Seth Lloyd - Physics of the Observer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 чер 2023
- Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Does the concept of observation have deep relevance in fundamental physics? What about in quantum physics where some kind of observation seems to be needed to transform “wave function” probabilities into actual events? What’s an “observation” anyway? What does it take to be an “observer”? Must it have some kind of sentience?
Get free access to Closer To Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on quantum theory: rb.gy/rm1pd
Seth Lloyd is a professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He refers to himself as a “quantum mechanic”.
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
For sure, one of my favorite channels on UA-cam. I'd like to thank you Robert and Peter for such a great iniciative. It's amazing to be introduced to all these new concepts and interpretations of so many different areas of knowledge. I wish I had 'n' more lives to study most of these themes. Thanks to your Channel I sort of can reach this extra time. Congratulations for your project.
Best regards from Brazil.
These aren't made for UA-cam; they're clips of old episodes of a television show that's over 20 years old.
Most of them are well over 10 years old but everyone seems to think they are videos filmed by Robert personally earlier in the week just for UA-cam even though it's obvious from Robert's appearance and the references made that they're from a wide range of dates scattered over the past 23 years.
This clip is about 6 years old for example.
@@b.g.5869 Thanks but, it does not Change at all what I said before. It doesn't matter where or when. I watch on UA-cam so... Anyway, thanks for the Record and thanks for those who uploaded the videos. 👍🏻
Lol the day that reductionist and gradualist died lol. So much for the notion of fundamental building blocks haha
@@dadsonworldwide3238 You need to find someone to explain the video to you 😉.
@@b.g.5869 Its in the video . Its addressing that day a 100 years ago when the confirmation could be made .
Thats definitely a beautiful setting though.
Good observation
@@baggybinny Thanks.
I find the more I expand my consciousness, I have no friends....But this brings me so much peace and understanding.....
I am quite happy within things being here >and< there.
Seth is so refreshingly charming and open minded re this "unsolvable" problem in Quantum Mechanics. The idea of a Single Universal Consciousness that "observes" everything is quite appealing to me😀
"The idea of a Single Universal Consciousness that "observes" everything is quite appealing to me"
False beliefs tend to be appealing.
@@Desertphile The fact that it is appealing and false beliefs tend to be appealing do not necessarily make the belief false (right either).
We are each an Individuated Unit of Consciousness within this Universal Consciousness. Therefore, in a sense, we are all one. Nothing exists outside of this Source Consciousness. 3D space-time itself exists within Source Consciousness.
@@pointless6781 ; Thank you for the correction. The belief is false, though. "Observer" is not being used correctly in this video.
Great job Robert! There are many great minds who recognize QM's limitations.
Here your guest voluntarily binds himself to and defends QM, although admitting numerous times, QM and other theories leave one "unsatisfied" - and that won't change. I'm glad you asked him why he felt that way. It seems the only way out for him, is the multi-world theory - that he also admits, many people don't like.
Your guest seems to recoil, or is also unsatisfied by sentience or consciousness as playing a role in reality - perhaps because it forces one to accept that there is more that just matter and some levels of energy one can observe?
As you mentioned Robert, how does an electron observe, and collect information, without some level of sentience or consciousness - or without an electron being part of a field of consciousness?
If anything "won't change" it is the level of dissatisfaction one will experience, without considering other philosophical possibilities other than: matter is king, and consciousness is a rude disturbing peasant who continually resists being banished from the conversation.
Funny though, matter, like a rock for example, can't consider QM - because it's not conscious, at least on a surface level we can communicate with - although it may sit in a field of conscious energy.
So rock on with your dissatisfaction Mr Q Mechanic, like you have for years, with no hope of a solution within your self-imposed limitations, if that's what your chosen path is.
However, there are different philosophical angles which reconcile many apparent puzzles or contradictory observations - but they exist in the realm of consciousness, which is too undefinable for some and therefore considered unreal, for those who put the physical realm on a pedestal, or on an altar of the only actually true reality.
But consider one can see or observe anything with one's physical eyes, only when an outside energy allows it - namely light.
In a sealed dark room, one's eyes can't see a thing, even though the room could be full of mirrors or other objects, including a light switch. Knowledge of a light switch, could help.
With philosophical light, one can see clearly, even within this dark universe, many layers of truth, which are satisfying upon discovery. The caveat is that the philosophical truths are not just speculations, but rather tangible, higher revelations which actually resonate in one's heart and mind. Such revelations can be directly experienced within the heart and mnd, or passed on to the materially shortchanged, by one whose higher consciousness has literally been enlightened by those in higher realms of consciousness.
The proofs descending from those realms, is the source of satisfaction for each observer of both internal and external realities.
If "many worlds" could exist to explain the simultaneous position of two separated electrons, why not the possibility of many realms of consciousness, providing higher world-views to harmonize juxtapositions found in different dimensional realities?
Different angles of vision, can harmonize ideas, philosophically to a degree, depending on the dimension it's viewed through. Here's an example that comes to mind:
In Euclidean geometry, a point exists and can be envisioned, but it has no actual dimensions - but as soon as you have two points and connect them, you have a line segment which is one-dimensional. (Interesting to consider here how something comes out of nothing - dimension-ally speaking - whose only origin is in consciousness... but I digress somewhat).
Envision that line segment, viewed from the front, like a horizontal log on laying on the ground or floating on a pond - with each end of the log representing the point of an electron.
Turn that log on it's end, and view from above. The log's end point, representing the electron appears again as a single point, therefore having no dimensions from the observer's adjusted angle of vision - although the other end-of-the-log-electron, is being represented in the same space as observed from above.
Perhaps this is why some consider Euclidean geometry to have aspects of the metaphysical. The take-away I'm going for here is that measurements, relative positions and connecting energies - such as consciousness and life itself - already exists on more subtle realms that are not always subject to earthly, 3-dimensional measurement. But ultimately these subtle formations are the blueprints for those forms and energies that are revealed in the observational layering, understood by the earthly / materially conditioned 3-D mind, and measuring apparatus of different types.
The two log end points are in identical places in one form of measurement by dimension, and in two different places when seen by an observer with a different dimensional vision.
When allowing that consciousness exists as the platform of observation / perception / knowledge acquisition and storage - and allowing that consciousness can exist and expand on many levels or dimensions of reality, many very satisfying realizations of both matter and different subtle realms of normally "unseen" reality can be experienced.
