Schrödinger's Cat is Conscious and that Changes Everything | Bernardo Kastrup PhD

[@josephturner7569]

I would say that the cat is both annoyed and not annoyed. Some cats like boxes.

[@barrymoore4470]

Most cats I've known have enjoyed playing or sleeping in boxes.

[@wilhelmvonn9619]

If you want a cat, just leave an open cardboard box lying around and wait. A cat will come and sit in it!

[@CosmosArchipelago]

My cat will sit in any box it can get in.

[@josephturner7569]

@@CosmosArchipelago Well that settles it then.

[@CosmosArchipelago]

@@josephturner7569 case closed :)

[@Arven8]

That's actually a very clarifying remark, thank you. I am typically baffled by physicists' statements about the Schrodinger scenario, but what Bernardo says (particularly in light of statements that "go too far") makes a lot of sense. I like his differentiation about the "dashboard" of consciousness, too.

[@Stegosaurus12345]

Yeah I hope that term catches on.

[@marcobiagini1878]

My name is Marco Biagini and I am a physicist; I would like to 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. If the e properties are indeterminate it means that such 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) and all 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.

[@tex1297]

Nice post. I almost agree. There is howewer a solution much simpler than you think. But ewerybody has his own explanation right? 😂

[@abc0to1]

Isn't it possible that the wave function is just one theory developed by humans to describe the universe as seen by humans, and that aliens who can observe a different universe than humans have developed a different physics? For example, I think it is possible that aliens who can observe dark energy have developed a completely different physics.

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@abc0to1I think that any idea about physical reality that is not based on our scientific knowledge is just an irrational myth, like the myths of the ancients who lived in the pre-scientific era. Intelligent aliens are just a myth like the gods of the pagans, like Zeus & co.

[@abc0to1]

@@marcobiagini1878 Thank you for your comment. I think you are of the opinion that you do not believe in aliens without evidence, but what is your scientific opinion on the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena that NASA and the US military are collecting information on? If you are interested, I would be happy to hear your opinion.

[@firstaidsack]

many-worlds

[@DhavalJadhav2411]

Bernardo's talk makes a lot of sense...✨Pointful ☝🏻

[@Reality_Road]

I agree with Bernardo, since cat or (it can be human too) is conscious is the first to collapse its wave function and so cat is either dead or alive and for us outsiders is just not knowing about situation. but a chemical is not conscious and so needs a conscious perception to collapse its wavefunction to either be blue or pink.

[@laserhobbyist9751]

BRAVO, I've been making this statement in comments here (on YT channels) about that experiment for years now, no one ever replied.

[@alexisboulerice-turcotte1295]

I did the same and like you nobody really put any merit into it

[@abc0to1]

There are probably more smart people than we realize, but we need observation to know them: Schrödinger's sages.

[@vainman100]

same 🙋🏻‍♂️😅

[@mattheww797]

At the end when he discusses pinkness and blueness it seems like he is basically agreeing with the superposition experiment and undermining his previous argument.

[@IlBuddhaSnello]

Yes i totally agree with you. Before he states there is no superpositions in nature, but the phenomenon is referred to our incapabability to know the state of things, and then he allows the the chemical color to be in superpostion of states hahaha. If it is possible I would like an answer from anyone who understand this point

[@Daniel-ux8tx]

@@IlBuddhaSnello listen again to the part where he discusses: Living beings are conscious (a Cat) vs. a chemical reaction (pink/blue attributes) as not conscious (having no dashboard), but requiring an observation by a conscious being (the cat or outside observer) to perceive the pink or blue attribute…in other words, our ‘dashboard’ with which nature is perceived (our sensory faculties processed internally with our minds) IS our perception of the ‘world out there’, a world that is experienced by us, individually, by our ‘dashboard’ which ‘represents’ the ‘out there’ inside our minds, but is not actually what the ‘out there’ Is (in the fundamental sense)’. Pink or blue occurs to our vision function, and therefore is constructed from our vision function and meaningful to us in this way. furthermore, the language distinction of ‘out there’ is a concession to our lived experience of ‘inside/outside’, but in fact our connection to ‘out there’ only ever occurs for us ‘inside’ our perception, awareness, even autonomically. This awareness, meaning our individual awareness, is dissociated from the ever existing Consciousness from which and by which our individual awareness and experience(s) is made possible.

