Okay, just to simplify, the chicken and the egg exist at the same time, they are 'perturbations' of conciousness, that our mind as the primary tool and 'lens' of the reality presented to it by the greater general conciousness orders and stretches into a causal sequence of 'events' that place it in a (in this case hypothetical) space and time context....see...its simple! It you need a concrete anomoly of space time, try the constant speed of light, which stays the same despite the speed...cont..
@IMOLEGREGG ..of the viewer. Consider how light would percieve itself (indulge me) if it where concious. Einstein tells us that at the speed of light on object coud travel an infinite distance in zero time. So from lights' 'point of view no time passes and there is no distance to traverse. Yet our mind orders this core reality and perceives this experience 'stretched' out over the vast distances and timescales of our wholy illusory space time context.
It is funny that through science we try to understand something beyond matter. They might have clues of how or what consciousness does, or really understanding this common yet so mysterious "thing". They will probably have to go beyond conventional science.
AS AN ENGINEERING PHYSICIST, WITH A BS IN BIOCHEMISTRY AND A MINOR IN PSYCHOLOGY, I BELIEVE THE GENT NAMED @AGOUBY, HAS HIS CRANIUM UP HIS PROCTODIAL OPENING VERY FIRMLY, AND IS SELF-DELUSIONAL DUE TO THE METHANE HE IS INHALING. DRE GOSWAMI MAKES SENSE, BECAUSE HE HAS AN IQ GREATER THAN THE NEUROIDIOT.
This is an invitation to everyone or anyone to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
@nickharvey7 then perhaps this is fatal flaw of current scientific thinking. How are you going to cope with particles/waveforms that are 'real and not real' 'not real and not not real'. Science has consistently ignored some of our core experiences of the world in which we appear to exist, by which I mean the intuitions, imaginings, and inspirations that give birth to rational thought. It also needs to consider without prejudice the evidence of 'psychic' action at a distance, strings?? of??..
@IMOLEGREGG Electrical activity in our brain the continual flow of ideas (consciousness) is the most advanced part of a universal process in this theory (Quantum Atom Theory). Light waves of EMR are continuously forming new photon-oscillations creating new wave function of potential future probability. A process we see and feel as the flow of time!
The possibilities of nothing, resulting in variations to which reality varies between the individual who consciously determines existence within one’s self is only a memory of what has yet to come.
It does not matter what came first the chicken or the egg, just knowing that both exist in a state that allows us to make the determination gives us understanding.
Join Occupy Global (WEalloccupy dot info) by signing the 3 petitions to promote 100% collective consciousness (WEare100percent dot info) as a WE Party Peace Ambassador (volunteer online mentor)
proto-consciousness exists everywhere; when the w-f self-collapses it makes an allowable choice and consciousness becomes; an observer does not choose to collapse a w-f; allowable paths are those defined as Platonic principles embedded in the universe, seen as harmony and fractality
I am an artist and when I create a work of art it takes energy and is a process over a period of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π. There is always uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π of how the art work will turn out in three dimensional (4π spherical) space the position of the lines and curves π on the canvas. Every movement I make will have to start at the quantum level and will have an uncertainty of momentum and position therefore is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle the same uncertainty we have with any future event?
@aqouby…i dont want to get into a debate with you however, i suggest you research neurology and take a deep look into yourself. it may give you some insight as to why you are inconsistent and talk our of your ass ; ). i wish you well
Sorry, here is the first bit. George Berkeley speculated that existence is dependent on perception, it's rather odd Science is now reducing the world to one of an immaterial nature.
Has Science only really caught up? It may have factualised Berkeley's speculation but nevertheless it's quite embarassing. There are three different perspectives, the Scientific Perspective, the Philosophical perspective, and the Everyday Life Perspective which is generated through cultural and habit. Science in this century has at last caught up with Kant. Now Heinsenberg, in physics, and Godel, in mathematics, have shown ineluctable limits to human reason.
What is this guys PHD? What a fucktard. Everyone learn physics for yourself and sift though this bullcrap. If anyone knows how to interpret the Schrodinger equation and use matrix theory then you may understand that this guy is talking out his ass. Please learn, don't listen to this brown turd.
@aqouby You called him a turd and a fucktard. You must be so much smarter than him and therefor correct. Thank you random Youtube user with absolutely no credentials, you're my messiah for logic and reason.
@HadeanAgent Yeah I called him those names. Sure it's immature, but this man has no credentials either. What credentials Deepak does have is NOT science. This man talks of quantum mechanics like he understands it but he doesn't at all! And Yes, I am a lot smarter then him because I don't claim to know the things he THINKS he knows. Quantum mechanics is described in every other way but this mans. I SHOULD be everyones messiah for logic and reason because you won't find any from this video. Study.
@aqouby Oh you noble crusader for all that is logical. The man is entitled to voice his interpretation of the world, whether its goofy or not. Everybody has to live by the same laws but everyone sees the world a little differently. This guy just had enough audacity to speak his mind in the face of oceans of jackasses who think the way you do - who'll ridicule at the first sign of something not understood but who never actually contribute anything useful to the world. Grow a pair.
@HadeanAgent First of all, you don't know anything about me so you cannot claim that I haven't attributed to society, which I have. Secondly, people like me are scientists! We think of nature and its laws and work with what we know as fundamental, THEN we try our hardest to prove it wrong-- because only through objectivity can one eventually have his thoughts become valid physics of this Universe. As a human being it's my duty to sort out this kinda bull shit from reality. He lies to people!
@HadeanAgent He doesn't only lie to himself, but he lies to other people and gets them to believe him because he uses the words "quantum" and "discontinuity." This man doesn't know any quantum mechanics and he uses his influence to make people believe he does. HE DOESN'T.
@theJKT91 Hides? I obviously am letting myself be known. I'm advising everyone to learn things for themselves and to think critically. Why wouldn't you listen to me?
@aqouby You're a garden variety racist using the anonymity of the internet to make remarks you wouldn't dare to make in civilized company. On those grounds alone, I can reject you and your arguments. Freethinker my ass.
And just for the record: Schrodinger would be on this guy's side. Do a bit of reading.
@aqouby Funny you mention that. Because Schrodinger came up with precisely that idea before Chopra (whom I honestly don't give much thought to) was born. Ditto Oppenheimer, ditto Freeman Dyson, ditto (to a lesser extent) Niels Bohr. Look up Schrodinger's book "What is Life." Do your homework.
@theJKT91 This video and what Deepak is saying has nothing scientific in it. It doesn't matter if they believed in voodoo-- the science is what counts. Is Schrodinger famous for his philosophy or his work in fundamental physics? Oppenheimer... Famous for his beliefs on the spirit, or his leadership is the production of the first atomic bomb? Belief doesn't mean shit.
@aqouby Schrodinger built his philosophy around his findings, so yes, what he believed does matter. It matters every bit as much as Richard Dawkins' atheism--derived from his own research in the field of evolution--matters. Forget about Deepak, there are schmucks on every side of every debate. They don't contribute anything important.
@theJKT91 No no no, he built his philosophy around his findings so his Findings are what matters-- not what he believes. Good beliefs are inspired by facts of the real world and this man doesn't use any from the real world. He uses ideas of spirituality and consciousness.. Things that are a creation of human superstition. Belief is superstition without evidence. And IF Schrodinger believed that bullshit then that's fine because he didn't postulate it as absolute truth-- Work, not belief, matters
@aqouby First you denied that he held that position, now you are claiming that it is irrelevant. You reject Schrodinger's position out of hand because it conflicts with yours.
@theJKT91 I'm denying that he believed the same ideas as Deepak. I'm also stating that beliefs do not matter because, in fact, they don't. Truth matters. There's nothing I reject about Schrodinger except his personal beliefs because BELIEFS don't rely on any evidence or justification, like philosophy. I believe you're a tool, it doesn't make it true because I base it on nothing but my opinion of you and how you react. Well, now it's a theory because I have evidence to show that you are one.
@theJKT91 What? funny remarks to an asshole? Who cares what you think or what I think or what this fucker thinks-- the TRUTH is what matters. Philosophical nonsense will get us nowhere. When you pull in real science then you're gona get backlash from people that try to defend science. You're a fool and not in tune with reality.
yo bro. we can't be afraid of what we don't understand. all we can do is try. skepticism is part of it, but casting off possibility goes directly against what science, consciousness, or understanding really is. the world is not black and white
Who do voodoo like the Hindu? Cracks me up! Physics kills life in order to define life. What? All points become pointless. Get the point? Just like religions running away from God while screaming they know God. We must kill the frog to know the life of the frog. Heartlessness manifesting as some "benefit "? Hold in one hand all religion and science. Yes? In the other hand hold all the worlds suffering. The solution? More science and religion.?? Humm! Voodoo me thinks.
You know...I was looking for a little more explanation, clarification on what Mr. Goswami was talking about and all I read at the forefront is negativity. Do we have to put down other people's ideas, thoughts, beliefs in such a way? Can't we just question and draw our own conclusion?
Complete Hocus Pocus. He makes a huge jump from talking about collapsing the wave function to a "observers consciousness" actually doing it just by saying that "quantum physics shows it clearly" when it really does not. This sounds like a desperate attempt to make science harmonious with Hindu bio-centric concepts of having everything connected through a common bond.
Better to think in several possibilities overall....I see Quantum Activism as a possibility to all things...and maybe not all of it....more so some of it and maybe people are trying to find something wrong,do find a interpretation somewhere to make it wrong..and dis-credit do to ego,But I do support quantum activism. But I also believe in a possibility that none of it is true and maybe other sources are not so biased.We all Know nothing because what we know will change.
