from a hypothetical system to an actual system. The collapse of the wave function represents a non-physical event, since it violates the fundamental laws of physics, and can be associated with the only non-physical event we know of, consciousness. Therefore, the only consistent rational explanation of the collapse is that it occurs because consciousness is involved in the process. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the collapse of the wave function (=violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. The consciousness that causes the collapse of the wave function must be an eternal consciousness, that is, a conscious God. This is the idealistic perspective, which implies that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God who directly creates the phenomena we observe, according to the matematical models through which He conceived the universe (the laws of physics); the collapse of the wave function is a representation of the moment when God creates the observed phenomenon. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism.
The so called "collapse" does not violate a law of nature, because the wave function is not a law of nature. It is a mathematical device we use to predict the possible outcomes of the observation. The law of nature may be "Using the wave function you get the probabilities of the possible outcomes of the observation". There is no "collapse" at all, like when you go to the shop with a list of things to buy, and you buy only some of them, you have not "collapsed" the shopping list, and caused no violation of the laws of shopping.
@@andsalomoni You are wrong. The laws of quantum mechanics are the most fundamental laws we know about nature and the collapse is a violation of the evolution of the wave function as determined by the laws of quantum mechanics.
That the wave function doesn't predict its own collapse only means that the wave function doesn't tell the whole story. Everything else is wishful thinking. I Saying that something non-physical must be the cause is wishful thinking. For starters, we don't know if the collapse itself actually happens, or is it just an artifact of a flawed theory. And if it actually happens, i don't see why it can't be the result of a unknown physical process. If something violates the laws of physics, then the laws of physics are wrong. It's that simple.
See: "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion" to witness a gamma photon, which is a quantum particle spreading as a wave and then collapsing to a definite position. Consciousness has nothing to do with lightning.
@@juanausensi499 My arguments represent a rational and logically coherent analysis of our scientific knowledge. Your assumption that "if something violates that laws of physics, then the laws of physics are wrong" is devoid of any rational, empirical or scientific basis and I am not interested in discussing such assumption. I rely on our scientific knowledge and quantum physics represent the most fundamental knowledge we have about nature.
Quite an argument. What I find common in all the debates on the effect of quantum physics is that they are basically debates based on different 'analogical models'. We no longer argue any thing based on physics proper. I mean the phenomenon. But you have a lot of clarity I am a lay reader of physics.
I worked for a very unusual gentleman back in the 1980s. He and is wife owned a small chain of pet shops, fish, small animals, and supplies. One day while cleaning aquariums with him he said something unusual, and I will never forget it. He said that even a rock has a certain level of conscience, not that it knows that it is a rock, but it has a level of awareness that is not measurable. Its level of conscience, if conscience could be measured, would register at an extremely low level, but nonetheless, all objects by the nature of creation have been instilled with what we call conscience. Imagine being 17 years old, and thinking what kind of nut this guy is. Well, here I am some 40 years later, and here is Sabine Hossenfelder explaining the very same principle. She just used a carrot instead of a rock.
This definition of conscience is basically mere information. so by this definition even a single electron is conscious. That definition is not very useful, its mere a Shannon entropy definition. And it doesn't explain what consciousness is, because it probably don't really exist. Aka, no thing is conscious, consciousness is the information acting on itself, aka, a thing any information can do basically.
It just depends on what you mean by consciousness, if it's something that collapses the wave function then everything might have consciousness, but the problem with that definition is that it has nothing to do with what people usually mean by consciousness.
He was right: all interactions imply some low level of "consciousness" or "perception", even an electron to some extent is "conscious" of the proton it orbits and feels attracted to, all those virtual photons exchanging information (however they do it) are producing the simplest level of "consciousness" that we can fathom.
It is really hard to say which interpretation to choose. However, there is one problem with only materialistic interpretations: calculations themselves are subject to consciousness. But if you have a better argument, I’m open towards it :)
Consciousness has been excellently explained in very detailed in Ancient Indian scripture- Vedanta Only real thing in whole universe in Consciousness ( The Awareness) which is all pervading Everything else is just the manifestation of that consciousness- sort of matter energy time space and everything else is just the emergent property of Consciousness ( Awareness) Aham Brahmasmi- I am the universe
Sabine, it's interesting how you added in that research paper about using focused thought and observation to manipulate the outcome of the double slit experiment. Of course that research paper is nonsense, but you know that, that's why your included it. Like a bait and switch you started the video by supporting the argument that conscious observation collapses the wave, rightly so, as this is a fact taught in physics classes at all major universities. The measurement device and the computer that saves the outcome data on its hard drive is a creation of the conscious observer and therefore is an extension of our own observation. Furthermore, when we set up the measurement device and the computer with the intention of observing the measurement results that's why we see the wave collapse. If there was no consciousness there would be no observers. There would be no initial idea for the creation of the Hypothesis, no one to set up the experiment, no one to perform the measurement, and finally, no one observe the results. There would be no collapse of the wave. The term I've chosen to describe what it is you do, as a "Science Communicator" is an Agent Provocateur. In this particular instance you're intentionally confuse the layman by mixing science facts with pseudoscience, then referencing the pseudoscience as the reason for casting doubt on the validity of the Theory. Consciousness is fundamental. If we want a unifying theory to bridge the gap between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity then we must understand consciousness
Obviously the author of this video is very marked by the ideology of scientific materialism. The truth is that in terms of experience there is no such thing as matter outside of consciousness. Scientific theories, models, hypotheses, all of that takes place in consciousness. Consciousness is the ultimate reality. There is nothing in the parameters of matter, such as velocity, mass, spin, electric charge or any other parameter from which the quality of the experience can be deduced. For example, the taste of chocolate is a mental phenomenon, from the sphere of consciousness, it is a qualitative experience that cannot be explained by material interactions. It is true that there is a correlation between the electrical and chemical activity of the brain and experience, but the brain does not produce consciousness, just as a radio does not produce the music it emits, limiting itself only to being a vehicle for transmitting music and of the speaker's voice. What we call matter is what consciousness looks like when viewed from a certain perspective. It's just the expression of something much deeper. For example, when someone cries, shedding tears and contorting their face, we can observe what their sadness looks like from an external point of view, but what we see points to a deeper reality, but it is not that reality. After all, what is this thing called matter? What answer can we give to this question with the discoveries of quantum physics?
Phenomenological, you represent the position of Husseral, who represents Kant I without Kant II. For a few years I was an adherent of the Husseralian position in phenomenology, as it justifies your entitlement to your own beliefs, and your own reality, and your own truth. But I evolved into a sensorialist because it is no good to deny real sensorial data as stimulus impinging on your body. I hate gossip in a profound way, and I would be happy to write 100% of everything down on paper or online instead of seeking, but I needed real resources to get talk to stop. If I had no power to stop noise coming into my head from outside, my internal monologues would be rendered second class citizens to the speech of others. I also despise religious belief, and I quit celebrating all holidays including my own birthday, in order to eliminate superstition from my life, and I replace belief with pure imagination, planning, keeping full time interior monologues, but always acknowledging my power to control real sensory data coming in from outside myself. That is the position of Kant II.
The reason there is an argument about consciousness and wave function collapse is because they can only measure the particle at one point in time. If we came up with a better way of measuring in real time at all points such as sound measurement instead of visual observation we could get a more accurate measurement that represents what the particle is doing before and after observation. Making any statement about how something moves with only one point of reference or only one point in time of measurement is nonsense, that's like saying a runner runs with their left foot forward because that is the point you took a picture, but anyone who has seen the entire run knows the feet alternate forward when running.
I took my picture of the runner at the point they crossed the finish line therefore left foot forward is the way humans run.... nonsense. I took my picture of the particle at the point it hit the screen therefore it did go to the left.... nonsense. Since you saw the same thing at the same point it is obvious that our consciousness caused it.... nonsense.
