Roger Penrose's Mind-Bending Theory of Reality

[@markopolo369]

Fantastic article in Forbes. Wish I had known I could've watched it lol. Or did I know?

[@VariableMinds]

The article has interviews with 4 other scientists about this theory, including Donald Hoffman. It gives an overview and discusses the experiments. This video is an opportunity to hear directly from Penrose (also embedded at the bottom of the article). I thought they might complement each other. Thanks for reading/watching

[@peterallison5700]

I'm not a science person so forgive me if I am confused by the Hemingway paradox. If he was already dead in classic reality when he pulled the trigger in quantum reality, how could he have made a conscious decision?

[@markopolo369]

@@VariableMinds where can I find what else you've written?

[@ZephyrAvoxel]

Per haps, all ways, eventually....

[@ximono]

@@peterallison5700I'm struggeling to grasp this too. One has to let go of our perspective of time in this classical reality that we experience. Quantum reality is "timeless", it doesn't have an arrow of time. So it's only a paradox when viewed from classical reality, where there is a before and after. My current attempt at understanding it is that, in quantum reality, the present moment is a "bubble" where possibilities are "decided" upon (randomly or not) by wave function collapse. In our experience of time in classical reality, it's less than half a second. In quantum reality, it's just "the moment". So when Hemmingway's consciousness decides to pull the trigger in quantum reality, the effect (killing himself) can appear to happen slightly before that in classical reality. Somehow. But it's all in the same moment, from the quantum perspective. I'm most likely misinterpreting or misunderstanding something though, so I'm sorry if I'm only making it worse :) Hopefully someone else can help make it clearer. In any case, I take it to mean that quantum reality is the fundamental level of reality, of which (proto-)consciousness is a fundamental aspect, which has a lot of philosophical implications.

[@leonnoel31]

By far the best interview on KZbin in years. Sir Penrose is 93 and his brain is still working like a Swiss watch.

[@musiclover4311]

Well, maybe. There is a lot garbage in all these metaphysical talks. Penrose talks a lot, I feel very suspicious of such talk. How much of his stuff is falsifiable or provable?

[@leonnoel31]

I respect your opinion if is based on your deep understanding of Sir. Penrose ideas. He is building a theory that is based on physics and math, not metaphysic@@musiclover4311

[@Joseph-fw6xx]

​​@@musiclover4311yes sometimes I wonder about all these scientist and their theories they seem to be more farther out as they get older

[@tbayley6]

@@Joseph-fw6xxI wonder the opposite, as Physics seems to be increasingly captured by stale orthodoxies. Relatively few physicists seem to have the integrity and independence to question them - age might be an advantage.

[@realist4859]

Jesus!! 93... I'm 32 and jealous of how well he has aged!

[@neilcoles1780]

It takes a really smart interviewer to hold this dialogue with arguably one of the greatest scientific and mathematicical intellects of the past century and still consider the viewer also. Massive kudos for this.

[@garyhambleton2374]

Yes, the interviewer really did her homework and could identify the concepts and move them forward in a clear, concise manner. I think Penrose appreciated this and was pleased. Certainly a tribute to his humanity that he became emotionally overwhelmed recounting the elephant story. A very human being with a staggering intellect. What a treat. Thanks!

[@CaptZdq1]

As if math wasn't a science.

[@tomanderson6152]

She enabled the ant to converse with the genius and he smiled.

[@ricklocke1187]

Yes she is great

[@hyperboloid-g7q]

Ja

[@tomg2946]

Excellent presentation. Penrose threw down the gauntlet (effectively) more than 30 years ago stating physics could not advance significantly until a theory of consciousness emerged. One of the greatest minds ever in physics, I tend to think.

[@JanneWolterbeek]

Well-worded, was about to say the same, thanks for doing so already. ❤

[@aretwodeetoo1181]

💯 How is he still so lucid?? Dude is an alien...

[@systemic_disclosure766]

I have a question for everyone who may read this. **WHAT IS THE GENERAL CONSCENSUS OF [DONALD HOFFMAN's] Work? (soory if i mispelled his last name) Im referring to the man that broke Space-time. and add to the simulation theory and the conscious problem.? just curious to know other opinions

[@nivokspilkommen801]

Yet physics had made several significant advances in the past 30 years and will continue to without a non-sensical theory cooked up by an elderly professor well past his mental peak and a Peter Gabriel lookalike to flog a few books.

[@softan]

I would argue physics have advanced significantly in the last 30 years though. That claim sounds completely unsubstantiated. Unless you believe in magic then consciousness is an emergent property. Exactly why it emerges I have no idea, maybe that's the theory you're after. While it would be very insightful to find out I don't see why it would cause a significant boom in the rest of the field of physics. I think neuroscientists have a better chance of cracking how conscioussness works than physicists.

[@MrNicogp]

This stands out as the best interviews of Roger Penrose in at least a decade. Hats off to the interviewer for investing the time in researching his work and spending time with him in developing trust and raport. This has created an invaluable record of an extraordinary mind, both deaply analytical and charmingly playfull. Thank you so much.

[@fernandocostadecampos6854]

This interview blew my mind. The article is amazing, so well written, but this interview? WOW. Sir Roger Penrose is not one of the most brilliant minds alive: he is one of the most brilliant minds EVER. And so generous, sensitive, what an amazing man. Congratulations Andrea for being such an amazing and prepared interviewer. Thank you, you are a great journalist. What an interview.

[@EndAddict]

Gracias y Bendiciones 🙏

[@desperatefortuneproduction3296]

More than a great journalist. Andrea's intellect had me running to keep up. I'm not sure I succeeded!

[@512Squared]

It makes me very happy too that folks like yourself go out of your way to show appreciation for his amazing talent. Makes me think that the world is full of interesting humans. :)

[@joostgolsteyn3193]

Journalist are mostly failed musician athlete scientist 😂

[@philosoraptor777]

"Can you elaborate?" "No, because I don't know what I'm talking about." 🤣🤣🤣 Penrose is a rare gem.

[@MrNicogp]

Not the same - it comes from a place of intellectual humility and awe at just how much is yet to be discovered and understood.

