This video might debunk historical materialism, but does nothing for example for eliminative materialism or any other post historical materialism.
Johanan what's the reason you still make these video's? For me it's like listening to Christian apologists, who claim that logical positivism debunked means that pre-modernism is true. They probably don't understand post positivism.
@AlainG80 Well I'd agree that it's nothing "non-natural." Though in a context where matter is gone, it would be a bit difficult to draw a demarking line between "natural" and "non-natural" anyway.
I make them because it opens up fun cans of worms when you add things like the Simulation Argument or Whiteheadian monistic idealism into the mix. Though I'm planning actually to be making videos on other things in a bit -politics, the drake equation, CDT, quantum biology etc.
I like your videos and I find the message interesting, not that I agree or disagree. I thought today about this video, and I was pondering the idea that the electrons are always particles, then the difference is on the distribution of their trayectories and how the electrons trajectories seem to be guided differently when observed, if looked at it this way, the effect could still be hapenning at the speed of light when the background screen is removed.
this test was unreliable.y?because the truth is, our thoughts and consciousness affect things. thus if you are planning on testing it, you must make it double blind.you must have someone install the camera who doesn't know about the experiment.u must have someone install the machine that doesn't know about the camera nor the seeking of observation. and it wouldn't help to have a third person to fire the machine.otherwise, the particles will react based on our thoughts of planning to observe it.
Here is my problem. You assumed Option 1 false because speed of light barrier. But when one observes a particle, its wave form collapses into a narrow peak, and this must take faster than the speed of light.
If you are going to say we cannot travel faster than the speed of light, you would also have to throw away the statistical to observable method of QM, yes? We must be consistent about the cosmetic speed limit.
@zieben64 "its wave form collapses into a narrow peak, and this must take faster than the speed of light."
Right, but that is the effect that is teased out here. The idea is that isn't really consistent with a material reality. Another example of it is in entanglement -which taken to the extreme also implies a holographic universe with the space and everything in it being a sort of illusion of the qubits encoded on a holographic surface.
@JohananRaatz I still don't understand how you can talk about the wave nature of the universe, and then say nothing can travel faster than c. It is a contradiction.
@zieben64 The waves don't actually propagate faster than light. They are already spread out through the entire universe without diminishing -the wave-functions making up the universe are free-particle wave-functions (sine waves). So when something happens in one place it can affect some other place non-locally not because information was sent faster than c, but because the waves phase velocity (which has no information) is faster than c. Same deal with a "human wave" at a ball game.
@JohananRaatz Alright, thanks! I'm sure I'll have more questions.
So what they key difference between this view of the world and the Bohr statistical method. everything is like a computer program, what does that mean? I'm no computer programmer haha
You'll see! ;-) It's a bit of a mind-bender: watch?v=0qiLLrmyqTM
"Bohr statistical method."
The difference is that it looks random but isn't because the causes are hidden away in some entirely different location. Think like a voodoo doll affecting someone even though it's a mile away, but on the subatomic scale instead. Now I don't agree with this completely, I think there is some indeterminism in the time dependent part, but that's another story.
@bigboy45454545 "the double slit experiment did no such thing"
You apparently didn't watch the video then. It wasn't about the double slit experiment, the double slit experiment is just needed to understand the delayed choice quantum eraser.
"silly boy"
Tell me, Roger Penrose, is a highly respected mathematician and physicist, he used Godel's theorem to argue that Platonic information exists and that it is encoded at the Planck scale. Is he a silly boy as well?
@JohananRaatz Well I watched now. Let me say that your presuppositions include magic Gods who created everything. I couldn't possibly trust anything you say. If you're this highly educated to understand such matters then you're also highly deluded. Do you think Roger Penrose has come to the same conclusion about Gods that you have? That's rhetorical of course. What information do you have that others don't? Yet another false dichotomy here. I'm going with option number three.
A.) This video has NOTHING to do with "magic Gods." It's about consequences in ontology from physics. So that's non sequiter straw man.
B.) I don't think the universe came from a "magic" God. I agree with Hawking that it came from the wave-fcn of the universe, which also happens to be a mind via Orch-OR. ;-)
C.) And what 3rd option? Materialism is either true or it isn't.
@JohananRaatz You never answered my question of what conclusion a physicist like Penrose has come to about Gods. This is of course because as a Theist you've come to a conclusion about Gods with no evidence for such things. In other words you're not honest. This is my point about the conclusions you've jumped to in this video. Other experts would say that they're sure of many things. Materialism, wave-fcn of the universe and more. But not you, you seem to know. You're dishonest.
@JohananRaatz Hey Johanan, hope you're keeping well buddy
Anyway, my thoughts on this debacle. This guy doesn't *understand* the evidence you provided, and then rejects it, saying "you didn't provide evidence"
Illogical to say the least
Personally, I would say don't waste your time, and devote your time with those who are interested in genuine debate!
"You haven't addressed the reasoning other than the one where you insist that "either X or ~X" is a false dichotomy"
@KTK401 Lol I know, I've talked to him in private chats before. He doesn't accept evidence or arguments when you show him. He's really just a silly anti-theist troll. Don't bother with him.
@KTK401 The supernatural including your magic God(s) does not need to be disproved. Something presented without evidence can easily be dismissed without evidence. This includes your Gods. Mr. Raatz has not provided evidence for universal consciousness. You are mistaken Sir.
@doubtingBob Well this video isn't about any magic gods.
I have demonstrated in a different video however, that assuming substance dualism is false (a modest assumption) that the collapse process must be ontologically the same as either a conscious observation or an unconscious measurement. From this it follows that self-collapse = self-observation (consciousness).
From there it's easy to show that the wave-function of the universe is self-observing as it is self-collapsing.
@doubtingBob Sorry but you are talking gibberish here.
I am not mistaken. I have proof :)
Johanan presented the evidence and you reject it and shriek that he provided no evidence. Stop wasting everyone's time please, we call this the "chewbacca defence" !!
If you don't understand the evidence being presented, you can just say so you know! lol
"Mr. Raatz has not provided evidence for universal consciousness. "
@KTK401 So what is Mr. Raatz's evidence for universal consciousness? I understand perfectly what the video is stating and no evidence for a universal consciousness was provided. A brain is required for consciousness. No brain means no consciousness. Can you provide examples of where consciousness exists without a brain? Please indicate evidence for this. Assertions without evidence are meaningless and unscienentific. Mr. Raatz's assertions are unscientific. Mr. Raatz is not a scientist.
@doubtingBob Thank you for being the only logical person in this gross misrepresentation of the complexities of quantum physics. People, will often manipulate and skew science to favor their own beliefs; in this case, a sense that we're at "one" with the universe and that consciousness (whatever that means) is greater than any one of us. The annoying metaphysical aspect applied to physical science, especially one as baffling as quantum physics is somewhat inevitable however.
@XSilvenX "manipulate and skew science" "we're at "one" with the universe" "that consciousness is greater than any one of us"
That isn't what's being claimed though. What's being claimed is quantum mind theory, Orch-OR (which is held by major scientists -Penrose, Hameroff, Zizzi et al) and that the universe is informational rather than material at bottom, "It from bit" (also held by major scientists -Smolin, Wheeler, Zeilinger et al) -and the direct conclusions that come from these.
@JohananRaatz I'm going to run away screaming now because without evidence of many things you seem to know about many things other experts can't know about. This includes your Gods. I've seen many comments of yours which confirms you beliefs in Gods to others on your own videos and other videos. The big question is; how do you know this? And I'm running away now. BTW, you won. You sure showed me. I can't deal with you illogical Theists.
LOL! This is patently dishonest. Didn't you see the part where Seth Lloyd was agreeing with me that the universe is a quantum computer? Physicists have already come to the conclusion that the universe is information at bottom. I'm just popularizing this conclusion.
@St00sh13 "The light interacts with the light cells"
Good so far, but keep going: How do the wave-functions of the atoms of the rods and cones in your eye get collapsed?
"It doesn't interact with a consciousness"
So are you saying consciousness does not interact with anything physical?
"interacts with whichever piece of aparatus"
Yes, and how is the wave-function of the apparatus collapsed? Also is there something ontologically different between a measuring apparatus and a mind?
You misunderstand the act of observation at the quantum level.
When you observe something at our level, you are not observing the thing itself, but the light that bounces off it.
When you observe something at the quantum level, it means having to actually interact with that thing (be it an electron or whatever), so it's not some magical consciousness affecting the result, it is interacting with the electron in order to observe it that is affecting the result.
How does the wave-function of that particular photon get collapsed?
"not some magical consciousness" "interacting with the electron"
Well it isn't anything magical, but if we are to assume that substance dualism is false, then it logically follows that an interaction with a mind (a conscious observation) is ontologically the same as an interaction with an electron. Unless minds and electrons are made of different stuff and dualism is true.
@two45triox I saw it in an article that seems to be off the internet now. Basically what happened was the computer couldn't completely process both objects (the cup and the marble) at once for an extended period of time, and so it temporarily "gave up" some of the programming for the position of the marble, causing it to appear outside of the cup. The computer then just kept processing the marble afterwards as though it was outside the cup.
If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
@joseypussycat Yup! Actually if you're curious I have a few other videos on how it could make sense for something like Berkeleyanism to be right. The laws of physics actually make much more sense emerging from information processing than they do from atomism, and of course information processing is something minds do: watch?v=0qiLLrmyqTM
And then here's a little exercise on what the laws of physics would look like if they were the result of pure thought: watch?v=ELxupWHZnOE
Evidence says nothing in itself. It's the interpreation that matters. The intrepretation of experiments comes from a fundemental philosophical theory of reality which for modern quantum physics is a sort of empirical-positivism and mysticism which is from the on-set opposed to and contradictory to physicalism. Using that to then debunk physicalism is begging the question. It does not follow from the experiments in this video that the particles only came into existence when they were observed.
