Roger Penrose: "Consciousness must be beyond computable physics."

[@hrishikeshchanekar9846]

Sir Roger Penrose serves as a great example of what a life spent in the pursuit of knowledge and unraveling the mysteries of the Universe can do to you. This man is over 90 years of age and is still as sharp as knife. Respects to you sir🙏

[@sanjaymajhi4428]

He is Sharp as tac

[@jumatron2060]

he's as smooth as a crocodile

[@butwhoasked1821]

Imagine him at 25

[@jumatron2060]

@@butwhoasked1821 u know how dumb men are at 25?

[@hrishikeshchanekar9846]

@@sanjaymajhi4428 Correct. My bad. He is as sharp as a tack*

[@mokuscsik]

I was shocked when I learned that he's 91. So he he was 89 when in 2020 he had time to work hard on the ideas buzzing in his head. Not what generally happens at that age, I don't think. Amazing.

[@adrianwright8685]

No indeed - at that age most people are dead!

[@khimaros]

i thought he was in his seventies, wow!

[@wyqtor]

You need good genes to be that smart, and it's those genes keeping you healthy into advanced old age as well.

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

@@wyqtor - A lot of it comes down to staying active, physically and especially mentally. Another great physicist of that generation, Freeman J Dyson, was the same - still active in science well into his 90s! But you’re probably right to have a great mind like that is perhaps largely genetics.

[@lenfirewood4089]

Yes most productive and creative folks seem to have their peak in the prime of their lives and then a very substantial tail off - Sir Roger seems to have bucked that trend somewhat.

[@alexjbriiones]

One thing that is fascinating about Roger Penrose is that he is one of the greatest physicists of our time, meaning that he is one of the strongest proponents of the physical reality of the universe. Yet, he takes amazing risks on his reputation by taking a new position on the serial multiverse and advancing the idea of consciousness. Now, that's what I call Einsteinian conviction and courage.

[@JamesHawkeYouTube]

He's a mathematician not a scientist. Balck holes in outer space are only science fiction.

[@ryanashfyre464]

As someone who doesn't believe that the physical world is our fundamental reality (nor do I think there's even a strong case for it), I would only say that I'm encouraged by the likes of Roger Penrose and others taking their ideas as far as they do; often, as you said, at great risk to their personal reputations. Materialistic reductionism is so ingrained in our scientific culture that it's going to take a lot to dislodge it, and it'll only be by pushing it to its absolute breaking point that we can hope to make progress beyond.

[@birhan2006]

"reputation" what a word.... there is an infinitely unknown universe that we know a little of, And small human ego and reputation are things to worry about? I know it exists but it's comical

[@chayanbosu3293]

Lord Krishna says our existence consist of 3levels 1. gross body 2.subtle body i.e mind, intellect and ego 3.soul. Now conciousness emarges from soul and mind is the interface between outer world and soul.

[@Quantum_in_Java]

@@chayanbosu3293 e bhai tu abar ekane religion ch*das na..Videor end er dike ja.. Roger Penrose says : he does not believe in any religion and he is an athiest .. Sala jekane sekane debo ye oi bolechilo.o oi bolechilo .. stupidity

[@verycalmgamer4090]

The fact Penrose is still around and kicking doing these interviews is amazing.

[@shreyasuman37]

oh u don't try to say something bad. 😭

[@stardust_007]

A very informative summary of whatever he achieved. "Physics is far from finished." Gotta say, one of the best lines in this whole interview.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Consider the following: a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics). b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can expand and time can vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could vary in actual reality?

[@AeiThop]

@@charlesbrightman4237 Numbers do not exist any more than Plato’ s ‘forms’ exist. They are simply constructs contrived by the human mind, which lend themselves to practical applications.

[@AeiThop]

Contrast with, “X-rays are a hoax”, and “there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now” - Lord Kelvin.

[@clmasse]

Physics will always be unfinished.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@AeiThop 'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time, my gravity test has to be done which will help prove or disprove the TOE idea), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, the 'gravity' modality acting 90 degrees from the 'em' modalities, which act 90 degrees to each other, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows: Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction. Then: 1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe. (And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have. This would also be the maximum potential energy point or as some might call it, the 'zero point energy point'.). And also how possibly mathematical constants exist in this universe as well. * Note also: Nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and mathematical constants can exist and do what they do in this universe from the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP). While the SMPP has it's place, I believe we need to move beyond the SMPP to get closer to real reality.

[@Phych_uk]

Roger Penrose is an inspiration, I hope that when I / if I reach his age, I am still as open minded and able to take such intuitive steps.

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

"Reflect upon the Past. Embrace your Present. Orchestrate our Futures." -- Artemis 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind’s journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul’s fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope’s strength re-steeled. But to earn final peace at the universe’s endless refrain, We must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

[@frankbucciantini388]

I've been lucky enough to attend one of his speeches at a conference in 2019. He's a lovely, down to earth, person, and definitely one of the smartest people alive.

[@philiprice6961]

One of the things I love most about Sir Roger is his unassuming modesty. He's like a living fossil from the pre-internet age.

[@lordemed1]

Agree...He is truly a wonderful man.

[@AframK]

If feel the total opposite, I think he really gives that impression which grants him reliability but I think he is not that attentive under neath. But I don't know the dude

[@Pietrosavr]

In some ways yes, yet he doesn't seem to show much doubt that his theory of eternal universes might be incorrect. For one I have never heard him deal with the metaphysical issue of infinite regress being impossible, which goes directly against his theory. It looks to me like most scientists, like he mentioned, don't like the idea that there was a beginning because they want everything to be explainable, which is surprising as Roger does talk a lot about Godels Incompleteness theorem. There are fundamental rules which are not provable nor explainable and this is exactly what we would expect as infinite regress of such kind is not possible. He did says that initially he didn't like the idea that some things can't be explained so I hope he comes around and addresses this point.

[@bluetoad2668]

A real scientist who is humble and actually wants, expects and even hopes to be proved wrong as much as proved right - that's how science advances. A negative result is as valuable as a positive. An unfalsifiable theory is useless, pointless and not just uninteresting for science, it's totally irrelevant.

[@starcrib]

What' ? Living fossil ? Sit down. 🦖☄️

[@Vacuumburner]

I met Roger in 2012 at a conference.Was an impressive moment! Such a great scientist. He initiated the possible solution of non locality and black holes.

[@shreyasuman37]

what a lucky man you are!

[@stephenfreeman7616]

I know this is over my head and Sir Roger knows it's over my head, but he's very gracious to take the time to explain it all in a way I can at least relate to. I always feel so smart after listening to this man. It's hard to believe he's only won one Nobel prize!

