RAW is my favorite author; I've read 10 of his books. I think he would have found this electron cloud of discussion highly entertaining and a sort of proof of his presentation. Once when I heard him speak in Boston, he asked us how many surrealists it took to change a light bulb. The answer was two: one to hold the Zebra and the other to fill the bathtub with balloons. Fnord.
It's always so satisfying to hear people who don't know anything about quantum mechanics talking with all the confidence about it. To say we invented the lines is completely backward. The concepts we use to describe the world around us are forced upon us as a consequence of the behavior as it ACTUALLY exists. What Anton is essentially saying is that he knows that we can't know anything. (A boringly common contradiction).
@blapgatify you entirely miss the point. What he is saying is that our map of reality is not reality. Before reacting to that, sit back and think about it a bit and then think about your thoughts about your thoughts about it. That misunderstanding is the biggest cause of human irrationality that exists.
@robertdee Technically projection in the way you describe is not the cause but a symptom of a common cause. I completely agree that people mistaking themselves for the world is a big problem, however Wilson is making factual claims about the nature of reality. Claims that are false. Maybe it is Wilson who is mistaking the world for himself and thus maybe you should be talking to him instead of me. It's important to apply your arguments universally and not just to those with whom you disagree.
@blapgatify He's not talking about reality but our perception of it. When he says we invented the lines, he means we invented the conceptual understanding of waves and particles and when we forget that those are convenient models, we get confused when experimentation doesn't fit. What's life like under the bridge?
@robertdee But we didn't invent the lines. We invented the words that describe the lines (which is very different). In Wilson's own arguments against Aristotelian logic he employs that logic in order to say it's invalid. "This particle exists in two different locations, thus violating the law of non contradiction, therefor the laws of logic are false". This is a contradiction and is inevitable if you believe that we invented logic. Wilson's arguments suffer from a false premise.
Let me make clear that I am not implying that QM is deterministic in 4D space-time. Rather, some like MWI (along with extra dimensions of space) is necessary.
To assert, on the basis of QM, that things are unknowable, is premature and not based on scientific evidence. All the scientific evidence we have right now points to the fact that the universe is intelligible, and a little bit of quantum indeterminacy simply indicates the presence of an underlying complex system that we have yet to understand (actually, I have a theory that explains QM as a DETERMINISTIC theory which is, currently, unpublished).
Macroscopic objects behave classically to a high degree of accuracy. Things CAN be known with certainty high enough to be such that, any higher would be pointless, as one's own existence is subject to the same principles of uncertainty. Furthermore, it is entirely plausible that things can be known with ABSOLUTE certainty. Consider, for example, a mathematical proof. It is entirely possible that mathematical proof are ABSOLUTELY true. We simply don't know.
Your silence speaks volumes. I know you are doing a desperate last minute search for SOMETHING to support your opinion, which will inevitably turn up nothing more than a couple of crank websites referring to Tesla anti-gravity machines and quantum "consciousness" (okay fine, indeterminable quantum "knowledge" or whatever you've changed your mind to next) or something of that cranky nature.
This "reality tunnel" stuff is nonsense. People can have different perspectives, but if they contradict, one is wrong and one is right. GET OVER IT AND GROW THE F*CK UP PEOPLE. This perspective that we should just accept everyone's viewpoint as "equal" is nonsense. Science is mostly RIGHT. Religion is mostly nonsense. Science is tested and provable. Religion is fairy tales and lies. These are not "equal" viewpoints.
@ThinkTank255 "People can have different perspectives, but if they contradict, one is wrong and one is right." - Two people observe the same rainbow from two different viewing positions. To each, the rainbow appears to emerge from a different fixed point on the earth. Both people's observations contradict each other. So, according to you, which one of them is wrong and which is right? Which one is seeing the actual, true position of the rainbow, and which is in error?
"To each, the rainbow appears to emerge from a different fixed point on the earth. So, according to you, which one of them is wrong and which is right?"
They don't contradict. You are making the ASSUMPTION that they are seeing the same rainbow. A CONTRADICTION must be of the form "X is true" and "X is false". You need to take Logic 101.
@ThinkTank255 Person A's observation is that rainbow emerges from position X is true. Person B's observation is that rainbow emerges from position X is false. That is a contradiction by every reasonable definition of the word. Yet, neither observation is incorrect - both are reporting a true observation. The experience of the rainbow is subjective. Your original statement is false, and you understand basic logic, apparently, only slightly better than my cat.
The Observer Effect? Have you ever acted differently when you know you are being watched through a camera? Why do we do this? Some call it natural instinct. Knowing the brain is triggered by impulses it seems to wonder when we know we aren't being observed,but when we know we are being observed. We act differently?
it has grains of truth but it's needlessly mysterious. it only feeds the incorrect stereotype that QM can't be understood.
consciousness is bizarre but QM is just physics. QM doesn't begin to explain consciousness or other spiritual aspects. it's still just entirely physics
@DanFrederiksen "it only feeds the incorrect stereotype that QM can't be understood." - "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see, my physics students don't understand it either. That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." ~ Richard Feynman
An actual STARGATE/PORTAL-THING was caught on film in New Mexico. The footage can be found within the short-film entitled "SUDDEN PORTHOLE", which is parked at the PROJECT CAMELOT YouTube page (it's under the George Noory video).
I'm not selling anything…I'm just trying to spread the word about the unseen-dimensions we find ourselves embedded in.
My BLOG contains peripheral data regarding the movie and is where I reply to the "debunkers" (use search words "SAM ZURICK" & "BLOG"). THANKS!!
The I-Ching is "one of the oldest of the Chinese classic texts.[1] The book contains a divination system comparable to Western geomancy or the West African Ifá system; in Western cultures and modern East Asia, it is still widely used for this purpose."
He looks really baked when he talks about Quantum, I guess he has to so be stoned to understand it. I'm as baked as an apple pie and I get was he's saying.....
Look, i know it can be off putting to see people exaggerating the copenhagen theory into Quasi-religions reptile-slave matrixes theories(ie david Icke), new age an stuff. BUT, the fact of the matter is, unless the scientists of tomorrow can prove otherwise, there is consistent, experimental evidence that conciousness is affecting the wave-particle duality of an atom/photon. man! if there is any effects on the material world from mind, that shows a weakness in our view of the physical world!
There is no experimental evidence that consciousness is affecting the wave-particle duality of an atom/photon. All the evidence implies is the Many-Worlds Interpretation is correct. Furthermore, the Copenhagen Interpretation does NOT refer to consciousness. Any device that records a definite results works just fine. It does not have to be conscious. Anything that can determine which slit a particle is passing through will cause the interference pattern to disappear.
@ThinkTank255 No but what ever is causing the "Observer Effect" is very interesting to say the least. You can't denie that at the quantum level nothing seems logical. I mean what about Quantum Enganglement that is crazy but its been tested and showen to happen so. At the sub atomic level time doesn't hold any sensable logic like it does in our typical understanding of time.
@ThinkTank255 "It does not have to be conscious. Anything that can determine which slit a particle is passing through will cause the interference pattern to disappear." - How do you know? In order to make that judgment, consciousness has to come into play at some point - there needs to be a conscious mind that records the result at some point, or else we'd never know the result of the experiment. How do you know it's not that observation that is effecting the result? You don't....
"How do you know? In order to make that judgment, consciousness has to come into play at some point..."
Actually, that is incorrect. The wait is determined that a conscious observer is not necessary is that the probabilities change BEFORE the conscious observer observes the system, and dependent on whether a measurement is made or not. Information cannot travel faster than light, it must be the case that consciousness is not necessary. Nice try though.
@ThinkTank255 As respectfully as I can put it: you're talking a load of nonsense. Think about what you're saying. Think carefully. If a conscious observer never enters into the equation in any capacity - then it's IMPOSSIBLE for the results of the experiment to ever be known by ANYONE. And, it becomes a useless and entirely meaningless experiment. OF COURSE an observer is required! Otherwise we could never know the results of the experiment!!!
"... And, it becomes a useless and entirely meaningless experiment. ... "
I beg to differ. The laws of physics are not dependent on humans or human experience, and to say they are is the height of arrogance. It is no different than calling the Earth the center of the universe, and rewriting the laws of gravity such that everything revolves around us. It's simply ridiculous. This is not how new knowledge is discovered.
@ThinkTank255 "I beg to differ." - You beg to differ that performing an experiment that nobody could ever know the results of is a useless experiment???? Ooooookay, fine.
Furthermore, it is possible for an ENTIRE human being to be part of a quantum experiment. Simply perform Schrodinger's cat experiment on a human instead (he used a cat for obvious reasons). So, your idea that somehow humans "collapse" a quantum state is frankly, laughable. There is not a SINGLE qualified physicists nowadays that would agree with you. You need to study QM a little more. It is a VERY well understood area of physics that is well established.
@ThinkTank255 Firstly, I never said that humans collapse a quantum state, I said it's impossible for us to know consciousness does, or not - as in order to know that the wave function has collapsed, at some point, an observation must be made. Secondly, even if that were my contention, your statement about there not being a "SINGLE qualified physicists" that would agree with the notion that consciousness is required to collapse the wave function is demonstrably incorrect...
"Firstly, I never said that humans collapse a quantum state,..."
Well, then you just don't know what you are talking about.
