Is the Conscious Observer 'Creating' the Material Universe? | Prof.Bernard Carr & Bernardo Kastrup

[@jeffkitson9565]

Science is finally coming to the same conclusion that wise men and mystics have known since time in memorial.

[@jotwee63]

No

[@MNorbert89]

Science people always use mystical and esoteric concepts than say they always knew that was the truth. Like the "Multiverse theory" literally was a spiritual teaching from time memorial...

[@ElephantWhisperer222]

@@jotwee63Cope harder, physicalist.

[@Mishtiman]

*Immemorial. Only a small % of scientists. Majority do not!!

[@johnb2422]

@@Mishtiman Majority do not, they just say "we don't know".

[@celt456]

Thankyou very much for breaking different ideas down into small videos - it is really useful and enables my physics-challenged brain to take on and mull over each new concept.

[@Ekam-Sat]

Truth is really simple. The word simple meaning one.

[@sinivlogzz]

Medicine can't control man,s way of thinking

[@alejandrok2891]

Space Time is the substrate in which the drama of matter occurs. Consciousness is the substrate in which the drama of SpaceTime occurs.

[@stayseeking2832]

In Vedanta the Self creates a COPY of itself as universal consciousness, it then creates the universal mind, it then creates time and space, it then creates matter, all this then goes on to invite life to come in . Self is that life it enters matter and makes it conscious it then observes. Consciousness in each individual mind body experienced for a length of time. It observes as life being in a plant, an insect, and higher up life up to a human the only creature gifted with an idea that it has the ability of free will. Actions that lead to results to more actions known as karma continue life after life as rewards and punishments have to be enjoyed and suffered, the self leaves one body and enters a new one with the start of the previous karma etc. The question after this explanation Vedanta asks is why did Self do it. It says IT was bored by itself so it created so many of itself to create a drama to enjoy. In other words nothing is real. So we humans can lose ourselves in so much data and we forget we are actors with limited time so enjoy life and be good to other life as we are all the same make believes.

[@whitewhite4462]

Sadly àbŕàhàmìçś have made Hinduism look like a religion instead of looking it as information of universe. Religion has messed up the world.​@@stayseeking2832

[@Free_Will_Awareness_Unit]

The moon isn't there even when we are looking at it. There is no spoon, I mean moon.

[@whitewhite4462]

@@Free_Will_Awareness_Unit the more you understand Hinduism, the more you understand that we are in a games show/simulation (moh maya)called life. Deities are existing just like us but in another dimension but people of different religions bang their head trying to prove their so called religions is true. We are like instagram account with personality, Deities like middle data centre/point and so called creator is like a data server having all personality/account but no personality of its own. Religious people give it a personality ..

[@JamesDeanMichael80]

space time or vacuum energy is potential, vacuum energy can be both matter and energy, it is just waiting to be told what to be

[@zWaKez]

Everything is possible because everything is you from a different perspective.

[@Ekam-Sat]

That is correct.

[@chetsenior7253]

Only if you are ego centric.

[@omegagibbletron]

​@chetsenior7253 not necessarily.. the idea that we are all a shared consciousness may make a person reconsider being terrible to another because you may very well be that person and will eventually live that person's entire life.. there are some physicists that hypothesize that there may only be one single electron in all of existence because they can be literally anywhere. Why not possibly the same for consciousness? We only understand the tiniest bit about how the universe works and even what we do know probably isn't exactly right

[@DavidWayne-w7n]

Our mind isn’t just how we perceive the world, we literally create the world in our mind. Culture is basically a shared level of world perception. Karma, manifestation, religion, all of it exists because we are all in our mind.

[@BlueCoore]

are you saying im gay

[@TheBanana93]

@@BlueCoore not as gay as me

[@BlueCoore]

@@TheBanana93 hmm

[@Ekam-Sat]

@@BlueCoore In a happy kind of way (gay meaning happy in the UK).

[@petermiesler9452]

No, we create our own impression of the universe.

[@hugothales4902]

I can imagine a hierarchy of a universal consciousness, a collective consciousness and an individual consciousness. All of them being able to collapse the wave function. Universal consciousness being fed (learning and storing) by the lower layers and maintaining the world order.

[@extavwudda]

How about: The individual consciousness is created by the collective consciousness, but the collapse of the wave function is the collective consciousness learning from the experience of the individual consciousness. This is the 'participatory' universe, looping back on itself in an infinite process of self-reference.

[@tristanbrandt3886]

​@@extavwuddathis makes good sense and even ties into what some experience during their near death. They perceive their entire life and all it's choices up to that point from both their perspective, and the perspective of those they have interacted with.

[@extavwudda]

​@@tristanbrandt3886Yes, exactly right. It is the Universe consolidating perspectives.

[@dinadevalencia3276]

@@tristanbrandt3886 excellent explanation

[@Orion15-b9j]

Consciousness is a fact in physics. Consciousness is the "Tool" of the Super-intelligence which is ruling the Universe. The confusion is coming from our experiments, which are running in a sterile environment - (In a isolated physical system). In a isolated physical system is no "Reference Point". Without a "Reference Point" the components has no define position and define velocity. The act of "OBSERVATION" is providing the Reference point to this Isolated Physical System! There is no "Mystery" if we understand Physics correctly! All the current "Puzzles" in modern Physics have an easy explanation in my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" Regards

[@crypticnomad]

I've personally moved almost entirely away from using words/phrases like "conscious," "consciousness," "awareness," "subjective experience," "subjective awareness," etc. Many of these do not have clear definitions, which can lead to incoherent debates. For example, over a decade ago, I gave a talk at a machine learning conference (which is probably still floating around on KZbin somewhere). In that talk, I mentioned how our current definitions of consciousness are circular in nature and heavily anthropomorphized. We've collectively made some basic logical flaws in how we approach these debates. Often, people's internal definitions of consciousness presuppose that any definition of consciousness must be exactly like ours. Therefore, anything that isn't exactly like human consciousness cannot be considered consciousness by definition, which is an incoherent argument if we're aiming for a general definition that applies to more than just humans. Instead of using phrases like "conscious observer," I tend to use terms like "agentic observer," where both "agentic" and "observer" have good technical definitions from which solid theories could potentially be constructed.

