The Other Side of Physics | Sabine Hossenfelder | TEDxNewcastle

[@hawkerdoo]

When I was a youngster I was completely captivated by Professor Carl Sagan, and here I am having that same experience with Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder in my Senior years.

[@SeanRJohnson]

I'm so happy to live in a universe capable of producing Sabine Hossenfelder.

[@kgbstudio]

Amen , good sir!

[@TeaParty1776]

The universe produced volitional determinism. SH used that to produce herself.

[@ivangohome]

She's annoying and pretentious.

[@TheEndPhase]

Me too - don't care what it reveals. :D

[@ivangohome]

@@SeanRJohnson she puts Maxwell against Einstein for entertainment claiming that she can judge who is superior

[@lennyvlaminov9480]

Sabine is brilliant, a whole universe of insights and analysis

[@DJWESG1]

Rare this.. an expert giving a Ted talk..

[@happyelephant5384]

Aren't ted talk made for experts to give

[@DJWESG1]

@@happyelephant5384 maybe

[@CarlyDayDay]

​@@happyelephant5384 Just seems like random *ss people to me. I guess maybe they're experts to somebody.

[@doctorpex6862]

@@happyelephant5384 mostly no

[@zyansheep]

*TedX talk

[@brianhadley527]

Clear presentation of somewhat difficult to comprehend ideas. Informative and educational in an interesting way. Gotta love this intelligent woman.

[@charlesdavis7940]

The best science communicator of our age? It is rare to explain the most complex ideas in a way that is completely understandable.

[@eric9615]

Fantastic talk, Sabine Hossenfelder has introduced physics and concepts in digestible bits for folks like myself trying to learn a little bit more every day

[@GerritSchulze]

It is always a pleasure to listen to Sabine Hossenfelder's thoughts. They are easy to grasp and to say in her words 'ascientific', at least for me... I have no evidence against nor do I have evidence supporting the idea behind her thoughts.

[@davidpantoja676]

So good to have this content available, science is cool.

[@amphibiousone7972]

Sabine gives outstanding lectures. Thank You Dr.Sabine

[@nyworker]

She's got humility which is a great foundational trait for all great thinker's.

[@butwhoasked1821]

@@nyworker "Have the arrogance to believe you can do it, and the humility to recognize you might be wrong"

[@ivangohome]

She's annoying and pretentious.

[@glenncurry3041]

Interesting to watch you from another perspective. I watch your youtube channel religiously! And watched you with Penrose and others in discussions. I always learn something and love your, yes, strange humor!

[@thee_ms_enthusiast6030]

I don’t know if it’s the same experience with others. Being taught and given empirical meaning to what’s being taught, gives me liking and an opportunity to better interpret “stuff” and even maybe make advancement on them. I’m usually lost if I cannot pair what is taught with empirical meaning. This is why I like Sabine. She dangles these two so well. In undergraduate physics, I didn’t understand geometrical meanings of the cones in special relativity. And here she opens up so well to it.

[@sparky7915]

Physics can discover the laws of our universe and how we can use them. That is the limit of physics. It can not explain what happened before the big bang. It can not explain how psychics can communicate with the dead. It can not explain how it is that some people can see the future. Physics can not develop equations to explain these kinds of things. Sabine Hossenfelder makes physics so interesting and explains things so well. I think she's the best!

[@emalee8366]

She's wonderful! Smart, humorous, and good at teaching. Follow her science news channel. Oh, and she also creates music. 🙂

[@thej3799]

🌻

[@monad_tcp]

11:31 I agree with that from principles, I'm a computing scientist and its nice to hear from physicists that we converge on that.

[@TheMarcusrobbins]

When I have heard her before she seemed to lack imagination. Now I see it's just that her imagination is strongly tempered by precise logical thought. That is the mark of a great mind, my respect for her has increased significantly. It is an annoying aspect of a scientific world dominated by sensors, people who do not delve into the subconscious as much, that these insights are frowned upon. I hope as her standing increases she becomes more free to express them.

[@georgesheffield1580]

What ? Learn something ,please .