[@g1motion]

REALITY is an information process, set in motion and sustained by God for a purpose. Understanding the purpose is far more important than knowing anything about anything. From this perspective, Penrose is on the RIGHT TRACK. All science, to be science, must follow the laws of information science. Therefore, treating reality like an information process is the logical thing to do. Quanta = one bit of information.

[@g1motion]

Living objects are ruled by independent quantum processes, lifeless objects are governed by a single process, which brings up the question, are stars alive?

[@g1motion]

Since an information process can't be carried out to infinite precision, randomness is necessary to prevent aliasing when functions computed in the frequency domain become fixed.

[@philosoraptor777]

@@g1motion who are you talking to?

[@chewyjello1]

Wow...I've watched many interviews with Penrose where you could tell he was bored to death and wished he could be somewhere else. But you can tell he is just having the best time in these interviews! This is both thoroughly educational and wholesome....love it!

[@_WeDontKnow_]

he really did have a lot of genuine smiles and moments of deep thought! great energy between these two, awesome questions

[@georgepanathas2009]

The girl is attractive in both inner mind and body ..its natural to be ..alerted here!!

[@thefinestsake1660]

😐​@@georgepanathas2009

[@andreylogutov]

The level of understanding and preparedness on the side of the interviewer is unbelievable.

[@codersexpo1580]

This has to be the BEST interview with Penrose I've ever had the pleasure to watch. Andrea Morris is a wonderful interviewer....so very smart, inciteful and provocative. I'm REALLY looking forward to a follow up on this cause we were going places you don't get to in so many other interviews. Plus...I can't get enough of Andrea, my god she is stunningly beautiful.

[@chaferraro]

What a beautiful and insightful interview... Your intelligence is clearly evident when maintaining a conversation with Sir Penrose, where he laughs out of questions he didn't imagine coming and/or have no answers to. What a treat!

[@chaoswitch1974]

He laughs likely because he's giddy that there are sharp young minds asking the right questions. He knows he can't live forever. My 2c

[@tajnewell]

This is a comment on the article in Forbes. Please don't take this the wrong way, most science based reporting these days is undertaken by lay people who appear too lazy to research the subject they are writing about. This leads to inaccurate and confusing prose, leading to misconceptions that are sometimes amplified many times over. It is refreshing to read something penned by someone who understands the concepts they are writing about and one who has obviously expended considerable time and effortbin doing so. It shows, your writing is excellent and it was a very interesting article, thank you.

[@VariableMinds]

I truly appreciate that. It's heartening to know that the effort to make these ideas accessible is resonating.

[@donaldhobson8873]

I saw clear indications that penrose didn't understand what he was talking about.

[@DunningKrugerJnr]

@@donaldhobson8873 so you’re new to the concept of quantum reality Donald? Roger is just being honest because no one truly understands what’s going on…those that pretend they’re no confused are con artists trying to sell you something You’re welcome…

[@donaldhobson8873]

@@DunningKrugerJnr Nope. Many people understand what's going on. Just unfortunately penrose and most pop sci authors aren't among them. I am not particularly new to quantum mechanics, I have done several courses on it at uni.

[@dainawesterman]

I

[@jimidaly0]

What a gift this interview is. Andrea, if there's a Pulitzer for interview moderating you deserve a nomination. I've heard so many people try to explain the relationship between quantum and classical physics but never as intuitively as Sir Penrose did here.

[@anthonybrakus5280]

Have to agree. I've admired Sir Roger Penrose for decades and this may be one of the best interviews of him I've seen. She deserves great praise for her knowledge, ability to listen carefully, and to ask the right questions. This interview is an accomplishment of a lifetime but I get the feeling we will be hearing more from her and she will continue to blow our minds🎉👍🏾

[@donporter8432]

Strongly agree!

[@shereeglasson22]

❤

[@axle.student]

"I've heard so many people try to explain the relationship between quantum and classical physics but never as intuitively as Sir Penrose did here." I have heard so much confusing "noise" on this topic, but after stepping into R.P.s thought here most of the noise in my mind has now gone quite :)

[@fernandocostadecampos6854]

Agree 10000%

[@YogiMcCaw]

Penrose is what in earlier times would have been called a "polymath". He's not just a scientist; he's a visionary, and he's an artist as well. It doesn't need to be pointed out that the man who was Stephen Hawking's Ph.D advisor is a heavy hitter in intellectual circles. The way Penrose thinks simultaneously scientifically and artistically about existence (as did Einstein) is truly something to behold. I also love the way he's willing to go out on a limb, and delve into areas where he knows he doesn't have the answers. I personally think he's on the level with the greatest scientist/philosophers who have ever lived, but of course, that's just my opinion.

[@memegazer]

No, not really, Penrose came after a time where a plymath was possible. A polymath was an expert in many fields, but as time went on the knowledge base and specialization as well as the growth of the number of fields grew such that it was no longer possible for great thinkers to be foremost experts in more than perhaps a few. But no doubt had he been born at a early time in history he would likely have been a polymath.

[@richardmessina3277]

So nicely stated. He’s a treasure!

[@mavrosyvannah]

They call me a polymath, but I argue against it with a half dozen degrees.

[@ximono]

I absolutely agree! A true scientist, the way I see it.

[@tslug]

And yet he says things like, "Memory may be stored in nuclear spins. I don't know." That's not where it's stored, and if it were, strong magnets could wipe your memory. Smart people have bad ideas, too, and I'm pretty sure Orch OR is a humdinger of a bad idea. Other tells include, "We don't have funding yet" and "Not sure about the experiments." He's Roger Freaking Penrose. If his proposed research had merit, he'd have funding by now.

[@LaserGuidedLoogie]

Great interview. Penrose really is the greatest physicist of my lifetime, and I have to commend the interviewer for being smart and empathetic in her ability to understand and communicate these ideas.

[@OldScrewl1928]

Dr. Penrose is rare in this day and age. The fact that he is able to say, "I don't know", is the hallmark of a REAL scientist.

[@adaiku]

Your ability to take in and rephrase what Penrose was saying made these interviews truly engaging and thought provoking. Thanks so much for the great work.

[@wolrdsstrongestdrummer]

This has to be the most comprehensive and digestible presentation of this theory available on the internet right now. More people need to try to understand these ideas so we can actually fund the experiments that matter!

[@VariableMinds]

Thank you so much for your kind words. I agree, let's champion the understanding and funding of pivotal experiments.