New age hippie crap. No evidence for this assertion at all. This is like a mind of the gaps argument. We don't really understand quantum physics yet so lets say it's a mind blah blah blah
@TheSzwedkowski No kid, measuring quantum physics collapses the wave function, whether the measurement is conscious or not is irrelevant. This nonsense has been debunked decades ago. Catch up
@VVSK99 Nice assumptive straw man. Too bad for you I don't drink or do drugs and consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with measurement collapsing the wave function. This garbage has been debunked so many times it's pathetic anyone would be dishonest enough to produce it or gullible enough to believe it.
well, if quantum events underlie all phenomenon, then of course as beings in and of the universe, quantum physics underlies consciousness. The idea that our consciousness is cut off from the elementality of the subatomic realm is absurd. Paul Dirac, a nobel prizewinner, said that without quantum events absolutely nothing would exist. quantum to atomic to molecules to matter
Quantum mechanics says nothing whatsoever about consciousness. Trying to understand consciousness by studying QM is like trying to understand traffic jams by looking at brake fluid under a microscope. Yes, brake fluid is at the bottom of the causal chain that leads to traffic jams, but you are looking at absolutely the WRONG LEVEL OF DESCRIPTION to learn anything meaningful about the phenomenon.
Conciousness, the Absolute, is everything...Subject non-distinct from objects, perceiving differenceless from perceptibles. In that transparent Realization, the I-ness of each and all is experienced as the I. This s not open-eyed meditation. It is "God". There IS no meditation. You cannot melt in the Ocean of Consciousness when you ARE the Ocean of Consciousnessd. Mahamudra addresses the tangled heirarchy with same experiential Oneness. GREAT GRATITUDE, Dr. Goswami.
"how does it translate to me?" the questions IS the trick...The truth that sets you free is that there is no you. Investing 100% of your equity in a phantom 'me', that goes up in smoke along w/ everything else is the basic human condition; when will we learn we are no such things as humans? As Nisagardatta said: "liberation is not of a person, it is from a person." There are no persons, no world, nothing. "All is empty from the beginning"..see H.H. the Sixth Patriarch Hui Neng (638-713).
@amirvega I'm among those dudes who spends a large pat of his life actually doing real science which means I'm among those dudes who knows when someone is talking crap!! hahaha
no respected scientist follow any of the nonsense this guy and depak chopra .etc. are saying, and yes chi is a load of crap :-) show me the peer reviewed scientific proof for "qi energy" or STOP USING THE WOD SCIENCE!!
@yunged 'Scientist' are rapidly becoming aware of the limitations of our senses and are almost re-clarifying ancient 'spiritual' knowledge (especially alchemy which describes the inward/outward process to obtain pure enlightenment) through 'modern' mathematics(geometry, modular forms, Fibonacci sequence etc.) and science (quantum mechanics, astronomy, chemistry etc.). We don't fully understand the meaning of 'now' to really be able to say where we are at.
No evidence is necessary? All is explained above, there are two sides to the coin I see 2, you and that armivega dude only seem to see only one side each, that's why you 2 have been chasing each other around the maypole for a few days lol. You obviously seek sense gratification and he seeks spiritual enlightenment, the views are subjective and conflictive but when interpreted correctly they lay in harmony (spirituality-logic, religion-science, observe-analyze, eve-adam etc.).
@jamafrican657 Haha that may be the best cop out i have heard mate!
I need reasons for everything i think, the world is not subjective, you objectively know that if you jump out of your window you are going to hit the ground due to gravity, if you think that is subjective then i invite you to try it!!
You see the world to be the way you want the world to be, i see the world the way it shows itself to be, i have no respect for your position!!
@yunged By stating that you need reasons for everything you have found a 'subjective' niche in life, if you were. What you seem to be unable to process my friend is that there is a background anthropological weaving that intangibly resides 'concurrent' to objective reality (the sort of shit that makes you wanna go ape when you hear some banging 'preferred' music). I'm not disproving anything, there is nothing to disprove.
@yunged You could be at number 100'000 (with the numbers indicating a 'purpose sake' scaled rank of intelligence between you 2) and your friend you are arguing with could be at number 10, but you are still no closer to infinite than he is.
@amirvega He is talking about the world being sculpted by some human consciousness, this is very foolish as anything that is large enough for us to interact with is inherently too large for quantum physical effects.
I see why he thinks the things he is saying but they are based on a misunderstanding of some very complicated scientific principles
@amirvega Ok more specifically, the wave function of a quantum particle does indeed appear to be broken by some form of observation (though in the most famous case this wasn't human observation but instead a mechanical measurement) this however can't be carried over to 'greater then atomic' objects as famously pointed out by Schroedinger back in 1935!!
This man is twisting scientific uncertainty to back his unscientific beliefs!
Hahaha this man is what happens when people want to be scientists but they are too lazy to put the actual work in!!! his understanding of the principles he is talking about is embarrassingly lacking
These are the times of spiritual awakening. Knowledge once again has increased to the point where the creator is acknowledged like was done 13,000 years ago. I propose that knowledge increases & decreases based on the amount of gamma ray energy which our solar system interacts with. Gamma rays are the result of a strong electromagnetic field. Our brains are influenced by weak electromagnetic fields. The gamma ray energy emanating from the galaxy's core is increasing, as too our understanding.
.. Abstract: We are matter. Matter is energy. So we are energy traveling relative to other energy. Matter appears solid because it is moving relative to matter. Matter=moving relative, energy=not relative. The consciousness causes the atoms to appear real even though they are empty electromagnetic bubbles. The consciousness is the key to making things appear real. Life is truly a fantasy. We basically live in a materialistic dream full of potentiality forming atoms believing that it is all real.
This man and his theories changed my perspective on life. Of course it's all speculation but it's a way of thinking that I'm the most open to, and this is coming from a former atheist. Now I'm agnostic, I guess... or whatever
He is a physicist but his interpretation is just an opinion, not supported by QM nor defendable beyond your own superstitions. This is not a scientific basis of consciousness and is miles away from what is being unraveled by physics and
@jaumesisa100 may be miles away but we need people in these fields taking leaps of faith (excuse the term) and looking that far ahead or we'll never come close to really figuring out our consciousness.
@cyberbrahma if you have Netflix there's a great show of this guy about 2hrs. long...of him blowing your mind. I found it in documentary section. I give it a thumbs up for being eye opening.
@smokemaster79 The only understanding is how things work. Cause an effect, what is the measure of reality? There is no reality of what takes place, what takes place changes the physical universe, what is in the mind is ? Its the duality of consciousness? the world looking back? I want more weed myself there is just too much going on to measure any direction,. quantum physics is too broad a subject
There are those who knew and were sure that all was consciousness. Having quantum physics legitimize it mathematically is great But still-there are those who still would rather look at you like you are from another planet. We call them the lesser evolved because they have not arrived yet to be able to conceive beyond the material existance.I am personally thrilled with the sacred geometry phenomena and have found some like Marco? to bring to light the black hole basically and challenge einstei
"Having quantum physics legitimize it mathematically is great"
Quantum physics does not help your position at all. It takes an INTERPRETATION of quantum mechanics to add to your delusion, but the interpretation of is non-scientific. You're stuck with philosophy, quit trying to pretend that science justifies your fantasies.
The mathematics adds nothing. If you disagree, show me how the solutions to Schroedinger's equations imply the intervention of consciousness in measurement.
the more u believe in consciousness the more an effect ur beliefs have on reality so I suggest watching more & more of consciousness and w/ this u can effect reality even more.
Why doesn't anyone give me a serious description of consciousness?
It seems to me that people who know absolutely nothing of QM pretend they do, and then outlandishly assert New Age spiritual garbage. They substitute the word "consciousness" for "measurement" because it sounds very Zen, but nature does not suspend itself just because you happen to have a fantasy; it doesn't matter how often you meditate, drink Chai, read Chopra or wear Birkenstocks.
"consciousness does matter because if the universe didn't have consciousness literally every event would be predictable"
What reason do you have to believe this? As far as we know, there is no such thing as deterministic quantum mechanics. Clearly, small systems are NOT absolutely predictable. Is that because of "conscious" observers? You can waste your time with that solipsism, but if you want to be taken seriously you should take a serious logical step and at least DESCRIBE "consciousness."
consciousness does matter because if the universe didn't have consciousness literally every event would be predictable in other words no events could have gone either way pre-determiantion would exist in many senses because every event in the universe causes another, a comet cannot decide if it'll hit a planet or not, if it is going to hit earth and there is no conscious beings to change it, it will hit earth yet once consciousness exists decisions arise hence no absolute predictability.
"a comet cannot decide if it'll hit a planet or not, if it is going to hit earth and there is no conscious beings to change it, it will hit earth yet once consciousness exists decisions arise hence no absolute predictability."
No absolute predictability? You're assuming some notion of free will. Who is to say that human action is not deterministic? You cannot reason your way out of this. Just because you have cognition does not mean that the choices you make are free.
@DavidAlanRogers Yeah I know that but if consciousness has free will then consciousness destroys absolute predictability and yet if pre-determination exists then that's amazing too, so either way the consequences are quite immense.
@DavidAlanRogers Regardless of it sounding philosophical there is either free will or pre-determination, it doesn't matter of how my statement sounded. But I am a little bit confused on what you meant about solipsism? I know what it means but how does my statement result in solipsism?
How is attributing natural phenomenon to your subjective consciousness NOT solipsistic? Yes, there is either free will or unassailable determinism; but predicating the results of quantum mechanics on the former is unfalsifiable and the latter seems simply wrong because Bell's inequality clearly rules out the possibility of local hidden variable theories which shows little hope for deterministic QM. This is why physicists strictly define what is meant by "measurement."
Another problem that people have with QM is they tend to take the mathematics literally.
The path integral formalism is another way to describe QM, and in some ways it is more intuitive.
In classical mechanics the path of a particle is associated with a definite path through a phase space. In quantum mechanics all possible paths must play a role, including those unlike the classical path.
Does this mean that the particle goes through all paths at once? No. That is taking the math literally.
"Dr. Goswami proves you can be delusional and still be a well known physics professor."
The popular science physicists are generally off their rockers. I suppose Hawking made 1 or 2 notable contributions, but as soon as they start writing books for non-scientists they stop thinking like scientists. The only household physicists I can think of that actually lived up to the hype are Feynman and Einstein. Your everyday person's never heard of Dirac, Schroedinger or Maxwell. It's sad.