[@TheMarcusrobbins]

@@georgesheffield1580 The chance that you understand more about the world than I do is very small. And I have very small error bars on that prediction.

[@david_porthouse]

Well she has nailed her colours to the mast of superdeterminism.

[@daviddayag]

She’s so cute how she’s nervous 😊 I hear it in her voice since I had to also do a lecture and had the same “chopped” voice lol

[@Thomas-gk42]

Yes, she´s cute, though she has no reason to be nervous, being one of the most brilliant thinkers, humanity can count on currently.

[@corrupt1238]

Saline 's just awesome, totally buzzing about her idea that the universe thinks

[@enockmarere3113]

Love her honesty

[@hyrocoaster]

11:26 I find the idea of a thinking universe on a large scale interesting and I hadn't known before that physicists have started to think about it. However, what I thought she would say, and this would have appeared rather self-evident to me, is that we know already that the universe can think through us. This wouldn't mean that the thinking is everywhere (in the sense of the idea that the whole universe can think), but as Sabine said herself we are part of the same universe, so apparently at least parts of it can think? So the question for me would be whether there is, in addition to the thinking that the universe already does, further thinking: among galaxies, tiny wormholes, etc.

[@arijitsinha2263]

There are some recorded talks like this, which after ending deserves clapping👏👏 excellent!

[@erickmorales4312]

I’m shocked . I came on here because I have listened to Sabine for over a year now. I actually alway wondered what if the universe itself is a brain trying to understand itself , and it is alive but in a way our brain cant comprehend. The same way we are trying to understand our existence. Now I don’t feel as crazy.

[@davidinkster1296]

If the universe is a brain, is the universe God, and vice versa?

[@erickmorales4312]

@@davidinkster1296 I think you could call it whatever you want. The word “ GOD“ is a word that was created by humans as was religion. We have to name what we don’t understand on our limited cognitive capacity. Personally I think there is a powerful force that pulls this together. Something we are yet to understand. Death might give us that answer. I don’t believe in the common “ someone is watching our sins” , what I believe is with at we are the universe expressing itself , trying to understand Itself in a physical form. I think both a science & spirituality could give us the answer one day. I hope I’m making sense, but as long as it makes sense to me . I’m fine with that

[@davidinkster1296]

@@erickmorales4312 I generally agree with you; I am an agnostic and I fully realize that using the word God will be controversial to some. Personally I like the view (attributed to Einstein) that there is a creator/god, who is not concerned about the day-to-day existence of humans.

[@lupamartins8830]

Sabine Is such an underrated physics personality

[@das_schnitzel]

She's many things, but she's definitely not underrated by anyone remotely interested in the things she talks about

[@benmcreynolds8581]

In a way, she is giving motivation. Just like how dark humor can be therapeutic for a individual; being able to be self aware enough to realize when certain things get off track and it can motivate you/anyone to attempt to look at these things and try and find a new perspective/approach to solve a problem. The best inventors, philosophers, artists seem to be able to be comfortable with facing things and learning to harness the ability of how you observe things as a tool and through perspective experimenting, you can sometimes stumble upon new methods/manner's on how to solve problems in ways that others didn't notice/see/or understand. (Just like how Einstein had the ability to get lost in hypothetical thought and imagine different perspectives and then it stumbled upon his path towards learning about light/energy/physics etc.) That came from Einstein taking a category that previously was in a state of limbo, but he was willing to look at it and see if he could find anything else out about it. So if you get demotivated, or down, try and remember that even things we think we fully understand; have the total possibility that you can look at it/observe it in a new light that others haven't and totally find a new layer of complexity or depth to a topic. So even if we are faced with a lot of difficult situations, roadblock's, the best thing is the universe is full of amazing intracity so the chance of further understanding the world around us is profoundly possible and to me that's very motivational and Nature itself some how seems to have a way of always keeping that inner child like curiosity alive with-in my Life.

[@stratovation1474]

Yes. That's why most Ted talks follow cookie cutter formulae and are way overrehearsed and over simplified.

[@yinyuejia7]

Sabine, thank you for being so complete and clear!

