I’m with him and can’t understand why the universe would depend upon consciousness. Remove the observer and so the measuring and… ? Seems like any guess moving forward is irrelevant, particularly since the guessing ceases. I’m intelligent but have a feeling that I’m beyond my knowledge base. 🤯🙆🏻♂️
Thanks man! Mathematics changed in the higher dimensions. 2+ 2 no longer = 4 in the 9th dimension. I've seen it our energy comes from a vortex in another energy field way beyond anything you can imagine...✌& Thanks...
everyone tries to apply mathematics open your simple thinking.... the quantum world, our spirits, computer chips all use frequencies.. is why ' some' music touches your soul. It is in tune with your frequency.. The stars sing we just can't hear them
There isnt another person alive would ever even consider listening to for 24 hours straight. But you monetized thinking, by giving us a home. Where we dont have to have these thoughts and questions alone.
Take a look at his Wikipedia page, truly impressive. Not doctor but professor and a sir of maths and physics at both Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard and also Nobel winner
90 years old! And to be so brilliant still. We should all take notice, and keep pushing ourselves to explore the outer limits of our intelligence, no matter what our numerical age.
🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐 YES 😝 You are absolutely on point, renewal of the mind and a growing in understanding and finding a way to have enough faith in something to have complete belief. Praise God
As a mathematical physics student, Dr. Penrose is one of my favorite scientists/mathematicians if not my favorite. It is a bit sad to know he likely won’t be around too much longer, yet it is good to know that he has had a long and successful life.
So dumb that you had to include “as a mathematical physics student…” nobody cares. You could have simply said “Dr. Penrose is one of my favorite…” You were just looking to blow your own horn.
@@mappingtheshit I had mathematical physics last semester for my MSc in Physics. T'was as pain in the neck. So, I refuse to believe that it doesn't exist. Lol. But it contained mathematical concepts that are useful for physics, though. Not theoretical physics.
@@mappingtheshit I think you have been terribly mistaken. Mathematical physics is very much a valid name for the subject that I mentioned -- the mathematical concepts needed for physics -- everywhere in the world, in every universities. It is not another name for theoretical physics, as you seem to imply. There's literally a book sitting right in front of me that's titled "mathematical physics". I'm an MSc Physics student. Or don't believe me, just google "mathematical physics", and you'll see thousands of results that explains what the subject is.
It's incredible that Penrose is this sharp at his age. Shows the importance of continuing to mentally expand throughout life. Love the full conversation from two brilliant men.
That's the problem. He SOUNDS like he's filling your noodle with knowledge via a soothing pseudointellectual delivery but it's all bullshit. Your mind is a septic tank.
@@NightLetterLondon He's 'respected' for his THEORY of black holes. Go experience one for yourself and get back to us. The only black holes in this realm are the ones that suck in the truth and poop out people like Penrose and the mindless drones who listen to Public Radio while driving alone in their Prius' with their blue Covid mask on believing everything they're told.
It’s rare that Jordan feels completely out of his element - it was interesting to watch him attempt to connect philosophical thoughts he has been exploring with Penrose’s mathematical expression of reality. I’m not sure he was able to make an impactful connection tbh but I think pursuing it is noble and this pursuit will end up being the end game for all thinkers: to connect their philosophic ideas with hard science.
I just thought about the same thing - the point in all physics theories is to find a universal theory that explains everything. Maybe someday we will find a theory that connects hard science and philosophy, also God. Maybe it’s something as simple as an idea or a question.
@@anger.7808 Definitely feels like science and religion are searching for the same thing through two different lenses, doesn't it? I'm sure they might disagree, but thankfully truth comes in a few flavours.
@@karmanic7492 they are searching for the same thing, but religion is so out of depth for the simple reason its not based on any kind of logic which is not built on false assumptions
@@flowerinthewild-x5u Well, I didn’t really mean religion as a construction and practices, more like the idea of God (Gods) and their manifestation through us. Religion is like a metaphorical reality, as science is literal reality. Science and religion sadly become more separated, instead they should be treated as tools that both try to describe what is going on. One or the other alone can’t describe everything.
Honest, brilliant, articulate and always on point. He explains highly complex equations and theories in a way that a layman like myself can understand. Genius.
Yes, Penrose is brilliant. The interview also shows interesting aspects of JP. BUT using pointless math to model your political obsessions in public is petty and ponderous. Edit - removed "arbitrary"
I hate to say this but the US will never have a good president unless the public becomes better educated. If everyone’s stupid, they will of course elect someone stupid. Not that I’m any better
I love how attentive Jordan is, you can see the appreciation and respect he has for Penrose, Which clearly anybody should do if given the opportunity to meet him regardless whether you agree with his views or not, and especially as it being that he is getting older. Well done, A+ for Jordan and A+ for Roger, both remarkable people.
Idk if you watched the whole interview, but even here Peterson has a very impressionistic response to what Penrose is saying. Their two trains of thought aren't aligned and in the full interview it was even more apparent. At the beginning of the interview Peterson went on several monologues disguised as questions without ever acknowledging that Penrose answered the question already. I think the other host did a fantastic job of following along even with the disagreement at the end of this particular clip.
@@VonJay Ya it seems like Jordan doesn't really understand what he is saying, which is fine, he's not a physicist, but it feels like he is pretending (or trying to give off the impression to the audience) that he does understand when he doesn't
@@steviemac2681 his lack of knowledge isn’t my problem. Not actively acknowledging that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about is the problem. His questions come off as statements expressing what he does know, even if what he does know had already been explained by Penrose and is mildly irrelevent to the detail at hand. The premise of a A good question would start with acknowledging what you don’t know first, and examine ways in which the interviewee can build enough traction toward a simplified model. Instead he’s going on monologues disguised as questions.
True thinkers never appear to be 100% certain. Doubt is the true sign of being a real and genuine genius. They are never dogmatic and always debate their and other’s opinion with an open mind. They leave many doors and questions open.. because this is what drives us all....curiosity. Thank you Jordan for a delightful conversation.
I agree 😐when we say the Big Bang happend and it will end in death and we will never live again 😐may be true but in some ways it’s misleading and it’s ok to say we don’t know 🙂saying the Big Bang created EVERYTHING when we don’t know how life got here in the first place just let’s us know how ignorant humans can really be 😐the universe is not going to say ohh I’m going to die whatever 😑nor will the universe say I stared off with a bang 😐i find that humans are very ignorant and if they find something they must assume it’s true 😐but the true thing is we just don’t know 😑and thats ok 🙂
That is because the more we learn, the more we realize what we don't know. A person that is 100% sure of something is either lying to you or a fool, or a bit of both.
@@John_Lee_Catron_II I agree 😐we say that the universe Begain 14 billion years and I goggle years it will end of heat death forever 😑seems possible 😓but I feel their is much to it 😐WAY much to it 😑
One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone says there was a “study” that “proved” something we were debating about as if that should be the end of discussion. If you’ve ever listened to a panel of experts you know science is full of competing ideas and theories.
There was a study that your cell phone wasn't working because the battery was low. The study involved charging your cell phone and confirming it was now working. That should be the end of discussion. Every person does scientific studies every day that lead to an end to any discussing. Lots of science is like that. Not all. But lots.
There is a difference between practical science and theoretical musings as shown here. So when your friend cites something like the sociological experiment that showed that the more people in a situation the less likely a victim is to be helped, you can believe that that situation is likely going to be true for your purposes. Or a study that links use of X medicine to a 100% positive outcome in a disease. If a friend cites an essay on why quantum mechanics is an inconsistent theory and claims to end a discussion, that's a totally different scenario and likely just the start of the discussion with anyone who has a minimal grasp of quantum theories.
Depends on the question really. If you claim quantum mechanics is false, you would be wrong, because there is "proof" for its validity. However, if you are talking about why/how the act of measuring collapses the wave function (as in the video), we only have "proof" that it happens, but the cause/mechanism is open to "competing ideas and theories"
It's a sad reality that in order to know exactly what was proven and if indeed it was proven at all, you need to be able to inspect the work yourself from a place of academic expertise. Otherwise you have to just trust the peer review process.
90 ain't old. It's refined, mature, grainy muscle. Have you seen Dorian Yates in his prime? That's grainy mature hard muscle. Premrose is dense mature grainy musculature of the mind. You gotta keep training. Daily. Whatever happens, never skip calves day. Thanks
I love the fact that Jordan holds discussions on variety of topics on his channels, not just politics. His politics are great, just nice to hear different things.
What good does it do when our country has fallen into the hands of collectivism, communism, censorship, we are going to hell in a hand basket, philosophy don’t mean shit!!!!🇨🇦
@@p.h6605 you're beating a dead horse, most brains dead individuals just come to his channel to hear Dr. Peterson mention God and some right wing ideologies, they ignore the rest of his lecture.
@@jZamora87 what made Peterson famous was rattling against communism on UA-cam!!! As I mentioned earlier he hasn’t even commented publicly on the state of our situation in Canada 🇨🇦. We had an election last September and Jordan never came on or commented on anything, he was always making criticism’s. I’ll wager he’ll immigrate to the states 🇨🇦
@@jZamora87 na man, don't sit above people dude, just tryna let the guy know. There's plenty of things me and you would also be the "dead horse" & beginners at as well. Peace ✌️
This is the first time seeing Jordan trying to wrap around his head a concept that is complicated enough to be outside of his regular “reach”. What a great honor to learn about these school of thoughts from absolute legends such as Penrose, Von Neumann, Godel, and Wigner. Hope to see more of these videos!
Peterson frequently comments on areas outside his specialism and usually betrays his ignorance when he does so. For example, when he said "there is no such thing as climate" or "the Bible is literally the first book" or "it's likely that hospitals do more harm than good". The fact that this man has thousands of followers hanging on his every word is a brutal indictment of education systems everywhere.
It shows how out of his depth he is when discussing topics of middling complexity. Penrose broke it down enough that a high schooler could interpret it, and Peterson still insisted on injecting his non-sensical view of the world into it.
He is eloquent, but like any theoretical scientist, which he is, almost all of his presuppositions are based on a faith or assumption that confirms his ideas.
This is the sign of a man still searching for answers, a true scientist. Plus a well presented interview, question followed by answer without contention or conflict.
And why the dumb act out and complain about and doubt science. It's because they always want the quick answer and use their dumb big mouths to fire at science because it doesn't provide it all the time.
If JP were "searching for answers" then why does he always come back to the SAME answer; biblical? I question the reason of anyone who cannot see this obvious trend to his answers and that he lacks actual critical thinking.
@@mpjstuff Jordan Peterson broke under the pressure and was indoctrinated into "the faith". Now he sees things through a lens. He's not been as controversial recently, he's been tamed. You can't blame him, he was under constant attack, sooner or later everyone breaks...
@@daveofyorkshire301 Was JP broken by religious indoctrination, or by everyone hammering on him for being a grifter? I can't relate the 2nd situation, but, a hell of a lot more people survived the first. I'll allow excuses for some kid who becomes a criminal because all his heroes and opportunities were bad choices -- but, if JP is absolved -- he's last in line of privileged people making bad choices. I'd say he's just an opportunist and smart enough to fool some, but, definitely not all.
@@mpjstuff Grifter? a person who engages in petty or small-scale swindling. He is an educated and highly qualified man in his field, tell me what was he selling that you call him a grifter?
I had the great honour to share some dinners with this wonderful man at my college in Oxford. I shared a flat with one of his DPhil students. Sadly, at dinner, with his students there, the QM discussions were too complex for me to follow. I just sat quietly and listened, filled with brain love. My flat mate and I used to share a bottle of (cheap) wine and try to talk about our respective areas. I struggled with conceptualsing N-dimensional space, and he couldn't fathom the sloppiness and emergent phenomena of biological systems. But, it was fun trying.
Cool, after I became an engineer I went to work for an aerospace company that would pay for continuing your higher education. I started studying biology and met Lynn Margulis in 1974 or 75, not exactly sure. Anyway she gave a lecture I went to at UCLA. She invited me to take her summer class on her Evolutionary Symbiosis (reason I wanted to hear her lectures) at U-Mass Amhurst. My company let me take a Sabbatical (unpaid) and off to Massachusetts I drove. She was great to talk to and had a total grasp of the current knowledge of biological systems. She was no mere evolutionary theorist and she despised Neo-Darwinism's dogmatism and that really came out when EO Wilson came to Amhurst I think to promote his book Sociobiology The New Synthesis that Lynn told him taking insect sociology and applying it to humans was bogus (my word, hers' was stronger) and similarities didn't make it scientific. Dr. Wilson, always a gentleman told her is that any way to talk to someone that was going to say something nice about her hypothesis. What a lunch. They agreed on more than they disagreed and Lynn even asked me about evolution's lack of mathematical applications. She knew I was an engineer and I often described biology in those terms and Dr. Wilson surprised me by agreeing with my viewpoint. I didn't know he used math in his studies. I told him on a superficial level evolution was a chaotic system, but in micro it didn't seem that way to me. He then surprised me and actually agreed with me. We all had an interesting lunch that turned into an afternoon.
@@MountainFisher Cool story, but I'm not sure of the direct link with JP, RP, or consciousness? Your company sounds like a great one to work for. Re: bee hives, ants etc ... nearly every author expanding on their 'novel' paradigm will pull webs of knowledge into a structure of nodes and associative connections to support their conjecture. Including JP and RP :) although their intellectual rigor is fairly robust. These webs are distorted, or perhaps more fairly, biased towards their paradigm. With particular reference to insect: human sociobiology ... I know almost nothing, but that makes it more fun being weakly constrained by fact ... humans have evolved hard wired and social environmental neural development and learning to survive within tribes and the natural environment. Associated with this are social behaviors that balance yin and yang (soft/ hard, individual/ group, selfish/ sharing/ parasitism etc). At the macro level, this plays out in personality distributions, political distributions (left/ right etc), laws, social values etc. At the larger scale, society is like an oil super tanker. It takes ages to change direction. Some political types strategise long term to move the tanker left or right. And, in doing so, swing it too far. That is when us poor saps, more in the middle, increasingly push back. Essentially saying, 'whoa, you have gone too far'. You see this to some extent with the swing in general views with each generation. You also see this interplay in other domains with younger/ older, less experienced/ more experienced, those set in their ways/ those less so, etc. Whoops, I waffled on. Your last point is most relevant. When people take time to discuss, in the absence of social (media, work place, cancel culture, etc) threats, they agree on most things. That, by the way, is the biggest danger of cancel culture - it destroys societal exploration and explanation of views. Until push back builds up, as normalisation starts to occur. Hardly surprising re your point about mostly agreeing, as we are all humans :)
@@nitrostudy9049 All good till you banged on about ‘cancel’ culture. So-callled cancel culture is a reaction to US assimilation culture which wants everyone to line up the same like Nth Korean zombies - that’s very hard to do if you are Obviously different - and if you are subtly different. ( think race, gender, different ideas…). RP and JP are both victims of dominant views that don’t like thier approaches - and would rather they assimilate. Assimilationists want your annoying differences to go away. Integrationists want everyone’s opinion but in a manner that is mindful of others - a civilised discussion as RP just demonstrated. MAGAts and thier ilk complain about a straw man cancel culture problem to hide thier own desire to force everyone to assimilate and be just like them.
@@nitrostudy9049 As you no doubt know human groups have always used social exclusion as punishment. There has always been ‘cancel’ culture. It’s just that in US history and now it’s used to shut down voices that had no political power. Now those voices have growing political power and those who have been sheltering under the dominant hierarchy of privilege don’t like this shift. Change is uncomfortable so they moan about cancel culture, previously wielded as a weapon by their dominance hierarchy. Which towns in the US presently ‘cancel’ African-Americans who want to live there? Or ‘cancel’ people who want to have abortions? That would be women just so you know. Or cancel ‘kids’ who have different gender orientations? Or cancel ‘migrants’ even though the US was built by migrants………….. you talk about ‘cancel ‘ culture in one tiny Petri dish where it very seldom appears and ignore it every where else where it really matters. In discussion of QM there are no human political consequences - hence no cancel culture until you get to questions of tenure and research funding, of course! Here is an analogy. Car drivers need to follow road rules or there is chaos. Similarly conversations need to be conducted within civility and manners or there is chaos. Bringing cancel culture into this conversation is like bringing stop signs into a freeway
As a Physics Ph.D. Student, the collapse of the wave function has not puzzled me as much as my peers. Imagine you are blind and are trying to discover what the surface of a still water lake is like. In your scientific pursuit, imagine you touch the lake and try to perceive what it is like. As you touch the lake, no matter how delicate you are, you produce a wave, the lake changes and fluctuates. It would look to you as if the surface of the lake was never still or at the same place but as if the lake would vibrate up and down with a particular probability. This is exactly what happens when a magnetic field interacts with a particle: you get a Raby oscillation. Quantum mechanics describes the behavior of extremely small objects which you can only observe by interacting with them via fields. These fields are strong compared to the smallest objects in the universe and hence change the object states as it collects the object information. All of your machines need of strong fields to have a reading, so all we can really do is throw a damn rock at the lake and based on splash guess what the lake is like. I think it was Feynman who said, particle physics is like trying to figure out how a clock works by smashing it against a wall.