[@Rogsie-p6l]

I take the view that consciousness (and everything else) arise within impersonal and non-local awareness. Nevertheless I entirely share your unease at the way all these discussions seem to anthropomorphise the debate.

[@TrudyTrew]

Solid theories about what?

[@crypticnomad]

@@TrudyTrew about agentic observers, obviously.

[@crypticnomad]

My main issue really comes down to the fact that I don't believe that justified confidence in theories built on circular definitions is warranted. If the foundational definitions are circular, it undermines the validity of any theory constructed on top of them. I also question the usefulness of debates that rely on unclear or poorly defined terms unless the goal of the debate is to clarify the meaning of those terms. I'm by no means the first to suggest something along these lines. Socrates did something similar with the Socratic method, and other examples include Deconstruction (Derrida's approach), Falsification (Popper’s method), Immanent Critique, and, more generally, critical thinking and inductive reasoning.

[@crypticnomad]

"My main issue really comes down to the fact that I don't believe that justified confidence in theories built on circular definitions is warranted." I want to clarify this a little more and add some nuance. I've converged on an epistemology similar to that of Dignaga. I think Dignaga might have pushed back a bit on that sentence. In his system, "valid knowledge" could be obtained via two methods: perception or inference, and it was conditioned on actually helping one achieve some goal. So, he might have said something like, "If a theory built on circular definitions actually proves useful in achieving some goal, then it could lead to valid knowledge." I don't think Dignaga was concerned with truth in an objective sense but rather in a more practical and/or pedagogical sense. So maybe these circular definitions could lead to "useful theories," but I would still question how much confidence is really warranted outside of specific contexts where they have been proven useful in some way. Even though circular definitions might lead to useful outcomes in particular contexts, they may still lack the logical rigor needed for broader applicability, as their foundations remain self-referential and untestable outside those specific conditions.

[@Shobz-e8s]

I don’t understand all you are saying but the more I live and the more I test my brain, the more I see clearly that when I change my mind I change my life. All is mental does seem to be the case but the inability to believe fully in all circumstances is where I get caught. It’s the fear factor I suppose.

[@Ekam-Sat]

God loves diversity... Genesis 2:18.

[@deanchovan6604]

@@Ekam-Sat Said by a man---

[@Aliens-Are-Our-Friends2027]

Everything is Consciousness.

[@shameermulji]

Yes. We are Consciousness having a human experience

[@richarddavis5976]

That’s just your hubris talking

[@John-ro2ir]

@@richarddavis5976pride

[@todessehnsucht]

Blood Incantation much?

[@chetsenior7253]

Then what is nothing?

[@ErikGarcia07]

When I hear consciousness, I used to think brain. Now I lean more towards something being “alive.” From my understanding, something that is alive is really a complex system of different parts, or even other life working together to make a cohesive organism. This makes me think about the scale of life. We know life can be microscopic, but what about macroscopic? Could an ecosystem or even earth be looked at as a complex system that reacts to its environment and in a way, manipulates its surroundings?

[@MichaelNoon]

There’s a way to experience what it is like to observe yourself from what feels like the conscious field & that is through the use of magic mushrooms there’s a place you can access where it feels like you’re looking back at yourself. Very strange feeling but beautiful experience

[@fc4660]

Or with deep meditation practice. I’m not at the moment open to these substances, maybe at some time in the future.

[@MichaelNoon]

@@fc4660 totally agree through deep meditation you can also access this area just its a lot more difficult im still practising accessing it through more natural forms.. I hope one day you will at least try accessing it through mushrooms

[@VEDA_8]

Witness consciousness.

[@DivineLightPaladin]

​@@fc4660It is okay to not be ready. Everyone is on their own journey and timeline. The day may come when you are interested, and that's when you know you'll be ready. But it's nothing to force. Until then, it most likely indicates that you're preferring to master lessons at this level of consciousness first, which there is nothing wrong with. Many of us prefer to walk before we learn to ride a bicycle and so forth.

[@JoeB-p6y]

Mushrooms make great for miditations

[@NeemeVaino]

From where you get the assumption that the reality is describable?

[@deanchovan6604]

Good question.

[@sonarbangla8711]

Conscious observation collapsing a wave function producing a particle, can be expressed by the different paths taken by the particle before collapsing, this way the material world can act as a conscious observer. Implying the existence of the cosmic consciousness

[@kyahblack3445]

Ie… does the universe actually even exist without a consciousness to observe it?.. Or, is consciousness a fundamental development of the universe in order that it is able to look back on itself. The possibilities of the true nature of all things are completely mind bending to consider.

[@zv7ws]

Consciousness is a concept humans use to describe the process of observing and processing information. The universe imo is a manifold of multiple dimensions that result in a loop of information propagation that we live inside. Their exist other universes beyond our reach. Information / energy moves in one direction like a river which is what we observe as time.

