Roger Penrose's Mind-Bending Theory of Reality

Nobel Laureate Sir Roger Penrose on his Orch OR theory of consciousness that could change what we know about time, the universe and reality, by incorporating the physics of consciousness. Explore mind blowing facts about our reality that show consciousness in quantum mechanics.
▶️ Read the article on Forbes.com rb.gy/s5uzf
"Testing A Time-Jumping, Multiverse-Killing, Consciousness-Spawning Theory Of Reality"
This is a distillation of approximately 27 hours of talks from October 2022 - October 2023. This video was edited so that viewers without math or physics backgrounds could understand these ideas.
Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) is the Penrose-Hameroff theory of consciousness based on quantum physics.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment to be considered for inclusion in a follow-up interview. Please include a question mark in your questions (that's what I'll filter for).
Subtitles [CC] have been proofread by a human :)
Interview edited for time. Integrity of expert commentary respected and preserved.
___________________
▶️ Check out my articles on Forbes: rb.gy/pstfz
▶️ Subscribe here: rb.gy/qqo0i
_________________
I'm Andrea Morris, an interdisciplinary researcher and science and tech journalist contributing 80+ stories to Forbes.com and a member of National Association of Science Writers (NASW.org). My passion is understanding creative intuition, consciousness and intelligence and all its complexity and whatever form it takes.
Variable Minds is a channel intersecting science, tech, art, and creativity. We’ll talk to experts and investigate cognitive systems in humans, nonhumans, and AI, the hard problem of consciousness, and movements to hybridize with technology: transhumanism and the extended mind thesis (EMT).
We'll also examine the artistic mind, unique artistic expression, and the challenges to intelligent and creative anthropocentrism in the wake of generative art, large language models, and exponential technology. At the core of this channel is a commitment to continual learning, holistic thinking (intelligent holism) and the joy of lifelong learning.

[@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.

[@EddyEssArt]

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

[@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!

[@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

[@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]

❤

[@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

[@user-jk6ed9ux1t]

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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@OnceTheyNamedMeiWasnt]

The lady who conducted this interview is the collapse of the wave function. She is fantastic and intelligent, asks great questions, listens carefully and doesn't talk over others, and she makes the subject interesting and intelligible for a non-scientific poet like me. Sir Roger Penrose is an amazing man, a super brain but also kind and humble, funny, and a gentleman. What an amazing video!

[@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.

[@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?

[@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...

[@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

[@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.

[@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 💪🏽

[@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 🙌

[@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!

[@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

[@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 ! 😬

[@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!

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@LiliumJSN]

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

[@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.

[@bryandraughn9830]

Gotta love Penrose. He thinks creatively.

[@ianallen738]

How amazingly lucky and exciting, to have gotten to have this conversation of all conversations, with him. Kudos for sharing it!

[@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]

????

[@WhydoIneedafuckinghandle]

1:06:58 - it's alright Rodge; I almost began to cry as well. Not at the story - I've heard it a few times by now - but at your emotional reaction to it even after telling it for the 800th time. This is brilliant btw. It seems as though so many scientists who want to be interviewers on youtube, or wherever else, are too awestruck by his presence to function in either capacity, resulting in him telling the same stories he told last time (not that they aren't wonderful in themselves). You really know how to get more from him and that's a huge testament to your competence in both regards, where others have merely cowered in the sheer incandescence of his genius. I've been waiting a while for something more like this. Subbed for the next round!

[@ximono]

I completely agree! This felt more like a conversation between friends than an interview. Some of her questions were excellent, and I think Penrose appreciated that. This was probably the best video on his ideas that I've seen, and I've seen quite a few.

[@VariableMinds]

Thank you @ximono and @WhydoIneedafuckinghandle Roger was endlessly patient answering my questions over the past year while I was writing the Forbes article. Thank you for watching!