That doesn't matter either now. All of the interpretations that could have saved some kind of material realism have been ruled out by various experiments. In fact there is now a Quantum Crackpot Randi Challenge for anyone claiming to have a local realist interpretation of QM. If you can prove that space isn't illusory you get the Nobel Prize.
And it's question begging to say that science can prove that there is anything behind observation.
You're completely misunderstanding this experiment because you're misled as to what the measuring device is. It's not a "camera" in the traditional sense of the word. It's a device that must interact with the particle/wave in order to measure its location which has Heisenberg consequences. I seriously hope you're not suggesting that consciousness creates reality with this nonsense.
After all what exactly IS information ontologically? Mustn't information itself be made of some sort of material?
It's still a measuring device -replace with photodetector if you want. It's a generic "measurer."
"not suggesting"
No, my mind is not anymore special than a photodetector. It can collapse wave-fcns equally well as unconscious systems. Though the converse of this is that from Wigner's Friend we find that collapse is ontologically protophenomenal and relative to the measurer: watch?v=crzgOuUtvrg
@JohananRaatz Wigner's Friend is based on the same false premise that our consciousnesses have anything to do with these experiments. As in the case of Schrodinger's Cat, where Wigner's Friend is relevant, the measuring device is the Geiger counter, and thus it matters not what any one person perceives.
Quantum mechanics does not introduce the mind of the observer into these experiments. Schrodinger's Cat was used by Schrodinger to prove just this point.
@Wittgensteinism (Part 1) "Wigner's Friend is based on the same false premise that our consciousnesses have anything to do"
So in other words Geiger counters can collapse wave-functions but minds can't because they are made of some magical substance different than the material of the Geiger counter? I didn't realize you were a substance dualist.
"the measuring device is the Geiger counter,"
And how does the wave-function of the Geiger counter get collapsed?
@JohananRaatz "Geiger counters can collapse wave-functions but minds can't" What your mind does is to process the information given by your eyes, so if anything can cause any wave-function collapsing, it´s your eyes, not your mind. This experiment in fact refutes your point. If the mind is the one interfering with the system, why scientists must resort to a particle detector? If your eye can´t cause wave-function collapse, much less minds that needs eyes to be aware of traveling particles.
I agree that the mind doesn't exclusively collapse wave-fcns,just that it's able to (assuming it's not made of some magic spirit stuff that a Geiger counter isn't).
But you're not going to like Heisenberg:
“modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”
2.) It's a quantum computer without an outside, and reality is fundamentally just Platonic. In other words all that exists are ideas: watch?v=ELxupWHZnOE
And of course with #1.) the most likely simulator is the Omega Point, which is identical to the wave-function of the universe (ie. what we know to be God via Universal Orch-OR). Which then comes full circle and meshes very nicely with #2.)
@Incephaly Actually I have. I majored in physics in college.
As for your assertion about my peers. The "it from bit" paradigm (informationalism) is actually fairly popular among physicists today, more so when we get into more fundamental theoretical physics. In fact it seems that a full theory of quantum gravity will not be possible without some kind of digital physics. I can show you lots of famous physicists like this if you want.
Chilling. It seems like while we are still learning the programming language of reality we have either found the first bug or maybe need to go back to the mathematical drawing board and reconsider whether or not 1+1 is really 2.
@JohananRaatz Well, when I said 1+1 I was thinking more about synergy, which I consider another puzzling concept. I'll check out the video about hacking because that's somewhere close to my alley.
@stringprodigy Actually, to be truthful. The matrix does not represent this truth in the slightest, the matrix portrayed in the movie is actually materialism taken to it's extreme. For within the matrix nothing is real or existent and is simply being generate by another somehow more real material world. The great philosopher Christopher Ott points this out and elaborates this in his work, the little-known masterpeice "The Evolution of Perception and the Cosmology of Substance".
@soldatheero This is true, technically. Though at the same time the spirit of the films was anti-materialist or anti-realist. By separating information from physical existence, it gives you a concrete way to think of the world as immaterial.
"God is infinite reality, whereas cosmos is infinite illusion. But both are not infinite in the same sense. God is one infinite, and illusion is infinite in numbers. God is infinite unity, and illusion infinite duality. Always God is. All along illusion is not. Illusion or no illusion, God remains beginningless and endless, while illusion has a beginning in illusion and it also ends in illusion. The infinite illusion includes infinite number of suns"
Professor of philosophy, Dr. Sprigge, proposes pantheistic idealism to explain reality; that reality is the mind of God. He's not too far off in light of this video.
Havent you missed the more important part (i.e. 2:46)? No equivocations (complaining, etc.) are allowed. Stay true to the principle (e.g. of demonstrability). Either you "deliver" or you dont. And since you are betting on odds of the order of googolplexes, I would be stupid not to bet against! ;-)
@Wrath0fKhan You miss the point.The point is not really whether air exists or not. Obviously it does. The point is that it's not actually made of matter,but that "matter" as we commonly conceive of it is actually quantum information with nothing going on behind it.
Saying that I should stop breathing to prove matter doesn't exist, so that you can prove that matter does exist, doesn't actually prove your point, because you haven't proven that there is any "stuff" to empirical reality (air etc.)
Im really disappointed, because right now (i.e. just after reading these 3 words) I see where its going - the direction of equivocation.
"Q I"
Just like qbuits (the measurable, hence demonstrable ones).
"nothing going on behind it"
If I take this literally, you may have some point here. The probabilistic waves are not real, propagating, measurable waves (see world class experimentalist prof Zeilinger).
@Wrath0fKhan "Stay true to the principle (e.g. of demonstrability)."
Ok, I can demonstrate that what I know exists of air are my empirical sensations of it. I can not empirically demonstrate that there is any matter behind that.
So my two questions to you are. How does my not breathing support your assumption? And two can you empirically demonstrate that there is any matter behind your empirical sensations?
"I can not ... that there is any matter behind that"
Sounds like a play on words to me. No air no fun - you seem to agree at least at some level there.
"How does my not breathing support your assumption"
It will immediately show us that "air" exists (which you seemed to have admitted at least at some level) and that you need it for breathing (i.e. measurement) or you will end up in trouble. Something we can measure. (Yes, we can even devise a machine demonstrating this, too.)
@Wrath0fKhan (Part 2) "Sounds like a play on words to me"
It's not a play on words.You'd agree that your sensory experience of the matter isn't the same as the matter right? If not you could in principle just have sensory experience and the material world would just be an illusion of that. All we can REALLY know is that the sensory experience exists. In fact you'd have a substance dualism between matter and experience otherwise.
Not the to be experienced matter. The experiencing (measuring) one (finding itself in a very special configuration).
"have SE and the material world would just be an illusion of that"
If you can optogenetically manipulate my synapses, you eventually could achieve something like that. Yet what does this "set up" presuppose? Indeed, an elaborate (material) "setup." And I bet a thousand EUR you cant do without it. ;-)
Hasnt been fully ruled out yet. Maybe even it cant be ruled out fully ever. Yet how practical is it to assume it is "operative"? A photon wont tell you. Neither will a quark or gluon. As it appears, you need a very special configuration of several of these "things" (e.g. at the level of biochemistry, accessible to optogenetics) to get a meaningful response. SD looks like a division/composition fallacy to me. And even if not, you still cant get away of matter and measurement.
@Wrath0fKhan Well ok, operatively for most practical cases (assuming one is not doing stuff with entanglement quantum computers or the delayed choice quantum erase) yes it is functionally material. However the fact that it isn't actually material has some interesting consequences both for theoretical physics and significant consequences in philosophy.
And you can get matter away from measurement. A dream or a computer simulation for example has stuff that seems completely material yet isn't.
"empirically demonstrate ... matter behind your empirical sensations"
Not entirely yet. My stance is rather a very practical "philosophical" one. However, the cutting edge field of optogenetics has showed us that "transplanting" specific memories (and or "qualia circuits") is in principle possible.
You know; those memories of those poor tortured flies were (optogenetically) transplanted into flies without experience, practically making them feel haunted already under the 1st stimulus.
You couldn't do that though -even in principle. From a purely philosophic angle for all you know you might be in a dream. But the what I'm arguing in this video is that you can't do that anyway, because the opposite has actually been confirmed to be true. For matter to be causing what we see, signals would have to be going far faster than light, in violation of relativity.
Also there are at least two others ways to demonstrate this with physics.
If you are addressing "entirely" (as in 100%), then you are right. What I mean by entirely, is rather becoming "operative." You know, just like with computers (and all the underlying "stuff" thats behind them).
"you know you might be in a dream"
Sure... Yet even that dream would be a very consistent one where I practically "must" rely on measurement, allowing me to derive an extremely "sharp picture" of itself. Otherwise ending up without air and fun. ;-)
@Wrath0fKhan "Sure... Yet even that dream would be a very consistent one where I practically "must" rely on measurement, allowing me to derive an extremely "sharp picture" of itself. Otherwise ending up without air and fun. ;-)"
What does any of what you are saying have to do with Quantum Mechanics?!!
We will have to wait for the mysterious FTL neutrinos first. Still, I think it will be rather about some systematic mistake in their clock set up. However, experimentalists (see prof Zeilinger - a relevant authority) are practically certain there are no HVs in a QM system. His team is able to demonstrate this with ever greater precision, slowly approaching "Bells and co" ideal setup limits. FTL isnt presupposed, neither expected. Just a sharp, functional correlation is derived.
@Wrath0fKhan Yes, you implied that the experiment above would be invalidated if there were FTL Neutrinos.
Neutrinos are not involved in the experiment above.
*rolls eyes*
Pilot Wave?!! Are you serious? Anton Zeilinger's ideas are in the same realm as the above ideas....are you being serious or just smoking something really strong?
No... Possibly, or could be invalidated, not would be invalidated. So you are wrong again.
"N are not involved"
Since you cant measure them, you cant claim they are not involved.
"Pilot Wave"
I said "something" like that, yes.