It is a matter of choice, knowledge and good fortune, that observation of truths behind the normal 3-D mechanics and measurements can unfold - which is sometimes contrary to what is seen by limited physical vision and resultant breeding of unsatisfying theories. Many people seek truth and satisfaction; but we differ on the paths to find it. Free will is a good thing.
Love this channel!
Wigner's right. As leading edge physicist (and parapsychologist) Dean Radin says, "... more refined experiments in quantum mechanics are suggesting that there actually is no fixed reality with properties out there until it is actually observed."
Love Love Love This Channel. Thank you!
Great discussion. Thank you.
Interesting talk and beautiful scenery.
So the universe we observe is disturbed. I like the sound of that.
Likewise the observers are disturbed. Even better!
I like where this is all going. I can't wait to see how this all ends up in a useful understanding of how the universe works. 👍 (And I love how this ended with a silly chuckle.)
Except Seth said he thinks it will never be resolved in a manner that our classical brains can understand.
‘Disturbed’ does not have a negative, pejorative connotation in this case / application
All we have are perceptions and thoughts, that take place in consciousness. Why postulate a material world outside of us? Maybe we are infinite, eternal consciousness that has localized and limited itself in time and space.🤔
I cannot express my gratitude for this show enough. Thank you!
Any kind of measurement involves things that are part of the universe and these always interact, interfere with it or whatever, I don't think we have a super clear demonstration of how the consciousness determines the clump pattern instead of the interference pattern. But these experiments may potentially help us better understand consciousness or if we understood consciousness by other means we could better understand this experiment and ultimately more about quantum world.
.
"The observer gives the world the power to come into being, through the very act of giving meaning to that world; in brief, No consciousness; no communicating community to establish meaning? Then no world!" - Physicist John Wheeler
Just excellent. Thank you
"Why do people cling with such ferocity to the belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism."
～ Richard Conn Henry is an Academy Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, author of one book and over 200 publications on the topics of astrophysics and various forms of astronomy.
Thank you!!!
Great discussion !!! Some times you need to disturb the observe the behaviour :) .. I like this
Excellent
I think any observer or instrument of observation design by a sentient being is in a different space-time continuum then quantum particles . So possibly the brain does what the brain does, which is fill in a confabulated visual narrative to explain overlapping space-time dimensions
What about the slit experiment which shows that the photon will behave as a particle or as a wave based on what the "receptor site" looks like. In other words, it's the audience that determines the content of the lecture.
“Any interaction will get information.” Love that
As a gamer and armchair dev I think about system resources and open worlds a bit. As I've said before, quantum mechanics would offer an ingenious compression method by suppressing non-visible renders. You don't have to build the world until someone looks at it, saving storage and CPU. Likewise, maybe there'd be some kind of 'many worlds' garbage collection, possibly based on the lack of any player presence (like servers in CoD).
But before we start quoting Morpheus too much, remember that the simulation hypothesis does not answer and can only beg the fundamental question of "why?".
In our culture (and in Vedic culture too) a FINAL OBSERVER is postulated who could at the same (timeless) time remain in an ambiguous state of self-observation or start feeding the space-time monitor by starting MEASUREMENT. The first situation is called TRINITY (of observer - observed and observation) the latter is called CREATION (of the space-time monitor. My monitor on the computer is a flat-time monitor) and would imply cosmic senses (because measurement in fact is extended seeing, hearing. etc.).
My master Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who had studied physics himself used to speak of "self-interacting wholeness) in this connection and would quote the Vedic "mahavakyas" (great teachings") which answer the question about who can observe and KNOW wholeness (or the "field" which terms is used in the Bhagavadgita especially in the first verse and in the beginning of the 13th chapter). One of them goes "The knower of Brahman ( = wholeness) is Brahmen wholeness." A few years ago the theoretical physicist at the Oxfort university, David Tong answered the question what we humans are made of with a similar astounding sentence: "Atoms are a lie - we are the field". So we are trinitarian ourselves. It is interesting that the church has maintained this recursive reminder to what we really are in the holy communion although the understanding of it seems to be lost now. Luther and the Age of Reason killed it.
An ancient medieval Germany master, Meister Eckart, described TRINITY in a poem ascribed to him (see my translation below) and answers the question about knowledge in the same way as the Vedic masters do: "Who knows IT? None! It knows itself, IT is complete." And he starts with going beyond the senses, i.e. beyond measurement. In the second stanza he indicates that in fact "nothing comes out" - it is all virtual.
Anonymous poet Trinity Song
IN dem begin, Where you commence,
hoch über sin High above sense,
was ie das wort. The Word is stored,
o richer hort, Abundant hoard,
do ie begin begin gebar. Where origin gives birth to origin. (self-interaction)
O vater brust, O Father‘s breast
us der mit lust From which with zest (joy)
das wort ie floz: The Word outpours
doch hat diu schoz And yet the source (womb)
das wort behalten, Has always kept the Word within.
das ist war. (That is true.)
Von zwein ein fluz, Of two a flow,
der minnen guz, Of love a glow,
der zweier bant The bond of two,
den zwein bekant, From both who knew
fliuzet der vil süeze geist Flows the Holy Spirit very sweet -
Vil ebenlich, Quite evenly.
unscheidenlich In unity, (non-duality)
diu dri sint ein: The three are one:
weistu waz? nein, Who knows it? None!
ez weiz sich selbe aller meist. IT knows ITSELF, it is complete.
Der drier stric The bond of three
hat tiefen schric, Shocks sanity,
den selben reif And to that ring, (ring theory instead of string theory)
nie sin begreif: Sense cannot cling.
er ist ein tiefe sunder grunt, It is a depth that has no ground.
Schach unde mat, Check and checkmate
zit, form und stat; Time, form, and state,
der wunderrinc The magic ring,
ist an gesprinc, Is not a thing (of physical origin)
gar unbeweget stet sin punt. Immovable its point is bound.
Des puntes berc The point! Its mount
stigt ane werc Cannot be found
verstentlicheit, By work of mind,
der wec der treit The way to find
in eine wüesten wunderlich, Is vastness of unbounded kind.
Diu breit diu wit Which wide and wise,
ungmezzen lit. UNMEASURED lies.
diu wüeste hat The void displays
wedr zit noch stat, Neither time nor space
ir wise diu ist sunderlich. Its kind transcends your very mind.
