Science, philosophy and the quantum revolution | Avshalom Elitzur FULL INTERVIEW

Avshalom Elitzur talks physics, consciousness, quantum mechanics, politics and the universe.

What is the evidence for backwards causation, and what does it mean for our understanding of reality?

Philosophers have been trying to understand the mystery of consciousness for millennia with little success. Physicist-philosopher Avshalom Elitzur believes that panpsychism provides the most promising explanation of consciousness. Join Elitzur for a wide-ranging discussion covering quantum physics, consciousness, time, environmentalism, and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Interviewed by IAI Assistant Producer Simon Custer.

#physics #quantumphysics #quantum #consciousness #time

Avshalom Elitzur (אבשלום כורש אליצור) is a Professor in the Centre for Quantum Studies at Chapman University in the United States and is deemed by many to be an intellectual powerhouse in both the fields of physics and philosophy. Having left school at sixteen to work as a lab technician, he presented a paper on quantum mechanics at Temple University, after which he was invited to Tel Aviv University to complete his doctorate on the subject. Elitzur is best known for his work on the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb-testing problem in quantum mechanics.

00:00 Introduction
00:13 Why do you defend panpsychism?
02:00 What evidence does quantum mechanics give for panpsychism?
03:27 How do you explain unified human consciousness?
07:44 Are there political forces in the scientific community
that have repressed your ideas?
07:59 Why does panpsychism resolve the mystery of
consciousness better than materialism?
09:43 Why do you defend backwards causation?
12:20 Can backwards causation be incorporated into a wider metaphysical view?
13:35 Does the human mind have the capacity
to develop a theory of everything?
14:43 Why is there something rather than nothing,
and is that a question for philosophy or physics?
17:22 Does panpsychism have ethical implications?
18:30 Will we survive as a species?
19:34 What conflicts do you consider most pressing?
20:50 Is there any hope?
21:08 Would you like to comment on the events in Israel right now?

[TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

What is the evidence for backwards causation, and what does it mean for our understanding of reality? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

[Thomas-gk]

"...string theories proved us that there will be a therory of everything and so far they are theories of nothing." -- Wonderful😅

[shawnewaltonify]

Do you like this man? I like this man.

[coder-x]

As a Palestinian and humble lifelong student of physics, I deeply appreciate this man.

[terrainofthought]

21:15 That poignant pause, those few seconds of silence hold a whole universe of compassion and humanity. Thank you The Institute of Art and Science for introducing me to this gem of a person.

[MaryBethQuraishi]

We are listening to a man who is miles ahead of so many.
So thoughtful and humble too.

[marcobiagini]

I am a physicist and I explain why current physics leaves not room for the possibility that brain processes can be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness emerges from, or can be identified with physical, chemical or biological processes is incompatible with current physics.
It is a scientifically established fact that a mental experience is associated with numerous distinct microscopic physical processes that occur at different points; there is no physical entity that connects all these distinct microscopic processes, therefore the existence of mental experience requires an element of connection that is not described by current physics. This missing element of connection can be identified with what we traditionally 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 objectively as a 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 of molecular processes 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

[newtonfinn]

This man is a genuine Jew, a light to the nations, which means all of us, and I speak as a Christian clergyman. When he was asked about Gaza, I was suddenly worried that he"d say something that would make me think less of him. Shame on me. I will enjoy becoming more acquainted with his work.

[normanswazo]

This is wonderful, thoughtful, and thought provoking discussion that shows the continued links between philosophy of mind and contemporary physics on the baffling problem of consciousness. What matters here is the exploration of the ideas at issue, the openness to continued deliberation and even refutation. It’s marvelous to listen to a physicist of his stature taking these questions seriously and to be making a substantial contribution to the ongoing debate with his views on interactive dualism (he being a confessed reluctant dualist on the mind-body problem) and the possibility of pansychism seemingly supported by quantum physics. Bravo to the two interlocutors here 👏👏👏👏

[KieranLeCam]

The gentleman may be responding to a similar energy by other physicists, but I'd recommend not being too arrogant. A revolution in physics may be coming, but it might not be the one you expect, firstly. And secondly with all due genuine appreciation and respect, it is neither kind, nor in my opinion wise, to comment on other people's intellects. It's human, and frustration can settle in sometimes. But I recommend letting the frustration wash through you, and focusing on the substance. Math, and evidence. Everyone has to not know before they know. Teach! And learn! Be kind. Much love ❤

[VSears-Vortex]

Very thought provoking. I've often thought the expansion of the Universe was our fault. How many times have you heard, "I don't have enough room. I need more Space." And the Universe is providing.

[westwind]

Wonderful interview! Thank you for this. This man is brilliant. Many unknowns but still interesting. The hard problem of consciousness is so interesting. I loved his strong comments on Israel and the environment. This man is a treasure

[jeffdymek]

Great interview. I enjoyed his reluctant duelist paper years ago.

[BillHeilmannfritz]

Advaita Vedanta, watch Swamij from New York. He speaks about the hard problem of consciousness. It's great these scientist are waking up, 🙏

[isatousarr]

If consciousness exists in even the most basic particles, it raises profound questions about how quantum processes, like superposition and entanglement, might influence our experience of awareness. Could quantum mechanics be the key to unlocking deeper insights into the nature of consciousness and its role throughout the universe? How might understanding these quantum connections reshape our understanding of consciousness itself, and what implications could this have for fields like neuroscience or even artificial intelligence?

[JarkkoToivonen]

What a courageous man ! Reminds me a bit of Eckhart Tolle . He seems to know a lot of psychology and philosophy. He has interesting revolutionary ideas which I like.
First time I hear he’s speak, I haven’t heard of him of him before this interview. Need to read his books and dig deeper into his ideas.

[timothylarson]

I have a question, does time speed up as we get older or is it just the perception? Or is time just perception, when asked about time I feel today is different from yesterday because everything in the universe is in a different place every single moment, in relation to everything else. Movement creates time. Being physically in a different place at every single moment in time. As soon as their is a conscience and you decide you want to start to move the perspective of time appears. Just creation itself has to be moving in time, everything physical has a beginning and an end. And do we really create, did God really create. How would a God create something from nothing? Or were there certain elements that existed before God? Or is God like a musician, just arranging different elements to create everything that we see.

[dylanmaher]

What he said at the end about Israel hit deep.

[alikeyvanfar]

What a great and wise man he is. We do need more people like him in our world.

[paulgreenwood]

If it's hard to explain how a human being is consciousness, how much harder will it be to explain how an atom or electron achieves it?