Roger Penrose - Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Consciousness?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 сер 2023
- That the universe is fine-tuned for life, with multiple physical laws required to be within small ranges, is generally accepted. But can we then make the additional argument that the universe is somehow required to contain consciousness? Such a conclusion may not follow. But the key question is this: Is consciousness wholly contingent or somehow special?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on the purpose of consciousness: bit.ly/3OxPu1s
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Sir Roger Penrose is a mathematical physicist, recreational mathematician and philosopher. He is the Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Re: 0:07 - That's my best friend Suvan on the skateboard! Hey Suvan!
Roger Penrose is 92 years old. 92!! 😲
Not in this video he wasn't
@@jamesjacob21 he's still every bit as sharp.
Long life cadeau
Roger Penrose is the greatest physicist alive today 👍
Im sure he agrees with you. 😅
The most creative thinker
@@Resmith18SRno dissing sir roger
That last part won't hold for much longer. Just a little macabre humor..
Edward Witten is without a doubt the physicists physicist
His intuition is leading him to the existence of an underlying essential source that we cannot comprehend, detect or measure.
Spirit is the essence of consciousness, the energy of the Universe that creates all things.
Each one of us is a part of that Spirit Energy - a Divine Entity. So the Spirit is the Higher Self, the Eternal Being that lives within us.
Form is the physical world: body, mind, personality. We as spiritual beings created the physical world as a place to learn. We're here to learn how to master the process of creation - to learn how to consciously channel the creative energy of spirit into physical form.
HOW CONSCIOUNESS CREATES REALITY?
If God is Reality
And if Reality Is Consciousness
Then God Is Consciousness
I Think therefore I Am God Consciousness
The whole universe is one reality which is pure consciousness.
Pure consciousness is absolute existence.
God makes things through the direct act of becoming the things which He creates. In the beginning the One differentiated into the many. The One entered into the many and became the Self of each. The being within everything is the One. When you merge with this nonlocal Self, you become one with the Self of all that exists. The One is the Higher Self of all. You are the One.
The God Spirit In Me Is The Same God Spirit In You, And The Spirit Of All Beings. Enlightenment Is The realization That You Are All Part Of The Universal Spirit Of All That Exists, Which Is GOD.
Each of us is the universal spirit projecting a particular point of view.
My Self is inseparable from all that exists, just as your self is inseparable from all that exists.
You are an aspect of Infinite Intelligence, and Infinite Intelligence is the source of all that exists. Therefore you are the source of all that exists and you create your own experience. Everything is possible because everything exists within you. The same unbounded potential of the Infinite Spirit also resides in each and every one of us.
Everything in the universe is consciousness. Space and time in all planes of reality are only projections within universal consciousness. There really is no here or there for everything is at one place where Mind is. Mind does not move at all. Mind simply is (Not to be confused with the brain). Mind is everywhere yet nowhere. Mind is nowhere but Here, Now. We are all existing together as a singularity in one place and time. Everything is one, Here and Now.
Your soul is the reflection of all souls. You are the Other. Without the other, you would not exist. You are defined by your relationships with others. You would need to describe the whole universe in order to define a single person. Therefore every single person is the whole universe. Your soul is both personal and universal at the same time. Everyone is a reflection of yourself. You are in a hall of mirrors where every reflection of yourself appears different. Others you admire reflect the qualities you most cherish in yourself. Others you detest reflect the qualities you most deny in yourself. Each person you see is a different version of you.
The outer world is a mirror of yourself at any place and time. If you want to know the state of your personal consciousness, just look around and see what is happening to you. If you want to know the state of the collective consciousness, just look around at what is happening in the world. Your personal reality is synchronistically orchestrated by your sense of Self at all times. If a critical mass of people expressed their higher selves, they would cause a transformation in collective consciousness and the world reality. Every time a person rises in personal consciousness, he moves the state of the world towards a higher one than before.
TRANSCENDENT WORLD: You are comfortable here when you can experience all possibilities. Your awareness is open. You are connected to the source. Your consciousness is merged with the mind of God.
SUBTLE WORLD: You are comfortable here when you can hold on to your vision. You trust yourself to follow where the mind goes. You aren't bound up in resistance, objections, skepticism, and rigid beliefs. Inspiration occurs as a normal part of your existence.
MATERIAL WORLD: You are comfortable with your personal reality. You take responsibility for it. You read the world as a reflection of who you are and what is happening "in here." As the reflection shifts and changes, you track the changes occurring inside yourself.
If a white man was created by God,
And if a black man was created by God,
Black and white men are equal before God.
If God is reality,
And if reality is consciousness,
Then God is consciousness
The Need to Create, Discover, and Explore.
God becomes a creative source. He gave us our birthright of curiosity. He remains unknowable, but he unfolds one secret after another in creation. At the far edge of the universe, the unknown is a challenge and a source of wonder. God wants us not to worship but to evolve. Our role is to discover and explore. Nature exists to provide endless mysteries that challenge our intelligence - there is always more to discover.
This is your God if you live to explore and be creative, if you feel happiest confronting the unknown, if you have total confidence that nature can be unraveled, including human nature, as long as we keep questioning and never settle for fixed, preordained truth.
God becomes pure wonder. After reason has reached the limits of understanding, the mystery remains. Sages, saints, and the divinely inspired have penetrated it. They have felt a divine presence that transcends everyday life. Materialism is an illusion. Creation was fashioned in two layers, the visible and the invisible. Miracles become real when everything is a miracle. To reach God, one must accept the reality of invisible things. Nature is a mask for the divine.
This is your God if you are a spiritual seeker. You want to know what lies behind the mask of materialism, to find the source of healing, to experience peace, and to be in direct contact with a divine presence.
Unity, the State Beyond All Needs.
God becomes One. There is complete fulfillment because you have reached the goal of seeking. You experience the divine everywhere. The last hint of separation has vanished. You have no need to divide saint from sinner, because God imbues everything. In this state, you don't know the truth; you become it. The universe and every event in it are expressions of a single underlying Being, which is pure awareness, pure intelligence, and pure creativity. Nature is the outward form that consciousness takes as it unfolds in time and space.
This is your God if you feel totally connected to your soul and your source. Your consciousness has expanded to embrace a cosmic perspective. You see everything happening in the mind of God. The ecstasy of great mystics, who seem especially gifted or chosen, now becomes available to you, because you have fully matured spiritually.
The God that brings the scheme to an end, God as One, is different from the others. He isn't a projection. He signifies a state of total certainty and wonder, and if you reach that state, you are no longer projecting. Every need has been fulfilled; the path has ended with reality itself.
In Gita it is mentioned that everyone has god inside themselves, you should read it, it very much aligns with your theory
I'm thankfull, that Mr.Penrose has slowed down a little, there was a time, when to a layman, he was tottaly incomprehensible, when he spoke.
"If a universe exist and nobody is alive to experience it, does it exist at all?"
How we see and experience the universe is completely based on our own senses and perception. One could even argue that each person experiences the universe differently. Two people can see the color Yellow but nothing can prove that both people see the color Yellow the same way. This fundamentally applies to all of our senses and in turn helps explain each persons different unique taste in food, music, art, etc. Therefore, if we all experience the universe differently than it's possible everything we do experience is in fact an elaborate illusion created by our own consciousness to help us understand what we perceive as the universe.
