Consciousness, Matter and Quantum Strangeness; Part 1

What Is a Particle?

How the Quantum Eraser Rewrites the Past | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios

#integral #consciousness #philosophy #videoessay #quantum #quantumphysics #metaphysics #philosophyofscience

[sayhellobryan]

This channel is absolutely amazing. Like seriously tackling the most fun and exciting boundaries of human knowledge. And it's not in the typical weird spiritual or hyper rigorously scientific kind of way. Perfect balance of actual mystery and actual knowledge. It's just really great. I love it. I feel as much love for this channel as I do Spacetime or Myth Busters.. It's that good. Thank you

[johnills]

This channel has quickly become one of my favorites.

[ryanjbuchanan]

Top stuff man, your channel has always been just one cut above the rest. Unfortunate that physicists are too afraid to tackle this issue seriously.

[Stuugie.]

Unbelievably underrated. Keep going and your channel will blow up

I've been struggling with this and a few tangentially relevant topics for a long time, and I haven't really heard anything too convincing. There's too much missing from our understanding of consciousness. I absolutely agree that whatever solution we may work towards will erode some fundamental axioms of our understanding of reality.

I'm somewhat leaning more on the subjective side of things, as in, scale up the idea of wave functions only collapsing when observed. So reality only holds form upon observance. Therefore reality only can exist within subjective reference frames. So after death, as much as I cease to be within reality, reality ceases to be for me. There is no disconnect between a 0 conscious reality and an infinitesimally above 0 conscious reality because reality without conscious observance has no meaning, it instantaneously unravels.

There are several problems with this that I don't know how to answer. There's no way to explain why a history would exist in such a framework, no reason for the laws of nature to be held so rigidly, and no doubt several other issues beyond my own understanding.

I can't help but shake the feeling that something is there. I'm 99% sure this whole concept at least for me stems from both my nihilism and my need to understand what my own death means. Like one common thing people say to someone who fears death is that you probably don't fear what was before you were born. Think about that this way for a second - history/past be damned, reality was not until you became conscious

[markcounseling]

In this installment of your opus, I'm particularly struck by the elegance and economy of your writing. Bravo, kind sir!

[Charlie-Em]

This video makes me think about how modern scientism is merely another stage in the ever changing drama of human interpretations of the world.

[thorebergmann]

Your video feels like a poem... I could listen to it for hours 👏

[kellenekulas]

Very good, thank you. Very clear presentation. I come at this information, not as a scientist, but as someone with direct experience of the stillness. It would seem that yogis have known for thousands of years what modern scientists struggle to comprehend. That is because it cannot be known through mind, but experienced through the heart. There is a reason the church hunted down the Quietists during the Inquisition. The Quietists would have upset the worldview they wished to impose, a worldview that would entrap rather than liberate consciousness. The teachings of Advaita Vedanta and Quietism are the closest comparison I can come to of this indescribable experience of knowing. Matter is not lifeless and inert. All has consciousness. All have atoms, all atoms are connected. All iron particles are connected to every iron particle in the universe. If you have iron in your blood, you can connect to and communicate with iron in the Ort Cloud, for example. Matter transforms with awareness. Nothing is fixed, stationary, unchanging. All is one, all came from the stillness, the stillness contains the potential for all possibilities. The way to understand this is not through thinking, because you are not the limited worldly definition of yourself, you are not your story, you are infinite, you have always existed, and always will.

[thorebergmann]

You had me rolling at the floor at 15:55 :D I thought I was the only one that felt there was a gap between quantum theory and what comes after (or below, or inbetween, ...)

I actually did a PhD in materials simulation (i.e. the properties of crystals on the atomic scale) and it always felt strange reading that calculations of even the smallest molecule (hydrogen) take up days and weeks even on high end computers.

Also I never understood why there are actually really few physicists that can realistically draw what they try to express with their equations. This being said, I believe that math in the end is more of a hindrance, as finally the things get so complicated that math alone won't do the job. You will need art and words additionally to that to make it make sense in the end.

When it comes to matter and mass I can suggest to read the book "Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy" by Max Jammer. Even though it is already a bit older it gives a nice historic overview over the concept of mass. In a typical physicists manner no real conclusions are drawn in the end though.

Also, as I believe you can do physics on an academic level, I suggest you to take a look at the books of H.G. Küssner. (Principia Physica (1945), Grundlagen einer einheitlichen Theorie der physikalischen Teilchen und Felder (1974-75)). The books are only in german, though and even for academic level physicists it may take 4-5 years to make sense of him. I did not understand everything of what he writes in his books, but I acknowledge that at least he tried to look beyond the realm of standard physics (in a very mathematical manner, though).

I think, what physicists need to realize is that in essence there are not such things as 'closed systems'. Whenever I try to examine an object which I consider to be separated from the world (aka stands for its own, is a closed system), of course it is not separated at all, because if it were I wasn't even able to detect it.

Looking with massive instruments on really tiny objects also has some similarites to Dedekind's cut in mathematics and the definition of a real number. I think they have the same taste. Maybe you can touch this in your videos, too. I'd be happy!

Best regards from Germany!

