LIVE: Quantum Physics and the End of Reality | Sabine Hossenfelder, Carlo Rovelli, Eric Weinstein

This event was recorded LIVE on our KZbin channel on Wednesday, July 25th.
Watch @SabineHossenfelder , Carlo Rovelli, and Eric Weinstein debate quantum physics, consciousness and the mystery of reality. @DrBrianKeating hosts.
IAI Live is a monthly event featuring debates, talks, interviews, documentaries and music. LIVE.
Our next IAI Live event takes place August 8th. Check it out:
iai.tv/live?...
See the world's leading thinkers debate the big questions for real, LIVE in London this September. Tickets:
howthelightgetsin.org/festiva...
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
We imagine physics is objective. But quantum physics found the act of human observation changes the outcome of experiment. Many scientists assume this central role of the observer is limited to just quantum physics. But is this an error? As Heisenberg puts it, "what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning." In all our studies of reality and nature then, the observer plays a role -- not just in quantum physics.
Should we recognise science can never access reality independent of the observer? Should we re-define science not as uncovering objective reality, but as uncovering the functions, limitations and structures of the mind of the observer themselves? And if we cannot remove the observer, might quantum physics help us to understand the observer - as Roger Penrose suggests consciousness "reeks of something quantum mechanical."
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

What did you think of this debate? Who do you agree with the most? Leave a comment below! Discover 3000+ videos like this and more live events with an IAI Premium Live Subscription. Sign up: iai.tv/subscribe? See more speakers debate quantum physics in London this September: howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/london? Join us at our next IAI Live event on August 8th: iai.tv/live?

[@____uncompetative]

I didn't listen. I don't find philosophy to have much practical application to everyday life.

[@bardlord8629]

Great interview as usual. I just wish I knew how do they interpret the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. I thought that one sealed it once and for all that the instruments are not causing the collapse and that the observer is fundamental...as predicted

[@henrythegreatamerican8136]

The guy on the left looks like the leatherface character from the chainsaw massacre. The guy on the right looks like a crazed mad scientist.

[@sergeynovikov9424]

there were many good remarks and ideas proposed during the very interesting discussion on this key issue in physics. but why jump ahead, talking about consciousness of highly organized forms of matter, that can process data/information the way, which we call as a consious perception, instead of discussing what life is. it looks strange that nobody tried to discuss the possible deep connection between life, which we poorly understand at present, and the problem of the observer of the observable universe. first we need to understand life, although Sir Roger Penrose is certainly a genius, looking ahead much deeper for revealing the deep possible ties between gravity, QM and how our brains work.

[@arjunrathore8950]

I think all the speakers here and possibly the host also considers consciousness as emergent phenomenon, i.e. somehow matter creates consciousness. With that assumption there will always be an observer, observed differentiation and unending debates. Even a donkey knows, that this is me the donkey and that is someone else. Duality seems intuitive, just as the intuition of the ancients, that the earth is at the center and the Sun goes around it, or the earth is flat. These have been proven to be counter intuitive. Similarly the duality which is known even to a donkey and the scientist alike seems intuitive but reality could be counter intuitive. What if brain does not create the mind, rather the mind generates the body mind complex (including the brain) and the universe and the others, just like in a dream the mind creates your own replica through whose dream senses you experience the dream universe and the so called dream others. The mind itself divides into observer and the observed, the knower and the known, the experiencer and the experienced. When the mind goes to deep sleep there is no world nor the ego, everyones deep sleep experience is exactly same, the mind rises during dream and waking and the world rises and the duality rises, but the reality is beyond the mind, i.e. pure consciousness which illumines the mind. This is the claim of Advaita Vedanta (Reference Mandukya Karika of Gaudapada Acharya) Also please look up Donald Hoffman, he seems to be a pioneer of a cognitive scientist willing to look at everything inside out.

[@DrBrianKeating]

So glad to be a part of this fantastic and fascinating conversation with my friends Sabine, Carlo, and Eric!

[@mikemcmillan]

You did a phenomenal job as host.

[@barryrobertson7064]

My observation is, the conscious experience of existence is metaphysical, that our conscious experience of existence evolved from a realisation that came from conscious being, and that realisation came from a conscious being that became aware of it's existence. The self-realisation of our conscious experience of existence, is the main reason our planet is being visited, they all want to be here for it.

[@deadrabb]

@@barryrobertson7064 lol

[@LambentIchor]

@@barryrobertson7064 Your dealer must have great weed.

[@nemrodx2185]

It is always a pleasure to see scientists doing philosophy... I wonder if they will notice.

[@emark8928]

"I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, [Carlo]" "Yes, you meant." Bravo Carlo.

[@giulio9476]

Carlo is the least promising scientist

[@ip6289]

About the debate in general : 1. Too superficial for the topic. 2. Host is talking too much while saying nothing. Better give those seconds to the guests. 3. To discuss those questions under such time constraints guests should be better selected to represent different angles, be interested in this particular discussion. Neither Eric nor Carlo were, for different reasons.

[@tasd5673]

Australia 🇦🇺 here, from an uneducated family with a young family of my own. I really enjoy these conversations, I have been following Eric and his brother for years. I’m not smart but am trying to learn. Wish we had more people care in Australia 🇦🇺 they just want to watch football and TV media like married at first sight 🤦. Keep going team 👍

[@enterthebully9968]

Couldn’t agree more

[@cameronmclennan942]

Another Australian here. I reckon there's more of us than you'd realise that are interested in this stuff, but you're right that it's so drowned out by the footy and other mainstream stuff. Sabine's channel is great, too. I really enjoy her dry, deadpan sense of humour.

[@tasd5673]

@@cameronmclennan942 I wish you where correct however I have done two laps around Australia with my family trying to find a home left mark McStalin land and have come to the otherwise

[@stevenvankoutrik992]

Married with children

[@scottmorley3672]

You're not alone brother

[@h0ll0wm9n]

Good discussion. However, Dr Keating: you don't need to continuously plug (= OVERSELL) the others'/your books and podcasts every few minutes . That's what show notes and Google search are for. And KZbin also auto suggests in and around the video we are watching. Even if this were intended for a audio-only audience (radio, podcast), most folks have little problem with searching for related material.

[@Baleur]

Yeah he's quite clumbsy in how he promotes the podcasts or books. Really ought to look at how others are doing it.

[@ashleywebb2736]

My award for 'best science hair' goes to Rovelli. Debate over.

[@ManiM-kw6jz]

Great panel, wonderful thought provoking discussion. We need more like this to try and understand science today

[@SS-of2gr]

I really like the way Sabine describes her thought process and the way in which she forms her conclusions and analysis.

[@C_R_O_M________]

Really? How do you know she even exists?

[@shadowkille8r99]

how is she even qualified to be on this panel? Can you name one significant contribution she's made to literally anything?

[@FrameOfReference]

3 thank you's 1. For making these discussions available to us who have not been fortunate enough to be scientists by profession, but are scientists at heart 2. For putting real science out there, not the least of which is the format - where debate and diversity are the norm 3. For finally knowing how to pronounce Sabine's name As for the topic of consciousness, these are exciting times. I truely hope that it is not just a ghost in the machine phenomenon, that arises as a byproduct from the complexity of our biological brain. In that sense, I admire and am inspired by Hammerof's, Penrose's, and Donnald Hoffman's quests, as they go outside the box to look for new ideas, which is where all new frontiers were and are always waiting to be discovered, IMHO.