"Bohr had no problem with saying things incomprehensible, and a lot of physicist since have followed his example." What a smile this brought to me. As a 60 year old physicist whose been waiting for such truth to leak out...., TH-cam + Sabine = oxygen for those waiting for more scientific thinking / common sense at the core of physics.... THANK YOU!
I totally agree, although I am just an engineer and PhD student and not a physicist. I think hence the reference to 'gobbledygook' or rather the without part of it!! :)
but that's because Bohr was the most intelligent human alive at that time, no one understood him.
I came here to write the exact same thing. Sabine, you are so funny! Hi from 🇨🇦
Common sense discredited by scientists led by Einstein saying that this is a set of prejudices you had at the age of eighteen has indeed some weaknesses. However, there must be some common core in it that cannot be violated.
Bohr was such a bore.. Magi-matics is all well and good but fundy physics is nowhere near properly physical enough. It's not that statistics and probability aren't important, its just they're not the whole story and point to unknown but proper underlying physics. I don't like the idea of (invented) bosons as force carriers, but if they must be used, an 'alternating current' style connection of bosons moving back and forth in sync, on the spot, could be an 'instant off' force. If one boson gets out of sync, all the rest stop vibrating in the next cycle (or a few ticks, but still many times faster than light)
As she criticized Orch OR for not explaining how quantum states could persist in a warm wet brain and for not explaining how microtubules in neurons could be conscious but not the ones in liver cells, I imagined myself telling her, "Sabine, it's not enough to just watch a few videos, you have to engage in the material a little more deeply than that to really understand the theory. Both of those objections were effectively addressed before critics even considered ..."
The next words out of her mouth were, "It's not enough to just watch a few videos. You have to engage with the material..."
Sabine Sabine Sabine! I do love your work. But please take your own advice!
"Postnatal development of dye-coupling among astrocytes in rat visual cortex" -- Binmöller et al
No idea what it all about except that there is little if any evidence for Orch OR
I don't believe modern thought claims consciousness requires quantum mechanics, the argument is usually for free-will.
True. She's way behind.
You listened, that she had an interview with Penrose about it? Perhaps you read her book, before writing ignorant comments.
@@Thomas-gk42 Her worldview, her metaphysics, is too boxed in by materialist assumptions for her to grasp what the quantum reveals. Mind exists intersubjectively, between the objects.
For me, the hallmark of a scientist is not what they accept in any given theory but rather how they scrutinise them. Sabine , you are a master of scrutiny.
Frank Zappa in Joe's garage!
@@edcunion "Turn it down...!!!" 😜
It's actually very easy to scrutinize.
See: "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion" to witness a gamma photon, which is a quantum particle spreading as a wave and then collapsing to a definite position.
Consciousness has nothing to do with lightning.
@Aero01 Me. ( And the word is scrutineer. Thank me later. )
"Reinterpreting maths is just pushing problems around, like bumps under the carpet." Love this quote.
Oh I heard "bombs" 😅
Bohr had it right @1:30 Everything that follows is an unnecessary trip down a rabbit hole. Needs a closer look at superposition & wave function.
Loved that one too. Sabine has so many good ones!
it was Bombs, in reference to her earlier comment about blowing himself up by observing a bomb.
@@MrPedalpaddle "The wave function isn't real" Ok, but the wave function does describe whatever REAL thing is over there making an interference pattern in a double slit experiment. So to not acknowledging or try to explain the effects of that real thing is like putting your head in the sand. Like Sabine said... "incomprehensible".
I remember reading a sci-fi story where some scientists figured out a variation of a double-slit experiment that did physically differ when a human observed it. They made a consciousness-detecting device which was basically a box with a small window, and when someone looks inside, the green light lights up. They tested it on their dogs and cats (conscious-positive), and then started mass-producing them and selling to everyone. But it turned out, for most humans the green light stayed dark.
Why are you reading crappy sci-fi? ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 it’s about the exploration and film as thought experiment. Isn’t science a what if? Scenario? Don’t you have to provide a narrative in your mind? Carlo Rovelli goes to philosophy lectures because they help him deliver his findings on quantum time.
@@Portents-Magic-imagination Science is the rational description of nature. Please go back to primary school where they tried to explain this to you. ;-)
Yes, as a physics PhD I do have a narrative in my mind. It rationally explains most known physical phenomena well. The ones it doesn't explain well are those for which we have insufficient experimental and observational data at this time. ;-)
Rovelli is an idiot. Don't listen to him. :-)
Yooooo!!! That sounds so amazing, do you remember what it's called? I'm totally not gonna steal the idea for my own writing or anth, l would never...
Please, share the name/author of that story with us
Superb! An actual physicist with an actual sense of humor… coupled with the ability to speak plainly on advanced concepts, the history involved, and possible theories (from widely accepted ones to some… not so much) in such a way that non physicists like me can easily understand. Thanks!!!
Regarding Penroses and Hameroffs Orchestrated Objective Reduction Theory (Orch Or):
- Microtubules are organized different in e.g. unconscious cerebellum compared to conscious parts of the brain (A-Lattice vs B-Lattice Microtubules)
- Microtubules are special because of the Tubulins, that they are made off. They seem to have special properties prolonging decoherence time
- They are also crucial in explaining how anesthetics work
Exactly. The hand-waving is insane, especially when we know quantum biology has been proven in photosynthesis. Her glossed over explanation of Orch OR dismisses how the aromatic rings, hydrophobic pockets and water molecules in a lattice alignment allows for coherence at much greater distances, but they don’t even pretend to have the full and complete model yet, it still needs work. There’s been an argument put forth recently that it could have something to do with spin, but either way, considering how Hameroff showed years ago that at the very least microtubules act as cellular automata, like a cellular computer, and how Penrose showed how you’d need some type of effect at the Plank scale of space time geometry to explain qualia, the very nature of consciousness, then regardless if the theory is a perfect working model, it’s far closer than anything else the reductionists and classicalists have put forth.
Until these people can simulate a paramecium, which has been shown to have some kind of learning, or until they can show exactly how anesthesia actually works, which they can’t, why bother? These people aren’t being scientific.
Bottom line, most of these people are conflating consciousness with intelligence, inductive and deductive reasoning.
@@hipreference I believe most people in here have open minds. I don't believe they are assuming that consciousness is intelligence, but I have argued with those who only view consciousness as awareness of one's surroundings. But, to me, this isn't about "them" ... if you understand what is offered, then you benefit regardless of whether anyone else does. Focus on the subject instead of the audience unless you're the one teaching and I think you'll gain a lot more than being witness to the flaws in the thinking of others.
@@lifecloud2 sure, I don’t think I’m going at the audience so much as the nebulous aether of classicalist physicists and “journalists” writing early moratoriums of Orch OR for over a decade, but sure that in and of itself it biased… admittedly I’m a bit of an armchair on-looker, but I think the theory has merit, even if it’s not perfect yet! But yeah, not throwing shade at the audience, just kinda talking out loud about the shade-throwers, and I felt like her attitude was indicative of that same attitude, kind of dismissive, didn’t seem to really grapple with many of the explanations the current version of the theory provides.
@@hipreference I think you're correct. Some ideas are easier to attach oneself to than others - insufficiently studied ideas are everywhere - some good, some bad. But it may not only be that there haven't been sufficient studies - making a living as a physicist can't be that easy for researchers with unusual ideas. I think we should strive to keep an open mind - and take care we are correctly observing, whether someone calls it scientific or not. Also, if the main problem someone has with Quantum Healing is truly that it makes ill people guilty (in her mind) of their causing their illness, then that seems like prejudice influencing what one can entertain. I MAY NOT WANT to suspect that people's mental states can influence their health. I MAY NOT WANT TO. But scientific inquiry has only succeeded to the extant it has, because we keep looking regardless of prejudices. For me consciousness is still not well understood. And I don't buy that it necessarily only takes place in the brain - there's still a history of research that's accessible in libraries around the world; popularity is not a factor in what's more true.
