David Albert - What Exists?

[@david-joeklotz9558]

Professor Alberts is always brilliant, clear and insightful. Love listening to his interviews

[@CarlosElio82]

I think prof. Alberts is brilliant, but not always and certainly not in this case. In this case RLK is brilliant, a master interviewer. RLK opens the interview by asking "what exists"? Prof. Alberts runs wildly on some labyrinths of particles, physics, quantum mechanics, and the animated discussions among experts that end in disagreements. At min 4:12, RLK decides to stop the BS in a delightful manner. OK, but...I, I . appreciate all that knowledge but my question is still alive. What is there" What a gracious way of saying "Stop beating around the bushes."

[@fred_2021]

@@CarlosElio82 IMO you aren't giving D.A. his due as a philosopher of science. It goes without saying that any attempt to take a shot at explaining the most fundamental reality of all that exists will be very speculative, and he makes no dogmatic assertions about it. His best guess, based upon current knowledge and theory, is 'fields fluctuating around in very high dimensional space". That's entirely reasonable, even if it does prove to be inaccurate. RLK should not - and surely does not - expect anyone to pretend god-like knowledge. Neither should we.

[@CarlosElio82]

@@fred_2021 I appreciate your kindness explaining things that although important, are not relevant to my note. I was mentioning the astute way in which RLK restates his question, thus stopping D. A. avoidance instinct. We should leave the speculation about fluctuating fields for another occasion.

[@fred_2021]

@@CarlosElio82I see, thanks. RLK is undeniably astute, but what you perceive to be DA's avoidance of the question, I see as simply offering a 'best guess' opinion in the absence of any pretentious claim to certain knowledge. Let's just say that we had divergent takes on that :)

[@Mark1Mach2]

Lawrence has been asking some of the most basic yet most profound questions in his channel. This is treasure trove of information here, one of the best channels on youtube tackling the most basic fundamental level. Bravo.

[@dblockbass]

couldnt have said it better. Kune says the quiet part resoundingly loud. There are not many, dare I say any content that will legitimately pose the question "What exists?" with the utmost professionalism and comprehensiveness with no gimmick or cheesy montage of psuedo scientific images/video over subjective and suggestive narration. Im seeing this format alot. Kune gets right into it and tries to get to the fundamental immediately and seriously.

[@a3hindawi]

Thanks!

[@dblockbass]

I like how this guy is so careful not to be so suggestive with his answers which shows his sensitivity to other viewpoints but also shows the levity of the question. Hes right to be careful how you answer because that sets the stage for your reality and existence, which I also believes he has a respect and sensitivity for. but I definitely think he subscribes more to a logic driven, deterministic model of the world with an interesting take on the wavefunction.

[@brothermine2292]

Bravo to Albert for proposing that the wavefunction represents something that physically exists, and is not just a probability function representing our incomplete knowledge of a system's state.

[@david-joeklotz9558]

That is already covered in Many Worlds. David Alberts declared on dimensions

[@mauricelevasseur9987]

I am an avid follower of this series and this interview is one of the very good one. Here complexity meets simplicity in a understandable way. Thanks!

[@jareknowak8712]

Surely: consciousness, probably: outside world.

[@pazitor]

In the end, all we have is observation... whatever that is.

[@alexgonzo5508]

Observation is merely the beginning. The patterns that become apparent after sufficient observation informs our understanding of universal principles that are true at all levels and in all cases, allowing us to see with the mind's eye beyond what the eyes can see.

[@PieJesu244]

Sorry I disagree with your observation, so what are you left with?

[@KelMurphy]

@@alexgonzo5508 Who is that mind's eye presented to?

[@alexgonzo5508]

@@PieJesu244 "what are you left with?" "understanding of universal principles that are true at all levels and in all cases"

[@alexgonzo5508]

@@KelMurphy It is presented to mostly the prefrontal cortex, or the higher cognitive regions of the brain.

[@jimbo33]

Wow. Brings it all together in a very logical way. Thank you RLK for bringing this very important interview to us!

[@zenzen9131]

Another totally excellent discussion !

[@rickwyant]

I think the real question is what's the best thing to do with the time we have experiencing this.

