Lawrence Krauss - Illusion 2: The World as Illusion - Scientifically Informed Philosophy S1E2

Renowned theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss explores our limitations in perceiving reality as it is. To help illustrate the true nature of reality, Lawrence performs several card magic tricks! Professor Krauss is joined by Jim Jones, a naturalistic philosopher who presents in a later lecture.

This event was recorded live at Pauma Valley Country Club, CA, on May 2, 2024

The Scientifically Informed Philosophy lecture series explores the intersection of empirical knowledge and existential inquiry, guiding participants in constructing a personal philosophy grounded in scientific understanding. Through a synthesis of physics, biology, and psychology, the series delves into how scientific principles can inform ethical decisions, self-perception, and our place in the universe. Attendees will engage in thought-provoking discussions using evidence-based reasoning to navigate life's big questions, fostering a rational yet reflective approach to personal growth and worldview formation. The Scientifically Informed Philosophy lecture series is made possible by the vision and generous support of Cyan Banister.

[Yoder]

Why does the camera guy NOT show the slideshow? I understand that Dr. Krauss is talking but common sense says, if you are videoing a lecture, YOU VIDEO THE SLIDESHOW FOR CONTEXT!!! 😂 I mean no disrespect by any means. Good lecture.

[marcobiagini]

My name is Marco Biagini and I am a physicist; I would like to explain the reason why, contrary to what it is said at 1:39 in the video, the idea that the collappse of the wave-function is caused by a measurement device or by the interaction between two particle is logically inconsistent.

The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The point is that any measurement device and all the interactions involved by the measurement device are described by the Schrodinger equation.

After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break.

Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a collection of events isolated in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is no continuity between events.

In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself; for example, there can be no triangle with indeterminate sides and no circle with indeterminate radius. Indeterminate properties means that properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist; actually photons, electrons and quantum particles in general are just the name we give to some mathematical equations. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event.

Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. The collapse of the wave function can be associated with the only non-physical event we know of, consciousness. Therefore, events can only exist when consciousness is involved in the process. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the existence of an event (associated to the collapse of the wave function =violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link.

No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience); the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of God's act of creation in our mind of the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. The fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is that reality is not described as a continuum of events but as isolated events, and this is in perfect agreement with the idealistic view which presupposes that what we call "universe" is only the set of our sensory perceptions and that the idea that an external physical reality exists independently of the mind is only the product of our imagination; in other words, the universe is like a collective dream created by God in our mind. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism. In my youtube chanel you can find a video about the unphysical nature of consciousness.

Marco Biagini

[jaimetorres]

It's funny how all it takes is to use the right words in the right sequence to explain something. Five years trying to understand electromagnetic waves and suddenly BOOM

[charlesmiller]

That phrase 'I don't know' just don't exist anymore. When I ask somebody something that they don't know they just make something up instead of saying 'I don't know'.

[seans]

4 hrs well spent - cheers and ty "O)

[rickgoranowski]

Schrodinger ex. dT divisor "time reversal" orchestrates memory 4 bil years later in maze-solving protozoa -- "consciousness" started there.

[Istandby]

We came back for more punishment...lol

[malcolmdavis-zlxy]

At 25.06, when the photo is taken, is it not a case that: the camera's 'shutter' speed is so slow, compared to the speed of light, that light has sufficient time to reach the camera imaging plate?

[joeyrufo]

1:48:17 my favorite coincidence that happened to me is that I was actually "studying" coincidences (for counter-apologetics purposes—long story), and I was stuck somewhere, so I just opened up the nearest book, which just so happened to be _Metaphors We Live By_ by Lakoff and Johnson, and it just so happened to open up to page 143, where I just so happened to stumble upon "the solution of my problems" (that's literally the metaphor that section is about! 🤣)

[BrianFedirko]

For those who understand that we don't know about consciousness... It proves positive that AI is not here. AI is only a brand name. People assume it has consciousness because of the name, but in order to do that we would have to be able to define that term. AI and machine learning is going to advance us, but the sky is not falling. Thank you Professor Krauss for enlightening some people to this aspect. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love

[johnduffin]

What does LK think about the illusion of the safe and effective psyops campaign that is really homicide & genocide?? Plz & thx u.