One caveat to that though, if consciousness is the basis for all reality, we must accept that there are multiple consciousness beings within that reality. How we see them may differ but they do exist separately from ourselves. Our sensory perception is just the tool we use for understanding and communicating with those separate consciousness beings.
If one were to add religious philosophy into this, you could say that the universe itself is the information being sent to us from a super-consciousness at the beginning of Spacetime and we are just using our own sensory perception to understand the information.
This is just conjecture and me poking fun at String Theory, but perhaps we are all just vibrating strings, bouncing vibrations between ourselves, and at the very beginning of what we perceive to be the universe there just happens to be one very large string.
Love Dr. Penrose. One of the few physicists that gets it. Not one of those guys playing billiards with bigger and bigger particle accelerators.
I am absolutely sure - as are you - that Roger accepts , embraces , and revels in the knowledge- yields and benefits of the ‘billiard ball’ smashing etc . Don’t be dissing the accelerators ! Thanks
@@mattkanter1729his point was that Penrose is not myopic as some of the other physicists. I have a good guess of which exact particle physicist he might have in mind but I'll refrain 😅😂
@@mattkanter1729Exactly lol #TeamCERN #TeamPenrose all day
LOL
Him and Hammeroff were wrong. Their research failed peer review process. We have 0 reasons to believe that consciousness is fundamental and countless reasons to believe that it is not.
"One of those few physicists that gets it"
That "gets" what? And how do the majority of other physicists NOT "get it" ?
The universe is ideas. Particles are contingent ideas, and waves are abstract ideas. Particles are words, and waves are their meanings. Otherwise how do you unify the wave/particle duality?
That's quite a mouthful of assumptions. Can you back those with observations?
@@sandyago4735 We observe out dreams each night, and the way meanings are experienced as tangible objects in dreams can also explain everything we experience while awake. You can find "The Semantic Interpretation of Quantum Theory" briefly explained at Shabda Journal, if you're curious, and hundreds of other articles there explaining various aspects of it, in addition to numerous books, videos, a q&a forum, etc.
An idea, a thought, is a representation and
a representation is not identical to the represented
(except in the unique case of
the rather complex thought that is a self).
Physics attempts to get a handle on the noumenal but
all that is discovered are handles,
noumena per se forever out of range.
That's the best that can be done and this entirely in consequence
of the fact that we are thinking things
at home in a universe of representations only.
My belief in the noumenal seems perfectly logical
even as I know it as an exercise of faith.
Universe can’t exist without being observed and there has be an observer for the universe to exist.
"Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Consciousness?"
That is such a "old west" question, marinated in material reductionism. This forms a vicious circle with "the hard problem of consciousness".
the state of art i guess is "the hard problem of matter".
Assuming anything is possible; all permutations of a universe would have been simulated long before laying down the fine-tuned, riverbed universe, on which the ultimate, observable, river of conscious reality would flow.
That's quality.!
Fine-Tuning by way of brute trial and error, the existential battle royale, which is to say, not Fine-Tuning whatsoever, just a by-product of stable possibilities.
Thanks
I think I would enjoy a chat with Roger Penrose
When you use a phrase like "fine tuned" people automatically assume you mean a person has purposefully fiddled with the tuning knobs to come up with a desired effect through goal oriented intentions, forgetting that the universe does not produce final results, only continuous change. So of course the universe is fine tuned for consciousness, it's also fine tuned for stars, galaxies, black holes and everything else that's happening-- but by impersonal interactions, not conscious entities like us.
Consciousness exists which makes it inherently fundamental.
Are you implying everything that exists is fundamental?
It means it's inherently possible, but a thing can be possible without ever actually occurring.
Gummy bears exist, do you think they are fundamental?
Don’t forget Fundamental brand peanut butter. Yummy existence !
@@mattkanter1729 The one good argument for the existence of god would be bacon sandwiches. Except that he bans eating pork. I mean come on, what kind of a deity creates bacon and then bans eating it. Therefore atheism, QED.
@@simonhibbs887wow
“That’s the whole problem with science - you’ve got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder” - Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes, the 6-year old philosopher…
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” - Robert Jastrow, God And The Astronomers
Hear! Hear! For all his scientific brilliance, Penrose still doesn't seem to recognize that (1) the exquisite structure and principles of organization of the Universe speak unequivocally of an intelligent designer or designers, and (2) since they have been able to penetrate and appreciate much of this underlying design of the laws of nature, humans must share in some small way the quality of consciousness of that being or beings, and (3) due to the Hard Problem of consciousness elucidated by Chalmers, consciousness is an immaterial mysterious thing that must ultimately belong in another higher realm of existence and is not a bottom-up result of mechanical evolutionary forces.
His contemplations around halfway through the video get sort of Vedic. Some of the cleverest thinkers back in the day were wondering about the same questions, with cruder information. Some of them resorted to logic in the absence of finer-grained details, ideas that Penrose kind of alludes to here.
That doesn’t make all such arguments plausible, nor does it justify snake-oil salesmen who co-opt mysticism in their woo. But there may be more value in certain waylaid ideas than we first made room for in our modern, (very successful) paradigm of materialistic reductionism.
Consider: Existence must be observable. For there to be observation, there must exist an observer. For two things to exist independently, they must be observed separately. One cannot observe “observation” itself separately from what is being observed. Observation (and consciousness, from it) is an integral part of the same cloth from which both observer and observed are cut.
So the universe isn’t just finely-tuned for consciousness - reality is intrinsically comprised of the basic substrate of consciousness: information exchange. Penrose sort of seems to approach this when he asks what existence could even “look like” in the absence of observability. Maybe some kind of pure mathematics? But can that platonic ideal be said to “exist”?
Just something to mull over. The argument may just be rhetorical trickery, but I find it straightforward enough to at least pause to wonder what our ability to experience the world might be telling us about the world in which we exist.
That’s a vague answer to a vague question. The levels and tenacity of awareness of all forms of life here in the last 1/2 billion years proves it’s a real artistic product of the universe and as you go up to its culmination of our future imaginary wonder and in infinity it could definitely have been as obvious as something written being stuck on our forehead
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🌌 Scientists have diverse views on consciousness, ranging from it being an accidental occurrence to a fundamental principle underlying the universe.
01:06 🔬 Quantum mechanics may involve proto-consciousness as an integral part, affecting the transition from superposition to definite states.
02:04 🌌 The universe's constants of nature could be adjusted differently, making life less likely to exist, or even creating parallel universes with varying laws.
03:13 🧩 The universe, as we understand it, must involve the potential for consciousness to arise, though whether it actually arises remains uncertain.
05:00 🪙 Constants of nature may have specific values, but some theories, like string theory, introduce numerous possibilities, making fine-tuning of the universe more unusual.
06:08 🤔 There is a sense of a global connection between the universe's parameters, but it's a vague idea, not mystical, and hard to articulate. The universe should be observable in some way.
Made with HARPA AI
Consciousness trying to figure out what consciousness is.