"Secondly, even if that were my contention, your statement about there not being a 'SINGLE qualified physicists' that would agree with the notion that consciousness is required to collapse the wave function is demonstrably incorrect..."
Uh, no, it's not. Dr. Amit Goswami got his Ph.D. in 1964, and he is a "quantum activist".
@ThinkTank255 "Uh, no, it's not. Dr. Amit Goswami got his Ph.D. in 1964, and he is a "quantum activist"." - No true Scotsman, huh? You're awfully big on logical fallacies, aren't you? Since when does the year someone obtained their degree have anything to do with determining the veracity of any claim they make? Besides, you said "one, single physicist" - you didn't address the other I mentioned, and I could offer more if you wish. Your claim was patently false - deal with it.
@ThinkTank255 "Well, then you just don't know what you are talking about." - Friend, you're REALLY all over the place, here. Many of your responses are just entirely nonsensical. Seriously, I don't mean this to be a slight, honestly I don't, but tell the truth: Have you ever been diagnosed with some sort of schizoid disorder?
Look, kid, I mean this in the nicest of ways, get a degree in quantum physics, then we can talk. I am not going to try to explain Feynman path integrals or Hermitian operators to you so that we can have a decent conversation. As far as I am concerned, as soon as you started talking about "consciousness" you got into the realm of the metaphysical. You have no scientific evidence for this "consciousness" thing, and as far as I am concerned it doesn't exist.
@ThinkTank255 "as soon as you started talking about "consciousness" you got into the realm of the metaphysical." - You see, this is the sort of thing that led me ask you about a possible schizoid diagnosis. Your responses are consistently disjointed and nonsensical. You seem incapable of coherently following a simple conversational string. I'm going to assume that your silence regarding that question speaks loads, by the way.
Well, look, I'm being rational and scientific. You're talking about metaphysical "consciousness" quantum physics nonsense, which has no scientific basis whatsoever. So, while I am sure you've researched psychological disorders quite thoroughly for your own problems, I don't think you have slightest idea you know what you are talking about. I am a studied physicist. You are clearly a nutcase and my silence speaks to that fact and that fact alone.
Look, let's settle this the easy way. You show me just one peer reviewed scientific paper from a RESPECTED journal supporting your nonsensical position that consciousness is somehow related to quantum mechanics, and I will consider it. Until then, IMO, you're just full of hot air.
@ThinkTank255 "You show me just one peer reviewed scientific paper from a RESPECTED journal supporting your nonsensical position that consciousness is somehow related to quantum mechanics" - Except... THAT'S NOT MY POSITION! As I've pointed out to you now, what? Three times??? My position (God, I hope it takes this time) is that you can't know, with anything that approaches certitude, if it is or not. Understand? Capiche? Clear? Do I need to explain it again?
Well you've shifted positions so many times I don't even think that YOU know what your position is. Furthermore, I don't care whether it is or it "may be", both are equally nonsensical and you have yet to show a SINGLE scientific paper that supports your position. You're losing credibility here. Either show me a paper or shut the f*ck up.
@ThinkTank255 "Well you've shifted positions so many times I don't even think that YOU know what your position is." - Where have I shifted positions once? Show me. Quote me some text. And, you show me a paper where a WFC experiment was conducted, the outcome recorded, and a conscious observer never entered into the equation at any time or in any capacity. I mean, you DIRECTLY claimed that such an experiment could be a useful one. Remember that bit of crazyness?
@ThinkTank255 Take some friendly advice: You're obviously in way over your head, discussing a subject with which you clearly have a poor understanding. Your ability with basic logic is just kind of sad. Your responses are often bordering on being completely incoherent. You seem unable to follow the flow of discussion. You argue from proclamation, logical fallacy, and complete breaches of reason. Save yourself a little dignity and gracefully bow out before you're exposed further.
@ThinkTank255 "You have no scientific evidence for this "consciousness" thing, and as far as I am concerned it doesn't exist." - And, here we have what's known as a check and mate. Thanks for playing.
Yes, YOU have been checkmated. Show me a SINGLE scientific paper that supports your "opinion" that QM has ANYTHING to do with consciousness. You can't, because only cranks and con artists sell that nonsense. And the fact that you actually went and took their bait is, at least from my perspective, quite indicative of your level of intelligence.
Look, there's always going to be a few cranks out there. The mainstream scientific consensus is that the Copenhagen interpretation and derivatives, like the "idealist" interpretation, are fatally flawed.
"You beg to differ that performing an experiment that nobody could ever know the results of is a useless experiment???? Ooooookay, fine."
Yes. Because you haven't yet made a distinction between "nobody" and "nothing".
@ThinkTank255 "Yes. Because you haven't yet made a distinction between "nobody" and "nothing"." - Oh my God, man, you can't really be this dense can you? Think about it - I run an experiment without ever telling anyone I'm going to do it, without observing the results of the experiment, I destroy it so that not I, nor anyone else in the entire lifespan of the universe could EVER know the results. How is that any more useful than just not performing the experiment at all?
@ThinkTank255 ...Dr. Amit Goswami comes to mind as being one, Dr. Fritjof Capra another. But, of course, consensus opinion in science amounts to exactly a hill of beans in its usefulness in determining the veracity of any hypothesis or theory. Your willingness to appeal to it is telling. I'm sorry if these possibilities threaten your hyper-deterministic materialist ideology, but paradigm shifts occur - thankfully - and ideology has no place in science.
@ThinkTank255 And, of course, your idea that "any measurement device will do" also has serious problems - as a measurement device isn't even required for the photon to appear to react. In the delayed choice quantum eraser, the entangled signal photon can be observed as either having the interference pattern or not BEFORE any which-path measurement is made on the idler photon. The photon doesn't just seem to react when we look, it reacts if we're even going to look but haven't yet.
"...as a measurement device isn't even required for the photon to appear to react."
"Measuring device" means any particle of matter. Furthermore, the brain cannot be interacting quantum mechanically as decoherence occurs at far too small scales for that to be the case. You are just wrong on so many levels, I don't really see any point of further communication. Go get a Ph.D. in physics and come back to me when you know something.
@ThinkTank255 You really have no freakin' clue what in the hell you are talking about, do you? Newsflash braniac: Decoherence doesn't explain the wave function collapse - it has nothing to do with it. It only explains how/why we observe classicality in the macroscopic from quantum effects. You're doing nothing but talking a whole lot of nonsense. Ok then, run away and hide when the big, bad man begins to expose the flaws in your ideological thinking. Quite typical.
"Decoherence doesn't explain the wave function collapse - it has nothing to do with it."
Weak quantum measurements say otherwise. Look, I know you've turned QM into your own personal religion. So you go have fun with that, and leave the science to scientists. I am interested in FACTS, not personal beliefs. You have yet to show that consciousness exists, and your metaphysical "I feel it so it must be real" is not scientific justification.
"You really have no freakin' clue what in the hell you are talking about, do you?"
Actually, you don't know what you are talking about. You and your "bloated sensations" have nothing to do with science. You're talking metaphysical mumbo jumbo that is frankly laughable. I have already pointed out numerous errors in your line of thinking, and you just breeze right over them and spout more metaphysical nonsense.
@ThinkTank255 What "metaphysical nonsense" have I spouted? Provide an example. You've done nothing so far but argue through repeated logical fallacies, unsubstantiated proclamations, and blinding breaches of rationality ordinarily mastered by 12 year olds. You talk almost nothing but nonsensical, meaningless swill. You sir, are what's known in the business as "a crackpot."
@ThinkTank255 ...and, saying something to the effect of "Because we can record the result using an unconscious device and only observe the result after the experiment has been completed." is not a valid answer - experiments such as the "quantum eraser" experiment show that the particle being observed is not bound by the restraints of time.
"...experiments such as the 'quantum eraser' experiment show that the particle being observed is not bound by the restraints of time."
You misunderstand the quantum eraser experiment. The measurement itself must be measured. Once you have a chain of measurements that is long enough, such that the probability that it is not measured is close to zero, we say the particle is measured. No observer is required.
if you want to know what light is, and what magnetisim is alone with gravity( grand unified theory) don't look at quantum for answer you will not find it, just head over to bill gaedes videos!
it explains all three in a simply and easy to understand!
Ok now after listening further I don't know what he means, now I think maybe he is a logically inconsistent incoherent idiot with this Copenhagen crap, he even sounds high. Schrodinger's Cat made fun of this magical thinking, reality isn't predicated on our knowledge and observations, this isn't an American cartoon where you can walk off a cliff until you look down, and the fate of Schrodinger's Cat isn't determined by our ability to determine the fate of Schrodinger's Cat.
@Laughingblades I know it seems confusing and like a trick, but you have to maybe go beyond where you are at, I jsut don't think you can that though without completely changing and if you seem not ready to do so, then don't sweat it, if it seems inconsistent to you, then that works for you, for your reality tunnel, but you should prepare yourself for something else in case that doesn't work out for you, again that requires a large amount of doubt and thinking, it took me decades.
"A particle can be in three places at the same time without being anywhere at all" I'm sorry wut? I know what he means actually, but when you explain it that way, you sound like a logically inconsistent incoherent idiot prone to magical thinking.
But really at the quantum level what a particle is isn't so clearly defined, the smaller you go the more it's the same matter in different states, matter isn't made up of solid spheres it only appears solid to us on a macro level, and light is matter.