[@axle.student]

Excellent talk. Thanks Sabine. > I am uncertain if "Can the universe think?" is the right question as it implies a certain human characteristic. I am more toward "Aware" but in an abstract non human way. All information across the universe being directly connected in the now moment, and that universal connection of information as a combined set forms a kind of non human knowledge. To use a human analogy, the universe knows the entirety of itself in any now moment. This is not human like though.

[@strangevision99]

Wow, this was really close to where I live and I had no idea. It'd have been great to go along and watch one of my favourite science people on KZbin, in real life.

[@berniv7375]

Newcastle is a bonnie city. It used to be part of Scotland and for a time it was the capitol of Scotland. Well. I do not believe in the multiverse and I think the theory was born out of arrogance and fear. The universe is vast and incomprehensible and we belittle the universe by stating there are many. This makes us feel safe. My theory is that there is some kind of subconscious interaction between the brain and the universe and that computers are evolving our brains. If the universe was a gigantic brain it would send and receive messages through thought which is instantaneous and faster than the speed of light. Obviously if it is the universe that is thinking it will not be subject to the rules of time and space as we perceive them.🌱

[@shubhanshjain]

Thank you Dr. Hossenfelder for taking time out of your busy schedule to deliver this lecture. I’ve learned some great facts and ideas from your videos.

[@PieterPatrick]

The world needs more Sabine!

[@Astronist]

13:00: "That they have quantum properties means among other things that they can be in two places at the same time. We also know that those particles have masses, and mass generates a gravitational pull, which brings up the question: if you have a particle that's in two places at the same time, where does the gravitational pull go?" - Interesting point that I've not thought about before. The obvious answer would be that gravity behaves like the particle's electric charge. If a charged particle interacts with another charged particle in some observable way, then that constitutes an observation and the wave function collapses; the particle is no longer in two places at once (or rather, the amplitude of its probability distribution no longer has two peaks at different points in space). So with gravity: if the particle exchanges a graviton with another particle, then again the wave function collapses. But it's a long time since I studied quantum mechanics (and not very successfully even then), so it's probably not that at all.

[@tevatronlhc244]

i love the definiton of ascientific and the distinction to unscietific. if u dont mind, i will use if someone askes me about the multiverse idea

[@charlesmanning6489]

Physics might be the most powerful tool we have to make sense of our own existence but it is not powerful enough. Even if physics came up with a perfectly complete set of theories that precisely describe existence and for which no violations could be found we would still be asking "why universe is that way?" The answer to that question seems to be important for making sense of existence yet it is a question which no answer could completely satisfy.

[@dhayes907]

You cannot know everything about a system you are a part of.

[@binbots]

The arrow of time points forward in time because of the wave function collapse. Because causality has a speed limit every point in space sees itself as the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past. GR is making measurements in the predictable past. QM is trying to make measurements of the probabilistic future.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Read her new book, 'Existential Physics',meanwhile, this lecture is about, recommend it very much, great to hear her talking life about it here.😊

[@marcusbeau]

/bow nod yes

[@waltergith6535]

Dear Sabine (I hope you read the comments), I like your work a lot! I would appreciate if you would also tell people that what you call "compatible" indeed means that our philosophical speculations are at least 50% about our own theories and not about what we call "reality". In my eyes all our theories are "compatible theories". As the observer problem clearly shows, the reality itself is and will always be beyond our knowledge. I think the works of Donald Hoffman show this very impressively.

[@LeksDee]

I am happy to inform you that Sabine exists in my subjective experience of the universe.

[@xenphoton5833]

Sabine, you rock girl! 👍

[@monad_tcp]

13:26 that means spacetime isn't the most basic property, information is, if two particles are in the same space that only means they are strongly correlated in a information point of view, and the biggest correlation between specific particles is what creates gravity, not the spacetime. Which is why theories can't be reconciled. one of them is basically missing "hidden variables". With general relativity its too easy to confuse an useful abstraction with the real thing itself. The real thing is information, not the space that information represents. Information can be duplicated, and information don't occupy space, but information can correlate with itself, that creates Shannon entropy, and that creates the effects of "gravity". Yes, I subscribe to the information-theoretic foundations of physics (for obvious reasons, I'm a computing scientist).