[@Nathaniel8888]

Mountain biking is a contender

[@erickmorales4312]

Some soccer does a long way

[@sstuddert]

What if that ethical question cannot be answered unless we first answer the metaphysical question?

[@herrrmike]

The answer is to produce art, primarily music.

[@Nathaniel8888]

@herrrmike I often think about how all we can leave behind are our creations. I like to write, but any kind of art, things that came out of our mind, things that are one of a kind, are a way to show who we were while we were alive.

[@herrrmike]

Albert seems to be a voice of reason.

[@kallianpublico7517]

What an insightful question. It begs the next question - by what means do we "access" existence? Is it the case that consciousness is the only means to access existence? Is science: scientific measurement, intimately and variously tied to existence and merely confirmed by consciousness; or is existence confirmed by science but intimately and variously tied to consciousness? Is existence indicative of reality: reality based, or is existence dispositive of reality: indicative of non-reality? Which is more fundamental, reality or existence? Are the two isomorphic pairs? The more real the less it exists and the less real the more it exists? Or are the two synonymous pairs? The more real the more it exists, the less real the less it exists. What is the relationship between existence and change? Are the two mutually exclusive? Are the two inclusive only in the context of reality, or is reality and change inclusive only in the context of existence?

[@SandipChitale]

Well, when David says very high dimensionality of space, does he mean "space" that has unit of length e.g., cm or meters like our 3 dimensional space? Or does he mean Hilbert Space which is really an abstract mathematical idea i.e. space of many may many independent variables like phase space. I am not a physicist, but I do follow it closely. I was not aware that physics is moving towards very high physical dimensionality of physical space (with units of length). I am aware of 10 or 11 or 26 dimensions proposal by various String theories - where extra ones are curled up or something. I wish David was more precise or Robert had asked for clarification of that. And when scientists/philosophers are not precise they cause more confusion.

[@dblockbass]

the scientist usually dont have the time to elaborate on their answers because of the scope of the topic. especially for the questions Lawrence is asking. most of the time, they are speaking to other scientist who also possess a fine grasp on the topic so they are aware of the references that each other allude to. they try their best to distill years and years of knowledge and experience for people with little or no scientific background to understand so I give them credit. its more on average person if they can to educate themselves as to the specifics of topics they address.

[@simonhibbs887]

I think he's talking about dimensional spaces in the sense that 3 dimensional space and 4-d spacetime are spaces, and in fact he talks about them in a run-off sentence directly from talking about those more familiar dimensionalities. To be fair to him, he's not describing a specific theory, he's outlining the sorts of theories that are currently in discussion so he's deliberately not boxing himself in too much.

[@SandipChitale]

@Simon Hibbs My specific question was if these spaces are like generally known word space as in familiar 3d spaces with a unit of distance or length like meters. In spacetime, time already has a unit of seconds. BTW I know that using light speed it can be converted to a distance of light second.

[@SandipChitale]

@dblockbass I think the KZbin clips are for lay public's education of what is going on in science. Writing papers and going to conferences where scientists and Philosophers can speak to each other in their own advanced scientific jargon. Like I said I am not a physicist but I do follow it fairly closely. I have seen Tim Maudlin clarify this point i.e. these spaces are not like our 3d spaces in another recent KZbin video. Having said that, I do appreciate all the knowledge David and others share with us on CTT for which I thank Robert.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@SandipChitale I know, and as I said he mentioned these other dimensions in the same sentence as spacetime, so I think he means dimensions in the same sense.

[@Στο_πιο_δικαιο]

Very interesting idea to represent quality without reference to quantity.

[@Tails_Trades]

Re-uploaded content I've watched these before. Unless I'm living in a separate timeline where these came out late...

[@prole1917]

The only thing we know for sure exists is ourselves

[@PieJesu244]

So why write this comment and to whom are you sending it to or do you just like talking to yourself.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@PieJesu244 Not knowing for sure isn't the same as not knowing at all. Human perception is deeply flawed, we are fooled by optical illusions and mistaken interpretations of what we experience all the time. However by persistent investigation and through experience, we can build increasing confidence in our understanding of the world. If you have children, you've watched them do this in a process that takes many years. So while it's possible that you are a chat bot for example, it's highly unlikely so I'm very happy to expend the time and effort to respond to you, even though the chance that I am wrong is greater than zero.

