For those somewhat confused by this discussion a great intro to quantum theory and the enigma is the book Quantum Enigma (second edition July 2011). This is a non-math book written to teach quantum theory to liberal arts students.
Very dry. Thank goodness for the host. These blokes will never come up with anything apart from a lot of hot air - they'll go round in circles forever, talking endlessly. It's embarrasing really. VERY LEFT BRAIN. I wish Alan Watts was in the room. To be honest I'm a bit bored of these kinds of things will a load of croaking self-congratulary old men waffling on in such a staid manner. A feminine presence would have been nice. Thanks though, was worth watching.
Wow, except for that White-Haired guy mainly BS is produced int this Discussion, especially from that "healer". How do some people "know" AI won't be able to reproduce the human brain? Most people seem to prefer feeling to researching. Very sad.
@ThePixel1983 Perhaps you did not understand what they were saying properly? These men are all smart and gave a variety of positions. Ultimately they were consistent. We have no reason to think that AI will reproduce consciousness (Whether a computer can simulate a brain is another matter). If you its possible, then you are assuming physicalism, which is an unproven philosophical position. Some people 'know' that it is in fact not possible because of the way they define their own premises.
Great vid. In the final analysis, language, whether it be math or otherwise, can never express the inexpressible. Language uses symbols to refer to something, symbols are 'about' something which is not the same as being the thing itself. Therefore, language will never bridge that gap. It'll end up being that you know it or you don't. You can't say what redness looks/feels like to the blind for example
Det är en intressant frågeställning för andligt intellektuella; ett perpetuellt evolutionärt perspektiv eller en inert absolut verklighet; Nirvana osv.
Det intressanta är förståss inte vilken position man intar utan att man går vidare i den autentiska upplevelsen av verkligheten.
Reality is what we percieve it to be. The Doube Slit Experiment seems a good example of reality vs perception. One photon at a time is fired towards a metal plate with two slits on it while a recording device is placed behind the metal plate. The experiment proves that the one photon has gone through both slits at the same time. When we observe the slits the photon then only goes through one slit at a time. If we don't observe the slit then the photon acts like a wave instead of a particle.
Far back, in the uncharted back waters of the western spiral arm of the galaxy lies a small, yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly 92,000,000 miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet, whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive, that they still think cell phones are a pretty neat idea.
I must say, I think that this panel would have benefited from the insight of a mathematician or two -- or even someone that was more mathematically/philosophically in-tune. I think that most of the questions raised could, at the very least, be prodded by ideas from the philosophy of mathematics. Platonism vs formalism is an interesting parallel argument that would have added to this discussion nicely. The physicist's views lack some abstractness that a mathematician may have brought to the table
ok just alot of big words but i don't think any human being is capable of answering questions like these, not saying im any more qualified than any of these guys though
Godel's unknowability says closed systems cannot generate proof.
Numbers talking about numbers only make more numbers.
This implies a definition for truth. it is a system's being consistent; useful; predictive of external measurement (proof) thus eventually describing itself within a larger system.
In Nature this obviously fails if the universe is infinite.
Meaning comes from comparison, maths is poems about numbers.
Golden hair, field of sun.
An unmentioned but important field is human culture.
Godel's incompleteness theorem says that formal mathematical systems powerful enough to do arithmetic cannot prove everything that they can express (in particular, they cannot prove that the axioms are consistent.).
On the other hand, roughly speaking, Godel's COMPLETENESS theorem tells us that if you can't prove something, it must be because sometimes it's false.
Turning this into philosophical statements about the human mind or the universe is not so straightforward.
i must say the majority of commentators on youtube seem to be about 11 - 14 years old
hypVideo 5 months ago 2
Are they in a janitor closet?
bdogshredder 5 months ago
ahhaha @ 21:40 .... pwnt.
victor1eremita 5 months ago
Stuart Firestein and Mark Aldorf were the best.
xknowledgeisfreex 5 months ago
Really superb.
For those somewhat confused by this discussion a great intro to quantum theory and the enigma is the book Quantum Enigma (second edition July 2011). This is a non-math book written to teach quantum theory to liberal arts students.
dzmiller100 7 months ago
OMG this is simply the most extraordinary panel I've ever seen.
So much brilliance at one go. *Wow* o_0
Thank you very much for giving this opportunity to experience this awe-inspiring discussion.
pawsoned 8 months ago
These guys are geeks.
MinhDinh
UnseenSpirit 8 months ago
Very dry. Thank goodness for the host. These blokes will never come up with anything apart from a lot of hot air - they'll go round in circles forever, talking endlessly. It's embarrasing really. VERY LEFT BRAIN. I wish Alan Watts was in the room. To be honest I'm a bit bored of these kinds of things will a load of croaking self-congratulary old men waffling on in such a staid manner. A feminine presence would have been nice. Thanks though, was worth watching.
