Lothar Schafer - What is Ultimate Reality?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2024
- What is the deepest nature of things? Our world is complex, filled with so much stuff. But down below, what's most fundamental, what is ultimate reality? Is there anything nonphysical? Anything spiritual? Or only the physical world? Many feel certain of their belief, on each side of controversial question.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on ultimate reality: bit.ly/3jTdiw4
Lothar Schafer is a quantum chemist and Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at the University of Arkansas.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I have just read that Lothar Schafer passed away peacefully on March 29 of this year at the age of 80. I think he was a great man with great thoughts.
Didn't know, great thinker, I agree!
This explains that.. he probably wasn’t in a good mental state in this interview. The points he brings up are flat out pseudoscience.
Rip
@@randomblueguy says the guy who still believes that "matter" is a mind dependent phenomenon which has been refuted since kant! The universe is made of mental substance. Its a fact. Deal with it.
@ByRTD yO
Evidence? You got none. You don’t even have a proper definition of what it means for something to be immaterial other than saying that it is (not made of energy or matter) which is not helpful since everything we have ever come into contact with scientifically is made of energy and/or matter.
EDIT: I never claimed to believe that matter is a mind dependent phenomenon, that’s what the guy in the video is implying.
He tried, with all his soul straight to encapsulate in a few minutes, the conclusion of his life's work.
yes very touching and profound indeed...
'EXCELLENT'... explained beautifully , elegantly with profound clarity in simple , plain , layman's language by distinguished Dr Lothar Schafer. ......added emmencely by asking the right questions by Dr. Robert L Kuhn.... this deep meaning knowledge gives glimpse of God , pure awareness / consciousness and also answers " what is life "..... thanks 🙏.
6:38 the background of atom is mind like. 6:42 the universe is made of mind stuff. 6:42 the background of the world is mind. 7:06 the idea of wholeness. 7:36 we have a lawful world. Amazing
RIP. Thank you for all you done for us.
Great interview! Reminds me of the quote: “The universe looks more and more like a great thought rather than a great machine." ― Sir James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe
1st universal law....
Everything is mind
@@franciscoduarte1925 I like the idea but I’m agnostic... I don’t know how we can ever know for sure. Maybe it’s like the wave/particle duality in QM? However I prefer Idealism to the hard line materialism that’s so prevalent.
@@uremove mind has nothing to do with gnosis
@@franciscoduarte1925 🤔 Gnosis is a state of mind... but is it knowledge?
What we call "matter or" external reality" is basically just the "unknown" within the mind. Kind of similar to the "God of the gaps" argument against western religion.
See,we have the aspects of "matter" that occur within consciousness, like the way it looks/feels and the mathematical models/thoughts that describe how it functions, but since there are aspects of the "material world" that we do not know, like what it looks like 200 kilometers southeast from where you're currently sitting, or what it would be like to be a material object instead of a conscious human (if there is something that it would be like to be that), we just choose to call that the "material reality that has nothing to do with consciousness".
But, obviously, at all times, this "not knowing" (or agnostic position ;)
occurs withing Consciousness.
Because what we call Consciousness in this case is just another word for "being" or "existence".
For something to exist, is for it to be some sort of conscious experience. Even if it's just the experience of a material object existing outside of your consciousness.
It's a funny little trick the mind plays on itself, innit?
Lothar Schafer is a TRUE scientist. How we need men and scientists like him now! Rest in peace ❤️🙏❤️
Getting warmer.
That was a really good interview!
I see Ultimate Reality as being essentially the Noumena, the reality of which we can have no comprehension or experience. We can only experience a representation of reality, as on the Phenomenal world, the world as we can experience and understand.
Sounds like Immanuel Kant to me reading his book Critique of Pure Reason .
This was beautiful 🌞🌎🤩🥰
Agreed
👌👌🏿This was unique and deep !!👌🏿👌
Thank you for brilliant interview.
Hearing and thinking about this stuff is really calming for me.
The world dissolves into Pure Awareness from which it came...
I'm speechless. Amazing information!
... Thoughts in a Cosmic Mind... this is truly mindblowing!
"The non-empirical realm"... Mind-blowing!