@@hipreference I disagree with your conclusion here ... that's all. Keep in mind that this is a youtube video, relatively short and geared towards an audience that isn't c generally composed of "classicalist physicists." I don't hear this as dismissive but as informative. She speaks to those who likely aren't interested in pursuing a hard-core career in physics but still hold an interest in the subject. She's taken 17 minutes to communicate ideas that could be broken down in detail over the course of weeks. I think she's done a fine job. And as an "armchair on-looker," who are you looking at?
Again a HUGE thanks to Sabine and the channel's crew. what an awesome channel.
What's being amazing to me, is once i get to know of some "scientific" news, I always "judge" that by my previous knowledge, and very often I disagree on something, but I don't know a scientist to talk to and clarify my doubts, but watching your videos either bring the knowledge I was missing, or agrees with my toughts on the topic, wich is really awesome for me, as I'm just a very curious person and not someone that dedicated my life on such fields.
The nice thing about interpretations of QM is that you can pick your favorite one & nobody can prove you wrong.
Well said! You've put what I was thinking very succinctly. This is really it, isn't it?
Perfect for people who need quantum mechanics as an unquestioned support for New Age beliefs!
Basically religion at this point.
@@Belti200 which is why physicists don't discuss it much..
@@matthewjonas8952
Or the wishful thinking that we are nothing but dead matter somehow creating consciousness.
I thought that PBS was the best but your channel is even better because you do not avoid problems where physics touches the meaning of human existence. I made videos about consciousnes on my channel and many of them were inspired by your videos.
PBS does touch on those topics as well, but they don't have the same kind of grounded/pragmatic approach to physics. Still many great watches there, but I prefer the presentation style here.
What's PBS? The only one I know of is the polarizing beam splitter, but that's obviously the wrong guess.
@@romank.6813 PBS is a similar channel about physics. One of the best.
@@TheMelnTeam Sabine does not treat inflation, string theory, dark matter and multiverse theory as revealed truth. I like that attitude. For many physicists, these theories have become a new faith, although they have not been unequivocally confirmed and confirmation of some of them is not possible at all. The same is true of general relativity. For many physicists, it has become a dogma when astronomical observations blatantly contradict it. Dark matter was only invented to save general relativity. Instead of trying to modify this theory to be consistent with observations on a larger scale, most of the resources and time are spent searching for dark matter particles. Probably in vain.
@@romank.6813, Public Broadcasting System. It's the educational TV network in the United States.
Sabine I love your efforts to separate the science from the pseudo-science particularly regarding quantum mechanics and entanglement. We need more scientists and educators like yourself!
True!
Please explain the quantum eraser.
@@ronaldreagan5981 She debunked the DCQE experiment & the whole of QM & is
awaiting the TH-cam Nobel prize atm.
@@jjtompson5914 yeah,I've been less than impressed since she told us how worried she was about climate change. Propaganda+physics equals propaganda.
@@ronaldreagan5981 Cause & effect experimentation is King,not words.
About the wave function not being a physical wave: If you know about the double slit experiment the wave function leaves physical markings on the photographic film at the back of the double slit experiment.It's not just an abstract concept.
She refers to the wave function as a mathematical model. Einstein didn't like the idea of "spooky action at a distance" so he didn't really buy into it, but Bohr just emphasized that the wavefunction is a model that is not necessarily wrong but rather incomplete/lack of updates, the best model available to date to explain the phenomenon you describe.
I think all physical fenomena derive from a non physical realm or at least by a deeper physical reality not yet understood.
Actualy,Einstein deep down "bought into it."This is why one of Einstein's famous quotes is "Reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one."@@_Egon
No, it's not the wave that leaves physical markings. When the wave interacts with the photographic film it becomes detected particles. The wave itself is what we can't measure without "collapsing" it. But what the experiment shows us is HOW the particles traveled to reach the photographic film.
I think I may be making progress here! When I first discovered your channel several months ago, I was having a very difficult time understanding the videos. But now, several months and many videos later, I find myself grasping the topic more fully and a bit more quickly. I am truly learning and growing from your videos Sabine, and I could not be more grateful! 🙏
I‘ve been watching videos about QM for about 8 years now. When I watch videos like this now I understand even less than before.
She's very good at how she presents this stuff, its very difficult to communicate these concepts in a lecture, let alone in a youtube video.
Don´t fool yourself. :-). You may be able to follow more, but you can easily check your real progress by trying to explain, what you think you understood, to a third person. Once you are able to correctly do that, only then you actually understood.
@@charles.e.g. Wow, politeness all over the place. Or have i touched a nerve? Have a nice day.
She is dead set in her old academical establishment. Authoritative and pretentious. When she says something doesn't make sense, she doesn't say for which scientist, implying that SHE doesn't think it makes sense...
I KNEW it!
Since childhood, I've always had a deep rooted, nagging Intuition that Cheese was behind all Reality, not just the Moon.
Thanks Sabine, you've made my life complete
She's a funny lady. Smart as hell, easy to understand, and very enjoyable - because of her sense of humor. Good stuff.
Hello 👋 How are you doing today??
Love the humor, which helps to keep things in perspective. "Consciousness Is All There Is", Tony Nader, MD, PhD. A good read.
"Because that's how physicists treat their friends" 😂😂😂 Sabine you're a treasure 😄
So cool to see the consciousness discussion evolving in physics. I think it's most beneficial to be an open minded skeptic here. There's certainly a lot we don't know 😉
There is no consciousness discussion in physics! It's like asking a carpenter on a discussion on the biology of grass. Wrong topic. Look for my posts on this thread as I crack consciousness. It is the opposite of physics - literally. It it a meta-level. What? Meta-physics.
German humor at it's best. Maybe Mundstuhl, the comedian duo, can make us actually laugh.
Her jokes almost always make me audibly laugh
@TheAmericanBrain you remind of a coworker. When I present him with data he doesn't like, says "no." And he believes that is the end of it. Meanwhile the world keeps moving along and fails to record his opinion.
Thats' an optimistic way of saying 'there's hardly anything we know'.
Sabine does a great job of keeping it real but understandable
everyone has some form of bullshit. you should never assume anything, even that they keep it real. everyone has their own bs and tunnel vision. and people of theory are often very stubborn and firm, but often enough they are also wrong. that's the whole profession they do here.
Not really, she’s a shill
@@NuanceOverDogma how so?
@@NuanceOverDogma She wants people to buy her books and help subsidise her videos via deals with sponsors, that is pretty fair, she's not a shill. Sabine isn't out to deceive anyone.
Ok, who led you all here? Just say it so I can watch the video or read whatever they wrote and consider their argument. I’m assuming it’s well stated and convincing to lead to such a consensus in this thread
I love the debunking of the "quantum healing" (also applies to many other such new-age ideas) as being victim-blaming.
In the double-slit experiment, the "observer effect" - where particles behave differently when being observed - is not due to a conscious observer but rather to the *physical act of measurement*, which disturbs the system. Specifically, when an electronic detector is placed at one of the slits to observe which path the particle takes, it interacts with the particle in a way that affects its wave-like behavior.
I really love how Sabine always sounds as though she is debunking a theory, no matter whether it's something she agrees with or not. This is a truly authentic perspective for a scientist, I think. Kudos for consistent skepticism! 🙏❤️
And yet I get endless disrespect for calling myself ' Science Troll '.
theorys can't be DEBUNKED only Disproven untill proven otherwise.
which is a faithless science way of looking at things
@@sciencetroll6304 Trolling is a subtle science not many understand 👹
@@arcadealchemist hm nah I would say an experimental falsification of the hypothesis debunks a theory. And on the contrary I would say that experimental confirmation of theoretical predictions validates a theory by failing to debunk it, but no experiment can "prove" a theory. Only confirm or deny it.
@@haniamritdas4725 nothing is impossible. hence why debunking is always temporary on some theories.
This actually made me feel a lot better about existential, nihilistic thoughts that have been keeping me up at night.