Also, while I agree that consciousness can very well be the essence of matter, my @DavidAlanRogers main point of arguing is not this. It is to show that philosophy is required for the explanation of phenomenon and you 'throwing' philosophy away as if it is less legitimate than science is a pretty big mistake because it is obviously required to explain the emergent, if you will, paradoxes that exist in QM. (the paradoxes that come out of putting the mathematics into words)
"you 'throwing' philosophy away as if it is less legitimate than science is a pretty big mistake because it is obviously required to explain the emergent"
Philosophy is not empirically verifiable. Choosing an interpretation of QM is just imposing an opinion. I am not interested in anything but the evidence.
"Observation requires consciousness regardless of what is observing it and you just (whether intentionally or unintentionally) supported the idea that the observer plays a role in what is observed,"
The act of "observation" is rigorously explained in any QM text. Lightly put, the observation occurs the moment a system is nudged. Calling it an observation/measurement is a bad convention that has stuck. Some newer texts refer to it as "event" instead of "observation."
back to the molecule of water. Classical physics would have to tell me that if the molecule of water does not portray the physical characteristics of water then it can't be classified as water. In other words water has to act as water no matter what in classical physics. So how does this in anyway coincide with QM? To conclude I'd like to say I've recognized that the ultimate question we disagree upon is whether or not we should put the mathematics into words when/if it would make no sense.
The observer plays a role, but not merely because he/she is watching the system. Consciousness is necessary to study any phenomenon, whether or not nature is a subjective experience is still up for debate. QM doesn't touch the issue. Physics does not touch the issue because it works on the assumption that nature is what we observe. If our mind is playing tricks on us then the issue cannot be resolved. My point is that QM does not imply a natural world that is subjective.
@DavidAlanRogers "What does the Schroedinger's cat paradox have to do with your argument? It was developed to support a purist interpretation of quantum mechanics."
It does not relate to the relationship of quantum mechanics and consciousness you're correct about this. I asked you to check it out because it demonstrates that the mathematics lead to logically impossible conclusions. Yet they explain what is actual correct? So how do you explain the dilemma created by this scientifically?
"I asked you to check it out because it demonstrates that the mathematics lead to logically impossible conclusions."
How is that? Because the state function is a linear combination of dead and alive states? The state must contain all the information of the system, by definition. The paradox is a question over whether not looking through at the cat causes the wave-function to take a stand, i.e. does human consciousness play a role? Schroedinger regarded this as patent nonsense.
the event of waking up to prove that universe still existed while you were sleeping. How can we determine what is actual without consciousness? How do we know that the universe as it exists isn't merely an epiphenomena of our consciousness when we have nothing independent of it to rely on? In philosophy you don't accept things on the basis of faith you accept them on the basis of reason. All you have to do to believe in something is show that you have good reason to and by all means we have good
@DavidAlanRogers as it is a unique characteristic to human beings is merely the ability to attach meaning to any given concept/idea. This is what sets us apart from animals and computers, our consciousness, our ability to attach meaning to things. It is only by the use of it that we can ever come to know anything that we discover in the physical world whether it is believed to be an epiphenomena of matter or the essence of matter. Even the observation of brain activity requires our consciousnes
Maybe this will show you how absurd attributing QM to human consciousness really is...
"his is what sets us apart from animals and computers"
How do you know that computers and animals do not have cognition of their own? After all, quantum mechanics maintains that a measurement need not be observed by a human to have the given natural consequences. Therefore, if quantum mechanics is attributable to consciousness (it's not!), a computer observing phenomena must be conscious.
@DavidAlanRogers "After all, quantum mechanics maintains that a measurement need not be observed by a human to have the given natural consequences. Therefore, if quantum mechanics is attributable to consciousness (it's not!), a computer observing phenomena must be conscious."
If I'm not mistaken this is merely supporting the idea that a measurement be observed to have natural consequences. That argument does not require that the observer is human, but still says that an observer must exist
@gbarcks7 To me that answer is clear, you can't AND that's where philosophy comes in. This is where I go back to what science should say. Should science conclude that we don't explain because there is no way to explain them scientifically? Or does science say we should explain them by way of philosophy? I would say that if we didn't explain them by the only means we can then we aren't committed to the science's purpose of explanation.
@DavidAlanRogers All this time its only sounded like you're saying we can complete avoid the paradox by not trying to put the mathematics into words. When that is actually what we should be doing, but somehow because we know that this will lead to several paradoxes we shouldn't do it. In other words we shouldn't do it because if we do then we must introduce the relationship between QM and philosophy. So the relationship is only there if you put it into words?
The brain observes, inherits, stores & processes information from the external world yet the brain doesn't necessarily experience it, maybe the through you is some form of consciousness within the mind that was placed inside it at birth the only word I can use is the soul, not a white ghost but a consciousness that can observe the brain's acts of this information and that is why we can have sub-conscious because no one experiences it, only the brain processes it.
@DavidAlanRogers the idea of multiple universes for example has become an increasingly popular way of explaining how particles can go from place to place (as if to teleport) without traveling in time-space. However, this makes a lot of assumptions about the unobservable. Do we even know that several universes exist? If so what is causing the electron to go out of our universe and reappear which results in it having moved one orbital further from the nucleus of the atom? Its a conclusion made
"Do we even know that several universes exist? If so what is causing the electron to go out of our universe and reappear which results in it having moved one orbital further from the nucleus of the atom?"
This is not science, science is performed upon a realm of observables. A multiverse theory is not disprovable, that's a sign of its weakness.
Orbital *further away* from nucleus? The probability distributions for electron configurations are not circular orbits at increasing radius.
@DavidAlanRogers The purpose of science is to explain the world and surely so if it must be done through mathematics, the mathematics must be explained (in words) or else they will carry as much meaning to me or anyone who is not an archaeologist as hieroglyphics. If this can't be done then this is nothing more than mathematics, not science. It is as inapplicable, unprovable as any math that does not apply to the natural world.
It is, I already differentiated between notation and mathematics.
The state of a particle is a solution to Schroedinger's equation and thus a vector in Hilbert Space.
Why? Because experimental observation confirm that this is the way that we get the relevant numerical values. i.e. We collapse the wave-function on a given Hermitian operator's eigenstate to get the probability of measuring said state. That's what the math means.
@DavidAlanRogers "The "orbital shells" you're talking about are not spherical orbits."
Once again, I know this and once again I fail to see how what I stated in anyway specifically would apply differently regardless of whether they are or are not spherical orbitals.
"their motions are not representable in a phase space w/ x and p."
Since I am only physically capable of observing phase space, how can I ever explain the motion of something not moving in phase space scientifically?
"Since I am only physically capable of observing phase space, how can I ever explain the motion of something not moving in phase space scientifically?"
Phase space is not physically observable... To say a system can be described in a phase space is to say that it has a deterministic evolution in time.
You can't describe the motion of an electron in terms of a trajectory/wave because you're producing an analogy to everyday life. The electron can be statistically analyzed, however.
@DavidAlanRogers Why is it invalid to believe that the widely accepted, but abstract concept of consciousness can't be described in terms of QM? The fact is the only thing that we can rely on to do anything including making scientific observations is consciousness so why is it unreasonable to assume that consciousness makes up matter which makes up cells, which make up our bodies? Do you have any real reason to believe that when you go to sleep the universe continues to exist? Or do you rely on
"Why is it invalid to believe that the widely accepted, but abstract concept of consciousness can't be described in terms of QM?"
Because the state variables described in quantum mechanics are in no way related to "consciousness." What do you mean by "consciousness" in any case?
Interpretations of quantum mechanics are a waste of time. There needs to be a serious scientific movement back towards purism; there are too many talented men wasting time on crap like string theory.
@DavidAlanRogers Furthermore to state that any part of science which is the observation of phenomenon is independent of consciousness is absolutely absurd. To state that something is observed with no observer by all means makes no sense. This characteristic of science as observed means that it is not something that exists INDEPENDENT of consciousness. No observation can be made or recalled or stated, or recorded, or tested without consciousness. And to explain a little more about consciousness
"No observation can be made or recalled or stated, or recorded, or tested without consciousness"
True, but quantum mechanics doesn't approach that issue. Quantum mechanics describes an ideal measurement and in no way attempts to describe (neither quantitatively nor qualitatively) the possible affects of "consciousness." QM says that non-determinism is a property of nature, not an affect of the human mind. If you want to justify a new-age consciousness argument, don't try to use QM.
@DavidAlanRogers in order for the observed to occur. Observation requires consciousness regardless of what is observing it and you just (whether intentionally or unintentionally) supported the idea that the observer plays a role in what is observed, which I thought is counter to what you've been trying to say this whole time. What I gave was an example of consciousness in the way that it is unique to humans- our ability to give meaning to things. Check out Searle's Chinese Room
@DavidAlanRogers So my biological mother is not my biological mother until I say she is?
"You can't say that something that doesn't behave "physically" just because it doesn't obey the intuition of Newtonian mechanics. That just happens to be the way nature operates, it's just as arbitrary as F=ma."
Right, and I'm saying if Newtonian mechanics was what gave us an original concept of the physical and QM came into play then we would have to redefine what is physical. This mere requirement shows
"Right, and I'm saying if Newtonian mechanics was what gave us an original concept of the physical and QM came into play then we would have to redefine what is physical."
I agree and physicists agree that nature is not just point-particles and waves. QM is accepted as a superior description of nature to avoid solipsism, attributing nature to human perception is a step backwards. Classical mechanics is still taught because it is an excellent, intuitive approximation.
Now here are my questions to you. What is the reason that QM can only be referred to mathematically? Is it because when you translate what it is saying mathematically it doesn't making any logical sense in terms of what is observed in the physical world? When matter is reduced to its sub-atomic particles and things are observed that aren't possible in terms of time and space ie one thing being in two places simultaneously. How can you then rely on physical explanations for this phenomenon?