[@youlig1]

Sabine is a German name and is pronounced a bit different than how the others do in that discussion

[@FrameOfReference]

@@youlig1 oh man.... :)) I guess ill have to ask a german native speaker when I find one

[@eliwhitley1878]

If you watch her channel, she says it. I think she is right no matter what we say or think! She seems awesome and goes right past it. The way you pronounce my name doesn't change a thing. IMHO THIS IS SCIENCE!!! Such a breath of fresh air. I feel grateful to be able to listen to this.

[@izzyposen2092]

Both Sabine and Carlo claim that the superposition collapses by any measuring instrument, and not at the level of conscious observing. But how do they know that? Perhaps the measuring instrument is in a superposition until a human checks its output? Suppose the apparatus flashes red for spin up and green for spin down, then the evolution of the wavefunction that's a superposition of up and down, will result in a superposition of red and green. We only "observe" a collapse of the wavefunction, once we observe the instrument and check which light is flashing. In fact, what counts as a measurement is arbitrary, if not for conscious observers. Any two specs of dust interacting is s measurement from the perspective of the dust particle experiencing that interaction. So why would the fact that this particular interaction happen to be in the form of something built by humans, be any different and cause a collapse, if not because of the conscious observation involved? An apparatus is just a fancy physical system, which should obey Schrödinger evolution. There's nothing special about a measuring instrument, unless from the point of view of a conscious being. So whilst we can't prove that the wavefunction collapse happens at the point of consciousness, we certainly can't prove that it happens earlier. So Sabine and Carlo are wrong to claim that we know that the collapse has nothing to do with consciousness.

[@crazyworld5449]

Finally someone gets it. Thank you

[@neftu9131]

It's yet unknown whether or not consciousness is involved in it, and in what sense, to what degree. But the apparatus idea has been just sheer nonsense for a century, for the reasons you detailed. It's sad that belief in such nonsense is still what makes someone a grounded, well-respected thinker.

[@raffaeledivora9517]

Sadly, the answer to this question is something that cannot be expressed in words, but is pretty much obvious once you write the equations of QM. I say sadly because it's source of many misunderstandings about the implications of QM. What the layperson without a solid foundation in physics (and the related mathematics such as Hilbert spaces, operators, eigenvectors and eigenvalues, projection operators) does not understand is that what we think of as a "measurement" is exactly the same as an "interaction", i.e. ANY kind of interaction Hamiltonian that perturbs the original Hamiltonian of the system (and so, its time evolution as well, save for some specific case like Quantum nondemolition and the Quantum Zeno protocol). Once you write that it's obvious that consciousness has nothing at all to do with the operation of measuring, at least if you still stand by Occam's Razor. If you don't, and prefer to explain things that are the exact same and bring to the exact same results, in two artificially different cathegories, well, then that speaks for itself

[@neftu9131]

@@raffaeledivora9517 Except it's you who doesn't have a solid foundation in physics, the known universe is one continuous "system". Any further division into interacting systems is a convenience tool, in order to be able to do any meaningful physics. Once you have this useful but false picture, is when the whole treatment of Hilbert spaces/operators/eigenvalus etc. comes in. "Intercting systems" is all good and necessary instrumentalism, but it's not what's actually going on. And of course even then, interaction goes both ways, for example why does the mesuring device collapse the particle, instead the particle collapsing the measuring device?

[@raffaeledivora9517]

@@neftu9131 Frankly I don't understamd the point of your last question, since the particle does in fact collapse the state of the system it is interacting with as well. Your first point however I find interesting, in that it puts reductionism into question (which in this case is possible to do, and has already been done by some prominent currently active physicists). So I have to accept your objection about we not knowing the possible effects of large-scale interactions (and possibly, non-locality?), but the key issue is always the same: where is your alternative model for these effects? Does it produce testable predictions? Why does it not produce observable discrepancies in measurements we already did? Until those questions are not at least all partially answered, it is not credible scientifically (since you don't discard something that works pretty well for something that works worse, and that's logics 101)

[@gerardbiddle1808]

A very interesting and informative discussion, and certainly challenging ideas presented. Thank you to all panelists and host for the great challenge. 1:13:03

[@n.y.c.freddy]

*THANK YOU ALL, no matter what!*

[@Nina-rz5ow]

The number of commercial interruptions on this KZbin program makes it impossible too focus on the content.

[@waltertanner7982]

I observed, that you had superimposed frustration, anger, disappointment and impatience.

[@Brewbug]

I experienced the same. It seems to differ per day but yesterday was literally off-putting.

[@ShamanicKnight]

I find it useful to seperate the terms 'actuality' and 'reality': The former referring to what is 'actually' out there... and 'reality' being what WE 'realise', i.e. how our minds interpret what is out there, filtered through the limits of our senses, mental abilities and prejudices (etc.)...

[@djelalhassan7631]

In 1781 Kant published Critique of Pure Reason and rocked the world of philosophy. What Kant articulated and what later generations of philosophers picked up on was that reality as we perceive it is not purely objective - it is at least partly subjective. It is easy to believe that reality as we see it is a reflection of reality as it actually is. In other words we tend to assume that the perceptual function that the conscious mind plays is passive, like a mirror, and doesn’t alter the image of reality that it reflects to us. Not so, said Kant. Our perception of reality might start with sensations of something outside of ourselves, but by the time we perceive it our conscious mind has organized, categorized and arranged those raw sensations into reality as it appears to us. We can’t know reality directly. We don’t perceive of things in themselves. What we perceive as reality is in part created by our conscious mind. And this creation of reality isn’t only the unconscious work of the mind as a machine, as some before Kant had believed, the creative process that constructs reality as we see it is also influenced by us. Of all of the infinite sensations, physical, emotional and conceptual that we experience at any given time we are only aware of a small percentage. The rest we ignore, but those that we attend to are compiled into reality by our conscious minds as we see it. What Kant did for the world of Philosophy was make human beings part of the creative process of reality as we see it. In this he dealt a blow to both organized religion and materialist science. To religion he insisted that we can’t perceive the Creation-Creator directly because our perception of Creation-Creator will also be partly of our own construction. To materialist science likewise he takes away the ruse of objectivity because everything we observe will always be influenced by our consciousness. What Kant did for us was redefine reality. Where we at one time had a fixed stage that we observed passively from a seat in the audience, we now had a cooperative process of creation right in the middle of the production. This profound connection between conscious human perception and the creation of reality and of our responsibility in it is what Quantum mechanics showing us to be the truth.

[@C_R_O_M________]

@@djelalhassan7631 Quantum mechanics and more specifically the double slit experiment isn't necessarily applicable to bigger scale reality. I would also argue that English is not the proper language to philosophize. Greek is. Reality is translated as "πραγματικότητα which is a derivative of the word "πράγμα or "OBJECT" which, of course, aligns itself with "objectivity" and NOT "subjectivity". Kant was wrong and Rand was furious about his "creative" perception of reality. I think that Kant tried to describe the power of free will and intent! Intent is a key ingredient in shamanistic practices. It has the power to ATTRACT outcomes of objective reality but not alter reality. Reality is! Kant conflated the states of attraction and being. The subjectivity (one could say "relativism") of Kant is a problem of perceptional distortion. A personal shortcoming of perceiving reality for what it is! Like a non-calibrated instrument that gives untruthful readings, a human, in his imperfect state of perceiving reality is bound to produce untruthful interpretations. This is exactly what I think Sabine does. It's a manifestation of the fundamental problem of philosophy, the subject-object dichotomy. Kant was wrong! There is an objective reality and I could easily proven him wrong by slapping him silly. He'd feel that, without too much thinking, I guarantee you that and that would certainly register as objective reality for anyone involved. Most certainly Kant. The problem with thinkers is that they solely depend on thinking to solve ALL problems. Sometimes solutions and answers are "felt" much more accurately than "thought of". But, I guess, "to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail".