I was trying to concentrate on what was being said, but the camera was in constant motion… like the camera operator was on a boat. 😅
it's funny to me how wherever all of us are on this topic intelectualy, this dude was in that faze like 50 years ago :)
Only difference is 50 years ago the universe was an attractive young lady fine tuned for his prime consciousness and now he thinks even if these attractive young ladies are or are not what he means by universe in either case they are both old men that ought to consider their selves as proto consciousness who these young ladies are not fine tuned for.
@@wagfinpisI got a 'what?', to something I said recently but,..What?!
In any case, brilliant, like that a lot.
(/even as what you might be call an 'old man'/)
Human knowledge is not limited to western understanding. To understand consciousness, experience, experiencer, experienced, the concept of universe , spacetime and that beyond in simple maths coupled with intuition, please refer the book
SPACETIME AND THAT BEYOND
By Unnikrishnan.
Is the universe fine tuned for consciousness or did it just turn out that way? What does 'fine tuned for X' mean or presuppose? What does 'it just turned out that way' mean or presuppose? Could the universe be fine tuned for something else other than consciousness?
Consciousness is fundamental.
I like the term "proto-consciousness"
Is having or being a mind different from having or being a conscience that that mind emerges into? Is the universe & its universal equations of differentiation the destined proto-consciouseness that is mind itself? And therefore is anything mindless & nothing fully conscious?
'fine-tuned' is a silly phrase. all we can say is that the universe supports consciousness.
It is fine-tuned though or we wouldn't be here
So sub-atomic particles seem to behave as if they are 'aware' of being observed, if so does this imply that they are conscious? If sub-atomic particles have a fundamental form of consciousness doesn't this suggest that all matter has a form of consciousness?
Sub atomic are not « aware » of being observed, this is a very common misconception that is unfortunately popularized by sensationalist scientific communicator. To observe a particle, you have to shoot another particle at them, and that interaction naturally changes the way they act. That’s like trying to locate a balloon with your eyes blindfolded by shooting arrows in every direction- when the balloon pops and fall to the floor it’s not because it is conscious of being observed it’s because it was modified by the arrow.
The notion of Consciousness is steeped in mystery and debate, and although it is still generally considered to be human only, there are now schools of thought emerging that believe some animals have ‘consciousness’ as well. The idea that it is an attribute unique to us as human beings arises from the fact that we have an awareness of ourselves and the world we live in, unlike most or any of the other creatures. This awareness we have forms the basis of ‘the self’.
The reason for our becoming self-conscious, or self-aware, creatures will become apparent later on, when we begin exploring the nature of being human in greater detail. But this human self-consciousness is something quite different in nature to the reality of the Consciousness that lies behind and within everything to appear as the myriad forms in existence.
Consciousness inhabits and animates creation and its creatures not unlike the power that flows through a computer to make it work in accordance with the hardware and software of the device. By this analogy, the specific physical characteristics of a creature’s body constitute the hardware, and the programming of its mind the software.
These things are important to understand because if this conceptual ground is not firm, the model we build from here will not endure, and its potential value will be lost. What all this is pointing to is that what you really are―what we all are―is an eternal, unlimited energy source capable of creating and experiencing events. What you are is this creative source, this Consciousness. Who you are is how this Consciousness works through you to express as something unique in the world.
Powerful creative Consciousness is your true and essential nature, but of course, you experience your life through the limitations of a human body, so it may not seem that you are an all-powerful being at times, or indeed ever. By its very nature, the body exists as some ‘thing’ and is, therefore, a limitation or restriction of ‘everything else possible’, to become something specific and useful―a human being. And then it must be remembered that these bodies we inhabit are a product of Mother Earth, and have developed for good reasons. Although today there are many philosophes, theories and just sheer guesses put forward to explain the purpose of our existence, none of them fully describe or satisfactorily explain the original intention for our emergence.
Some bodies born into this world have, or will develop over time, physical or mental attributes that further alter the creative opportunities and experiences available to them in a lifetime. The influence of our national culture, the general culture of our times, and the impact of our upbringing by parents and other significant people also become major influences that can place limitations on our thinking and power. Other restrictions occur as a result of the pains we might experience in life, the emotions that often get buried in the body as a result, and the accumulating limited beliefs they then give rise to. There is also the concept of ‘karmic debt’ that will limit opportunities, and this too will be discussed later in the work.
The state of your own evolved Consciousness is another factor affecting personal power. All these things limit the opportunities you have in life, and so it can be seen that although your true nature is something quite grand, you find yourself in very limiting circumstances. But it is important to keep perspective. Your essential nature is a free and unlimited Consciousness, a potential capable of eternal creation and experience. And this Consciousness was the reality before the Universe that we know emerged.
“That’s the whole problem with science - you’ve got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder” - Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes, the 6-year old philosopher…
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” - Robert Jastrow, God And The Astronomers
I have never heard of the idea that animals don't have consciousness. I thought nearly everybody assumes animals are conscious.
@@Apebek For sure animals are conscious… Or, to put it slightly differently - animals do have souls (or spirits) (anyone who has ever owned a dog or a cat or a goldfish can attest to that)… Only, animal spirits do not reflect the image of God which humans are uniquely bearers of…
Rather than the universe being fine-tuned for consciousness, consciousness is primary and the universe is a construct of consciousness. Roger is a good thinker, he'll get it eventually..
thats just wrong on so many levels
Glad to see more and more people accepting consciousness as the fundamental reality
Try using the word influence instead of consciousness! Is it possible for the physical material world to exist at all without influence? No!
Are there levels of influence, and what determines the level of influence? Can there be an exchange of information or properties without influence?
Now, ask if you are aware of how influence affects consciousness. There seems to be a relationship between levels of influence and consciousness. Less influence increases consciousness, and more influence decreases consciousness.
are we actually conscious though? cos i think we are just really good at simulating the world and true consciousness would mean "being in touch with the entire universe", conscious of everything.
this is the most retrded thing i have read all day
Well that doesn’t make much sense. Are you talking about God? He’s the one true source of consciousness and just because we are not conscious of everything doesn’t mean that we aren’t conscious.
Consciousness is not some mysterious fog and
consciousness is not something that I have.
I am conscious.
Conscious is what I am.
I am conscious of this.
I am conscious of that.
When I am conscious of nothing I am not conscious.
When I am not conscious I do not see or feel a thing,
I do not remember and cannot choose to act and
when I am not conscious I cannot believe in magic.
In fact, when I am not conscious I am non existent, so far as I can tell.
And that's all there is to that.
Consciousness is space & being conscious is the interaction with the divine space and the body. People just dont get it.
WE are fine tuned to live in the universe
I thought Roger will give the Answer to the question of Consciousness, but it is still a mystery.
That it's still a mystery to him does not mean that it's a mystery for everyone ;)
Your consciousness become futile if you're a space traveller, you ain't got a clue ward of from the imminent hazards..
@@suatustel746 That doesnt even make any sense. What is it that youre trying to say exactly?
@@Corteum O. K. LET ME BRIEF YOU:) first of all consciousness is not a phenemonen hovering above the firmaments until the human brains come to the fore:atmospheric conditions mystery of gravity night and day seasons south north east west determines the man's ability adap to variable constants within the earth parametres, but in space you have no coordinates to adjust yourself from the imminent dangers, you need to acquire a new kind of perceptions..... Were you satisfied from my response? .