Lastly, be careful about downplaying ideas merely because they are philosophical. You're making the assumption that anything of philosophy is somehow less valid. Yet somehow you simultaneously state that mathematics is the language of physics and mathematical discoveries are derived from philosophy. Interesting indeed... should I now waste my time trying to make you seem dumb for thinking that being a physics major means anything and commit the same fallacy you did?
why wasn't my comment allowed I was not being disparaging to scientists only commenting on tyhe comments of a few scientists in docu. They were still investigating the implications of the theories not dcrying other workers in Science. It iis the compelling mystery of the whole which is fascinating
Are you hipster morons seriously trying to discuss QM seriously without even MENTIONING Schroedinger's equation? If I read one more comment about how QM is a reflection of our imagination/mind/subconscious/dreams/harikrishna spirit energy field/etc my brain is going to sublimate and exhaust out of my ears.
If you don't know how to solve Schroedinger's equation, you don't know shit about QM.
Quit pretending you're Physicists, you're making us look like a bunch of ass-hats.
@DavidAlanRogers I'm not here to waste your time, but stating that QM can only be described in terms of mathematics and equations is kind of dumb. Anything that is proved mathematically requires an explanation that is non-mathematical or else it doesn't mean shit. If you show the equation for the fundamental theorem of calculus to someone, it doesn't mean anything to them if they haven't it learned it unless you give at LEAST a couple of sentences to describe exactly what it is and prove it.
To make my point more clear consider the wave-particle duality of light. You can argue until you're blue in the face over whether what physical entity it must be, but the existence of parity in observation immediately differentiates it from either entities. There is no human experience which relates to electron motion; ergo we present the analogy of wave/particle when palatable. This is why quantum mechanics was formalized by postulates, dirac notation, hermitian operators, etc...
@DavidAlanRogers According to such an interpretation we must conclude that ultimately everything occurring in the physically observable world comes about as a result of random events at the quantum level. To say events that occur at the quantum level have no relation to things that occur at the physically observable level makes no sense. It is almost like saying QM has nothing to do with matter. Then what the hell is QM? Why is it taught in chemistry class to explain nature of electrons?
"To say events that occur at the quantum level have no relation to things that occur at the physically observable level makes no sense."
Clearly I'm not suggesting that QM is without application, what I am saying is that it can not be extrapolated to justify philosophical non-sense. If you want to understand it's implications look at the equations and you will find they are PURELY physical. There is a reason why mathematics is the appropriate language of physics.
@DavidAlanRogers physical? And I know how atomic orbitals work when an electron jumps from one shell to a more outer shell is in a lower energy state because it is "farther" away from the protons in the nucleus with respect to an electron that is in the 1s orbital (highest energy state). This explains why an atom will readily give up electrons in its outer valence shell. So how does an electron "move" from one shell to another without moving through space? Teleportation is physically impossible.
The "orbital shells" you're talking about are not spherical orbits. For one, they are probability distributions and further more, to describe the trajectory of an electron explicitly violates the uncertainty principle as the momentum and position must then be specified simultaneously. The probability distributions derived from the IP of wave-functions are the best you can do. The electrons don't necessarily teleport, but their motions are not representable in a phase space w/ x and p.
Electrons are evidently a separate physical entity unlike any we could ever hope to experience in day to day life. Identifying them as wave/particle is just semantics, call them "wavicles" if you want, but it won't help your understanding.
The way to avoid the song and dance is to merely say that an electron is the state vector in Hilbert space which satisfies Schroedinger's equation for relevant boundaries. It is not intuitively pleasing, but mathematically sound. QM speaks in math.
@DavidAlanRogers but the pursuit of science requires that we never accept that we've hit a dead end. Einstein's issue with the Copenhagen Interpretation was that it concluded observations were simply indeterministic. Einstein was a believer of strict determinism and thought there must be a reason and we should not conclude that things at the Quantum level are indeterministic simply because we have yet to come up with any reasonable explanation.
Furthermore, you're confusing notation with mathematics. Clearly the FTOC is non-sense to anyone who has never seen math notation before, but mathematics is a rigorous logic. I'm not saying that QM is only understandable in terms of equations, I'm saying that it is only logically approachable by mathematical means.
You should be aware that mathematics (including algebra) existed without notations for hundreds of years before a shorthand was developed.
@DavidAlanRogers When I wrote that I wasn't referring to the Integral notation for the FTOC. In calculus, you will most likely learn the notation before learning the theorem anyways. Simply what I'm trying to say is that QM covers the smallest entities of matter that exists and makes everything up. There are no mathematics in the world that will demonstrate how things at the quantum level translate to things in the macro world. I'm not doubting that QM is a matter of science, I'm saying some
"There are no mathematics in the world that will demonstrate how things at the quantum level translate to things in the macro world."
That is just plain wrong; it has been demonstrated enumerable times that classical mechanics is a limiting case of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics applies to the macroscopic world and exactly coincides with Newtonian mechanics in the realm of the slow and large.
Okay, just to simplify, the chicken and the egg exist at the same time, they are 'perturbations' of conciousness, that our mind as the primary tool and 'lens' of the reality presented to it by the greater general conciousness orders and stretches into a causal sequence of 'events' that place it in a (in this case hypothetical) space and time context....see...its simple! It you need a concrete anomoly of space time, try the constant speed of light, which stays the same despite the speed...cont..
IMOLEGREGG 2 weeks ago
@IMOLEGREGG ..of the viewer. Consider how light would percieve itself (indulge me) if it where concious. Einstein tells us that at the speed of light on object coud travel an infinite distance in zero time. So from lights' 'point of view no time passes and there is no distance to traverse. Yet our mind orders this core reality and perceives this experience 'stretched' out over the vast distances and timescales of our wholy illusory space time context.
IMOLEGREGG 2 weeks ago
Am i the only one who thinks this guy s full of shit?
djmana 2 weeks ago
I love you and your film, i am a new quantum activist thank you for your information :)
puma151987 1 month ago
I have learned a lot form you. I have some quantum theories that i would love to hear you talk about.
williamahumphrey 1 month ago
It is funny that through science we try to understand something beyond matter. They might have clues of how or what consciousness does, or really understanding this common yet so mysterious "thing". They will probably have to go beyond conventional science.
teslic100 1 month ago
AS AN ENGINEERING PHYSICIST, WITH A BS IN BIOCHEMISTRY AND A MINOR IN PSYCHOLOGY, I BELIEVE THE GENT NAMED @AGOUBY, HAS HIS CRANIUM UP HIS PROCTODIAL OPENING VERY FIRMLY, AND IS SELF-DELUSIONAL DUE TO THE METHANE HE IS INHALING. DRE GOSWAMI MAKES SENSE, BECAUSE HE HAS AN IQ GREATER THAN THE NEUROIDIOT.
wmabrp999 1 month ago
Wonderful
sunwado 1 month ago
This is an invitation to everyone or anyone to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
nickharvey7 1 month ago
It is easy to say that coconsciousness forms quantum mechanics, but we do not understand consciousness scientifically.
nickharvey7 1 month ago
@nickharvey7 then perhaps this is fatal flaw of current scientific thinking. How are you going to cope with particles/waveforms that are 'real and not real' 'not real and not not real'. Science has consistently ignored some of our core experiences of the world in which we appear to exist, by which I mean the intuitions, imaginings, and inspirations that give birth to rational thought. It also needs to consider without prejudice the evidence of 'psychic' action at a distance, strings?? of??..
IMOLEGREGG 2 weeks ago
@IMOLEGREGG Electrical activity in our brain the continual flow of ideas (consciousness) is the most advanced part of a universal process in this theory (Quantum Atom Theory). Light waves of EMR are continuously forming new photon-oscillations creating new wave function of potential future probability. A process we see and feel as the flow of time!
nickharvey7 1 week ago
whats up with the matrix in the background?
kevinkarimi 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
Would you say that we will reach another level of conscieusness at some point
fuckEMOtionGhoSt 1 month ago
@fuckEMOtionGhoSt damn skippy.....it is goin on right now brother/sister. Namaste and Lak'esh ala K'in ;)
ssssaintmarcus 1 month ago
The possibilities of nothing, resulting in variations to which reality varies between the individual who consciously determines existence within one’s self is only a memory of what has yet to come.
It does not matter what came first the chicken or the egg, just knowing that both exist in a state that allows us to make the determination gives us understanding.
Argibon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Join Occupy Global (WEalloccupy dot info) by signing the 3 petitions to promote 100% collective consciousness (WEare100percent dot info) as a WE Party Peace Ambassador (volunteer online mentor)
ArlanBerglas 2 months ago
Comment removed
daniel987878 2 months ago
proto-consciousness exists everywhere; when the w-f self-collapses it makes an allowable choice and consciousness becomes; an observer does not choose to collapse a w-f; allowable paths are those defined as Platonic principles embedded in the universe, seen as harmony and fractality
kepler5813 3 months ago
@kepler5813what do you mean by "w-f self"
daniel987878 2 months ago
I am an artist and when I create a work of art it takes energy and is a process over a period of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π. There is always uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π of how the art work will turn out in three dimensional (4π spherical) space the position of the lines and curves π on the canvas. Every movement I make will have to start at the quantum level and will have an uncertainty of momentum and position therefore is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle the same uncertainty we have with any future event?
nickharvey7 3 months ago
@aqouby…i dont want to get into a debate with you however, i suggest you research neurology and take a deep look into yourself. it may give you some insight as to why you are inconsistent and talk our of your ass ; ). i wish you well
lunchbox2120 4 months ago 3
A lier, simply this.
Cururub420 4 months ago
Sorry, here is the first bit. George Berkeley speculated that existence is dependent on perception, it's rather odd Science is now reducing the world to one of an immaterial nature.
NihilismNothing 4 months ago
Has Science only really caught up? It may have factualised Berkeley's speculation but nevertheless it's quite embarassing. There are three different perspectives, the Scientific Perspective, the Philosophical perspective, and the Everyday Life Perspective which is generated through cultural and habit. Science in this century has at last caught up with Kant. Now Heinsenberg, in physics, and Godel, in mathematics, have shown ineluctable limits to human reason.