This interview perfectly aligns with what Problacists believe (see: Problacism.com): that the universe is conscious and it brings about all outcomes as it requires by manipulating the chances and probabilities associated with every event. Problacism is complementary to all religions as it believes the universe will eventually punish all selfish, egotistical, unkind, arrogant, abusive or 'ungodly' behaviour regardless of whatever beliefs or persuasions the people may hold.
We can know all the reality of a box! But to go out of the box when its materialism, is harder. Thank you so much for trying!
Show evidence of one immaterial thing existing, oh wait you can’t. Your whole pseudoscience shit is unfalsifiable and there’s no way for us to ever approach said problems, thus your claim is dismissed.
This guy is getting close to Tom Campbell's view of reality. This really is Closer to Truth in my opinion.
My big toe;)
He almost mentioned the LCS larger conscious systems
Yeah and Don Hoffman is working on the mathematics of it.
@@bryanguilford6145 after all everything is just an icon like on a computer;) love ❤️ Donald Hoffmans work. Definitely is on to ultimate truth 😉🙏❤
Beautiful Thank you sir👏💚🌟
Fundamental Reality Beautifully Expressed
It blew my mind.
Excellent episode! Would love to see a 4 way Fantasy conversation between Lothar Schafer, David Bohm, J Krishnamurti, and Rupert Sheldrake :)
Shafer passed away earlier this year
There is a 4 part series with John Hidley, J. Krishnamurti, David Bohm and Rupert Sheldrake in case you are unaware, entitled The Nature of the Mind. Dr. Lothar Schafer would have been a valuable asset to that discussion
@@demitrac.9082 Wow, thank you, I'll definitely check it out!
The concept that Basis of Material World is Non-material was first propounded by the Sage Kapil. Sankhya Darshan (philosophy) says that in presence of an observer (Purush) non- material Prakruti (may be equated to energy) undergoes distortions and expresses itself as material world.
My favourite scientist, ahead of his time, RIP.
Honesty is the ultimate truth.
I appreciate the bravery of these brilliant minds to talk about this stuff. It takes away some of my disillusionment with the control science has over thinking.
I believe that all creatures of this planet engage in the ultimate reality every time we enter REM sleep mode. Reality as we understand it is not real. Based on my experiences, it's easy to see life as an illusion especially when things don't go my way. This means in times of stress, anxiety, loss, disappointment, and the like...in that moment it easy to see how life isn't "real". When people say, "I can't believe this is happening", on some level they're correct. Having surreal moments is the same experience. On a sub-conscious level, your body makes you aware of this truth regarding your reality. I say "your reality", because we all have different realities. We all see the world differently. That in itself is a tiny clue. How can multiple realities exist simultaneously in the same realm of existence? In my mind’s eye, there's only one ultimate reality, and the fact that we claim to have so many on this planet is a good indicator (at least for me) that this "waking reality" is an illusion projected from our minds (specifically our thoughts). Everything is based on our personal interpretations, which is mostly derived from our emotions. The fact that we have so little control over our emotions is further evidence of this false reality we live in. When we close our eyes and dream, the world around us disappear…and yet the earth continues to turn. With that said, only things that are "truly fixed" in the universe are real - and even then - I’m not 100% certain if anything on this earth can even be considered as being truly fixed. Humans are not truly fixed, but waves of light energy that is ever changing and evolving...as does our environment that we imprint on...as does our viewpoint(s) of the state of the world.
_Reality as we understand it is not real_
How would we know that? How can we make that judgement and know that it is correct? What is real and what is not?
Another question: What do you make of the concept of "now"? Is it a subjective state that we all experience or is it objective?
If you claim it is objective, what are the characteristics of "now"?
How can we scientifically investigate "now"?
A very cogent explication on the interrelationship between science and philosophy. Philosphy is the background of science just as mind is the background of matter.
Ultimate reality is within us. Our consciousness is final reality. Mind originates from consciousness but, has a tendency to go outward and gets distracted by objective world. When the mind I'd turned inward, it gets absorbed into pure consciousness. That state is called Nirvana/self-realization/Samadhi etc
Nothing knows it exists. Except awareness being.
Consciousness is fundamental.
5:44 Pretty sure he is referring to Arthur Eddington btw if anyone is interested. His book "The Nature of the Physical World" discusses the nature of reality as "Mind-Stuff."
Thanks for the input, I combed all comments in search for this information. THANKS AGAIN FOR SHARING 💯
@@standsguadalajara His work is great. I would highly recommend it if you are interested.