@@suatustel746 No. Your response doesnt make any sense whatsoever. Lol. The human brain has not been shown to be the cause of consciousness. If you believe it has, then show me the theory for how it dereives conscious subjective experience from unconscious objective matter?
Consciousness is not a separate part of universe, it IS the universe. No consciousness, no universe.
The universe is in Consciousness as Dr Bernardo Kastrup with two PH'ds explains with great parsimony. When will you talk to Kastrup?
The universe is in agreement with me particles are behaving just the way i need them to to experience everything that could be
Not everything that could be experienced by you,, everything you can experience.
Everything that could be experienced would be too much for you or me.
Seems like you had a partner in having everything you (can) experience, a ? creator, who 'spaced it out' in time and space, so that you could experience,...
And I've had this question in mind for while no,..., and I don't know the answers, but every being created in the way it is for you and I to experience, was that done in order that that entity, creator could experience, -what we experience.
(/If you can get that,???/)
And before god-squad jump, shouting hip, hip, hooray, existence of god, would such a thing be the author of, laudable, but ill defined rules,.., which we might add, 'christians', pay little attention to, judging others, predicting end times, which for all we know could be the cause of plagues, starvation, global warming (if that is true),
One thing, ifvyoy ask of this entity, 'What should I do?', it seems to say, 'Do whatever you choose to do'.
Since why would this marvelous playground of life, of creatures and humans choosing, why it, limit that, by tipping the game in any particular way?
However as your perfect tendency to meglamania agree with the script saying, 'I will give you dominion over all.'
What's that actually saying?
Jrb🇬🇧
Mass Mesmerisation, is screwing up humans, hence, wok-, aberrations.
All health is, all ill health is, 'macro social psycho somatic', in it's enabling and causation.
Copyright to me, thank you.
You don't experience everything that could be.
As a Ken Wilber AND Family Guy fan: he said it, he said the thing! 😂❤
@@mazolab i meant that the video mentions the word "Integral"
The better question is posed: Are our simulations occurring under the directions of us humans as a simulation run by a higher order entity running as a simulation directed by an even higher ordered entity ad-infinitum? And of a more practical nature, can we prove occurrence of an event without an observer of the event?
Hard to say.
You watch too much scifi
when folks say that the odds of life are a zillion to one against, they are also saying god picked the method least likely to achieve the desired result, under god the odds of life should be 1:1 - dead cert.
Imagine thinking anything instead of nothing was random.
Physics of QM explains the quantum fields collapsing to produce fine tuned particles, leading to life, consciousness, soul and faith, all of which are beyond physics (metaphysics), thus physics and metaphysics explains reality.
Lawrence, in the first minute did I not hear you put forward something to the effect that consciousness is existentially dependent on consciousness?
Then, listen again..,
constants of nature, and complexity thresholds.
If these sub-atomic particles have some rudimentary form of consciousness what does this say about all of matter?
Why is there something rather than nothing? How did the something become fine tuned, rather than just manifesting as a blob floating in a void? Rather than asking if these answers might explain how consciousness came about, how about trying to work out what consciousness is and especially its relation to mortality. One doesn't need to be a physicist to conclude that our existence is almost impossible to comprehend as an accident; which makes me wonder how anyone can say the more mathematically unlikely our existence in a fine tuned universe, the more likely there is a multiverse (at 5:50). Surely the opposite is true. Maybe consciousness, which although observable, but has no physical existence is evidence of the supernatural in a natural world. Ahh but we cannot go there because that gets terribly close to seeing an argument for intelligent design, or what some of us call God. If only science would embrace God as a possible answer rather than looking at everything but that. The answer seems to be that that the supernatural cannot be proved. But the supernatural is observable: life and consciousness are examples. Science has no difficulty in accepting dark matter and gravity, neither of which can be seen or understood but both are observable. This is why I commend the brave scientists studying near death and after death experiences.
The rulers of this world don't want you to believe in God. The goal for us is to be nihilistic, hopeless and therefor easily controlled. If you'd serve God you wouldn't serve them. That's why science and education has been corrupted.
There's something rather likable about this Roger Penrose character.
This virtual universe is fine tuned BY consciousness (the information system which we the players are part from)
It’s easy to define matter, yet harder to explain phenomena that are not matter. Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. This includes atoms, elements, compounds, and any object you can touch, taste, or smell. Things that are non-matter either have no mass or else don’t fill a volume. Here are several examples:
Vacuum: By definition, a vacuum is a region that does not contain any matter. It may be bounded by a volume.
Energy: Light, heat, kinetic and potential energy, and sound are non-matter because they are massless. Objects that have mass and are matter may emit energy. For example, a swinging pendulum consists of matter, but its energy of motion is not matter. A fire consists of hot gases and plasma (matter), yet gives off light and heat (not matter).
Time: Time can be measured, but it has no mass and occupies no volume.
Rainbow: A rainbow is an optical phenomenon. It’s essentially light.
Emotions: Love, hate, and happiness may be rooted in chemistry, but feelings don’t have mass or occupy volume.
Gravity: You can feel its effects and it is associated with mass, yet it doesn’t consist of matter.
Memories: Like emotions, these are non-matter.
Dreams: Again, you can’t weigh them on a balance or enclose them in a container.
Magnetism: Forces, in general, are not matter.
Information: Information may be recorded in a physical form, but it’s really just a concept.
Music: Music is sound, which is a form of energy.
How to Tell Something Isn’t Matter
There are two simple tests you can perform to tell if something consists of matter. If it fails either test, it’s non-material.
Could the phenomenon be weighed on any scale? Matter has mass.
Does the phenomenon occupy a volume? In other words, does it take up space? All matter has physical dimensions.
Note, your senses aren’t always reliable indicators of whether or not something is matter. You can see light and feel heat, but they don’t have mass. You can hear music, but you can’t weigh it or enclose it. Two senses you can trust are smell and taste. These two senses require chemical receptors. All scents and flavors are chemical compounds, which are matter.
(Nikola Tessla: The idea of the atom being formed of electrons and protons which go whirling round each other like a miniature sun and planets is an invention of the imagination, and has no relation to the real nature of matter.
“Virtually all progress has been achieved by physicists, discoverers and inventors; in short, devotees of the science which Newton and his disciples have been and are propounding.
“Personally, it is only efforts in this direction which have claimed my energies. Similar remarks might be made with respect to other modern developments of thought. Take, for example, the electron theory. Perhaps no other has given rise to so many erroneous ideas and chimerical hopes. Everybody speaks of electrons as something entirely definite and real. Still, the fact is that nobody has isolated it and nobody has measured its charge. Nor does anybody know what it really is.
“In order to explain the observed phenomena, atomic structures have been imagined, none of which can possibly exist."
-Nikola Tesla
“Great Scientific Discovery Impends.“ The Sunday Star, Washington D.C., May 17, 1931.)
That's why their good old 'education' systems teaches us literally nothing about magnetism and also why they conjured a whole platform of pseudoscience which they use to conceal all fundamental knowledge pertaining to magnetism.
$hit, they've even established a whole apparent "Regulatory Body" to suppress all info on the detrimental effects of ALL Electromagnetic Radiation upon living Cells and organisms.