I recently gave my mathematics to a physicist friend of mine at the University of Washington. So, I guess we'll see if physicists do anything with it.
"You seem to assume mathematics is reality, as opposed to a tool that can help us make better models about reality."
Assume, no. MUST be true. Yes.
"If not, I'd like to hear your take on Gödel's first incompleteness theorem."
Certainly. Godel's incompleteness theorem follows from the ASSUMPTION of infinity. Notice, first-order propositional logic Godel's is SOUND and COMPLETE. Furthermore, there MUST be a mapping between ALL higher logics and finite 1st order logic.
@ThinkTank255 Mathematics is not reality. All mathematical concepts are products of our mind. How can you be 100% certain of MWI when you have no way of proving it? The word "certainty" shouldn't ever be mentioned in discussion of MWI. You may believe that your parallel universes exist according to your math but you cannot be certain. People like Tegmark, for instance, make baseless claims without anything to back it up. As a physicist myself I am disgusted with what I see happening in physics
@QuantumRuslan Mathematics are not solely products of our mind, if they were, they would not be able to be of use to explain or predict nature (Nature as defined by reality following physical laws), and therefore would be useless in their scientific applications. Mathematics at best is a direct study of Being, of existence, which can be shown, in an aexample apropos to his video, when Dirac was able to predict antimatter 4 years before its observational discovery SOLELY using mathematics.
@goldenarms12 This is what you believe. When I say that math is the product of our mind I mean exactly that - mathematical quantities do not exist in our universe, in our space and time. Points, irrational numbers, circles, etc. You claim without any proof that math is a study of Being, that old idea from Plato. Ok. But then you have to explain why it happens so that those abstract concepts living in another world happen to describe what goes on in our universe.
goldenarms12, seems to understand. You seem to be a little confused. You're attempting to apply metaphysical ideas to something which does not require the application of metaphysical. If you understand that all of your arguments right now rely on logic (literally, every single sentence you've written relies heavily on logic), then how much sense does it make to challenge logic USING logic??? I'd say pretty much zero sense. It really is that simple. No metaphysics required.
@ThinkTank255 I think you both don't seem to understand what I was saying. So I will try again. Whatever you do in math, like showing there are multiverses and so on, you cannot know about them physically, because our cognition is limited to things in the Universe of our space and time. You cannot claim that mathematical objects are real, just like you can't claim 100% certainty in MWI 'cause there will never be a physical proof which you need since you apply math to describe physics.
@ThinkTank255 I think you both don't seem to understand what I was saying. So I will try again. Whatever you do in math, like showing there are multiverses and so on, you cannot know about them physically, because our cognition is limited to things in the Universe of our space and time. You cannot claim that mathematical objects are real, just like you can't claim 100% certainty in MWI 'cause there will never be a physical proof which you need since you apply math to describe physics.
I can't argue with logic - when I study geometry I need to use logic. No one will argue against theorems in Euclid's book, for example as they are logically solid. But that's different because those theorems describe abstract mathematical entities. Tegmark and Everett,on the other hand, use math to describe physical universe.
I find it also interesting that arguably the greatest logician of all time also happened to be clinically insane. So you do not need Logic to make Logic.
@ThinkTank255 I am not trying to challenge LOGIC. I need logic, for instance, when I study Euclid's geometry. But there's a difference because Euclid applies logic to abstract mathematical concepts, while Tegmark and Everett apply math to physical concept - the universe. It produces the result that cannot be proven physically, just because math works out perfectly doesn't mean it produces correct description of universe. And even if you claim it does you have no way of proving it to a physicist.
"It produces the result that cannot be proven physically, just because math works out perfectly doesn't mean it produces correct description of universe."
You're not understanding. Step back for a moment and look at the big picture. That's a LOGICAL argument. You can't use it. Your entire conception of the universe is built on logical arguments. I guess this requires an extensive knowledge of logic to understand what I am talking about, so I can understand your confusion.
You're not understanding. Step back and look at the big picture. THAT is a logical argument. You can't use logical arguments to determine where logic can and cannot be applied, because you're making the assumption that it can be applied already.
I don't really have time to teach a course in logic, but I'm sure you are aware that ALL known processes in the universe conform to logic. If you are going to say there is some thing to which logic doesn't apply, then you have to specify what does apply to replace logic. However, you can't use the internet, because only logical signals can be transmitted so, it's pretty much pointless trying to imply that something other than logic can exist using the internet.
@ThinkTank255 This is not even about logic. And by the way, QM doesn't conform to logic.My original post was in regard to your post " I say 100% because I have mathematics that strongly suggests that parallel universes exist, and are completely consistent with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics." All I said is that you cannot make such statements about the universe, in other words, your math maybe very elegant and beautiful but it is useless to a physicist.
@ThinkTank255 When I'm engaged in the practical affairs of living, I tend to agree with you - we seem to do best when we determine the facts of a situation as well as we may, and then respond in ways that are consistent with the logical steps needed to attain a desired outcome. More abstractly, though, I consider the old puzzle of logicians: "Determine the truth or falsity of this statement: 'This very statement is false.' " It seems to confound the conditional either/or framework of logic.
The reason there is no real paradox is because "this statement" is not logically "well-defined" because "this statement" has a recursive definition which requires a 2nd order logic. In reality, only first order logic makes sense. Supposedly "infinite" loops of self-recursion are nonsensical constructions of mathematicians that have absolutely no connection to reality. The "infinity" of mathematics is work. It represents a process that takes a very long time for humans.
I say 100% because I have mathematics that strongly suggests that parallel universes exist, and are completely consistent with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
The Copenhagen interpretation is NOT correct, and thus, Wilson is wrong. The mathematics CLEARLY shows that the Copenhagen interpretation is not correct. However, physicists are very dogmatic. After hundreds of years of working with Classical physics, it's hard for them to change, and accept that reality is not anything like classical physics. I'm 100% certain this is the way history will record this. The parallel universes of MWI, as crazy as they may seem, are correct. I'm 100% certain.
RAW said he's an epistemological realist. I'm not sure what he says he fits that position. He sounds here like he's an instrumentalist or anti-realist pragmatist or even pomo.
@universalsailor Yes...idiots like Comedian George Carlin, Authors Tom Robbins, Henry Miller, & Philip K. Dick, Dr. John Lilly, physicist John Gribbin etc, etc.....I could go on for quite a while. I suggest you look up the quotes regarding Robert Anton Wilson by any of these people. If Wilson is an idiot and those who follow him are idiots then I suppose I would be really proud to count myself an "idiot" if that meant that I was in the same league as any of them.
yo, funnycookbook - Mr. Wilson certainly is lucky he's left this plane of existence . . . otherwise, he would have had to suffer the explicit wrath of a brilliant, lucid critic such as yourself. Granted, his style of writing is either hit or miss with a reader; however, the subject matters he has taken on and his sincere desire to assist his fellow humans rise from under the mass-mind-fuck to, at the very least, begin to think for themselves places him in an echelon eons out of your reach, punk!
Wilson is not a physicist; he is a psychologist. He is extremely out of touch with contemporary physics and his book, _Quantum Psychology: How Brain Software Programs You and Your World_, is consequently impossible to take seriously.
this motherfucker is lucky he's dead or i'd send him a rude email. this fuckface thinks he can write shitty books? i give this illumintus shit one star! TERRIBLE author. what a motherfucker. his fans are worse!
Robert Anton Wilson was a Nuerologist, Physicist, Linguist, and Mathmatician. And an amazing man! This short piece is from "Maybe Logic." Watch the whole documentary.
He doesn't explain quantuum physics here, so the title is misleading...he simply interpretates it...and i'm not even sure if he understands quantuum physics( the things that can be understood )...i suggest you to learn about quantuum physics from a physicist (like richard feynman) and not a philosopher...i mean you can't just believe the crap he's telling you without knowing where it's supposed to come from...it would be irrational
@bobbygnosis 'I do not like the reappearance of The Jesuits ... If ever there was a body of men who merited damnation on earth and in hell, it is this society of Loyola's. Nevertheless, we are compelled by our system of religous toleration to offer them an asylum.' John Adams, 2nd President of the U.S.A
@bobbygnosis "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT owing NO allegiance and acknowledging NO responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today." PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT, 1906
an absolutely incredible man. his knowledge seemed to give him amazing presence. i pray for a hundredth of his insight. but, i'm learning to open my mind to new realities because of people like him.
I hope people aren't confusing this with subjective consiousness or reality. Brain neurons hold connections to interpret stimulus, of course some people will have damaged or different neuron abititys but as we all share a very common idea of reality, you can deduce that what you see is real, except for a few perceptual anomalies due to different pathing in the brain
Compare RAW's interpretation to snake oil salesman Deepak Chopra's deliberately effusive and self-aggrandising gibberish about 'superposition' and 'consciousness'. One can explain complex things in order to make interpretation easier (RAW) or harder (Chopra). Therein lies the difference between shaman and charlatan.
He has a slight speech impediment which is exacerbated by a few missing front teeth. Its disingenuous of you to make such a comment.
The important point is at 2:50 - the interpretation of scientific models is a function of the way we perceive reality. For clues to describing perception he draws on the rich sources in mysticism, religion and philosophy.
Scientists who believe that FACTS and their MODELS represent some form of "truth" are unwitting victims of their own beliefs.