[@sanathansatya1667]

The observer is not a prerequisite for the finite to manifest; rather, the finite exists independently and enables observation to occur. In this perspective, the finite world is the foundation upon which the process of observation unfolds. This aligns with certain scientific viewpoints where matter, energy, and physical phenomena are seen as existing objectively, independent of an observer. The finite provides the conditions-space, time, and form-that allow the act of observation and the emergence of awareness. In this way, the finite is not merely a product of observation but a platform that makes observation possible, facilitating the relationship between consciousness and the material world. This interplay suggests a co-arising dynamic, where the finite and the act of observation mutually enrich and define each other.

[@XXjg_]

“Brahma opens his eyes, and a world comes into being, governed by an Indra. Brahma closes his eyes, and a world goes out of being.”

[@chetsenior7253]

“God” is not an explanation, it’s an excuse for thinking.

[@XXjg_]

@ “God” is a word that describes different things for different people and/or different topics. I’m an atheist, but the word still means something important, even “factual,” depending on the context of the conversation. But my post was an observation on how Hinduism has a metaphorical concept for the observer-as-creator concept in physics, whereby the act of observing a quantum system can significantly influence its state, potentially causing it to "collapse" into a specific outcome, thus implying that the observer, through the act of measurement, is actively shaping the reality they are observing, not just passively recording it; the highly debated Copenhagen interpretation, for example. It’s interesting to me how ideas in modern physics played a role in ancient philosophy, mythology, and art. The same questions, answers, and reasoning that science seeks to interpret, understand, and explain today have been framed in various ways since man first became “conscious”, “self-aware”, “existential.”

[@modernamami5861]

@@chetsenior7253you completely missed the point of this comment. They’re using a phrase from Hinduism as a metaphor for the relationship between the observer and the universe, as discussed in this video.

[@petervankan1]

@@XXjg_ Exactly. BTW, God = reality, that's how see it.

[@deanchovan6604]

@@chetsenior7253 I like your thinking.

[@endidda7775]

What about the nature of reality before life was created, when there were no observers? Was everything just a wave then, without particular reality?

[@hericofelix7144]

In my own opinion I think its more plausible that if there was nothing before something existed, in that nothing there were a conciousness that decided to create everything we know without even being conscious by it own existince and actions, then that conciousness continuous to existence without having a permanent body

[@zv7ws]

We can't know for sure. I think there exists other realities where the wave folds. We are a blip in the multi dimensional fractal that we call the universe. How this wave ends up folding is anyone's guess. For all we know our universe is a blood cloth of God's blood/energy /information vessels.

[@deanchovan6604]

A damn good question. Thanks.

[@bubbles3161]

If we look any further it will crash the program. We don’t notice our creators PC shutting down our rebooting. His mother is the one making him shutdown at 9:00PM and she reboots at 4:00PM. We see it as a glitch 7 hrs later is 7 million years in our time.

[@chetsenior7253]

Except no one believed computers invented us until we invented them.

[@MDCB1]

Gratitude!

[@okalov]

Plato's cave allegory is something all empiricist scientists should keep in mind. The observable and measurable is not the absolute, it's just a manifestation of it.

[@marcopolo-eg5ro]

What he said at the end sounds something like what a fractual reality could be.

[@Llllillilililililillll]

Isnt it obviously fractal? Considering the end game of technological development is creating a lifelike artificial intelligence simulation? We literally are just creations of God trying to become gods of creation... Mimicking and studying everything that was already created, which is the source of all knowledge.

[@zv7ws]

Reality is fractal. It's infinite until it isn't anymore. Where the information/energy comes from we will never be able to observe

[@mmo5366]

Clearly consciousness isn’t necessary for the universe to exist..it’s just us overestimating our own importance

[@Tossphate]

I like this comment.

[@JayneSiroshton]

I believe that the universe is inside the conscious and we are simultaneously the most and the most the unimportant part of it :)

[@rbloch66]

Nah, we all underestimate ourselves.

[@odoylerules4503]

when you die you might be surprised. Save this comment to revisit during your life review lol

[@Timmm523]

Very scientific

[@catcollision8371]

We're not creating, we're observing.

[@carbon-structure]

Passivity and detachment is the death of potential huge branches. Create.

[@chetsenior7253]

We’re doing both.

[@deanchovan6604]

@@chetsenior7253 I think you may be right.

[@beammeupscotty3074]

magical show

[@deanchovan6604]

Good discussion. I really enjoyed it.

[@tomsisson660]

I have heard this type of thing before, and I thought then what I think now - this is nuts! They are mixing up two different contexts; the context of quantum level mechanics and the context of large scale Newtonian level of every day life. Tom Sisson

[@droor24]

No, they are trying to establish where one ends, and the other begins, in their own words.

[@Dave_and_Jo]

No, they’re not mixing up the two ideas at all. They’re saying Newtonian physics is a set of rules programmed into this virtual environment we seem to be living in and quantum mechanics describes the true nature of the greater reality. It’s about where one ends and the other begins.