[@caddywampa6602]

​​@@VariableMinds Questions: 1)How is retrocausality compatible with the "block time" of general relativity in which past and future are merely directions along an axis, in a higher dimensional space, and in that space there is no such thing as "change" or "the present"? Doesn't "changing" the contents of the block time universe imply the existence of time OUTSIDE of time within the block universe? 2) How does retrocausality differ from a pilot wave theory? After all, if the universe adjusts so that it LOOKS like a particle took a singular path based on where it ends up, then it effectively DID take that singular path all along, and the wave function is merely a probabilistic guiding principle or force of some kind. Do these not wind up looking exactly the same? 3) If it is gravity that causes wave function collapse at some time interval or energy difference between the superposed states, what accounts for the fact that some interactions with macrophysical objects (reflection, refraction, diffraction) leave the wave function intact, while others (measurement) cause it to collapse? 4) Isn't the notion that the wave function must collapse in order to "conform" to general relativity interpreting physical theory backward? We use terms like "nature obeys physical law" but what we mean is "our equations describe and predict natural behavior." Newton's laws of motion are incredibly accurate in describing the behavior of objects at scales that humans typically encounter, but they fail at extremes where relativity and quantum mechanics take over. There is no singular point at which physical behavior jumps from Newtonian to Relativistic. Newton's laws just gradually diverge more and more from observation as the variables become more extreme. Is it not more likely, then that relativity (and gravity) does not suddenly "force" quantum mechanics to obey, but that there is some yet undiscovered equation that encapsulates both, and describes a mathematically continuous transition between quantum and classical states?

[@donaldhobson8873]

@@caddywampa6602 In penroses' theory, probably. Penrose made one subtle mistake. Of assuming that cat's can't be in a superposition of alive and dead because he has never seen one in such a state. He didn't actually ask what he would experience when seeing a cat in superposition. Answer, when you look at it, you go into a superposition of feeding a live cat and burying a dead cat. Neither superimposed version of yourself sees anything obviously quantum. Once he made this mistake, he needed to pile on ever more dubious assumptions in order to fix the problems created by the previous dubious assumptions. First he needed to assume that collapse exists. (Well to give him credit, other people assumed that) Then he assumed this retrocausality nonsense to fix the problems collapse created. Then he will probably go on to add 2 different kinds of time to fix the problems retrocausality created.

[@atallguynh]

@@donaldhobson8873 Interesting ideas.... So sometimes we are in a superposition and sometimes we are not? Or are we always in a superposition of both being in a superposition and not being in a superposition? What do we experience then? Not trying to be a smartass. Just interested in what you are envisioning here.

[@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.

[@kevincronin464]

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.

[@Drruuiipp]

Thank you so much for this Andrea Morris! I will stay tuned for more of your work, fantastic job!

[@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!

[@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.

[@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

[@joannadziaduch2138]

A beautiful conversation! Please record more with Roger Penrose.

[@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.

[@RobCoops]

A very interesting interview, raising more questions than answers for me but it is great to see someone with enough understanding of the matter asking questions in a way that help mere mortals get the feeling they might understand at least a little bit of what is being discussed.

[@MartinSKatz]

I’m excited to have found your channel. You ask great questions and seem to have a a strong grasp of the framework of the topic(s) that you’re investigating.

[@JonDaigle]

Great interview! Love seeing Penrose contemplating and laughing 😊

[@VariableMinds]

Thank you! I agree :)

[@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.

[@akadlibking325]

Thank you for sharing this with everyone. Because of unfortunate mental conditions like depression among other adversaries I never had the chance or platform to talk. Sir Penrose AND the interviewer most perfectly expressed in words what I see.

[@shereeglasson22]

Thank you Andrea. i am so glad I found you. Studying creative therapy and for my first essay I am trying to articulate how we need more interdisciplinary dialogue to leverage the true power of creative therapy, otherwise it is becoming siphoned off into a subset of psychology or medicine but that is antithetical to its whole premise. Your channel is going to be so amazing to reference and I am surprised how few interdisciplinary researchers such as you are out there … for these very reasons of how they are so needed right now! ❤

[@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

[@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 👏🏻

[@csmith7404]

Kind of sounds like what we’re dancing around is that quantum mechanics is a higher dimension, and phenomena which exist at that dimension can only be represented in terms of one state at the lower dimension where classical physics operates. You lose some state information by dropping down a dimension. So it’s a lower “resolution” representation of the higher dimension object/occurrence. So to my knowledge nothing is collapsing, you’re merely seeing only half of the picture because we are confined to the dimension of classical physics.

[@ximono]

And it has to do with time and gravity.

