Every time I'm confronted with the medical world, I'm tempted by thoughts of materialism. My mom had a stroke yesterday. Your video helped me to fight off despair today after visiting her in the hospital. Thank you, and please don't stop what you do.
@@burkhardschmorell3973 Hardship will do that. I've been through a lot of doubts and questioning my faith, and all it has done is make me more confident in the reliability of the Bible and God's sovereignty over my life. I'll mention that my dad died when I was 7. I want to reassure you with the words my mom said to me that night in the hospital. They had always told me "God uses all things for the good of those who love Him". That night, after my dad died, I looked at my mom and I asked her "What good could God make out of this?" She told me, "If you don't let your heart become bitter, and you let Him use you, He will use it for good, and you will see it". I want to encourage you in the same way. Don't let your heart become bitter. God will use absolutely anything you're willing to give Him. Even a broken heart and a seemingly desolate and hopeless situation. My mom was right. I got to see how God could use me, in my situation, less than 24 hours later, and it's been a driving factor within my worldview since then. I can tell you the whole story if you feel it would encourage you, but what I want you to take away from this is that NO MATTER what happens with your mom, or anything else in your life, God LOVES you - YOU - tremendously. He allows things to happen in our lives not because He hates us or is angry with us, or wants us to suffer, but because we live in a broken world. But He knows that those situations, the hard ones in the midst of brokenness, are sometimes where WE, as the ones hurting, can best reach others who don't know Him yet. A Christian on their worst day still has more hope than someone who doesn't know Christ, on their bear. He will never ever send you into a battle alone. He is before you, and behind you, and beside you. Our darkness is an opportunity to shine our light even brighter. People notice when you do that. So don't feel shame when you are buffeted with doubts, and fear, and uncertainty about the future. That's normal. But don't bury it, because if you do it will grow. Lean into it, because, while it hurts, it won't last forever. Give it to the Lord and tell Him the same thing King Jehoshaphat told God in his hopeless situation, in 2 Chronicles 20:12 "We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on You." I'll be praying for you and your family. On a final note, remember this. If your mother knows the Lord, no matter what happens with her health now, when she dies she will go to be with the Lord, and you will see her again. And someday I will get to see my dad again. And then the four of us can meet each other and praise the Lord for all His goodness. That will be a wonderful day. God bless you, my brother in Christ. Feel free to respond to this comment thread any time you need someone to talk to.
Your videos have exploded in Spanish too, theres many apologetics channel translating them, people are studying all your videos and going through the sources carefully. Amazing how much impact you're having IP.
This was brilliant and really well done. A great overview of idealism and beautiful arguments for the qualitative subjective experience of reality such as love, altruism, beauty, bravery, morals, ethics, meaning, purpose, creativity, music, imagination that is the poetic nature of mind and consciousness.... “The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.” (G.K. Chesterton). ❤️
When you said "Space and matter are illusions of our conscious observation" it reminded me of something my son said. My little boy, who has just turned 7, came downstairs last night and said "what if space is all just inside of our head". I hope he never changes and continues to ponder these things as he gets older.
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence".- Nikola Tesla P.S. Realy interesting videos, i was looking for this side of sience for a long time... Therefore, I am glad that there are planty of spiritual scientists! Greetings and God bless you all.
Tesla was just confused about physical vs observable... or maybe he was particularly enthusiastic about Social science (Linguistics, Politics, Psychology and Sociology these are definitely non physical). If you replace 'non physical' with 'non observable', there was indeed great progress in studying 'non observable' abstractions such as spacetime, reference frame, wavefunction... oh wait Tesla doesn't believe in special relativity or quantum physics or electrons either LOL
I've probably watched this video for like 50 times. In addition to these topics, I've researched almost everything you can think of, NDE's, LOA, Precognition, Telepathy, Past Lives, OOB, etc. etc. etc. It feels like no matter how much evidence we are presented with we just don't want to believe that this is a spiritual world. Like we're under a spell of some kind.
The spell I would say is a strong form of culturally ingrained conditioning. I watched this video years ago and I am only coming back to it because I’ve been researching about “Analytical Idealism”. It’s main proponent is a guy called Bernardo Kastrup, you should look him up if you haven’t already. His main thesis is that consciousness is primary, and matter is merely the contents of it. He has logical arguments but also refers to the latest theories and experiments in science. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the metaphysics, like I can logically understand it, but I can’t mentally visualize it if you get me. This is I think the spell you speak of, we’ve been so conditioned to uncritically believe in materialism that it’s difficult to consider any alternatives.
@@secondchance598 Yes, it's the race belief, that keeps creeping up on us. And yes i have heard of him, but he is an interpreter of these ideas and not somebody who is actually a physicist and therefore we cannot quote him for evidence. We need to prove to the world that consciousness precedes matter. After that we have to make it practical (what does it mean for the average Joe? how can he improve his life and achieve his goals with that.) Bottom line is practicality, to improve the quality of this human experience.
@@earthculture214 hmmm from my knowledge of his credentials, I think he is qualified enough to be quoted as much as anyone else. And yes, I agree, the practical implementations must be a focus is this paradigm shift is to ever be influential. Psychologically speaking, I know from personal experiences that when I do internalize this metaphysics, all of my material problems become contextualized in a grander perspective. They don’t become easier to deal with, it’s just my inner will to overcome them becomes stronger in a sense. They don’t seem as daunting of hurdle because now I know there is so much more to existence. It’s hard to actually explain this sensation come to think of it lol. But yes I do feel as tho many people would benefit from this shift in perspective, especially the western world.
Turn the table of the burdon to proof. Example: Jesus miracles are witnessed by his desiples, random ppl all over the place, state-elites, lawyers, high-priests and also gentails and therefore became fact. If an athist claim that is a lie, He has to proof that it is a lie. That is how it works... on trail/court he would go to jail for accusing some of lying and deformation without providing evidence to undermine his statment.
Wow. Almost every single comment on here is by an Atheist trying to grapple with the insane amounts of cognitive dissonance that comes with being an Atheist. You're doing great InspiringPhilosophy, they hate your videos because they can't accept them, and it bothers them that they cannot refute your points.
***** What the fuck do you know about quantum mechanics? Do you know what the founder of it said? Now what of Lawrence Krauss? Lol. Everybody has not a single clue of what's going on. Everyone just want to believe in something. As stupid as a theist can claim that there is a God, it equally as stupid as an atheist concluding that there isn't, based on science. Science is science, folks.
***** First of all how do you know theists grapple with cognitive dissonance more than atheists? Don't make such assertions without statistics which I doubt you have. Second is an argument from authority, which is a fallacy where someone says that some smart people do/don't believe that so why should you believe the contrary. Completely ignoring any evidence they may/may not have.
DerickTherving Just dropping in to share my experience, when I went from being a christian to an atheist, the crushing cognitive dissonance it'd been experiencing for years suddenly vanished. It hasn't returned. There's no conflicting beliefs. I believe things to the degree to which they can be demonstrated. What's the issue?
Another important point to realize is that this argument does not imply a single terminal cosmic consciousness that is collapsing all subsequent chains of collapse. It does, in fact, imply an infinite regress of collapsing entities, if you accept its logic. The idea that there must be a single "super collapser" is not a prediction of the argument, and to just say "an infinite chain is impossible so it must end in a single collapser" is a non-sequitur because it is not, in fact, impossible to have an infinitely long chain. Furthermore, the idea that there could even _be_ a "single super collapser" at the start of the collapsing chain violates the premise of the proposition, which is that you need an observer to collapse you to bring you into existence, because then the question becomes "Well, what is collapsing the Super-Collapser?" Like I said in my other comment, the explanation is not that "you don't exist until you're observed into reality". Instead, it's that matter exists in a superposition until its wave function is collapsed, which is exactly what QM says (and not that it doesn't exist until it's observed). This is critical to get right because when understood properly it cannot lead to the conclusions IP is trying to marshal here.
No if there is a necessity for a beginning of the universe, then there must be a first cause. This has shown itself to be a causal relationship. The law is causality does not say that every thing requires a cause. It says that every effect requires an antecedent cause. A first, uncaused, cause is not only necessary but it's required for a beginning because if there was only pure potentiality, there would never be anything actual. There needs a force of direction and cause for something to come into being. A God who is self existent and eternal which brings everything into being, violates no law of logic, but rather fulfills them.
@@garretttekampe9564 The first question is why do you think there _must_ be a first cause? Why can there not be an infinite regress? Why is it impossible? What contradiction is there? The second question is what evidence or metaphysical argumentation - or just why - do you think it is the God of your spiritual belief that is the first cause instead of just some other non-God natural phenomenon? Why do you think it has to be a God?
@@superdog797 because of the definition of the law I think. Every effect must have an antecedent cause. Going backwards you're not going to find an infinite number of effects that warrant causes. It doesn't make any sense. The law requires it to begin the chain of causes and effects starting with an uncaused cause. That's why I say it's God. Because by necessity, the first cause needs to be self existent. Something that depends on nothing for is own existence. It would need to be eternal and uncaused in order to bring about origin of the universe. The God we believe in is all of those things. It's a fact that the universe had an origin. There has not been only material for an infinite existence and that's been known by everyone in the field for 100 years so if there was a beginning there must have been a first cause by necessity. If there was ever a time when there was nothing. There would still be nothing.
@@superdog797 sorry. the real answer to your question is that for anything to exist at all, something must have the power of being within itself. In an infinite regress, nothing actually is self existent and has the power of being to begin the causal relationships of matter. No material has the power of being within itself. This is a plain fact that you can not get around.
Great news! My video "Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism" now has 'Chinese Simplified' captioning. So you can send it to friends who speak Chinese. Check it out here: Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
Very nice ***** do you have the English script? so I can send you the Spanish and Portuguese subs. I am finishing the Spanish subtitles for the Worst Objection to Theism, and I have already sent you the Portuguese ones by e-mail.
***** I like this video, but one question: do you follow a religion? (I know this is off topic.) I just find it difficult to label myself as anything and a lot of the times I'm agnostic or a deist, when it's the max lol. Another question, where do you see Hameroff and Penrose's theory going in the next few years?
Bryan Hall Yes, I am a Christian, and a follower of Christ :) I actually agree with Henry Stapp over Hameroff and Penrose. But I like a lot of the ideas.
***** okie :) I like Hameroff and Penrose lol. Idk who Henry Stapp is. I guess I don't like labeling myself because of the conflict of things that can come with Christianity in my mind. I don't mind Christians, I was one myself (and still think of myself as such for the morals and stuff that are good) I just find it extremellyyyy difficult with the ideas of Hell which at a lot of points I just decide to live as a human being lol.
Yes. Absolutely infinite creative intelligence flowing in and through All things (whether as waves/ ideas or things and experience of those things) for This infinite creative intelligence is us, in us and we are in it. As we observe ourselves with it we are "entangled" even if thinking we are separate from it (ourselves). The same thing for Manifestation, all Possibilities exists, and it is going beyond the barrier of "physicality" that we are to realize that we are/have already that which we want and need. And through infinite existence and observation it exists within the world of effects, as we observe it to already be existing.
Truly fascinating for a non physicist. I do not think it definitively answers all of its profound questions. But it surely inspires me to want to explore the themes more fully.
"There once was a man who said: "God Must think it exceedingly odd If he finds that this tree Continues to be When there's no one about in the Quad." The topic of this limerick and the following one is George Berkeley's philosophical principle, "To be is to be perceived". "Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd: I am always about in the Quad. And that's why the tree Will continue to be, Since observed by Yours faithfully - God." Jesus said "... have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." And again, "So he is the God of the living, not the dead, for they are all alive to him.” And again, "In Him we live and move and have our being".
My problems with multiverse are very similar to my problems with time travel, in that they both extrapolate a wild fantasy scenario from a few mundane observations, alleging to explain these observations, without even fleshing the idea out to the point where it could explain anything.
Multiverse is too redilicious. Think of believers explaining suffering away with the multiverse? what if God created countles universes that are perfect hedonistic paradises and just one world slightly different where He allows evil also to contest. And tests the souls giving them change to prove they love their fellow being and are willing to suffer for the good/ truth sake, causing them to gain glory in after life. Can you really say God cant do this in just 1 of the infinet multiverses?
@OOPS The Infinty Being. Jesus-Christ proven himself to be the perfect image of God. The infinity being actually care for us and came down on earth. Isn't that exciting ?
Just ran across this. I am a channel supporter and I am glad to see, though I should have known, you've been banging away at this for so long. Much respect.
@frank dunleavy Sorry, I missed this: In reply to his objection I would facepalm*. Once again Gary Edwards not only shows his stupidity but immaturity. The modal ontological argument relies on philosophical possible worlds and is purely an a priori argument. This argument relies on physics and what is possible within physics. The MWI is about actual concrete splitting happening with the study of physics, not metaphysical possible worlds, which are just logical constructs of the actual world, not actual existing worlds like the MWI says they would be. In metaphysics a vast majority of possible worlds are possible because they are just logical constructs, not actual existing worlds like modal realism would say. His entire argument is based on an equivocation fallacy and show his ignorance. One can accept there are a vast majority of logical constructs of the actual world (not existing anywhere other than in logic) and reject these are actual concrete worlds splitting in the actual world. The guy is just desperate to escape the argument. There is good reason he is blocked from my channel, because of his immaturity and direct insults. I refuse to put up with it as it is just an attempt for attention. I hope that helps.
frank dunleavy However, since the MOA is a priori and only relies on possible world semantics (logical constructs of the actual world). then there is not a problem because it puts the conclusion in context: if a MGB exists in some worlds then the MGB exists in all possible worlds if a MGB exists in all possible worlds then the MGB exists in the (logical construct of the) real world if a MGB exists in exists in the (logical construct of the) real world then the (most logical conclusion is that a) MGB exists therefore the MGB exists (if we accept what logic tells us) The conclusion is not in any a posteriori sense. It is only a logical conclusion.
Godss Cumm God's possibility is metaphysical, but as Kripke but that still doesn't mean possible worlds exist in a concrete sense. Furthermore, possible worlds are metaphysical, and the MWI would be the actual world. Even if David Lewis was right and modal realism is true, that is still not the MWI. They are similar but still different in distinct ways. To equate them is fallacious and even more to equate the MWI with possible world semantics as I have used them. Gary Edwards, who claims to be a philosopher, should of known this. The fact that he doesn't shows his ignorance or an attempt to bewilder others with propaganda.
An interesting point/perspective has occurred to me: what is the outcome of God (Spirit and immaterial) observing (immaterial) matter, now known to be immaterial? Equilibrium? Being itself? Oneness with God? The goal? The overall objective of His entrance into humanity? "Abide in me as I abide in you." - John 15:4
You have blew me away, I as m astonished with the level of effort knowledge passsion and faith have injected in this video... Great work man, it'd indulging!
Your analysis of 'reality', and how it might work, with an actual, Creator/Designer, (God), is absolutely fascinating. You seem to really grasp the concepts of science...and how God can fit into a reality He created. Quite interesting. Quite logical. Quite plausible. Keep up the good work. I share your videos with friends who are like minded...and they too, are dumbfounded by your insight. I am impressed for sure. Keep it up...your work intrigues me.
Awesome video! Its difficult to believe with the mountain of evidence supporting Idealism and QIT that more ppl are not aware of this .Keep the vids coming.
Well said! Bernardo Kastrup is pretty good when it comes to debating materialists and has some good arguments for idealism and the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness. ❤️
+Matthew Sahagian It's silly to draw a distinction between the two. If the stuff everyday stuff is made of isn't real, then the stuff made of that illusory stuff isn't either. It doesn't matter in the slightest that it looks real to us.
It's silly to draw a distinction between the two. If the stuff everyday stuff is made of isn't real, then the stuff made of that illusory stuff isn't either.** It is a silly argument when someone deny what "God created" as actual that can be seen and touch ....You and IP as 3 dimensional human is not an illusion,anyone who deny the actual existence is just a mad person and what about the one who make an argument to prove on it the existence of God? mathematician and those who make claim to know about so called quantum stuff are liars and theirs work is based on guesses.
TheBattistaGiovanni Zeilinger claims to know, and his work is based on experiments, and he's not a liar. And we can see and touch things inside the Matrix or a lucid dream too.
***** Zeilinger claims as you said are "claims" only assertions...there is no experiment and never was to prove even a single "subatomic particle" ever, if you can point an experiment, even one that can prove any of subatomic particle on your choice as actual then please point to it. mathematicians who mix two subject the physics and math are deceivers. The physics (that deal with 3 dimensional objects only) and math (that deal with numbers on chalkboard so it is not physic at all)thus their claims of so called quantum are false. We as rational human distinguish between lucid dream so called matrix and actual life and it indicate you are pointing to a false notion to support your agenda. and what about this matrix...is it actual? Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,' who was, and is, and is to come."
TheBattistaGiovanni Look if you have a problem with realism being falsified either prove the existence of tachyon particles or take it here: arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294 Either way you'll get the Nobel Prize. "We as rational human distinguish between lucid dream so called matrix and actual life" Really how so? Have you solved the problem of induction beyond the 1st person? "and what about this matrix...is it actual?" Wrong question. The right question is "do I distinguish between 'actual' and 'virtual?'"
***** No one can falsify/reject/deny what is actual, the simple test for it that it's 3 dimensional ..it doesn't need any observer because of self-evident. tachyonic particle is a "hypothetical particle"means imaginary like a ghost and the guy in the Quantum Randi Challenge is just talking shit before going to any conclusion he must first prove that light is made of 3D particles so his all imaginary test/experiments are based on assertion, he is the typical mathematicians whom invented mathematical "objects". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_object Nobel Prize.** Huh! like the one Obama has for peace and Peter Higgs for imaginary Higgs? "distinguish between lucid dream" Really how so?** Magic princess of lucid dreams never become actual may we all agree on it:-) 1st person? Any actual 3D dimensional object or existence doesn't need any person/observer and the problem of induction is already solved that we can not predict what will happen in future because we do not create future. Wrong question. The right question is "do I distinguish between 'actual' and 'virtual?'" Huh...yes we all distinguishes ....actual = that has length width and height. virtual : imaginary, a concept ,that is not actual like a black hole that supposedly suck everything or dark matter yet it is known to be matter but it also dark and invisible too.etc
Very very interesting. One question though, why is it that everyone experiences the same material reality upon observing the same space/thing at the same time, if reality is dependent upon a conscious observer? Is it that consciousness controls reality? Or is it that there is some kind of fundamental "reality," or at least a most probable reality within the wavelength, which exists as potential energy or information until being observed, similar to how an environment in a video game exists always as coded information but isn't "rendered" until observed? Edit: What are the implications of God not being "separate" from us? I thought that we were supposed to be beings independent of God, made from His essence but ultimately distinct entities with our own eternal minds, consciousness, etc. So, does his omniscience only extend to what we and other living things see? If so, is that by His own choice or by definition? If by definition, I'm not sure that it qualifies as omniscience, because if God is outside of our time and space, he should be able to observe it as a whole. But, perhaps this observation happening *outside* our reality is what keeps things as a wave function until we observe it. OR, it may appear as a wave function prior to observation to us, but it doesn't appear as a wave function to God.