[@fteoOpty64]

Agree!. Superb. Her questioning is very clear and very sharp. It is the best way to discuss such a topic. You can see places where Roger or her seem confused but they were not. Just contemplating the complexity of the subject. It gets the mind ramping to 100%...

[@James-ll3jb]

​@@VariableMindsAs if that's REALLY what you want 😅

[@GPRidley]

I don't agree at all, on the subject of digestible. Pembrose's hypothesis that the observer effect confuses us because we've been looking at it *backwards* could be presented in a single sentence. But it was a good ramble, guided by smart questions.

[@James-ll3jb]

@@GPRidley Exactly!

[@laurancedoyle4231]

this was the best interview of Roger Penrose I've ever seen, and I go back in physics more than four decades!

[@Sludgehammer138]

I'm just some dumbass that watches a ton of physics, math, and space videos and this is the most natural and enthusiastic I've ever seen him... like this is more in like with how he is not in interviews I like to imagine.

[@anthonybrakus5280]

Wonderful interview. I have admired Dr Penrose for 30 years and have watched a lot of interviews. You are one of the rare minds able to think on his level and thereby get really great answers. It's remarkable to think that Roger is 93 years old and his mind is sharp as a razor! And he's still working, giving interviews, lectures and working on theory. Amazing man! Definitely one of my heros!🎉👍🏾

[@Video2Webb]

Just SO good! I love Penrose for sticking to his guns about consciousness not being computational. For talking about 'understanding' which he admits he cannot define. For me, this whole discussion goes back to the first living cells. In order to persist, there had to be some 'understanding' going on. And the kicker is that the cell and the environment are in and of a single dynamic, ever-changing system, albeit with regularities that are exploitable. So, in my view, our precious 'understanding' of so much about our world, may not be separated from the first living cells, and all that has transpired since. This is truly a mega multidisciplinary investigation and Penrose has begun the investigation, as well as this interviewer who has an extremely sharp mind, refreshingly quick in her thinking and keeping up with Penrose. No wonder the conversations have been more than just one! Bravo to both people!

[@lethalwolf7455]

Great comment!

[@dfghj241]

complete nonsense.

[@Video2Webb]

@@dfghj241 😂🙃😉 You may be right!

[@MJabjo]

What a wonderful interview! I've never seen one in which he's so engaged in an enthusiastic back and forth of ideas, rather than just answering prepared questions. I'll bet he found your spontaneous intelligence very refreshing! You really 'got' him. and what a lovely man. Thanks for this.

[@TheKrispyfort]

I agree. It's refreshing to see a dialogue instead of an interview 🙂

[@TokyoShemp]

AI chatbot level prose

[@darshanmujumdar]

Interviewer is a truly intelligent lady. She summarised some of Roger’s ideas so succinctly that it made understanding these edgy ideas easier. Thank you!

[@franek_izerski]

She just shouldn't push her face into the camera like that.

[@coalescententity6651]

Edgy ideas from the edgiest person alive, Sir Roger Penrose, that's right.

[@naomidoner9803]

Thank goodness...his melodius voice makes it difficult for me to pay attention

[@YogiMcCaw]

Yeah she rocks! I totally want a date with her LOL

[@sethrenville798]

I think this theory ties in very well with the idea of light comes, which Michael Levin describes very well in his theory that involves cognitive light cones. It seems to me that information can be transmitted not only forward, but also backwards from the present moment, as the collapse of the wave function occurs, But only within the successively increasing Diameter of each slice of these light cones, as you progress further away from the present moment.

[@jackhayward4605]

You have done an outstanding job of drawing out Sir Roger so that he clearly explains his ideas. You have posed some wonderful questions that have him pondering things in ways that he hasn't thought about. I think that you two make a powerful combination, and I recommend that you both work together much more! Fantastic!

[@TokyoShemp]

You missed that it was 100% scripted and thus fake dialogue.

[@dbertovi]

Man is a genius. And very sensitive one. Perceptive one. As emotional as intelligent. Extraordinary person. Excellent interview(s). THANK YOU!!!!

[@sindoc42]

Best conversation I have listened to in my life since my father passed away. Sir Penrose is a grace to our species. May consciousness bless him indefinitely And what a sympathetic duo. Excellent job by the interviewer. I look forward to following your work.

[@LiliumJSN]

And that's how you interview with Penrose. This is among the best interviews available in KZbin. Congratulation.

[@exeunt3396]

Wow, you are killing it with this interview! Penrose isn't particularly easy to talk to and this is wonderful. Can't wait to see what else you've got on your channel 🙌

[@rickh3714]

As a former skateboarder in freestyle of semi-pro level ability ( I did kickflips back in 1977 after meeting the world champion & could do over 20 360s ) you have a projection ahead of the reality of hitting that ramp edge, stony surface, doing rapid spins on a wet piece of concrete or anything else that might throw you off course or out of the routine. This envisaged mental construct of what one hopes is the preprogammed fruition of a coming trick event. When I fell, which truthfully wasn't THAT often, time slows down. Or appears to. Sports coaches refer now to things like muscle memory. Skate tricks done now are so complicated and rapid that skaters are capable of flipping the board back or cancelling it mid flight. Even in the 70s I sometimes landed 4 or 5 rotation kickflips on my specialist board before finally snapping it ! Todays skating tho is so fast and complicated that even slow motion replays need several viewings to understand the orientations, foot/ rider stance or positioning, minor foot pivoting differences that a skater of ability knows to register at critical points on the board. Good skaters become very aware of practical classical physics- centre of gravity, pulling in on spins etc. However I found myself back then that the ideal spin seemed quantized. A faster speed and generally more rotations could seemingly be achieved by pulling in the arms in a somewhat jerky motion- in stages. The head positioning also was critical. Nowadays even vert ramp aerials are measured in multiple spins at pro level. Not just the usual 180 or even 540s! (To non skaters- references of note - Rodney Mullen , Johnny Giger, K.Harris , Andy Andersen Bob Burnquist, Mitchie Brusco, Sky Brown, Tony Hawk) The feedback mechanisms registered bodily in sports, music and the other performing arts, even cooking, painting etc, based on time aware and time sensitive (even recent past abrogating? Twin directional? ) micro tubules at cytological to neural networking level? A surfer might literally feel a collapse of the wave function 🏄‍♀️. Shrodinger's wipeout? Interesting that the construct of micro tubules seem helical in nature from what little I have seen after my interest was stimulated recently by this video.