[@PieterJanssensPMJJ]

This is possibly the best and most clarifying interview (well, compilation of interviews) of an eminent scientist I have ever seen! Brought me many new insights on Orch OR. Move over Marilyn vos Savant, there's a new kid in town!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!🎉👍🏾

[@CONCEPTUALIST]

FINALLY a brilliant exploration of Roger's Orch/OR. Thank you, Andréa. Well done and enormously helpful.

[@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!

[@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!

[@marciorgmaia5288]

Penrose is fantastic. The interviewer is fantastic. The interview is fantastic. Anyone interested in Physics and/or Neuroscience should watch it.

[@depressedcarrot4134]

As a person who has not read about quantum mechanics, this interview was i think a good introduction

[@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. ❤

[@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.

[@gazagne251190]

Amazing montage, Thx you so much for the clarity !!! Penrose is such a genius. I finally get some subttle nuances that was always missing in each interviews I have saw of him, and I have a lot of them !! Best one so far really well done

[@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. ❤❤❤

[@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

[@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!!

[@steve501]

Fantastic interview and article in Forbes. Thank you for your work! I loved the discussion and reaction when you were telling him about challenging scientists to go back to the data and look for anomalies that may make sense in the context of non-linear temporal effects and cognition. It is a wild concept, but when it provides good explanations for unanswered questions science says we should falsify before discarding it.

[@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...

[@hoi-polloi905]

This is far and away, the most fascinating set of ideas ive ever encountered. Thank you for sharing this.

[@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!

[@SchoepentoeterAF-ux9kx]

Great, refreshing interview here! Thank you for your diligent and concise work, very much looking forward to more!

[@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.

[@aliefrat]

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.

[@aliefrat]

@@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.

[@TK_Prod]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🌀 *Orch OR theory connects consciousness and quantum mechanics, relying on wave function collapse, challenging traditional quantum understanding.* 15:57 🌌 *Retroactivity links classical and quantum realities, highlighting wave function collapse's significance.* 19:44 💡 *Quantum reality, separate from classical, involves retro-causation without transmitting information.* 21:41 ⚛️ *Gravity's role in wave function collapse aligns with relativity, reshaping quantum concepts.* 26:25 🔄 *Collapse makes quantum actions appear classical, bridging quantum and classical worlds.* 33:40 ⏳ *Penrose's theory challenges conscious choice timing, causing the Hemingway paradox.* 35:10 🌐 *Quantum collapses shape nearly classical universes.* 39:51 🌀 *Hemingway paradox challenges our understanding of conscious decisions and time.* 44:10 🧠 *Neuronal microtubules may relate to consciousness.* 46:34 ⏱️ *Brain reorders events to fit causal timelines.* 51:23 🧮 *Gödel's theorem transcends computational systems, suggesting consciousness isn't computable.* 56:10 🛠️ *Collapse leading to proto-consciousness might surpass ordinary computing.* 01:09:04 🤖 *Penrose relaxes the brain with mindless activities during complex thoughts.* Made with HARPA AI

[@FISHDINHO]

The way you articulte his thinking is outstanding.

[@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 :)

[@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.

[@quantesla9408]

Dear Andrea Morris. Your range and depth of knowledge are truly impressive. I have a theory-in-the-making for the relationship between the fine structure constant and a reality-modulation effect across the collapse of the wave function, and a few more mind-boggling components. Relevant to your discussion with Dr. Penrose, whose joint theory with Dr. Hameroff - which I've been following for some time - mesmerized me, I would suppose the "retro-activity" happens at the speed of light. Perhaps the "delay" (in the sense of a flicker/burst of the physical modulation?) is only in consciousness registering the event after an instance of consciousness was birthed during the collapse of the associated wave function. It has to be functionally "retroactive", yet happening near instantly. In other words, the trigger of consciousness and actual consciousness, even if in different realities, has to be singularly entangled functionally. Feel free to contact me for a chat. Happy to share some of my wild 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.

[@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*

[@laurence3729]

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

[@SevenDos]

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

[@wizeman8532]

Wonderful job by Andrea Morris! This is the best technical interview ever!

[@aliefrat]

This is the most interested I’ve seen Penrose in an interview😊

[@aivkara]

I'm constantly amazed at what a great mind this man has, and a stunningly good orator and overall nice guy all at the same time. And this is the first time I've seen a video from @Variable Minds, and I must say, you are an excellent interviewer. Thank you for a great interview! Subscribed :)

[@willem878]

I'm trying to figure it out how things really work. Trying to write a book about that all we see is an illusion. Take nothing is real unless we have noticed it and gave "it" a name. What actually means and that it is all a perception of what we might think off. Sir Roger Penrose is one of my favorites. I love hearing him because he is very widely interested in every theory. Even how your brain works. Your discussion with Roger Penrose is one of the best ever seen. I want to thank you for this talk. You see that he was inspired by you.

