Відео

Personally I feel it might be the wrong question to open with. I have no problem with people performing legitimate empirical experiments (like leaving out-of-sight messages for those who experience OBE’s in an emergency ward for example), since objective data is going to be crucial for anyone attempting to investigate these topics legitimately… but without a full understanding of what the self is in life, or even what life is full stop, I don’t think there is any way to understand NDE’s beyond it just being a deeply significant psychological event. It’s thought that the body releases natural amounts of DMT upon death, which explains a lot about the experiences people report, but why the body would have evolved to do this is entirely unknown. Funnily enough I’m actually beginning to talk about death in this weeks chapter, though as has been the case in the last few chapters, it will again be the in context of attempting to know what the self is. But to offer you a glimpse into how I think about these things, It comes down to whether reality offers literal finite bounds or if all apparent bounds are subjective. If we can answer this then we can start to understand the divide between body and environment, which is not too dissimilar to the divide between living and non-living. My episode on Emergence ( ua-cam.com/video/HjcbQhcMSxQ/v-deo.htmlsi=8me2w-pGMVgFq_Ab ) talks to this very point. But this also applies to the term “value” you put in your question. What is value in the ultimate frame of reality? To whom or what can we attribute value without first knowing what “selves” are. But I will be unfolding all this in much finer details over the course of the series. 👍 So yeah, in short, we need to understand life in order to understand death. ❤️

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley Actually, that is the video of yours I saw first I believe. I appreciate the lengthy reply too. I had an instance a few years ago where someone swerved into my lane head on ,and for like a split second, I sort of brushed it off as a "hah, I could have died!" and then I obsessively thought about being aware of the act of dying and haven't been able to make sense of it. Not just the cliché you will die, whatever that means, but that you can experience the act. All of that eventually lead me down the philosophy rabbit hole of physicalism, to idealism, to whatever else now. Operating on physicalism to at least describe things makes sense because all interpretations of idealism I've heard feel sort of purposefully unarguable, though I find that makes more sense on an emotional level. However, the more I understand about instrumentalism the more shaky even that becomes. And just as an aside, I've always hated the argument what was it like before you were born? It's like a really bad GOTCHA question. From my perspective I've always had experience. There hasn't been a time that I haven't. Sorry for the mildly incoherent rambling. Great videos. Always pumped to listen.

@@lunchbox4229 😆Glad you enjoy them. Yes, I recall being asked, "What was it like before your birth" and at the time, that was enough to put my "fear of the nothing" on its head. But funnily enough, when I used that same answer on my firstborn, he wasn't buying it. It gave him no comfort at all. So for him (who was 5 years old at the time), I went more down the lines of a physicalist description; that we are all physical incarnations of one another and that our bodies will become new things and people, and in that sense, we are all one. So that was something he liked... the idea that he will one day be a tree (in a genuine and measurable sense). The problem, as I mentioned, has more to do with expecting that there should be some final quantifiable answer, which seems counter to the ideals of infinity. I subscribe to what Bohm says in that it is a repercussion of how we think and speak. Everything we understand is done so via a fragmentation of concepts, each having its own subjective bound. But then, when we go looking for those bounds, we find none. This is why any metaphysical framework that declares the existence of an "ultimate truth" (i.e. idealism, materialism, etc.) always falls on its face when pressed hard enough. I feel we must, on some level, move away from the framework of objects that relate to one another (which has undoubtedly offered humanity an abundance of intellectual wealth in terms of science, but nonetheless...) and towards a framework of unified infinite Process. Because it was via Process that I was able to encounter oneness. I think you'll get a kick out of this week's chapter. It won't give any final answers, but it will shift the conversation further towards your inquiry. ❤

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley very excited to see it

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley and as a further aside, the embracing of what i interpret as meta physics has lead me to reject any deterministic philosophy or school of thought that starts at A and gets to Z. It’s arbitrary to end at quarks, and say even if that was the most fundamental particle, could someone adequately describe what an oscillating energy fields is and how there is nothing before it? It’s sort of feels like that anyone that deems something as fundamental has missed the point. The answer to me is turtles all the down, or (and ive probably misunderstood and highjacked his term) john wheelers’ it-from-bit. Have a nice weekend.