"Zeilinger"
Exactly! He doesnt believe ANYTHING of THIS - no FTL, no pilot wave, no mind, instead his position is extremely "conservative" (i.e. sharp correlation, "non-omnisicent god", etc.). Thats what you guys dont understand.
If you have a counter argument to the theory being proposed in the video and the experiment, please offer it.
Otherwise stop wasting our times with your pointless arguing with irrelevancies.
Pilot Wave. You mean David Bohm's interpretation of QM. Oh! You mean the same kind of thinking that Johanan & the rest of us lean toward...what's your point? None as usual.
Zeilinger doesn't have a POSITION on the implications of the experiment.
You don't have a clue what this experiment is even about, nor do you understand it's implications and clearly you have no clue about the interpretation being offered.
I asked you for a sensible counter argument to the above. if you don't have any argument or counter theory to put forward, what is your point?
All we can see is that you are a blatherer.
You are obviously a nutcase who is seeking to argue for the sake of arguing.
@KTK401 Neutrinos would have to be going A LOT faster than light to pull this off anyway. The superluminal neutrinos they've discovered are only going a smidge faster -within half a percent over the expected speed.
I have no clue. Im going to wait until "that" experiment is reproduced under different conditions. The adjustments they made are by far not enough. What they did (the 2nd time) was just shortening the signal into 3ns pulses, separated by about 500ns. Some physicists seem to think, if (potential) timing errors and or errors in distance measurement are taken care of, the (powerful) "sigma 6" signal will simply disappear rather easily.
@Wrath0fKhan No I'm saying I do know how far back it would go, because it follows the same kind of laws of relativity that everything else would follow just from the faster than light side and the slower than light side.
You can still plug velocities higher than c into a Lorentz transform and get back a negative imaginary time. But unless it's going really really faster than light, the amount of backwards time dilation will be as small as forwards time dilation for everyday objects.
I agree, but does it "really" apply? As Einstein said, freely paraphrasing; if this theory is true, go and look there and there, make your measurements and you will see this and that. So put "your" theory to the limit, too.
According to well established conservative "interpretation" of QFT, even spin zero superluminal particles (e.g. tachyons) make it unstable and collapsing fast. Not to speak of spin half fermions (e.g. nu). So something will be definitely wrong "here".
@Wrath0fKhan (Part 1) "I agree, but does it "really" apply?"
Good point. Actually come to think about it it really doesn't make sense to bring superluminal neutrinos into the conversation at all anyway, since neutrinos are not involved in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment in the first place. And the electrons that are observed in it, obey good old fashioned relativistic speed limits (as well as the photons that might exchange between them and the slits).
My point was specifically about the neutrinos. You said we could make certain calculations, which we surely can. The other part of the "equation" is, whether we can make the implied measurements, whether the broader already established theory remains consistent, etc.
DCQEs, from a conservative pov show nothing else but a very tight correlation (no HVs, no pilot waves, no quaternions, no real "probabilistic waves", etc.) This follows from Zeilingers (open) lecture, too.
Actually not at the most fundamental level. See the output of a QC is the quantum observables of a particle. Except in QM the quantum observables are what define the particle completely. This is why you can teleport a particle but just teleporting it's properties.The particle actually IS it's properties -or it's information.
@Wrath0fKhan (Part 1) Right, but the point is that all we observe is measurements anyway. We never actually observe any matter behind those measurements. As Zeilinger says: "I suggest that in a similar way, the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made."
You know even if matter did exist how could we ever observe it anyway? All we can observe are observations. We can't tell if there's matter behind them.
@Wrath0fKhan (Part 3) As for QG I wasn't just referring to holography.Space-time emergess from spin-foam which is more fundamental than space-time in QG.
As for holography if it's correct (which almost it certainly is) then it means that objects are just the info on their 2-d surfaces -in other words there's nothing "behind" what you see. Your 2-d surface observation is reality.
The Ibis experiment ruled out some models not all. Susskind actually doubted it could be tested like that at all.
@Wrath0fKhan You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Nothing you are saying in any of your comments changes the outcome of the experiment, the science behind it, the theory or the implications contained thereof.
"Nothing you are saying ... changes the outcome of the experiment"
Thats because you didnt quote me once withing context. You are starting to discredit yourself. Secondly, IF there are FTL signals (just like potentially FTL neutrinos), the underlying theory may change).
"implications contained thereof"
You and possibly Johanan seem to have the same problem concerning the implications of this experiment (and similar ones) as they currently stand.
@Wrath0fKhan "same problem concerning the implications of this experiment"
I've seen this argued before by regular physicists. In fact there is even now a reformulation of QM called Quantum Information Theory that argues that the universe is a quantum computer and not material. This also fits very well into the larger "It from bit" paradigm that has emerged from modern Quantum Gravity.
There are a lot of major physicists thinking this now. It's not a crazy idea like it might seem.
Is a material object (even if a very subtle one) according to my understanding.
"Quantum Gravity"
Presupposes the existence of two dimensional objects with specific implication for "our world." Many variants of QG and even of ST were implicitly disproved by the recent Integral/Ibis collaboration (thanks to their unprecedented, even mind-boggling precision of measurement).
"However, the cutting edge field of optogenetics has showed us that "transplanting" specific memories (and or "qualia circuits") is in principle possible."
Utterly irrelevant to the experiment & the subject matter of the video.
The issue here is not "subjective experience", the experiment goes to the very nature of reality.
@Wrath0fKhan I quoted you well within context.....you are dancing around and all over the place looking for excuses to nitpick and argue, without any real counter argument.
You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
I think you suffer from paranoia...."exposed"??! Are you serious?
YOU have been exposed. You don't know what you are talking about. "Do an experiment without breathing"
@KT "within context" Of course not!!! Why? Because the "breathing" experiment had absolutely nothing to do with this one experiment! But you still dont get it!!! It was genuinely an experiment about breathing air!!!!!!!!! "arguing for the sake" BS again! "paranoia" Really... How about a gentlemans bet? "exposed" Yip. "breathing" Sure. Why shouldnt JR do one (such experiment(? I think it would prosper him in several ways. "bong" I dont take any drugs. Youd better get off the pills.
@JohananRaatz Your claims have been refuted time after time by Dhorpatan, yet you continue to spew your non sense because you're married to this god hypothesis of yours. Quantum information theory is theoretical and speculation at this time, and you treat it as proven fact which is dishonest. You claim that quantum information is the same as consciousness right? but no one knows yet what consciousness is, so your claim is ambiguous and begs questions and yet answers nothing. Do you have an MA?
Are you serious? That guy knows next to nothing about physics -except for a general lay persons knowledge. Even some of my physics friends (as in MA's) who happen to be atheists think he's a joke.
"Do you have an MA?"
No I have a BA. Do you have any background in physics at all? And would you like me to show you why most of Dhorpatan's arguments fail automatically? (I can detail this) He doesn't even think space-time bends in contradiction to relativity.
@JohananRaatz Mind is a function of brain like walking a function of legs. If you say different your committing the logical fallacy of known as the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness. I dare you to tell Hawkings that matter doesn't exist. He hasn't written a book with out mentioning it.
In particular the mind is a part of it -the quantum information carried by the ions in the microtubules. But it's not a "function" it's a thing.
"misplaced concreteness"
I'm not misplacing concreteness, because I'm not saying there is concreteness in the first place, just the appearance of concreteness. Sure the brain exists but it's not matter. Matter "exists" but only as an illusion of quantum information. That's what QIT and Wheeler's "It from Bit" show us.
@JohananRaatz Everything that exists is matter / energy and to say that you have a physics degree and yet you dont know what matter is -is silly and sad. Experiences qualia are products of the brain Dr Tyson and Prof Dawkins have pointed this out. Don't waste my time if your going to be so daft :- )
@MasterMysterion (part 2) "Everything that exists is matter / energy"
First of all this experiment (the DCQE) shows that this is demonstrably false. All that exists physically is the APPEARANCE of matter/energy.
Secondly this is question begging. What evidence/arguments do you have that there is anything behind the appearance of matter/energy? If you can't provide any, then I will have to assume that you are just presupposing naive realism without a non-circular reason to do so.
No, you're daft. You need to take a philosophy of mind course. Qualia are the CORRELATES of brain states. However beyond that science is not methodologically allowed to say anything further.
"what matter is"
I know what it is in physics, but I meant as an ontological question. And even in physics I only know what it is in terms of it's properties -which are all reducible to qualia ultimately. Please take some philosophy.
@JohananRaatz If you don't tell me what you mean by info? what it's made of I cannot confirm the validity of your claim no matter how many times you appeal to authority. Saying that matter doesn't exist for the reasons you do, is fallacious and you keep forgetting the theoretics of you theories.
@JohnananRaatz Matter can be experienced so when you say matter I have some understanding. When you say information however I am not sure unless your talking about letters or some type of symbology. Thus if you can't tell me in any meaningful sense what your talking about I have no reason to think that you even know what your talking about. Just like when theists try to define ontology with functionality or reification. :- )
Well here's the subtle problem though. (and most people miss this). When you experience the external world you experience qualia (such as redness, fuzziness, loudness etc.) and not actually matter.
All of these subjective experiences are immaterial yet without them you would theoretically have no conception of matter. So now if we add matter to these immaterial experiential states as a substance wouldn't that create substance dualism?
@MasterMysterion (part 2) "Thus if you can't tell me in any meaningful sense what your talking about I have no reason"
So now that is why I can't meaningfully make any sense of the concept of matter. I can't know what you mean when you say it, because all I have a meaningful sense of are experiential states (redness, fuzziness loudness etc.) or perhaps thoughts as well and not matter in itself.
All of these things are or can be broken down into information of Platonic essence not matter.
Also, it'd be great if you could make a video on Modal Realism, and another further explaining how Orch-OR, and any predictions or observations it has made and if there are any other quantum mind or classical alternatives.
