Andrei Linde - Why Explore Cosmos and Consciousness?

Cosmos and consciousness seem utterly different, cosmos encompassing the vast universe, consciousness emerging from tiny brains. Yet consciousness is the basis of religion, and some cosmologists speak quietly, profoundly, about consciousness.

[ricklanders]

This guy is awesome, what a brilliant, fearless mind. A true scientist.

[seffundoos]

I have absolutely no idea how this channel doesn't have more subscribers, it's my favourite on youtube.

[paulkeogh]

I think Andrei Linde and Bernardo Kastrup (Analytic Idealism) would have a very interesting conversation about consciousness. RLK, would you please consider interviewing Bernardo?

[brigham]

This was very interesting and worth several listens. I disagree with the comment that Linde is speaking "woo" and that it's "bad news for atheists." In no way does anything he said lead to the Abrahamic god or Jesus or anything like that. We're just overly conditioned to think that.

[abhishekshah]

Existence and consciousness cannot be separated

[ntfrmthswrld]

Like his explanation at the end the most. That he is fearlessly speaking his truth and rather loosing the respect of everyone else than his own

[tdawes]

Consciousness without matter is a no brainer.

[xander-]

If there was one video someone should watch on Youtube - it would be this one

[JH]

Tough and open minded russian scientist!

[allgodsmyth]

4:17 "The rest of the universe is alive only because I am alive." This sounds like metaphysical solipsism, and we had all better damn well hope that Andrei Linde lives forever if we want to continue existing!

[noegojimmy]

Pure diamond of a scientist, intellectual and a great conscious being.
What a dude... Lebowski has nothing on you sir!
Hat down.

[garybala]

I think the words “consciousness” and “God” have such “woo-woo” connotations to them (meaning mystical and magical implication) that it throws science-minded people off.

But not for this guy Linde whose thinking is bold and daring.

Let me suggest that “consciousness” might itself only be a derivative and emergent property of the human brain. And also itself a “quantum mechanical system” (QMS) interacting with everything in the universe around it.

All of it, that is all “quantum mechanical systems”, exists in a superposition of probability” until another QMS interacts with it, thus bringing it into a macro-state-of-being.

Thus the purity of the probability wave equations are kept in tact while “existence” is brought into being.

Just musings on my part. Thx for the great video interview.

[azdouni]

Some of the greatest scientists are also some of the most down-to-earth... unlike other second-tier scientists

[jamesruscheinski]

How does consciousness relate to time and space?

[shirleymason]

And, of course, by now as we all know, gravity waves have been discovered.

[noegojimmy]

Conciseness is not my profession, but let me explain to you how my profession bumps to it by logic and calculation.

[richmeister]

I like it, interesting idea, Consciousness?

[YitroBenAvraham]

This was extremely fascinating. Guys like this should check out the first chapter of Genesis with a Rabbi (for Hebrew) because I see a correlation between quantum, consciousness and what is being described there. It's astounding.

[robertjkuklajr]

Neville Goddard made that observation/statement 10 years befor 1968! He was not a physicist!!

[kyjo]

Interesting interview. But I find it a bit weird how he's talking about mass of himself as an observer. Does he not observe his body _as part of_ the rest of the universe? :) I though that the abstract notion of an "observer" in physics is usually a mass-less point. In that case it doesn't make sense to subtract the mass of the observer from the rest of the universe.

Weird thing is that based on relativity a mass-less object (a photon) doesn't "perceive" time, yet we do. So consciousness would need to have some mass. Although, mass itself is a product of mass-less particles which are constrained in some way. So maybe consciousness is an emergent property in a similar way, just more specific and rare.

I disagree with the notion that things come into existence only when observed (the whole "if a tree falls in a forest" thing). Obviously there is an objective reality which is independent on subjective observers. All the states of wave function exist whether they are observed or not. Maybe we need a better language to talk about this.

I definitely agree on his point that this area needs to be discussed and investigated with serious scientific approach. Without it people seem to jump to some pretty weird conclusions..