How so?
@@ungratefulingrate1268 oh man this was a while ago. I think it’s the fact that consciousness can be part of an equation essentially and that equation can lead to different realities? Like the thought of a world where something didn’t happen is as likely as a world where it did turns “what’s the point of anything” into “what if” and “why bother” turns into “why not”
@@Blisscent That's a very positive point of view, I wish to share it one day
Thank you for taking the time to respond
Sabine, I look forward to your videos every Saturday here in the US. I took physics courses in the mid-60s & early 70s as part of my Undergraduate & then my Graduate education, although I ended up with chemistry degrees. I just wish my profs (some are still part of my life) had been as well spoken, entertaining & understandable as you.
Ditto. My undergrad degree was in the 70s but am starting to take courses again! I Always look forward to these!
@@katgirl3000 Congratulations on returning to educating yourself further. I'm proud of your putting yourself back in the game.
@𝔴𝔥𝔞𝔱 𝔞𝔭𝔭 𝔪𝔢👉+1③⓪①⑨⑥⓪⑤②⑦④ I’m sorry Sabine. I don’t understand this fragment of your reply. Nor do I understand how we can “talk”. Sorry, I’m a literalist. I’d like to understand your to me cryptic message.
Finally, someone explains what a measurement is, all other videos just throw it around without explaining the most important term in Quantum Mechanics, great job !
Yes great job. The greatest physicists couldn't figure out for a century, what's inside the black box called "measurement". It's simply not possible to see inside the box. Unless you're Sabine of course.
This channel keeps getting better and better ... Thanks Sabine!
But Sabine is incorrect!
1/
Firstly, reality is knowable.
It is existence. Consciousness is the identity that identifies existence in the nature of existence.
You can identify the nature of existence, using reason and logic. Secondly, using science and mathematics as auxiliaries, you can extend man’s perspective, knowledge, just like a telescope or microscope, extends man senses.
However, it is always consciousness that was interpret the data. Existence comes first and consciousness belongs to you and it identifies existence.
And because one identity identifies the other identity, consciousness, identifies existence, this means Aristotle‘s law of identity. This means there is truth.
And you can know the truth using reason and logic. It’s not about guesswork. It’s not about the superiority of physics. Physics is dependent upon metaphysics, meta-level.
Metaphysics is simply: existence, exist, consciousness, with free, well, and Aristotle’s law of identity, which means truth.
----
2/ reality is neither a deterministic, nor indeterministic, if by any indeterminism you mean - quantum or chaos theory indeterminism.
There is no way chaos a randomness can lead to consciousness.
Instead, consciousness is a causal property and you cause it.
You are the cause and effect is thinking or doing some thing like raise your right hand up right now. You are the cause. It’s not your brain, but the “special Novel unique quality,”an emergent function of your brain.
You cannot ask, how old is Consciousness arise in the brain because to ask that is to look for an emergent property in the parts, which is impossible.
You can ask where is the wetness of water, because when you look for it in H2O molecules, what will you find?
More H2O molecules which are the very concept called :wetness .
So witness is an emergent quality of H2O molecules, interacting at room temperature.
In analogy, but something completely unique in the universe, consciousness is an emergent function of your brain with volition , which means free will, and self-awareness.
-----
Conventional science creates a “model, map” of reality.
-> It doesn’t give you the background territory, the actuality reality. Above, I’ve giving you the actuality reality, which is called metaphysics.
Sabine Hossenfelder, one of my favourite recurring hallucinations. Glad I keep learning new things!
But we might all be hallucinations imagining each other hallucinating us hallucinating them... 😱
@@things_leftunsaid they may contain unrealized knowledge and inperceivable or inconceivable information. A book contains information without the book knowing the information. Sabrine though is not a hallucination, that would be a different situation. 😁
@@seriousmaran9414, Random numbers creating data. A, B, C, D all could be true until the wave goes boink. When it does, C becomes the reality and suddenly it always was. (That's not how reality works. That's how some people think reality works.)
See: "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion" to witness a gamma photon, which is a quantum particle spreading as a wave and then collapsing to a definite position.
Consciousness has nothing to do with lightning.
@@things_leftunsaid turtles all the way down if you think about it. Who is hallucinating whom?
Sabine is so awesome with her voice fluctuations that adds that extra intellectual joy to listen to and makes you think beyond just the words and presentation of material.
Well done!
I agree with you, but I think that sometimes is a way tomi troduce her own bias and personal opinions, making, for example, a theory sound more nonsense or more serious.
Sabine is awesome period! Finally a TH-cam channel worthy of spending inordinate amounts of time on.🎉❤
@a.s.t yes! Thank You! Agree with you 💯 👍 Hope you are having an awesome holiday season!
this is my favorite YT channel hands down. Thank you Sabine!
to be fair, it IS possible to change (some) processes in your body with focus and training. One example is Wim Hof, its been scientifically studied and verified, another is the placebo effect
Another process is "lying".
This is completely different from the idea of quantum healing or an extra-physical brain however. Vim Hoff (and other breathing techniques or meditation for that matter) works exactly through physiological and thus physical routes. Changing your brain state affects your body - and we all know that: Just noticed that you forgot your key inside and now you will have to call your ex flatmate you fell out with? See how quickly your physiology changes - sweaty palms, a hot head, rise in heart rate, etc.
It also has been proved in many clinical studies that happiness and optimist mindest has zero effect on wether a patient is gonna heal or not. Placebo is not well understood
@@macaque791 That is substantially true, but there are studies that support differential recovery rates purely based on whether the patient has a view of external natural environment, or concrete vistas.
This may not be classified strictly as "happiness", but in my book, that distinction is splitting linguistic hairs.
@@MichaelKingsfordGray link of the paper ?
The universe takes the path of least commitment. It doesn't settle (decohere) into a single state unless enough other stuff interacts with it. I believe this is telling us something very profound about the nature of our shared "reality".
Hello 👋 How are you doing today??
nah
That even the universe itself is lazy. And they mocked those who naturally assumed laziness.
Hi Sabine ! ..."...consciousness is necessary to make sense of quantum mechanics..." - It is only consciousness that can possibly "...make sense..." of anything at all ! :-)
I've wondered how quantum mechanics plays into the operation of a biological brain vs the limited synthetic neural networks we have now. The exact timing of neurons firing essentially comes down to individual molecular reactions which involve quantum physics. It could mean that we end up making a decision one way or another based on quantum _randomness,_ or that we made the decision both ways.
The Quantum phenomena that might play a role in Brain function is likely a lot more subtle than we all think it is. No Neurons in a superposition of firing and not firing, but rather something along the lines of Quantum phenomena determining when and how Neurons fire, maybe throw in some entanglement between Neurons for some indirect communication (Neurons can already communicate remotely, see Ephatic coupling), and Quantum effects of light passing through Neuronal Axons (there is some proof of that last point actually!)
@ralphmacchiato3761ok b list actor who can't even play gutar
Thank you for being a voice for reason in this topic. Some people with phd's are going really wild.
I love Sabine and PBS Spacetime, wish these two would collab on some topics
Thanks for these presentations. And for the sense of humor.
Sabine's proving to the world that Germans do in fact have a sense of humor. They just don't share it much because it's rather biting and they want to be nice - so it's mostly reserved for friends.
I remember you covering this in an earlier video.
Quantum mechanics is weird.
Consciousness is weird.
Therefore the two are related! At least that seems to be their argument.
Your sense of humor is so scientific and so funny... Keep the great content 👍
Fabulous timestamps and a great summary! 🙂
Please keep doing both!
"He (Bohr) was quite content with being incomprehensible. And a lot of physicists have since followed his example." Hysterical! Oh, Sabine can be quite acid-tongued.
I can attest that watching Sabina's videos has a positive quantum effect on my consciousness.
What a fabulous video. I’m 23 years old and have been sticking to philosophy for some time now but I’d love to become a theoretical physicist some day. Thank you for making complex topics more accessible.
