Do we create reality with our mind? A physicist's reply.

🙏 Join this channel to support me ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
Do we create reality with our minds? I got this question on twitter the other day and after rolling my eyes about it for some while, I decided it’s actually a good question. You might think the answer is obviously “no”. But it’s not that simple. Let me explain.
#science #physics #philosophy

[@victorkrawchuk9141]

I'm of two minds about this. NO!!! WAIT!!!!

[@heybro345]

I think I saw what you did there. No!! Wait!!😂

[@deltalima6703]

TOO LATE!!!!

[@TheWorldTeacher]

Idealism: Metaphysical Idealism is the view that the objective, phenomenal world is the product of an IDEATION of the mind, whether that be the individual, discrete mind of a personal subject, or otherwise that of a Universal Conscious Mind (often case, a Supreme Deity), or perhaps more plausibly, in the latter form of Idealism, Impersonal Universal Consciousness Itself (“Nirguna Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The former variety of Idealism (that the external world is merely the product of an individual mind) seems to be a form of solipsism. The latter kind of Idealism is far more plausible, yet it reduces the objective world to nothing but a figment in the “Mind of God”. Thus, BOTH these forms of Idealism can be used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviour, on the premise that life is just a sort of dream in the mind of an individual human, or else in the consciousness of the Universal Mind, and therefore, any action that is deemed by society to be immoral takes place purely in the imagination (and of course, those who favour this philosophy rarely speak of how non-human animals fit into this metaphysical world-view, at least under the former kind of Idealism, subjective Idealism). Idealism (especially Monistic Idealism), is invariably the metaphysical position proffered by neo-advaita teachers outside of India (Bhārata), almost definitely due to the promulgation of the teachings in the West of Indian (so-called) “gurus” such as Mister Venkataraman Iyer (normally referred to by his assumed name, Ramana Maharshi). See the Glossary entry “neo-advaita”. This may explain why such (bogus) teachers use the terms “Consciousness” and/or “Awareness”, instead of the Vedantic Sanskrit word “Brahman”, since with “Brahman” there is ultimately no distinction between matter and spirit (i.e. the object-subject duality). At the risk of sounding facetious, anyone can dress themselves in a white robe and go before a camera or a live audience and repeat the words “Consciousness” and “Awareness” ad-infinitum and it would seem INDISTINGUISHABLE from the so called “satsangs” (a Sanskrit term that refers to a guru preaching to a gathering of spiritual seekers) of those fools who belong to the cult of neo-advaita. Although it may seem that in a couple of places in this treatise, that a form of Monistic Idealism is presented to the reader, the metaphysical view postulated here is, in fact, a form of neutral monism known as “decompositional dual-aspect monism” (“advaita”, in Sanskrit), and is a far more complete perspective than the immaterialism proposed by Idealism, and is the one realized and taught by the most enlightened sages throughout history, especially in the most “SPIRITUAL” piece of land on earth, Bhārata. Cf. “monism”. N.B. The Idealism referred to in the above definition (and in the body of this book) is metaphysical Idealism, not the ethical or political idealism often mentioned in public discourse (e.g. “I believe everyone in society ought to be given a basic income”). Therefore, to distinguish between sociological idealism and philosophical Idealism, the initial letter of the latter term is CAPITALIZED.

[@RayNomadic]

😂👍

[@smlanka4u]

Dependent origination converts energy into matter and decay within 3 smallest moments. It starts from nescience/asymmetry (Avijja).

[@TheRealTomWendel]

If by reality we mean space time or mass energy as it is, then strictly speaking our perceptions don’t have much to do with reality. They’re simply a representation that’s usually illusory and often imaginative. Our consciousness creates this representation which isn’t reality itself but is only a particular model- unique to us as individuals in many ways and rich with personal artifacts that are part of that creation. This model of reality has likely evolved in the way it has because of the practical implications. It’s not the perception of heat that burns us nor the perception of hardness and momentum which causes blunt trauma, but our perceptions can be (not invariably) linked with important consequences, making the model at times very useful (while at other times misleading). Thanks for the clear and provocative take on this question!

[@chaosexplorer9672]

Well said.

[@isajoha9962]

What our sensors picks up from what is around us, is kind of an unique version of reality. We are also limited in what our sensor are able to pick up. The sensors becomes like filters for what is really there (eg things we can't hear, see, feel etc).

[@westerling8436]

Captain Obvious everyone

[@dutchdykefinger]

on this question i like to apply the gravity test for objectivity let's see how much of a figment of imagination things are when they jump off a 12 story building chances are, that their subjective sense of reality is not there anymore, because they just lost their abilty to comprehend or reason altogether with the rest of their senses, they're dead., which does prove that your subjective feelings don't give a shit about at least the reality of being alive or dead. sure, a woolen cap can survive a drop from that height better than a motor helmet would probably, it'll probably still look pristine down on the ground, but when you're going down along with the thing, you're going to realistically be fucken dead regardless... some things aren't worth regarding in a true reality check because they're meaningless details

[@hugegamer5988]

We pick up far less than 1% of what is around us. Vision is electromagnetic radiation from 380nm to 700nm while the actual photons wavelength around us range from over thousands of miles to 0.01nm for cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. Same for sound, we only hear 20hz to 20kHz when we are surrounded by wavelengths from over hundreds of miles to past 100khz. We don’t feel individual molecules with touch, it’s even less information. We don’t even have senses for some fields like electric charge or magnetism. If we could only see everything the world would look vastly different.

[@westerling8436]

@@hugegamer5988 thx captain obvious

[@johnwright8814]

@@dutchdykefinger We learnt all about falling when we were learning to walk.

[@simoneromeo5998]

Beautiful! I love that you can look into a twitter statement that has your eyes rolling, go ahead and analyze it objectively and even avoid ruling it out altogether. Keep doing this. That's why we trust you :)

[@alieninmybeverage]

In my mind, good philosophy is there to map the edges of Epistemological quagmires to help others avoid them, but also to avoid the consequences of assuming they are not there because you've not fallen into one. Bad philosophy is like mud-wrestling. You lie in wait at the edges of the quagmires to pull others in because you are better at wrestling in the mud.

[@Jordan-ky4nd]

I love that

[@kennethc2466]

Philosophy without scientific verification is worthless at best, harmful at worst. We'd still BELIEVE in the '4 elements', 'duality', 'spontaneous generation', etc...without the DEMONSTRABLE RESULTS of the scientific method.

[@nickknapp2390]

There are no right answers in philosophy, but there are wrong answers.

[@1isaacmusic]

Philosophy is the art of making things unnecessarily complicated

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

@@nickknapp2390, right and wrong are RELATIVE. ;)

[@John-zz6fz]

Great explanation and I especially like how you tied Solipsism to the Measurement Problem in an approachable way. One can generate a great many theories of reality that are logically defensible and in fact Religion and Philosophy did this for thousands of years. The critical advance is when we began to constrain some of our theories to be "scientific" in the sense that we can apply regimes of rigorous testing against the logically consistent predictions of one "theory" against another. I've often said that while you can choose to believe whatever you like, some beliefs are better than others when it comes to "practical magic".

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist ad I would like to explain the reason why, contrary to what Sabine says in the video, the idea that the collappse of the wave-function is caused by a measurement device is logically inconsistent. The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The point is that any measurement device and all the interactions involved by the measurement device are described by the Schrodinger equation. After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break. Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a succession of isolated events in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is not a continuity between events. In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself; indeterminate properties means that properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event. Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. The collapse of the wave function can be associated with the only non-physical event we know of, consciousness. Therefore, the only consistent rational explanation of the collapse is that it occurs because consciousness is involved in the process. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse. The point is that there must be a correlation between the collapse of the wave function (=violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience); the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of the moment in which God creates the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism. In my youtube chanel you can find a video about the unphysical nature of consciousness. Marco Biagini

[@demetriogirardi2094]

You are still assuming that the model is real in some sense; otherwise you wouldn't need to look for what causes the collapse, conscious or not. A more sensible stance is that the map is not the territory; wave functions and their collapse are models, invented by Man to fit what he sees; but reality does not need to pay attention to them. Consciousness is certainly involved because that's the only thing that can produce models, but using it as the mechanism that makes reality fit the model is putting the cart before the horse.

[@marcobiagini1878]

​@@demetriogirardi2094 No, you misunderstood my meaning and I am not assuming that the model is real; my point is that IF you assume that what is described by the wave function exists indepedently of the mind (e.g. electrons, photons etc.), then you need to look for the cause of the collapse and the hypothesis that the cause of the collapse is a physical device is logically inconsistent. By the way, the map is not a valid analogy for the laws of physics because there is a fundamental difference between a map and the laws of physics, since the map describes only what has already been observed, while the laws of physics predict also what nobody has ever observed. In fact, a map simply describes what has already been observed and cannot be used to make predictions about the future evolution of a territory. On the contrary, the laws of physics have been used (and thousands of times) to make predictions about phenomena that no one had ever observed when the laws of physics were conceived. Therefore, the fundamental laws of physics are not just an attempt to describe our observations, because they have a predictive capacity for what has not yet been observed. Therefore a significant question is certainly: why do the laws of physics have this predictive capacity for natural phenomena?