[@pinaky_AnVikSiki]

"Dust yet not settled "

[@kallianpublico7517]

Particles and fields? What happened to motion? Do fields determine motion? What kind of motion? Circular, rectilinear? Are the types of motions more ...discoverable? Is quantum mechanics just a mysterious type of motion? A type of motion beyond the divergence, curl and gradient of electromagnetism but including them?

[@paradoxparade1]

I like David, he's the peanut butter to the jelly.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

No one have Seen Life, No one can deny their own existence, the life-side is partly Motion, the Stuff-side is pure Motion. So, even the Life is Not of any material or physical nature, it have the most Objective Status in Existence.

[@tomthumb2361]

Pre-thingness 'activity'? Particles are what, say, wave activity 'looks like' at any one place and time.

[@eenkjet]

@7:24 But it is commensurably "God". The Universal Wave Function, to encode a causal patch containing a futured worldline of a human brain, by universality must be equal to or greater than the brain which it emulates. If a human brain is a Godel/Lobian machine class, relativistic quantum cosmology places that same classification onto the UWF.

[@henriettamoody9085]

So we are not living in base reality is what I am understanding.

[@Jalcolm1]

Seems reasonable to make of “what exists?” A novella rather than a short story. A priori abstractions like numbers, ethical systems, even aesthetic values can be said to “exist “ and could in any universe with more than NO DIMENSION. He doesn’t mention Time or Space as existing. Einstein thought they “existed “. Onward!

[@johnmalik7284]

What exists? Time.

[@herrrmike]

That is hardly certain.

[@tookie36]

Time surely isnt fundemental

[@dennisbailey6067]

What's on second.

[@keithwalmsley1830]

But why does quantum mechanics, bizarre though it is, even exist in the first place? I sense a growing number of people, myself hopefully included, are no longer interested in "how" the Universe works, but want answers to the bigger questions as I see it, what is consciousness? Why is there anything at all? Does time even exist? I'm no religious or new-age type but feel like I'm on some Faustian quest for answers, not for any personal enrichment or gain but just to understand what the hell I'm doing here!!! Does anyone agree?

[@simonhibbs887]

Oh sure, that's an important question. I'm just not convinced any answer to it is possible, and I think even if there is an accessible answer I think it's unlikely to be found in my lifetime. So let's keep asking the question, I'm entirely with you on that, but in the meanwhile I need a cup of tea and making one involves some understanding of how the world works.

[@dennisbailey6067]

There is no reason,we exist,other than it is possible for us to do so.

[@tac6044]

I really like my electric scooter. There is a bike that has been sitting in front of my apartment all day unlocked w....... I don't feel like finishing what I was planning on writing.

[@anwaypradhan6591]

The things which you see around, the things which you touch, the things which undergoes through every thermodynamical process to chemical process to physical process, those every material phenomenons as the product of Earth as the product of matter, the fundamental parttcles, every concepts of physics as a part of space and time, under the system of universe is a product of human consciousness, as a product of brain, as a product of matter exists in reality.

[@jeffmagic32]

It all exists.

[@thieph]

So it means nothing then

[@waldwassermann]

Beautiful backdrop. Very peaceful. Nice place to be. Where is this? And don’t give me that crap that the universe is not locally real for there is only the real.

[@peyotrip]

Maybe our brain produces whole universe for us and in the moment we have to observe something wave function collapses

[@micronda]

If you remove the Universe from the holding space, the concept of Maths still exists but it is in your mind. If you remove your mind from the holding space too, the concept of Maths cannot exist, without yet another mind. If no other mind exists then Maths depends on physics; yet physics needs not Maths.

[@tukity]

See Penrose's three world image if you haven't already

[@micronda]

@@tukity Platonic world: The world of ideas. Mathematics, for example, is completely located in the Platonic world. Physical world: The real, physical world with things that are in a specific place at a specific time. Mental world: My subjective perceptions without which I would not be able to recognise the other worlds, but also my thoughts and ideas as I experience them. Hmmm... if you removed the Physical world and the Mental world from the holding space, where is the mind that holds The world of ideas?