I can't add too much to that Santamatina, because I totally agree. ❤

Yeah, thank you for highlighting that! I think you’re right; that might be the most important take away at this stage, just that opinions (of which ever sort) are finitely bound by their nature - which, if we can acknowledge this of our own opinions, we can hopefully remain fluid in our thinking. Legend. So happy to have you along for the ride 🙏

Well said sir 🙏😆

I agree. But a well-informed materialist should agree with you too. The observer is a necessary requirement to explicate (highlight, bring forward) the identity of any concept/object/event/scenario/environment that it experiences. Without subjectivity, all would be a homogenous, undefined whole. The leaf is only the leaf in experience. But does that mean that “All” is mind? That depends on what we mean by “Mind”. The identity of the things that we experience do, of course, exist within experience, just as you say - but the question that should now follow is: Is the quality of ‘experience’ the mind’s reaction to something, or is it just a happening that exists in-and-of-itself, independently, with no broader influence? In other words… Mind just is, and what it does happens non-causally. To attempt any answer, we must consider what the mind does from our perspective. Firstly, it synthesises concepts. The leaf is the leaf. The forest is the forest, and I am myself. We also recognise other individuals as having similar (but not identical) experiences. And again, they are themselves. (And I should point out here that in this case, we are forced to use the 3rd person understanding. Either they are other minds, or they are just us from a third-person perspective. Either way, we see them from a 3rd person view. So 3rd person views might be necessary.) Okay, so… multiple experiencers sharing access to the same concepts, albeit via private perspectives. So, as far as we can tell, those perspectives, our experience of self and our synthesised concepts ARE the categorical ‘Nature of Mind’ as seen from our perspective. This is what Mind does. So far, so good… but there is clearly some other quality of dynamics that is at play. This is the quality of “shared knowledge” and relation. Independently and/or unitedly, we can know the leaf, the environment and the other person as things in-and-of-themselves in relation to one another. These are the dynamics that Physics attempts to measure (Physics doesn’t declare what things are; it just measures how they, as concepts, interact). So, to say that the ‘Nature of Mind’ (as identified above) is synonymous with these further dynamics (i.e. to connect, relate and inform) is to attribute an entirely different set of qualities to Mind than what we first declared. So that, even if it is “Mind”, it’s not mind as we know it. So why should we synthesise these two concepts under the same name? I find that Kant had a good way of looking at this. It’s not that the physical world is as we experience it beyond experience. All we experience is experience! But the outside “Noumenal” world, as he called it, still nonetheless exists. We may not know what it is, but it’s there. We are of it, physics is of it, and mind is of it. But to say that Mind (and only mind) IS IT, is to say that we know what mind is beyond the first-person experience - which we don’t, nor can we. … What do you think - Yes, No, Maybe… huh? :)

I agree. But a well-informed materialist should agree with you too. The observer is a necessary requirement to explicate (highlight, bring forward) the identity of any concept/object/event/scenario/environment that it experiences. Without subjectivity, all would be a homogenous, undefined whole. The leaf is only the leaf in experience. But does that mean that “All” is mind? That depends on what we mean by “Mind”. The identity of the things that we experience do, of course, exist within experience, just as you say - but the question that should now follow is: Is the quality of ‘experience’ the mind’s reaction to something, or is it just a happening that exists in-and-of-itself, independently, with no broader influence? In other words… Mind just is, and what it does happens non-causally. To attempt any answer, we must consider what the mind does from our perspective. Firstly, it synthesises concepts. The leaf is the leaf. The forest is the forest, and I am myself. We also recognise other individuals as having similar (but not identical) experiences. And again, they are themselves. (And I should point out here that in this case, we are forced to use the 3rd person understanding. Either they are other minds, or they are just us from a third-person perspective. Either way, we see them from a 3rd person view. So 3rd person views might be necessary.) Okay, so… multiple experiencers sharing access to the same concepts, albeit via private perspectives. So, as far as we can tell, those perspectives, our experience of self and our synthesised concepts ARE the categorical ‘Nature of Mind’ as seen from our perspective. This is what Mind does. So far, so good… but there is clearly some other quality of dynamics that is at play. This is the quality of “shared knowledge” and relation. Independently and/or unitedly, we can know the leaf, the environment and the other person as things in-and-of-themselves in relation to one another. These are the dynamics that Physics attempts to measure (Physics doesn’t declare what things are; it just measures how they, as concepts, interact). So, to say that the ‘Nature of Mind’ (as identified above) is synonymous with these further dynamics (i.e. to connect, relate and inform) is to attribute an entirely different set of qualities to Mind than what we first declared. So that, even if it is “Mind”, it’s not mind as we know it. So why should we synthesise these two concepts under the same name? I find that Kant had a good way of looking at this. It’s not that the physical world is as we experience it beyond experience. All we experience is experience! But the outside “Noumenal” world, as he called it, still nonetheless exists. We may not know what it is, but it’s there. We are of it, physics is of it, and mind is of it. But to say that Mind (and only mind) IS IT, is to say that we know what mind is beyond the first-person experience - which we don’t, nor can we. … What do you think - Yes, No, Maybe… huh? :)