For the first part I think it would be that when someone collapses the wave function it stays collapsed and other minds experience it already collapsed so reality is almlst experiencied the same for everyone. But it is just an assumption.
@@lockandloadlikehell if that were true no one would be able to interact and cooperate. Everyone lives their life behaving with the implicit assumption of objective reality and our shared ability to more or less precieve it accurately
The immortal spirit of God, Passion, is the seed of all living things; All living things defined as being everything that exists in the material sense of the word. God's, Immortal Spirit, Passion, sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal...and awakens in man." So say "I", Hermes Trismegistus; Keeper of the Holy Grail-->0, Lord of the Ring--->0; Ye, Amen, Ra.
What a ride it has been the last 10 years with ibn al ‘Arabi. My tears smell the roses he passed. How unfortunate are those who have not crossed his path. His prophecy about the last believer is underway.
Alchemy so all them people years and years ago made a discovery about the nature of the universe that modern science through quantum mechanics is now just catching up with !!!!!
***** That makes no sense. (no pun intended... :D ...... ) The idea presented is that nothing exists until it is observed. If that was true, why can one fall into a pit in the middle of the night? Or hit their head on an overhanging rock in a cave? How do they exist when never observed? It just sounds preposterous to me personally. I try to understand it though.
***** How can the 'information' be there is it has never been observed? If you trip in a dark cave and crack your head on a rock, then stumble out into the light....you are still bleeding. Does the rock not exist because you never observed it? The whole idea sounds silly. How does the 'underlying information' appear without one to observe it?
carpo719 Think of it like this: When you play a video game, does the world inside the game exist when it is not turned on? Yes, the information is still there, but the but the appearance of the world doesn't exist until you turn it on and play. Think of our world like this: ua-cam.com/video/ZVl1Hmth3HE/v-deo.html
The existence of God is necessary if-and-only-if one wishes to include minds other than their own within their ontology. Under a Solipsistic model, or the belief that only your mind exists, no God is necessary and the individual mind or observer takes the position of God in and of themselves.
@@jetpost No, it doesn't mean that not when you likewise introduce Nihilism such that all entities in existence ultimately reduce to the same entity and all entities that we consider to be unique or independent are in actuality mere subjectivity created representations of the same entity. That entity ultimately being the Subject or the total mind of the Solipsistic entity.
@@jetpost It's just Kant without the Noumenonal World. All representations of entities, including both other consciousness and your own self consciousness, are merely empirical representations and the true Solipsistic mind is the pure act of thinking that is presupposed by all experience of such representations.
So.. This video has nothing to do with Christianity and yet, there some guy in the comment who bought up Noah's flood. Damn, that atheist logic is just beyond me !
@@johnhenjum6610 Dear American You do realise that there are like trillion religions along with the same number of philosophical viewpoints, out there and that the world is not split in the bipolar Bible vs atheism don't you??
2:06 dude this isnt what happens. When you look at a particle, even if you can't see it, your exerting a force upon it by means of photon packet bombardment in order to see it. It doesn't actually care if we look at it or not, thats such an egotistical view.
Awesome video! It sounds very similar to what they did in "no man's sky", they created an insane virtual universe but it is only processing a locality when there is a player nearby which in turn would imply intelligent design for our universe as well as it is a very similar concept being applied to each one.
Observation devices can be anything from photographic film to silicon photodiodes. Note that all devices are made out of atoms and the only time we see the "particle" nature of light is when it interacts with a particle. There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics because what's actually going on 'under the hood' to cause the experimental results is still up to interpretation. Once we've got quantum gravity, then simplify it over 100 years we might have the answer.
@@lineslines1344 can't believe there's still people asserting there's some kind of physical interaction......simply haven't seen or doesn't understand the mechanics behind the DCQE...
The notion that quantum mechanics debunks materialism is based around a misconception that observer = sentient observer. "Observer" in quantum physics doesn't mean sentient observer. It just means something interacting with it.
@@astralgod6448 it’s funny because one could make the argument that it does have something to do with consciousness *if* you hold to the many worlds interpretation. This so happens to be an interpretation which IP has staunchly advocated against in the past
@@lebecccomputer287 I mean sure that's one interpretation, but it has nothing to do with the science. Observer≠ sentience at least in quantum mechanics. People who use arguments like these usually misinterpret the science (most likely because of the wording of these subjects). It's esentially r/badphilosophy in a nutshell. Also, be careful with this person's videos because he seems to be promoting a religious agenda many times justifying his views with plenty of different scientific misinterpretations
This is my first day visiting your channel. I came over here after watching your recent collaboration with Gavin Ortlund; and I am so glad I did come visit. Thank you for this great content.
Could the instrument used to do the observing in the double slit experiment not be what affects the particle? If so then it's not a choice of the particle to act as a wave, it's being effected it such a way that it becomes one. Is it also possible that particles move on a wave as such?
No. There have been numerous controlled experiments to test this very question. "Ghost" measuring devices were put in place (same device, but with no capacity to store or even translate data). Result? Wave pattern. Replace with device that can internally store the photon data, particle pattern. Mirrors were also used. In this case photons were split by a crystal immediately prior to entering either slit A or B. The mirrors were positioned in such a way that it could be determined (i.e., observed) whether the photon entered through slit A or B based on which mirror was hit according to the angle the photon traveled. Result? A particle pattern. Next, scientists modified the position of the mirrors so that "which way" the photon entered the slits could not be identified at all (photon impact on one mirror or the other was totally random). Result? Wave pattern. Utterly creepy.
With all the logical conclusions you offer and best knowledge of quantum physics materials you have , it is the best ever lecture I have ever read Thank you
That was very interesting. The conversations in the comment section are way over my head. i need to do more study on this subject to even begin to understand it. Thanks and Blessings.
AlbinosaurusR3X The Popes were not Followers of Christ. When Constantine established the "Church", he did it after his heart not Gods commands. Rewriting history is what people like those that made this site do. They are Lucifer worshipers. Yes that church persecuted many, including those that wrote the bible in a language the common ,man could read. The Devil is a great imposter.
Hahaha, this is why I love you theists so much. You're so adorably ridiculous. "This was a black mark on our history, so we'll just deny it was our fault." No responsibility.
AlbinosaurusR3X Ask yourself, Were they doing what Christ told them to do? If you actually read the Bible you would see they are not. It would be the same has me saying i'm an atheist. A lie is a lie.
Bob Smith This study only proves that our minds have an effect on the world, when we focus our thoughts we can fundamentally change the physical plane, it doesn’t mean that animals and other things don’t have that ability either. Maybe the birth of the universe was an already deceased or unknown being that was born billions of years ago. The idea that only humanity can affect the world cause our consciousness is different from any other is just stupid. This doesn’t prove your god or the video dipshit.
Bob Smith science doesn’t lean towards consciousness being the creator of everything, that’s your own flawed biased warping your understanding. Disprove what I said or at least make some semblance of an argument. I’m not going to any extremes, humanity isn’t as special as you think it is, we’re one small part of a much greater mystery. Science is showing us that our mind holds great power because we can understand and think of things differently from other animals in our environment but we don’t know how life in other planets affect their environment using this same ability, it could be amazing what they accomplish and what we could accomplish if we harness this power somehow instead of focusing on outdated ideologies that only work to delay our destiny.
Bob Smith When the brain perceives that it is dying it releases a mixture of chemicals which are psychedelic, DMT, Adrenochrome, etc. These chemicals ease you into death and make you see what you desire to see, sometimes it’s loved ones, sometimes it’s a paradise, it’s different for everyone, that’s why so many people, when they experience a near death experience, see such vivid visions. My argument is that a sole creature doesn’t have to be perceived to be born, when it gained the ability to “see” the universe, the primordial chaos of uncertainty that was said universe became a concrete existence because it was perceived, like Schrödinger’s Cat, before this point the universe was in a state of constant flux between being one thing or another simultaneously, the fact of this original conscious thing perceiving the universe fundamentally changed it and made it possible for the universe to be what we view it as today.
The double slit experiment has no effect on materialism. This idea is stemming from a misconception of the observer effect. Single electrons are easily influenced, quantum systems are fragile. We detect the electron by bouncing photons off it, which interferes with how it behaves. It has nothing to do with us, as conscious entities, seeing it. But the effect the detector has on the behavior of the system. It is not known what the electron is doing when it is not observed, and it cannot be said to not exist before it is observed. All we have is the calculation that accurately depicts the probabilities of where it could be at a given moment.
I only start with the two-slit experiment. I give so much more evidence after that. Also when two photons interact they will cause collapse, but that is only because it is connected back to conscious observer who collapsed that one and set it out. This creates a von Neumann chain, where when one photon is measured by another they entangle, which is what Bohr pointed out mathematically years ago. If one particle measures another it inherits part of it wave function, so to speak, and the particle which is suppose to be measured cannot be fully explained without it, so you need another measuring device to collapse that one to definite state and so on and so on. This creates a chain of material objections in a superposition of measurement. You keep going back until you get to something outside the system, a conscious observer. On top of that advocates of the decoherence project, that interaction will cause collapse without the conscious observer admit this cannot fully explain why there is collapse. It cannot derive the Born Rule and explain why there is only one definite outcome. Even in "Preferred states, predictability, classicality and the environment-induced decoherence" Zurek refers to the observer being involved in the ultimate collapse. Interaction stems back from an observer's "Heisenberg choice" to quote Henry Stapp. That is how we can derive the Born Rule and get one actual outcome from the possibilities.
//I only start with the two-slit experiment.// Yes and the conclusion you draw based on it is rubbish. It clearly shows how badly your grasping at straws to provide a falsification for materialism.
Phynos This clearly shows how little you know of this. You fail to remember I said the conclusion is inescapable when going over the violation of Leggett's inequality, confirmation of the Kochen-Specker theorem, the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, and the violation of the Leggett-Garg inequality. So materialism could of barely survived if all I had was the double-slit, but I clearly did not just use that.
No, analytic idealism does not entail a “god” in any theistic sense. It just means that consciousness is fundamental. This could be interpreted as panpsychism or many other things. In B. Kastrups idealism it entails a universal “field” of consciousness of which we each are dissociated parts (and biology is what this ‘type’ of consciousness looks like from across the dissociative boundary). This universal mind-field is not a “god” in any traditional sense, in fact, in that theory humans are probably the most cognitively evolved “corners” or dissociated parts/patterns of the field. Rocks and stars (representing other parts of the universal conscious field seen from across the dissociate boundary) don’t appear to be very metacognitive in nature, in fact they appear to be behaving very mechanically or ‘instinctive’, hence the regularity of the laws of nature. So the greater universal mind is pretty basic, much more simple than even the dumbest cockroach. There are many other theories out there. Point is there is absolutely no logical ground to derive a “god” in a judeo-christian sense from idealism. If anything, the most logically sound contenders have more in common with ‘Eastern’ and other mystic and animistic traditions.
@@koasucks That's ridiculous. People or groups of people have created religions all throughout history for various reasons and it's idiotic to think you're right about a specific god when all of them have an equal amount of having no evidence.
@@koasucks what we see created is Yahweh's creation. yahweh leads people to the demiurge's trap. This world is corrupt because it worships yahweh . Christian dogma and catholic , orthodox churches merged El Elyon and Yahweh together , causing great confusion and suffering. That y Jesus was sent by Father to fix Yahweh's mess, for we can escape the demiurge and Yahweh and go to the Monad(El Elyon). El made creation in Genesis 1, genesis 2 Yahweh got jealous and made Adam and Eve and the earth we live on right now. Yahweh punishes destroys sends lying spirits, kills, and is quiet bi -polar. Father is perfect truth and no error or evil. Jesus father is not Yahweh. Jesus contradicted Yahweh and told the the jews you are of your father the devil, he was a murderer since the beginning. There was no truth in him, he is the father of lies. Jesus said no one has seen his Father nor has heard his father. Jesus said My Father is not same as your's. Wake up#
The beautiful thing about it all is, once you naturalists begin to lose, you have nowhere to go. There's obviously only one God (whether the Muslims, Christians, or Jews have the best revelation of Him being beside the point). Every other religion, from taoism to pagan nonsense, is self-defeating. But since you refuse to believe in Him, neither will He believe in you; and POOF, as the video suggests, you'll be gone. Repent now.
Yes, God is omnipotent. He would understand every outcome of every situation. He would understand what exists as a probability wave, what exists as particles, and the results of every action. When in doubt as to whether an omniscient being would know something, err on the side of yes. :)
So here's the thing: Schrodinger's cat, and existence linked to observation have never made one lick of sense to me until the last part of this video. I have always thought these experiments seemed incredibly silly, and the particle measurements had to be due to measuring devices, not our own observation. But that part at the end about God observing what we observe due to the rest not making a difference...wow. That completely re-paints these ideas for me.
This is wonderful, I've been starting to dive into philosophy as philosophy is much like the language of spirituality, and mathematics is the language of science, and science is the study of the physical world, as spirituality is the study of the spiritual world. But quantum physics seems to be a place were these spheres of reality seem to touch, if only for a moment. And the glimpse we can get is extraordinary.
Philosophy is not a language of spirituality. It is the study of knowledge, reality and existence. It is quite literally maths with words. It is highly logical. But yes, a lot of people mistake it as meaning "say whatever random thought pops into your head".
@@davez5201 ya looking back in it probably not the best choice of words, I mean to say that philosophy is like math for reasoning the things if God. Maybe "spirituality" was the wrong word to use to express that though.
@@bushbladesnbows.2378 Tbh, philosophy has nothing to do with God. Some philosophical positions argue for or against God, but God is not central to philosophy. Central to philosophy is logic and reason. LIke I said earlier, it is highly logical. Quite literally formulaic.
"God said, "Let there be light!", and there was light!" Some men have always known that the mind creates the universe. Now we have physicists knowing it too. The world is waking up to the fact that it but dreams of time, space, death and guilt.
1971 'magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light, forming what are called protons and neutrons.' These words come from the book "The Quantum World" written by the physicist Kenneth Ford. Quarks are the ideas that form us. God is the electromagnetic matrix/unified field that we are saturated with. Creation is constant because the need to create is constant. The word "God" doesn't have to be in the conversation at all. We are NOT lumps of flesh. We are 100% conscious, highly complicated, brilliant electromagnetic, holographic, multidimensional eternal highly concentrated energy beings. Read these words in the book "Hands of Light' written by the physicist and healer Barbara Brennan.
Awakened 'magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light, forming what are called protons and neutrons.' These words come from the book "The Quantum World" written by the physicist Kenneth Ford. Quarks are the ideas that form us. God is the electromagnetic matrix/unified field that we are saturated with. Creation is constant because the need to create is constant. The word "God" doesn't have to be in the conversation at all. We are NOT lumps of flesh. We are 100% conscious, highly complicated, brilliant electromagnetic, holographic, multidimensional eternal highly concentrated energy beings. Read these words in the book "Hands of Light' written by the physicist and healer Barbara Brennan.
I don't understand the backhistory stuff... For example with the double slit... we have single particles hitting the screen.... eventually these single particle hits add up to an interference patter. You say that when a particle is detected we add a backhistory where the particle traveled as a particle. That would mean the interference pattern can be created using single particles moving in classical paths? But just that this is highly improbable? I don't understand. Can you clarify?
Those who have spent a life studying the subject with advanced understanding of mathematics and the tools to test certain ideas are still scratching their heads. I'm inclined to say you are not going to get answers in the near future here either.
This is why I LOVE quantum mechanics. I've long felt and believed that the concious is involved in what we perceive to be reality and it looks like I was right. I don't pretend to fully understand this but it's interesting to see that science is now beginning to look at what in times past would have been considered ridiculous in a more enlightened way rather than simply saying it's impossible and moving on. Stephen Hawking himself once said that 'The universe is not only stranger than you think, it's stranger than you CAN think'
Consciousness isn’t involved in the collapse of the wave function. This is a misunderstanding that non physicists refuse to let go of. Any interaction with the particle is what causes a state to become well defined. You could throw a completely inanimate and non conscious baseball at it and the same thing would happen
@@collefgaoesd my mind has changed because I’m an everettian now. This video is still stupid for other reasons that I don’t feel like arguing about in the comments. It completely misunderstands physics
Again quantum physics misunderstood. In a nut shell atomic particles are in probabilistic state, they can be here or there, until they interact then there wave function collapses, it’s not the observation that collapses the wave function as no human can directly observe an atomic particle, the wave function collapses due to interaction with other particles, that’s why a boulder is a boulder and not a wave function, the detection collapses the wave as any measurement, detection etc...etc relies on interaction. The universe exists independently, we just decode it and make sense of it.
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all. Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind. Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
@@TheGuiltsOfUs He's proving consciousness cant be explained or supported by natural laws. Therefore consciousness cannot be a product or emergent property of natural laws.
Consciousness is not found in all animals. Rather few animals such as dolphins and elephants have them. We need to think about the evolutional significance of consciousness. However I don't think consciousness contains no actual purpose. Therefore I think that consciousness is emergent property of the neural networks that enable those animals to select important informations and remember them. It is call episode memory. So the practical aspect of consciousness is to remember important information effectively and phenomenal aspect or sentience is an emergent property of developed neural networks.
@@Gingnose You wrote:”Consciousness is not found in all animals. Rather few animals such as dolphins and elephants have them.” I think you are confusing self-awareness with consciousness; consciousness is the common property of all our psychical experiences, such as sensations, emotions, thoughts and even dreams. It is a common opinion that also animals have psychical experiences: I am not saying that it is a wrong opinion, but the point is that there is no way to prove that such hypothesis is true, even for dolphins or elephnts. Animals could be only unconscious biological robots. this hypothesis cannot be excluded, so the existence of consciousness in animals is only a matter of personal beliefs. You wrote:” Therefore I think that consciousness is emergent property of the neural networks that enable those animals to select important informations and remember them. “ My arguments prove that your assumption is wrong (you have provided no counter arguments but you simply ignored my arguments). In fact, an emergent property is a simplied description of underlying processes and an arbitrary abstraction of the actual physical processes. Therefore, every emergent property requires a conscious mind from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving conscious mind cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
I have a question. If something exists only by virtue of my observing it, then can it not exist by someone else observing it, I mean the "world" around us? ie: Does London exist when I'm not observing it (I'm not "there" now as I write this) or does it exist now, at this moment, because others observe, and thus create, it? I would be grateful for an answer. Thanks.
Amazing. I already came across this way of thinking in a book from the 60's called: "nuclear evolution: discovery of the rainbow body" by Christopher Hills. I HIGHLY recommend it, though or is not for beginners. Edit: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? ... ... ... No... if no one was around, the tree never actually existed as it cannot exist as matter apart from observation.
So you're walking in a forest, and you come across a fallen tree. It's been lying down on the ground for a while, by the look of it ...it's a dead log, starting to crumble a bit, and it's getting hollow, and there's new undergrowth sprouting up around it. Were you there, to see it or hear it when it fell...? Do you know if anyone was there, to observe it when it fell...? Maybe somebody was. But in this world ...millions upon millions of trees and lived and died, and then fallen, and ended up as dead logs lying on the ground. Was there somebody there to observe the fall ...fore each and every one of them...? The tree falling the woods philosophical question, is actually a way of asking whether or not events even happen ...if they're not observed. And a tree falling in the woods, is actually a bad way to frame this question. It doesn't account for any other conscious observers who may have observed it. Does an observer have to be a human...? What about the furry little forest critters? There's bound to be little eyes and ears all around... I can't remember where I'm even going with this ...I've lost the plot. But I've always felt the tree in the woods thing, isn't the right way to put it... er...actually ...nah, just ignore all this shit.