So space-time is made by the cosmic WE or US (in the Vedic terminology the Self, "Atma"). Time is made by cosmic measurement instruments, by the cosmic senses. E.g., light comes from the cosmic sense of sight and not vice versa. And creation comes from measuring. It''s a cosmic computer and sometimes we have access to the "processor", the real "big bang" which is there NOW and always in the forth dimension and which makes time ( =change). And when we have access to the big bang, in these enlightened moments we are free. In fact enlightenment is called "moksha", liberation. But in order to achieve this you have to be able to go beyond the senses as another poet says, Clemens von Brentano, in his German poem "Nachklänge Beethovenscher Musik" ("Resonance of Beethoven's Music"):
Holy who without senses
Hovers - a spirit over the water,
Not like a ship - changing
The flags of time and inflating
The sails as today’s wind blows.
No, without senses, God-like,
Himself only knowing and naming.
Creates He the world he himself is.
Hereafter though man falls into sin,
And it has not been His will!
But fragmented is all.
No-one’s got wholeness, for all things
Have Lords, but the Lord not.
Lonely is He and serves not.
Such is the seer.
So physicists know nothing, but seers do. And for our world it would be better to go by those and not by the physicists.
A Swiss seer, Gottfried Keller even proposes in poem that the universe, i.e. space-time, is not only made FOR us but made BY us. He presents a "field view" of time.
Here is the poem by Gottfried Keller (1819 - 1890) in my translation:
Time never goes but still it stands,
It’s we who walk and wear.
Time is a caravanserai,
We are the pilgrims there.
A something, shape- and colourless
You only see it when
You dive in it and re-emerge
Till you decay again.
A sparkling drop of morning dew
In which the sun is caught,
A day may be a pearl for you,
An eon might be naught.
A parchment sheet untapped is time,
You write on it in red
With blood your lore in prose or rhyme,
Till all of it is bled.
I too have filled my parchment page
With letters full of love
Which praise creation grand and sage,
And laud its Lord above.
I’m glad and grateful for the fate
Of blooming in Thy field,
And do not blur the primal state
In which you are revealed.
I am a complete layman but always fascinated and the observer aspect has always troubled me. Nice to see a video which explains the uncertainty that physicists themselves have about this aspect. An aspect which is normally just glossed over. I think it is very important that science explains all it's uncertainties rather than portray everything as a clearly understood fact.
Science is just a method (function) ... made by an Intelligence (Function) .. to explain natural phenomena (functions) ... relying on the fixed laws of nature (functions).
All Systems are Functions ... with purpose, form, properties, processes & .... design ... which are all INFORMATION that every Function possesses to exist & to function.
Design ... by an Intelligence ... is all INFORMATION.
Information ... is an abstract object ... from the mind of an intelligence.
There is only evidence ... that anything that is a FUNCTION ... can only be made by an INTELLIGENCE ... because of the INFORMATION every functions possesses to exist & to function.
Quantum particles ... atoms ... molecules ... space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy ... are all Function ... with information ... and can only be made by an Intelligence.
Universal Functions ... is the hypothesis ... for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago ... and .. any Machine Analogy to explain Intelligent Design.
An Analogy is simply an OBSERVATION of natural phenomena ... not a proof.
The Scientific Method is:
1. Observe
2. Hypothesis
3. Test & Predict
4. Conclude
5. Refine.
Again. Science is just a the method to explain natural phenomena based on the Laws of Nature.
A Scientist ... is a Natural Intelligence ... with a Mind ... freewill & nature ... to think, believe, say & do ... whatever he/she wants .... with Machine Analogies from Creationists including Sir Issac Newton over the past 300 years.
Only a Atheist or Humanist fool ... claims they have debunked ... an observation ... that the Universe & Life ... are like Machines composed entirely of machines .. and requires a machine maker to exist & to ..... function.
Newtonian Physics ... and all of the sciences ... is Universal Functions.
There's a reason Christians lead the development of the sciences ... and even today .. are the majority of Nobel Prize winners. Everything clearly if a function made for a purpose ... and .. obeying a set of Natural Law.
Only an intelligence makes Laws ... to ensure order, structure, for a purpose .. and .. will produce predictable, & repeatable .. desired behavior or characteristics ... of something or someone.
The Laws of Nature ... are clearly made ... by an Unnatural Intelligence ... because of the the choices made by a Natural intelligence called Man .. who can make & enforce Laws.
The Observer ... has always been ... God. .. who has a very good reason for not punishing Mankind ... for breaking the Law. But the Judgement is coming ... in the year 7 x 1000. The current Jewish year is 5783. God's Son returns in the year 6 000.
Oh So that's why God had a 6 day creation with the 7th day belong to God ... and 1 day is like a year or 1000 years depending on the prophesy in ... that fairy tale book full of superstitions called the Bible?
Everything is clearly without any doubt is a Function. There is no evidence Nature can make a Function ... from nothing. This is simply fairy tales. lol.
Science does not portray everything as a clearly understood fact. There are things that are fact and there are things that are not yet understood or known. Your statement is misleading and simply false because science is all about learning, discovering and adapting to new information or discoveries.
Look up for non duality on youtube with an open mind
Seth says that we will never find a model for QM that satisfactorily explains it. Well, there is one model that satisfactorily explains QM: the "cosmic simulation model." As Fredkin asserted: In any simulation, consciousness does not exist within the simulation. It exists in another kind of reality frame that is completely different from the simulated environment, and is fundamental to the simulated environment. Like when you're playing a vide game, your consciousness does not actually exist within the game. In other words, 3D space-time is a subset of a larger reality. And consciousness, at its most fundamental level, is not a 3D space-time quantum mechanical system. As Wigner asserted: It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." Indeed.
@@Feed_Your_Headyou just described advaita vedanta
I like the topic.
Does qm measure electrons? It's taken for granted that the electron's position or momentum is being measured, but it's also taken for granted that the same electron has never been measured twice. How does physics know that what is being measured is an electron? Does the measurement simultaneously include spin, charge, and mass?
The fact that an apparatus gets a result, how salient is it to conclude that the result is indicative of what is being asserted? When you tune a radio to a specific frequency on a radio everyone can hear the radio station broadcasting. Does each electron broadcast their position and momentum? Does every electron broadcast on the same station: frequency? If an electron isn't broadcasting, how do we receive its signal?