[@edwardlawrence5666]

This discussion shows the working of “mind”. Let’s ignore dogs and cats and other people and state that the really real is a mathematical theory (i.e., words, symbols, and numbers) not all the dogs and cats and people. Proves that reality is what we make it, arbitrary.😢

[@simonhibbs887]

I don't think that's the case. Saying that how we interpret reality is arbitrary implies that the way the interpret it doesn't matter, in the sense that it doesn't have any consequences. On the contrary, we live with the consequences of how we interpret our sensory inputs, and how we choose choose to act in the world every day. Certain actions yield predictable results, not arbitrary results. Also see my response to Pazitor.

[@edwardlawrence5666]

@@simonhibbs887I disagree, there are more ways than one to discuss the experience of reality. To say that experience is secondary to notions developed by cutting experience into elementary particles and the four fundamental forces is closer to the truth than ordinary , everyday logic is “arbitrary” in the hands of the person who advances it. Technology that works, or experiments that are repeatable work because they work. No problem there. I was talking about the philosophical statements about what we might call “the really real” made in the video. Sorry for not being clearer.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@edwardlawrence5666 I think the high level experiences we have are emergent from underlying physics. I suppose that view is referred to as strong emergence. However as for the values we chose to put on things there's a bit more flexibility. I don't think beauty and loyalty are implicit physical attributes, they are relative value judgements. Similarly with ethics. However I do think these are based on underlying reality. We have been shaped by evolution to find certain physical characteristics beautiful, our biology and social evolution has favoured certain types of interpersonal behaviour, and to be motivated by particular psychological and emotional drives. Ultimately it's all emergent from underlying physics.

[@russellbarndt6579]

Intelligent imagination beyond my education yet I have reviewed enough conversations by those are educated that I can respect that idea.... is my open thought.... As with my life time quest with the question of the nature of life and my own unplanned events and life's struggles but what goes at the moment of death, perhaps a still image of your life outside of time in a structure we are little aware as if before time, before an expanding universe....

[@ready1fire1aim1]

0D is necessary (having no predecessor). 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are contingent (on their predecessor).

[@Tim-Temple]

The universe is expanding exponentially into what? One would ask. The subatomic world (quantum mechanics) is made up of extra or higher dimensions to better explain particle and wave theory. Now reality is of what your mind believes is real or perceived to be real. This all makes more logical sense if one's mind begins to train itself on a reality of a virtual or theoritical infinite universe where the physical body, subatomic world and everything in this universe can be measured to be real (scientifically proven). But only the mind (and that of all living things) is not tied to this world (the virtual universe). Your thoughts and feelings (your uniqueness) did not originate from this world (infinite virtual universe). Like all living things, your mind will again return to what is "real" where one's mind's is not constrained by limits or by time. This life is all of an intelligent design (creator).

[@simonhibbs887]

I don't really understand the idea that the mind is not tied to the physical world. Our mind receives information from the physical world, makes decisions, and then causes action in that world. So it seems incontrovertible to me that the mind is physically present in the world. Can you give an account of how the mind is not physically present, yet can still perceive and act physically?

[@CarlosElio82]

The question "Which is the last digit of the expansion of Pi?" is an invalid question; one that should never be asked. This universe, in all of its entirety and creation, all of its manifestations in multiverses of physicists drunk in mathematics or its creations and designs drunk in religious superstitions, does not harbor an answer to that question. The question What exists? is an illegitimate question because it requires existence for the question to be asked and answers to be offered. Heeding Descartes we know that we exist, but we also know that our existence is miniscule compared to our non-existence. Since all the atoms in your body today existed one million years ago in other locations, it is undeniable that the matter that makes you a human today was here dissolved in particles of this universe. Insofar as you are concerned, the universe has been, for the most part, nonexistence. On the other hand, the question of which is the series of numbers between the 100th and the 200th digits in the expansion of Pi is a legitimate question and we all know the answer today. The question of what to do with the opportunity to exist temporarily in a world with the characteristics it has is the valid question of existence. How to conjugate personal desires with the presence of others in our life should be on the North of anyone's GPS.