[emanuelpetre]

I’m afraid the required paradigm change can only be brought about by the birth of the next civilization - whichever that may be - I don’t see how the mechanistic Faustian one can do it. It is exhausted spiritually.

[Arcturus]

I'm watching and commenting right away this time instead of waiting a day for algo boost

[vanessaladario]

i am so Grateful for this Channel! Blessed be us all who believe and are Beijos do Brasil obrigada por me ajudar a me formar professora de Artes

[hotlucky]

consciousness is mysterious and a hard problem only for materialistic atheists. Abandon that paradigm and the problem solves itself

[hairyplopperthebananascrat]

I can literally feel the frustration in this video. I used to have many heated debates about this topic. Trying to use ration to explain something irrational is like a serpent eating its own tail ♾️.

[bigburrito]

For me it makes the most sense that consciousness is actually the fundamental basis Or the pre conception to physical matter. I think if you reduce everything down to it's most basic form you could view everything as a sort of energy that interacts And plays with itself in multiple different ways.

I don't want to make this too long but essentially if you have ever looked at the Symbol and theology of the flower of life Then you know what I mean.

Essentially it said that the beginning of matters started with the God particle or basically The God consciousness. It's basically unconsciousness sitting within an eternal void. That consciousness Is aware of an immediate space around it but when it moves it gains the thought of dimension and distance. Now it's consciousness is aware of the area that it was just in and the new area it resides . Those areas of consciousness overlap in certain mathematical principles emerge. Every time the God consciousness travels to the end of its perception and creates a new bubble of awareness that intersecys with its previous one more information can be gleaned through that mathematically.

This goes on for eternity in Increasing complexity.

So if consciousness is already the pre Conception of physical matter and is what is needed to realize the actualization of that matter Then I think it's fair to say the more complex matter becomes the closer it is towards The structure of the God consciousness as it takes increasingly complex mathematical principles to pull off.

Maybe when we die we just merge with the greater consciousness uses that information to expand itself even more. What if heaven is just us merging with the one consciousness and then choosing to separate again to go live another life and reincarnation to gain more information for it.

I think we are God as much as we are ourselves uniquely Apart from it. When we die and our consciousness merges back with the one I think we understand everything And it's our choice whether or not we want to break from that to experience subjective pleasures Or pain that causes us to learn better ways to avoid it too.

That's a heaven I would enjoy much more than the biblical version or any other religious way of portraying it.

Basically we are alive and we are conscious of ourselves and the universe just as the universe is alive and conscious of us and it all works together for the realization of increasingly complex Subjective experiences.

[Hyumanity]

Huh, synchronicity...? I coincidentally resumed watching this video after about +2 weeks, right after having partially read the same article at 16:58 :/ A similar thing happened for another one of your video a few days ago as well, as in your video showed the same material I had looked at the same day prior to watching.

[starxcrossed]

Another GREAT video! I had to “research” this all myself and came to the same conclusions- it’s mind boggling and true that all have their canned non-answers and worse: contradictory beliefs. I used to think scientists believed in NOTHING for a good reason lol.
Also on consciousness Sabine Hossenfelder (I use her because she seems to be the most rational/skeptical of the physicists on YouTube) had pretty wild views for instance on one hand she dislikes the use of mathematics as some form of platonism in the string boyz, but also says consciousnesses is an emergent property of computation and someday computers will be conscious too. She says that chat gpt has a form of understanding.
Yet people absolutely shit on Rupert for suggesting the sun may be conscious 🤯
(Edit spelling)

[nineofive.]

Ug krishnamerti as response to one of his groupies asking the Descartes question said:” If I don’t think am I really there at all?” Should have really been asked.

[dagon]

So glad someone can organize and discuss these topics coherently. Thankyou immensely

As a side note have you heard of jason jorjani? He talks about similar subjects, at least in the creation of a new civilization and recognition of larger societal issues. I feel like you might be interested in his work.

[DarranUaM]

Regarding quantum mechanics, it's odd that it has gotten worse over the years. Early books like Dirac open with saying the theory has found a more satisfying role for the observer, or Pauli's "General Principles of Quantum Mechanics" saying that the theory managed to describe atoms by abandoning the:
_"description of nature which essentially rests upon our ability to separate uniquely the observer and the observed"_ (1980 English translation, p.1)
Or Heisenberg in "Physics and Philosophy" p.59:
_"On the other hand, the modern interpretation of atomic events has very little resemblance to genuine materialistic philosophy; in fact, one may say that atomic physics has turned science away from the materialistic trend it had during the nineteenth century."_

I could give hundreds of quotes like this from major physicists from 1920s-1970s. Early textbooks explicitly reject a Cartesian view of the world and even reviews of these textbooks at the time state that this rejection is obvious/required.

However in the last forty years or so the observer dependence of the theory has become seen as a "problem which must be solved". However this observer-dependence never leads to actual contradictions within the theory and later developments only matched observations better by increasing what was subject to observer dependence. So the "problem" seems to really only be the incompatibility with modern materialism.

This is only one example. There are others things, like holism, which are fairly obvious aspects of the theory, but I've met advocates of scientism say they are woo.

Nice video.