Bravo 👏
We need to become verbally precise for GPT to return information that makes sense. E.G. given our English dictionary definitions and synonyms for the word 'observer' primarily refer to humans and animals viewing, looking, watching, gazing etc etc then perhaps 'sensing' (via pressure, weight, touch, sound, smell etc) would better describe what wave/particles, molecules, cells, plants are doing electromagnetically?
beautiful
The search for knowing requires not getting stuck on believing. Counter intuitively, to believe I know, leads to rationalizing things to fit belief. Knowing arises from experiencing. Recognizing what I experience, rather than what I believe, is knowing.
Beautiful place near the flowing river along side with green trees and the high mountain.❤❤❤
Our framing of infinity particles aka subatomic quantum particles makes it so that we find infinity either here or there.
However, infinity cannot be fully framed when measured.
We can only frame a small portion of it, therefore we will never observe quantum particles being everywhere at once as they are.
We will only see a portion of that reality when we try to observe it.
what calculations are studied at SUAC University?
I can only anticipate how naive this question will sound, but it has long troubled me: accepting that the mere observation of an “thing” will influence its state, what of the condition of two simultaneous observers in the same ( or complimentary)reference frame? Would they observe different outcomes? E.g. each viewing a different output arm of a split source observational beam, or identical tool from different direction.
It’s a reasonable question. Of course at our macroscopic level we all agree that we see the same outcomes. I think this is strong evidence against the idea that conscious observers collapse the wave function. If that were so, each conscious observer would cause it to collapse independently and we would expect them to observe different collapsed states.
Observing: It's the equivalent of response in semiotics (or sign/meaning-making).
EXACTLY!!!!
i like the elegant explanation of The many-worlds theory. So a wave function that never collapses would seem to mean billions of new worlds in where I live are coming into existence as I write this sentence.
The image of universes splitting, is conceptually incongruent, as they most likely all exist simultaneously, along a dimension that is inaccessible to us, like a 5D crystalline structure in the n-dimensional block omniverse.
@@David.C.Velasquez PERFECTLY said. Haha... I've been evangelizing the same for decades now here on UA-cam and elsewhere. But understand that that structure is most likely merely conceptual - not existing physically. ...
The proposed evolving (and fully evolved) Universal Wave Equation exists only conceptually - it doesn't exist in the material sense. If existence is in fact guided by such an equation, we exist INSIDE the conceptual evolving universal wave equation equally as concepts - possible values among infinite possible configurations, where energy/matter are just values, and all forces are derived and evolved from some fundamental, foundational equation, where indeed, the entirety of its evolution exists. ...
"most likely" because nothing existing on the inside will ever know for sure. But if it's true, it follows and implies then that all possible concepts (hypothetical formulations), no matter how simplistic or complex, create their own internal worlds, internally consistent with all of their possible results. ...
Many Worlds fits perfectly with this paradigm. ...
EDIT: If the above is true, then... It's ALL CONCEPTUAL - it ALL "exists" without computation - no need of a computational substrate, like a "god" mind or some other form of physical computation on a higher level. It all just exists... because it's in... the "REALM of POSSIBLITY". Splitting of worlds in Many World's then is simply inherent in the equation - there is no extra energy or material being produced to split or copy a world. It's all just conceptual numbers and conceptual paradigms. ...
On "Possibility": My guess is that "Possibility" is at the root of it all. That's because, in infinite regress, you can always ask, "How is THIS possible?" And answer with, "Because it is in the REALM of POSSIBILITY". The REALM of POSSIBLITY, if you haven't guessed, comprises all that is possible, and I'd say it's conceptually real. What we conceptualize as OUR possible guiding Universal Wave Equation is then but one among infinite others.
@@BigMTBrain David Deutsch, on a 1994 german produced television program, that I happened to catch on late night PBS in 1995, brilliantly described the single photon double slit experiment, in terms of the Everett interpretation. It's been one focus of my thoughts ever since.
@@David.C.Velasquez Excellent thinking! (I think I was making some edits as you responded. I added a couple of extra bits about "possibility".)
Not billions - infinite new worlds.
The measuring device is quantum mechanical sure, but it is often different from the quantum state being measured in that it is much more complex, and much less coherent -- in a technical sense. Therefore the reason the 'particle' seems to manifest in one state rather than another is due to the unknowable ways in which the device interacts with the state and absorbs the kind of energy required to detect a given state. Note that this is not a hidden variable interpretation, as the variables are not in the quantum state, but rather in the measuring device. This is more of a super deterministic interpretation.
Here see an outstanding instance of potentiated energy centers, and balance. The man has used his time appropriately and effectively to return to source. It's always nice to see an actualized being on this planet. Most people are but a few inches removed from an ape! The heart -- universal love for all things in all times in all places without hesitation -- is the great springboard into the real work of the adept. Notice the towering flashes of brilliance emanating from his communication center.
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
When you look at the mirror ( ie reflector), the 'observer' ( in the body-mind) sees the physical appearance of itself.
Like the observer sees ( thru' the lenses of its mind), say a flower, the appearance of the flower, conversely IS the observer. Thus flower at sight is 'the true nature of the which perceives".
If it sees a car, it is the car or any objects thru'the senses of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, etc. If it hears a sound, it is the sound. If it feels cold, it is the coldness!
Thus everything it perceives is itself ( the formless True Nature of the observer) & is inter-connected as ONE ie the Buddhistic term is ( the mind of) Oneness or Suchness. 😊
I got a new tablet, the Lenovo P11 Pro with OLED display. Its pretty nice, picture quality is great. In a few minutes I'm going to watch a debate on UA-cam while I cook my dinner. Its a debate on String Theory feature the angry German lady, Roger Penrose and Michio Kaku. Personally I like the idea of string theory and the multiverse, sometimes when I watch certain movies I think to myself " this really might be happening somewhere ".
The angry German lady. That’s hilarious. And Penrose is so humble. And Kaku will confidently say anything ( with great images) to get eyeballs.
energy might be act of observation that measures quantum probability / superposition into classic particle?
We need to rid the idea of "observer" from quantum physics. It misleads people into thinking that "observing" has something to do with looking at the thing with a set of eyeballs. What "observing" means in quantum physics is "measuring" or "detecting", which happens invariably by means of submitting the measured particles to interaction with other particles or fields.
So considering that the universe is made up of particles and forces, could the universe be considered to be in a quantum superposition or some other quantum state, and given that we are also made up of those same forces and particles would it be possible for us to influence the quantum state of the universe given that we are part of that system???