It all boils down to this: if there was no such thing as this property called "sentience" (whatever that is), would the universe even exist. Like the very fundamental philosophical question: "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one living creature around to hear it, would it still make a sound?" Some people, who claim to be philosophical "savants" and tend to micro-manage the situation, would claim that it would not make a sound, since they define a sound as being a noise that can be perceived. Since there is no living creature around to perceive this noise, it therefore does not make a sound...but it does make noise! Being able to sense nothingness, such as the stillness of a lake without waves still requires sentience. Einstein once quipped that the only thing that can be perceived are forces being acted upon the perceived or upon objects in another frame of reference. We know what it feels like for gravity to act upon our bodies. Is it the same "feeling" an electron has when it is being tugged on by a proton. (Absolute or Total) Panpsychists would tell you that everything in the universe, no matter how much it has been subdivided, has sentient properties, so that the notion of an electron "feeling" anything is a distinct reality.
I am totally ignorant regarding maths and physics. But I understand from your writing that a great deal formulating a problem seems SO very much come from the origine of intuition, the same sort of we all have. It must be immensly gratifying to have the ability to put your deepest intuition and translate it into numbers and experiments ?
@@Funkywallot Science requires verifiable evidence and repeatable demonstration. Intuition was the massive failure in the thousands of years of natural philosophy.
That's the measurement problem. You can describe what happens... but the thing is when you stick a device in-between to do the measurement you interrupt what would have happened otherwise. People have a way of thinking about observers: look, don't touch. You cannot do that with QM. In order to make a measurement you introduce interactions.
This back and forth was confusing because Jordan and Roger were mish mashing between Roger's idea that consciousness collapses the wave function and his alternative idea that gravity collapses the wave function. Roger has suggested both in the past, but they are each independent ideas. It seems Roger has moved away from the conscious idea and closer towards gravity as being the cause of collapse. The truth is neither work that well, at the moment the easiest way to formulate this issue is to posit that the universe physically instantiates multiple history's with atomic process's.
Well that is exactly what I thought about the double slit experiment , the measurement device of the electron collapses the wave function of not the consciousness , till I found out about a version of the double slit experiment called (Delayed eraser double slit experiment) where the device is totally removed from the experiment and the observation became totally by conclusion , the experiment basically give the observer the two possibilities , if the observer has a way of conclusion , the wave function collapses , if the observer doesn't , no wave function collapse , which was shocking to me cause it supports the consciousness theory
A great clip showing your diversity of topics and an even greater display of your reserve to not interject but allow the guest to complete their subject to its fullest extent, kudos Mr Peterson.
Hey fam, I hope that you and your loved ones are well. I would like to ask you the most important question ever asked: Who is Jesus? Not who is He to you. Rather, who is He really? Jesus is the Son of God, who came to the world as a man. He lived a perfect and sinless life . Even though He was perfect and sinless, on the cross of Calvary God wrathfully punished Him for the sins of the world. 3 days later He rose from death. Now He is seated at the right hand of God, ruling as King over Heaven and Earth. On the judgment day He will judge you, me and every human being that has ever lived. Those who believed in Him will enter eternal joy with Him, but those who did not believe in Jesus will be sent to eternal condemnation. So turn from your sins and believe in the Jesus. Believe and hope that you can be forgiven for all your sins because of His death and resurrection. He took your place in Hell, so that if you submit to Him as your Lord and God, you can be forgiven and take His place in heaven- you will be made sinnless and perfect before the Holy Father. He'll also give you a new heart and mind that can love and obey Him. Jesus lives so that you can have true life and freedom, and most importantly so that you can have an eternally peaceful relationship with God. You are dead, and Jesus is your Hope of love. Acts 15:11 ”On the contrary, we believe it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." Ephesians 1:7 ”In Him, we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" Ephesians 2:8 ”For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God,” John 11:25-26: "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?' 1 Corinthians 6:14: "And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power." Romans 6:9: "We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him."
In this case, it's more a matter of him not having the slightest goddamn clue of what is happening, least of all when JBP is opening his mouth. But I guess kudos for being unprepared or something? For giving people a useless platform?
Penrose is an incredibly smart and at the same time very humble man; the bright intellect that understands the limits of our knowledge and scales the power we have over the universe into correct proportions. There is an objective reality that is independent of our consciousness. This line of thinking is indeed the cure for the intellectual diseases of our times.
@@Pat_11131 What has been demonstrated with overwhelming evidence is that a particle's position or direction respond to a function that gives different probable states as a result (the graph of that function looks like a wave, where it looks higher where it's more probable and lower when least probable, hence 'wave function'). When measuring that particle, the wave function that represents it's probability collapses into one specific state, which is the one that has been "observed". But "measure" and "observe" don't mean that a conscious being looked at them. There is no way of passively measuring something on the subatomic scale. In order for you to know the state of a particle, that particle must have interacted with something you prepared for it to interact. By reading that interaction is that you can draw a conclusion, by that time, that state has already been cemented into one. So, no, there's no proof of a non-mental reality, because that is not what quantum mechanics is about. But by taking advantage of the mathematical equations that have been postulated regarding quantum particles, we are now able to engineer computing hardware orders of magnitude greater than ever before.
@@guidodurante9495 ok have fun with your quantum computer, I'm interested in Truth, which is what QM points us towards. It's not the person making the wave function collapse because that person is made of atoms and therefore part of the quantum system. In order to break this chain, as the father's of QM say, you need a extra-physical process to collapse it, and the best candidate for that is consciousness (what you really are, not something your brain (atoms) produced)
@@Pat_11131 I mean, it's a nice point of view. Not all the fathers of QM say that, most don't even have a standpoint on that specific issue. And that is what the scientific method is about. What I said is, there's no proof (or evidence) for or against either non-mental reality or mental reality. So it's up to free interpretation, that means neither is the Truth until there's evidence. Of course you can believe one or the other and defend it until one is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. At that point that's it for Science, the rest is faith. I hope we can know more about consciousness within our lifetime, it's a very interesting subject that we know close to nothing about.
IMO, that's because science does not describe the actual way the world works but rather a model of the way the world works. The model will always fail in certain areas, no matter how much we patch it up to make it fit.
I had been perplexed by Schrodinger's cat. I no longer am thanks to Roger Penrose. My cousin, Dawn, a mathematician and physicist, called quantum mechanics "God's practical joke." Nice to see how right she was.
I remember Slavoj Zizek retold a joking account of quantum mechanics (or sub-atomic particles I think it was). While God had made everything in the world make sense and be law-abiding, he had been sure that humans would never evolve to become smart enough to go beyond a basic understanding of atoms, so when he started making sub-atomic particles he had had enough and said to himself "Fuck it, they'll never notice anyway!"
"You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things. But I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit; if I can't figure it out, then I go onto something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell -- possibly. It doesn't frighten me." [smiles] - Richard Feynman
People like Brian Greene and Neil de Grasse Tyson tend to get complacent and snooty when others talk this way about quantum physics. But they can't cancel the enormous presence of Roger Penrose. He simply outclasses his entire generation.
I think it has got to do more with maturity and experience . Brilliant as they are but NDT and Brian Greene simply can't matchup to the experience of Roger Penrose. The experiential finesse of a person like him is truly unparalleled . The more you joust with a certain idea the more sceptical you get about it not to ridicule the theory or discredit the proponents of the theory but simply with the goal of adding nuance and broadening horizons of knowledge . We need to get past the idea of absoluteness of theories (esp scientific ones ) and focus more on evolving pre-established ideas .
@@aritrajitroy724 Agreed. We must abandon the cocksureness that comes with achieving recognition in a field so confounding as this. Scientists are in some ways as competitive as athletes and there is a lot of high-sounding trash talk going on. In addition to mathematical brilliance, Sir Roger has invoked the indispensable philosophical component in his analysis. It is a delight to attend to his equanimity and deep insights.
@@aritrajitroy724 It has nothing to do with maturity or experience! Simply put NDT is(was) underscoring student with absolutely no work behind him! Brian Green on the other hand has put all of his career on String Theory with obscure work with very little citation and importance outside of that field! So basically we are talking about two pop scientists who happen to ride the media(read money) train very successfully! Nothing more, nothing less! Comparing them to Sir Roger Penrose is blasphemy to say the least!
"Probe" , no, no he didn't, he had no clue about the topic, it was embarrassing, the fact he's posted it makes it worse, as it shows he's not aware how little he knows and thinks this exchange has some merit. It doesn't. I normally like JP btw so don't think I'm some lefty, I'm not, I'm into physics.
@@djuk6573 ? Isn't the purpose of asking or interviewing someone who have a different expertise than you in the hope of learning something you don't know? Peterson is a psychologist. I mean, i don't even see the problem with him not knowing much about the subject . Isn't that why he's asking?
I’d really suggest you read this book: “Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature” The author is Federico Faggin, fellow Italian physics and engineer, he’s also the inventor of the first microprocessor which is the reason why we have most of our technology today. He then started developing a scientific theory of consciousness through quantum mechanics that really resonates with some concepts found in Tao, Induism, Buddhism and ancient philosophy but through a scientific lens. He states that consciousness as quantum mechanics is an internal experience that can’t be replicated or known if not from within. And classical physics is the objective and symbolic translation of it. So as cells are part of a whole and they have the total genome inside of each of them, we as consciousness are parts of a unity which is experiencing itself subjectively (like Bill Hicks also said in his stand ups). It’s really fascinating and he’s probably rediscovering this old truth and being a precursor to the scientific understanding of this stuff. I really think you should learn about him as you would really find it enlightening
I just cited this issue in a recent paper for my “Psychology of Religion” class. I did a book review/response to Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian”. A brilliant and disturbing book to read as a practicing Christian myself. My goal was to respond and argue against Russell’s points. My professor also read the book in his college years and changed to Agnosticism after reading it. He’s an extremely logical and educated man, so I was concerned for what my grade might be, as I knew we would disagree on certain things. Scored a 96!
@@Style50360 coming full circle it did. I was happy to come across some great research that supports Christianity. But Bertrand Russell’s book was challenging and I wouldn’t recommend it to any Christians.
@@KeithCasey973 Why wouldn't you recommend it to Christians? Isn't that a bit dishonest? If one's faith can't withstand scrutiny, then that should raise some red flags.
Thank you soooo much for talking across disciplines, Jordan. Can’t tell you how much I love this. I believe humans are coming upon a fundamental change and it’s going to come partially from conversations like this.
@@nuqwestr It depends I suppose if you agree with Penrose. There are plenty of his colleagues that don't. I respect his right to have an opinion but it doesn't mean his opinion is right. Theoretical physics is about opinions and theories.
@@nuqwestr Interesting points my friend, thank you. Unfortunately in science we don't have the luxury of accepting something as plausible and possibly correct. That's the problem, through nobody's fault, withe theoretical physics.
@@nuqwestr With respect, it wasn't a Royal we. I am a scientist so I'm part of the scientific community...that's why I said we. Roger Penrose richly deserved his knighthood...and his Nobel prize. You forgot that.
So joyful when I saw there's a 90min version of this conversation. Interview Penrose monthly and you'll create an incredible resource for all scientists for all time.
Thank you, I'll go listen to that 90 minute version. Sir Roger Penrose is a treasure and I only hope more people can have the opportunity to learn from him.
Roger Penrose is the type of person who talks fluently to anyone about a complex subject such that they understand it even though there’s a lot more to it. Jordan Peterson is the type of person who will make great efforts to seem like he understands the subject even when he obviously doesn’t and misses the point.
Valuetainment asked Peterson about the benefits of being famous and he basically said it's that he can pick up the phone and ask anyone anything to satisfy his curiosity. Turns out this is the kind of person he had in mind. Way to go!
Loved the interview...only wish it was longer. Penrose has been such a brilliant mind in science, and his was my go-to books. Love to listen to him consider these questions that have conflicted me for decades. His ability to think out of the box is exhilarating. Jordan was obviously enjoying himself. I was saying the same thing... "go ahead and go into it deeper!".
I like Penrose's view. I have always thought: "what is so special about a human receiving information about a system that should cause a system to change its state?" The physical world surely doesn't care who receives a photon emitted by it. It's only humans that care about their emitted photons being observed. It's a brain activity dependent on culture, prejudice etc. I am 67 and for decades I have been thinking quantum phenomena need a better explanation.
@@Recoveryplus If I say it's unanswerable, could be either way, I wonder if I am just protecting myself from the awfulness of saying that my consciousness ceases to exist when this body dies. I will have to wait and see (or not see). I envy believers, but you can't make yourself believe. I have developed so far in my life, I would love an eternity of living and loving, learning and creating. Sadly, human life is just an infinitesimal blip. Day 5 now of recovering from Covid, I am going to party hard soon!
@@ericrawson2909 thanks for the honest reply. If you trully want to know the answer to that question, there are valid methods of meditation that will let you verify for yourself. No belief necessary. Congrats on beating covid. 🙏
I think the title should say "incomplete," not "inconsistent." If it was inconsistent, it wouldn't be a scientific theory because it would imply a logical contradiction. It is only incomplete because the framework that defines QM cannot make any claims about what does or doesn't happen during the "collapse" of the wave function.
I agree, but to add I think it's not about what or what doesn't happen when collapse happen (this is well known). But the question is when does collapse happen? We know that at least collapse already happened when we observed it (thus the theory why observation cause collapse). But does it already collapsed even before we observe it?
@@bunyu6237 That's an interesting point. How then do we ever know for sure that it was ever uncollapsed to begin with? Like, how do we know it wasn't already collapsed? On a side note, curious what Penrose had hinted about gravity playing a role in collapse, at 3:19...
I’d disagree, the inconsistency is that the Schrodinger equation is linear and continuous, and should theoretically govern all evolution in QM. But then you have this probabilistic, discontinuous jump that is not governed by any equation and is at odds with the Schrodinger equation. So the 1st and 2nd postulates are in disagreement about evolution of the wavefunction, but we sort of just ignore it and carry on because all the calculations work.
@@thomasbreust3516 but if we had a rule for determining when collapse occurs, then we would basically just have a piecewise continuous function which is not mathematically inconsistent. It's unsatisfying in my opinion, but I don't think it would necessarily be inconsistent with other aspects of quantum mechanics. I personally don't think quantum mechanics describes the physical system itself though. It seems to me like quantum mechanics simply describes our knowledge of a system, which allows us to make useful predictions, but is maybe not useful for developing physical interpretations of the actual systems in question. Specifically, I think there are probably nonlocal hidden variables that give rise to the uncertainty of quantum mechanics. Bells theorem proves that local hidden variables cannot explain experimental results, but it says nothing about nonlocal hidden variables. I think that the collapse of the wave function is just a way of describing when knowledge is gained from experimental results rather than propagated or inferred from experimental results. And ideas like decoherence which assume that the wave function does not collapse, but just becomes increasingly constrained by entanglement of a quantum object with it's environment (at least, that's my understanding of the concept), in my opinion, are just describing how our knowledge of many different things interact. In other words, we have knowledge about the equipment we use to perform experiments, so when a particle becomes entangled with that equipment, we can use our knowledge of the equipment to infer something about the particle.
Laughable. Tests have been done where the conscious observer not being present at the test is asked to imagine observing the test and seeing the outcome actually affected the test more than a thousand miles away, Done hundreds of times. More to reality than physics alone and can be proved all along the chain from physics, to chemistry, to biology, to psychology, and conscientious. Very narrow-minded and the pursuit of truth requires an open mind. That's real scientific inquiry.
@@8utton Please define "conscious observer" in physics terminology we can agree upon if you want to insist that "consciousness" plays a role in quantum mechanics.
@@8utton Would you providea source for this information? It's the first time I'm hearing this and I'm currently doing quantum mechanics for my course, so it'd be a very interesting read.
Theoretical Physics Masters student here. I agree with Penrose, consciousness most certainly should not be required for a system to be observed. My view, is that anything that carries information away from the system is an observation on that system (e.g. consider a photon interacting with an atom and being scattered). Interestingly, the collapse of the wave function and the Schrödinger equation have something in common, they are postulates of quantum mechanics. Meaning they are both taken without proof, it just so happens that the framework we derived from them agrees with a lot of experimental evidence
This is totally standard, I'm not sure what Penrose is trying to say. A measurement in QM only refers to an interaction, there is no observer required.