You, yourself as pure awareness. He should interview Sarvapriyananda of NYC Vedanta society.
He should interview this guy on the nature of reality
ua-cam.com/video/liHSgzovE9Y/v-deo.html
@@joymukherji2702
He has interviewed numerous people who are dedicated disciples of Vedanta. But as in ALL of his videos, he calls 🐂💩 on literally everything. The whole basis of his channel is to believe nothing and no one. He is a textbook ay whole
@@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt Yes, but to question God as a person and interviewing theologians who believe in weird concepts and ideas. It is a waste of time. God is not a person neither are we. Paraphrasing Nisargadatta, you are the immensity and infinity of consciousness and not the body limited in time and space.
I'm not very idealistic about idealism, but I do take it seriously.
immaterial usually means not literally not made out of matter, it usually means non physical, and the wave is physical
well said.
Wow 😲😲😲
Check out the Upanishads - much earlier than the Greeks...
@adamsguy270 please do some research...even the West says 750 BCE based on the Bible! Please look at modern scholarship... particularly Nilesh Oak on the dating of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana...
@adamsguy270 I am afraid you are incorrect. Upanishads and Vedas are part of the Saraswati river civilisation older than Mohenjo Daro. There is multi-disciplinary evidence including Astronomy, satellite imagery, archaeological and other.
I am not interested in convincing you.
You are entitled to hold any belief, including erroneous.
@adamsguy270 approx time line based on evidence, not just assertion:
Democritus - 400 BCE
Mahabharata war and the Gita - 5561 BCE
Rama-Ravana war - 12,000 BCE
Upanishads at least - 2000 BCE
Surya Siddhanta - pre - 12,000 BCE
@adamsguy270 Putting aside the debate on the date, only the Advaitic interpretation of Upanishads talks about Idealism, which I believe to be incorrect. Tbe great Srimadhwacharyaa has given the correct explanations for the them in the form of Dualism and Realism.
@adamsguy270 definitely much older than 11the century AD. They are commentaries written on them as early as 6th century ( carbon dated)
This is exactly what Advaita says this is what Yoga says this what Patanjali said thousands of years ago.....
As Hinduism says
We are all living in Gods dream.
Just imagine if characters in our dreams try to find their existence, we are currently doing the same thing.
I like that. It also means we have the power to give god nightmares. And we have many times in history.
Reality is predicated on having an individual that can experience things subjectively. Otherwise you have some kind of "reality" that encompasses every point that ever exists in space and time, and on every scale, simultaneously. Talking about reality outside individual perspective as though the world is just quantum or just macro, is to inevitably exclude possibilities because you must include all possibilities.
He is saying precisely what the Buddha said.
What Jesus said
Thoughts point to the linguistic mind. Consciousness is reality. The linguistic mind makes correlations that are ALWAYS related to the self. Self consciousness is not consciousness. The functional, structural, utilitarian or other self- intentional interpretation of reality is not reality. The nature of reality includes man's intentions and obeys man's intentions, but it does not deny other intentions. More importantly these intentions are not logically intertwined. While not suppressive of logic, logic is made to jump gaps in order to remain coherent. These gaps cannot be bypassed and cannot be understood by logic.
The gap of intentions cannot be understood or overcome by the linguistic mind. Only ignored by the linguistic mind.
Thoughts are expressed throughout the linguistic attribute of the brain function.
It is a receiver, dissiminator, who somehow manages to distort the information being relayed.
The brain in chaos throught " thinking" is dysfunctional and generally falls into patterns of behaviour.
Silence the brain seems the key, through Observing the brain and what arises in thought. Immediate seeing of the thought ,allows one dissipate it, then one sees life as it is, Beautifully expressed, chaos in order, order in disorder, flowing, Flowering.
Namaste
For intention is in mind.
@@brianl3156 it is also in instinct
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
I've pretty much settled this issue a long time ago. At least in my mind that is. Arthur C. Clarke gave the answer a long time ago, that being that we are all figments of a computers imagination. That theory would explain quantum physics and the very nature of reality. We came into being when the computer was turned on and we are just a pixel in the fabric of life. This theory would sure answer a lot of questions. My theory is just as valid as yours. I's all a thought game anyways.
We are all the thoughts of the creator.