[@neologian1783]

I've always found this kind of discussion fascinating....Plato's Cave, The Matrix, Buddhist philosophy etc. Fun thought experiments that essentially suggest the external world is constructed or is only dimly and incorrectly perceived and thus may be made malleable by changes in our consciousness etc. But they've only ever struck me as being merely that....thought experiments. It might be true the external world is a construction....but no amount of saying that or thinking it lifts the necessity to treat the external world as though it has an independent existence. In other words, the world "out there" may well be an illusion....but for those imbedded in the illusion, the functional difference between an illusion so complete that it cannot be pierced.....and base reality itself......is functionally zero. And thus those imbedded in the illusion are not only entitled, but obligated, to go on behaving as though reality exists and their consciousness perceives it rather than constructing it. And the acid test of that is.....anyone who vociferously disagrees is free at any moment to try and prove that it's their consciousness that constructs the existents of reality, as opposed to being the faculty that perceives external existents, by stepping in front of a speeding bus. 🙂

[@ursulakoriath5133]

Wow…. so very well said. Chapeau. This makes absolute sense to me

[@shanejohns7901]

Taking the famous dead or alive cat as an example, I think we first learn whether or not the cat HAS BEEN DEAD when we open the box. And it would take an analysis of the body to determine how far in the past the cat did die. So it's not like the cat first died when the box was opened and we learned that it was dead.

[@marcosul3992]

the matrix = the guessing game . no one out there has the answer no one is coming to save you but yourself .

[@hideentity1518]

No one

[@youaresoft-ee4ub]

bible thumpers would beg to differ

[@LeahIsHereNow]

I think the object of the game is to remember that you have unlimited power in a construct that you created to convince yourself that you had no power. Crafty. 😂

[@LeahIsHereNow]

@@youaresoft-ee4ub they are irrelevant

[@buzzeins]

My friends, you are all right 😊

[@jonathanlivingston7358]

In the double slit experiment the wave collapsed while being observed by a camera. Is the camera conscious?

[@MoV-eq3qr]

Only when its played back in HD.

[@taf1981]

no but the oberver who is watching the movie on the screen later is conscious. it is a wave until you look at it, so we could imagine that the screen shows a wave until someone watches the movie. Actually, everything is a wave including the camera, the screen, the movie and the wave in the movie, until someone conscious watches and then you see an actual screen, a movie, and a particule. to sum up, the wave didn't collapse when it was recorded, but when the observer looked at the record. just a thought

[@jonathanlivingston7358]

@@taf1981 I think one of the theories to interpret that saying the wave collapsed because it knew it’d be watched in the future. More exactly it collapsed because time collapsed too so for particles there is no past present and future. 🤯

[@Mantras-and-Mystics]

​@@taf1981 How did they know it was a wave before observing it though? Always been curious about this. 😃

[@otgunz]

​@@Mantras-and-MysticsThey burned the sheet of metal the photons were falling on behind the sheet with little slits. Like taking a photo in the older/manual sense. The marks were there with or without them looking at it. Yet when they were observing it, the marks left were in particule order. While when they did not observe the marks were in wave order. True that when thry left cameras and looked at them befıre looking for the marks it again showed a particule behavior. We can say that for electrons and photons TIME does not exist. Therefore FUTURE and PAST does not exist. Thus since it was DETERMINED that the observes would look at the camera recording AFTER the test was done, since AFTER and BEFORE is non existant for these tiny objects, they BEHAVED as if THEY WERE OBSERVED since THEY WERE OBSERVED but only IN TIME. Again assuming TIME DOES NOT EXIST for them. So it is not that CAMERAS HAVING CONSCIOUSNESS but in a way photons ALWAYS KNEW THEY WOULD BE OBSERVED. REALTIME observation it seems do not bother them as realTIME does not exist fot them OR all is REALTIME for them. Like the quantum entagled particles DON'T BOTHERING WITH SPACETIME AT ALL. CONSTANTLY being effected by their pairs REGARDLESS OF SPACE AND TIME thus SPACETIME. Since we have some logic, some intellect, some computation power we are like carrying these quantum particles in our brains that shape our consciousness and character and memories and they are like aching, screaming for us to solve what they are. From philosophers to prophets and then scientists ALL WE MAKE is actually HELP OUR SELVES TO SOLVE OUR SELVES. When you look into yourself you look into universe. When you look into universe you look into yourself.

[@rightcheer5096]

One result of this approach is to give a metaphysical green light to those who would rewrite the past according to their own dictates. But I guess they’re doing that anyway, red or green light be damned.

[@erawanpencil]

Someone here needs to post a short or video of an improved dynamic visualization of Wheeler's U with an eye. I feel like a clever coder or artist could do something much more compelling than just a static U with an eye :)

[@bodega6758]

Hinduism and Budhhism be like... bro we have discussed it thousands of year ago..

[@deckearns]

Haha.

[@canopus4]

Hinduism doesn’t claim such bullshits.

[@GhaneshPV]

Not easy to explain how Brother Vishnu and Sister Maya Vaishnavi play quantum physics to create the reality.

[@GhaneshPV]

Well, long ago doesn't really exist as it is Maya. Only time is Now! Know!

[@moregains9883]

Yes

[@jibblecain]

There is an omnipresent observer, holding all of reality in existence.

[@XXjg_]

But another observer holds that observer in existence. And no observer is omnipresent. When an observer looks away or closes their eyes, what they had previously observed is gone. “Brahma opens his eyes, and a world comes into being, governed by an Indra. Brahma closes his eyes, and a world goes out of being.”

[@jibblecain]

@@XXjg_ God is Omnipresent. The Ancient One. The All- Father.

[@XXjg_]

@ Now you’re talking spirituality, not physics or even the symbolism of physics. I’d venture to say you believe your “god” isn’t just an observer, therefore you’ve left the debate. If you did believe your god was just an observer, that would mean he was observed, “created”, too, and hence, not omnipresent. Thanks for visiting the topic, though.

