Christopher Isham - Realism vs. Anti-realism

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

What a very f*cking rare physicist to be both literate to other field like philosophy and psychology and even theology

[@katherinestone333]

It's a shame there are not more physicists who have an interest in also understanding the "inside" world.

[@synesthesiafilms]

There are, take this PhD from Heidelberg: kzbin.info/www/bejne/noC0knaIjad3a9E

[@marron1975]

Thank you very much, but please set subtitles active.

[@Rannsack]

Does anyone know what theorem he is talking about at 9:23? EDIT: i found it, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen%E2%80%93Specker_theorem

[@leonbrenner236]

These men talked all this time and never got into the subject.

[@tarekazzam389]

Hi Chris! How's your "Comme si Comme ca" today? In a Ststionary Quantum State? In a Pure QM - State? Or in a QM - Mixed State? How was your Performance in your Undergraduate Phase in the Lab? I mean: was Chris Isham in 1- "interested" and 2 - "able" - - that is not merely interested - but also "performing well" - in Experiments & Measurement and/or in Observations, Error Analysis and Sources, Gauss - Error Multiplication-Reproduction- [German: Gauss'sche Fehler - Fortpflanzung?]

[@lokeshparihar7672]

One of the best interview on closer to truth i saw in long time

[@underthejaguarsun]

This is very interesting needs subtitles

[@somethingyousaid5059]

How can anybody think that Reality (as we know Reality) isn't objective? Maybe I don't understand the definition of the term "objective"? But then wouldn't any definition of a term necessarily be a subjective definition? But then maybe I don't understand the definition of the term "subjective"? Okay, me trying to figure any of that out can only drive me crazy, so I think I'll just ignore all of it.

[@jordan_8329]

Theres no definite way to know such things as how you experience red and how I experience red are exactly the same. No amount of studying the brain's chemistry and wiring can account for this. Reality is not just an objective world outside of us. It is a constant mediation between what can be seen, heard, touched, measured, thought about, ect and the one who is performing those actions.

[@gurugeorge]

Philosophy is just a long conversation between very smart people down the centuries, on some of the most difficult topics. It has a jargon (several actually) that helps one understand what people are saying. So if you're getting interested in philosophy, what you're trying to do is a) get to understand a centuries-long conversation, then b) (perhaps) contribute. For example, with a concept like objectivity, there's a history to the discussions around that term, and it's not necessarily about what you think it is (though that may be part of it). Basically, you start to see all the "possible moves" - the lines of argument that can be made, on the evidence we have - and their counter-arguments. Once you get the bigger picture, then you are in a position to say, "Well, maybe x was wrong about that, maybe it's like this." But at the end of the day, philosophy just is very, very hard, and agreement comes slowly and hardly (though there is sometimes agreement and progress in philosophy, if only on what the viable lines of argument basically are. In fact, one can look at science as a part of philosophy - what used to be called "natural philosophy" - that's "done," i.e. a general methodology has been agreed upon, and facts are forthcoming). Sometimes, with some philosophical questions, it's hard to say whether there really is a question there at all (maybe we just think there is because we're suffering from some sort of linguistic or cognitive illusion - and some philosophers have argued that)!

[@gurugeorge]

@Language and Programming Channel lol - but then, he's always relevant, isn't he? :)

[@uremove]

Great to hear a scientist advocating for more people to study Jung! The schism between Science and Religion or natural vs. supernatural was resolved by Jung’s work on archetypes, but too few scientists are aware of him.

[@owencampbell4947]

Reality for us is very real, problem is the same with quatum experiments when measured it changes its behaviour. Same is with humans, when confronted by the arguement we ourselves build our world through our mind, we also behave differently and accept what we dont understand instead of defending our position in reality.

[@italogiardina8183]

Given there are more than one theory of the wave function collapse, one of which is the pilot wave theory that had numerous theoretical physicists draw on an ontology mind dependent realism where it is that C.G.Jung features as an alternative to advocating Eastern metaphysics (one of Jung's books is titled Psychology and the East).

[@watcher8582]

He's a bit hard to understand, acoustically. Case in point, 3:19 I think he says "scientists, especially physicists" or "scientists, particularly physicists", but you must really understand this from context.