The Uni-verse is the exterior or body of the Absolute.
Physical (outer)reality, Mindal (inner)reality and Spirit (cosmic)reality are encompassed in the Supreme reality, striving towards an Ultimate reality and all partner up in the Eternal quest for the Absolute reality. Science and Religion can seldom harmonize here on Earth, but in the last analysis, materialism and metaphysics can only propagate confusion bordering on skepticism. Assumptions and conjecture are essential to scientific discoveries. Love rules in the hearts of God seeking people.
@Brazilian Goddess touching reply. I'll never forget you😉
Godess is a key phrase in my personal voca 'balary.
No one better has explained this than Nisargadatta and that too in 1980s..
It APPEARS there are thoughts and numbers. The appearance arises because our brains evolve memories over long term or short term memories which are presence that is OUR background of observation to which we can extract past and predict future.
If we have a lawful cosmos, then there must be a law giver.
The law giver is math. Math needs no creator.
@@JBSCORNERL8 only thing dumber than that statement is your name.
@@1974jrod so you don’t believe in math but you believe in a mystical creator? Makes sense.😂
If there is reality, there must be a Realtor.
In other words, such arguments are just word games. People are fooled by words all the time, forgetting that it's the humans that created the words and gave them meaning, and that the human laws and human lawgivers have absolutely nothing in common with the "laws" of the Universe. It's not the same thing.
@@ezbody says you
...wow! doesnt that sound a bit like Hegel !?
Hegel was a creep.
Very interesting to listen to. But the the camera work made me ill.
Conscienceness is equal to mass times information squared
Oh yes, the pseudoscientists gathering to answer “life’s deepest mysteries”
What else could the background of matter be?
So this is what love feels like. I’m so in love with this theory. I’m surrounded by beautiful gleaming divine thoughts 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍
Plato knew it.
I think therefore I am said the universe
Isn’t this view of reality biased by the nature of our own mind? It’s like computer software claiming reality is made of bits and bytes
Well the Universe is just a big computer program based on mathematical laws
@@JBSCORNERL8 that's like an ant saying the universe is a giant ant colony created by The Almighty Queen Ant
@@danfg7215 universe isn’t created by anyone. We exist because of mathematical laws. Not because of some mystical god
@@JBSCORNERL8 I never said it was created. You claim to know it exists because of mathematical laws, my point is that you're projecting and anthropomorphizing just as much as anyone who believes in a creator.
@@danfg7215 just because I said the universe is like a big computer program, doesn’t mean it is one. Do you know what a simile is? This is a non material reality based on math. This is common knowledge
"seeing it destroys it" Help me, does he mean the collapse of the wave function when detected?
"All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. This Mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible. It is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance. It does not belong to the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought of in terms of new or old. It is neither long nor short, big nor small, for it transcends all limits, measures, names, traces and comparisons. It is that which you see before you-begin to reason about it and you at once once fall into error. It is like the boundless void which cannot be fathomed or measured."
- Chan Master Huangbo Xiyun (d. 850)
David Chalmers is smiling really hard right now
...just because we defined material wrong in the past, we could not say that nothing is material.
So immaterial (which seems like "information") is resolved to material when it is observed. "Mind" produces information, therefor it is the basis for material. Am I getting it right?
Yeah, You're basically right,
the importend and difficult in this, is that it is a Eternal reality, just a continuing process, in the principle no beginning and no end. Our thoughts is the Main-source, like Here and Now, if there were no thoughts, there would be no comments.
@@holgerjrgensen2166 This is a big claim for which there is no evidence. Equating our mind which is (based on everything we know at the moment) product of a material brain to something immaterial that might have caused the universe is false equivocation. Our mind processes sensory inputs and produces information which drive our physical behaviour, it doesn't cause anything material to pop up into existence from immaterial. If someone thinks there is more to it, that has to be demonstrated, not just boldly asserted.
@@aleksandarlikic7460 Forget about the brain, and try to understand, that if there were No Thoughts, there would be No comments.
@@holgerjrgensen2166 Are your thoughts and comments without brain (no pun intended)?
@@aleksandarlikic7460 Well, don't worry, I'd think that We can both agree that the programs is Not inside the radio (brain) so, our consciousness is working through our brain. Then You might ask, but where is our consciousness, but the answer is simple, because it is always Here and Now, isn't it so ?