[@joeroganjosh9333]

We all just collapsed laughing….

[@joeroganjosh9333]

But seriously can you say all that again in little words?

[@rickh3714]

@@joeroganjosh9333 I had plenty of time on my hands that hour didn't I? It WAS a bit of an over blown wind up re my old 🛹 ing past TBH ! 😬

[@danielmulhern5959]

"In the zone" Perhaps, its because the observer is unconsciously the observer in such moments. No character/narrative "Me", separating the observer from the observed. Its a nice place. Like when one gets in the car sometimes, only to look up and see one has already arrived, no recollection of being present to form a memory of it as a person driving.

[@TheRoadLessChosen]

Athlete to athlete, this was an interesting comment.

[@tomrock6134]

Fantastic conversations with a fantastic man. I’ve been obsessed by OrchOR for years, and your video is the best I’ve seen so far on KZbin. Such a shame Penrose and Hammeroff are getting so old! We need people to keep this idea alive and moving forward…

[@CosasCotidianas]

I'm far from being a physicist, but it's one of the highest pleasures to listen interviews/compilations like this one.

[@jackietreehorn]

Amazing interview. I couldn't imagine how proud I would be to sit down with the legendary, Sir Roger Penrose, and to have him impressed by my questions and knowledge. Thank you! I've got a lot to think about now...

[@brendawilliams8062]

I don’t think impress is the right word. Giving a statement that would interest him. One that challenges in an inviting way. I believe that for most all that it would be many more challenging to themselves to get there.

[@jackietreehorn]

@@brendawilliams8062 cool

[@lucasekstrom]

Incredible conversation and subsequent elucidation of these beautiful ideas. What a gift to humanity to have the intellect of Penrose coincide in time with the observed capacity of the interviewer to crystallize these concepts into a meaningful and understandable web of ideas and remaining questions to be further explored.

[@VariableMinds]

Thank you, I'm touched by this.

[@chinnamaswanikumar5746]

It was copied from Indian Yogi's Yahoo chatroom from 1999.

[@Dude_Slick]

@DeepState-nf4bc When standing in judgment, don't forget to tell God that he was just invented to explain physics.

[@Dude_Slick]

@DeepState-nf4bc Yeah that's a new story I invented, and totally not one that's been around for thousands of years.

[@Dude_Slick]

@DeepState-nf4bc It's been my experience that when someone takes the time to bash religion in a discussion about science, they clearly know dick about either. I'm sure you're no different.

[@marioyacoub]

How did I stumble on this?! So fascinating, I thought I’d listen to a few minutes and ended up watching the whole thing. I may have struggled understanding some of the concepts but got the gist of most and I studied Physics at A level. Two highly intelligent people in conversation, riveting stuff 💪🏽

[@donahunt832]

she's wearing him out but at the same time stimulating him with her thoroughness and piercing clarity. I love that there is a medium that allows masters of wisdom to communicate with new emerging knowledge...i love him, i love her! i love his sense of humor, he doesn't take things TOO seriously. I love how their conversation meanders from pure science to philosophy to the esoteric, kinda like a wave particle function, sometimes sounding like a conversation from alice in wonderland 🤔

[@MrTuneslol]

The Hemingway paradox absolutely blew my mind. I have to say this was the best interview of Sir Penrose I've ever encountered. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I have some difficulties articulating just how fantastic this has been for reinvigorating my passion. Thank you! You have contributed to the immortalization of one of the greatest polymaths of our time.

[@kevincrady2831]

What an amazing dialogue! You're basically the perfect interviewer: you did the research well enough to understand this challenging and mind-bending subject and ask probing and intelligent questions, then let him talk instead of talking over him or turning it into a debate. I'm also impressed with Penrose for the level of intellectual humility he has, being careful to avoid making pronouncements outside his area of expertise or outside the bounds of where his theory has reached so far. Being an absolute legend in physics--and now consciousness studies--it would be way too easy for a person in his position to start making oracular pronouncements in areas where he doesn't know what he's talking about. 😄 I wonder what he would think of the experiences people have while using DMT and Ayahuasca, and how he would (or wouldn't) integrate them into his theory of consciousness. It would be especially interesting if he were to experience them for himself, to see if he might be able to make more sense of them than most people, using his theory of quantum consciousness as a basis.

[@nocturne3455]

The part about what he called rhe Hemingway Paradox is something ive personally noticed. Many times over the years i noticed that my minds decisions could be so fast as to be impossible. One could say it were just instinct, but I had already presupposed potential choices. I realized i felt as if i had already made the choice first but my conscious mind had simply yet to construct a framework to let me cognizant of it.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

Think about how fast you choose what someone in a dream will say to you or do. It happens so fast we usually don't even remember considering what they will do.

[@Azoryth]

​@@imaginaryuniverse632I never choose what happens in my dreams. Interesting idea though.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

@@Azoryth Do the characters in your dreams choose?

[@Aiaphorist]

Brother can tell us little bit about you? What happened with you in the past? Any events which changes the reality around you?

[@SUBRASHANKAR]

Amazing !! I have been there many times.

[@joaidane]

Kudos on this interview! Finally a more comprehensive elaboration of Roger Penrose's theories on quantum mechanics and the universe at large as a consequence. After years of hearing bits and pieces, they are conjoined in this interview. Fantastic!

[@carolspooner7798]

One thing I love about this is it gets around the determinism of those who say the brain starts taking the action before we "decide" to do it, thus demonstrating that there is no such thing as "free will," or so they say. I've never believed it and Sir Roger gives me a way out. Bravo!

[@zillaboop]

How?

[@hook-x6f]

People are all over the place on what they think. Somewhere out there, new worlds are popping into existence at some unknown interval. That is the one that bugs me, but people give that nonsense credibility. I cannot believe they would consider that possible.

[@charlesmiller8107]

You said "I've never believed it and Sir Roger gives me a way out", that is not how science works. You are essentially seeking scientific support for a belief system. This is a fundamental error in human psychology and is the reason the scientific method was established. You should go where ever the data leads you when practicing science.