[@bingading3673]

"Do not try and bend the spoon, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no spoon. Then you will see it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself".... Interview made me consider this quote from the Matrix.

[@MrJamesdryable]

Non-duality

[@dreyestud123]

I wonder what he says that gets beeped out.

[@svantubic]

Interesting but CI is unclear phonetically - like some here suggest, subtitles would help a lot.

[@jahsonmix1]

Greetings mi nation. Welcome to my time you have a lot more to learn.have a blessed one

[@RuneRelic]

People have been programmed to believe many things through hypnosis. From a mere rudimentary high level description of an event, the imagination will fill in the blanks to the limits of the low level detail of their sensory systems, as a false memory. Reality is simply degrees of conviction. Conviction is neither logical nor emotional but temporal and can over rule the other fragments of our mind or cause a panic and/or psychological break down. To be more accurate, objective reality as oppose to imaginary subjective reality, is a collective or shared conviction of an observed event, that is granted a 100% certainty/probability. But how can anything gain conviction unless someone else communicates with us that they shared the same sensory experience in a shared space and how do we know if their decription is accurate enough to match without hijacking their memory in every detail..if memory even exists ? But such would be impossible to match, because each would have a unique viewpoint in 4D. A colour blind person will not perceive the same experience as someone who is not. Unless everyones sensory systems are accurately calibrated to an identical standard from the same position in spacetime, the experience will always be different. In fact we use that difference to ascertain a previous position in 4d space and the concept of movement as a sequential series of quantum steps/energy jumps or synchronous independant time frames. So to ensure that a common experience in shared space is genuinely objective and not subjective, we created artificial calibrated sensory equipment. But that equipment never senses anything more than the vibration of atoms to 'infer' a physical reality. When in fact, that equipment is simply a pyramid of assumptions and interpretations about what those vibrating atoms actually mean, in relation to a populated 4D space. Even the sensors we created are only viable for human usage, calibrated to have meaning to humans via encoding, decoding and protocols, to create a symbol table of meaning/relevance. Then there is the supposed laws of physics that apparently exist, no matter what the environmental conditions. Yet every material has its very own unique phase transition table, where the rules are actually dependant on the phase of the material in question. Along with that comes refractive index, which shoud be viewed in the context of gravitational lensing too. In fact when we speak about covalent, ionic, polar bonds along with different structural types of elements themselves via electron shell configuration, are we simply not describing the gravitational properties of materials as a phase dependant density that is also inseperable from heat/pressure as gravitational or spacetime density. Is this really no different to what happens when all materials become superconducting at absolute zero, thus confirming physical laws are phase dependant. So how can you go back in time to the big bang for instance, if the rules changed with transition change ? When atomic polar tumble stops at 0K at peak entropy, to allow quantum computers and such to work, would such dipolar magnets not synchronise align and collapse to a minimal configuration ? Is relative polar tumble not the very nature of resonance that enable any identifiable object to be viewed as a harmonic cohesive synchronous body ?

[@lokeshparihar7672]

Please recommend some books which you read?

[@zenanon7169]

I'm amazed by how little "smart" people know about Jung. Most people who disparage Jung are much less "smarter" than Jung was. Also these people don't realize that Jung based his theories on empirical observations.

[@uremove]

Zen Anon I very much agree... I think a lot of arguments about religion could be resolved through a Jungian interpretation. I don’t know why RK described him as “controversial”? I think he is too much ignored by scientists especially.

[@emmashalliker6862]

There is no empirical proofs for Jungs theories... Wtf you talking about.

[@jasonmcclinton8262]

How do you define smart or quantify smart.

[@Therealskxlls]

You’re looking for truth but you haven’t yet read the German idealists? You’ve interviewed hundreds of scholars and you still aren’t any closer to the truth? what does that say about your interviewees?

[@zenanon7169]

Jung's meaning of archetypes is instincts....it's the most basic form of human psychology and the collective consciousness is where the archetypes ...think instincts reside....this is the result of all of our human evolution.