[@IlBuddhaSnello]

@@Daniel-ux8tx i agree with what you say. But what you say is different from what the phd is saying. Quoting from his speech: "the indeterminacy of nature before a measurement, speaks of our inabilty to know what state nature is in before we make an observation. It is not a statement that nature itself is in some kind of true ontic superposition of all possibilities" This the first part when speaking about the cat. So it seems he doesn't believe superimposition is in nature of things (as i believe instead). But then in the second part he allows this phenomenon

[@Daniel-ux8tx]

@@IlBuddhaSnello the specific topic the video conversation addresses, from Kastrup's POV, is a misconstrued understanding of Schrodinger's thought experiment, originally meant to highlight the absurdity of 'superimposition' as an 'actuality' as it is popularly promoted. Probability of 'dead or alive' is not equivalent to 'actually' being both at the same time, but depends entirely on perception by the observer which requires the faculties of perception, and for us humans, that means our sense perceptions and mental processing of them in conjunction with the all other biological faculties, which inherently are shapers/creators of our reality. The first step is in loosening this misconstrued understanding of the thought experiement, then it may become easier to comprehend (though one could still disagree with it) what Kastrup is saying.

[@IlBuddhaSnello]

@@Daniel-ux8tx ok now i think i understand what you mean. Thank you:)

[@saeiddavatolhagh9627]

Absolutely! 👏👏👏 The cat or any other animal for that matter is conscious enough to collapse the live-dead superposition. Although this cannot be said about the radioactive atom. Clearly different things have different levels of consciousness.

[@SodiumInteresting]

Pinkness and blue ness could still be thought of as a substances potential to absorb or reemit light of various frequencies in the absence of photons or observers

[@joh8982]

My thoughts exactly.

[@SodiumInteresting]

@joh8982 however the experience of the colours rather than frequency is still unique to our conscious brain

[@joh8982]

@@SodiumInteresting Naturally, that's not in dispute.

[@hook-x6f]

He adds color because color is qualia and qualia is subjective unlike dead or alive which is objective. We do not know until we look and that does not imply superposition it just means we have to look to know. Common sense.

[@marcusf9009]

​@@hook-x6f But he said the chemical WOULD be in a superposition, no? This confused me. Why is alive or dead more objective than one chemical or another?

[@timb350]

Isn't the issue NOT whether or not the cat is in a superposition...but that the act of measurement (whatever that means) introduces a direction to the outcome that would not occur if there was no measurement. IOW...there is not actually anything even in the box until a measurement takes place. If I recall...that is what Don Hoffman has proposed.

[@wernetto]

Watch interview with Prof. Dr. Caslav Brukner, Prof. Dr. Renato Renner and Prof. Dr. Eric Cavalcanti. This what they proposed resonate with Don Hoffman theory

[@RolandPihlakas]

But if the cat is dead then it does not have a screen of perception, it is not a conscious being. This will reintroduce the paradox in some sense.

[@genghisgalahad8465]

an afterlife cat though...

[@laisa.]

The perspective is placed outside the box, not within the cat.

[@rauxmedia]

Roland - listen again to the end of what Bernardo says in the clip about the pink and blue colors.. this also applies to the dead cat

[@noiz777]

That’s why cats have 9 lives

[@surrendertoflow78]

PLEASE interview Heinrich Päs, author of The One. I’m reading his book which delves into the history of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics. The notions of superposition, entanglement, non-locality, etc. are elucidated but the part that’s blowing my mind the most is how misinformed the popular view of Everett’s many-worlds interpretation is, how far from his initial intention we are when discussing these things and how the dogma of the Copenhagen interpretation shaped what Everett ended up having to publish because of pressure from his mentors, including Wheeler. I would love to hear all of this discussed further!

[@tedgunderson67]

Changing the color is measurement you planning on and actually observing the effects have a retro causal effect and collapse the superposition preemptively

[@marcinhibner9507]

The cat in the box is conversation starter as a present of conscious thoughts to be unwrapped as unknowns before it is known and so on

[@dhammaboy1203]

One of my favorite contemporary philosophers where the shirt of one of my favorite bands! 😁👌

[@andrew-virabhava]

I came here to say this

[@007ITZA]