[@eoinoconnell185]

Excellent interview. It's terrific listening to Penrose converse with someone who can not just comprehend his theory but extrapolate from it.

[@hectorpascal]

Good old Roger! His mind is still all there - AND firing on all cylinders - at 92 y/o! Sixty years ago, when I was first introduced to wave function collapse at the moment of observation, I well remember thinking this idea was just too weird to be a genuine physical concept. And the note of desperation in my Lecturers' explanations did not help me to accept it! A great interview by a great interviewer.

[@peppermintgal4302]

Its weird, but commonly misunderstood --- observation in quantum mechanics is the process by which an interferometer reports a reading. It has nothing to do with whether a human being is in the room "observing." Theres a youtuber whose first name is Sabine who made a video on it clarifying the subject thats very excellent.

[@hectorpascal]

@@peppermintgal4302 Yes indeed... the understanding of what "observation" actually means has been anthropomorphised far too much in popular treatments. I blame Schrodinger for introducing cats into the discussion!

[@ximono]

@@hectorpascalIt's never wrong to introduce cats into the discussion. Superimposed alive/dead cats can be problematic though.

[@charlesmiller8107]

The mans brain works better than mine and i'm only 46.

[@geoffreyparker926]

@@peppermintgal4302Sabine Hossenfelder. 🤠

[@carlsonjc11]

A truly wonderful interview, Andrea. This is the best interview of Sir Roger I've seen. You ask the best questions!

[@VariableMinds]

I very much appreciate your watching and this kind comment!

[@joannadziaduch2138]

A beautiful conversation! Please record more with Roger Penrose.

[@basselg404]

I rarely leave comments on videos. Ever since I discovered Penrose’s theories a few years ago, I’ve been waiting to stumble on a comprehensive video that shows an interview of him, with concise summaries and explanation of what he’s talking about. Something for slightly less technical people. I have to say you have you delivered this to perfection. I am finally at rest knowing my ravenous appetite in understanding this subject is satiated. I have watched countless videos of him and he often corrects the interviewers when they try to sum him up. I can tell he was pleasantly surprised with your great recaps and often has nothing more to add. Congratulations! Subscribed.

[@BudgetPubStomper-lr7nh]

I saw someone in these comments say they could tell Penrose doesn’t know what he’s talking about. First; that’s probably because he literally said “I don’t know what I’m talking about” when it came to things outside his expertise and even things that physicists at large don’t really understand. 2) He’s 93 3) You are not smarter than Roger Penrose. You don’t know the subject matter as well as he does. You are in no position to judge that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This man is a treasure. If only all experts (people for that matter) would be so open about their limits and so humble. Unfortunately some people don’t respond well to humility. I have more respect for this guy than almost any other person alive. God bless you Sir Roger. What a gift your life has been to all of us. I’m so happy you are finally getting some of the recognition you deserve. I hope he is going to be taken more seriously now that he’s a Nobel laureate. We have the technology to test his cosmological origins theory. I think it is a beautiful theory. Good luck to Mr Penrose. Great job w the interview madam. At about 45 minutes you blew him away. His jaw dropped. You really did go the extra mile to do your homework before this talk. Namaste all🖖

[@gailforce]

Calm down dear

[@timh2859]

you hold this man to too high of a degree. he has descended into woohoo bullshit surrounding conscious observers. his ideas are way too centered from the point of view of living organisms. the laws of the universe don't care whether we exist, and certainly don't care whether we understand them or not, they just are. he talks about quantum ideas like wave function collapse and says it doesn't make sense, but gives none of the many interpretations that actually make sense of it (like many worlds). people take Penrose's current ideas too seriously.

[@bryandraughn9830]

Gotta love Penrose. He thinks creatively.

[@dakrontu]

Few interviewers could have such a fruitful and lively conversation with Roger Penrose. Kudos to you. And to Roger Penrose for his impeccable self-effacing honesty throughout, clarifying whenever he is saying something about which he is uncertain.

[@MICKEYISLOWD]

Seeing Roger getting caught out being upset about the true story of the Elephant got me choked. I already knew about those Elephants and what happened. I thought this interview was absolutely brilliant. Pls more.

[@cmadd498]

Me too never saw that coming.

[@HBoyar]

I am an artist. I watched breathlessly. It was incredible.Thank you so much Andrea.

[@rexrickard6333]

1:07:00 so touching sir roger is very emotional talking about mortal issues knowing his own life is in its twilight.. such an incredibly great mind and person he is a hero to many. Top interview ❤

[@duongkstn]

😢😢😢

[@maxdevon7901]

Fantastic interview! As for retroactive time phenomena, I’m reminded of Doc Ellis’s perfect score, while high on LSD, and a friend who’s table football (foosball) skills where unmatched while under the same psychedelic, to quote, ‘ I knew exactly where the ball was intuitively, before it arrived!’ Many thanks

[@donaldhobson8873]

That's just normal prediction. The human brain has basically a built in newtonian mechanics simulation, or something approximating it. No retro-causality.

[@PatrickPannunzio]

That was just a great and skillful player intuition

[@PatrickPannunzio]

I know we’re going off topic but Cary Grant thought everyone should try LSD

[@goldwhitedragon]

​@@donaldhobson8873there is retrocausality, explained by the CTMU.

[@Danny-hb1zb]

This was brilliant. I’ve watched lots of rogers interviews but never seen him explaining things like the way you’ve extracted them from him. Brilliant 👏🏻

[@happychappy1984]

This is the best physics interview I've ever seen, you really got the best out of Sir Roger. The chemistry was great - at times it was like a teacher and student with some really good and novel questions. Other times it was quite touching, like a wizard and hobbit smoking pipeweed, whilst discussing what makes things grow. Thanks a lot

[@512Squared]

So delightful to hear Roger talking, and with such honesty and self-deprecation too, in spite of having a brilliant mind that is more capable than many of pondering the nuances of these challenges.

[@jamiehorwood7999]

Definitely by far the best Penrose podcast! The way these two interact is incredible. I’ve never heard Penrose so happy and excited by your question and analysis of his theories and explanations. Pure poetry using the language of the universe. I cant get enough of it. So stimulating

[@FISHDINHO]

The way you articulte his thinking is outstanding.