[@iamtheiconoclast3]

One thing that does confuse me is the propensity of scientists to refer to "mind" and "consciousness" interchangeably, as though they are the same thing. The things which I refer to as my "mind" and my "consciousness" are so unmistakably different (and indeed entirely independent of one another) that I'm forced to conclude either that many smart people have never stopped for five minutes to investigate themselves, or that my subjective experience of reality is qualitatively different from that of others. In my experience, mind is a broad term for the tendency of sensory input to cause echoes, and the synthesis of those echoes into novel excitations, by some unknown and possibly mechanical process. A machine made entirely of wooden gears could have a mind, but it wouldn't be conscious. My consciousness, by contrast, would probably be best described as the thing which watches my mind. Consciousness can (and often does, in my case) exist with no mind at all (no thoughts; no echoes), but when there is a thought "in" the mind, my consciousness is watching it. Either one can exist without the other, but while I would say that mind is almost certainly a product of the brain, consciousness is very unlikely to be so, both because there is no reason I can see for evolution to have created it, and because there is no physical framework I'm aware of which would allow for its existence.

[@____uncompetative]

evolution -> brain -> mind -> subconscious -> conscious -> projection outward onto world = gods / god

[@dichebach]

I'm a retired professor of anthropology, with very little knowledge of physics beyond high school level. I've been watching a few of these IAI discussions with physicists. Something that strikes me as surprising is that: in spite of the fact that most of these IAI assemblies seem to have been conceived as "debates," and the idea that disagreement might arise is often discussed by the hosts, there generally seems to be very little disagreement.

[@erict.35]

Very interesting observation… I myself have been thinking about the same thing.

[@theyshouldhavenevergivenme5439]

these are all very well behaved people because of their academic background which is at the same time quite a shame. I like fire. Even professional iconoclast Weinstein (no, I'm not a fan ;) was clearly on his best behavior here.

[@davidwright8432]

'Whether we observe nature itself or ...' is a question that goes back to (at least!) Plato & co and likely to more ancient others with less adept publicists. Well, we're from, of and embedded in nature, so we're nature observing itself ... or trying to. Thanks to all; wonderful discussion!

[@KingNigelthegreat]

youre trying to speak general. YOu wouldnt understand universe and science until I walk you baby steps thru more portal and identity theft. YOu dont observe me yet were still in collaboration you cant get out of.

[@dionysis_]

Would be nice if we had thinkers that talked about consciousness in relation to QM because they exist and they should not be rejected in this manner 🙂 EDIT: the “there is nothing psychic in nature” comment was so naive philosophically. It is quite breathtaking..

[@placer7412]

Nah I'm good take yer golden ratio psuedoscience elsewhere

[@ReductioAdAbsurdum]

No. Just.... no.

[@crazyworld5449]

That’s very closed minded of you… you must be a physicist. Just because you don’t like that statement doesn’t mean it is or isn’t true. But you definitely cannot say that at this point you know it isn’t. You simply don’t have enough information to say that.

[@ussromantics]

That depends on the definition of 'psychic' - a much abused term, and the comment might just be a reflection of annoyance at the abuse. Which I share. It's a term best avoided.

[@dionysis_]

@@ussromantics I would think he meant that the world is independent of our mind. Probably sees it in mechanical terms. Could be wrong of course.

[@mauricemeijers7956]

Great discussion! When is part 2?

[@birhan2006]

Thanks to the Brian guy for letting us see this, but I have never seen so many commercials, subscription invitations, and mention of 1,500 live views. I would say Just focus on producing good content and everything else will follow

[@chrysanthesky]

Great debate and thanks for making this public again, it's awesome to have some questions which I've had for years discussed by experts in the field, learnt a lot of topics which I need to follow up on. Next idea, it'd be great if you could do something similar but with top neuroscientists, exclusively focused on the biological aspects of this debate. I'm sure this will yield a bunch of useful insights, this is something which the likes of Robert Sapolsky, Sam Harris and many others have talked about endlessly.

[@5piles]

complete intellectual dishonesty, typical physicalists. an apparatus does not collapses a wave function if its never observed by an actual observer seeing the apparatus. that an apparatus can be declared to collapse a wave function independent of an actual observer is what zeilinger says is not just wrong but something which can no longer be considered a coherent question to ask.

[@eugene_dudnyk]

Carlo should first make sure he gets the idea of Penrose before calling it extreme, and then dismissing it. Penrose never claimed that human consciousness affects measurement in the experiment.

[@eugene_dudnyk]

And to the host - you suck, because you don’t correct such false accusations

[@illinnear7233]

57:45 I could both feel and see a part of Sabine die right there, as soon as he uttered the word "beautiful".

[@rovosher8708]

It would be a good start for Carlo & Sabine to assume that their computational tools, the papers that they author etc. exist.

[@C_R_O_M________]

Haha, for real! (pun intended).

[@radical137]

A record player is a great example of an apparatus making a measurement. It is that playback process that represents the flow of time. “Space is solid time and time is liquid space”. That playback process isn’t perfect though, and there is always a distortion in the sound from the speakers, regardless of how expensive your stereo system is. Audio engineers excel at reducing the distortion from their equipment but it is not possible to remove it entirely. i.e using a crossover. There are different types of distortion that can be reduced at the expense of increasing another type of distortion, and good audio systems have a tiny total harmonic distortion. This is exactly the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation. You may also want to think about this Perfect Information as the grooves carved into vinyl (solid time). Playing the record indicates the flow of time is moving forward. Sound is experienced in the liquid space of dynamic air movements, the solid time on the record is liquid space again. Once again there is a distortion in the measurement made by the stylus which is riding the waveform carved into the grooves. Once again there are different types of distortion that can never be eliminated and follow the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation as well. Then, the (distorted) signal from the stylus is then sent through the amplifier and into the speakers, where there is another level of unavoidable distortion that was discussed earlier.

[@paxdriver]

I really like this comment but have nothing meaningful to contribute

[@chriskeegan]

wow

[@nyworker]

The distortion and noise, though unwanted are just more information and exist within their own time domain which does not agree with our own personal time domain which desires perfect music and perfect time. Perfect silence and perfect absence of time may be the only achievable.

[@paxdriver]

@@nyworker I think the profundity of thought here is that time transmute to a fluid from a solid to a conscious experience to a memory which can be replayed in different states of time or rewound on the record. To me that's the poetry of the metaphor, imagining how real time might leap off the space-time fabric and complete the analogy in physical terms.

[@ebenezergarbrah5255]

@@paxdriver Ha ha, am afraid you know a lot about this. Your analogy opened my understanding

[@rikimitchell916]

Question, I just checked the online definition of reality which made reference to 'actual existence ' fine, but then I looked up the online definition of existence and found that it was premised on the nature of reality ... hmmm. This is very insightful and highlights one of the reasons that discussions of this nature are so difficult

[@IngTomT]

Interdependency is just the way everything in this world works ;)

[@keiichicom7891]

Existence Exists is an axiom that is more fundamental than everything.

[@shatterthemirror8563]

The quality of reality is that it doesn't contain contradictions. Contradictions exist though, so what happened? Somebody thought.

[@keiichicom7891]

@@shatterthemirror8563 Please give an example of a contradiction that exists.

[@shatterthemirror8563]

@@keiichicom7891 Contradictions can only exist in the mind. So it's contextual, yet still important if you want to say how the concepts of reality and existence are different.

[@jasonhall7491]

Thank you for the podcast

[@MysticVic1]

Very interesting and enjoyable discussion. I watch an unexplainably large amount of physics and astronomy podcasts and documentaries. I thought they were a bit tough on my buddy Brian Green. Time will tell.... But...in true loyalty to the Einstienian spirit I gotta say... I am smitten with Sabine....: )

[@theyshouldhavenevergivenme5439]

he was peddling string theory for decades to the point of also drowning out all other views when YT came along. Now he never talks about it anymore.