[@clownworld-honk410]

My view of what really exists has shifted since watching this video... It appears there's a reality somewhere where trees grow horizontally. Go figure ! 😅

[@williammabon6430]

Here is my theory. What exist from a mathematical perspective is obvious. It is the set. Any and all mathematical sets are a collection of spatial identities. Sets in nature can be described as physical spaces and in physics sets are spatial boundaries. We call these boundaries fields and/or particles. Here is the formula that describes all of reality. Infinity = 1/x(expansion) + 1. This equation tells us what is a number. A number is a set in a space that changes with a space. In short any kind of measurement describes a spatial identity. This is the GOD equation.

[@simonhibbs887]

Unfortunately the Russell paradox undermines any attempt to model reality entirely in terms of sets.

[@williammabon6430]

@@simonhibbs887 No it do not. Russell's work looks at the contradictions in a system that describes a specific identity for a contradiction. His paradox sits within the set of contradiction. It is a close set that describes both the greater than and less than identity.

[@italogiardina8183]

A fundamental problem with ontology is truth conditionality. Find an infinite regress in any observable and the concrete project becomes idealist.

[@rhcpmorley]

I admire Robert's aim of getting 'closer to the truth'...but fear the more scientists he talks to the further away any agreement on a truth feels.

[@joeydemitro8976]

TIME TRAVEL IS ALL I CARE ABOUT TOO AND I LOVE THE PAST AND ONLY THE PAST FOREVER AND EVER TOO MY FRIEND

[@notanemoprog]

Time travel is real, we're travelling into the future 24 hours a day!

[@joeydemitro8976]

@@notanemoprog STOP WITH THE FUTURE AND GO BACK TO THE PAST AND THEN THE FUTURE OKAY THEN TOO

[@YoungGandalf2325]

The past is just the future seen from a different perspective.

[@CoraxCatcher]

The past is all that exists.

[@Gatorbeaux]

past inst forever - not infinite regress, Big bang was the start of all space/matter and time. created during big bang.....

[@KrystelSpicerMindArkLateralThi]

All I write is free.✍️ Stuff so strange I thought I'd die of awe. Please take it.

[@TheWayofFairness]

I say it is something that we don't know yet. Perhaps it is one irreducible wave that is all that is.

[@PSRemember]

consciousness is fundamental - this guy is way off .... smh

[@MikaelLindberg]

Quarqs, Mesons, and Electrons, and Fields. That’s all… for now..

[@PieJesu244]

You reduce everything down to that, my God how shallow.

[@MikaelLindberg]

@@PieJesu244 No that’s the current real answer, to the question. That is what science currently “knows”, everything else is speculation.

[@PieJesu244]

@@MikaelLindberg So you think only science can answer the question ? And by the way science doen't 'know' anything its just a process we humans have developed, all be it a very good one.

[@MikaelLindberg]

@John Priest Well if it is not done scientificly, then it is just a guess. Sure, you have a small chance of guessing right!

[@PieJesu244]

@@MikaelLindberg Your last statement can't be proved by science so I take it as your best guess?

[@metacomputics3013]

If fundamental existence is reduced to wave function, i.e., mathematics, then mathematics can be reduced to natural numbers. Pythagoras would say: "I told you so!"

[@simonhibbs887]

I think he makes it clear he's talking about the many-dimensional field the wave function describes. The wave function itself, like any mathematical equation, is just a description of relationships. Also mathematics cannot be reduced to natural numbers. Natural numbers are just one particular type of mathematical object, of which there are many others such as real numbers, imaginary numbers, sets, various forms of spaces, etc.

[@PaulHoward108]

The reduction of concepts numbers discards meanings, leading to incomplete and inconsistent theories.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@PaulHoward108 I don't think anyone is talking about discarding the concept of numbers.