Schrödinger's cat is a famous thought experiment, but I see a few fundamental issues with the scenario as it’s traditionally presented. The first problem lies in the fact that the cat is a conscious entity. As a result, it doesn't need an external observer to collapse the wave function. The cat itself, being conscious, is sufficient to observe the goings-on inside the box. This means that the collapse of the particle emission occurs simply by virtue of the cat’s awareness, rendering the need for an outside observer irrelevant. The act of observation happens from within, so the quantum superposition would resolve without any need for someone to open the box. Another crucial element is the concept of time. If we accept that linear time is an illusion, then the idea of the cat being alive or dead becomes irrelevant because true "aliveness" requires a linear progression of time. But we know that time, as we understand it, cannot exist in such a simple linear form due to phenomena like infinite regression and the implications of relativity, which show us that time is relative and, in some sense, doesn’t exist except as a perception. This suggests that the cat was never truly "alive" in the traditional sense because linear time is not a fixed reality. Taking it deeper, let’s imagine that instead of a living, conscious cat, the box contains a mechanism that releases a particle leading to the corrosion of a non-living object. This corrosion would be a visible, time-dependent reaction. If no observer is present until the box is opened, the corrosion would still occur, indicating that time has passed in some observable way. The corrosion doesn’t require consciousness, but it shows that time-dependent processes unfold even without direct observation. What’s particularly intriguing is how human perception and consciousness seem to influence randomness itself. This brings us to experiments like the double-slit, as described by Dr. Dean Radin. In this experiment, people were asked to focus their intention on affecting whether particles passed through one slit or the other. Remarkably, the results showed a small but significant correlation, with about 56% of the attempts influencing the outcome. This suggests that consciousness may indeed have a subtle impact on the probabilistic nature of quantum events. In this way, I believe that linear time itself emerges in accordance with the observer. Everything that needed to happen-whether it’s the emission of particles, the corrosion of objects, or the decay of matter-occurs in an instant, precisely because it needed to happen. Consciousness, as in Dr. Radin’s experiment, might even influence which outcome materializes, subtly shaping reality itself.

[@robs.5847]

I posted another comment that's more thorough than this reply, but I suggest that the states within a closed system remain superposed relative to the external observer, as a suggested consequence of quantum non-locality. The cat-as-observer is a sub-system that may play out as you described, relative to internal observers, but is still subject to quantum superpositioning externally because of the closed system in which it occurs, and the requirement that the cat's observation be sustained through to external observation. What happens to the cat's observations (i.e., any collapses of wave function / superposition) if the cat's consciousness / observer status is nullified (e.g., through death)? I take a different view of your corrosion example. I think that the only thing we know is that when penetrating and observing the closed system, the result must be one of the contained probabilities, including a pattern of time-dependent corrosion consistent with other states of the system. But if the geiger counter released a corrosive agent upon atomic decay, it could have been at t=0 or t=1, where the closure and penetration of the system are 0 and 1 respectively, or any time-fraction between the integers. And the resulting pattern could be any corrosion that could have occurred from that time onwards, noting other possible randomness in the system as potentially altering the pattern of corrosion. I would say that it's not that we know that time-dependent processes occur without observation, it's that we can only observe the results as though they occurred. This is not unlike how you phrased it, that it "occurs in an instant" because "it needed to happen". I think that the only thing we can observe is self-consistency at the time of observation, not conclusive evidence of what occurred beyond or before our observation. That's a bit of a woo-woo statement though, I'll admit.

[@joh8982]

If the cat has no light in the box then it can't observe anything, whether or not it's alive.

[@mmmk189]

That is what is so troubling about quantum mechanics - there is no easy way to stomach it. However, when you think it through in detail (Bell's theorem), hidden variables is a very hard pill to swallow, even harder than believing things are in a super position until "observed" because with hidden variables you MUST give up locality.

[@maddywilcox9012]

Hey boys keep up the phenomenal work UZ are one of our greatest hopes, love to hear UZ talk to Paul Levy author of undreaming wetiko... Stay well and take good care of yourselves ❤❤❤

[@kkandthegirls6363]

Finally, I understand the implications of Schrodinger's cat. Thank you!

[@rikib.3444]

No matter how long we observe the Box, we aren't The Observer. We are just a construct, the result of an observation.

[@nataliebutler]

Yes, human beings are not the only consciousness capable of 'looking'. It's such a blind spot to ignore that. Of course, in non-dual philosophy _everything_ is consciousness.

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

BK is a genius 👌🏻

[@cruds91]

The arguement I always hear is that it's not consciousness but just purely interaction with or by measuring devices that collapses the wave function. Can anybody carlify the truth here? I'd love it to be consciousness

[@Modalitony]

The ongoing web of interactions and consciousness could be the same process. Some people simply reject the notion that god might exist, which is why they vehemently deny any arguments that might point to that. The problem is, such a statement might not be proveable in our finite reality using currently applied pure mathematical logic, see Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

[@kinrich]

Consciousness is within all creation but at different vibrational frequencies. Human consciousness is more advanced because we’re equipped with perception screen and other aspects. If the measurement instrument (consisting of particles) interaction can collapse the wave function, in other words can change the behaviour of the particles being measured; imagine what a human being with a body also consisting of particles can do??? Many humans can’t even manipulate matter with direct interaction yet because the system installed limiting programs into the mass’s subconscious mind that we’re just powerless human beings. It requires a lot of inner work, deprogramming and persistence to unlock these qualities. I guarantee you we do miracles all the time but just in smaller scales.

[@phonsefagan5649]

Colors are a matter of perception, but EM frequencies within a given frame of reference are not.

[@ConcreteUniversal]

BK, good music taste man!