Due to all Cells being electromagnetic or electrostatic in nature, just like an Atom is "99.9% empty space" according to that pseudoscience and yet any logical mind would conclude that empty space is only empty of matter but NOT empty of field phenomena such as magnetism or the Aether itself, thus, retroductively the Atom is clearly an electrostatic dynamo over and above any mass formed within that Atom as a nuclei. All nuclei acting as an arch-form; a specific geometry which is manifest from the release of infinite potential, hence it being a dynamo.
Even 60Hz Radiowaves are harmful to living Cells as it inescapably effects the electrical ARCING processes within that electrostatic dynamo. What pseudoscience terms "an effect on the electron orbital order of the Atom/Cell" because they need to reinforce their whole Atomistic and Materialistic religion that is the Cult of infinite bumping particles that is Theoretical "science". Which isn't real science at all.
Hence why all such Theoretical pseudoscience was both conjured and promoted by the Crowns/Vaticans Jesuits whom still steer their common core curriculum to this day.
Einstein; "One Stone/Marble" up there, just a Jesuit fraud like the rest of those false "scientists"that they put upon pedestals for the citizenry to worship and idolise. Even the irrelevant Theory of Relativity he stole from Jules Henri Poincaré. Who was, ftr, just another Jesuit liar also.
the Universe IS Fine tuned Consciousness
Well, when the universe expands to the point of eternal randomness and high entropy (if that’s the case), I don’t think any consciousness would be possible. In that case, would the universe without consciousness stop existing? I would think not. For this reason, I think that the universe does not depend on consciousness. I don’t think the universe needs a perceiver. I think the universe gives birth to perceivers, whether human or something else. But, who knows? Maybe the universe is the ultimate perceiver itself. Since space and time are intertwined, this idea does not sound that crazy to me.
In Conformal Cyclic Cosmology the Universe never ends but has infinite Aeons, in this view there will never be a time without Photons and as photons can be in superposition they will have consciousness upon collapse of their wave function so in this view (Roger’s theory, so it is what he believes) there will always be consciousness within the universe
@@emilyalicesargent6631 I like the view you presented, but I am not super sure about the photons in superposition. How could that suggest consciousness if no one can observe the collapse of the wave function of this photons? I do like the idea of the universe beginning again and again. But how does it shrink to form a new big bang? Perhaps, a super massive black whole takes over everything. But, due to Hawking radiation, even this black whole will fade into radiation. But, who knows, maybe such a massive black whole could lead to new physics we don’t know about. I am hinting towards the ‘Big Crunch,’ but I am more in favor of the the ‘Big Freeze’ or ‘Heat Death’ of the universe. This is what makes sense to me the most based on my understanding of entropy.
If there is no perceiver then there is no universe in my opinion. Because it has nothing to project on. It's like playing a DVD without a screenmonitor. The movie is playing but there is no movie.
How can anything exist if nobody can differentiate between existence and non-existence? It becomes exactly the same.
@@lorenzoplaserrano8734 Does it have to "shrink"? When last of the matter disappears (assumably) at the end of the heat death, when the last blackhole evaporates and protons decay etc., how would you measure or define the size of the universe afterwards? Or is there even "afterwards" as "time at the fundamental level consists of the frequency oscillations of matter particles, and thus time is locally generated and a property of matter"? What about distance? Distance between what? It can be infinitely big and infinitely small at the same time, or can you even use those words anymore? But, infinitely small does sound a bit like singularity.. So our Heat Death would be the next Big Bang. In theory.
READER QUESTION: My understanding is that nothing comes from nothing. For something to exist, there must be material or a component available, and for them to be available, there must be something else available. Now my question: Where did the material come from that created the Big Bang, and what happened in the first instance to create that material? Peter, 80, Australia.
Unfortunately, by now even our best physics fails completely to provide answers. Until we make further progress towards a “theory of everything”, we won’t be able to give any definitive answer. The most we can say with confidence at this stage is that physics has so far found no confirmed instances of something arising from nothing.
The first matter
But before we get to that, let’s take a look at how “material” - physical matter - first came about. If we are aiming to explain the origins of stable matter made of atoms or molecules, there was certainly none of that around at the Big Bang - nor for hundreds of thousands of years afterwards. We do in fact have a pretty detailed understanding of how the first atoms formed out of simpler particles once conditions cooled down enough for complex matter to be stable, and how these atoms were later fused into heavier elements inside stars. But that understanding doesn’t address the question of whether something came from nothing.
So let’s think further back. The first long-lived matter particles of any kind were protons and neutrons, which together make up the atomic nucleus. These came into existence around one ten-thousandth of a second after the Big Bang. Before that point, there was really no material in any familiar sense of the word. But physics lets us keep on tracing the timeline backwards - to physical processes which predate any stable matter.
This takes us to the so-called “grand unified epoch.” By now, we are well into the realm of speculative physics, as we can’t produce enough energy in our experiments to probe the sort of processes that were going on at the time. But a plausible hypothesis is that the physical world was made up of a soup of short-lived elementary particles - including quarks, the building blocks of protons and neutrons. There was both matter and “antimatter” in roughly equal quantities: each type of matter particle, such as the quark, has an antimatter “mirror image” companion, which is near identical to itself, differing only in one aspect. However, matter and antimatter annihilate in a flash of energy when they meet, meaning these particles were constantly created and destroyed.
But how did these particles come to exist in the first place? Quantum field theory tells us that even a vacuum, supposedly corresponding to empty spacetime, is full of physical activity in the form of energy fluctuations. These fluctuations can give rise to particles popping out, only to be disappear shortly after. This may sound like a mathematical quirk rather than real physics, but such particles have been spotted in countless experiments.
The spacetime vacuum state is seething with particles constantly being created and destroyed, apparently “out of nothing”. But perhaps all this really tells us is that the quantum vacuum is (despite its name) a something rather than a nothing. The philosopher David Albert has memorably criticized accounts of the Big Bang which promise to get something from nothing in this way.
Suppose we ask: where did spacetime itself arise from? Then we can go on turning the clock yet further back, into the truly ancient “Planck epoch” - a period so early in the universe’s history that our best theories of physics break down. This era occurred only one ten-millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. At this point, space and time themselves became subject to quantum fluctuations. Physicists ordinarily work separately with quantum mechanics, which rules the microworld of particles, and with general relativity, which applies on large, cosmic scales. But to truly understand the Planck epoch, we need a complete theory of quantum gravity, merging the two.
We still don’t have a perfect theory of quantum gravity, but there are attempts - like string theory and loop quantum gravity. In these attempts, ordinary space and time are typically seen as emergent, like the waves on the surface of a deep ocean. What we experience as space and time are the product of quantum processes operating at a deeper, microscopic level - processes that don’t make much sense to us as creatures rooted in the macroscopic world.
In the Planck epoch, our ordinary understanding of space and time breaks down, so we can’t any longer rely on our ordinary understanding of cause and effect either. Despite this, all candidate theories of quantum gravity describe something physical that was going on in the Planck epoch - some quantum precursor of ordinary space and time. But where did that come from?
