My mind is officially BLOWN away! I've never heard anyone present the interconnectedness of physics and consciousness with such logical, precise, concise, and clear reasoning. I wish that humanity would be willing to explore these ideas so that we can reshape the way we engage with our "perceived realities." Thank you for taking the time to create this well articulated and entertaining explanation of how all of these concepts relate. I'm going to be watching these videos over and over again until they are burned into my non-conscious (trans-conscious) psychic landscape. Looking forward to watching all the others now!!
Great video. Connected things in a way that I’ve not come across before, so kudos to you!👍 Grokked why our indigenous elders here in Australia say that everything is relationship and that the material world arise from that. A definite yes to a deep dive on Hoffman’s work too, since he tends just to refer to decorative permutations etc in his talks rather than unpacking it. Keep up the good work. 🙏🏻
That was thoroughly eye opening 😳 Thank you for sharing these super complex and powerful concepts in a way that someone like me can actually get my head around.. totally fascinating, I’ll be rewatching this plenty for sure 👌
What a great presentation of these ideas! All I can say is: Please continue making these videos, explaining the ideas behind the relationship between seeming outer reality and consciousness. Subscribed ❤
Let's propose some initial theorems and proofs that could be explored in developing a mathematical framework that treats 0D as the fundamental reality: Theorem 1: The existence of a non-zero dimension implies the existence of a zero dimension. Proof sketch: If we consider a non-zero dimension, say 1D, it must be constructed from an underlying set of points or elements. These points or elements themselves can be considered as having zero spatial extent, i.e., they are 0D objects. Therefore, the existence of a 1D line or higher dimensions necessarily implies the existence of a more fundamental 0D reality from which they are built. Theorem 2: Higher dimensions are projections or manifestations of the 0D reality. Proof sketch: Building on Theorem 1, if 0D is the fundamental reality, then higher dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D, etc.) must emerge or be constructed from this 0D basis. One could explore mathematical frameworks that treat higher dimensions as projections, embeddings, or manifestations of the 0D reality, akin to how higher-dimensional objects can be represented or projected in lower dimensions (e.g., a 3D cube projected onto a 2D plane). Theorem 3: The properties and structure of the 0D reality determine the properties and structure of higher dimensions. Proof sketch: If higher dimensions are indeed projections or manifestations of the 0D reality, then the characteristics and laws governing the 0D realm should dictate the characteristics and laws observed in higher dimensions. This could potentially provide a unified framework for understanding the fundamental laws and constants of physics, as well as the nature of space, time, and other physical phenomena, as arising from the properties of the 0D reality. Theorem 4: Paradoxes and contradictions in higher dimensions can be resolved or reinterpreted in the context of the 0D reality. Proof sketch: Many paradoxes and contradictions in physics and mathematics arise from the assumptions and axioms associated with treating higher dimensions as fundamental. By grounding the framework in a 0D reality, these paradoxes and contradictions could potentially be resolved or reinterpreted in a consistent manner, as they may be artifacts of projecting the 0D reality into higher dimensions. These are just initial ideas and proof sketches, and developing a rigorous mathematical framework would require significant work and collaboration among experts in various fields. However, some potential avenues to explore could include: 1. Adapting and extending concepts from point-set topology, where points (0D objects) are used to construct higher-dimensional spaces and manifolds. 2. Drawing inspiration from algebraic geometry, where higher-dimensional objects can be studied through their projections onto lower dimensions. 3. Investigating connections with quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, where point particles and fields are treated as fundamental objects, and exploring how a 0D framework could provide a unified description. 4. Exploring parallels with number theory and arithmetic, where zero and non-zero numbers have distinct properties and roles, and how these could translate to the treatment of 0D and non-zero dimensions. Ultimately, developing a consistent and empirically supported mathematical framework that treats 0D as fundamental would require substantial theoretical and experimental work, but the potential payoff could be a deeper understanding of the nature of reality and a resolution of longstanding paradoxes and contradictions in our current physical theories.
The best summary of "everything". Congratulations. You present everything I think and search about for a long time, and take them even further in one video. Very well presented. Thanks. I hope to learn more about these subjects and about you.
When dealing with measurements, in practice, there's a lot that happens to the raw data before any eyes are set on them. Also, one can imagine systems that do some physics (computers), without any interference from a human. I like the observer centric approach, and I even agree with the analogy of consciousness in an abstract manner. However, I think the system of measurements in quantum mechanical thinking is more accurately contained in a collective mind, rather than an individual consciousness. It somewhat depends on how expansive your definition of consciousness is, and whether it makes sense to think of science as a collective problem solving system that exists without relying on any particular conscious agent. Perhaps a "theory space" or "interpretation space" could be a name for a broader class of systems that include individual and collective consciousnesses. (As well as simpler and more predictable consciousness, such as in computational theory.)