[@FXK23]

Perception without consciousness is very well possible; I concluded that after having an epileptic seizure, waking up and hiding under a table like an animal. I do not recall anything of these ~10min. being without 'consciousness ' but reacting to my environment by my perception.

[@alexmartin7165]

Perception without consciousness is impossible, all perception happens in consciousness. You remembering things or not is immaterial, also whether you do things intentionally or not you are still conscious.

[@joh8982]

@@alexmartin7165 Quite so.

[@FXK23]

@@alexmartin7165 What are the definitions of 'perception' and 'consciousness' when stating: 'Perception without consciousness is impossible'?

[@alexmartin7165]

I am by no means a professional philosopher so forgive me if my definitions aren't super strong but I would think of it in this way: Perception is what happens when sensations (raw data received through the senses) are translated through cognition into experiences. For example, as Im sure most of us know, our eyes receive all images upside down on the retna but we perceive them in the correct way because of various cognitive processes. Perception creates an organic flowing whole out of raw data. Consciousness I would say is something like pure subjectivity. Consciousness is that to which objects appear; as soon as there is an object there is necessarily a subject and that happens in consciousness. This is why idealists like Kastrup will say 'everything is in consciousness' because there is nothing known without a knower. And to go back my first comments point, perception is impossible without consciousness because perception necessarily requires an object. There are definitely other issues here, like whether consciousness can exist without an object etc. But I only wanted to make the point about perception. Perception exists in subject object relations, and subject object relations happen in consciousness. Also if anyone smarter than me or more well versed sees a problem here please correct me. I want to learn!

[@joh8982]

@@alexmartin7165 But of course if we concede that perception happens only in consciousness then we have complications...Like the fact that sing'e-celled organisms react to environmental stimuli, and plants 'react' to sunlight. The list goes on I'm afraid.Are these things conscious? It's a very knotty problem!

[@MichaelJones-ek3vx]

Conceptually, *Wave" is used in two ways, one. A probability wave, what we know about a quantum state before measurement, 2. The way a quantum particle propagates in space. It behaves as a wave, yet it is measured as a particle. So is the hard for those of us who don't work with the equations or, did 40 years ago; we become conceptually trapped between these two different definitions. One definition bleeds into another. Faggan spends a lot of time on this in " Irreducible ". It helps.

[@ScaryStoriesNYC]

My favorite Robert Anton Wilson book is about this subject. It's actually a few books in one-- There's a reality in the book where Jimmy Carter becomes a nuclear scientist instead of President of the USA. I'm happy to hear your take on this subject, Bernardo, and also happy you like The Cure LOL.

[@nenirouvelliv]

While I'm not a proponent of the many worlds theory, it's not unimaginable to think that there can exist two timelines wherein one of them the cat lives on an the other where the cat dies. In a non-many worlds Universe the equivalent subjective experience from the cats point of view would be if it was perfectly and instantaneously cloned and the other clone would be fatally poisoned. Both cats would, at least in theory, have a continuous conscious experience, except for the other one it would end sooner. It's down to the fact if we believe conscious experience can be "forked" like a river into two different temporal streams.

[@scp234]

so is it both pink and blue or just unknown until measured?

[@BarackObamaJedi]

Apple's Dark Matter took care of the isolated observer, self-observing itself out of superposition, by having the character take a dissociative anaesthetic (also a psychedelic that expands the mind's imagination to render the superposition inside the multiverse-travelling box as some simpler representation like a corridor)

[@mjt1517]

I’ve always thought, isn’t the cat an observer? 😂

[@firstaidsack]

Do you believe in a sort of conscious-unconscious ontological dualism of reality? That conscious and unconscious beings are fundamentally different?

[@katehiggins9940]

I just think that it only looks like knowledge due to memory, but we’re never really knowing anything. So self-consciousness is illusory. Just like people that sleepwalk and do all sorts of things and have conversations with people while they are not “conscious”. Then they “come to “and we say they are now conscious. But what does that really mean? Only that stimuli is being recorded potentially and then that looks like knowing. But it’s never really happening. Nothing is ever really happening. I think there is only being. and being isn’t memory. it’s timeless ness.

[@Aliens-Are-Our-Friends2027]

Consciousness = all that is = perception of reality in this NOW moment

[@amartinakis]

The cat for itself knows if it is alive. (Not sure if anyone can be aware of it's own death) But the cat for external observers is in the realm of their perception regardless if it is conscious or not

[@Sander.1980]

Hey volgens mij ken ik jouw kanaal van vorig jaar. Iets met Lenzen slijpen?

[@Marco-wq7nn]

Said this for years, i cannot understand it had to take so long until this point is made. Physists are not philosophers clearly.