If anyone is wondering, Roger Penrose won half the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2020. His discovery was that black hole formation is a prediction of general relativity. He's a super smart guy. Check out some of his works!
If by respect you mean ignoring Penrose and responding with just complete misunderstanding, to the point that Penrose looks at Jordan and basically says, "what the fuck are you talking about?" Jordan was so consumed by these misunderstandings that he ignored what Penrose had to say, and he latches on to the fact that we don't know the true answer to feel justified in his beliefs. The amount of cognitive dysphoria that Jordan has here is insane. It was just really weird to watch.
@@justynpryce i can only imagine JBP struggling with physics topics since he struggles with psychology so much. Propelled to fame only by twenty-something gamer males who think he's awesome because he's a little bit edgy.
@@justynpryce Yeah lmao, "show of respect" dude is biting his tongue because JBP is struggling with all manners of aphasia right in front of him. This is painful to watch if you don't know the first thing about what Penrose is talking about, it's some kind of torture spell if you get how much ass-air good old Jordan is trying to waft in Roger's direction. This is pretty much the stark opposite of "learning mode." This is "pack it in boys, we'll never get there"-mode at best.
Mr Peterson, it is quite the sight to see you smiling and chuckling again. I am delighted to be able to attend your presentation in Seattle on the 3rd. Be well :)
My view: if the information is recoverable, in any significant way, the function collapses. This means that if the “wave” has a significant effect on any object, conscious or not, the wave stops being a wave. This is why larger objects are less likely to experience quantum phasing, that is, their effect on the physical world is too great, the information is almost always (possible always) recoverable.
He said it's got something to do with gravity, and following your comment, so I'm thinking: This could mean things that have masses have already introduced certain interventions fundamentally so the quantum phasing is less likely to occur; the larger it is, the less likely to occur. We use electron to observe the experiment partly because of the special function of electron itself, "the jumping", another reason is that electron has a very tiny mass, comparing to other existing matters. I think if we could somehow enlarge and make use of electron's speical functions (jumping state) in real life, our technological advancement would be transformed to a very novel way, time travel, wormwhole and such... But anyway, the consciousness is the deciding factor of that quantum phasing i think it could be an illusion after all. Since any object we used to experiment on has its own weight of mass, so the outcome has already been decided when the object is existed, regardless of how purely random it is. An electron is existed today for scientists to experiment on, this could already been a quantum leap in a sense for that electron to be observed in this point of time. Quantum state could be just a method to prove it could be exist or non-exist. I guess. If we could somehow escape the gravity, we probably have already been into higher dimensions, so we don't get bound with it, then we might be the quantum state itself, but then we can't really prove to 3D world people because in order to prove, we need to enter back to mass state, meaning to be bounded by gravity again...
@@februarysnows5528 Your soul travels in the Spirit/Quantum world when you dream. It is Spirit unfettered by the body or gravity or time itself. The mind, thoughts and dreams are proof of God, soul and the sovereign realm of Spirit which is the foundation and cause of our “reality”. As our “reality” is based on Spirit it is a type of illusion, delusion, fabrication, simulation for the training of our Souls. It real enough to kick your ass tho while you are associated with the body.
King Mob I don’t know. But I think your question is perfect. Perhaps it is related to gravity. But then again the photon wave collapses just because a sensor was on AND recording. (sensor on and not recording, no collapse)
The first and the last part are right imo. But the significance of information recovery being the key might point to something else. Consider this: recoverable by WHOM?? A... being, who has consciousness. If the which-way information is destroyed, then wave, doesn't even matter that it was measured because there is no-one and will be no-one who can KNOW. It's almost like reality is rendering itself in order to be consistent. I'm reconsidering your second sentence, I actually agree but I believe the reason that it stops being a wave in the case that it effects a non-conscious object is that a conscious observer could potentially have knowledge via the observation of that effect. Again, like reality is computing its own consistency. If you CANNOT know which slit the "particle" went through, even if it was measured, then there was no particle. If you CAN know, well then mother nature is loath to contradict herself and you get a particle on the plate, or else you would be observing something contradictory.
Absolutely love this Dr. Peterson! Please do more of these "self critique" of science talks, they are terribly interesting and important (Dark Horse podcast has much of this in their content and absolutely love listening to it). As a college graduate of Physics (who went in another direction professionally), I always struggled with these types of epistemological questions that popped in my head (that none of my professors cared to entertain) and remained a healthy skeptic of science since, with greater magnitude in the recent years of the emergence of scientism. I believe science has it's positive and useful purpose, but the commercial gain as well as the cultism/politics infesting it has damaged and demeaned it, bringing with it more harm than good. Science needs a "sanity check" and conversations like this and those by Brett and Heather are exactly what we need.
I read very often, that things change in a direction over time. So I read from you, that things get worse. It might be that things are bad now, but they are getting better, stay the same or anything inbetween. With the end of the cold war, the amount of research gained and the institutional practice, it might be better than it was ever before.
Hey man, just wondering what your opinion is on René Guenon’s (a French perennial philosopher and metaphysical explorer) conclusion that the science of the Middle Ages which had inherent intuition prioritised has been reduced purely to the practical and sensual realm and thus is now open to infestation from materialist and secularists?
Same story for me, Dragon. Graduated in Physics and then went on to different professional fields. The biggest take away from my Physics education was a realization that many things about the world and universe we think are true today, will likely be untrue as we learn more over time. Friends and family get frustrated we me on many subjects when I tell them "I don't know". If our politicians and the "science" charlatans that advise them would be honest with the masses and when appropriate say "we're not sure" or "we don't know", the public would be better served.
@@manchesterunited4619 haven't read him, but his theory sounds alot like what Peterson is talking about these days, which I agree with. I use to be an Athiest who thought science has all the answers but over the years I have seen the limitations of it, and Peterson articulated it in a way that made it much clearer to my intuitions.
The thing about the "measurement causes collapse" description is that, as Prof. Penrose said, it glosses over "what is a measurement?" And thus people are left thinking it is a function of observation, when that isn't what the equations say. What the equations say is that the introduction of forces/energy sufficient to _give us something to observe_ will cause a change in the Schrodinger equation's parameters to such a degree that whatever we measured (and the other properties we didn't measure) has changed, and we no longer know what they are. Bell's Inequalities lead experts who do definitely know more about this than I do to believe that the uncertainty principle actually does mean there is no definite state until the "collapse" occurs. Of course, the nature of the Schrodinger equation is then ignored as people discuss that it is "in" that state. It isn't; it was measured to be in that state at that time, but the measurement itself made it cease to be and created a new state. The item thus measured now has the energy of the measurement included in whatever its new state is. According to Bell's Inequalities experiments, the system _should_ have certain probabilistic distributions of measurements if there are hidden variables - that is, the state actually is not merely probabilistically likely to be in X or Y condition, but rather actually has a value and we just can't know it - but doesn't, and thus superposition must be the rule. But - and I freely admit that this is at least partially my own ignorance - I do not know of any experiments that have properly performed entanglements to really test the full combination of cases. Specifically, all the experiments I know of say, "Well, these probabilities line up in a way that suggests the state isn't fixed until it is measured!" but they ignore that this creates situations where the same particle must have mutually-contradictory states simultaneously; they never measure for this. And the only way to measure for it that I can think of would be three entangled particles, going through (for instance) the three polarized lenses separately. As far as I know, no such experiment has been done, and certainly I have not been able to find anybody reporting on the results of it.
Thank you so much for interviewing Penrose, he's a brighter mind than almost anyone alive, doesn't get enough recognition for that even though we use his diagrams all over the place. But my favorite conjecture owed to him is "CCC" which is a mindbending possibility to consider. Wow! Thank you, Jordan!
Physics, so captivating. I love this sort of stuff and I thank my old high school physics teacher for opening my eyes to the wonderful world of physics.
I agree with Penrose. It has always been my view that the measurement thing is not about consciousness, but rather a physical thing. I am quite sure that this is Penrose's point, that it would make us regard consciousness as something physical if we think that consiousness is collapsing the wave. Penrose is instead favouring the view that consciousness is not physical.
Penrose merely says that physics does not require consciousness to function. He never says that consciousness isn't a physical process. I've seen him say in other talks that consciousness may emerge from, but is not necessary for, the collapse of the wave function. That is consistent with what he says here.
@@p39483 I am not saying that Penrose in this particular video says that consciousness isn't a physical process. But his view on consciousness as he describes in more detail in books and other interviews, is that he seems to favour the idea that consciousness is not physical, or he is at least open to that idea. In an interview with with Steve Paulson of Nautilus he says: "We need a major revolution in our understanding of the physical world in order to accommodate consciousness," "The most likely place, if we’re not going to go outside physics altogether, is in this big unknown - namely, making sense of quantum mechanics." In a Wikipedia article about the Penrose-Lucas argument we can read the following: "An essential feature of Penrose's theory is that the choice of states when objective reduction occurs is selected neither randomly (as are choices following wave function collapse) nor algorithmically. Rather, states are selected by a "non-computable" influence embedded in the Planck scale of spacetime geometry. Penrose claimed that such information is Platonic, representing pure mathematical truth, aesthetic and ethical values at the Planck scale. This relates to Penrose's ideas concerning the three worlds: physical, mental, and the Platonic mathematical world. In his theory, the Platonic world corresponds to the geometry of fundamental spacetime that is claimed to support noncomputational thinking."
I agree with Penrose, that consciousness is not physical. Being conscious is a process. Process is an abstract notion. But what we must notice is, every abstraction is dependent for its peculiar immaterial existence on a material substrate. There can be no process without a material substrate to express it. Remove matter from a process and what remains? Absolutely nothing.
I think Tyson is a blowhard who sounds good, but talks over his head (and out of his a**) on subjects in which he is not very well-versed. Astrophysics? Expert. Everything else? Pompous layman. I also watched that interview, and my specialties are math and geology, both of which subjects he butchered, while sounding very cogent. I feel the same way about world-class linguist Noam Chomsky, who ALSO needs to stay in his lane, but people SWOON because he's smart in one thing and SOUNDS smart on other things, when in actuality, he's an ignorant socialist, with no clue on free-market economics, human liberty, and human progress, in my opinion. But nobody's hanging on MY every word, nor should they.
And then if you're really diligent about it, you'll find that NDT made plenty of mistakes, because he essentially stopped being a physicist decades ago and doesn't really work on his subjects before he starts talking about them, which keeps confusing the layman.
Every theory is incomplete. Incomplete is a great way of looking at statements and going into discussions in order to add to the incompleteness. very nice talk.
It's important to note that "measurement" and "observation" at the quantum level mean "a photon or other particle physically bumps into the so-called wave" -- it's called quantum decoherence and there is debate about whether it solves the measurement problem posed here. My guess is that Dr. Penrose thinks it does not, but I'm not certain those in quantum computing would agree.
@@sendnoodles5437 not sure that it came through as you intended in your message, but it is impossible to observe a quantum system without influencing it, yes. Maybe someday some method can be found. Consciousness only comes into play insofar as it requires such interactions to measure and report to your so-called self.
I was under the assumption that the classical mechanics perspective in which we perceive the world is inherited from the wave function already collapsing into a probabilistic world. The collapse had to happen lest we wouldn't be here to attempt to understand it. Ergo the measurement problem isn't a human problem, as you alluded to. As Mermin said in response to the Copenhagen interpretation: "shut tup and calculate".
I'm not sure if there such a thing as a particle "bumping" into a wave in quantum mechanics. But there are waves overlapping with other waves, and waves feeling the influence of potentials. And then there are energy transfer events in which a quanta of energy is converted to another form (for example, a free electron in the continuum dumping its energy into an emitted photon in the process while dropping to a bound state). Perhaps this conversion process is what causes the collapse, but I don't know if we know very much about how this conversion process takes place. In the textbooks, it is usually assumed to be instantaneous or not very well addressed at all. And then there's the whole Energy-time uncertainty principle.
You can't distinguish one particle from another and call one of them a wave and the other one a particle. An interaction between two particles is an entanglement, two waves sharing the same wave-function, so you still have the question of what causes a "collapse", if a collapse even occurs in the first place. So saying that a "photon physically bumps into a wave" doesn't make any sense.
I never really wanted to grow old because I thought I would grow insane because of old age and cause people trouble but seeing this man changed my mind. So intelligent even when so old
Being fat, crazy, and chronically ill are not natural states of being or aging. You won’t have to look too far beneath the fake persona to see jaw-dropping gluttony, sloth, and deliberate, malevolent self-destructive disorder in anyone and everyone who’s crazy and in bad shape. Then there’s the wildly violent levels of child abuse and malnutrition that are endured by people, that society calls ‘hereditary,’ but I call it the brutal and forgotten repressed childhood history. If you can keep your nose clean through this nightmare known as life, you’ll see how your body is perfect and dynamically restorative if you honor it, nourish it, and keep your eye on the ball - naysayers be damned.
@@Gigusx Sir Roger Penrose is talking about the measurement of consciousness. Jordan Peterson has a great way of addressing the issue, and the important questions are answered, by an icon of modern physics. That's what makes it so outstanding.
I feel that the title of this video is misleading. Penrose, like most other physicists, is saying that quantum mechanics is not the full picture. quantum mechanics is a consistent theory, it does not contradict itself. The consistency of the theory is what leads to the strangeness discussed here. This kind of title leads to misconceptions about scientific theories and discovery, and can subtly suggest that quantum mechanics (the standard model) is invalid and worth throwing out. The opposite is true, quantum mechanics makes many verified predictions, and is the most successful scientific theory in history.
@@asahmosskmf4639 yeah I Know what the title is trying to say, it's like the double slit experiment where you shoot electrons and the results are so freaking weird. But as weird as it is it's still consistent and repeatable.
@alex He gets absorbed in his thoughts at a strange angle but then his vision pierces you as he descends from the world of platonic forms back into physical reality
Brilliant interplay between synthesis and specialist perspectives. Like many, this paradox has always fascinated me. With this framing, it seems the measurement issue has another facet, which is that modelling a system creates a "duplicate" in a different conceptual space. This phenomenon would seem to normally, but not necessarily, require conscious observation. Like everything else, the scope definition is absolutely critical. I need another coffee this early in the day 😊
The trouble with these sorts of discussions is that in order to properly explain them one has to dive into some abstract mathematics or concepts that are subtle and basically outside the realm of ordinary experience, yet Penrose has such a deep and complete understanding that he is able to relate these concepts in simple terms more or less comprehensible to us mere mortals. Leonard Susskind is another scientist with a similar gift.
The wavefunction collapse is not a consciousness problem and I think he's just referring to how it was historically perceived as such by a handful of thinkers. The inconsistency he is highlighting is that the Schrodinger's equation does not describe the singular event of measurement, which is not by itself an issue because measurements, which are (mathematically) described as operators acting on wavefunctions, have nothing to do with the dynamics of a system isolated by itself (which is accurately described by Schrodinger's or Dirac's equation). You still have a Schrodinger's equation describing the post-measurement system, except it's simply the state in which your system has collapsed. If you want a full picture of the system including every possible interactions, you need exotic physics theory that are an absolute pain in the ass to generate any refutable theory pillars in.
Thank you Jordan for this discussion. As a physical scientist myself, this has made me think more philosophically about quantum mechanics and I'm going to the university library next week to look for Roger's books.
I would suggest his articles rather than his semi-pop-sci books if you are particularly interested in penrose's work. If you are after foundational studies in philosophy of physics, for a physicists the works of maudlin, norsen, peter lewis, huw price, or alyssa ney would be more interesting as they provide a far more rigorous and academic approach.
@@gravitheist5431 its about the observer. The same thing was found with the double slit experiment. The particle is in superposition when it goes through the double slit, ie. It goes through both slits at the same time. However it's only when someone observes the particle when it is detected in either one of the slits
@@user-iz9co4qf6z this is put in a way it sounds mystic, confusing. But if instead of "observes", you say "interacts" with the particle, things starts to have more meaning, because the act of observing involves interacting. It is a change in the experiment and the state of the particle. It doesn't mean you just "look" at the particle without doing anything , you were already doing that before.
Matt O'Dowd does a great job on PBS SpaceTime explaining some of these concepts to those without the math but requiring a better understanding than the average human. As I see it, collapse of a wavefunction could simply be an underlying physical reality that can only be approximated statistically using QM/QED. (see also pilot wave theory). Metaphors are always going to be inaccurate but combining them together, you get some picture. I see light as planar spheres that travel outward in space, much like a bubble. When the two slit is presented, single dots may hit probablistically but their pattern is a wave interferrence pattern because the underlying data is statistically a wave. If a bubble is emanating, blown up by that property, c, then the exact contact point on a sphere with a capturing entity (an electron of a measuring device), is up to probability and this goes with the uncertainty with some degree of statistical certainty. This metaphor still simplifies a lot since it doesn't consider the possibility of multiple simultaneous contacts. Amazingly, the way an egg knows how to avoid a second sperm seems intuitively analagous to this. The eye is a link in the chain of observation and is actually part of a chain of electromagnetic responses and is a material device. The measurement might link to a digital readout, the readout to the eye, the eye to the brain. I defer the consciousness questions to those experts. Comments welcome.