NihilismNothing 4 months ago
What is this guys PHD? What a fucktard. Everyone learn physics for yourself and sift though this bullcrap. If anyone knows how to interpret the Schrodinger equation and use matrix theory then you may understand that this guy is talking out his ass. Please learn, don't listen to this brown turd.
aqouby 5 months ago
@aqouby You called him a turd and a fucktard. You must be so much smarter than him and therefor correct. Thank you random Youtube user with absolutely no credentials, you're my messiah for logic and reason.
HadeanAgent 4 months ago
@HadeanAgent Yeah I called him those names. Sure it's immature, but this man has no credentials either. What credentials Deepak does have is NOT science. This man talks of quantum mechanics like he understands it but he doesn't at all! And Yes, I am a lot smarter then him because I don't claim to know the things he THINKS he knows. Quantum mechanics is described in every other way but this mans. I SHOULD be everyones messiah for logic and reason because you won't find any from this video. Study.
aqouby 4 months ago
@aqouby Oh you noble crusader for all that is logical. The man is entitled to voice his interpretation of the world, whether its goofy or not. Everybody has to live by the same laws but everyone sees the world a little differently. This guy just had enough audacity to speak his mind in the face of oceans of jackasses who think the way you do - who'll ridicule at the first sign of something not understood but who never actually contribute anything useful to the world. Grow a pair.
HadeanAgent 4 months ago
@HadeanAgent First of all, you don't know anything about me so you cannot claim that I haven't attributed to society, which I have. Secondly, people like me are scientists! We think of nature and its laws and work with what we know as fundamental, THEN we try our hardest to prove it wrong-- because only through objectivity can one eventually have his thoughts become valid physics of this Universe. As a human being it's my duty to sort out this kinda bull shit from reality. He lies to people!
aqouby 4 months ago
@HadeanAgent He doesn't only lie to himself, but he lies to other people and gets them to believe him because he uses the words "quantum" and "discontinuity." This man doesn't know any quantum mechanics and he uses his influence to make people believe he does. HE DOESN'T.
aqouby 4 months ago
@aqouby And why, pray tell, should we listen to someone who hides behind the internet to make racial slurs?
theJKT91 4 months ago
@theJKT91 Hides? I obviously am letting myself be known. I'm advising everyone to learn things for themselves and to think critically. Why wouldn't you listen to me?
aqouby 4 months ago
@aqouby You're a garden variety racist using the anonymity of the internet to make remarks you wouldn't dare to make in civilized company. On those grounds alone, I can reject you and your arguments. Freethinker my ass.
And just for the record: Schrodinger would be on this guy's side. Do a bit of reading.
theJKT91 4 months ago
@theJKT91 Sure buddy, he'd ignore all of what science is telling him to jump into Deepaks grand idea of the consciousness. Yeah fuckin' right.
aqouby 4 months ago
@theJKT91 Sure buddy, he'd ignore all of what science is telling him to jump into Deepaks grand idea of the consciousness. Yeah fuckin' right.
aqouby 4 months ago
@aqouby Funny you mention that. Because Schrodinger came up with precisely that idea before Chopra (whom I honestly don't give much thought to) was born. Ditto Oppenheimer, ditto Freeman Dyson, ditto (to a lesser extent) Niels Bohr. Look up Schrodinger's book "What is Life." Do your homework.
theJKT91 4 months ago
@theJKT91 This video and what Deepak is saying has nothing scientific in it. It doesn't matter if they believed in voodoo-- the science is what counts. Is Schrodinger famous for his philosophy or his work in fundamental physics? Oppenheimer... Famous for his beliefs on the spirit, or his leadership is the production of the first atomic bomb? Belief doesn't mean shit.
aqouby 4 months ago
@aqouby Schrodinger built his philosophy around his findings, so yes, what he believed does matter. It matters every bit as much as Richard Dawkins' atheism--derived from his own research in the field of evolution--matters. Forget about Deepak, there are schmucks on every side of every debate. They don't contribute anything important.
theJKT91 4 months ago
@theJKT91 No no no, he built his philosophy around his findings so his Findings are what matters-- not what he believes. Good beliefs are inspired by facts of the real world and this man doesn't use any from the real world. He uses ideas of spirituality and consciousness.. Things that are a creation of human superstition. Belief is superstition without evidence. And IF Schrodinger believed that bullshit then that's fine because he didn't postulate it as absolute truth-- Work, not belief, matters
aqouby 4 months ago
@aqouby First you denied that he held that position, now you are claiming that it is irrelevant. You reject Schrodinger's position out of hand because it conflicts with yours.
theJKT91 4 months ago
@theJKT91 I'm denying that he believed the same ideas as Deepak. I'm also stating that beliefs do not matter because, in fact, they don't. Truth matters. There's nothing I reject about Schrodinger except his personal beliefs because BELIEFS don't rely on any evidence or justification, like philosophy. I believe you're a tool, it doesn't make it true because I base it on nothing but my opinion of you and how you react. Well, now it's a theory because I have evidence to show that you are one.
aqouby 4 months ago
@theJKT91 What? funny remarks to an asshole? Who cares what you think or what I think or what this fucker thinks-- the TRUTH is what matters. Philosophical nonsense will get us nowhere. When you pull in real science then you're gona get backlash from people that try to defend science. You're a fool and not in tune with reality.
aqouby 4 months ago
yo bro. we can't be afraid of what we don't understand. all we can do is try. skepticism is part of it, but casting off possibility goes directly against what science, consciousness, or understanding really is. the world is not black and white
carbinemonk 5 months ago 3
Listen again. This time w/o your preconceived ideologies.
vekunde 5 months ago
Who do voodoo like the Hindu? Cracks me up! Physics kills life in order to define life. What? All points become pointless. Get the point? Just like religions running away from God while screaming they know God. We must kill the frog to know the life of the frog. Heartlessness manifesting as some "benefit "? Hold in one hand all religion and science. Yes? In the other hand hold all the worlds suffering. The solution? More science and religion.?? Humm! Voodoo me thinks.
3877michael 5 months ago
You know...I was looking for a little more explanation, clarification on what Mr. Goswami was talking about and all I read at the forefront is negativity. Do we have to put down other people's ideas, thoughts, beliefs in such a way? Can't we just question and draw our own conclusion?
WilyKat76 5 months ago
Complete Hocus Pocus. He makes a huge jump from talking about collapsing the wave function to a "observers consciousness" actually doing it just by saying that "quantum physics shows it clearly" when it really does not. This sounds like a desperate attempt to make science harmonious with Hindu bio-centric concepts of having everything connected through a common bond.
hydrocarbon65 5 months ago
@hydrocarbon65 ya this is nonesence.
SmallFries01 5 months ago
Better to think in several possibilities overall....I see Quantum Activism as a possibility to all things...and maybe not all of it....more so some of it and maybe people are trying to find something wrong,do find a interpretation somewhere to make it wrong..and dis-credit do to ego,But I do support quantum activism. But I also believe in a possibility that none of it is true and maybe other sources are not so biased.We all Know nothing because what we know will change.
Gozzer02 5 months ago
New age hippie crap. No evidence for this assertion at all. This is like a mind of the gaps argument. We don't really understand quantum physics yet so lets say it's a mind blah blah blah
travlr3000x 5 months ago
@travlr3000x
"Old paradigmers […] will take a long time to change."
TheSzwedkowski 5 months ago
Comment removed
travlr3000x 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSzwedkowski No kid, measuring quantum physics collapses the wave function, whether the measurement is conscious or not is irrelevant. This nonsense has been debunked decades ago. Catch up
popsci(dot)com/scitech/article/2004-10/cult-science
skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html
yelp.com/topic/san-francisco-thorough-debunking-of-that-shlock-what-the-bleep-do-we-know
watch?v=rlPiXNlhKFo
abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/06/30/2839498.htm
travlr3000x 5 months ago
@travlr3000x Why dont you stop boozing and doping, so that you can use some of your brain to understand something more about yourself...
VVSK99 5 months ago
@VVSK99 Nice assumptive straw man. Too bad for you I don't drink or do drugs and consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with measurement collapsing the wave function. This garbage has been debunked so many times it's pathetic anyone would be dishonest enough to produce it or gullible enough to believe it.
skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html
watch?v=rlPiXNlhKFo
abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/06/30/2839498.htm
travlr3000x 5 months ago
well, if quantum events underlie all phenomenon, then of course as beings in and of the universe, quantum physics underlies consciousness. The idea that our consciousness is cut off from the elementality of the subatomic realm is absurd. Paul Dirac, a nobel prizewinner, said that without quantum events absolutely nothing would exist. quantum to atomic to molecules to matter
76endurathon 6 months ago
Quantum mechanics says nothing whatsoever about consciousness. Trying to understand consciousness by studying QM is like trying to understand traffic jams by looking at brake fluid under a microscope. Yes, brake fluid is at the bottom of the causal chain that leads to traffic jams, but you are looking at absolutely the WRONG LEVEL OF DESCRIPTION to learn anything meaningful about the phenomenon.
doctordave 6 months ago
Things happen in the unvierse because of a conscious choice of some Being. Who is the chooser? It is the Divine, but it also us.
gurusoft1 7 months ago
Conciousness, the Absolute, is everything...Subject non-distinct from objects, perceiving differenceless from perceptibles. In that transparent Realization, the I-ness of each and all is experienced as the I. This s not open-eyed meditation. It is "God". There IS no meditation. You cannot melt in the Ocean of Consciousness when you ARE the Ocean of Consciousnessd. Mahamudra addresses the tangled heirarchy with same experiential Oneness. GREAT GRATITUDE, Dr. Goswami.
nityanandi 7 months ago
@amirvega Yeah lol, sorry for pulling you in dude, what an absolute cunt, hiding behind text books lol.
jamafrican657 7 months ago
"how does it translate to me?" the questions IS the trick...The truth that sets you free is that there is no you. Investing 100% of your equity in a phantom 'me', that goes up in smoke along w/ everything else is the basic human condition; when will we learn we are no such things as humans? As Nisagardatta said: "liberation is not of a person, it is from a person." There are no persons, no world, nothing. "All is empty from the beginning"..see H.H. the Sixth Patriarch Hui Neng (638-713).
superjujujuice 7 months ago
@superjujujuice Very well done. This is the operational word. Amidst no persona, no internal dialogue, all of being is one's cognitive contents.
nityanandi 7 months ago
Wake up....The Matrix has you.......!