@@GerchMod It's exactly like Sims. The trees never "fall" or are even rendered unless someone is observing them. There is no data being streamed until a player is looking. There is no sound because there is no tree falling unless a "hearing observer" observes a falling tree. Then data of a falling tree is being streamed, along with everything else...the sounds etc.
Totally agree with you Mind blowing. Materialism is dead!! Apparently when you are looking for an unobservable, unfalsifiable, pseudo scientific theory for explaining away the undeniable fine tuning in our universe including the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness you will always find one. Hence the multiverse hypothesis!! ❤️
Of course one of the possible implications of this would be that there is no such thing as a private act - that everything we choose to do and observe produces a cosmological effect. When you keep what is Good, what is True, and what is Beautiful before your mind then you are making the world a better place; when you do evil acts, even if you think that they harm no one, you are actively creating a worse reality.
One may argue, with the thought experiment of the cat (like William Lane Craig did) that the cat and what is in the box exist independantly of the observer, which is the exact opposite of what quantum mecanics tells us. Do u have an answer ? Thank u !
a measurement doesn't make the matter change. we just still don't understand how it works. In my opinion, measuring a quanta will not interfere with it. It only make you see a position where it could have been (according to the probability wave) so it ends up here not because you measured it but because it needs to end up somewhere. when the electron is not measured, you only see the interference pattern of the probability wave.
We really do get to participate in Creation! Adam saw differences in animals and began making them according to their differences. Without declaring "this is now a bird", making a word for it brings it to existence linguistically. For that system to reflect visual and audio reality shows the intimate nature between quantum physics and how we play a part in God's universe?
Does this look solid to you? What are "actual pictures" of atoms actually pictures of?. Physicist: Actual pictures of atoms aren’t actually pictures at all. There are a few good rules of thumb in physics. Among the best is: light acts like you’d expect on scales well above its wavelength and acts weird on scales below. In order to take a picture of a thing you need light to bounce … The only thing physicists have actually seen is basically a computer image, not the real image, and second, they observe electric fields, not the particle itself. They do not observe particles themselves; they are able to observe only the field. However this alone does not prove anything, but that the electric energy field exists and that’s about it---no atoms, no photons, no electrons, no quarks. no nothing. So no, particles do not exist. Particles exist only inside mathematical abstractions and nothing more and nothing else. We don’t know what actually exists in the real world, except that there are energy fields---electric, magnetic and all other forms and all other kinds of energy fields. I forgot to add what exactly is visualized with all these microscopes including STM--the scanning tunneling microscope. What is visualized is the charge density of the electric field. Basically you observe vibrations---electric vibrations. You haven’t seen an atom either. You’ve seen an image you assume to be an atom, but it is simply an instrument’s representation of the atom. It is not the atom itself. These techniques aren’t actually “visual” like microscopes we work with in biology classes. Microscopes use lenses and light to help zoom and focus on small objects. Electron microscopes, on the other hand, use quantum scattering theory to construct the shape of small objects, then the data is transferred to a computer to create a model. The wavelengths of visible light ranges on the order of ~370nm to 750nm. These are all MUCH larger than many particles of interest (and way too large to view atoms, which are on the order of Angstroms-0.1nm). Scientists need to be creative to be able to “see” atoms. So, no, scanning tunneling microscopes and atomic force microscopes did not prove the existence of atoms.
@David Stunning this is a simulation my friend it's a video game and the developer designed himself as a character to reveal himself to us 2000 years ago. This is a game and you can totally win it.
Pure energy---That was a really great, simple, and terse explanation for what an electron microscope "sees," and how it actually functions. Thank you for that explanation! I've often wondered how they work, and now it all makes perfect sense to me, (well, at least on a limited basis). So much of what the scientific principles are based on is speculation, yet materialists are so quick to deny the beliefs of, and to denigrate, the Creationists for their faith in believing what can't be seen. Yet, the materialists do exactly the same thing, it seems, with quantum mechanics. How ironic, and yet so pathetic, of them. Peace
@David Stunning Even if it is a simulation, that doesn't mean that killing yourself will necessarily "wake you up." What it will do is spread suffering to those impacted by your suicide. Instead, try and live a good life and help those around you so that all the agents of consciousness in your awareness are made better in some way by your existence, and when it's time, you'll pass away from this world, but that's okay, because you've done good while you were here. Given that's all you knew, if you did the best you could, what more can be asked for, than to accept the ugliness of the world and do good for others?
@@gillbates2685 No, I don't fully understand what scientists do, any more than some scientists who don't understand what the religionists do. But, it certainly parallels, given that both are seeking to understand what is truly the unknowable. Yet, scientists seem to think that because they are using advanced technologies, and they are erudite and studied in their fields, that they are somehow above the religionists in their sapience. The religionists may be unedifyed as to scientific principles and knowledge, but the scientists knowledge of the unqualified and the undiscoverable is equally as inadequate, even in their evaluations and discoveries of the basics of the physical realities; much less of the spiritual, ethereal and the supernal. The two are different disciplines, science and theology, but both are attempts to discover the facts behind the processes, meanings and the causations of our world. What simply galls me, however, is the arrogance and the pretentions that some scientists, mostly the atheists and naturalists, display in their sarcastic contempt for the religious and thelogian thinkers, as though the scientific materialists are in possession of the only method of obtaining the truths about our reality. Ha! Even though, they have yet to give any reasonable explanations for what the 'life' energy is, or from whence it derives or how it began, or what energy actually is, or light, or a satisfactory explanation for how the creation of the Universe came about, or any of a thousand other attributes of creation. Though the theologians do have, at least, a reasonable facsimile of an answer, that being the Almighty Creator, or God, or whatever appellation one chooses to use. But, at least they have an answer. Sure, science has made some tremendous advances, but the truth of the matter is, the scientists are still just as ignorant in some areas as they have ever been. In fact, the more they learn about some things, the more that they come to realize that they really don't know all that much, and they may never know; not when it comes down to the basics of life and how the Universe functions. So, the religionists and others would simply ask that they get off their high horse, and get real with the rest of us in society, and admit that they're just as ignorant and inept as everyone else when it comes down to it, despite their PhD's and their highbrow, intellectual personas. In the final analysis, science is the blind leading the blind, hoping to stumble upon some magic 'Theory of Everything', that has eluded them, and, in my opinion, will continue to do so, forever. For the simple fact that the mind of man is too limited to grasp certain things, because of its very nature. In fact, the more science delves into the mysteries of the Universe, the more they only end up supporting the religionists' concept, that of a Creator. So, yeah, you're pathetic, if that by looking at some blips on a screen you're thinking that it is going to tell you anything about the reality behind Creation. No, it won't, they're just blips on a screen! You don't really know any more now than you did before. See?
God is creating all probabilities that could ever collapse into actuality in the Quantum Wave-funtion. God seeing everything doesn't mean that God literally has floating eyes looking at everything. Rather, just as we use light to see matter. God can use his knowledge to see. ”but even in darkness I cannot hide from you. To you the night shines as bright as day. Darkness and light are the same to you.” - Psalm 139:10 NLT
@@CesarClouds God isn't a creep. God is the ultimate reality that the universe is emergent from. Space-time isn't fundamental, it is emergent from something different than itself. I believe that to be God
The Many Worlds Interpretation does not really violate the principle of parsimony. Everett's original thesis was called a "theory of the Universal Wave-function". According to it, there are many, many worlds but only one physical object - THE universal wavefunction. It is actually very parsimonious, so I think that it does leave open a physical realist understanding of physics.
Cool. Just watched Sean Carroll saying that Many Worlds is simply quantum mechanics, and other interpretations have something classical added to quantum mechanics.
@@nmarbletoe8210 Yeah, I remember Everette said something similar. His claim was that his Many Worlds interpretation kept closer to the mathematics than any alternative. This is because the mathematics does not have anything to say about a wave-function collapse and it is not explicitly a probability formula.
Wow...What?!?...Wow!! So, there Must be a greater consciousness who makes Us exist by observing Us so that We can make Reality exist by observing the universe?!? "God" created us for the purpose of having experiences we create as conscious observers. Consciousness is The key to existence. It is Our duty to have as many varying experiences as possible!! He doesn't need us to help him exist, he needs us to create reality while observing it!! My skull hurts...I need a hug!!
Logan I constantly say the same thing !!!! Then I found books like "War Against the Weak" by Black. Seems like people that believe in solidity, like nazis, have taken over the world. We are living in the experience of the fourth reich right now. There are just too many people that have been taught death. How are they going to understand that nothing is solid?
because if people find out that we are living in a spiritual world made by a universal consciousness, not an objectively physical world devoid of purpose and meaning, then the powers that be, the establishment, will find it increasingly harder to control and suppress the populace.
There is such a lack of understanding in the comments section. and so many closed minds locked into wrong beliefs. IMO. It is a great way to explain the consciousness and its connection making all one. what some call the holly spirit is just a higher state of the conscious mind.We all lack understanding and the only way to get understanding is to live in the now. Unfortunately to many live in the past and the future to gain proper understanding. Until they realize that there is no past and there is no future they can never understand.
Its more than people's opinions, some people simply find purpose trolling rather than doing something useful. Its no different than the people who dislike a video of a baby's smile.
Bremmer Nazis like it this way. They have made trillions from the belief in solidity and time. They don't want to read quantum physics. That is why the utube "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" was created. This documentary tells of the professors that have been fired for just mentioning the words create or creationism. These nazis don't want the world to change because then their books and jobs will be obsolete. Then people would wake up and see what a sad state of affairs these nazi trillionaires have done to the world and continue to do. The lasers that hit the 9/11 towers and that hit those houses in California recently are the work of these nazis that have taken over the world with their beliefs in solidity. Every war there has been has been because these nazis make trillions from wars. They make trillions from prisons and pills, which I have read are all placebos. This is because we are imagery. We create the effect that we think we should create. Quantum physics says that this is instantaneously. If all those side effects were not added to the labels of these pills, then people might have a chance creating healing for themselves. If the doctors wanted them well they might prescribe pills as being objects of fast healing.
The central flaw in this video is the equation of observation with consciousness. The 'observation' is really an interaction, and doesn't require a consciousness. Light behaves like a particle if it is interacted with by a mechanism; this is independent of consciousness.
That is decoherence, which even the advocates of it admit it cannot fully explain quantum mechanics, like that is cannot derive the Born Rule in the equations. Decoherence happens because it stems back to a conscious observer who begins the process. This is clearly shown the later study presented in the videos: Kim et al. 1999; Groeblacher et al. 2007; Lapkiewicz et al 2011; Ma et al 2012.
***** "That is decoherence, which even the advocates of it admit it cannot fully explain quantum mechanics" Nonsense. It can explain QM just as well as any "consciousness-causes-collapse" theory just without the superfluous assumption that consciousness is required. "cannot derive the Born Rule in the equations. " Why would you need to? You certainly can't derive it any easier by needlessly adding consciousness in to the mix. "This is clearly shown the later study presented in the videos: Kim et al. 1999; Groeblacher et al. 2007; Lapkiewicz et al 2011; Ma et al 2012." None of these studies show that consciousness is essential for decoherence. You are simply begging the question by saying that the decoherence occurs because of a conscious observer.
Francis Dillon "It can explain QM just as well as any "consciousness-causes-collapse" theory just without the superfluous assumption that consciousness is required." -Wrong, it cannot derive the Born Rule and explain why one possibility emerges. "Does decoherence solve the measurement prob- lem? Clearly not. What decoherence tells us, is that certain objects appear classical when they are observed. But what is an observation? At some stage, we still have to apply the usual prob- ability rules of quantum theory." - Joos (2000, p. 14). "Claims that simultaneously the measurement problem is real [and] decoherence solves it are confused at best." - Bacciagaluppi (2003b, p. 3) "Why would you need to? You certainly can't derive it any easier by needlessly adding consciousness in to the mix." -Mathematically, you need a mechanism to transfer to collapse from the wave function. This is the Born Rule. "None of these studies show that consciousness is essential for decoherence." -Yes they do. They is exactly what Groeblacher et al 2007 showed, in falsifying all classes of hidden variables. Ma et al 2012 shows non local delayed choices affect outcomes. What part of 'no naive realistic picture is compatible with our results,' do you not understand?
***** "What decoherence tells us, is that certain objects appear classical when they are observed. But what is an observation? At some stage, we still have to apply the usual prob- ability rules of quantum theory." - Joos (2000, p. 14). "Claims that simultaneously the measurement problem is real [and] decoherence solves it are confused at best." - Bacciagaluppi (2003b, p. 3)" And these quotes are supposed to show consciousness is necessary or even desirable for a QM interpretation how? These quotes don't even address the issue at all. You need to understand that ghuegel is absolutely correct in saying that any quantum 'observation' is really an interaction, and doesn't require a consciousness. "Mathematically, you need a mechanism to transfer to collapse from the wave function. This is the Born Rule" I know what the Born rule is. Most interpretations of QM assume it as axiomatic like wave-particle duality and the discreteness of quantum states. It is no more a problem for decoherence that it can't derive these things either. Again, adding consciousness needlessly in to the mix makes it no easier to derive the Born rule. "Yes they do. They is exactly what Groeblacher et al 2007 showed, in falsifying all classes of hidden variables. Ma et al 2012 shows non local delayed choices affect outcomes. What part of 'no naive realistic picture is compatible with our results,' do you not understand?" No, they don't. These are well known results that in no way necessitate consciousness in the slightest. I think your problem is that you seem to be certain that any alternative to 'no naive realistic picture is compatible with our results,' must necessarily involve consciousness. This is completely wrong and every physicist knows this. I will try to spell it out for you so that you understand: The delayed "choice" in these experiments is made by a random number generator. To maintain that it is actually the experimenter's consciousness causing the collapse you would have to maintain that the recorded results of the experiment don't actually "appear" until someone decides to look at them or become "consciously aware" of them. i.e. the results could be printed out on a piece of paper but the paper doesn't actually say anything definite until someone goes to take a look or becomes consciously aware of what the paper has printed on it. This is a completely absurd and unnecessary assumption. What actually causes the collapse is the INTERACTION with the measuring device not the consciousness of any observer.
Francis Dillon "And these quotes are supposed to show consciousness is necessary or even desirable for a QM interpretation how" -That is not what i quoted them for. I quoted them to show decoherence cannot be the mechanism for all collapse. There needs to be some other mechanism. "is absolutely correct in saying that any quantum 'observation' is really an interaction, and doesn't require a consciousness." -Wrong, just repeating yourself is not a good rebuttal. Since decoherence cannot fully explain quantum mechanics. It cannot derive the Born Rule or explain the outcome to one possibility and why our choice non-locally affects it: arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312059 "It is no more a problem for decoherence that it can't derive these things either. Again, adding consciousness needlessly in to the mix makes it no easier to derive the Born rule." -Needlessly? If you take consciousness out of the picture you cannot do experiments. Consciousness is the one thing you can't doubt, it is all you experience along with qualia. And since the Born Rule is the law that yields the probability that a measurement on a system will give one result, then consciousness is the most likely explanation, since we, ourselves (conscious minds) are yielding results. There is no need to posit unnecessary hidden variables. Consciousness is all we need and you can't deny it's existence and role in the world. "We are not just passive observers." -Anton Zeilinger "These are well known results that in no way necessitate consciousness in the slightest." -And assertion is not an argument. It's nothing different than covering your ears and refusing to listen. "I think your problem is that you seem to be certain that any alternative to 'no naive realistic picture is compatible with our results,' must necessarily involve consciousness." -And I think your problem is you have no evidence yet still assert you are right. That is called blind faith. See below for evidence. "This is completely wrong and every physicist knows this." -Then do give a better alternative that is not ad hoc. If there is no objective reality beyond what we observe (Groeblacher et al 2007) then you have no choice but to place consciousness right in the forefront. "The delayed "choice" in these experiments is made by a random number generator." -Not in the one from 2012: arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4834.pdf And, yes that is true for the one from 1999. However, the outcome is never random but correlates to our knowledge every time. "To maintain that it is actually the experimenter's consciousness causing the collapse you would have to maintain that the recorded results of the experiment don't actually "appear" until someone decides to look at them or become "consciously aware" of them." -No, because observation is about knowledge. Collapse happens because we have knowledge about the system and then the particles act in a way that correlates to our knowledge. As the other Ma et al 2012 study says, "The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough." Observation is about knowledge, not looking. "What actually causes the collapse is the INTERACTION with the measuring device not the consciousness of any observer. " -The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment from 1999 shows this is not the case, Since a photon that hits D1 doesn't collapse to one definite state, but one that hits D3 does. The only difference is what the conscious observer knows between the two. Then there is also the Renninger Negative experiment which refutes your argument as well: The Renninger Negative Result Experiment
@@sathviksidd Be it advaita of shankara, shuddhadvaita, vishisthadvaita, the dualistic schools of ramanuja or the dualistic kashmiri shaiva system, all of them have the same core tenets. The dualistic system shares the idea of the observer with advaita in the concept of purusha and the field, prakriti. Indeed it is ishvara, who with maya generates both prakriti, time, and the individualized souls out of para brahman. Yet the para state is neither personal nor impersonal. But the different ways of perceiving it are. What it is, is another question. You are both atma, paramatma and the entire brahman at the same time. That is what it is, whether your a nondualist like vishnuswamy, nimbarka or shankara, pure dualists like the kashmiri shaivas or ramanujas school, or both center around the same position of how purusha creates the worlds by looking at them. The vaishnavas have this concept in maha vishnu, an immanent aspect of narayana, who with his glance impregnates and animates prakriti, or the matrix as we would now call it. The shaivas have a similar concept in sadashiva. Ramanuja and Madhava also accept that there is one allone being, narayana! Saguna brahman. Its just with attributes, whereas in his state of vasudeva, the lord is nirguna (see lakshmi tantra and other pancaratras). The ocean of the six qualities of jnana, aishvarya, (kriya)shakti, bala, virya and tejas, satcidananda, the witness (sakshi). That oh so solipsistic all-one observer, whos eyes generate and dissolve the worlds, who is dark, allpervading and formless like a fresh raincloud in the autumn season... Some think the absolute is nirguna brahman (vasudeva) others like ramanuja think saguna brahman (narayana) is higher. Yet others think para brahman has both nirguna and saguna aspects, like nimbarka, vishnuswamy and some tantric sects. In shaivism there are also nondual and dual concepts, and in shaktism, the socalled para prakriti is simply nirguna brahman, as the "higher nature". Solipsistic or not, you are both atma and paramatma. I know, some dualist sects dont like that, i knew a lot of hare krishnas, they cant wrap their head around it. 2 of the four vaishnava schools are dualistic (brahma and sri sampradaya) whereas the rudra- and kumara-sampradaya are explicitly nondualistic, and interpret the stories more in an upanishadic context of when a particular saint meets bhagavan, it is an allegory for merging with para brahman. The madhava followers (including the hare krishnas) and ramanuja followers are strictly dualistic, but still they accept that purusha (vishnu) creates (nimesa) and destroys (unmesa) the worlds with his eyes. They reduce our unity with paramatma to a pantheistic "being-a-part-of-paramatma" and as such although they claim they are both dual- and nondualistic, they are the most dualistic of all of them. Every other group knows that we are paramatma himself. In Fullness. vasudevah sarvam iti sa mahatma su-durlabhah "He who understands that everything is vasudeva, such a great soul is extremely rare". Bhagavad Gita I am both paramatma and the atma. As the upanishads say; Gopalo`Ham - i am Krishna! Funny how the dualists cant just translate that simple nirguna mantra, because although it is in the gopala tapani upanishad, they think it means something else than what it means. Because they cannot understand, how devotion is still possible if you yourself are the object of adoration. Nimbarka and vishnuswamy know how^^ And on a note, it is the senses and measurement which causes wavefunction collapse, not consciousness. Rather consciousness causes it via the senses. It is the jnanashakti (maha sarasvati) that creates, the iccha shakti (maha lakshmi) that maintains the worlds and all beings by her union with them, and it is the kriya shakti (parvati) who overcomes all obstacles and performs all deeds, and moves all particles. Brahman and the samvid shakti dont create.Technically it is ishvara, manifested of brahman, who uses the 3 prabhava shaktis to manifest the worlds. As such the descent of purusha/vishnu into the world, whereas purusha is manifested from saguna brahman (narayana). Purusha-prakriti is dualistic, brahman nondualistic. I am both atma, paramatma and brahman, and amongst the three phases of brahman, it is said to be nirguna (vasudeva), saguna and para.