Even if causality no longer applies in any ordinary fashion, it might still be possible to explain one component of the Planck-epoch universe in terms of another. Unfortunately, by now even our best physics fails completely to provide answers. Until we make further progress towards a “theory of everything”, we won’t be able to give any definitive answer. The most we can say with confidence at this stage is that physics has so far found no confirmed instances of something arising from nothing.
I don’t see how it could be two ways. Remove consciousness and tell me about what remains.
Hammer, meet nail.
May be multiverse is actually another perspective of time: This moment and the next actually belong to two linked universes.
At about the 3:14 mark, I picked up a small jab toward Leo Susskind.
Penrose says to make sense of quantum mechanics there is a fundamental need for a proto- consciousness to observe it. Proto-consciousness is fundamental to the universe! But “proto-consciousness” is something he simply made up, there is no such thing. What he calls "proto-consciousness is really the ULTIMATE consciousness, God. Physics, itself, tells us there is a need for God, bringing us Closer to Truth!
That's just a god of the gaps argument. We don't know how quantum states resolve to discrete states, therefore god does it. But that's just trying to explain something we don't know, in terms of something we have no reason to think exists.
At least we know that consciousness exists, we just have no particular reason to suppose that it plays any role in quantum decoherence. It's again trying to explain something we don't fully understand, in terms of something else we don't fully understand. oh look, we don't understand both of them, that makes them the same! Well maybe, it's not impossible, but I don't see any evidence for it.
@@simonhibbs887 Yes - We know consciousness exists - but Penrose seems to have invented "proto-consciousness". Penrose needs a consciousness that serves as an observer for EVERY quantum event in the ENTIRE universe for ALL of time. That's describing God. If you can't see that, then you just can't see that.
@@gordonquimby8907 for that to make sense we’d need a clear account and distinction between an interaction and a measurement, in terms of the process involved. They just don’t have that. Ive looked a bit more into their theory and peer reviews of it as well. It seems Hameroff made multiple basic errors of fact, and misinterpretations of previous results that bring the whole concept crashing down.
@@simonhibbs887 So, when I point out that even physics says their is a requirement that, let's say "possibly" describes God, then you say there were "multiple basic errors of fact, and misinterpretations of previous results". What's the point of having this discussion? Have a nice day.
there is a pattern to existence. subconscious mechanisms bring the source to turn into an observer. in the infinite eternity the observer is the element of all. therefore since the non observing doesnt exist then all there is are observers and there is no in between that is relevant to existence
3:23 the potential of consciousness to arise, from a proto consciousness state in a material universe, seems to be closely related to the natural mathematical laws that apply to every observable object around us...
Can we observe perfect circles in nature?
@@Samsara_is_dukkhaperfection of every shape, including circles, depends on the level of detail used during their construction... If we zoom in a pencil drawn shape then at some point we'll observe gaps and granular imperfections.... but from the perspective of the viewer without the microscope or if the level of detail was close to the perfect concept of that shape then I'd say that we have to accept our inability to distinguish the true nature during our measurements and must must apply our formulas to reach an optimal precision value...
@@r2c3 You are missing the point. There is no such things as a perfect circles (or any other geometric object) in nature, regardless of the level of details used which can always be adjusted in any case, as exemplified by fractal geometry that can be zoomed into for ever.
Perfect circles are metaphysical objects not natural ones. The exact same thing applies to mathematics: The effort to reduce even simple arithmetic to axiomatic logic was shown decisively to be impossible by the work of Czech mathematician-logician Kurt Gödel (1906-1978). Thus the effort to show that mathematics need not be metaphysical has failed.
@@Samsara_is_dukkha I really doubt the ability of "zooming in forever" and the fractal example can be easily replaced by a much simpler alternative... what, if anything, are you expecting to find down to the "forever" other than more "forever" anf if that's the case, will you then accept a formula as an approximation to the real object under inquiry...
@@r2c3 You are missing the point again. And yes, fractals can be zoomed in forever without any loss of details.
Meanwhile, nature simply does not produce perfect circles or any other perfect geometric shape. We do. That being the case, there is no such thing as ''natural mathematical laws that apply to every observable object around us". Perfect mathematical objects are metaphysical human creations, not natural ones. This observation was made by Plato over two thousand years ago, which led him to conceive of an ideal unobservable metaphysical universe beyond the observable one.
So, by now Consciousness is only metaphysics. Hence, saying universe is fine tunning to it, is like saying that universe is only metaphysics. By, now. Beware of that .
The Universe is created from Consciousness. Consciousness is Existence. Humans are self-conscious, most fail to realise there is a fundamental difference from simple consciousness.
Whose idea was it to shoot this at 60 fps
HIs argument about protoconsciousness needing to exist in order to allow a wavefunction to take on a definite form seems very strange...I thought the observer effect in QM was always a misnomer because you can force a collapse by the act of measurement, consciousness is not involved. An experiment could be run robotically. Also consciousness is not even clearly defined. Really not clear what he means by that. I feel uncomfortable calling Penrose wrong about QM but his view sounds the same as what they say in new age circles.
"Consciousness is a fundamental feature...." Seems to me consciousness is nothing compared to fine tuning itself. And by 'nothing' I mean, way more fundamental.
If universe is not real and local, it can't give properties to real. Then the only real reality has to be non-localness and i has to give properties to that which reside in it, not other way around
I ask you, what would the opposite of a fine tuned universe be? By any chance could it be a natural universe?
They're not necessarily different.
@@MonsuerLePlague A fine tuned universe is one that is fine tuned. It is adjusted. A natural universe is one that is not adjusted. It is just the way it is. An adjustment implies an adjuster and an outcome desired. A natural universe does not. Existence exists. To me that is a clear difference.
Consider your position carefully. Are you sure that a fine-tuned universe requires a tuner? What reason is there to believe that reality doesn't just inherently behave this way? Would you be in favor of personifying nature (nature = god) if it has this quality, so that your statement remains true?
@@MonsuerLePlague Reality behaving inherently the way it does is, in my mind, not fine turning. That is what the phrase ' a natural universe' means. Fine tuning implies a tuner. It is a loaded term, not a neutral one. It is way of sneaking God into a conversation. In my mind, God is not nature, except in a metaphorical sense where God is the personification of the unknown.
Why would the universe need consciousness?
Is it proof of the block universe that people on these most recent episodes never seem to age?
it says it's a recent upload, but when was it recorded, sir roger seems younger than i recall, although he might be having a good day.
I was thinking along the same lines as you. This was my thought. The bible speaks a lot about conscience. How it can be wounded or even seared. However, at Matthew 5:3, it uses the word conscious and it says "happy are those conscious of their spiritual needs." Do you think animals could ever be conscious of their spiritual needs? Animals don't even have religion, let a lone be aware of their spiritual needs. Only the human layer of the brain understands this. Our reptilian and mammalian layers could care less about a God and are not conscious of life, let a lone their spiritual needs.
Peace and Ahev
What's up with the camera at every take??
I'm a Little Photon
I am a beam of light
I just arrived from a distant source.
Let me pass on some wisdom
From my 8 billion years of experience…
There's a lot more happening out there
Than current theory is able to explain!
I'm a little photon, I was short and stout,
Zip me on forever and I get tired out.
In principle the Universe has to be observable? Why? I believe that the Universe could easily have developed without biological organisms and no observers. The Universe obviously is not dependent on observers in order to exist.