[@gilleslalancette7933]

Wow! Really impressed by the level of physics here. You ask the right questions and get the answers. Bravo. I want the next part... Sir Penrose, please go on...

[@VariableMinds]

Thank you~ Hoping to do more

[@naomidoner9803]

​@@VariableMinds and thank you for the periodic summarizations....I'm trying so hard to pay attention but his accent is hypnotic I end up follow the tones rather than the words...hoping there is an overall summarization in as few words as possible at the end....still listening

[@scaler2296]

Amazing interview! Sir Roger Penrose was in his element here and had to put some effort into the replies to your guiding questions. Very enjoyable to watch. Well done!

[@SevenDos]

The way you phrase these questions and stimulate his brilliant mind is impressive. This interview is gold.

[@ElaineWalker]

I’m always so happy to see a new Roger Penrose video! I’m rooting for Orch OR. I mention it in my book from 2016 and hope to expand on it a bit in my new edition. I love the way he thinks geometrically, outside the box, and his boldness to take on new ideas. He’s also very charismatic and pleasant all the while. ❤ Ok now I’m watching!!

[@JonDaigle]

Great interview! Love seeing Penrose contemplating and laughing 😊

[@VariableMinds]

Thank you! I agree :)

[@ashutoshtiwari3129]

Out of all of the biological computational machines Sir Roger really seems to be a non computational one. The fact that he knows what he knows and knows what he dont clearly sets out perfect example of it.♥️♥️

[@CaptZdq1]

????

[@lewismackechnie7240]

I’ve watched this interview with Roger Penrose three times now. Each viewing led to a better appreciation of his theory of the collapse of the wave function. Thank you for such an illuminating interview. I’m looking forward to the next installment.

[@donaldhobson8873]

Ok. What fundamental mistakes did Penrose make that lead him to such a theory? What is the first step in his reasoning where he goes from correct to garbage?

[@lewismackechnie7240]

⁠@@donaldhobson8873I give up…what fundamental error does he make? I’m not a physicist, so I’d like to understand your point of view.

[@donaldhobson8873]

@@lewismackechnie7240 The first error is assuming that, if the schrodinger equation was the only rule, that the universe would look "more quantum". We don't see cats in a superposition of alive and dead. Cats can be in a superposition of alive and dead, and when we look at them, we are put in a superposition of feeding a live cat and burying a dead cat. Neither superimposed version of us will see any kind of half way in between cat. Thus "quantum collapse" isn't needed. Also, the ideas about godel's incompleteness theorem. It's true that no process that can flawlessly answer all possible maths questions is computable. So if humans are computable, there must be maths problems we can't solve. Well we are talking about all possible maths problems, including the ones so long that we couldn't read the question in a lifetime. So yeah, there are some problems that humans can't solve.

[@lewismackechnie7240]

If I understand you correctly, it seems that you’re advocating the”many worlds” interpretation of Scrohrodingers cat. As a quantum observer of a quantum cat, I think you’re saying that we see either a live cat or a dead cat, not half way in between cat. It seems that a quantum collapse occurs, but we’re aware of only the one one into which we, the observer collapses into as well. I struggle with the Schrödinger cat example, because it seems to me that the cat is made up of an extraordinary number of quantum particles, all of which must collapse into a collection of particles that are either a dead or live cat. All of those particles in the cat must be observed by an observer who is also made up of an extraordinary number of particles that must also collapse into the observer. (Perhaps the cat is the observer of the observer??) In this scenario, it seems there are infinities being added to infinities. What appeals to me about Penrose’s theory is that something independent of the observer (ie gravity) causes the quantum state for all particles to collapse into a classical state. In a sense, the quantum state is unstable after very brief periods of time and spontaneously becomes a classical state that we experience. As to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, I don’t have a good way of understanding Penrose’s discussion of how that applies to his argument. I’ve got to work on that one some more

[@donaldhobson8873]

@@lewismackechnie7240 Collapse isn't real. No such thing. "observer" also isn't a thing. There is just a reality that exists. Scientist sees cat in superposition of alive and dead. Scientist gets into superposition of feeding live cat and burying dead cat. The universe continues on in superposition. But the inside of any one of the superimposed universes feels normal, nothing obviously quantum is happening to scientist or cat.

[@pauly362]

10:28 Bang! This has to be it. My recent NDEs were showing me that reality is intrinsically intertwined with our consciousness. The collapse of the wave function is happening continuously during our wakened state. The dream state is where it otherwise resides. Just what my three day coma revealed to me; it could be twaddle lol

[@jimdye7431]

Wow, beauty and brains! It’s quite impressive to see an interviewer grasp the concepts that Penrose puts forward. Even when Jordan Peterson interviewed him, you could tell he was falling behind constantly trying to keep up with Penrose. Penrose is my favorite scientist currently and you certainly did him justice! Thanks for the video!

[@fjaramilloe]

This is a magnificent interview. Seldom do you see such a well-prepared, energetic, bright, and caring interviewer. In addition, it is quite apparent that Si Roger clearly appreciated every question and quite clearly expressed his delight at the caliber of the questions and insights presented to him. For such a deep and difficult topic to grasp, I found it truly engaging. A true delight, many tanks.

[@James-ll3jb]

Not really. Failed to go too deep. Comes off as a kind of erudite p.r. stunt raising more questions than it answers.

[@meddlesomemusic]

@@James-ll3jbthat's kind of the point dude

[@meddlesomemusic]

I love that the majority of her questions came as genuinely interesting surprises to him

[@donaldhobson8873]

It's impressive if you managed to understand quantum mechanics from that. Penrose is in the process of spectacularly misunderstanding it.

[@meddlesomemusic]

@@donaldhobson8873 says random KZbin comment...

[@twolaneasphalt4459]

Bravo! Something I've always wanted to do: Have this conversation with Sir Penrose. You've accomplished a wonderful, and delightful, presentation of his and Hameroff's theory, which has been sorely lacking. The duo of Gandalf & Yoda!

