What Can Physics Tell Us About Consciousness? -- ChrisFields

[@wulphstein]

The final answer is: there exists a quantum entanglement field that exists everywhere and experiences consciousness. All the brain does is modulate this consciousness and cause it to experiences additional things. You heard it here first.

[@ExctacyMusic]

Makes sense

[@AndrewKnightMIT]

The fact that you ended the lecture by saying "What does this mean? I don't know" actually lends you HUGE credibility. I enjoyed your talk. I don't know exactly whether I buy your arguments, but at least they made me think, and your lack of hubris makes me more likely to tune in to your next talk!

[@stanleywallenscienceandpho4937]

Roger Penrose thinks that quantum theory is necessary to know how the mind works. If you do not know him google him, he has written several books and is a prominent cosmologist. The Emperor's New Mind is one of them If I remember correctly.

[@sodiumsalt]

I would like to see a more detailed derivation of the cosmological constant from the observer system. It's easy to see that if you choose anything but 10 Km, and if you're not just counting stars, the derivation breaks down. A more polished approach where the number of on bits of a voxel approaches zero as we go farther from the observer, would probably lead to a more complicated yet maybe, a solution to the vacuum catastrophe

[@sergepatlavskiy1530]

Yes, all systems are "observers" in sense that they can record the events. But not all systems are the subjects of cognitive activity -- those who can understand the meaning of the event, and draw information (new knowledge) from that event. That is why I make a difference between physical frame of reference (which is linked with "observer") and cognitive frame of reference (which is linked with the subject of cognitive activity). Consequently, we have to consider as physical models, so informational models. Now then, to formalize (to account for) consciousness we have to use a system of models, but not the physical models alone.

[@margrietoregan828]

13:34 right most most scientists I would say are epiphenomenon list about 13:40 consciousness because they can't answer this question and this is I would say 13:47 the most important question to ask about any scientific idea whatsoever and maybe 13:53 all ideas period so what interesting idea may be but what's it good for what 14:00 does it actually allow you to do okay so that's what the rest of the talks about 14:05 what can consciousness and in particular consciousness being fundamental tell us 14:11 precisely about physics so first let's do a warm-up exercise and 14:17 the warm-up exercise has to do with answering the question what is quantum mechanics what does it mean to say 14:22 something as quantum what does it mean to say something is a quantum system okay so let's start everything is an 14:29 observer so in particular this nice little biomolecule called rhodopsin 14:35 which there's tons of in your eyes is an observer because everything's that 14:41 observer and we know a lot about rhodopsin Wow 14:46 rhodopsin the text light when it detects 14:52 light it changes safe shape and that's the first step in you knowing out that 14:58 knowing that there's a light out there from a biochemical point of view through Dobson changes shape and you say oh like 15:04 cool okay so let's assume that rhodopsin is an actually optimal observer 15:10 thermodynamically and that means something very precise it means that the 15:16 amount of energy that rhodopsin needs to 15:21 spend is exactly this the point 7 converts you to bits it's just the

[@portantwas]

When is something an 'observer' rather than just a 'measurement' of transferring energy? Or is it that consciousness is nonexistent and it is just a higher level of complexity but still merely an exchange of energy/information in a system? I think I lost the thread of what he was aiming at. I'm not sure using the words 'conscious', 'observer', 'measurement', 'exchange of information/energy' interchangeably is that helpful. I'm even more confused now.

[@buzz-es]

A guy walks into a lecture with a rock in his hand, he hits the speaker in the side of the head with the rock. The guy says; "Don't worry, physics tells us there's no such thing as subjective material objects".

[@youthised58]

Good one!

[@dronea]

In the very first slide shouldn't it be; What can Physics tell us about. ..? Not "tells" us? Or: "What Physics tells us about consciousness."

[@1merkur]

To say "what physics tells us" would mean that the physicists have a consensus & workable theory. In the video, it's really "what physics can tell us" since it's a guess work...it can also tell us many other optional ideas.

[@tomg2946]

Excellent presentation, with what are , (to me for one), amazing results from the underlying assumptions (consciousness being fundamental). I think this may well be the start of the next true 'leap' in human understanding of the 'physical world'- ie physics, as Penrose suggests will occur through developing an accurate model of consciouness.