[@TeaParty1776]

>if two particles are in the same space that only means they are strongly correlated in a information point of view, Right! Reality is not information about reality.

[@GururajBN]

This point is very interesting: that we always see everything as it was in the past because of finet speed of light. We can never know the present, no matter how tiny a fraction of second the time lag is. Reality we experience is always in the past, never in the present. Raises interesting philosophical questions.

[@machintelligence]

There is also the time lag introduced by the speed of neural transmitters and cognition which dwarfs the physics time lag. You “see” things long after the photons strike your cone cells.

[@TeaParty1776]

>Reality we experience is always in the past, We experience that in the present. And the past that we experience is typically so short that it makes no practical difference. If chased by a tiger, dont tell yourself that its in the past or you will be in the past for eternity.

[@XEinstein]

It amazes me how much her ability to speak English has grown over the years since she first started appearing on my KZbin streams. Nowadays you can clearly hear a person that speaks and possibly even dreams English on a daily rate. Few years ago it was very typical heavily German inflected English. Makes me wonder if she can already make Germans believe she's not German.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Know her video "talking English like Einstein"?

[@XEinstein]

@@Thomas-gk42 I know it exists, but I haven't seen it. I speak both German and English so I thought I'd understand the video also without seeing it

[@scoobdubious]

Totally absorbing. Well thought out....

[@ConnoisseurOfExistence]

Nice! Need to listen to this again, to remember some points that I noticed and share this video with some questions here and there...

[@sparky7915]

In Edgar Cayce's readings he states things that agree with physics observations. For example are we in a multiverse? It is fascinating!

[@Bengt.Lueers]

Sabine straying out of the circle she is supposed to stay inside of. How poetic.

[@Xamy-]

Haha

[@michaeltrower741]

Like a true scientist, she's thinking outside the circle.

[@gefginn3699]

Sabine is a Treasure.

[@marcusbeau]

beyond measure

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

Love Sabine. For the algorithm

[@johnjennings8500]

Very interesting talk. Thanks for making this available.

[@jimboswell4818]

There are many things in physics we have yet to understand, things we have yet to change our minds about, Things such as consciousness and spiritual physics.

[@Nocontextturkishboi]

I’ve been following sabine since 2020. Biggest fan of her 😍

[@tarmaque]

You _can't_ be the biggest fan of her, because _I'm_ a biggest fan of her and you're never at any of the meetings. 🤪

[@bjorntantau194]

You can only be her biggest fan if you keep sending her your theory of everything.

[@EstamosDe]

You cant be her biggest fan because you haven't heard her song "When they ask us" while crying :'o

[@singin4free]

Interesting and thoughtful! I think what I heard you imply is that since the concept of a thinking universe is compatible with what we know, though there's no evidence , one might say it takes faith to believe in it. Personally, I can't argue against having faith in that which is compatible yet unprovable. So, why not faith in a creator outside the universe?

[@Gottfried1983]

We are absolutely not made of matter, matter is created inside us as infinite beings.

[@MonsterSound.Bradley]

experience Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder

[@markmcd2780]

SoL is not the main reason we do not live in NOW. The delay in processing the signal is. Reception of event via senses, transmission of impulse along nerves, processing in the brain, presentation of dataset to the 'I' who is watching it all.

[@michaeltrower741]

well put

[@jgeur]

2 points....one, the universe doesn't have to think, it already knows everything, and, i love how Sabine refuses to stand in the red speaker's circle, she seems to prefer to stand to the side, in the shadows.

[@Thomas-gk42]

The way a rebel does?

[@michaeltrower741]

I love her proper pronunciation of Einstein.

[@juancuelloespinosa]

Yes, that guy again 😆 Sabine must be so proud he was German

[@tinkerstrade3553]

Ah, Sabine of the Dry Humor. A jewel in every sense. I'm subscribed on YT, but found this on my own. Lucky.

[@georgeb.wolffsohn30]

This talk reminds me of the book "Flatland".