QM doesn't imply matter exists as a wave of potentialities prior to observation. It says matter exists in *superposition* until its wave function is collapsed. This is an important difference. If the matter existed only as a _potentiality_ then it could not interfere with itself and form a wave interference distribution. It has to, in some sense, "really exist" prior to observation (and not merely "potentially exist"), because if there was only the _potential_ to exist prior to collapse, the particle would have nothing to "bounce up against" and form the wave behavior. Ergo, the matter does, in fact, exist in _superposition_ , interfering with itself to form the wave - which is how we explain the interference pattern we observe - and not as a "wave of potentiality". This is an important point of course because IP wants to suggest that a mind is needed to bring the particle into existence, which, given this logic, we see is not correct.
@@markbranham7355 The notion of existence outside the body (if that's what you meant) is an unfalsifiable notion. No matter what evidence one marshaled to show a cause-and-effect relationship between material states and states of mind, no matter how precise and consistent, one could always insist, suggest, believe or assert that "there is" or "there could still be" something more than the matter itself. It's impossible to show that there is NO supra-corporeal element to mind or our existence, and thus it's irrelevant scientifically. What matters is not what is impossible to disprove - what matters is what we can rule out as _likely_ given the evidence we have - and that which is ruled out is (A) anything that explicitly contradicts observed experimental results, and (B) anything that we have no evidence for. Anything without evidence is equally as likely as any random claim someone makes, that is to say, if there's no evidence for claim X, it's equally like to be true as any other unevidenced claim, such as, for example: "it's possible that there is an obese orangutang who lives in my butthole and controls the world using his man boobs."
Is there anything opposed to the possibilty of this Supreme Consciousness revealing himself to our dependent consciousness and even entering the world of time and space to have a relationship with us? Does the Supreme Consciousness possibly love us and want to be with us?
This spurious reasoning of "who watches who watches who" is also the same special pleading type of fallacy used in first cause arguments. If every watcher needs a watcher, then who is watching the Cosmic Watcher? If the Cosmic Watcher needs no watcher, why do I need one? Also, the machine that activates the poison in the Schrodinger's Cat experiment is an I/O device that works on binary logic. It can't possibly know how to symbolic translate the superimposed state of "Decay/Not Decay" and will truncate the information for "Decay" only and release the poison (or any other unexpected truncation error that will produce a binary result). Since the information is truncated, it can't possibly propagate outside the machine to create a superimposed cat that is dead and alive, so it's illogical to propose that awareness is needed to collapse anything when the information about the superimposition can't be known by the observer using this apparatus. The alternative to solve the propagation problem is to postulate that everything is a quantum device. The detector can propagate the information about the superimposition because it is a macro scaled quantum qbit capable of more than binary logic/action. The cat itself and anything in the chain, including the observer, will also have to be able to receive, store and propagate the quantum information acting like macro qbits. If that's the case, then what we have is a multiverse scenario. Our knowledge about superimpositions is the proof that all possible paths that reality can take are real, because this is the only way quantum information can propagate - through a macro scaled set of qbits that split forever to the future in every possible state. Of course you can evade this conclusion by postulating my initial proposition, that the detector truncates the superimposition, and everything beyond that point is classical. Any of the options will show that the "awareness makes reality" interpretation of the data is nonsensical.
"If the Cosmic Watcher needs no watcher, why do I need one?" -This is layman style objection that makes atheist philosophers ashamed, as the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse points out: The trouble with Richard Dawkins God is necessary. In this case, He would be the only solipsist, so to speak. "so it's illogical to propose that awareness is needed to collapse anything when the information about the superimposition can't be known by the observer using this apparatus." -No, it is said to be in a superposition until observed and then the back history is loaded up. "The alternative to solve the propagation problem is to postulate that everything is a quantum device" -So the ave function collapses the wave function. Let alone that doesn't make sense, mathematically it really doesn't make sense as Maximilian Schlosshauer explains: arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312059 "The detector can propagate the information about the superimposition because it is a macro scaled quantum qbit capable of more than binary logic/action.' -This is just the decoherence program, which even the advocates admit cannot fully explain QM. The mechanism is still missing, as well as how to service the Born Rule.
***** "This is layman style objection" This is an ad hominem style attempt to address the issue. An argument can't be refuted by appealing to the qualification of the author. Provide the justification for why the Cosmic Watcher can be the exception to your rule that everything needs a watcher, otherwise you are guilty of special pleading, a known fallacy. "This is just the decoherence program, which even the advocates admit cannot fully explain QM" Nope. I'm invoking a mere transmission line, like a quantum wire. No symbolic software layer or processing needed. I don't need to fully explain QM, since nobody can fully explain QM. All I need is to show that your "awareness makes reality" interpretation of the data can't be true.
Zadratube "Provide the justification for why the Cosmic Watcher can be the exception to your rule that everything needs a watcher, otherwise you are guilty of special pleading, a known fallacy" --- Justification: Because infinite regress is logically impossible. There is no such thing as an actual infinite. So there has to be a necessary watcher.
***** The impossibility of infinite regress does not answer why only the Cosmic Watcher can dismiss the need to be watched while no other link in the chain can. If the CW can dismiss a watcher, so do I or anyone else. Claiming "special powers" for the Cosmic Watcher is the special pleading fallacy.
Zadratube In other words, you misunderstood the argument. The Cosmic Watcher would necessarily not need to be watched because he would be the origin of reality anyway. Our observation creates and affects reality on a smaller scale, but it's not the origin of reality. The CW's observation does.. Besides, he would have "observed" before any intelligent observant life with in the universe formed, and therefore would NECESSARILY have not been watched from the start.-- And as for this: " If the CW can dismiss a watcher, so do I or anyone else.." this is yet more of an indication that you missed the point. The Cosmic Watcher does not dismiss a watcher...or rather you are straw-manning since no one is arguing that.
Nice summary of modern physics. However, I don’t agree with all of the philosophical commentary regarding what this means. There seem to be some false dichotomies and misunderstanding of terminology. First, there seems to be a dichotomy between particles and waves as “real” vs “not real”. But this is not correct. In modern physics we view waves as every bit as “real” as particles; particles and waves are just two ways of describing the same thing. Second, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what an “observer” is in modern physics terminology. An observer does NOT need to be human, conscious, or sentient. An electronic detector behind one of the slits, for example, is sufficient to collapse the wave function to one of the two slits. This is true even if no one looks at the detector; the detector and its circuitry either have recorded a count or they have not, so h wave function has been collapsed by this electronic “observer”.
@@kaiosama3846 I learned quantum mechanics in undergrad and grad physics programs from texts by Dicke & Witke, Feynman, Dirac, and Schiff, from mentoring by Nobel laureates and other world-class physicists, and from working as a professional physicist for 30+ years. I recommend Schiff's "Quantum Mechanics" or Feynman's lectures if you want to learn more.
Andre Augustine , I do agree that something created all this. There had to be an observer for this whole thing to start in the first place, no? My point is, I’m not sure anyone other than us (and possibly other intelligent life) are the observers now. Don’t be satisfied with this as the answer! Keep search! 👍
i dont appreciate the fact that you went in depth about the double slit experiment and then still talked about "free will" as if it is real. There is much evidence suggesting it doesnt.
The Observer Effect does not imply that consciousness creates reality, as many who are ignorant of quantum mechanics believe. It means that the instruments measuring the observation affect what it is measuring. That's all. For example, in the double-slit experiment (which the video references) the "observer" is an electronic detector. Not a conscious mind.
Sounds like you're the one who's ignorant of QM here. You're appealing to decoherence, the notion that a measurement device causes collapse. Decoherence isn't a solution to the measurement problem, as one of the fathers of decoherence (Zurek) explained. This is because there is no reason to think that the measurement device also wouldn't be in a superposition. Under quantum theory, the entire universe is one entangled system that is in superposition. There are no objects as such. RQM confirms this, as well as the notion of Von Neumann chains.
@@pandawandas the only valid interpretation of quantum mechanics I know of that could posit consciousness is responsible for the collapse of the wave function is the everettian interpretation. This same UA-cam channel has strongly argued against it, likely due to conflicting religious beliefs
@@lebecccomputer287 What? The Everettian interpretation doesn't talk about consciousness causing collapse at all. You're thinking of Von Neumann-Wigner.
@@pandawandas it says there is no collapse, and any observed collapse is an illusion caused by *you* becoming entangled with the system. So it would be conscious based
I enjoyed the heck out of this video. I feel like I've seen it before but I've watched a lot on the topic so can't be sure. However I noted this video was very well done. It moved right along and felt right. Thanks for putting this up. I put it on my facebook page and will definitely watch it again. That's another thing, you packed a lot very well in just a few minutes. I have 3 cats and I'm keeping a close eye on all of them after this
"The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all *TRUE* art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is inpenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men." - Albert Einstein
I can see no other logical explanation other than an all knowing consciousness. Call that all knowing consciousness what you will, but the presence of such is undeniable. Great video. Thanks:)
@@unwono because we don't know much of the supreme consciousness (but some famous scientists also believed this like Max Planck and others) and Materialism is dead in science.
It is known that if Alex measures particle A and the result is horizontal. This determines what Bob will see if he measures particle B and the result will be perpendicular. But if they are de-entangled and then re-entangled, can the result differ so that particle A is vertical and particle B is horizontal?
@@theintuitivetruth Well said! Dawkins is busy tweeting to 2.8 million followers that eugenics would work on humans without explicitly condemning it. He’s also busy writing books aimed at children that draw parallels with the Jews quest for the holy land and the Nazis campaign to dominate the world. He also insists that the belief that the rape and murder of a child is immoral and evil is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six ? I think the bereaved parents of children who have been raped and murdered would beg to differ that their (belief) that this was evil is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six. This is why the argument for objective morality is so compelling. It’s impossible to ground morality in the materialistic/atheistic paradigm. The materialists/atheists blind worship of the gods of determinism and automatism condemns their myths to hollowness!!
Mark 11:23. Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them.
This rather quick video is right on the mysteries of quantum mechanics, but the conclusion drawn about consciousness collapsing the wave function, which I take to be the conclusion, is merely one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics, and I would warn against anyone getting oversold on any one interpretation at this stage. Bell’s Theorem implies that we need a nonlocal theory. I would start by pointing out that there is more than one way to travel faster than light. I would associate one way with wavelike behaviour, and the other way with particle-like behaviour. The intention is to provide guidance for computer simulators, and I have a long way to go.
Well I'm convinced.... we live in the matrix... I enjoy reading and watching videos on quantum mechanics, but it is difficult as hell to wrap your brain around.
Nicholas 'magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light, forming what are called protons and neutrons.' These words come from the book "The Quantum World" written by the physicist Kenneth Ford. Quarks are the ideas that form us. God is the electromagnetic matrix/unified field that we are saturated with. Creation is constant because the need to create is constant. The word "God" doesn't have to be in the conversation at all. We are NOT lumps of flesh. We are 100% conscious, highly complicated, brilliant electromagnetic, holographic, multidimensional eternal highly concentrated energy beings. Read these words in the book "Hands of Light' written by the physicist and healer Barbara Brennan.
Matthew 17:20, "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." (KJV) Very good video!
How does one observe without affecting a particle? The use of the little eye is disingenuous because observation is really measuring and affecting the particle.
_Apo4x materialists hate because they have been brainwashed by classical physics, the study of the big. The hate comes from being lied to. Trillionaires like Rockefeller and all the other billionaires teach classical physics still because they make trillions of dollars from it.
A religious person believing everything they read from a book is trying to put people on blast for believing what they've read in books. You can't make this stuff up. I can't believe a religious person is using the word brainwashing unironically. Religion is literal brainwashing.
Konidias Evidence for God's existence has been proven in this channel. This is the first step. The second is th choice of religion. And you haven't whatsoever argued against
Every time I'm confronted with the medical world, I'm tempted by thoughts of materialism. My mom had a stroke yesterday. Your video helped me to fight off despair today after visiting her in the hospital. Thank you, and please don't stop what you do.
I'm sorry about your mom. Hang in there. God knows your pain, and even when you feel alone. Don't be afraid to reach out for help if need be.
@@faithemerson6897 Thanks. Yeah, it's definitely strengthened my prayer life these past few weeks.
@@burkhardschmorell3973 Hardship will do that. I've been through a lot of doubts and questioning my faith, and all it has done is make me more confident in the reliability of the Bible and God's sovereignty over my life.
I'll mention that my dad died when I was 7. I want to reassure you with the words my mom said to me that night in the hospital. They had always told me "God uses all things for the good of those who love Him". That night, after my dad died, I looked at my mom and I asked her "What good could God make out of this?"
She told me, "If you don't let your heart become bitter, and you let Him use you, He will use it for good, and you will see it". I want to encourage you in the same way. Don't let your heart become bitter. God will use absolutely anything you're willing to give Him. Even a broken heart and a seemingly desolate and hopeless situation.
My mom was right. I got to see how God could use me, in my situation, less than 24 hours later, and it's been a driving factor within my worldview since then. I can tell you the whole story if you feel it would encourage you, but what I want you to take away from this is that NO MATTER what happens with your mom, or anything else in your life, God LOVES you - YOU - tremendously. He allows things to happen in our lives not because He hates us or is angry with us, or wants us to suffer, but because we live in a broken world. But He knows that those situations, the hard ones in the midst of brokenness, are sometimes where WE, as the ones hurting, can best reach others who don't know Him yet. A Christian on their worst day still has more hope than someone who doesn't know Christ, on their bear. He will never ever send you into a battle alone. He is before you, and behind you, and beside you. Our darkness is an opportunity to shine our light even brighter. People notice when you do that.
So don't feel shame when you are buffeted with doubts, and fear, and uncertainty about the future. That's normal. But don't bury it, because if you do it will grow. Lean into it, because, while it hurts, it won't last forever. Give it to the Lord and tell Him the same thing King Jehoshaphat told God in his hopeless situation, in 2 Chronicles 20:12 "We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on You."
I'll be praying for you and your family. On a final note, remember this. If your mother knows the Lord, no matter what happens with her health now, when she dies she will go to be with the Lord, and you will see her again. And someday I will get to see my dad again. And then the four of us can meet each other and praise the Lord for all His goodness. That will be a wonderful day.
God bless you, my brother in Christ. Feel free to respond to this comment thread any time you need someone to talk to.
We live in a simulation! This life is a test, it is only a test
@@burkhardschmorell3973 dude you should look into his videos on near death experiences and consciousness
Your videos have exploded in Spanish too, theres many apologetics channel translating them, people are studying all your videos and going through the sources carefully. Amazing how much impact you're having IP.
Where can I find these videos in Spanish?
This was brilliant and really well done. A great overview of idealism and beautiful arguments for the qualitative subjective experience of reality such as love, altruism, beauty, bravery, morals, ethics, meaning, purpose, creativity, music, imagination that is the poetic nature of mind and consciousness....
“The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.” (G.K. Chesterton). ❤️
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros probably in one of his books. not sure.
That's very unfortunate as these videos are poorly researched and filled with the uploaders preferred opinions.
@@CesarCloudsrefute them
When you said "Space and matter are illusions of our conscious observation" it reminded me of something my son said. My little boy, who has just turned 7, came downstairs last night and said "what if space is all just inside of our head". I hope he never changes and continues to ponder these things as he gets older.
Maybe your kid is an old.soul
If space is inside our head, then where is our head?
@@ipwntehn0obz, nowhere. Mind-blown. 🤯
Correct. Space is an allegory that the occultist elite use for the spirit world and the realm of transcendence
Oh shut up Kristen he did not say that.
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence".- Nikola Tesla
P.S. Realy interesting videos, i was looking for this side of sience for a long time... Therefore, I am glad that there are planty of spiritual scientists! Greetings and God bless you all.
@Ордет ....Pomaže Bog....
Siritual scientist.. . Nice oxymoron, thank you for the good joke.
@@fuatakca3169 poor baby ..
Tesla was just confused about physical vs observable... or maybe he was particularly enthusiastic about Social science (Linguistics, Politics, Psychology and Sociology these are definitely non physical).
If you replace 'non physical' with 'non observable', there was indeed great progress in studying 'non observable' abstractions such as spacetime, reference frame, wavefunction... oh wait Tesla doesn't believe in special relativity or quantum physics or electrons either LOL
@@fuatakca3169 you are still asleep bro, you are a newtonian scientist
if a tree falls and no one is around to observe it, its a wave function
If no one at all is around/or was ever around to observe it...how the fuck do YOU know it fell???...
@@glynemartin Because the tree itself is conscious to a low degree.
@@TheRojo387 Then an observer was around, so the claim that 'no one' (no observer) was around would be false...
@@glynemartin That is, because the tree IS the observer.
@@TheRojo387 ...and therefore "someone' was around. Microbes and bacteria were around too i'm sure. That no one was around is a stretch...
I've probably watched this video for like 50 times. In addition to these topics, I've researched almost everything you can think of, NDE's, LOA, Precognition, Telepathy, Past Lives, OOB, etc. etc. etc. It feels like no matter how much evidence we are presented with we just don't want to believe that this is a spiritual world. Like we're under a spell of some kind.