[@demetriogirardi2094]

It's a perfectly apt analogy to point out the pitfall of confusing model with reality. I can accept that photons are real and that wave functions describe them; it does not follow that I need to find a "cause" for its collapse, because photons are not wave functions, and the collapse is not a phenomenon to be explained but an artifact produced by the modeling of photons as wave functions. If I can't find a road where the map predicts it is, i do not need to find the "cause" of its disappearance; I can just accept that my map describes only some aspects of reality and only in approximation.

[@marcobiagini1878]

@iogirardi2094 I think you missed the point. Photons, as well as any other quantum particle, are just “words” used to refer to some mathematical models; such mathematical models simply define what quantum particles are and their properties. For example, an intrisic property of quantum particles is spin, and spin is just an abstract mathematical property. You can't arbitrarily choose what you like in a theory and ignore what you don't like. The wave function describes only infinite possibilities and not real properties, and the collapse of the wave function is a fundamental element of quantum theory. Without collapse, quantum theory describes nothing compatible with the phenomena we observe. It is incoherent to assume that the collapse is an artifact produced by quantum theory and not assume that photons (and quantum particles in general) are not mere artifacts since they are all elements of the same model (which is obviously an artifact of human mind). This is why idealism provides the only coherent interpretation of quantum mechanics.

[@peterjansen7929]

Well, I will have to look at your channel, because this is the most sensible comment about philosophy I have ever read on KZbin! May I add, that solipsism can be refuted, because some necessary truth about mathematical concepts are learned rather than being derived anew. The proof of the fact, that (as long as more computing power isn't principally impossible to obtain) for any prime number a higher prime number could be found, was not discovered by me, so it must have been discovered by someone else, so at least one other mind exists. And it is sloppy to conclude that solipsism is irrelevant without concluding the same about its supposed opposite. It is prone to lead to what I facetiously call "Hyloimmaterialism", a doctrine at best characterised by the motto "matter doesn't matter", more usually and more misleadingly by the notion that as abandoning Realism doesn't have real consequences one might as well keep it. Apparently, by our nature we incline to be hoarders of trash concepts!

[@TheFireMonkey]

This question keeps coming back - Chuang Tzu asked it back 2500 years ago in the Butterfly Scroll and many have worded it different ways since then. You say it has no practical impact on things, but I'm not so sure that is correct. Let us say that reality is in fact created by our mind - that would imply that we should be able to change reality if we learned how to manipulate our minds and that seems potentially significant. Of course, if anyone did that, assuming there is more than one person who exists, those who had not done it likely would be unaware that it had happened, but for the person who succeeded it would be a profound discovery which has very practical effect. Of course, this leads to two other issues: first, is the reality we experience a shared reality - perhaps the cumulative result of all our minds. Second, is there an absolute reality outside of our perceived reality. I'm sure there are actually more questions that this leads to, but as you say, that is more the domain of philosophers. Two last comments: Descartes can be disputed by a simple fact, he said "I think, therefore I am." but we can observe many people in the world who clearing do not think, and yet they still exist. Second, I know I have a brain because I am not a politician. [Sorry - this response just seemed almost demained by the topic of the video - not trying to be difficult, but after 2/3rds of a century I have realised I must stay true to myself, and while I have a strong interest and background in science - I also have a strong interest in philosophy and, most importantly, I strongly identify with the nature of a monkey and I must be true to that 🐒 but I think I have said enough 🙊🐵]

[@zepkid5678]

You are misinterpreting Descartes’ quote and your statement about people clearly existing undermines your first argument. I think the point is that a) Other people appear to exist and make observations about reality that make it practically obvious that it is independent of the individual b) while it is possible that all these other people and their ideas and observations are all a creation of my own mind, it seems like an absurd stretch to actually believe this. Still, from a philosophical perspective people have asked the question for 1000s of years.. I think mostly because people like to ponder trippy questions even if they are obviously false. c) since there is absolutely 0 way to know if (b) is true by the nature of the question itself, then given (a) it is idiotic to live as if (b) it true. Now there are plenty of idiots and a lot of people live in some confused fantasy world wondering if (b) is true, which is a shame

[@TheFireMonkey]

@@zepkid5678 as far as Descartes goes, I agree totally with you - it was not a very serious comment on my part. Now, you actually hit upon a very good point, one which my sifu used to make [or at least you got into the ballpark as it were] He would say, reality is whatever you perceive, since there is no way to test a reality that does not rely on the assumption that what your senses tell you is true, to question the validity of any reality is pointless. On the other hand, while all perceptions may be equally valid realities, all realities are not equally useful. If I look at my hand and see $100 bill in my hand, that is then real, but if you look and do not see it, my reality has no usefulness. So the question itself is wrong - it should not be, "Is this real?" but rather it should be "Is this useful?" "Is it real?" cannot be answered "Is it useful?" can. Although I'm sure many here will hate it, I have used a tagline in my emails ever since emails with taglines have existed - that tagline being: "Science is what machines perceive Reality is what humans perceive" If you understand what I am saying, then this will make sense, if not, it will not.

[@slapmyfunkybass]

I don’t think it’s based on a shared reality, it’s just your reality. If your mind creates it then there’s no base reality. Your first point describes laws or manifestation. It would explain why so many say it’s true.

[@TheFireMonkey]

@slapmyfunkybass if my mind makes my reality, then there is no evidence that there is anyone in agreement that it is true. Indeed, there is no evidence then that anyone other than me exists at all. In which case, I'm just debating with myself here.

[@slapmyfunkybass]

@@TheFireMonkey You talk and engage with people in your dreams, and that’s your mind, so I wouldn’t feel too bad about it.

[@phil20_20]

"Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, oh escape from reality."

[@MarcusCactus]

NO escape

[@ElonMusk-tb2yi]

Bohemian Rhapsody

[@Braun09tv]

There is no difference between reality and dream, except for complexity. It's all particles and space structures. It's all the same. Reality and dream are the same thing.

[@Alex_Mitchell]

@@ElonMusk-tb2yiAren't you a clever boy...

[@rogerkearns8094]

Anyway, the wind blows.

[@alexcordero6672]

As a student of Eastern studies with a deep appreciation for the philosophical works of Schopenhauer and Kant, I think it's great that you chose this topic. It's fascinating to delve into the intricacies of solipsism, which has historically been regarded as more of an academic pursuit, reminiscent of a Gedankenexperiment sans the experiment. This contemplative endeavor often occupies my thoughts, akin to moments of mundane thought. Solipsism can be perplexing or even nihilistic to many individuals, primarily because our cultural framework emphasizes the pursuit of comprehensive knowledge and understanding, thus expanding our sphere of influence. This inherent tension between the solitary nature of solipsism and the societal expectation of interconnected knowledge underscores its intriguing and sometimes frustrating essence.

[@zdenekburian1366]

solipsism is an idealistic trick from the ruling class to disempower the exploited proletariat

[@ralphmacchiato3761]

You're in for a treat once you settle for causal determinism.

[@fbkintanar]

I love it when Sabine does philosophy of science. I agree with her perspective that any so-called quantum weirdness is resolved by recognizing that it is big noisy macro-scale devices that are implicated in the collapse of wave functions, and a possible role of conscious observers is not empirically meaningful. However, I do think it is worth building on this insight to try and provide some grounding for the "cognition of reality" that humans experience (scientifically, this is grounded in physically ordinary brains, but the experience is in the mind, and psychology has yet to come up with a comprehensive account of the brain-mind relationship). For me, a useful insight is that any **family** of devices of a type is designed by humans with a particular purpose and pattern of use. (In this viewpoint, considering a single atom to be a measurement device is not useful in relationship to ordinary measurement instruments, which are much bigger, they have a probe interacting with the target system, some capacity to amplify signals, and a display that is designed to be meaningful to experimenters.) When using devices of a type, there will always be a framework for interpreting the information at the display with the relationship between the theoretically-isolated target system under study and the probe. This human-device framework is local in the space of possible systems, it is specific to a human-designed type of measurement devices. So there are two levels of locality, local to the device-target system, and the larger context that includes cognizing experimenters setting up and calibrating the system, preparing an experimental run, and interpreting the results. Collapsing wave functions only require a theory in the inner local frame, it might be superdeterministic for all we know. Coming up with a precise theory of how the collapse happens (the measurement problem) is hard, because macro devices are noisy and target nano-scale systems are fragile. Addressing human-level cognition of information displayed by the device involves some socio-psychological creativity of a context of interpretation. The device display will exhibit whatever it is designed to display, via objective physical causation independent of the experimenters observing the device. But the meaning of a particular display state, and the very possibility of meaningful displays, is dependent of the socio-cognition of a community of presumably-human experimenters. This level of philosophizing may actually have relevance to issues of quantum information and quantum computing. If fragile entangled systems of qubit circuits can be exploited as a resource for encoding, processing and extracting information, we may need to consider both the inner frame of locality, where quantum-classical behaviors are objective, and the bigger context of how to get information up to cognizing observers at the display. The cognizing subject is part of the larger contextual system. Locality and contextuality need to be teased apart, and this leads to progress in quantum information and quantum computing. The flow of information can be subtle, a philosophically-sound framework for understanding it can be valuable. A practical ontology for interpreting what is going on in this research can be formulated and even taught to an open-minded lay public. I see Sabine's philosophy of science videos doing just that.