I'm also having trouble understanding what interpretation of quantum mechanics you are arguing for. So in yours there are no hidden variables, wave functions are real, and they collapse, non-locality, the observer plays an active role. Unique histories?
Actually I had one in mind on this I hope to make in the near future.
"are no hidden variables,"
Yes, though I will make a caveat to that. In my Physics of the Hidden World video I have non-local hidden variables for the spatial component of the wave-function. However to get that you need a single-wave-function collapse at each Planck time (which is probabilistic) as a sort of "input value" to get the quantum computer set.
Ah, so that non-local hidden variable isn't one which conflicts with Bell's theorem then? Because BT only deals with those attempting to explain non-locality in cases like entanglement?
@ErebusGodOvDarkness Yes, Bell's theorem just provided a test to rule out local hidden variables. Bell's theorem grew out of a way to test the claims of EPR (Einstein Podolsky and Rosen) who insisted that if quantum mechanics were correct, (without local hidden variables) we'd have spooky action at a distance (entanglement, which they thought was impossible). Bell basically provided a test to determine if there is indeed entanglement -thereby showing that nature actually is non-local anyway.
@JohananRaatz until you have at least an MA I'm not interest or impressed. What is this info made of if you say something non sensical again convo over.
@MasterMysterion (Part 1) As far as you're concerned I could just be a hack, but there's an entire paradigm in physics emerging around this idea called "It from Bit," motivated by experiments like this and current findings in quantum gravity.
"an MA I'm not interest"
Let me turns this around, do you have any scientific training at all or are you just talking out of your ass? And what do you make of Anton Zeilinger's quote?
Please prove that matter exists. Until then you have no argument.
@JohananRaatz What do you mean when you say info? words on a page? If all you can do is say information then all your doing is begging the question and being ambiguous yet again.
The act of existence projects information. The trajectories of particles projects information about their momentum, velocity, density, heat, etc. Existence is information. E-waves project information, and since waves are dimensional, they can only traverse into a dimensional state. However, "information is information it is neither matter nor energy" Norbert Weiner, Cybernetics.
Dimensions are T1 through T2 via expansion of Big Bang. Dimensions require two points not one.
Since everything vibrates, then everything is projecting information via velocity or speed, etc. The Conservation of Energy is simultaneusly projecting the Conservation of Information. Since a conscious state collapses the wave-function, then, we can presume that E cannot become M until an observer collapses it into existence.
Since dimensions cannot exist within a single potential point_T1, then, dimensions are by-products of the big bang via T1 through T2.
And since T1 DOES exist, prior to expansion towards T2 ( Big Bang), then, we know that "existence is information" therefore, T1 possesses "information" within it's dimension_less & motion_less state. T1 is the unmovable mover position. It posseses the present, the past & future ( being eternal) at the same time via absence of relative time & relative motion.
T1 eternal time and T1 eternal information co-exists without relative time, relative dimensions and relative motion.
@MasterMysterion "What do you mean when you say info? words on a page?"
No, that's the representation of information. By information I mean primary sensory/empirical data or mental conceptions. We then use language and words to represent this information, but that is just the representation. And from what we've been able to tell from experiments such as the quantum eraser and deductions in quantum gravity there isn't anything "behind" that sensory data. Reality starts and stops with it.
@JohananRaatz I'm not the one making the claims -you are! So i'll ask you once more do you have an MA? That is the requirement for an authoritative teaching position in the field.
@MasterMysterion I believe I already told you. I have a BA not an MA.
"for an authoritative teaching position"
This is an appeal to authority in reverse. You can examine my arguments regardless, and easily do some research to verify that all of the physics here is right. Besides that I can point to PhD's and even Nobel Laureates that agree with my position. Surely if you want authority that should be more than sufficient.
Besides you don't need an MA to understand the essentials here.
Well ideas, or if want to think of it ontologically "Platonic type essence."
"Saying that matter doesn't exist for the reasons you do, is fallacious"
I'm saying it doesn't exist because we don't have any evidence for it. The evidence we thought we had for it (that it was the cause behind our perceptions) was shown not be exist via the DCQE experiment. (assuming relativity's is correct and the speed of light is an absolute limit).
This video might debunk historical materialism, but does nothing for example for eliminative materialism or any other post historical materialism.
Johanan what's the reason you still make these video's? For me it's like listening to Christian apologists, who claim that logical positivism debunked means that pre-modernism is true. They probably don't understand post positivism.
AlainG80 1 week ago
@AlainG80 Well I'd agree that it's nothing "non-natural." Though in a context where matter is gone, it would be a bit difficult to draw a demarking line between "natural" and "non-natural" anyway.
I make them because it opens up fun cans of worms when you add things like the Simulation Argument or Whiteheadian monistic idealism into the mix. Though I'm planning actually to be making videos on other things in a bit -politics, the drake equation, CDT, quantum biology etc.
JohananRaatz 1 week ago
I like your videos and I find the message interesting, not that I agree or disagree. I thought today about this video, and I was pondering the idea that the electrons are always particles, then the difference is on the distribution of their trayectories and how the electrons trajectories seem to be guided differently when observed, if looked at it this way, the effect could still be hapenning at the speed of light when the background screen is removed.
am101171 2 weeks ago
this test was unreliable.y?because the truth is, our thoughts and consciousness affect things. thus if you are planning on testing it, you must make it double blind.you must have someone install the camera who doesn't know about the experiment.u must have someone install the machine that doesn't know about the camera nor the seeking of observation. and it wouldn't help to have a third person to fire the machine.otherwise, the particles will react based on our thoughts of planning to observe it.
carlsonap16 3 weeks ago
@carlsonap16 Hi there, based on what you just said, the test *is* reliable and actually proves the argument you just made!
best wishes
KTK401 2 weeks ago
@KTK401 is there a detailed abstract which lists all he steps and mechanics of the experiment so it can be repeated?
carlsonap16 2 weeks ago
@carlsonap16 Yes, this is a very well known experiment, as pointed out in the video.
regards
KTK401 2 weeks ago
Here is my problem. You assumed Option 1 false because speed of light barrier. But when one observes a particle, its wave form collapses into a narrow peak, and this must take faster than the speed of light.
If you are going to say we cannot travel faster than the speed of light, you would also have to throw away the statistical to observable method of QM, yes? We must be consistent about the cosmetic speed limit.
zieben64 3 weeks ago
@zieben64 "its wave form collapses into a narrow peak, and this must take faster than the speed of light."
Right, but that is the effect that is teased out here. The idea is that isn't really consistent with a material reality. Another example of it is in entanglement -which taken to the extreme also implies a holographic universe with the space and everything in it being a sort of illusion of the qubits encoded on a holographic surface.
JohananRaatz 3 weeks ago
@JohananRaatz I still don't understand how you can talk about the wave nature of the universe, and then say nothing can travel faster than c. It is a contradiction.
Which part are you throwing out between the two?
zieben64 3 weeks ago
@zieben64 The waves don't actually propagate faster than light. They are already spread out through the entire universe without diminishing -the wave-functions making up the universe are free-particle wave-functions (sine waves). So when something happens in one place it can affect some other place non-locally not because information was sent faster than c, but because the waves phase velocity (which has no information) is faster than c. Same deal with a "human wave" at a ball game.
JohananRaatz 3 weeks ago
@JohananRaatz Alright, thanks! I'm sure I'll have more questions.
So what they key difference between this view of the world and the Bohr statistical method. everything is like a computer program, what does that mean? I'm no computer programmer haha
zieben64 3 weeks ago
@zieben64 "computer program..mean?"
You'll see! ;-) It's a bit of a mind-bender: watch?v=0qiLLrmyqTM
"Bohr statistical method."
The difference is that it looks random but isn't because the causes are hidden away in some entirely different location. Think like a voodoo doll affecting someone even though it's a mile away, but on the subatomic scale instead. Now I don't agree with this completely, I think there is some indeterminism in the time dependent part, but that's another story.
JohananRaatz 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
zieben64 3 weeks ago
I remember watching this in physical science a long time ago.
FR0STY0115 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 "the double slit experiment did no such thing"
You apparently didn't watch the video then. It wasn't about the double slit experiment, the double slit experiment is just needed to understand the delayed choice quantum eraser.
"silly boy"
Tell me, Roger Penrose, is a highly respected mathematician and physicist, he used Godel's theorem to argue that Platonic information exists and that it is encoded at the Planck scale. Is he a silly boy as well?
Just saying.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz Well I watched now. Let me say that your presuppositions include magic Gods who created everything. I couldn't possibly trust anything you say. If you're this highly educated to understand such matters then you're also highly deluded. Do you think Roger Penrose has come to the same conclusion about Gods that you have? That's rhetorical of course. What information do you have that others don't? Yet another false dichotomy here. I'm going with option number three.
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 "magic Gods"
A.) This video has NOTHING to do with "magic Gods." It's about consequences in ontology from physics. So that's non sequiter straw man.
B.) I don't think the universe came from a "magic" God. I agree with Hawking that it came from the wave-fcn of the universe, which also happens to be a mind via Orch-OR. ;-)
C.) And what 3rd option? Materialism is either true or it isn't.
"same conclusion about Gods"
No, but Stuart Hameroff, and Paola Zizzi have.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz You never answered my question of what conclusion a physicist like Penrose has come to about Gods. This is of course because as a Theist you've come to a conclusion about Gods with no evidence for such things. In other words you're not honest. This is my point about the conclusions you've jumped to in this video. Other experts would say that they're sure of many things. Materialism, wave-fcn of the universe and more. But not you, you seem to know. You're dishonest.
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 (Part 1) Penrose,doesn't attach theistic significance to his views, other colleagues of his do.
"no evidence"
Then I'm sure you can show me what's wrong with my argument:
1.) Self-collapsing wave-fcns are minds (Orch-OR -and I can supplement this)
2.) The wave-fcn of the universe is self-collapsing.
Therefore it's a mind.