[@C_R_O_M________]

Sabine is wrong from head to toe. She's a shallow left brainer caught in an interpretive vicious loop. She is basically caught in the space between the philosophical problem of subject-object dichotomy where her analytical tools stand in the way of her perception of reality for what it really is. She's convinced of endless relativism, which, as Eric pointed out contradicts many of her other beliefs (like her community approach to science - which is bonkers). Not impressed at all!

[@rikimitchell916]

This is great , I feel so lucky to be able to listen in on discussions of this caliber , it's truly an honor

[@onionknight2239]

Sincerely, 👍

[@josephkellum2083]

Dr. Keating does too.

[@DonnaW-ie3in]

Host - stop being distracted with head movements to screens and such. Distracting to audience. Want to listen to speaker.

[@fractalflight5752]

Thank you so much what an awesome lineup!

[@andregomesdasilva]

Really good debate I only miss more time. I would love to hear some respondes that Sabine would have, for instance, but the saddle change of subjects probably made us miss some very interesting point of views.

[@C_R_O_M________]

I would gladly miss everything that Sabine said from a point onward. She is totally and completely nuts.

[@gabrielseagull7891]

Such deep and great subject with top thinkers/reasearcher...but, Brian, tbis is way tooo short for such adiscussion. 3 hrs might start to be decent!!! Keep up your great informative podcasts...thank you!!!

[@PetraKann]

Were would we be without edgy fringe meta physical Weinstein nonsense? 8 minutes before we hear from the experts. Then I got a KZbin ad just before the first expert uttered a single word. I will deliberately avoid buying any of the products or services marketed in these interrupting ads

[@AngusRockford]

Thank you. It's almost indefensible to put this grandiose/grandiloquent crackpot on a panel with serious scientists and thinkers of Sabine's caliber. It only seems to happen because his close pal, Brian Keating (who also comes across as a professional grievance pimp against the scientific community) is in the mix. I suppose they are a sure draw for silly, gullible, and downright idiotic "darkweb"/alt-right quacks, misfits, and incels. Their presence here makes me lose a lot of respect for IAS, but Sabine is more than a match for any given pair of fools/tools. Pity she's not always around to correct and challenge their like.

[@daviddocherty2045]

Thank you very much! I’m new to this. Trying to understand it. Thank you!

[@kettlebot3610]

What was the name Sabine mentioned @50m00s ? I would like to hear more about the quantum gravitational wave echoes

[@HarryNicNicholas]

that was more fun than i expected, you all seem to be okay with each other even in disagreement and more smiles and laughter than i've seen from any for a while, even brian was (slightly) funnier than usual...😁

[@leonlee8524]

I wish I knew learning could be this fun when I was in school !

[@cosalidra759]

Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems. Not available in Audible India. Only US. I don't think Brian Keating/Carlo Rovelli will see the comment. But please make it available worldwide if possible. Thank you.

[@pensive8552]

The commercials are extremely disruptive to the conversation. During my view, the guests could hardly get going on a thought before I had to play the commercial mini-game 😤

[@nemuritai]

Was Sabine missed in the last question, I was very much looking forward to her answer!

[@andregomesdasilva]

Same here Unfortunately the constant and suddenly change of subjects didn't contribute to the debate. Not her fault, of course. Even I was asking myself what Eric was saying seconds after the subject change

[@C_R_O_M________]

Not me! She was utterly boring and parroting things she could not put together in a concise and meaningful synthesis. It'd be one of the same.

[@JerseyLynne]

I agree with Sabine. "Nothing is unstable" the truth is that "nothing is no consciousness".

[@djelalhassan7631]

You are clear as mud and Sabina

[@Self-Duality]

On the syntactic (invariant) level of discourse, the map *is* the territory in the same way that an object-language *couples* with its object-universe.

[@charlessimons1692]

incredible conversation as always

[@RoverT65536]

5:00 start

[@ManishSingh-bq2un]

Thank you for timestamp 😊

[@RonWilliams215]

Thank you.

[@nunomaroco583]

Great debate, amazing all the best. .....

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Do quantum fields / wave function have an effect on observers? Does measurement of quantum field(s) effect the observer more than observer measurement effects quantum field?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does the quantum wave function have two variables of energy and time in one dimension?

[@miloseveggies8064]

6:15 begins

[@crawkn]

I like Eric's reference to "recreational philosophy," and it made me wonder what terminology would be applied to philosophies of physics, or other "hard" sciences, which seem increasingly to be what public debates among physicists are about lately. Perhaps this is due to the various crises arising in theoretical physics due to certain problems remaining unsolved for an extended period, such that hard scientist are taking a hard look at themselves wondering where they have gone astray. It's sort of like watching group therapy.

[@VperVendetta1992]

Metaphysics

[@crawkn]

@@VperVendetta1992 no that's not what I mean at all. I mean the philosophy involved in the practice of physics, like ethical standards, and what constitutes an acceptable degree of conjecture for serious consideration. Metaphysics would fall beyond that bound, but the debate is about where the bounds lie.

[@KingNigelthegreat]

I destroyed and built these people. science all the fields and academia. one man see what Im doing how I operate and what I talk about they get ideas nthen they start cloning. portal for him too oh we need a portal now. O LORD wasnt cuttin it. too much. Jesus SMuggling. I never lost.

[@KingNigelthegreat]

Thats an abyss you need hitler to fill that. I gave you the conjecture and math prison cause you a liar you look to cheat n there it is @@crawkn

[@VperVendetta1992]

@@crawkn I see

[@phutureproof]

Fantastic, honestly.. I barely understand, but having these conversations for us lay people to listen in on is just fantastic thanks to everyone involved.

[@edreusser4741]

I have hardly ever waited so avidly for a book. Is it possible to pre-order "Existential Physics"

[@Thomas-gk42]

one of the best,I read

[@zanderrobertson5138]

Will watch anything with Sabine or Carlo 👍

[@maccabeus3843]

have you read carlos Book HELGOLAND

[@keithkucera3163]

You guys are on the right track ,there is more than one track and remember your not the only people working on it and that all the theories have something to offer

[@carlosoliveira-rc2xt]

You're😉

[@keithkucera3163]

Indubidibly

[@helicopter_traffic]

@@keithkucera3163 indubitably 🤣🤣🤣

[@keithkucera3163]

Thank you

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

One way to think of quantum physics is that the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas for us (atoms) to interact with; we have waves over a period of time and particles as an uncertain future unfolds. The mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of time with classical physics represents processes over a ‘period of time’ as in Newton's differential equations. In this theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents geometry, the Planck Constant ħ=h/2π is linked to 2π circular geometry representing a two dimensional aspect of 4π spherical three-dimensional geometry. We have to square the wave function Ψ² representing the radius being squared r² because the process is relative to the two-dimensional spherical 4π surface. We then see 4π in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π representing our probabilistic temporal three dimensions life. The charge of the electron e² and the speed of light c² are both squared for the same geometrical reason. We have this concept because the electromagnetic force forms a continuous exchange of energy forming what we experience as time. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light photon ∆E=hf energy is forming potential photon energy into the kinetic energy of electrons. Kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy is the energy of what is actually happening. An uncertain probabilistic future is continuously coming into existence with the exchange of photon energy.

[@fast_harmonic_psychedelic]

haha "space time is doomed" I love eric's reference to the recent lex fridman interview of that idealist philosopher

[@mikkel715]

Does any physicist debate in an objective way, about the fact that so many different quantum interpretations are indicating we are no further in QM since Bell’s Theorem got tested? Still a good show and debate showing here. Thanks.