[@margrietoregan828]

see is not is not completely unique to us that other observers could see 11:31 roughly the same thing now the way that assumption gets fleshed now is with the 11:38 claim that measurement and observation are just physical interaction so if you 11:44 read the literature you'll find statements like The Observer is just a physical system that is entangled with 11:50 the system of interest so the observer is just some physical system or other 11:56 you don't have to specify what kind that's interacting with enhancing quantum theory entangled with whatever 12:02 it's observed and that entanglement is what allows information to flow back and forth now that means in the language of 12:11 physics which is by intention non ambiguous and very precise that 12:16 observation is exactly the same thing as physical interaction it's not a 12:23 different aspect of physical interaction it's the same thing those are just two words for the same kind of event well 12:31 what does that mean that means that all systems are observers right if 12:37 observation is just physical interaction then you know this is physically 12:43 interacting with the table so this is an observer right it detects the table and 12:48 the table is an observer it detects the cup so all systems are observers so if 12:56 consciousness has something to do with observation consciousness has to be 13:02 fundamental and most of us at least believe that 13:07 this has something to do with observation if I wasn't conscious I wouldn't be observing anything 13:14 so if observation is interaction and consciousness has is important for 13:21 observation then everything must be conscious now of course lots of people don't okay well this is the next slide 13:29 so up 13:34 right most most scientists I would say are epiphenomenon list about 13:40 consciousness because they can't answer this question and this is I would say

[@ezioberolo2936]

So is we detect light from a galaxy that is many light years away, we are able to affect it? A galaxy which in fact may no longer exist or may have moved beyond visible space

[@MeRetroGamer]

This is just the most clever and most accurate description I've heard about physics, and it gives us a huge reason to think that physics are actually about consciousness.

[@jamesdolan4042]

How about just clever!

[@mindofmayhem.]

Consciousness is that which FORCES all to exist. Replace observer with forced participant.

[@williamolenchenko5772]

He says that information is physical. Then he says the physical world does not exist, it is just information. Seems like a contradiction.

[@melmill1164]

tThe amount of math this requires is way above my mental pay grade.

[@jeremiwieczorek6628]

Interaction as measurement as observation. Does electron need photon to jump from one state to another or maybe light balances atoms separating charges of protons and electrons much like QED describes interactions(observation) by exchange of photon. Some say that far from light matter can be invisible(dark, abundant and ultra dense). Information's entropy gives us what we previously didn't know. Measurement is intended to gain information and so is observation and interaction but you only gain if after observation you know something you didn't know before. Entropy measures our ignorance. Planck invented h as an attempt to quantize light, basic unit of action for informations extraction via observation. Interaction for balancing observers, to bring order to chaos. Balance raises entropy, more configurations are essential for evolution and complexity growth in expanding Universe. The most complex structure we know of is brain. It generates conscious field for the most efficient observer who can simplify singularities, synthesize similarities and find symmetries using complex plain with imaginary unit as boundary separating individual observer extracting information from entangled environment using tools like wave functions for particles detection or parallel vector transportation to measure curvature of potential field and its dynamics, back engineering fusion, lasers in accelerators and gravitational wave detectors, neutrino detectors, telescopes, satellites and space stations.

[@davidaustin6962]

a lot of it makes sense, but sure feels a lot like numerology (especially when he calculates the cosmological constant from the PDA loop). I also think he doesn't really talk about the really interesting stuff that makes up what most people consider a fundamental part of true consciousness ... or at least in the sense that most people understand it: the ability to make decisions as an "agent", which exercises agency. He even briefly admits this, and then the lecture ends.

[@VperVendetta1992]

Not really, the PDA loop has agency as one of the fundamental operations of a conscious agent. Consciousness is fundamental, so "P" meaning Perception is first. Then "P" goes to "D", which is Decision, and this is the agency part of the loop, or what you might call "Free Will". It is not entirely free because it's not fundamental but derived from Consciousness, but it's the immediate second thing that exists, so it's as fundamental as it gets without being Consciousness itself. Then D goes to "A", which is the Act then finally perceived back by Consciousness.

[@ericfischer996]

Is he trying to look like Bob Weir, or is Bob Weir trying to look like him? And how does Brittany Spears figure into this equation? It makes you think....

[@robbyr9286]

Within the first minute he says 'as you all know' physics tell us 1) there are no objective material objects & 2) conscious has to be fundamental. While those propositions may be true, I think it's VERY debatable as to whether 'physics' as a consensus scientific discipline, even in its speculative branches tells us this, & certainly not to a degree warranting 'you all know'.

[@didierblasco2126]

+Robby R let say any perceived object is the result of a subjective and partial observation, without any kind of speculation :-) Quantum Mechanics, the most accurate physical theory of observation, can provide some information on what a material particle can look like at time ... of observation. and then you can get some different information from a different observation !