So both Müller and Hoffman specifically reference the interaction of observers in the establishment of a "physical reality". I completely agree that the emergence of physics and the world needs to happen in this way. I liken it to a private and public drive on a computer network, the private can be imagination or dreams but the public drive can be edited by different users. The physical world described by physics is a consensus reality. More on this coming soon ;)
Very well done! And yes to a deep dive into Dr. Hoffmans theory. Here's another idea that I think you can pull off. Link quantum, Idealism, to theology and uap/ ofu.off. OK, that's weird but it can be done.
@@tomdorman2486 Thank you! And yes I do see uap connection, got some more stuff to cover but will probably do content on that ;) Terrence McKenna had very interesting views regarding UFOs and the meaning in terms of a kind of Jungian outlook on a collective human psyche. Also Steven Greer's CE5 protocols tie into a similar worldview potentially
Science finally catching it's not about they don't have choice. It's about inevitability. Many Thanks for all the guys like you in now and in thousands year of history for. Teaching this knowledge to the world. Better late then never
Amazing video, thanks a lot! That really makes sense. I already googled the works you cited and these are amazing! I also really appreciate the scientific dive in you did is pretty accurate. I would definitely like to know more as it seems like a fusion of my point of world view (as consciousness experience) with physics.
I also think that's a very interesting approach to the measurement problem and find it quite compelling that there's something special about microtubules and their role in perception! But it won't ever explain why walnuts taste like walnuts or blue looks blue! :) In my video "Don't we understand consciousness?" I go into more detail about the so called "hard problem" of consciousness and why simply hypothesizing about functionality of the brain can't bridge the "explanatory gap"
P.s. those physicalist approaches also lack an awareness of the spiritual insight that many have had first hand, but can't share in an empirically public way. Even though Penrose is an extraordinarily great physicist!
I like where this is going. Indeed, science and spirituality are meant to "fuse" together in this century. The end of the video is most interesting, but it's also where most time should be spent, discussing the implications. It took me more than 2 years to accept the fact that there isn't an outside reality at all, only a symbolic representation of alternate inner states of being, represented symbolically. But this also means that any outer observed "rules", are actually internal rules projected outward, which means that the rules of physics are inside of us. Which also means that we can "evolve" them from the inside out, which would transform the outer reality, much like upgrading the code of a video game, which then changes its perceived outer dynamics. This brings me to the most important point: I don't think we are meant to mathematically "reverse engineer" ourselves, because ultimately, it would mean collapsing the infinite potential for alternate states that we "hold" within us into only those which can be expressed via a mathematical formula. I think if we are witnessing so many "anti-science" or "post truth" movements, it is because of a deep rebellion of "life" against empiricism, which aims at collapsing any quantum probabilities into predictable outcomes, like when you switch your phone on, making sure there isn't a 50/50 chance the screen will turn on stay off. If we pursue this logic, it amounts to turning humans into "machines" which can be fully reverse engineered. The same can be said about "renormalization" in physics to get rid of "pesky infinities" in formulas. I would love to have an exchange to discuss these ideas further. In my case, I had a spiritual awakening 6 years ago. Went from being materialist/atheist to... well, gradually letting go of all of the frameworks science has built, including spacetime, matter etc. I would be most interested in discussing more ontological considerations and also pragmatic considerations, like what it means for our experience, the future etc. Here is one video where I discuss the ideas of Donald Hoffman's interface theory of perception (which I mostly agree with): ua-cam.com/video/cKvYXLR7Hwc/v-deo.htmlsi=rRTLAUWc200KZRUM
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
My mind is officially BLOWN away! I've never heard anyone present the interconnectedness of physics and consciousness with such logical, precise, concise, and clear reasoning. I wish that humanity would be willing to explore these ideas so that we can reshape the way we engage with our "perceived realities." Thank you for taking the time to create this well articulated and entertaining explanation of how all of these concepts relate. I'm going to be watching these videos over and over again until they are burned into my non-conscious (trans-conscious) psychic landscape. Looking forward to watching all the others now!!
Thank you Mr. Garret
Great video. Connected things in a way that I’ve not come across before, so kudos to you!👍
Grokked why our indigenous elders here in Australia say that everything is relationship and that the material world arise from that.