[@indikakumara1685]

Hi Sabine, Thanks for the start on this topic! The new scientific challenge to you: “Prove/disprove any form of reality without using your mind in the process” You can only prove relative existences but not absolute existences. Absolute existence means (bit cultural) you’re thinking lines of an absolute existence of a god. If nobody(no minds) exited to observe something still the(absolute) god is there to observe it and that’s called reality in western cultural (philosophical) terms. The cultural knowledge inherited the way of thinking and then you’re unable think without a reality (absolute existence of the god). There are cultures (such as Buddhism based ones) not believing a creator, a god or absolute existence but only the relative existence. Unfortunately, very few scientists from Buddhist world except few Japanese (Based on a different version of Buddhist culture). So, your belief on the existence of the reality can be based on your inherited culture? 💡

[@aivkara]

Gotta love Sabine. Yet another great video! Sabine, if you have never read it, there is a truly great book by a Danish Science writer by the name of Tor Norretrander. "The User Illusion". It requires of the reader at least a background in engineering, so I'm pretty sure you will blow through the first half of the book quickly. The second half is truly thought provoking.

[@jorgesoberon6866]

Thanks for an intelligent discussion. The bottom line is at the end: it is useless to believe that the tram in front of me is a creation of my mind. Nobody lives this way, regardless of what logic may say.

[@jgarciajr82]

Exactly. Logic is not the same as reason. Reasonable is sensible. Logic is limited. Also, why do physicists have to use mathematics which is abstraction and not real to prove something real?? 🤯🙌🙏❤️

[@krox477]

What about the sun moon and nature

[@nikthefix8918]

@@jgarciajr82 Maths is an internally consistent (and forever incomplete) logical framework which we have found can be used to model what most consider to be the real physical world. Therefore I believe it is wrong to think of it as an abstraction but rather a thing in it's own right or a toolkit when applied to physics. Maths never proved anything but a subset of logical mathematical truths. But when applied to the 'real world' it appears to be mind bendingly useful - and that which is useful is arguably of more value to us than that which is truthful.

[@robinhood4640]

Logic doesn't say that the tram doesn't exist, and that you are creating it, just that you can't see it, you can only see your perception of it. Your perception of it, is your creation, not the tram itself.

[@nikthefix8918]

@ood4640 Yes I think that the comfortable argument would conclude that the 'real' is forever unknowable but that it exists and that we draw our internal model from it. The bleak perspective is that we can never determine whether or not our internal model is in any way representative of anything outside of our minds. But the internal model must surely be influenced by something external to the mind. So that influence should qualify as some sort of 'reality input'. My head is going to explode.

[@paulchristopherriley7503]

Ah Sabine. Pleasure to hear you quip about this. I agree with you.

[@pawel7055]

Sabine, you are one of the most effective, not just science educators but science communicators I have ever seen. Perfection

[@Steeyuv]

Even at the time Descartes wrote, one critic pointed out he was exceeding his authority by saying ‘I think therefore I am’. It was actually only indisputably true that ‘thinking is occurring’.

[@firstaidsack]

Agree. Just because there are thoughts, doesn't mean there is a thinker. Unless you define the thinker as the space in which the thoughts exist. But then it might be the universe...

[@EpicMiniMeatwad]

I think it's a fairly safe conclusion to come to that you as a person are the container for your brain, which is the container of your thoughts. And that you can't have thinking without thoughts, even if those thoughts are extremely single-minded or simple, like "Wiggle your worm body, it's food time". Semantics aside, we're just tapioca pudding inhabiting a meatbag after all.

[@i_accept_all_cookies]

@@EpicMiniMeatwad we're a part of the universe that's tapioca pudding inhabiting a meatbag. So when you observe your pudding thoughts, you have to ask "what's observing".

[@BrianBors]

The thing that is doing the thinking is defined by Decartes as "I" in "I think". So in that regard "thinking is occurring" still proves the existence of "I" by definition. Buddhism usually doesn't state that the "I" doesn't exist (commen misconception). It states that no unchanging(!) self can be found (Anattã). Which is true. "I think therefore I am" does prove the existence of I but only in the present. It could very well be that the brain makes a new(!) "I" every time it thinks (in fact, that is what I think is happening), making both Decartes and Anattã correct.

[@ObjectsInMotion]

“I think therefore something is, at least right now”

[@rocstar3000]

Reality is way too complex to be created inside ones mind, but we do interpret reality in different ways, and you can even use things to give you hallucinations, which will give you weird interpretations of reality while using it.

[@diogenesagogo]

I can recommend The Coen Brothers film 'A Serious Man' as a meditation on this theme. I recognised the solipsism problem 50 or so years ago (although obviously not the first to do so, I just hadn't seen it expressed as such) & as a result it struck me that Descartes made an assumption in his famous quote that hadn't been mentioned; the 'I' part. Because that presupposes a 'you'. Anyway, I finally arrived at what I think of as a sort of work-around solution pretty much the same as Sabine's. Namely that i can demonstrate to myself that the world is not under my conscious control (bad things happen to me) so if the world is self-created it is formed by my unconscious self, over which I have no control. Thus the net result is the same & the whole argument becomes redundant.

[@colemanroberts6827]

That is unless you make the subconscious conscious ; )

[@diogenesagogo]

@@colemanroberts6827 How do you do that?

[@colemanroberts6827]

@@diogenesagogo Record your dreams. They're your subconscious mind talking to you. Take note of how you feel during them. Are you scared? Sad? Happy? Why? Look for recurring events/themes. Rewire your subconscious by repeating mantras right before and right after sleep.

[@judewarner1536]

IMO it is reasonable to suppose that there is an objective reality since there is broad agreement on what stuff looks like and how stuff behaves. The Q. is: can we be sure that what we perceive instantaneously IS objective reality? I suspect only within limitations. Those energies that we have not evolved nerve cells to detect or which are below the sensitivity of our nerve cells to detect we will not perceive, though we may infer them from observing their effects on the world around us. Sometimes, we "observe" what is NOT there, simply because we expect to see it. Sometimes, we do NOT observe what IS there because we do expect to see it. Sometimes we observe what is NOT there due to an accidental confluence of shapes on which our brain imposes a pattern... ghosts in photographs, or briefly glimpsed. When we dream, we briefly experience the full panoply of sensory perception, created solely by our brain. It is clear that "reality" can be generated spontaneously in the absence of wakefulness and thus presumably in flashes while awake. Due to neural sieving, information bias, expectations or opinions we may also come to conclusions which are erroneous even when presented with facts. Objective reality is a slippery subject.

[@user-kt7vg7wv8k]

With the example of the Schrodinger's Cat, how do you manage to isolate the observer from the apparutus doing the measuring. It was stated in this video that physicists now know that it isn't consciousness that causes the cat to be either alive or dead but rather the measuring itself. How do you isolate human consciousness from the measurement being made in order to prove that it simply the apparatus/measuring tool "collapsing" the range of possibilities

[@e-Multiverse]

See: "Einstein's Nightmare" with Professor Jim Al-Khalili Albert Einstein hated the idea that nature, at its most fundamental level, is governed by chance. Al-Khalili reveals how, in the 1930s, Einstein thought he'd found a fatal flaw in quantum physics because it implies that subatomic particles can communicate faster than light in defiance of the theory of relativity. He was proved to be wrong by hippie physics using Bell's equation. See then, also: How the Hippies Saved Physics. "They studied quantum entanglement and Bell's Theorem through the lens of Eastern mysticism and psychic mind-reading, discussing the latest research while lounging in hot tubs."

[@user-pc5ww8fh6d]

My favourite thought experiment, is to imagine "what if I am not currently thinking?"

[@dimitralex1892]

is thinking having words in your mind or is it applying logic to it? are feelings a keycomponent to thinking because they always have a influence on us? Do i stop thinking if my mind is blank? why do logically results come to our mind when we relax it/don't think about it anymor, like a forgotten name which returns or a solution to a question/problem which comes out of nowhere when you stand in the shower? is thinking hard labour? is thinking a composition of active thinking and subconscious working on a deeper level? how does this all work if one have no inner voice? i like your question, thanks.

[@MichaelBurggraf-gm8vl]

Apart from the ideas of solipsism the question "Do we create reality with our mind?" could be reasonable with the following perspective. Processing perceptions while we're awake we are creating images which we can remember and sometimes patterns useful enough to arrive at associative ideas. The latter allows us to associate perceptions and ideas with categories and properties. All of those patterns, properties and categories (and possibly some more stuff) are creating an image of reality in our minds/brains which allow us to recognize similar objects, situations and processes quicker than before, when such preceeding experience had not been encountered. There has been the question if language is intrinsically linked to that image. If I've understood correctly that idea has been rejected already because we can also recognize things which we can't describe with words properly. Which would mean that we're able to create patterns for recognition independent of our ability to express or describe them using language. Hence my conclusion would be that we don't create reality with/in our mind. But we're creating patterns forming an image of reality which provides for improved intellectual/cognitive means of handling reality.