Another fact is, that a five year old child has already changed body four times, the body You see in the mirror, is Not older than 1½ year, did You know that ?
…… Ultimately, everything follows a ‘rule’. That is the ultimate reality.
I like to use ‘intangible’ and ‘tangible’ instead of ‘immaterial’ and ‘material’.
The quantum field tells us that ‘intangible’ is the ground of ‘tangible’, i.e. Mind is the ground of brain body.
Again, E=mc2+…+… ; E=tangible + intangible, and that is how tangible + intangible interconnect.
From Energy point of view, the intangible energy can also be analyzed as an intangible structure. Thus, ‘structure’ is the keyword to interconnect both MS (mental structure) and PS (physical structure).
From structural point of view, PS is like the 2nd floor and up, ATGC is like the ground floor, Quantum is like the basement(s), Mind (MS) is like the foundation or/and earth.
I have been using the ‘structural model’ for decades, and it working well for me in all aspects of life. What I am trying to say is that ‘pure materialism’ is not 100% correct. And, as soon as you believe ‘Mind is the ground of brain body’, your life will be richer and smoother right away.
Furthermore …… There is a ‘rule’ for information, form and wave to follow.
…… The interconnection between MS (intangible) and PS (tangible) is also follows the ‘rule’.
…… Ultimately, this ‘rule’ is the ultimate reality.
…… I believe perfect God has 'set' the ‘rule’.
Btw, materialists like to ask for proofs and evidences. The answers is: the structural model is a scientific proof, and our thought + cells (MS + PS) has been working together to maintain our health is an evidence.
We are the proofs and evidences. Any question?
You do realize that matter and energy are the same thing, right?
@@thriceconcussed1 E=mc2 and E=hv are elementary.
@@bruceylwang The second equation is the relationship between the energy of a photon, and its frequency, so not relevant to the energy/matter equivalence, but the first equation _is_ the equivalence itself.
@@thriceconcussed1 so, matter and energy can be equivalent, but not exactly the same thing!?
@@bruceylwang No, one equation isn't relevant to whether the equivalence is true or false, whereas one literally is the proof for the equivalence. If e=hv was false it could still have been the case that matter was equivalent to energy, but it could not have been the case if e=mc^2 was false. The difference is a matter of logical entailment .
Super determinism. No other logical conclusion can be drawn. Everything is quantum entangled because everything was a point in the beginning.
Brahma's Dream as the ancient Aryans speak of it. One still thinks Roy Bhaskar's Critical Realism is a better way to look at it viz the distinction between the Natural Physical world that is relatively unchanging & the changing human socio-cognitive world(s). Newton & the Apple.
Sorry to lose Lothar Schafer. Someone who speaks the truth far as we can know it, and does not assume that humans must only create thought based on only what they can perceive. I have even wondered if there is a single consciousness, not the many that are presented to us with various degrees of legitimacy. OK, we could not say. But it's fun to ask the question and wonder if everybody is me. ...and vice versa.
Good evening, sorry I could't understand . It's not my first language. Please could you reformulat..
@@philippemartin6081 If consciousness is ultimately comprised of some sort of energy fluctuations, is it impossible for there to be a) many different consciousness "perceptions", or b) is there ONE conscious perception, and are the energy fluctuations (consciousii) variations within that single "field"?
Our vision is suppose to be thousand times more realistic. Plus I knew the odds that we' re older than we're told before highschool.
Consciousness has different states and attributes.. In its highest state, it is infinite space observing energy inside itself which is the ultimate reality. In its lowest state it is finite space observing infinite energy outside and is the first step to illusion. Inbetween these two limits, you can have infinite states of consciousness throwing different level of realities..
If you apply this to your own consciousness states from morning to night, you can broadly classify 4 states..
Waking state- in this state your body, mind and soul are active and space observes movement of energy outside body.
Dream state-in this state, body sleeps, mind and soul are active and space observes movement of energy in mind.
Deep sleep state-mind sleeps, soul active and space observes movement of energy in the soul..
Fourth state- is a state when the space observes the movement of energy inside itself..This is the highest state as it observes itself collapsing the finite space into infinite space and enables to experience all the three states simultaneously..humanity has to experience this state...This is the state when the finite space which is your core flips into infinite space,the boundary of the universal space and allows you to experience the entire universe inside you..as in this state you are an hologram of the universe..