But actually the Schroedinger equation *can* explain what measurement is: entanglement of the observed object with the observer. (Everettian mechanics I believe?) It's just that this explanation brings up new questions (manyverse? superdeterminism?), and somehow many physicists are so uncomfortable with those that they prefer to look for other explanations.
No, the schrodinger equation does not. You just named a bunch of *different* theories/branches that deal with interpretations of the wave function collapse. The schrodinger equation very much just takes the idea of a measurement/collapse as a thing that exists and has a predictable behaviour (in a probabilistic sense).
@@taylorneill2687 To confirm, are you saying that Schrodinger does take the measurement as a thing that exists yet doesn't say what the measurement is?
@@localverse yes exactly, I know that sounds odd but that was actually schrodingers point with the whole cat thing. A lot of the time people use schrodingers cat to show how crazy quantum mechanics, but this is slightly misleading. This is since schrodingers original intention wasn't 'look how crazy this fully formed theory's implications are', but it was to actually say 'look at this absurd implication coming from my theory/model, it must not be the entire picture'.
Roger Penrose is someone to be listened to as is JBP. Quantum mechanics and its derivatives are definitely inconsistent, yet tantalising in it potential. I’ve been wiring on quantum calculus equations for 11 yrs and still learning.
@@2smoulder Can you elaborate on what a quantum calculus algorithm is? You are in effect saying you have a discrete additive decision making tree (quantum = discrete, calculus = a form of addition and algorithm = a decision tree). This seems like gibberish to me.
@@MrSeropamine Sorry Chris, but won’t do this as it has taken 5yrs of experimentation to develop this proprietary maths formula. Will publish a paper on this some time in the future.
Why are we surprised by this video title? Quantum mechanics is both massively complicated (& hard to measure/experiment on) & a relatively new field of science - we have so much to learn or discover about our world. For some reason there’s this general “feeling” in the public that we know a lot more than we do. Arrogant.
The repeated questions about whether the collapse of a particle was due to consciousness hindered what Roger was attempting to get into with gravity. When he mentioned that it was consciousness or gravity, he was referring another theory that is highly regarded to theorize what happens during a particle collapse...String Theory (which essentially is a theory of quantum gravity). Many quantum physicists have moved on from the belief that consciousness causes particles to colapse. Instead, since we do not fully understand the effects gravity has on the Standard Model, we theorize that instead of particles, they are one-dimensional strings. But its properties are determined by its vibrational state. Some vibrations are classified as gravitons which hold gradational force. The way the gravitons interact with other string particles can affect the way a particle collapses, but since we are not able to fully test this, the answer may remain out of reach. However, this theory is highly supported my many quantum physicists today.
Definitely agree with Roger here. I think the process is much more fundamental than needing an extremely complex life form such as ourselves to create this phenomena. The trouble is always proving that we aren't needed for the experiment to exist, since literally every experiment needs our observation for us to be aware of and "prove" it's existence.
If the wave function could collapse without a conscious observer how could this ever be known? Therefore Penrose's wistful and reactionary longing for naive realism is not physics and will remain forever in the realm of metaphysics without hope of experimental verification. Even if Penrose conducted a successful experiment to support his view the mere reading of the results involves consciousness. Physicists are generally terrible philosophers. What trips up a lot of people is assuming that consciousness requires a human to work. The non-dual view that consciousness is fundamental and prior to lifeforms is a better way to reconcile things.
@@ryancbuchanan yes it's important to mock people who engage with the ideas of brilliant people otherwise who will keep up the mediocrity quota, right?
@@ryancbuchanan you kinda deserved that reply tho. We're on a Jordan Peterson video, if ur not keen to discuss ur thoughts or hear others I don't really know what else you want from here
Soooooo, I always thought that the wave function always collapses with measurement. That, the problem with measurement is that it always requires some interaction with the thing being measured. Is it hypothetically possible to have a system where something could be measured sans interaction? In which case a thing could be measured without collapse of the wave function. Did he say that there was a time limit on a superpositional state, and that the wave function will collapse anyway? If so, what are the time limits, and why?
If it is a conscious measurement that collapses the waveform such that anything "real" is the result of observation, wouldn't it be hypothetically possible to develop a theory that in order for the universe to exist at all, it had to have been observed from the beginning, and if that's not too much of a leap, wouldn't "that observer" be God for all intents and purposes? God as an observer?
This man gives me that vibe of a true scholars, almost as if they hope you won't ask the next question. Not because they don't want you to ask, but, because they know just how complicated their honest answers might be for you.
Yknow, me being a layman of the topic, i've always been of the mindset of Sir Roger Penrose when it comes to quantum mechanics, particularly at the end talking about observational influence. Granted its such a vague theory that its hard to fully grasp it in my head, but I find it hard to believe that the universe as we know it would be different if not observed. I mean i suppose you could say that the likelyhood of the cat being alive is at a certain percentage within a timeframe, but whether or not you observe the cat's state wouldn't change the fact that it is infact either dead or alive regardless of whether or not you can check. I mean obviously I know very little outside of loose concepts of these theories. I know that the cat is just a placeholder here, but I'm using it the same way. This is the tree falls in the woods with nobody to hear it conundrum. Of course it makes a sound. Now you could get philosophical, like most arguing against it do, and say that if there is no observer that means the waveform has no destination and therefore doesn't exist, but the point is that even though minute, that waveform still affects the inanimate objects around it, especially when you scale it down to something that would be affected by said sound wave, like the dust particles in the air. The result would be the same whether or not you were there under the exact same circumstance with no physical influence. Maybe I'm just not knowledgeable enough, but would it not be completely unprovable to be correct? Would the act of trying to prove Schrodinger's theory take whatever you are using out of a superpositional state and place it within the grounds of reality if he was correct? I don't know the answer to that.
@@1959Berre go enjoy chaos theory a little. Many things in daily life that seem chaotic have been mathematically modeled to a high degree of accuracy, even if you're not aware of the model. Doesn't mean we've solved every possible pattern, but the world isn't as chaotic and unpredictable as you think.
It's like the age old question of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Whether it does or doesn't is irrelevant in regards to the conscious observation that can be made according to the question. The measuring device being the sense of hearing. The same could be said for the universe. If there is nothing to consciously observe it in any form and therefore it cannot be measured in any way, it is irrelevant whether it exists or not. If it might or might not then it may as well not.
Well it's not really complicated. If it falls, it falls. The action doesn't require anyone to observe. It's unrelated. The action occurs independent of anyone observing it.
@@μαριοςΚαπετανοπουλος I wish the various philosophers who disagree with each other on that subject see it that simply. Peterson himself has doubted what you say...but then he's not a philosopher.
The answer to that question is obvious and has been answered before: If I tree fell in the woods and nothing was there to hear it then there would be no sound, but there would be a vibration. The vibration exists regardless, but the phenomenon of sound is the detection of vibration, ultimately by a neural network that is processing a consciousness like our own. Similarly if there were no eyes, the universe would exist in darkness, despite the constant emissions of the particle/waves we detect and recognize as light.
Charged cosmic particle tracks in cloud chambers and photographs really cleared this up for me. Nucleation sites or minimum critical radius are those which continue to grow until becoming observable. The silver halide making a colored spot on the film, or the droplet in the cloud chamber form proximity events of the photon or charged particle by capture or polarization of saturated vapor droplets which then attract to coalesce into an observable droplet. Such droplets form a zig zag pattern about the actual charges path. Force between the charge and polarized droplets alter the charges path slightly, but over all since they nucleate on both sides about the charges actual path such deflections cancel by in large. This is taken as the charges path as that's the best we can do. The least squares between these nucleation sites and the charges path can be then justified as it's trajectory. No observer needed, but any observer will only see the path when they finally look. The next observer will then necessarily see the same path or photograph. Each nucleation site collapses the Schrodinger equation, which begins a new probability distribution cone about the last nucleation site. Cosmic rays pass so fast this mechanism underlying the complete image of the final track is never entertained, but implicit in the theory. Similarly for a photograph, as to make it clearer, consider a long exposure of a distant star. As the pixels form the image is refined only limited by the chosen exposure time. The final result is the best image we can do given the limited time and funding to form it. The stars position is better known as the number of photons captured grows. There is obvious uncertainty in considering the center of the image, and more so when the result is hazy. That's quantum mechanics!
i'm on the side that the atom is really in all states at once but we can only observe it in a state at a given time because we can only observe single binary interpretations
That would be really interesting, if we take into account fourth dimension. We can perceive third dimension, but that does not mean that all matter exists only in third dimension. If atom exists at least in fourth dimension, it would be in many places (or/and many states) at the same time, but we wouldn't be able to observe this state as it is, but rather as our sight and memory allows us to observe it.
@@xkali8119 this is true and i agree, but i have began to wonder what a 2D object projected into 3D would look like. That flat little incorrect model of the atom drawn in textbooks projected into 3D would result in these massive in-determinant clouds of probability that would only resolve to 3D once it has been provided extra substance by means of measurement.
The book "What is Real?" is a good general overview of various foundational perspectives on QM and attempts that have been made to solve the 'measurement problem'. It's also a good introduction to the main characters involved such as Bohr, Heisenberg, Everett, Bell, Bohm, etc. as well as some of the social/political currents that run through the history of physics in the 20th century.
Watch a 24/7 stream of my old lecture content while you work, study, and go about your day here - ua-cam.com/video/ycvO4oIMXyM/v-deo.html
Sub-Unconscious study... Listen while Im sleeping.
I’m with him and can’t understand why the universe would depend upon consciousness. Remove the observer and so the measuring and… ? Seems like any guess moving forward is irrelevant, particularly since the guessing ceases. I’m intelligent but have a feeling that I’m beyond my knowledge base. 🤯🙆🏻♂️
Thanks man! Mathematics changed in the higher dimensions. 2+ 2 no longer = 4 in the 9th dimension. I've seen it our energy comes from a vortex in another energy field way beyond anything you can imagine...✌& Thanks...
everyone tries to apply mathematics open your simple thinking.... the quantum world, our spirits, computer chips all use frequencies.. is why ' some' music touches your soul. It is in tune with your frequency.. The stars sing we just can't hear them
There isnt another person alive would ever even consider listening to for 24 hours straight. But you monetized thinking, by giving us a home. Where we dont have to have these thoughts and questions alone.
I can’t believe he’s in his 90s. He has such vitality and curiosity. Impressive human being.
Yes and very lucky, too. To live to that age AND still have your mind. Very impressive indeed
Wow! I've seen people in their late 60s who look and sound older. May we all reach the same age with a healthy mind and body.
That’s what happens when you live a healthy life and train your brain everyday.
and now compare him to President Biden ... OMFG
he can kickflip too
got footage
I didn't realise until now that not only is Sir Roger Penrose still alive but is still active in the field of mathematical physics, truly a legend
Take a look at his Wikipedia page, truly impressive. Not doctor but professor and a sir of maths and physics at both Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard and also Nobel winner
Working on it now thank you mich
what a strange comment
You been high?
@@bluesque9687 On and off recently. You?
90 years old! And to be so brilliant still. We should all take notice, and keep pushing ourselves to explore the outer limits of our intelligence, no matter what our numerical age.
Wow he looks great for 90, sharp as a tack!
Wow. Not many people can pull off a fringe at 90 😂
That is the key to your true health. Keeping your mind sharp and healthy. It will translate to the rest of the body
🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐 YES 😝 You are absolutely on point, renewal of the mind and a growing in understanding and finding a way to have enough faith in something to have complete belief. Praise God
So true.
As a mathematical physics student, Dr. Penrose is one of my favorite scientists/mathematicians if not my favorite. It is a bit sad to know he likely won’t be around too much longer, yet it is good to know that he has had a long and successful life.
Cool name, fitting for the subject at hand. Also can take on other meanings in this context 🙏🏾😎
So dumb that you had to include “as a mathematical physics student…” nobody cares. You could have simply said “Dr. Penrose is one of my favorite…” You were just looking to blow your own horn.
@@mappingtheshit I had mathematical physics last semester for my MSc in Physics. T'was as pain in the neck. So, I refuse to believe that it doesn't exist. Lol.
But it contained mathematical concepts that are useful for physics, though. Not theoretical physics.
@@mappingtheshit I think you have been terribly mistaken. Mathematical physics is very much a valid name for the subject that I mentioned -- the mathematical concepts needed for physics -- everywhere in the world, in every universities. It is not another name for theoretical physics, as you seem to imply. There's literally a book sitting right in front of me that's titled "mathematical physics". I'm an MSc Physics student. Or don't believe me, just google "mathematical physics", and you'll see thousands of results that explains what the subject is.
@@mappingtheshit well thats just wrong lol
It's incredible that Penrose is this sharp at his age. Shows the importance of continuing to mentally expand throughout life. Love the full conversation from two brilliant men.
I'm sorry but this guy is not sharp, he's literally slurring his words
@@con_el_maestro3544 you are a fool
@@con_el_maestro3544 even a full blown speech impediment doesn't blunt a sharp mind
@@con_el_maestro3544 you nob
Sure, but the most important factor is genetics.
My brain doesn't always follow along, but I could listen to Sir Roger all day. Such an intelligent man.
That's the problem. He SOUNDS like he's filling your noodle with knowledge via a soothing pseudointellectual delivery but it's all bullshit. Your mind is a septic tank.
how can you tell how intelligent he is if you cannot follow his line of reasoning?
@@RiggedVedist why do people like you exist everywhere! Maybe I need to accept it and ignore it. People always feel the need to argue
@@RiggedVedist ...refreshing to read the comments of the unduped!
@@NightLetterLondon He's 'respected' for his THEORY of black holes. Go experience one for yourself and get back to us. The only black holes in this realm are the ones that suck in the truth and poop out people like Penrose and the mindless drones who listen to Public Radio while driving alone in their Prius' with their blue Covid mask on believing everything they're told.
It’s rare that Jordan feels completely out of his element - it was interesting to watch him attempt to connect philosophical thoughts he has been exploring with Penrose’s mathematical expression of reality. I’m not sure he was able to make an impactful connection tbh but I think pursuing it is noble and this pursuit will end up being the end game for all thinkers: to connect their philosophic ideas with hard science.
I just thought about the same thing - the point in all physics theories is to find a universal theory that explains everything. Maybe someday we will find a theory that connects hard science and philosophy, also God. Maybe it’s something as simple as an idea or a question.
@@anger.7808 Definitely feels like science and religion are searching for the same thing through two different lenses, doesn't it? I'm sure they might disagree, but thankfully truth comes in a few flavours.
@@karmanic7492 they are searching for the same thing, but religion is so out of depth for the simple reason its not based on any kind of logic which is not built on false assumptions
Truth comes in one flavor, reality, and as far as I can tell, science has brought us the closest to reality so far
@@flowerinthewild-x5u Well, I didn’t really mean religion as a construction and practices, more like the idea of God (Gods) and their manifestation through us. Religion is like a metaphorical reality, as science is literal reality. Science and religion sadly become more separated, instead they should be treated as tools that both try to describe what is going on. One or the other alone can’t describe everything.
Honest, brilliant, articulate and always on point. He explains highly complex equations and theories in a way that a layman like myself can understand. Genius.
To be fair, he had his whole life time time to understand those topics
This man is 11 years older than Joe Biden
Age really is just a number
Not mentally
Yes, but I do believe our illustrious president was a better professor.
Yes, Penrose is brilliant. The interview also shows interesting aspects of JP. BUT using pointless math to model your political obsessions in public is petty and ponderous.
Edit - removed "arbitrary"
I hate to say this but the US will never have a good president unless the public becomes better educated. If everyone’s stupid, they will of course elect someone stupid. Not that I’m any better
I love how attentive Jordan is, you can see the appreciation and respect he has for Penrose, Which clearly anybody should do if given the opportunity to meet him regardless whether you agree with his views or not, and especially as it being that he is getting older. Well done, A+ for Jordan and A+ for Roger, both remarkable people.
The rest of us would need fifty coffees to even come close to Jordan's natural attentiveness here...
Idk if you watched the whole interview, but even here Peterson has a very impressionistic response to what Penrose is saying. Their two trains of thought aren't aligned and in the full interview it was even more apparent. At the beginning of the interview Peterson went on several monologues disguised as questions without ever acknowledging that Penrose answered the question already. I think the other host did a fantastic job of following along even with the disagreement at the end of this particular clip.
The reason he's attentive is because if true it contradicts Peterson's presuppositions of free will.