[@flagmichael]

If we do not create reality with our minds, where does our world in a dream come from?

[@MichaelBurggraf-gm8vl]

@@flagmichael I would assume that we're recalling the memories of our perceptions and patterns in some phases of sleep. When we sleep our brains seem to be quite busy processing the masses of perceptions we've been collecting while we were awake. It must be pretty interesting what our brains do while we're sleeping.

[@dimitralex1892]

we always create our reality, maybe not the matter, but thinking and imagining is some kind of creation. and if thats to abstract: studies found that religious people are less sick or depressed. also placebo is a widely known effect which is based on our believe. This indicates that in some cases we can influence the world in some way. sure maybe there is another explanation which we just havn't found yet, but it may also be that we actually have more power than we think.

[@pdxagogo]

Sabine, you are just cool AF! Thanks for being so interesting!

[@MostlyPennyCat]

There's a hard science fiction book called Permutation City by Greg Egan. In it he posits that if a sentient mind can be calculated with mathematics from an initial dataset (this is called Discrete Event Simulation, or DES) then, because the subsequent discrete states are in itself a sentient observer and that the numbers contained in the subsequent uncalculated states always exist _somewhere_ in spacetime, the sentient mind will _assemble itself_ "out of the dust", as it were. This is known as The Dust Theory.

[@Ankhar2332]

Thanks for a book

[@MostlyPennyCat]

@@Ankhar2332 Welcome! 😄

[@eryqeryq]

Seems related to Boltzman Brains, in that there is an assertion that the states must exist somewhere at sometime

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

I have read two of his books. I had enough of his nonsense.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

@@eryqeryq Indeed, every state exists is done order somewhere and sometime. The book also considers the possibility that two of those statetime lines overlap at a position where they share an identical state.

[@procactus9109]

For me, it feels like everyone else makes reality with their mind... I'm just a helpless passenger

[@Littleprinceleon]

Why being so humble? Humble or just not wanting to be part of most things what humanity does? My younger self thought that since we humans create the "way of life" we live, we should simply change that 😅 ? What a naivity. Now I KNOW (a bit strong word)... Now it seems to me, that social constructs (be it institutions, political/economical etc systems) carry a kind of INERTIA in their functions, the more complex and intertwined they are the bigger the RESISTANCE to change. They even have to be that way, because there are much, much, much more ways to disintegration/malfunction than to work properly.... All kinds of evolutions have to take their time. Chaos, panic, collapse of social structures on global scale would be more destructive than even a third war of the worlds. Yeah, climate change is the boogeyman... We'll see how much humanity can change in a few generations and there will be time for that. Some changes can be enforced if a substantial part of the society agrees on the necessity. "We" aren't that blindly stupid as in "Don't look up" 😊

[@procactus9109]

@@Littleprinceleon I said that with a little sarcasm in 'mind' and it still didn't come through.. If reality were created with my mind, why does it almost always not go my way. Why would I want life to be so difficult for myself.... Basically I think we all know instinctively that reality just is, end of story really.

[@Littleprinceleon]

@@procactus9109While I'm trying to not get too much in touch with PanPsychic approaches to (re)interpret experiential knowledge since as a biologist I can't see how it could possibly be, but a part of me (?) insists on a question: What if it's not Me who has a mind, but a "Mind" who "has" me. Maybe if *I* would remember more specific details from my this life connected to this body who now happens to be me, then the *I* (self) would more readily identify itself with this instantiation. Or if *I* would be more bound by earthly demands. Since I... Enough! Off topic: its really bothersome how human languages enhance identification mechanisms, but the evolutionary necessity of it and the related emotions is rather clear. Without the verbal interpretations of sensory data (and cognitive processes to an extent) via the left hemisphere it would be hard to maintain a coherent, highly integrated view of the actions "our" bodies carry out. But how much can one know of all the underlying "subconscious" activities of the brain? Is there any theory on how "free" our decisions can be? To what extent is the "self" independent of the circumstances (properties and "configuration" of the brain) given in any moment? Sorry for ranting. To your suggestion of "creating" reality. The many-worlds interpretation of the "collapse" could perhaps mean that via the changes in the brain/body a person can branch off (together with those brain "configurations" that are "aligned" with it). It would be rather ridiculous if someone with such capabilities as my current self would be able to come up with knowledge now relatively easily accessible...

[@Zeon7510]

​@@procactus9109perhaps you need some Assertiveness training which helped me tremendously: it's not selfish to cater to your needs as well. But also, I had to make myself my own project: optimize sleep, nutrition a bit of exercise, everything my body needs to function well so I can feel well, so I can have the required mental energy to live and eventually thrive instead of just surviving. It's a lifelong project but things are way better since starting. You might be too empathetic to other's needs even to those who don't care about your own needs. Towards those who don't care about your own needs, mirror their actions and care mostly about your needs. To those who are empathetic toward you, have a mutually beneficial relationship about each others needs. "Sometimes you have to be a Lion to be the Sheep you really are". -Dave Chapelle's mom Adapt how you behave depending on who it is in front of you. Don't be "nice" just so people don't see you as a threat, this is a trauma stress response. Be potentially dangerous, but choose to be good. You will develop a "spine" and you will not tolerate being stepped on any longer, you are NOT a carpet! Take care, dear internet stranger. I hope that in about two years, you look back and tell yourself "wow I changed so much".

[@Fizzbuzz994]

I think you are right, the answer comes down to semantics, and turns out I have multiple definitions of reality. I believe in a phyiscal reality that is out there, independent of my mind or any other. I can understand it through mathematical models and of course my own experience of perceiving it, but both of these are a layer of abstraction. Usually when I hear the word reality in casual conversation, from context what's being talked about is that experience of perception and not the directly-inaccesible phyiscally reality that surrounds us. And in that colloquial sense of the word, we do create it in our minds. But I definitely don't believe that experiences cause phyiscal reality to exist.

[@edgewaterz]

I remember hearing, "I think therefore I am" in grade school and thinking what a bunch of B.S. And the teacher was completely unprepared for any rebuttal against it. Thanks for correcting that problem almost 30 years later.

[@aarnelehti]

IS THIS JUST FANTASY? Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality Open your eyes, look up to the skies and see I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy Because I'm easy come, easy go, little high, little low Any way the wind blows doesn't really matter to me, to me Mama, just killed a man Put a gun against his head, pulled my trigger, now he's dead Mama, life had just begun But now I've gone and thrown it all away Mama, ooh, didn't mean to make you cry If I'm not back again this time tomorrow Carry on, carry on as if nothing really matters Too late, my time has come Sends shivers down my spine, body's aching all the time Goodbye, everybody, I've got to go Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth Mama, ooh (any way the wind blows) I don't wanna die I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all I see a little silhouetto of a man Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango? Thunderbolt and lightning, very, very frightening me (Galileo) Galileo, (Galileo) Galileo, Galileo Figaro, magnifico But I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me He's just a poor boy from a poor family Spare him his life from this monstrosity Easy come, easy go, will you let me go? بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ No, we will not let you go (let him go) بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ We will not let you go (let him go) بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ We will not let you go (let me go) Will not let you go (let me go) Never, never, never, never let me go No, no, no, no, no, no, no Oh, mamma mia, mamma mia Mamma mia, let me go Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me, for me, for me So you think you can stone me and spit in my eye? So you think you can love me and leave me to die? Oh, baby, can't do this to me, baby Just gotta get out, just gotta get right outta here Ooh Ooh, yeah, ooh, yeah Nothing really matters, anyone can see Nothing really matters Nothing really matters to me

[@keep_walking_on_grass]

The most annoying Queen song.

[@menyasavut3959]

bwaha, I just wrote the same ))

[@fibber2u]

As somebody who believes in saving water whenever possible (so no wasteful showers), I say: "I stink therefore I am". Others can confirm my existence through this method and the bonus is that you get a seat on the train all to yourself.

[@xlntnrg]

Think of how completely different people's lives are, and then look at their personalities - their minds, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, expectations. Our lives and circumstances always reflect our mentality. Change your beliefs and expectations truly and radically and your circumstances will change accordingly, in ways that sometimes may seem magical of miraculous. The proof is in the pudding.

[@BarryKort]

What we create with our minds are Mental Models (Beliefs) which may or may not be highly accurate representations of the system being modeled. Experiments, Predictions, and Measurements enable us to test and refine our Mental Models so that they comport with Reality as closely as possible and practical.

[@codys447]

Yes, and of course the scientific method is by far our best way to improve our models, though also not perfect due to personal self-interest and sociocultural bias.

[@mengel419]

Only Sabine could take a question that has engaged scientists and philosophers for centuries, and in six minutes present a useful discussion that helps clarify the issue. I am filled with admiration.

