I am so glad that I studied English in school so I can get education on CZcams by watching videos like this. In China, no scientists are intrested in educating the public like Sean.
I would say the Chinese scientists are more intelligent in this.The public don't study physics in depth.Most of them are ignorant or half ignorant.They'll ignorantly twist the words of scientists and researchers to make their inconvenient points which would eventually rise a pop cultural misunderstanding of scientific theories and facts.Take evolution and the monkey to human poster for example
And ironically, Wong, in the country that invented CZcams and the internet, fewer and fewer of its citizens are interested in education for its own sake.
Sean is an excellent communicator of physics for the general public. Here he makes an important distinction: an observer doesn't mean a human, it just means you have to choose some reference when defining the values of a measurement. "Observation" is simply the entanglement of two systems, where the information describing each system is not independent. There is one set of information describing both things as a single system.
I see... an observer doesn't mean a human, only that a human chooses the defining values of a measurement. Man is the measurer of all things was said in ancient times..."Observation" still depends on a human regardless of what may be seen as "important distinctions". If a rock can be an observer, that is only because some human has said it can be.
I called it a form of "pan animist philosophy" in an earlier comment. J/k of course, but not entirely. I came to my monist beliefs completely as a result of reading about quantum physics, only to discover it was being studied in India millennia ago. I wish Hindus were as interested in promoting transcendence in though today as they are in killing people of other beliefs. But I guess the same criticism is true of the West and Christendom. All is one.
@@divertissementmonas Destruction of a quantum state is an event separate from the other event(s) when a conscious entity(ies) knows and understands/interprets the measurement. The former event only happens once when the environment interacts with a quantum system and destroys that state. That is why the first event happens only once. But the second event can happen many times when many independent conscious entities learn about the recorded measurement at different moments in time (could be even a million years apart)and distant places in space (if the recorded measurement result is transported before it is looked at). This is very easy to understand if you think if two people Alice and Bob were in the lab looking at the measuring instrument, it is absurd to say that Alice collapsed the wave function by not Bob, or vice versa.
What I truly like about these physicists dealing with quantum mechanics is that they talk about "interpretations." There is a modesty in their understanding of existence. No one claims "the truth," just "an interpretation."
That is the problem as well. I would like to hear them clearly state … “we don’t know, and haven’t figured out a way to know what the fuck we mean by observer”. THAT is what is required of a scientist. Not a pseudo-honest (= dishonest) statement, “I think …”.
I think the advent of mass media, the maturing of the field of science, and a dash of personal modesty have led to scientists "curbing their enthusiasm" in their findings. In observing the many "totally wrong" theories which have been "debunked" by later research, they wish to maintain an outward level of skepticism, even about their own research in 2022, lest they be thought fools in 2122, 2240, 3590, or 12,373. One unfortunate side effect of such modesty is that laypersons in an anti-intellectual, anti-science culture point their mindless fingers and say "Look! Even the know-it-all eggheads aren't even sure if they're right." Yet, somehow, the Twitterati are sure that their theory of the universe is solid, despite it being based on what they read in their feed yesterday, only to be sure of the opposite in tomorrow's feed, etc.
@@ShyguyMM True, but he clearly says, "As physicists, we don't get to decide". Their job is to understand what the universe is doing. But he definitely leans towards MWI and I am sure he has his mathematical reasons, which a layperson like me can not fathom.
Facts & truths are not open to "interpretation." What they show is clear & obvious. Man has always known that only an intelligence ( like Man) makes laws & rules and anything that has clear & obvious FUNCTION, purpose, form & design. Everything in the Universe including Man, ... have clear & obvious FUNCTION, purpose, form & design. Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes, maintains, improves, fine tunes abstract & physical Functions. A machine is a physical Function. The Sun, Earth, atmosphere, air, water & Life are physical Functions ... with clear & obvious purpose, form, function & design. Nature can never make & operate the simplest Machine(Function) ... made by Man( intelligence). Man always compares Life & biological process to Machines (Functions). And the three types of physical machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ). The Fact & Truths are not open to "interpretation." What they reveal is clear & obvious. And yet most in the science believe that it is a fact of science that natural processes made the first Life 4 billion years ago, and via natural selection ... Nature made a simple life the complex life we have today. BS. Only an intelligence makes Functions ... is what Sir Issac Newton was saying 300 years ago with his Watchmaker Analogy. Universal Functions is the Hypothesis for Newton's machine analogy .... because a watch is a Function ... composed of Functions ... & requires a Function Maker to exist & to function. This Hypothesis is easily tested & confirm to be true by fully defining the Function & Intelligence CATEGORIES and showing showing causal links. why is it a matter of interpretation that a Life is a machine? Both are Functions, with purpose, form & design? It's clear & obvious what the facts & truths are telling us.
@@hershchat Indeed. Wow. People here talk like nuns who are under some sort of a spell in relation to authority, almost whispering, afraid to say what they truly think....in order not to look or sound stupid by risking to upset the high priests of the temple lol whose charm, eloquence & apparent wisdom work like inhibitors that intimidate or discourage any possible dissent...like a kind of a subtle invisible *inquisition* ... Well, this physicist just talks about the materialist position, since he's a materialist. You w'dnt hear'm saying that he considers non-materialist interprerations as equally valid, no. He w'd say, they may be right, but the data fits better into my materialist view. *Why not follow the evidence to* *wherever it leads you, instead* *of this confirmatiion bias that* *makes you look only for what confirms* *your own a-priori held materialist* *beliefs, while making that look &* *sound like a scientific process.* Thats not science, thats ideology. Why does this guy not face the challenges of quantum theory to materialism, like in the form of the consciousness of the observer, the latter's unconscious influence of the outcomes of experiments by the very design & nature of experiments? Why not try to falsify one's own allegations or a-priori held beliefs??? Why not try to falsify or even consider the theories or interpretations of those who disagree with you, & why resort to that highly bizar & unfalsifiable many worlds theory or multiverse, that violates Ockham's razor, in order to escape your materialist cognitive dissonance??? I see ideologues trying to prove their ideologies through science, not scientists who follow the evidence to wherever it leads them , no matter what. Well, one w'd always find what one is a-priori looking for through cherry-picking, confirmation bias, blind spots, selective attention.... This "papal" materialism needs a "reformation", a scientific Martin Luther that w'd show that the materialist emperor is a naked liar who cares only about his materialist ideology, not about science or about the truth... I can go on & on....but i'll leave it at this then...
Thank you Sean for the following factual statements: (1) "The fact that the idea is bizarre, shouldn't count as a strike against it." (2) "We don't get to decide whether or not God exists." (3) "We try to understand the world the best we can." (4) "One way or the other, the implications are going to be bizarre." If only all other scientists were as strict forward and modest as you are, we could fast track our getting closer to Truth.
Apparently you experience some sort of psychological process that involves supposing that something that you call "we" - which is no less fanciful than God, exists. Of course dreams appear real to dreamers - what else can they be?
@øddist Why don't you do a survey to see whether those four points are mainstream? The fact is that they aren't. Evolution is mainstream and this theory vehemently discounts the existence of God. On the contrary, Sean is saying that neither he nor any other scientists can decide whether or not God exists. If it is mainstream, why do most scientists have the presupposition that it is nonsensical to believe in the existence of God? Next, every scientific theory that attempts to explain the beginning of existence is bizarre just as saying God created everything sounds bizarre to the proponents of those theories.
@@vhawk1951kl You may not believe in the existence of God. Fair enough, you are not alone and you are entitled to your opinion. However, modesty will help each one to keep in mind that our foggy individual view or opinion is not the final arbiter. Like Sean said, we have to know the world around us the best we can. That means, search for the answer with an open mind.
The big issue is that we are stuck in a time where we don't possess the necessary toolkit to precisely observe the quantum mechanical realm. It is a translation problem. We are using classical mechanical telemetry devices to observe quantum mechanical states which thus then force them to be observed as classical mechanical objects. Until we have the quantum toolkits and telemetry devices to observe the quantum realm, we will continue to run into this transformation issue losing critical precision in the gathered empirical data that would then put a lot of these more esoteric theories to bed.
Yep. I'm tired of telling people that you couldn't observe a particle if your life depended on it. You just can't. Lol! Carrol in particular has been helpful in explaining that Wheeler and others had good reason to explore some of the stranger ideas, before decoherence was a thing for example. Meanwhile, the gurus out there keep telling the public flat out lies regarding quantum physics. It's a huge area of deception from people who aren't even quantum physicists.
What are you referring to by telemetry? What sort of more advanced technology do you envision? We have incredibly Advanced particle accelerators, incredibly Advanced lasers, incredibly Advanced electron microscopes, yes we can improve on all this but it's not really clear that improving on it will allow us to make a significant difference In other words the whole mystery of quantum physics is that you have to use photons or electrons or some really small subatomic particle to do the investigating and we are down to that scale. But even photons have really big effects when you're measuring other photons so it's not clear that there is anything more we can do You come up against the fundamental limit of the plank scale of the ability to have any smaller quantity in the quantum. That is the whole point of quantum physics that you get down to a point where it, energy, is in indivisible packets and you cannot get any better or any smaller I mean we have incredibly small wavelengths of photons I'm not sure exactly what wavelength we are using but we have incredibly advanced technology using very high frequency photons to do investigations, and the point is we really can't get any significantly better than that That is the whole point of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics it is not a limitation of the measurement device it is inherent in the basic structure of the universe that you have uncertainty We can also talk about the incompleteness theorem
Yeah anyway the limits of quantum physics are not a limit of the investigating technology It is rather an inherent limit to the ability to get complete knowledge of a system and to meaningfully describe, at least meaningfully in the way we intuitively understand the universe, how very small systems behave Anyway I think the simplest analogy is that in our ordinary everyday life measurements of a table or a book or not affected by photons and therefore we can totally negate that But at small scales measuring with photons has a big effect on whatever system we are trying to measure and therefore we cannot say for sure what the system is like independent of trying to measure it It is really just a problem of scale it is the fact that at a small scale what you are trying to measure and the tool you are using to do the measurements are the same thing and therefore the margin of error is incredibly big, the error bars are now much more significant
Further studies have shown that even observing the results after the experiment leads to collapsing the wave function and loading a back-history as shown by delayed choice quantum eraser." Basically, what causes the collapse is knowledge. And knowledge requires a knower. "The observer plays a key role in deciding the outcome of the quantum measurments - the answers, and the nature of reality, depend, in part on the questions asked." John Archibald Wheeler said: "It begins to look as if we ourselves, by a last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing...we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in shaping what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until it has been registered. Or put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present." A conscious choice affects the behavior of previously measured, but unobserved particles. Physicist Asher Peres, who elaborated the experimental results with his delayed choice for entanglement swapping, says: "If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded." Our choice affects how the particle acted in the past. The factor of time has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. This was predicted by quantum mechanics and the exact same result is what we see when we put it to experimental test.