[@santerisatama5409]

Stephen Wolfram's physics project effectively proves that mathematical physics is an artifact of (certain slice) of mathematics.

[@marcusrosales3344]

We are no further in QM period or the interpretation of QM? There's been many developments in QFT (quantum field theory) over the last 2 decades, like in Topological order and field theories. The TI (Topological Insulator) was also demonstrated in Te2Bi3 quantum wells, for instance. Pretty sure you mean in the interpretation of QM. I think more and more physicists are going for the many worlds interpretation since there is no spooky action at a distance, doesn't lead to Schrodinger's cat, and is more consistent with GR.

[@teodelfuego]

@@marcusrosales3344 Many worlds interpretation is a sign of how far the rot has set in.

[@NondescriptMammal]

@@marcusrosales3344 The "many worlds" interpretation is so vaguely defined and comes in so many flavors that the statement "I favor the many worlds interpretation" is essentially meaningless.

[@nemrodx2185]

Someone mentions consciousness in these dialogues and it's like: what an extreme idea! Someone mentions "infinite" universes that exist for no reason at all: perfectly possible!!

[@JerseyLynne]

scientists say "nothing is unstable" nothing means "no consciousness"

[@nemrodx2185]

@@JerseyLynne "scientists say "nothing is unstable" nothing means "no consciousness" If "nothing is unstable", then there is something and it is not "nothing" "Nothing" is not the absence of consciousness, it is the absence of anything.

[@ezbody]

@@nemrodx2185 If you could stop arguing against the strawmen of your own creation, you might start learning something. In other words: brain input mode - on, brain's output mode - off.

[@C_R_O_M________]

@@ezbody what's the strawman here? describe it if you please.

[@jakubczubak1659]

Would be awesome to see Jim Newman in this conversation. Thank You for your time !

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

With cosmology based on space-time, as gravity happens in space; could quantum gravity happen in time, and might that quantum gravity be repulsive as cosmological constant?

[@richspada4867]

I’m about 5 minutes in and what fascinates me the most was the amount of different drinking vessels Eric used during the intro. Was each one filled with a different beverage? As an observer, I would guess the probability was yes, each was filled with a different drink. But as the observer, I could never know what he’s observing, so like everything observed in life (reality) everything’s merely a guess.

[@KingNigelthegreat]

actually thats not reality you explain. Thats the extortion way to explain that. Same with the extortion from the other angle I gave you the

[@TheTroofSayer]

Rovelli's assertion (53:20) that consciousness is a non-problem is a problem. It's only a non-problem to those who believe that the brain is a computer, and things like motivations, emotions, love, fear, etc are just computer algorithms running on the biological hardware that is the brain. Computers, however, *never* occur in nature. They cannot, because of entropy. What do occur in nature are colonies, not computers. The properties of consciousness, along with entropy, *do* need to be taken seriously. I side with Penrose & Hameroff that there is something about consciousness that requires some manner of QM involvement (though I do wish they'd drop their thing with microtubules). My own preference is for DNA entanglement (yes, I know about warm, wet environments - factor in not decoherence, but recoherence). Going this route, we obtain solutions to entropy, the binding problem, the mind-body problem (bodies wire neuroplastic brains), and more. Bottom line, dismissing consciousness as a non-problem, to persist with the assumption that the brain is a computer, will just extend the past 50-year catastrophe to a 100-year catastrophe. The brain is *not* a computer. It is a colony (of neurons/glia) and its dynamics reflect the dynamics of what all colonies do. And that's why QM, factoring in the secrets of the DNA molecule, might be fundamental to the mind/life sciences... and indeed, to all the sciences that must take the entropy problem far more seriously than they have in the past.

[@Khawalidmi]

Your observation about the brain is not a computer and there is no computers out there in nature is due to a very limited view of what a computer is and what computation is. In essence, any process that has a state and transition rule is a computation. So that applies to the rules of physics as well as how the brain works. Therefore, anything that goes through the process of computation is a computer. As long as one can demonstrate that a brain has a state and a transition rule, then the brain is a computer in the broadest sense. And it’s obvious that the brain has a state and some kind of mechanism that calculates that next state (i.e. a transition rule).

[@TheTroofSayer]

@@Khawalidmi Colonies comprised of agents operate very differently to computers, which are comprised of circuits, switches, components and mechanisms. Computers are *never* comprised of agents. Agency theory (e.g., Sharov, 2018)* is a contemporary incarnation of autopoiesis and systems theory (Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela), and bears no resemblance to the state transition rules (linear, input/output) to which you refer. *Sharov, A. (2018). Mind, agency and biosemiotics. Journal of Cognitive Science 19(2):195-228

[@moftan]

Thank you @TheTroofSayer !! I'm not with you on the DNA thing but otherwise fully agree! For both of you, I think you are missing Penrose' point about Gödel's theorem. This is how he highlights the connection between consciousness and non-computability. Regardless if you have a silicon based CPU or an organic "wet" calculator you will be bound to computable problems only. You will never be able to exceed that, which we obviously are able to with our minds. Humans have solved innumerable mathematically non-computable problems.

[@ericstorey1864]

Utterly fascinating conversation from you all.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

I saw utterly frustrating conversation as dogmatists have no interest whatsoever in examining their own nature nor anything that can't be falsified. How do you falsify the experience of being? Every single NDE and 5-MEO experiencer knows first hand what none of these so-called geniuses can bring themselves to admit, nor make room for in their worldview

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Is the mathematics of quantum wave function, not just probabilities, significantly different than the mathematics of classical space-time?

[@nyworker]

45:00 Eric hits the nail on the head. People assume that because we don't understand consciousness and quantum mechanics, we must assume they go together. As an electrical engineer this is like people saying because they understand electrons and em fields, then they must be related to how a radio or cell phone works. The devil is in the details and how the levels of reality relate.

[@joeredman569]

Just after he said consciousness is BORING! They are all really insulting to people with other ideas while remaining closed minded.

[@nyworker]

@@joeredman569 Exactly....because they are all theorists at the most fundamental level they believe they can make a judgement like "I'm soooo smart and if I can't understand it, that means nobody can". Like Sam Harris who calls a brain "thinking meat" and then said he tried computer programming but found it too difficult.

[@Sharperthanu1]

Even meat is made up of atoms and atoms are all subject to the laws of quantum mechanics.

[@Kooky_Duzzfutz]

"People assume that because we don't understand consciousness and quantum mechanics, we must assume they go together." I don't think people assume that. I think it's just a goofy assertion that some physicist made up and projected onto other people's minds. And other physicists latched onto the idea for some odd reason, without thinking it through. I don't know why they keep saying it because it's pure fantasy bullshit.

[@red-baitingswine8816]

@@joeredman569 Yes I suppose Rovelli believes primates don't exist, only things like baboons and gorillas.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Greatly enjoyed this conversation. Although all participants mostly repeated their individual stances we came to know, it is good to see the interaction now has become more friendly and slightly open to each other ideas. The main feature of the mystery of the 'observer problem' in the quantum world is not addressed in a significantly new way. IMHO the key to understanding the 'observation problem' is that we have used incorrect wording for 100 years. Referring to the infamous double slit experiment, we keep saying that we see a PARTICLE (say electron) moving through either one or the other slit. That is physically incorrect. we don NOT see the particle. We see its ENERGY. This is the essence to understand the double slit experiment. We see the ENERGY of the particle EITHER as the 'point-like' particle property of 'potential' OR (if we don't measure) we see the same energy acting as the GRID around the particle, thus interacting through both slits creating the interference shape. Again, repeat after me; ENERGY is BOTH that practicle property of potential AND the GRID property around it. The act of measuring (by sensor or brain) forces nature to display the POTENTIAL function and collapses the GRID function, as apparently (!) both are inversely related. Penrose in 2020 (Lex Friedman) explicitly stated that mass likewise has the function of inertia AND the inverse time function of CLOCK in the subatomic world. He derives this by substituting E=hf in E=MC2. So then, I think it is about time after 100 years to finally acknowledge that the FUNDAMENT of phyisics is DUALITY between functions and measures and that the 'observer problem' is simply demonstrating their INVERSE relation....why don't we discuss this the next time?