[@schmetterling4477]

Physicists have known better than this for a hundred years now. Just because you haven't doesn't mean that Sabine is teaching anything particularly interesting here. All of this is trivial undergrad stuff. ;-)

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@schmetterling4477Hello Mr. Butterfly, the issue that you have might be, that Dr. Bee is much funnier than you. But keep up and have fun.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@Thomas-gk42 Is she? I doubt that. She sounds rather frustrated with the fact that her science career went nowhere. ;-)

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@schmetterling4477What about your career? What about the careers of Napoleon or Einstein? Everone´s career ends with one´s death, so that´s meaningless. Perhaps a bit funny sarcasm helps to overcome frustration? Try, if it works.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@Thomas-gk42 What about it? I am the designer of one of the core components of one of the world's largest high energy physics detectors. That's pretty good for an experimentalist. Certainly far better than her achievements as a theorist. ;-)

[@gianfrancomazzanti1854]

It has been useful for me to listen to Jiddu Krishnamurty's talks on the observer, the observed, and the observation. Also the practical approach described by E. Tolle on perception of my existence.

[@schmetterling4477]

You would have done better by paying attention in high school science class, though. ;-)

[@craigswanson8026]

Consider: 1) actuality is ‘things as they are, independent of human observation’. 2) reality is the product of human sensation, perception, interpretation, and agency/activity.

[@axle.student]

Oh dear. The Solipsism rabbit hole (or labyrinth). I sort of watched this one through and you kind of mentioned Descartes and Solipsism and then I though (first, "run! Run fast from this one Axle.") then I had to go back and watch another one or 2 times. I'll face the nightmares. I am brave :) > First let me say that you did a good at explaining the solipsism problem. And welcome to the Philosophers Labyrinth. No, you can not escape. The best you can do is "choose" to make peace with it :) (You say this in your video multiple times) > 1:35 No, the closest we can achieve is the death of the ego, I or self. This is not a physical death, but spiritual leaders speculate parallels. Just the same the darkness of the abyss is an enlightening experience that appears to transcendence time and space. > Semantics: 2:41 Yes, it all gets weird after you cross beyond the event horizon. Heck, it gets weird before we even perceive anything beyond the mind lol Beyond the self... up to 3:28 Everything we experience is in the past (second hand) and we have to ask does the past still exist? If not, then nothing that we experience is real "In This Moment" beyond the mind. It's like perceiving the universe from a photograph as an analogy. Does the object and moment of the photograph still exist? > The concept of math, physics etc is a creation of human thought, so we have to ask; "If there are no thinking lifeforms (no minds) does math and physics exist of it's own accord in the universe?" I would have to say No. As we stretch our concepts of math, physics and measurement to fit over the natural universe we are going to have more and more difficulty forcing our "created reality" over the natural reality of the universe. We are are seeing this problem arise in the complex and unanswered questions in physics. At some point we are going to be faced with questioning if "Our reality" is really aligning with the natural reality of the universe. At this point we find ourselves wandering the corridors of the philosophers Labyrinth yet again wondering what truly exists beyond our own minds reality. Everyday I walk the lonely corridors with walls painted in concepts of Time, the void, Zero, Infinity etc. Some days it gets dark in here, some days I hear the echoed voices of others, and an occasional scratch on the wall. >> SWEET DARKNESS - 2003 PART 4: Don't weep little flower, It's OK, The darkness will come soon to sooth your pain. Don't weep little flower, It's OK, The world does not see your pain, But I do. Don't weep little flower, The world may not love you, But it's OK, Because the darkness and I do. (c) Axle

[@mrfinesse]

Thanks as always. I was hoping that you'd cover some aspect of a Botlzman brain in this video (as it seems to be similar topic)

[@TheMg49]

Yeah, I like the way you explained this. Thumbs up. Here's my take on it: Of course our minds influence what we conventionally call real. But since most of us are built essentially the same way out of essentially the same stuff, then we're able to pretty much agree on what to call real and thereby successfully navigate the world. The possibilities that are in the mathematical formalism of the quantum theory, but that don't happen, are essentially the same as the possibilities that are in the mathematical formalism of a roll of dice, but that don't happen. They're possibilities, but possibilities are, by definition, not the reality. Possibilities are what might happen, not what did happen. The possibilities that "disappear" are what didn't happen. No mystery there. Unfortunately, some people like to 'interpret' the possibilities in the math formalism of the quantum theory as corresponding to the reality of the quantum realm. Which is clearly the wrong way to go about trying to understand the meaning of the quantum theory, and has led to all sorts of pseudo-problems. My understanding of the Schroedinger's Cat thing is that it's satirizing an interpretation (of the mathematical formalism of the quantum theory) that Schroedinger considered to be particularly silly. The Measurement Problem, the Projection Postulate or Born Rule, quantum entanglement, quantum superposition, wavefunction collapse, etc., are all frequently talked about in the popular science literature in rather silly, weird, and unhelpful ways. But Sabine Hossenfelder does a pretty good job of disposing of the gobbledygook.

[@butterw55]

Thanks! This was a really fun exploration of the idea.

[@mother3crazy]

Our mind DOES create everything it experiences. But so does your mind and my great aunt hildy’s mind, and the beauty is that these realities overlap and can interact. They do this through a shared physical medium known as spacetime, and they inhabit certain particles/groups of particles with the purpose of animation in order to achieve various goals. Being that we are but a small part in this whole system, it’s difficult/maybe impossible for us to “zoom out” enough to realize our grand scheme, though it may be obvious or at least solvable to an outside observer.

[@rickalexanderguitar]

I like your answer. Groups of particles interact and we make up something in our minds to help us deal with the interactions.

[@reneboetker7897]

I think the question of the measuring device is interesting, because it displays a pre-supposition that the only thing with a mind is an animate object. However, Leibniz argued that everything is composed of mental points. I.E. everything has a mind, as an ability to perceive and react to something else. Also inanimate objects. From this definition, a measuring device would have a mind as it can perceive and react. However, you attribute the creation to the scientist, but it is atually created by the measurement device. Leibniz's argument was a precursor to quantum mechanics, and although completely its own thing, it layed the foundation of constructivism through Immanuel Kant. Albeit at a time where only newtonian physics was accepted. The theories of Leibniz was to some extent discarded, in favor of newton, and the entire question of how knowledge(and in extension perception) is developed was framed in a newtonian way with understones of Leibniz. I wrote a book about the role of Leibniz in the theory of knowledge(audiobook on my channel). I think the immediate follow-up question is that now that we know that there is more to reality than objects in space and time, is it possible to actually develop knowledge that represents a reality that would be different from this pre-established version of objects in space and time.

[@MrGarkin]

Just got interested in Sabrines Older videos. And that was one hell of a roller coaster, i need to tell.

[@joshlevin8313]

She is correct when she says that semantics plays a role in understanding the word “real”. The word “real” doesn’t have a definition that is usable in the scientific world and the word itself should be considered cancelled amongst physicists. I do think that the word “real” should be simplified down still into two different categories: Instead of using the word ”real”, say it’s “logical” or “logical and animated”. It’s interesting how anything you will ever interact with is logical (mathematical) suggesting that “reality” is logic itself or in other words math is real and not invented. Or as Max Tegmark suggests math is reality and our consciousness also abides to the logic and is a an algorithm of sorts and it came about due to an evolutionary lineage of single cell organisms to a more complicated brain which interacts with logic and animates it with our 5 senses. There is no solipsism problem that she refers to; I do think she is wrong to bring it up. Because, whenever you talk to someone and interact with someone you are in a situation where the “real” logic of that person is at an intersection with the “real” logic of you. The logic of both of you can intersect in spacetime. The logic (math) of another person you interacted with is also real …. Hence their consciousness is just as real as yours because they are both logically connected in the mathematical structure that we call our universe. Well since she brought up Schrödingers cat, Id say that quantum theory is evidence that our universe isn’t real. You see the fact that when you finally get down into what matter is all you get is a wave of probability should hint towards the “reality” of the logic. Do I have a brain she asks? Well the math of us involves brains. But go ahead and see what the neurons are made of and you will find when you dig smaller is that when you get to the quantum world the brain is just probabilities. If anything at all had any kind of “real” substance to it that wasn’t mathematical that would actually be supernatural.

[@Matt-jc5zm]

3 points. 1) At a purely theoretical and philosophical level- We cannot really know for sure, beyond doubt. (Descartes) 2) At a factual level, there definitely is a reality that we interact with- (Either our experiences are real, or we live in the Matrix) 3) At a pragmatic/practical level, yes it is mind generated- (All sound and light colours are just different frequencies/repetitions of the same thing)

[@MichaelBurggraf-gm8vl]

Before quantum theory has been developed several experimental results appeared to hint at inconsistencies of existing theories. In order to reconcile seemingly contradicting experimental results quantum theory has been presented. I'm a bit confused about the remark on the measurement process. Regarding the observation of a state superposing two eigenstates do we really need to understand the measurement process itself or more of it ? The theory is supposed (in a way designed) to tell us what to expect - an expectation value. It's a statistical entity to be experimentally reproduced by using an ensemble of measurements - not just one single one. What we're actually observing is a result of the preparation of each item of an ensemble of experiments. As a result of such a preparation according to a specific setup of an experiment we're creating a pattern of possible observable values due to the properties of the physical entity/quality/observable we want to measure. Hence we'd get a distribution of eigenstates of an observable and couldn't measure values according to a superposition of eigenstates.(*1) According to my understanding looking at a single execution of an experiment including the measurement of the main observable for which the experiment has been prepared couldn't provide sufficient evidence for an expected regular dependency or causality. Only a statistical evaluation of an ensemble of several identically executed experiments could provide such evidence. At least that's how I've understood the Kopenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. (*1) for example for the double slit interference experiment theory is telling us where we can expect positive interference allowing particles/light to be appearing but the entire pattern cannot appear by measurment of a single particle/photon. However, possibly, I'm missing an essential point here. But then I'd like to know which one.