1DreamWarrior 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@amirvega It's called logic
yunged 8 months ago
@amirvega 1) you don't understand the word 'fact'
2) provide me a link to some scientific proof of chi? (don't worry i am aware you wont be able to do this....)
yunged 8 months ago
@yunged Did you watch the full documentary "quantum activist" ?
acacaca553 5 months ago
@amirvega I'm among those dudes who spends a large pat of his life actually doing real science which means I'm among those dudes who knows when someone is talking crap!! hahaha
no respected scientist follow any of the nonsense this guy and depak chopra .etc. are saying, and yes chi is a load of crap :-) show me the peer reviewed scientific proof for "qi energy" or STOP USING THE WOD SCIENCE!!
yunged 8 months ago
@yunged 'Scientist' are rapidly becoming aware of the limitations of our senses and are almost re-clarifying ancient 'spiritual' knowledge (especially alchemy which describes the inward/outward process to obtain pure enlightenment) through 'modern' mathematics(geometry, modular forms, Fibonacci sequence etc.) and science (quantum mechanics, astronomy, chemistry etc.). We don't fully understand the meaning of 'now' to really be able to say where we are at.
jamafrican657 8 months ago
@jamafrican657 provide me a link to these scientists and there results please
yunged 8 months ago
No evidence is necessary? All is explained above, there are two sides to the coin I see 2, you and that armivega dude only seem to see only one side each, that's why you 2 have been chasing each other around the maypole for a few days lol. You obviously seek sense gratification and he seeks spiritual enlightenment, the views are subjective and conflictive but when interpreted correctly they lay in harmony (spirituality-logic, religion-science, observe-analyze, eve-adam etc.).
jamafrican657 8 months ago
@jamafrican657 Haha that may be the best cop out i have heard mate!
I need reasons for everything i think, the world is not subjective, you objectively know that if you jump out of your window you are going to hit the ground due to gravity, if you think that is subjective then i invite you to try it!!
You see the world to be the way you want the world to be, i see the world the way it shows itself to be, i have no respect for your position!!
yunged 8 months ago
@yunged @ I cannot see in one part of my comment that claims my denial of objective reality.
"I'm neither end of the coin" (as mentioned above).
Your speaking to a boy who is deeply engrossed in astronomy, astrophysics, animal wildlife etc. which all derive from 'objective' observation.
I think the window analogy was a bit cliche and childish considering you have once again completely misread my comment.
jamafrican657 8 months ago
@yunged By stating that you need reasons for everything you have found a 'subjective' niche in life, if you were. What you seem to be unable to process my friend is that there is a background anthropological weaving that intangibly resides 'concurrent' to objective reality (the sort of shit that makes you wanna go ape when you hear some banging 'preferred' music). I'm not disproving anything, there is nothing to disprove.
jamafrican657 8 months ago
@jamafrican657 Your own Consciousness is the only certainty. Everything else could be imaginary.
nityanandi 7 months ago
@yunged You could be at number 100'000 (with the numbers indicating a 'purpose sake' scaled rank of intelligence between you 2) and your friend you are arguing with could be at number 10, but you are still no closer to infinite than he is.
jamafrican657 8 months ago
@amirvega He is talking about the world being sculpted by some human consciousness, this is very foolish as anything that is large enough for us to interact with is inherently too large for quantum physical effects.
I see why he thinks the things he is saying but they are based on a misunderstanding of some very complicated scientific principles
yunged 8 months ago
@amirvega Ok more specifically, the wave function of a quantum particle does indeed appear to be broken by some form of observation (though in the most famous case this wasn't human observation but instead a mechanical measurement) this however can't be carried over to 'greater then atomic' objects as famously pointed out by Schroedinger back in 1935!!
This man is twisting scientific uncertainty to back his unscientific beliefs!
So how exactly am i naive?
yunged 8 months ago
@amirvega What ever scientist this man may have been is long gone, mysticism is NOT science
yunged 8 months ago
Hahaha this man is what happens when people want to be scientists but they are too lazy to put the actual work in!!! his understanding of the principles he is talking about is embarrassingly lacking
yunged 8 months ago
These are the times of spiritual awakening. Knowledge once again has increased to the point where the creator is acknowledged like was done 13,000 years ago. I propose that knowledge increases & decreases based on the amount of gamma ray energy which our solar system interacts with. Gamma rays are the result of a strong electromagnetic field. Our brains are influenced by weak electromagnetic fields. The gamma ray energy emanating from the galaxy's core is increasing, as too our understanding.
GateMessenger 8 months ago
.. Abstract: We are matter. Matter is energy. So we are energy traveling relative to other energy. Matter appears solid because it is moving relative to matter. Matter=moving relative, energy=not relative. The consciousness causes the atoms to appear real even though they are empty electromagnetic bubbles. The consciousness is the key to making things appear real. Life is truly a fantasy. We basically live in a materialistic dream full of potentiality forming atoms believing that it is all real.
GateMessenger 8 months ago
"I AM the I AM"
grixic78 8 months ago
I don't believe this man. Neil Bhor , the pioneer of Quantum Mechanics once said,
"If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you DONT understand Quantum Mechanics"
charlieking100 9 months ago
This man and his theories changed my perspective on life. Of course it's all speculation but it's a way of thinking that I'm the most open to, and this is coming from a former atheist. Now I'm agnostic, I guess... or whatever
theelectricmoney 10 months ago
@theelectricmoney maybe you are becoming spiritual? You should look at some of the spiritual enlightenment videos say on this too, its a dead match.
pimmagrimm 9 months ago
He is a physicist but his interpretation is just an opinion, not supported by QM nor defendable beyond your own superstitions. This is not a scientific basis of consciousness and is miles away from what is being unraveled by physics and
neuroscience these days,
jaumesisa100 10 months ago
@jaumesisa100 may be miles away but we need people in these fields taking leaps of faith (excuse the term) and looking that far ahead or we'll never come close to really figuring out our consciousness.
theelectricmoney 10 months ago
Audio is not clear. Does anyone have a better version?
cyberbrahma 10 months ago
@cyberbrahma if you have Netflix there's a great show of this guy about 2hrs. long...of him blowing your mind. I found it in documentary section. I give it a thumbs up for being eye opening.
smokemaster79 10 months ago
@smokemaster79 Thanks much. I'll look it up. I think my cerebrum will have its job cut out!
cyberbrahma 10 months ago
@cyberbrahma Its called the Quantum Activist. Makes good sense.
kevinkarimi 10 months ago
@kevinkarimi Thanks. I have just got it..
cyberbrahma 9 months ago
he's smart hehehe..this stuff so confusing.
smokemaster79 10 months ago
@smokemaster79 The only understanding is how things work. Cause an effect, what is the measure of reality? There is no reality of what takes place, what takes place changes the physical universe, what is in the mind is ? Its the duality of consciousness? the world looking back? I want more weed myself there is just too much going on to measure any direction,. quantum physics is too broad a subject
MegaFargone 10 months ago
Comment removed
AutofireDev 10 months ago
There are those who knew and were sure that all was consciousness. Having quantum physics legitimize it mathematically is great But still-there are those who still would rather look at you like you are from another planet. We call them the lesser evolved because they have not arrived yet to be able to conceive beyond the material existance.I am personally thrilled with the sacred geometry phenomena and have found some like Marco? to bring to light the black hole basically and challenge einstei
moesez1 10 months ago
@moesez1
"Having quantum physics legitimize it mathematically is great"
Quantum physics does not help your position at all. It takes an INTERPRETATION of quantum mechanics to add to your delusion, but the interpretation of is non-scientific. You're stuck with philosophy, quit trying to pretend that science justifies your fantasies.
The mathematics adds nothing. If you disagree, show me how the solutions to Schroedinger's equations imply the intervention of consciousness in measurement.
DavidAlanRogers 10 months ago
the more u believe in consciousness the more an effect ur beliefs have on reality so I suggest watching more & more of consciousness and w/ this u can effect reality even more.
deanmullen10 10 months ago
@deanmullen10
"the more u believe in consciousness the more an effect ur beliefs have on reality "
That is not a scientific point of view. So why are you invoking science to justify it?
DavidAlanRogers 10 months ago
Comment removed
pigknuckles211 11 months ago
Why doesn't anyone give me a serious description of consciousness?
It seems to me that people who know absolutely nothing of QM pretend they do, and then outlandishly assert New Age spiritual garbage. They substitute the word "consciousness" for "measurement" because it sounds very Zen, but nature does not suspend itself just because you happen to have a fantasy; it doesn't matter how often you meditate, drink Chai, read Chopra or wear Birkenstocks.
Waste your time learning the piano.
DavidAlanRogers 11 months ago
"consciousness does matter because if the universe didn't have consciousness literally every event would be predictable"
What reason do you have to believe this? As far as we know, there is no such thing as deterministic quantum mechanics. Clearly, small systems are NOT absolutely predictable. Is that because of "conscious" observers? You can waste your time with that solipsism, but if you want to be taken seriously you should take a serious logical step and at least DESCRIBE "consciousness."
DavidAlanRogers 11 months ago
consciousness does matter because if the universe didn't have consciousness literally every event would be predictable in other words no events could have gone either way pre-determiantion would exist in many senses because every event in the universe causes another, a comet cannot decide if it'll hit a planet or not, if it is going to hit earth and there is no conscious beings to change it, it will hit earth yet once consciousness exists decisions arise hence no absolute predictability.
deanmullen10 11 months ago
@deanmullen10
"a comet cannot decide if it'll hit a planet or not, if it is going to hit earth and there is no conscious beings to change it, it will hit earth yet once consciousness exists decisions arise hence no absolute predictability."
No absolute predictability? You're assuming some notion of free will. Who is to say that human action is not deterministic? You cannot reason your way out of this. Just because you have cognition does not mean that the choices you make are free.