[@ailblentyn]

But as I understand it Rovelli and Hossenfelder and Penrose are all troubled by the question of what makes a measurement count as such.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

@@ailblentyn They are troubled by trying to understand physics from a mono-continuum viewpoint, whereas we fundamentally live in a dual continuum world. The questions and paradoxes that pop-up in our curriculum are not real. They are the consequence of sticking to only our spacetime setup. Thats why we did not find answers to the century old issues. Its not our lack of brainpower. It is our unwillingness to revise what we thought we knew....

[@autopilot3176]

​@@RWin-fp5jn "The act of measuring (by sensor or brain)" - Brain has no effect on measurement, only instruments that shoot electrons or other particles. Brain is not emitting particles into your experiment and nothing outside of your own mind can comprehend what you're observing.

[@hedles]

How would "our spacetime setup" differ in the physics described by your(?) "duality between functions and measures". Is this your own idea or is there (aside from Penrose) any active research into it?

[@RWin-fp5jn]

@@hedles Our grid (continuum) has two and not one setups. The macro setup is space (grid) and time (clock). The subatomic setup has energy (grid) and mass (clock). Thats is why we see atom bound electrons not moving in terms of space and time but in terms of (quanta) of energy which take mass and not time traverse. Simple observation. No theory. Simple undeniable truths we are not allowed to say. And since we also use energy as a measure of 'potential' in the macro world it follows all measures have 2 functions and all functions have tow measures. No theory. Just simple observations. If we don't acknowledge the basics, we will never progress and we might well face another 4 decades of failures in physics

[@sundayasmrpodcast]

Does anyone know why Eric stopped his podcast? It was seriously my favorite podcast.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Are the probabilities from the quantum wave function in two dimensions?

[@brianj7281]

It's nice to hear physicists talk about philosophy again. Too often, scientists forget that some of the most famous in their lineage: Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Planck, etc spent a lot of their time dwelling on the metaphysics of reality. Extremist modernism is why all we can do now is just throw two atoms at each other at continually higher velocities and consider that scientific progress.

[@SandipChitale]

A macroscopic, conscious entity can be an observer in a quantum measurement experiment, not because it is conscious but because it is macroscopic. Thus conscious entity can be an observer, but that does not mean every observer HAS to be conscious. This is a VERY important point and is not appreciated. In other words consciousness is not anything special in quantum mechanics. Like Carlo said, he considers cameras, or any other instrument that is outside quantum system and interacts with it is an observer. Sean Carroll and Brian Green and others have said similar things. IMO the use of word observer, has caused all of this confusion. For a lay person words like observer conjure up conscious entities like humans. And that is how the word observer is used colloquially. This is a powerful example of slack use of colloquial word in the context of scientific theory. I think measurement instrument or some such would have been a better choice. God particle to describe Higgs boson has caused a similar confusion, which woo woo crowd takes it and runs with it. There are countless gurus with theories of quantum consciousness or quantum healing. The labs trying to build quantum computers do not worry about isolating the quantum computer states from consciousness of the personnel in the lab. They try to isolate the quantum state from molecules close to it, lest they may destroy the quantum state by interacting with it.

[@mikkel715]

Good point! Thumbs up. "At some point there is a transition between the micro world and the macro world" - Niels Bohr -

[@danielbrown97]

Well put, Sandip. The term 'observer' does indeed evoke the idea of a conscious percipient, but I would argue the confusion would be precluded at the outset by a robust definition of macroscopic consciousness. Indeed, even though observers do not need to be conscious, folk will continue to speculate about possible microscopic consciousnesses so long as our definition of macroscopic consciousnesses remains mysterious. Say we upgraded the old definition of consciousness -- e.g. awareness of one's surroundings -- to make it refer specifically to the *self-world modelling faculty of brains* , then I would imagine we would hear very little from the microscopic-consciousness crowd. On a self-world modeling definition, consciousness is when the brain models the inputs of its sensoriums in real-time. Consciousness isn't something separable from body or brain; it is not the equivalent of software like Microsoft Word, able to be ran on different systems with significantly different hardware. Rather, consciousness more resembles the computer and its components in its entirety; without particular key components, a monitor or GPU or CPU, the computer doesn't work. Likewise, without body and brain, consciousness cannot work. (Body and brain could be artificial, made of silicone, because what's important is structure, not substrate) While the term consciousness remains vague so too will claims made by QT-leaning consciousness philosophers. If we narrowed the term to refer to the modelling process, I find it hard to imagine many would conflate macroscopic observers with microscopic observers, for it would be obvious that sensoriums and self-modeling brains do not exist at the microscopic level and are strictly macroscopic phenomena.

[@SandipChitale]

@@mellelicious6370 thanks.

[@sanskritprayers]

Topic I would like to know more about: possible violations of unitarity (eg is it possible in some strange way to have probabilities greater than 1?)

[@merchantservices100]

Hello can any one explain how observation determines that state of a particle. If the determination of particles must be previously determined in order for an observer too be able make a determination in the first place, because the observer or instrument of measurement is also made of particles, isn't it true?

[@Daijobustory]

"String theorist, Art major grad, what's the difference?" --- Sabine Hossenfelder

[@117Industries]

A strong grasp of fundamental physics.

[@crazyworld5449]

Or a strong grasp of how to create art.

[@117Industries]

@@crazyworld5449 I was waiting for this answer.

[@williambunting803]

On reality, consider what this video represents. This is 4 people in different places each presumably real people interactively interfacing where each expresses a view, that view is transmitted via photons to an electronic system that then transmits a representation via photons of a very different form to a receiving electronic circuit to a photon emitting device into the biochemical system of a person’s consciousness. This process is rebounding continuously back and forth to build presentation that is sent via photons all over the world to be viewed by millions of people, and,………that presentation has the same meaning to those millions of Observers, all of whom can cross reference the consistency of that meaning between one another. If Reality is not consistently verifiable, then that presentation is one hell of a coincidence. Is reality real?? This is just semantics, because something here seems definitely real to me. Then there is the quantum verification of the presentation.

[@C_R_O_M________]

Sabine would argue that it's "real TO YOU" (but that doesn't mean it's objectively real). Then she would say that she believes in "collective science" and it'd be the end of her silly argument. I 100% agree with you!

[@t_xxic8814]

Great discussion. Thank you! Only 1 thing: Brian Keatings style of moderation and especially his sometimes dubious comments towards Sabine Hossenfelder were putting me off a little bit.

[@douglasborgstrom2023]

Eric is absolutely correct. When our observations fail to agree with our assumptions, we must admit the errors of our initial postulations.

[@schmetterling4477]

That's not the problem. The problem is that most of our observations in the microscopic world are agreeing quite well with our assumptions about it and that the observations we have about the cosmological scale are still riddled with so many irreducible measurement errors that it's still too noisy to do any precision physics at all.