[@maxmcbyte]

Andréa Morris, Hat's off to you! Having followed the work of Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff for as long as I can remember, I can confidently say that your recent interview with Roger Penrose was nothing short of brilliant - it was the best I've ever seen. Your ability to delve into profound topics with such clarity and insight is truly remarkable. I also couldn't help but notice your striking good looks, which added an extra layer of charm to the experience. It's not just your interviewing skills but your captivating presence that sets you apart. I'm eagerly hoping to see you conduct a similar interview with Stuart Hameroff in the near future. I have no doubt it would be equally exceptional. Anticipating your next presentation with excitement and gratitude. Warm regards, Max...

[@anywallsocket]

*tips fedora*

[@TerryBollinger]

Andréa Morris, I must compliment you on your incredible care and effort in creating this video. Much of your work is subtle since the goal of a good editor is to make the flow of thoughts as seamless as possible, but that goal requires much work. Your efforts have captured Sir Penrose's always-deep insights beautifully. Well done!

[@joebaby739]

To say something is in 2 places in one time is a sneaky way to say they travel faster than light. Gravity slows it down so it can be observed. Creating the experience of time. And space.

[@garretthiggins2152]

Weirdly enough, makes me think of a high thought I had. I don't do it often, so things get weird when I do. I remember having this vivid imager that our brains are actually just in a sense reading a film tape. Except, instead of just one line being fed in, there are two. One line starts at some arbitrary beginning while the other is the coinciding ending.

[@kevincharles1900]

To the lovely young lady who carried out this discussion with Roger,... thank you so so much. Roger is one of my lifetime heroes The way you conducted this discussion was truly poetic. That is not easy to do on the subject of science. I can honestly say it ranks as one of my all-time best discussions/interviews l ever saw of this great man. Kudos to you and thank you so much.

[@TokyoShemp]

It was scripted. They were reading off teleprompters, mr. conditioned tool.

[@aqu9923]

This is more like an amiable talk between friends sitting in drawing room couches, felt not only educationally enriched but relaxing too. Glad to see Sir Roger (our Saint of Science) is looking well and healthy!

[@VariableMinds]

Thank you, what you're seeing is Roger's endless patience explaining these ideas. It was a joy getting to learn from him.

[@aqu9923]

Absolutely. I haven't seen him as cheerful in giving interviews before. You have been wonderful for bringing us this classy conversation! Gratitude

[@jpmsa]

I came here for Penrose and I stayed for Andrea who I've just discovered. So brilliant woman! Great interview. Subscribed to the channel.

[@keithmccann6601]

What a mesmerising conversation and what a brilliantly well informed interviewer - that’s a rare thing in itself!!! - And isn’t it nice to see this intellectual giant admit that even he does not understand some things and even he ‘doesn’t know what he’s talking about’ in some area’s - that honesty only adds credibility to all the areas where he is an authority - and, of course, it’s reassuring to know that even physicists and mathematicians struggle with QM almost as much as the rest of us - it seems they can do the equations but the underlying reality, the concepts, implications and meanings are still quite opaque even to them - love that :)

[@davidcope51]

Really enjoyed this conversation. Penrose is one of my heroes and your questions really brought out this thinking in a clear way. Glad KZbin recommended your channel. Have subscribed and look forward to seeing the channel grow.

[@VariableMinds]

Thank you, I'm also glad the KZbin algorithm can help those of us interested in this stuff find each other.

[@Bwaptz]

What a fascinating person!! I’m going to have to rewatch this over and over to squeeze out all the ideas he talks about. An absolute inspiration ❤

[@ivocanevo]

Look him up, he's both one of the most prominent thinkers of our time (recent Nobel laureate) and he's willing to take risks. At his age and he's still on the cutting edge, which is rare. His lectures on spinors and twistor theory are mind blowing. They'll take your full attention though.

[@Bwaptz]

@@ivocanevo will do!

[@emilywong6923]

Scientist/artist/graphic designer no less!

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Lookup the Emmy Network Mind and Matter symposium from a couple years ago - their website links Penrose and Hameroff and Basil J. Hiley giving a talk to them - I agree with Hiley on this. "In the book, he cautions that we may err when applying the physics of time to our conscious perception of time. He writes that consciousness is the only phenomenon in modern physics that requires time to flow at all. Penrose’s ideas about retro-activity as an explanation for quantum anomalies are only recently gaining traction. Retrocausality is the proposal that a measurement in the present can change a particle’s properties even before the measurement was made. “You need this distinction between the two realities,” says Penrose. Classical reality and quantum reality are fundamentally different realities. He adds that even the notion of before and after may be incoherent in quantum reality. Why might gravity-induced wave function collapse produce non-computational consciousness? Consciousness “could be non-computable because it’s retroactive,” says Penrose.

[@aidanhall6679]

Wow now THIS is an interview of exceptional rigour, depth and originality! Anything with Sir Roger is a pleasure, it’s saddening to know he’s not so young anymore :( on the plus side, you’ve earned yourself a subscriber :)

[@eddybarker5072]

Fantastic interview Andrea. Your questions were outstanding and your ability to summarize and simplify Roger’s theories was brilliant!

[@pauladams3101]

Wow. What a treat. Superb interviewing and wonderful to watch such a great person as Penrose think and continuously develop ideas. Best interview I've seen in years.

[@garyfindlay5503]

What a great podcast/interview, The content and frankness of the scientific world has been enjoyable. I love the way the interviewer and interviewed enjoy their discussion and bounce of each other in enlightenment and dscovery. How great is Roger Penrose's mind. These podcasts are so important for the future.

[@hewasfuzzywuzzy3583]

This was really enlightening, entertaining and enjoyable. It's a topic I've been fascinated with for nearly my entire life. I was wondering so many ideas while listening to the two of you tickling parts of my brain that wants to know and understand the hows and if possible the whys. Thank you for this. ❤

[@laurence3729]

Absolutely fantastic interview. Best thing I’ve seen on the internet in forever.

[@andybrown668]

Instant subscribe! Roger Penrose continues to live and breathe his work and this interview shows it perfectly. His emotional reaction to telling the story of the elephant was beautiful, too

[@tamrakat]

Mother elephant bones story made me cry, especially when the emotion showed on Penrose’ face. What a rare genius he is.

[@kirstinstrand6292]

What a magically fascinating, charming conversation you two share. 😊 🙏Thank you both. I have become conscious, and becoming conscious was bizarre and wonderful. I doubt I will ever hear any more descriptive theories of how it all happened to me. ❤❤❤

[@starmountpictures]

This dude is 92. Bravo Sir Penrose!