Ah, thank you for that CC pick up, I’ll fix that … 👍 But, yeah, the “frame” 😄 That’ll be a big thing to untangle later on. The ontology of the frame, or “perspective”, that enables the emergence of finite truths. Are they inevitable, are they actual or are they abstract conceptions and so on. But def up the more curly end of considerations 😅 Though not too dissimilar to Bohm’s explicate order, or Whitehead’s actual entities. But definitely more of a loose, off the cuff video this one - what did you think?

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I liked it. I enjoy the chapters for the music and visuals, but the info exchange is the important part regardless of the presentation. (Not saying that you should drop the shiny bits 😁(I can only imagine the amount of work that is required)) Thanks again for making this available, really looking forward to seeing where we go from here.

Yes maybe! That’s a very interesting way to think about it. Though with the infinite being what it is, an approach of negation may hit the same hurdles as the more kataphatic approach. Concepts, and words in general, are always finite in nature aren’t they, and so seem incapable of these ultimate truths. Though maybe a shared positive/negative approach could prove useful. Like a pair of divining rods 😄 Or (in a crude sense) something like the “limit at infinity” concept used in calculus 🤷🏼‍♂️ where a higher and lower figure share in their descent towards some unattainable infinite irrational number… I suppose I image it to be a dual wholeness that is equally yin and yan, or in the language of physics, an infinite superposition of order and chaos, isness and nothingness. But again, words fail. But so glad you find what I’ve said to make some sense. So many folk seem hard nosed on either one side of the fence or the other… I was a little worried I was just going to offend everyone 😆

Haha! No thank you. Your comment has made my day. So happy for you to be a part of it. I will, at one point, do some live discussions or a discord type thing for everyone to share their own thoughts, but for now it’s just great having so many varied ideas to pull from in the comments, so always feel welcome to drop me a thought 🙏 glad you liked it.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure Whitehead has infiltrated my thinking to a degree too (though he’s not an easy read). Process theory was probably the first school of thought I came across that I really resonated with. I actually read him before reading any of the classics, though he did point me toward Heraclitus and Plato which was helpful. I probably lean into that same duel aspect neutral monism you mentioned, only with a nod towards Bohm’s wholeness or Spinoza’s infinite in terms of that “neutral” beyond. Thanks heaps for sharing 🙏

Yeah, I messed up Rupert Spiras name too 🤦🏻‍♂️ I guess that’s just what you get when flying without a script. 😄

Haha, yeah my wife had a similar response. It was the park ranger driving by. I could probably have removed it using software, but it happened - so I just went with it 😄 🚙 glad you enjoyed it though ❤️

I’m only loosely familiar with Hermetic teaching but I am about to dive into some research on the interconnectedness of theologies so I’m sure it will be a focus at one point. But thanks for highlighting it. 🙏 I would agree (in one sense) that every-“thing” is fundamentally mind, as everything we experience (ie. the leaf as a leaf 🍁 ) is emergent within perspective, and so can only hold its identity within the perspective attained by mind. Yet, though every “thing’s” independent identity might be attributed to mind, saying “All” is mind, is (for me) too bold a statement. Mostly because we would then have to answer “what is mind?” My feeling is that if we can’t definitively say what mind is, then I don’t think we can claim its character to be ultimate in nature. In fact, I’m sceptical of any claims of ultimate quality as they all seem to contradict the principles of infinity & wholeness ie (boundless unity). Mind at first glance might seem perfectly aligned with this boundless-unity (ie multiple characters in one minds dream etc.) , yet once we attribute unique minds to individuals, ie free will, we appear to end up with a plurality of mind (assuming that the mind we are referring to is synonymous with experience). And so, in this way, mind appears to be the source of plurality, not the nature of wholeness of which it shares a oneness. It’s not seperate from the oneness (nothing is), though neither does its character define it. So in short, I don’t necessarily disagree, i just question the presumed “ultimate” quality Idealism attributes to mind. But I will pick this idea apart in greater detail across later chapters, so it’ll be great to get your input then too 🙏🙏🙏 Thanks for being so present and involved with all this Katy. It really makes this project worthwhile ❤️