[@mechannel7046]

11:00 Sabine: reality is not scientifically defensible; not a realist but instrumentalist. 15:00 Maps are not the territory; physics "map" has not been updated in decades, and people are now viewing the maps as territory. 16:25 Bertrand Russell: role of observer= construct probability based on past events; turkey. 18:40: science is not about finding certainty but a process to learn. Is quantum a modeling tool or measurable, observable? 51:30 We cannot underdtand the sun or super nova without quantum mechanixs 52:40 nobody knows what consciousness is. It's a name we gave to the unknown 1:05:10 G-2

[@steveflorida8699]

Science is the knowledge of How.

[@paxdriver]

@@steveflorida8699 science is the practise of discovering how, not the knowledge of but the documented pursuit of imho.

[@koroglurustem1722]

Turkey example is spot on! Just because we don't see resurrection of the past generations, does not mean it will never happen in the future. The Creator promised that He will bring it. We are too arrogant to think that all that effort of creating the whole universe was somehow meaningless and in vain. The improbable possibility of the existence itself is somehow pushed under the rug and assigned to blind coincidence and chance which always ends up in scientific fiasco when it comes to explanations and possibilities. Fine-tuned universe spits on the faces of deniers who try to hide the pointers 👉 towards God within the unscientific nonsense as multiverse. They don't want to accept 'unscientific' God hypothesis and yet shamelessly retort to unscientific multiverse nonsense.

[@iamtheiconoclast3]

So, an observer eats turkey and transforms the chemical potential energy in the turkey's proteins and fats into ATP, which then enables the brain to continue observing?

[@patinho5589]

@@paxdriver science is a 7 letter word that means whatever referent* a person ascribes it to refer to.

[@rhqstudio4107]

Brian hits it out of the ball park once again!! great moderating. Loved listening.

[@logtothebase2]

Mostly wonderful, but sometimes I think he could be a bit more passive and let the guests interact and react to each other's statements more, rather than posing a new question to each guest in turn irrespective.

[@AngusRockford]

@@logtothebase2 I suspect that was a very deliberate choice to safeguard the ego and carefully-cultivated online image of one of his longtime pals. The grandiose one who very obviously didn't belong here.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

Excellent discussion - thanks!

[@evaulrikajansson2219]

How does low temperatures make the particles in the quantom Computer become coherent? And what particles are used in quontum Computer s? Is any particel more useful than others and why? Is it possible to find particles that dont need low temperatures to run in THE circuts of the quantom Computer and what kind of particles would that be?

[@Thomas.Delacour]

Fascinating. Sabine is always a good listen. Other guests are great too 👍

[@frozzytango9927]

Ugly women always have warped realities.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@frozzytango9927 ugly? luckily your opinion

[@frozzytango9927]

@@Thomas-gk42 She is the closest thing to a meth addict

[@C_R_O_M________]

No, she's not! She is a mess to listen to.

[@gokulgopisetti741]

What is measurement? continued . . . Let us consider a set of integers which serve as input to the functions f(x) = x; f(x)=2x; f(x) = 3x; f(x) = 4(x); . . . Here, the math function is the frame of reference. When we express the function f(x) = x in the cartesian coordinate system, the description is a straight line of slope 1: "What we get (the actual input) is what we see", a cartesian coordinate description of a set of integers or rather an uninfluenced observation. Please note that f(x) = x does not influence the actual input because there is no skewing or departure from the straight line of slope 1. We then increase the coefficient of x in steps of 1 as f(x) = 2x; f(x) = 3x; f(x) = 4x; . . . and observe that any increase ( or decrease) in value of the coefficient causes slopping or skewing or departure from the initial slope of 1. Because there is a skewing or a departure from "what we get is what we see" expression of the cartesian coordinate system, we say that the coefficient of x greater than or less than 1 "influences" the input as an act of measurement and skews the slope of the straight line. The measurement outcome is the effect of the influence, a skewed slope. This implies that an influenced observation is a measurement. The strength of the influence(a coefficient

[@isaacdillon]

1. Is there a field theory vs. atomist paradigm battle? 2. Did the simplification of Maxwell’s equations cause a loss in understanding of Faradays observations? 3. Is light a “thing” or a perturbation like a sound wave. 4. Is matter incredibly powerful light? 5. Does physical reality only exist inside a magnetic envelope (heliosphere, galactic current sheet etc…no islands in space). 6. Is space time model better then aether model? 7. What was wrong with aether model? 8. To effectively apply mathematics to physical phenomena, to what degree does the nature of the phenomena need to be understood ( in order for math to measure effectively)? Thank you.

[@robertoalexandre4250]

The problem of quantum measurement is simply that of the added energy of the neasuring/observation device which interferes in the field being measured. We do not know the role of consciousness, just as we have no epistemological bridge that connects quantum field theory with classical physics, chemistry and biology and finally life, sentience and consciousness. We assume it is negligble or non-existent but that only reveals the gaps of our understanding. Sabine has a video "disproving" free will on the basis of particles and math, but her conclusion is so simplistic as to be unwarranted as it presumes a bridge between particles and a psychic phenomenon that we just do not have. The hard problem of consciousness is how we get experiential, intangible and subjective qualities from just objective and tangible stuff: is that a boring issue best left for neuroscientists like Antonio Damásio et.all? Kind of like saying you are only interested in biology and not in chemistry, or only interested in chemistry and not in physics: these borders do not exist in nature. All of the panel, like mainstream scientists, seem to just assume that it's an emergent property or epiphenomenon and thus sidestep the issue. If Eric Weinstein finds it "boring" it is because this debate has become fatigued and not gone anywhere. Yet, if Donald Hoffman or Bernardo Kastrup ideas of idealism may be on to something, then all the panel and mainstream physicists will be out of a job as their assumptions are all wrong and all of Weinstein's new directions and perspectives would be irrelevant. Rovelli's dismal and claim that there is nothing "psychic" in nature is, as a comment points out below, very naive: I understand their shying away from the subject because it reeks of metaphysics: it is also an extreme and dangerous subject because it threatens to upend all the cherished scientific truths of physicalism. Others, finding the monopoly of conventional physicalism too restrictive and reductionist, like David Bohm and Schrodinger (different from Penrose) intuited that the Indian Upanishads may have been on to something in their consideration of consciousness as the most fundamental element of reality. The moderator, Brian Keating, did a great job and one sees he's very interested in the subject (as opposed to the close minded dogma of "Just shut up and calculate"), but the panel was too one sided in its reluctance to broach the subject: Rovelli actually close minded, Sabine just agnostically skeptical and Eric in a world of his own. An idealist might have quipped "Never mind the matter, these scientists can go stuff it." Aside from the math, they are all as clueless about the real role of quantum physics in reality as we are. Tim Maudlin is right here: we have no image or picture of quantum physics which allow us to connect it with reality as we do of classical physics. An enjoyable discussion, nevertheless, but nothing illuminating here.

[@Raziel1818]

Very true. Carlo and Sabine have such horrendous arguments, that are obviously so close minded and 100% biased that it discredits their very own position as scientists. These are actual scientists? These are the people who teach science? incredibly disgusting

[@Baleur]

Extremely well said.

[@bardiarez6410]

Wow. Very intelligent and thoughtful ideas here. Thank you for this expression.

[@bardlord8629]

Actually the apparatus has been experimentally proven to not cause of the collapse by the quantum eraser experiment. What they were saying about the instrument maybe causing the collapse is patently false. But I understand why they do it. You would have no career as a physicist if you admit that consciousness is fundamental

[@kirstinstrand6292]

Thank you; I only can feel similar thoughts. These comments summarize what I take from the conversations stated.