[@datpham5148]

I just had to add, your interview/discussion was sooooo engaging i stayed watching even though i knew it would make me late to something ive been for days anxious to get to!

[@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.

[@metacrax]

Thank you for putting this video together, wonderful listen ❤

[@johnthrob2486]

This is truly fantastic. Thanks for making it available and especially with your questions that keep the audience in mind to give us helpful intros, recaps, and reflections. Looking up the Forbes piece now. Keep it coming! Subbed.

[@mgmchenry]

Please continue. I'm begging. This is a great example of what was made possible by KZbin that other mediums could not match as they turned to prioritize another Ancient Aliens production over less profitable science communication content. This discussion gives me hope for humanity. Thank you both!

[@F3RACTION]

Wonderful job reporting, straight talking mixed with humility that you can tell Roger loved❤️

[@richardsaylor6214]

Andrea, this is the best conversation so far with Roger and his theory of consciousness. Thank you for moving my understand forward.

[@VariableMinds]

Thanks for watching. Both our understandings were moved forward :)

[@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.

[@vbywrde]

Thank you for the fascinating discussion. I was talking about this with a friend of mine and these are the points that were most interesting out of our chat. I thought I would share them with you, though I fully understand that they are completely speculative, and that science would have no methodology for testing many of these points. Yet, they are interesting just the same, and perhaps some day they could be explored scientifically. Theory on "Spooky Action at a Distance": 1 Quantum particles are not actually separate but linked in the fifth dimension. 2 When one particle's spin becomes determinant, the other's spin is determined at the same time due to their connection in the fifth dimension. 3 Despite appearing separated in the 4th dimension, they are actually two sides of the same fifth-dimensional object. The 5th Dimension and Time: 1 The 5th dimension operates in a state of overlapping time, which is referred to as "Eternity." 2 In the 5th dimension, all time overlaps, and everything appears to happen at once, allowing 5th dimensional beings to see 4th dimensional past and futures accurately. Consciousness and the 5th Dimension: 1 Consciousness actually exists in the 5th dimension, where it resides and is not bound by space and time. 2 Consciousness can instantly move to any time or place in the 4th dimension, and memory resides with consciousness and is a function of it. 5th Dimensional Consciousness and Athletes: 1 The reaction time of athletes can be thought of as a part of 5th dimensional consciousness, allowing for intuitive knowledge of where to move next. Again, I realize that these ideas are purely speculative, and I hope they aren't taken as suggesting I think they are anything more than that, but I find them interesting and thought you might find them so as well. In any case, thanks again for the wonderful video. Really fascinating!

[@mikropolip]

Thank you. The article in Forbes is great, yes. It's interesting to note, that nowadays there is a lot of discussion about the "hardware" of consciousness and not much about it's "software", which less-known neo-marxist social-materialist scientists of USSR like Yuriy Ivanovich Semenov considered to be of a completely social nature. In that sense the Hoffman's "conscious aleph infinity agent" is the human society itself, which, as a phenomena, is governed by completely different set of scientific laws, not in any way reducible to the "hardware" side of problem. The things that Hoffman looks for in his new imaginary hardware could easily be on the software side.

[@ximono]

Process philosophers like A.N. Whitehead and Iain McGilchrist focus on relationships over relata (matter). McGilchrists sees (proto)consciousness as "irreducible, primordial and omnipresent". Recent developments in biology, and Hoffmann's work as well, seem to support this antimaterialist view of reality.

[@scififan698]

Whatever she said!

[@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.

[@jochemvanderspek5168]

one of the few interviews that try to drilla bit deeper into what makes consciousness essential in understanding physics. very nice! thank you

[@Blackbird58]

More of this please, there are simply not enough superlatives to heap upon this excellent interview, you enrich my life by increasing my understanding of this amazing life!

[@lovechangegrow]

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

[@mrmcphilsconfidential8562]

Outstanding inquisitor! She brings out the details available from these scientific professionals. Now, get you some of that!

[@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 :)