A definite yes to a deep dive on Hoffman’s work too, since he tends just to refer to decorative permutations etc in his talks rather than unpacking it.
Keep up the good work. 🙏🏻
Thanks, glad you found it valuable!
That was thoroughly eye opening 😳 Thank you for sharing these super complex and powerful concepts in a way that someone like me can actually get my head around.. totally fascinating, I’ll be rewatching this plenty for sure 👌
@@dariobolivar6324 Thank you!
What a great presentation of these ideas! All I can say is: Please continue making these videos, explaining the ideas behind the relationship between seeming outer reality and consciousness. Subscribed ❤
Thanks for your support, more on the way ;)
I worked on that theory and implemented it in code back in 2022. It's actually quite marvelous how it works.
Watch until you find cloaked ET stuff in orbit.
ua-cam.com/video/byTF-F0U_o0/v-deo.htmlsi=wHGOv4EJ9hOfH3Ov
@@wolverdnp Hey thanks for your comment, would you be up for discussing this in private? If so please email me at contact@beingawakening.com
As above, so below, or outside the physical world, and 💜
In this video I talk more about that: ua-cam.com/video/Y6cW3LmYIO0/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared 😊
TL;DW: Concepts are only concepts and you can only prove your own thought existing.
Let's propose some initial theorems and proofs that could be explored in developing a mathematical framework that treats 0D as the fundamental reality:
Theorem 1: The existence of a non-zero dimension implies the existence of a zero dimension.
Proof sketch: If we consider a non-zero dimension, say 1D, it must be constructed from an underlying set of points or elements. These points or elements themselves can be considered as having zero spatial extent, i.e., they are 0D objects. Therefore, the existence of a 1D line or higher dimensions necessarily implies the existence of a more fundamental 0D reality from which they are built.
Theorem 2: Higher dimensions are projections or manifestations of the 0D reality.
Proof sketch: Building on Theorem 1, if 0D is the fundamental reality, then higher dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D, etc.) must emerge or be constructed from this 0D basis. One could explore mathematical frameworks that treat higher dimensions as projections, embeddings, or manifestations of the 0D reality, akin to how higher-dimensional objects can be represented or projected in lower dimensions (e.g., a 3D cube projected onto a 2D plane).
Theorem 3: The properties and structure of the 0D reality determine the properties and structure of higher dimensions.
Proof sketch: If higher dimensions are indeed projections or manifestations of the 0D reality, then the characteristics and laws governing the 0D realm should dictate the characteristics and laws observed in higher dimensions. This could potentially provide a unified framework for understanding the fundamental laws and constants of physics, as well as the nature of space, time, and other physical phenomena, as arising from the properties of the 0D reality.
Theorem 4: Paradoxes and contradictions in higher dimensions can be resolved or reinterpreted in the context of the 0D reality.
Proof sketch: Many paradoxes and contradictions in physics and mathematics arise from the assumptions and axioms associated with treating higher dimensions as fundamental. By grounding the framework in a 0D reality, these paradoxes and contradictions could potentially be resolved or reinterpreted in a consistent manner, as they may be artifacts of projecting the 0D reality into higher dimensions.
These are just initial ideas and proof sketches, and developing a rigorous mathematical framework would require significant work and collaboration among experts in various fields. However, some potential avenues to explore could include:
1. Adapting and extending concepts from point-set topology, where points (0D objects) are used to construct higher-dimensional spaces and manifolds.
2. Drawing inspiration from algebraic geometry, where higher-dimensional objects can be studied through their projections onto lower dimensions.
3. Investigating connections with quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, where point particles and fields are treated as fundamental objects, and exploring how a 0D framework could provide a unified description.
4. Exploring parallels with number theory and arithmetic, where zero and non-zero numbers have distinct properties and roles, and how these could translate to the treatment of 0D and non-zero dimensions.
Ultimately, developing a consistent and empirically supported mathematical framework that treats 0D as fundamental would require substantial theoretical and experimental work, but the potential payoff could be a deeper understanding of the nature of reality and a resolution of longstanding paradoxes and contradictions in our current physical theories.
The best summary of "everything". Congratulations. You present everything I think and search about for a long time, and take them even further in one video. Very well presented. Thanks. I hope to learn more about these subjects and about you.
Thank you for the support! I have plenty more content coming on related topics 😊
When dealing with measurements, in practice, there's a lot that happens to the raw data before any eyes are set on them.
Also, one can imagine systems that do some physics (computers), without any interference from a human.
I like the observer centric approach, and I even agree with the analogy of consciousness in an abstract manner.