Indeed. Wow. People here talk like nuns who are under some sort of a spell in relation to authority, almost whispering, afraid to say what they truly think....in order not to look or sound stupid by risking to upset the high priests of the temple lol whose charm, eloquence & apparent wisdom work like inhibitors that intimidate or discourage any possible dissent...like a kind of a subtle invisible *inquisition* ... Well, this physicist just talks about the materialist position, since he's a materialist. You w'dnt hear'm saying that he considers non-materialist interprerations as equally valid, no. He w'd say, they may be right, but the data fits better into my materialist view. *Why not follow the evidence to* *wherever it leads you, instead* *of this confirmatiion bias that* *makes you look only for what confirms* *your own a-priori held materialist* *beliefs, while making that look &* *sound like a scientific process.* Thats not science, thats ideology. Why does this guy not face the challenges of quantum theory to materialism, like in the form of the consciousness of the observer, the latter's unconscious influence of the outcomes of experiments by the very design & nature of experiments? Why not try to falsify one's own allegations or a-priori held beliefs??? Why not try to falsify or even consider the theories or interpretations of those who disagree with you, & why resort to that highly bizar & unfalsifiable many worlds theory or multiverse, that violates Ockham's razor, in order to escape your materialist cognitive dissonance??? I see ideologues trying to prove their ideologies through science, not scientists who follow the evidence to wherever it leads them , no matter what. Well, one w'd always find what one is a-priori looking for through cherry-picking, confirmation bias, blind spots, selective attention.... This "papal" materialism needs a "reformation", a scientific Martin Luther that w'd show that the materialist emperor is a naked liar who cares only about his materialist ideology, not about science or about the truth... I can go on & on....but i'll leave it at this then...
@@trojanhorse860 They equate non materialist with being non rational. It is astonishing how white knuckled they cling to paradigms that are far weaker than scientifically and rationally being open to the possibility that consciousness may in fact be fundamental. This viewpoint would solve a lot of issues and perhaps give us a doorway in to truly understanding the nature of reality.
Sean made an important point that I didn't realize before. The question, "What happened before there were observers in the universe?," is not what you think it means. QM only pertains to the observations that YOU make NOW. The answer to that question is the result of this experiment: "What do YOU observe the universe to be NOW."
A delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, first performed by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih and Marlan O. Scully, and reported in early 1999, is an elaboration on the quantum eraser experiment that incorporates concepts considered in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. The experiment was designed to investigate peculiar consequences of the well-known double slit experiment in quantum mechanics as well as the consequences of quantum entanglement. The experiment supports the observer effect in quantum measurements. .
Very clear and well spoken in an ironic juxtaposition to concepts that can be quite difficult and sticky. As brilliant as so many of the minds on this channel are, sometimes I find it’s either difficult to comprehend from my side or that there is some difficulty communicating on their part, which isn’t surprising as math and science are separate languages onto themselves and trying to bridge a basic gap to kickstart layman understanding is almost a third layer. So being clear speaking many languages at once must be difficult. He seems like a great teacher.
The observer effect emerged in double slit experiments. When light was sent in packets or particles it still produced the wave pattern, similar to sending continuous light. When they looked to see if the light particle went through both slits instead of the wave pattern it produced a particle pattern. The act of looking changed the outcome of the experiment. That's why it's called the observer effect. The double slit experiments also unveiled light as being a wave and a particle, wave-particle duality of light. They determined that it is only when the light is observed or strikes an object does it become a real light particle, hence the Copenhagen Interpretation and quantum entanglement.
Interesting perspective about what an observer is. I don't have even what could be a decent knowledge on this field, but i have remembered to have read about an observer as any object able to emit photons straight to quantum particles that can cause perturbation on them, making impossible to get absolute measures about position and momentum
Right? I wonder if all of those radioactive materials out there stop decaying because nobody is watching it happen. Lol! Or, a plant harnessing photosynthesis? I mean, aren't those photons interacting with specific parts of the plant at specific moments so it doesn't die? Who's watching all of those interactions?
So, to simplify Seans stance: "Colapse of the quantum wave function is not happening because we are observing the quantum system, but we are observing it because it is happening." And That scolastic idea has been settled because the most experts publicly accept and most inspired of them evangelize that belief.
Sean Carroll leans towards the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. You are now officially in a set of worlds where the video exists, you and I watched it and made these comments. I'll cut down the number worlds by telling you my wife is coughing as I write this and that I live in the US.
@@markstipulkoski1389 *"ou are now officially in a set of worlds where the video exists, you and I watched it and made these comments."* ... Can you show me any empirical evidence supporting the existence one of these "other worlds?"
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC If it is actually knowable, then I did in a very few other worlds. In those world, I would have just become aware of the evidence since my last post. But, alas, in all the worlds up until I hit the send button for this comment, I have no evidence. But no one knows what the collapse of the wave function is either. The many worlds interpretation is the default conclusion if wave function collapse doesn't actually exist. Wave function collapse requires all the other superpositions to be zero'd out, leaving only one. What process makes the selection?
@@markstipulkoski1389 *"In those world, I would have just become aware of the evidence since my last post."* ... And your evidence for the existence of this "other world" is what? *"But, alas, in all the worlds up until I hit the send button for this comment, I have no evidence."* ... Yes, and up until I hit the reply button, there is no evidence for the existence of God either. *"The many worlds interpretation is the default conclusion if wave function collapse doesn't actually exist. "* ... And another infinity-based construct called "God" is the default conclusion for all unanswered questions. *"Wave function collapse requires all the other superpositions to be zero'd out, leaving only one. What process makes the selection?"* ... Time, that's what. The instant you measure it, it produces the collapse. And it really isn't a "collapse." It's more like isolating a single frame of a movie. You don't see the individual frames until you stop the film, but once you do, you won't know what's happening in the remaining frames.
A macroscopic, conscious entity can be an observer in a quantum measurement experiment, not because it is conscious but because it is macroscopic. Sure, conscious entity can be an observer, but that does not mean every observer HAS to be conscious. This is a VERY important point and is not appreciated. In other words consciousness is not anything special in quantum mechanics. Like Sean said, he considers cameras, or any other instrument that is outside quantum system and interacts with it is an observer. Brian Green and others have said similar thing. IMO the use of word observer, has caused all of this confusion. For a lay person words like observer conjures up conscious entities like humans. And that is how the word observer is used colloquially. This is a powerful example of slack use of colloquial word in the context of scientific theory. I think measurement instrument or some such would have been a better choice. God particle to describe Higgs boson has caused a similar confusion, which woo woo crowd takes it and runs with it. There are countless gurus with theories of quantum and consciousness or quantum healing. The labs trying to build quantum computers do not worry about isolating the quantum computer states from consciousness of personnel in the lab. They try to isolate the quantum state from molecules close to it, lest they may destroy the quantum state by interacting with it.
If a tree falls in a forest, and there is nothing there to perceive it, does it make any sound? I would say that, if there is nothing there that has the capacity to perceive the forest, then none of the tree, the forest, or the sound of the tree falling exist in this perceived reality. A soup of atoms and sub-atomic particles exist and interact with each other, but our version of "reality" is only the tiniest of humanly perceivable portions of existence.
I thought a big thread has been pulled on the "spin" of an electron, in that, it does not choose a state once observed. Isn't the "spin of an electron " the bases of the observer theory? I dont remember the meat of the presentation, but my takeaway was that we're registering the spin incorrectly and that spooky action at a distance will soon be an outdated baseline for quantum mechanics.
In the reality of infinite quantum potential, we come up with theories (psychic observations), followed by mind created formulas to try to explain . The mind is always following the psyche (metaphysical). We refer to it as the psyche, lo and behold, because of mind observation.
Any kind of measurement involves things that are part of the universe and these always interact, interfere with it or whatever, I don't think we have a super clear demonstration of how the consciousness determines the clump pattern instead of the interference pattern. But these experiments may potentially help us better understand consciousness or if we understood consciousness by other means we could better understand this experiment and ultimately more about quantum world. . "The observer gives the world the power to come into being, through the very act of giving meaning to that world; in brief, No consciousness; no communicating community to establish meaning? Then no world!" - Physicist John Wheeler
What I don't get: if observer means a measurement needs to be taken to collapse the wave function, why do we see quantum effects (like double-slit) in normal environments, where there's potentially trillions of photons wizzing around which can interact with measured particles at any time? At which point does measurement start?
I was waiting for someone to bring that up. The infamous measurement problem. I wonder why they never went there. Look up Sabine Hossenfelder on the subject, and look up Wigner's Friend for further reading en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend
@@SteveChalom hey man thanks! I recently watched Hossenfelders video and read up on wigner's friend just now. Why couldn't we do this kind of experiment with primates, which can differentiate between 0 and 1 (as different states on a measuring device) and communicate this information to outside observers? The primate wouldn't know what 0 or 1 would mean, would the collapse still happen?
@@etzenhammer yeah, but that's the whole issue. Is the primate making the measurement or are we making the measurement using the primate as a tool? The wave-function collapses at the point of measurement, and one of the the big open problems in science is that nobody can quite figure out who's actually making the measurement. When mainstream science uses the term 'observer' they're actually just referring to any interaction of particles. The problem is agency. The word 'observer' infers agency, as does the word 'measurement'. It's the old 'tree in a forest' analogy. At the heart of the problem, imho is the nature of reality. Is reality ontologically absolute (and deterministic) independent of consciousness, or is reality epistemologically real (and subjective or indeterminate) only and therefore cannot be described without consciousness observers? nobody knows. I'm on the side of idealism for the moment. I believe that physical reality is not fundamental. I believe that consciousness is fundamental and somehow constructs what appears to be physical. Peace
@@SteveChalom wonderful and very interesting answer, thanks! I have a more physicalist view: consciousness is an evolutionary necessity for complex lifeforms and is emerging from the interplay of brain functions. It makes sense for nature to "give" consciousness to lifeforms in order for them to grasp bigger concepts (like ego, the past and the future) and to navigate the world in a more successful way. And if that's the case, physical reality must have existed before human consciousness - the brain has to be made of something in order to develop consciousness.
Every piece of matter is observer. We are all enmeshed together in the giant wave equation of the universe. Our error is in believing we can isolate. Separate. Separateness is the illusion.
I've heard physicists puzzle over why their models work forwards and backwards in time. This notion that the universe retroactively generates a history once something is observed could be the reason why there's no arrow of time in the maths. Freaky stuff...
I think it would be helpful to define an "Observer" as something/someone that does on contact or interfere with the object of observation. If the Observer does not avoid contact, they become an "Agent" in the observation and are affecting in some way the nature of what is being observed. I like to made a distinction between "Data," i.e. that which is given (implying non-contact), and "Measurement," i.e. that which is taken (implying contact). I think there are things in the Universe that are dependent of conscious observers, and things that are independent on conscious observers. It's important discern the difference.
@@picksalot1 How do you, conscious being, get information about state of an object, without establishing a physical contact with it at some point? For instance, how do you know if the grass is green? How can you establish it as a "Data" in your comment above, avoiding any physical contact with it, as opposed to "measuring" it with photons and your eyes? If you put a "receiver" in between, you're still establishing chain of actions. If my example with grass is lacking something, could you give a better one to explain your distinction between data and measurement?
@@andreybashkin9030 The Senses are passive receivers. For instance, with the eyes, they receive photons emitted from the object. But if a light is first pointed at the object, and reflected photons are received by the eye, then contact has been made with the object, and what has been received has been compromised by that contact. That's the type of distinction I'm trying to make. When contact has been made with an object, you are receiving a "measurement of the interaction" between the object and what made contact with it. That information may still be useful, but it's not pure Data any more, and that will likely color what you conclude the object is.