[@stephenmuth7081]

Precisely, thank you. #1 seems to me to be a mangling of QM principles. The Deepak Chopra school, which is itself a mangling of Bohr (Copenhagen), which is now undergoing extensive revision because of the imprecise nature of the description of measurement processes. #2 is just insane, but being explored anyway, as so many think things are insane... so why not? Seems to me #2 is backwards, and consciousness is an emergent property of highly organized matter, but that would just make too much sense for some people (who need some kind of skyhook, even if it comes from the universe itself).

[@apzzpa]

@@stephenmuth7081 ‘consciousness is an emergent property of highly organized matter, but that would just make too much sense for some people’ - actually it's been very, very puzzling for people to prove

[@stephenmuth7081]

@@apzzpa Yes... Like most things in science apart from pure mathematics, proving propositions necessarily takes a back seat to disproving propositions. Or at least coming up with simpler propositions that resist disproof.

[@MyContext]

This was a lot of sophistry. It is the case that we depend on our cognitive ability to make claims about what we call reality, but based on what we understand reality is NOT dependent on our notions. It is us who are attempting to understand reality.

[@stanleywallenscienceandpho4937]

What is reality is not an objective quantity set by some external agent. Relativity says that time is set by speed. So Objective Reality does not exist.

[@davidaustin6962]

Stanley, speed and time are both constructs that we created in order to help us describe what we observe. Whether an objective reality exists is independent of those constructs.

[@bigtexnick2188]

wat

[@briandale5350]

So dark matter is the agents observing themselves through time which is ever expanding themselves through the expansion of light across the universe that is constantly growing because of the original agents observing themselves in different observations caused by the ever expansion of the universe caused by themselves observing themselves and we call this consciousness.

[@davidaustin6962]

No. "Everything must be conscious" (including a table and the glass on which it sits) ... see 13:20. Also, agents can make decisions 28:25, can choose how to interact, and there is no indication that dark matter does anything other than push on stuff according to a formula. This inability behave differently than that formula, therefore, excludes dark matter as an agent.

[@glynemartin]

A table or a glass doesn't know anything. Ergo they are not conscious. That's Duality or Panpsychism....the *most lethal form* of materialism there is. It attributes consciousness to inanimate objects like tiles and sidewalks etc, totally ridiculous.

[@VperVendetta1992]

Firstly, you don't know if a table or a glass doesn't know anything, that's just an assumption on your part. Secondly, Duality and Panpsychism are pretty much opposite... Duality means Consciousness and Matter are two separate things, like Descartes thought. Panpsychism means everything is not matter, it's actually all Consciousness, so there is no duality.

[@glynemartin]

So you actually believe that things like sidewalks and tiles and plastic forks have an inner subjective experience?...Why should anyone believe that insanity??...

[@VperVendetta1992]

I'm not making a positive statement saying that it is like that, I'm saying that you don't have proof of the contrary.

[@joehinojosa8314]

The mind (soul)is an information processor

[@demetrioskasabalis5536]

The great philosopher Emmanuel Kant must've borrowed the idea about space and time from Aristotle. As a matter of fact he uses the same term as Aristotle did to describe them. He uses the term "Categories". Ariistotle describes these Categories as the fundamental framework the mind uses to construct and thus perceive "reality".

[@GUPTAYOGENDRA]

The point is not "What Consciousnesses is". The point is how to realize myself as Consciousnesses?

[@treyanonymous1241]

Light = Time..... Looking at a star in the past = looking at light far away...... No light = no time..... Traveling through time = Traveling at the speed of light...... Perceiving time = perceiving light as measurement........ Time is the forward movement OF . Time is the forward disorder OF = Light always is the forward movement of. Light always displaces forwardness, time. In other words, to become one with the one consciousness, you have to feel it. edit: you will always be one and in it.. But I mean to really conjoin with the consciousness you have to feel it.

[@glynemartin]

If you don't know what it is, how can you realize yourself as such?

[@williamolenchenko5772]

Who is "realizing myself?" Can the eyes directly see themselves?

[@JustNow42]

GPS with Newtonian physics does not have an accuracy of 100 m, it drifts very rapidly.

[@Sharperthanu1]

Please Google:Professor Andrew Truscott

[@Zeno2Day]

@15:51 The table is an observer... interesting. What part of the tableness ‘object’ observes’?

[@MeRetroGamer]

The point is, to put it simply, that each interaction is an exchange of information, and each exchange of information is an observation. Not an "observer" though, an observer is a dumb concept (it's dumb also for us to think that we are observers). There's just observations, information dynamics, and what you call "your mind" is just part of this. The suppossed observer that you think is "you" just never existed. The suppossed need for an "observer" is what confuses people and makes this kind of theories silly. When you get rid of it, everything starts to make sense.

[@Zeno2Day]

@@MeRetroGamer no. information is non-exchangeable, incorporeal and hence unObservable. The ‘knowable’ aspect is of a different topic.