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley My thing is that I don’t need to know everything, I’ll go a step further and say that, I don’t think we get to know everything in this realm and that’s completely dissatisfying… Honestly, I love these deep dives but my primary focus is how to be a good human. I’m the only thing in this realm I can change so I’ll do that. Thanks for entertaining my questions, sincerely appreciated!

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I find the hermetic principals to be very useful in navigating this realm, I most highly recommend the principals…

@@KatyWantsToGo absolutely more than fair enough, if not honourable even. 🙏 I recall once when I did a heroic dose of psilocybin, and asked “the universe” (or the mushroom I guess), to show me infinity. I spent what felt like an eternity in a very unpleasant vortex where I felt like I was being ripped into one million pieces. It was only after I emerged that I thought… oh, I need to be dead and bereft of the body to understand that. 🤦🏻‍♂️ So I get what you mean. But at this time, it still feels right for me to be playing with these ideas, seeking higher understandings, even if they can never be ultimate. See how we go ey 😄 thanks again!

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley 😂Had a similar DMT experience…I am much more careful about what I ask and I ALWAYS respectfully request nothing clever…

😂❤❤❤

Any thoughts… ???

@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley Yeah, my thoughts are that I like the sound of 'Louise J' so much that I'm becoming a woman. Also, I used FaceApp to change a photo of myself to female and I've gotta say... tasty.

@@louisj2256All power to you 😂

Hi @@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I use to believe these things but unfortunately you are being deceived, you have not seen a dinosaur skull uncovered as none have been found, a nice construction is available at various theme parks, as for evolution, even Darwin opposed his own theory as the data didn’t support this, fossils of all existence can be found all over in your back yard of existing species, however not all are comfortable of having their paradigm challenged but when common sense kicks in you have to be crazy to think we are on a spinning ball swinging around a flaming gas ball of fire in the vacuum of space traveling 87mach through space not for a constellation to change in 3000y due to parallax, you didn’t evolve from a monkey or else we won’t have monkeys left, I haven’t seen any dogs being bread to become cats? No species have ever changed they’re species but many adapt to their environment, lots to unlearn ✌️

@@Fr333man Thanks for sharing. Now, assuming you're correct about any of this... let me ask... why? Who is it that benefits from keeping us all in the dark about the shape of the earth, the origins of our species, or the nature of the planets and stars? And what army of people is it that have been willing to coordinate the endless illusion for century upon century? And who pays to create and hide false fossils in the ground every year, all so that governments and universities can then fund each new generation of aspiring paelentologists to only go and dig it all up again? Who could benifit so greatly from these "lies" that they would be willing to spend what must be trillions of dollars every year just to cover it up? But again, as I said in my first respons... your telling me what you don't believe. You should also tell me what you do believe about starts, planets, gravity, evolutions, and the planets biological history so that maybe we can put it to the test just as equally.