ThEmIdNiGhTiNtRuDeR 9 months ago
Wow, except for that White-Haired guy mainly BS is produced int this Discussion, especially from that "healer". How do some people "know" AI won't be able to reproduce the human brain? Most people seem to prefer feeling to researching. Very sad.
ThePixel1983 10 months ago
@ThePixel1983 Perhaps you did not understand what they were saying properly? These men are all smart and gave a variety of positions. Ultimately they were consistent. We have no reason to think that AI will reproduce consciousness (Whether a computer can simulate a brain is another matter). If you its possible, then you are assuming physicalism, which is an unproven philosophical position. Some people 'know' that it is in fact not possible because of the way they define their own premises.
Cheuvin 8 months ago
Great vid. In the final analysis, language, whether it be math or otherwise, can never express the inexpressible. Language uses symbols to refer to something, symbols are 'about' something which is not the same as being the thing itself. Therefore, language will never bridge that gap. It'll end up being that you know it or you don't. You can't say what redness looks/feels like to the blind for example
tatsumakisempyukaku 10 months ago
Great conversation on consciousness. But I gotta digest that and then I'll post my 2 cents later
tatsumakisempyukaku 10 months ago
Det är en intressant frågeställning för andligt intellektuella; ett perpetuellt evolutionärt perspektiv eller en inert absolut verklighet; Nirvana osv.
Det intressanta är förståss inte vilken position man intar utan att man går vidare i den autentiska upplevelsen av verkligheten.
HIHIMIII56 11 months ago
Reality is what we percieve it to be. The Doube Slit Experiment seems a good example of reality vs perception. One photon at a time is fired towards a metal plate with two slits on it while a recording device is placed behind the metal plate. The experiment proves that the one photon has gone through both slits at the same time. When we observe the slits the photon then only goes through one slit at a time. If we don't observe the slit then the photon acts like a wave instead of a particle.
Tzimnewman3 1 year ago
Far back, in the uncharted back waters of the western spiral arm of the galaxy lies a small, yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly 92,000,000 miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet, whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive, that they still think cell phones are a pretty neat idea.
darthmikkon74 1 year ago
I must say, I think that this panel would have benefited from the insight of a mathematician or two -- or even someone that was more mathematically/philosophically in-tune. I think that most of the questions raised could, at the very least, be prodded by ideas from the philosophy of mathematics. Platonism vs formalism is an interesting parallel argument that would have added to this discussion nicely. The physicist's views lack some abstractness that a mathematician may have brought to the table
sesposito7 1 year ago
Hey. Your videos again don't play on iPhone. Please fix settings. Thanks. Patricie
Lalleepd 1 year ago
@Lalleepd You're right. Fixed.
philoctetesctr 1 year ago
Comment removed
marsCubed 1 year ago
ok just alot of big words but i don't think any human being is capable of answering questions like these, not saying im any more qualified than any of these guys though
kevin2849 1 year ago
Seek the company of those who are looking for the truth. Run away from those who've found it.
supergsx 1 year ago
deepak is where it's at.
metaphor777 1 year ago
@metaphor777 Yeah, if by "it" you mean stupidity.
MrRobotoToo 6 months ago
... a long conversation - lot's of wisdom condensed in the room :-) #singularity
RalfLippold 1 year ago
Thanks for the upload. Always appreciated.
shallbeagain 1 year ago
Everything is a DREAM!!
bharatsuperstar 1 year ago
@bharatsuperstar within an inception
5600981 1 year ago
Godel's unknowability says closed systems cannot generate proof.
Numbers talking about numbers only make more numbers.
This implies a definition for truth. it is a system's being consistent; useful; predictive of external measurement (proof) thus eventually describing itself within a larger system.
In Nature this obviously fails if the universe is infinite.
Meaning comes from comparison, maths is poems about numbers.
Golden hair, field of sun.
An unmentioned but important field is human culture.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed You have no idea what you're talking about.
m1ndvirus 1 year ago
@marsCubed
Godel's incompleteness theorem says that formal mathematical systems powerful enough to do arithmetic cannot prove everything that they can express (in particular, they cannot prove that the axioms are consistent.).
On the other hand, roughly speaking, Godel's COMPLETENESS theorem tells us that if you can't prove something, it must be because sometimes it's false.
Turning this into philosophical statements about the human mind or the universe is not so straightforward.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@Paulginz I have muddled these words before, so it's really dumb of me to keep doing it.
If I do so again, please let me know & compensate appropriately.
I did mean 'incompleteness' and was trying to summarize the concept.
It isn't straightforward as you say.
I think of it as being inside a lego block..
We could find an index, examine stress on the walls & deduce a larger structure by extending symmetry tools; '#0'
Also 'shape of the question' questions; Zeno of Elea's paradoxes explore this.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed As I see it, Zeno defends Parmenides; ideas essentially still not falsified.
Zeno demonstrates that space is infinitely divisible, so is stuff & time, movement also.
Scale of the universe also goes to infinity.
The past has no existence, the future has yet to happen. every thing is in the single moment of now.
Infinity & singularity.
marsCubed 1 year ago