Surreal. Starts off with a woman dressed like a German, speaking perfect sounding German and turns to him sounding American asking about quantum physics.
you are the only one who understands everything. only you know reality and truth, and you can clearly see that this man is delusional. i dont think that people really understand the burden you carry, being the only one who's never wrong, being the only one who never had any delusions and false beliefs, being the only one who truly sees nature for what it is and perceiving it to full extent.
"So, ergo, any model that we make does not describe the universe, it describes what our brains are capable of saying at this time!" Hahaha. That's perfect! It's so obvious, when said that way!
Regarding reality versus the perception of reality; if I hit this guy in the face with a brick as hard as I can, his reality is going to be pain. He may perceive it any way he wishes.
@JeffersonDinedAlone Inflicting pain on another human being is a violation of their free will..and a gross misuse of your own..A crime that is punishable by death..It is apparent that you are perceived as an asshole through many reality tunnels
@ThanatonInfoSlump Just as any other idiot, you have missed the point entirely. The point was perception, not the method thereof. And a little clarification for you regarding the justice system; assault and battery is not punishable by death. A fine, or incarceration, possibly. So, instead of wasting one of your superior's time, I would suggest that you attend one of your favored bars, chat up one of the men there, and offer your reality tunnel to him for the night.
@JeffersonDinedAlone I wasnt referring to man made laws..If you were to hit me in the face with a brick you wouldnt have to worry about paying a fine..I dont have any superiors btw...none of us do as we are all equal..I was only commenting on your hatefulness..relax..try to be more conscientious to balance out the intellect..RELAX!..peace...sweet dreams...hugs and kisses...I love you
We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it-we don't even know we're making an interpretation most of the time. we think it's reality. philosophers has called naive realism.-Robert Anton Wilson--soooooo true
Could quantum mechanics represent the passage or Arrow of Time?
This theory is based on just two postulates,
1.The first is that the quantum wave particle function explained by Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the forward passage of time or Arrow of Time itself photon by photon, quanta by quanta or moment by moment.
2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event.
"Reality tunnel." Ha. Utter nonsense. Complete BS. If anything science tells us how similar we are, not how different we are. Our eyes see photons. Our ears perceive vibrations in the air. Etc.... We all perceive the same basic reality. Now, we may have different interpretations, but we all perceive basically the same reality. Science was born out of a REJECTION of mystical thinking, not the other way around. Otherwise, we'd still be back in the dark ages (and, clearly, some of us still are).
@ThinkTank255 There is no way you can ever know what reality one perceives. It doesn't even matter. Either side, mystical, orthodox, both are effects in conciousness.
This is actually not true. Neuroscience provides strong evidence we perceive things similarly, and our perceptions have nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics.
@ThinkTank255 I think the whole "reality tunnel" thing means each individuals own experience of the world of emotion, conditioning, beliefs, etc, is completely unique. Though we have similar experiences, habitat, beliefs, in truth everyone is living a life with the world according to you. Sure we see a tree as the same, but we don't internally perceive it the same in that your viewing this object through your own filter of emotions.
The point is, he was relating the "reality tunnel" to quantum mechanics, and there simple is zero evidence for that. All evidence in neuroscience points to the fact that brains do not rely on quantum mechanics at all.
There's really not that much that we're not aware of as far as the brain goes. In fact, significant portions of brains have already been simulated on computers. We KNOW the basic underlying mechanisms which allows the brain to perceive reality, and we know they are not magic, and have nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics. In fact, there are actually some very exciting things going on right now in these fields. The advances we will seen in the next decade will be unbelievable.
@ThinkTank255 I wonder what our advancements will be when I'm 80. Probably unfathomable at the rate we seem to be going in the last decade or two. I'm sure we'll see some ridiculous things in our lives. We may well be living much longer by the time we reach the current projected lifespan. Will disease and sickness be a thing of the past?
If technology continues to progress and we don't run into any major social problems, I have no doubt that within 30 years things will be so radically different we can't even imagine it today. This will be a natural consequence of self-improving AI, as Ray Kurzweil has pointed out, if we design them carefully with all the necessary ethical safeguards.
What would happen if everything is in an unimaginable complex computer simulation where our universe exists? Could we detect such a situation, living inside the simulation?
The discrete Plank packet nature of Nature does not suggest it ?
There are speculations that time is discrete, that instants can not be smaller than certain amount of femto-seconds. Does that not point to a computer clock ? If every particle has a program function that interacts with neighbor particle functions then .....
"Reality tunnel." Ha. Utter nonsense. Complete BS. If anything science tells us how similar we are, not how different we are. Our eyes see photons. Our ears perceive vibrations in the air. Etc.... We all perceive the same basic reality. Now, we may have different interpretations, but we all perceive basically the same reality. Science was born out of a REJECTION of mystical thinking, not the other way around. Otherwise, we'd still be back in the dark ages (and, clearly, some of us still are).
@ThinkTank255 You must have a faulty insight If that's you're belief. Perceptions may be similar (not the same), but an interpretation is completely distinct from another. I think you're truly underestimating & misunderstanding the true power that lays behind an interpretation and the influences it has. You're only looking at the very basics of science, without applying any contemplation.
I Ching
USAS1010 3 weeks ago
does anyone know what the other mentality he was talking about at 1.40 that wasnt aristotelian?
gintinty 3 weeks ago in playlist Quantum
@gintinty Non-Aristotelian Logic--> research Alfred Korzybski's "Science and Sanity."
shone1178 2 weeks ago
RAW is my favorite author; I've read 10 of his books. I think he would have found this electron cloud of discussion highly entertaining and a sort of proof of his presentation. Once when I heard him speak in Boston, he asked us how many surrealists it took to change a light bulb. The answer was two: one to hold the Zebra and the other to fill the bathtub with balloons. Fnord.
remotevwr 1 month ago 6
It's always so satisfying to hear people who don't know anything about quantum mechanics talking with all the confidence about it. To say we invented the lines is completely backward. The concepts we use to describe the world around us are forced upon us as a consequence of the behavior as it ACTUALLY exists. What Anton is essentially saying is that he knows that we can't know anything. (A boringly common contradiction).
blapgatify 1 month ago
@blapgatify you entirely miss the point. What he is saying is that our map of reality is not reality. Before reacting to that, sit back and think about it a bit and then think about your thoughts about your thoughts about it. That misunderstanding is the biggest cause of human irrationality that exists.
robertdee 2 weeks ago
@robertdee Technically projection in the way you describe is not the cause but a symptom of a common cause. I completely agree that people mistaking themselves for the world is a big problem, however Wilson is making factual claims about the nature of reality. Claims that are false. Maybe it is Wilson who is mistaking the world for himself and thus maybe you should be talking to him instead of me. It's important to apply your arguments universally and not just to those with whom you disagree.
blapgatify 2 weeks ago
@blapgatify He's not talking about reality but our perception of it. When he says we invented the lines, he means we invented the conceptual understanding of waves and particles and when we forget that those are convenient models, we get confused when experimentation doesn't fit. What's life like under the bridge?
robertdee 2 weeks ago
@robertdee But we didn't invent the lines. We invented the words that describe the lines (which is very different). In Wilson's own arguments against Aristotelian logic he employs that logic in order to say it's invalid. "This particle exists in two different locations, thus violating the law of non contradiction, therefor the laws of logic are false". This is a contradiction and is inevitable if you believe that we invented logic. Wilson's arguments suffer from a false premise.
blapgatify 2 weeks ago
@BloatedSensations
Let me make clear that I am not implying that QM is deterministic in 4D space-time. Rather, some like MWI (along with extra dimensions of space) is necessary.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
To assert, on the basis of QM, that things are unknowable, is premature and not based on scientific evidence. All the scientific evidence we have right now points to the fact that the universe is intelligible, and a little bit of quantum indeterminacy simply indicates the presence of an underlying complex system that we have yet to understand (actually, I have a theory that explains QM as a DETERMINISTIC theory which is, currently, unpublished).
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
Macroscopic objects behave classically to a high degree of accuracy. Things CAN be known with certainty high enough to be such that, any higher would be pointless, as one's own existence is subject to the same principles of uncertainty. Furthermore, it is entirely plausible that things can be known with ABSOLUTE certainty. Consider, for example, a mathematical proof. It is entirely possible that mathematical proof are ABSOLUTELY true. We simply don't know.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
Your silence speaks volumes. I know you are doing a desperate last minute search for SOMETHING to support your opinion, which will inevitably turn up nothing more than a couple of crank websites referring to Tesla anti-gravity machines and quantum "consciousness" (okay fine, indeterminable quantum "knowledge" or whatever you've changed your mind to next) or something of that cranky nature.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
This "reality tunnel" stuff is nonsense. People can have different perspectives, but if they contradict, one is wrong and one is right. GET OVER IT AND GROW THE F*CK UP PEOPLE. This perspective that we should just accept everyone's viewpoint as "equal" is nonsense. Science is mostly RIGHT. Religion is mostly nonsense. Science is tested and provable. Religion is fairy tales and lies. These are not "equal" viewpoints.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 "People can have different perspectives, but if they contradict, one is wrong and one is right." - Two people observe the same rainbow from two different viewing positions. To each, the rainbow appears to emerge from a different fixed point on the earth. Both people's observations contradict each other. So, according to you, which one of them is wrong and which is right? Which one is seeing the actual, true position of the rainbow, and which is in error?