[@user-ov6qd2mb5x]

I have a can of red paint. The can is metal, and sealed. What color is the paint inside the can? Black.

[@francesco5581]

"there is a seemingly fundamental limit to our ability to predict or know unmeasured states of non-living nature" , good, but between predict and know there is a big difference : Predict = that state is not yet defined, like as the quantum level is a molding tool of reality. Know = that state is already defined by something else (consciousness of some kind). There is maybe a third option, the panpsychist/Levin one, that non-living nature has a kind of consciousness too, and so we are just not able yet to "read" what its doing.

[@MA-ResearchEdu-e9l]

I'd love to see some more female voices on this wonderful channel

[@timbeck6726]

My cat is self-aware but unconsciously pooped in the box...whatta ya gonna do?

[@jonnygemmel2243]

It’s not about the cat, it’s about the box

[@andreyassa7638]

Duality is a limitation of cognitive systems. If you try to think about this experiment without any duality (such as living and non-living entities), but in a monistic way, it'll appear in a different way. But it's not easy to get rid off the dualistic cognition. And the next problem is, whatever we do, say or think - it's a measurement of the world or is based on measurements we did before. Results of measurements don't exist before the measurements, so basically we don't know anything about what causes phenomenons, such as blueness or the idea of it. Whatever we experience, it doesn't exist without the observer.

[@jerrbearNW]

I love this little explanation... However- and I am a non-scientist, so be kind- I always thought that Schrodinger's cat was a kind of narrative version of the double-slit experiment... and in that experiment aren't we observers actually detecting two different states? Is that cat story just wrongfully being conflated with an actual experiment about the superposition of two different wave and particle states...? Can anyone help me reconcile these two things...?

[@haushofer100]

Can you back this claim up with a calculation? Exactly hpw does this consciousness "collapse" the superposition? And what about the PBR-theorem if the wavefunction is epistemic?

[@sumeyradogan3426]

I am new to your channel, about consciousness, Tom Campbell is one of best physicist.. with a trilogy My Big Theory of Everything ( aka My Big Toe)

[@Shane7492]

If particles are not both waves and particles, why is a wave pattern produced when you fire 1 photon at a time through a double slit?

[@barrymoore4470]

Photons at least are both waves and particles, depending on the type of measurement or observation being made of them.

[@mjt1517]

You’re assuming photons are actual things.

[@tonybarry787]

Isn’t this like saying a tree that fell in the forest didn’t actually fall unless something observed it falling? Also I think decoherence comes into it, larger objects can’t be in quantum states

[@LukasOfTheLight]

It is not like saying that.

[@tonybarry787]

@@LukasOfTheLight he said when there’s consciousness present, even like a cat, it collapses the wave function and the cat is either alive or dead. Whereas a gas “killing” the cat isn’t conscious and therefore doesn’t collapse the wave function. Appreciate you don’t agree, care to explain your thinking?

[@presupping4eva]

All the mass scale objects are emergent from quantum fields so I would say it still matters.

[@KENNETHedwardMitchell]

I still wonder why more people dont look at the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce? Consciousness, Interpretation/reality and natural laws as probabilities were all addressed by him. I love this new way some scientists are thinking, but it slips into philosophy pretty quickly.

[@ChrisC-ei2kc]

Specious semantics. Consciousness (in general) is a mystery. But there is one thing we do know for sure: There is consciousness and there is Super Consciousness and therein lies the - deception ...

[@PetraKann]

@@ChrisC-ei2kc can you identify something that is not a deception?

[@ChrisC-ei2kc]

@@PetraKann Yes, but it would be to our disadvantage to expose it to the mere common conscious among us.

[@PetraKann]

@@ChrisC-ei2kc are you conscious?

[@christopherhamilton3621]

I agree. It’s like Jordan Peterson reinterpreting the freaking bible. In this regard, it’s ALL a thought experiment! 😂

[@PetraKann]

@@christopherhamilton3621 Define “freaking”. What sort of an adjective is freaking?

[@XBauhausX]

If that cat is listening to THE CURE, now that would change everything! - All Cats Are Grey -

[@davidmb2587]

Lovecats!

[@ronrice1931]

That, of course, was Schrödinger's point when he devised his thought experiment: the idea the cat is both alive and dead is absurd. But not because the cat is "conscious"! If the cat started out unconscious it still would not be both alive and dead. The concept of consciousness is not even defined in physics. The concept of measurement as an interaction is. What is presented in this video is not mainstream physics by a long shot, and rather than just nodding and agreeing with everything, the interviewer should have asked Mr Kastrup some difficult questions about that.

[@mjt1517]

The act of measurement implies consciousness. Even automated measurement implies consciousness.

[@audiodead7302]

@@mjt1517 The act of measurement implies interactions. That's all.