[@jumatron2060]

u do know he doesn't know

[@anna_inu]

If he's so smart, why is his mic upside down?

[@alpacino4857]

@@anna_inu he is smart to know that sound wave bounds every where so upside down it will still work

[@fotticelli]

His next one will be in literature.

[@jumatron2060]

@@fotticelli science fiction I hope

[@ewaborowska3153]

He is an example of high intelligence knowledge culture greate scientist who highly deserves respect beeing one of the best open minded physicist of our modern time. Working so passionate beeing so busy with his subjects made his mind fresh and young for ever. What a pleasure to listen to him. Long life Sir Roger Penrose

[@HisBortness]

Sir Roger is an absolute treasure.

[@jolibidi]

I love Sir Roger Penrose. He is the man that got me interested in physics. I listen to every interview. Amazing mind and such a humble exceptional soul

[@olbluelips]

"I don't believe in any religion I've seen, so in that sense I'm an atheist. However, [...] there is something going on that might resonate with a religious perspective". Very well said imo

[@anshumanpanda1227]

Now which religion has cyclical cosmology I wonder...

[@glowerworm]

@@anshumanpanda1227 any of them with a creator could be easily fitted to cyclical cosmology. And that creator doesn't need to be a conscious being, it could be nature, too.

[@anshumanpanda1227]

@@glowerworm True, but some religions have postulated cyclical cosmologies since many millennia ago, with timescales in billions of years.

[@jude.niranjan]

@@anshumanpanda1227 Not religions, Anshuman, philosophers!

[@anshumanpanda1227]

@@jude.niranjan Hindu darshana is neither religion nor philosophy, but i guess you can call it whichever.

[@lordemed1]

Roger Penrose is the pre eminent theoretical cosmologist of our time. He combines clear thinking, imagination and humanity not seen since Einstein. We are fortunate to have him.

[@HanifBarnwell]

He’s an interesting guy, would love to know the type of music he listens to? Van Morrison? Sam Cooke? Lani Hall?

[@jan_phd]

Then why do so many Democrats vote for bad science?

[@Eris123451]

@@HanifBarnwell The Bangles.

[@HanifBarnwell]

@@Eris123451 LOL

[@felixtaylor8895]

@@HanifBarnwell There's a Desert Island Discs episode featuring him from the 1990s where he effectively says that he only listens to Bach.

[@PrivateAccountXSG]

Most people watched Netflix and cleaned their house during Lock-Down... Penrose earns a Nobel Prize

[@borntobemild-]

The lock down upped my productivity by removing my commute and normalized working from home. It was an opportunity for me, from an unfortunate event.

[@programmer1840]

From work he did in the 60s, I believe!

[@Tom_Quixote]

@Jurassic Ape I'm much better at being lazy and stupid than he is :)

[@tashriquekarriem8865]

He probably had it coming before the lockdown

[@covid19alpha2variantturboc7]

Nope. Most people lost their jobs and even their homes during lockdowns, hence the vast increase in homelessness and suicide in the world today

[@roger_is_red]

iI started watching Sir Roger's videos during covid..best thing on the internet. I've learned a lot and it's fun. I especially like his drawings and when he gestures with his hands to explain something. Jeannine

[@panosbozopoulos5212]

Amazing thinker, scientist and philosopher. One of the greatest (if not the greatest) minds of our time. Makes me regret not having studied physics. I wish more scientists pick up his work and search deeper on the paths that he has already opened on cosmology, consciousness and philosophy of science. And what a great interview. Short, spot on, substantial and quite encouraging to search and learn. Great job!

[@lordemed1]

never too late to stwrt...just don't put expectations on yourself.

[@frankkolmann4801]

I love Roger. His knowledge and understanding is breathtaking. To me Sir Roger is one of the few scientists who truly realise and understand just how little we as human beings understand things. A lot, but not all, scientists believe the things they know are true. The really good scientists know that all our knowledge is simply an approximation to the real truth.

[@frankkolmann4801]

We can speak as we please. But in the end it is all irrelevant. The apocalypse is upon us. The arctic tundra ia melting. Irreversible release of tundra methane. Orders of magnitude worse than fossil fuel burning. Methane clathrates under Arctic ocean are also releasing. Hopefully what I mention is just an approximation. Research the scientific archives. You will find it all described clearly from 20 or more years ago.

[@dickjones4912]

@The Joker He said “we” just once, and it was in reference to an opinion that many share. What did he say that was clearly wrong or off the mark to you? We said we humans understand little. I think most would agree that there is far more left to learn and understand about the universe than we currently know. In fact, if the universe is infinite, or if there are infinite realities beyond this one, the gap in what we know and everything that there is to know is vast beyond comprehension.

[@normandubowitz1965]

Limited by the hairy coconut between our ears which depends on scale of observation .

[@spaceowl5957]

I mean all research scientists generally research things we don’t understand yet so I think they should be very aware that we don’t know many things by and large

[@oioi9372]

The really good scientists know that all of our knowledge is simply an approximation to what we THINK MIGHT be the real truth, if there is real truth at all.

[@tommyheron464]

Roger is such an intelligent man. I hope at least 1 of his fringe ideas are taken up by the mainstream while he is still alive. Einstein 2.0 I.m.o

[@Vito_Tuxedo]

Probably won't happen, though. "The mainstream" is the repository of consensus, and consensus is irrelevant to newly discovered or undiscovered truth. In fact, with few exceptions, the mainstream has historically been the resistance that newly discovered truth must overcome to gain acceptance. Genuine innovation begins with one mind knowing something that no one else knows. Real innovators are a lonely species.

[@deepaktripathi4417]

It's always fascinating to listen to sir Roger Penrose.

[@WayneLynch69]

In the U.S. it's popular for the Dave Chappelle types to go on with: "if you want to know who controls you, observe whom you can't criticize". You'll notice that neither Penrose nor ANY OTHER physicist will EVER come right out and say: "in this way I've confuted thermodynamics". His 'distant future end of the past eon' is baldly stated without THE MOST OBVIOUS ELISION: wtf did his eternal heat derive?! OF COURSE EVERY FOOL throws in quantum mechanics as a blanket get out of jail card . But of course qm cannot violate conservation laws. But more compelling is the absence of heat in any model separate from initial singularity. Infinite heat cannot be exceeded, and is of infinitesimally brief duration. Leaving no model for a universe feed into our singularity. THERE'S A VERY, VERY GOOD REASON NO ONE COMES OUT AND SAYS, "I'VE TRADUCED THERMODYNAMICS". THEY'RE HORRIFIED OF THE CONSEQUENCES REVEALING THEIR GRATUITOUS, WILLFUL IMBECILITY...