@@VonJay Ya it seems like Jordan doesn't really understand what he is saying, which is fine, he's not a physicist, but it feels like he is pretending (or trying to give off the impression to the audience) that he does understand when he doesn't
@@steviemac2681 his lack of knowledge isn’t my problem. Not actively acknowledging that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about is the problem. His questions come off as statements expressing what he does know, even if what he does know had already been explained by Penrose and is mildly irrelevent to the detail at hand. The premise of a A good question would start with acknowledging what you don’t know first, and examine ways in which the interviewee can build enough traction toward a simplified model. Instead he’s going on monologues disguised as questions.
True thinkers never appear to be 100% certain. Doubt is the true sign of being a real and genuine genius. They are never dogmatic and always debate their and other’s opinion with an open mind. They leave many doors and questions open.. because this is what drives us all....curiosity. Thank you Jordan for a delightful conversation.
I agree 😐when we say the Big Bang happend and it will end in death and we will never live again 😐may be true but in some ways it’s misleading and it’s ok to say we don’t know 🙂saying the Big Bang created EVERYTHING when we don’t know how life got here in the first place just let’s us know how ignorant humans can really be 😐the universe is not going to say ohh I’m going to die whatever 😑nor will the universe say I stared off with a bang 😐i find that humans are very ignorant and if they find something they must assume it’s true 😐but the true thing is we just don’t know 😑and thats ok 🙂
That is because the more we learn, the more we realize what we don't know. A person that is 100% sure of something is either lying to you or a fool, or a bit of both.
@@John_Lee_Catron_II I agree 😐we say that the universe Begain 14 billion years and I goggle years it will end of heat death forever 😑seems possible 😓but I feel their is much to it 😐WAY much to it 😑
You appear to be 100% certain about this assertion.
Wish Jordan Peterson thinks this way
One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone says there was a “study” that “proved” something we were debating about as if that should be the end of discussion. If you’ve ever listened to a panel of experts you know science is full of competing ideas and theories.
Right, but it wins arguments, and isn't that all that really matters in the dominance heirarchy?
There was a study that your cell phone wasn't working because the battery was low. The study involved charging your cell phone and confirming it was now working. That should be the end of discussion. Every person does scientific studies every day that lead to an end to any discussing. Lots of science is like that. Not all. But lots.
There is a difference between practical science and theoretical musings as shown here.
So when your friend cites something like the sociological experiment that showed that the more people in a situation the less likely a victim is to be helped, you can believe that that situation is likely going to be true for your purposes. Or a study that links use of X medicine to a 100% positive outcome in a disease.
If a friend cites an essay on why quantum mechanics is an inconsistent theory and claims to end a discussion, that's a totally different scenario and likely just the start of the discussion with anyone who has a minimal grasp of quantum theories.
Depends on the question really. If you claim quantum mechanics is false, you would be wrong, because there is "proof" for its validity. However, if you are talking about why/how the act of measuring collapses the wave function (as in the video), we only have "proof" that it happens, but the cause/mechanism is open to "competing ideas and theories"
It's a sad reality that in order to know exactly what was proven and if indeed it was proven at all, you need to be able to inspect the work yourself from a place of academic expertise. Otherwise you have to just trust the peer review process.
It's so awesome to see a mind operating at a high capacity in an individual who is 90 years old. God bless him, this was great.
90 ain't old. It's refined, mature, grainy muscle. Have you seen Dorian Yates in his prime? That's grainy mature hard muscle. Premrose is dense mature grainy musculature of the mind. You gotta keep training. Daily. Whatever happens, never skip calves day. Thanks
I wish he would have elaborated more on how inserting gravity changes the need for an observer to collapse the wave function.
@@quantumpotential7639 DORIAN YATES AND PENROSE
hes agnostic, so you saying god bless him is insulting
@@educationalporpoises9592 hahahhha
I love the fact that Jordan holds discussions on variety of topics on his channels, not just politics. His politics are great, just nice to hear different things.
What good does it do when our country has fallen into the hands of collectivism, communism, censorship, we are going to hell in a hand basket, philosophy don’t mean shit!!!!🇨🇦
Why would he just talk about politics? That's not what his main body of work is? That's just what the media blows up.
@@p.h6605 you're beating a dead horse, most brains dead individuals just come to his channel to hear Dr. Peterson mention God and some right wing ideologies, they ignore the rest of his lecture.
@@jZamora87 what made Peterson famous was rattling against communism on UA-cam!!! As I mentioned earlier he hasn’t even commented publicly on the state of our situation in Canada 🇨🇦. We had an election last September and Jordan never came on or commented on anything, he was always making criticism’s. I’ll wager he’ll immigrate to the states 🇨🇦
@@jZamora87 na man, don't sit above people dude, just tryna let the guy know. There's plenty of things me and you would also be the "dead horse" & beginners at as well. Peace ✌️
This is the first time seeing Jordan trying to wrap around his head a concept that is complicated enough to be outside of his regular “reach”. What a great honor to learn about these school of thoughts from absolute legends such as Penrose, Von Neumann, Godel, and Wigner. Hope to see more of these videos!
Jordan totally missed the quantum uncertainty that pentode opened with ie the desire to exten models was not calculable but the models were
Peterson frequently comments on areas outside his specialism and usually betrays his ignorance when he does so. For example, when he said "there is no such thing as climate" or "the Bible is literally the first book" or "it's likely that hospitals do more harm than good". The fact that this man has thousands of followers hanging on his every word is a brutal indictment of education systems everywhere.
@@czgibson3086 obvious troll tho
@@Slydamiser Obvious charlatan too. Such a shame more people can't see it.
It shows how out of his depth he is when discussing topics of middling complexity. Penrose broke it down enough that a high schooler could interpret it, and Peterson still insisted on injecting his non-sensical view of the world into it.
5:25 "because my mind was drifting away from what he was saying... which was probably a good thing" 😂
Amazing
🙇🏼♂️I wonder why? 🌚
What I like about Penrose is that he only cares about getting the facts out there while others try to ignore problems or press certain biases.
He is eloquent, but like any theoretical scientist, which he is, almost all of his presuppositions are based on a faith or assumption that confirms his ideas.
Jesus died on the cross to save you from eternal damnation.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Acts 16:31
@@LeavingBabylon_ hey Leviticus, why don't you take it easy on us sinners, and save the guilt trips for the gullible.
@@cdb5001 No guilt trip, just a warning.
@@michaelseeker9680 a warning for what? So if you're culture never heard of Jesus, are you doomed to go to Hell? Give me a break.
This is the sign of a man still searching for answers, a true scientist. Plus a well presented interview, question followed by answer without contention or conflict.
And why the dumb act out and complain about and doubt science. It's because they always want the quick answer and use their dumb big mouths to fire at science because it doesn't provide it all the time.
If JP were "searching for answers" then why does he always come back to the SAME answer; biblical? I question the reason of anyone who cannot see this obvious trend to his answers and that he lacks actual critical thinking.
@@mpjstuff Jordan Peterson broke under the pressure and was indoctrinated into "the faith". Now he sees things through a lens. He's not been as controversial recently, he's been tamed.
You can't blame him, he was under constant attack, sooner or later everyone breaks...
@@daveofyorkshire301 Was JP broken by religious indoctrination, or by everyone hammering on him for being a grifter? I can't relate the 2nd situation, but, a hell of a lot more people survived the first. I'll allow excuses for some kid who becomes a criminal because all his heroes and opportunities were bad choices -- but, if JP is absolved -- he's last in line of privileged people making bad choices. I'd say he's just an opportunist and smart enough to fool some, but, definitely not all.
@@mpjstuff Grifter? a person who engages in petty or small-scale swindling.
He is an educated and highly qualified man in his field, tell me what was he selling that you call him a grifter?
I had the great honour to share some dinners with this wonderful man at my college in Oxford. I shared a flat with one of his DPhil students. Sadly, at dinner, with his students there, the QM discussions were too complex for me to follow. I just sat quietly and listened, filled with brain love.
My flat mate and I used to share a bottle of (cheap) wine and try to talk about our respective areas. I struggled with conceptualsing N-dimensional space, and he couldn't fathom the sloppiness and emergent phenomena of biological systems. But, it was fun trying.
Cool, after I became an engineer I went to work for an aerospace company that would pay for continuing your higher education. I started studying biology and met Lynn Margulis in 1974 or 75, not exactly sure. Anyway she gave a lecture I went to at UCLA. She invited me to take her summer class on her Evolutionary Symbiosis (reason I wanted to hear her lectures) at U-Mass Amhurst. My company let me take a Sabbatical (unpaid) and off to Massachusetts I drove. She was great to talk to and had a total grasp of the current knowledge of biological systems.
She was no mere evolutionary theorist and she despised Neo-Darwinism's dogmatism and that really came out when EO Wilson came to Amhurst I think to promote his book Sociobiology The New Synthesis that Lynn told him taking insect sociology and applying it to humans was bogus (my word, hers' was stronger) and similarities didn't make it scientific. Dr. Wilson, always a gentleman told her is that any way to talk to someone that was going to say something nice about her hypothesis.
What a lunch. They agreed on more than they disagreed and Lynn even asked me about evolution's lack of mathematical applications. She knew I was an engineer and I often described biology in those terms and Dr. Wilson surprised me by agreeing with my viewpoint. I didn't know he used math in his studies. I told him on a superficial level evolution was a chaotic system, but in micro it didn't seem that way to me. He then surprised me and actually agreed with me. We all had an interesting lunch that turned into an afternoon.
@@MountainFisher Cool story, but I'm not sure of the direct link with JP, RP, or consciousness?
Your company sounds like a great one to work for.
Re: bee hives, ants etc ... nearly every author expanding on their 'novel' paradigm will pull webs of knowledge into a structure of nodes and associative connections to support their conjecture. Including JP and RP :) although their intellectual rigor is fairly robust.
These webs are distorted, or perhaps more fairly, biased towards their paradigm.
With particular reference to insect: human sociobiology ... I know almost nothing, but that makes it more fun being weakly constrained by fact ... humans have evolved hard wired and social environmental neural development and learning to survive within tribes and the natural environment. Associated with this are social behaviors that balance yin and yang (soft/ hard, individual/ group, selfish/ sharing/ parasitism etc). At the macro level, this plays out in personality distributions, political distributions (left/ right etc), laws, social values etc.
At the larger scale, society is like an oil super tanker. It takes ages to change direction. Some political types strategise long term to move the tanker left or right. And, in doing so, swing it too far. That is when us poor saps, more in the middle, increasingly push back. Essentially saying, 'whoa, you have gone too far'.
You see this to some extent with the swing in general views with each generation.
You also see this interplay in other domains with younger/ older, less experienced/ more experienced, those set in their ways/ those less so, etc.
Whoops, I waffled on. Your last point is most relevant. When people take time to discuss, in the absence of social (media, work place, cancel culture, etc) threats, they agree on most things. That, by the way, is the biggest danger of cancel culture - it destroys societal exploration and explanation of views. Until push back builds up, as normalisation starts to occur.
Hardly surprising re your point about mostly agreeing, as we are all humans :)
Sorry but brain love is a feeling I didn’t know I had. lol
@@nitrostudy9049 All good till you banged on about ‘cancel’ culture. So-callled cancel culture is a reaction to US assimilation culture which wants everyone to line up the same like Nth Korean zombies - that’s very hard to do if you are Obviously different - and if you are subtly different. ( think race, gender, different ideas…). RP and JP are both victims of dominant views that don’t like thier approaches - and would rather they assimilate. Assimilationists want your annoying differences to go away. Integrationists want everyone’s opinion but in a manner that is mindful of others - a civilised discussion as RP just demonstrated. MAGAts and thier ilk complain about a straw man cancel culture problem to hide thier own desire to force everyone to assimilate and be just like them.
@@nitrostudy9049 As you no doubt know human groups have always used social exclusion as punishment. There has always been ‘cancel’ culture. It’s just that in US history and now it’s used to shut down voices that had no political power. Now those voices have growing political power and those who have been sheltering under the dominant hierarchy of privilege don’t like this shift. Change is uncomfortable so they moan about cancel culture, previously wielded as a weapon by their dominance hierarchy. Which towns in the US presently ‘cancel’ African-Americans who want to live there? Or ‘cancel’ people who want to have abortions? That would be women just so you know. Or cancel ‘kids’ who have different gender orientations? Or cancel ‘migrants’ even though the US was built by migrants………….. you talk about ‘cancel ‘ culture in one tiny Petri dish where it very seldom appears and ignore it every where else where it really matters. In discussion of QM there are no human political consequences - hence no cancel culture until you get to questions of tenure and research funding, of course! Here is an analogy. Car drivers need to follow road rules or there is chaos. Similarly conversations need to be conducted within civility and manners or there is chaos. Bringing cancel culture into this conversation is like bringing stop signs into a freeway
Roger Penrose is an honest and courageous person, and obviously a great genius also.
obviously
A greater genius than your pedophile profet?
Clearly
As a Physics Ph.D. Student, the collapse of the wave function has not puzzled me as much as my peers. Imagine you are blind and are trying to discover what the surface of a still water lake is like. In your scientific pursuit, imagine you touch the lake and try to perceive what it is like. As you touch the lake, no matter how delicate you are, you produce a wave, the lake changes and fluctuates. It would look to you as if the surface of the lake was never still or at the same place but as if the lake would vibrate up and down with a particular probability. This is exactly what happens when a magnetic field interacts with a particle: you get a Raby oscillation. Quantum mechanics describes the behavior of extremely small objects which you can only observe by interacting with them via fields. These fields are strong compared to the smallest objects in the universe and hence change the object states as it collects the object information. All of your machines need of strong fields to have a reading, so all we can really do is throw a damn rock at the lake and based on splash guess what the lake is like. I think it was Feynman who said, particle physics is like trying to figure out how a clock works by smashing it against a wall.
It all boils down to this: if there was no such thing as this property called "sentience" (whatever that is), would the universe even exist. Like the very fundamental philosophical question: "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one living creature around to hear it, would it still make a sound?" Some people, who claim to be philosophical "savants" and tend to micro-manage the situation, would claim that it would not make a sound, since they define a sound as being a noise that can be perceived. Since there is no living creature around to perceive this noise, it therefore does not make a sound...but it does make noise! Being able to sense nothingness, such as the stillness of a lake without waves still requires sentience. Einstein once quipped that the only thing that can be perceived are forces being acted upon the perceived or upon objects in another frame of reference. We know what it feels like for gravity to act upon our bodies. Is it the same "feeling" an electron has when it is being tugged on by a proton. (Absolute or Total) Panpsychists would tell you that everything in the universe, no matter how much it has been subdivided, has sentient properties, so that the notion of an electron "feeling" anything is a distinct reality.
I am totally ignorant regarding maths and physics. But I understand from your writing that a great deal formulating a problem seems SO very much come from the origine of intuition, the same sort of we all have. It must be immensly gratifying to have the ability to put your deepest intuition and translate it into numbers and experiments ?
@@thejils1669 Thank you, Plato - very advanced natural philosophy. How's Aristotle doing?
@@Funkywallot Science requires verifiable evidence and repeatable demonstration. Intuition was the massive failure in the thousands of years of natural philosophy.
@@rabokarabekian409 ...he's still sentient...as is Socrates...
That's the measurement problem. You can describe what happens... but the thing is when you stick a device in-between to do the measurement you interrupt what would have happened otherwise. People have a way of thinking about observers: look, don't touch. You cannot do that with QM. In order to make a measurement you introduce interactions.
Precisely
Basically what he just said in the video then ?
This back and forth was confusing because Jordan and Roger were mish mashing between Roger's idea that consciousness collapses the wave function and his alternative idea that gravity collapses the wave function. Roger has suggested both in the past, but they are each independent ideas. It seems Roger has moved away from the conscious idea and closer towards gravity as being the cause of collapse. The truth is neither work that well, at the moment the easiest way to formulate this issue is to posit that the universe physically instantiates multiple history's with atomic process's.
Well that is exactly what I thought about the double slit experiment , the measurement device of the electron collapses the wave function of not the consciousness , till I found out about a version of the double slit experiment called (Delayed eraser double slit experiment) where the device is totally removed from the experiment and the observation became totally by conclusion , the experiment basically give the observer the two possibilities , if the observer has a way of conclusion , the wave function collapses , if the observer doesn't , no wave function collapse , which was shocking to me cause it supports the consciousness theory
.
A great clip showing your diversity of topics and an even greater display of your reserve to not interject but allow the guest to complete their subject to its fullest extent, kudos Mr Peterson.
Except at one point he did call it the Wave 'Form'. 🤣
Hey fam, I hope that you and your loved ones are well. I would like to ask you the most important question ever asked:
Who is Jesus? Not who is He to you. Rather, who is He really?