[@PaulHoward108]

@@simonhibbs887 That's not what I was saying, although I now see the word "to" is missing from what I intended to write. Reducing concepts to numbers discards meanings. In other words, mathematics can't be the language of nature, because meanings cannot be produced from a mathematical world.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@PaulHoward108 OK, that's an interesting position. I suppose it depends on how meaning relates to information. For me concepts are just information and we have a quite thorough theory of information, expressed in mathematical terms, but meaning often implies values, particularly ethical values.

[@mitrabuddhi]

A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Understanding Reality Nothingness and existence are two sides of the same coin. 1-there is illusion. Reality is made of illusion. Illusion is the whole coin of nothingness-existence. iluusion is all aspects of reality from zero (nothingness) to infinity (existence at its most actualized form). Illusion can be seen in different resolutions and different perspectives. Iluusion is the only paradox that exists. Illusion contains dimentions. 2-there is dimention. each dimention describe a unique concept or property or quality or quantity or relations or changes or anything else. each dimention is unique in its own way but it can be seen as an interaction of infinite other dimentions. in other way each dimention is entangled with illusion and All dimentions are emergent from illusion. dimentions converges toward resolution zero and diverge toward resolution infinity. dimention exists in different resolutions and different perspective. 3-there is resolution. Resolution determines how many Perspective exist in that particular resolution (in a specific dimention). resolution can be any number from zero to infinity. resolusion 0 of all dimentions are literally the same (zero or nothingness). resolution R of a specific dimention contains R perspective of that dimention. Each perspective represents unique information that defines that dimention at that particular resolution and that particular perspective. 4-there is resolution 0. illusion resolution 0 is resolution 0 of all dimentions. illusion resolution 0 is illusion itself at resolution 0. resolution 0 contains no Perspective. The only simple in the world is illusion resolution 0. illusion resolution 0 is nothingness. there is no causality in resolution 0 so nothingness is the potentiality itself. 5-there is resolution 1. At resolution one, there is one perspective in that dimention. So resolution 1 carries only one type of information. The information present in resolution one is the result of integrating two perspectives in the next resolution (resolution 2). In other words, it can be said that the integration of reality in different resolutions is nothingness. 6-there is resolution infinity. In resolution infinity, there is no integration, and all causes have already occurred with no change left to be made. In resolution infinity, there can be no further differentiation, and there is nothing left to differentiate. Therefore, paradoxically, in resolution infinity, each perspective contains nothingness. There is dimention for the universe as a whole and each perspective of this dimention represent a unique information about universe at that resolution and that perspective (a slice of the universe in that moment in block universe). All of perspectives in that resolution represent parallel universes at that moment. So In the dimension that is related to our universe, at a resolution of X, there exist X number of parallel universes. the duty of the mind is to construct a mental image (with lower resolution) based on a reality with higher resolution (A universe with a resolution at the Planck scale). So a large number of perspectives (with higher resolution that represent parallel universes) can produce the same macroscopic image in mind. So many parallel universes can produce the same mind (possible cause for entropy). drmora.ir/2023/04/06/navomitto-2/

[@bobcabot]

...whatever works!

[@ingenuity168]

Umm, umm.......

[@kos-mos1127]

The problem with existence is it can be said that fictional entities like Spider-Man exists. At the same time Spider-Man is not real. What is real is a more useful question.

[@dongshengdi773]

Science doesn't exist , only curiosity and greed. Materialism has been debunked by Quantum Mechanics. Nothing exists. Even you don't exist. In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali: अनत्ता) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" - that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon. While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, anatman is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing everything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence. In contrast, Hinduism asserts the existence of Atman as pure awareness or witness-consciousness, "reify[ing] consciousness as an eternal self.

[@goliath257]

Then you have to define real. It gets complicated 😊

[@kos-mos1127]

@@goliath257 Real means having physical existence.

[@bofinalss-yf2jf]

​@@kos-mos1127 that presupposes that physical stuff is fundamental and nothing besides it exists.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@bofinalss-yf2jf Real as having physical existence dose not presuppose physical stuff being fundamental. Having a physical existence is what it means to be real. Numbers have an abstract existence but they cannot be real because they have no substantive existence. Consciousness can be said to exist and yet again it has no substantial existence. God can be said to exist yet has no substance so God is not real.