[@VerticalBlank]

@@WayneLynch69 Um, I think you need professional help.

[@donnievance1942]

@@WayneLynch69 Obviously you're a genius. Here you are publishing a brilliant thesis in YT comments. Once the Nobel committee hears about it they'll probably take Penrose's prize away and give it to you.

[@unit0033]

yup youve found another nutter in the comment section! He probably thinks the universe is derived by a giant squirrel called BoB!! @@donnievance1942

[@zenshade2000]

It will be a very sad day when Roger finally leaves us. If you're a young, brilliant aspiring physicist you can't do better than copy Penrose's systematic, deep questioning of all of our current assumptions about physical reality.

[@david.thomas.108]

I love Roger Penrose so much. Thanks for sharing the conversation and interview.

[@wade5941]

I love listening to this man articulate his thoughts and beliefs related to all things physics.

[@qed456]

Privileged to have a man of the calibre of Sir Roger explaining this

[@tyzxcj34]

Loved the interview just wish it was longer. Thank you New Scientist and Roger.

[@renemartin5729]

Awesome, 91 years young and as sharp as a razorblade. It's a true pleasure to listen to Penrose

[@pamelia-ow5gj]

@@renemartin5729 or sharp as a tack

[@timp1293]

Sir Roger Penrose is one of greatest physicists, but at the same time so modest and unassuming, unlike some other famous physicist who claimed that we know so much about the universe that we are almost like god now.

[@holliswilliams8426]

He is putting on a TV face here, he wasn't exactly like that when I met him.

[@DJHastingsFeverPitch]

Remember, just because someone is an expert in one field, doesn't mean that they are an expert in a related field. Similarly just because someone has sound epistemological rigor in one area doesn't necessarily mean they're going to have the same level of epistemological rigor in other areas

[@MihirGOR]

Amazing thought provoking and deep meaningful talk. I just love his integrity and honesty on what we know, and what we don't.

[@susanarupolo2212]

Thank you mister Penrose I am a regular person but your explanations are so good that I can “ understand “ a little. The UNIVERSE bless you always.

[@sureshs8419]

"Consciousness must be beyond computable physics." Pretty rare for a scientist to admit this! Shows great humility and honesty to discard the untruth. A necessary condition of measurement is duality. To measure, Absolute Consciousness (What is') has to create a temporary illusion (relative consciousness) of breaking itself up into the instrument of measurement (measurement Consciousness), the object that needs to be measured (object consciousness) and the one performing the measurement (measurer consciousness). Without this illusory break-up that 'What is', is all that is left. Discarding all untruths (relative consciousness) ends all measurement.

[@unit0033]

he may be wrong! scientists are often wrong when they find additional evidence that supports a different idea.

[@DrWhom]

it's not all that clear what computable physics means to him - he is not really an expert on computability theory

[@Carfeu]

Incredible time when we have access to this kind of content

[@davidgalloway266]

Fantastic interview. A privilege to be able to watch it. Thanks.

[@periurban]

A luminous and unafraid mind.

[@ahklys1321]

That's what she said

[@lordemed1]

truly courageous!

[@ahklys1321]

@@lordemed1 that's what she said

[@fredb2022]

Thank you to our host and Guest Sir Dr Penrose for this updated interview. Alway learn something

[@robertspies4695]

Interesting interview. I tend to think that consciousness is not calculable, as Sir Roger suggested, but is an emergent phenomenon as biological systems became more complex and developed multicellular nervous systems. I expect that the reductionists can play with the standard model till the cows come home and you will not figure it out as consciousness only exists within those systems. Furthermore a completete physical, chemical, morphological and physiological description of an organism with consciousness will not tell you either as what we usually mean by the term is what it feels like to the organism that has it. Even the description of the experience of consciousness is an abstraction of the real experience not the real thing itself. Being a scientist I am of course open to experimental information that would contradict this, e.g., show that there is a quantum field of consciousness.

[@petercameron8832]

That short discussion was brilliant!

[@mm3963]

when I think, I feel that my thinking voice is inside my head, but I also feel that there is something controlling that voice outside my body as if my true self is not just my body but my enviroment, my knowledge and my memory, in other words, my connection to my past, my presence and the projection of my possible future. I feel that I live in the now but my true self seems to live in a timeless state that is as big or small as I allow. I wonder if my consciousness is really just myself or everything. I feel like I am free will floating in a sea of endless possibilities.

[@prof.manjeetsinghjcboseust9034]

Very good comment

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Question: Where do thoughts actually come from? For example: Modern science claims that we have billions of brain cells with trillions of brain cell connections. How exactly does the energy signal 'know' where and when to start, what path to take, and where and when to stop to form a single coherent thought? An analogy I utilize is to spread a brain out like a map. Brain cells are represented by towns and cities, brain cell interconnections are represented by roads and highways, and the energy signal is represented by a vehicle traveling between one or more towns and/or cities. A coherent thought is a coherent trip. How exactly does the vehicle 'know' where and when to start, what path to take, and where and when to stop to form a single coherent trip? A higher intelligence has to tell it those things. But, that is a coherent 'trip' (thought) in and of itself. So, how exactly does our brain think a thought before it consciously thinks that thought? And if thoughts can be thought without consciously thinking thoughts, then what do we need to consciously think thoughts for? Just to consciously think thoughts that are already thought? What then of 'freewill' if we don't even consciously think our own thoughts? And then to further that situation, modern science claims that many different energy signals are starting at various places in the brain, take various pathways, and stop at different places, just to form a single coherent thought. (With the analogy, many vehicles are starting at various places on the map, taking various routes, and stopping at various places, all together forming a single coherent 'trip'.) And somehow it's all coordinated and can happen very quickly and very often. So, where do thoughts actually come from? Who and/or what is thinking the thoughts before I consciously think those thoughts? Do "I" even have freewill to even think these thoughts "I" am thinking about thoughts and type these thoughts to you here on this internet? Modern science also claims we have at least 3 brains: The early or reptilian brain, the mid brain, and the later more developed brain. So, are early parts of the brain thinking thoughts before the later parts of the brain consciously think those thoughts? If reptiles can think thoughts, then couldn't the early part of our brain think thoughts, and somehow pass those thoughts on to later more developed parts of later brains? Is our 'inner self' really just our reptilian brain thinking the thoughts that we think we are thinking? Are we all just later more evolved reptiles? Who don't even consciously think our own thoughts? If not, then how exactly does the brain think thoughts? Where exactly do thoughts originally come from so our brain can consciously think those thoughts? So "I" am thinking about thoughts, if it is even "I" thinking the thoughts that "I" believe "I" am thinking about thoughts. Or so "I" currently think, here again, if it is even "I" doing the thinking. "My" thinking is imploding as "I" think about thoughts. But then again, is it even 'me' that is imploding? I will have to think about it some more. Poof, I'm gone. Is just energy interacting with itself the lowest form of sub-consciousness? Is it even consciousness itself?