Penrose states in his consciousness theory that anything in superposition when the wave function collapses a spark of protoconsciousness occurs, that means a photon or electron have a primitive moment of consciousness needed to select outcomes from possibilities, Penrose is not just saying we need biological organisms but that anything can experience consciousness and this is why the universe gets observed from the very “start”
@@emilyalicesargent6631 So Penrose believes without any real scientific evidence that photons and electrons have some sort of proto consciousness? There's no way that could even be proven scientifically and it's not falsifiable. I don't see the need to speculate that all matter has a mental or non physical component. Only living organisms that have a fairly developed nervous system and brain possess consciousness in my opinion. The more complex organisms are the higher levels of consciousness or awareness. I believe this makes much more sense rather than speculation that everything including material objects have some sort of awareness.
here before he's gone...
How does one talk with this Dr Penrose.
By using words, that come from your mouth.
@@morbidmanmusicso he can’t read?
Sorry to say is that it’s the other way around: consciousness is tuned for the Universe, with an obvious caveat that consciousness’s bandwidth unfortunately is extremely narrow.
Sorry to say it's not, because a reality that is not observed and felt basically does not exist.
Does the universe exist if no conscious/sentience awareness perceives it?
Why wouldn't it? As far as we can tell it got on fine without us for the first 13 billion years or so.
Obviously yes. Why? Because all things made up of quantum material physically observe each other. Our pathetically limited senses aren't the only things that discern reality. All things all things "observe" (interact)
Does food exist if there are no organs of metabolism to digest it?
@@simonhibbs887 Your comment is self-defeating and therefore false. All comments or ideas are products of consciousness or personal thinking, including the idea of the physical world.
@@earth1710 That view confuses the idea of things with the thing itself, but these are distinct categories.
Our conscious awareness consists of those things we perceive, however we are presented with a continuous stream of novel information of which we are not previously aware and so does not come from our conscious awareness. It must have a source outside of consciousness. That information is highly consistent and persistent, and therefore must come from a highly consistent and persistent source.
Furthermore when there is a discrepancy between our perception of something and the reality of that thing, our perception always loses. If we think we see a rabbit but it's actually a duck, no amount of imagining that we see a rabbit will change the duck into a rabbit. Reality wins, and our conscious perceptions lose, every single time. Therefore the source of our perceptions, which we call the physical world, is more reliable, consistent and persistent than our perceptions of it.
So it is true that your personal internal experience of the world is all that you have, but I don't have that. I have my own personal internal experience of the world, and that's all that I have. Also we know that these are different. However my reliance on my view of the world doesn't make your view of the world any less real or valid. It doesn't make the physical world any less real of valid.
Consciousness is prior to space and time.
You are taller than space and wider than time, all of eternity can be seen at once. Ask any real epileptic, or someone who's had a near death experience. The entire universe fits in your hand like a tennis ball, but you'll have to be as your true self to see it not the false identity of mind.
Everything will be fine......always.
2:00 ... surely the universe is infinite ... 2:25 ... so there are two ways in which what you're saying could happen one way is that the quantum mechanics is something built into the universe and this is how quantum mechanic works and it just coincidentally or accidentally has this proto-consciousness which in the randomness of evolution directedness in somewhat produces consciousness the other way is a more a strong way to put it that the universe could not have existed without that there's somehow a causal loop involved which some people go to 2:56 ... 3:23 ... I think I take the view that what we mean by universe and I'm not quite sure what mean about the universe but what we mean by universe would have to involve the potential for consciousness to arise not quite the same as saying that it does arise which might ( but have to as a strong word) have to yeah but that's just a bias on my part I think I it's really a question of what we mean by universes does the universe have to be something that could be observed in some sense or could a universe be just sort of dead and nothing do we mean the universe by such a thing is that a term that we should apply to such a construct of course it raises the issue whether it exists existence can come about just from some consistent mathematical scheme which you might come up and does it exist for a mere platonic reason that somehow mathematically consistent things have to exist so I don't know uh I think we get into areas where it's really hard to make any comment there I don't think there is a genuine question though about a universe a bit like ours with laws broadly 4:31 like ours but whre the constants of nature happen to be just slightly different in such a way that actual conscious life would not evolve ❤ my prejudice here is to think that these constants of nature are probably pure numbers [that's wise decision!] that is to say that there if we knew enough about how the universe has to fit together these numbers would have to have particular values I have to say that I love the way theories have gone is the opposite way (yes) you take string theory for example there was a time when people thought oh there are only a few numbers will fit and then they find goodness me zillions of different possibilities so to me that's a bad mark a theory which will actually tighten down and give you clear predictions on numbers which of course we often do I mean where are these spectral lines we know that they have to be in certain places because of nuclei having I mean it puts the blame somewhere else but you're 5:29 putting it in a place where there are less fewer parameters to play with uh particle physics unfortunately it started to go the wrong way where the number of numbers that need to be introduced to make the theory agree with we or make their work at all uh seem to have beening increasing over the decades ( which makes the fine-tuning of this universe more unusual and the likelihood of multiple universe more likely ) you might say that yes. 5:59
If it was, you'd see it more. We barely have it on earth.
Angels
Doesn’t it seem more likely that consciousness is fine tuned to the universe?
Evidence ?
The *"Fine Tuning"* argument stems from an _end result_ perspective. The universe was once an amorphic blob of molten goo, and 13.8B years later we have intelligent humans running around; therefore, the universe must have been intentionally scripted for this outcome. But there are many examples of emerging complexity that we know were never scripted.
*Example:* None of us knew at birth what type of person we would eventually become. The universe didn't hand us a script. Regardless, everyone still managed to evolve into doctors, lawyers, criminals, politicians, addicts, writers, artists, and even physicists. Although we all shared the same biological chemistry at birth, you weren't "preconfigured" to end up who you are today, ... _and neither was I._
You ended up as who you are today through a painstakingly slow progression of *unknown variables* that randomly coalesced into your current physical and mental configuration.
... Such is the same for how "life" emerged in the universe.
Nice explanation. 😊
Great soliloquy, however I will say you left out hard determinism.
@@DeaderEyeland_1983 *"Great soliloquy, however I will say you left out hard determinism."*
... If I make my comment too long, then nobody will read it. However, I did hammer on Hard Determinism in John777Revelation's 26-comment thread. It's somewhere under this video.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC K I'll find it and chk it out
*"Determinism may still be a thing. I personally believe it is likely that we live in a deterministic universe, and that our "free will" is just the chemicals in our brains doing what they would have always done given the stimuli we are provided."*
... You should be skeptical of any ideology where there is no intellectual escape from whatever the ideology presents.
*Example:* If I were to say, _"I don't believe we exist in a hard deterministic reality."_ you could argue that it was predetermined based on a series of prior events that I would end up thinking that way. Thus ... _no escape!_
Probably the best way to expose the flaw in the Hard Determinist's ideology is with the following example:
*God:* _"Everything you do and every decision you make is predetermined via God. God is in control of everything that happens and there is no alternative to the outcomes God orchestrates."_
*Hard Determinism:* _"Everything you do and every decision you make is predetermined via hard determinism. Hard determinism is in control of everything that happens and there is no alternative to the outcomes hard determinism orchestrates."_
... So, you can either accept that you have *no choice* but to think exactly like a theist due to the nature of hard determinism ... or you can *freely choose* not to.