So which states are you at
@@jsanikdany3330 we undergo the third and 4th state unconsciusly everyday.. If you work on it through meditation, you can traverse the thurd state and experience it on daily basis. Fourth state can be witnessed for a moment and cannot stay in that state all the time, as it means death to the body and mind..
Alpha & Omega and the only Sustainer of everythings 😎
Why that my freind. I know one who say that. It is not me my freind. I guess it's funny. Lol 😎 s'insère saluations philippe Martin
@@philippemartin6081 Judaism Christians manuscript
Reality is made by our brain, every thing is a wave of space-time . Matter is an illusion of the four forces of nature . The word is symphony orchestred by mathematics.
The Word of God created and holds the universe together.
wow! Thoughts in a cosmic mind. I feel song lyrics coming on
Here we go again.
I’m falling in love again.
Just when I thought I’d be weary.
From the most beautiful woman to the most beautiful theory.
In scenario 1, where does the mass go as particles transform into waves?
It's like asking what happened to the mass of the water droplet that fell into the oceanand became a wave riding on the existing waves. Can you measure the mass of the wave without weighing the bigger particle, which is the ocean itself?
@@ramithuday5042 The mass of the drop is added to that of the larger body, it doesn't disappear.
@@JohnnyTwoFingers I agree. But what is mass? Nobody knows what gravity is yet which gives rise to mass..
@@ramithuday5042 lol, excellent questions!!
@@JohnnyTwoFingers please read my comments in main comments..It might trigger you some deep thoughts on concsciousness..
Is ultimate reality something else than reality?
@Fael Lonie , I think that what I think is real is of no consequence here.
What I strongly question is if “ultimate reality” is a phrase with any meaning that is different from ”reality”.
It is a bit like the stupid phrase “absolutely forbidden”. Forbidden is binary. Either it is forbidden or it is not. Adding “absolutely” changes nothing.
If it is “absolutely real” then it is real.
@Fael Lonie reality=not fantasy or fiction?
@Aaaa bb , but an illusion is not reality. Hence we have the illusion and reality and no ultimate reality.
This sounds a lot like Plato's theory of forms.
Try listen to Lord Buddha's teaching call "Diamond Sutra" on youtube in English by Alex Johnson. You probably will understand more why Buddhism is not a religion.
По сути объяснение волновой функции, с суперпозицией и редукцией......... может быть и нет никакой редукции, а есть параллельные вселенные как в теории у Эверетта. Спасибо за видео !
Exactly
What is ultimate reality? Use set theorist Georg Cantor's method. First, he came up with the notion that the infinitesimal numbers are a higher order than the rationals. Then he thought of higher orders of infinity, finally culiminating in the "Absolute Infinity", the culminating limit of finite levels of reality. He called this "God" but we should avoid that term lest it be confused with the Creator Diety. The Infinite Absolute is Pure Consciousness "In-Itself", the all pervasive Transcendental Absolute. We can tap into this directly by transcending the mind in the state of Samadhi. No problem. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir" and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. Enjoy the Sat-Chit-Ananda, or Truth-Consciousness-Bliss.
Perfect. Waves=Mathematics=Light=Mind
= Pink dragon = Voldemort = Flying spaghetti monster = Whatever pseudoscientific word-salad shit you can make up.
There is a mind and a creator behind it all. Everything is guided by mathematics and quatum physics. Our creator is a genius, creative and loving. We are only people, we will live here for a short period of time and than return to dust as he predicted in his Word- The bible-Jesus.
Yeah, no there isn’t. But thanks for playing.
There can't be something that is nowhere. It's something it has to be somewhere. IDK
Are you familiar with the Pythagoras Theorem? That’s certainly something. *Where is it?*
And I don’t mean its representation in your or my mind or in math books, but the underlying mathematical truth it refers to.
And no thing that is somewhere. Mind boggling!!
What is "ultimate" reality? Is there a "non-ultimate" reality. Are there several realities?
They are speaking about reality beyond the scope of our sense modalities.
Could we get off the train one stop before ultimate...would that be penultimate?
@@russellmillar7132 Nope. There is no other station. At least in the scientific way. There is no evidence that there is knowledge outside science, and there is no scientific data of other reality be it pre or post.