Jesus is the Son of God, who came to the world as a man. He lived a perfect and sinless life . Even though He was perfect and sinless, on the cross of Calvary God wrathfully punished Him for the sins of the world. 3 days later He rose from death. Now He is seated at the right hand of God, ruling as King over Heaven and Earth.
On the judgment day He will judge you, me and every human being that has ever lived. Those who believed in Him will enter eternal joy with Him, but those who did not believe in Jesus will be sent to eternal condemnation.
So turn from your sins and believe in the Jesus. Believe and hope that you can be forgiven for all your sins because of His death and resurrection. He took your place in Hell, so that if you submit to Him as your Lord and God, you can be forgiven and take His place in heaven- you will be made sinnless and perfect before the Holy Father. He'll also give you a new heart and mind that can love and obey Him.
Jesus lives so that you can have true life and freedom, and most importantly so that you can have an eternally peaceful relationship with God.
You are dead, and Jesus is your Hope of love.
Acts 15:11
”On the contrary, we believe it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
Ephesians 1:7
”In Him, we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace"
Ephesians 2:8
”For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God,”
John 11:25-26: "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?'
1 Corinthians 6:14: "And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power."
Romans 6:9: "We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him."
In this case, it's more a matter of him not having the slightest goddamn clue of what is happening, least of all when JBP is opening his mouth. But I guess kudos for being unprepared or something? For giving people a useless platform?
I wish more people in society would enjoy and understand these topics!
Penrose is an incredibly smart and at the same time very humble man; the bright intellect that understands the limits of our knowledge and scales the power we have over the universe into correct proportions. There is an objective reality that is independent of our consciousness. This line of thinking is indeed the cure for the intellectual diseases of our times.
You have proof of this non-mental reality?
Well said!
@@Pat_11131 What has been demonstrated with overwhelming evidence is that a particle's position or direction respond to a function that gives different probable states as a result (the graph of that function looks like a wave, where it looks higher where it's more probable and lower when least probable, hence 'wave function').
When measuring that particle, the wave function that represents it's probability collapses into one specific state, which is the one that has been "observed". But "measure" and "observe" don't mean that a conscious being looked at them. There is no way of passively measuring something on the subatomic scale. In order for you to know the state of a particle, that particle must have interacted with something you prepared for it to interact. By reading that interaction is that you can draw a conclusion, by that time, that state has already been cemented into one.
So, no, there's no proof of a non-mental reality, because that is not what quantum mechanics is about. But by taking advantage of the mathematical equations that have been postulated regarding quantum particles, we are now able to engineer computing hardware orders of magnitude greater than ever before.
@@guidodurante9495 ok have fun with your quantum computer, I'm interested in Truth, which is what QM points us towards. It's not the person making the wave function collapse because that person is made of atoms and therefore part of the quantum system. In order to break this chain, as the father's of QM say, you need a extra-physical process to collapse it, and the best candidate for that is consciousness (what you really are, not something your brain (atoms) produced)
@@Pat_11131 I mean, it's a nice point of view. Not all the fathers of QM say that, most don't even have a standpoint on that specific issue. And that is what the scientific method is about.
What I said is, there's no proof (or evidence) for or against either non-mental reality or mental reality.
So it's up to free interpretation, that means neither is the Truth until there's evidence. Of course you can believe one or the other and defend it until one is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. At that point that's it for Science, the rest is faith.
I hope we can know more about consciousness within our lifetime, it's a very interesting subject that we know close to nothing about.
Physics and science in general in a constantly dynamic state of incompleteness. That’s what makes it so maddeningly fantastic.
IMO, that's because science does not describe the actual way the world works but rather a model of the way the world works. The model will always fail in certain areas, no matter how much we patch it up to make it fit.
Tell that to dr fauci
Except when it comes to climate science and COVID. Apparently the science is set in stone and no one can question anything.
The academic curtain, don’t look. Just believe
And if you already know the answer - you have faith
I had been perplexed by Schrodinger's cat. I no longer am thanks to Roger Penrose. My cousin, Dawn, a mathematician and physicist, called quantum mechanics "God's practical joke." Nice to see how right she was.
I remember Slavoj Zizek retold a joking account of quantum mechanics (or sub-atomic particles I think it was). While God had made everything in the world make sense and be law-abiding, he had been sure that humans would never evolve to become smart enough to go beyond a basic understanding of atoms, so when he started making sub-atomic particles he had had enough and said to himself "Fuck it, they'll never notice anyway!"
@@alaron5698 I just read that in zizek’s voice 🤣
@@honeybeeblossom5846 I hope you added some nose-rubbing for good measure!
@@alaron5698 and so on and so on...
@@alaron5698 God made subatomic particles *after* everything else?
"You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things. But I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit; if I can't figure it out, then I go onto something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell -- possibly. It doesn't frighten me." [smiles] -
Richard Feynman
I read that in the voice of Roger Penrose 😅
People like Brian Greene and Neil de Grasse Tyson tend to get complacent and snooty when others talk this way about quantum physics. But they can't cancel the enormous presence of Roger Penrose. He simply outclasses his entire generation.
I think it has got to do more with maturity and experience . Brilliant as they are but NDT and Brian Greene simply can't matchup to the experience of Roger Penrose. The experiential finesse of a person like him is truly unparalleled . The more you joust with a certain idea the more sceptical you get about it not to ridicule the theory or discredit the proponents of the theory but simply with the goal of adding nuance and broadening horizons of knowledge . We need to get past the idea of absoluteness of theories (esp scientific ones ) and focus more on evolving pre-established ideas .
@@aritrajitroy724 Agreed. We must abandon the cocksureness that comes with achieving recognition in a field so confounding as this. Scientists are in some ways as competitive as athletes and there is a lot of high-sounding trash talk going on. In addition to mathematical brilliance, Sir Roger has invoked the indispensable philosophical component in his analysis. It is a delight to attend to his equanimity and deep insights.
Penrose is at least a league above
@@aritrajitroy724 It has nothing to do with maturity or experience!
Simply put NDT is(was) underscoring student with absolutely no work behind him!
Brian Green on the other hand has put all of his career on String Theory with obscure work with very little citation and importance outside of that field!
So basically we are talking about two pop scientists who happen to ride the media(read money) train very successfully! Nothing more, nothing less!
Comparing them to Sir Roger Penrose is blasphemy to say the least!
May I remind he was hawking adviser and out class him anyday
This is heart warming..
to see Peterson listening so sincerely to Mr. Penrose
One top tier intellectual listening to, and learning from, another.
Quite a pleasure to listen to, indeed!
Jordan Peterson I totally loved this interview. Hearing you probe someone of this caliber and school of thought was great
ᴛᵉˣţ𝄍✉𝑾𝒉𝔮ᴛᵗ𝑠𝑨𝑝𝑝 ✚𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟎𝟐5𝟖𝟔𝟐𝟏𝟔✔
ʀᴇɢᴀʀᴅɪɴɢ ʙᴛᴄ/ ᴇᴛʜ ɪɴᴠᴇsᴛᴍᴇɴᴛ ɪᴅᴇᴀs
ʟᴇᴛ ʜᴇʀ ᴋɴᴏᴡ ɪ ʀᴇғᴇʀʀᴇᴅ ʏᴏᴜ◦◦
ᴛʜᴀɴᴋs ғᴏʀ ᴡᴀᴛᴄʜɪɴɢ ..
Peterson suck, im here for Roger.
He didn't probe. JP has 0 expertise in this subject. He should have let someone else do this. What a wasted opportunity :(
"Probe" , no, no he didn't, he had no clue about the topic, it was embarrassing, the fact he's posted it makes it worse, as it shows he's not aware how little he knows and thinks this exchange has some merit. It doesn't.
I normally like JP btw so don't think I'm some lefty, I'm not, I'm into physics.
@@djuk6573 ? Isn't the purpose of asking or interviewing someone who have a different expertise than you in the hope of learning something you don't know? Peterson is a psychologist. I mean, i don't even see the problem with him not knowing much about the subject . Isn't that why he's asking?
I’d really suggest you read this book:
“Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature”
The author is Federico Faggin, fellow Italian physics and engineer, he’s also the inventor of the first microprocessor which is the reason why we have most of our technology today.
He then started developing a scientific theory of consciousness through quantum mechanics that really resonates with some concepts found in Tao, Induism, Buddhism and ancient philosophy but through a scientific lens.
He states that consciousness as quantum mechanics is an internal experience that can’t be replicated or known if not from within. And classical physics is the objective and symbolic translation of it. So as cells are part of a whole and they have the total genome inside of each of them, we as consciousness are parts of a unity which is experiencing itself subjectively (like Bill Hicks also said in his stand ups).
It’s really fascinating and he’s probably rediscovering this old truth and being a precursor to the scientific understanding of this stuff. I really think you should learn about him as you would really find it enlightening
I just cited this issue in a recent paper for my “Psychology of Religion” class. I did a book review/response to Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian”. A brilliant and disturbing book to read as a practicing Christian myself. My goal was to respond and argue against Russell’s points. My professor also read the book in his college years and changed to Agnosticism after reading it. He’s an extremely logical and educated man, so I was concerned for what my grade might be, as I knew we would disagree on certain things. Scored a 96!
Did it influence your faith in Jesus?
I'd love to read your work
@@ancientferret send me your email !
@@Style50360 coming full circle it did. I was happy to come across some great research that supports Christianity. But Bertrand Russell’s book was challenging and I wouldn’t recommend it to any Christians.
@@KeithCasey973 Why wouldn't you recommend it to Christians? Isn't that a bit dishonest? If one's faith can't withstand scrutiny, then that should raise some red flags.
Thank you soooo much for talking across disciplines, Jordan. Can’t tell you how much I love this. I believe humans are coming upon a fundamental change and it’s going to come partially from conversations like this.
Sure, I'll bite. What fundamental change is this?
@@banehog I also wait for his revelation
@@nuqwestr It depends I suppose if you agree with Penrose. There are plenty of his colleagues that don't. I respect his right to have an opinion but it doesn't mean his opinion is right. Theoretical physics is about opinions and theories.
@@nuqwestr Interesting points my friend, thank you. Unfortunately in science we don't have the luxury of accepting something as plausible and possibly correct. That's the problem, through nobody's fault, withe theoretical physics.
@@nuqwestr With respect, it wasn't a Royal we. I am a scientist so I'm part of the scientific community...that's why I said we. Roger Penrose richly deserved his knighthood...and his Nobel prize. You forgot that.
So joyful when I saw there's a 90min version of this conversation. Interview Penrose monthly and you'll create an incredible resource for all scientists for all time.
Thank you, I'll go listen to that 90 minute version.
Sir Roger Penrose is a treasure and I only hope more people can have the opportunity to learn from him.
When you're not looking at this comment, it explains all of quantum mechanics
Roger Penrose is the type of person who talks fluently to anyone about a complex subject such that they understand it even though there’s a lot more to it.
Jordan Peterson is the type of person who will make great efforts to seem like he understands the subject even when he obviously doesn’t and misses the point.
Valuetainment asked Peterson about the benefits of being famous and he basically said it's that he can pick up the phone and ask anyone anything to satisfy his curiosity. Turns out this is the kind of person he had in mind. Way to go!
Loved the interview...only wish it was longer. Penrose has been such a brilliant mind in science, and his was my go-to books. Love to listen to him consider these questions that have conflicted me for decades. His ability to think out of the box is exhilarating. Jordan was obviously enjoying himself. I was saying the same thing... "go ahead and go into it deeper!".
The world has no idea how valuable this person is. He's a mankind treasure.
I like Penrose's view. I have always thought: "what is so special about a human receiving information about a system that should cause a system to change its state?" The physical world surely doesn't care who receives a photon emitted by it. It's only humans that care about their emitted photons being observed. It's a brain activity dependent on culture, prejudice etc. I am 67 and for decades I have been thinking quantum phenomena need a better explanation.
Do you believe that thought arrises from consciousness, or the other way around?
@@Recoveryplus If I say it's unanswerable, could be either way, I wonder if I am just protecting myself from the awfulness of saying that my consciousness ceases to exist when this body dies. I will have to wait and see (or not see). I envy believers, but you can't make yourself believe. I have developed so far in my life, I would love an eternity of living and loving, learning and creating. Sadly, human life is just an infinitesimal blip. Day 5 now of recovering from Covid, I am going to party hard soon!
@@ericrawson2909 thanks for the honest reply. If you trully want to know the answer to that question, there are valid methods of meditation that will let you verify for yourself. No belief necessary. Congrats on beating covid. 🙏
@@Recoveryplus very thought provoking question. Are we restricting consciousness to just animals because if we don't the answer is very simple.
Your blindspot is your own existence.
I think the title should say "incomplete," not "inconsistent." If it was inconsistent, it wouldn't be a scientific theory because it would imply a logical contradiction. It is only incomplete because the framework that defines QM cannot make any claims about what does or doesn't happen during the "collapse" of the wave function.
I agree, but to add I think it's not about what or what doesn't happen when collapse happen (this is well known). But the question is when does collapse happen? We know that at least collapse already happened when we observed it (thus the theory why observation cause collapse). But does it already collapsed even before we observe it?
@@bunyu6237 That's an interesting point. How then do we ever know for sure that it was ever uncollapsed to begin with? Like, how do we know it wasn't already collapsed? On a side note, curious what Penrose had hinted about gravity playing a role in collapse, at 3:19...
I’d disagree, the inconsistency is that the Schrodinger equation is linear and continuous, and should theoretically govern all evolution in QM. But then you have this probabilistic, discontinuous jump that is not governed by any equation and is at odds with the Schrodinger equation. So the 1st and 2nd postulates are in disagreement about evolution of the wavefunction, but we sort of just ignore it and carry on because all the calculations work.
@@thomasbreust3516 but if we had a rule for determining when collapse occurs, then we would basically just have a piecewise continuous function which is not mathematically inconsistent. It's unsatisfying in my opinion, but I don't think it would necessarily be inconsistent with other aspects of quantum mechanics. I personally don't think quantum mechanics describes the physical system itself though. It seems to me like quantum mechanics simply describes our knowledge of a system, which allows us to make useful predictions, but is maybe not useful for developing physical interpretations of the actual systems in question. Specifically, I think there are probably nonlocal hidden variables that give rise to the uncertainty of quantum mechanics. Bells theorem proves that local hidden variables cannot explain experimental results, but it says nothing about nonlocal hidden variables. I think that the collapse of the wave function is just a way of describing when knowledge is gained from experimental results rather than propagated or inferred from experimental results. And ideas like decoherence which assume that the wave function does not collapse, but just becomes increasingly constrained by entanglement of a quantum object with it's environment (at least, that's my understanding of the concept), in my opinion, are just describing how our knowledge of many different things interact. In other words, we have knowledge about the equipment we use to perform experiments, so when a particle becomes entangled with that equipment, we can use our knowledge of the equipment to infer something about the particle.
@@thomasbreust3516 what if we simply redo the postulates so they're in agreement about the evolution of the wavefunction... could that work?
Love watching Jordan hold his head as he tries to understand quantum mechanics and hears why consciousness doesn’t play a role.
haha
💀💀💀💀
Laughable. Tests have been done where the conscious observer not being present at the test is asked to imagine observing the test and seeing the outcome actually affected the test more than a thousand miles away, Done hundreds of times. More to reality than physics alone and can be proved all along the chain from physics, to chemistry, to biology, to psychology, and conscientious. Very narrow-minded and the pursuit of truth requires an open mind. That's real scientific inquiry.
@@8utton Please define "conscious observer" in physics terminology we can agree upon if you want to insist that "consciousness" plays a role in quantum mechanics.
@@8utton Would you providea source for this information? It's the first time I'm hearing this and I'm currently doing quantum mechanics for my course, so it'd be a very interesting read.
Theoretical Physics Masters student here. I agree with Penrose, consciousness most certainly should not be required for a system to be observed. My view, is that anything that carries information away from the system is an observation on that system (e.g. consider a photon interacting with an atom and being scattered).
Interestingly, the collapse of the wave function and the Schrödinger equation have something in common, they are postulates of quantum mechanics. Meaning they are both taken without proof, it just so happens that the framework we derived from them agrees with a lot of experimental evidence
This is totally standard, I'm not sure what Penrose is trying to say. A measurement in QM only refers to an interaction, there is no observer required.
If anyone is wondering, Roger Penrose won half the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2020. His discovery was that black hole formation is a prediction of general relativity. He's a super smart guy. Check out some of his works!
You can tell Jordan is in learning mode grasping every word he says the show of respect is amazing
If by respect you mean ignoring Penrose and responding with just complete misunderstanding, to the point that Penrose looks at Jordan and basically says, "what the fuck are you talking about?" Jordan was so consumed by these misunderstandings that he ignored what Penrose had to say, and he latches on to the fact that we don't know the true answer to feel justified in his beliefs. The amount of cognitive dysphoria that Jordan has here is insane.