[@jibblecain]

@@XXjg_ Your statements are incoherent. That does not logically follow. Also, YOU are the one who made it spiritual when you started talking about Brahma, your pagan god.

[@XXjg_]

@ Call me pagan all you want, i’m an atheist and couldn’t care less about the scientific opinions of religious fundamentalists. But Brahma, in that story, is a symbol of the “observer” in physics. But you can’t recognize symbolism because your god says you’ll go to hell if you do. You have to take your godly writings as literal and dismiss others as manipulations of the devil (making evil face and voice when i type that). So nothing poetic or artistic to describe existence for you, but hey, you think you’re going to heaven so, all good. Say hi to your mom for me. Maybe don’t enter a science discussion if your feelings are going to get hurt?

[@petervandenengel1208]

1:12 When the universe existed. It never revealed itself on the scale where an observer saw it only X light years later, than where its actual position was. So hence the angle in observation creates something which did not exist before. As such.

[@laurum1318]

Wow! That is my exact thought about history! I’m a history fan and I love ancient history and I know that many facts are derived from the historian or archaeologist but are always biased and there can be many truths. A classic example are the Minoans. What we see as a reconstruction of a palace is just how Arthur Evans imagined it but we would never know for sure and that makes me think that there are many truths depending on the observation. Great talk. Thank you!

[@Larimuss]

Where is the full video?

[@emalynicole1006]

I just figured this out recently, the past isn’t confirmed until you know.

[@gre7310]

When we look to the universe we are actually looking to ourselves. Life is a way the universe found to observe itself, to experience itself. And why does the universe need to observe/experience itself? To exist!

[@taplubambhos2869]

Pls elaborate. How does existing depend on observation of self

[@GÓRAL-o2j]

@@taplubambhos2869 I get, what he means, but don't know, how to explain it to you :D

[@3rdeye1st52]

Maybe I’m wrong but I thought when quantum physicists talk about observing the quantum state they’re talking about measuring the state not literal observation. This microscope analogy suggests that it’s our literal observations of quantum states that make them so. Which for all I know is correct but it’s misleading to not point out this difference.

[@zv7ws]

Parallel universes. Parallel possibilities. We can only observe ours when it manifests.

[@vertigus28]

I think so yes. Each consciousness is a universe. All those combined form the multiverse. Our reality.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

does gravity of proton bend wave / cloud of electron superposition around it?

[@quixodian]

The key term is 'to exist'. 'To exist' means to be this instead of that, to have an identity. And that is what 'the observer' brings to the picture! Cognition picks out objects as existents (or gestalts) and bestows an identity on them. This is consistent with both cognitive science and Buddhist philosophy such as Yogācāra.

[@chetsenior7253]

Not existing is this or that. Existing or not existing. We only give existing the credit because it what we are.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

if view entire cosmos going backwards in time, do certain probabilities have to be measured to go back each step?

[@moomoocamus2]

Does this video exist if I (or someone else) don't watch it?

[@markocvrljak3681]

For you it doesnt

[@spextrekid9410]

So basically the tree in the forrest that falls without anyone seeing or hearing it, never existed to begin with?

[@youaresoft-ee4ub]

perspective

[@ursulakoriath5133]

Excellent comment

[@zv7ws]

It exists on a different plane of reality

[@CookVaru]

where we can find that picture ? anyone?

[@KlausAlexanderSeistrupDK]

That's the message of "A Course In Miracles".

[@TheyBenefit]

How so? Many channeled works have the same manifestation message, such as Seth Speaks and The Law of One, etc.

[@KlausAlexanderSeistrupDK]

@@TheyBenefit Sure, I was just surprised at hearing the same message here on this channel.

[@MaryKingsley-py4js]

We will never get our heads around this because 1. observation depends on the level of awareness of the observer and 2. because the supreme intelligence behind manifestation is intended to be a mystery - otherwise how could eternal life ever be interesting/playful/enjoyable?

[@Paul-v8v4j]

A Buddhist monk is traveling in New York City when he comes up to a hotdog street vendor and says "Make me one with everything". The vendor gets his hotdog and the monk pays with a ten-dollar bill and waits for his change. When it is not forthcoming he asks for it and the vendor says "Change comes from within". - Christopher Hitchens

[@John-ro2ir]

P.diddy take

[@chetsenior7253]

I’d complain that the dog doesn’t contain this mental phenomenon of everything.

[@raymcconnell3839]

Can't help thinking that there is an over emphasis on consciousness. Making 'Sense' of matter using consciousness to iterate on learning is what we do. Sensing is a participatory process that forces choice by placing a history onto matter, adding energy or information onto matter. But it would still be 'there' if a conscious entity was not observing, just not with the 'order' we place on top of the natural order (really can't use that term, because it confuses the real, which has no words, with the conscious modelling, which is almost all words, images and other). Our conscious perceptions are self reinforcing, an additional layer of 'modelling' on top of matter. Its not the instancing of the actual matter itself. We do have to be careful in that the words and thoughts we use to describe all this, is contained in its own world, a sort of 'mental bubble of rules' and its so easy to think this bubble is the actual. Pulling information from the future is an interesting thought, modelling future events (detaching thoughts from senses and attaching them onto internal models is a recursive trick that brains seem to be good at) and referring to a 'higher dimension' might be a step too far. We do have simulations of many physical machines and we don't consider that to be stepping into another dimension to do this. But I guess I'm open minded on the subject.