[@MeRetroGamer]

​@@Zeno2Day Well this is the first time for me that someone uses that definition of information. When I used that concept, it was meant to be taken as in the information theory. Also, maybe I expressed it wrong. When I say "information exchanges" I just mean "information communication" but in a wider sense. It's information transmission + information processing. I'm of course taking the premise that information is more fundamental than matter, since matter can be explained in terms of information processing, but we can't do the other way around. So, for me information is more real than "matter" (it is what the true phisical reality is about), and it is intimately related with consciousness or "observation", since "qualia" or "conscious experiences" (aka information processing) is just the only thing that we know for sure is real (as not being something that needs to be described in terms of another thing), *it is just what it is*. So, what is matter? It is just the result of a complex network of "information exchanges" (as I described above). So, what is mind? It is also just the result of a complex network of information processing, and consciousness (beyond metaconsciousness or self-consciousness) is what pervades everything in reality.

[@imas1239]

Another interesting subject; coming phisic with philosophy.

[@Idkgoogleitbro]

This is how amazingly lucky we are to have a conciousness that let's us percieve reality for what it is and let's us ask why the box in your hand is sending light to your brain without us physically seeing the information being sent. That's the internet.thats social media. We're at the Pinnacle of 3rd dimmension conciousness were slowly but surely shifting into a 4 dimmension conciousness. Then we can finally figure out the biggest unanswred question in humanity"Why?"

[@euanlankybombamccombie6015]

Mmm I don't know,due to us only being able to observe 6% of the light spectrum thus only being able to see a fraction of what actually exists within space time so we're missing out on much...we are luckier to ask why? What? Where? Who? When? and have knowledge and access to information to answer...not to forget the lingual dexterity to disscuss

[@xxlucasxx19]

physics can say that it likes problems gg

[@GeoCoppens]

Consciousness is a function of the reticular formation in the brainstem in humans. When it is stimulated from outside the experience is being conscious. It's biology and not something spooky in the universe.

[@matiasbecerrals]

U did not get it. When the reticular formation gets stimulated, there is observation. Nobody says anything about spookyness. Pay atention at what it is being said, and detach yourself from prejudices.

[@GeoCoppens]

@@matiasbecerrals "there exists a quantum entanglement field that exists everywhere and experiences consciousness" When the reticular formation there is not immediate observation. Conciousness is a neccessary condition for observation. A "wulphstein" hereunder says: there exists a quantum entanglement field that exists everywhere and experiences consciousness. Lots of spookiness in the debate about consciousness all over KZbin, look around. When the reticular formation is excised from the brain the organism's consciousness is gone.

[@tiktokgermany3050]

I have a damaged brainstem since 2018. I experienced things on my way, It would surely help science so I'm writing everything down before I die.

[@tiktokgermany3050]

I can now clearly say that you can lose consciousness due to physical trauma and still knock on that table. My case is propably rare or did never happen before. I really would like to talk to a modern physicist and tell my story.

[@Idkgoogleitbro]

Physics is so amazing it let's you explain things philosophicaly with logic reason to back it up.That's the difference between a physicists and a physicists with a degree.Who or what is(or was) the rule maker to everything is where we're at in physics. as a crazy battle of logic and intuition go on between us which is Nature telling us we aren't able to find out why because we can't agree together(logically and fundamentally) on why is everything the way it is and where it all came from because we don't have that information we haven't percieved it in space Time so everyone is just making up bologna based on what they know and feel Until the real thing happens. Until that information is given to us by something somewhere sometime but for now we can just understand.and physics lives on that line of idea vs reality.

[@euanlankybombamccombie6015]

In my view the bigger difference is usually the knowledge of advanced mathematics and the ability to work out equations that prove theories proposed.....maybe not so applicable in theoretical physics....or more so actually

[@multi_misa72]

awesome

[@Gringohuevon]

lol!

[@zes3813]

wrr

[@TheSolasion]

I think this is just a play on words because I'm fairly certain that physicists use the word 'observe' to describe 'things' that interact with one another. Such as a glass hitting a desk or an proton hitting an atom, ect.

[@thepointofclearity7579]

No, they mean observe as in senses being aware of their enviroment. Matter acting on matter is not matter observing matter... really?

[@VperVendetta1992]

The equations of Quantum Mechanics are just tools to calculate a certain amount of information exchange in a system. Then the philosophical interpretation of those equations are just that, interpretations, and since the general view in academia right now is Newtonian, materialistic and deterministic, scientists interpret the equations as "things interacting with one another". But those equations aren't at all proof of the existence of "things" flowing in empty space and interacting with one another. Quite the contrary in fact, they suggest that everything that exists is just one, and it's all information, as Wheeler pointed out.