It was just really weird to watch.
"learning mode" *monologues about presuposed ideology* so can you answer my "question" ?
@@justynpryce i can only imagine JBP struggling with physics topics since he struggles with psychology so much. Propelled to fame only by twenty-something gamer males who think he's awesome because he's a little bit edgy.
@@justynpryce Yeah lmao, "show of respect" dude is biting his tongue because JBP is struggling with all manners of aphasia right in front of him. This is painful to watch if you don't know the first thing about what Penrose is talking about, it's some kind of torture spell if you get how much ass-air good old Jordan is trying to waft in Roger's direction. This is pretty much the stark opposite of "learning mode." This is "pack it in boys, we'll never get there"-mode at best.
@@justynpryce bravo, totally agree.
I absolutely love that he conceded to his mind wandering and that he actually credited it to his advancement in thinking on this issue.
his consciousness got him played during that lecture. this is what you meant right??
Penrose is a patient and polite man, as can be seen in this meeting.
Mr Peterson, it is quite the sight to see you smiling and chuckling again. I am delighted to be able to attend your presentation in Seattle on the 3rd. Be well :)
My view: if the information is recoverable, in any significant way, the function collapses. This means that if the “wave” has a significant effect on any object, conscious or not, the wave stops being a wave. This is why larger objects are less likely to experience quantum phasing, that is, their effect on the physical world is too great, the information is almost always (possible always) recoverable.
He said it's got something to do with gravity, and following your comment, so I'm thinking:
This could mean things that have masses have already introduced certain interventions fundamentally so the quantum phasing is less likely to occur; the larger it is, the less likely to occur.
We use electron to observe the experiment partly because of the special function of electron itself, "the jumping", another reason is that electron has a very tiny mass, comparing to other existing matters.
I think if we could somehow enlarge and make use of electron's speical functions (jumping state) in real life, our technological advancement would be transformed to a very novel way, time travel, wormwhole and such...
But anyway, the consciousness is the deciding factor of that quantum phasing i think it could be an illusion after all. Since any object we used to experiment on has its own weight of mass, so the outcome has already been decided when the object is existed, regardless of how purely random it is. An electron is existed today for scientists to experiment on, this could already been a quantum leap in a sense for that electron to be observed in this point of time.
Quantum state could be just a method to prove it could be exist or non-exist. I guess.
If we could somehow escape the gravity, we probably have already been into higher dimensions, so we don't get bound with it, then we might be the quantum state itself, but then we can't really prove to 3D world people because in order to prove, we need to enter back to mass state, meaning to be bounded by gravity again...
That’s a fascinating speculation. I would like to hear Penrose’s response to that idea.
@@februarysnows5528 Your soul travels in the Spirit/Quantum world when you dream. It is Spirit unfettered by the body or gravity or time itself. The mind, thoughts and dreams are proof of God, soul and the sovereign realm of Spirit which is the foundation and cause of our “reality”. As our “reality” is based on Spirit it is a type of illusion, delusion, fabrication, simulation for the training of our Souls. It real enough to kick your ass tho while you are associated with the body.
King Mob I don’t know. But I think your question is perfect. Perhaps it is related to gravity. But then again the photon wave collapses just because a sensor was on AND recording. (sensor on and not recording, no collapse)
The first and the last part are right imo. But the significance of information recovery being the key might point to something else. Consider this: recoverable by WHOM?? A... being, who has consciousness. If the which-way information is destroyed, then wave, doesn't even matter that it was measured because there is no-one and will be no-one who can KNOW. It's almost like reality is rendering itself in order to be consistent. I'm reconsidering your second sentence, I actually agree but I believe the reason that it stops being a wave in the case that it effects a non-conscious object is that a conscious observer could potentially have knowledge via the observation of that effect. Again, like reality is computing its own consistency. If you CANNOT know which slit the "particle" went through, even if it was measured, then there was no particle. If you CAN know, well then mother nature is loath to contradict herself and you get a particle on the plate, or else you would be observing something contradictory.
Absolutely love this Dr. Peterson! Please do more of these "self critique" of science talks, they are terribly interesting and important (Dark Horse podcast has much of this in their content and absolutely love listening to it).
As a college graduate of Physics (who went in another direction professionally), I always struggled with these types of epistemological questions that popped in my head (that none of my professors cared to entertain) and remained a healthy skeptic of science since, with greater magnitude in the recent years of the emergence of scientism.
I believe science has it's positive and useful purpose, but the commercial gain as well as the cultism/politics infesting it has damaged and demeaned it, bringing with it more harm than good.
Science needs a "sanity check" and conversations like this and those by Brett and Heather are exactly what we need.
no doubt, never forget to question everything
I read very often, that things change in a direction over time. So I read from you, that things get worse. It might be that things are bad now, but they are getting better, stay the same or anything inbetween. With the end of the cold war, the amount of research gained and the institutional practice, it might be better than it was ever before.
Hey man, just wondering what your opinion is on René Guenon’s (a French perennial philosopher and metaphysical explorer) conclusion that the science of the Middle Ages which had inherent intuition prioritised has been reduced purely to the practical and sensual realm and thus is now open to infestation from materialist and secularists?
Same story for me, Dragon. Graduated in Physics and then went on to different professional fields. The biggest take away from my Physics education was a realization that many things about the world and universe we think are true today, will likely be untrue as we learn more over time. Friends and family get frustrated we me on many subjects when I tell them "I don't know". If our politicians and the "science" charlatans that advise them would be honest with the masses and when appropriate say "we're not sure" or "we don't know", the public would be better served.
@@manchesterunited4619 haven't read him, but his theory sounds alot like what Peterson is talking about these days, which I agree with. I use to be an Athiest who thought science has all the answers but over the years I have seen the limitations of it, and Peterson articulated it in a way that made it much clearer to my intuitions.
The thing about the "measurement causes collapse" description is that, as Prof. Penrose said, it glosses over "what is a measurement?" And thus people are left thinking it is a function of observation, when that isn't what the equations say. What the equations say is that the introduction of forces/energy sufficient to _give us something to observe_ will cause a change in the Schrodinger equation's parameters to such a degree that whatever we measured (and the other properties we didn't measure) has changed, and we no longer know what they are.
Bell's Inequalities lead experts who do definitely know more about this than I do to believe that the uncertainty principle actually does mean there is no definite state until the "collapse" occurs. Of course, the nature of the Schrodinger equation is then ignored as people discuss that it is "in" that state. It isn't; it was measured to be in that state at that time, but the measurement itself made it cease to be and created a new state. The item thus measured now has the energy of the measurement included in whatever its new state is.
According to Bell's Inequalities experiments, the system _should_ have certain probabilistic distributions of measurements if there are hidden variables - that is, the state actually is not merely probabilistically likely to be in X or Y condition, but rather actually has a value and we just can't know it - but doesn't, and thus superposition must be the rule. But - and I freely admit that this is at least partially my own ignorance - I do not know of any experiments that have properly performed entanglements to really test the full combination of cases. Specifically, all the experiments I know of say, "Well, these probabilities line up in a way that suggests the state isn't fixed until it is measured!" but they ignore that this creates situations where the same particle must have mutually-contradictory states simultaneously; they never measure for this. And the only way to measure for it that I can think of would be three entangled particles, going through (for instance) the three polarized lenses separately. As far as I know, no such experiment has been done, and certainly I have not been able to find anybody reporting on the results of it.
I'd love to speak to this man in person for 5 minutes then think about what he said for 6 days
🤣
Thank you so much for interviewing Penrose, he's a brighter mind than almost anyone alive, doesn't get enough recognition for that even though we use his diagrams all over the place. But my favorite conjecture owed to him is "CCC" which is a mindbending possibility to consider. Wow! Thank you, Jordan!
@@cw4597 dont mention it, likewise with the small caps impersonation
Physics, so captivating. I love this sort of stuff and I thank my old high school physics teacher for opening my eyes to the wonderful world of physics.
A Latvian, I see.
it's truly an honor to hear Sir Penrose.
to remain this sharp even at this age is absolutely wooow.
Roger Penrose is a living legend.
I agree with Penrose. It has always been my view that the measurement thing is not about consciousness, but rather a physical thing. I am quite sure that this is Penrose's point, that it would make us regard consciousness as something physical if we think that consiousness is collapsing the wave. Penrose is instead favouring the view that consciousness is not physical.
Yeap... We are fool to think that our consciousness matters and alters basic observations. ...
Penrose merely says that physics does not require consciousness to function. He never says that consciousness isn't a physical process. I've seen him say in other talks that consciousness may emerge from, but is not necessary for, the collapse of the wave function. That is consistent with what he says here.
@@p39483 I am not saying that Penrose in this particular video says that consciousness isn't a physical process.
But his view on consciousness as he describes in more detail in books and other interviews, is that he seems to favour the idea that consciousness is not physical, or he is at least open to that idea.
In an interview with with Steve Paulson of Nautilus he says:
"We need a major revolution in our understanding of the physical world in order to accommodate consciousness,"
"The most likely place, if we’re not going to go outside physics altogether, is in this big unknown - namely, making sense of quantum mechanics."
In a Wikipedia article about the Penrose-Lucas argument we can read the following:
"An essential feature of Penrose's theory is that the choice of states when objective reduction occurs is selected neither randomly (as are choices following wave function collapse) nor algorithmically. Rather, states are selected by a "non-computable" influence embedded in the Planck scale of spacetime geometry. Penrose claimed that such information is Platonic, representing pure mathematical truth, aesthetic and ethical values at the Planck scale. This relates to Penrose's ideas concerning the three worlds: physical, mental, and the Platonic mathematical world. In his theory, the Platonic world corresponds to the geometry of fundamental spacetime that is claimed to support noncomputational thinking."
I agree with Penrose, that consciousness is not physical.
Being conscious is a process.
Process is an abstract notion.
But what we must notice is,
every abstraction is dependent for its peculiar immaterial existence
on a material substrate.
There can be no process without a material substrate to express it.
Remove matter from a process and what remains?
Absolutely nothing.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I get the impression that you equate consciousness with intelligence.
I have been so very interested in quantum mechanics ever since Joe Rogan had Mr. Degrasse Tyson on his podcast years ago. Thank you for the content!
Quantum is based on there understanding of light, they don't understand light thus quantum is flawed and is the cult of bumping particles
I think Tyson is a blowhard who sounds good, but talks over his head (and out of his a**) on subjects in which he is not very well-versed. Astrophysics? Expert. Everything else? Pompous layman. I also watched that interview, and my specialties are math and geology, both of which subjects he butchered, while sounding very cogent.
I feel the same way about world-class linguist Noam Chomsky, who ALSO needs to stay in his lane, but people SWOON because he's smart in one thing and SOUNDS smart on other things, when in actuality, he's an ignorant socialist, with no clue on free-market economics, human liberty, and human progress, in my opinion. But nobody's hanging on MY every word, nor should they.
And then if you're really diligent about it, you'll find that NDT made plenty of mistakes, because he essentially stopped being a physicist decades ago and doesn't really work on his subjects before he starts talking about them, which keeps confusing the layman.
Bro, Joe Rogan? Whatever, at least find some actual books about the subject or read science journals
@@_Dovar_ Ike Tyson.
Every theory is incomplete.
Incomplete is a great way of looking at statements and going into discussions in order to add to the incompleteness.
very nice talk.
This is what Kurt Godel stated
Thank you Roger Penrose for having such a rational perspective on a subject that often seem anything but (at least to a layman such as myself anyway).
It's important to note that "measurement" and "observation" at the quantum level mean "a photon or other particle physically bumps into the so-called wave" -- it's called quantum decoherence and there is debate about whether it solves the measurement problem posed here. My guess is that Dr. Penrose thinks it does not, but I'm not certain those in quantum computing would agree.
In other words, is that whether the observation of the system is enough to influence the system such that it can't ever be accurately measured?
@@sendnoodles5437 not sure that it came through as you intended in your message, but it is impossible to observe a quantum system without influencing it, yes. Maybe someday some method can be found. Consciousness only comes into play insofar as it requires such interactions to measure and report to your so-called self.
I was under the assumption that the classical mechanics perspective in which we perceive the world is inherited from the wave function already collapsing into a probabilistic world. The collapse had to happen lest we wouldn't be here to attempt to understand it. Ergo the measurement problem isn't a human problem, as you alluded to. As Mermin said in response to the Copenhagen interpretation: "shut tup and calculate".
I'm not sure if there such a thing as a particle "bumping" into a wave in quantum mechanics. But there are waves overlapping with other waves, and waves feeling the influence of potentials. And then there are energy transfer events in which a quanta of energy is converted to another form (for example, a free electron in the continuum dumping its energy into an emitted photon in the process while dropping to a bound state). Perhaps this conversion process is what causes the collapse, but I don't know if we know very much about how this conversion process takes place. In the textbooks, it is usually assumed to be instantaneous or not very well addressed at all. And then there's the whole Energy-time uncertainty principle.
You can't distinguish one particle from another and call one of them a wave and the other one a particle. An interaction between two particles is an entanglement, two waves sharing the same wave-function, so you still have the question of what causes a "collapse", if a collapse even occurs in the first place. So saying that a "photon physically bumps into a wave" doesn't make any sense.
I never really wanted to grow old because I thought I would grow insane because of old age and cause people trouble but seeing this man changed my mind. So intelligent even when so old
Being fat, crazy, and chronically ill are not natural states of being or aging. You won’t have to look too far beneath the fake persona to see jaw-dropping gluttony, sloth, and deliberate, malevolent self-destructive disorder in anyone and everyone who’s crazy and in bad shape. Then there’s the wildly violent levels of child abuse and malnutrition that are endured by people, that society calls ‘hereditary,’ but I call it the brutal and forgotten repressed childhood history. If you can keep your nose clean through this nightmare known as life, you’ll see how your body is perfect and dynamically restorative if you honor it, nourish it, and keep your eye on the ball - naysayers be damned.
@@edgelorddragneel1142 - I’m agreeing with you, and stop calling people ‘bro.’ It makes you look stupid.
Okay.. jp is 60 years old I mean I get it but this must be the perspective of someone very young lol
@@Madnot4 dont you think he meant Penrose?
You have to exercise, eat healthy, sleep, use your mind for thinking, and not have Alzheimer’s in your family
Wish this was longer, amazing that he confessed that even his mind (RP) drifted when he found it tough in a lecture
One of the best interviews of our time.
Why?
@@Gigusx Sir Roger Penrose is talking about the measurement of consciousness. Jordan Peterson has a great way of addressing the issue, and the important questions are answered, by an icon of modern physics. That's what makes it so outstanding.
@@geojay9855 Sounds very interesting, thanks!
@@Gigusx You're welcome.
I feel that the title of this video is misleading. Penrose, like most other physicists, is saying that quantum mechanics is not the full picture. quantum mechanics is a consistent theory, it does not contradict itself. The consistency of the theory is what leads to the strangeness discussed here. This kind of title leads to misconceptions about scientific theories and discovery, and can subtly suggest that quantum mechanics (the standard model) is invalid and worth throwing out. The opposite is true, quantum mechanics makes many verified predictions, and is the most successful scientific theory in history.
I thought it was funny because quantum mechanics tend to be inconsistent itself 😂 .
@@asahmosskmf4639 yeah I Know what the title is trying to say, it's like the double slit experiment where you shoot electrons and the results are so freaking weird. But as weird as it is it's still consistent and repeatable.
@@asahmosskmf4639 okay Professor
@@totallyanonymousbish9599 wow. Give your college buddy a high five for that " burn " !
@@asahmosskmf4639 no, that would be cringe. Stop being so cringe.
Sir Roger Penrose has even more trouble looking people in the eyes than I do.
Because he knows that nobody in the world agrees with gravitationally induced wavefunction-collapse.
He's just involved in his thoughts
@alex He gets absorbed in his thoughts at a strange angle but then his vision pierces you as he descends from the world of platonic forms back into physical reality
many old people turn a bit adorable, imagine a baby talking about theoretical physics
You all sound stuck inside some daffy rulebook.
Looking into the eyes of people isnt neccesary to converse, unless sonethings wrong with your hearing.
When Mr Peterson leans into frame, it creates such a beautiful shot!
Brilliant interplay between synthesis and specialist perspectives. Like many, this paradox has always fascinated me. With this framing, it seems the measurement issue has another facet, which is that modelling a system creates a "duplicate" in a different conceptual space. This phenomenon would seem to normally, but not necessarily, require conscious observation. Like everything else, the scope definition is absolutely critical.
I need another coffee this early in the day 😊
The trouble with these sorts of discussions is that in order to properly explain them one has to dive into some abstract mathematics or concepts that are subtle and basically outside the realm of ordinary experience, yet Penrose has such a deep and complete understanding that he is able to relate these concepts in simple terms more or less comprehensible to us mere mortals. Leonard Susskind is another scientist with a similar gift.