[@rolomartinez2]

Eres un científica increíble ! Me has hecho cambiar la manera en que veo la ciencia❤

[@EstamosDe]

Yo ya estoy convencido del determinismo después de tanto Sabine

[@danielvarga_p]

Shared by free so wonderful!

[@TennesseeJed]

Love her!

[@xxsuperheroxx3701]

I find such subject matters intriguing sadly there is no one I know to have conversations with about such deep-thinking subjects in person. It is refreshing to know there are like-minded people just so very few and the numbers are growing fewer as our education systems crumbles to third world country volcano god mentality. Great Ted episode Doctor Hossenfelder is an awesome speaker I do hope you have her do more!

[@rickkwitkoski1976]

You need to get out more. Expand your horizons. There is more to this world than the Ozarks.😎😎😎

[@donmcatee45]

I have always thought that we only see past events, not only the speed of light but the speed in which we process the images.

[@tarmaque]

“Alone of all the creatures in the world, trolls believe that all living things go through Time backwards. 'If the past is visible and the future is hidden,' they say, 'then it means you must be facing the wrong way. Everything alive is going through life back to front.” ― Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_ 1991

[@thepom88]

Sabine ROCKS!!!!!

[@egnielson]

Congrats Sabine!!!

[@frun]

The general audience is unaware of Sabine's important work on superdeterminism.

[@jho2646]

Sabine deserves better lighting

[@fernandoramos4636]

Very good! Fantastic! Congratulations

[@ianhall3822]

There could be an Absolute Time measured not by light, but by entropy. The Universe is 13 billion years old. Everyone in the Universe agrees with this value, and also that the rate of increase of entropy in the Universe is the same for all observers. This rate of increase in entropy could be used as a unit of time.

[@Danny_6Handford]

Now I know the difference between scientific, unscientific and ascientific. Thankyou Sabine.

[@user-sl6gn1ss8p]

Just because a system would have an unbearably low frequency for our mortal standards, doesn't mean it can't think, just that if it does the timescales involved are much larger. Unless the expansion of the universe rules this out someway I guess?

[@SampleroftheMultiverse]

Yes you can sample the multi verse but you can only see one verse at a time which is what we see as our single verse.

[@BulentBasaran]

If we run in circles meaning not going anywhere, we age faster. That's why we humans are a mystery to physics 🙂

[@lenpalmeri6228]

thought provoking.

[@EmanuelGaldr]

Watching her videos I feel like a curious elementary school student again.

[@banksarenotyourfriends]

8:20 Just a minor correction; an agnostic atheist doesn't "have no opinion" on religion, they just don't think it's possible to know if a god exists or not for sure, but they've chosen not to believe in it anyway. Theist - believes in god/s. Atheist - doesn't believe in god/s. Gnostic - thinks it's possible to know a given thing for sure. Agnostic - doesn't think it's possible to know a given thing for sure. Agnostic Atheist - doesn't believe in god/s but thinks it's not possible to know for sure. Gnostic Atheist - doesn't believe in god/s and thinks it's possible to know for sure. Agnostic Theist - believes in god/s but doesn't think it's possible to know they exist for sure. Gnostic Theist - believes in god/s and thinks it's possible to know they exist for sure. I hope this is useful!

[@TeaParty1776]

Theistic certainty is better for mans life than agnostic uncertainty. Rational certainty is better than both.

[@adamphilip1623]

Brilliant! Dr Hossenfelder is such a good speaker! Really interesting subject matter too and presented in a very digestible form.

[@catcrue9656]

Oh I love this lady! She's amazing ❤️

[@arielhernandez1638]

I've wondered if the universe was like a brain, with all those interconnecting filaments, made of galaxies, that look like the neural networks of a brain. Then I realized, that everything my consciousness interacts with comes from my brain, and when I interact with my environment, I'm not really interacting with it, but with a copy of my environment that lives in my brain. I'm probably an imperfect copier, who copies the universe and tries to fit it into my brain. Then we make A.I. and we make copies of copies of the universe, and so on and so forth, like a fractal or an infinite mirror.