@@thriceconcussed1 What is "sense modality". I have a PhD in Physics and never came across the notion. Can you measure it? Model it? Describe it?
@@florincoter1988 The different types of information collected by each of the five senses, e.g. (the color red is a type of visual information, temperature is tactile information, etc.). There is nothing controversial about that term, philosophers of mind use it often. A Google search will define it in the first result. I'm using materialist language, so that shouldn't bother you, as a physicist.
Immaterial or not, if it interacts w/the material, that gives us material beings a means, potentially at least, to study it, even if only indirectly.
And if something is so immaterial that it never interacts w/the material, not even indirectly, then it might as well not even exist at all from our perspective.
But since we are trying to figure out the fundamental underlying truth of our material universe, we are of course focusing on that which interacts w/the material, even if only indirectly, even if it itself is not material. For if it impacts the material, whatever it is, we want to know about it. It is quite normal for us to study things indirectly, its a hurdle we are used to overcoming.
The problem is interpretation. Even a verified experiment that is repeatable and repeated and with consistent results of undoubtedly correct data can lead to an incorrect interpretation of the correct data. Just look at any 'controversial' experiment in its day, one that was repeated and verified, yet had many plausible (at the time) different theories trying to explain the results, most of which eventually turned out to be provably wrong due to experimentation. Getting the data is hard, but doable, and we can take steps to verify the data so that we are confident the data is 'true'. But then we have to interpret that data - and the only tools we have come from the set of all 'current data'.
But even when our interpretations are incorrect, its a good thing. At least when we limit ourselves to considering interpretations that are consistent w/known data (no matter how weird). The good thing about all these incorrect interpretations is that such interpretations spawn theories which spawn new experiments to try and prove which interpretations cannot be true, leaving us w/our most correct interpretation - last interpretation standing - the last interpretation remaining that is still consistent w/all current data. Much of what we boldly consider to be 'known' is just our best interpretation of our current set of data. And although the data is verifiably true, our interpretations are never so solid. We are always getting more and more data. Sometimes surprising data. Often surprising. And new data often makes us realize that an old interpretation of ours which has served us well in the realm we made use of it in, may have been incorrect after all - as it starts to lose its predictive capabilities when we try to apply it to new realms. Which causes us to search for new data to explain this sudden inability of our favored interpretation which when we get that new data causes us to make new interpretations of our new set of 'current data'. Its a path in the form of a circle, and although the circle doesn't change, every time we make the trip around it, we change.
Agree or disagree w/an interpretation, or even be agnostic on it, but be glad there are those coming up w/such interpretations of current data, for they are part of the process of expanding our knowledge. Even those who are incorrect. Maybe even especially those that are incorrect, for how often have we accidentally discovered new surprising data in an experiment that was designed to look for something unrelated.
See Bernardo Kastrup and branch out from there, Donald Hoffman, E8 Lattice,...
Your mistake is believing there is a material realm to begin with. Others can explain it far better than I can.
This points out what I see in many Closer to the Truth interviews, : science can point out gaps in our knowledge, it can demonstrate that there are a number of avenues by which a topic or phenomenon can be studied. Once we talk about a " non material or non empirical " truth, we are no longer talking about something that can be measured or directly studied. When a scientist ventures into this realm, which is, necessarily, outside their field of scientific expertise, that scientist is stating their opinion and/or belief. Every person has the right to their personal beliefs, and some may claim that science supports said beliefs ( which is also their right ). The only way science could indicate the existence of something outside the material or empirical realm is through the method that it uses to determine statistical certainty with respect to any topic--testing! To test a non-material claim, an experiment would need to be devised that could detect the influence of the non-material on the material. Lacking this any scientist making a claim about the supernatural, has entered the field of philosophy or mysticism, and has left science behind.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
The wave equation is an abstract concept that if you take the magnitude of, squared, you get the probability of finding an electron at a given point in space and time. It is as much a physical quantity as energy or temperature are. It’s an abstraction.
You have committed the classical dualistic error, which isn't the opinion of this person. He did not state that an immaterial ghost controls material, ironically if you read bohmian mechanics, it does read like a ghost in the machine scenario.