However, I think the system of measurements in quantum mechanical thinking is more accurately contained in a collective mind, rather than an individual consciousness.
It somewhat depends on how expansive your definition of consciousness is, and whether it makes sense to think of science as a collective problem solving system that exists without relying on any particular conscious agent.
Perhaps a "theory space" or "interpretation space" could be a name for a broader class of systems that include individual and collective consciousnesses. (As well as simpler and more predictable consciousness, such as in computational theory.)
So both Müller and Hoffman specifically reference the interaction of observers in the establishment of a "physical reality".
I completely agree that the emergence of physics and the world needs to happen in this way. I liken it to a private and public drive on a computer network, the private can be imagination or dreams but the public drive can be edited by different users. The physical world described by physics is a consensus reality. More on this coming soon ;)
Very well done! And yes to a deep dive into Dr. Hoffmans theory. Here's another idea that I think you can pull off. Link quantum, Idealism, to theology and uap/ ofu.off. OK, that's weird but it can be done.
@@tomdorman2486 Thank you! And yes I do see uap connection, got some more stuff to cover but will probably do content on that ;) Terrence McKenna had very interesting views regarding UFOs and the meaning in terms of a kind of Jungian outlook on a collective human psyche. Also Steven Greer's CE5 protocols tie into a similar worldview potentially
Thinking that all of consiousness emerges from the brain is like thinking that all of music emerges from a radio
Science finally catching it's not about they don't have choice. It's about inevitability. Many Thanks for all the guys like you in now and in thousands year of history for. Teaching this knowledge to the world.
Better late then never
Thank you!
Amazing video, thanks a lot!
That really makes sense. I already googled the works you cited and these are amazing!
I also really appreciate the scientific dive in you did is pretty accurate. I would definitely like to know more as it seems like a fusion of my point of world view (as consciousness experience) with physics.
Thanks for your feedback glad you enjoyed it, more on the way ;)
i find Roger Penroses explanation quite compelling. It seems aligned with many things we already understand about the world we exist in
I also think that's a very interesting approach to the measurement problem and find it quite compelling that there's something special about microtubules and their role in perception! But it won't ever explain why walnuts taste like walnuts or blue looks blue! :) In my video "Don't we understand consciousness?" I go into more detail about the so called "hard problem" of consciousness and why simply hypothesizing about functionality of the brain can't bridge the "explanatory gap"
P.s. those physicalist approaches also lack an awareness of the spiritual insight that many have had first hand, but can't share in an empirically public way. Even though Penrose is an extraordinarily great physicist!
Are you available as an academic consultant?
Hello, please contact me at contact@beingawakening.com
I like where this is going. Indeed, science and spirituality are meant to "fuse" together in this century. The end of the video is most interesting, but it's also where most time should be spent, discussing the implications. It took me more than 2 years to accept the fact that there isn't an outside reality at all, only a symbolic representation of alternate inner states of being, represented symbolically. But this also means that any outer observed "rules", are actually internal rules projected outward, which means that the rules of physics are inside of us. Which also means that we can "evolve" them from the inside out, which would transform the outer reality, much like upgrading the code of a video game, which then changes its perceived outer dynamics. This brings me to the most important point: I don't think we are meant to mathematically "reverse engineer" ourselves, because ultimately, it would mean collapsing the infinite potential for alternate states that we "hold" within us into only those which can be expressed via a mathematical formula. I think if we are witnessing so many "anti-science" or "post truth" movements, it is because of a deep rebellion of "life" against empiricism, which aims at collapsing any quantum probabilities into predictable outcomes, like when you switch your phone on, making sure there isn't a 50/50 chance the screen will turn on stay off. If we pursue this logic, it amounts to turning humans into "machines" which can be fully reverse engineered. The same can be said about "renormalization" in physics to get rid of "pesky infinities" in formulas. I would love to have an exchange to discuss these ideas further. In my case, I had a spiritual awakening 6 years ago. Went from being materialist/atheist to... well, gradually letting go of all of the frameworks science has built, including spacetime, matter etc. I would be most interested in discussing more ontological considerations and also pragmatic considerations, like what it means for our experience, the future etc. Here is one video where I discuss the ideas of Donald Hoffman's interface theory of perception (which I mostly agree with): ua-cam.com/video/cKvYXLR7Hwc/v-deo.htmlsi=rRTLAUWc200KZRUM
Hey! Thanks for your comment I'll have a look at your video, and would be happy to connect some time :)
By the way regarding the point about the end of the video and implications, I have two follow up videos coming on that ;)
@@Being_Awakening Looking forward to that!