Seth Lloyd is a very intelligent man he changed my perception of the universe with his book programming the universe. You would not believe the mental metamorphism and synchronicities that happens to you by observing the universe. Thank you Seth Lloyd for your book.
Beautiful location! I wonder how much pressure is on physicists to stay away from any theories that support religion. I’m getting tired of the worn out, frequently used, statements like, “ Oh, how could we possibly matter. We’re so insignificant in the big picture. Humans are worthless silly creatures that couldn’t possibly be important in any way.
I get where this is coming from, but maybe it’s just plain wrong. Maybe we matter.
Fundamental is observer in rest or in motion?
Robert, I've been enthralled by your program for years, and science in general for a lifetime. Physics is my dream although I've never been to college.
After a fifty years of thought, I've come to the conclusion that although it's brought us far, and great things, perhaps science needs to reset. I think special relativity is where inquiries should take a detour.
I don't know if Einstein was even further ahead than we yet know, or wrong entirely.
But nearly everything we have done in the name of science in the last hundred years, is at the root of the destruction of the environment. I'm not sure how much of it is capitalism and how much is ignorance, but we cannot continue headlong down this path of manipulation of materials and the forces of nature.
I'm anti-religion and ambivalent on God, but I don't see any help forthcoming. We are either not intended, or not up to the challenge of delving even deeper into these areas of existence. We should focus on a more holistic and humanistic approach to improvement in our society.
Theory is harmless and enlightening however. Please, continue with this fascinating series. Thank you.
The act of observing (measuring) is not a physical process, it is a metaphysical process. Like the complex number I helps us get the orthogonal component and is key to understand QM/wave mechanics leads us to life, consciousness, soul and faith, all metaphysical process. Observing the quantum fields collapses the fields into fine tuned particles leading to life.
(Denial in the Physicist Community)
The theory of relativity informs us that our science is a science of our experience, and not a science of a universe that is independent of us as conscious observers. This nature of our science is also reflected in the formulation of quantum mechanics, since the main formulation of quantum mechanics does not provide direct rules for the behaviour of particles. Instead, it provides rules that concern only the results of measurements by observers. This means that the observer is an intrinsic part of the main formulation of quantum mechanics, and what differentiates the observer from physical particles has to be mind and consciousness.
As John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner pointed out, this means that consciousness has an intrinsic role to play in quantum mechanics. Why then has there been so much resistance to recognizing this fundamental fact? And why have physicists, for more than a century, persistently tried to get rid of the observer, even if it meant-in defiance of Occam’s razor-having to insert, by hand, additional hypothetical ad hoc conditions to the basic formulation?
The underlying problem appears to be the need to fit this intrinsic role of consciousness, in quantum mechanics, into the prevailing view, in Western philosophy, of a mind-matter duality. An attempt to fit the role of consciousness into this framework of a mind-matter duality would unfortunately lead to solipsism, and that is the main problem. So the vast majority of physicists gravitate, instead, to the stance of materialism, and hence the need for them to free quantum mechanics from the conscious observer.
The formulation of quantum mechanics actually does not, in any way, suggest a mind-matter dichotomy, and it certainly does not suggest either materialism or solipsism. Quantum mechanics actually points to a middle way between these two extremes of materialism and solipsism, a realization that both Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli eventually reached. This means that the formulation of quantum mechanics actually points to the philosophical viewpoint of the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy, also known as the Middle Way philosophy. Madhyamika philosophy would allow us to include the role of consciousness in quantum physics without ending up in the extremes of either solipsism or materialism.
It's more great when scientists focus earth first
This guy is great, but these discussions always bring me back to the old chestnut, almost bored of quoting it, but if a tree falls in a forest and no-one observes it, does it make a sound? I know it's a bit of a cliche but to me this questions sums up everything, ie if nothing were conscious, whatever that may be and we're still waiting an answer, then any notions of measurement, even time and space would be meaningless or I would posit not exist at all! I personally believe in the Strong Anthropic Principle.
I always assumed that "observer" was a euphemism for a point in spacetime.
The ultimate Observer means the Creator, the unmoved mover , the first cause , etc
(Denial in the Physicist Community)
The theory of relativity informs us that our science is a science of our experience, and not a science of a universe that is independent of us as conscious observers. This nature of our science is also reflected in the formulation of quantum mechanics, since the main formulation of quantum mechanics does not provide direct rules for the behaviour of particles. Instead, it provides rules that concern only the results of measurements by observers. This means that the observer is an intrinsic part of the main formulation of quantum mechanics, and what differentiates the observer from physical particles has to be mind and consciousness.
As John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner pointed out, this means that consciousness has an intrinsic role to play in quantum mechanics. Why then has there been so much resistance to recognizing this fundamental fact? And why have physicists, for more than a century, persistently tried to get rid of the observer, even if it meant-in defiance of Occam’s razor-having to insert, by hand, additional hypothetical ad hoc conditions to the basic formulation?
The underlying problem appears to be the need to fit this intrinsic role of consciousness, in quantum mechanics, into the prevailing view, in Western philosophy, of a mind-matter duality. An attempt to fit the role of consciousness into this framework of a mind-matter duality would unfortunately lead to solipsism, and that is the main problem. So the vast majority of physicists gravitate, instead, to the stance of materialism, and hence the need for them to free quantum mechanics from the conscious observer.
The formulation of quantum mechanics actually does not, in any way, suggest a mind-matter dichotomy, and it certainly does not suggest either materialism or solipsism. Quantum mechanics actually points to a middle way between these two extremes of materialism and solipsism, a realization that both Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli eventually reached. This means that the formulation of quantum mechanics actually points to the philosophical viewpoint of the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy, also known as the Middle Way philosophy. Madhyamika philosophy would allow us to include the role of consciousness in quantum physics without ending up in the extremes of either solipsism or materialism.
@@dongshengdi773 Exactly! Materialists have replaced the territory with the map and then they try to pull the territory out of the map (the hard problem of consciousness) - Bernardo Kastrup. They believe that the description of the thing is the thing itself.
Real question is what lies beyond consciousness and observation
At some point quantum mechanics and AGI will merge and discover new particles that will make the unthinkable today a reality tomorrow.
Time is the ultimate observer. Time converts the probabilities of an undetermined quantum mechanical future into classical actuality. Without this mechanism, nothing would ever happen. There would just be undetermined probabilities.