[@plumleytube]

One day you will wake up from that silly dream

[@andybrown3016]

Well the Buddhist term for the nature of mind is sunyata which is often translated as emptiness whereas a better synopsis is infinite possibility. Mind is empty in essence and yet everything arises within it.

[@firecatflameking]

Your consciousness is controlling your body from the fourth dimension

[@je25ff]

I never thought of this until watching this today, but he seems to inadvertently converging to the same conclusion David Hoffman is with his theory that consciousness is somehow involved in 'creating' our reality (or at least hiding reality from us). I can never quite tell if adhering to either of these ideas is some kind of self-centered narcissism or not, but it is intriguing,

[@julietmarlowe5661]

What an interesting guy! Great to hear from him.

[@cryptout]

Sir Roger, he’s been my favorite for a long time. He seemed to get along with Sabine, I would love to see them discussing things again.

[@akumar7366]

Sir Roger Penrose definitely ahead of currant thinking.

[@steveunderhill5935]

We’re impressed w the picture of the photons around a black hole meanwhile sir Roger Penrose is conjuring signals for future eons.

[@victors1689]

Blackcurrants are good for the brain

[@martinmills135]

Yes, he’s raisin his game…

[@akumar7366]

@@steveunderhill5935 Infact it's from a previous aeon , the signals Penrose is claiming are in the data.

[@fins59]

Currant thinking is so yesterday for Sir Roger, he's even discarded sultana theory.

[@diwakargoutham5235]

This is what is Upanishadic Advaita (there is no two or singularity) !...Consiousness is beyond objectification !Thanks Prof Penrose

[@DipayanPyne94]

Nope. It's not. That's just you, because of your bias, projecting science onto non science. The upanishads are philosophy, in the sense that they are filled with speculation, but you don't really have facts there.

[@Pudibu]

@@DipayanPyne94I thought so too until I read Upnishad and Bhagwat Gita myself ( Eknath Easwaran translations). The texts clearly state the experiments with consciousness that one can do , how to do it and the results mystics of ancient India got when they did it. Thats remarkably scientific IMHO. Keep in mind that these texts are at least 6000 yrs old and conveyed solely through oral tradition for much of that time. It is understandable that after such a long time some form of philosophy, mysticism , spirituality mixes in with what might have been pure science to start with.

[@DipayanPyne94]

@@Pudibu No. Wrong. See, Mysticism and Spirituality are BS. The clowns who promote it can't even define it properly. Philosophy is fine, coz it really was Science back in Ancient Greece, albeit Primitive. The Upanishads hardly contain anything resembling the Scientific Method. You get that in the works of people like Aristotle, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Panini etc etc. Not in the Upanishads. The Upanishads and Bhagwat Gita contain some info that is valuable but there are either too many mistakes or the content is kindergarten material. To suggest that there is actual science in it is just bs.

[@billballinger5622]

@@Pudibu what are these experiments? I like the idea of a scientific approach to spirituality

[@GNARGNARHEAD]

my problem with consciousness requiring anything more than a quadrillion synapses is the qualities we are seeing come out of machine learning research, obviously they are not a one to one comparison, clearly the capabilities of the non-quantum structures similar to those in the brain are evident, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that an intelligence of such a scale explains the phenomena of consciousness

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Penrose and Hammeroff's theory is that consciousness is in the microtubulin in the cells.

[@johannjohannes8265]

Look up the upanishads from ancient India to understand what consciousness is. It is eternal and primordial to anything. You can not understand it with science, since it is the observer or the subject that is looking at science or anything happening. The ancient Indians referred to it as everything being made outof the same substance 'Brahman'.

[@lenfirewood4089]

I wonder if Roger has considered if consciousnesses is an emergent property property of a sufficiently sophisticated CAS (Complex Adaptive System) of which a human being is an example?

[@publiusrunesteffensen5276]

Right or wrong (and he has already been right several times) - science needs daring visionaries like Sir Roger, visionaries with a solid foundation in mathematics.

[@tomarmstrong1281]

Consciousness is probably the greatest mystery of all. His notion of other civilisations resonates with me. I consider that during our evolutionary journey we developed many survival strategies. Not difficult to appreciate how fear and greed, in the African bush would have been very useful attributes. They are still there strong as ever. Then of course we developed our pre frontal cortex and started to engage in abstract thought. Undoubtedly the greatest survival strategy, placing our species way ahead of the rest. My concern is that, thanks to the cleverness of deductive reasoning, the unwanted effects of our inventiveness is rapidly destroying the environment which sustains us. Will we adapt? Or will the old Adams of fear and greed overpower reason and rationality? Which brings us back to Penrose's supposition that there have been other societies.They must have arrived at a similar juncture. Each with the means to self destruct on a global scale. I would like to be more hopeful - but I am fearful.

[@leonardgibney2997]

Your reasoning almost poetically expressed.

[@johnarch6876]

@The Joker Greed and fear eminated from opportunism, which humans have mastered compared to all earth dwellers.

[@chipkyle5428]

Good thoughts. Most powerful is our ability to imagine. To believe stories.

[@tomarmstrong1281]

@The Joker Explain what you understand to be 'natural'. Other than the laws of physics. Without the childish insults, if possible.

[@tragicslip]

What man-made foible, malevolent though it be, challenge this earth on its geologic scales? What natures hid out of sight and ever fleeing his petty aim could somehow slip back to grasp again?

[@davidnoll9581]

Honestly this more than anything I’ve ever heard explains the compulsion we have to figure out the world and share what we’ve figured it to people

[@punkypinko2965]

Clickbait title. He's mostly talking about black holes.

[@chuck5419]

Lol yeah I only clicked because of the aliens, still not disappointed though.

[@fizykaliceum8454]

Quantum entanglement is difficult to explain assuming that space is continuous. It is only under this assumption that we have trouble explaining instantaneous communication between entangled particles when they are very far apart. If we assume that space is quantized, that is, it is a network of connected nodes that may contain particles or that are empty, and if we assume that particles mediating interactions can move along the threads connecting the nodes, then treating two entangled particles as one object whose parts are located in different nodes and allowing for the possibility of a direct connection of these nodes, but constituting an internal part of such a complex object, reconciling its properties but not allowing for the exchange of particles mediating interactions, quantum entanglement becomes very simple to explain.