[@frictionhitch]

If a particle and a wave are inextricably linked then by measuring the particle you erase the wave and by measuring the wave you erase the particle. One cannot exist without the other. BTW in the 2 split experiment the wave goes through both slits but the particle only one. You measure the particle and you get an interference pattern. Not really a problem if you understand the photon to be both.

[@jimm6810]

Our vision sees a very small set of frequencies (other creatures see different frequencies) our hearing hears limited audio frequencies, dogs hear far more. Our sense of smell is quite limited also. All these perception limitations profoundly impact our perception of the universe.

[@codys447]

Our vision is extremely good for animals, particularly in daylight. But yes, other animals perceive the world differently than us, and this is reflected in their brain structures as well. Dolphin's neural area devoted to visual imaging is only about 1/10th that in human brains, while the areas for auditory processing are about 10 times as large. So we can see then that they have access to experiences that we do not. However, as David Deutsch points out, we can build new technologies and tools to gain more knowledge than we would otherwise have. I would say this is enabled by our embodied finger-based intelligence, coupled with syntactic language allowing higher "cognitive growth" through social learning.

[@LazySpaceKoala]

Danke vielmals, ich hatte schon mehrere Panicattacken weil ich mich mit dieser Philosophischen gedankenspiel beschäftigt habe und es ist schön das jemand mal sagt was die gegen Argumente sind. (ich bin in Behandlung keine Angst mir geht es soweit gut)

[@oliverosswald]

Sabine Hossenfelder asks: Do we create reality with our mind? Solipsism says everything is mind only. Materialism says phenomena exist independently from mind. In regard of its consequences, a very interesting position is taken by the Indian philosopher Nagarjuna, with his middle view approach. This is interesting, because his view has a fundamentally liberating effect on the mind. In short, he states: neither this, nor that. Nagarjuna was a prominent Indian philosopher who lived around the 2nd century CE. He is considered one of the most influential figures in the development of Mahayana Buddhism. Nagarjuna's philosophical contributions were particularly significant in shaping the Madhyamaka school of thought, which emphasizes the concept of "emptiness" (śūnyatā). Nagarjuna's teachings had a profound impact on philosophy throughout Asia, especially in Buddhist traditions. His concept of emptiness challenged prevailing notions of inherent existence and ultimate reality. He argued that all phenomena lack inherent essence or self-nature, and thus, they are empty of inherent existence. This idea of emptiness became central to Mahayana Buddhism and profoundly influenced subsequent Buddhist philosophy. Nagarjuna's most famous work is the "Mūlamadhyamakakārikā" (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), commonly known as "Madhyamaka-kārikā." In this text, he systematically presents the Madhyamaka philosophy, elucidating the concept of emptiness and refuting various philosophical views that posit inherent existence or substantial reality. The essence of the "Mūlamadhyamakakārikā" revolves around the concept of emptiness as the ultimate nature of reality. Nagarjuna argues that all phenomena are dependently originated and lack inherent existence. He employs reasoning and analysis to demonstrate the emptiness of phenomena, emphasizing the middle way between eternalism and nihilism. In summary, Nagarjuna was a significant figure in Asian philosophy, particularly in Mahayana Buddhism. His teachings on emptiness challenged conventional views of reality, influencing the development of Buddhist philosophy across Asia. The "Mūlamadhyamakakārikā" encapsulates his profound insights into the nature of reality and remains a foundational text in Buddhist philosophy. This view is liberating, because it implies that phenomena do not have inherently existing qualities. Qualities or properties arise in dependence of the state of a perceiving mind. When phenomena are perceived as not inherently existing and totally empty of inherent qualities, like agreeable or disagreeable, then attachment and aversion have lost their base. This state of mind is liberated from attachment and aversions and is a result of a corresponding mental training. Therefore thinking deeper about Sabine’s question, about pros and cons of solipsism, is not futile - according to Nagarjuna.

[@gabrielpena366]

(What I think). The complexity of reality that we must learn in order to thrive is relative to our own complexity. I think this does have some practical relevance. For example cause and effect, as in Y occurs after X everytime X occurs, may be just projection of our ego biases (this ego bias has a long philosophical history going through Laozi, Sankhya, and Nietzsche). The same applies to other cartesian simplifications of the world (like identity), which help understand the world in terms of information thay can be replicated or discarded similar to how complex organisms reproduce and excrete molecules to keep in balance with their surroundings, proving the theory of their life until refuted by death, when everything behaves like matter without information (with respect the dead organism), and therefore logical cartesianism breaks. This aforementioned notion of causality makes more sense with regard to agency (a property in which the ego believes about itself). The world has no agency, it is more appropriate to think in terms of transformations, than in terms of causality.

[@cjstone8876]

It's important to do Psychology when you're doing Psychology and not do Physics or Philosophy instead. Note that Physics is something we do, and Philosophy is something we do, so they are both subsumed under Psychology. Note also that Psychology is something we do, so it must be able to account for itself. Neither Physics nor Philosophy can do this. That's why, for instance, there's a "philosophy of science" eneavor; but see above about Philosophy. So, with that in mind, there are some concepts that must be distinct: real, true, real world, and reality. Whatever you are prepared to act on is real. We hope that all true things are real, but we see some people won't act on some true things; thus, what is real takes precedence over what is true, and the place we give things takes precedence over facts. The set of real things is your real world, or just world. You can easily see worlds can be highly overlapping but not perzactly. We have about 200 years of social practices to determine what's true, so I won't get into that. Finally, reality is the set of boundary conditions on EVERYONE'S behavior. No one can jump to the Moon. There are lots of reasons for that, but they all affect us. Note I said boundary CONDITION, not boundary. You can see what's on the other side of a boundary, like when you change the rules in Monopoly and put the penalty money on Free Parking. If we were to change ONLY one thing about why we can't jump to the Moon, the knock-on changes would be difficult to track, probably impossible. So, do we make these boundary conditions with our MINDS???? Er...no. Our descriptions of them are ours, but they exist whether we describe them one way or another. Let's not confuse our attempts to describe these boundary conditions with the conditions themselves-one of which may be our inability to describe them completely.

[@UnPetitPique]

Loved it! This has intrigued me....forever?

[@edgarmorales4476]

Our consciousness is the fabric out of which we make our lives. Our consciousness is the ground of our every response to every single thing which happens in our mental, emotional and physical lives. Our consciousness is our reality. This statement may be expressed in 2 ways, both of which are the truth of existence. Our consciousness creates our reality, irrespective of what the actual facts of our earthly life may be. When people believed the earth was flat, they were afraid to venture too far over the ocean lest the ship would fall over the edge. People who believed in a flat earth, lived according to that belief. When Galileo said the earth was round, he was considered a heretic but his perception of the "roundness of the earth" enabled sailors to take a new look at the world and set out to discover what lay the other side of the ocean. It required a change in their belief to make this possible. We are in a similar position. People who discount and ridicule others are like people who believed in a flat earth and were afraid of falling over the edge if they sailed too far to the west or east of their known environment. Their horizons were severely limited by their false beliefs. So are the horizons of people who believe the world to be solid, also severely restricted. Day after day, people lament and grieve over the misfortunes which have befallen the world, believing there is no escape from them. But people who can grasp and welcome the Truth of Consciousness, are like those who perceived that travel on the oceans can be limitlessly undertaken in all directions, as long as they had the will to set out on such a journey. Therefore, our state of consciousness is the most important consideration in our lives-not our relationships or possessions or our position in life. We must tend to our consciousness and the blessedness in all aspects of our lives will follow. ​ By our consciousness we feed ourselves with inner love and harmony, joy and beauty, even in the backstreets of a slum. With such consciousness, we will find ourselves being removed from the streets of the slum into an environment in keeping with our Godness. So do we climb out of unpleasant circumstances. From the foregoing, you should now be able to see that only we create the "quality" of our internal world, whether we find ourselves externally in prison or in command of a battleship! ​And we can enhance our surroundings by radiating to them the life force which animates our thinking. Our external lives only impinges on our consciousness. It does not-cannot-create or determine our conscious responses. We are the "creator" of our responses. Our type of creation depends entirely on our deepest perceptions and beliefs regarding existence. Our convictions and strongly-held beliefs may be completely illusory but if we fully believe in them in our subconscious, they become absolutely real for us.

[@7th808s]

I think that the fact that the Schrödinger picture and Heisenberg picture are equivalent, is evidence that _at least according to quantum mechanics_ there is no way to know whether we are looking at a dynamic external world, or the external world is static and the way we see it just changes. Neither of these viewpoints deny an external reality of existing however, and for my own sanity I like to hold on to that belief. However, thag does not deny that this _is_ a belief, and that strictly speaking - and now we enter the domain of pure philosophy and metaphysics rather - there is no way of absolutely knowing that either, but strictly speaking there is no way to absolutely know anything really.

