Timecode 00:00 - Intro 02:07 - Preface by Dr Muller 06:25 - The physics of the first person perspective, question 1; Why? 11:01 - Question 2; How? 17:31 - Answer; An Emergence World 20:46 - The most sci fi and the fun part! 24:40 - Friston celebrating the point of contact with Free Energy Principle! 29:59 - The Natural Laws 36:18 - Statistical Complexity? 39:39 - Which Prof Wallace? 51:54 - How not to be a “Probabilistic Zombie” 01:01:26 - A modeller, and a modeller of modellers 01:08:14 - The observer, and the observer of the observer 01:14:22 - Knock out from the universe/simulation? 01:19:43 - Friston need a cigarette and a drink 01:20:19 - Can Consciousness be simulated? 01:27:57 - On Christof Koch lost his bet to David Chalmers 01:32:05 - Adam on Principle Less Action 01:37:06 - Prakash on the observer states 01:45:16 - Prakash on the psychology of the observer states 01:48:49 - Victoria on technology and AI 01:51:38 - Friston going under the Tube 01:52:40 - Kyle on meta awareness or meta cognition 01:56:37 - Hari on Free Will 01:57:37 - Andy’s question on the emergence of objectivity 01:59:11 - Bayesian Coherent 02:05:13 - Vinod was intrigued with Muller’s theory PLEASE HELP SUPPORT THE CHANNEL BY DONATING TO - paypal.me/philosophybabble?co... MASSIVE THANK YOU TO THE TEAM AND EVERYONE THAT JOINED US ON THAT DAY. JOIN US AT: CLUBHOUSE FOR FUTURE LIVE SESSION Clubhouse: @philosophybabble
Thank you to the guests Markus and Karl, and the hosts who brought them together, it looks as though both are expanding their horizons. I'm 66 minutes in and I have to say that for a good part of this conversation I was treading water in the deep end of the pool, it has been very interesting to see two people who appreciate each other learn from each other. I would introduce the idea of a current perceptual environment, at this point of the conversation, at around 73 minutes. 122 minutes, Karl does his best version of, who's on 1st? Too many observer's in the 30 seconds. Peace
The depth was striking, and like you, I felt I was swimming in deep intellectual waters. And yes, Karl’s rapid section at 122 minutes was amusing! Cheers!
The theory represented by Dr. Muller is very interesting, thank you. But I'm not sure I understand this theory fully. If nothing exists except for observers states, what exactly computes the next state for each observer?
The next state for each observer is theorized to be driven by a mathematical structure or algorithm that governs these transitions. This can be thought of as an abstract computational process where the relationships between different observer states determine the progression.
@@philosophybabble Sorry I am not sure I understand what is an "abstract process". If you mean something like a world of platonic forms, such a world exists beyond time. But if this theory is right, we observe a concrete process flowing in real time where "something" each moment somehow picks a state with the minimum Kolmogorov complexity from the set of all possible states. So the question persists what is this "something" and how it works?
@@deselby2448 my philosophical intuition is that we can't sensibly talk about it as a thing, rather it is a process that causes the experience of things. We can't have an understanding of the whole system, while being embedded within that system.
I have great respect with regards to what you are trying to do. My own experience is though, that our human mind can simply not cope with the weirdness when encountering ‘ultimate reality’. We can e.g. intellectually circle around the timeless time of ‘now’ and the spaceless space of ‘here’, talk about it, conceptualize it, discuss it. But due to being part of the space-time ‘conventual reality’, our mind will not be able to go through this magic gate, through which we symbolically can melt back into the ‘one-ness’ and ‘understand’ what meta-consciousness or ‘non-recursive-observing, knowing, understanding’ actually means. I admire your ambition to frame this into mathematics, but there are good reasons why ‘the vibrating pure silence’, or ‘the silence between the words of poems’ or ‘the explosion into gaps between sounds of music’ were preferred by ‘realized masters’ when trying to talk about the unspeakable. I doubt that ‘understanding’ that ‘meta-consciousness’ cannot be an emerging property arising from evolution in our space-time world will ever be ‘proof-able’ within the boundaries of mathematics, computation or even logics and philosophy. Once you ‘explode’ or experience the ‘melting’ back into the ‘one’, the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ is gone and you just wonder about ‘the hard problem of matter’. Nevertheless, my deep respect for your approach, which will definitely not be an easy one.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I encourage you to subscribe to our channel. Your subscription will keep you updated, and I'd value your continued engagement. Thanks again!
What Are the stances of each speaker here?…are they saying consciousness is created in brain, or not? (confused as to why people are sometimes ambiguous about this) …then again, I’m only 12min in, so maybe I’ll learn! 😂
Markus's "Zero Worlds" theory offers a minimalist approach to quantum mechanics. It differs from the "Many Worlds" interpretation by starting with no pre-existing worlds or branches. Instead, it suggests that the complexity and branching observed in the universe are emergent properties derived from simpler fundamental rules. This theory aims to simplify the initial assumptions required to explain quantum phenomena, making it a unique and foundational perspective in quantum theory. Friston's expertise in the Free Energy Principle could enhance Markus's "Zero Worlds" theory by providing insights on biological plausibility and refining the model's assumptions to align with empirical data and system behaviours. This collaboration could create a more robust framework by integrating neuroscience with quantum mechanics.
Timecode
00:00 - Intro
02:07 - Preface by Dr Muller
06:25 - The physics of the first person perspective, question 1; Why?