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I’ll apply my best effort, are you trying to be right? your programming will tell you that you are right because you haven’t researched what I have, show me a picture of a planet that is not cgi or photoshop? The luminaries are Luminaries, the 3 body problem with gravity and the fact that it has never been proven as simple static charge can collect dust off the floor to a balloon. 10 to the power 36 stronger than gravity, basically like feeling a atom falling off your shoulder Why you ask? Well the simple answer is that the rulers of this realm are sun worshipers, thats why they put the sun at the center, they name the planets after the Greek gods and even the days, Once they’ve pulled the wool over your eyes you will not know where you are in time or space, you probably forgotten who you are? Part of Gods creation? Or a Sinful Christian who had to sacrifice Gods Son for your sins floating in nothing but space? The Truth is challenged but will remain, did you know we actually have no evidence beside theory that we are on a globe. The Origins of our species and the true Chronology is covered by Jason Breshears from Archaix in the most comprehensive Chronology in the world called Chronicon, it covers the history from the earliest inception starting 5239bc - start of historical recorded evidence 3895bc Adam and Eve recreation 2239bc Noa Flood 1687bc Ogyges flood In Josephus’s book Lion Feuchtwanger a first century bc Jew explains how in Galilee they where offered Iced drinks? They where so far more sophisticated and advanced then us today and multiple times, the old world is all around us, Rome is everywhere, here in South Africa, China, Japan, Brazil, America, Australia, some call it Tartaria but people understand The Rome which it was probably not. Belief is the enemy of knowing, don’t believe me, go and look in your own town, 1902 was the last reset, look up what happened in your area during that time? The benefits in Funding as you mentioned is huge, NASA is 90mil dollars a day, not bad for a scam, but the money is not the what they want, it’s to hold power over your illusion, While all of that is happening don’t worry about any of it🤣🤣 This creation is perfect and we are exactly where we need to be otherwise we wouldn’t be here. ✌️

That is a fantastic question. It’s hard for me to comment on what aspects of your comment I agree with and what I don’t without further discussion, but I have to nonetheless thank you, because you’ve inspired me to use this thought to shape the next ‘Unfolding’s’ video. So maybe keep an eye out for it 👍 keen to know what you think. But as I say, that is a great question… if deep reality is, in fact, more akin to a non-corporeal ocean of spiritual awareness as you suggest, why then would it manifest in the form we experience? Because I don’t think we can really say anything valid about such a “beyond realm” without answering this first. Can I ask, if you believe the soul is “eternally pure”, is the soul specific to the individual self? Or is the “self” only one of the obscurities that get swept away?

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley Dunno. However, I will say that all this spiritual stuff started to make a little more sense to me when I started conceptualising it in terms of the 'conventional' and 'meta' levels to reality, which are complementary. The fact is, spiritual issues simply don't make sense in a materialistic scientific light, which is why it they aren't part of our modern scientific understanding, which is based on materialism. Reincarnation does not make sense in a materialist scientific light, out-of-body or near-death experiences do not make sense in a materialist scientific light, channeling and telepathy don't make sense in a materialist scientific light, yet there is evidence for all of these. The question then becomes, why does materialist science have such an excellent track record if it is fundamentally wrong? It built the modern world, after all. The answer is that materialist science is not fundamentally wrong - that it is still the best tool for the explaining and predicting the conventional level to reality. But there is also something beyond the conventional, a 'meta' level. Many spiritual traditions speak of the material world in terms of 'illusion', and contemporary simulation theory suggests that it is all like a video game or movie of some sort. I think this is close to the mark. Evolution by natural selection, chemistry, quantum physics, these are all the rules of the game. Mystical phenomena, past life memories, the afterlife - these are all the machinations of whatever is going on behind the game. I have not come to this view through religion, nor was there any particular desire for there to be something 'more' to reality on my part. These are all conclusions I have come to through research, nothing more. I am not part of a religious tradition nor am I entirely comfortable with the revelations of my search for the truth of reality, of which your channel is a part. My first love was and always will be science. Its just so happens that there's something more.

Thank you so much for saying so. There's a lot hours sunk into these pieces, so it makes all the difference to know I'm sharing the journey with some lovely folks such as yourself! Long way to go yet though 🙏

Yes, you're correct. Buddhism does have a lot of Idealistic qualities that see the observer as primary to the observed, but you probably already aware of how subtle Buddhism can be with this stuff. Yogācāra seems to be the specific school that talks to this, though I don't believe Idealism is wholly consistent with all Buddhist teaching. My understanding (which admittedly is still very limited) is that Brahman is in a sense immutable, suggesting a timeless isness that must persist beyond mind. Mind might be prior the world we experience but I don't think this is the same as saying All is Mind. maybe I'm wrong... Love to hear more! 🙏

Thanks for the tip. I have looked into Neural melanin before, and it seems to have more to do with the physical colourisation of the brain. Similar to the melanin that is in our skin which determines its pigment. I haven't been able to find anything regarding a mimicking quality or ancient alchemy. Happy for you to share a link, though. 👍 Cheers for sharing!!!