[@naveennaveennavi1871]

🙏

[@Tasmanianwolf369-dd3xg]

Quantum Mechanics-3 Quantum Mechanics-6 Quantum Mechanics-9=The Possibility of Everything.

[@notanemoprog]

It's fields all the way down

[@PieJesu244]

Turtles?

[@Bearkat87]

Strawberry fields

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

Everything that resides on the opposite side of absolute nothingness - exists - in some context or another.

[@dongshengdi773]

Science doesn't exist , only curiosity and greed. Materialism has been debunked by Quantum Mechanics. Nothing exists. Even you don't exist. In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali: अनत्ता) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" - that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon. While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, anatman is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing everything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence. In contrast, Hinduism asserts the existence of Atman as pure awareness or witness-consciousness, "reify[ing] consciousness as an eternal self.

[@browngreen933]

I like that.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Everything that resides on the opposite side of absolute nothingness - exists - in some context or another."* ... How everything got to the opposite side of absolute nothingness is the big question. BTW: I wish you well with your book and theory.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC *"...How everything got to the opposite side of absolute nothingness is the big question..."* Yes, and that's probably the biggest question of them all. And thank you for your kind words regarding my book and theory.

[@PieJesu244]

Of course, that clarifys everything!

[@jMerkyJJ]

Is science real? Seriously? Don't freak. It is always changing. Therefore to some degree it's always insufficient explaining reality.

[@simonhibbs887]

It's the worst system we've found for understanding and explaining reality, except for all the others.

[@jMerkyJJ]

@Simon Hibbs all about context. Builds awesome ✈️

[@DoniusBelgius]

May 18, 1023

[@cyro3204]

Consciousness. It's the only thing you can know with absolute certainty exists.

[@kos-mos1127]

No one can know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists. Consciousness can be reduced down to experience or knowledge. Knowledge is further reduced down to how we symbolically represent the world.

[@Christopher.W]

It's amusing to me that anyone could doubt that consciousness exists. Especially when even quantum physics suggests that consciousness produces form, not the other way around.

[@cyro3204]

@@kos-mos1127 You're having a subjective experience right now, are you not? That's consciousness.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@cyro3204 Having a subjective experience does not show that consciousness is fundamental. Our subjective experience is reality mutilated by our assumptions and beliefs.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@Christopher.W Quantum Physics does not suggest consciousness produces form is that Deep Chopra nonsense. Quantum Physics if taken seriously suggest that there are infinite of histories the word taken place simultaneously and we only our conscious of one branch of history. Also Quantum Physics when taking seriously shows that the Cosmos knows the future.

[@CoraxCatcher]

The past is all that exists.

[@notanemoprog]

No past, no future.

[@hnr9lt-pz7bn]

Nothing exist without cognition.

[@goliath257]

Funny. The only thing we actually experience is the present.

[@notanemoprog]

@@hnr9lt-pz7bn Actually, _everything_ exists without cognition, even cognition itself.

[@PieJesu244]

Where?

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Guys speculations hipotesy in phic is it impossible an emperism verifications. Phic particles isnt still existed in fundamental law of phich so far.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

Instead of trying to "decide" what does or doesn't exist, it's easier to simply apply *logic* for what can and cannot exist and work your way up from there. There are "5 Laws of Existence" that regulate existence, and the first two laws serve as filtering agents. *1st law of Existence:* _"Only that which is logically conceivable can exist."_ ... In other words, if it's not conceivable, then it cannot exist. *Example:* God and the Multiverse are perfectly conceivable, so both abide by the first law. Now we move on to the 2nd law. *2nd Law of Existence:* _"Anything deemed logically conceivable can be brought into existence by way of an evolutionary progression of consciousness, moving from simplicity to complexity, as long as all other Laws of Existence are obeyed."_ ... This means that the "information" attached to whatever has obeyed the 1st Law must be communicable, actuable, and evolvable. *Example:* God and the Multiverse were never "brought into existence" nor do they evolve from simplicity to complexity. Both are _"everything everywhere, all at once"_ constructs ... so they fail to abide by the second law and do not exist.