[NateSmokes]

Dr. Kraus helped me get over my fear of death.

[newparadigmfish]

I am a system of a’ priori modes, not a body of limbs and organs. We need to move beyond the notion of “We” because we as humans is a loose premise at best. In essence, the body conduit has no fixed predicate in the abstract lens. What is it of us that knows that?
We should begin to define ourselves as a set of a’ priori modes. A set that allows for systemic alignment. A set synthesised with realities structures and stresses. This is the next step. Everything else is tied up in a field of inverted axioms and that path is a dead end.

Science teaches the student of science that the student has many illusions of the world based on faulty and incorrect guesses
which appear out of no where to have been the best work possible by people masquerading as scientists while practicing entertainment.

Science teaches US that even those with the best theoretical training and what is called the most advanced knowledge
including the most advanced tools have and continue to have, due to the continued excuse of 'this is the best thing we've got',
no clue how the world actually works as the frauds among them spend all of their time regurgitating nonsense to the sense less.

Then Actual Science proves to actual scientists the actual observers of the actual world, why the illusion held by the pseudo scientist masquerading as an entertainer is wrong by proving to the Actual Scientist how the world actually is given the tools provided by arithmetic and geometry the only two consistent scientific tools available to the thinking crowd for what amounts now to the longest possible period of time
still observable by those of us still here aka about five thousand years and counting now...

What Larry is doing here by stating as a professional scientist that 'science tells us that the world is an illusion'

is creating and fostering an illusion about the word science that any first year science student should be able to see through
but apparently the nonsense where a wave becomes a point because someone looked at it sideways becomes the ugly truth
exposing a pile of frauds pretending to have done their homework when all they did was stand in front of a mirror and preach.

no bueno.

[marcobiagini]

I am a physicist and I will explain why scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated solely by the brain; this leads us to conclude that our mental experiences cannot be purely physical/biological.
The brain operates in a fragmentary manner, with many separate processes happening simultaneously. I prove that such fragmentary structure implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness; therefore, something else must be involved—something indivisible and non-physical, which we often refer to as the soul. (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations).

Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.

Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes—they are abstract concepts created by our minds.

Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct.
Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams)

From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.

Clarifications

The brain itself doesn't exist as a completely mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain.

Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.

Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.

Conclusions

My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness.
An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.

Marco Biagini

[GUPTAYOGENDRA]

The world appears from the ignorance of Consciousness and disappears with the knowledge of Consciousness, just as a snake appears from the ignorance of the rope and disappears with its recognition.
This is what it means by saying that the “Universe is an illusion”.

[Istandby]

The ice crystals look like a marijuana plant. Nature is trying to say past marijuana law....lol

[danielpaulson]

Plato’s cave has a deeper meaning. It is literally due to not having free will. We become mental products of our memories and their emotional state. We live through that experience till we realize we are not those experiences. Buddha teaches it too. “All that we are is the result of what we have thought. It is founded upon and based in our thoughts.”

[thelastaustralian]

Considering our Species is seemingly involved with the current mass Earth extinction event . It is comforting to know we have all these Incredibly Intelligent, trained Scientists, Teachers and Philosopher's .

[cosmicislamicmiracles]

You are a physics professor. I saw you debated a Muslim,
If you do not lie, be fair, and search for the truth, then when you debate a Muslim, you should debate a Muslim, a physics professor like you.
Quran 18:51 "I did not make them witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth or to the creation of themselves, and I would not have taken the misguiders as assistants."
Allah descends knowledge gradually according to each era,
Qur’an 15:21[And there is not a thing but that with Us are its depositories, and We do not send it down except according to a known measure."]
Allah is the greatest, 🙌❤️🌍🌿🌘🌞🕋