What would physics give you? It gave her error - for you to buy into Sabine -is just wrong.
You have consciousness with free will. Sabine is wrong to say you do not . She is practicing mysticism called scientism which is not science , neither is Scientology. This is the wrong philosophy of post-modernism, like modernism, logical positivism , Kant, Plato and all the errors of western philosophy as bad as eastern philosophy. So what is true? Let's find out by the end.
First, wetness and liquidity are properties of water that are emergent from mere H20 molecules at room temperature. If you zoom in , you will not find these properties. They are macro level properties. However, the brain is wholly different to mere water [a different substrate].
The brain therefore has different emergent property with causal power called free will. You can glean it because you would not be able to form any conclusion that is valid without it [how would you - magic?]
Secondly, the first emergence you experience is life itself.
The laws of physics ordinarily turns order into chaos - entropy .
However "aliveness" is turning chaos into order: like you break down your food but it fuels the process of turning items into order to maintain your life vis a vis the raging power of thermodynamics, of entropy.
4 billion years ago mere matter auto-catalyticaly become self organizing and ended up duplicating itself.
The first proto-cell that complexified into the first life forms: bacteria and archea (Which are still in the same form today 4 billion years later!)
It took another 2.5 billion years before a black swan event (not an emergence per se) as bacteria and archea merged into mitochrondria. Now Eukaryotes were born and were far better by magnitudes at energy efficiency per gene. These organisms exploding in the Cambrian (and 99% of them went extinct at the end of that period). Speciation is due to Darwinian evolution which is about complexification.
From primates to hominoids - many different types in parallel roamed the earth until there was only one. You . The last one had only one invention for 1 million years - the axe. But about 70,000 years ago culture exploded . Sentient man was here.
All other animals have consciousness (crudely means awareness as per dictionary definition) starting with first brains: worms. Higher up the chain , there is a wider range of cognition. So the first strong emergence - 'mind from matter' was worms as the neuronal trellis (possessed by pre-worm species like jelly fish) complexified into a brain (worm). After aeons (550 million years) , hominoids appeared but still not human consciousness. With modern man, there is a distinct trackable difference compared to all other species throughout earth history: another level of emergence.
Thirdly, on top of free will (a given) you need the right method to reach conclusion. That is the method of reason and logic. Like reading, writing, math - it must be learned, practiced (a lot) to get to mastery. But you are not using reason and logic.
You are deliberating omitting "induction" as a method of science. I showed you above how to induct consciousness using science: grab things now, point to thing , smell things - your sense organs take in sensory datum and it self organizes into percepts (units of perception) so you can validate "existence" really does exist [as in "really" - of reality].
Go ahead point to things. Smell things. Or grab things and ask and answer: does it really exist? Point to yourself too! This is an ostensive definition. You can abstract from all things and answer - if rational man - that all things that are real exist. In other words existence exists.
But wait! How do you know that?
->> Because consciousness is an emergent causal power , distinct to the brain. So consciousness is not your "non-strong emergence" - what you call an "effect' of the brain- otherwise the blazing fast computers of today would be able to do what you do or ask this.
Computers are precise , great deductive machines following rules.
It can not induct. It is not consciousness. You are not a computer. Even the Nobelist Sir Roger Penrose shows you your mind/brain is not a algorithmic mechanism otherwise Nobels like him would not be able to have "outside the box" insights - he says. I do better than him: fully identifying what is this "Consciousness".
So metaphysics - what Sabine misses out on and upon which all physics and science depend is "existence exists; consciousness with free will is exercised to identify this earlier identity exists and because of that you also know all this to be fully true: Aristotle's law of identity.
So metaphysics : existence, consciousness and identity.
But how to know any truth, any identity? The methods of reason and logic; such as using induction above. This is science.
@@AmericanBrain my goodness it says you’ve left 1000+ comments on just this channel! I am both impressed and concerned
@@AmericanBrain no free will
@@AmericanBrain you're wrong, seek psychiatric help
I always know that once Sabine starts teaching that my knowledge will be instantaneously upgraded at the speed of laughter!
6:36 you said their interpretation "is not wrong", only to refute them in the rest of the video. Can you clarify that?
In Wigner's Friend Experiment, the experiment inside the room is no longer in superposition. But to the person outside the room, it's still in superposition. Doesn't that mean the experiment is in superposition and NOT in superposition at the same time?
The important thing is the observation of the last observer. For him the internal observer is just a part of the apparatus and is in superposition. The wave function collapses only when the external oberver knows the result...I suppose !
The quantum description of the setup is observer dependent, because observers don't have access to the same information, namely the measurement outcome. The observer dependence is only resolved when both participants exchange their results. You can add a third observer, that will see the whole thing as a superposition of superpositions.
@@vitovittucci9801 enter The Ultimate observer 😆
I intent to develop science of quantum mechanics by directing my consciousness into watching videos about you studying the topic! Thank you for doing that Sabine! :)
I just plan on placing my quantum text under my pillow at night so that I can absorb the information though osmosis.
@@joebaby739 Thick Russian accent, like that of Boris the Blade.
@@RobertBartlettBaron try opening up the floodgates of your perception first, if you want to access it consciously later on.
Despite Sabine’s skepticism, consciousness persists.
Despite Sabine's consciousness, skepticism persists
How did the universe function before consciousness?
@@Woodesies I wonder if you apply such healthy skepticism toward things like climate change and racial equality.
See: "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion" to witness a gamma photon, which is a quantum particle spreading as a wave and then collapsing to a definite position.
Consciousness has nothing to do with lightning.
The fact that we can probe and question the nature of reality is just fantastic and so fascinating.
Decades ago, when I first learned of wave function collapse, I thought that it sounded very much like a method we software developers sometime use. Sometimes, for performance reasons, variable/property values do not need to be continuously updated. They only need to be determined at the point you need to know their values. What if the famous double slit test exposes an artifact of the way the construct of space/time 'processes' particle state to conserve computation by only resolving the value at the time it is needed to be known?
Personally I think it has to to with energy states, and being in the lowest energy state. A collapsed wave might be a higher energy state, so it would have to be forced into it, like forcing atoms to collide to create chemical reactions. It could also be an emergent phenomenon, like temperature, where at a lower level it's really just about statistical probabilities, rather than hard rules.
The theory about conserving computational power also has one major issue for me, quantum equations require huge computational power, which is why we are only able to simulate fairly simple scenarios. If someone designed it that way, that would be a strange choice when you would get an almost identical universe (from our point of view) with classical physics. Of course the "computer" isn't necessarily restricted by the same physical laws, but there are also other reasons I doubt our universe was designed.
So you're saying that a video game will only show the user what is necessary based upon his position in that map/location?
in reality there is no collapse taking place, the wavefunction was always left, or right all along. Math is only an interpretation of reality. Reality exists without the tool(maths) we use to measure it.
@@mgntstr Then explain the double slit experiment...
@@An_Escaped_Mind That is a perfect example.
"Thanks for imagining me."
You're welcome Sabine!
I've been thinking about this a lot recently. I guess it's not very scientific, but I've noticed, or think I've noticed, a lot lately that a lot of very complicated machines seem to behave slightly differently, but predictably, depending on who uses them. What if there is such a thing as a spirit, and it has some kind of influence on the natural world.
You mentioned the double slit experiment and the 'evidence' that it seems it may be possible to manipulate results with the mind. I think they may be going at it the wrong way. Maybe instead of attempting to manipulate the results by force, first they should have a lot of people just sit passively by the machine and see if it does anything at all, THEN see if they can manipulate the light. The problem I see with their approach is that it's like they're trying to write with a third arm they just barely attached without even checking if arm moves due to the brain or sends sensory information to the brain at all.
To my (quite limited) experience and knowledge it matters less what people try to think. It matters much more what they actually believe is happening. If they sit there "Well, can't work, but let's try anyways", it won't work. If the experimenter comes in and says "look, it's bent to the left!" and they believe him, chances are good it actually does bend.