Is “Awareness and Perception” Information? Or Is “Perception And Awareness” Information? And “Conscious Subconscious” concluding the Cone Trilogy Of Universal One!?
Ever have your mind wonder completely while doing mundane/repetitive tasks (even while driving)?
Seems like being in two places at once to me..🤷♂️
I’ve had similar thoughts
Perception plus perspective equals paradox.
Like trying to catch my shadow lol... been at it for years.
When we observe it, we "disturb" it.
4:14 "An observer is the measurement and not necessarily a sentient creature"
BUT WHO IS MAKING THE MEASUREMENT. Surely, there is a sentient creature who is making the measurement.
Any rock is an observer in Seth's terminology
@@johnyaxon__ That is panpsychism, but surely whether a rock is a sentient being is open for debate
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
Voltaire
Thank goodness they developed Quantum Mechanics! Otherwise, we would NOT have lasers, transistors, microprocessors, GPS, smartphones, MRI, laptops, the Internet, streaming, LEDs, modern chemistry, AI, CDs, DVDs, superconducting magnets, fiber optics, and MANY other modern tech/products. QM made the modern world possible.
Seth says that we will never find a model for QM that satisfactorily explains it. Well, there is one model that satisfactorily explains QM: the "cosmic simulation model." As Ed Fredkin asserted: In any simulation, consciousness does not exist within the simulation. It exists in another kind of reality frame that is completely different from the simulated environment, and is fundamental to the simulated environment. Like when you're playing a video game, your consciousness does not actually exist within the game. In other words, 3D space-time is a subset of a larger reality. And consciousness, at its most fundamental level, is not a 3D space-time quantum mechanical system. As Wigner asserted: It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." Indeed.
since scientists are at the dead end of giving explanation for the behavior of sub atomic particles like electrons behaving in duel manner (bizarre ) , next option is to find the reason on large objects like human's behavior varies at different times at different places.Why ? Same person reflecting calm and good nurtured and another disturbed.!!!!
Robert is wearing a cool jacket
200milj.dollars Robert can buy any jacket he wants💵.
Jackets aren't real, you're having an hallucination
"Observer:" any physical system or apparatus that interacts with a quantum system and extracts information from it. In quantum mechanics, the act of observation or measurement is associated with the collapse of the wave function, where the quantum system is forced into a specific state or outcome. This collapse occurs when the quantum system interacts with the measuring apparatus or becomes entangled with other systems. So, an "observer" can be a physical device, an instrument, or any entity that plays a role in the measurement process, regardless of consciousness.
As for "up to human beings," the arrogance of that phrase is breathtaking.
The point is that the apparatus that interacts with the quantum system to measure it is itself a quantum system. That means that it’s state would also become entangled with the superposition of states of the system it is ‘measuring’. That’s the measurement problem.
@@simonhibbs887 ; "That’s the measurement problem."
Er... ah... yes: I know.
@@Desertphile Right, so the thing is in formal QM there is no concept of an observer that can take a measurement. We talk about it, construct experiments, make observations, etc but have no theory for how observations occur. Sorry if I’m preaching to the choir.
@@simonhibbs887 ; The issue as I understand it is that the wave function includes the measuring device, all of the equipment and people involved, and assorted environment where the measurement is to be taken. My point was that "observer" is not being used as some people here believe it is: the observer can be anything that a particle interacts with.
You forgot that, in the double slit, one slit has an interacting detector while the other slit has no interacting detector. If the particle passes thru the "no detector" or "no interaction" slit then only a Sentient Mind (whether arrogant or humble) can reason out and follow logic to the conclusion that the particle went thru the zero interaction slit. You cannot belittle the role of Consciousness.
They are sitting too close to each other for Seth's comfort.
Seth's perspective on this I agree with as well. He has really good points in here that I relate to and believe he is correct. I'm not sure I'm sold on many worlds, but his short and simple explanation is mind boggling and I find myself not liking it either.
Consciousness is the key ingredient of observation status.
How about detection ( eg experimental - apparatus triggering etc ) without consciousness? Wouldn’t that detection ( without consciousness) be a / the key ingredient and thus determinant of ‘Reality’ ?
@@mattkanter1729 How can you detect if you are unconscious?
There is no outside world, its happebing inside a mind that you peecieve is happening in yoyr head. You are within the world and the worldn is within you
0:28
We pretend there's an observer apart from the observed, and from this, a strange irrational fear of there being nothing after we die arises.
Consciousness is a fundamental element of the universe. It resides outside of the brain . Other simple organisms like microbes have intelligence therefore consciousness. But they have no brains
*"We pretend there's an observer apart from the observed, and from this, a strange irrational fear of there being nothing after we die arises."*
... If the outside observer exists outside that which is being observed, and we are observing existence when we are alive, then it follows that we would also exist as the outside observer of nonexistence when we are dead. But how can an outside observer exist to observe nonexistence when nonexistence doesn't allow for the existence of anything at all?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC The statement: "To be dead" contradicts itself. 'be' implies existence and 'dead' implies nonexistence. You can't 'BE' dead.
@@TheDeepening718 *"The statement: "To be dead" contradicts itself. 'be' implies existence and 'dead' implies nonexistence. You can't 'BE' dead."*
... Death is the antiparticle to life. You cannot have one without the other nor can something be half-alive of half-dead. A biological organism can reside in one of two states (dead or alive) but cannot simultaneously reside in both. However, a biological organism can be "observed" as either alive or dead because both conditions are observed to *exist.* Coroners do this all of the time!
Now, if you regress "life" one step lower and equate it to "Existence," then existence also has its antiparticle called "Nonexistence." This is where you can only "be" in one state (existence) as the other is a state of "nonbeing" (nonexistence).
Humorously, this is the paradoxical point where everyone simultaneously argues about everything and nothing.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Just because opposites imply each other, doesn't mean they have to exist. Wet implies dry but only for planets with liquid. My stance, I guess, is that there is not this idea of something and also not this idea of nothing. They are false views. Death is a phenomenal event. There is some kind of 'light' that pervades everything and I belong to it so much so that I need not cling to my body. Do you believe that fear indicates delusion?
"A delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, first performed by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih and Marlan O. Scully, and reported in early 1999, is an elaboration on the quantum eraser experiment that incorporates concepts considered in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. The experiment was designed to investigate peculiar consequences of the well-known double slit experiment in quantum mechanics as well as the consequences of quantum entanglement.