[@jean-pierredevent970]

I am not qualified to understand this and it sounds very intelligent and reasonable what he says but I was one surprised to hear that the uncertainty comes from the interaction with the system; I thought that was assumed that uncertainty in position is really there and has nothing to to with the measurement.

[@stanleywallenscienceandpho4937]

You can know the position and the speed but not both at the same time.

[@davidaustin6962]

me too. to me it seemed intuitively obvious ... the more exact you are the more likely it is that you're wrong. It is however also influenced by the idea that the more exact you are, the more likely it is that you are interacting more aggressively with the system, and therefore you're influencing the system in a way that makes your measurement more wrong. It seems in the first case that precision comes at the risk of accuracy, whereas the second case guarantees (rather than being a risk) lower accuracy.

[@morgellonbetancor1453]

SALUDOS

[@nikan4now]

Thanks for sharing. I think it's quite a leap to go from observers interract with systems to all systems are observers. Also how's one Joule equal to 1kg moving at 1m/s? That's not right. Does he have a PhD in physics or another area?

[@DNihilHEAVYIndustries]

+Nikan RT actually, he is right, just not explaining the equation all that well unfortunately, ( J= kg . m squared / s squared) If all the symbols in the question equaled 1 then the answer would equal 1 as well. I think the real issue you are having is he didn't tell us the equation before making his statement, thus giving off a false sense of knowing what a true joule is...

[@nikan4now]

Roh Shin Energy= 0.5 mv^2 so if mass and velocity were 1 kg and 1m/s Energy would be 0.5 Joules not 1.

[@DNihilHEAVYIndustries]

+Nikan RT you do understand that the m in the joules formula stands for meter and not mass right? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule

[@nikan4now]

Roh Shin Since he used moving at 1m/s I thought he was going by the kinetic energy which is also measured in Joules. If he is going by the W=F.x then his definition is completely wrong altogether. He should've said 1kg moving at an acceleration of 1m/s^2 being displaced by 1m

[@DNihilHEAVYIndustries]

+Nikan RT the unit of mass he is using equals 1 its the same formula however instead of .5m he is using 1kg, giving you totally different answers just do the math if you don't believe me

[@afreshlife422]

The poetry of calculations. Pretty much. Or well maybe 'How to calculate poetry'. Reminder to send this one a copy of the Shobogenzo. While difficult, it still would be meaningful long before the words made any sense.

[@majinbuu6740]

a skeptical idiot responce Lmaoo @ you

[@treyanonymous1241]

Light = Time..... Looking at a star in the past = looking at light far away...... No light = no time..... Traveling through time = Traveling at the speed of light...... Perceiving time = perceiving light as measurement........ Time is the forward movement OF . Time is the forward disorder OF = Light always is the forward movement of. Light always displaces forwardness, time. In other words, to become one with the one consciousness, you have to feel it. edit: you will always be one and in it.. But I mean to really conjoin with the consciousness you have to feel it.

[@whatamiisitinme6873]

that was painful!

[@stanleywallenscienceandpho4937]

Observer created reality arises from how do probability waves collapses into reality. This is called "the measurement problem " in physics

[@sergepatlavskiy1530]

Yes, we can postulate that consciousness is fundamental. But, to make such a statement means that we, as a result, have to construct principally new epistemological framework, which will differ from the dominant materialistic one. In trying to construct such an epistemological framework I have formulated the following postulate: "Information (or consciousness as a way of dealing with information), matter, and energy are three equally important fundamental factors that influence the existence and development of our Reality." But, as it turned out, this only postulate was not sufficient for a new framework to be effective -- I had to formulate many other postulates, general laws and principles. I had also to elaborate new general method, new system of proofs, new system of models, new base of prime concepts, and so on. And only after having done this, the new framework makes it possible for me to construct an applied theory of consciousness within its limits.

[@VperVendetta1992]

Donald Hoffman has postulated a new framework where there is only One Consciousness, from which everything else derive via separation and interaction. And as this video shows, it works pretty well with observable data.

[@jageo48]

Okay Chris, now perform something useful for those of us on the ground and not in the tower; relate what you just lectured on, to wrestling this abrupt climate change to the ground. And that goes for other S.A.N.D. speakers too. Otherwise, your information is without merit.

[@nayanmipun6784]

Human are special in earth of course, infinite creative imagination is the main quality

[@thomsch]

That was really funny :-)

[@tonynes3577]

You lost me and put me to sleep. Thanks.

[@karjedav]

Nobody cares. Thanks.