[@carlodebattaglia6517]

to the question "does a mind-independent reality exists?" I think we can give as an answer "yes" with sufficient confidence on the other hand, to the question "HOW does this reality exist/behave?" , I have serious doubts that one can speak of "mind-independent reality". that some stuff we call an apple somehow exists out there, "is in the world" independently of us, Is something that is difficult (useless) to deny the fact that that stuff it is round, smooth, crunchy, red or green or yellow, that as it falls it rolls and bounces, that it tastes sweet etc... a little less so.

[@mookiespitz]

The quantum mechanics perspective is kind of oblique here, Sabine, as is the focus on solipsism, making your conclusion anticlimactic. Instead, the answer to this question might better be answered by understanding perception as an emergent phenomena. Reality, whatever "it" is, is no doubt very different from how we as humans perceive it. Colors are frequencies of light, touch is neural impulses from skin to brain, etc. Even more basic, space and time are likely not fundamental, beginning the quesiton of how we interact with and perceive them. The video game analogy is a good one: Human perception is akin to what's on the screen of a dynamic game in progress, the excited pixels on the monitor representing 3-D characters and movement as removed from the X-Box processor running the code as our perceptions of reality are different from reality itself. Hoffman's book THE CASE AGAINST REALITY does a great job of illustrating this "desktop universe," and suggests evolution might have selected how we experience a Universe very very different from how it actually "is". I love you and your videos, by the way, please keep them coming! But it seems of late you are cranking them out at record speed, and not always thinking them through with your characteristic depth, zero bullshit common sense, and creative flair.

[@fepeerreview3150]

1:3 Semantics, Descartes and "reality" - I spent my first 2 years of university at a Jesuit university studying philosophy and comparative religion. At the end of it I decided it was essentially irrelevant and self-indulgent mind games for people who thought they were of above average intelligence. I changed universities and got degrees in architecture and engineering. Through my work I've been able to help literally thousands of people improve their lives through the projects I have managed. If humanity were to cease to exist tonight would the universe be much different for it tomorrow morning? If we spent less time contemplating our navels we'd trip over our own feet considerably less.

[@sethwilliams501]

Hi Sabrine! I hope you get a chance to read this; this is a really debated subject as I’m sure you know. And well these next statements may be suspicious but I’m a “direct realist” under John Searle’s philosophy and I’d be rather surprised if you didn’t find his arguments about perception very convincing. He argues that there is no reality of perception so to speak, no Cartesian Divide but doesn’t not completely dispense with the idea of a mental level of consciousness just that it is a level of description in the physical world. I don’t want to get into the weeds of this Concept but I highly recommend it.

[@Science_-]

great reply, straight to the point.

[@ahippogryph]

Well said, had this debate before, pretty much came to the same conclusion. Feel better with expert opinion. Thanks 😊

[@peterbroderson6080]

The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration” Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and creates our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!

[@user-uc2qy1ff2z]

About observers. I was puzzled for a long time with one question. Everyone knows how diffraction grate affects light. Usually, diffraction grate is made of some sort of stripes of dark material on mirror or glass plate. What should I expect to see on screen, if stripes would be photon detectors?

[@batfink274]

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about the concept of 'now' and whether it exists or not. And if not, what the repercussions of that are.

[@michaelwright2986]

A rather old fashioned philosophical move is to ask what is the cash value of an idea. Which is a way of dealing with the uselessness of the idea of solipsism in actual life (of course, the solipsist might be mistaken in believing that they exist, but Augustine of Hippo disposed of that one over a thousand years before Descartes, and in two fewer syllable of Latin). But, in one sense, reality is created by our minds, because "Reality" is a mental concept: roughly, for ordinary usage it means how the world is, as opposed to how we think it is; but we don't have access to how the world is apart from how we think it is. All we have is the possibility of constantly improving the accuracy of how we think things are, by the methods of the Sciences, and the Humanities. The question becomes whether or not this obvious fact is trivial: how does it cash out for the purposes of living our lives?

[@alecmisra4964]

But the observer is an aspect of the extended measurement apparatus... cognition determines both aspects of the puzzle, as it pertains to measurement AND as it pertains to itself. In other words, if there was no structuring cognition then in what sense would there be a measuring device either (so defined). Because it is cognition which defines the phenomenon of measurement as well as all other concepts. So really it is still the central issue. You see we keep all the fun to ourselves.

[@lowiq888]

This video has an excellent beginning. The lesson needs to be taught to all USA residents using TV sports, games, and news. I already knew this paraphrase of Sabina: Any search for truth that includes words must begin with semantic analysis. Most sentences uttered by Americans cannot be translated, or interpreted, without correcting it. It takes extra brain functions to translate and interpret the jibber jabber when they speak. By speaking that way they actually steal time and energy from the listener. Then they brag about what great communicators they are. Now I will watch the rest of it if I can control by urges to respond.

[@marvinedwards737]

My understanding is that the brain organizes sensory data into a symbolic model of reality. When the model is accurate enough to be useful, as when we successfully navigate our body through a doorway, then we call it "reality", because the model is our only access to reality. It is only when the model is inaccurate enough to cause problems, like when we walk into a glass door, thinking it was open, that we call it an "illusion". The answer to the "solipsism" and the "brain in a vat" thought problems is the same: we can only deal with the reality as it is perceived, thus, for all practical purposes, we must treat the perceived reality as real. One final note. Our perception evolves within the bias of our own needs as living organisms to survive, thrive, and reproduce, and, to make sense of things in relation to us.

[@TheSubpremeState]

Physicists once flew to Bombay to speak with a man who had no formal education yet after 3 years of meditating on what his guru told him to.....he began talking like the most intelligent being alive. Answering all questions put to him on the nature of reality without doubt or hesitation. Unlike most gurus this man has been Sam Harris's, (the famous neuroscientist and ultimate sceptic against religious fairytales ) most recommended spiritual guide. Which makes sense as this man known as Nisargadatta Maharaj is essentially an extreme sceptic to the point that he is sceptical of everything sceptics take for granted. What he espouses has been around for thousands of years but has been misinterpreted for years. The I think therefore I am goes against what even the Buddha believed, that the self is an illusion and therefore there are thoughts and before the thoughts arose you already " were" . The "I am" came before the illusion of being this or that. I will continue clarifying after I watch the second half of the video. In the meantime watch a short video called " I am only the self" to get an idea of the wisdom of the man I'm talking about.

[@gebruikerarjan]

Reality is related to objectivity and thats a category of thinking. So thinking is more fundamental then objectivity or truth or whatever comes out of thinking. Observation is as fundamental as thinking, but when you thought something you are able to observe it....that makes thinking special. Thinking is evenmore fundamental then the subject who thinks because it is also a category of thinking... Knowing or experiences are the blending of thoughts and observations. Thinking is therefore the first thing that exists (the inner word/logos) and humans have access to it, so they create new worlds with....

[@weldabar]

If reality is what exists external to the mind, certain is: 1) we are unable to perceive all of reality at once 2) we each perceive different parts of reality 3) we all interpret reality differently

[@JavierBonillaC]

Very, very good vjdeo. The observer problem js described perfectly. If we ses it ultimately, there is an observer. If we don't see it, we don't really know if it collapsed.

[@schmetterling4477]

Nope. That's not how it works. ;-)

[@ecocentrichomestead6783]

I revert back to my own coined phrase again: "There is a truth but we don't have it. What we do have are beliefs" Is "Reality" a figment of my mental processes? Maybe. But with the information I have, There's no other choice but believe my reality actually IS reality! Without believing my reality is real, nothing works. However, there are realities I can bring into true reality because I believe they are possible. Many times, ones goals don't come to fruition, not from lack of trying, but because the person didn't believe it was possible.

[@CausalDiscoveries]

I’ve been enjoying your participation in the institute of art and ideas debates. You’re by far the most reasoning person there. Your epistemology, tho I don’t agree with everything you imply, is always the best on stage. Keep it up.

[@TheChessPatzer]

A lot of things have to be accepted before Cartesian doubt becomes possible. Not least the problem of how to express it without symbols. All questions and their answers require symbols, but the criterion for correctly using a symbol is a convention that can only become established within a community of symbol-users. A symbol with only one user has no established use from one occasion of its use to the next, so the mere ability to use symbols already presupposes the community that serves as the guarantor or criterion of correct use. The reality that we can talk about (including purely mathematical description) similarly relies on symbols. This means that intensionality is a built-in feature of all science.

[@NegativeReferral]

We interpret reality with our minds. Consider the FedEx logo branding. Many people (including myself) initially thought it was just the word "FedEx," but upon reading about the subtle inclusion of the arrow, we instantly see it. Our eyes aren't seeing anything different, but our brains are definitely interpreting the signal differently.

[@richardmale3191]

Very interesting, thanks. To advance the discussion further I'd like to see how the notion of a universal consciousness which is filtered by the brain as conduit for that consciousness, enters into it, rather than the brain creating consciousness, and therefore reality, itself.

[@alionicle]

I really like Lisa Feldman's take, that there is a tangible reality out there, but like Descartes Said, it is our senses that filter that reality, and with Feldman's theory about how we percive the world, we aren't perciving it 100%, we're just assuming how the world is and making sure of it using our senses. Kinda like how AMD and NVIDA upscaling generators work: we input a low scale image and their algorithms construct a new upsacled image of "how it should look" in better quality And so, just to say how weird it is that we begin to explain mind's properties by using AI algorithms as explanations.