@@traumflug maybe, but definitely atleast one group should not be told what is happening.
If you're interested in the topics discussed in this video, I highly recommend the book 'Life, Consciousness And Other Quantum Wackiness' by I. A. Gill. It offers an interpretation of quantum mechanics, consciousness and the wave function collapse
Why would I be interested in such nonsense? ;-)
"Thanks for imagining me" - love it
Thanks for covering the Dean Radin experiment. I saw it a few years ago and havent seen anyone mention it otherwise.
Could you explain the interference pattern with single slits more? I feel like that would create an issue for ANY double slit experiment would it not?
Not if analysed with Q.E.D. it is not.
@MichaelKingsfordGray can you elaborate please? What is QED and how does analysis differ between using that and not using that?
@@hunterlavish 1) To answer comprehensively takes at least 5 year University course. I cannot fit it in to TH-cam margins, (to loosely paraphrase Fermat).
2) QED=Quantum Electrodynamics.
Crudely speaking, it deals with the theory of light and matter.
(Gravity is nowhere to appear in the theory.)
Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga were given the Nobel prize for its practical solution.
3) QED differs from other approaches in that it (so far) always produces results that agree precisely with experiment, whereas no other testable approaches do.
@@MichaelKingsfordGray Thanks for the reply! I will definitely start looking into QED and try to get a grasp on that concept, thanks!
Hi Sabine, thank you for this video. Although I have to admit that the topic is still very difficult for me to understand (how would either of the consciousness > wave-function collapse or the wave-function collapse > consciousness would make a different in the existence of other objects outside my observing mind/consciousness). But I'm interested to explore more. So I have just bought your book "Existential Physics".
Wave function has nothing to do with consciousness. Why would you even conjoin them?
@@AmericanBrain Clearly you haven't watched the video or read the book.
@@sslaia It's not that conciousness affects "the existence of other objects" if you mean that, it's just that in a range of possible results, you discover which one has occurred and therefore you complete the result of the equation -> therefore, you can say that your conciousness affected the result, but just in a theoretical way. The result will be the same whether you look at it or not, but you'll never know till you do it.
@@AmericanBrain You've a lot to say for yourself haven't you, little man.
@@rokasb6907 the fact you have to insult suggests you believe in total mysticism and feel upset . Stop this mysticism . Stop it now !
Read what I said and grasp the science
Thank you Sabine. I don't understand most of what you say, firstly because my English is bad, then because my knowledge of physics is superficial, even so I like the way you explain it and little by little I learn one concept here and another there. It's pretty fun. Thanks.
Thank you so much for presenting a discussion on this topic! It's not often such a review is done meaningfully and respectfully. While it's not widely respected it's still a topic of interest to at least learn about for me. Your video did a great job of helping me.
"No one knows what consciousness is anyway"
Bless you for saying that. It's always bothered me that scientists have used the term consciousness in practical terms (meaning, in some instance when it might be said to affect some outcome) without the word having a clear (non-metaphysical) definition. Also bothersome and related is how the word observer is tossed around and to this day I don't know exactly what would constitute an observer used in these thought games.
consciousness is everything you've ever experienced. colors, sensations, emotions, all of it.
Excited to watch this! What an interesting topic
@sabine Hosseenfelder, I have one for you. Say you put two particles, quantum entangled, into a double hemisphere where one hemisphere is 3 metres from the centre, the other is 9 metres from the centre. You shoot energy into the entangled pair, and within 1ms, you see that one particle hits a specific point in the smaller hemisphere, in a specif point. You can then predict that within 2ms, the other one will hit the larger hemisphere in a specific point, opposite the other particle. We CAN predict both direction and speed of a particle in this way. Please explain that. Thank you, dear Lady.
Hello: Enjoyed you first video very much, and went to Kindle and got your book that was out this past August 2022. Look forward to learning more! Thank you. --Steve Morgan, Ohio, USA
Thank you, :) I learned a lot! You seem to assume conciousness is solely localized in the brain. If you are also interested in this topic, I would love to see an episode about the scientific evidence around conciousness localisation.
I notice multiple instances like this one in theoretical physics, in which pretty much fantasies are taught as being solid facts. I'd say it has a lot to do with it being so difficult to figure out the Law of Everything, there's too much fantastic fluff floating around that gets in the way, and people that love to applaud it. They love the king's 4D (spatial) invisible garment so much, they somehow cause it to block the truth, and dismiss anyone that dismiss it by calling them fools.
I think that's purely a wording issue. If you replaced the word consciousness with information processing, the theory would make sense. If you use improper wording you typically lead many people into mystical thinking.
@@wiczus6102 but what's the evidence that information processing affects it? That's all consciousness is anyways. I tend to believe that the wave function is merely a useful way to predict things, but it is not the actual state of reality. Things have a location speed spin etc always whether they're measured or not. We just don't have sensitive or sophisticated enough equipment to see them
For so long I've been asking these questions in an abstract way in order to make an intuitive guess about my research findings... My research leads me to quantum computing, neuroscience, and finally to your channel...
Things seem now to make sense, after all I'm not asking any random wrong questions...
Thank you Sabine.. You do make topics of this nature very clear...
But still in the sight of academics it seems to be considered as pseudo-science... even when we have empirical evidence...
How many bottles did you use for your "research"? :-)
If a tree falls on the forest out side CERN and all the physicists are to busy measuring bosons to notice it, does it collapse the wave function?
Asking the important question here.
@@dogcarman well it’s like saying that nothing can happen without consciousness, but if nobody was conscious at the beginning of the universe how did wave functions collapse? This like of thinking is like saying “God collapsed the wave functions” and if my conscience can collapse a wave function I must be god.
Looking fwd to read your book! I have found some criticism on Roger Penrose's idea of the connection of consciousness and QM to leave some information out. He mentions that indeed there are gaps in our understanding of the physical world (QM at odds with GR) and that that gap when solved may indeed shed light into the consciousness problem.
I know this doesn't explain anything, but I think it helps understand where he is coming from.
Yes, that roughly matches with my understanding. I think you'll find that confirmed in my interview with him.
See: "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion" to witness a gamma photon, which is a quantum particle spreading as a wave and then collapsing to a definite position.
Consciousness has nothing to do with lightning.
@@SabineHossenfelder I'm glad you made me up in your head too singularity... there was a study done on cab drivers in England they all developed similar brain structure once they were able to be called masters of their craft memorizing all of the roads and routes... every single one of these cab drivers all developed the same exact brain structure all of the ones that were the best. If you think about this this is your brain changing three dimensional structures you are changing fundamental reality with your thought. Granite it's only changing the structure of your own brain but it proves the concept scientifically.
@@SabineHossenfelder you're liver is conscious... if you get stabbed in the liver then it's going to hurt, it's conscious enough to know that it was stabbed... scientifically speaking everything is one it all came from The Big Bang which is the ultimate metaphor for the singularity aka god... it is all encompassing and completely alone... just like you. Coming into these bodies is what it does to forget the fact that it is completely alone... understand other version of WE‽ watch my latest video... i tagged you. All existence is conscious because it is all part of the singularity... not just carrots but all and even the periodic table of elements... you know im always right when i go out of the way to comment with you... lu other version of we... it's all pointless and just existing and not ending it brings forth more suffering... Live=eviL... singularity is evil too. Fear not.
Roger is correct that there is a gap in our understanding that's why we are facing too many puzzles and mysteries in QM. The missing part in our knowledge can be found in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
*I just found your channel for the first time and I am having a wonderful time exploring it!* Thank you for making this! I just subscribed 😊🙌📚🤩
Same here her video popped up in my recommendation side list.
Why is she always so angry?
@@residentfelon Probably because as a female physicist she gets called emotional by others who are far less dispassionate than she is.
