There are no physical laws in the world, with Dr. Daniele Oriti
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 чер 2024
- The Nobel Prize in physics in 2022 went to scientists who, for over 40 years, have carried out a series of experiments indicating that, contrary to materialist expectations, physical entities do not have standalone existence but are, in fact, products of observation. This result is extraordinarily relevant to our understanding of the nature of reality, and so Essentia Foundation, in collaboration with the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Vienna, of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (home to Prof. Anton Zeilinger, one 2022's Nobel Laureates in physics), organized a conference discussing the implications of this result. The conference was hosted by IQOQI-Vienna’s Dr. Markus Müller and featured seven other speakers.
In this, one of the most intriguing presentations of the conference, Dr. Daniele Oriti, from the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, defends the view that physical laws are epistemic in nature, having no independent ontological status.
Copyright © 2022 by Essentia Foundation. All rights reserved.
www.essentiafoundation.org
Reality = That which is/That I am.
That which is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential).
0. Potential = Being
1. Actual = Becoming (actualized)
Since that which is not, is not; That which is, is All-inclusive: Absolute, Infinite, Eternal.
Since the potential for actualization is Infinite, the actualization of potential is Eternal.
We actualize potential by dreaming our experience (rehearsing the future), and experiencing our dream.
Every choice we make generates a corresponding timeline of experience. Is the resulting narrative a limit or a creative guideline? No wrong answer - only another choice.
What the living fire of conscious attention dwells on now, we dwell in later.
Space = Here
Time = Now
Experience = This
United we stand.....
Namaste'.
I am very happy of hearing this because being a simple High school math teacher I have always have the intuition that the nature of both physical laws and math are of a ontological nature rather than epistemological.
You mean the other way around, right?
It think it would be interesting to have Wolfgang Smith speaking at Essentia Foundation as well. His platonic physics seems to resonate a lot with this subject
I wonder what this presenter thinks of Hoffman's ideas on Decorated Permutations and Markovian Dynamics? Both Hoffman and this presenter seem to be touching on the same concepts, just calling it by different names.
I hope to see the quetion/answer session at the end.
We have unknows objects that we have recorded going from sea level to 20,000 feet in .78 seconds. and right angle turns at 10,000 mph. They're either non physical and within consciousness or these things are operating in spacetime.
Spacetime is a collection of measuring rods📏 and clocks⏰, that are made of waves🌊. It doesn't represent space🌌 and time⌚. Quantum wavefunction represents a statistical ensemble.
There are 2 kinds of d.o.f. underlying ones and ones that are the coarse-grained versions of the former. They all move in space, not in spacetime.
Rupert Sheldrake also pointed to this no? thx for sharing.
I think you are correct to a point (in that both conclude that the laws of physics are neither "fixed" nor "eternal"), but I feel there is a divergence because Sheldrake seems to argue from a more ontological POV, whereas this presenter is arguing from an epistemological POV.
pointed to this video or to similar ideas?
I have a question, since those are philosophers using language. What does it mean when someone has an accent whereas others do mimik the pronaunciation and accent nearly perfectly? What is behind that, what is the difference? Why are some people able to do it: mimiking foreign accent. language?
I believe this speaks to the “interdependent origination” as seen by the Tibetan Buddhist teachings.
Vedanta from Hinduism would be a better source for this.
so seems like constructor theory gaining more acceptance.
Objects in space and time have no causal powers.
Engines don't move cars. Dreampower moves cars.
What a confusing talk. Unclear ideas, unclear statements, nothing that can be tested in experiments. The talk can be summarized in one sentence:
"I did not find quantum gravity - now I confuse you in such a way that you are not able to find it either."
Very boring. Without any enthusiasm ...
Right. If it's true, they should be shouting it from the rooftops due to its implications.
Physical laws DO have independent ontological status. If they didn't, we wouldn't be watching this video. The video is extremely upsetting and I can't watch any more of it. I don't like post-modernist physics!
How would one prove this either way? If there is no conscious presence to create value, how can one say the value is always there? I'm neutral on the concept. Just curious. Certainly there are fundamental laws; physics appear to be subject to these laws.
"Post Modernist" = A label I ascribe to any idea I can't prove which causes me intellectual discomfort.
If you don't like post modern physics...you really won't like post disclosure UFOs
@@mba321 No. I don't shirk from intellectual discomfort nor heave labels on things I don't like. Note the video description: "contrary to materialist expectations, physical entities do not have standalone existence but are, in fact, products of observation". That's relativism although it isn't about Heisenberg, uncertainty, and his cat; nor the special and general theories of relativity, which I'm comfortable with. Maybe you're suggesting what The Oakenwulf said, about the need for a conscious presence to give a frame of reference. Or the two guys below, who say this video echoes teachings in Tibetan Buddhism or Vedanta in Hinduism. If so, I feel no intellectual discomfort.
@@EllieK You: "I don't shirk from intellectual discomfort nor heave labels on things I don't like."
Also You: "This video is extremely upsetting and I can't watch any more of it. I don't like post modernist physics."
Forgive me for getting the wrong impression.