[@FarFromZero]

With more scientists like him there would be more respect, carefulness and much more self criticism among physicists. I'm personally sick of these self-centered physicists who claim to "know it", while with every sentence they underline that they never spend any thoughts in epistemology, the nature of consciousness or philosophical idealism. His modesty is an example.

[@kiq654]

Some just respect fields they are involved with and result being extreme carefulness with wording around problematic approaches by unified fields tech experts wordings. Some are relevancy teachers and prefer to know what they teach as factually approachable and interesting wordings are meant to be insulting for tech enterpreneurs not to their own career approaches.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Penrose is the sharpest and most youthful mind of this era by far. If only he realised that just as time is the clock in the subatomic real, so is energy the grid. So he is almost right with CCT. The central singularity alternates between a energy singularity leaking space and a spatial singularity leaking energy. Currently our big bang universe is the former , but will at zero energy invert to the latter. So entropy viewed over both grid settings is always constant of 1. Wit this extra insight CCT for cosmology is correct.

[@johnarch6876]

You're a sharp pencil.

[@emeraldcelestial1058]

I love his work with Stuart Hammeroff, it's so interesting and I love how it upsets people who think they understand whats going on with consciousness.

[@seymourfroggs]

I can't pretend to understand, even intuitively, Hammeroff's idea. When I chased up some detail, it didn't seem to add to the underlying hypothesis. In brief, I do not see a relation between some instant rearrangement in neurones and consciousness. Consciousness needs some sort of awareness, however muddled, but it does need awareness. There is no reason why multiple random events in a cell/cells should (or could!) *commonly* combine to create something recognisable., eg every time you wake up. The gap from entanglement is philosophically qualitative, not quantitative.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@seymourfroggs I've had Out of Body Experiences so I can tell you without any doubt that consciousness is MORE than brain.

[@seymourfroggs]

@@Dion_Mustard Well, that isn't quite proof but I do not doubt you. I think these experiences are not rare. I give one of several examples: in the 1960s, we were descending Aguille Verte at night in a lightening storm - short rope. My colleague slipped and fell, pulling me off. I went over an ice-cliff (begschrund) in the complete dark, and landed in soft snow on my right shoulder, my axe fortunately to one side. Point is, I watched myself falling in dim light, the rope snaking ahead. I have had other analogous experiences. But none of this helps understand where or what conscious is.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@seymourfroggs it's proof to me :)

[@aletheia161]

Me too, his work potentially opens up, in a scientific way, most of the big questions in philosophy.

[@danerose575]

I love this man... a true wise elder who leads us to the edge of knowledge and invites us beyond.

[@Tyrfingr]

Cannot for the life of me accept that this man is 92. Far sharper than people i meet who are 60 years younger.

[@jank6340]

92!

[@tortysoft]

Please post the full - unedited interview. So very much is lost in this informational bowdlerisation. What we get is incredible !.

[@theobserver9131]

Probably the most intelligent and most open minded man in the world.

[@fredjimbob2962]

You have got to joking surely? He did some good things in maths many years ago but everything I've heard him say on almost anything else is pure garbage. His idea that consciousness in non-computable is based Gödel's incompleteness theorems. This is infantile in the extreme and shows a complete misunderstanding of what the theorems mean. His willingness to talk nonsense in public and sound smart while he's doing it, just makes him the non-thinking person's smart man.

[@olbluelips]

@@fredjimbob2962 "His idea that consciousness in non-computable is based Gödel's incompleteness theorems" That's not really correct. To put it simply, consciousness isn't computable because conscious experience is real, while computation is an abstraction.

[@fredjimbob2962]

@@olbluelips No offense mate, but your statement is meaningless unless you define what you mean by "real" and "abstraction" in this context.

[@olbluelips]

@@fredjimbob2962 We know experiences are real, because we, well, experience them. But why does the universe allow for experience? Some try to explain the existence of experience in computational terms, claiming that a mathematical simulation of a human brain would have the same experiences as a real human. But such mathematical simulations are pure abstraction. You wouldn't expect a simulated human circulatory system to he capable of bleeding on your computer, and you similarly shouldn't expect a simulated brain to be conscious. This is what is meant by consciousness is not computable

[@fredjimbob2962]

@@olbluelips I don't think that that is Penrose's justification, although I could be wrong because I only saw him talk about it briefly in another video where he talked about Godel's theorems and AI. Leaving that aside: >But why does the universe allow for experience? Why would the universe not allow for experience? Why would the universe allow for anything? It would seem that the onus would be on you to give a reason why the universe shouldn't allow for experience. You would have to give some reason why experience is somehow different to everything else in such a way so that everything else can have an explanation but experience can't. People once believed that there was some magic spark of life that inhabited things that were alive and that when people died, that life spark left their body, that there was some unique or special force in the universe that only living things had. Of course, it was later found that life was merely just chemistry, just like everything else in the universe. The same mistake is being made now with consciousness. People think that consciousness is some special thing in the universe, but even now, all the available evidence is consistent with consciousness being nothing more than information processing. There is no evidence that experience or consciousness is anything more than this. To paraphrase Hume, you should apportion your belief according to the weight of the evidence. And the evidence is only on one side in this case, IMO. It's very easy to put too much importance on words, as if words themselves have meaning and can form the basis of arguments. I think you are doing this, in this case, with the word "simulation". In a sense, words don't have meanings, people have meanings, we merely use words in an effort to try to communicate, however imperfectly, what we mean. You use the word "simulation" when describing both a circulatory system and a human mind. But when doing this, the word "simulation" can have very different implications (meanings) depending on what you're talking about. In a simulation of a circulatory system, you are indeed creating a digital representation of physical system and in that sense, it is isn't a real biological circulatory system. But when simulating a brain, while the digital representation is indeed a simulation of a biological brain, the experience isn't. The experience is a product of the simulation and not a simulation itself. A calculator can "simulate" what a human does when a human does a mathematical calculation. But when a calculator determines that 2+5=7, that mathematical answer is no less real than the same answer if a human had done the calculation, even though the calculator is merely simulating what the human is doing. I see no logical justification for saying the same cannot be true for consciousness or experience. The "mind" would be the same thing whether that mind is created using biological cells and synapses or using digital signals on silicon, the mind is the same, only the physical hardware on which that mind is created is different.