The experiment supports the observer effect in quantum measurements.
.
"Further studies have shown that even observing the results after the experiment leads to collapsing the wave function and loading a back-history as shown by delayed choice quantum eraser."
Basically, what causes the collapse is knowledge. And knowledge requires a knower.
"The observer plays a key role in deciding the outcome of the quantum measurments - the answers, and the nature of reality, depend, in part on the questions asked."
John Archibald Wheeler said: "It begins to look as if we ourselves, by a last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing...we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in shaping what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until it has been registered. Or put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present."
A conscious choice affects the behavior of previously measured, but unobserved particles.
Physicist Asher Peres, who elaborated the experimental results with his delayed choice for entanglement swapping, says:
"If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded."
Our choice affects how the particle acted in the past. The factor of time has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. This was predicted by quantum mechanics and the exact same result is what we see when we put it to experimental test.
Remember, NO Interpretation of QM has been proven to be absolute reality. Yes, the perspective of the observer effect affecting the past is valid, until you switch to the Many Worlds Interpretation. ...
I certainly respect Mr Lloyd. And I'm not a physicist. But it seems when ever the question of consciousness (playing a part in reality) comes up, they smirk and act as if it's a silly notion. I'm not so sure. As Max Planck said: "We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
So the first life came about 5 billion years ago. The universe is almost 14 billion years old. What was conscious before the first life? Are you suggesting matter is conscious?
@@RichardOmier Here's the complete Max Planck quote: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Check out Donald Hoffman. Amit Goswami also has some interesting ideas on this. IDK: I just feel "Mind" plays a part in reality. There's awareness, then experience. Then there's organized information. I feel that "Light" is a big factor in all of this. A small example is: "Color" doesn't really exist until it's deciphered by consciousness.
@@ral1020On the other hand as physicalist I believe consciousness is a physical process. I’m discussing my conscious experience right here, so clearly my experience of consciousness has physical effects. That makes it a physical phenomenon. More precisely I see it as a process on information. Every aspect of our conscious experience is informational. We perceive information, we reason about our experiences, we make decisions and form action plans based on those experiences. These are all informational phenomena and processes. So I just don’t see consciousness as being in any way apart from or separate from the physical world. It’s part of that world.
Quantum mechanics is Already measures it self
Hawking radiation is the universal observer.
I think space and time are twisted on the quantum….
We’re at another Copernicus moment. Thinking that the material world is primary and consciousness is a byproduct.
It may be that the material world experience is one trillionth of something much bigger 🎉. Shamanic, visions, and information coming from people who have experienced a a spirit world point to something bigger out there. A conscious organization by a super intelligence. My money is on , we are wrong about what our senses are saying. Quantum mechanics and the measurement problem to
Me , offer significant clues in this direction?
QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc. So,no.
(Denial in the Physicist Community)
The theory of relativity informs us that our science is a science of our experience, and not a science of a universe that is independent of us as conscious observers. This nature of our science is also reflected in the formulation of quantum mechanics, since the main formulation of quantum mechanics does not provide direct rules for the behaviour of particles. Instead, it provides rules that concern only the results of measurements by observers. This means that the observer is an intrinsic part of the main formulation of quantum mechanics, and what differentiates the observer from physical particles has to be mind and consciousness.
As John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner pointed out, this means that consciousness has an intrinsic role to play in quantum mechanics. Why then has there been so much resistance to recognizing this fundamental fact? And why have physicists, for more than a century, persistently tried to get rid of the observer, even if it meant-in defiance of Occam’s razor-having to insert, by hand, additional hypothetical ad hoc conditions to the basic formulation?
The underlying problem appears to be the need to fit this intrinsic role of consciousness, in quantum mechanics, into the prevailing view, in Western philosophy, of a mind-matter duality. An attempt to fit the role of consciousness into this framework of a mind-matter duality would unfortunately lead to solipsism, and that is the main problem. So the vast majority of physicists gravitate, instead, to the stance of materialism, and hence the need for them to free quantum mechanics from the conscious observer.
The formulation of quantum mechanics actually does not, in any way, suggest a mind-matter dichotomy, and it certainly does not suggest either materialism or solipsism. Quantum mechanics actually points to a middle way between these two extremes of materialism and solipsism, a realization that both Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli eventually reached. This means that the formulation of quantum mechanics actually points to the philosophical viewpoint of the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy, also known as the Middle Way philosophy. Madhyamika philosophy would allow us to include the role of consciousness in quantum physics without ending up in the extremes of either solipsism or materialism.
@@dongshengdi773 Claiming prescience on the @ 158 pages at Forgotten Physics?
Everything is observer of everything in this universe. Every universal phenomenons are observer of each other. If electron be the observer, then gluons flowing among quarks would be fundamental observer.😄
QM theory is strange!
Yes, but it is also the MOST successful scientific theory in human history, allowing for almost all modern technology, from modern computers to GPS and iPhones and lasers.
My gut tells me Grete Hermann knew best.
The Function, Intelligence, Mind & Information Categories ... and .. the origin of any thermodynamic System(function) ... proves ... everything is a Function, interacting with functions, processing functions, and/or being processed by functions ... and .. were originally made by an Intelligence with a Mind of an UNNATURAL timeless, infinite surrounding System.
All systems ... are Functions ... with purpose, form, properties, processes & desgin ... which are INFORMATION ... that every function possesses to exist & to function.
Information is an abstract construct ... from the Mind of an Intelligence. This is why only an intelligence ... can make, operate, improve, maintain or fine tune ... Functions ... for a reason/purpose.
Newtonian physics .. is actually Universal Functions ... as this is the hypothesis ... for Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago and any machine analogy to explain Intelligent design.
All ... design ... contains INFORMATION ... from an intelligence ... with freewill, nature, memory, thoughts, senses, feelings and .... consciousness.
Quantum particles, fields & forces .. are designed ... to behave in set ways ... according to interactions with other quantum ... functions.
Stop being foolish Atheists .. who claim an OBSERVATION that the Universe & Life are like machines ... has been debunked.
Why do you keep posting variations of this NONSENSE?
@@tomjackson7755
C'mon Liberal potato. Provide your evidence that nature & natural processes .. can make, operate & improve the simplest physical Function 13.7 or 4 billion years ago ... or ... a quantum particle, .. or space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy ... or ... the simplest function made by Man( Intelligence)?