@@picksalot1 So, for instance, if you use a light from a remote star for your experiment, then it's data/observation, but if you shine a flashlight, it becomes measurement by an agent. Interesting point of view. A while ago I read about experiment to test Bell's theorem that specifically used starlight to minimize chance of influencing the outcome. They chose not to use sunlight, because we ought to be causally connected with Sun, too. It didn't change the result in that particular case (no hidden variables), but it's a valid point to keep in mind and test for. Thank you for interesting conversation.
Carroll sits at Feynman's old desk. And it shows. If Feynman or Carroll are not talking, I'm not listening. Ok, maybe if Weinberg is talking, I'm also listening.
The problem with quantum mechanics in general is demonstrated perfectly at the end of this clip. The reason we have no theory of everything is that there clearly must be a limit in terms of scale for the quantum mechanics model. Otherwise you are forced into accepting some very non-intuitive reasoning for the way the universe works (like, for example, your neighbor existing in every possible configuration but all of reality collapsing into the version you see just because you observed it) - That's fine if it's what you choose to believe but I can't help but think not all of reality is built upon the quantum uncertainty of the electron.
Why ‘must’ there be a scale limit? Also, who said there has to be a collapse of the wave function, if it did at what point precisely does this occur? If like Sean (and as it happens, myself) you believe in Everettian QFT, then there is no collapse at all. The classical world is emergent from QM, everything is quantum mechanical, including us. So you end up with a wave function evolving through time according to Schrödinger’s equation. That’s all there is. Many worlds is found with in that superposition of possible states.
@@Initialgs That's just it - at some point the uncertainty principle can no longer apply or we'd be able to apply QM directly to the scale of relativity, birthing the theory of everything in the process. How does Everettian account for that transition? I can certainly understand Schrodinger's equation in terms of predicting electron positions but beyond that, the math begins to fall apart. Not to suggest relativity is without its own shaky spots as well, of course. I was just listening to a talk by Michio Kaku on this subject and he's convinced that string theory is the only model capable of bridging the gap. I can't say I agree there.
The existence of consciousness, a conscious observer. Why? Because this is a simulation where conscious life forms are a key component to quantum function of the observed universe
I was hoping you were going to tell us that "The Observers" from the Fox TV show, "Fringe" are real. Instead, you were talking about Walter White's nickname and moved momentarily into pan animist philosophy. Interesting chat in any case.
With respect to development of the universe, with respect to development in structure of brain, the ability of the observer to observe and analyze the world he lives, the reasons behind the causes to every changes he lives and understands and analyses also develops and matures.
If nothing existed except you, and there was nothing to be relative too. Time would still move forward for you as your heart fires your synapse. It's your mind that creates time by observing electromagnetic waves. Time is merely a way to measure space. So the answer to your question, "What are observers?", is "a being". Something that has enough brains to create enough measurements to create reality. Right now is all that exists to you or any measurement device for that matter. Time dilates around you and a measurement device confirms that. The further people are from each other the less reality they share. The less the observers concur. That's why astronauts come back younger than if they remained on earth.
Consciousness is such a useful word for idealist obscurantists because nobody can explain what the word means without circularity and nobody expects them to do so either. Yet it can be invoked limitlessly for vague innuendo, and pseudo-argument.
As if with any physical measurment it would be the counsciosness of "the observer" itself that interacts with the quantum in question. And not a measurment device with detectors, amplifiers, signal processing and output that can then be observed by the human being. About Schroedinger's cat - the thought experiment is all about demonstrating how arrogant that "conscious observer" idea is.
I'm a little annoyed at the huge fraction of comments from people who very obviously did not watch the video. It's like there's an army of people with very specific axes to grind, just waiting to copy and paste canned comments on anything with a title matching a few key words. The dead giveaway in this case is being completely unaware of the meaning of "observer" used in this interview, which specifically does NOT imply consciousness.
unfortunately that's always the way it is in these comments sections. these people like sean who have studied this stuff all their lives, have written countless papers and many books, are judged by these commentators to be complete fools, and only they know better. it is very sad.
Like most physicists Sean fails to understand how observers and measurement means the same conscious intelligent agent needed to establish coherence. This leads to the cosmic consciousness (Anthropic Principle) only a few grasp, like Maldacena, who admits divine design.
Schrodinger's cat was an absurd thought experiment not for considering that something as impactful as a pet's life/death can come out of a quantum event. The absurdity came from assuming the cat wouldn't be an observer in the experiment.
'Observer' was a poor choice of words. It was well-known long before quantum mechanics that measuring anything affects the thing being measured. Apparently it becomes a philosophical issue when things become too small to see, but it is impossible to measure ANYTHING without 'putting a finger in'. Nothing 'spooky' about that.
The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) seems too absurd to be the way nature works. Wherever we look at nature we see it working in and balanced cycle that tends to loop back through another cycle. Like Einstein's E=mc2 and the 1st law of thermodynamics nothing is created or destroyed and so it's always in some kind of equilibrium. The many-worlds interpretation is the complete opposite because it postulates the continuous splitting into ever more parallel worlds always going from a smaller number to an ever higher number creating more and more into basically infinite. That makes no more more sense than the Copenhagen Interpretation. Surely there's some other better interpretation that we haven't yet discovered.
@@kumar2ji I don't think so,I've stolen that from Einstein and I think he is right,we're a 3D being living in a 11 dimensional universe that could have parallel universes that don't have the same laws of physics, that combined with string theory makes anything possible.....I think
This might sound stupid, but... If I have some black box which is able to record the which-way info for the double-slit, then if I wait a day to check my black box, then can I change the physics which already occurred? Can a black box be an observer, I'm confused?
the 'observers' is not always 'the Mighty one' 3:21 maybe need to refer to Wolfgang Pauli what he experiencing.. if the 'Pauli Effect' was real then his unintentional PK ability is part of those 'quantum things' which is there's a kind of 'consciousness' that entangled with physical realm which may say synchronicity to the experimental measurement.. interestingly Wolfgang Pauli himself is theoretical physicist not experimentalists, maybe subconsciously his guts guide him that he will destroy the lab equipment ..😊
here written the most important sentence in human history, probably will stay like that for thousands of years, it is impossible for the thieves to digest "that is better at least they have no chance to pollute it too", the irrationals are unaware of what is going on ! it is irrationality itself what attracts them to each other "common language among them"!
Denial in the Physicist Community) The theory of relativity informs us that our science is a science of our experience, and not a science of a universe that is independent of us as conscious observers. This nature of our science is also reflected in the formulation of quantum mechanics, since the main formulation of quantum mechanics does not provide direct rules for the behaviour of particles. Instead, it provides rules that concern only the results of measurements by observers. This means that the observer is an intrinsic part of the main formulation of quantum mechanics, and what differentiates the observer from physical particles has to be mind and consciousness. As John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner pointed out, this means that consciousness has an intrinsic role to play in quantum mechanics. Why then has there been so much resistance to recognizing this fundamental fact? And why have physicists, for more than a century, persistently tried to get rid of the observer, even if it meant-in defiance of Occam’s razor-having to insert, by hand, additional hypothetical ad hoc conditions to the basic formulation? The underlying problem appears to be the need to fit this intrinsic role of consciousness, in quantum mechanics, into the prevailing view, in Western philosophy, of a mind-matter duality. An attempt to fit the role of consciousness into this framework of a mind-matter duality would unfortunately lead to solipsism, and that is the main problem. So the vast majority of physicists gravitate, instead, to the stance of materialism, and hence the need for them to free quantum mechanics from the conscious observer. The formulation of quantum mechanics actually does not, in any way, suggest a mind-matter dichotomy, and it certainly does not suggest either materialism or solipsism. Quantum mechanics actually points to a middle way between these two extremes of materialism and solipsism, a realization that both Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli eventually reached. This means that the formulation of quantum mechanics actually points to the philosophical viewpoint of the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy, also known as the Middle Way philosophy. Madhyamika philosophy would allow us to include the role of consciousness in quantum physics without ending up in the extremes of either solipsism or materialism. . The Observer
If you believe that a human observer plays a crucial role in the collapse of the wave function, then you're saying that somehow the particle knows when a random photon or electron interacts with it in nature versus when we purposely bounce a photon or electron off it in a lab to observe it. How could the result possibly be any different? In either case the exact same physical interaction has taken place- yet some ppl want to pretend human observation is somehow special or different. We have no reason to believe that- at all. Photons and electrons interact with particles all the time- and even if a particle is in the vacuum of space in total darkness- the quantum foam is constantly seething they say, virtual particles bursting into existence then decaying away leaving remnants as they do- wouldn't this interact with our particle? If the particle has mass- isn't it constantly interacting with the Higgs field? If it's a quark- isn't it most likely locked into the nucleus of an atom in constant interaction with other quarks to form protons? When would a particle in nature ever be in a state where no other particle or force is interacting with it? Aren't they basically constantly being observed in this sense?
Of course this is all linked to the uncertainty principle. But how? Nobody really knows. Alas. But... I was one time in the woods. Very covertly I might add, the wood didn't realise I was even there. And this mighty tree fell... not a whisper! I reacted with amazement and shock... heard a big tree falling down and somewhere an embarrassed cough. 😂
Observer quantun mechanic is nill picturing reality phisc. Observer arent important in quanta phich more ocorrecies occur in observer conscieness. In this ways conscieness show up unpredicted phich reality are so impossible. Guys minds about phich reality finger wrong in his hipotesy phich quanta mechanic.
IOW...the issue is NOT resolved. A VERY big question to not have any definitive answer for. It's not, at this point, a scientific question...it's a metaphysical question.
The unobserved world is potential, only when you see it it's tangible. The early universe is potential, one second ago is potential, one second later is potential, what if is potential, typing here is real!
It seems to me all the major religions including science have the same fundamental truth. In religion the observers have many names such as the Atman, Christ Consciousness, the faithful witness and the first begotten of the dead who is the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end as the Creator and it's faithful witness, the one that chooses from the menu of Heisenberg's uncertainty. It seems to me there is only one force in the Universe presently with the ability to deviate anything from it's otherwise inevitable position, that force is consciousness. It seems to me there is no evidence that there has ever been any other force. Einstein said Imagination is more important than knowledge. I think because he knew that all knowledge is made entirely of imagination and appears as the Imaginary Universe we experience. If we could "observe" our Universe from outside of it we would see absolutely nothing not even a spark of electromagnetism. This is because the Universe exists only within the mind of the Creator. Elements means minds of God. There are a great many words that seem to describe our Universe with an understanding of a fundamental truth. It seems that there are also inert words which are non reactive and profane words which are non helpful. Profane comes from the Latin meaning before the temple. Temple, temperature, tempo and their associated words are just one example of a sophisticated matrix of entangled ideas that define a particular order. For instance, when the temperature of the temple is zero, the absolute is still so there is no time. The words that describe a single cell in biology also descr, seem to describe, the organization of the entire Universe. Like phospholipids means light bearer (phosphorus) that gives form to the word (lips) as what appears to be (Id). Cytoplasm is the word spoken across the waters as read from the genes by the nucleus. Every nucleus has it's own magnetosphere which is like an ocean with currents and waves appearing in each in a predictable fashion dependant on the kind of nucleus and the environment it finds itself in from atomic nuclei... to the Heart..., Sun..., Galactic centers... Biology comes from the Greek bios meaning mode of Life and logos meaning word. 👍
Imho consciousness is just an emergent property of any sufficiently developed brain (or brain-analog structure). So consciousness is part of the physical world and it does therefore not need any "unification" with it.