"jumped"
Prove it then. You haven't addressed the reasoning other than the one where you insist that "either X or ~X" is a false dichotomy.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz Hey Johanan, hope you're keeping well buddy
Anyway, my thoughts on this debacle. This guy doesn't *understand* the evidence you provided, and then rejects it, saying "you didn't provide evidence"
Illogical to say the least
Personally, I would say don't waste your time, and devote your time with those who are interested in genuine debate!
"You haven't addressed the reasoning other than the one where you insist that "either X or ~X" is a false dichotomy"
Exactly!
KTK401 2 weeks ago
@KTK401 Lol I know, I've talked to him in private chats before. He doesn't accept evidence or arguments when you show him. He's really just a silly anti-theist troll. Don't bother with him.
JohananRaatz 2 weeks ago
@JohananRaatz I was just thinking that before I got your message! :)
Also, yes you are right, but he keeps spamming my inbox, I was just toying with him.
Anyway, lets get back on track.
I enjoyed your recent comments on this thread!
KTK401 2 weeks ago
@bigboy45454545 (Part 2) "the conclusions you've jumped to"
Then point out where I've jumped to a conclusion. Otherwise this is just a random bare assertion.
"experts would say that they're sure of many things."
And one of those things they are sure of is digital physics -the same thing I'm arguing here, and for the same reasons.
"You're dishonest."
So I'm dishonest because I'm coming to the same conclusions as the experts on materialism and for the same reasons? Explain.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 Johanan is not dishonest, you just don't get what he is saying.
"you've come to a conclusion about Gods with no evidence for such things"
First of all Johanan, like most of us does not believe in "gods", but what he has already presented provided evidence for universal consciousness.
You just don't understand it so you are getting all histrionic and over emotional and railing against it.
You can't understand the evidence you so say he didn't provide any. lol
KTK401 2 weeks ago
@KTK401 The supernatural including your magic God(s) does not need to be disproved. Something presented without evidence can easily be dismissed without evidence. This includes your Gods. Mr. Raatz has not provided evidence for universal consciousness. You are mistaken Sir.
doubtingBob 2 weeks ago
@doubtingBob Well this video isn't about any magic gods.
I have demonstrated in a different video however, that assuming substance dualism is false (a modest assumption) that the collapse process must be ontologically the same as either a conscious observation or an unconscious measurement. From this it follows that self-collapse = self-observation (consciousness).
From there it's easy to show that the wave-function of the universe is self-observing as it is self-collapsing.
JohananRaatz 2 weeks ago
@doubtingBob Sorry but you are talking gibberish here.
I am not mistaken. I have proof :)
Johanan presented the evidence and you reject it and shriek that he provided no evidence. Stop wasting everyone's time please, we call this the "chewbacca defence" !!
If you don't understand the evidence being presented, you can just say so you know! lol
"Mr. Raatz has not provided evidence for universal consciousness. "
He can, and he did.
Best wishes
KTK401 2 weeks ago
@KTK401 So what is Mr. Raatz's evidence for universal consciousness? I understand perfectly what the video is stating and no evidence for a universal consciousness was provided. A brain is required for consciousness. No brain means no consciousness. Can you provide examples of where consciousness exists without a brain? Please indicate evidence for this. Assertions without evidence are meaningless and unscienentific. Mr. Raatz's assertions are unscientific. Mr. Raatz is not a scientist.
doubtingBob 2 weeks ago
@doubtingBob "evidence for..."
The same as Zizzi's or Hameroff's when I emailed him about it -Universal Orch-OR.
"consciousness... without a brain"
In any system that is isolated from the environment long enough to allow for Orch-OR. Just ask Hameroff.
"Please indicate evidence for this."
It's called the observer effect.
"unscientific"
I'm not a scientist, but I do have a background in science and my assertions aren't unscientific. Everything I have I can back up.
JohananRaatz 2 weeks ago
@doubtingBob Thank you for being the only logical person in this gross misrepresentation of the complexities of quantum physics. People, will often manipulate and skew science to favor their own beliefs; in this case, a sense that we're at "one" with the universe and that consciousness (whatever that means) is greater than any one of us. The annoying metaphysical aspect applied to physical science, especially one as baffling as quantum physics is somewhat inevitable however.
XSilvenX 2 weeks ago
@XSilvenX "manipulate and skew science" "we're at "one" with the universe" "that consciousness is greater than any one of us"
That isn't what's being claimed though. What's being claimed is quantum mind theory, Orch-OR (which is held by major scientists -Penrose, Hameroff, Zizzi et al) and that the universe is informational rather than material at bottom, "It from bit" (also held by major scientists -Smolin, Wheeler, Zeilinger et al) -and the direct conclusions that come from these.
JohananRaatz 1 week ago
@XSilvenX LOL, you wish! This is mainstream physics now. Materialism is dead, get your head out of the 1800's. Go look up Alain Aspect's experiments.
IoPizzaPlanet 1 week ago 2
@JohananRaatz I'm going to run away screaming now because without evidence of many things you seem to know about many things other experts can't know about. This includes your Gods. I've seen many comments of yours which confirms you beliefs in Gods to others on your own videos and other videos. The big question is; how do you know this? And I'm running away now. BTW, you won. You sure showed me. I can't deal with you illogical Theists.
bigboy45454545 1 month ago
@bigboy45454545 "other experts can't know about."
LOL! This is patently dishonest. Didn't you see the part where Seth Lloyd was agreeing with me that the universe is a quantum computer? Physicists have already come to the conclusion that the universe is information at bottom. I'm just popularizing this conclusion.
"This includes your Gods."
Again, a complete non sequiter to this video.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz
"C.) And what 3rd option? Materialism is either true or it isn't."
Well said my friend. :)
Also, it's worth noting that Roger Penrose has no position on "gods".
KTK401 2 weeks ago
Who made this animation? Where is this from?
ZanimaDeepkoreX 1 month ago
@ZanimaDeepkoreX Just look up "double-slit experiment" it's bouncing around youtube.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz Ok, thanks.
ZanimaDeepkoreX 1 month ago
@St00sh13 "The light interacts with the light cells"
Good so far, but keep going: How do the wave-functions of the atoms of the rods and cones in your eye get collapsed?
"It doesn't interact with a consciousness"
So are you saying consciousness does not interact with anything physical?
"interacts with whichever piece of aparatus"
Yes, and how is the wave-function of the apparatus collapsed? Also is there something ontologically different between a measuring apparatus and a mind?
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
You misunderstand the act of observation at the quantum level.
When you observe something at our level, you are not observing the thing itself, but the light that bounces off it.
When you observe something at the quantum level, it means having to actually interact with that thing (be it an electron or whatever), so it's not some magical consciousness affecting the result, it is interacting with the electron in order to observe it that is affecting the result.
St00sh13 1 month ago
@St00sh13 "the light that bounces off"
How does the wave-function of that particular photon get collapsed?
"not some magical consciousness" "interacting with the electron"
Well it isn't anything magical, but if we are to assume that substance dualism is false, then it logically follows that an interaction with a mind (a conscious observation) is ontologically the same as an interaction with an electron. Unless minds and electrons are made of different stuff and dualism is true.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
Absolutely brilliant.
two45triox 1 month ago
@two45triox Thanks! Tell me what you make of this one: watch?v=0qiLLrmyqTM
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz Great video, but I don't get the Second Life experiment. Can you message me some explanation.
two45triox 1 month ago
@two45triox I saw it in an article that seems to be off the internet now. Basically what happened was the computer couldn't completely process both objects (the cup and the marble) at once for an extended period of time, and so it temporarily "gave up" some of the programming for the position of the marble, causing it to appear outside of the cup. The computer then just kept processing the marble afterwards as though it was outside the cup.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
AstralEtheric 1 month ago 4
Berkeley was right! That is the only other alternative to the universe being a "quantum computer".
And the reasonable one, taking our consciousness into account,.
joseypussycat 1 month ago
@joseypussycat Yup! Actually if you're curious I have a few other videos on how it could make sense for something like Berkeleyanism to be right. The laws of physics actually make much more sense emerging from information processing than they do from atomism, and of course information processing is something minds do: watch?v=0qiLLrmyqTM
And then here's a little exercise on what the laws of physics would look like if they were the result of pure thought: watch?v=ELxupWHZnOE
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
Evidence says nothing in itself. It's the interpreation that matters. The intrepretation of experiments comes from a fundemental philosophical theory of reality which for modern quantum physics is a sort of empirical-positivism and mysticism which is from the on-set opposed to and contradictory to physicalism. Using that to then debunk physicalism is begging the question. It does not follow from the experiments in this video that the particles only came into existence when they were observed.
Esoparagon 2 months ago
@Esoparagon "interpreation that matters."
That doesn't matter either now. All of the interpretations that could have saved some kind of material realism have been ruled out by various experiments. In fact there is now a Quantum Crackpot Randi Challenge for anyone claiming to have a local realist interpretation of QM. If you can prove that space isn't illusory you get the Nobel Prize.
And it's question begging to say that science can prove that there is anything behind observation.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
I remember watching something like this in my physics class in highschool which was about 2 years ago.
lilrat489 2 months ago
You're completely misunderstanding this experiment because you're misled as to what the measuring device is. It's not a "camera" in the traditional sense of the word. It's a device that must interact with the particle/wave in order to measure its location which has Heisenberg consequences. I seriously hope you're not suggesting that consciousness creates reality with this nonsense.
After all what exactly IS information ontologically? Mustn't information itself be made of some sort of material?
Wittgensteinism 2 months ago
@Wittgensteinism "It's not a "camera""
It's still a measuring device -replace with photodetector if you want. It's a generic "measurer."
"not suggesting"
No, my mind is not anymore special than a photodetector. It can collapse wave-fcns equally well as unconscious systems. Though the converse of this is that from Wigner's Friend we find that collapse is ontologically protophenomenal and relative to the measurer: watch?v=crzgOuUtvrg
"be made"
Not necessarily.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@JohananRaatz Wigner's Friend is based on the same false premise that our consciousnesses have anything to do with these experiments. As in the case of Schrodinger's Cat, where Wigner's Friend is relevant, the measuring device is the Geiger counter, and thus it matters not what any one person perceives.