[@ronrice1931]

@@mjt1517 So you are saying every measurement, even one which is not observed by a sentient being, somehow involves consciousness? You'd be hard pressed to defend that argument.

[@VictorKibalchich]

@@mjt1517 no it doesn't

[@notmyrealpseudonym6702]

​@ronrice1931 for a measurement to be a measure, as compared to an interaction, requires a consciousness to determine it is a measurement. A ruler beside a piece of string is just 2 objects within proximity of each other, the arbitration of one of them as a 'measure' requires an arbitrator. If I walked into a room and said oh that ruler measures the piece of string as x cm, and then walk out of the room, the ruler doesn't keep measuring. Even if we then extrapolate to dynamic machine objects, computers etc, they don't have the ability of signification or arbitration, otherwise all interactions are measurements. That's my understanding and happy to be proven wrong but you'd have to produce the ghost in the machine and not your interaction with the machine or just the machine.

[@drottercat]

Finally someone takes the point of view of the poor cat. I have always disliked the idea of using a cat in this experiment even if it is only in thought. Schroedinger must have hated cats.

[@andredavis5370]

I find it interesting that we keep ignoring the fact an objective world can only be experienced subjectively. Paradoxically, this would make the subjective truth (the truth that can be known) truer than the objective truth (the truth which must be assumed). By that line of thinking,, the objective state of the cat would have to be in a subjective state of superposition to the person(s) outside the box, while existing in a "solid" state to itself. At least that's how I would assess the issue...

[@ricardocastillo5485]

I don't understand, if the cat is dead, after a while won't it start to smell?

[@Marco-wq7nn]

An interesting question would be, what about bacteria. Do they have some form of consiousness, and so does it have influence on the measurement as they are everywhere? Or is it about the fact that bacteria or even the cat cannot communicate the outcome, as humans can, and is not consiousness but the coherence of information leading.

[@andrewmoonbeam321]

It depends if it's a Lovecat.

[@xman933]

If it is misunderstood or mischaracterized that the cat is “both alive and dead”, could that be because those postulating these concepts are fuzzy about what they’re proposing, don’t understand it themselves or are poor communicators? If those involved in “doing the science” cannot elucidate their postulates, then nature abhors that vacuum and those requiring certainty will explain and or popularize it in a manner that distills the required certainty from the cloud of uncertainty created by those “doing the science”

[@TheWayofFairness]

I solve it without consciousness with superdeterminism. My visions show me a future that is already created.

[@-tarificpromo-7196]

Pink iPhone is soldout💀

[@texastexas4541]

I imagine Deepak Chopra disagrees with it and he probably would believe superposition of quantum jumps out of space but entangled by super quanta states that vibrates in universal consciousness at frequencies defined by the instability of various quantized super states.

[@elgaen555]

The whole point of Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is to think outside of our common intuitions?

[@SennGorSan]

What if the cat is (in a state of ) sleeping? Is it conscious?

[@barrymoore4470]

Sleeping I believe is still generally held to be a state of consciousness. Dreams are certainly examples of consciousness at play, and they routinely occur during sleep.

[@a.i.8583]

I honestly believe Schrodinger's Cat is the dumbest metaphor for quantum physics. It's the same as saying both the top lock and bottom lock of my door are both unlocked and locked until I try the key in both of them. You're really just saying you're uncertain until you know for sure. I hate this example so much.

[@haushofer100]

Then you miss the point. It's very hard to claim that the wavefunction is purely epistemic like your key-example. The point is that it's not clear why we never observe superpositions while they're abundant in QM. This example makes that explicit.

[@a.i.8583]

​@haushofer100 I do not miss the point. Explain to me what I'm missing with Schrodinger's Cat.

[@haushofer100]

@@a.i.8583 I did.

[@bw4265]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it... If plants can respond to music, how can there be a forest with no one in it?

[@BunnyDarko]

I'm not even close to being a scientist but the whole cat part always threw me off. I thought, "why not use a vial of paint that spills or something?"

[@joh8982]

Only for the reason that it would sound less dramatic.

[@Fringe-ui8qf]

There are no superpositions in the macroscopic world, doesn't matter if you look or not. The cat in the box or anything like that is not a quantum system. For starters it's not thermally isolated so the outside world is constantly interacting with it.

[@Soma_3046]

One cannot separate the macroscopic world from the microscopic world.

[@Fringe-ui8qf]

@@Soma_3046 Exactly, that's my point! Objects like a cat in a box are too big to be isolated from i. e. the heat from other things. And that means it's not a quantum system so no superposition.

[@Soma_3046]

@@Fringe-ui8qf This is why I believe that the human mind (and that of a cat) is an indivisible, quantum-based entity.

[@MrErhanulug]

Bravo ....