@@jakuleg We have been trying to unify everything so that we can understand the universe we live in. I do not think we will stop now. Emergence is part of reality. On all level because of entropy. We can describe what we observe but we still don't know what any of it is. Not by lack of trying. If we are only machine then by what means does the machine realize its own existence? The emergence of the mind is like the emergence of a new force that cannot be touched or felt physically yet if you look around you, you can see what the mind of people have physically created. A force that can play with the other known force. To deny its existence is to deny that you exist. We are an intrinsic part of the universe so we belong here and life is probably everywhere. Universe is very young. We already have predicted black dwarf but the universe is not old enough to have produce them yet. So Consciousness is probably everywhere but just like the mind as a force it cannot be physically detected. We can only see the effects.
(2:15) *RLK: **_"Why are observers important to begin with in quantum mechanics?"_* ... Everyone reaches a point where we realize that we exist, we are alive, we are self-aware, and that something mysterious placed us here. We start out as simple, empty-minded babies and evolve into complex, intelligent adults. At this point we enter into a *self-evaluation stage* where we look back on our life and question why we did this or that, ... and then we render our judgments accordingly. This cannot happen while we are children because we don't have enough "information" to work with. *Existence is merely doing the same thing!* Humans are microcosms of "Existence." Existence started out small with a multitude of basic, fundamental particles making up the cosmos - like a "cosmic baby." After 13.8 billion years, Existence has matured to the point where it must also enter into a self-evaluation period. That's where our independent observations, experiences, and judgments about everything that exists come into play. Existence now requires an unbiased, non-circular, *outside evaluation* of everything that exists ... just like every one of us does regarding our own "self." However, Existence must avoid *circular reasoning* whenever this self-evaluation takes place, and self-aware humans help Existence to avoid this logical fallacy. Yes, *WE* are the ones now charged with rendering this existential self-evaluation for Existence. People think the cosmos holds all the answers when in actuality the cosmos looks to us for the answers.
Isn't much of this larger philosophical discussion tinged on the question of how to identify an observer when the observer is part of what is being observed if "existence" is what one is observing?
@@scottbaker4534 *"Isn't much of this larger philosophical discussion tinged on the question of how to identify an observer when the observer is part of what is being observed if "existence" is what one is observing?"* ... YES! Thank you for comprehending what I've written! Every human exists, so yes, we are a part of "Existence" just like everything else. However, moons cannot evaluate the planets they orbit, stars don't express concern over going supernova, and elements don't identify as other elements on the periodic table. Prior to the emergence of _Homo sapiens,_ the universe was incapable of introspect. So, existence takes everything that cannot self-evaluate and shoves it into eight billion independent, autonomous, self-aware humans who have no idea about what existence is, how existence came to be, or why there is any existence at all. Whereas the sun was once just a large fusion reactor comprised of hydrogen and helium, it's suddenly the target of poetry, worshiped as a god, and the focus of a George Harrison song. 300,000 years of humanity is taking everything in existence and independently evaluating it all through multitudes of radically diverse and often contentious value judgments.
it is controllable (change everything), but it is to early for the ..... just to think about that. better to focus on deeper understanding of space and gravity firstly (not patching techniques but real scientists), that is the only path to get closer to understand the mechanism of so called the role of observer.
it goes way back to Aristotle, who argued that only natural forces(mechanical in nature) are required to explain life and existence... "quantum" refers to small packet of energy...
@@r2c3 Aether -- dark matter Light -- photon Nature -- physics .............? -- quantum mechanics What is a spiritual term for the scientific 'quantum mechanics?
You guys are still missing the point. Observers and quantum mechanics and consciousness and perception of reality are all skirting around the edges. They are all just a part of the whole, you have yet to find the solution. It does seem Sean is on the right track just at the very beginning, would love to chat with him and take his thoughts further. There is an entire new branch of, dare I say physics, that is yet to be discovered. Although physics is not really the term for it. More a completely new way of understanding... hard to put in words what is in my mind.
Well, you can make excuses for not needing observers, but that's all they are. Whether you call it 'god', or 'backwards causality', influenced by future observers, still requires some semblance of conscious awareness. And that's us. As I say, nothing even matters if there's no one to matter to. Including all of physics itself.
@@patmat. Does not the fact that electrons can be in two "places" at once offer at least support for the notion of the possibility of the superposition of entire universes? If this is not the case, please tell us why. If it is, then are there not, indeed, must there not also be more support for the notion of this possibility for any scientists, perhaps especially YOU, to entertain the notion, if only for the sake of theory? Therefore, if the notion has any merit at all, then would not my statement, that superposition of electrons, a once unproved yet now proven principle of quantum mechanics, is but one reason among many other (requisite) supporting pieces of evidence which one would use to prove the superposition of other universes? Also, it's properly called "Scotian Philosophy". ;-)
You can’t have a fluctuation or a quantum event without the existence of matter that dilates time and distance and matter and energy cannot make or direct themselves. You can’t have a single element without a greater cause… and a greater cause and ultimately there is a non contingent greatest cause.
@@HoneybunMegapack You can’t have an ultimate physical cause for the physical universe. You can’t charge your phone with an equal or lesser amount of charge. The energy required has to be greater than the effect or result. An infinite regress of physical causes is not possible and nonsensical.
@@HoneybunMegapack *"smells like an unsupported assumption to me. If it's eternal it didn't need to be caused because it always is"* ... I don't necessarily agree with JJ, but you can have something eternal that is subject to cause. *Example:* Let's imagine that all that existed was a single, motionless particle, and this particle has existed forever. Suddenly this particle starts to spin. Now its spin can be monitored and measured via time, speed, yaw, etc. Prior to the initial spin of this particle there can be no measurement of any time passing because nothing was in motion to reflect the passage of time. Every instant of the existence of this particle is 100% identical, so there is no "age" of the particle. In essence, the only logical beginning point for this infinitely-existing particle was the instant it began to spin.
I think I lost you. Probably because language is so imprecise. As we are talking about physics, would you be so kind to specify mathematically what "greater cause" means I.e. when is cause 1 "greater" than cause 2 (and what "cause" means...do you mean it in the sense of classical mechanics like in Newton's actio-reactio)? Is it e.g. the absolute of a velocity vector? Is it the dimensionality of a field? Is it quantified by energy? Kinetic energy of an object hitting another one "causing" it to move itself? How would you apply such a "cause" to undeterministic quantum events?
@@jakuleg *"when is cause 1 "greater" than cause 2 (and what "cause" means...do you mean it in the sense of classical mechanics like in Newton's actio-reactio)? Is it e.g. the absolute of a velocity vector? Is it the dimensionality of a field?"* ... It was just an example of how something can seemingly exist forever yet have a perceived origin point based on observation (time, spin, yaw, etc). It was not meant to be taken literally or analyzed through the prism of quantum mechanics.
Wow. People here talk like nuns who are under some sort of a spell in relation to authority, almost whispering, afraid to say what they truly think....in order not to look or sound stupid by risking to upset the high priests of the temple lol whose charm, eloquence & apparent wisdom work like inhibitors that intimidate or discourage any possible dissent...like a kind of a subtle invisible *inquisition* ... Well, this physicist just talks about the materialist position, since he's a materialist. You w'dnt hear'm saying that he considers non-materialist interprerations as equally valid, no. He w'd say, they may be right, but the data fits better into my materialist view. *Why not follow the evidence to* *wherever it leads you, instead* *of this confirmatiion bias that* *makes you look only for what confirms* *your own a-priori held materialist* *beliefs, while making that look &* *sound like a scientific process.* Thats not science, thats ideology. Why does this guy not face the challenges of quantum theory to materialism, like in the form of the consciousness of the observer, the latter's unconscious influence of the outcomes of experiments by the very design & nature of experiments? Why not try to falsify one's own allegations or a-priori held beliefs??? Why not try to falsify or even consider the theories or interpretations of those who disagree with you, & why resort to that highly bizar & unfalsifiable many worlds theory or multiverse, that violates Ockham's razor, in order to escape your materialist cognitive dissonance??? I see ideologues trying to prove their ideologies through science, not scientists who follow the evidence to wherever it leads them , no matter what. Well, one w'd always find what one is a-priori looking for through cherry-picking, confirmation bias, blind spots, selective attention.... This "papal" materialism needs a "reformation", a scientific Martin Luther that w'd show that the materialist emperor is a naked liar who cares only about his materialist ideology, not about science or about the truth... I can go on & on....but i'll leave it at this then...
I am so glad that I studied English in school so I can get education on CZcams by watching videos like this. In China, no scientists are intrested in educating the public like Sean.
Ohh come to india and you'll never come india.
I would say the Chinese scientists are more intelligent in this.The public don't study physics in depth.Most of them are ignorant or half ignorant.They'll ignorantly twist the words of scientists and researchers to make their inconvenient points which would eventually rise a pop cultural misunderstanding of scientific theories and facts.Take evolution and the monkey to human poster for example
PSA: Wong has since disappeared, being educated in filial piety in Xinjiang.
And ironically, Wong, in the country that invented CZcams and the internet, fewer and fewer of its citizens are interested in education for its own sake.
@@scottbaker4534 That isn't particularly true.
Sean is an excellent communicator of physics for the general public. Here he makes an important distinction: an observer doesn't mean a human, it just means you have to choose some reference when defining the values of a measurement. "Observation" is simply the entanglement of two systems, where the information describing each system is not independent. There is one set of information describing both things as a single system.
I see... an observer doesn't mean a human, only that a human chooses the defining values of a measurement. Man is the measurer of all things was said in ancient times..."Observation" still depends on a human regardless of what may be seen as "important distinctions". If a rock can be an observer, that is only because some human has said it can be.
the thought is the key.
That is only one of the interpretations.
I called it a form of "pan animist philosophy" in an earlier comment. J/k of course, but not entirely.
I came to my monist beliefs completely as a result of reading about quantum physics, only to discover it was being studied in India millennia ago. I wish Hindus were as interested in promoting transcendence in though today as they are in killing people of other beliefs. But I guess the same criticism is true of the West and Christendom. All is one.
@@divertissementmonas Destruction of a quantum state is an event separate from the other event(s) when a conscious entity(ies) knows and understands/interprets the measurement. The former event only happens once when the environment interacts with a quantum system and destroys that state. That is why the first event happens only once. But the second event can happen many times when many independent conscious entities learn about the recorded measurement at different moments in time (could be even a million years apart)and distant places in space (if the recorded measurement result is transported before it is looked at). This is very easy to understand if you think if two people Alice and Bob were in the lab looking at the measuring instrument, it is absurd to say that Alice collapsed the wave function by not Bob, or vice versa.
What I truly like about these physicists dealing with quantum mechanics is that they talk about "interpretations." There is a modesty in their understanding of existence. No one claims "the truth," just "an interpretation."
That is the problem as well. I would like to hear them clearly state … “we don’t know, and haven’t figured out a way to know what the fuck we mean by observer”. THAT is what is required of a scientist. Not a pseudo-honest (= dishonest) statement, “I think …”.