[@ex1tium]

Could be that the consciousness has something to do with some sort of quantum phenomena. Perhaps there is in fact some sort of 'quantum field' that permeates the reality that we utilize unconsciously and it manifests as thoughts or ideas. Or maybe our brains are somehow the anchor that 'captures' or 'resonates' this 'field' and in that scope resides our consciousness. Same of course goes for every living animal. The no-hiding theorem states that if information is lost from a system via decoherence, then it moves to the subspace of the environment and it cannot remain in the correlation between the system and the environment. If there is afterlife I'd prefer it to be one where my consciousness is free to travel to any place in the universe or 'sea' of universes after death, or another plane of existence all together. Observable universe is big place, unobservable even bigger. I'd like to think we all become part of some greater whole when we leave this state of existence. I wish Mr. Penrose long life and clear mind to the end. Absolutely brilliant man and great science communicator.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Your ideas of consciousness has some philosophical issues. You are appealing to a primacy of consciousness. It's the body of the animal that allows for the consciousness, not consciousness that allows for bodies.

[@unit0033]

Glad u noted that. Much is smuggled in when people start asserting minds without brains. @@ExistenceUniversity

[@LydellAaron]

10:05 Penrose says he's not religious, but there's something going on (i.e within him) that resonates with it.

[@CACBCCCU]

Yes, he's a good royal subject of Copenhagen 2-places at once spookiness who probably rightly worries about ending up unfortunately like Hawking at times. Seriously (I have to add "Seriously" because most people are brainwashed).

[@lordemed1]

difference between spirutual and religious. Read Einstein 's ideas about this.

[@LydellAaron]

@@lordemed1 many great minds have acknowledged spiritual, I think that is awesome and worth noting, and some people transform and show deep appreciation and personal growth after an intense life situation, that requires higher, spiritual forces.

[@uweburkart373]

Cosmology is a belief system don't forget! It's not primarily science just made by observation and calculation, not to mention that it lacks experiments as we cannot excecute it due to big scales. But even mathematics has axioms so that is assumptions being like belief sets. That's also same as Religion just a belief system.

[@unit0033]

never confuse science with mythological thinking@@uweburkart373

[@johncribb1408]

For myself I don’t see anything mysterious about consciousness. I see consciousness as a growing awareness of who you are that begins when you are born and increases through life. The awareness is composed of knowledge physically stored in the brain. Apologies to Sir Roger.

[@olbluelips]

Consciousness is the only thing we know of that cannot be (even in theory) derived from physical laws. It's at least a little mysterious

[@MaterLacrymarum]

You're not understanding the question. All you've done is describe the experience of consciousness, you've not explained the how and why.

[@filthymcnastyazz]

Nah. Consciousness and awareness Are two different things.

[@chrisvenom4876]

Conciousness and awareness arent same thing. The best example is dreaming and lucid dreaming

[@alberthill2753]

Consciousness is directed awareness.

[@sonarbangla8711]

Low entropy at the big bang and at the end of eternal expansion (when the Higgs field is switched off) is the essence of Penrose's world view, supporting the theory of reversibility of irreversibility of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[@Scientificirfann]

How can Higgs field just switch off?

[@sonarbangla8711]

@@Scientificirfann In order to appear in a low entropy scenario, like the moment of big bang, Penrose makes some assumptions in addition to t=0, m=0 of photon field at the end of the present aeon, as the next aeon starts with its own big bang. So at the end of our aeon, m=0 is the condition for low entropy, so he conjectured that some time in the past m switches off and all the photons can then lump up to trigger the next big bang. His CCC depends on a number of assumptions.

[@Scientificirfann]

@@sonarbangla8711 thank you

[@steveunderhill5935]

@@sonarbangla8711 which would trigger another expansion period before light could be emitted to create the next eons cmb? What is penrose going to morse code for the next eon in hawking points!?

[@steveunderhill5935]

His dna sequence? Cold fusion? His mindful breakfast shake recipe??

[@haideral5104]

I read most of his books. He is an exception to other scientists because he respects the general public and believes they have the capability to understand all math required to comprehend complex physical theories.

[@DrWhom]

us specialists only understands the book because we already know what he's trying to convey and we can see through the haze of mistakes the non-specialist has no chance in hell of understanding any of it from his books

[@mikebellamy]

He said _"you should be worried about science"_ and _"consciousness is beyond computation"_ and _"the presence of consciousness is not an accident in certain sense"_ and _"I'm not all that optimistic that were going to go on for a huge length of time"_ and _"maybe other civilisations will be more sensible than us.. settle down"_ and _"send signals ... tat tat tat you stupid idiots ... that's what we are doing"_ and _"I would say there's something going on that might resonate with a religious perspective"_ *The very highly improbable is all that is left after you eliminate the impossible..*

[@brendawilliams8062]

Heavenly

[@hook-x6f]

Consciousness is all that we know. The rest is all a show.

[@mikebellamy]

@@hook-x6f Until you meet God..

[@SG-lh7up]

Interesting idea - to look for black hole collision gravitational waves from previous aeons. But what would distinguish gravitational waves from the current versus previous aeons? And re nuclear war possibly wiping us out *soonish*, sadly yes. Bertrand Russell on the nuclear deterrent said "one day the deterrent will fail to deter"

[@edwinwelch1393]

Impressive, inspirational person. We need more like him.

[@Guide504]

Dear Sir Roger, I hope this finds you well. I have a few questions. Is our universe one half of an ER bridge at the centre of which is the next eon? Is our CMB the (event) horzon at the beginning of this eon in our side of a supersymetric structure? Do we observe/experience time and the exponential expansion of our universe as we travel towards a 'conformal singularity' and gravitational centre of the ER bridge, whereupon is the photonic still point prior to the beginning of the next eon? Could we observe mass dependent local variance (macro filament structure due to spagettification) in the over arching exponential expansion within the ERB, while still heading toward conformity at it's epicentre and the beginning of a new eon? Are we already in one side of the conjoined wormhole or ERB? Many thanks should you give this any of your valuable time, Yours in faith with hope for understanding,

[@alexgoslar4057]

A great conversation with the genius Roger Penrose.

[@willbrink]

What I'd like to ask Dr Penrose is, would his view of consciousness is non local, perhaps existing outside spacetime? I feel like that's where he was leaning with quantum source of consciousness, but not clear to me.

[@lepidoptera9337]

He is just an old man talking nonsense.

[@janemorrow6672]

What a wonderful interview! Thankyou.

[@robertbrandywine]

Starting at 08:45, what did he mean with his statement that it's where quantum mechanics goes wrong in the brain?

[@BartBoerboom]

O, he does not like current quantum mechanics; therefore not as a description of what happens there in the brain either. (Like Schrödinger and Einstein and many more, he sees quantum mechanics as being incomplete. For them, a cat can not be dead and alive at the same time.)

[@MabDarogan2]

Why do people keep asking physicists biology questions? What's the point? It's as worthwhile as asking David Attenborough about quantum entanglement.