[@sweetpeanmolly]

So are we feeding the strength into Hurricane Milton because of the attention we are focusing on it? I would feel and think that we are! Oh my goodness! Thank you! I needed this strong reminder that we create with our minds.

[@GÓRAL-o2j]

Then how was the hurricane created? Someone wanted him?

[@doctormarazanvose4373]

Well seeing as it hit landfall as a category one and everyone was paying attention to it suggests you're talking nonsense. I expect someone will flip this on its head and say it wasn't as bad cos they were praying it wouldn't be....

[@chetsenior7253]

Then why didn’t we just think the cleanup effort? Manifest the dead back to life?

[@MariaAlmeida-kp5xb]

The human brain is like a biological computer, which manages information that is individual and collective, we have the option of using stored data that may be wrong for the life we ​​want, or seeking and receiving new information directly from the source, from infinite divine intelligence. Tank you!

[@deckearns]

The brain is receiving. Everybody's got things wrong.

[@G02372]

Surely eyes are part of the Universe?

[@Avreniel37]

Eyes are the first “connection” between the spiritual and physical

[@calebbrantley193]

Right on time.

[@aeriagloris4211]

Always is.

[@panpanpanpan4631]

Brilliant talk! Oh hiw i like smart but without complication and arrogance ❤❤ Greetings from Poland 🇵🇱

[@akpakp369]

“Everything changes and nothing remains still” -----Heraclitus

[@kolarz2128]

Can't have change without something that's changeless.

[@deanchovan6604]

@@kolarz2128 Now that is something for folks to chew on. Thanks.

[@kolarz2128]

@deanchovan6604 yeah, it's like if there was only one colour then we wouldn't even know that it exists because there wouldn't be nothing different for it to stand out as a blue for example. Same with the change. :)

[@el_arte]

I asked this very question in a philosophy essay in high school more than 30 years ago. My teacher said “Aren’t you silly!?”

[@marlobardo4274]

To a Bernardo every Bernard is a Bernardo...

[@Cynique_savant]

The particle slit experiment

[@spencermulrain]

WOW IF I COULD ONLY SPEAK WITH YOU GUYS WOW THANK YOU WELL SAID TY

[@Mystipaoniz]

What would you say? Better yet : what would you shout? xD

[@eduardon9299]

It's funny seeing scientists debating a subject that Buddhism discovered long time ago.

[@bigyoungsta]

Could you recommend some similar Buddhist concepts to read?

[@eduardon9299]

@@bigyoungsta of course. Search for Yogachara. I also suggest Ajahn Punnadhammo's videos about the nature of the mind.

[@GhaneshPV]

Long ago dont exist dear, it is the Maya. Only time is Now. Know🥹

[@greymanBB]

And Hinduism before Buddhism, which is born from it.

[@bumblebeme]

​@@bigyoungstaBuddhism there is one concious observer that dosent even exist.

[@avrevs1999]

It seems everything that can happen is happening all the time at the same time

[@deanchovan6604]

I have also considered this as a possibility .

[@goldwhitedragon]

Voice sounds exactly like Roger Penrose! Incredible.

[@CaptainAhorn]

That might raise a testable question. Are physical outcomes influenced by relative quality or extent of consciousness? In other words, set up an experiment with a range of observers “observing” the same event, from paramecium, to fish, to dogs, to monkeys, to humans. Do results differ based on the observer’s capability to observe, or comprehend what they are observing?

[@cocobolooooooooo]

Then would not parts of the universe collapse which where not observed, sucking in observed parts to those non-observed parts ?

[@zv7ws]

Cannot observe what falls into a black hole

[@ephrin-ligand]

Essentials here derived from quantum computations are absolutely clear.

[@allenmaa7064]

3:21 specious present and the observer, the boundary between the quantum and the classical. 😮

[@markallinson8350]

"Esse est percipi " - To be is to be perceived. - George Berkeley

[@alkintugsal7563]

Nice!

[@markallinson8350]

@@alkintugsal7563 Without consciousness there could be no universe. Any claim made for the existence of a universe stripped of all consciousness requires the reintroduction of a conscious agent imagining the existence of that universe. The universe depends upon consciousness for its very existence. Some years back I put this proposition in the form of an 18th C rhymed tetrameter poem: To Psyche That scientist who would deny Berkeley’s esse est percipi Does not perceive that consciousness Alone saves all from nothingness. His psyche, hid behind his face, Looks out and thinks of time and space As there, which means he fails to see The psyche-soul’s centrality. And since the soul cannot be seen Nor scanned within a smart machine, The soul, he’ll tell you, is in fact A biologic artifact: Electro-chemic, nothing more; This is a fact, he is quite sure The mind is merely what he’s seen: The pulsing of a meat machine. Objecting, outward looking man, Learns all about this world he can, Except the knower of the way Who brings all being into play. He thinks this world would still be here Though consciousness might disappear; That winter gales would still blow cold Without observers to behold The whine of wind, the twilight truce, The glitter on the snow-shagged spruce. He thinks this world would still remain, Regardless of regarding brain; In short, that mind is not required To have the sun and stars fired. Oh sorry man who fails to see An unknown world could never be: All Being needs to be perceived Or absent Being be conceived. The forest tree that falls at night Might fall unheard and out of sight, But yet the question of its fall Must form in minds, or not at all. Imagining a mindless land Is scientistic sleight-of-hand; Imagining no mind to see Returns the mind by trickery. No hills, no trees, no rocks, no seas, No sky, no stars, no mist-damp breeze, Could Be without some shaping mind To colour, structure, shape and bind The pointless mass of buzzing stuff The scientist believes enough To constitute a universe: A mind-denying dream - perverse! The magic loom of mindful brain Weaves empty chaos on its frame, Blueing the sky and wetting rain It shuttles dark to light again. Negate the presence of a mind, What then divides the pith from rind, Divines the petals of a flower Or tells forever from an hour? Take all mind from time and space And void alone usurps their place; No place from which you might retort, No time to disagree, in short: A universe bereft of mind Is less than tasteless, deaf and blind; Less than unfeeling, less than numb, The very idea’s completely dumb. Without a mind there’s no expense Of spirit, body, any sense; No sense makes non-sense of the claim That mind may go and world remain. Which means the psychic cause must be The spark igniting energy, The breath from our original face Whispering worlds of time and space. Her name is Psyche, Queen of Night, The darkness underlying light; The knowing Being in each “I”, The seeing which contrived the eye. Psyche, sound of depth’s sublime, Close keeper of this dance in time; The many worlds will pass away But Psyche, who is Now, will stay. Sounding below all dream and sleep Beneath the void where she will keep The very image which we are Born again her morning star. And more of Psyche flows into The billion-bodied points of view, Like the living point of you, The core of beings old and new. I sing of Psyche, soul of night, Beginning, ending, dark and bright; Emotion, knowing, all Her care; Attention to this world, Her prayer.