I think the advent of mass media, the maturing of the field of science, and a dash of personal modesty have led to scientists "curbing their enthusiasm" in their findings. In observing the many "totally wrong" theories which have been "debunked" by later research, they wish to maintain an outward level of skepticism, even about their own research in 2022, lest they be thought fools in 2122, 2240, 3590, or 12,373. One unfortunate side effect of such modesty is that laypersons in an anti-intellectual, anti-science culture point their mindless fingers and say "Look! Even the know-it-all eggheads aren't even sure if they're right." Yet, somehow, the Twitterati are sure that their theory of the universe is solid, despite it being based on what they read in their feed yesterday, only to be sure of the opposite in tomorrow's feed, etc.
@@ShyguyMM True, but he clearly says, "As physicists, we don't get to decide". Their job is to understand what the universe is doing. But he definitely leans towards MWI and I am sure he has his mathematical reasons, which a layperson like me can not fathom.
Facts & truths are not open to "interpretation." What they show is clear & obvious.
Man has always known that only an intelligence ( like Man) makes laws & rules and anything that has clear & obvious FUNCTION, purpose, form & design.
Everything in the Universe including Man, ... have clear & obvious FUNCTION, purpose, form & design.
Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes, maintains, improves, fine tunes abstract & physical Functions.
A machine is a physical Function.
The Sun, Earth, atmosphere, air, water & Life are physical Functions ... with clear & obvious purpose, form, function & design.
Nature can never make & operate the simplest Machine(Function)
... made by Man( intelligence).
Man always compares Life & biological process to Machines (Functions).
And the three types of physical machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ).
The Fact & Truths are not open to "interpretation." What they reveal is clear & obvious.
And yet most in the science believe that it is a fact of science that natural processes made the first Life 4 billion years ago, and via natural selection ... Nature made a simple life the complex life we have today. BS.
Only an intelligence makes Functions ... is what Sir Issac Newton was saying 300 years ago with his Watchmaker Analogy. Universal Functions is the Hypothesis for Newton's machine analogy .... because a watch is a Function ... composed of Functions ... & requires a Function Maker to exist & to function. This Hypothesis is easily tested & confirm to be true by fully defining the Function & Intelligence CATEGORIES and showing showing causal links.
why is it a matter of interpretation that a Life is a machine? Both are Functions, with purpose, form & design? It's clear & obvious what the facts & truths are telling us.
@@hershchat Indeed. Wow. People here talk like nuns who are under some sort of a spell in relation to authority, almost whispering, afraid to say what they truly think....in order not to look or sound stupid by risking to upset the high priests of the temple lol whose charm, eloquence & apparent wisdom work like inhibitors that intimidate or discourage any possible dissent...like a kind of a subtle invisible *inquisition* ...
Well, this physicist just talks about the materialist position, since he's a materialist.
You w'dnt hear'm saying that he considers non-materialist interprerations as equally valid, no. He w'd say, they may be right, but the data fits better into my materialist view.
*Why not follow the evidence to* *wherever it leads you, instead*
*of this confirmatiion bias that*
*makes you look only for what confirms*
*your own a-priori held materialist* *beliefs, while making that look &* *sound like a scientific process.*
Thats not science, thats ideology.
Why does this guy not face the challenges of quantum theory to materialism, like in the form of the consciousness of the observer, the latter's unconscious influence of the outcomes of experiments by the very design & nature of experiments?
Why not try to falsify one's own allegations or a-priori held beliefs???
Why not try to falsify or even consider the theories or interpretations of those who disagree with you, & why resort to that highly bizar & unfalsifiable many worlds theory or multiverse, that violates Ockham's razor, in order to escape your materialist cognitive dissonance???
I see ideologues trying to prove their ideologies through science, not scientists who follow the evidence to wherever it leads them , no matter what.
Well, one w'd always find what one is a-priori looking for through cherry-picking, confirmation bias, blind spots, selective attention....
This "papal" materialism needs a "reformation", a scientific Martin Luther that w'd show that the materialist emperor is a naked liar who cares only about his materialist ideology, not about science or about the truth...
I can go on & on....but i'll leave it at this then...
Thank you Sean for the following factual statements:
(1) "The fact that the idea is bizarre, shouldn't count as a strike against it."
(2) "We don't get to decide whether or not God exists."
(3) "We try to understand the world the best we can."
(4) "One way or the other, the implications are going to be bizarre."
If only all other scientists were as strict forward and modest as you are, we could fast track our getting closer to Truth.
Apparently you experience some sort of psychological process that involves supposing that something that you call "we" - which is no less fanciful than God, exists.
Of course dreams appear real to dreamers - what else can they be?
@øddist Why don't you do a survey to see whether those four points are mainstream? The fact is that they aren't. Evolution is mainstream and this theory vehemently discounts the existence of God. On the contrary, Sean is saying that neither he nor any other scientists can decide whether or not God exists. If it is mainstream, why do most scientists have the presupposition that it is nonsensical to believe in the existence of God?
Next, every scientific theory that attempts to explain the beginning of existence is bizarre just as saying God created everything sounds bizarre to the proponents of those theories.
@@vhawk1951kl You may not believe in the existence of God. Fair enough, you are not alone and you are entitled to your opinion. However, modesty will help each one to keep in mind that our foggy individual view or opinion is not the final arbiter. Like Sean said, we have to know the world around us the best we can. That means, search for the answer with an open mind.
@@peweegangloku6428 to quote CCarl Guustav Jung: "if I know, why would I believe?"
Belief is for passive dreamers
@@vhawk1951kl So what are you saying that you really know? Please explain a little.
What a time to be alive! Interview Sean more , he's awesome. I love me some Closer to Truth. Thank you .
Just watch his own podcast, then. It's easy to find.
The big issue is that we are stuck in a time where we don't possess the necessary toolkit to precisely observe the quantum mechanical realm. It is a translation problem. We are using classical mechanical telemetry devices to observe quantum mechanical states which thus then force them to be observed as classical mechanical objects. Until we have the quantum toolkits and telemetry devices to observe the quantum realm, we will continue to run into this transformation issue losing critical precision in the gathered empirical data that would then put a lot of these more esoteric theories to bed.
Yep.
I'm tired of telling people that you couldn't observe a particle if your life depended on it. You just can't. Lol!
Carrol in particular has been helpful in explaining that Wheeler and others had good reason to explore some of the stranger ideas, before decoherence was a thing for example. Meanwhile, the gurus out there keep telling the public flat out lies regarding quantum physics. It's a huge area of deception from people who aren't even quantum physicists.
What are you referring to by telemetry? What sort of more advanced technology do you envision? We have incredibly Advanced particle accelerators, incredibly Advanced lasers, incredibly Advanced electron microscopes, yes we can improve on all this but it's not really clear that improving on it will allow us to make a significant difference
In other words the whole mystery of quantum physics is that you have to use photons or electrons or some really small subatomic particle to do the investigating and we are down to that scale. But even photons have really big effects when you're measuring other photons so it's not clear that there is anything more we can do
You come up against the fundamental limit of the plank scale of the ability to have any smaller quantity in the quantum. That is the whole point of quantum physics that you get down to a point where it, energy, is in indivisible packets and you cannot get any better or any smaller
I mean we have incredibly small wavelengths of photons I'm not sure exactly what wavelength we are using but we have incredibly advanced technology using very high frequency photons to do investigations, and the point is we really can't get any significantly better than that
That is the whole point of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics it is not a limitation of the measurement device it is inherent in the basic structure of the universe that you have uncertainty
We can also talk about the incompleteness theorem
Yeah anyway the limits of quantum physics are not a limit of the investigating technology
It is rather an inherent limit to the ability to get complete knowledge of a system and to meaningfully describe, at least meaningfully in the way we intuitively understand the universe, how very small systems behave
Anyway I think the simplest analogy is that in our ordinary everyday life measurements of a table or a book or not affected by photons and therefore we can totally negate that
But at small scales measuring with photons has a big effect on whatever system we are trying to measure and therefore we cannot say for sure what the system is like independent of trying to measure it
It is really just a problem of scale it is the fact that at a small scale what you are trying to measure and the tool you are using to do the measurements are the same thing and therefore the margin of error is incredibly big, the error bars are now much more significant
Further studies have shown that even observing the results after the experiment leads to collapsing the wave function and loading a back-history as shown by delayed choice quantum eraser."
Basically, what causes the collapse is knowledge. And knowledge requires a knower.
"The observer plays a key role in deciding the outcome of the quantum measurments - the answers, and the nature of reality, depend, in part on the questions asked."
John Archibald Wheeler said: "It begins to look as if we ourselves, by a last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing...we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in shaping what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until it has been registered. Or put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present."
A conscious choice affects the behavior of previously measured, but unobserved particles.
Physicist Asher Peres, who elaborated the experimental results with his delayed choice for entanglement swapping, says:
"If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded."
Our choice affects how the particle acted in the past. The factor of time has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. This was predicted by quantum mechanics and the exact same result is what we see when we put it to experimental test.
Indeed. Wow. People here talk like nuns who are under some sort of a spell in relation to authority, almost whispering, afraid to say what they truly think....in order not to look or sound stupid by risking to upset the high priests of the temple lol whose charm, eloquence & apparent wisdom work like inhibitors that intimidate or discourage any possible dissent...like a kind of a subtle invisible *inquisition* ...
Well, this physicist just talks about the materialist position, since he's a materialist.
You w'dnt hear'm saying that he considers non-materialist interprerations as equally valid, no. He w'd say, they may be right, but the data fits better into my materialist view.
*Why not follow the evidence to* *wherever it leads you, instead*
*of this confirmatiion bias that*
*makes you look only for what confirms*
*your own a-priori held materialist* *beliefs, while making that look &* *sound like a scientific process.*
Thats not science, thats ideology.
Why does this guy not face the challenges of quantum theory to materialism, like in the form of the consciousness of the observer, the latter's unconscious influence of the outcomes of experiments by the very design & nature of experiments?
Why not try to falsify one's own allegations or a-priori held beliefs???
Why not try to falsify or even consider the theories or interpretations of those who disagree with you, & why resort to that highly bizar & unfalsifiable many worlds theory or multiverse, that violates Ockham's razor, in order to escape your materialist cognitive dissonance???
I see ideologues trying to prove their ideologies through science, not scientists who follow the evidence to wherever it leads them , no matter what.
Well, one w'd always find what one is a-priori looking for through cherry-picking, confirmation bias, blind spots, selective attention....
This "papal" materialism needs a "reformation", a scientific Martin Luther that w'd show that the materialist emperor is a naked liar who cares only about his materialist ideology, not about science or about the truth...
I can go on & on....but i'll leave it at this then...
@@trojanhorse860 They equate non materialist with being non rational. It is astonishing how white knuckled they cling to paradigms that are far weaker than scientifically and rationally being open to the possibility that consciousness may in fact be fundamental. This viewpoint would solve a lot of issues and perhaps give us a doorway in to truly understanding the nature of reality.
Sean is the real deal. A wizard of fact. A guy of notion but no emotion. I'm drunk.