Quantum mechanics does not introduce the mind of the observer into these experiments. Schrodinger's Cat was used by Schrodinger to prove just this point.
See Heisenberg's quotes on this issue
Wittgensteinism 2 months ago
@Wittgensteinism (Part 1) "Wigner's Friend is based on the same false premise that our consciousnesses have anything to do"
So in other words Geiger counters can collapse wave-functions but minds can't because they are made of some magical substance different than the material of the Geiger counter? I didn't realize you were a substance dualist.
"the measuring device is the Geiger counter,"
And how does the wave-function of the Geiger counter get collapsed?
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohananRaatz "Geiger counters can collapse wave-functions but minds can't" What your mind does is to process the information given by your eyes, so if anything can cause any wave-function collapsing, it´s your eyes, not your mind. This experiment in fact refutes your point. If the mind is the one interfering with the system, why scientists must resort to a particle detector? If your eye can´t cause wave-function collapse, much less minds that needs eyes to be aware of traveling particles.
lfzadra 1 month ago
@Wittgensteinism (part 2) "Heisenberg"
I agree that the mind doesn't exclusively collapse wave-fcns,just that it's able to (assuming it's not made of some magic spirit stuff that a Geiger counter isn't).
But you're not going to like Heisenberg:
“modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
So if we're in a quantum computer then we really are in a matrix simulation? The question is why?
4umy 2 months ago
@4umy Well two possible ways to answer that.
1.) Simulation argument: watch?v=_cKj3kx4NTY
2.) It's a quantum computer without an outside, and reality is fundamentally just Platonic. In other words all that exists are ideas: watch?v=ELxupWHZnOE
And of course with #1.) the most likely simulator is the Omega Point, which is identical to the wave-function of the universe (ie. what we know to be God via Universal Orch-OR). Which then comes full circle and meshes very nicely with #2.)
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@Incephaly Actually I have. I majored in physics in college.
As for your assertion about my peers. The "it from bit" paradigm (informationalism) is actually fairly popular among physicists today, more so when we get into more fundamental theoretical physics. In fact it seems that a full theory of quantum gravity will not be possible without some kind of digital physics. I can show you lots of famous physicists like this if you want.
"don't mislead"
I don't know where you got that idea.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
Chilling. It seems like while we are still learning the programming language of reality we have either found the first bug or maybe need to go back to the mathematical drawing board and reconsider whether or not 1+1 is really 2.
ZeerosFate 2 months ago
@ZeerosFate Well 1+1=2, but 1 and 2, proverbially speaking, aren't what they seem anymore. ;)
"It seems like while we are still learning the programming language of reality we have either found the first bug"
Now check this out. If the world is a quantum computer that raises another question: Can it be hacked? watch?v=Jzfj4R52Q6I
Of course this would likely entail a very advanced civilization to pull off, but just the thought of it is very intriguing.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@JohananRaatz Well, when I said 1+1 I was thinking more about synergy, which I consider another puzzling concept. I'll check out the video about hacking because that's somewhere close to my alley.
ZeerosFate 2 months ago
@stringprodigy Actually, to be truthful. The matrix does not represent this truth in the slightest, the matrix portrayed in the movie is actually materialism taken to it's extreme. For within the matrix nothing is real or existent and is simply being generate by another somehow more real material world. The great philosopher Christopher Ott points this out and elaborates this in his work, the little-known masterpeice "The Evolution of Perception and the Cosmology of Substance".
soldatheero 2 months ago
@soldatheero This is true, technically. Though at the same time the spirit of the films was anti-materialist or anti-realist. By separating information from physical existence, it gives you a concrete way to think of the world as immaterial.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
Looks like Meher Baba was right all along,
"God is infinite reality, whereas cosmos is infinite illusion. But both are not infinite in the same sense. God is one infinite, and illusion is infinite in numbers. God is infinite unity, and illusion infinite duality. Always God is. All along illusion is not. Illusion or no illusion, God remains beginningless and endless, while illusion has a beginning in illusion and it also ends in illusion. The infinite illusion includes infinite number of suns"
soldatheero 2 months ago 4
Professor of philosophy, Dr. Sprigge, proposes pantheistic idealism to explain reality; that reality is the mind of God. He's not too far off in light of this video.
Oppositum 2 months ago
@Oppositum Well you've seen my videos on Universal Orch-OR right? :D watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
We're living in the Matrix my friend. :)
Stringprodigy 3 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stringprodigy yes and it's good to have taken the green pill! :)
KTK401 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Could Quantum Physics represent a process of continuous change that we see and feel as the flow of time itself?
The future is always uncertain!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event
nickharvey7 3 months ago
How long can you make it without breathing (air)? Try it... Warmly recommended! Its the experiment that debunks the "debunking" part. :-)
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan You think that's air you're breathing now?
Hmm...
@2:30: watch?v=KRIKyNQOHvw
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
"You think thats air youre breathing now"
Why would you equivocate, bro? Lets try "that" experiment first. :-)
"2:30"
Havent you missed the more important part (i.e. 2:46)? No equivocations (complaining, etc.) are allowed. Stay true to the principle (e.g. of demonstrability). Either you "deliver" or you dont. And since you are betting on odds of the order of googolplexes, I would be stupid not to bet against! ;-)
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan You miss the point.The point is not really whether air exists or not. Obviously it does. The point is that it's not actually made of matter,but that "matter" as we commonly conceive of it is actually quantum information with nothing going on behind it.
Saying that I should stop breathing to prove matter doesn't exist, so that you can prove that matter does exist, doesn't actually prove your point, because you haven't proven that there is any "stuff" to empirical reality (air etc.)
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JR
"miss the point"
Im really disappointed, because right now (i.e. just after reading these 3 words) I see where its going - the direction of equivocation.
"Q I"
Just like qbuits (the measurable, hence demonstrable ones).
"nothing going on behind it"
If I take this literally, you may have some point here. The probabilistic waves are not real, propagating, measurable waves (see world class experimentalist prof Zeilinger).
"empirical reality"
Obviously it does (ref to your 3rd sentence).
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan "Stay true to the principle (e.g. of demonstrability)."
Ok, I can demonstrate that what I know exists of air are my empirical sensations of it. I can not empirically demonstrate that there is any matter behind that.
So my two questions to you are. How does my not breathing support your assumption? And two can you empirically demonstrate that there is any matter behind your empirical sensations?
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JR
"I can not ... that there is any matter behind that"
Sounds like a play on words to me. No air no fun - you seem to agree at least at some level there.
"How does my not breathing support your assumption"
It will immediately show us that "air" exists (which you seemed to have admitted at least at some level) and that you need it for breathing (i.e. measurement) or you will end up in trouble. Something we can measure. (Yes, we can even devise a machine demonstrating this, too.)
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan (Part 2) "Sounds like a play on words to me"
It's not a play on words.You'd agree that your sensory experience of the matter isn't the same as the matter right? If not you could in principle just have sensory experience and the material world would just be an illusion of that. All we can REALLY know is that the sensory experience exists. In fact you'd have a substance dualism between matter and experience otherwise.
"immediately show"
But what's real the measurement or the air?
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JR
"Youd agree that ... isnt the same as the matter"
Not the to be experienced matter. The experiencing (measuring) one (finding itself in a very special configuration).
"have SE and the material world would just be an illusion of that"
If you can optogenetically manipulate my synapses, you eventually could achieve something like that. Yet what does this "set up" presuppose? Indeed, an elaborate (material) "setup." And I bet a thousand EUR you cant do without it. ;-)
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@JR
"SD"
Hasnt been fully ruled out yet. Maybe even it cant be ruled out fully ever. Yet how practical is it to assume it is "operative"? A photon wont tell you. Neither will a quark or gluon. As it appears, you need a very special configuration of several of these "things" (e.g. at the level of biochemistry, accessible to optogenetics) to get a meaningful response. SD looks like a division/composition fallacy to me. And even if not, you still cant get away of matter and measurement.
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan Well ok, operatively for most practical cases (assuming one is not doing stuff with entanglement quantum computers or the delayed choice quantum erase) yes it is functionally material. However the fact that it isn't actually material has some interesting consequences both for theoretical physics and significant consequences in philosophy.
And you can get matter away from measurement. A dream or a computer simulation for example has stuff that seems completely material yet isn't.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
In any case, have fun, bro!
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
"But whats real the measurement or the air"
I dont see this as a dichotomy. I believe both have to be real (and very tightly correlated at the most fundamental level).
Made out of nothing, of course. ;-)
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@JR
"empirically demonstrate ... matter behind your empirical sensations"
Not entirely yet. My stance is rather a very practical "philosophical" one. However, the cutting edge field of optogenetics has showed us that "transplanting" specific memories (and or "qualia circuits") is in principle possible.
You know; those memories of those poor tortured flies were (optogenetically) transplanted into flies without experience, practically making them feel haunted already under the 1st stimulus.
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan (Part 1) "Not entirely yet."
You couldn't do that though -even in principle. From a purely philosophic angle for all you know you might be in a dream. But the what I'm arguing in this video is that you can't do that anyway, because the opposite has actually been confirmed to be true. For matter to be causing what we see, signals would have to be going far faster than light, in violation of relativity.
Also there are at least two others ways to demonstrate this with physics.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JR
"you couldnt do that though"
If you are addressing "entirely" (as in 100%), then you are right. What I mean by entirely, is rather becoming "operative." You know, just like with computers (and all the underlying "stuff" thats behind them).