[@ssb3453]

insightful

[@francoisotis3560]

Amazing how many non-senses we come to before understanding anything

[@skaramicke]

What basis is there for the consciousness collapsing the wave function? inb4 "double slit experiment": The double slit experiment is certainly not that; the double slit experiment simply shows that interaction from measurement collapses wave functions. Not consciousness.

[@Sharperthanu1]

Isn't the whole atom a wave before we observe it?

[@jordanrock3494]

The electricity that binds us all is the god mind of the being we're inside of. Dreaming endless possibilities to understand ITSELF & and its purpose, a process to reach its fullest potential. As above, so below.

[@Shmishaan]

We have to respect the conscious observer. It is not a part of our thought based identity. It has a will of its own, only then will it let us know how matter and energy are transformed into one another( as opposed to just a brute force, randomness filled explanation)

[@EddyDJIMini3Pro]

Sapiens awareness is in the body the body is in/on non-finite non-temporal "consciousness"

[@bobtarmac1828]

Excellent!! Thank you!!

[@craiggordon7550]

Information collapses the wave function, not consciousness. But it takes a conscious observer to take the measurement, which creates the information. A virtual reality based on information.

[@Orion15-b9j]

The concept of "Virtual Reality" is a smoke screen to cover up the truth. You are correct that not the observer, but information is collapsing the wave functions. In our case we have an isolated physical system without a "Reference Point" The Information acts as a Reference point to the Isolated Physical System. If you like to find the solutions to all current "Puzzles" I will suggest the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@crypticnomad]

If consciousness is required for wave function collapse, then we would be forced to say that even atoms have consciousness. However, I don't believe we can make that claim with justified confidence if our definition of consciousness is circular in nature and anthropomorphic. My issue isn't necessarily with panpsychism itself but with the unclear definitions of consciousness. I prefer to avoid the term "consciousness" because of these issues and instead use "observer." There are several technical definitions of "observer" that are not circular. For example, Dr. David Wolpert defines an observer as "a system that acquires information from its environment to stay out of quantum equilibrium." Building on this, Dr. Michael Levin’s work provides insight into how living systems differ from non-living ones. His concepts of multi-scale competence hierarchy and "cognitive lightcones" suggest that living things might be quantum systems in a constant state of quantum disequilibrium. These systems scale the underlying agentic properties of their parts, leading to emergent "cognitive lightcones." A cognitive lightcone represents the boundary within which an agent can predict or act, based on the information it gathers. Wolpert’s observer framework helps explain how systems, even at the quantum level, might process information, while Levin’s ideas extend this by exploring how it scales in living systems. Lastly, I can imagine a simplified definition of consciousness that could make panpsychism true by definition, but that approach would likely be incoherent since it would essentially be "begging the question."

[@brandis3309]

Photons have consciousness.

[@Orion15-b9j]

@@brandis3309 Then why don't you talk to the photons?

[@brandis3309]

@@Orion15-b9j I'm pretty sure we've made some phenomenal music together

[@stephengee4182]

Maybe the dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds is given by the uncertainty principle.

[@dkokalanov]

It's kind of strange when such brilliant minds still can't got to the "bottom" of this. Like they omit saying what "looking" is in their thought universe and is it consistent with any current (or historical - see Hindu Universe model for instance) model of the universe.

[@kallianpublico7517]

What does ignorance do to the wavefunction?

[@youaresoft-ee4ub]

ask a liberal

[@NyroSlice]

For everyone in the comments saying religions such has Hinduism have been discussing these ideas for years. I’d like to point out that physics and writing the mathematical foundations of these ideas goes way beyond what these religions have done. Yes, you can discuss an idea that seems logically or spiritually sensible, but to generate a practical application from it and create predictions- that is the power of physics and maths, for which religion isn’t able to accomplish.