@@abhishekshah11 I don't think I said that, but if I did commit this error, a thousand pardons. I don't think he said that an immaterial ghost controls material, ( I'm sure he wouldn't say that ). What I will say is that in order to establish the very existence of anything non material with the aid of the scientific method, scientists would need the same things they require to make any positive finding. To start with: A. an observation or report of unexplained phenomenon, B. hypothesis ( what is one possibility), a statement of what to expect when tested, and an agreed upon method of testing said hypothesis. If there are multiple possibilities presented, each would be handled separately and with the same steps. All this would be necessary to show that anything that is non-material could have interacted with anything that is material in any way.
@@russellmillar7132
Donald Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup, among others address your position. Sam Harris, famous atheistard, finally STFU about there being no god after he took a dose of 5-MEO DMT. Every single last person who has taken it has without any question or doubt, come away believing that they experienced universal consciousness, eternity, infinity, and a reality far more real than this one.
There are numerous ways to experience universal consciousness, including NDE's, decades of meditation, sensory deprivation tanks, 5-MEO DMT.
There is NOTHING you can know or experience outside of consciousness. Science and math are tools INSIDE consciousness and describe the seen and unseen. The known and unknown. Einstein was startled to learn his own math revealed the existence of black holes. The math was literally smarter than he was. He had never seen nor thought of a black hole before the math took him there.
How is non-material supernatural?
Your comment is the product of all the potentiality of your mind, and so is mine.
Just because we can't measure and pinpoint where the mind is located (which by the way, the study of neuroscience only reveals traces of), doesn't mean it's supernatural.
What if we can never see these forms because they existi in the same place as the matter or anti matter that's within a black hole.
Who is a quantum chemist?
@Tunishq Von It's ok... no need to be embarrassed.
This guy knows his Schopenhauer.
If you couldn't detect water, you might think the effect of currents on floating objects were "mind like." It might seem magical and mysterious, and some lazy people might latch onto it to support their unexamined preconceptions.
Spoofology … and the god commanded, “Let there be light for me, and dark for my offspring.”
If you had the ability to create the universe, would you choose to deprive your creatures of your own wisdom, and then punish them for not knowing what you know?
“We are all hallucinating all the time, including right now. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality.” Anil Seth … neuroscientist.
I don't see why interconnectedness of all things should appear "New-Age"-y to a thoughtful person; this is a basic concept in Zen Buddhism (and no doubt many other places, including "primitive" societies). Zen Buddhism is not a New Age belief system. I like Professor Schafer's comments very much, by the way. I'm biased, as they reflect my own view over the past many years.
Goto the following url and read along : news.uark.edu/articles/52702/department-of-chemistry-and-biochemistry-mourns-passing-of-professor-emeritus-lothar-sch-fer
Huh?
So in a nutshell you have a belief. And science deals on facts, so you have nothing but a " what if" . Good for you.
...our protagonist in this quest may consider himself genuinely open minded and such, but his constant and ever so subtle "contempt prior to investigation" betrays him at every turn as naught but a run of the mill materialist...thus the Truth our traveler is seeking proximity with, is destined to ever recede... just beyond our not-so-intrepid hero's grasp...
Or rather our "hero" wants something he can confirm and the second explanations go to the supernatural he realizes confirmation flies out the door leaving us with nothing but speculation and conjecture.
@@madmax2976 yes, wholeheartedly agree madmax...but until our hero boldly crosses the threshold and into the "inner most cave"...until our mythic protagonist sees directly that what THIS really is, does not require "his" little human confirmations...then the extraordinary will seem to remain merely ordinary, the extrasensory merely sensory, and the truly supernatural only natural...when meanwhile, all along his mythic quest, THIS was always and by definition beyond all "speculation & conjecture"... cheers brother
@@333010101 Why fear no need. I guess of it is thrue . Why Him or not some one who is a Tyran, full of hait , and Paress the opposit of Love. I juste wonder my freind. 😎🎼🎶🎵 Sincères salutations philippe Martin
@@333010101 Cheer bro , sincères salutations 😎✨
I think we need to be careful here. It's too easy to be seduced by suitcase words like "mind". He did seem cautious in saying "mind-like". Perhaps correlated "patterns of information" (as in entanglement) (?). This "information" may still be largely in the mechanical realm. It may (or may not) be the "mind" that is meaningful in the human realm.
A lot of characteristics of these Idealist claims for the foundation of reality that physicists like Schäfer make can also be interpreted (more easily) with Platonism, Structuralism, or Informational foundations.