Sean made an important point that I didn't realize before. The question, "What happened before there were observers in the universe?," is not what you think it means. QM only pertains to the observations that YOU make NOW. The answer to that question is the result of this experiment: "What do YOU observe the universe to be NOW."
A delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, first performed by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih and Marlan O. Scully, and reported in early 1999, is an elaboration on the quantum eraser experiment that incorporates concepts considered in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. The experiment was designed to investigate peculiar consequences of the well-known double slit experiment in quantum mechanics as well as the consequences of quantum entanglement.
The experiment supports the observer effect in quantum measurements.
.
Very clear and well spoken in an ironic juxtaposition to concepts that can be quite difficult and sticky. As brilliant as so many of the minds on this channel are, sometimes I find it’s either difficult to comprehend from my side or that there is some difficulty communicating on their part, which isn’t surprising as math and science are separate languages onto themselves and trying to bridge a basic gap to kickstart layman understanding is almost a third layer. So being clear speaking many languages at once must be difficult. He seems like a great teacher.
The observer effect emerged in double slit experiments. When light was sent in packets or particles it still produced the wave pattern, similar to sending continuous light. When they looked to see if the light particle went through both slits instead of the wave pattern it produced a particle pattern. The act of looking changed the outcome of the experiment. That's why it's called the observer effect.
The double slit experiments also unveiled light as being a wave and a particle, wave-particle duality of light. They determined that it is only when the light is observed or strikes an object does it become a real light particle, hence the Copenhagen Interpretation and quantum entanglement.
Observers interact and measure. This in turn influences the continuous temporal evolution of the probabilities given by the Generalized Born's Rule.
Interesting perspective about what an observer is. I don't have even what could be a decent knowledge on this field, but i have remembered to have read about an observer as any object able to emit photons straight to quantum particles that can cause perturbation on them, making impossible to get absolute measures about position and momentum
Right? I wonder if all of those radioactive materials out there stop decaying because nobody is watching it happen. Lol! Or, a plant harnessing photosynthesis? I mean, aren't those photons interacting with specific parts of the plant at specific moments so it doesn't die? Who's watching all of those interactions?
So, to simplify Seans stance: "Colapse of the quantum wave function is not happening because we are observing the quantum system, but we are observing it because it is happening."
And That scolastic idea has been settled because the most experts publicly accept and most inspired of them evangelize that belief.
I’m grateful to have had the opportunity to observe this video. Without me (and the rest of you) it might not have existed.
Sean Carroll leans towards the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. You are now officially in a set of worlds where the video exists, you and I watched it and made these comments. I'll cut down the number worlds by telling you my wife is coughing as I write this and that I live in the US.
@@markstipulkoski1389 *"ou are now officially in a set of worlds where the video exists, you and I watched it and made these comments."*
... Can you show me any empirical evidence supporting the existence one of these "other worlds?"
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC If it is actually knowable, then I did in a very few other worlds. In those world, I would have just become aware of the evidence since my last post. But, alas, in all the worlds up until I hit the send button for this comment, I have no evidence. But no one knows what the collapse of the wave function is either. The many worlds interpretation is the default conclusion if wave function collapse doesn't actually exist. Wave function collapse requires all the other superpositions to be zero'd out, leaving only one. What process makes the selection?
@@markstipulkoski1389 *"In those world, I would have just become aware of the evidence since my last post."*
... And your evidence for the existence of this "other world" is what?
*"But, alas, in all the worlds up until I hit the send button for this comment, I have no evidence."*
... Yes, and up until I hit the reply button, there is no evidence for the existence of God either.
*"The many worlds interpretation is the default conclusion if wave function collapse doesn't actually exist. "*
... And another infinity-based construct called "God" is the default conclusion for all unanswered questions.
*"Wave function collapse requires all the other superpositions to be zero'd out, leaving only one. What process makes the selection?"*
... Time, that's what. The instant you measure it, it produces the collapse.
And it really isn't a "collapse." It's more like isolating a single frame of a movie. You don't see the individual frames until you stop the film, but once you do, you won't know what's happening in the remaining frames.
Sean carrol is amazingly good science communicator
There are wide areas in the partially knowable that we do not know enough about to understand that we know nothing.
A macroscopic, conscious entity can be an observer in a quantum measurement experiment, not because it is conscious but because it is macroscopic. Sure, conscious entity can be an observer, but that does not mean every observer HAS to be conscious. This is a VERY important point and is not appreciated. In other words consciousness is not anything special in quantum mechanics. Like Sean said, he considers cameras, or any other instrument that is outside quantum system and interacts with it is an observer. Brian Green and others have said similar thing.
IMO the use of word observer, has caused all of this confusion. For a lay person words like observer conjures up conscious entities like humans. And that is how the word observer is used colloquially. This is a powerful example of slack use of colloquial word in the context of scientific theory. I think measurement instrument or some such would have been a better choice. God particle to describe Higgs boson has caused a similar confusion, which woo woo crowd takes it and runs with it. There are countless gurus with theories of quantum and consciousness or quantum healing.
The labs trying to build quantum computers do not worry about isolating the quantum computer states from consciousness of personnel in the lab. They try to isolate the quantum state from molecules close to it, lest they may destroy the quantum state by interacting with it.
SEAN is my favorite physicist of all time. Dirac comes in close 2nd
Sean Carroll seems to get younger in each interview. Maybe he's a time traveler?
If a tree falls in a forest, and there is nothing there to perceive it, does it make any sound? I would say that, if there is nothing there that has the capacity to perceive the forest, then none of the tree, the forest, or the sound of the tree falling exist in this perceived reality. A soup of atoms and sub-atomic particles exist and interact with each other, but our version of "reality" is only the tiniest of humanly perceivable portions of existence.
Many worlds interpretation is so smooth
You should have this guy on more often
I thought a big thread has been pulled on the "spin" of an electron, in that, it does not choose a state once observed. Isn't the "spin of an electron " the bases of the observer theory?
I dont remember the meat of the presentation, but my takeaway was that we're registering the spin incorrectly and that spooky action at a distance will soon be an outdated baseline for quantum mechanics.
In the reality of infinite quantum potential, we come up with theories (psychic observations), followed by mind created formulas to try to explain . The mind is always following the psyche (metaphysical). We refer to it as the psyche, lo and behold, because of mind observation.
The answer can be a simple theory of Coexistence. Would love all the people to explore the same to understand the same.
Any kind of measurement involves things that are part of the universe and these always interact, interfere with it or whatever, I don't think we have a super clear demonstration of how the consciousness determines the clump pattern instead of the interference pattern. But these experiments may potentially help us better understand consciousness or if we understood consciousness by other means we could better understand this experiment and ultimately more about quantum world.
.
"The observer gives the world the power to come into being, through the very act of giving meaning to that world; in brief, No consciousness; no communicating community to establish meaning? Then no world!" - Physicist John Wheeler
What I don't get: if observer means a measurement needs to be taken to collapse the wave function, why do we see quantum effects (like double-slit) in normal environments, where there's potentially trillions of photons wizzing around which can interact with measured particles at any time? At which point does measurement start?
That's a great point that I've never thought of. Thanks!
I was waiting for someone to bring that up. The infamous measurement problem. I wonder why they never went there. Look up Sabine Hossenfelder on the subject, and look up Wigner's Friend for further reading en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend
@@SteveChalom hey man thanks! I recently watched Hossenfelders video and read up on wigner's friend just now. Why couldn't we do this kind of experiment with primates, which can differentiate between 0 and 1 (as different states on a measuring device) and communicate this information to outside observers? The primate wouldn't know what 0 or 1 would mean, would the collapse still happen?
@@etzenhammer yeah, but that's the whole issue. Is the primate making the measurement or are we making the measurement using the primate as a tool? The wave-function collapses at the point of measurement, and one of the the big open problems in science is that nobody can quite figure out who's actually making the measurement. When mainstream science uses the term 'observer' they're actually just referring to any interaction of particles. The problem is agency. The word 'observer' infers agency, as does the word 'measurement'. It's the old 'tree in a forest' analogy. At the heart of the problem, imho is the nature of reality. Is reality ontologically absolute (and deterministic) independent of consciousness, or is reality epistemologically real (and subjective or indeterminate) only and therefore cannot be described without consciousness observers? nobody knows. I'm on the side of idealism for the moment. I believe that physical reality is not fundamental. I believe that consciousness is fundamental and somehow constructs what appears to be physical. Peace
@@SteveChalom wonderful and very interesting answer, thanks! I have a more physicalist view: consciousness is an evolutionary necessity for complex lifeforms and is emerging from the interplay of brain functions. It makes sense for nature to "give" consciousness to lifeforms in order for them to grasp bigger concepts (like ego, the past and the future) and to navigate the world in a more successful way. And if that's the case, physical reality must have existed before human consciousness - the brain has to be made of something in order to develop consciousness.
Every piece of matter is observer.
We are all enmeshed together in the giant wave equation of the universe. Our error is in believing we can isolate. Separate. Separateness is the illusion.
My hometown has no drought and no heatwave, lots of wAter and tropical sunshine,good for ecolology ****
Backward causation? If that is akin to indirect observation i would agree with that. Truth creates life and life creates truth.
4:18 maybe we have to start by acknowledging our own limitations 🤔
I've heard physicists puzzle over why their models work forwards and backwards in time. This notion that the universe retroactively generates a history once something is observed could be the reason why there's no arrow of time in the maths. Freaky stuff...
Can time be observer for quantum fields, which evolve with time?
I think it would be helpful to define an "Observer" as something/someone that does on contact or interfere with the object of observation. If the Observer does not avoid contact, they become an "Agent" in the observation and are affecting in some way the nature of what is being observed. I like to made a distinction between "Data," i.e. that which is given (implying non-contact), and "Measurement," i.e. that which is taken (implying contact). I think there are things in the Universe that are dependent of conscious observers, and things that are independent on conscious observers. It's important discern the difference.
How do you get data without a contact?
@@andreybashkin9030 With a "receiver," like how photons create an image on a sensor.
@@picksalot1 How do you, conscious being, get information about state of an object, without establishing a physical contact with it at some point?
For instance, how do you know if the grass is green? How can you establish it as a "Data" in your comment above, avoiding any physical contact with it, as opposed to "measuring" it with photons and your eyes? If you put a "receiver" in between, you're still establishing chain of actions.
If my example with grass is lacking something, could you give a better one to explain your distinction between data and measurement?
@@andreybashkin9030 The Senses are passive receivers. For instance, with the eyes, they receive photons emitted from the object. But if a light is first pointed at the object, and reflected photons are received by the eye, then contact has been made with the object, and what has been received has been compromised by that contact. That's the type of distinction I'm trying to make. When contact has been made with an object, you are receiving a "measurement of the interaction" between the object and what made contact with it. That information may still be useful, but it's not pure Data any more, and that will likely color what you conclude the object is.
@@picksalot1 So, for instance, if you use a light from a remote star for your experiment, then it's data/observation, but if you shine a flashlight, it becomes measurement by an agent. Interesting point of view.
A while ago I read about experiment to test Bell's theorem that specifically used starlight to minimize chance of influencing the outcome. They chose not to use sunlight, because we ought to be causally connected with Sun, too. It didn't change the result in that particular case (no hidden variables), but it's a valid point to keep in mind and test for.
Thank you for interesting conversation.