This is not the virus that you clowns said came from a wet market with no evidence .. and cried "nonsense" when conservatives said that there is only evidence that the "deadly virus that everybody must must fear" came from the nearby virology Lab owned by a Communist Regime specializing in gain of FUNCTION for that type of virus.
Good luck providing actual evidence for your Humanist Liberal BS.
This is interesting stuff of course and entertaining too. It takes a really focused education to be able to speak like this and think like this. At the same time, I really don't see a fundamental difference between being a physicist and having a passion for Dungeons and Dragons or even video games. There's a make-believe kind of aspect to not just quantum physics but astrophysics and really anything we can't see or otherwise physically experience with our own senses. It's a numbers game that people attach some nuts-and-bolts attributes to. So we all have some visual conception in our imagination of a photon and a quantum wave and the size of the observable universe and what an atom looks like. We assume it's as real at a hammer or a dog but not a single person ever has or ever will be able to sense it except in numbers. It's not a criticism at all but just an observation that what is usually considered to be the frontiers of intelligence and education and insight is really little more than a game of numbers.
The difference is that physics and maths lets us predict some things with phenomenal precision.
@@petermartin5030Exactly, whatever anyone thinks about quantum theory, it’s enabled us to build the modern world. Without quantum theory there would be no transistors, so lasers, therefore no modem computers or fibre optic communications infrastructure. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. It may be difficult to interpret, but it’s incredibly useful in practice.
What we call physics is a subset of our reality. We live in an experiential world, not a physical world.
So you believe our experience is not part of the physical world? If it were not then how would we be able to experience it? How does something that's not physical interact with the physical or natural world?
The elephant in the room is the relative interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Yeah. My relatives can interpret quantum mechanics really well
@@johnyaxon__ I meant relational interpretation 😂 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics
Who is the observer of the observer???
Observer
Wigners friend
Observation is based on the fact that an observer can perceive and then remember the perception. Life is a consequence of perception. Consciousness is a consequence of memory. Without observation and memory there is no time. Without time there is no need for space. Only a banal universe can exist without life and memory.
The one-step-too-far club might then say; the life within the universe is creating the God of the universe. God in that case = a universal heap of processed information, not to be underestimated in its importance. In this exaggerated step, one could surmise that if life within a given universe would provide logical and sound observations for the universal heap (God) to accumulate, that everyone would get a better God and therefore a better universe to live in and remember. Kind of a stretch, but hey... it's not my club. I won't even remember this.
You need to be evolutionairy developed to a certain degree to be able to observe. Only we can observe consciously. We and part of the animal world are the only ones that can observe unconsciously. Only stuff on a microscale might change when being observed. It is not a big deal in the real world.
I think it's explained if one views the great illusion as just that; a giant shared wave in which each bonded electron is interpreting particle data. If electrons bond together while also being everywhere then a possibility exists for them to be playing out every possibility, or universe, from every action. That would explain why we have differences of interpretations to events. Our electron is playing out its specific possibility. YW, haha. I think Bohr was on the right track but Al got the academic accolades. Bohr's time is coming around.
He just dismisses consciousness as the material organization of the world and it’s importance , but offers Nothing in replacement? Hubris
I don't see why Seth is so pessimistic about the prospect of a "satisfactory" completion of QM. At the end of the video he suggests he doesn't accept the Many Worlds Interpretation and says something must be added to QM to provide an alternative to MWI. In other words, he accepts that QM is incomplete. So why the pessimism about completing it? Weakening the classical assumption of Locality appears to offer a promising direction for completion; for example the nonlocality in deBroglie-Bohm QM, which is a deterministic QM in which particles are in only one place at a time. Our understanding of the fundamental nature of space & time is still poor, so it seems plausible that Locality isn't correct. Entanglement experiments have led many physicists to question Locality. So has the Measurement Problem, since theoretically the "collapse" of the Schrodinger wavefunction happens everywhere simultaneously when a "measurement" occurs. Discovering the correct way to weaken Locality and gaining a better understanding of space & time may lead to a satisfying, reasonably intuitive solution.
*"In other words, he accepts that QM is incomplete. So why the pessimism about completing it?"*
... Do you fully accept that something that is distinct can simultaneously occupy multiple positions when everything else we observe only occupies a single position?
I can stand in the doorway of two rooms and argue that I am simultaneously occupying space in both rooms, but the "entirety of me" is not simultaneously in both rooms. Half of me is sharing space in one room and the other half of me is sharing space in the other ... but that's not what QM is arguing takes place with particles.
QM argues that the "entirety of the particle" is in one room and also in another room. ... This defies logic, and you will never get everyone on board with a theory that defies logic.
It's "closer to truth" that QM is misinterpreting the phenomenon.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC : Your "logic" is faulty. You're trying to apply an invalid type of "induction"... that because all macroscopic objects (when being observed appear to) occupy a single, contiguous region of space, then the tiny fundamental constituents of the world must occupy tiny contiguous regions of space at all times (even when not being observed). But those tiny constituents have never been directly observed, and their states are affected by observations. It's an assumption, not logic, that's telling you that electrons & light, etc, must behave like macroscopic objects appear to behave. The most precise theory of quantum mechanics says a fundamental "particle" is really an excitation of one of the quantum fields... something very different from familiar macroscopic objects.
It also hasn't really been shown that macroscopic objects ALWAYS occupy a single region of space. Superpositions have been experimentally constructed for some relatively large molecules, and there's no reason in principle to believe QM doesn't apply to arbitrarily large objects, for which QM predicts superpositions will be very brief.
@@brothermine2292 *"It's an assumption, not logic, that's telling you that electrons & light, etc, must behave like macroscopic objects appear to behave."*
... QM is forwarding that macroscopic objects are simultaneously occupying multiple positions just like microscopic, but on a far less noticeable scale. This leads to fantastic claims like an infinite number of "you's" and "me's" are occupying an infinite number infinitely existing universes where all outcomes to all possible situations are taking place.
If you believe that a majority of people will ever get "on board" with this, then you are perfectly free to do so. ... _I don't!_
Logic is fundamental.
Nothing is outside your consciousness. Isn't this a valuable clue??
Obama is outside your consciousness
It seems that quantum mechanics is very funny
Physics of the Observer should rather be called Physics of Consciousness and good luck with that.