"you know you might be in a dream"
Sure... Yet even that dream would be a very consistent one where I practically "must" rely on measurement, allowing me to derive an extremely "sharp picture" of itself. Otherwise ending up without air and fun. ;-)
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan "Sure... Yet even that dream would be a very consistent one where I practically "must" rely on measurement, allowing me to derive an extremely "sharp picture" of itself. Otherwise ending up without air and fun. ;-)"
What does any of what you are saying have to do with Quantum Mechanics?!!
KTK401 3 months ago
@JR
"FTL"
We will have to wait for the mysterious FTL neutrinos first. Still, I think it will be rather about some systematic mistake in their clock set up. However, experimentalists (see prof Zeilinger - a relevant authority) are practically certain there are no HVs in a QM system. His team is able to demonstrate this with ever greater precision, slowly approaching "Bells and co" ideal setup limits. FTL isnt presupposed, neither expected. Just a sharp, functional correlation is derived.
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan There are no faster than light neutrinos.
And in any case it - even if FTL were possible, (it's not) - it wouldn't change the experiment above...there are no neutrinos involved.
It seems you have completely misunderstood the subject matter of the experiment and the video.
regards
KTK401 3 months ago
@KTK
"there are no FTL neutrinos"
Did I claim there were? Since you didnt quote me... But then again, if it turn outs there are... (See the recent two OPERA experiments.)
"it wouldnt change the E above"
Of course it potentially would. They have no detectors there doing "the" job. (Some kind of "pilot wave" is possibly back in the game again.)
"experiment .. video"
There are plenty of other experiments.
Reality of QM according to the world foremost QM experimentalist
watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan Yes, you implied that the experiment above would be invalidated if there were FTL Neutrinos.
Neutrinos are not involved in the experiment above.
*rolls eyes*
Pilot Wave?!! Are you serious? Anton Zeilinger's ideas are in the same realm as the above ideas....are you being serious or just smoking something really strong?
Thanks for the link BTW.
regards
KTK401 3 months ago
@KT
"would be invalidated"
No... Possibly, or could be invalidated, not would be invalidated. So you are wrong again.
"N are not involved"
Since you cant measure them, you cant claim they are not involved.
"Pilot Wave"
I said "something" like that, yes.
"Zeilinger"
Exactly! He doesnt believe ANYTHING of THIS - no FTL, no pilot wave, no mind, instead his position is extremely "conservative" (i.e. sharp correlation, "non-omnisicent god", etc.). Thats what you guys dont understand.
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan Mr "Wath of Khan"
If you have a counter argument to the theory being proposed in the video and the experiment, please offer it.
Otherwise stop wasting our times with your pointless arguing with irrelevancies.
Pilot Wave. You mean David Bohm's interpretation of QM. Oh! You mean the same kind of thinking that Johanan & the rest of us lean toward...what's your point? None as usual.
Zeilinger doesn't have a POSITION on the implications of the experiment.
YOU don't understand.
KTK401 3 months ago
@KTK401
"If you have ... non as usual"
Sir, you are demonstrably a crackpot.
"Zeilinger doesnt have a position on the implications of the experiment"
This quote of yours demonstrate my previous assertion (by definition - as Zelinger clearly explains his position in the provided vid).
Have a nice day! :-)
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan No YOU are a crackpot.
You don't have a clue what this experiment is even about, nor do you understand it's implications and clearly you have no clue about the interpretation being offered.
I asked you for a sensible counter argument to the above. if you don't have any argument or counter theory to put forward, what is your point?
All we can see is that you are a blatherer.
You are obviously a nutcase who is seeking to argue for the sake of arguing.
KTK401 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan Where are neutrinos involved in the Quantum Eraser experiment above?
"Neutrinos can't be measured"
What!?!?!
KTK401 3 months ago
@KTK401 Neutrinos would have to be going A LOT faster than light to pull this off anyway. The superluminal neutrinos they've discovered are only going a smidge faster -within half a percent over the expected speed.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
"would have to be going a lot faster to pull this off anyway"
Sorry for popping in, yet you may not be right there. They dont have to be a lot faster, they just have to open the door to time travel. ;-)
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan Yes but time travel how far back? The negative time dilation of 60 billions of a second still wouldn't be enough.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
"time travel how far back"
I have no clue. Im going to wait until "that" experiment is reproduced under different conditions. The adjustments they made are by far not enough. What they did (the 2nd time) was just shortening the signal into 3ns pulses, separated by about 500ns. Some physicists seem to think, if (potential) timing errors and or errors in distance measurement are taken care of, the (powerful) "sigma 6" signal will simply disappear rather easily.
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan No I'm saying I do know how far back it would go, because it follows the same kind of laws of relativity that everything else would follow just from the faster than light side and the slower than light side.
You can still plug velocities higher than c into a Lorentz transform and get back a negative imaginary time. But unless it's going really really faster than light, the amount of backwards time dilation will be as small as forwards time dilation for everyday objects.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JR
I agree, but does it "really" apply? As Einstein said, freely paraphrasing; if this theory is true, go and look there and there, make your measurements and you will see this and that. So put "your" theory to the limit, too.
According to well established conservative "interpretation" of QFT, even spin zero superluminal particles (e.g. tachyons) make it unstable and collapsing fast. Not to speak of spin half fermions (e.g. nu). So something will be definitely wrong "here".
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan (Part 1) "I agree, but does it "really" apply?"
Good point. Actually come to think about it it really doesn't make sense to bring superluminal neutrinos into the conversation at all anyway, since neutrinos are not involved in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment in the first place. And the electrons that are observed in it, obey good old fashioned relativistic speed limits (as well as the photons that might exchange between them and the slits).
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
"DCQE"
My point was specifically about the neutrinos. You said we could make certain calculations, which we surely can. The other part of the "equation" is, whether we can make the implied measurements, whether the broader already established theory remains consistent, etc.
DCQEs, from a conservative pov show nothing else but a very tight correlation (no HVs, no pilot waves, no quaternions, no real "probabilistic waves", etc.) This follows from Zeilingers (open) lecture, too.
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan (part 2) "Is a material object"
Actually not at the most fundamental level. See the output of a QC is the quantum observables of a particle. Except in QM the quantum observables are what define the particle completely. This is why you can teleport a particle but just teleporting it's properties.The particle actually IS it's properties -or it's information.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
"observables"
Often predicted by theory, ultimately derived by measurement.
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan (Part 1) Right, but the point is that all we observe is measurements anyway. We never actually observe any matter behind those measurements. As Zeilinger says: "I suggest that in a similar way, the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made."
You know even if matter did exist how could we ever observe it anyway? All we can observe are observations. We can't tell if there's matter behind them.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan (Part 3) As for QG I wasn't just referring to holography.Space-time emergess from spin-foam which is more fundamental than space-time in QG.
As for holography if it's correct (which almost it certainly is) then it means that objects are just the info on their 2-d surfaces -in other words there's nothing "behind" what you see. Your 2-d surface observation is reality.
The Ibis experiment ruled out some models not all. Susskind actually doubted it could be tested like that at all.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
"ruled out some models"
Like 50-80%?
"Susskind"
Sure... Since it possibly kills his own pet variant of string theory... I woudlnt like it either.
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz Exactly! 60 Billionths of a second faster is not even close to fast enough.
KTK401 3 months ago
@KTK401
"It seems"
It seems you should have quoted me first and responded later. Cheers!
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Nothing you are saying in any of your comments changes the outcome of the experiment, the science behind it, the theory or the implications contained thereof.
KTK401 3 months ago
@KT
"You are ... of arguing"
BS...
"Nothing you are saying ... changes the outcome of the experiment"
Thats because you didnt quote me once withing context. You are starting to discredit yourself. Secondly, IF there are FTL signals (just like potentially FTL neutrinos), the underlying theory may change).
"implications contained thereof"
You and possibly Johanan seem to have the same problem concerning the implications of this experiment (and similar ones) as they currently stand.
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wrath0fKhan We don't have any problem.
You don't understand what is going on.
Give it a rest.
KTK401 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan "same problem concerning the implications of this experiment"
I've seen this argued before by regular physicists. In fact there is even now a reformulation of QM called Quantum Information Theory that argues that the universe is a quantum computer and not material. This also fits very well into the larger "It from bit" paradigm that has emerged from modern Quantum Gravity.
There are a lot of major physicists thinking this now. It's not a crazy idea like it might seem.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz
"QC"
Is a material object (even if a very subtle one) according to my understanding.
"Quantum Gravity"
Presupposes the existence of two dimensional objects with specific implication for "our world." Many variants of QG and even of ST were implicitly disproved by the recent Integral/Ibis collaboration (thanks to their unprecedented, even mind-boggling precision of measurement).
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan
"However, the cutting edge field of optogenetics has showed us that "transplanting" specific memories (and or "qualia circuits") is in principle possible."
Utterly irrelevant to the experiment & the subject matter of the video.
The issue here is not "subjective experience", the experiment goes to the very nature of reality.
KTK401 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan What?!
Conducting an experiment without breathing wouldn't "debunk" anything!!
Seriously....what?!?
KTK401 3 months ago
@KTK401
"Conducting an experiment without breathing wouldnt "debunk" anything"
LOL
Of course it would! Because the "not breathing" would be the integral part of the experiment.
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan Sorry but what on earth are you talking about?
Do the experiment with robots then....do you think that would even remotely change the outcome?!?!
What is "breathing"? What is air? It is the same "stuff" being talked about in the experiment....
With all due respect, what are you are trying to say is utterly irrelevant to the experiment and it's implications.
regards
KTK401 3 months ago
@KTK401
"Do the experiment with robots"
Why?!?!?! I see you dont get it...
"What is breathing, what is air"
Lets say we dont know and we propose some hypothesis and an experiment how to test it.
"With all due respect"
Oh... You (/still) dont get it... lo... With all due respect, quote me within context or just cease your funning.
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan No, YOU don't get it.
You don't have a SINGLE CLUE what you are talking about here.
KTK401 3 months ago
@KTK401
"No, you dont get it"
Since you didnt quote me within context, I strongly doubt your position.