[@crawkn]

_My_ past present and future don't exist simultaneously in my own reference frame, only in some combinations of other reference frames. No _individual_ reference frame would perceive them _all_ as simultaneous, excepting the reference frames of some photons, were they capable of perception.

[@spocksdaughter9641]

One of my fav girl nerds!! Let the future rolllllll

[@michaeltrower741]

she totally rawks!

[@appletree6741]

Her KZbin channel is great too, good info and humour

[@nanumanu13]

How do we know that we aren't already constantly jumping between universes?

[@TeaParty1776]

>how physics is a catalyst and inspiration for deeper discussion on some of the big, and often unanswerable, questions in life. For example, does a ‘multiverse’ really exist? Can the Universe think? In _The DIM Hypothesis_, philosopher, Leonard Peikoff, says that philosophy influences cultural institutions, eg, physics, that influence the whole culture. Every claim in physics, true or false, reasonable or absurd, is implicitly a view of common human experience that, explicitly or implicitly, influences everyone, including people who ignore physics. In Greece, physics provided scientific method. In the Medieval era, physics provided divine teleology. Etc.

[@FirstLast-tx3yj]

Now did she step of the red circle because she didnt pay attention Or Did she intentionally step out so we pay more attention Or Did she step out unintentionally and the realised so she kept stepping out Or Maybe she was stressed and though moving was a good idea

[@tarmaque]

She was reading her notes from a screen that was not in front of the red circle. Didn't you notice how she kept looking down at it?

[@michaeltrower741]

she's a scientist --- she's allowed to step outside the bounds of anything in order to get a bigger picture

[@chandima8152]

I HAVE READ THAT THEORY IN BUDDHIST CANON.“Don’t run back to the past. don’t hope for the future. What’s past is left behind. the future has not arrived. and phenomena in the present. are clearly seen in every case.

[@tvprich]

How profound that she enlightens us with the thought that the universe can think? What if we ARE just a part of the tiny thinking particles that live on one tiny cell (earth) of our particular creator's brain. What if our universe IS really the brain of a larger being. So big is the being that our perceivable universe is simply the brain cavity of this larger being? And that the reason nothing major has happened to us yet, is that time, being relative, moved much slower in the larger entity's existence. So large it is that our whole conception of our world's existence (billions of years) is but a single breath of the large being, while he or she is simply laying down to take a nap.* *(No I don't take drugs, and am completely sober while writing this) :-)

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

is it possible for universe to think very slowly, so long as the information needed for thinking is there?

[@PJRiter1]

Can the future influence the past? As my memory gets less good it sometimes seems that I can remember the future in an anticipatory fashion better than I can remember the past...

[@andrewbrodis1239]

People are confused because they fail to see the cycle of expansion, transition, contraction. Light only shows us what is in relative expansion. Apparent relative Cosmic Expansion and its acceleration is due to spherical expansion's radial divergence. The radial speed of the universal quantum expansion is the universal constant. Matter fractals are able to exist in this radial expansion by resisting 3 dimensions of expansion and just moving radially. This means energy transfers from atom to surrounding space will expand in radial trajectories of an expanding sphere, away from the transfer point. In the co-moving quantum expansion matter is moving radially @ c whilst Newtonian physics is going on between co-moving matter. One second worth of Newtonian physics happens over 186,000 miles. So trajectory through time in our perspective is constant motion in a straight line. 👌

[@johanfynbo5377]

That "now" is not part of our understanding of natural laws may rather be a limitation in our understanding.

[@TheAk1292]

Way to go Sabine.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Consider the following: a. I am a human as defined by humans. b. I am an energy based quarkelectronian as modern science claims that all matter is made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy and I am made up of matter and interacting energy. c. I am a being of 'light', 'if' my current theory of everything is correct whereby the 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in this universe, including space, time and numbers. (Currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test). d. "I" do not even actually exist but eternally existent space time exists as me, currently in the forms as above. * I exist and yet "I" simultaneously do not exist, dependent upon perspective. But yet, do "I" not truly exist in absolute truth reality as only eternally existent space time exists as all things in absolute truth reality? * "I" can mentally change between perspectives thereby experiencing existence from those various perspectives. "My" mind continues to expand, but is it truly 'my' mind that is expanding or is it eternally existent space time's mind that is expanding? In absolute truth reality, it would seem to be the later.