[@conflict_monitor]

If action is minimised, then rendering only the parts of the universe that is observed seems likely

[@gregorybaillie2093]

What if it takes a whole infinite universe to make a conscious body that becomes aware of itself. What if the body is the filter by which much of the bandwidth of reality is filtered out so as to "separate" things in the boundryless miasma of energy that is the universe, which then makes life as we know it possible. Or said another way, the body/mind functions to hallucinate "separateness" by filtering out information from an undivided whole that has no boundaries. What if the universe is acausal and infinite ? Could that be the answer to a question that has no answer and shall be forever a mystery ? Because the "eye" cannot see itself. This would satisfy Occam's Razor rather than the intellectual gymnastics of a "collapsed wave function', which after all is just a mathematical term, just another symbol for the unknown unknowable. .

[@sanjeevathalye8676]

What you say is exactly what Advaita Vedantic philosophy ( Hindu philosophy) says.

[@kolarz2128]

First of all body is not aware. Only awareness is aware and body is an object of our experience, not a subject.

[@gregorybaillie2093]

@@kolarz2128 You can't know that which you claim. Yes relative to the the most subjective everything is an object even itself. Consciousness without an object/samadhi etc is an altered state of consciousness and imperminant. Consciousness is also an object, that much becomes clear every time you wake up of a morning or come out from anethsesia. The body if it wasn't aware would quickly perish.

[@kolarz2128]

@@gregorybaillie2093 I am talking about that which knows waking up consciousness and is prior to it. That's ultimate subject. And I know that which I claim because I am talking about myself! :) Are you aware of your body or is your body aware of you?

[@gregorybaillie2093]

@@kolarz2128 the totality is my body. there is only one coin, with two sides which can never be found apart....consciousness and energy. tat tvam asi

[@2_Normal_Ted_Junior]

This must be the explanation for why I’m so miserable, that I’m creating that reality.

[@h.m.7218]

The key is that matter without conciousness observing it is like no matter at all. So matter needs conciousness looking at it in order to "exist". But the other way around is true too. Because conciousness without something other than itself to observe ( ie the universe ) would be pointless. So conciousness needs matter as much as the other way around.

[@kolarz2128]

Bro - consciousness doesn't need anything that's first thing. Secondly, there is nothing else now in your and mine experience other than awareness only. Everything that seems to be something different than awareness is just an illusion. 😂

[@h.m.7218]

@@kolarz2128 OK. So that's your opinion.

[@kolarz2128]

@@h.m.7218 it's all based on my experience so I don't consider that as an opinion

[@h.m.7218]

@@kolarz2128 OK. So that's your opinion.

[@kolarz2128]

@@h.m.7218 yeah xd

[@nicklove2358]

What I’ve read is once the Universe is complete meaning all stars planets is done which is heaven everything will be new and there’s rebirth

[@MichaelNoon]

I’m hoping this day is soon!

[@kolarz2128]

Universe is complete already. Everything in it is as it should be

[@FatherFractal]

Deja vu is a mad one

[@arielmunoz9835]

According to the double slit experiment the electron turns into a solid particle only when it is observed without it being observed it remains as a wave particle. In essence nothing is there until it is observed.

[@kittywampusdrums]

This is a misnomer, when you observe the particle (exposing photons to it) you effect the system and get a different measurement. It's very simple but people over-think EVERYTING nowadays.

[@aeriagloris4211]

You don't understand that experiment at all and what you said isn't true. Please keep learning before spreading misinformation

[@lloydwaycott8178]

Yeah I don't think that's quite accurate. There is always a particle there there but observation 'seems' to alter it's state. There is a simple explanation for this - we just don't know what it is yet.

[@djmowcow7775]

@@kittywampusdrumsI don’t understand, wouldn’t that be wouldn’t that be shining light on it rather than looking at it?

[@arielmunoz9835]

@@djmowcow7775 in the experiment they used a camera..

[@markb9064]

I'm curious as to why you are pronouncing OM as two seperate letters. Also, it's important to remember that when we see A and U adjacent in Sanskrit it is pronounced a O. So AUM becomes 🕉 OM the sacred seed syllable. Om Shanti Shanti Shanti

[@Yojax]

2 things: 1) what is Consciousness with a Big C? 2) If a stranger also took a look at history through a microscope, would they see the same (wave-collapsed) history that I saw?

[@TheWayofFairness]

I say that the conscious observer is the physical universe. Physicality alone exists. Mind is a type of physicality. It's just a conversation.

[@thorondor5465]

Why you would think than conciousness collapses wave function. The whole talk is standing on this soft foundation. Where does conciousness collapse wave function? It does not in dual slit experiment.

[@Dhruba_Jyoti_Das_]

The concept is same as purush and prakriti(an ancient Indian Philosophy). Purush is the conscious observer and Prakriti is the material universe.

[@jerryrick4685]

We are in the process of reconnecting the eye to the rest of the pyramid

[@Christian-fx2sp]

You are one of the many eyes connected to the one mind everything in existance is the divine .

[@JamesDeanMichael80]

Could it be possible the entire universe is made up of a special vacuum energy that can be both matter and energy depending on what is required at the time? When something is in motion, instead of moving in physical space, energy constantly turns into matter and back again so fast that things have the illusion of movement. This would be a bit like how a TV screen works, by turning on and off pixels at the right time to give an illusion of motion! The conscious observer would not actually create it as such but you are manipulating it just by existing

[@Avreniel37]

Spiritual created the physical and it all started with ONE drop of water M Y 3r,d Vi D Explauin s It

[@anonymousbosch9265]

History was already observed at the time it was the present as far as material reality is concerned which makes me not understand if when we talk about history like a deck of cards and all the faces are just in flux until we draw the card, but I understand that the cards are what they are in the order they are in and then we draw a card and observe the order

[@jbrink1789]

yes holistic interconnectedness and possibilities. like frost forming on a window