[@everittslivemusicsocialenv6733]

I like the conversation, as we have created a reality that is based on believing in a way of life that is fundamentally based on things like money, religious beliefs and other false realities that lead us to perhaps a false sense of being. I feel like there's always going to be unanswered questions and feelings when we live life the way we do and refuse to take responsibility for our actions when looking to the future of our children, which includes all species.

[@schmetterling4477]

We? Hardly. Some of us, like me, are simply living in reality and most of you just failed to pay attention in school. ;-)

[@deepashtray5605]

We have evolved to be very selective about what reality we are capable of observing particularly regarding scale, which is why we have such a hard time processing concepts such as the size of the sun, the age of the universe, what 8 billion people look like or anything on the quantum scale. Knowing or understanding the size of either our galaxy or a quark never has been an issue in our survival. Our limited capacity by itself is a major factor in how we construct/create/interpret reality.

[@MarkStafford9]

"The biggest problem with reality is that you can't know that there's anything which exists without you because to find out, you'd have to stop existing and [then] check if [reality is] still there and that's not the kind of experiment that people like to volunteer for." I really appreciate your variety and facility with humor. Humor requires a brain-state of welcoming synaptic surprises, of openness to what the next moment may reveal. I hold humor to be an extremely valuable bias in reality discovering. Or maybe I should say "reality co-creating" instead of "reality discovering", since the unobtanium difference is still "a practically useless" question. Thanks for playing with it anyway. I think Solipsism small-afies the quandary too much, while religion big-afies it so. Perhaps the essences of our beings are entangled, which yields what today reduces to the quantum realm. Perhaps the contrived human arrow of time is just our reductionist way of glimpsing something way to big to fit in our noggins. Perhaps it is just the structural humor of the universe. Perhaps we are the pets chasing their tails. Or perhaps it is the perfect question for some tomorrow, us being still in kindergarten today. Thanks for being on this planet, and putting in the effort to share your journey.

[@life42theuniverse]

Thank you self for the excellent explanation.

[@friedmule5403]

Color, sound, temperature, luminosity, up / down and a lot of other things are only interpretations of our mind. I.e. When a person from Noway is laying down, is that person angled in the same way as an upright standing person in Florida. Luminosity, A person will detect the amount of light differently, all dependent on that person's eye color and so on.

[@Leo99929]

I legit think you're one of the funniest KZbinrs. Damn, "not the kind of experiment people volunteer for". Savage!

[@cgmp5764]

We create constructs like colour and see the macroscopic course granular world as it aids survival but we are not privy to the broader reality that exists as shown by instruments that sense/detect it for us. Memory creates a past and anticipation a future. That we all generally share the same framework favours existence beyond the self within a reality and not a simulation, though not provable.

[@thethingyouarewatching]

I don't get it why physics don't work with the most sound and reasonable explanation for reality - i.e. that we are all similar to characters in a book, which has a super detailed description for each one of us and for everything that surround us. It would explain everything, from every perspective (quantum, general relativity, metaphysic/theological) with the minimal number of random variables/components.

[@justinwhite2725]

Given that we dont experience reality, we experience a past reality becaise there is a delay. This delay is greater the taller you are (because the brain waits for all signals to comein before it processes things happening at the same time.) Therefore we are experience different timeframes with different delays, processed differently by our minds.. So..yes. we do create reality - or at least our perception of it

[@yahwea]

After my friend related his "near death" experience to me, and after my mother described her "near death" experience, is submit these people stopped existing for a few moments. Because science cannot answer the question, does not mean or imply that the event discussed did not exist. Unfortunately, there is much that is not observed and many things that are observed (ghost phenomenon) but cannot be explained with current understanding. The unexplainable still exists, regardless of the absence of a theory or mathematical expression..

[@mikemondano3624]

The reason that the brain-in-a-vat problem is so compelling is that we are actually brains in a vat. Many problems would be solved more easily if we questioned some of our perceptions, such as that extension and distance itself even exist apart from our perceptions of them.

[@nikthefix8918]

It's reasonable and compelling that we are brains in a vat. I would challenge anyone to prove otherwise. But it does presume pre-existing evil scientists does it not? So follows infinite regression.

[@AndriasTravels]

The reality human beings experience is the input thought our sense organs, and interpreted by our brain electro-chemistry. A paramecium constructs reality in the same way. Time, gravity, consciousness, and quantum mechanics are human constructs. I came to this conclusion 60 years ago after completing a graduate course in Quantum Mechanics and reading "A Separate Reality" by Carlos Castaneda.

[@lowiq888]

General theory of reality: Reality is the sum of all realativity is a specific location, otherwise it causes heat. Special theory of reality: We all make up our own reality, (material existence) in a different location,otherwise it causes heat. The mind does not support all of our material existence therefore existence in reality is independent of the mind.

[@friedelhamm7784]

My wife died in 2004, but my mother in law is still alive. I could never have made this up. This is the prove that reality exists.

[@TurinTuramber]

Dark but fair.

[@GhostRaiter]

Well, no. Not at all.

[@MsJavaWolf]

I have clinical depression and I create a dark reality for myself every day. I'm just talking about my inner reality, I think there is an external world, but if the external world were just my thoughts I could absolutely imagine that world being far from perfect.

[@urbanllama]

I don't necessarily think it's a question of solipsism, more than it is a question of philosophical idealism and consciousness. The question really comes down to "what does it mean for something to exist?". We look at the material world as all that there is. So, like, my TV exists, and my cat exists, etc. But, what about a question? Does a question exist? Does an idea, exist? It exists, in your mind. So let's take that a step further. What does it even mean for anything to exist, if there is nothing to have knowledge of it, or knowledge of existence in the first place? So, then a question would be does existence itself require knowledge, or experience? What's it matter if millions of years go by but nothing experiences that time. A blink of an eye, and a million years would be the same. Sure, the "material universe" would do its thing without it, but it wouldn't matter, it wouldn't "exist", because nothing ever knew it did. It would exist in the same way as the magical jello worlds of multiverse 67b exist to you or I. Or a spaghetti monster under a rock in Africa. So if knowledge of existence is required for existence, then conscious experience is fundamental to "reality". It's required for "reality" to exist at all. In a sense, we are all creating reality, what exists, in our heads, together. I think usefulness can be derived from seeking the answers to questions like these, one just doesn't know what that usefulness is, because it hasn't been discovered yet.

[@Jooonathan]

What if Dark Matter is the matter that has no consciousness? My theory is that consciousness is traveling through matter, like 2 super brains colliding. One 'God' would be the Observer, the other 'God' would be Consciousness itself. And then brain(s) (waves) would be a way to communicate between the realm of the Observer and the realm of consciousness. There could even be more universes caught in the realm of the Observer, explaining why there are multiple ways to describe reality. It would also explain why we're not stuck in an instance of reality. Would this hold up Scientifically? Not that we can ever know, but it's fun to fantasize!

[@Farid-Abbasi]

Very knowledgeable you are!

[@mccannon8645]

I actually think there is a way to explain how a thought could seem to defy physics. A physical process in which the heart is creating an environment with no air pressure. Its not that difficult to understand that water changes states easily with air pressure. I'm sure it would make thought in scanners seem to defy the laws of electro-magnetism.

[@TheTwober]

Descartes also continues to prove that reality must exist with the question where the idea of let's say a table comes from, if not from outside input? If left alone the mind would have no use for such a thing, and even if some weird cosmic being fills our mind with random nonsense and tables don't really exist, then there still must be some "outside" where that nonsense comes from.

[@souvikdas]

Measurements is what creates the mind, i.e. subjective reality in an otherwise objective world, not the other way around. People think minds collapse the wavefunction. But that's backwards -- the apparent collapse of the wavefunction from the point of view of a part of a system is precisely another description of that part of the system having subjective experience of a definite physical state of the other part. This is how subjectivity arises.

[@gaemlinsidoharthi]

I can never remember why the equations seem to ignore the fact that the cat presumably knows whether it’s alive or not, not to mention any fleas, bacteria, or whatever else it might have taken into the box with it. The equations are just describing our ignorance, aren’t they? When our ignorance is resolved, the equations are updated to take the new knowledge into account. Right? Nothing real is collapsing. It’s just new, updated information being taken into account. Yes?

[@flagmichael]

This is a topic I have wrestled with for a bit over 50 years: i had snippets of my unbearably ordinary dreams of things at work and I found it hard to separate those out from my actual memories. I have found no reliable test, which vexes my scientific mind to no end. My science failed at step 2: develop a test methodology for my memories: real or dream? For every test I devised I had false positives and false negatives. I am left with just bare facts: we experience things we decide are dreams, and we experience things that we decide are real. Science seems poorly suited to that enquiry.

[@beebowe]

People cannot change things or change with only their minds. Believe me - I've tried. Unfortunately, people do create havoc and hurt one another and cross boundaries all the time. Best if we individually try to do our best for ourselves and others. Lack of free will is somewhat muted at that point.