🦴

Thanks squire. I aim to please 🙏 But it is a fun headspace to play in - What is the "quality" of isness that lies behind interpretation? 😆

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley interpretation is like a fingerprint, it is individual to us, kind of a problem…we are still interpreting things that the ancients solved long ago…our culture has reduced us all to small minded beings which renders interpretations useless in most cases. I am certain of few things but the beauty and range of the untethered hue-man mind is amazing and so few get to enjoy that open space… I have nothing but compassion for my brothers and sisters, poor things have been lied to since the day they were born and the lies were told by our most trusted advisors…

🐶

Interesting point. So what you're saying is that, if there is no limit to what is unknown then there is no way to postulate the existence of something existing beyond experience. but does this therefore prove that experience is primary?

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley personal experience is the only semi trustworthy experience worth having, I can’t have your trip and you can’t have mine. We can share similarities, should there be any, but I’m on my oath and your on yours…

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley in other words, trying to establish truth based on interpretation is like pouring a foundation of what you think is concrete, might be grey mud…

@@KatyWantsToGo@KatyWantsToGo I like that, though even if we only have a "semi-trustworthy experience", does that mean we are incapable of accessing any degree of truth beyond our immediate experience? I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I currently think that we can access broader truths so long as we analyse the nature of our experience first. For example, we experience the existence of other entities. Now this doesn't guarantee that other entities exist - I may be the only existant thing, and you may be my dream. But, nevertheless, you and those other entities within my experience still seem to have access to a knowledge that I don't. As you said, you are on your path I am on mine. So this proves (I think) that there is an aspect of reality that persists beyond my immediate expereiance. What it is may still be far from determined (maybe some other definition of mind or maybe material forces), but proving its existence is a start. Because that would mean that we establish broader truths based on interpretation. What do you think? Can you see something I've missed?

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I think you have encapsulated the problem, and that is that absolute truth exists but all we have are opinions of it. While I have no disagreement with your “interpretation” that’s the sticky part. I can’t prove you didn’t have an “out of body” experience any more than you can prove you did… As an example, I never partook in science fiction and for whatever reason, have never been interested in tv, Hollywood or video games. As a result, I am much less likely to be duped into alternative realities or see things that are not real while on DMT for instance. I never met an alien creature, all I saw was the fallacy of death and what everything looks like with no eyes, that’s about all I can say about DMT… Any who, I really enjoy your videos, stretching the mind is second only to playing in the garden…

Cheers. Glad it's hitting the mark.

Cheers for that. Very appreciated 👍I'll pull it back a bit more next time. 👌

😆 yeah, well considering it’s an ongoing unfolding we shouldn’t have too many definitive resolves until the project reaches its conclusion. Thus far its just been about recapping things as they stand scientifically. Fair way to go yet :) Re the lecture; If you really want to get a handle on that experiment, there’s a good short coarse on the Brilliant app that steps through it quite well. 👌

Very beautifully put. And yes I agree, there is something in this thought worth taking pause over. I’m currently in the process of writing the final few chapters for this series (which will be out in just over two years time), and by which point I’m also playing amid these more metaphysical ideas. I just need to take my time though, just so as to not lean into anything unjustifiable. It’s been a double edged sword of encouraging new ideas vs healthy scepticism 😄 But I’m very happy to have been able to help bring out that thought in you. I hope you get a chance to share the unfolding with me ❤️ thanks for sharing!!!

Ta :) Shame it didn't help though. Do you feel that you don't understand or is it more that it doesn't make sense - because you'd be right... it doesn't make sense! ;) It might be better for you to avoid the metaphor side of things entirely, though it does seem common for teachers to use the metaphor so as to not confuse the underlying empirical results, since the 3 Boxes Experiment can actually represent a few different experiments (e.g. the phasor paradox) that each reflect the same superposition results. Here's a decent MIT lecture that goes through the same idea a little slower... ua-cam.com/video/lZ3bPUKo5zc/v-deo.html Might clarify a few little points i glossed over 🤔