DavidAlanRogers 11 months ago
@DavidAlanRogers Yeah I know that but if consciousness has free will then consciousness destroys absolute predictability and yet if pre-determination exists then that's amazing too, so either way the consequences are quite immense.
deanmullen10 11 months ago
@deanmullen10
So what causes the wave-function to collapse? The intervention of free will or "consciousness"?
The philosophical conundrums of quantum mechanics aren't solved by coining arbitrary terms.
Adopt an agnostic interpretation and avoid the solipsism. Then you're thinking like a scientist, and not a philosopher.
DavidAlanRogers 11 months ago
@DavidAlanRogers Regardless of it sounding philosophical there is either free will or pre-determination, it doesn't matter of how my statement sounded. But I am a little bit confused on what you meant about solipsism? I know what it means but how does my statement result in solipsism?
deanmullen10 11 months ago
@deanmullen10
How is attributing natural phenomenon to your subjective consciousness NOT solipsistic? Yes, there is either free will or unassailable determinism; but predicating the results of quantum mechanics on the former is unfalsifiable and the latter seems simply wrong because Bell's inequality clearly rules out the possibility of local hidden variable theories which shows little hope for deterministic QM. This is why physicists strictly define what is meant by "measurement."
DavidAlanRogers 11 months ago
This really helps me come to terms with events in my life. I love it. I really wish I was a research scientist for the QPS. Dream job! Haha. :)
Love Tali
TaliWithinTheDaisies 11 months ago
@TaliWithinTheDaisies
"This really helps me come to terms with events in my life."
Is that any reason to believe it?
DavidAlanRogers 11 months ago
Another problem that people have with QM is they tend to take the mathematics literally.
The path integral formalism is another way to describe QM, and in some ways it is more intuitive.
In classical mechanics the path of a particle is associated with a definite path through a phase space. In quantum mechanics all possible paths must play a role, including those unlike the classical path.
Does this mean that the particle goes through all paths at once? No. That is taking the math literally.
DavidAlanRogers 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anyone out there
betterbett9048 11 months ago
He said it at .12 you own projection of ones self con and gets lost in the one
betterbett9048 11 months ago
Wow ..and he is scientist!! I wonder how he has convinced himself of this nonsense woowoo !
I guess PHD's and brilliance in one subject doesn't need common sense.
Dr. Goswami proves you can be delusional and still be a well known physics professor.
nikkinolan 11 months ago
@nikkinolan
"Dr. Goswami proves you can be delusional and still be a well known physics professor."
The popular science physicists are generally off their rockers. I suppose Hawking made 1 or 2 notable contributions, but as soon as they start writing books for non-scientists they stop thinking like scientists. The only household physicists I can think of that actually lived up to the hype are Feynman and Einstein. Your everyday person's never heard of Dirac, Schroedinger or Maxwell. It's sad.
DavidAlanRogers 11 months ago
so basically all of you are in my dream and in the night i am awake?
xrisxs 11 months ago
@xrisxs yup
gtboy540 10 months ago
Also, while I agree that consciousness can very well be the essence of matter, my @DavidAlanRogers main point of arguing is not this. It is to show that philosophy is required for the explanation of phenomenon and you 'throwing' philosophy away as if it is less legitimate than science is a pretty big mistake because it is obviously required to explain the emergent, if you will, paradoxes that exist in QM. (the paradoxes that come out of putting the mathematics into words)
gbarcks7 11 months ago
@gbarcks7
"you 'throwing' philosophy away as if it is less legitimate than science is a pretty big mistake because it is obviously required to explain the emergent"
Philosophy is not empirically verifiable. Choosing an interpretation of QM is just imposing an opinion. I am not interested in anything but the evidence.
DavidAlanRogers 11 months ago
@gbarcks7
"Observation requires consciousness regardless of what is observing it and you just (whether intentionally or unintentionally) supported the idea that the observer plays a role in what is observed,"
The act of "observation" is rigorously explained in any QM text. Lightly put, the observation occurs the moment a system is nudged. Calling it an observation/measurement is a bad convention that has stuck. Some newer texts refer to it as "event" instead of "observation."
DavidAlanRogers 11 months ago
back to the molecule of water. Classical physics would have to tell me that if the molecule of water does not portray the physical characteristics of water then it can't be classified as water. In other words water has to act as water no matter what in classical physics. So how does this in anyway coincide with QM? To conclude I'd like to say I've recognized that the ultimate question we disagree upon is whether or not we should put the mathematics into words when/if it would make no sense.
gbarcks7 11 months ago
@gbarcks7
The observer plays a role, but not merely because he/she is watching the system. Consciousness is necessary to study any phenomenon, whether or not nature is a subjective experience is still up for debate. QM doesn't touch the issue. Physics does not touch the issue because it works on the assumption that nature is what we observe. If our mind is playing tricks on us then the issue cannot be resolved. My point is that QM does not imply a natural world that is subjective.
DavidAlanRogers 11 months ago
Please check out shrodinger's cat as well
gbarcks7 1 year ago
@gbarcks7
What does the Schroedinger's cat paradox have to do with your argument? It was developed to support a purist interpretation of quantum mechanics.
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago
@DavidAlanRogers "What does the Schroedinger's cat paradox have to do with your argument? It was developed to support a purist interpretation of quantum mechanics."
It does not relate to the relationship of quantum mechanics and consciousness you're correct about this. I asked you to check it out because it demonstrates that the mathematics lead to logically impossible conclusions. Yet they explain what is actual correct? So how do you explain the dilemma created by this scientifically?
gbarcks7 11 months ago
@gbarcks7
"I asked you to check it out because it demonstrates that the mathematics lead to logically impossible conclusions."
How is that? Because the state function is a linear combination of dead and alive states? The state must contain all the information of the system, by definition. The paradox is a question over whether not looking through at the cat causes the wave-function to take a stand, i.e. does human consciousness play a role? Schroedinger regarded this as patent nonsense.
DavidAlanRogers 11 months ago
He went British for a second from 4:18 - 4:21. lol
Philiano89 1 year ago
reason to
gbarcks7 1 year ago
the event of waking up to prove that universe still existed while you were sleeping. How can we determine what is actual without consciousness? How do we know that the universe as it exists isn't merely an epiphenomena of our consciousness when we have nothing independent of it to rely on? In philosophy you don't accept things on the basis of faith you accept them on the basis of reason. All you have to do to believe in something is show that you have good reason to and by all means we have good
gbarcks7 1 year ago
@gbarcks7
"Do you have any real reason to believe that when you go to sleep the universe continues to exist?"
Yes, because the laws of physics are not suspended. That is by axiom.
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago
@DavidAlanRogers as it is a unique characteristic to human beings is merely the ability to attach meaning to any given concept/idea. This is what sets us apart from animals and computers, our consciousness, our ability to attach meaning to things. It is only by the use of it that we can ever come to know anything that we discover in the physical world whether it is believed to be an epiphenomena of matter or the essence of matter. Even the observation of brain activity requires our consciousnes
gbarcks7 1 year ago
@gbarcks7
Maybe this will show you how absurd attributing QM to human consciousness really is...
"his is what sets us apart from animals and computers"
How do you know that computers and animals do not have cognition of their own? After all, quantum mechanics maintains that a measurement need not be observed by a human to have the given natural consequences. Therefore, if quantum mechanics is attributable to consciousness (it's not!), a computer observing phenomena must be conscious.
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago
@DavidAlanRogers "After all, quantum mechanics maintains that a measurement need not be observed by a human to have the given natural consequences. Therefore, if quantum mechanics is attributable to consciousness (it's not!), a computer observing phenomena must be conscious."
If I'm not mistaken this is merely supporting the idea that a measurement be observed to have natural consequences. That argument does not require that the observer is human, but still says that an observer must exist
gbarcks7 11 months ago
@gbarcks7 To me that answer is clear, you can't AND that's where philosophy comes in. This is where I go back to what science should say. Should science conclude that we don't explain because there is no way to explain them scientifically? Or does science say we should explain them by way of philosophy? I would say that if we didn't explain them by the only means we can then we aren't committed to the science's purpose of explanation.
gbarcks7 11 months ago
@DavidAlanRogers All this time its only sounded like you're saying we can complete avoid the paradox by not trying to put the mathematics into words. When that is actually what we should be doing, but somehow because we know that this will lead to several paradoxes we shouldn't do it. In other words we shouldn't do it because if we do then we must introduce the relationship between QM and philosophy. So the relationship is only there if you put it into words?
gbarcks7 11 months ago
The brain observes, inherits, stores & processes information from the external world yet the brain doesn't necessarily experience it, maybe the through you is some form of consciousness within the mind that was placed inside it at birth the only word I can use is the soul, not a white ghost but a consciousness that can observe the brain's acts of this information and that is why we can have sub-conscious because no one experiences it, only the brain processes it.
deanmullen10 1 year ago
I can easily see these theories developing evidence and eventually proof of life after death.
deanmullen10 1 year ago
@deanmullen10
You're the reason why people still believe in things like magnetic healing bracelets, acupuncture and other such non-sense.
Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with life after death.
What in the hell are you on about?
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago
@DavidAlanRogers the idea of multiple universes for example has become an increasingly popular way of explaining how particles can go from place to place (as if to teleport) without traveling in time-space. However, this makes a lot of assumptions about the unobservable. Do we even know that several universes exist? If so what is causing the electron to go out of our universe and reappear which results in it having moved one orbital further from the nucleus of the atom? Its a conclusion made
gbarcks7 1 year ago
@gbarcks7
"Do we even know that several universes exist? If so what is causing the electron to go out of our universe and reappear which results in it having moved one orbital further from the nucleus of the atom?"
This is not science, science is performed upon a realm of observables. A multiverse theory is not disprovable, that's a sign of its weakness.
Orbital *further away* from nucleus? The probability distributions for electron configurations are not circular orbits at increasing radius.