@@residentfelon Her angriness makes her more attractive🥰 You can find more angry Sabines on TH-cam by searching the keywords "free will", "determinism", "multiverse"
@@residentfelon you see angry,,, I see passion. And I love her presentation, and heart.
I have practiced mind healing for fifty years … it is immediate and cumulative … Mind … the power of Mind in the equation of Life has always been the key insight … and quantum theory and mechanics continue to unfold … already some quantum therapists have realized Mind is the absolute agency while matter is a conditional description and lacks actuality … matter is a conditional … temporal conceptualization of change occurring in an infinite eternal space time continuum … and yes it does hold man accountable for his ignorance … which is the illusion of Life in the material circumstances or prescribed by matter
This is all the subject of Greg Egan's book "Isolation". It was quite fascinating to read, and this video was very complementary !! It's hard to believe that what I thought were far-fetched interpretrations of quantum mecanics as there are so many were actually so close to actual, even if very controversial, science... (even if to remain realistic, the author had to invent some kind of futuristic brain implant haha) I've liked this book a lot, I think Greg Egan is really great in developping quite beautiful ideas and stories in that distance some scientists take with the principle of parsimony ^^
DNA computing would be a cool subject for one of your videos. I always suspected that using DNA for computing would have a lot of benefits because you can store so much information on a small scale. I would love to hear you break down the potentials for it and how it would work.
m.th-cam.com/video/GgPdRKqcRTE/w-d-xo.html
I don't know about DNA bud. But we are able to build a giant brain now, so maybe there'a that. If you dont mind the moral implications of that ........
Uiii, let's hope we'll be on this planet for another 50 years..!
People perform DNA computing all the time. It’s very resource intensive, the result of every computation is another human being. Starting the computation is very pleasurable though.
@@josephvanname3377apparently aromatic rings of DNA support objective reduction as do the microtubules outside of the nucleus. So according to Penrose there is non qualia quantum computing being done inside the nucleus and qualia like quantum computing being done in the microtubules of amygdala or limbic system structures.
Your great teacher with great humour😄, love your contents. Thank you for sharing all these informative n inspiring contents with us.
I heartedly laughed at the double slit side eye observation monkey meme. I wanna put it as my desktop background
I did not realize Jerry Seinfeld had a sister in science.
I don't need scientific proof that dreams exist; not because I have observed other people's dreams, but because I have experienced them. The same goes for consciousness-its profound impact on everything, including scientific observations.👌
As our dear teacher knows, there is no “spooky action at a distance” or collapsing of this or that; our form of consciousness is simply incapable of observing both “states” of a superposition.
This was a really great video and topic, thank you so much. Consciousness and quantum mechanics are both weird enough to be linked, how so, and how does that new understanding progress science is TBD but this is a topic that could get us to the next level of understanding the universe if we have a breakthrough
There is a real breakthrough - In the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe", this subject is explained in easy and plain language.
@@marcosolo6491 Some people first read before making a judgment. Others make judgments before reading. I am in the first category, in which one you are?
Von Neumann was a fantastic man. He strongly contributed to every field he touched
... other than cheese.
@@s.patrickmarino7289 wait wait you haven't heard him make jokes.
wait a minute ... how did Von Neumann die ?
He didn't touch an electrical field, did he ? :-o
@@kensho123456 His heart function collapsed. lol
Dr. Strangelove was a fantastic man. He strongly contributed to every field he touched.
Alright, here's a thought about quantum moments. When I look at these moments of thought, I realize how they piece together to form our understanding. Each moment is like a snapshot in time, capturing an idea, a feeling, or a connection. Just like in quantum physics, where observing a particle's position affects its state, our awareness of a thought influences its meaning and impact.
In the quantum world, you can't measure speed by looking at a single snapshot. It's the same with our thoughts and ideas. Each quantum moment of thought doesn't move or progress on its own. It connects with others to form a continuous stream of consciousness. This is why measuring something's speed in the quantum realm involves looking at the distance traveled over time, not just a single frame.
When I think about how quantum entanglement works, it's fascinating. Two particles can be connected in such a way that the state of one instantly influences the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are. This reminds me of how our thoughts and emotions can be deeply interconnected, even when they're seemingly separate.
In a sense, our thoughts are like quantum particles. They exist in a superposition of possibilities until we observe them, and then they collapse into a specific state. This observation shapes our reality and our understanding of the world.
So, when I'm working on a project or reflecting on a memory, I'm piecing together these quantum moments of thought. Each one is a part of the larger picture, and they all contribute to the narrative of my life. It's a beautiful and complex process, and it's what makes our experiences so rich and meaningful.
In essence, understanding the quantum nature of our thoughts helps me appreciate the intricacies of our minds and the profound connections we share with the world around us. It's a continuous journey of discovery, one quantum moment at a time.
Sabine is in top form in this video. Of course my observing this video changed its content.
You're inside the laboratory and have a friend waiting outside - in front of the closed door. Because that's how physicists treat their friends 😂😂😂 Perfect!!!
Love this content. Ty Sabine. I enjoy your sense of humor.
Would you do an episode about causal domain shear? Thank you. I love your videos.
Sabine, your podcasts are wonderful, full of great information and analysis, with a wonderful dash of dry humour. A big fan
Thank you... always quality content and presentation.
Excellent explanation, Sabine! Thanks! 😃
I don't know about consciousness, but my liver sometimes complaints when I take too much beer. So... Who knows? 🤔
Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Just so you know sabine, plants have way more mechanisms for perceiving their external environment (comprehension on the other hand is a tad iffy). They probably have their own mechanisms to observe environmental phenomena that have quantum elements affiliated with it (the bias towards electron spin in Photosystem II as an example).
Conscious carrots might keep you up at night though
Animals developed the ability to see because they need to go to where the food is. The plant equivalent is phototaxis, which does not require consciousness.
"thanks for imagine me"
That was pure gold!
You expanded on some of your ideas here in your new book, Existential Physics, which is a really good read. I do recommend it.
Everytime I hear this challenging physics concepts I get the sense that Spinoza figured all this out 400+ years ago and we're just catching up with him using positivistic science.
I am a physicist and I want to explain the problem of "observation" in quantum mechanics because it is often misunderstood even by many physicists.
In quantum mechanics the physical system is described through a wave function whose evolution over time is determined by the Schrodinger equation. The wave function represents infinite different possible results for the physical quantities related to the system, but when we take a measurement, only one of these infinite possibilities becomes real; after the measurement, we must therefore modify the wave function “by hand” to eliminate all other possible results, and this modification is called the “collapse” of the wave function. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong.
The fundamental problem with quantum mechanics is that interactions among particles are already included in the Schrodinger equation and such equation does not predict any collapse. The collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger equation. The Schrodinger equation is what allows us to make quantitative predictions about the outcomes of future measurements; everytime we make a measurement, we receive new information about the system, and we need to "update" our wave function, i.e. to collapse it, otherwise the Schrodinger equation would provides wrong predictions relative to successive measurements. After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break.
Quantum mechanics is incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. Quantum mechanics implies that physical reality (the universe) consists of the collection of all observed phenomena and such phenomena do not exist independently of consciousness. In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself. The collapse represents the transition from a hypothetical system to an actual system.
The collapse of the wave function represents a non-physical event, since it violates the fundamental laws of physics, and can be associated with the only non-physical event we know of, consciousness. Therefore, the only consistent rational explanation of the collapse is that it occurs because consciousness is involved in the process. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the collapse of the wave function (=violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. The consciousness that causes the collapse of the wave function must be an eternal consciousness, that is, a conscious God. This is the idealistic perspective, which implies that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God who directly creates the phenomena we observe, according to the matematical models through which He conceived the universe (the laws of physics); the collapse of the wave function is a representation of the moment when God creates the observed phenomenon. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism.
The so called "collapse" does not violate a law of nature, because the wave function is not a law of nature. It is a mathematical device we use to predict the possible outcomes of the observation.