The spell I would say is a strong form of culturally ingrained conditioning. I watched this video years ago and I am only coming back to it because I’ve been researching about “Analytical Idealism”. It’s main proponent is a guy called Bernardo Kastrup, you should look him up if you haven’t already. His main thesis is that consciousness is primary, and matter is merely the contents of it. He has logical arguments but also refers to the latest theories and experiments in science. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the metaphysics, like I can logically understand it, but I can’t mentally visualize it if you get me. This is I think the spell you speak of, we’ve been so conditioned to uncritically believe in materialism that it’s difficult to consider any alternatives.
@@secondchance598 Yes, it's the race belief, that keeps creeping up on us. And yes i have heard of him, but he is an interpreter of these ideas and not somebody who is actually a physicist and therefore we cannot quote him for evidence. We need to prove to the world that consciousness precedes matter. After that we have to make it practical (what does it mean for the average Joe? how can he improve his life and achieve his goals with that.) Bottom line is practicality, to improve the quality of this human experience.
@@earthculture214 hmmm from my knowledge of his credentials, I think he is qualified enough to be quoted as much as anyone else. And yes, I agree, the practical implementations must be a focus is this paradigm shift is to ever be influential. Psychologically speaking, I know from personal experiences that when I do internalize this metaphysics, all of my material problems become contextualized in a grander perspective. They don’t become easier to deal with, it’s just my inner will to overcome them becomes stronger in a sense. They don’t seem as daunting of hurdle because now I know there is so much more to existence. It’s hard to actually explain this sensation come to think of it lol. But yes I do feel as tho many people would benefit from this shift in perspective, especially the western world.
And that the spiritual world is more real that what we believe to be “real”!
Turn the table of the burdon to proof.
Example: Jesus miracles are witnessed by his desiples, random ppl all over the place, state-elites, lawyers, high-priests and also gentails and therefore became fact.
If an athist claim that is a lie, He has to proof that it is a lie. That is how it works... on trail/court he would go to jail for accusing some of lying and deformation without providing evidence to undermine his statment.
Wow. Almost every single comment on here is by an Atheist trying to grapple with the insane amounts of cognitive dissonance that comes with being an Atheist. You're doing great InspiringPhilosophy, they hate your videos because they can't accept them, and it bothers them that they cannot refute your points.
***** What the fuck do you know about quantum mechanics? Do you know what the founder of it said? Now what of Lawrence Krauss? Lol. Everybody has not a single clue of what's going on. Everyone just want to believe in something. As stupid as a theist can claim that there is a God, it equally as stupid as an atheist concluding that there isn't, based on science. Science is science, folks.
***** First of all how do you know theists grapple with cognitive dissonance more than atheists? Don't make such assertions without statistics which I doubt you have.
Second is an argument from authority, which is a fallacy where someone says that some smart people do/don't believe that so why should you believe the contrary. Completely ignoring any evidence they may/may not have.
DerickTherving Just dropping in to share my experience, when I went from being a christian to an atheist, the crushing cognitive dissonance it'd been experiencing for years suddenly vanished. It hasn't returned.
There's no conflicting beliefs. I believe things to the degree to which they can be demonstrated. What's the issue?
Starpilot149 Maybe the issue is about someone else who is not your exact copy, hence would navigate through reasons in a different way.
DerickTherving Excellently put my friend.
Another important point to realize is that this argument does not imply a single terminal cosmic consciousness that is collapsing all subsequent chains of collapse. It does, in fact, imply an infinite regress of collapsing entities, if you accept its logic. The idea that there must be a single "super collapser" is not a prediction of the argument, and to just say "an infinite chain is impossible so it must end in a single collapser" is a non-sequitur because it is not, in fact, impossible to have an infinitely long chain. Furthermore, the idea that there could even _be_ a "single super collapser" at the start of the collapsing chain violates the premise of the proposition, which is that you need an observer to collapse you to bring you into existence, because then the question becomes "Well, what is collapsing the Super-Collapser?"
Like I said in my other comment, the explanation is not that "you don't exist until you're observed into reality". Instead, it's that matter exists in a superposition until its wave function is collapsed, which is exactly what QM says (and not that it doesn't exist until it's observed). This is critical to get right because when understood properly it cannot lead to the conclusions IP is trying to marshal here.
No if there is a necessity for a beginning of the universe, then there must be a first cause. This has shown itself to be a causal relationship. The law is causality does not say that every thing requires a cause. It says that every effect requires an antecedent cause. A first, uncaused, cause is not only necessary but it's required for a beginning because if there was only pure potentiality, there would never be anything actual. There needs a force of direction and cause for something to come into being. A God who is self existent and eternal which brings everything into being, violates no law of logic, but rather fulfills them.
@@garretttekampe9564 The first question is why do you think there _must_ be a first cause? Why can there not be an infinite regress? Why is it impossible? What contradiction is there?
The second question is what evidence or metaphysical argumentation - or just why - do you think it is the God of your spiritual belief that is the first cause instead of just some other non-God natural phenomenon? Why do you think it has to be a God?
@@superdog797 because of the definition of the law I think. Every effect must have an antecedent cause. Going backwards you're not going to find an infinite number of effects that warrant causes. It doesn't make any sense. The law requires it to begin the chain of causes and effects starting with an uncaused cause. That's why I say it's God. Because by necessity, the first cause needs to be self existent. Something that depends on nothing for is own existence. It would need to be eternal and uncaused in order to bring about origin of the universe. The God we believe in is all of those things. It's a fact that the universe had an origin. There has not been only material for an infinite existence and that's been known by everyone in the field for 100 years so if there was a beginning there must have been a first cause by necessity. If there was ever a time when there was nothing. There would still be nothing.
You can't have a beginning and infinite regress. That's a contradiction.
@@superdog797 sorry. the real answer to your question is that for anything to exist at all, something must have the power of being within itself. In an infinite regress, nothing actually is self existent and has the power of being to begin the causal relationships of matter. No material has the power of being within itself. This is a plain fact that you can not get around.
Great news! My video "Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism" now has 'Chinese Simplified' captioning. So you can send it to friends who speak Chinese. Check it out here: Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
Very nice ***** do you have the English script? so I can send you the Spanish and Portuguese subs. I am finishing the Spanish subtitles for the Worst Objection to Theism, and I have already sent you the Portuguese ones by e-mail.
Ponto de Vista Cristão verdadeiro yes I'll email that to you tonight.
***** I like this video, but one question: do you follow a religion? (I know this is off topic.)
I just find it difficult to label myself as anything and a lot of the times I'm agnostic or a deist, when it's the max lol.
Another question, where do you see Hameroff and Penrose's theory going in the next few years?
Bryan Hall Yes, I am a Christian, and a follower of Christ :)
I actually agree with Henry Stapp over Hameroff and Penrose. But I like a lot of the ideas.
***** okie :) I like Hameroff and Penrose lol. Idk who Henry Stapp is. I guess I don't like labeling myself because of the conflict of things that can come with Christianity in my mind. I don't mind Christians, I was one myself (and still think of myself as such for the morals and stuff that are good) I just find it extremellyyyy difficult with the ideas of Hell which at a lot of points I just decide to live as a human being lol.
I feel like this is unintentionally a really strong evidence for God
Depends on your definition of god.
It looks very intentional. That’s the main conclusion of the vid. Still compelling tho
@@a13xdunlop Why?
@@jarroddavid8352 because the definitions are very different.
Yes. Absolutely infinite creative intelligence flowing in and through All things (whether as waves/ ideas or things and experience of those things) for This infinite creative intelligence is us, in us and we are in it. As we observe ourselves with it we are "entangled" even if thinking we are separate from it (ourselves). The same thing for Manifestation, all Possibilities exists, and it is going beyond the barrier of "physicality" that we are to realize that we are/have already that which we want and need. And through infinite existence and observation it exists within the world of effects, as we observe it to already be existing.
Truly fascinating for a non physicist. I do not think it definitively answers all of its profound questions. But it surely inspires me to want to explore the themes more fully.
"There once was a man who said: "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."
The topic of this limerick and the following one is George Berkeley's philosophical principle, "To be is to be perceived".
"Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd:
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by
Yours faithfully - God."
Jesus said "... have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
And again, "So he is the God of the living, not the dead, for they are all alive to him.”
And again, "In Him we live and move and have our being".
Explain
My problems with multiverse are very similar to my problems with time travel, in that they both extrapolate a wild fantasy scenario from a few mundane observations, alleging to explain these observations, without even fleshing the idea out to the point where it could explain anything.
Multiverse is too redilicious. Think of believers explaining suffering away with the multiverse? what if God created countles universes that are perfect hedonistic paradises and just one world slightly different where He allows evil also to contest. And tests the souls giving them change to prove they love their fellow being and are willing to suffer for the good/ truth sake, causing them to gain glory in after life. Can you really say God cant do this in just 1 of the infinet multiverses?
Interesting. I feel basically the same way about theism/deism.
@@wet-read Except that it takes much more faith to believe that the complexity we see came from nothingness driven by random chance
@@themusicman669 lol yea exactly. atheism is a cult, im glad i left it
God doesn't have infinite processing power, just keep probability as zeros and ones @@Hbmd3E
And God looked upon his creation and saw that it was good
Looking is creating ;) aum namah shivaya
BILL GATES???
@OOPS The Infinty Being. Jesus-Christ proven himself to be the perfect image of God. The infinity being actually care for us and came down on earth. Isn't that exciting ?
@OOPS LOL, proove it. I really want to hear you on this one.
@OOPS Oh we are talking about the same being called GOD then. So what's your point ?
Science has not buried God, it revealed him and wit it buried materialism
That's line is wow
I love science and god
Now I feel guilty about watching funny cat videos on UA-cam. I should study more, science is very interesting.
If you think this is fascinating go watch "quantum eraser experiment" ;)
You shouldn't feel guilty about watching cat videos. You were "observing" cats and so made cats real, don'tcha know.
@@alicemiller4298 Thanks Alice!
Lol you suck xd
@@tiaan7032 whats that
15:14 - "The eyes of The Lord are everywhere, observing both the evil and the good." - Proverbs 15:3
:-D
There may be a god but not one made in man's image. So fuck religion.
@@spiritualopportunism4585 On the contrary, we are made in the image of God
@@user-le9ej2nh5i in respect to the attributes
Just ran across this. I am a channel supporter and I am glad to see, though I should have known, you've been banging away at this for so long. Much respect.
@frank dunleavy
Sorry, I missed this:
In reply to his objection I would facepalm*. Once again Gary Edwards not only shows his stupidity but immaturity.
The modal ontological argument relies on philosophical possible worlds and is purely an a priori argument. This argument relies on physics and what is possible within physics. The MWI is about actual concrete splitting happening with the study of physics, not metaphysical possible worlds, which are just logical constructs of the actual world, not actual existing worlds like the MWI says they would be. In metaphysics a vast majority of possible worlds are possible because they are just logical constructs, not actual existing worlds like modal realism would say. His entire argument is based on an equivocation fallacy and show his ignorance. One can accept there are a vast majority of logical constructs of the actual world (not existing anywhere other than in logic) and reject these are actual concrete worlds splitting in the actual world. The guy is just desperate to escape the argument. There is good reason he is blocked from my channel, because of his immaturity and direct insults. I refuse to put up with it as it is just an attempt for attention. I hope that helps.
IP raythink is really getting out of hand
Thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look and see what you mean in a title bit.
frank dunleavy However, since the MOA is a priori and only relies on possible world semantics (logical constructs of the actual world). then there is not a problem because it puts the conclusion in context:
if a MGB exists in some worlds then the MGB exists in all possible worlds
if a MGB exists in all possible worlds then the MGB exists in the (logical construct of the) real world
if a MGB exists in exists in the (logical construct of the) real world then the (most logical conclusion is that a) MGB exists
therefore the MGB exists (if we accept what logic tells us)
The conclusion is not in any a posteriori sense. It is only a logical conclusion.
***** The conclusion and the first premise are necessarily A Posteriori. You should read Forgie J. On the Modal Ontological Argument.
Godss Cumm God's possibility is metaphysical, but as Kripke but that still doesn't mean possible worlds exist in a concrete sense. Furthermore, possible worlds are metaphysical, and the MWI would be the actual world. Even if David Lewis was right and modal realism is true, that is still not the MWI. They are similar but still different in distinct ways. To equate them is fallacious and even more to equate the MWI with possible world semantics as I have used them. Gary Edwards, who claims to be a philosopher, should of known this. The fact that he doesn't shows his ignorance or an attempt to bewilder others with propaganda.
An interesting point/perspective has occurred to me: what is the outcome of God (Spirit and immaterial) observing (immaterial) matter, now known to be immaterial?
Equilibrium?
Being itself?
Oneness with God?
The goal?
The overall objective of His entrance into humanity?
"Abide in me as I abide in you." - John 15:4
You have blew me away, I as m astonished with the level of effort knowledge passsion and faith have injected in this video... Great work man, it'd indulging!
Your analysis of 'reality', and how it might work, with an actual, Creator/Designer, (God), is absolutely fascinating. You seem to really grasp the concepts of science...and how God can fit into a reality He created. Quite interesting. Quite logical. Quite plausible. Keep up the good work. I share your videos with friends who are like minded...and they too, are dumbfounded by your insight. I am impressed for sure. Keep it up...your work intrigues me.
Science does not fit into religion in any way shape or from and anyone saying otherwise is lying tot themselves and willfully ignorant
Can you make a separate video debunking solipsism?
I don't care if the world is flat or round, as long as I don't fall off.
Awesome video! Its difficult to believe with the mountain of evidence supporting Idealism and QIT that more ppl are not aware of this .Keep the vids coming.
Well said! Bernardo Kastrup is pretty good when it comes to debating materialists and has some good arguments for idealism and the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness. ❤️
+Matthew Sahagian It's silly to draw a distinction between the two. If the stuff everyday stuff is made of isn't real, then the stuff made of that illusory stuff isn't either.
It doesn't matter in the slightest that it looks real to us.
It's silly to draw a distinction between the two. If the stuff everyday stuff is made of isn't real, then the stuff made of that illusory stuff isn't either.**
It is a silly argument when someone deny what "God created" as actual that can be seen and touch ....You and IP as 3 dimensional human is not an illusion,anyone who deny the actual existence is just a mad person and what about the one who make an argument to prove on it the existence of God?
mathematician and those who make claim to know about so called quantum stuff are liars and theirs work is based on guesses.
TheBattistaGiovanni Zeilinger claims to know, and his work is based on experiments, and he's not a liar. And we can see and touch things inside the Matrix or a lucid dream too.
*****
Zeilinger claims as you said are "claims" only assertions...there is no experiment and never was to prove even a single "subatomic particle" ever, if you can point an experiment, even one that can prove any of subatomic particle on your choice as actual then please point to it.
mathematicians who mix two subject the physics and math are deceivers.
The physics (that deal with 3 dimensional objects only) and math (that deal with numbers on chalkboard so it is not physic at all)thus their claims of so called quantum are false.
We as rational human distinguish between lucid dream so called matrix and actual life and it indicate you are pointing to a false notion to support your agenda.
and what about this matrix...is it actual?
Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,' who was, and is, and is to come."
TheBattistaGiovanni
Look if you have a problem with realism being falsified either prove the existence of tachyon particles or take it here: arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294
Either way you'll get the Nobel Prize.
"We as rational human distinguish between lucid dream so called matrix and actual life"
Really how so? Have you solved the problem of induction beyond the 1st person?
"and what about this matrix...is it actual?"
Wrong question. The right question is "do I distinguish between 'actual' and 'virtual?'"
*****
No one can falsify/reject/deny what is actual, the simple test for it that it's 3 dimensional ..it doesn't need any observer because of self-evident.
tachyonic particle is a "hypothetical particle"means imaginary like a ghost and the guy in the Quantum Randi Challenge is just talking shit before going to any conclusion he must first prove that light is made of 3D particles so his all imaginary test/experiments are based on assertion, he is the typical mathematicians whom invented mathematical "objects".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_object
Nobel Prize.**
Huh! like the one Obama has for peace and Peter Higgs for imaginary Higgs?
"distinguish between lucid dream"
Really how so?**
Magic princess of lucid dreams never become actual may we all agree on it:-)
1st person?
Any actual 3D dimensional object or existence doesn't need any person/observer and the problem of induction is already solved that we can not predict what will happen in future because we do not create future.
Wrong question. The right question is "do I distinguish between 'actual' and 'virtual?'"
Huh...yes we all distinguishes ....actual = that has length width and height.
virtual : imaginary, a concept ,that is not actual like a black hole that supposedly suck everything or dark matter yet it is known to be matter but it also dark and invisible too.etc
Very very interesting. One question though, why is it that everyone experiences the same material reality upon observing the same space/thing at the same time, if reality is dependent upon a conscious observer? Is it that consciousness controls reality? Or is it that there is some kind of fundamental "reality," or at least a most probable reality within the wavelength, which exists as potential energy or information until being observed, similar to how an environment in a video game exists always as coded information but isn't "rendered" until observed?
Edit: What are the implications of God not being "separate" from us? I thought that we were supposed to be beings independent of God, made from His essence but ultimately distinct entities with our own eternal minds, consciousness, etc. So, does his omniscience only extend to what we and other living things see? If so, is that by His own choice or by definition? If by definition, I'm not sure that it qualifies as omniscience, because if God is outside of our time and space, he should be able to observe it as a whole. But, perhaps this observation happening *outside* our reality is what keeps things as a wave function until we observe it. OR, it may appear as a wave function prior to observation to us, but it doesn't appear as a wave function to God.
No one DOES experience the same reality
Reality is subjective.
For the first part I think it would be that when someone collapses the wave function it stays collapsed and other minds experience it already collapsed so reality is almlst experiencied the same for everyone. But it is just an assumption.
@@lockandloadlikehell if that were true no one would be able to interact and cooperate. Everyone lives their life behaving with the implicit assumption of objective reality and our shared ability to more or less precieve it accurately
"God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal...and awakens in man."
- Ibn al 'Arabi
The immortal spirit of God, Passion, is the seed of all living things; All living things defined as being everything that exists in the material sense of the word.
God's, Immortal Spirit, Passion, sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal...and awakens in man."
So say "I", Hermes Trismegistus; Keeper of the Holy Grail-->0, Lord of the Ring--->0; Ye, Amen, Ra.
Nice, I like that. Thanks for sharing.
What a ride it has been the last 10 years with ibn al ‘Arabi. My tears smell the roses he passed. How unfortunate are those who have not crossed his path. His prophecy about the last believer is underway.
*breathes in plant and dreams in animal
Alchemy so all them people years and years ago made a discovery about the nature of the universe that modern science through quantum mechanics is now just catching up with !!!!!
If I was stumbling through the dark in a room I had never been in..and I trip and hit my head on a table I've never seen....how would it exist?
+carpo719 measurement is more than "seeing." It is about all your senses.
***** That makes no sense. (no pun intended... :D ...... )
The idea presented is that nothing exists until it is observed.
If that was true, why can one fall into a pit in the middle of the night? Or hit their head on an overhanging rock in a cave?
How do they exist when never observed? It just sounds preposterous to me personally. I try to understand it though.
carpo719 Well first off, it doesn't not exist until observed, it is not physical until it is observed. The underlying information is still there.
***** How can the 'information' be there is it has never been observed?
If you trip in a dark cave and crack your head on a rock, then stumble out into the light....you are still bleeding.