[@thelegaloccupier]

Could maths and therefore physics not be woven more effectively if pi could be reconciled into a whole number? (Or alternatively should a circle not have 314 degrees?) Your welcome

[@stanislavbutsky8432]

The idea of signals from previous universe was discussed in sci-fi novel His Master's Voice by Stanisław Lem published in 1968. It's interesting that the similar idea although in a different form (not a signal but wandering planet covered by 'layers of memory' from previous universe) is present in The Goblin Reservation by Clifford D. Simak also published in 1968.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS? * (Lowest Level): Just energy in a coherent format interacting with itself. (Unconsciously). (Unless some scientific experiment can show that energy in and of itself has consciousness. And what good would even consciousness be if it did not have any memories and thoughts [which would take extra 'circuitry']?). * Some sort of feedback mechanism, but with no real consciousness, memories or thoughts. * Some sort of 'memory' established, but still no consciousness to consciously interact with that memory. Just basically like stored preprograms that get activated at certain times. * Low level unconscious activity occurs that can interact with those stored memories. * Higher level consciousness activity occurs, while still having unconscious activity, that interacts with those stored memories with 'thoughts'. (Where we are currently at). (Basically, consciousness is an emergent property in this existence). Or so it would currently seem. Subject to revision as new information might dictate.

[@JCO2002]

I a;ways enjoy listening to Dr Penrose, same with Sabine, but really - this kind of speculation isn't science. It's much like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'm now 70 and have been an amateur astronomer since my late teens. I've given up on any physicists/cosmologists figuring out where it all came from. Not an invisible man in the sky, definitely, but their theories aren't much different.

[@freefall9832]

Physicists want to explain everything with math but don't know all the parameters.

[@jumatron2060]

to equate God with man is your first mistake my uncle.

[@freefall9832]

@@jumatron2060 right, god just a idea whereas man is real. Man has substance whereas god is only illusion.

[@jumatron2060]

@@freefall9832 prove we're not an illusion?

[@counterintuitivepanda4555]

But there does seem to be a big problem with the scientific process as it is being used recently, particularly for physics. The scientific process is definetly not flawless, specially using so many statistical means for deriving results.

[@q3dqopb]

I just love Roger Penrose. He is my favorite scientist of our days, and probably the smartest person who has ever lived. Some say Einstein is the smartest, Neil DeGrase Tyson says Newton was the smartest. I read several Penrose's books. And I read them so attentively, that one can assume I read each page twice. You start reading a chapter, and you don't understand why he is telling this. You finish reading the chapter, and you have the "AHA" moment, and you need to roll back 5 or 10 pages back, and remind yourself what was told previously. Or 20 pages back, and then 20 pages forth. The depth of his thoughts is beyond human limits. And I say, sir Roger Penrose is the smartest person who ever walked this Earth. And watching this interview only makes me more confident in this belief.

[@q3dqopb]

Too bad this interview is so short. I wish it was 1 or 2 hours long and sir Roger Penrose had a chance to elaborate on every question the interviewer asked.

[@q3dqopb]

HE. IS. TRULY. PHENOMENAL.

[@Dion_Mustard]

Remarkable man. In terms of consciousness and Quantum mechanics. I can attest to this because I've had Out of Body Experiences and I was somehow able to separate from my physical body. I was able to perceive and experience things whilst unconscious. I could see things more vividly and I even met deceased family members so I absolutely believe consciousness is MORE than brain.

[@matdan2]

Lay off the bongs bro

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@matdan2 never smoked one.

[@daniel.agoston]

Out of body experience does not mean that consciousness goes beyond your brain

[@Dion_Mustard]

yes it does. i've had OBEs all my life, I am guessing you have not ....I know what i've seen and experienced outside my body, and I know this was not a trick of the mind. I have seen things that have later been verified as accurate, such as when i was a child i had an OBE during anaesthesia and was able to visit my parents and watch them.i later told my father who said they were doing that exact same thing. so you haven't got any idea what the true essence of consciousness is@@daniel.agoston

[@christophercoulter7782]

I think that a complete unified theory of gravity will explain how the building blocks of everything we see today should reveal itself soon, particularly with what the James Webb program could show. If there is an eternal spread of darkness then the building blocks would have evolved from the darkness. I also think our current models need revision. Conformal cyclic cosmology is very very wildly centred around the fact that there is a region so small that previously it had contracted into this state. We may also need a theory for repulsive gravity. It's becoming ever more mysterious the further we look back. I will be more interested in how we all got it wrong. That will eventually become the most profound set of events now and into the future

[@manusha1349]

How I love that one of the most brilliant men on the planet can actually say that he 'does not know'! Would be so amazing if we could hear a discussion on Consciousness between Roger Penrose, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Couldn't respect Sir Penrose more 👏🏽

[@pankaja7974]

sweetie, all atheists were forced to take the position of "we dont know" . there was a time when people were reluctant to say I dont know cause that would be considered to be not smart. Now they are quick to run to that. The reason is when you say I dont know you dont have to defend anything!! similarly you can see in the past people would not admit to have mental health issues for fear that they will be called/teased mad or mental! now people rush to say they have mental health issues - why ? they love being the victim, gain sympathy, escape from office responsibilities, enjoy free (sick) holidays 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@FakeHistoryBuff]

Will Sam Harris be there to make the tea?

[@manusha1349]

@@FakeHistoryBuff that's Lex Fridman's job 😅

[@imaltenhause4499]

Well, Roger, I was one of those young people who started doing physics because of your book “The emperor’s new physics”. I was studying engineering at the time and by chance listened to some guest lecture called “In search of the white hole”. This lecture turned out to be one continuous rant against you and your book, that had just appeared. The rant didn’t impress me too much. On the contrary, I went to the library, picked up your book and went on from there.

[@mediocrates3416]

Language is entangling; we are now entangled!

[@Burevestnik9M730]

I was the first one who conceived the idea of communication channel between eons ("Encoding information across eons", unpublished). I published my Arthur Clark-like paper abstract here on YT. Also, I conceived some more fundamental ideas of improving CCC, basically removing "t" from equations and replacing it with "flow of entropy".

[@stevenvitali7404]

500 years from now people will be laughing about what we thought we knew, just like we laugh at what people thought 500 years ago !

[@magtovi]

I honestly find shocking and baffling that the scientific community hasn't picked up on CCC. It's one of the most coherent, elegant, mathematically sound and straight through cosmology theories I've heard, plus it has actual experimental evidence! No need to invoke unprovable stuff (I'm looking at you multiverse) or shoehorn ad-hoc hypothesis (I'm looking at you inflation). It's just brilliant.