"You dont have a single clue what you are talking about here"
Youve been exposed...
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan I quoted you well within context.....you are dancing around and all over the place looking for excuses to nitpick and argue, without any real counter argument.
You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
I think you suffer from paranoia...."exposed"??! Are you serious?
YOU have been exposed. You don't know what you are talking about. "Do an experiment without breathing"
Smoke your bong elsewhere please!
KTK401 3 months ago
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan Ok, the experiment was about breathing air....RIGHT!!! Was it a Biology experiment?!
LOL
You ARE Paranoid. And Histrionic.
"exposed" "yip"
YOU have been exposed. You don't have a clue what the experiment was truly about, nor what the interpretation being offered actually is.
Seriously, seek help.
And stop wasting our time.
KTK401 3 months ago
It seems the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.
InvincibleNumanist 3 months ago
great upload.
perception of reality is reality. believing is seeing.
we need more videos on this important subject.
superdiza 3 months ago
@JohananRaatz Your claims have been refuted time after time by Dhorpatan, yet you continue to spew your non sense because you're married to this god hypothesis of yours. Quantum information theory is theoretical and speculation at this time, and you treat it as proven fact which is dishonest. You claim that quantum information is the same as consciousness right? but no one knows yet what consciousness is, so your claim is ambiguous and begs questions and yet answers nothing. Do you have an MA?
MasterMysterion 4 months ago
@MasterMysterion "have been refuted"
Are you serious? That guy knows next to nothing about physics -except for a general lay persons knowledge. Even some of my physics friends (as in MA's) who happen to be atheists think he's a joke.
"Do you have an MA?"
No I have a BA. Do you have any background in physics at all? And would you like me to show you why most of Dhorpatan's arguments fail automatically? (I can detail this) He doesn't even think space-time bends in contradiction to relativity.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
@JohananRaatz Mind is a function of brain like walking a function of legs. If you say different your committing the logical fallacy of known as the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness. I dare you to tell Hawkings that matter doesn't exist. He hasn't written a book with out mentioning it.
MasterMysterion 4 months ago
@MasterMysterion "Mind is..."
In particular the mind is a part of it -the quantum information carried by the ions in the microtubules. But it's not a "function" it's a thing.
"misplaced concreteness"
I'm not misplacing concreteness, because I'm not saying there is concreteness in the first place, just the appearance of concreteness. Sure the brain exists but it's not matter. Matter "exists" but only as an illusion of quantum information. That's what QIT and Wheeler's "It from Bit" show us.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
@JohananRaatz Everything that exists is matter / energy and to say that you have a physics degree and yet you dont know what matter is -is silly and sad. Experiences qualia are products of the brain Dr Tyson and Prof Dawkins have pointed this out. Don't waste my time if your going to be so daft :- )
MasterMysterion 4 months ago
@MasterMysterion (part 2) "Everything that exists is matter / energy"
First of all this experiment (the DCQE) shows that this is demonstrably false. All that exists physically is the APPEARANCE of matter/energy.
Secondly this is question begging. What evidence/arguments do you have that there is anything behind the appearance of matter/energy? If you can't provide any, then I will have to assume that you are just presupposing naive realism without a non-circular reason to do so.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@MasterMysterion (part 1) "qualia are products of the brain"
No, you're daft. You need to take a philosophy of mind course. Qualia are the CORRELATES of brain states. However beyond that science is not methodologically allowed to say anything further.
"what matter is"
I know what it is in physics, but I meant as an ontological question. And even in physics I only know what it is in terms of it's properties -which are all reducible to qualia ultimately. Please take some philosophy.
JohananRaatz 3 months ago
@MasterMysterion Dawkins is not an authority (or even remotely knowledgeable) on this subject.
KTK401 3 months ago in playlist More videos from JohananRaatz
@JohananRaatz If you don't tell me what you mean by info? what it's made of I cannot confirm the validity of your claim no matter how many times you appeal to authority. Saying that matter doesn't exist for the reasons you do, is fallacious and you keep forgetting the theoretics of you theories.
MasterMysterion 4 months ago
@JohnananRaatz Matter can be experienced so when you say matter I have some understanding. When you say information however I am not sure unless your talking about letters or some type of symbology. Thus if you can't tell me in any meaningful sense what your talking about I have no reason to think that you even know what your talking about. Just like when theists try to define ontology with functionality or reification. :- )
MasterMysterion 4 months ago
@MasterMysterion (Part 1) "Matter can be experienced"
Well here's the subtle problem though. (and most people miss this). When you experience the external world you experience qualia (such as redness, fuzziness, loudness etc.) and not actually matter.
All of these subjective experiences are immaterial yet without them you would theoretically have no conception of matter. So now if we add matter to these immaterial experiential states as a substance wouldn't that create substance dualism?
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
@MasterMysterion (part 2) "Thus if you can't tell me in any meaningful sense what your talking about I have no reason"
So now that is why I can't meaningfully make any sense of the concept of matter. I can't know what you mean when you say it, because all I have a meaningful sense of are experiential states (redness, fuzziness loudness etc.) or perhaps thoughts as well and not matter in itself.
All of these things are or can be broken down into information of Platonic essence not matter.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
@JohananRaatz
Also, it'd be great if you could make a video on Modal Realism, and another further explaining how Orch-OR, and any predictions or observations it has made and if there are any other quantum mind or classical alternatives.
I'm also having trouble understanding what interpretation of quantum mechanics you are arguing for. So in yours there are no hidden variables, wave functions are real, and they collapse, non-locality, the observer plays an active role. Unique histories?
ErebusGodOvDarkness 4 months ago
@ErebusGodOvDarkness "and another further explaining how Orch-OR,"
Actually I had one in mind on this I hope to make in the near future.
"are no hidden variables,"
Yes, though I will make a caveat to that. In my Physics of the Hidden World video I have non-local hidden variables for the spatial component of the wave-function. However to get that you need a single-wave-function collapse at each Planck time (which is probabilistic) as a sort of "input value" to get the quantum computer set.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
@JohananRaatz
Ah, so that non-local hidden variable isn't one which conflicts with Bell's theorem then? Because BT only deals with those attempting to explain non-locality in cases like entanglement?
ErebusGodOvDarkness 4 months ago
@ErebusGodOvDarkness Yes, Bell's theorem just provided a test to rule out local hidden variables. Bell's theorem grew out of a way to test the claims of EPR (Einstein Podolsky and Rosen) who insisted that if quantum mechanics were correct, (without local hidden variables) we'd have spooky action at a distance (entanglement, which they thought was impossible). Bell basically provided a test to determine if there is indeed entanglement -thereby showing that nature actually is non-local anyway.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
@JohananRaatz until you have at least an MA I'm not interest or impressed. What is this info made of if you say something non sensical again convo over.
MasterMysterion 4 months ago
@MasterMysterion (Part 1) As far as you're concerned I could just be a hack, but there's an entire paradigm in physics emerging around this idea called "It from Bit," motivated by experiments like this and current findings in quantum gravity.
"an MA I'm not interest"
Let me turns this around, do you have any scientific training at all or are you just talking out of your ass? And what do you make of Anton Zeilinger's quote?
Please prove that matter exists. Until then you have no argument.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
@JohananRaatz What do you mean when you say info? words on a page? If all you can do is say information then all your doing is begging the question and being ambiguous yet again.
MasterMysterion 4 months ago
@MasterMysterion \
The act of existence projects information. The trajectories of particles projects information about their momentum, velocity, density, heat, etc. Existence is information. E-waves project information, and since waves are dimensional, they can only traverse into a dimensional state. However, "information is information it is neither matter nor energy" Norbert Weiner, Cybernetics.
Dimensions are T1 through T2 via expansion of Big Bang. Dimensions require two points not one.
itakeudown 4 months ago
@Master
Since everything vibrates, then everything is projecting information via velocity or speed, etc. The Conservation of Energy is simultaneusly projecting the Conservation of Information. Since a conscious state collapses the wave-function, then, we can presume that E cannot become M until an observer collapses it into existence.
Since dimensions cannot exist within a single potential point_T1, then, dimensions are by-products of the big bang via T1 through T2.
itakeudown 4 months ago
@master
And since T1 DOES exist, prior to expansion towards T2 ( Big Bang), then, we know that "existence is information" therefore, T1 possesses "information" within it's dimension_less & motion_less state. T1 is the unmovable mover position. It posseses the present, the past & future ( being eternal) at the same time via absence of relative time & relative motion.
T1 eternal time and T1 eternal information co-exists without relative time, relative dimensions and relative motion.
itakeudown 4 months ago
@MasterMysterion "What do you mean when you say info? words on a page?"
No, that's the representation of information. By information I mean primary sensory/empirical data or mental conceptions. We then use language and words to represent this information, but that is just the representation. And from what we've been able to tell from experiments such as the quantum eraser and deductions in quantum gravity there isn't anything "behind" that sensory data. Reality starts and stops with it.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
@JohananRaatz I'm not the one making the claims -you are! So i'll ask you once more do you have an MA? That is the requirement for an authoritative teaching position in the field.
MasterMysterion 4 months ago
@MasterMysterion I believe I already told you. I have a BA not an MA.
"for an authoritative teaching position"
This is an appeal to authority in reverse. You can examine my arguments regardless, and easily do some research to verify that all of the physics here is right. Besides that I can point to PhD's and even Nobel Laureates that agree with my position. Surely if you want authority that should be more than sufficient.
Besides you don't need an MA to understand the essentials here.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
@MasterMysterion"If you don't tell me what you mean by info?"
Well ideas, or if want to think of it ontologically "Platonic type essence."
"Saying that matter doesn't exist for the reasons you do, is fallacious"
I'm saying it doesn't exist because we don't have any evidence for it. The evidence we thought we had for it (that it was the cause behind our perceptions) was shown not be exist via the DCQE experiment. (assuming relativity's is correct and the speed of light is an absolute limit).
JohananRaatz 4 months ago