Does the rock not exist because you never observed it?
The whole idea sounds silly.
How does the 'underlying information' appear without one to observe it?
carpo719 Think of it like this: When you play a video game, does the world inside the game exist when it is not turned on? Yes, the information is still there, but the but the appearance of the world doesn't exist until you turn it on and play. Think of our world like this: ua-cam.com/video/ZVl1Hmth3HE/v-deo.html
Reality is a figment of Gods imagination
So therefore there is no problem of Creatio Ex Nihilio.
The existence of God is necessary if-and-only-if one wishes to include minds other than their own within their ontology. Under a Solipsistic model, or the belief that only your mind exists, no God is necessary and the individual mind or observer takes the position of God in and of themselves.
@@IndustrialMilitia But that would mean someone has to watch the universe in order for it to function. So there is a god
@@jetpost No, it doesn't mean that not when you likewise introduce Nihilism such that all entities in existence ultimately reduce to the same entity and all entities that we consider to be unique or independent are in actuality mere subjectivity created representations of the same entity. That entity ultimately being the Subject or the total mind of the Solipsistic entity.
@@jetpost It's just Kant without the Noumenonal World. All representations of entities, including both other consciousness and your own self consciousness, are merely empirical representations and the true Solipsistic mind is the pure act of thinking that is presupposed by all experience of such representations.
So.. This video has nothing to do with Christianity and yet, there some guy in the comment who bought up Noah's flood. Damn, that atheist logic is just beyond me !
***** LOL, yep....
Quantum Physics proves the Bible.
Quantum Physics proves the Bible? Amen. MWI is a fact, sorry.
@@johnhenjum6610 Dear American You do realise that there are like trillion religions along with the same number of philosophical viewpoints, out there and that the world is not split in the bipolar Bible vs atheism don't you??
Are you saying you actually believe there was a global flood and that we all descended from the three sons of just one guy?
2:06 dude this isnt what happens. When you look at a particle, even if you can't see it, your exerting a force upon it by means of photon packet bombardment in order to see it. It doesn't actually care if we look at it or not, thats such an egotistical view.
Why don’t the rooms other photons affect the result? Shouldn’t a lamp do the same thing?
Awesome video! It sounds very similar to what they did in "no man's sky", they created an insane virtual universe but it is only processing a locality when there is a player nearby which in turn would imply intelligent design for our universe as well as it is a very similar concept being applied to each one.
So God wrote the algorithm that allows our observation to generate the reality locally.
what type of "observation device was used in the double slit experiment?
Observation devices can be anything from photographic film to silicon photodiodes. Note that all devices are made out of atoms and the only time we see the "particle" nature of light is when it interacts with a particle. There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics because what's actually going on 'under the hood' to cause the experimental results is still up to interpretation. Once we've got quantum gravity, then simplify it over 100 years we might have the answer.
@@lineslines1344 can't believe there's still people asserting there's some kind of physical interaction......simply haven't seen or doesn't understand the mechanics behind the DCQE...
The notion that quantum mechanics debunks materialism is based around a misconception that observer = sentient observer.
"Observer" in quantum physics doesn't mean sentient observer. It just means something interacting with it.
Our focus is a sentient being
@@LoveConsciousness080 ????
it has nothing to do with sentience or focus and everything to do with interaction, interaction between photons and other materials for example.
@@astralgod6448 it’s funny because one could make the argument that it does have something to do with consciousness *if* you hold to the many worlds interpretation. This so happens to be an interpretation which IP has staunchly advocated against in the past
@@lebecccomputer287 I mean sure that's one interpretation, but it has nothing to do with the science. Observer≠ sentience at least in quantum mechanics.
People who use arguments like these usually misinterpret the science (most likely because of the wording of these subjects). It's esentially r/badphilosophy in a nutshell.
Also, be careful with this person's videos because he seems to be promoting a religious agenda many times justifying his views with plenty of different scientific misinterpretations
This is my first day visiting your channel. I came over here after watching your recent collaboration with Gavin Ortlund; and I am so glad I did come visit. Thank you for this great content.
Could the instrument used to do the observing in the double slit experiment not be what affects the particle?
If so then it's not a choice of the particle to act as a wave, it's being effected it such a way that it becomes one.
Is it also possible that particles move on a wave as such?
No. There have been numerous controlled experiments to test this very question. "Ghost" measuring devices were put in place (same device, but with no capacity to store or even translate data). Result? Wave pattern. Replace with device that can internally store the photon data, particle pattern. Mirrors were also used. In this case photons were split by a crystal immediately prior to entering either slit A or B. The mirrors were positioned in such a way that it could be determined (i.e., observed) whether the photon entered through slit A or B based on which mirror was hit according to the angle the photon traveled. Result? A particle pattern. Next, scientists modified the position of the mirrors so that "which way" the photon entered the slits could not be identified at all (photon impact on one mirror or the other was totally random). Result? Wave pattern. Utterly creepy.
Physicists tried them all. But if you found a way, $1M are await for you. Who's know.
With all the logical conclusions you offer and best knowledge of quantum physics materials you have , it is the best ever lecture I have ever read Thank you
I would be interested in seeing some of Thomas Aquinas's philosophy regarding potentiality and actuality applied to quantum physics.
Look into Wolfgang Smith. He does exactly that.
I think Schopenhauer's Will and representation fits QM quite nicely
That was very interesting. The conversations in the comment section are way over my head. i need to do more study on this subject to even begin to understand it. Thanks and Blessings.
Reasons to Believe. org and Michio Kaku book Hyperspace ;)
Rusty Hansen www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
AlbinosaurusR3X The Popes were not Followers of Christ. When Constantine established the "Church", he did it after his heart not Gods commands. Rewriting history is what people like those that made this site do. They are Lucifer worshipers.
Yes that church persecuted many, including those that wrote the bible in a language the common ,man could read. The Devil is a great imposter.
Hahaha, this is why I love you theists so much. You're so adorably ridiculous. "This was a black mark on our history, so we'll just deny it was our fault." No responsibility.
AlbinosaurusR3X Ask yourself, Were they doing what Christ told them to do? If you actually read the Bible you would see they are not. It would be the same has me saying i'm an atheist. A lie is a lie.
The subliminal trick done here is that the video is conflating "conscience observer" with "observation/measurement" in quantum physics. Words matter.
LightSource 🙏 thank you for this. It is very frustrating to hear people make this false equivalency.
ua-cam.com/video/qB7d5V71vUE/v-deo.html
Bob Smith This study only proves that our minds have an effect on the world, when we focus our thoughts we can fundamentally change the physical plane, it doesn’t mean that animals and other things don’t have that ability either. Maybe the birth of the universe was an already deceased or unknown being that was born billions of years ago. The idea that only humanity can affect the world cause our consciousness is different from any other is just stupid. This doesn’t prove your god or the video dipshit.
Bob Smith science doesn’t lean towards consciousness being the creator of everything, that’s your own flawed biased warping your understanding. Disprove what I said or at least make some semblance of an argument. I’m not going to any extremes, humanity isn’t as special as you think it is, we’re one small part of a much greater mystery. Science is showing us that our mind holds great power because we can understand and think of things differently from other animals in our environment but we don’t know how life in other planets affect their environment using this same ability, it could be amazing what they accomplish and what we could accomplish if we harness this power somehow instead of focusing on outdated ideologies that only work to delay our destiny.
Bob Smith When the brain perceives that it is dying it releases a mixture of chemicals which are psychedelic, DMT, Adrenochrome, etc. These chemicals ease you into death and make you see what you desire to see, sometimes it’s loved ones, sometimes it’s a paradise, it’s different for everyone, that’s why so many people, when they experience a near death experience, see such vivid visions. My argument is that a sole creature doesn’t have to be perceived to be born, when it gained the ability to “see” the universe, the primordial chaos of uncertainty that was said universe became a concrete existence because it was perceived, like Schrödinger’s Cat, before this point the universe was in a state of constant flux between being one thing or another simultaneously, the fact of this original conscious thing perceiving the universe fundamentally changed it and made it possible for the universe to be what we view it as today.
The double slit experiment has no effect on materialism. This idea is stemming from a misconception of the observer effect. Single electrons are easily influenced, quantum systems are fragile. We detect the electron by bouncing photons off it, which interferes with how it behaves.
It has nothing to do with us, as conscious entities, seeing it. But the effect the detector has on the behavior of the system.
It is not known what the electron is doing when it is not observed, and it cannot be said to not exist before it is observed. All we have is the calculation that accurately depicts the probabilities of where it could be at a given moment.
I only start with the two-slit experiment. I give so much more evidence after that. Also when two photons interact they will cause collapse, but that is only because it is connected back to conscious observer who collapsed that one and set it out. This creates a von Neumann chain, where when one photon is measured by another they entangle, which is what Bohr pointed out mathematically years ago. If one particle measures another it inherits part of it wave function, so to speak, and the particle which is suppose to be measured cannot be fully explained without it, so you need another measuring device to collapse that one to definite state and so on and so on. This creates a chain of material objections in a superposition of measurement. You keep going back until you get to something outside the system, a conscious observer. On top of that advocates of the decoherence project, that interaction will cause collapse without the conscious observer admit this cannot fully explain why there is collapse. It cannot derive the Born Rule and explain why there is only one definite outcome. Even in "Preferred states, predictability, classicality and the environment-induced decoherence" Zurek refers to the observer being involved in the ultimate collapse. Interaction stems back from an observer's "Heisenberg choice" to quote Henry Stapp. That is how we can derive the Born Rule and get one actual outcome from the possibilities.
//I only start with the two-slit experiment.//
Yes and the conclusion you draw based on it is rubbish. It clearly shows how badly your grasping at straws to provide a falsification for materialism.
Phynos This clearly shows how little you know of this. You fail to remember I said the conclusion is inescapable when going over the violation of Leggett's inequality, confirmation of the Kochen-Specker theorem, the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, and the violation of the Leggett-Garg inequality. So materialism could of barely survived if all I had was the double-slit, but I clearly did not just use that.
HI IP. Could you explain why an observer must be conscious? Isn't an observer just a physical thing that interacts with the particle being measured?
No, analytic idealism does not entail a “god” in any theistic sense. It just means that consciousness is fundamental. This could be interpreted as panpsychism or many other things. In B. Kastrups idealism it entails a universal “field” of consciousness of which we each are dissociated parts (and biology is what this ‘type’ of consciousness looks like from across the dissociative boundary). This universal mind-field is not a “god” in any traditional sense, in fact, in that theory humans are probably the most cognitively evolved “corners” or dissociated parts/patterns of the field. Rocks and stars (representing other parts of the universal conscious field seen from across the dissociate boundary) don’t appear to be very metacognitive in nature, in fact they appear to be behaving very mechanically or ‘instinctive’, hence the regularity of the laws of nature. So the greater universal mind is pretty basic, much more simple than even the dumbest cockroach. There are many other theories out there. Point is there is absolutely no logical ground to derive a “god” in a judeo-christian sense from idealism. If anything, the most logically sound contenders have more in common with ‘Eastern’ and other mystic and animistic traditions.
Yes there is, God does exist and we can see that he exists through what he has created
@@koasucks That's ridiculous. People or groups of people have created religions all throughout history for various reasons and it's idiotic to think you're right about a specific god when all of them have an equal amount of having no evidence.
@@koasucks what we see created is Yahweh's creation. yahweh leads people to the demiurge's trap. This world is corrupt because it worships yahweh . Christian dogma and catholic , orthodox churches merged El Elyon and Yahweh together , causing great confusion and suffering. That y Jesus was sent by Father to fix Yahweh's mess, for we can escape the demiurge and Yahweh and go to the Monad(El Elyon). El made creation in Genesis 1, genesis 2 Yahweh got jealous and made Adam and Eve and the earth we live on right now. Yahweh punishes destroys sends lying spirits, kills, and is quiet bi -polar. Father is perfect truth and no error or evil. Jesus father is not Yahweh. Jesus contradicted Yahweh and told the the jews you are of your father the devil, he was a murderer since the beginning. There was no truth in him, he is the father of lies. Jesus said no one has seen his Father nor has heard his father. Jesus said My Father is not same as your's.
Wake up#
The beautiful thing about it all is, once you naturalists begin to lose, you have nowhere to go. There's obviously only one God (whether the Muslims, Christians, or Jews have the best revelation of Him being beside the point). Every other religion, from taoism to pagan nonsense, is self-defeating.
But since you refuse to believe in Him, neither will He believe in you; and POOF, as the video suggests, you'll be gone. Repent now.
WOW ! great presentation. one of the very best ive heard on the subject.
Observer: ------ nah
Wave check:------ yeah
Poyo Yong if a wave check was performed then the observation of it would tell you that you have no wave game
15:20 if god looks through us that means that he looks through the animals too so he would know if the cat it's dead or alive right?
Yes, God is omnipotent. He would understand every outcome of every situation. He would understand what exists as a probability wave, what exists as particles, and the results of every action. When in doubt as to whether an omniscient being would know something, err on the side of yes. :)
So here's the thing: Schrodinger's cat, and existence linked to observation have never made one lick of sense to me until the last part of this video. I have always thought these experiments seemed incredibly silly, and the particle measurements had to be due to measuring devices, not our own observation. But that part at the end about God observing what we observe due to the rest not making a difference...wow. That completely re-paints these ideas for me.
This is wonderful, I've been starting to dive into philosophy as philosophy is much like the language of spirituality, and mathematics is the language of science, and science is the study of the physical world, as spirituality is the study of the spiritual world. But quantum physics seems to be a place were these spheres of reality seem to touch, if only for a moment. And the glimpse we can get is extraordinary.
Philosophy is not a language of spirituality. It is the study of knowledge, reality and existence. It is quite literally maths with words. It is highly logical. But yes, a lot of people mistake it as meaning "say whatever random thought pops into your head".
@@davez5201 ya looking back in it probably not the best choice of words, I mean to say that philosophy is like math for reasoning the things if God. Maybe "spirituality" was the wrong word to use to express that though.
@@bushbladesnbows.2378 Tbh, philosophy has nothing to do with God. Some philosophical positions argue for or against God, but God is not central to philosophy. Central to philosophy is logic and reason. LIke I said earlier, it is highly logical. Quite literally formulaic.
"God said, "Let there be light!", and there was light!"
Some men have always known that the mind creates the universe. Now we have physicists knowing it too. The world is waking up to the fact that it but dreams of time, space, death and guilt.
emanrulez1 What mind cannot think?
1971SuperLead mind does not create the universe. It perceives the universe.
1971
'magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light, forming what are called protons and neutrons.' These words come from the book "The Quantum World" written by the physicist Kenneth Ford.
Quarks are the ideas that form us. God is the electromagnetic matrix/unified field that we are saturated with. Creation is constant because the need to create is constant. The word "God" doesn't have to be in the conversation at all.
We are NOT lumps of flesh. We are 100% conscious, highly complicated, brilliant electromagnetic, holographic, multidimensional eternal highly concentrated energy beings. Read these words in the book "Hands of Light' written by the physicist and healer Barbara Brennan.
Awakened
'magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light, forming what are called protons and neutrons.' These words come from the book "The Quantum World" written by the physicist Kenneth Ford.
Quarks are the ideas that form us. God is the electromagnetic matrix/unified field that we are saturated with. Creation is constant because the need to create is constant. The word "God" doesn't have to be in the conversation at all.
We are NOT lumps of flesh. We are 100% conscious, highly complicated, brilliant electromagnetic, holographic, multidimensional eternal highly concentrated energy beings. Read these words in the book "Hands of Light' written by the physicist and healer Barbara Brennan.
I don't understand the backhistory stuff... For example with the double slit... we have single particles hitting the screen.... eventually these single particle hits add up to an interference patter. You say that when a particle is detected we add a backhistory where the particle traveled as a particle. That would mean the interference pattern can be created using single particles moving in classical paths? But just that this is highly improbable? I don't understand. Can you clarify?
Those who have spent a life studying the subject with advanced understanding of mathematics and the tools to test certain ideas are still scratching their heads. I'm inclined to say you are not going to get answers in the near future here either.
This is why I LOVE quantum mechanics. I've long felt and believed that the concious is involved in what we perceive to be reality and it looks like I was right. I don't pretend to fully understand this but it's interesting to see that science is now beginning to look at what in times past would have been considered ridiculous in a more enlightened way rather than simply saying it's impossible and moving on.
Stephen Hawking himself once said that 'The universe is not only stranger than you think, it's stranger than you CAN think'
Consciousness isn’t involved in the collapse of the wave function. This is a misunderstanding that non physicists refuse to let go of. Any interaction with the particle is what causes a state to become well defined. You could throw a completely inanimate and non conscious baseball at it and the same thing would happen
@@lebecccomputer287 can you source me a study about that, or an experiment that supports that conclusion?
@@collefgaoesd my mind has changed because I’m an everettian now. This video is still stupid for other reasons that I don’t feel like arguing about in the comments. It completely misunderstands physics
Again quantum physics misunderstood. In a nut shell atomic particles are in probabilistic state, they can be here or there, until they interact then there wave function collapses, it’s not the observation that collapses the wave function as no human can directly observe an atomic particle, the wave function collapses due to interaction with other particles, that’s why a boulder is a boulder and not a wave function, the detection collapses the wave as any measurement, detection etc...etc relies on interaction. The universe exists independently, we just decode it and make sense of it.
matt gyorgy mr I know shit- how does collapsed wave functions create mass in particle state hot shot?
You saved the universe! Thank you!!!
I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain.
Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
Not a shred of evidence
@@TheGuiltsOfUs it’s not like you proved anything against it. Jump off that high horse before some bannister whacks you off of it
@@TheGuiltsOfUs He's proving consciousness cant be explained or supported by natural laws. Therefore consciousness cannot be a product or emergent property of natural laws.
Consciousness is not found in all animals. Rather few animals such as dolphins and elephants have them. We need to think about the evolutional significance of consciousness. However I don't think consciousness contains no actual purpose. Therefore I think that consciousness is emergent property of the neural networks that enable those animals to select important informations and remember them. It is call episode memory. So the practical aspect of consciousness is to remember important information effectively and phenomenal aspect or sentience is an emergent property of developed neural networks.
@@Gingnose You wrote:”Consciousness is not found in all animals. Rather few animals such as dolphins and elephants have them.”
I think you are confusing self-awareness with consciousness; consciousness is the common property of all our psychical experiences, such as sensations, emotions, thoughts and even dreams. It is a common opinion that also animals have psychical experiences: I am not saying that it is a wrong opinion, but the point is that there is no way to prove that such hypothesis is true, even for dolphins or elephnts. Animals could be only unconscious biological robots. this hypothesis cannot be excluded, so the existence of consciousness in animals is only a matter of personal beliefs.
You wrote:” Therefore I think that consciousness is emergent property of the neural networks that enable those animals to select important informations and remember them. “
My arguments prove that your assumption is wrong (you have provided no counter arguments but you simply ignored my arguments). In fact, an emergent property is a simplied description of underlying processes and an arbitrary abstraction of the actual physical processes.
Therefore, every emergent property requires a conscious mind from which to be conceived.
Therefore, that conceiving conscious mind cannot be the emergent property itself.
Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
I have a question. If something exists only by virtue of my observing it, then can it not exist by someone else observing it, I mean the "world" around us? ie: Does London exist when I'm not observing it (I'm not "there" now as I write this) or does it exist now, at this moment, because others observe, and thus create, it? I would be grateful for an answer. Thanks.
Amazing. I already came across this way of thinking in a book from the 60's called: "nuclear evolution: discovery of the rainbow body" by Christopher Hills. I HIGHLY recommend it, though or is not for beginners.
Edit: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
...
...
...
No... if no one was around, the tree never actually existed as it cannot exist as matter apart from observation.
So you're walking in a forest, and you come across a fallen tree. It's been lying down on the ground for a while, by the look of it ...it's a dead log, starting to crumble a bit, and it's getting hollow, and there's new undergrowth sprouting up around it.
Were you there, to see it or hear it when it fell...? Do you know if anyone was there, to observe it when it fell...?
Maybe somebody was. But in this world ...millions upon millions of trees and lived and died, and then fallen, and ended up as dead logs lying on the ground. Was there somebody there to observe the fall ...fore each and every one of them...?
The tree falling the woods philosophical question, is actually a way of asking whether or not events even happen ...if they're not observed. And a tree falling in the woods, is actually a bad way to frame this question. It doesn't account for any other conscious observers who may have observed it. Does an observer have to be a human...?
What about the furry little forest critters? There's bound to be little eyes and ears all around...
I can't remember where I'm even going with this ...I've lost the plot. But I've always felt the tree in the woods thing, isn't the right way to put it... er...actually ...nah, just ignore all this shit.
@@GerchMod It's exactly like Sims. The trees never "fall" or are even rendered unless someone is observing them. There is no data being streamed until a player is looking. There is no sound because there is no tree falling unless a "hearing observer" observes a falling tree. Then data of a falling tree is being streamed, along with everything else...the sounds etc.
So... what happens, then, when there are no sentient beings? Does the universe take on a fundamentally different sort of composition or something?
Then Wouldn't God be the perpetual observer who holds the world in place?
This is more than my mind can take.
same 😟
Totally agree with you Mind blowing. Materialism is dead!!
Apparently when you are looking for an unobservable, unfalsifiable, pseudo scientific theory for explaining away the undeniable fine tuning in our universe including the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness you will always find one. Hence the multiverse hypothesis!! ❤️
I'll take it one step farther and propose that there's a way for us to consciously pre-determine what "reality" will be when we look.
Of course one of the possible implications of this would be that there is no such thing as a private act - that everything we choose to do and observe produces a cosmological effect. When you keep what is Good, what is True, and what is Beautiful before your mind then you are making the world a better place; when you do evil acts, even if you think that they harm no one, you are actively creating a worse reality.
I liked the video but in some parts you throw around studies without explaining them which could make it hard to follow.
One may argue, with the thought experiment of the cat (like William Lane Craig did) that the cat and what is in the box exist independantly of the observer, which is the exact opposite of what quantum mecanics tells us. Do u have an answer ? Thank u !
R.I.P. materialism: * 1859 +2016
Viva la quanta
Lol
Long live Theism 😃
@@LawrenceB123 Scientists are slowly catching up with theologians.
What happened in 1859?
a measurement doesn't make the matter change. we just still don't understand how it works.
In my opinion, measuring a quanta will not interfere with it. It only make you see a position where it could have been (according to the probability wave) so it ends up here not because you measured it but because it needs to end up somewhere. when the electron is not measured, you only see the interference pattern of the probability wave.
The double slit experiment in the presence of an observer
Electron: I don't think I can
We really do get to participate in Creation! Adam saw differences in animals and began making them according to their differences. Without declaring "this is now a bird", making a word for it brings it to existence linguistically. For that system to reflect visual and audio reality shows the intimate nature between quantum physics and how we play a part in God's universe?
No
SUPERB! absolutely amazing, factful and Empirically linked, loved it!
It's comforting to know our server has such a good admin! 😇
😂
Does this look solid to you?
What are "actual pictures" of atoms actually pictures of?.
Physicist:
Actual pictures of atoms aren’t actually pictures at all.
There are a few good rules of thumb in physics. Among the best is:
light acts like you’d expect on scales well above its wavelength and
acts weird on scales below. In order to take a picture of a thing you
need light to bounce …
The only thing physicists have actually seen is basically a computer
image, not the real image, and second, they observe electric fields,
not the particle itself. They do not observe particles themselves;
they are able to observe only the field. However this alone does not
prove anything, but that the electric energy field exists and that’s
about it---no atoms, no photons, no electrons, no quarks. no nothing.
So no, particles do not exist. Particles exist only inside
mathematical abstractions and nothing more and nothing else. We don’t
know what actually exists in the real world, except that there are
energy fields---electric, magnetic and all other forms and all other
kinds of energy fields.
I forgot to add what exactly is visualized with all these microscopes
including STM--the scanning tunneling microscope. What is visualized
is the charge density of the electric field.
Basically you observe vibrations---electric vibrations.
You haven’t seen an atom either. You’ve seen an image you assume to be
an atom, but it is simply an instrument’s representation of the atom.
It is not the atom itself.
These techniques aren’t actually “visual” like microscopes we work
with in biology classes. Microscopes use lenses and light to help zoom
and focus on small objects. Electron microscopes, on the other hand,
use quantum scattering theory to construct the shape of small objects,
then the data is transferred to a computer to create a model. The
wavelengths of visible light ranges on the order of ~370nm to 750nm.
These are all MUCH larger than many particles of interest (and way too
large to view atoms, which are on the order of Angstroms-0.1nm).
Scientists need to be creative to be able to “see” atoms.
So, no, scanning tunneling microscopes and atomic force microscopes
did not prove the existence of atoms.
David Stunning I think a mass suicide is needed for the progression of science. We’ll just have to find out
@David Stunning this is a simulation my friend it's a video game and the developer designed himself as a character to reveal himself to us 2000 years ago. This is a game and you can totally win it.
Pure energy---That was a really great, simple, and terse explanation for what an electron microscope "sees," and how it actually functions. Thank you for that explanation! I've often wondered how they work, and now it all makes perfect sense to me, (well, at least on a limited basis). So much of what the scientific principles are based on is speculation, yet materialists are so quick to deny the beliefs of, and to denigrate, the Creationists for their faith in believing what can't be seen. Yet, the materialists do exactly the same thing, it seems, with quantum mechanics. How ironic, and yet so pathetic, of them. Peace
@David Stunning Even if it is a simulation, that doesn't mean that killing yourself will necessarily "wake you up." What it will do is spread suffering to those impacted by your suicide. Instead, try and live a good life and help those around you so that all the agents of consciousness in your awareness are made better in some way by your existence, and when it's time, you'll pass away from this world, but that's okay, because you've done good while you were here. Given that's all you knew, if you did the best you could, what more can be asked for, than to accept the ugliness of the world and do good for others?
@@gillbates2685 No, I don't fully understand what scientists do, any more than some scientists who don't understand what the religionists do. But, it certainly parallels, given that both are seeking to understand what is truly the unknowable. Yet, scientists seem to think that because they are using advanced technologies, and they are erudite and studied in their fields, that they are somehow above the religionists in their sapience. The religionists may be unedifyed as to scientific principles and knowledge, but the scientists knowledge of the unqualified and the undiscoverable is equally as inadequate, even in their evaluations and discoveries of the basics of the physical realities; much less of the spiritual, ethereal and the supernal. The two are different disciplines, science and theology, but both are attempts to discover the facts behind the processes, meanings and the causations of our world.
What simply galls me, however, is the arrogance and the pretentions that some scientists, mostly the atheists and naturalists, display in their sarcastic contempt for the religious and thelogian thinkers, as though the scientific materialists are in possession of the only method of obtaining the truths about our reality. Ha! Even though, they have yet to give any reasonable explanations for what the 'life' energy is, or from whence it derives or how it began, or what energy actually is, or light, or a satisfactory explanation for how the creation of the Universe came about, or any of a thousand other attributes of creation. Though the theologians do have, at least, a reasonable facsimile of an answer, that being the Almighty Creator, or God, or whatever appellation one chooses to use. But, at least they have an answer.
Sure, science has made some tremendous advances, but the truth of the matter is, the scientists are still just as ignorant in some areas as they have ever been. In fact, the more they learn about some things, the more that they come to realize that they really don't know all that much, and they may never know; not when it comes down to the basics of life and how the Universe functions. So, the religionists and others would simply ask that they get off their high horse, and get real with the rest of us in society, and admit that they're just as ignorant and inept as everyone else when it comes down to it, despite their PhD's and their highbrow, intellectual personas.
In the final analysis, science is the blind leading the blind, hoping to stumble upon some magic 'Theory of Everything', that has eluded them, and, in my opinion, will continue to do so, forever. For the simple fact that the mind of man is too limited to grasp certain things, because of its very nature. In fact, the more science delves into the mysteries of the Universe, the more they only end up supporting the religionists' concept, that of a Creator. So, yeah, you're pathetic, if that by looking at some blips on a screen you're thinking that it is going to tell you anything about the reality behind Creation. No, it won't, they're just blips on a screen! You don't really know any more now than you did before. See?
This proves that God isn't watching the entire universe. Why would he need to watch he already knows everything that is happening or ever will?
God is creating all probabilities that could ever collapse into actuality in the Quantum Wave-funtion. God seeing everything doesn't mean that God literally has floating eyes looking at everything. Rather, just as we use light to see matter. God can use his knowledge to see.
”but even in darkness I cannot hide from you. To you the night shines as bright as day. Darkness and light are the same to you.”
- Psalm 139:10 NLT
He sees all in One Simple Glance, thats what we mean by He's watching us.
Because it's a creep.
@@CesarClouds God isn't a creep. God is the ultimate reality that the universe is emergent from. Space-time isn't fundamental, it is emergent from something different than itself. I believe that to be God
@@matthews1338 Space time emerged from a dense state.
wow... just wow my minds has been blown
The Many Worlds Interpretation does not really violate the principle of parsimony. Everett's original thesis was called a "theory of the Universal Wave-function". According to it, there are many, many worlds but only one physical object - THE universal wavefunction. It is actually very parsimonious, so I think that it does leave open a physical realist understanding of physics.
Cool. Just watched Sean Carroll saying that Many Worlds is simply quantum mechanics, and other interpretations have something classical added to quantum mechanics.
@@nmarbletoe8210 Yeah, I remember Everette said something similar. His claim was that his Many Worlds interpretation kept closer to the mathematics than any alternative. This is because the mathematics does not have anything to say about a wave-function collapse and it is not explicitly a probability formula.
Wow...What?!?...Wow!! So, there Must be a greater consciousness who makes Us exist by observing Us so that We can make Reality exist by observing the universe?!? "God" created us for the purpose of having experiences we create as conscious observers. Consciousness is The key to existence. It is Our duty to have as many varying experiences as possible!! He doesn't need us to help him exist, he needs us to create reality while observing it!! My skull hurts...I need a hug!!
yeah,sylvia browne would say god is all knowledge but no experience.we provide experience.
yeah,sylvia browne would say god is all knowledge but no experience.we provide experience.
Infinite regression here we come....
Why isn't this being taught to the masses? It could change the world!
Logan
I constantly say the same thing !!!! Then I found books like "War Against the Weak" by Black. Seems like people that believe in solidity, like nazis, have taken over the world. We are living in the experience of the fourth reich right now. There are just too many people that have been taught death. How are they going to understand that nothing is solid?
This guy over here calling people Nazis because they don't believe what he believes... This is when you know you boarded the crazy train.
Because it's false - uh - I mean because there's a massive conspiracy to keep it suppressed.
Because you wont be able to tolerate the Math
because if people find out that we are living in a spiritual world made by a universal consciousness, not an objectively physical world devoid of purpose and meaning, then the powers that be, the establishment, will find it increasingly harder to control and suppress the populace.
There is such a lack of understanding in the comments section. and so many closed minds locked into wrong beliefs. IMO.
It is a great way to explain the consciousness and its connection making all one. what some call the holly spirit is just a higher state of the conscious mind.We all lack understanding and the only way to get understanding is to live in the now.
Unfortunately to many live in the past and the future to gain proper understanding.
Until they realize that there is no past and there is no future they can never understand.
I know there people always calming things like this are pseudoscience but they never back it up
Its more than people's opinions, some people simply find purpose trolling rather than doing something useful. Its no different than the people who dislike a video of a baby's smile.
So you didn't exist before you wrote this comment
Bremmer
Nazis like it this way. They have made trillions from the belief in solidity and time. They don't want to read quantum physics. That is why the utube "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" was created. This documentary tells of the professors that have been fired for just mentioning the words create or creationism. These nazis don't want the world to change because then their books and jobs will be obsolete. Then people would wake up and see what a sad state of affairs these nazi trillionaires have done to the world and continue to do.
The lasers that hit the 9/11 towers and that hit those houses in California recently are the work of these nazis that have taken over the world with their beliefs in solidity. Every war there has been has been because these nazis make trillions from wars. They make trillions from prisons and pills, which I have read are all placebos. This is because we are imagery. We create the effect that we think we should create. Quantum physics says that this is instantaneously. If all those side effects were not added to the labels of these pills, then people might have a chance creating healing for themselves. If the doctors wanted them well they might prescribe pills as being objects of fast healing.
Totally incorrect understanding of QM. If anything, QM does away with determinism in subatomic phenomena.
@KLJF "went over your head" is an ad hominem. Address the issue.
@KLJF "pedantically dissect the word random" is an ad hominem. Try again.
@KLJF indeed, a self description.
The central flaw in this video is the equation of observation with consciousness. The 'observation' is really an interaction, and doesn't require a consciousness. Light behaves like a particle if it is interacted with by a mechanism; this is independent of consciousness.
That is decoherence, which even the advocates of it admit it cannot fully explain quantum mechanics, like that is cannot derive the Born Rule in the equations. Decoherence happens because it stems back to a conscious observer who begins the process. This is clearly shown the later study presented in the videos: Kim et al. 1999; Groeblacher et al. 2007; Lapkiewicz et al 2011; Ma et al 2012.
*****
"That is decoherence, which even the advocates of it admit it cannot fully explain quantum mechanics"
Nonsense. It can explain QM just as well as any "consciousness-causes-collapse" theory just without the superfluous assumption that consciousness is required.
"cannot derive the Born Rule in the equations. "
Why would you need to? You certainly can't derive it any easier by needlessly adding consciousness in to the mix.
"This is clearly shown the later study presented in the videos: Kim et al. 1999; Groeblacher et al. 2007; Lapkiewicz et al 2011; Ma et al 2012."
None of these studies show that consciousness is essential for decoherence. You are simply begging the question by saying that the decoherence occurs because of a conscious observer.
Francis Dillon "It can explain QM just as well as any "consciousness-causes-collapse" theory just without the superfluous assumption that consciousness is required."
-Wrong, it cannot derive the Born Rule and explain why one possibility emerges. "Does decoherence solve the measurement prob- lem? Clearly not. What decoherence tells us, is that certain objects appear classical when they are observed. But what is an observation? At some stage, we still have to apply the usual prob- ability rules of quantum theory." - Joos (2000, p. 14).
"Claims that simultaneously the measurement problem is real [and] decoherence solves it are confused at best." - Bacciagaluppi (2003b, p. 3)
"Why would you need to? You certainly can't derive it any easier by needlessly adding consciousness in to the mix."
-Mathematically, you need a mechanism to transfer to collapse from the wave function. This is the Born Rule.
"None of these studies show that consciousness is essential for decoherence."
-Yes they do. They is exactly what Groeblacher et al 2007 showed, in falsifying all classes of hidden variables. Ma et al 2012 shows non local delayed choices affect outcomes. What part of 'no naive realistic picture is compatible with our results,' do you not understand?
*****
"What decoherence tells us, is that certain objects appear classical when they are observed. But what is an observation? At some stage, we still have to apply the usual prob- ability rules of quantum theory." - Joos (2000, p. 14).
"Claims that simultaneously the measurement problem is real [and] decoherence solves it are confused at best." - Bacciagaluppi (2003b, p. 3)"
And these quotes are supposed to show consciousness is necessary or even desirable for a QM interpretation how? These quotes don't even address the issue at all. You need to understand that ghuegel is absolutely correct in saying that any quantum 'observation' is really an interaction, and doesn't require a consciousness.
"Mathematically, you need a mechanism to transfer to collapse from the wave function. This is the Born Rule"
I know what the Born rule is. Most interpretations of QM assume it as axiomatic like wave-particle duality and the discreteness of quantum states. It is no more a problem for decoherence that it can't derive these things either. Again, adding consciousness needlessly in to the mix makes it no easier to derive the Born rule.
"Yes they do. They is exactly what Groeblacher et al 2007 showed, in falsifying all classes of hidden variables. Ma et al 2012 shows non local delayed choices affect outcomes. What part of 'no naive realistic picture is compatible with our results,' do you not understand?"
No, they don't. These are well known results that in no way necessitate consciousness in the slightest. I think your problem is that you seem to be certain that any alternative to 'no naive realistic picture is compatible with our results,' must necessarily involve consciousness. This is completely wrong and every physicist knows this.
I will try to spell it out for you so that you understand: The delayed "choice" in these experiments is made by a random number generator. To maintain that it is actually the experimenter's consciousness causing the collapse you would have to maintain that the recorded results of the experiment don't actually "appear" until someone decides to look at them or become "consciously aware" of them. i.e. the results could be printed out on a piece of paper but the paper doesn't actually say anything definite until someone goes to take a look or becomes consciously aware of what the paper has printed on it. This is a completely absurd and unnecessary assumption. What actually causes the collapse is the INTERACTION with the measuring device not the consciousness of any observer.
Francis Dillon "And these quotes are supposed to show consciousness is necessary or even desirable for a QM interpretation how"
-That is not what i quoted them for. I quoted them to show decoherence cannot be the mechanism for all collapse. There needs to be some other mechanism.
"is absolutely correct in saying that any quantum 'observation' is really an interaction, and doesn't require a consciousness."
-Wrong, just repeating yourself is not a good rebuttal. Since decoherence cannot fully explain quantum mechanics. It cannot derive the Born Rule or explain the outcome to one possibility and why our choice non-locally affects it: arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312059
"It is no more a problem for decoherence that it can't derive these things either. Again, adding consciousness needlessly in to the mix makes it no easier to derive the Born rule."
-Needlessly? If you take consciousness out of the picture you cannot do experiments. Consciousness is the one thing you can't doubt, it is all you experience along with qualia. And since the Born Rule is the law that yields the probability that a measurement on a system will give one result, then consciousness is the most likely explanation, since we, ourselves (conscious minds) are yielding results. There is no need to posit unnecessary hidden variables. Consciousness is all we need and you can't deny it's existence and role in the world. "We are not just passive observers." -Anton Zeilinger
"These are well known results that in no way necessitate consciousness in the slightest."
-And assertion is not an argument. It's nothing different than covering your ears and refusing to listen.
"I think your problem is that you seem to be certain that any alternative to 'no naive realistic picture is compatible with our results,' must necessarily involve consciousness."