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
"To each, the rainbow appears to emerge from a different fixed point on the earth. So, according to you, which one of them is wrong and which is right?"
They don't contradict. You are making the ASSUMPTION that they are seeing the same rainbow. A CONTRADICTION must be of the form "X is true" and "X is false". You need to take Logic 101.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 Person A's observation is that rainbow emerges from position X is true. Person B's observation is that rainbow emerges from position X is false. That is a contradiction by every reasonable definition of the word. Yet, neither observation is incorrect - both are reporting a true observation. The experience of the rainbow is subjective. Your original statement is false, and you understand basic logic, apparently, only slightly better than my cat.
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
The Observer Effect? Have you ever acted differently when you know you are being watched through a camera? Why do we do this? Some call it natural instinct. Knowing the brain is triggered by impulses it seems to wonder when we know we aren't being observed,but when we know we are being observed. We act differently?
scotteddins 2 months ago
it has grains of truth but it's needlessly mysterious. it only feeds the incorrect stereotype that QM can't be understood.
consciousness is bizarre but QM is just physics. QM doesn't begin to explain consciousness or other spiritual aspects. it's still just entirely physics
DanFrederiksen 2 months ago
@DanFrederiksen "it only feeds the incorrect stereotype that QM can't be understood." - "What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see, my physics students don't understand it either. That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." ~ Richard Feynman
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An actual STARGATE/PORTAL-THING was caught on film in New Mexico. The footage can be found within the short-film entitled "SUDDEN PORTHOLE", which is parked at the PROJECT CAMELOT YouTube page (it's under the George Noory video).
I'm not selling anything…I'm just trying to spread the word about the unseen-dimensions we find ourselves embedded in.
My BLOG contains peripheral data regarding the movie and is where I reply to the "debunkers" (use search words "SAM ZURICK" & "BLOG"). THANKS!!
peopledick 2 months ago
What's E-Jing?
vdipdq 3 months ago
@vdipdq It's spelled I Ching, google it!
kryptonickraze 2 months ago
@vdipdq
The I-Ching is "one of the oldest of the Chinese classic texts.[1] The book contains a divination system comparable to Western geomancy or the West African Ifá system; in Western cultures and modern East Asia, it is still widely used for this purpose."
Refoops 2 months ago
@Refoops Thanks :)
vdipdq 2 months ago
He looks really baked when he talks about Quantum, I guess he has to so be stoned to understand it. I'm as baked as an apple pie and I get was he's saying.....
DimaZ831 3 months ago
DO NOT REAPEAT THIS FOR 667 TIMES:
"... every model that i make does not describe the universe, it describes what my brain is capable of saying at this time ..."
@Bloodgod40 ... because not only german beer is tasty
at667 3 months ago
Why were they talking German at the start?
Bloodgod40 3 months ago
"Probably the most important pphrase to remember.
YOU seem to be the one who should investigate what you think are claims made by purported 'others'."
bobbygnosis 3 months ago
Look, i know it can be off putting to see people exaggerating the copenhagen theory into Quasi-religions reptile-slave matrixes theories(ie david Icke), new age an stuff. BUT, the fact of the matter is, unless the scientists of tomorrow can prove otherwise, there is consistent, experimental evidence that conciousness is affecting the wave-particle duality of an atom/photon. man! if there is any effects on the material world from mind, that shows a weakness in our view of the physical world!
HereThereAndNowhere 3 months ago
@HereThereAndNowhere
There is no experimental evidence that consciousness is affecting the wave-particle duality of an atom/photon. All the evidence implies is the Many-Worlds Interpretation is correct. Furthermore, the Copenhagen Interpretation does NOT refer to consciousness. Any device that records a definite results works just fine. It does not have to be conscious. Anything that can determine which slit a particle is passing through will cause the interference pattern to disappear.
ThinkTank255 3 months ago
@ThinkTank255 No but what ever is causing the "Observer Effect" is very interesting to say the least. You can't denie that at the quantum level nothing seems logical. I mean what about Quantum Enganglement that is crazy but its been tested and showen to happen so. At the sub atomic level time doesn't hold any sensable logic like it does in our typical understanding of time.
AntiCreationism 3 months ago
@ThinkTank255 "It does not have to be conscious. Anything that can determine which slit a particle is passing through will cause the interference pattern to disappear." - How do you know? In order to make that judgment, consciousness has to come into play at some point - there needs to be a conscious mind that records the result at some point, or else we'd never know the result of the experiment. How do you know it's not that observation that is effecting the result? You don't....
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
"How do you know? In order to make that judgment, consciousness has to come into play at some point..."
Actually, that is incorrect. The wait is determined that a conscious observer is not necessary is that the probabilities change BEFORE the conscious observer observes the system, and dependent on whether a measurement is made or not. Information cannot travel faster than light, it must be the case that consciousness is not necessary. Nice try though.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 As respectfully as I can put it: you're talking a load of nonsense. Think about what you're saying. Think carefully. If a conscious observer never enters into the equation in any capacity - then it's IMPOSSIBLE for the results of the experiment to ever be known by ANYONE. And, it becomes a useless and entirely meaningless experiment. OF COURSE an observer is required! Otherwise we could never know the results of the experiment!!!
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
"... And, it becomes a useless and entirely meaningless experiment. ... "
I beg to differ. The laws of physics are not dependent on humans or human experience, and to say they are is the height of arrogance. It is no different than calling the Earth the center of the universe, and rewriting the laws of gravity such that everything revolves around us. It's simply ridiculous. This is not how new knowledge is discovered.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 "I beg to differ." - You beg to differ that performing an experiment that nobody could ever know the results of is a useless experiment???? Ooooookay, fine.
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
Furthermore, it is possible for an ENTIRE human being to be part of a quantum experiment. Simply perform Schrodinger's cat experiment on a human instead (he used a cat for obvious reasons). So, your idea that somehow humans "collapse" a quantum state is frankly, laughable. There is not a SINGLE qualified physicists nowadays that would agree with you. You need to study QM a little more. It is a VERY well understood area of physics that is well established.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 Firstly, I never said that humans collapse a quantum state, I said it's impossible for us to know consciousness does, or not - as in order to know that the wave function has collapsed, at some point, an observation must be made. Secondly, even if that were my contention, your statement about there not being a "SINGLE qualified physicists" that would agree with the notion that consciousness is required to collapse the wave function is demonstrably incorrect...
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
"Firstly, I never said that humans collapse a quantum state,..."
Well, then you just don't know what you are talking about.
"Secondly, even if that were my contention, your statement about there not being a 'SINGLE qualified physicists' that would agree with the notion that consciousness is required to collapse the wave function is demonstrably incorrect..."
Uh, no, it's not. Dr. Amit Goswami got his Ph.D. in 1964, and he is a "quantum activist".
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 "Uh, no, it's not. Dr. Amit Goswami got his Ph.D. in 1964, and he is a "quantum activist"." - No true Scotsman, huh? You're awfully big on logical fallacies, aren't you? Since when does the year someone obtained their degree have anything to do with determining the veracity of any claim they make? Besides, you said "one, single physicist" - you didn't address the other I mentioned, and I could offer more if you wish. Your claim was patently false - deal with it.
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 "Well, then you just don't know what you are talking about." - Friend, you're REALLY all over the place, here. Many of your responses are just entirely nonsensical. Seriously, I don't mean this to be a slight, honestly I don't, but tell the truth: Have you ever been diagnosed with some sort of schizoid disorder?
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
Look, kid, I mean this in the nicest of ways, get a degree in quantum physics, then we can talk. I am not going to try to explain Feynman path integrals or Hermitian operators to you so that we can have a decent conversation. As far as I am concerned, as soon as you started talking about "consciousness" you got into the realm of the metaphysical. You have no scientific evidence for this "consciousness" thing, and as far as I am concerned it doesn't exist.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 "as soon as you started talking about "consciousness" you got into the realm of the metaphysical." - You see, this is the sort of thing that led me ask you about a possible schizoid diagnosis. Your responses are consistently disjointed and nonsensical. You seem incapable of coherently following a simple conversational string. I'm going to assume that your silence regarding that question speaks loads, by the way.
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
Well, look, I'm being rational and scientific. You're talking about metaphysical "consciousness" quantum physics nonsense, which has no scientific basis whatsoever. So, while I am sure you've researched psychological disorders quite thoroughly for your own problems, I don't think you have slightest idea you know what you are talking about. I am a studied physicist. You are clearly a nutcase and my silence speaks to that fact and that fact alone.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
Look, let's settle this the easy way. You show me just one peer reviewed scientific paper from a RESPECTED journal supporting your nonsensical position that consciousness is somehow related to quantum mechanics, and I will consider it. Until then, IMO, you're just full of hot air.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 "You show me just one peer reviewed scientific paper from a RESPECTED journal supporting your nonsensical position that consciousness is somehow related to quantum mechanics" - Except... THAT'S NOT MY POSITION! As I've pointed out to you now, what? Three times??? My position (God, I hope it takes this time) is that you can't know, with anything that approaches certitude, if it is or not. Understand? Capiche? Clear? Do I need to explain it again?