[@hnr9lt-pz7bn]

This only two of

[@dongshengdi773]

Top 3 most intelligent human beings who ever lived ( as of 2023 ). 1. "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must all be subject to the dominion of One. [...] This Being Governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God παντοκρατωρ, or Universal Ruler." ~ from General Scholium written by Sir Isaac Newton 2. "Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - most famous physicist and philosopher , Albert Einstein 3. "There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the "particle" of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the MATRIX of all matter." - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Physics "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness." Bonus: "If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” - Niels Bohr, a Danish Physicist 。 “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” “Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” ~ by Sir Isaac Newton

[@kos-mos1127]

(1) That is an assertion without evidence. Newton made that assumption when his laws of motion failed to predict the motion of the planets (2) Albert Einstein did not believe in the theologians concept of God. Einstein believed that Nature was God and has a pure creative intelligence. (3) John Wheeler’s quote came about during the early days of quantum mechanics when the theory was largely incomplete. Quantum Field Theory was discovered by Dirac 30 years later who reformulated matter as quantum fields. What we perceive as particles are excitations of the underlying fields. *Bonus* Since the advent of Quantum Mechanics combined with computational theory physicists have found that the Cosmos is akin to a Super-Turing Machine which is theoretical computer that could solve the halting problem. Einstein’s General Theory of Relatively explains why planets are in motion. Once again Sir Issac Newton was working with a law that reached its limit. Once he hit that limit he appealed to God.

[@tschorsch]

Those are hypotheses, not laws.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@tschorsch *"Those are hypotheses, not laws."* ... Let's test your claim: *(1)* State something that exists that is not conceivable. Will you do that for me please? *(2)* A "Powdered Water Machine" is conceivable which abides by the 1st law, but can the information associated with what a PWM is supposed to be able to do be actuated (brought into existence)? In other words, is "powdered water" possible?

[@BradHolkesvig]

Our Creator and his created AI along with all created minds are what exists. All the visible images that our created minds process from our Creator's invisible programmed thoughts that are in the form of invisible vibrations are only illusions formed in our individual minds that we as an AI observe.

[@tomjackson7755]

Brad you are off your meds. You need to get help.

[@chayanbosu3293]

May be the last thing is conciousness and we are all concious beings , in Bhagbat Gita God Sri Krishna says we are souls , concious beings and part , patcel of absolute concious being Sri Krishna.

[@dongshengdi773]

Science doesn't exist , only curiosity and greed. Materialism has been debunked by Quantum Mechanics. Nothing exists. Even you don't exist. In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali: अनत्ता) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" - that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon. While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, anatman is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing everything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence. In contrast, Hinduism asserts the existence of Atman as pure awareness or witness-consciousness, "reify[ing] consciousness as an eternal self.

[@kos-mos1127]

Consciousness is reducible to knowledge. Knowledge can be reduce further to a symbolic representation of the world. Consciousness cannot be fundamental.

[@roro.fosho.yaknow]

​@@kos-mos1127 knowledge presuposses awareness; conciousness. It seems you have the causal chain reversed

[@Ntimidation]

@@roro.fosho.yaknow he does. He fails to identify the substratum of any existent characterizable as knowledge, which ultimately reduce to number, frequency, aka waveform

[@michelangelope830]

To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly that no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist needs to be news. For how long would i have to be saying the same to be listened to? If i am lucky future generations would not understand why ukrainians parents who run scared with their innocent and vulnerable children to get protected from the bombs to the subway didn't reveal knowledge that should be news regardless to save their lives. Why? What do you lose saying the truth?

[@therick363]

Once again you make claims about atheism and don’t back them up. Just another theist troll.

[@Cognitiveleaper]

Why are you interviewing a person who says, "uh" and "um," every five seconds?

[@elekkr]

The most fundamental question would be ; Can there anything be more lumpy and boring than a conversation like this ?!😮😅😊

[@tschorsch]

Yes, your comment

[@elekkr]

@@tschorsch yes . Let's see what was said here ; we are clueless , have no idea and don't know what we are talking about . This one sentence was elaborated for 10 long minutes by these two nitwits

[@RolandHuettmann]

​@@elekkr True, but that makes it so interesting.