[@alanhamilton9633]

Poor Sabine having to sit through this. Our mathematical process is only a modelling tool, (as it always was),. This stuff is sort of hilarious and very sad at the same time. Don’t take yourselves too seriously 😜. Standard model is a bit of a none sense with gluons and made particles to explain stuff we don’t understand

[@C_R_O_M________]

Poor Sabine is caught in an interpretative loop. She doesn't know what she's talking about in terms of essence. Parroting facts and equations, facts that you can't compile into something functionally meaningful is a fool's errant. She is arrogant and oxymoronic. Not impressed at all.

[@parameshwarhazra2725]

Best wishing from India! I enjoyed this session.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Doc Sabine is one of the most important and trustworthy thinkers to rely on, currently

[@schmetterling4477]

Only if you are shallow and don't read her papers. Once you do it becomes obvious that she is just a troll. ;-)

[@C_R_O_M________]

Absolutely NOT! She's oxymoronic in her basic thinking. Eric pointed that out in this clip and it became obvious to me as soon as she spoke for a while. She's caught in a subject-object dichotomy loop and can't escape.

[@timjohnson3913]

1:09:19 Loved Eric’s bit here. Beautiful explanation

[@TheKrunel]

Thanks for the timestamp, I got a chuckle watching his meaningless nonsense

[@____uncompetative]

@@TheKrunel Check the Wikipedia entry for Hidden-variable theory, or sit on the sidelines trying hard to act superior by making out Dr Weinstein is talking "meaningless nonsense" when you offer no substantive critique, why, in your opinion, any particular part of what he said was incorrect for him to assert, and wasn't merely the work of De Broglie-Bohm and Penrose.

[@TheKrunel]

@@____uncompetative "gravity is the engine of observation" (Penrose, I guess), "the big problem in this area is trying to go after every theory you've never thought of as if it were something called hidden variables" (De Broglie-Bohm, I guess). It's just hand wavy verbiage from Weinstein

[@____uncompetative]

@@TheKrunel Those are the references.

[@MichaelSmith420fu]

@the UN = MASS MURDERERS lol

[@das_it_mane]

I agree that the idea of quantum consciousness is a boring one and it kills me that the general public seems so interested in it and woo surrounding it.

[@lousassle9387]

The woo part of it really grinds my gears. It shows that the vast majority of humans think we're the center of the universe. Thinking of how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of things, much like Hossenfelder says about free will, is far less prohibitive in understanding the universe than thinking we have something profound about our frame of observation.

[@seagle7297]

@@lousassle9387 it's not that we're the center of the universe but we are quite special because we bring meaning to the universe with consciousness, as of now we are the only known example. Even if we're not the only one it's one of the most special things about the universe, that beings like us can comprehend it

[@IngTomT]

We are both, the center of the universe and totally insignificant at the same time, just like waves are particles and vice versa ;)

[@george5464]

What do you mean by quantum consciousness? Are you referring to that as a type of conciousness? Or just stating that some people query if conciousness needs quantum explanations? If so, just go and look at the forefathers of quantum mechanics who pretty much all thought conciousness was integral to understanding quantum mechanics Also it’s not quite quantum related but check out Donald hoffman

[@steveflorida8699]

@@IngTomT we earthlings are not the center of the material universe. Our human sciences are young observers and still in elementary discoveries.

[@notathang8087]

Someone missed their calling in woodworking. So Much Dovetailing!❤

[@clydewisham5946]

Very informative. Thanks.

[@almightysapling]

Thank all of you for this amazing discussion. Now, @Sabine (because you're my hero) how can you simultaneously be strongly solipsistic on the grounds that you "can't prove" other people exist, yet at the same time so energetically denounce the idea that your consciousness plays a role in measurement? If your consciousness is *literally all there is* then one should think it would play quite a strong role in, again very literally, everything. Note: I agree with you that consciousness plays no role. What I find indefensible is an instrumentalist that thinks our instruments are nothing but articulate number generators connected to the void. You've convinced yourself that it's a reasonable position to take but you recognize the patent absurdity when you, so kindly, grant your host with the assumption of his own personhood. Deep down, you know you aren't all there is, you know that this comment is not just an elaborate random number generated to maintain a grand illusion of consistency designed for only you. Your instruments have two sides. Reality is the thing on the side opposite the numbers.

[@almightysapling]

I suppose I should be clear that I also consider, for instance, the Matrix, to be a reality. The nature of reality is wholly up for debate. The existence of some... *consistent substrate* on which our measurements are performed... is what I find unavoidable for the sensible philosophical pursuit of pretty much any scientific endeavor. Further, I have yet to see any convincing proof that "I exist" (or you, whoever) which you claimed quite readily. If you're referring to Descartes 3 word proof, well, I think that only proves Descartes exists and the rest of us are echoes in his imagination. How are you so sure *you* exist? I'm not so convinced *I* exist (well, I am, but only because I believe we all do... not because I have so much hubris that the voice in my head makes me special).

[@almightysapling]

At this point I'm stoned and rambling and cant stop myself. Please don't read further :P Frankly I don't like having to bring consciousness into the picture. I much prefer the term "observer", I believe it provides us a much more scientifically capable footing. And I agree with you that our goal is to find a description of our instruments that ultimately doesn't depend on the observer. It's clear, though, that this is not the case in general. I can't see without glasses. But we find models that do describe measurements independent of observer. On what do those measurements depend? Reality.

[@C_R_O_M________]

Why is Sabine "your hero" is beyond me. She's actually very boring and stale. What she does is a great deal of parroting facts that sh fails to synthesize into something meaningful (even for her - her center of the "real" universe). I don't think she understands anything profound. I might be wrong but I seldom am when it comes to judging people. I can spot a crook from miles away.

[@johnbwill]

Thank you Brian for your stellar efforts. Such high calibre education .... at virtually zero cost (to we listeners).

[@bennguyen1313]

Enjoyed the 1h9m mark, and how space/time is an emergent property of a deeper realm. However, if all our laws of physics do not describe reality, but simply describe the way our brains 'see', I don't think science may be the best tool for understanding it. Regarding the 39m mark, the model Carlo describes sounds a lot like the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Theory, especially the way Ruth Kastner describes it. Panpsychism doesn't seem to help in explaining consciousness.. it just pushes the hard problem further down, i.e. how do the smaller agents of consciousness (whatever that is) combine to form the the type we experience.

[@edwoodsr]

Surely someone has attempted to quantify observer effects using (say) the CERN Higgs data (or equivalently consistent data sets).

[@____uncompetative]

PRO TIP: drag window partly down off-screen so you don't have to look at Brian Keating's distracting reactions.

[@CAThompson]

Keep half an eye out for Sabine's facial reactions.

[@Nah_Bohdi]

lol

[@____uncompetative]

1:11:47 "The way you avoid a Schrödinger's cat problem..." There are no simultaneously half alive and half dead cats in boxes. They are all alive until the point they die in the box, or are let out of the box alive at the completion of the experiment; or escape from the box and its vial of poison gas triggered by the 50% probability governed by the half-life of beta decay in the duration of the experiment. This is because the cat is an observer of its own state. Even if the box is completely dark it can sense its own existence as its whiskers are brushing against the confines of its imprisoned state.

[@Nah_Bohdi]

lmao Base and doesnt-understand-the-equation-pilled.

[@g.dalfleblanc63]

These are the people who think all other animals can't feel pain. What is scary is the people with such mental disorders bring death, misery and havoc and when combined with intelligence will seek out positions of power. It's clear to anyone with wisdom that cats have enough sentience to know if they're alive or dead lol.

[@garshdarnitibelieve8260]

@@g.dalfleblanc63 absolutely!!!

[@MarcSylex]

The most dangerous person is a scientist who over thinks existence.

[@haleymoore6684]

Can't believe im just now getting this in my feed...this is great stuff

[@nyworker]

Eric says "The map is the territory" or the map is the best known record. We build records by adding and refining more finite information in time.