The law of nature may be "Using the wave function you get the probabilities of the possible outcomes of the observation".
There is no "collapse" at all, like when you go to the shop with a list of things to buy, and you buy only some of them, you have not "collapsed" the shopping list, and caused no violation of the laws of shopping.
@@andsalomoni You are wrong. The laws of quantum mechanics are the most fundamental laws we know about nature and the collapse is a violation of the evolution of the wave function as determined by the laws of quantum mechanics.
That the wave function doesn't predict its own collapse only means that the wave function doesn't tell the whole story. Everything else is wishful thinking. I
Saying that something non-physical must be the cause is wishful thinking. For starters, we don't know if the collapse itself actually happens, or is it just an artifact of a flawed theory. And if it actually happens, i don't see why it can't be the result of a unknown physical process.
If something violates the laws of physics, then the laws of physics are wrong. It's that simple.
See: "Lightning in Super Duper Slow Motion" to witness a gamma photon, which is a quantum particle spreading as a wave and then collapsing to a definite position.
Consciousness has nothing to do with lightning.
@@juanausensi499 My arguments represent a rational and logically coherent analysis of our scientific knowledge. Your assumption that "if something violates that laws of physics, then the laws of physics are wrong" is devoid of any rational, empirical or scientific basis and I am not interested in discussing such assumption. I rely on our scientific knowledge and quantum physics represent the most fundamental knowledge we have about nature.
Quite an argument. What I find common in all the debates on the effect of quantum physics is that they are basically debates based on different 'analogical models'. We no longer argue any thing based on physics proper. I mean the phenomenon.
But you have a lot of clarity
I am a lay reader of physics.
I love your videos... they are funny but smart at the same time. Also, your explanations are clear :)
Hm? Being smart and funny go hand-in-hand.
I worked for a very unusual gentleman back in the 1980s. He and is wife owned a small chain of pet shops, fish, small animals, and supplies. One day while cleaning aquariums with him he said something unusual, and I will never forget it. He said that even a rock has a certain level of conscience, not that it knows that it is a rock, but it has a level of awareness that is not measurable. Its level of conscience, if conscience could be measured, would register at an extremely low level, but nonetheless, all objects by the nature of creation have been instilled with what we call conscience. Imagine being 17 years old, and thinking what kind of nut this guy is. Well, here I am some 40 years later, and here is Sabine Hossenfelder explaining the very same principle. She just used a carrot instead of a rock.
Alan Watts said the same about the rock!
This definition of conscience is basically mere information. so by this definition even a single electron is conscious.
That definition is not very useful, its mere a Shannon entropy definition.
And it doesn't explain what consciousness is, because it probably don't really exist. Aka, no thing is conscious, consciousness is the information acting on itself, aka, a thing any information can do basically.
It just depends on what you mean by consciousness, if it's something that collapses the wave function then everything might have consciousness, but the problem with that definition is that it has nothing to do with what people usually mean by consciousness.
He was right: all interactions imply some low level of "consciousness" or "perception", even an electron to some extent is "conscious" of the proton it orbits and feels attracted to, all those virtual photons exchanging information (however they do it) are producing the simplest level of "consciousness" that we can fathom.
@@LuisAldamiz So consciousness only means interaction.
As I was saying, not a very useful definition.
Congratulations for 1 million subscribers 👍❤.
It is really hard to say which interpretation to choose.
However, there is one problem with only materialistic interpretations:
calculations themselves are subject to consciousness.
But if you have a better argument, I’m open towards it :)
Consciousness has been excellently explained in very detailed in Ancient Indian scripture- Vedanta
Only real thing in whole universe in Consciousness ( The Awareness) which is all pervading
Everything else is just the manifestation of that consciousness- sort of matter energy time space and everything else is just the emergent property of Consciousness ( Awareness)
Aham Brahmasmi- I am the universe
I have an ingrown toenail..it hurts
Sabine, it's interesting how you added in that research paper about using focused thought and observation to manipulate the outcome of the double slit experiment. Of course that research paper is nonsense, but you know that, that's why your included it. Like a bait and switch you started the video by supporting the argument that conscious observation collapses the wave, rightly so, as this is a fact taught in physics classes at all major universities.
The measurement device and the computer that saves the outcome data on its hard drive is a creation of the conscious observer and therefore is an extension of our own observation. Furthermore, when we set up the measurement device and the computer with the intention of observing the measurement results that's why we see the wave collapse.
If there was no consciousness there would be no observers. There would be no initial idea for the creation of the Hypothesis, no one to set up the experiment, no one to perform the measurement, and finally, no one observe the results. There would be no collapse of the wave.
The term I've chosen to describe what it is you do, as a "Science Communicator" is an Agent Provocateur. In this particular instance you're intentionally confuse the layman by mixing science facts with pseudoscience, then referencing the pseudoscience as the reason for casting doubt on the validity of the Theory.
Consciousness is fundamental.
If we want a unifying theory to bridge the gap between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity then we must understand consciousness
It's a branch of universal mind i.e cosmic consciousness connected to it's mother core & it's related. Together we can say quantum conciousness ! ❤️🙏
Obviously the author of this video is very marked by the ideology of scientific materialism. The truth is that in terms of experience there is no such thing as matter outside of consciousness. Scientific theories, models, hypotheses, all of that takes place in consciousness. Consciousness is the ultimate reality. There is nothing in the parameters of matter, such as velocity, mass, spin, electric charge or any other parameter from which the quality of the experience can be deduced. For example, the taste of chocolate is a mental phenomenon, from the sphere of consciousness, it is a qualitative experience that cannot be explained by material interactions. It is true that there is a correlation between the electrical and chemical activity of the brain and experience, but the brain does not produce consciousness, just as a radio does not produce the music it emits, limiting itself only to being a vehicle for transmitting music and of the speaker's voice. What we call matter is what consciousness looks like when viewed from a certain perspective. It's just the expression of something much deeper. For example, when someone cries, shedding tears and contorting their face, we can observe what their sadness looks like from an external point of view, but what we see points to a deeper reality, but it is not that reality. After all, what is this thing called matter? What answer can we give to this question with the discoveries of quantum physics?
Phenomenological, you represent the position of Husseral, who represents Kant I without Kant II. For a few years I was an adherent of the Husseralian position in phenomenology, as it justifies your entitlement to your own beliefs, and your own reality, and your own truth. But I evolved into a sensorialist because it is no good to deny real sensorial data as stimulus impinging on your body. I hate gossip in a profound way, and I would be happy to write 100% of everything down on paper or online instead of seeking, but I needed real resources to get talk to stop. If I had no power to stop noise coming into my head from outside, my internal monologues would be rendered second class citizens to the speech of others. I also despise religious belief, and I quit celebrating all holidays including my own birthday, in order to eliminate superstition from my life, and I replace belief with pure imagination, planning, keeping full time interior monologues, but always acknowledging my power to control real sensory data coming in from outside myself. That is the position of Kant II.
@@kathleentaylor8840absolute fucking lunatic. Who would eliminate their birthday? what is a world without ice cream cake?
I love how Sabine cuts through the BS, like Occam's Razor. 😎
The reason there is an argument about consciousness and wave function collapse is because they can only measure the particle at one point in time. If we came up with a better way of measuring in real time at all points such as sound measurement instead of visual observation we could get a more accurate measurement that represents what the particle is doing before and after observation.
Making any statement about how something moves with only one point of reference or only one point in time of measurement is nonsense, that's like saying a runner runs with their left foot forward because that is the point you took a picture, but anyone who has seen the entire run knows the feet alternate forward when running.
I took my picture of the runner at the point they crossed the finish line therefore left foot forward is the way humans run.... nonsense.
I took my picture of the particle at the point it hit the screen therefore it did go to the left.... nonsense.
Since you saw the same thing at the same point it is obvious that our consciousness caused it.... nonsense.
If you focus on your microtubules, then you can influence a carton of milk so that it changes into cheese. It only takes a few weeks!