Fabulous conversation Please more of this amazing minds that need to be recorded and heard 👏🙏❤️
ᴛᵉˣţ𝄍✉𝑾𝒉𝔮ᴛᵗ𝑠𝑨𝑝𝑝 ✚𝟏𝟔𝟏𝟗𝟖𝟑𝟔𝟏𝟗𝟎𝟕✔
ʀᴇɢᴀʀᴅɪɴɢ ʙᴛᴄ/ ᴇᴛʜ ɪɴᴠᴇsᴛᴍᴇɴᴛ ɪᴅᴇᴀs
ʟᴇᴛ ʜᴇʀ ᴋɴᴏᴡ ɪ ʀᴇғᴇʀʀᴇᴅ ʏᴏᴜ◦◦
ᴛʜᴀɴᴋs ғᴏʀ ᴡᴀᴛᴄʜɪɴɢ ◦◦...
The wavefunction collapse is not a consciousness problem and I think he's just referring to how it was historically perceived as such by a handful of thinkers. The inconsistency he is highlighting is that the Schrodinger's equation does not describe the singular event of measurement, which is not by itself an issue because measurements, which are (mathematically) described as operators acting on wavefunctions, have nothing to do with the dynamics of a system isolated by itself (which is accurately described by Schrodinger's or Dirac's equation). You still have a Schrodinger's equation describing the post-measurement system, except it's simply the state in which your system has collapsed. If you want a full picture of the system including every possible interactions, you need exotic physics theory that are an absolute pain in the ass to generate any refutable theory pillars in.
Defending objective reality? Oh yes please, we need this now more than ever!
This has to be one of the bravest things Sir Penrose has ever done on a public stage.
I love so much that these two had a sit-down. My soul was healed partially after watching this.
Dziękujemy.
Thank you Jordan for this discussion. As a physical scientist myself, this has made me think more philosophically about quantum mechanics and I'm going to the university library next week to look for Roger's books.
I would suggest his articles rather than his semi-pop-sci books if you are particularly interested in penrose's work. If you are after foundational studies in philosophy of physics, for a physicists the works of maudlin, norsen, peter lewis, huw price, or alyssa ney would be more interesting as they provide a far more rigorous and academic approach.
barffff
@@gravitheist5431 its about the observer. The same thing was found with the double slit experiment. The particle is in superposition when it goes through the double slit, ie. It goes through both slits at the same time. However it's only when someone observes the particle when it is detected in either one of the slits
@@user-iz9co4qf6z this in itself sounds kantian
@@user-iz9co4qf6z this is put in a way it sounds mystic, confusing. But if instead of "observes", you say "interacts" with the particle, things starts to have more meaning, because the act of observing involves interacting. It is a change in the experiment and the state of the particle. It doesn't mean you just "look" at the particle without doing anything , you were already doing that before.
Matt O'Dowd does a great job on PBS SpaceTime explaining some of these concepts to those without the math but requiring a better understanding than the average human. As I see it, collapse of a wavefunction could simply be an underlying physical reality that can only be approximated statistically using QM/QED. (see also pilot wave theory).
Metaphors are always going to be inaccurate but combining them together, you get some picture. I see light as planar spheres that travel outward in space, much like a bubble. When the two slit is presented, single dots may hit probablistically but their pattern is a wave interferrence pattern because the underlying data is statistically a wave. If a bubble is emanating, blown up by that property, c, then the exact contact point on a sphere with a capturing entity (an electron of a measuring device), is up to probability and this goes with the uncertainty with some degree of statistical certainty. This metaphor still simplifies a lot since it doesn't consider the possibility of multiple simultaneous contacts. Amazingly, the way an egg knows how to avoid a second sperm seems intuitively analagous to this.
The eye is a link in the chain of observation and is actually part of a chain of electromagnetic responses and is a material device. The measurement might link to a digital readout, the readout to the eye, the eye to the brain. I defer the consciousness questions to those experts.
Comments welcome.
ᴛᵉˣţ𝄍✉𝑾𝒉𝔮ᴛᵗ𝑠𝑨𝑝𝑝 ✚𝟏𝟕𝟎𝟕𝟒𝟑5𝟑5𝟒𝟑✔
ʀᴇɢᴀʀᴅɪɴɢ ʙᴛᴄ/ ᴇᴛʜ ɪɴᴠᴇsᴛᴍᴇɴᴛ ɪᴅᴇᴀs
ʟᴇᴛ ʜᴇʀ ᴋɴᴏᴡ ɪ ʀᴇғᴇʀʀᴇᴅ ʏᴏᴜ◦◦
ᴛʜᴀɴᴋs ғᴏʀ ᴡᴀᴛᴄʜɪɴɢ .. . .
my mind is always blown by the double slit experiment
Penrose is giant. Kudos to interviewers for making it happen and bringing up such exciting discussion.
He's 5'8"
I'm so happy to live in a world where we have access to listening to penrose, he's a mind boggler
But actually the Schroedinger equation *can* explain what measurement is: entanglement of the observed object with the observer. (Everettian mechanics I believe?) It's just that this explanation brings up new questions (manyverse? superdeterminism?), and somehow many physicists are so uncomfortable with those that they prefer to look for other explanations.
Well, how does gravity play into it like he hinted at 3:19?
No, the schrodinger equation does not. You just named a bunch of *different* theories/branches that deal with interpretations of the wave function collapse. The schrodinger equation very much just takes the idea of a measurement/collapse as a thing that exists and has a predictable behaviour (in a probabilistic sense).
@@taylorneill2687 To confirm, are you saying that Schrodinger does take the measurement as a thing that exists yet doesn't say what the measurement is?
@@localverse yes exactly, I know that sounds odd but that was actually schrodingers point with the whole cat thing. A lot of the time people use schrodingers cat to show how crazy quantum mechanics, but this is slightly misleading. This is since schrodingers original intention wasn't 'look how crazy this fully formed theory's implications are', but it was to actually say 'look at this absurd implication coming from my theory/model, it must not be the entire picture'.
It's the study of reality, it doesn't have to be 'consistent' to our brains.
It needs to be a pattern
@@vb6548 Just because it's weird is irrelevant. Try explaining why two magnets repel and at some basic level the only explanation is they just do.
@@darthnihiluz5305 Just cause you can't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there.
@@vb6548 I agree.
@@1959Berre Chaotic to you, but all systems needs rules to function
Roger Penrose is someone to be listened to as is JBP. Quantum mechanics and its derivatives are definitely inconsistent, yet tantalising in it potential. I’ve been wiring on quantum calculus equations for 11 yrs and still learning.
Happy 12th Birthday @2smoulder!
Apparently You are wasting your time.
@@peceed Not wasting my time, since learning is an ongoing process. My quantum calculus algorithms are somewhat spectacular...
@@2smoulder Can you elaborate on what a quantum calculus algorithm is? You are in effect saying you have a discrete additive decision making tree (quantum = discrete, calculus = a form of addition and algorithm = a decision tree). This seems like gibberish to me.
@@MrSeropamine Sorry Chris, but won’t do this as it has taken 5yrs of experimentation to develop this proprietary maths formula. Will publish a paper on this some time in the future.
Why are we surprised by this video title?
Quantum mechanics is both massively complicated (& hard to measure/experiment on) & a relatively new field of science - we have so much to learn or discover about our world.
For some reason there’s this general “feeling” in the public that we know a lot more than we do. Arrogant.
The repeated questions about whether the collapse of a particle was due to consciousness hindered what Roger was attempting to get into with gravity. When he mentioned that it was consciousness or gravity, he was referring another theory that is highly regarded to theorize what happens during a particle collapse...String Theory (which essentially is a theory of quantum gravity). Many quantum physicists have moved on from the belief that consciousness causes particles to colapse. Instead, since we do not fully understand the effects gravity has on the Standard Model, we theorize that instead of particles, they are one-dimensional strings. But its properties are determined by its vibrational state. Some vibrations are classified as gravitons which hold gradational force. The way the gravitons interact with other string particles can affect the way a particle collapses, but since we are not able to fully test this, the answer may remain out of reach. However, this theory is highly supported my many quantum physicists today.
string theory is interesting, the thing is it just remain unprovable for now
You must have loved this Jordan good to see you smile
I could listen to these two individually for hours together fantastic👏
Definitely agree with Roger here.
I think the process is much more fundamental than needing an extremely complex life form such as ourselves to create this phenomena.
The trouble is always proving that we aren't needed for the experiment to exist, since literally every experiment needs our observation for us to be aware of and "prove" it's existence.
If the wave function could collapse without a conscious observer how could this ever be known? Therefore Penrose's wistful and reactionary longing for naive realism is not physics and will remain forever in the realm of metaphysics without hope of experimental verification. Even if Penrose conducted a successful experiment to support his view the mere reading of the results involves consciousness. Physicists are generally terrible philosophers. What trips up a lot of people is assuming that consciousness requires a human to work. The non-dual view that consciousness is fundamental and prior to lifeforms is a better way to reconcile things.
I’m sure he’ll be thrilled to hear Alex Smith agrees with him
@@ryancbuchanan yes it's important to mock people who engage with the ideas of brilliant people otherwise who will keep up the mediocrity quota, right?
@@LinguisticLifeform lol I’m just teasing, don’t get bent out of shape bb
@@ryancbuchanan you kinda deserved that reply tho. We're on a Jordan Peterson video, if ur not keen to discuss ur thoughts or hear others I don't really know what else you want from here
Soooooo, I always thought that the wave function always collapses with measurement. That, the problem with measurement is that it always requires some interaction with the thing being measured. Is it hypothetically possible to have a system where something could be measured sans interaction? In which case a thing could be measured without collapse of the wave function. Did he say that there was a time limit on a superpositional state, and that the wave function will collapse anyway? If so, what are the time limits, and why?
If it is a conscious measurement that collapses the waveform such that anything "real" is the result of observation, wouldn't it be hypothetically possible to develop a theory that in order for the universe to exist at all, it had to have been observed from the beginning, and if that's not too much of a leap, wouldn't "that observer" be God for all intents and purposes? God as an observer?
That's part of the Anthropic principle.
That is correct. And someone is observing it all the time everywhere
Yup this is bohms implicate order their is a necessary uncreated intelligence that brings potential to actual (implicit to explicit)
It's a dumb idea, that collapse shows a CHANGE in the waveform, it doesn't show that it's existence depends on observation, lmfao.
@@eu29lex16 it actually does, read more
Love you JBP!
ᴛᵉˣţ𝄍✉𝑾𝒉𝔮ᴛᵗ𝑠𝑨𝑝𝑝 ✚𝟏𝟔𝟏𝟗𝟖𝟑𝟔𝟏𝟗𝟎𝟕✔
ʀᴇɢᴀʀᴅɪɴɢ ʙᴛᴄ/ ᴇᴛʜ ɪɴᴠᴇsᴛᴍᴇɴᴛ ɪᴅᴇᴀs
ʟᴇᴛ ʜᴇʀ ᴋɴᴏᴡ ɪ ʀᴇғᴇʀʀᴇᴅ ʏᴏᴜ◦◦
ᴛʜᴀɴᴋs ғᴏʀ ᴡᴀᴛᴄʜɪɴɢ ◦◦,,,
Thank you Roger for standing up for this
Jordan has an obsesion to force a creator as observer but roger just rejects multiple times
This man gives me that vibe of a true scholars, almost as if they hope you won't ask the next question. Not because they don't want you to ask, but, because they know just how complicated their honest answers might be for you.
Yknow, me being a layman of the topic, i've always been of the mindset of Sir Roger Penrose when it comes to quantum mechanics, particularly at the end talking about observational influence. Granted its such a vague theory that its hard to fully grasp it in my head, but I find it hard to believe that the universe as we know it would be different if not observed. I mean i suppose you could say that the likelyhood of the cat being alive is at a certain percentage within a timeframe, but whether or not you observe the cat's state wouldn't change the fact that it is infact either dead or alive regardless of whether or not you can check. I mean obviously I know very little outside of loose concepts of these theories. I know that the cat is just a placeholder here, but I'm using it the same way.
This is the tree falls in the woods with nobody to hear it conundrum. Of course it makes a sound. Now you could get philosophical, like most arguing against it do, and say that if there is no observer that means the waveform has no destination and therefore doesn't exist, but the point is that even though minute, that waveform still affects the inanimate objects around it, especially when you scale it down to something that would be affected by said sound wave, like the dust particles in the air. The result would be the same whether or not you were there under the exact same circumstance with no physical influence.
Maybe I'm just not knowledgeable enough, but would it not be completely unprovable to be correct? Would the act of trying to prove Schrodinger's theory take whatever you are using out of a superpositional state and place it within the grounds of reality if he was correct? I don't know the answer to that.
All reality can be expressed in math but not all math is reality
Everything on Meth isn't always reality either😜
@@1959Berre laplaces demon. Which processes?
@@1959Berre go enjoy chaos theory a little. Many things in daily life that seem chaotic have been mathematically modeled to a high degree of accuracy, even if you're not aware of the model. Doesn't mean we've solved every possible pattern, but the world isn't as chaotic and unpredictable as you think.
How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?
@@DGP406 *Because* YOU'VE
~ Mirror-Reflector in Your - EYES.
It's like the age old question of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Whether it does or doesn't is irrelevant in regards to the conscious observation that can be made according to the question. The measuring device being the sense of hearing.
The same could be said for the universe. If there is nothing to consciously observe it in any form and therefore it cannot be measured in any way, it is irrelevant whether it exists or not. If it might or might not then it may as well not.
That, my friend is one of the most interesting questions in philosophy.
Well it's not really complicated. If it falls, it falls. The action doesn't require anyone to observe. It's unrelated. The action occurs independent of anyone observing it.
@@μαριοςΚαπετανοπουλος I wish the various philosophers who disagree with each other on that subject see it that simply. Peterson himself has doubted what you say...but then he's not a philosopher.
I naturally read this in the voice of Alan Watts.
The answer to that question is obvious and has been answered before:
If I tree fell in the woods and nothing was there to hear it then there would be no sound, but there would be a vibration.
The vibration exists regardless, but the phenomenon of sound is the detection of vibration, ultimately by a neural network that is processing a consciousness like our own.
Similarly if there were no eyes, the universe would exist in darkness, despite the constant emissions of the particle/waves we detect and recognize as light.
Charged cosmic particle tracks in cloud chambers and photographs really cleared this up for me. Nucleation sites or minimum critical radius are those which continue to grow until becoming observable. The silver halide making a colored spot on the film, or the droplet in the cloud chamber form proximity events of the photon or charged particle by capture or polarization of saturated vapor droplets which then attract to coalesce into an observable droplet. Such droplets form a zig zag pattern about the actual charges path. Force between the charge and polarized droplets alter the charges path slightly, but over all since they nucleate on both sides about the charges actual path such deflections cancel by in large. This is taken as the charges path as that's the best we can do. The least squares between these nucleation sites and the charges path can be then justified as it's trajectory. No observer needed, but any observer will only see the path when they finally look. The next observer will then necessarily see the same path or photograph. Each nucleation site collapses the Schrodinger equation, which begins a new probability distribution cone about the last nucleation site. Cosmic rays pass so fast this mechanism underlying the complete image of the final track is never entertained, but implicit in the theory. Similarly for a photograph, as to make it clearer, consider a long exposure of a distant star. As the pixels form the image is refined only limited by the chosen exposure time. The final result is the best image we can do given the limited time and funding to form it. The stars position is better known as the number of photons captured grows. There is obvious uncertainty in considering the center of the image, and more so when the result is hazy. That's quantum mechanics!
This is an analogy for the uncertainty principle?
i'm on the side that the atom is really in all states at once but we can only observe it in a state at a given time because we can only observe single binary interpretations
That would be really interesting, if we take into account fourth dimension. We can perceive third dimension, but that does not mean that all matter exists only in third dimension. If atom exists at least in fourth dimension, it would be in many places (or/and many states) at the same time, but we wouldn't be able to observe this state as it is, but rather as our sight and memory allows us to observe it.
@@xkali8119 this is true and i agree, but i have began to wonder what a 2D object projected into 3D would look like. That flat little incorrect model of the atom drawn in textbooks projected into 3D would result in these massive in-determinant clouds of probability that would only resolve to 3D once it has been provided extra substance by means of measurement.
The book "What is Real?" is a good general overview of various foundational perspectives on QM and attempts that have been made to solve the 'measurement problem'. It's also a good introduction to the main characters involved such as Bohr, Heisenberg, Everett, Bell, Bohm, etc. as well as some of the social/political currents that run through the history of physics in the 20th century.
I really enjoy it when this man talks. There is straightforward wisdom in his speeches.