[@unit0033]

there are many theories about many topics, maybe in the future additional evidence will pull in a direction not currently in circulation

[@markcarey67]

There are physicists where the Nobel adds to their reputation and physicists where their reputation adds to that of the Nobel. Penrose is in the later category.

[@MW-cx3sb]

It honestly doesn't seem like consciousness is beyond computable physics. It seems very computational going by his own research with Hameroff despite what they say (I put it down to their respective ages). I think there could very well be a possibility of a kind of field that consciousness and the ability of chemicals becoming life through protein coding can begin and perhaps collapses back into which would gain complexity in this field. I wonder what the maths on that could look like and what a critical mass in complexity of information could mean.

[@pablomoore7557]

About some of his final words: we don’t know what will prevail , power or wisdom

[@chayanbosu3293]

Lord Krishna says our existence consist of 3 levels 1. gross body 2.subtle body i.e mind, intellect and ego 3.soul.Now conciousness emarges from soul and mind is the interface between outer world and soul.

[@Vito_Tuxedo]

@Pablo Moore - If by "power" you mean "control over the lives of others against their will" then I contend that that is the opposite of wisdom; it is an inherently unstable mode of interaction, and has a 100% track record of failure as a basis for the structure of civilization. It's the elephant in the living room-the reason why all civilizations have collapsed. Yet, the human species can't seem to break its addiction to the success-proof notion that power-legalized coercion-is the only effective means of governance...despite the fact that it always fails. On that basis, power cannot prevail. Ultimately, it sows the seeds of its own self-destruction. Whether our (apparently) idiotic species will ever be wise enough to kick that addiction is still an open question. But it is a certainty that if we don't, we will be the cause of our own extinction. Sir Roger Penrose clearly understands that truth.

[@Glower22x4]

Wisdom beyond this world.

[@suzibillball]

What happens when a black hole is spinning at RPMs that would rip any other object apart? What kind of electromagnetic fields are generated in this process?

[@earlofdoncaster5018]

Since when are singularities essential to cosmology?

[@JCO2002]

Some would say that singularities only exist in mathematics, not reality. The ring-down signal from LIGO gravitational wave detections certainly suggests they don't exist for black holes. How can two merging singularities suddenly have volume to cause a ring-down?

[@earlofdoncaster5018]

@@JCO2002 Also wouldn't a singularity cause the end of the universe?

[@KrisKringle2]

@@earlofdoncaster5018 Err....why? It produces a field no different than other collections of mass. It just becomes extremely high at close ranges, (and actually infinite at the singularity itself, if singularities actually exist - many think there's a limit to the compaction at some incredibly small limit). The field of a 10 solar mass black hole at say, 0.1 AU is no different than the field of a 10 solar mass star with roughly average solar density at 0.1 AU.

[@earlofdoncaster5018]

@@KrisKringle2 Because a singularity as zero volume and non-zero mass, thereby producing infinite gravitational density.

[@KrisKringle2]

@@earlofdoncaster5018 But not infinite value outside the singularity. I take the infinite gravity to mean all geodesics must end at the singularity. Rotating black holes have a ring singularity, a disk of zero thickness, interestingly enough. That's how they are capable of having angular momentum. On a somewhat related note, why aren't point particles black holes? How do their various field densities avoid singularities. I know they're screened by virtual particles, but the question remains.

[@danield3358]

does anybody know the "4 mainstream views of what consciousness is" that Prof. Penrose mentions at 9:10? thanks

[@DinoDiniProductions]

We are here. There is consciousness. The two mysteries go together. I find it funny that anyone could think that one of those mysteries is explainable and the other is not.

[@dickjones4912]

So you’ve got consciousness all figured out then?

[@DinoDiniProductions]

@@dickjones4912 That would be like asking rain to wet itself.

[@dickjones4912]

@@DinoDiniProductions No it wouldn’t.

[@Helmann9265]

Living legend Sir Roger Penrose is so genius but humble... one the greatest mind of our generation ❤️👑 Awesome theory about quantum and consciousness 💫

[@streetbroom]

It is hard not to identify with what Roger Penrose says about consciousness and religions. I am a psychologist with a relatively new interest in consciousness and it is amazing that coming from different pathways, a psychologist and a physicist reach the same conclusion about consciousness. It is very difficult to understand the universe without consciousness and the universe is the hotbed of consciousness - and vice versa? As Penrose put it, we do not have that science, the much needed methodology just yet. Exciting times and universes await us.

[@tristandrew5903]

Is there an argument that what is consciousness beyond the brain as an information processor from sense perception? If we agree consciousness is something we are born with and not learned, imagine your physical body form does not exist. Then one by one remove all of your senses and go back to a time of infant age where you do not know a language. At this point your brain and consciousness is there but floating on its own and could be anywhere, moving or still you wouldn't perceive to know. But what is left of consciousness then when there are no senses to show the manifestation of our personalities through? Eery thought. Perhaps in this way the universe itself is conscious, not in so much as it thinks but gravity and matter all impact directly and indirectly with each other from atomic level to galaxy clusters

[@peterblock6964]

There is the viewpoint that consciousness is not only the root cause and support of all reality, including physical; but that everything IS ultimately nothing but consciousness.

[@naytchh7]

Donald Hoffman is working on this, it comes from recent experiments which show that spacetime is emergent and not fundamental. So what IS fundamental then? Only consciousness.

[@Wtf-eva]

I’m starting to think of our expansion of our understanding or knowledge like training ai. The more “programs” we train on, the more we can progress. If we only study what we currently know we will reach a cap and so it is necessary for many theories to be created and examined, whether those theories are correct or not. Walking the wrong path can yield universal truths and develop new thought patterns toward what we currently think we know. Keep up the good work gentleman because if we all follow the same path we will miss many things along the way.

[@steveunderhill5935]

What would it look like to look back after being shot out of a polar ejection from a massive celestial body? Possible cmb explanation… could explain cosmic expansion and our horizon problem?

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini

[@ianoliver3130]

A plasticene plate can't be scratched with a plasticene knife?

[@JDNicoll]

Penrose: it looks like there’s some overlap between quantum physics and general anesthetics. Interviewer: moving on…

[@lordemed1]

check out Stuart Hameroff. He developed this theory with Penrose.

[@sridharnatarajan2872]

Would request him to read the Upanishads which beautifully explain what science has been struggling to grasp. And this is some 7000-8000 years or older wisdom showing how matter seemingly originates from the ever present Consciousness. Would suggest study of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and reach out to Swami Paramarthananda in Chennai. Humbly put, most Western philosophers/Scientists miss the reality when searching for the reality because the very search denies the One reality, that is You !