Carroll sits at Feynman's old desk. And it shows. If Feynman or Carroll are not talking, I'm not listening. Ok, maybe if Weinberg is talking, I'm also listening.
Could evolution of quantum fields / wave function have anything to do with expansion of space?
Yes
The problem with quantum mechanics in general is demonstrated perfectly at the end of this clip. The reason we have no theory of everything is that there clearly must be a limit in terms of scale for the quantum mechanics model. Otherwise you are forced into accepting some very non-intuitive reasoning for the way the universe works (like, for example, your neighbor existing in every possible configuration but all of reality collapsing into the version you see just because you observed it) - That's fine if it's what you choose to believe but I can't help but think not all of reality is built upon the quantum uncertainty of the electron.
Why ‘must’ there be a scale limit? Also, who said there has to be a collapse of the wave function, if it did at what point precisely does this occur? If like Sean (and as it happens, myself) you believe in Everettian QFT, then there is no collapse at all. The classical world is emergent from QM, everything is quantum mechanical, including us. So you end up with a wave function evolving through time according to Schrödinger’s equation. That’s all there is. Many worlds is found with in that superposition of possible states.
@@Initialgs That's just it - at some point the uncertainty principle can no longer apply or we'd be able to apply QM directly to the scale of relativity, birthing the theory of everything in the process. How does Everettian account for that transition? I can certainly understand Schrodinger's equation in terms of predicting electron positions but beyond that, the math begins to fall apart. Not to suggest relativity is without its own shaky spots as well, of course. I was just listening to a talk by Michio Kaku on this subject and he's convinced that string theory is the only model capable of bridging the gap. I can't say I agree there.
I love the short episodes too. Wish it would say the season and episode it's from though!
The existence of consciousness, a conscious observer. Why? Because this is a simulation where conscious life forms are a key component to quantum function of the observed universe
I was hoping you were going to tell us that "The Observers" from the Fox TV show, "Fringe" are real. Instead, you were talking about Walter White's nickname and moved momentarily into pan animist philosophy. Interesting chat in any case.
With respect to development of the universe, with respect to development in structure of brain, the ability of the observer to observe and analyze the world he lives, the reasons behind the causes to every changes he lives and understands and analyses also develops and matures.
If nothing existed except you, and there was nothing to be relative too. Time would still move forward for you as your heart fires your synapse. It's your mind that creates time by observing electromagnetic waves. Time is merely a way to measure space. So the answer to your question, "What are observers?", is "a being". Something that has enough brains to create enough measurements to create reality. Right now is all that exists to you or any measurement device for that matter. Time dilates around you and a measurement device confirms that. The further people are from each other the less reality they share. The less the observers concur. That's why astronauts come back younger than if they remained on earth.
Consciousness is such a useful word for idealist obscurantists because nobody can explain what the word means without circularity and nobody expects them to do so either. Yet it can be invoked limitlessly for vague innuendo, and pseudo-argument.
consciousness is just the impression that senses make on the brains of organisms. They mostly consist of: "Can I eat it"" and "Can I f*k it?"
I completely agree
It's like "Being and Time" and a dasein always has to be "present" even when it is absent.
As if with any physical measurment it would be the counsciosness of "the observer" itself that interacts with the quantum in question. And not a measurment device with detectors, amplifiers, signal processing and output that can then be observed by the human being. About Schroedinger's cat - the thought experiment is all about demonstrating how arrogant that "conscious observer" idea is.
The observers are in the 4th dimension watching us in the third dimension but we can't see them and never will
I'm a little annoyed at the huge fraction of comments from people who very obviously did not watch the video. It's like there's an army of people with very specific axes to grind, just waiting to copy and paste canned comments on anything with a title matching a few key words. The dead giveaway in this case is being completely unaware of the meaning of "observer" used in this interview, which specifically does NOT imply consciousness.
unfortunately that's always the way it is in these comments sections. these people like sean who have studied this stuff all their lives, have written countless papers and many books, are judged by these commentators to be complete fools, and only they know better. it is very sad.
Like most physicists Sean fails to understand how observers and measurement means the same conscious intelligent agent needed to establish coherence. This leads to the cosmic consciousness (Anthropic Principle) only a few grasp, like Maldacena, who admits divine design.
Schrodinger's cat was an absurd thought experiment not for considering that something as impactful as a pet's life/death can come out of a quantum event. The absurdity came from assuming the cat wouldn't be an observer in the experiment.
It does not matter : taking into account the cat experience just branches out on the Wigner's friend thought experiment.
'Observer' was a poor choice of words. It was well-known long before quantum mechanics that measuring anything affects the thing being measured. Apparently it becomes a philosophical issue when things become too small to see, but it is impossible to measure ANYTHING without 'putting a finger in'. Nothing 'spooky' about that.
Hey. This was great. Thanks!
So I could collapse the wave function?
The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) seems too absurd to be the way nature works. Wherever we look at nature we see it working in and balanced cycle that tends to loop back through another cycle. Like Einstein's E=mc2 and the 1st law of thermodynamics nothing is created or destroyed and so it's always in some kind of equilibrium. The many-worlds interpretation is the complete opposite because it postulates the continuous splitting into ever more parallel worlds always going from a smaller number to an ever higher number creating more and more into basically infinite. That makes no more more sense than the Copenhagen Interpretation. Surely there's some other better interpretation that we haven't yet discovered.
One of my fantasy football team names is The Everettians.
this is why, Sean!!!
Is knowledge an asset or an obstacle?
Knowledge is limited imagination is not
@@Jack-r2v9b Indeed, but is imagination also an obstacle as knowledge clearly is.
@@kumar2ji I don't think so,I've stolen that from Einstein and I think he is right,we're a 3D being living in a 11 dimensional universe that could have parallel universes that don't have the same laws of physics, that combined with string theory makes anything possible.....I think
This might sound stupid, but... If I have some black box which is able to record the which-way info for the double-slit, then if I wait a day to check my black box, then can I change the physics which already occurred? Can a black box be an observer, I'm confused?
the black box is the observer. the outcome is fixed from the point that the black box recorded the information.
Without conscious observation there is but static nonexistence.
Light itself or electromagnetic radiation is the major one of observers, which have made the descrete Planck world, I assume.
the 'observers' is not always 'the Mighty one' 3:21 maybe need to refer to Wolfgang Pauli what he experiencing..
if the 'Pauli Effect' was real then his unintentional PK ability is part of those 'quantum things' which is there's a kind of 'consciousness' that entangled with physical realm which may say synchronicity to the experimental measurement..
interestingly Wolfgang Pauli himself is theoretical physicist not experimentalists, maybe subconsciously his guts guide him that he will destroy the lab equipment ..😊
If the information about the location is recorded somewhere in the universe THEN it is observed.
Sean is here, Cool.. With an awesome question 😎
I love it
here written the most important sentence in human history, probably will stay like that for thousands of years, it is impossible for the thieves to digest "that is better at least they have no chance to pollute it too", the irrationals are unaware of what is going on !
it is irrationality itself what attracts them to each other "common language among them"!
Denial in the Physicist Community)
The theory of relativity informs us that our science is a science of our experience, and not a science of a universe that is independent of us as conscious observers. This nature of our science is also reflected in the formulation of quantum mechanics, since the main formulation of quantum mechanics does not provide direct rules for the behaviour of particles. Instead, it provides rules that concern only the results of measurements by observers. This means that the observer is an intrinsic part of the main formulation of quantum mechanics, and what differentiates the observer from physical particles has to be mind and consciousness.
As John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner pointed out, this means that consciousness has an intrinsic role to play in quantum mechanics. Why then has there been so much resistance to recognizing this fundamental fact? And why have physicists, for more than a century, persistently tried to get rid of the observer, even if it meant-in defiance of Occam’s razor-having to insert, by hand, additional hypothetical ad hoc conditions to the basic formulation?
The underlying problem appears to be the need to fit this intrinsic role of consciousness, in quantum mechanics, into the prevailing view, in Western philosophy, of a mind-matter duality. An attempt to fit the role of consciousness into this framework of a mind-matter duality would unfortunately lead to solipsism, and that is the main problem. So the vast majority of physicists gravitate, instead, to the stance of materialism, and hence the need for them to free quantum mechanics from the conscious observer.
The formulation of quantum mechanics actually does not, in any way, suggest a mind-matter dichotomy, and it certainly does not suggest either materialism or solipsism. Quantum mechanics actually points to a middle way between these two extremes of materialism and solipsism, a realization that both Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli eventually reached. This means that the formulation of quantum mechanics actually points to the philosophical viewpoint of the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy, also known as the Middle Way philosophy. Madhyamika philosophy would allow us to include the role of consciousness in quantum physics without ending up in the extremes of either solipsism or materialism.
.
The Observer
I love Steve buschemi
It's a mystery to everyone, therfore we are all mystics.
The double-slit experiment in quantum mechanics virtually have stopped all physicists since 1804. (the first experiment by Thomas Young)
Interviewer looks like an older Sam Harris
If you believe that a human observer plays a crucial role in the collapse of the wave function, then you're saying that somehow the particle knows when a random photon or electron interacts with it in nature versus when we purposely bounce a photon or electron off it in a lab to observe it. How could the result possibly be any different? In either case the exact same physical interaction has taken place- yet some ppl want to pretend human observation is somehow special or different. We have no reason to believe that- at all. Photons and electrons interact with particles all the time- and even if a particle is in the vacuum of space in total darkness- the quantum foam is constantly seething they say, virtual particles bursting into existence then decaying away leaving remnants as they do- wouldn't this interact with our particle? If the particle has mass- isn't it constantly interacting with the Higgs field? If it's a quark- isn't it most likely locked into the nucleus of an atom in constant interaction with other quarks to form protons? When would a particle in nature ever be in a state where no other particle or force is interacting with it? Aren't they basically constantly being observed in this sense?
Your scientistic explanation of our time has very little to do with empirical results of collapse of the wave function.
they think that science is just a title, media, followers and job! science is mind and a life style (actually it is life itself)
Of course this is all linked to the uncertainty principle. But how? Nobody really knows. Alas.
But... I was one time in the woods. Very covertly I might add, the wood didn't realise I was even there. And this mighty tree fell... not a whisper! I reacted with amazement and shock... heard a big tree falling down and somewhere an embarrassed cough. 😂
We have to observe life and learn as we go along.
Observer quantun mechanic is nill picturing reality phisc. Observer arent important in quanta phich more ocorrecies occur in observer conscieness. In this ways conscieness show up unpredicted phich reality are so impossible. Guys minds about phich reality finger wrong in his hipotesy phich quanta mechanic.
Did no one else hear the fart at 6:24? Otherwise great video.
Infinity is the answer to everything.
the fifth element.. really is love 😐
what a load of crap.
SC is a great science communicator, but sorry Sean, I still don't really know what an 'observer' is. Seems to now include inorganic entities.
IOW...the issue is NOT resolved. A VERY big question to not have any definitive answer for. It's not, at this point, a scientific question...it's a metaphysical question.
The unobserved world is potential, only when you see it it's tangible. The early universe is potential, one second ago is potential, one second later is potential, what if is potential, typing here is real!
The observer (his system) is at rest and is his physical reference, another reference is't physical.