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago
@DavidAlanRogers The purpose of science is to explain the world and surely so if it must be done through mathematics, the mathematics must be explained (in words) or else they will carry as much meaning to me or anyone who is not an archaeologist as hieroglyphics. If this can't be done then this is nothing more than mathematics, not science. It is as inapplicable, unprovable as any math that does not apply to the natural world.
gbarcks7 1 year ago
@gbarcks7
"the mathematics must be explained (in words) "
It is, I already differentiated between notation and mathematics.
The state of a particle is a solution to Schroedinger's equation and thus a vector in Hilbert Space.
Why? Because experimental observation confirm that this is the way that we get the relevant numerical values. i.e. We collapse the wave-function on a given Hermitian operator's eigenstate to get the probability of measuring said state. That's what the math means.
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago
@DavidAlanRogers "The "orbital shells" you're talking about are not spherical orbits."
Once again, I know this and once again I fail to see how what I stated in anyway specifically would apply differently regardless of whether they are or are not spherical orbitals.
"their motions are not representable in a phase space w/ x and p."
Since I am only physically capable of observing phase space, how can I ever explain the motion of something not moving in phase space scientifically?
gbarcks7 11 months ago
@gbarcks7
"Since I am only physically capable of observing phase space, how can I ever explain the motion of something not moving in phase space scientifically?"
Phase space is not physically observable... To say a system can be described in a phase space is to say that it has a deterministic evolution in time.
You can't describe the motion of an electron in terms of a trajectory/wave because you're producing an analogy to everyday life. The electron can be statistically analyzed, however.
DavidAlanRogers 11 months ago
@DavidAlanRogers Why is it invalid to believe that the widely accepted, but abstract concept of consciousness can't be described in terms of QM? The fact is the only thing that we can rely on to do anything including making scientific observations is consciousness so why is it unreasonable to assume that consciousness makes up matter which makes up cells, which make up our bodies? Do you have any real reason to believe that when you go to sleep the universe continues to exist? Or do you rely on
gbarcks7 1 year ago
@gbarcks7
"Why is it invalid to believe that the widely accepted, but abstract concept of consciousness can't be described in terms of QM?"
Because the state variables described in quantum mechanics are in no way related to "consciousness." What do you mean by "consciousness" in any case?
Interpretations of quantum mechanics are a waste of time. There needs to be a serious scientific movement back towards purism; there are too many talented men wasting time on crap like string theory.
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago
@DavidAlanRogers Furthermore to state that any part of science which is the observation of phenomenon is independent of consciousness is absolutely absurd. To state that something is observed with no observer by all means makes no sense. This characteristic of science as observed means that it is not something that exists INDEPENDENT of consciousness. No observation can be made or recalled or stated, or recorded, or tested without consciousness. And to explain a little more about consciousness
gbarcks7 1 year ago
@gbarcks7
"No observation can be made or recalled or stated, or recorded, or tested without consciousness"
True, but quantum mechanics doesn't approach that issue. Quantum mechanics describes an ideal measurement and in no way attempts to describe (neither quantitatively nor qualitatively) the possible affects of "consciousness." QM says that non-determinism is a property of nature, not an affect of the human mind. If you want to justify a new-age consciousness argument, don't try to use QM.
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago
@DavidAlanRogers in order for the observed to occur. Observation requires consciousness regardless of what is observing it and you just (whether intentionally or unintentionally) supported the idea that the observer plays a role in what is observed, which I thought is counter to what you've been trying to say this whole time. What I gave was an example of consciousness in the way that it is unique to humans- our ability to give meaning to things. Check out Searle's Chinese Room
gbarcks7 11 months ago
@DavidAlanRogers So my biological mother is not my biological mother until I say she is?
"You can't say that something that doesn't behave "physically" just because it doesn't obey the intuition of Newtonian mechanics. That just happens to be the way nature operates, it's just as arbitrary as F=ma."
Right, and I'm saying if Newtonian mechanics was what gave us an original concept of the physical and QM came into play then we would have to redefine what is physical. This mere requirement shows
gbarcks7 11 months ago
@gbarcks7
"Right, and I'm saying if Newtonian mechanics was what gave us an original concept of the physical and QM came into play then we would have to redefine what is physical."
I agree and physicists agree that nature is not just point-particles and waves. QM is accepted as a superior description of nature to avoid solipsism, attributing nature to human perception is a step backwards. Classical mechanics is still taught because it is an excellent, intuitive approximation.
DavidAlanRogers 11 months ago
Now here are my questions to you. What is the reason that QM can only be referred to mathematically? Is it because when you translate what it is saying mathematically it doesn't making any logical sense in terms of what is observed in the physical world? When matter is reduced to its sub-atomic particles and things are observed that aren't possible in terms of time and space ie one thing being in two places simultaneously. How can you then rely on physical explanations for this phenomenon?
gbarcks7 1 year ago
Lastly, be careful about downplaying ideas merely because they are philosophical. You're making the assumption that anything of philosophy is somehow less valid. Yet somehow you simultaneously state that mathematics is the language of physics and mathematical discoveries are derived from philosophy. Interesting indeed... should I now waste my time trying to make you seem dumb for thinking that being a physics major means anything and commit the same fallacy you did?
gbarcks7 1 year ago
why wasn't my comment allowed I was not being disparaging to scientists only commenting on tyhe comments of a few scientists in docu. They were still investigating the implications of the theories not dcrying other workers in Science. It iis the compelling mystery of the whole which is fascinating
morriganish 1 year ago
This is a video that should have 1,000,000 hits but sadly does not.
paulliecoast 1 year ago 2
Are you hipster morons seriously trying to discuss QM seriously without even MENTIONING Schroedinger's equation? If I read one more comment about how QM is a reflection of our imagination/mind/subconscious/dreams/harikrishna spirit energy field/etc my brain is going to sublimate and exhaust out of my ears.
If you don't know how to solve Schroedinger's equation, you don't know shit about QM.
Quit pretending you're Physicists, you're making us look like a bunch of ass-hats.
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago
@DavidAlanRogers I'm not here to waste your time, but stating that QM can only be described in terms of mathematics and equations is kind of dumb. Anything that is proved mathematically requires an explanation that is non-mathematical or else it doesn't mean shit. If you show the equation for the fundamental theorem of calculus to someone, it doesn't mean anything to them if they haven't it learned it unless you give at LEAST a couple of sentences to describe exactly what it is and prove it.
gbarcks7 1 year ago
@gbarcks7
To make my point more clear consider the wave-particle duality of light. You can argue until you're blue in the face over whether what physical entity it must be, but the existence of parity in observation immediately differentiates it from either entities. There is no human experience which relates to electron motion; ergo we present the analogy of wave/particle when palatable. This is why quantum mechanics was formalized by postulates, dirac notation, hermitian operators, etc...
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago
@DavidAlanRogers According to such an interpretation we must conclude that ultimately everything occurring in the physically observable world comes about as a result of random events at the quantum level. To say events that occur at the quantum level have no relation to things that occur at the physically observable level makes no sense. It is almost like saying QM has nothing to do with matter. Then what the hell is QM? Why is it taught in chemistry class to explain nature of electrons?
gbarcks7 1 year ago
@gbarcks7
"To say events that occur at the quantum level have no relation to things that occur at the physically observable level makes no sense."
Clearly I'm not suggesting that QM is without application, what I am saying is that it can not be extrapolated to justify philosophical non-sense. If you want to understand it's implications look at the equations and you will find they are PURELY physical. There is a reason why mathematics is the appropriate language of physics.
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago
@DavidAlanRogers physical? And I know how atomic orbitals work when an electron jumps from one shell to a more outer shell is in a lower energy state because it is "farther" away from the protons in the nucleus with respect to an electron that is in the 1s orbital (highest energy state). This explains why an atom will readily give up electrons in its outer valence shell. So how does an electron "move" from one shell to another without moving through space? Teleportation is physically impossible.
gbarcks7 1 year ago
@gbarcks7
The "orbital shells" you're talking about are not spherical orbits. For one, they are probability distributions and further more, to describe the trajectory of an electron explicitly violates the uncertainty principle as the momentum and position must then be specified simultaneously. The probability distributions derived from the IP of wave-functions are the best you can do. The electrons don't necessarily teleport, but their motions are not representable in a phase space w/ x and p.
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago
@gbarcks7
Electrons are evidently a separate physical entity unlike any we could ever hope to experience in day to day life. Identifying them as wave/particle is just semantics, call them "wavicles" if you want, but it won't help your understanding.
The way to avoid the song and dance is to merely say that an electron is the state vector in Hilbert space which satisfies Schroedinger's equation for relevant boundaries. It is not intuitively pleasing, but mathematically sound. QM speaks in math.
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago
@DavidAlanRogers but the pursuit of science requires that we never accept that we've hit a dead end. Einstein's issue with the Copenhagen Interpretation was that it concluded observations were simply indeterministic. Einstein was a believer of strict determinism and thought there must be a reason and we should not conclude that things at the Quantum level are indeterministic simply because we have yet to come up with any reasonable explanation.
gbarcks7 1 year ago
@gbarcks7
Furthermore, you're confusing notation with mathematics. Clearly the FTOC is non-sense to anyone who has never seen math notation before, but mathematics is a rigorous logic. I'm not saying that QM is only understandable in terms of equations, I'm saying that it is only logically approachable by mathematical means.
You should be aware that mathematics (including algebra) existed without notations for hundreds of years before a shorthand was developed.
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago
@DavidAlanRogers When I wrote that I wasn't referring to the Integral notation for the FTOC. In calculus, you will most likely learn the notation before learning the theorem anyways. Simply what I'm trying to say is that QM covers the smallest entities of matter that exists and makes everything up. There are no mathematics in the world that will demonstrate how things at the quantum level translate to things in the macro world. I'm not doubting that QM is a matter of science, I'm saying some
gbarcks7 1 year ago
@gbarcks7
"There are no mathematics in the world that will demonstrate how things at the quantum level translate to things in the macro world."
That is just plain wrong; it has been demonstrated enumerable times that classical mechanics is a limiting case of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics applies to the macroscopic world and exactly coincides with Newtonian mechanics in the realm of the slow and large.
DavidAlanRogers 1 year ago