[@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 . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: 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. 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, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (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). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists 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 can be identified with 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. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. 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 (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, 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. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini

[@Soma_3046]

In order to collapse the wave function of non-locally correlated photons, consciousness must act non-locally. Right?

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@Soma_3046 The way you phrased your question seems to indicate that you are assuming that the wave function physically exists and that collapse is a physical process caused by the human mind. Let me explain the “observation” problem in quantum mechanics because it is often misunderstood even by many physicists. In quantum mechanics the state of a physical system is described by the wave function and does not have defined values ​​for all the physical quantities measurable on it; on the other hand, only the probability distributions relating to the measurable values ​​for these quantities are defined. Once the measurement has been carried out, the system will have a defined value in relation to the measured quantity, and this involves a radical modification of its wave function; in fact the wave function generally describes infinite possibilities while for an event to take place, it is necessary that the wave function assigns a probability of 100% to a single possibility and 0% probability to all the others. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong. The transition between a state that describes many possibilities to a state that describes only one possibility is called “collapse of the wave function”. The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The open problem in quantum physics is that the cause of the transition between the indeterminate state and the determined state, cannot be traced back to any physical interaction, because all known physical interactions are already included in the Schrödinger's equation; in fact, the collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger's equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger's equation. After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break. Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a collection of events isolated in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is no continuity between events. In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself; for example, there can be no triangle with indeterminate sides and no circle with indeterminate radius. Indeterminate properties means that properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist; actually photons, electrons and quantum particles in general are just the name we give to some mathematical equations. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event. Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. Since the collapse of the wave function violates the fundamental laws of physics, it can only be associated with an agent that is not described by the Schrodinger equation, and the only event we know of that is irreducible to the Schrodinger equation is consciousness. Therefore, events can only exist when consciousness is involved in the process. Therefore a measurement device cannot cause the collapse of the wave function. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the existence of an event (associated to the collapse of the wave function =violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience) ; the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of God's act of creation in our mind of the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. The fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is that reality is not described as a continuum of events but as isolated events, and this is in perfect agreement with the idealistic view which presupposes that what we call "universe" is only the set of our sensory perceptions and that the idea that an external physical reality exists independently of the mind is only the product of our imagination; in other words, the universe is like a collective dream created by God in our mind. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism.

[@EmeraldEyesEsoteric]

Consciousness is actually in our water, and in our blood. Water is the element of life. The experiments of the Japanese Scientist Misaro Emoto, I think his name was, proved that water contains consciousness and reacts to sound, labels, emotions, etc. The Individual, or In Divide You All, is just a container of Consciousness split off to create a separate experience.

[@Soma_3046]

@@EmeraldEyesEsoteric Probably more in the light that we are/radiate. There is the metaphor that consciousness can be compared to a river and each of us is a drop in it.

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@EmeraldEyesEsoteric The idea that water contains consciousness is totally devoid of any rational and scientific basis. Best regards.

[@Lak735]

Great interview; questions and summation - and humour! A genuine dialectical exchange; like a verbal game of chess. Andrea asks challenging questions and Penrose - unlike some of his peers - has the humility to admit he doesn't know; or even understand.

[@hatthomas555]

Brilliant editing, Andrea! If my feeble mind can digest it, anyone's can. Well done!

[@lovechangegrow]

Andréa, Wonderful and fascinating discussion. I have some questions and comments but still processing them and will post them later.

[@vicenthuerta8477]

I couldn't stop listening. The best interview with Roger Penrose I have seen

[@JazzLispAndBeer]

Amazing discussion. A truly intellectual showpiece. Thank you both!

[@VariableMinds]

Thank you for watching and for such a kind comment!

[@abhiansh7619]

I wonder how this plays into the law of attraction narrative, i.e. you need to believe you have achieved something before achieving it. Its metaphysical but kind of plays into this theory that the wave function collapses in the past and that leads to the classical reality we now observe. Btw, this channel is a gem. I have never seen such active engagement from the interviewer asking the right questions and leading the interviewee into a chain of thoughts. Keep posting!

[@aucourant9998]

I love Roger Penrose. He is so open-minded and tenacious at the same time.

[@rDimSa]

50:13-51:15 - dramatic. Excellent conversation! I have not seen Sir Penrose joyfully laughing so much before.

[@VariableMinds]

Thank you for watching. It was a ton of fun unpacking these ideas.

[@user-td5gy2fh3p]

This is creeping me the hell out! Ever since ChatGPT came out, I've been thinking about the consciousness problem and the nature of reality. Mind you, my background is not in physics; I'm a computer scientist. I find it fascinating that after pondering these things for the past couple of months, I have come to the same conclusions as Roger Penrose before I even knew his name, let alone his ideas in this video. This is insane!

[@Jesst7721]

Agreed, I too think like this.

[@garygray5109]

I'm a dev too, and work with DNNs... I came to a similar conclusion, there's something going on in our heads... more than just a huge net.

[@ximono]

Also a dev. I didn't think there were that many of us who believe the human mind is more than just computation. Maybe there are? After all, we're the ones who spend the most time with computation.

[@user-td5gy2fh3p]

​@@ximono Interestingly enough, if you read the 3rd objection in Alan Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," he seems to think similarly to the points in this video/we have thought of. If nothing else, it seems like he wasn't able to make up his mind on this problem. I thought this was an interesting find, especially coming from someone like Alan Turing.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Doesn’t Dr. Hammeroff click a bell at all. Always quantum computation. Never understanding

[@jedser]

Well done with the interview and the helpful visuals. The article is also well done, though it’s strange that it’s published in Forbes. I hope you do another one with Stuart Hammeroff and the quantum biology aspect of this theory

[@VariableMinds]

Yes, I need to follow up soon. I first learned about Orch OR when I interviewed Stuart a couple years ago for the Forbes article "An Experiment For Consciousness? Scientists And Philosophers Across Three Countries Debate It"

[@scififan698]

Yes, ask the other guy too! We need to hear this all the way through.

[@PADARM]

Doing an interview with one of the Great minds of the 20th century is not easy. and you were talking about the very foundation of Reality. Congratulations for this interview with the Living Legend Sir Roger Penrose. I can't wait for the next one.