[@skit555]

She gives us matter to dream about being a dream; thanks for this voluptuous idea :')

[@mountainair]

Wonderful. Thanks Sabine. Existence of the block universe I always found chilling given how dark human history as we know it has been. Are those people stuck suffering for all enternity?

[@jesperkthomsen]

A role model for all women!

[@michaeltrower741]

and for men too, we can all learn a lot from her.

[@marcobiagini1878]

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

[@TeaParty1776]

> prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. The self-evidence of reality and soul is the context of proof.

[@thomashutcheson3343]

David Chalmers provides perhaps the best contemporary philosophical exposition of cosmic idealism; Bernardo Kastrup has been popularizing it under the name analytic idealism (though, as may be expected, one can pick at some if his extrapolations). One interesting point: materialists often beg the question, which indicates there's a deep and stubborn misunderstanding of the idealist argument among that crew.

[@nolanr1400]

Well well the integrity of a heart a brain or a chair is perfectly physical not (only) conceptual. Their quantum particles are physically tied together

[@marcobiagini1878]

@@nolanr1400 False; quantum particles are not tied together in the brain. The brain is only a conceptual model we use to describe approximately the underlying physical processes. Brain processes consist of billions of different sequences of microscopic processes that occur in different points of the brain.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

MATHEMATICS: NUMBERS AND MATHEMATICAL CONSTANTS: Okay, then I ask: a. How do numbers and mathematical constants exist in this existence for math to do what math does in this existence?

[@charlesbrightman4237]

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

[@charlesbrightman4237]

ALSO CONCERNING NUMBERS: While in bed one morning after a restful nights sleep, and assuming the above is correct, I mentally went 'inside' the 1 (the singular pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon itself). I still saw with my mind the 3 different interacting modalities, the 6 maximum modality points, the '9' including and being the neutral points in the middle which faded into a 6 (as each maximum modality point came towards zero), that 6 fading into a 3 (as each modality came together), which turned into a 1 (which was the '0' point), but '0' wasn't zero. So, '0' is not really '0' but is something, not nothing. '0' is a relative '0'. But then here again, the zero point energy point is the maximum potential energy point for any and all modalities of the 'gem' photon. '0' is '1' and '1' is '0', this is the '1' inside the '1'. Now I just have to come up with some tests to test this idea of the zero point energy point being '1', a maximum potential energy point of the singular pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon itself. The maximum potential energy point not really being potential energy per se, but the neutral point of kinetic energy. Tapping into here would be tapping into the 'zero' point energy point of eternally existent ever flowing energy. But then again, tapping into here, 'if' distorted what makes up space and time itself (assuming that 'space' is energy itself [the 'gem' photon] and that 'time' is the flow of energy), could it alter or even destroy the very fabric of space itself? What would occur if even only a single pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon were to explode? What potential ripple effects could occur with the rest of space and time? Hence also why I try to think some things all the way through so as to try to identify potential issues before the test. Unexpected, unintended, potentially dangerous or even deadly consequences. If nothing else, it keeps my mind active. The mind, use it or lose it, but using it could also lose it, permanently. (My own and other's). Putting the 'zero point energy point' into actual practice could be deadly. Warning: Proceed with Caution. The last words of human existence on this Earth might be, 'Hey it worked, ooooppppppsssssss.............'.

[@WizardSkyth]

Not bad. Good expansion on my position.

[@jimbuono2404]

If I watch a movie made last year, it doesn't mean I go back in time to observe the event in it's timeframe. What I am seeing is reflected light captured in a fllm emulsion. Let's take another example. I'm on alpha Centuri and I capture an episode of "science without the gobblygook'. Is my reality now the same as Sabine's in the episode? No, once again, I'm seeing reflected light that has travelled for years to reach me. There are no simultaneous events separated by light. Sabine's episode ends and the reflected light travels to me where I don't see Sabine doing the episode, I see the light reflected from Sabine that has finally reached me.