Without CONSCIOUSNESS NO ONE WOULD EXIST.
I THINK > I AM GOD CONSCIOUSNESS
THOUGHT IS THE FIRST LEVEL OF GOD'S CREATION.
Imagination - Process of Pure Creation
The process of creation starts with thought
- an idea, conception, visualization. Everything you see was once someone's idea. Nothing exists in your world that did not first exist as pure thought.
This is true of the universe as well.
Thought is the first level of creation.
Next comes the word. Everything you say is a thought expressed. It is creative and sends forth creative energy into the universe. Words are more dynamic (thus, some might say more creative) than thought, because words are a different level of vibration from thought. They disrupt (change, alter, affect) the universe with greater impact.
Words are the second level of creation.
Next comes action.
Actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. Forces are elements existent. Elements are particles of God, portions of ALL, the stuff of everything.
The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating - or God experienced.
Hang on. There's one thing more I have to tell you. You are always seeing what by your terms you would define as the "past," even when you are looking at what is right in front of you.
I am?
It is impossible to see The Present. The Present "happens," then turns into a burst of light, formed by energy dispersing, and that light reaches your receptors, your eyes, and it takes time for it to do that.
All the while the light is reaching you, life is going on, moving forward. The next event is happening while the light from the last event is reaching you.
The energy burst reaches your eyes, your receptors send that signal to your brain, which interprets the data and tells you what you are seeing. Yet that is not what is now in front of you at all. It is what you think you are seeing. That is, you are thinking about what you have seen, telling yourself what it is, and deciding what you are going to call it, while what is happening "now" is preceding your process, and awaiting it.
To put this simply, I am always one step ahead of you.
My God, this is unbelievable.
Now listen. The more distance you place between your Self and the physical location of any event, the further into the "past" that event recedes. Place yourself a few light-years back, and what you are looking at happened very, very long ago, indeed.
Yet it did not happen "long ago." It is merely physical distance which has created the illusion of "time," and allowed you to experience your Self as being both "here, now" all the while you are being "there, then"!
One day you will see that what you call time and space are the same thing.
Then you will see that everything is happening right here, right now.
This is....this is....wild. I mean, I don't know what to make of all this.
When you understand what I have told you, you will understand that nothing you see is real. You are seeing the image of what was once an event, yet even that image, that energy burst, is something you are interpreting. Your personal interpretation of that image is called your image-ination.
And you can use your imagination to create anything. Because - and here is the greatest secret of all - your image-ination works both ways.
Please?
You not only interpret energy, you create it. Imagination is a function of your mind, which is one-third of your three-part being. In your mind you image something, and it begins to take physical form. The longer you image it (and the more OF you who image it), the more physical that form becomes, until the increasing energy you have given it literally bursts into light, flashing an image of itself into what you call your reality.
You then "see" the image, and once again decide what it is. Thus, the cycle continues. This is what I have called The Process.
This is what YOU ARE. You ARE this Process.
This is what I have meant when I have said, you are both the Creator and the Created.
I have now brought it all together for you. We are concluding this dialogue, and I have explained to you the mechanics of the universe, the secret of all life.
Okay.
Now as energy coalesced, it becomes, as I said, very concentrated. But the further one moves from the point of this concentration, the more dissipated the energy becomes. The "air becomes thinner." The aura fades. The energy never completely disappears, because it cannot. It is the stuff of which everything is made. It's All There Is. Yet it can become very, very thin, very subtle - almost "not there."
Then, in another place (read that, another part of Itself) it can again coalesce, once more "clumping together" to form what you call matter, and what "looks like" a discreet unit. Now the two units appear separate from each other, and in truth there is no separation at all.
This is, in very, very simple and elementary terms, the explanation behind the whole physical universe.
Wow. But can it be true? How do I know I haven't just made this all up?
Your scientists are already discovering that the building blocks of all of life are the same.
They brought back rocks from the moon and found the same stuff they find in trees. They take apart a tree and find the same stuff they find in you.
I tell you this: We are all the same stuff. (I and the Father are One Energy)
We are the same energy, coalesced, compressed in different ways to create different forms and different matter.
Nothing "matters" in and of itself. That is, nothing can become matter all by itself. Jesus said, "Without the Father, I am nothing." The Father of all is pure thought. This is the energy of life. This is what you have chosen to call Absolute Love.
This is the God and the Goddess, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. It is the All-in-All, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Source. It is that which you have sought to understand from the beginning of time. The Great Mystery, the Endless Enigma, the Eternal Truth.
There is only One of Us, and so, it is THAT WHICH YOU ARE.
Uni-one verse-rythem
Of course... Consciousness created IT.
Penrose is presenting Old and outdated concepts, please see “The Unconscious Quantum” by V.J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 1995.
Theories are not proofs in any way, not are models.
A lot of our disagreement are because of false dichotomy.
Can anybody else understand this?
The universe 'is' consciousness.
Penrose the chad
The Universe is made up of Divine Consciousness.
Divine consciousness is chaos
@@Frostwho It only appears that way.
@@stephenbost5892 chaos is the lord’s will
@@Frostwho True
Does the universe has a will to death? That would contradict the Big Bang maybe.
The answer to the title's question is... yes, but earthly human consciousness is out of tune. Don't need an earthly degree in anything to know and understand that.
See the mirror symmetrc entangled raspberry mutiverse. Of Q.FFF theory.
Consciousness emerges from the processing of sensory information by a biological entity that can sense it’s boundaries.
The more sensory information that the entity is capable of simultaneously processing, the higher level of consciousness it possesses.
The cell possesses the lowest level of consciousness, humans have the highest level because of our brain capacity to process and store information.
Artificial intelligence will have consciousness once it meets all requirements.
Agree for the most part about sensory information, but you're forgetting that the limbic system's other motivation for action is not just reacting to stimuli, but also instinctual emotion......BUT, you are very very wrong about AI and consciousness. A machine is not conscious unless humans attribute it as such. Any output from AI is pure 'signifier' there is no signified like the letters and words and sounds I am making right now - they all have a pre-determined signifieds (meaning). A machine does not have a clue about predetermined signifieds - its meaning is 100% extrapolated - its meaning is the meaning we provide to its output of marks/sounds/i images. As far as the machine is concerned it is outputting a bunch of meaninglerss marks.The danger to humanity is exactly the mistake you just made, suggesting a machine has consciousness - that is a very slippery slope.
@@gordonpepper1400 Imagine a future of autonomous multi sensors AI programmed by synthetic DNA capable of making intelligent decisions. It will not be 100% human consciousness but it will be at the level of lower organisms. I believe they will be the systems that we will use to conquer space. Once an organism gets a sense of self it is endowed with consciousness, That's may seen as a circular argument but getting a sense of self is acquired by processing the collective inputs. The universe created quantum intelligence and we are it, hail to the brain.
IA will never have consciousness because it's a machine it's not life. It's only a physical creation from information we program it with. Consciousness can only come from a personal spirit
@@BJtheMountaineerguy Can you explain what is what you understand a personal spirit is?