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
Well you've shifted positions so many times I don't even think that YOU know what your position is. Furthermore, I don't care whether it is or it "may be", both are equally nonsensical and you have yet to show a SINGLE scientific paper that supports your position. You're losing credibility here. Either show me a paper or shut the f*ck up.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 "Well you've shifted positions so many times I don't even think that YOU know what your position is." - Where have I shifted positions once? Show me. Quote me some text. And, you show me a paper where a WFC experiment was conducted, the outcome recorded, and a conscious observer never entered into the equation at any time or in any capacity. I mean, you DIRECTLY claimed that such an experiment could be a useful one. Remember that bit of crazyness?
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 Take some friendly advice: You're obviously in way over your head, discussing a subject with which you clearly have a poor understanding. Your ability with basic logic is just kind of sad. Your responses are often bordering on being completely incoherent. You seem unable to follow the flow of discussion. You argue from proclamation, logical fallacy, and complete breaches of reason. Save yourself a little dignity and gracefully bow out before you're exposed further.
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 "You have no scientific evidence for this "consciousness" thing, and as far as I am concerned it doesn't exist." - And, here we have what's known as a check and mate. Thanks for playing.
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
Yes, YOU have been checkmated. Show me a SINGLE scientific paper that supports your "opinion" that QM has ANYTHING to do with consciousness. You can't, because only cranks and con artists sell that nonsense. And the fact that you actually went and took their bait is, at least from my perspective, quite indicative of your level of intelligence.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
Look, there's always going to be a few cranks out there. The mainstream scientific consensus is that the Copenhagen interpretation and derivatives, like the "idealist" interpretation, are fatally flawed.
"You beg to differ that performing an experiment that nobody could ever know the results of is a useless experiment???? Ooooookay, fine."
Yes. Because you haven't yet made a distinction between "nobody" and "nothing".
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 "Yes. Because you haven't yet made a distinction between "nobody" and "nothing"." - Oh my God, man, you can't really be this dense can you? Think about it - I run an experiment without ever telling anyone I'm going to do it, without observing the results of the experiment, I destroy it so that not I, nor anyone else in the entire lifespan of the universe could EVER know the results. How is that any more useful than just not performing the experiment at all?
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 ...Dr. Amit Goswami comes to mind as being one, Dr. Fritjof Capra another. But, of course, consensus opinion in science amounts to exactly a hill of beans in its usefulness in determining the veracity of any hypothesis or theory. Your willingness to appeal to it is telling. I'm sorry if these possibilities threaten your hyper-deterministic materialist ideology, but paradigm shifts occur - thankfully - and ideology has no place in science.
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 And, of course, your idea that "any measurement device will do" also has serious problems - as a measurement device isn't even required for the photon to appear to react. In the delayed choice quantum eraser, the entangled signal photon can be observed as either having the interference pattern or not BEFORE any which-path measurement is made on the idler photon. The photon doesn't just seem to react when we look, it reacts if we're even going to look but haven't yet.
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
"...as a measurement device isn't even required for the photon to appear to react."
"Measuring device" means any particle of matter. Furthermore, the brain cannot be interacting quantum mechanically as decoherence occurs at far too small scales for that to be the case. You are just wrong on so many levels, I don't really see any point of further communication. Go get a Ph.D. in physics and come back to me when you know something.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 You really have no freakin' clue what in the hell you are talking about, do you? Newsflash braniac: Decoherence doesn't explain the wave function collapse - it has nothing to do with it. It only explains how/why we observe classicality in the macroscopic from quantum effects. You're doing nothing but talking a whole lot of nonsense. Ok then, run away and hide when the big, bad man begins to expose the flaws in your ideological thinking. Quite typical.
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
"Decoherence doesn't explain the wave function collapse - it has nothing to do with it."
Weak quantum measurements say otherwise. Look, I know you've turned QM into your own personal religion. So you go have fun with that, and leave the science to scientists. I am interested in FACTS, not personal beliefs. You have yet to show that consciousness exists, and your metaphysical "I feel it so it must be real" is not scientific justification.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
"You really have no freakin' clue what in the hell you are talking about, do you?"
Actually, you don't know what you are talking about. You and your "bloated sensations" have nothing to do with science. You're talking metaphysical mumbo jumbo that is frankly laughable. I have already pointed out numerous errors in your line of thinking, and you just breeze right over them and spout more metaphysical nonsense.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 What "metaphysical nonsense" have I spouted? Provide an example. You've done nothing so far but argue through repeated logical fallacies, unsubstantiated proclamations, and blinding breaches of rationality ordinarily mastered by 12 year olds. You talk almost nothing but nonsensical, meaningless swill. You sir, are what's known in the business as "a crackpot."
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@ThinkTank255 ...and, saying something to the effect of "Because we can record the result using an unconscious device and only observe the result after the experiment has been completed." is not a valid answer - experiments such as the "quantum eraser" experiment show that the particle being observed is not bound by the restraints of time.
BloatedSensations 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
"...experiments such as the 'quantum eraser' experiment show that the particle being observed is not bound by the restraints of time."
You misunderstand the quantum eraser experiment. The measurement itself must be measured. Once you have a chain of measurements that is long enough, such that the probability that it is not measured is close to zero, we say the particle is measured. No observer is required.
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
@BloatedSensations
Btw, we call the process whereby the probability tends to zero "decoherence".
ThinkTank255 1 month ago
if you want to know what light is, and what magnetisim is alone with gravity( grand unified theory) don't look at quantum for answer you will not find it, just head over to bill gaedes videos!
it explains all three in a simply and easy to understand!
pooltrader 3 months ago
wow just check out bill gaedes videos, check out his zero slit experiemnt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pooltrader 3 months ago
a physics explanation that made sense
gaiagale 3 months ago
Ok now after listening further I don't know what he means, now I think maybe he is a logically inconsistent incoherent idiot with this Copenhagen crap, he even sounds high. Schrodinger's Cat made fun of this magical thinking, reality isn't predicated on our knowledge and observations, this isn't an American cartoon where you can walk off a cliff until you look down, and the fate of Schrodinger's Cat isn't determined by our ability to determine the fate of Schrodinger's Cat.
Laughingblades 4 months ago
@Laughingblades You're wrong, sorry. I do hope you'll get what he's saying at some point. All the best.
vokuvoku 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vokuvoku Maybe you can explain it to me, since you say I'm wrong with no qualifications.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades I know it seems confusing and like a trick, but you have to maybe go beyond where you are at, I jsut don't think you can that though without completely changing and if you seem not ready to do so, then don't sweat it, if it seems inconsistent to you, then that works for you, for your reality tunnel, but you should prepare yourself for something else in case that doesn't work out for you, again that requires a large amount of doubt and thinking, it took me decades.
econogate 3 months ago
"A particle can be in three places at the same time without being anywhere at all" I'm sorry wut? I know what he means actually, but when you explain it that way, you sound like a logically inconsistent incoherent idiot prone to magical thinking.
But really at the quantum level what a particle is isn't so clearly defined, the smaller you go the more it's the same matter in different states, matter isn't made up of solid spheres it only appears solid to us on a macro level, and light is matter.
Laughingblades 4 months ago
i love everyone on this random internet page, you guys get the great cosmic joke
AtheistAnarchoRudi 4 months ago
What about Hitler's reality tunnel.
daniel987878 4 months ago
I recently gave my mathematics to a physicist friend of mine at the University of Washington. So, I guess we'll see if physicists do anything with it.
ThinkTank255 4 months ago
@ThinkTank255 You seem to assume mathematics is reality, as opposed to a tool that can help us make better models about reality. Please reconsider.
If not, I'd like to hear your take on Gödel's first incompleteness theorem.
Jurily 4 months ago
@Jurily
"You seem to assume mathematics is reality, as opposed to a tool that can help us make better models about reality."
Assume, no. MUST be true. Yes.
"If not, I'd like to hear your take on Gödel's first incompleteness theorem."
Certainly. Godel's incompleteness theorem follows from the ASSUMPTION of infinity. Notice, first-order propositional logic Godel's is SOUND and COMPLETE. Furthermore, there MUST be a mapping between ALL higher logics and finite 1st order logic.
ThinkTank255 4 months ago
@ThinkTank255 Mathematics is not reality. All mathematical concepts are products of our mind. How can you be 100% certain of MWI when you have no way of proving it? The word "certainty" shouldn't ever be mentioned in discussion of MWI. You may believe that your parallel universes exist according to your math but you cannot be certain. People like Tegmark, for instance, make baseless claims without anything to back it up. As a physicist myself I am disgusted with what I see happening in physics
QuantumRuslan 4 months ago
@QuantumRuslan Mathematics are not solely products of our mind, if they were, they would not be able to be of use to explain or predict nature (Nature as defined by reality following physical laws), and therefore would be useless in their scientific applications. Mathematics at best is a direct study of Being, of existence, which can be shown, in an aexample apropos to his video, when Dirac was able to predict antimatter 4 years before its observational discovery SOLELY using mathematics.
goldenarms12 4 months ago
@goldenarms12 This is what you believe. When I say that math is the product of our mind I mean exactly that - mathematical quantities do not exist in our universe, in our space and time. Points, irrational numbers, circles, etc. You claim without any proof that math is a study of Being, that old idea from Plato. Ok. But then you have to explain why it happens so that those abstract concepts living in another world happen to describe what goes on in our universe.