[@marek-kulczycki-8286]

With all due respect, it is wrong interpretation. "Pinkness" or "blueness" is not a property on its own, but it depends on physical properties, which are objective. So the pinkness or blueness are not possible without perception, but the underlying chemical or physical structure which determines the color is there before the observation. My view is close or identical to Qbism: The QM is about our guesses about what outcome of measurement will be, not about the underlying ontic structures and objects. So when we talk about superposition, it is a superposition of our guesses, there is nothing real (existing objectively) which is in the superposition before the measurement. Secondly I think the problems in interpretations of QM arise because we tend to treat quantum objects as objectively existing beings, while IMO they are processes of interactions between something fundamental, approximated best by quantum fields. For instance in the double-slit experiment it is wrong to ask by which slit electron is going because the "process of detection of the electron" will happen only when the disturbance of the electron field will interact with the screen or detector.

[@heinomartlaisk281]

Cat in that experiment is taken as nonconscious objekt and anyway there is no way to prove that something without measuring is in fixed state. It seems, measuring counsciousness is unavoidable part of real world

[@Sander.1980]

I am alive. :) straight from the Netherland.. Consious ❤🙏🏼😊☸️⚛️

[@josephturner7569]

So, by abstraction, we are both alive and dead until seen by someone else. And so are they.

[@ChannelZeroX]

No, he's saying the observer of the experiment can't know the outcome until they verify it.

[@juliettescherrer4557]

Very good explanation with the conscious cat and the ignorant outstander supposing a superposition.

[@ghostdogzx-1474]

…AND he has great taste in music!?!

[@KathiOsborn]

No such thing as death and everything is consciousness, it's all energy.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

if quantum mechanics about future, and future not yet determined, then could be that quantum mechanics is not determined?

[@whatisthis-y8w]

Can’t prove that all living beings are conscious. Without being able to prove this, really we know nothing for sure

[@-tarificpromo-7196]

Freewill conjecture

[@mattdavis4937]

Love cats ❤

[@gtron7692]

I'm reporting Mr. Schrodiger to PETA.

[@melaniestarkey7868]

Look at a thought it's both dead and alive not yet manifested.

[@abc0to1]

But wait, what if we assume that inanimate objects have something like consciousness?

[@valfrittefternamn]

But if everything is a representation of the counsciousness, does it have to be something alive to be conscious? Wouldn't a single atom then do the trick, too?

[@guesswhat7770]

Cat is no soul entity only humans have soul . Only human consciousness is creating the reality.

[@nathanielacton3768]

I still don't get the big deal. Just use the wok 'indeterminate'. To resolve the indeterminacy you test state. As electronic progresses we're testing for state continuously, autonomously. A billion camera's recording 7*24 removed a lot of indeterminacy, and that trend continues. The CCD is not conscious but because it's "recording" we can see what happened without perception being involved. This concept was busted long ago by delayed choice because the testing machines are the observers, not conscious perception. If the world around us is a simulation it is following physical rules whether we look or not so, we can afterwards see the effect of things happening when we are not around. Like a riverbed of rounded stones in an arctic stream that look 100k years to shape them. In that case there is not even a recording device, the physical end result is the record. II think the problem here is that the point of this thought experiment is for the atomic world, and it doesn't translate well at all to the aggregate world.

[@theanthropocenegardener4529]

I've been saying this for 30 years. And I'm only 20 seconds into the video. You need an unconscious thing in the box. Even still it's a nonsensical mystery created by Schroedinger to expose its ludicrousness.

[@robertjary2470]

Bacteria is conscious? I have obviously misunderstood consciousness ( or bacteria )

[@PetraKann]

Define consciousness. Everett proposed the many worlds theory in the 1950s and the observer is part of the overall wave function. That is, the observer is not an independent outside factor but rather an element of Schrodinger’s wave function. A fairly popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics with many of today’s physicists and philosophers.

[@francesco5581]

well that would fit Berdardo idealism too i think, because if the observer is part of the equation then free will would not exist (and that is his idea, even if I dont agree with that) and the equation is the dissociation/projection of reality made by the whole consciousness

[@PetraKann]

@@francesco5581 define free will

[@PetraKann]

@The.Watcher.2024 Define experientialness

[@francesco5581]

@@PetraKann the ability of each conscious and self aware "tendril" of the basic intelligence of the universe to act on his own will

[@PetraKann]

@@francesco5581 i dont know where to start with the contents of you sermon my friend. Tendril? Intelligence if the universe?