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley qued the video I'll check it out later. Found a video where he does the polarization with light and then with microwaves, that I thought was helpful untill I read the comments where a number of people seemed to think it wasa swing and miss. ☹️

@@fhoniemcphonsen8987 I'm currently reading 'The Dance Of Photons' by Anton Zeilinger, who's a nobel winning physicist. Very easy read, but these topics are very much his domain. He writes it from the perspective of a student, so you sit in lectures, do experiments and so on. It can be a little too simple at times (maybe that's my taste), but simple can often be the best with this stuff. but if you have any questions let me know. I may be able to help 😬👍

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I think the issue was I was getting hung up on the actual experiment behind the analogy

Yeah, that always gets me too. The overall point is just to give you a feel for the superpositions because they apply to many experiments. But the actual experiment that this one is trying to emulate is the Stern-Gerlach experiment. The binary question in that case would be whether a silver atom has an electron with spin up or spin down (Similar to the photon polarisation experiment). If the system was classical, the spin should be randomly spread, appearing evenly across the middle of the measurement plate - but because it’s only ever up or down, we know that the electron’s spin is quantised. This gives us the black/white equivalent. Then, if we have a second measurement with the magnetic measurement oriented along a different axis, we can get the angular momentum along that axis. This is our hard/soft question. From there, the rest of what I say in the vid is the same regarding the odd results. But this sort of thing is also what Bell’s theorem tells us, that it’s in a superposition rather than just a classical hidden variable. I’ll share another lecture with you that says much the same thing but doesn’t shy away from using technical terms. But if you don’t understand the terms, push through because there will be enough that you will have picked up from my video that will get you through, and then you’ll see something a bit closer to the actual experiment. 👍

🤓 🙏

Thank you so much. 🙏 So amazing to hear that they resonate with you. Really makes my day

Thanks so much 🙏 Glad you’re enjoying them. ❤️

Not as far as I’m consciously aware 👽 But thanks for the compliment ❤️

Fair enough. Love a show of confidence 👌So how do you justify it?

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley certain chemical elements are receptive to specific colour wavelengths, for instance Zinc has the same natural frequency as violet - 380 Nm. This didnt just decide to start happening because somewhere an eye started to evolve.

No of course. No one is denying that. But just because chemical elements are receptive to EM wavelengths doesn’t necessarily mean that the quality of violet is present. The wavelength is present, but the wavelength itself has no colour. The relationships between the photons and the atoms are present, but again, that is a colourless relationship. It’s only when these frequencies are seen in the mind that they gain that quality we associate with colour. This is why ultraviolet, microwaves, or X-rays have no colour. They are essentially the same physical phenomena, and they relate to chemical bodies in much the same way, but they don’t get associated with colour as no eye “sees” it. So where Photons, EM waves, etc, are all considered physical and are measurable as such, Colour, on the other hand, is a quality of sight. If it was a case of equates rather than correlates, then colour wouldn’t need its own defining noun. It would be the same thing. Do you disagree? The fun thing is then to imagine what the universe is (looks like 🤔) beyond the conscious interpretation. 🙏🙏🙏

@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley, ok but all that means is humans developed their language based around the senses that the average human brain experiences. That's ultimately the point you're making isnt it?

@@dannylad1600 No not at all. It’s not the name red that emerged with consciousness, it’s the quality of redness. This is quite an old philosophical conundrum. Locke, speaks of this in detail but it actually goes back as far as Plato. There’s a little thought experiment called Mary’s Room which explains the concept; Mary, is a brilliant neurophysiologist who studies the nature of vision. She understands all that is to be known regarding the wavelengths of light and their relationship to sight. She understands how the light waves are detected in the retina of the eye, and how their information is then sent down neurological pathways towards the visual cortex of the brain, which then coverts the said wavelength information into the corresponding experiences of brightness and colour. She understands it all. However, Mary was born blind. She has never experienced the redness of red or blueness of blue. And regardless of the depth of her understanding behind the functional aspects of colour, she cannot come to any revelation which evokes an understanding of this quality of colour. This knowledge seems somehow independent, as it seems that it can only come about through the conscious experience. The fun part is that this idea doesn’t stop with colour. I’m actually breaking this exact idea down in next months chapter. But for now, just google … is Magenta real ? 😁✌️🌈