[@philipearakaki]

For the love of god, learn to use elipsis

[@christofeles63]

Jung's ideas are a derivative mish-mash of influences. But few bother to investigate the intellectual world he developed in. His stature as a counter-culture guru /prophet uniquely positioned to save the world from the limitations of scientific reductionism, modernity, and cultural conformity has the unfortunate effect of dissuading people from impartially criticizing his 'conclusions.' Jung was one of those psychologists who presumed his expertise in depth psychology automatically gave him the tools to expound on matters of historical, anthropological, philosophical, sociological, anthropological, and theological import. The result is, not surprisingly, psychological reductionism. Everything risks being confused because he treats his insights as if they were revelations from on high applicable to all mankind. Had he comported himself less like an oracle and more like a researcher we would have been spared much nonsense. His "Psychological Types" is important, to be sure, and deals with the precursors of his theory in a manner that is most revealing. Though he neglected to indicate just how indebted to astrology his typology was. But the idea of a collective unconscious brings little clarity, and his ideas about symbolism in dreams are pure speculation impossible to falsify. I'm not saying such descriptive accounts are without value, only that Jung seems confused about their epistemological /discursive status. Had he acquainted himself with Husserl's phenomenology, say, the his "Logical Investigations"-- and linguistic theory, this might have been obviated. Anyone acquainted with the work of Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, von Hartmann, Husserl, Freud, Durkheim, Otto, etc. will find little that is original and much that is philosophically confused and arbitrary in his work. It's one thing to have intuitions, another to integrate them with epistemological rigor into a logically coherent system. And another still to back them up empirically. Had he been a better theoretician = analytically meticulous thinker, he would have had less need to couch his claims in paradoxical terms. At the same time, he would have been a better empiricist. At the very least, he would have better understood the epistemological status of his intuitions.

[@matthewalan59]

Nobody can "see" a photon. We see cars and trucks and faces and fingers - real things. That is what the word real means. We also have sophisticated models that explain that reality. Consider an electron. What is an electron? In is often useful and easy to think of an electron as a particle. Except it is not. Electrons diffract. Particles cannot diffract. Are electrons real? I am not sure what that even means and I an unconvinced that the answer even matters so long as our conception of and electron explains chemistry.

[@free-naturalist8912]

Philosophers want us to prove reality. What the heck smh This is the part of a time where we ask ridiculous questions. Yes. This real. You are here. And so am i. Stop trippin

[@deeschoe1245]

Reality, the world and universe we live in. Imagination, anything a religious cult tells you is reality!

[@machida5114]

Neither the earth nor the sun exists for a virtual observer outside the universe. The universe is a quantum entangled state. Virtual observers outside the universe do not have the state (wave function) of the earth. Virtual observers outside the universe do not have the state (wave function) of the sun.

[@myothersoul1953]

Do anti-realist believe that anti-realism is really true?

[@myothersoul1953]

@Language and Programming Channel I bet they really enjoy you too.

[@thejoulesthief6841]

I’m more of an instrumentalist and pragmatist when it comes to science. To claim that we’re uncovering metaphysical truths through the scientific method is *probably* false; think 700 years ago, before the Copernican Revolution, collective Europe believed the Earth to be the center of the Universe and Sun moved around it. It’s a decent model at making predictions that the brilliant minds of the day were figuring out models to include the phases of Venus. The heliocentric model obviously gave enormous insight to our solar system and continued to our increase in knowledge. However, to claim that we’re closer to metaphysical truths today without the possibility of another model replacing our current ones in another 700 hundred years is hard to *completely* accept. By 2700, humans might know even *more* about the universe we live and look at us as the morons. This isn’t an argument that Venus isn’t *out there* and the Earth doesn’t revolve around the Sun, but rather an opening for science to progress and uncover new information about the world we live in.

[@myothersoul1953]

@@thejoulesthief6841 I think you are right. Science won't discover any new metaphysical truths, it assumes some and then tries to describe how the world probably is. The descriptions science offers are very useful but not even science believes they are true. Science even go so far as to try to disprove them as soon as it creates them. If you want metaphysical truths then you should . . .. I don't know what you should do, maybe just do what has always been done, make some up then think about them.

[@machida5114]

This world (reality) for me does not exist for virtual observers outside the universe. Virtual observers outside the universe do not have the state (wave function) of this world.

[@abohnad]

Doesnt have to be an observer from outside the universe. Any being with different consciousness.

[@vampsoc]

Realicide

[@PrivateSi]

Sci-woo-waffle...