[@Raptorel]

I love Bernardo but he is wrong, here. The wave function is ontic, not epistemic. You know this because an unobserved electron behaves like a wave, showing interference patterns. If the wave function was just epistemic, this wouldn't be true - Nature wouldn't change behavior just because you knew or didn't knew stuff. The real explanation of why an electron behaves like a wave when unobserved and like a particle when observed (in other words, displaying an interference pattern when not observed and lacking an interference pattern when observed) is that when you observe the electron you get entangled with it - now there is a wave function that describes both the electron and you. It's this entanglement the reason why the interference pattern is gone. So what I think Nature does is that it lives in a superposition of dissociations, from which the classical spacetime emerges. Since Nature can't experience a dead cat, it only experiences the alive cat, which is no surprise. But both branches exist, the Many Worlds Interpretation is correct. Nature is described by the wave function of the Universe, with its incredible number of dissociations and their relationships on each branch, all at the same "time" (I put "time" in quotation marks because time only makes sense in the emergent spacetime of each branch, not fundamentally).

[@rupertsmith6097]

Schrodingers Cat is thermal mass and that changes everything.

[@UpliftingMusicbr]

The thing is: The cat has no co-creator capability, he is an unconscious being that acts only on predetermined stincts by nature. The cat has no free will to co-create outside of whatever god / nature decided for him as a cat. Humans on the other hand are conscious beings that can create anything in the world, colapsing particles , creating computer microchips, languages, AI models, space ships , huge constructions and whatever we decide to create. So technically on our planet, the only being able to collapse that waveform are humans . Cats and other animals , bacteria etc do not have real consciousness like bernardo said, they have instincts only .

[@Stegosaurus12345]

I think animals have just as much consciousness but much less critical thinking ability.

[@MariaAlmeida-kp5xb]

A inteligência infinita divina ou Deus é impossível ser explicada, porque como disse um grande shamam hawaiian, o ser humano não pode compreender o seu criador, não é esse o seu propósito. Sejam felizes!❤🙏

[@marciopocciotti]

According to Quantum Theory, there is not even a cat in the box prior to observation (The moon is not there if you are not looking - I'm sorry Einstein)

[@LuciFeric137]

Lol. Define consciousness. Define life for that matter.

[@AuroCords]

He has, thoroughly, look it up

[@texastexas4541]

Define God.

[@LukasOfTheLight]

That which is asking the question.

[@goldwhitedragon]

Lol. If it can be said, then it isn't it.

[@racheldawn65]

Yah according to the most advanced math and the physics based on it (Penrose) there's always an objective reality sphere so the cat is either dead or alive (only one) no matter what you believe! If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it still falls. Penrose's Road to Reality goes into this topic in great detail. The objective reality field exists independently but in relation to our subjective reality/senses and the interaction bw the two is what creates reality, but the wave function is ultimately collapsed by an objective force. Luckily the foundation of both the West and western science is the belief in a shared objective reality field and the most advanced math supports this (although it's also very possible that the ratio of how much reality creation is subjective changes as we evolve - we may gain an increasing degree of control over manifestation as we move into higher states of consciousness)... Penrose is one of the reasons that a Satanic Bolshevik cult that rejects objective reality is currently collapsing the West in a huge biogenocide, interestingly enough. The entire West exists in a false reality that often inverts the objective reality field and they're using it to commit huge genocides. and wars justified by false flags. Funny how there's so much overlap bw physics and sorcery, eh? Luckily math still exists and is the only real science left, many argue. The last 50 years has been pure witchcraft justified by physics! 😂

[@Carl-s2s]

OK but if the cat sleeps like for 23 hours per day, isn't it in quantum superposition for 23 hours of day?

[@abc0to1]

Since the brain is constantly active even while we are sleeping, I believe this is what constitutes observational behavior.

[@ViceZone]

So basically he is saying that there’s no superposition because everything is conscious? Tf

[@nandecaetano3393]

you just pushed the problem a little bit more, the color of the chemicals is not an experience quality, is two different chemical reactions thatwould generate that color (to our eyes), in other words its a superposition of two entirely different chemical reaction wich looks very hard to mantain in superposition, the real surpassing of the problem is asking what is the objective reductions of the superposition instead of this poor elaborated subjective one (dumbed down schrodingers cat metioned at the start of the video), even if the anwser is still dealing with subjectivity (Orch OR)

[@nandecaetano3393]

under idealism the chemicals are conscious not only made from consciousness, a visual dash board isnt the only way to interact with physical reality

[@mycount64]

Ask the cat if it's alive or dead.

[@picksalot1]

The Experimenter's understanding is in a state of superimposition. This is usually just called ignorance, and it doesn't have any causal influence over what is happening with the cat.

[@Lucyelle]

Wondering how that amoeba might perceive the 'cat' and whether it's 'dead' or 'alive' (because none of what i am saying could be true in amoeba world, including this negation regarding their perception of cats and their life states).

[@mondopinion3777]

Brilliant !! Why didn't I ever think of that?