QuantumRuslan 4 months ago
@QuantumRuslan
goldenarms12, seems to understand. You seem to be a little confused. You're attempting to apply metaphysical ideas to something which does not require the application of metaphysical. If you understand that all of your arguments right now rely on logic (literally, every single sentence you've written relies heavily on logic), then how much sense does it make to challenge logic USING logic??? I'd say pretty much zero sense. It really is that simple. No metaphysics required.
ThinkTank255 4 months ago
@ThinkTank255 I think you both don't seem to understand what I was saying. So I will try again. Whatever you do in math, like showing there are multiverses and so on, you cannot know about them physically, because our cognition is limited to things in the Universe of our space and time. You cannot claim that mathematical objects are real, just like you can't claim 100% certainty in MWI 'cause there will never be a physical proof which you need since you apply math to describe physics.
QuantumRuslan 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThinkTank255 I think you both don't seem to understand what I was saying. So I will try again. Whatever you do in math, like showing there are multiverses and so on, you cannot know about them physically, because our cognition is limited to things in the Universe of our space and time. You cannot claim that mathematical objects are real, just like you can't claim 100% certainty in MWI 'cause there will never be a physical proof which you need since you apply math to describe physics.
QuantumRuslan 4 months ago
I can't argue with logic - when I study geometry I need to use logic. No one will argue against theorems in Euclid's book, for example as they are logically solid. But that's different because those theorems describe abstract mathematical entities. Tegmark and Everett,on the other hand, use math to describe physical universe.
I find it also interesting that arguably the greatest logician of all time also happened to be clinically insane. So you do not need Logic to make Logic.
QuantumRuslan 4 months ago
@ThinkTank255 I am not trying to challenge LOGIC. I need logic, for instance, when I study Euclid's geometry. But there's a difference because Euclid applies logic to abstract mathematical concepts, while Tegmark and Everett apply math to physical concept - the universe. It produces the result that cannot be proven physically, just because math works out perfectly doesn't mean it produces correct description of universe. And even if you claim it does you have no way of proving it to a physicist.
QuantumRuslan 4 months ago
@QuantumRuslan
"It produces the result that cannot be proven physically, just because math works out perfectly doesn't mean it produces correct description of universe."
You're not understanding. Step back for a moment and look at the big picture. That's a LOGICAL argument. You can't use it. Your entire conception of the universe is built on logical arguments. I guess this requires an extensive knowledge of logic to understand what I am talking about, so I can understand your confusion.
ThinkTank255 4 months ago
@QuantumRuslan
You're not understanding. Step back and look at the big picture. THAT is a logical argument. You can't use logical arguments to determine where logic can and cannot be applied, because you're making the assumption that it can be applied already.
ThinkTank255 4 months ago
@QuantumRuslan
I don't really have time to teach a course in logic, but I'm sure you are aware that ALL known processes in the universe conform to logic. If you are going to say there is some thing to which logic doesn't apply, then you have to specify what does apply to replace logic. However, you can't use the internet, because only logical signals can be transmitted so, it's pretty much pointless trying to imply that something other than logic can exist using the internet.
ThinkTank255 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThinkTank255 This is not even about logic. And by the way, QM doesn't conform to logic.My original post was in regard to your post " I say 100% because I have mathematics that strongly suggests that parallel universes exist, and are completely consistent with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics." All I said is that you cannot make such statements about the universe, in other words, your math maybe very elegant and beautiful but it is useless to a physicist.
QuantumRuslan 4 months ago
@ThinkTank255 When I'm engaged in the practical affairs of living, I tend to agree with you - we seem to do best when we determine the facts of a situation as well as we may, and then respond in ways that are consistent with the logical steps needed to attain a desired outcome. More abstractly, though, I consider the old puzzle of logicians: "Determine the truth or falsity of this statement: 'This very statement is false.' " It seems to confound the conditional either/or framework of logic.
Tigerpaws9097826 4 months ago
@Tigerpaws9097826
The reason there is no real paradox is because "this statement" is not logically "well-defined" because "this statement" has a recursive definition which requires a 2nd order logic. In reality, only first order logic makes sense. Supposedly "infinite" loops of self-recursion are nonsensical constructions of mathematicians that have absolutely no connection to reality. The "infinity" of mathematics is work. It represents a process that takes a very long time for humans.
ThinkTank255 4 months ago
I say 100% because I have mathematics that strongly suggests that parallel universes exist, and are completely consistent with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
ThinkTank255 4 months ago
The Copenhagen interpretation is NOT correct, and thus, Wilson is wrong. The mathematics CLEARLY shows that the Copenhagen interpretation is not correct. However, physicists are very dogmatic. After hundreds of years of working with Classical physics, it's hard for them to change, and accept that reality is not anything like classical physics. I'm 100% certain this is the way history will record this. The parallel universes of MWI, as crazy as they may seem, are correct. I'm 100% certain.
ThinkTank255 4 months ago
This Youtube post didn't exist until you looked.
chrishajduk84 4 months ago 48
@chrishajduk84 OMG 23 likes : )
mrvinyc3 3 months ago
Our dreams are reality while they last.
DeleteTheEIite 4 months ago
RAW said he's an epistemological realist. I'm not sure what he says he fits that position. He sounds here like he's an instrumentalist or anti-realist pragmatist or even pomo.
S2Cents 4 months ago
Any actual physicists care to say if Wilson is getting it right?
S2Cents 4 months ago
i love this topic/subject but how stoned does he look ?
MegaGeeez 4 months ago
This man is an idiot ... and people who foillow him are idiots. All show and no substance. He should be selling snake oil.
universalsailor 5 months ago
@universalsailor Yes...idiots like Comedian George Carlin, Authors Tom Robbins, Henry Miller, & Philip K. Dick, Dr. John Lilly, physicist John Gribbin etc, etc.....I could go on for quite a while. I suggest you look up the quotes regarding Robert Anton Wilson by any of these people. If Wilson is an idiot and those who follow him are idiots then I suppose I would be really proud to count myself an "idiot" if that meant that I was in the same league as any of them.
frankensteinmoneymac 5 months ago
I adore Schrodinger's Cat... it's the absolute best shaggy dick joke in the history of literature. We miss you, RAW!
bea2thej 5 months ago
yo, funnycookbook - Mr. Wilson certainly is lucky he's left this plane of existence . . . otherwise, he would have had to suffer the explicit wrath of a brilliant, lucid critic such as yourself. Granted, his style of writing is either hit or miss with a reader; however, the subject matters he has taken on and his sincere desire to assist his fellow humans rise from under the mass-mind-fuck to, at the very least, begin to think for themselves places him in an echelon eons out of your reach, punk!
Eduardo121768 5 months ago
Wilson is not a physicist; he is a psychologist. He is extremely out of touch with contemporary physics and his book, _Quantum Psychology: How Brain Software Programs You and Your World_, is consequently impossible to take seriously.
Spindlework 5 months ago
What event do you go to and drink beer talk about quantum physics?
SuperTrancend 5 months ago
this motherfucker is lucky he's dead or i'd send him a rude email. this fuckface thinks he can write shitty books? i give this illumintus shit one star! TERRIBLE author. what a motherfucker. his fans are worse!
funnycookbook 5 months ago
@funnycookbook Your idea of retaliation is a harshly worded letter?
I think you'd fit in with the folks at the United Nations.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
Spirituality and science will merge. Like he's stated. Yoga is the science of the east while science is the yoga of the west.
antitype27 6 months ago
And then read his books. All of them! You will never see reality the same way again. "Keep the Lasagna Flying!"
pansophia93 6 months ago
@stauffap
Robert Anton Wilson was a Nuerologist, Physicist, Linguist, and Mathmatician. And an amazing man! This short piece is from "Maybe Logic." Watch the whole documentary.
pansophia93 6 months ago
He doesn't explain quantuum physics here, so the title is misleading...he simply interpretates it...and i'm not even sure if he understands quantuum physics( the things that can be understood )...i suggest you to learn about quantuum physics from a physicist (like richard feynman) and not a philosopher...i mean you can't just believe the crap he's telling you without knowing where it's supposed to come from...it would be irrational
stauffap 6 months ago
0:38 "I started investigating this"
^The most important phrase to remember.
YOU are the one who should investigate claims made by others.
bobbygnosis 6 months ago 19
This has been flagged as spam show
@bobbygnosis 'I do not like the reappearance of The Jesuits ... If ever there was a body of men who merited damnation on earth and in hell, it is this society of Loyola's. Nevertheless, we are compelled by our system of religous toleration to offer them an asylum.' John Adams, 2nd President of the U.S.A
countdumas 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bobbygnosis "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT owing NO allegiance and acknowledging NO responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today." PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT, 1906
countdumas 4 months ago
@bobbygnosis Thank you.
BG2071 4 months ago
@bobbygnosis maybe
AtheistAnarchoRudi 4 months ago
@AtheistAnarchoRudi Touché.
bobbygnosis 4 months ago
@bobbygnosis Restate that using E-prime.