Lol I’ve never seen a scientist so surprised on here than when Sean said people think of God as observer some times
Everybody observing
It seems to me all the major religions including science have the same fundamental truth. In religion the observers have many names such as the Atman, Christ Consciousness, the faithful witness and the first begotten of the dead who is the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end as the Creator and it's faithful witness, the one that chooses from the menu of Heisenberg's uncertainty.
It seems to me there is only one force in the Universe presently with the ability to deviate anything from it's otherwise inevitable position, that force is consciousness. It seems to me there is no evidence that there has ever been any other force. Einstein said Imagination is more important than knowledge. I think because he knew that all knowledge is made entirely of imagination and appears as the Imaginary Universe we experience.
If we could "observe" our Universe from outside of it we would see absolutely nothing not even a spark of electromagnetism. This is because the Universe exists only within the mind of the Creator. Elements means minds of God. There are a great many words that seem to describe our Universe with an understanding of a fundamental truth. It seems that there are also inert words which are non reactive and profane words which are non helpful. Profane comes from the Latin meaning before the temple. Temple, temperature, tempo and their associated words are just one example of a sophisticated matrix of entangled ideas that define a particular order. For instance, when the temperature of the temple is zero, the absolute is still so there is no time. The words that describe a single cell in biology also descr, seem to describe, the organization of the entire Universe. Like phospholipids means light bearer (phosphorus) that gives form to the word (lips) as what appears to be (Id). Cytoplasm is the word spoken across the waters as read from the genes by the nucleus. Every nucleus has it's own magnetosphere which is like an ocean with currents and waves appearing in each in a predictable fashion dependant on the kind of nucleus and the environment it finds itself in from atomic nuclei... to the Heart..., Sun..., Galactic centers... Biology comes from the Greek bios meaning mode of Life and logos meaning word. 👍
Apart from being imaginary, what is "the universe"?
Until we know what life is if ever, the physical world will never unify with consciousness
Imho consciousness is just an emergent property of any sufficiently developed brain (or brain-analog structure). So consciousness is part of the physical world and it does therefore not need any "unification" with it.
@@jakuleg We have been trying to unify everything so that we can understand the universe we live in. I do not think we will stop now. Emergence is part of reality. On all level because of entropy. We can describe what we observe but we still don't know what any of it is. Not by lack of trying. If we are only machine then by what means does the machine realize its own existence? The emergence of the mind is like the emergence of a new force that cannot be touched or felt physically yet if you look around you, you can see what the mind of people have physically created. A force that can play with the other known force. To deny its existence is to deny that you exist. We are an intrinsic part of the universe so we belong here and life is probably everywhere. Universe is very young. We already have predicted black dwarf but the universe is not old enough to have produce them yet. So Consciousness is probably everywhere but just like the mind as a force it cannot be physically detected. We can only see the effects.
Oh this needs a little EQ!
(2:15) *RLK: **_"Why are observers important to begin with in quantum mechanics?"_* ... Everyone reaches a point where we realize that we exist, we are alive, we are self-aware, and that something mysterious placed us here. We start out as simple, empty-minded babies and evolve into complex, intelligent adults. At this point we enter into a *self-evaluation stage* where we look back on our life and question why we did this or that, ... and then we render our judgments accordingly. This cannot happen while we are children because we don't have enough "information" to work with.
*Existence is merely doing the same thing!*
Humans are microcosms of "Existence." Existence started out small with a multitude of basic, fundamental particles making up the cosmos - like a "cosmic baby." After 13.8 billion years, Existence has matured to the point where it must also enter into a self-evaluation period. That's where our independent observations, experiences, and judgments about everything that exists come into play.
Existence now requires an unbiased, non-circular, *outside evaluation* of everything that exists ... just like every one of us does regarding our own "self." However, Existence must avoid *circular reasoning* whenever this self-evaluation takes place, and self-aware humans help Existence to avoid this logical fallacy. Yes, *WE* are the ones now charged with rendering this existential self-evaluation for Existence.
People think the cosmos holds all the answers when in actuality the cosmos looks to us for the answers.
lol no. humans are just bugs on a rock.
Isn't much of this larger philosophical discussion tinged on the question of how to identify an observer when the observer is part of what is being observed if "existence" is what one is observing?
@@scottbaker4534 *"Isn't much of this larger philosophical discussion tinged on the question of how to identify an observer when the observer is part of what is being observed if "existence" is what one is observing?"*
... YES! Thank you for comprehending what I've written!
Every human exists, so yes, we are a part of "Existence" just like everything else. However, moons cannot evaluate the planets they orbit, stars don't express concern over going supernova, and elements don't identify as other elements on the periodic table. Prior to the emergence of _Homo sapiens,_ the universe was incapable of introspect.
So, existence takes everything that cannot self-evaluate and shoves it into eight billion independent, autonomous, self-aware humans who have no idea about what existence is, how existence came to be, or why there is any existence at all.
Whereas the sun was once just a large fusion reactor comprised of hydrogen and helium, it's suddenly the target of poetry, worshiped as a god, and the focus of a George Harrison song.
300,000 years of humanity is taking everything in existence and independently evaluating it all through multitudes of radically diverse and often contentious value judgments.
it is controllable (change everything), but it is to early for the ..... just to think about that.
better to focus on deeper understanding of space and gravity firstly (not patching techniques but real scientists), that is the only path to get closer to understand the mechanism of so called the role of observer.
What is quantum mechanics?
it goes way back to Aristotle, who argued that only natural forces(mechanical in nature) are required to explain life and existence...
"quantum" refers to small packet of energy...
@@r2c3
Aether -- dark matter
Light -- photon
Nature -- physics
.............? -- quantum mechanics
What is a spiritual term for the scientific 'quantum mechanics?
@@S3RAVA3LM in principle, it opposes any relationship of nature to a spiritual force...
@@S3RAVA3LM maybe a "starting force"... is that what you're questioning...
@@S3RAVA3LM "starting force" = "divine source" = God...
God observed the universe hence big bang
I have great proof its true,
Observer is just interaction. Lot of interaction leads to result normalization. That’s the observer effect.
You guys are still missing the point. Observers and quantum mechanics and consciousness and perception of reality are all skirting around the edges. They are all just a part of the whole, you have yet to find the solution. It does seem Sean is on the right track just at the very beginning, would love to chat with him and take his thoughts further. There is an entire new branch of, dare I say physics, that is yet to be discovered. Although physics is not really the term for it. More a completely new way of understanding... hard to put in words what is in my mind.
I wonder if they have tested rocks on the double slit experiment as an observer.
they did. the rocks were speechless.
Well, you can make excuses for not needing observers, but that's all they are. Whether you call it 'god', or 'backwards causality', influenced by future observers, still requires some semblance of conscious awareness. And that's us. As I say, nothing even matters if there's no one to matter to. Including all of physics itself.
It's not because an electron can be in 2 quantum states that a human can be superposed to himself doing something else.
It is one reason of many.
@@scottbaker4534in phylosophy maybe, I'm talking science.
@@patmat. Does not the fact that electrons can be in two "places" at once offer at least support for the notion of the possibility of the superposition of entire universes? If this is not the case, please tell us why. If it is, then are there not, indeed, must there not also be more support for the notion of this possibility for any scientists, perhaps especially YOU, to entertain the notion, if only for the sake of theory? Therefore, if the notion has any merit at all, then would not my statement, that superposition of electrons, a once unproved yet now proven principle of quantum mechanics, is but one reason among many other (requisite) supporting pieces of evidence which one would use to prove the superposition of other universes? Also, it's properly called "Scotian Philosophy". ;-)
You can’t have a fluctuation or a quantum event without the existence of matter that dilates time and distance and matter and energy cannot make or direct themselves. You can’t have a single element without a greater cause… and a greater cause and ultimately there is a non contingent greatest cause.
@@HoneybunMegapack You can’t have an ultimate physical cause for the physical universe. You can’t charge your phone with an equal or lesser amount of charge. The energy required has to be greater than the effect or result. An infinite regress of physical causes is not possible and nonsensical.
@@HoneybunMegapack *"smells like an unsupported assumption to me. If it's eternal it didn't need to be caused because it always is"*
... I don't necessarily agree with JJ, but you can have something eternal that is subject to cause.
*Example:* Let's imagine that all that existed was a single, motionless particle, and this particle has existed forever. Suddenly this particle starts to spin. Now its spin can be monitored and measured via time, speed, yaw, etc. Prior to the initial spin of this particle there can be no measurement of any time passing because nothing was in motion to reflect the passage of time.
Every instant of the existence of this particle is 100% identical, so there is no "age" of the particle. In essence, the only logical beginning point for this infinitely-existing particle was the instant it began to spin.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC so...what was the cause?
I think I lost you. Probably because language is so imprecise. As we are talking about physics, would you be so kind to specify mathematically what "greater cause" means I.e. when is cause 1 "greater" than cause 2 (and what "cause" means...do you mean it in the sense of classical mechanics like in Newton's actio-reactio)? Is it e.g. the absolute of a velocity vector? Is it the dimensionality of a field? Is it quantified by energy? Kinetic energy of an object hitting another one "causing" it to move itself? How would you apply such a "cause" to undeterministic quantum events?
@@jakuleg *"when is cause 1 "greater" than cause 2 (and what "cause" means...do you mean it in the sense of classical mechanics like in Newton's actio-reactio)? Is it e.g. the absolute of a velocity vector? Is it the dimensionality of a field?"*
... It was just an example of how something can seemingly exist forever yet have a perceived origin point based on observation (time, spin, yaw, etc). It was not meant to be taken literally or analyzed through the prism of quantum mechanics.
It would appear to be human is to be involved in a bizarre existence.
Wow. People here talk like nuns who are under some sort of a spell in relation to authority, almost whispering, afraid to say what they truly think....in order not to look or sound stupid by risking to upset the high priests of the temple lol whose charm, eloquence & apparent wisdom work like inhibitors that intimidate or discourage any possible dissent...like a kind of a subtle invisible *inquisition* ...
Well, this physicist just talks about the materialist position, since he's a materialist.
You w'dnt hear'm saying that he considers non-materialist interprerations as equally valid, no. He w'd say, they may be right, but the data fits better into my materialist view.
*Why not follow the evidence to* *wherever it leads you, instead*
*of this confirmatiion bias that*
*makes you look only for what confirms*
*your own a-priori held materialist* *beliefs, while making that look &* *sound like a scientific process.*
Thats not science, thats ideology.
Why does this guy not face the challenges of quantum theory to materialism, like in the form of the consciousness of the observer, the latter's unconscious influence of the outcomes of experiments by the very design & nature of experiments?
Why not try to falsify one's own allegations or a-priori held beliefs???
Why not try to falsify or even consider the theories or interpretations of those who disagree with you, & why resort to that highly bizar & unfalsifiable many worlds theory or multiverse, that violates Ockham's razor, in order to escape your materialist cognitive dissonance???
I see ideologues trying to prove their ideologies through science, not scientists who follow the evidence to wherever it leads them , no matter what.
Well, one w'd always find what one is a-priori looking for through cherry-picking, confirmation bias, blind spots, selective attention....
This "papal" materialism needs a "reformation", a scientific Martin Luther that w'd show that the materialist emperor is a naked liar who cares only about his materialist ideology, not about science or about the truth...
I can go on & on....but i'll leave it at this then...