-And I think your problem is you have no evidence yet still assert you are right. That is called blind faith. See below for evidence.
"This is completely wrong and every physicist knows this."
-Then do give a better alternative that is not ad hoc. If there is no objective reality beyond what we observe (Groeblacher et al 2007) then you have no choice but to place consciousness right in the forefront.
"The delayed "choice" in these experiments is made by a random number generator."
-Not in the one from 2012: arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4834.pdf
And, yes that is true for the one from 1999. However, the outcome is never random but correlates to our knowledge every time.
"To maintain that it is actually the experimenter's consciousness causing the collapse you would have to maintain that the recorded results of the experiment don't actually "appear" until someone decides to look at them or become "consciously aware" of them."
-No, because observation is about knowledge. Collapse happens because we have knowledge about the system and then the particles act in a way that correlates to our knowledge. As the other Ma et al 2012 study says, "The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough." Observation is about knowledge, not looking.
"What actually causes the collapse is the INTERACTION with the measuring device not the consciousness of any observer. "
-The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment from 1999 shows this is not the case, Since a photon that hits D1 doesn't collapse to one definite state, but one that hits D3 does. The only difference is what the conscious observer knows between the two. Then there is also the Renninger Negative experiment which refutes your argument as well: The Renninger Negative Result Experiment
Weird how closely this aligns with eastern advaitic (non-duality) philosophies.
The philosophy of Maya (illusion)?
I don't think
And that's borderline solipsism
@@sathviksidd Be it advaita of shankara, shuddhadvaita, vishisthadvaita, the dualistic schools of ramanuja or the dualistic kashmiri shaiva system, all of them have the same core tenets. The dualistic system shares the idea of the observer with advaita in the concept of purusha and the field, prakriti. Indeed it is ishvara, who with maya generates both prakriti, time, and the individualized souls out of para brahman. Yet the para state is neither personal nor impersonal. But the different ways of perceiving it are. What it is, is another question.
You are both atma, paramatma and the entire brahman at the same time. That is what it is, whether your a nondualist like vishnuswamy, nimbarka or shankara, pure dualists like the kashmiri shaivas or ramanujas school, or both center around the same position of how purusha creates the worlds by looking at them. The vaishnavas have this concept in maha vishnu, an immanent aspect of narayana, who with his glance impregnates and animates prakriti, or the matrix as we would now call it. The shaivas have a similar concept in sadashiva. Ramanuja and Madhava also accept that there is one allone being, narayana! Saguna brahman. Its just with attributes, whereas in his state of vasudeva, the lord is nirguna (see lakshmi tantra and other pancaratras). The ocean of the six qualities of jnana, aishvarya, (kriya)shakti, bala, virya and tejas, satcidananda, the witness (sakshi). That oh so solipsistic all-one observer, whos eyes generate and dissolve the worlds, who is dark, allpervading and formless like a fresh raincloud in the autumn season...
Some think the absolute is nirguna brahman (vasudeva) others like ramanuja think saguna brahman (narayana) is higher. Yet others think para brahman has both nirguna and saguna aspects, like nimbarka, vishnuswamy and some tantric sects. In shaivism there are also nondual and dual concepts, and in shaktism, the socalled para prakriti is simply nirguna brahman, as the "higher nature". Solipsistic or not, you are both atma and paramatma. I know, some dualist sects dont like that, i knew a lot of hare krishnas, they cant wrap their head around it. 2 of the four vaishnava schools are dualistic (brahma and sri sampradaya) whereas the rudra- and kumara-sampradaya are explicitly nondualistic, and interpret the stories more in an upanishadic context of when a particular saint meets bhagavan, it is an allegory for merging with para brahman. The madhava followers (including the hare krishnas) and ramanuja followers are strictly dualistic, but still they accept that purusha (vishnu) creates (nimesa) and destroys (unmesa) the worlds with his eyes. They reduce our unity with paramatma to a pantheistic "being-a-part-of-paramatma" and as such although they claim they are both dual- and nondualistic, they are the most dualistic of all of them. Every other group knows that we are paramatma himself. In Fullness.
vasudevah sarvam iti sa mahatma su-durlabhah
"He who understands that everything is vasudeva, such a great soul is extremely rare". Bhagavad Gita I am both paramatma and the atma. As the upanishads say; Gopalo`Ham - i am Krishna! Funny how the dualists cant just translate that simple nirguna mantra, because although it is in the gopala tapani upanishad, they think it means something else than what it means. Because they cannot understand, how devotion is still possible if you yourself are the object of adoration. Nimbarka and vishnuswamy know how^^
And on a note, it is the senses and measurement which causes wavefunction
collapse, not consciousness. Rather consciousness causes it via the senses.
It is the jnanashakti (maha sarasvati) that creates, the iccha shakti (maha lakshmi)
that maintains the worlds and all beings by her union with them, and it is the
kriya shakti (parvati) who overcomes all obstacles and performs all
deeds, and moves all particles. Brahman and the samvid shakti dont
create.Technically it is ishvara, manifested of brahman, who uses the 3
prabhava shaktis to manifest the worlds. As such the descent of
purusha/vishnu into the world, whereas purusha is manifested from saguna
brahman (narayana). Purusha-prakriti is dualistic, brahman
nondualistic. I am both atma, paramatma and brahman, and amongst the
three phases of brahman, it is said to be nirguna (vasudeva), saguna and
para.
Yep we’ve always known that “matter” for want of a better word is a theoretical abstraction of mind and consciousness.
QM doesn't imply matter exists as a wave of potentialities prior to observation. It says matter exists in *superposition* until its wave function is collapsed. This is an important difference. If the matter existed only as a _potentiality_ then it could not interfere with itself and form a wave interference distribution. It has to, in some sense, "really exist" prior to observation (and not merely "potentially exist"), because if there was only the _potential_ to exist prior to collapse, the particle would have nothing to "bounce up against" and form the wave behavior. Ergo, the matter does, in fact, exist in _superposition_ , interfering with itself to form the wave - which is how we explain the interference pattern we observe - and not as a "wave of potentiality".
This is an important point of course because IP wants to suggest that a mind is needed to bring the particle into existence, which, given this logic, we see is not correct.
@@markbranham7355 The notion of existence outside the body (if that's what you meant) is an unfalsifiable notion. No matter what evidence one marshaled to show a cause-and-effect relationship between material states and states of mind, no matter how precise and consistent, one could always insist, suggest, believe or assert that "there is" or "there could still be" something more than the matter itself. It's impossible to show that there is NO supra-corporeal element to mind or our existence, and thus it's irrelevant scientifically. What matters is not what is impossible to disprove - what matters is what we can rule out as _likely_ given the evidence we have - and that which is ruled out is (A) anything that explicitly contradicts observed experimental results, and (B) anything that we have no evidence for. Anything without evidence is equally as likely as any random claim someone makes, that is to say, if there's no evidence for claim X, it's equally like to be true as any other unevidenced claim, such as, for example: "it's possible that there is an obese orangutang who lives in my butthole and controls the world using his man boobs."
Is there anything opposed to the possibilty of this Supreme Consciousness revealing himself to our dependent consciousness and even entering the world of time and space to have a relationship with us? Does the Supreme Consciousness possibly love us and want to be with us?
Show me you don't understand quantum physics and just caught the buzz words.
Lol slowboi
This spurious reasoning of "who watches who watches who" is also the same special pleading type of fallacy used in first cause arguments. If every watcher needs a watcher, then who is watching the Cosmic Watcher? If the Cosmic Watcher needs no watcher, why do I need one?
Also, the machine that activates the poison in the Schrodinger's Cat experiment is an I/O device that works on binary logic. It can't possibly know how to symbolic translate the superimposed state of "Decay/Not Decay" and will truncate the information for "Decay" only and release the poison (or any other unexpected truncation error that will produce a binary result).
Since the information is truncated, it can't possibly propagate outside the machine to create a superimposed cat that is dead and alive, so it's illogical to propose that awareness is needed to collapse anything when the information about the superimposition can't be known by the observer using this apparatus.
The alternative to solve the propagation problem is to postulate that everything is a quantum device. The detector can propagate the information about the superimposition because it is a macro scaled quantum qbit capable of more than binary logic/action. The cat itself and anything in the chain, including the observer, will also have to be able to receive, store and propagate the quantum information acting like macro qbits.
If that's the case, then what we have is a multiverse scenario. Our knowledge about superimpositions is the proof that all possible paths that reality can take are real, because this is the only way quantum information can propagate - through a macro scaled set of qbits that split forever to the future in every possible state. Of course you can evade this conclusion by postulating my initial proposition, that the detector truncates the superimposition, and everything beyond that point is classical. Any of the options will show that the "awareness makes reality" interpretation of the data is nonsensical.
"If the Cosmic Watcher needs no watcher, why do I need one?"
-This is layman style objection that makes atheist philosophers ashamed, as the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse points out:
The trouble with Richard Dawkins
God is necessary. In this case, He would be the only solipsist, so to speak.
"so it's illogical to propose that awareness is needed to collapse anything when the information about the superimposition can't be known by the observer using this apparatus."
-No, it is said to be in a superposition until observed and then the back history is loaded up.
"The alternative to solve the propagation problem is to postulate that everything is a quantum device"
-So the ave function collapses the wave function. Let alone that doesn't make sense, mathematically it really doesn't make sense as Maximilian Schlosshauer explains: arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312059
"The detector can propagate the information about the superimposition because it is a macro scaled quantum qbit capable of more than binary logic/action.'
-This is just the decoherence program, which even the advocates admit cannot fully explain QM. The mechanism is still missing, as well as how to service the Born Rule.
*****
"This is layman style objection"
This is an ad hominem style attempt to address the issue. An argument can't be refuted by appealing to the qualification of the author. Provide the justification for why the Cosmic Watcher can be the exception to your rule that everything needs a watcher, otherwise you are guilty of special pleading, a known fallacy.
"This is just the decoherence program, which even the advocates admit cannot fully explain QM"
Nope. I'm invoking a mere transmission line, like a quantum wire. No symbolic software layer or processing needed. I don't need to fully explain QM, since nobody can fully explain QM. All I need is to show that your "awareness makes reality" interpretation of the data can't be true.
Zadratube "Provide the justification for why the Cosmic Watcher can be the exception to your rule that everything needs a watcher, otherwise you are guilty of special pleading, a known fallacy" ---
Justification: Because infinite regress is logically impossible. There is no such thing as an actual infinite. So there has to be a necessary watcher.
*****
The impossibility of infinite regress does not answer why only the Cosmic Watcher can dismiss the need to be watched while no other link in the chain can. If the CW can dismiss a watcher, so do I or anyone else. Claiming "special powers" for the Cosmic Watcher is the special pleading fallacy.
Zadratube In other words, you misunderstood the argument. The Cosmic Watcher would necessarily not need to be watched because he would be the origin of reality anyway. Our observation creates and affects reality on a smaller scale, but it's not the origin of reality. The CW's observation does.. Besides, he would have "observed" before any intelligent observant life with in the universe formed, and therefore would NECESSARILY have not been watched from the start.-- And as for this: " If the CW can dismiss a watcher, so do I or anyone else.." this is yet more of an indication that you missed the point. The Cosmic Watcher does not dismiss a watcher...or rather you are straw-manning since no one is arguing that.
It's Monday night & I'm watching this...
+Ronbo Fett
Better than teletubbies.
Chris K Sure is pal.
Nice summary of modern physics. However, I don’t agree with all of the philosophical commentary regarding what this means. There seem to be some false dichotomies and misunderstanding of terminology. First, there seems to be a dichotomy between particles and waves as “real” vs “not real”. But this is not correct. In modern physics we view waves as every bit as “real” as particles; particles and waves are just two ways of describing the same thing. Second, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what an “observer” is in modern physics terminology. An observer does NOT need to be human, conscious, or sentient. An electronic detector behind one of the slits, for example, is sufficient to collapse the wave function to one of the two slits. This is true even if no one looks at the detector; the detector and its circuitry either have recorded a count or they have not, so h wave function has been collapsed by this electronic “observer”.
Source?
@@kaiosama3846 I learned quantum mechanics in undergrad and grad physics programs from texts by Dicke & Witke, Feynman, Dirac, and Schiff, from mentoring by Nobel laureates and other world-class physicists, and from working as a professional physicist for 30+ years. I recommend Schiff's "Quantum Mechanics" or Feynman's lectures if you want to learn more.
There is big jump between believing that consciousness creates reality and God creates it. There isn’t an omnipotent being that controls everything.
Is that a fact, or a hope based, blind faith opinion? No need to respond, reality is now laid bare.
Silly Atheist...
If consciousness creates reality and people consciously believe that god creates reality then surely he does exist in theory
Andre Augustine , I do agree that something created all this. There had to be an observer for this whole thing to start in the first place, no? My point is, I’m not sure anyone other than us (and possibly other intelligent life) are the observers now. Don’t be satisfied with this as the answer! Keep search! 👍
@@mipisani then who observed us and all life. Us observing each other does not justify our existence lol something observed man in the first place.
@@mipisani if you look in the Bible the scriptures describe everything in this video in lamest terms.
i dont appreciate the fact that you went in depth about the double slit experiment and then still talked about "free will" as if it is real. There is much evidence suggesting it doesnt.
Facts don't care about feelings
@@Frostx-t7m thats ironic considering its a fact that free will doesnt exist, and the only thing making you think it does is your own feelings.
You don't even need science to prove that free will isn't real. You can just look into it philosophically. It's an illusion.
The Observer Effect does not imply that consciousness creates reality, as many who are ignorant of quantum mechanics believe. It means that the instruments measuring the observation affect what it is measuring. That's all.
For example, in the double-slit experiment (which the video references) the "observer" is an electronic detector. Not a conscious mind.
Sounds like you're the one who's ignorant of QM here. You're appealing to decoherence, the notion that a measurement device causes collapse. Decoherence isn't a solution to the measurement problem, as one of the fathers of decoherence (Zurek) explained. This is because there is no reason to think that the measurement device also wouldn't be in a superposition. Under quantum theory, the entire universe is one entangled system that is in superposition. There are no objects as such. RQM confirms this, as well as the notion of Von Neumann chains.
@@pandawandas the only valid interpretation of quantum mechanics I know of that could posit consciousness is responsible for the collapse of the wave function is the everettian interpretation. This same UA-cam channel has strongly argued against it, likely due to conflicting religious beliefs
@@lebecccomputer287 What? The Everettian interpretation doesn't talk about consciousness causing collapse at all. You're thinking of Von Neumann-Wigner.
@@pandawandas it says there is no collapse, and any observed collapse is an illusion caused by *you* becoming entangled with the system. So it would be conscious based
@@lebecccomputer287 No, it's perfectly compatible with physicalism in the sense that the observer can just be any physical system that gets entangled.
If god sees all things at all times then there would be no wave form only particles. How would you explain this?
Well, he explained why.
I enjoyed the heck out of this video. I feel like I've seen it before but I've watched a lot on the topic so can't be sure. However I noted this video was very well done. It moved right along and felt right. Thanks for putting this up. I put it on my facebook page and will definitely watch it again. That's another thing, you packed a lot very well in just a few minutes. I have 3 cats and I'm keeping a close eye on all of them after this
"The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all *TRUE* art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is inpenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men."
- Albert Einstein
beggars lookin for lifetime donations to invisible opium spirits....
I can see no other logical explanation other than an all knowing consciousness. Call that all knowing consciousness what you will, but the presence of such is undeniable. Great video. Thanks:)
consciousness is impermanent
if it's undeniable why aren't we being taught it in schools?
@@unwono scopes trial... schools indoctrinate you with nonsense
@@unwono because we don't know much of the supreme consciousness (but some famous scientists also believed this like Max Planck and others) and Materialism is dead in science.
It is known that if Alex measures particle A and the result is horizontal. This determines what Bob will see if he measures particle B and the result will be perpendicular. But if they are de-entangled and then re-entangled, can the result differ so that particle A is vertical and particle B is horizontal?
I'd say yes, BUT it would depend on the "coder" of the program to change it to be that way.
Dawkins probably has difficulty even understanding this. Unless he is observed to be reading quantum mechanics
He is busy in Darwinian Delusion
@@theintuitivetruth
Well said! Dawkins is busy tweeting to 2.8 million followers that eugenics would work on humans without explicitly condemning it. He’s also busy writing books aimed at children that draw parallels with the Jews quest for the holy land and the Nazis campaign to dominate the world. He also insists that the belief that the rape and murder of a child is immoral and evil is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six ? I think the bereaved parents of children who have been raped and murdered would beg to differ that their (belief) that this was evil is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six. This is why the argument for objective morality is so compelling. It’s impossible to ground morality in the materialistic/atheistic paradigm. The materialists/atheists blind worship of the gods of determinism and automatism condemns their myths to hollowness!!
@@georgedoyle7971
Don't forget his rather "interesting" views on pedophilia and monogamy.
Are there really people out there who still take materialism seriously?
I find that hard to believe.
Cant blame them
What kind of person could Forget the fascination ,The mystery , While it's yet unsolved .We Can anticipate .It just takes a long Time !
Mark 11:23. Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them.
This rather quick video is right on the mysteries of quantum mechanics, but the conclusion drawn about consciousness collapsing the wave function, which I take to be the conclusion, is merely one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics, and I would warn against anyone getting oversold on any one interpretation at this stage. Bell’s Theorem implies that we need a nonlocal theory. I would start by pointing out that there is more than one way to travel faster than light. I would associate one way with wavelike behaviour, and the other way with particle-like behaviour. The intention is to provide guidance for computer simulators, and I have a long way to go.
Well I'm convinced.... we live in the matrix... I enjoy reading and watching videos on quantum mechanics, but it is difficult as hell to wrap your brain around.
Nicholas
'magically bursting forth are quarks spinning billions of times a second as 3 points of light, forming what are called protons and neutrons.' These words come from the book "The Quantum World" written by the physicist Kenneth Ford.
Quarks are the ideas that form us. God is the electromagnetic matrix/unified field that we are saturated with. Creation is constant because the need to create is constant. The word "God" doesn't have to be in the conversation at all.
We are NOT lumps of flesh. We are 100% conscious, highly complicated, brilliant electromagnetic, holographic, multidimensional eternal highly concentrated energy beings. Read these words in the book "Hands of Light' written by the physicist and healer Barbara Brennan.
Matthew 17:20, "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." (KJV)
Very good video!
VERY INTERESTING
How does one observe without affecting a particle? The use of the little eye is disingenuous because observation is really measuring and affecting the particle.
Materialists gonna hate
Atheists too.
_Apo4x
materialists hate because they have been brainwashed by classical physics, the study of the big. The hate comes from being lied to. Trillionaires like Rockefeller and all the other billionaires teach classical physics still because they make trillions of dollars from it.
A religious person believing everything they read from a book is trying to put people on blast for believing what they've read in books. You can't make this stuff up.
I can't believe a religious person is using the word brainwashing unironically. Religion is literal brainwashing.
Konidias Evidence for God's existence has been proven in this channel. This is the first step. The second is th choice of religion. And you haven't whatsoever argued against
He didnt actually demonstrate the supernatural here, so not much hating to do. Very dishonest title.