Darpinion 3 months ago
an absolutely incredible man. his knowledge seemed to give him amazing presence. i pray for a hundredth of his insight. but, i'm learning to open my mind to new realities because of people like him.
shortandbald 6 months ago
I hope people aren't confusing this with subjective consiousness or reality. Brain neurons hold connections to interpret stimulus, of course some people will have damaged or different neuron abititys but as we all share a very common idea of reality, you can deduce that what you see is real, except for a few perceptual anomalies due to different pathing in the brain
mattlamb34 6 months ago
Compare RAW's interpretation to snake oil salesman Deepak Chopra's deliberately effusive and self-aggrandising gibberish about 'superposition' and 'consciousness'. One can explain complex things in order to make interpretation easier (RAW) or harder (Chopra). Therein lies the difference between shaman and charlatan.
MrApikoros 6 months ago
Comment removed
ThinkTank255 7 months ago
So basically quantum theory explains nothing is actually as anyone sees it? There cannot be a defined space for anything?
MIDNAq1LINK 7 months ago
@sodaxcandy08
He has a slight speech impediment which is exacerbated by a few missing front teeth. Its disingenuous of you to make such a comment.
The important point is at 2:50 - the interpretation of scientific models is a function of the way we perceive reality. For clues to describing perception he draws on the rich sources in mysticism, religion and philosophy.
Scientists who believe that FACTS and their MODELS represent some form of "truth" are unwitting victims of their own beliefs.
TheRealJeffHall 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheRealJeffHall 7 months ago
he seems to be never sober..
sodaxcandy08 7 months ago
What's the music?
ch3shirecat85 7 months ago
@ch3shirecat85 Boards of Canada - Zoetrope
octivator 2 weeks ago
Surreal. Starts off with a woman dressed like a German, speaking perfect sounding German and turns to him sounding American asking about quantum physics.
capricious71 7 months ago
im studying physics, and i dont like this video, it raises questions but doesnt answer many.
he doesnt explain the pauli exclusion principle or the heisenberg uncertainty principle or quantum electrodynamics.
instead, he goes into buddhism. most of the content of this video is nonsense.
kurtilein3 7 months ago 2
Sounds like Christopher Langan.
ion010101 7 months ago in playlist Multidimensionals and Inspirationals
perspective is reality
Grock123 7 months ago
alguns jogam outros contam cartas
The1O1man 7 months ago
Even the general relativity theory is closely related to our place in space-time. which turns Einstein into corner guard.
The1O1man 7 months ago
Even the general relativity theory is based in the space-time molds from where we are.
what makes einstein a corner guard. O.o
The1O1man 7 months ago
♥ ☼ ♫ ¡¡EUREKA! ♫ ☼ ♥ #Liberty . . . Nice video ;-) @sloeber THANK YOU ♫ ☼ ♥
libertyomnilife 7 months ago
this guy is delusional
sco40 7 months ago
@sco40 it must be hard to be you, right?
you are the only one who understands everything. only you know reality and truth, and you can clearly see that this man is delusional. i dont think that people really understand the burden you carry, being the only one who's never wrong, being the only one who never had any delusions and false beliefs, being the only one who truly sees nature for what it is and perceiving it to full extent.
fuck you.
Maynard0504 7 months ago
ppl don't like it when u look into their world(s).
wispers187 7 months ago
"So, ergo, any model that we make does not describe the universe, it describes what our brains are capable of saying at this time!" Hahaha. That's perfect! It's so obvious, when said that way!
dgmulf 7 months ago
Regarding reality versus the perception of reality; if I hit this guy in the face with a brick as hard as I can, his reality is going to be pain. He may perceive it any way he wishes.
JeffersonDinedAlone 7 months ago
@JeffersonDinedAlone Inflicting pain on another human being is a violation of their free will..and a gross misuse of your own..A crime that is punishable by death..It is apparent that you are perceived as an asshole through many reality tunnels
ThanatonInfoSlump 7 months ago
@ThanatonInfoSlump Just as any other idiot, you have missed the point entirely. The point was perception, not the method thereof. And a little clarification for you regarding the justice system; assault and battery is not punishable by death. A fine, or incarceration, possibly. So, instead of wasting one of your superior's time, I would suggest that you attend one of your favored bars, chat up one of the men there, and offer your reality tunnel to him for the night.
JeffersonDinedAlone 7 months ago
@JeffersonDinedAlone I wasnt referring to man made laws..If you were to hit me in the face with a brick you wouldnt have to worry about paying a fine..I dont have any superiors btw...none of us do as we are all equal..I was only commenting on your hatefulness..relax..try to be more conscientious to balance out the intellect..RELAX!..peace...sweet dreams...hugs and kisses...I love you
ThanatonInfoSlump 7 months ago
@JeffersonDinedAlone How would someone know if they had been brainwashed? They wouldn't. So how do you know that you haven't been brainwashed?
doesthismakeanysense 7 months ago
@doesthismakeanysense Why ask me? I never mentioned it.
JeffersonDinedAlone 7 months ago
We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it-we don't even know we're making an interpretation most of the time. we think it's reality. philosophers has called naive realism.-Robert Anton Wilson--soooooo true
mirianm99 7 months ago
I would so luv to get down and dirty with that german beotch drinking the beer.
john17972 7 months ago
As explanations go, this is either the prequel or post script. The actual explanation is nowhere to be seen.
chrisofnottingham 7 months ago
This guy's cool!
Alzdr 7 months ago
those with two good ears had better listen!
constructivist6 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Could quantum mechanics represent the passage or Arrow of Time?
This theory is based on just two postulates,
1.The first is that the quantum wave particle function explained by Schrödinger’s wave equation represents the forward passage of time or Arrow of Time itself photon by photon, quanta by quanta or moment by moment.
2. The second is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event.
nickharvey7 8 months ago
"Reality tunnel." Ha. Utter nonsense. Complete BS. If anything science tells us how similar we are, not how different we are. Our eyes see photons. Our ears perceive vibrations in the air. Etc.... We all perceive the same basic reality. Now, we may have different interpretations, but we all perceive basically the same reality. Science was born out of a REJECTION of mystical thinking, not the other way around. Otherwise, we'd still be back in the dark ages (and, clearly, some of us still are).
ThinkTank255 8 months ago
@ThinkTank255 There is no way you can ever know what reality one perceives. It doesn't even matter. Either side, mystical, orthodox, both are effects in conciousness.
IIemzyII 8 months ago
@IIemzyII
This is actually not true. Neuroscience provides strong evidence we perceive things similarly, and our perceptions have nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics.
ThinkTank255 8 months ago
@ThinkTank255 I think the whole "reality tunnel" thing means each individuals own experience of the world of emotion, conditioning, beliefs, etc, is completely unique. Though we have similar experiences, habitat, beliefs, in truth everyone is living a life with the world according to you. Sure we see a tree as the same, but we don't internally perceive it the same in that your viewing this object through your own filter of emotions.
IIemzyII 8 months ago
@IIemzyII
The point is, he was relating the "reality tunnel" to quantum mechanics, and there simple is zero evidence for that. All evidence in neuroscience points to the fact that brains do not rely on quantum mechanics at all.
ThinkTank255 8 months ago
@ThinkTank255 I'm sure there's much we don't understand or are even aware of.
IIemzyII 8 months ago
@IIemzyII
There's really not that much that we're not aware of as far as the brain goes. In fact, significant portions of brains have already been simulated on computers. We KNOW the basic underlying mechanisms which allows the brain to perceive reality, and we know they are not magic, and have nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics. In fact, there are actually some very exciting things going on right now in these fields. The advances we will seen in the next decade will be unbelievable.
ThinkTank255 8 months ago
@ThinkTank255 I wonder what our advancements will be when I'm 80. Probably unfathomable at the rate we seem to be going in the last decade or two. I'm sure we'll see some ridiculous things in our lives. We may well be living much longer by the time we reach the current projected lifespan. Will disease and sickness be a thing of the past?
IIemzyII 8 months ago
Comment removed
petecabrina 8 months ago
@petecabrina Old ways can't last forever :)
IIemzyII 8 months ago
@IIemzyII
If technology continues to progress and we don't run into any major social problems, I have no doubt that within 30 years things will be so radically different we can't even imagine it today. This will be a natural consequence of self-improving AI, as Ray Kurzweil has pointed out, if we design them carefully with all the necessary ethical safeguards.
ThinkTank255 7 months ago
What would happen if everything is in an unimaginable complex computer simulation where our universe exists? Could we detect such a situation, living inside the simulation?
The discrete Plank packet nature of Nature does not suggest it ?
There are speculations that time is discrete, that instants can not be smaller than certain amount of femto-seconds. Does that not point to a computer clock ? If every particle has a program function that interacts with neighbor particle functions then .....
powerdriller10 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is good video no? ... I think so...
ThePertinentesUno 8 months ago
This is good video no? ...
ThePertinentesUno 8 months ago
"Reality tunnel." Ha. Utter nonsense. Complete BS. If anything science tells us how similar we are, not how different we are. Our eyes see photons. Our ears perceive vibrations in the air. Etc.... We all perceive the same basic reality. Now, we may have different interpretations, but we all perceive basically the same reality. Science was born out of a REJECTION of mystical thinking, not the other way around. Otherwise, we'd still be back in the dark ages (and, clearly, some of us still are).
ThinkTank255 8 months ago
@ThinkTank255 You must have a faulty insight If that's you're belief. Perceptions may be similar (not the same), but an interpretation is completely distinct from another. I think you're truly underestimating & misunderstanding the true power that lays behind an interpretation and the influences it has. You're only looking at the very basics of science, without applying any contemplation.
NBAXXX 8 months ago