11:01 - Question 2; How?
17:31 - Answer; An Emergence World
20:46 - The most sci fi and the fun part!
24:40 - Friston celebrating the point of contact with Free Energy Principle!
29:59 - The Natural Laws
36:18 - Statistical Complexity?
39:39 - Which Prof Wallace?
51:54 - How not to be a “Probabilistic Zombie”
01:01:26 - A modeller, and a modeller of modellers
01:08:14 - The observer, and the observer of the observer
01:14:22 - Knock out from the universe/simulation?
01:19:43 - Friston need a cigarette and a drink
01:20:19 - Can Consciousness be simulated?
01:27:57 - On Christof Koch lost his bet to David Chalmers
01:32:05 - Adam on Principle Less Action
01:37:06 - Prakash on the observer states
01:45:16 - Prakash on the psychology of the observer states
01:48:49 - Victoria on technology and AI
01:51:38 - Friston going under the Tube
01:52:40 - Kyle on meta awareness or meta cognition
01:56:37 - Hari on Free Will
01:57:37 - Andy’s question on the emergence of objectivity
01:59:11 - Bayesian Coherent
02:05:13 - Vinod was intrigued with Muller’s theory
PLEASE HELP SUPPORT THE CHANNEL BY DONATING TO - paypal.me/philosophybabble?co...
MASSIVE THANK YOU TO THE TEAM AND EVERYONE THAT JOINED US ON THAT DAY.
JOIN US AT: CLUBHOUSE FOR FUTURE LIVE SESSION
Clubhouse: @philosophybabble
Incredible gem. Baffled that this conversation exists. Cheers.
Thank you to the guests Markus and Karl, and the hosts who brought them together, it looks as though both are expanding their horizons. I'm 66 minutes in and I have to say that for a good part of this conversation I was treading water in the deep end of the pool, it has been very interesting to see two people who appreciate each other learn from each other. I would introduce the idea of a current perceptual environment, at this point of the conversation, at around 73 minutes. 122 minutes, Karl does his best version of, who's on 1st? Too many observer's in the 30 seconds. Peace
The depth was striking, and like you, I felt I was swimming in deep intellectual waters. And yes, Karl’s rapid section at 122 minutes was amusing! Cheers!
This is fascinating.
Very interesting, especially at the end with the Bayesian Coherence. Thanks for the wonderful discussion.
Glad you enjoyed it!
The theory represented by Dr. Muller is very interesting, thank you. But I'm not sure I understand this theory fully. If nothing exists except for observers states, what exactly computes the next state for each observer?
The next state for each observer is theorized to be driven by a mathematical structure or algorithm that governs these transitions. This can be thought of as an abstract computational process where the relationships between different observer states determine the progression.
@@philosophybabble Sorry I am not sure I understand what is an "abstract process". If you mean something like a world of platonic forms, such a world exists beyond time. But if this theory is right, we observe a concrete process flowing in real time where "something" each moment somehow picks a state with the minimum Kolmogorov complexity from the set of all possible states. So the question persists what is this "something" and how it works?
@@deselby2448 my philosophical intuition is that we can't sensibly talk about it as a thing, rather it is a process that causes the experience of things. We can't have an understanding of the whole system, while being embedded within that system.
I have great respect with regards to what you are trying to do. My own experience is though, that our human mind can simply not cope with the weirdness when encountering ‘ultimate reality’. We can e.g. intellectually circle around the timeless time of ‘now’ and the spaceless space of ‘here’, talk about it, conceptualize it, discuss it. But due to being part of the space-time ‘conventual reality’, our mind will not be able to go through this magic gate, through which we symbolically can melt back into the ‘one-ness’ and ‘understand’ what meta-consciousness or ‘non-recursive-observing, knowing, understanding’ actually means. I admire your ambition to frame this into mathematics, but there are good reasons why ‘the vibrating pure silence’, or ‘the silence between the words of poems’ or ‘the explosion into gaps between sounds of music’ were preferred by ‘realized masters’ when trying to talk about the unspeakable. I doubt that ‘understanding’ that ‘meta-consciousness’ cannot be an emerging property arising from evolution in our space-time world will ever be ‘proof-able’ within the boundaries of mathematics, computation or even logics and philosophy. Once you ‘explode’ or experience the ‘melting’ back into the ‘one’, the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ is gone and you just wonder about ‘the hard problem of matter’. Nevertheless, my deep respect for your approach, which will definitely not be an easy one.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I encourage you to subscribe to our channel. Your subscription will keep you updated, and I'd value your continued engagement. Thanks again!
Thank you for this but too many adds to follow
What Are the stances of each speaker here?…are they saying consciousness is created in brain, or not?
(confused as to why people are sometimes ambiguous about this)
…then again, I’m only 12min in, so maybe I’ll learn! 😂
Markus's "Zero Worlds" theory offers a minimalist approach to quantum mechanics. It differs from the "Many Worlds" interpretation by starting with no pre-existing worlds or branches. Instead, it suggests that the complexity and branching observed in the universe are emergent properties derived from simpler fundamental rules. This theory aims to simplify the initial assumptions required to explain quantum phenomena, making it a unique and foundational perspective in quantum theory.
Friston's expertise in the Free Energy Principle could enhance Markus's "Zero Worlds" theory by providing insights on biological plausibility and refining the model's assumptions to align with empirical data and system behaviours. This collaboration could create a more robust framework by integrating neuroscience with quantum mechanics.